Adam Goodes and the best player in the AFL debate

[johnno]

people...people....people, cant we all just love one another and stop all this bickering(think thats how you spell it), we can settle this very simply by asking ourselves one very simple question......

Would you want Buddy at the swans?

If the answer is yes, than he is a champion. If the answer is no, well i guess that means he is not. For what it's worth, i would want him at the swans.

[Kanga]

people...people....people, cant we all just love one another and stop all this bickering(think thats how you spell it), we can settle this very simply by asking ourselves one very simple question......

Would you want Buddy at the swans?

If the answer is yes, than he is a champion. If the answer is no, well i guess that means he is not. For what it's worth, i would want him at the swans.

I would take him at North as well - just cannot afford him, the hype, or the reported two strikes he already has......

Buddy is still young and has plenty of time to prove to all of us whether he is a champion or not.

[Kanga]

Annie, it was in the 80s when zoning was still in place. Carey and Longmire were from southern NSW and as such were zoned to the Swans.
It's described earlier in this thread how Greg Miller poached them both from us for virtually nothing - it was a genius move from Miller and close to the greatest trade/draft stuff up of all time from the Swans' person involved that day.

Annie, care to add the citation to Wiki for me??

[AnnieH]

Annie, care to add the citation to Wiki for me??

Still, he never played for the swans.

[BSA5]

Wrong. Great players convert at very high percentages. Think of any great player - Skilton, Carey, Ablett, (not Mathews), Voss or Buckley. Superb kicks who had high conversion rates. Franklin is in the echelon below them. If Franklin was playing in a weak team his lack of conversion would compound the weaknesses of his team. He has kicked a lot of goals because of a dominant midfield. Great players are great despite the teams they play in (e.g. Skilton) not because of them.

You have got to be kidding me. So, being a great player depends on being good at one aspect of the game, arbitrarily chosen by yourself, above all others?

Answer me this: what is so important about being accurate? Why is it that you don't consider Buddy a great player simply because, on top of kicking a @@@@load of goals, he also happens to kick a bunch of behinds? Where is the logic in that? Explain it to me.

[TheMase]

You have got to be kidding me. So, being a great player depends on being good at one aspect of the game, arbitrarily chosen by yourself, above all others?

Answer me this: what is so important about being accurate? Why is it that you don't consider Buddy a great player simply because, on top of kicking a @@@@load of goals, he also happens to kick a bunch of behinds? Where is the logic in that? Explain it to me.

I guess some people have a problem with him being not quite the 'complete' player. Must say I am happy, imagine if he COULD kick straight.

[Darren Thomson]

You gotta love Goodesy for one reason only, he's our boy and he is fantastic. Does things no one else can do at all parts of the park. Plays tall, plays around his bootlaces long, accurate kick, strong hands, fast and quick off the mark. What else do you want in a footballer

[connolly]

You have got to be kidding me. So, being a great player depends on being good at one aspect of the game, .

Being a great player depends on being outstanding at every aspect of the game. Franklin is a poor kick for goal. Excellence and consistency in kicking for goal is an essential component of being a champion. Franklin isn't and therefore isn't.

[Lohengrin]

Being a great player depends on being outstanding at every aspect of the game. Franklin is a poor kick for goal. Excellence and consistency in kicking for goal is an essential component of being a champion. Franklin isn't and therefore isn't.

So Paul Kelly was not a great player by your standards?

[Seagoon]

So Paul Kelly was not a great player by your standards?

I think you could say that it depends on the players nominal position.

[BSA5]

Being a great player depends on being outstanding at every aspect of the game. Franklin is a poor kick for goal. Excellence and consistency in kicking for goal is an essential component of being a champion. Franklin isn't and therefore isn't.

That's bull@@@@. Why is being what you call a "complete" player so important? Give me one logical reason why that is more important than overall output. Einstein failed maths at school, and needed help with the mathematics of his theories of relativity. Does that make him any less of a genius?

[Industrial Fan]

So, were his three goals from 11 shots enough goals to make him the dominant forward against Richmond? The Hawks had more shots on goal, more inside 50s (49-36!).

Again, and again and again - earning shots on goal counts for nothing if you cant kick them.

As a forward, his job is to kick goals. The same as a goal kicked is a positive, the ones missed are a negative. It's quite simple. He would be a more valuable player even if he had fewer attempts on goal and was more reliable at putting them through. Behinds can really change momentum and mess with the psychology of a team.

Lets look at the stats against Richmond.

I50
H 49, R 36

Mark i50
H 18, R 7

Centre Clearances
H 29, R 26

Disposals
H 359, R 434

Score
16.6 - 10.14 (discounting rushed behinds)

So what does this say? Hawthorn were a lot more efficient at getting the ball inside their 50. A lot more effective at marking it inside 50. Useless at kicking for goal. Richmond won the disposals and general marks, and that is all. Richmond won the game. How do you then comment on the performance of a forward who had 11 shots on goal to kick 3?

[BSA5]

So, were his three goals from 11 shots enough goals to make him the dominant forward against Richmond? The Hawks had more shots on goal, more inside 50s (49-36!).

Again, and again and again - earning shots on goal counts for nothing if you cant kick them.

As a forward, his job is to kick goals. The same as a goal kicked is a positive, the ones missed are a negative. It's quite simple. He would be a more valuable player even if he had fewer attempts on goal and was more reliable at putting them through. Behinds can really change momentum and mess with the psychology of a team.

Lets look at the stats against Richmond.

I50
H 49, R 36

Mark i50
H 18, R 7

Centre Clearances
H 29, R 26

Disposals
H 359, R 434

Score
16.6 - 10.14 (discounting rushed behinds)

So what does this say? Hawthorn were a lot more efficient at getting the ball inside their 50. A lot more effective at marking it inside 50. Useless at kicking for goal. Richmond won the disposals and general marks, and that is all. Richmond won the game. How do you then comment on the performance of a forward who had 11 shots on goal to kick 3?

Of course not! Are you serious? You're using his performance in one single game to determine whether he is a champion in general. That is the most idiotic argument I've heard for a while. Did Nathan Buckley pick up 30 possessions in every game he played? What about Voss? Were Tony Lockett and Gary Ablett Snr the dominant forwards in every game they played? Of course not! Of course Franklin isn't going to be the dominant forward in every game he plays. To say that because he has not-so-good games sometimes prevents him from being a champion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Oh, and by the way, it was 3 goals from 9 shots.

[Industrial Fan]

Of course not! Are you serious? You're using his performance in one single game to determine whether he is a champion in general. That is the most idiotic argument I've heard for a while. Did Nathan Buckley pick up 30 possessions in every game he played? What about Voss? Were Tony Lockett and Gary Ablett Snr the dominant forwards in every game they played? Of course not! Of course Franklin isn't going to be the dominant forward in every game he plays. To say that because he has not-so-good games sometimes prevents him from being a champion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Oh, and by the way, it was 3 goals from 9 shots.

Haha, funny post champ! When did anyone suggest that Buckley or Voss got 30 possessions a game? (Or even suggest that was some sort of requirement to be considered in the top echelon?) Apart from being prominent ball winners, they were great leaders, but also regularly kicked goals for their team when they were needed.

I'm using that game to show he is inconsistent and that is what is stopping him from being a champion player. He has had numerous games of that ilk this year, as I pointed out previously.

Looking at his stats this year he's had games where he's kicked 1.7, 1.3, 1.6, 4.7. That doesn't take into account the shots that either go OOBOTF or dont make the distance - and he has plenty of both.

Dominant forward, yes. Consistent player, no. Potentially great player, yes.

And no, it was 11 shots - just that he only registered 9 scores (one oobotf, one dropped short from kickable distance.....again)

I would suggest that 6.0 is a FAR superior return to 5.6 (looking at the stats independently without any consideration of the teams playing, the players kicking the goal, goal assists, etc).

I'm sure Franklin will get there, but he is not a great player yet. Part of being a champion is being reliable, and performing under pressure. You join the dots there if ye can.

[BSA5]

Haha, funny post champ! When did anyone suggest that Buckley or Voss got 30 possessions a game? (Or even suggest that was some sort of requirement to be considered in the top echelon?) Apart from being prominent ball winners, they were great leaders, but also regularly kicked goals for their team when they were needed.

I'm using that game to show he is inconsistent and that is what is stopping him from being a champion player. He has had numerous games of that ilk this year, as I pointed out previously.

And no, it was 11 shots - just that he only registered 9 scores (one oobotf, one dropped short from kickable distance.....again)

I would suggest that 6.0 is a FAR superior return to 5.6 (looking at the stats independently without any consideration of the teams playing, the players kicking the goal, goal assists, etc).

I'm sure Franklin will get there, but he is not a great player yet. Part of being a champion is being reliable, and performing under pressure. You join the dots there if ye can.

Nobody suggested that Buckley or Voss got 30 possessions a game. Just that you suggested having a few less than terrific games prevented Buddy from being a champion. As Buckley and Voss also had a few less than terrific games, and yet were considered champions, I was simply demonstrating how ridiculous you were being.

OK, these are the games that Buddy has kicked more behinds that goals:

R20, Richmond: 3.6
R17, Geelong: 4.5
R15, Sydney: 4.7
R13, North: 1.3
R12, Adelaide: 1.6
R6, Richmond: 1.7

Six games. Now, I reckon any team would take a 4.5 or 4.7 from a key forward, so I don't think it's quite fair to include those two. So that's 4 "poor" games. Let's add to those, his other below average games.

So his poor games are:
R20, Richmond: 3.6
R13, North: 1.3
R12, Adelaide: 1.6
R6, Richmond: 1.7

All his other games, he has kicked 3 goals or over, and had 50% accuracy or greater. Those he has kicked 4 goals with a large number of behinds can be considered "average" games, in which he has had a large impact, but also let the team down a bit with his accuracy. Also, those he has kicked 3 goals in can be considered average.

So that's 4 bad games for the year, 4 average games, and 12 very good games (with 2 games to go).

Wow. I'm stunned. Honestly, I think he should be dropped for being so inconsistent.

I'm not trying to say Franklin is actually up there with the likes of Lockett and Gablett Snr. All I'm saying is that this year, he is easily the best forward in the competition, and people should recognise this. Who cares if he misses a few shots? He is still kicking more goals per game than any other player.

Besides which, your implicit claim that Franklin, when he misses, is costing the team goals that another player would have kicked, is flawed. Say the times Buddy kicked a behind, the midfield had instead gone to Roughead or Williams, who are better converters. Do you honestly think those two players would mark the ball or get a clean shot away at goal as often as Buddy would? Of course not. The thing about Buddy that makes him so freaky is that almost every time the ball is delivered to him inside 50, he makes something of it. If Hawthorn go to Roughead or Williams instead of Buddy, rather than having Buddy line up for goal and be a 50/50 chance, you have a 50/50 chance the ball will be rebounding out.

I haven't worded that particularly well. Basically, what I'm saying is that even though Franklin misses quite a few, including those in your Richmond example, they are misses that other forwards wouldn't get an opportunity to miss in the first place. Franklin is exceptionally efficient at turning deliveries inside 50 into shots on goal.

So, to use your Richmond example, because of Buddy, Hawthorn kicked maybe 10.14 instead of 10.8.

Oh, and as for performing under pressure, I've never seen that as a problem of Buddy's.