Matthew Lloyd (2001) vs. Lance Franklin (2008)

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Lloyd was in his early 20s in 2001, Franklin is 21 in '08. Lloyd kicked 5 goals a game (105 in 21 matches), Franklin kicked 4.5 per game (113 in 25 matches). Both players took out the Coleman and were influential for their team throughout the year. Buddy Franklin got more of the ball while Lloydy took more marks - who had the better season?

 

[__aria__]

Franklin

 

[Carlton_Blues]

Lloyd

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

Lloyd was better.

 

[King_Mallee]

Franklin

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Franklin. there is more then just goals and marks. it is 1 percenters. the last two games people will look at stats and go "oh franklin was beaten well and truely" but if you watched the games, you would notice how franklin never tried to mark the ball, but push it into space to a teammate. he would have set up about 10 goals without being credited with a goal assist.

 

[Kenny Hunter]

Franklin , and its not even close

Franklin , people compare him to greats and Franklin doesn't play a FF like LLoyd did that year , Franklin plays more the Carey Position more between CHF and FF and cover more ground away from the goal square

When Lloyd in 2001 had a great year no one was comparing him to the greats, he just had a good year. Thats how good Buddy was this year....

 

[drybones]

As Leigh Matthews has been saying in recent times, purely goal accuracy is what wins you games of footy over most other stats. Take this year's GF for example.. Geelong = many more inside 50s, Hawthorn = more accurate and won the game.
I would rather have Lloyd kicking for goal over Franklin if my life depended on it.. Lloyd only ever needed about 10 shots to kick a bag of 8 or so whereas Franklin needs about 13.. yes he gets a lot more of the ball but Lloyd simply never needed to get it that much to be that damaging.
I would suggest a player that gets less of it but is just as or more damaging is better.

 

[Burzum]

Lloyd.

 

[james_omahoney]

Franklin , and its not even close

Franklin , people compare him to greats and Franklin doesn't play a FF like LLoyd did that year , Franklin plays more the Carey Position more between CHF and FF and cover more ground away from the goal square

When Lloyd in 2001 had a great year no one was comparing him to the greats, he just had a good year. Thats how good Buddy was this year....

1. Franklin IS a full-forward, and it doesn't matter what label you put on his style, he is still a full-forward.

2. Lloyd WAS compared to the greats in his golden years.

Franklin. there is more then just goals and marks. it is 1 percenters. the last two games people will look at stats and go "oh franklin was beaten well and truely" but if you watched the games, you would notice how franklin never tried to mark the ball, but push it into space to a teammate. he would have set up about 10 goals without being credited with a goal assist.

3. WRONG.

 

[GuzzLG]

Franklin , and its not even close

Franklin , people compare him to greats and Franklin doesn't play a FF like LLoyd did that year , Franklin plays more the Carey Position more between CHF and FF and cover more ground away from the goal square

When Lloyd in 2001 had a great year no one was comparing him to the greats, he just had a good year. Thats how good Buddy was this year....

Ummm...... no.

In 2001 people were talking up Lloyd as a possible threat to Lockett's goalkicking record.

 

[bomberstomake8]

Franklin. there is more then just goals and marks. it is 1 percenters. the last two games people will look at stats and go "oh franklin was beaten well and truely" but if you watched the games, you would notice how franklin never tried to mark the ball, but push it into space to a teammate. he would have set up about 10 goals without being credited with a goal assist.

haha so your full forward not once tried to mark the ball? seems a bit strange to me..

lloyd had a better season, contrary to what another poster said he was compared to the greats in 2001.. he didnt get as much of the ball but did a lot more with it. he also imo played on a better group of defenders and didnt have the in the back rules and chopping of the arms rules which would have made it easier.

lloyd had the better season, franklin looks like he is going to have the better career though if he can get his kicking right.

 

[Burzum]

Didn't Lockett say Lloyd is the only one who could beat his record?

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Franklin averaged 15.3 disposals in '08, Lloyd 14.0 back in 2001 - not a massive difference especially considering Franklin at times went to the HBF to get himself into the game. Either way it's cancelled out by Lloyd taking more marks. Then we can mention the fact that Lloyd is the most accurate forward in AFL history, not a bad title to hold.

When Lloyd in 2001 had a great year no one was comparing him to the greats, he just had a good year. Thats how good Buddy was this year....

I think your memory is failing on you

 

[drybones]

Didn't Lockett say Lloyd is the only one who could beat his record?

It's a shame Lloyd missed so many games with the finger and hammy injuries.. effectively 2 years!! Will be nearing his 1000th goal next season, will not make it but will just fall short by the end of 09.. but imagine his tally without those lengthy stints on the sidelines..

 

[thebigboy]

Franklin had nearly 200 shots at goal this year for 112 goals.

You give Lloyd 200 shots at goal and you'd get closer to 140.

 

[Johnny_Segment]

Franklin had nearly 200 shots at goal this year for 112 goals.

You give Lloyd 200 shots at goal and you'd get closer to 140.

But that's the thing, Lloyd could never get 200 shots on goal, something Buddy has done already as a 21 year old.

I also like how the OP neglected to say how 2001 was Lloydy's 7th year in the AFL and had already played over 100 games. This year was Franklins 4th and he had only 56 games to his name.

 

[thebigboy]

But that's the thing, Lloyd could never get 200 shots on goal, something Buddy has done already as a 21 year old.

I also like how the OP neglected to say how 2001 was Lloydy's 7th year in the AFL and had already played over 100 games. This year was Franklins 4th and he had only 56 games to his name.

It was meant as a hypothetical, showing how Lloyd takes his chances when given them.

He never would get 200 shots on goal, and really i don't see any player having that many for a very long time.

 

[wce4premiership]

I wont vote on this one. Lloyd is a lot better goal scorer, more the typical ff whereas franklin relies a lot on the unconventional. Both play to their strengths.

I think lloyd made a lot more of his oppurtunities though.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

haha so your full forward not once tried to mark the ball? seems a bit strange to me..

watch the replay. franklin has 3 players on him, and constantly pushes the ball into space, rather then trying to mark, which, if he drops it, will most likely drop to his feet and be held up. it is called being a smart footballer.

 

[drybones]

watch the replay. franklin has 3 players on him, and constantly pushes the ball into space, rather then trying to mark, which, if he drops it, will most likely drop to his feet and be held up. it is called being a smart footballer.

OK well the difference is Lloyd at his best would just take the mark + kick the goal.. full stop . No mucking around mate!! As a tall forward you should be taking contested marks like that!!

 

[cAsEy_18]

The great thing about this poll is there is no right answer. I'd say Lloyd, in a very close one, but can see how people could say Franklin, it is very very tight.

 

[relapse]

Franklin , and its not even close

Franklin , people compare him to greats and Franklin doesn't play a FF like LLoyd did that year , Franklin plays more the Carey Position more between CHF and FF and cover more ground away from the goal square

When Lloyd in 2001 had a great year no one was comparing him to the greats, he just had a good year. Thats how good Buddy was this year....

I agree, now days it is much harder defensively to kick goals than it was 6-7 years ago.

Buddy is going to a superstar of competition while Lloyd is a great full forward, but is/was never looked at as one of the games true superstars. Buddy could potentially be the game's next Carey.

As for Lloyd its only the bummers that are massively trying to overrate Lloyd. I would have Fev at equal pegging with Lloyd.

 

[thebigboy]

I agree, now days it is much harder defensively to kick goals than it was 6-7 years ago.

Buddy is going to a superstar of competition while Lloyd is a great full forward, but is/was never looked at as one of the games true superstars. Buddy could potentially be the game's next Carey.

As for Lloyd its only the bummers that are massively trying to overrate Lloyd. I would have Fev at equal pegging with Lloyd.

Just wanted to highlight these 2 stupid and ill-informed comments

 

[Jade]

Relapse, this is not a personal attack on yourself - your post just happens to be the one that made me respond.

I've been following this thread, but due to the fact that I am an Essendon supporter elected not to respond due to being accused of 'rose tinted glasses' so to speak. But the below has compelled me to speak.

I agree, now days it is much harder defensively to kick goals than it was 6-7 years ago.

Thats just not true. Teams are scoring as high as ever, if not more so. It's just that teams have a greater spread of talent due to the fact that a single focal point is nowadays negated by defensive strategy. That part of the game has not changed much at all since 2000.

Buddy is going to a superstar of competition while Lloyd is a great full forward, but is/was never looked at as one of the games true superstars. Buddy could potentially be the game's next Carey.

Now I don't want to start a whole Carey v Lloyd thing, but Carey himself is statistically inferior to Lloyd. And as a century goal kicker, and considering his promotional ties it is ludicrous to suggest Lloyd was/is not a superstar.

As for Lloyd its only the bummers that are massively trying to overrate Lloyd. I would have Fev at equal pegging with Lloyd.

I don't like the idea of being called a bummer. Lloyd currently sits in eighth place on the all time goal kicking list and is likely to finish is career at or near the 1000 goal mark and as high as fourth or fifth. He will have missed approximately two to three years of his best years to injury and still hit that mark. Forgive me if Buddy has (i'm not sure), but Lloyd has topped the ten goal mark on a number occasions, takes more marks and kicks FAR more accurately. Both Fevola and Buddy have the capacity to equal or surpass these feats, but neither has up until now and until they do you cannot so callously disregard the finest forward of this generation.

I do not dislike either Buddy or Fevola - but neither can seriously be favourably compared to the achievements of Lloyd just yet.

Since the point of the thread was the 2001 version of Lloyd versus the 2008 version of Buddy I would close by saying that the statistics in the very first post indicate that they are difficult to split year against year. And that a level of preference has to be exercised to make your decision based on those years.

In a historical sense, as of right now that is heavily in favour of Matthew Lloyd.