Oppo Camp Brodie Grundy (Traded to Melbourne 2022)

[magpie_marty]

True, but Owens had to overcome greater hardship. He’s number 1 for me.

Have you seen the film called Race?

 

[magpie_marty]

I really like your list of great Rucks.
I would assume you're confining the list to the known Rucks of say past five or so decades or so?

Three exceptions I must place, if I may:

Polly Farmer is a must include ruck in my view. Every old timer tells me of his prowess and how he changed rucking. And that handball.
So he is must for me.

John Nicholls is another player so powerful and elite. Big Nick led from the front too. And Big Nick was the perfect descriptor too.

And on Jim Stynes, just a no from me in that class you've listed. On my eye, terrific follower but more a consistent very very good player than all time great.

So stepping to the 60s till now, I'd have this group as of the best Rucks:

• G Farmer
• G Dempsey
• S Madden
• L Thompson
• G Moss
• D Cox
• J Nicholls

If I've missed anyone at that level, I'll amend but can't think of anyone at the moment.

Mick Nolan ?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

True, but Owens had to overcome greater hardship. He’s number 1 for me.

James Cleveland Owens or as his initials of his name were J C and say them with an American drawl you get to Jesse and hence how he was Jesse.

And incidentally the only athlete of any description mentioned in Hogans Heroes as they wanted to point out how he showed up Germany.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Mick Nolan ?

No.

But one of the great nick names ever, the Galloping Gasometer.

 

[TradeDraft]

I really like your list of great Rucks.
I would assume you're confining the list to the known Rucks of say past five or so decades or so?

Three exceptions I must place, if I may:

Polly Farmer is a must include ruck in my view. Every old timer tells me of his prowess and how he changed rucking. And that handball.
So he is must for me.

John Nicholls is another player so powerful and elite. Big Nick led from the front too. And Big Nick was the perfect descriptor too.

And on Jim Stynes, just a no from me in that class you've listed. On my eye, terrific follower but more a consistent very very good player than all time great.

So stepping to the 60s till now, I'd have this group as of the best Rucks:

• G Farmer
• G Dempsey
• S Madden
• L Thompson
• G Moss
• D Cox
• J Nicholls

If I've missed anyone at that level, I'll amend but can't think of anyone at the moment.

Though the Game was very Different when those Old Timers Played

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Though the Game was very Different when those Old Timers Played

Yes they were.

But at the end the same simple principles applied.

Get the ball;
Do good things with it.

 

[Knightmare]

All true, but generational size and fitness is so different as to make exact fit comparison redundant.

So I apply the rule that Rucks of yesteryear "transpose" to today's height fitness shape etc.

In reality a 6 foot ruck would be trashed but even average 6'6" types.

Would Jesse Owens compete favourably against Usian Bolt if both transpose to sane time? Perhaps so.
Otherwise Owens would struggle on his times to make the Olympic team of USA.

At the end of the day you can only analyse what was and is rather than if a guy was six inches taller.

Syd Coventry only ever was and will ever be 182/183cm.

In 50 year if I'm still around, I won't be increasing Nathan Buckley's height in conversations of greatest ever Pies or greatest ever conversations. He was who he was. That's all he can ever be analysed as being. And if he's still in that conversation, he's still in that conversation. If we have 6'6 mids with better athletic profiles than Danger/Dusty, then that's what we have then. It doesn't change who Buckley is. It would then become whether Buckley at 186cm would still have the game to play with those kinds of guys. And being the great he was, I'd say, no doubt. Stick him on a wing if there are bigger ball winners, and see him run, link up and kill teams by foot. There are always ways to accommodate greats when they're big time on that level and one of if not the dominant talent if that era.

Same should be applied with Bob Rose playing 70 years ago. He was 178cm. But being as great as he was, while he wouldn't dominate on that same level today, he's still find a place in any midfield, such was his greatness.

As with Syd, if Gordon Coventry played today. I wouldn't overlook him at the selection table because he's only 183cm. I'd take him and stick him in a forward pocket and let him go to work and if Cox pushed up through the ruck, then Coventry could play those minutes as that key option as De Goey does today. If Coventry can kick 100 goals in four different seasons, and in two of those do so while playing less than 20 games. I'm not passing on that. If you can dominate like that in any era, I'd give you a show today, at that height, with the understanding only of the rules of those days still to be able to do something.

Jesse Owens in his case I'd only ever regard as achieving the times he achieved. If there were shoe or surface differences, indoor/outdoor differences. Those can be calculated for. But his height, his athletic profile. That's what it was. So I can't give extra credit on that basis.

It's the same with my analysis of the NBA. I'm not going to go assuming that Wilt or Russell were taller than they were (though perhaps only to the extent that they were measured without shoes v current players who are measured with) with 3pt shots (though Wilt could hook shot from 3 and swish it) and I won't assume Oscar, Baylor or West had modern handles or range, because they didn't. But still being so special, they could all start and dominate still today because they were so dominant. You just might use them differently to how they were used today, knowing that West doesn't have the handles of a modern player, he'd on offence be used more off ball as a shooter and part of a motion offence.

 

[Knightmare]

I really like your list of great Rucks.
I would assume you're confining the list to the known Rucks of say past five or so decades or so?

Three exceptions I must place, if I may:

Polly Farmer is a must include ruck in my view. Every old timer tells me of his prowess and how he changed rucking. And that handball.
So he is must for me.

John Nicholls is another player so powerful and elite. Big Nick led from the front too. And Big Nick was the perfect descriptor too.

And on Jim Stynes, just a no from me in that class you've listed. On my eye, terrific follower but more a consistent very very good player than all time great.

So stepping to the 60s till now, I'd have this group as of the best Rucks:

• G Farmer
• G Dempsey
• S Madden
• L Thompson
• G Moss
• D Cox
• J Nicholls

If I've missed anyone at that level, I'll amend but can't think of anyone at the moment.

Marks against Stynes for not being a dominant tap ruckman? What specifically marks him down? No one has ever done as much around the ground at his position. He's one where I'll concede I'm too young to remember.

If Polly Farmer and John Nicholls were alive today (and the heights and physical profiles they were) where do you believe they would likely play? Would Farmer have the capabilities to play midfield today? Would Nicholls be a forward? I'm just interested in your feel on this.
What about Graham Moss at 196cm? Key forward presumably?

Dempsey/Madden/Thompson I'm confident would go well today as ruckmen though I'd be very tempted to play them all as forwards at least as part of a ruck partnership as my sense is from looking at their numbers they were talented enough to do more than just ruck.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Marks against Stynes for not being a dominant tap ruckman? What specifically marks him down? No one has ever done as much around the ground at his position. He's one where I'll concede I'm too young to remember.

If Polly Farmer and John Nicholls were alive today (and the heights and physical profiles they were) where do you believe they would likely play? Would Farmer have the capabilities to play midfield today? Would Nicholls be a forward? I'm just interested in your feel on this.
What about Graham Moss at 196cm? Key forward presumably?

Dempsey/Madden/Thompson I'm confident would go well today as ruckmen though I'd be very tempted to play them all as forwards at least as part of a ruck partnership as my sense is from looking at their numbers they were talented enough to do more than just ruck.

All players past I extrapolate to be equivalent generation to generation.

I totally get your point but for me without transposing generations any comparison can’t be made.

That said, Dempsey Madden and Thompson would easily translate as first rucks. Size well enough for me.
All could kick goals with Madden easily the best of the lot.

Moss I’ve forgotten was that height. On your template he’s easily an elite ruck rover. Very very very underrated player.

Farmer could have been a flanker extraordinaire with that magic hand skill.

Nichols as a strong dominant back or forward swing man on flanks.

 

[sr36]

https://ebctrekguide.com/deaths-on-everest-base-camp-trek-annually

Not sure on your point, as I qaa talking about price, but if you were making a point about it being mire than dangerous than a standard hike, did you actually read the article. Deaths are rare and nearly all are the result of altitude sickness or pre-existing conditions.

 

[sr36]

Marks against Stynes for not being a dominant tap ruckman? What specifically marks him down? No one has ever done as much around the ground at his position. He's one where I'll concede I'm too young to remember.

Jimmy racked up the ball like no other ruckman in the history of the game, but they weren't damaging possessions in either how he got them or how he used them. He was an around the ground linkman who did not do that much with the footy. Not a great mark, not great in a contest and not a great tap ruckman, but boy could he run and read the play.

 

[Shaneprice97]

Stynes averaged 25.6 disposals a game in his brownlow year, pretty ridiculous

 

[Knightmare]

Stynes averaged 25.6 disposals a game in his brownlow year, pretty ridiculous

Add 8.9 marks per game. Seriously incredible. Nick Riewoldt in a good year kind of numbers.

 

[ZEV]

I really like your list of great Rucks.
I would assume you're confining the list to the known Rucks of say past five or so decades or so?

Three exceptions I must place, if I may:

Polly Farmer is a must include ruck in my view. Every old timer tells me of his prowess and how he changed rucking. And that handball.
So he is must for me.

John Nicholls is another player so powerful and elite. Big Nick led from the front too. And Big Nick was the perfect descriptor too.

And on Jim Stynes, just a no from me in that class you've listed. On my eye, terrific follower but more a consistent very very good player than all time great.

So stepping to the 60s till now, I'd have this group as of the best Rucks:

• G Farmer
• G Dempsey
• S Madden
• L Thompson
• G Moss
• D Cox
• J Nicholls

If I've missed anyone at that level, I'll amend but can't think of anyone at the moment.

Aaron Sandilands. Played against Cox 15 times, won the hitouts 11/15...

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Aaron Sandilands. Played against Cox 15 times, won the hitouts 11/15...

Very good ruck; just not quite at the highest levels for me. Very good ruck.

 

[Knightmare]

Aaron Sandilands. Played against Cox 15 times, won the hitouts 11/15...

Hitouts aren't the only relevant stat. Cox likely had Sandilands beat in disposals, marks, tackles and goals in a similar split.

 

[MarkT2]

If he played today, he'd be more suitable at 182/183cm to play back pocket.

That's not diminishing his greatness. He was one of the great players and leaders of his day. As were the Colliers, as was Gordon.

When I do comparisons, I look at whether they can still stack up together. Madden/Dempsey/Cox/Stynes. Those guys could all dominate today or under any set of rules.

Greats I believe can play in any era, but sometimes positional changes to keep up with the modern game are necessary when there is such a radical evolution of a position and the game more broadly as we've seen over the past 90 years since Syd played.

If he played today he'd be taller, fitter, stronger etc. Humans are bigger and the realtivities would be the same. If you take players from another era you have to update the physical charateristics IMO. Gorden Coventry was the ony player to kick 1,000 goals for a hundred years but at his height would be be big enough today to dominate like he did? Possiby not but he'd be taller if he was 25 years old today. Syd wouln't be a giant as far as ruck's go but he'd be a pretty handy ruckman I would suspect. Of course we only have reputation to go one when they played that far back.

 

[Knightmare]

If he played today he'd be taller, fitter, stronger etc. Humans are bigger and the realtivities would be the same. If you take players from another era you have to update the physical charateristics IMO. Gorden Coventry was the ony player to kick 1,000 goals for a hundred years but at his height would be be big enough today to dominate like he did? Possiby not but he'd be taller if he was 25 years old today. Syd wouln't be a giant as far as ruck's go but he'd be a pretty handy ruckman I would suspect. Of course we only have reputation to go one when they played that far back.

My great grandparents and great, great grandparents and their offspring are taller than any generation since (all males 2m+, all females 185cm+) from my mum's, mum's side. I'm 192/193cm and my mum is around 175cm.

Shaq's son is shorter. MJ's sons are shorter. Manute Bol's son is shorter. Ablett Jr is shorter than Ablett SNR.

My year 6 teacher was the grandson of either Albert or Harry Collier. He's no taller than them at around 170cm.

The same assumption can't be made with the Coventry's either.

It's not such a fixed rule or so automatic that with each generation you get taller. Often it will be the case, but not always. So I don't make assumptions that if a guy is born 50 years or 100 years later than they're going to be any different. You can only judge them on who they were and what they could do then. Because ultimately, that is what they contributed.

 

[ZEV]

Hitouts aren't the only relevant stat. Cox likely had Sandilands beat in disposals, marks, tackles and goals in a similar split.

Couldn't be bothered with everything but rechecked a couple of things...

Over the 16 games Cox and Sandilands faced off (minus 2 injury games);

Cox averaged 16.43 disposals and 16.6 hit outs. Sandilands averaged 14 disposals and 28.25 hit outs. Who would you pick?

 

[ZEV]

Thompson had Grundy covered as a mark and forward of centre as a goalkicker. So that's a fair call.

Grundy first to 500 disposals and 1000 hitouts all in the same season is his case. One of three ever to hit 1000 hitouts in a season (including finals) and Grundy's go is his followup/ground level stuff.

Centre circle rule changes so much for ruckman its not funny.

 

[Knightmare]

Couldn't be bothered with everything but rechecked a couple of things...

Over the 16 games Cox and Sandilands faced off (minus 2 injury games);

Cox averaged 16.43 disposals and 16.6 hit outs. Sandilands averaged 14 disposals and 28.25 hit outs. Who would you pick?

With Sandilands playing the complete or near complete ruck minutes while Cox a lot of the time has shared the ruck load plays a part.

Cox for the extra disposals, marks, tackles and goals kicked. He's the clear choice for mine. Particularly beating out Sandilands in each of those categories with less ruck minutes.

 

[ZEV]

I'm not really convinced you really get the role of a ruckman

 

[Brad Goodman]

Not sure on your point, as I qaa talking about price, but if you were making a point about it being mire than dangerous than a standard hike, did you actually read the article. Deaths are rare and nearly all are the result of altitude sickness or pre-existing conditions.

Plus the tally seems way lower than the road toll. He should probably stop driving too.

 

[sr36]

With Sandilands playing the complete or near complete ruck minutes while Cox a lot of the time has shared the ruck load plays a part.

Cox for the extra disposals, marks, tackles and goals kicked. He's the clear choice for mine. Particularly beating out Sandilands in each of those categories with less ruck minutes.

Sandilands by a big margin for me.

I don't have access to such things, but I reckon if you broke down the disposals, you'd find that Sandiland's possessions were as influential or probably more so than Cox's disposals. My vibe test has Sandilands winning significantly more centre clearances and possessions in congestion, but Cox getting significantly more undamaging linking handballs received and given.

 

[ZEV]

Sandilands by a big margin for me.

I don't have access to such things, but I reckon if you broke down the disposals, you'd find that Sandiland's possessions were as influential or probably more so than Cox's disposals. My vibe test has Sandilands winning significantly more centre clearances and possessions in congestion, but Cox getting significantly more undamaging linking handballs received and given.

Across their entire career Sandilands averaged more contested possessions, contested marks and clearances but Cox was clearly ahead in goals, uncontested possessions and marks. Both were outstanding and clearly the best two ruck men considerably better than their peers.