Could we see the return of the full forward?

Aaah...full forwards! I remember the year Scott Cummings won the Coleman. Kicked more goals than Lloyd, playing fewer games, and Lloyd got the AA position.

Sumich

It would be nice to see the re-appearance of the pure power forward - but logic suggests that the new interchange rule will mean exactly the opposite. With fewer interchanges the demands on midfielders will be that much greater so they will need to rest forward for periods. That means forwards, even full forwards have to be able to compensate by running through the midfield. Athleticism, ground ball skills, tackling and disposal skills will become non-negotiable. Ruckmen too will need to rest forward and swap with other talls . Teams will look for multi-purpose big men who can ruck as well as take marks and kick goals. Most of all key forwards will need to have elite endurance performance. A promising specialist full forward who cannot run all day ( a young Tony Lockett) might not even be drafted in 2016.

Josh Kennedy is 103 kg going into this season. Didn't seem to stop him much last year. His aerobic work is elite. Often you'd see him involved in a contest across half- back and be on the end of a pass into the 50 30 seconds later

Good discussion Athos. I'm going to try and help out here with my own experience playing footy at a high level and also referencing other more well respected people in the AFL world. "Think about it, if we are to see more one on ones and open play in matches, shouldn’t this mean that there will be more room for key forwards to move about and stamp their presence on the field?" Not necessarily. It's the old adage of action vs reaction. We saw this come into play last year with some of the more elite teams such as Fremantle not always deploying an offensive press, but a midfield press due to the speed of some teams open play counter-attacking. It really depends on where the open play will occur, if at all. Teams will adapt defensively though, because it's always easier to stop goals than to score them. This holds true for pretty much every ball-sport ever played. "However with everyone now looking to adapt to this new system, would it be ludicrous to suggest that having a strong power forward in the team that remained in the 50 arc could be the answer?" You can do this, but they won't be alone one-on-one. They won't be doubled teamed either, it rarely happens in aussie rules, which is primarily due to two factors in the AFL: 1. Zonal defence structures across the entire ground 2.+1 back-of-centre I remember Clarko three years ago on AFL-360 was asked this same question about bringing the power forward back and he just laughed. He said, "you know I can't believe teams back in those days allowed these situations to occur, let alone dozens of times per game". Back in the 'good-old-days' the game was very much one-on-one. You marked your man and you stayed with him. Even when I played for the Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL during the late 90s early 2000's, this still occurred a lot in our opposition teams. Port Adelaide though were that much better than most clubs in the SANFL. It only really dawned on me the stark difference when I moved from West Adelaide football club to the Magpies. They deployed a far superior and complex zonal defence than anything being used in the SANFL at the time, which I know for a fact is why they were able to achieve success very quickly in the AFL as apposed to Fremantle for example. Good teams never double-team either. It's a waste of resources and you will see most coaches giving their players serious heat should this occur. What +1 defences do is allow teams to block power forwards run into space or provide arial assists if they are close enough to provide a 2 on 1 in the air, whilst allowing considerable drive off the halfback line. This is critical in modern day counter-attacking football. Zonal defences make it even more difficult for power forwards to weave their magic, which is why most teams have 10-12 avenues to goal. Players like Tony Locket would last two-seconds in the AFL against teams like Hawthorn. Not only would he be defeated in the air and at ground level, it would result in a two-on-one contest coming out of his own forward 50 due to his lack of speed and endurance. This is seriously damaging to teams which lack the ability to hold structure down the wings and is why you see coaches going crazy in the box when structures aren't maintained by players. It's also why Geelong were so dangerous for years as they bypassed such defensive structures by going through the centre corridor. "I am not suggesting that we retreat back to the Dennis Pagan game plan of kick it to Wayne Carey and get out of his way, however I can’t help but wonder why Jack and Nick Riewoldt have slimed down so much?" Maybe, but I'm going on what Jack Riewoldt himself said here with regards to his weight. He felt he was about 5 kg too heavy and it didn't fit his frame. We see this all the time in boxing where fighters struggle to fight out of their preferred weight. Biomechanics tells me Jack is a low 90 kg frame player. He probably lost weight because of this and was too heavy for his frame to allow for the agile nature of his game. Injury also comes significantly into play here when you carry too much weight relative to your frame. You are right though. Players in general have slimmed down, but that doesn't necessarily mean they weigh less on average compared to the 80's. I'll let you think about that for a bit. "Fewer rotations will mean a potentially tired midfielder looking to kick it quickly to the main forward, resulting in bigger marks and crumbing goal opportunities for the smaller forwards." I don't agree with this premise for two reasons: 1. Just because they kick into a forward line quicker doesn't mean it's going to be more affective. Hawthorn don't always kick into their forward line quickly, but use width to shift the oppositions defence before striking with precision accuracy into their forward line. If anything, this probably results in more forward 50 rebounds and scores on the counter-attack. Read my comments above. Nothing annoys a coach more than a player who kicks to a low percentage-point on the ground that opens the team up to a counter-attack - nothing! 2. Pressure is the only reason you would quick quicker. If you're more tired, so is your opposite number. It's all relative. Will we see more one-on-ones? Probably. Will we see the return of the 100+ year goal forward? Probably not.

Actually I always thought a "Pagan's Paddock" would still work in todays game as long as you have the right players to pull it off. With defenders judged these days as much on their offense as their defence the wicked arts of players like SOS have been lost to some extent. The next big tactical ploy maybe?

Blokes are getting bigger, that's the thing! You look at Patrick Cripps (1.90m) and Nick Riewoldt (1.93m). Just three centimetres difference between a midfielder and a key forward. Game plans are different too - the 'spread' of goalkickers is what is sought after, not one bloke kicking 10. After all, Lockett never won a flag when he was kicking goals for fun at the Saints, and Ablett won a total of zero flags despite his heroics.

Great article Athos! We can only hope that we'll see the big bustling full forwards again who can grab a game by the scruff of the neck and kick a bag again as this is what brings in the crowds; reminds me of Ablett Snr and Salmon kicking 14 and 10 respectively, still one of the greatest games I've seen. It was only in the 2011 GF that T.Cloke absolutely dominated the Cats in the first half only to be outdone by Big Tomahawk in the second half. Lets hope we see the likes Jack Riewoldt, Stringer, Hogan, and the other exciting key forwards have a real impact this year who can electrify stadiums for the betterment of the game.

We need to get interchange back to what it was intended for in the first place, only to replace players injured or out of form. Until then you will get this pseudo ice hockey being played on turf.

I hope the see the goalfest come back. Jezza Cameron has given his rivals a headstart.

I like Liam's point - I don't think you can say for certain at this point whether congestion will be increased or decreased but I'm not sure that the author's accepted intuition on this point is necessarily correct. Having said that I do like the article - it is interesting to contemplate how the game has changed and where it will go in terms of the type of athletes that play it. I suspect that fundamentally the overall professionalization of the sport means that you will get more highly trained athletes and to that extent they will probably be leaner. Also I think that your ability to outrun an opponent will only continue to be important and the more you train people or find people who are good runners the less likely you are to get a version of Tony Lockett. Also I think the thing that didn't use to happen - partly because player's weren't AS fit as they are now - was players double teaming key forwards or zoning or flooding. As long as player's are fit enough to get back to double team then run to another part of the ground an be effective there also we are just never going to have the old fashioned 1 on 1 contests that used to occur. I reckon all the classic full forwards of the 1990's would struggle in today's game - well struggle to have the same goal tallies anyway. Unless you legislate against double teaming with netball style restrictions I think the game we will simply never see consistent 100 goal forwards again. Having said that - as the big full forward becomes less common the skill could be seen as a more unique competitive advantage. If someone like Jesse Hogan or any typical big bodied forward can start consistently beating 2 opponents with contested marking it may force teams to rethink the way they play - but I would not bet on that. Even the best contested markers in the game Tom Hawkins, Travis Cloke etc. only take 2-4 contested marks a game, not because they are worse at it than Ablett, Dunstall and Lockett but simply because team defensive structured is primarily designed to stop the ball getting caught in the forward line by these players.

Scoring has definitely been on a general downward increase for a while now. I think one of the authors, Ryan Buckland, did a piece a while ago where he represented this fact graphically. Going back I think you'll find the 80's is where overall scoring reached it's peak and since it has been on a general downward trajectory. I think anyway - I can't quite remember properly so I could be wrong.

I'm with Camo McD. I miss the Carey/Lloyd/Ablett/Dunstall/Lockett days where full forwards were the kings of the open-roofed stadiums.

"Fewer interchanges will also see less ‘scrums’ and defensive zones resulting in more one-on -one contests throughout the field of play." The AFL said that, but do you have any proof to back up this assertion, beyond merely their say so? It's a little bit counter-intuitive, because I would have thought that the more tired players get, the less players run, and the more congested play gets, and I haven't seen anything to prove that statement. What we do have, though, is last year as a sample size - granted, a limited one from a statistical standpoint - that capping the interchange increases congestion around the ball..

'Anyone who says that footy was better ‘back in their day’ are merely kidding themselves. The game is faster, skilful and more professional.' Probably is faster, skilful and more professional but not so sure its necessarily a better spectacle or more exciting. Agree with Easytiger. Loved the one on one contests and positional play. Would be interested to know if scores have increased or decreased over the years. Eighteen midfielders following the ball? It seems to have become a much more conservative game than when I started watching.

There's nothing like the gun full forward strutting his stuff taking the big hanger. Would love nothing more than to see more one on ones around the ground.