Analysis Where does Buddy Franklin rank amongst the greats?

[Piggy Smalls]

I’ve always seen Franklin more as a roaming forward than a full forward so I think it’s incredible he will kick 1000 plus goals and average 3 goals a game across a potentially 350 game career.
One on one he is the most dominant player I have seen, there is nothing better than seeing Buddy get goal side of his opponent and out back with nothing but open space between he and the goals. He can land them from anywhere within 60m which is incredible. I have Ablett Snr and Carey ahead of him as half forwards but I’d say he is comfortably a top 5 forward of the past 30 years.

 

[catscollector]

In his prime Rampe never got destroyed. He can run with Ablett through the midfield, he is 4cm taller than Ablett and he was very used to competing against players physically stronger than himself. I am not saying he is as good as Ablett, that is crazy, but I think Rampe would represent himself well on Ablett.

Few defenders of Rampe's height could play against both tall and small defenders, run with them and out muscle them like Rampe could. He is a bit short for the proper key forwards of the modern era (even though he did well on them in his prime) but for Ablett who is 185cm Rampe would be very well suited.

Rampe would not be 189cm tall if born 20-25 years earlier.
He also wouldn't have been as fit.
Probably still have been good enough to make it but the physicality was another reason why many excellent players barely managed 100 games and moved onto other things in their lives.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I reckon there's a fair argument that Franklin is behind the following forwards:

Coventry, Coleman, Carey, Ablett Snr, Hart, Lockett, Dunstall, Hudson and potentially Bob Pratt for his amazing record. I don't rate Wade quite as highly as these players.

I suspect Buddy takes his place just inside the top 10. His marking is always the query.

When one adds the incredible midfielders who've played the game I can see why many don't have Franklin as a top 20 all-time player. I'd probably have him in the 20-30 range.

I never saw Hart play so can’t judge too much, but career averages of 13 touches, 5 marks, and less than 2 goals a game over 187 games does not show he was better as a forward no matter how he rated at the time.

 

[Trav 20]

I never saw Hart play so can’t judge too much, but career averages of 13 touches, 5 marks, and less than 2 goals a game over 187 games does not show he was better as a forward no matter how he rated at the time.

I'm too young to have a worthwhile opinion. I wasn't even a teenager when he retired.

On anecdotal evidence he was as good as it gets. Former teammates and older supporters rated him as an incredible player. Bartlett says he's the best Richmond player he's seen.

I think it's incredibly difficult to revisit stats from a different era and make any meaningful conclusions.

Hart was the best CHF of his generation. Carey his and Buddy his. I think that's the most important metric.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I'm too young to have a worthwhile opinion. I wasn't even a teenager when he retired.

On anecdotal evidence he was as good as it gets. Former teammates and older supporters rated him as an incredible player. Bartlett says he's the best Richmond player he's seen.

I think it's incredibly difficult to revisit stats from a different era and make any meaningful conclusions.

Hart was the best CHF of his generation. Carey his and Buddy his. I think that's the most important metric.

I have no doubt he was a great player, I’ve heard the stories as well. Just can’t see how you can rate him higher than Buddy based on his actual body of work. It just doesn’t stack up. Injuries no doubt player a part.

buddy will finish on nearly twice as many games, ~700 more goals.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Most folk would have seen the Leo Barry

Leo Barry

Age

45

Ht

184cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

5.6

4star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.6

4star

No current season stats available

D

4.4

1star

K

2.6

1star

HB

1.8

2star

M

0.8

1star

T

1.2

3star

you bewdy mark. Hart would regularly take similar marks where he would throw himself in from the side into a big pack.

He was a terrific player in an era when Tas produced champion players, inc other forwards like Baldock and Hudson.

 

[Trav 20]

I have no doubt he was a great player, I’ve heard the stories as well. Just can’t see how you can rate him higher than Buddy based on his actual body of work. It just doesn’t stack up. Injuries no doubt player a part.

buddy will finish on nearly twice as many games, ~700 more goals.

In those days 150+ games was a good career. Some blokes retired at 26 to coach in the country for more coin.

I wouldn't judge past players and current players on longevity.

It was virtually an amateur era.

 

[HairyO]

I’m becoming increasingly convinced you’ve not watched much football.

Ive been watching since the 1970s. But please do tell me more about how modern footballers with all their physical training are exhausted in the first 5 minutes of games explaining why goal shooting is terrible - despite perfect grounds, highly advanced shoes, and balls which are replaced after every score.

 

[premiershipvigil]

Top 20...Ablett snr then daylight I reckon. As a teenager I was amazed by Ablett's kicking. Saw him kick 2 goals in the same quarter from the boundary line outside 50 at the city end at Optus Oval/Princes Park, each goal was from a different wing and he just made it seem effortless, really just next level. Had a kick on the ground after the game and had my footy stolen by some drunken adult Cats supporters lol, good times.

 

[PhatBoy]

Buddy 11 goals in 4 GFs, Gunston 12 goals in 4 GFs.

When did that become the only measure of a player? Before I started posting here I had literally never heard anyone make that argument before. I’d heard it used to support views here and there. Never once did I hear it used to make out a 6/7 out of 10 player was as good as a 10 out of 10 player.

 

[RUNVS]

When did that become the only measure of a player? Before I started posting here I had literally never heard anyone make that argument before. I’d heard it used to support views here and there. Never once did I hear it used to make out a 6/7 out of 10 player was as good as a 10 out of 10 player.

Guston also played in some Grand Finals where his team truly dominated. Much easier to kick goals when your team has all the ball. Buddy didn't really have that, in fact Buddy played in some Grand Finals where his team did pretty badly, and a Grand Final with a busted ankle.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Guston also played in some Grand Finals where his team truly dominated. Much easier to kick goals when your team has all the ball. Buddy didn't really have that, in fact Buddy played in some Grand Finals where his team did pretty badly, and a Grand Final with a busted ankle.

Busted ankle is a bit much. Someone tread on his foot/ankle. It was sore.

The best argument in defence of Buddy's GF's at HFC is that he played decoy roles.

2008.... Buddy pulled Scarlet from D50 and let Williams and Roughy kick the goals. Shane Crawford always credits Buddy (2 goals) for sacraficing his role that day.


2013..... see 2008... only this time haw was told to pull McParhlin out of the f50.


2014.... kicks 4 in a team that was thumped.


2007.... kicks 7 goals in the elimination final, including the clutch last minute winner. .

2008..... kicks 8 in the qualifying final.... possibly the best 5 finals performances ever by a forward. IMO his best performance ever.


Not many forwards since 2000 have kicked 7 and 8 in finals and or 4 in a loosing grand final.... unless they were the 2nd or 3rd forward.

 

[Dipper]

I don't have the time and I suspect I don't have the stats necessary but one way of trying to see how Buddy compares could be

Average up all players goals by how much more goals teams scored in 1990 compared to now, so basically give every score an additional 20% (just a guess)

and then once you have that compare the percentage of times the ball went to Dunstall or Lockett when they were in their forward 50 compared to Buddy since back then key forwards were much more focal points than they are now.

so if the ball went to Dunstall 40% of the time and Buddy 25% of the time then add 15% to Buddy's overall goal tally.

That's not how percentages work, if you wanted to weight for how often the ball goes to the forward based on your 40%/25% figures then you'd need to up Franko's tally by 60% not 15%.

 

[owen87]

Ive been watching since the 1970s. But please do tell me more about how modern footballers with all their physical training are exhausted in the first 5 minutes of games explaining why goal shooting is terrible - despite perfect grounds, highly advanced shoes, and balls which are replaced after every score.

I don't know Hairy, why do YOU think modern fully professional players that are almost universally superior at every facet of the game including field kicking, have lower accuracy in front of goal than a handful of past full-forwards.

If their field kicking is better than yesteryear, do you think that somehow they're just universally all poor at kicking for goal? Or is there something else at play, like fatigue and/or more difficult angles for set shots on average?

'Some' past players were extremely accurate kicks for goal. Those players e.g. Lockett never, ever, ran the distances modern forwards do.

It's a poor take, made by someone using poor analysis, then trying to pretend they're somehow an expert.

Let's see if your 2022 efforts can be better than your 2021 efforts.

 

[sr36]

Ive been watching since the 1970s. But please do tell me more about how modern footballers with all their physical training are exhausted in the first 5 minutes of games explaining why goal shooting is terrible - despite perfect grounds, highly advanced shoes, and balls which are replaced after every score.

If you look at the stats, the good ones today kick the same percentages as the good ones from yesteryear and do so from further out from set shots and tighter angles due to zone defences and much more pressure at ground level.

Goal kicking not having improved is a myth.

 

[HairyO]

I don't know Hairy, why do YOU think modern fully professional players that are almost universally superior at every facet of the game including field kicking, have lower accuracy in front of goal than a handful of past full-forwards.

If their field kicking is better than yesteryear, do you think that somehow they're just universally all poor at kicking for goal? Or is there something else at play, like fatigue and/or more difficult angles for set shots on average?

'Some' past players were extremely accurate kicks for goal. Those players e.g. Lockett never, ever, ran the distances modern forwards do.

It's a poor take, made by someone using poor analysis, then trying to pretend they're somehow an expert.

Let's see if your 2022 efforts can be better than your 2021 efforts.

Because clubs get a set amount of hours with players each week and the amount of time dedicated to goal kicking is far less.

 

[HairyO]

If you look at the stats, the good ones today kick the same percentages as the good ones from yesteryear and do so from further out from set shots and tighter angles due to zone defences and much more pressure at ground level.

Goal kicking not having improved is a myth.

Grounds, balls and boots have all improved enormously over the last 40 or 50 years. Kicking accuracy should be through the roof but it simply isnt.

1.5 is far more common now than even 4.2. One weekend last year I think 7 of the games had 1.5 as the score at a point in the game.

 

[owen87]

Kicking accuracy should be through the roof but it simply isnt.

do so from further out from set shots and tighter angles due to zone defences and much more pressure at ground level

is there something else at play, like fatigue and/or more difficult angles for set shots on average?

Going to keep ignoring every single other factor in play for another year I see.

Let's see if your 2022 efforts can be better than your 2021 efforts.

Good that we've answered this before the middle of January. It's a no.

 

[HairyO]

Going to keep ignoring every single other factor in play for another year I see.



Good that we've answered this before the middle of January. It's a no.

Yes. Noone ever kicked from 50m out or from the boundary...

 

[El_Scorcho]

Grounds, balls and boots have all improved enormously over the last 40 or 50 years. Kicking accuracy should be through the roof but it simply isnt.

1.5 is far more common now than even 4.2. One weekend last year I think 7 of the games had 1.5 as the score at a point in the game.

Really loving this anecdotal evidence. Modern defensive strategy is entirely designed to stop opponents from generating high percentage shots at goal, so the average shot at goal is more difficult than it was 20 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. If you can't see that, the game has passed you by.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

Buddy is the greatest of his era. No denying, he is an absolute superstar.

The only way to compare players of different eras is to compare them to their own era and how much better they are than everyone else. How many Standard deviations they are ahead of the average in a bell curve. Without looking into it, I'd say Buddy (with goals alone) would be pretty far right along the curve.

 

[owen87]

Yes. Noone ever kicked from 50m out or from the boundary...

Really not even trying to improve upon your 2021 efforts are you?

 

[HairyO]

Really not even trying to improve upon your 2021 efforts are you?

So youre saying its better to be 40m out straight in front with muddy ground, waterlogged ball, and crap boots over 45m out and 45 degree angle with perfect ground, perfect ball, perfect boots?

 

[owen87]

So youre saying its better to be 40m out straight in front with muddy ground, waterlogged ball, and crap boots over 45m out and 45 degree angle with perfect ground, perfect ball, perfect boots?

Methinks you're taking some creative license with the bolded.

They weren't playing in the dark ages exclusively during monsoons.

 

[HairyO]

Methinks you're taking some creative license with the bolded.

They weren't playing in the dark ages exclusively during monsoons.

Have you never watched any games from the 80s? In the 70s it was far worse. The grounds started the season looking great but by mid season they were struggling and by the end of the year they were generally atrocious.

And the balls were changed each quarter. They would pretty much double in weight once wet.

Here is the sort of boot from the 60s and early 70s. Not really designed for running, or kicking, or anything really, other than being as waterproof as possible. Which they werent. They would double in weight once wet too.

I can only assume youre quite young.