AFL ruckmen strike back

Sean, I don't think people today realise how good Dyer was and I think he carried a chronic knee injury for a good part of his career. He played 312 games over 19 years which I think may have been the record when he retired in 1949, Di ck Reynolds subsequently held the record at 320 games for some period of time. There weren't as many games in the home and away season then, I remember 18 games compared with 24 and now 22 subsequently -- so 312 games then would be roughly equivalent to 370 now. Dyer also played a lot on the forward line and he wasn't just a ruckman.

Sean, how would Jack Dyer's height have compared with his contemporaries? I have big hands but we shook hands once and my hands were swallowed by those great mitts. I will add that I was surprised how much of a gentleman he was. Ted Whitten wouldn't have been much over 6 feet (183cm) but could have played in any key position. If those guys had been born 25 years ago I am confident that with a modern diet they could play in the same positions in the modern game. Barassi wouldn't have been over 5'10" (178cm) either.

Yes Don, I agree. Sandilands would be the number 1 ruckman in any team but Nic Nac would be a handy backup.

Yes...we're saying the same thing sren't we? I'm challenging Gecko's devaluing of Sandi. He is central to Freo's rise over the past 5 years or so.

Don, you don't have to win in the ruck to be effective but if your ruckman is uncompetitive for even 15 minutes in a game that can be enough to lose a game. Sandilands is the hardest ruckman in the competition to be competitive against for a whole game. I can remember a game between GWS and Richmond a few years ago when the GWS ruckman was uncompetitive against Maric for a period and the game turned very quickly. Some years ago I remember an Essendon ruckman being uncompetive against both Port Adelaide and Brisbane for brief periods when the game turned. Essendon couldn't get him off the ground quickly enough.

AFL clubs recruiting efforts in the US concentrate on trying to find ex college basketball players that they hope to turn into top ruckmen, so some people in the hierarchy still have faith im their value - interesting to see how that all turns out ? - I suppose Pyke in Sydney is sort of working ? btw. interesting to note that Nat Fyffe is an inch or more taller than John Nichols, supposedly one of the "great" ruckmen of the 20th Century.

Sandilands has been a match winner 11 times this year. His contribution is significant...match winning...most weeks.

Seaby was there too...forced out but still dominating WAFL. Wouldn't Sydney want their time with him back again...and use him better?

Sean I think it'll still be highly unlikely that we'll see another Brownlow medallist ruckman in the near future. The game is faster in the 21st century but ruckmen aren't faster (Natanui is an exception) so they simply don't get involved enough in general play. Even if they dominate hit-outs, it doesn't necessarily give their team a big enough advantage to allow them to be considered match-winners (eg.Sandilands is rarely a match winner). There's no doubt that the best ruckmen in today's game run harder and do more ground level work than the ruckmen of the 20th century but it's still rare for a ruckman to be among the top 3 players in any match. The age of Brownlow medal ruckmen finished in the 1990s.

Jax - WC have done a good job with ruckmen and I am a big one for getting ruckmen as rookies, Jacobs was a rookie, I think Mumford was a rookies a Geelong& Cox was a rookie but while I applaud what they have done there is still an element of luck interms of timing, especially with NN if he came along a couple of years earlier WC probably would have passed, if WC had of been just a little better in that year the wouldn't have got him. On Warnock and Hampson at the time the Blues got them no one was complaining, everything is clearer in hindsight and at least with Hampson the Blues were able to trade him for effectively Everitt.

Luck does play its part Macca but so does good planning, recruiting, development and management and I think that WC have been particularly good at it for a very long time. WC doesn't need to trade for ruckman, they have a knack of drafting or rookie listing the right guy and developing them properly overtime and they don't leave the club which helps. They drafted Gardner is 1996 (19 years ago) and debuted him at 17 and he won an AA in 2003 aged 23. NN won his AA at 22 and Cox at 24 so they all developed quicker and earned their AA's before the average AA ruckman would be expected to. By the time Lycett retires they will have had 30 years of 'good luck' with their ruckman. Gardner had injury problems and NN has had 2 years of injuries so they haven't escaped injuries altogether. I'm not sure that selecting Cox (and Sinclair) via the rookie drafts was luck. Shame about Kreuzer I agree. If the Dees had picked Nic I would have hoped that WC would have moved on to plan B or C quickly and I'm quite sure they would have. Is it luck to know that you wanted NN if the Dees passed on him? A lot of clubs weren't interested in Nic but WC was always interested and played their cards as close to their chest as possible in the lead-up to the draft. Lycett is in his 5th year and turns 23 in Sept and if it wasn't for Cox he would have played more footy already. He is now in the first year of a 4 year deal so he is securely locked away and another club would have to trade on WC's terms if they wanted him to break that contract. Sinclair was another rookie listed ruckman and hasn't he been performing well. So, 2 of the 5 ruckman above were rookies (which any team can do) with Cox turning out to be one of the greatest ruckman to ever play the game. Port could have taken Lycett but they chose Ben Jacobs instead which left them one ruckman short so they had to get Ryder across. This is where planning comes into it. Lycett was a Port Magpie and he was sitting right under their noses but they passed on him and WC took him at 29 off memory( and took Darling at 26, another lucky pick) wouldn't Port love to have Lycett now seeing that he can't get a game at WC. With respect, I doubt WC would have gone anywhere near Hampson or Warnock. Jacobs was a big loss no question. If you had kept Jacobs and been able to get more game time into Kreuzer you'd be laughing right now with one of the very best ruck duo's in the game.

Jax - How long was Naitanui Cox's understudy, How long has Lycett been on the list slowly developing - the Eagles were lucky in that they had such a great ruckman in Cox for so long and then had a freak like Natanui come along at exactly the right time. I am not saying it was all luck but there was certainly an element of it. As a counter point there is Carlton, the drafted Kreuzer at 1 and had to play him too early and then when he had matured lost him to a series of injuries, they grabbed Hampson as an ealry pick who teased and got injured before they traded him to Richmond where he teased and got injured, the picked up Jacobs as a Rookie, developed him and then had him walk out to go home to Adelaide (the blues wanted a first round pick but Adleaide held the cards and the blues got a pick in the 30's - which is the same as they got for Hampson) and then there is Warnock who they traded for but has never been able to put it all together and has battled his own injury issues.

Granted, it's not easy to recruit and develop good ruckman. WC seem to be able to always have top class ruckman on their list. M Gardner > D Cox > N Naitanui > S Lycett > C Sinclair I'm not sure what is stopping everyone else? WC had 4 more than capable ruckman last year and with Cox now gone they still have 3 of them.

The development of ruckmen is a real problem in the modern game, how many are recruited in the draft as 18y.o.s? If they are drafted at that age they will typically take 5 years or so to develop and then are available as free agents just as they are reaching their prime. It might take 6 years or so to find out that your developing ruckman is a dud and there are a few examples around. The best path for development is if they are sufficiently mobile that they can start their careers playing in another position such as flanker, forward or midfielder. It must be very difficult for a big man to develop themselves to a point where they even become a rookie list possibility. Perhaps the rules should be changed to make it easier for clubs to develop these players, a possibility would be to allow each club an extra rookie position to recruit an 18y.o. potential ruckman. Ruckmen can be over-rated, a big player who can bash and crash can reduce the effectiveness of the opposing ruckman.