Ok this has come from a conversation I had with an idiotic Essendon supporter at work today.

Just in gerneral football talk we were talking about some of the best players we've seen play over the last 20 years and I made the comment that in my opinion (probably with red & blue goggles) that Jim Stynes was the best ruckman I've seen play the game.

This Essendon supporter then proceeds to tell me how overated Jim was and that he wouldn't be close to his top 5, he was then backed up by a filth supporter of all people to cap that off. He named Cox & Sandilands as 2 that he thought were miles ahead. This then got me looking up some of their stats by comparison.

Games: Stynes 264, Cox 209, Sandilands 163

Kicks Per Game: Stynes 12.3, Cox 8.7, Sandilands 5.3

Handballs Per Game: Sandilands 7.7, Cox 7.2, Stynes 6.6

Disposals Per Game: Stynes 18.9, Cox 15.9, Sandilands 13

Marks Per Game: Stynes 5.7, Cox 5.3, Sandilands 3.8

Hit Outs Per Game: Sandilands 27.4, Cox 21.5, Stynes 11.8

Goals Per Game: Stynes 0.5, Cox 0.5, Sandilands 0.4

This has Stynes ahead or equal top in all areas but hit outs and handballs, and even each of those can be contributed to less stopages when Stynes played (less hit outs) and more long kicking when he played also (less handballs).

Clearly I know this shows I have nothing better to do but it did get me thinking. Am I just looking at this through red & blue coloured glasses or are my work mates as I suspect just idiots?

What's everyone elses opinion on Jim as a ruckman in the last 20 years?

Ok this has come from a conversation I had with an idiotic Essendon supporter at work today.

Just in gerneral football talk we were talking about some of the best players we've seen play over the last 20 years and I made the comment that in my opinion (probably with red & blue goggles) that Jim Stynes was the best ruckman I've seen play the game.

This Essendon supporter then proceeds to tell me how overated Jim was and that he wouldn't be close to his top 5, he was then backed up by a filth supporter of all people to cap that off. He named Cox & Sandilands as 2 that he thought were miles ahead. This then got me looking up some of their stats by comparison.

Games: Stynes 264, Cox 209, Sandilands 163

Kicks Per Game: Stynes 12.3, Cox 8.7, Sandilands 5.3

Handballs Per Game: Sandilands 7.7, Cox 7.2, Stynes 6.6

Disposals Per Game: Stynes 18.9, Cox 15.9, Sandilands 13

Marks Per Game: Stynes 5.7, Cox 5.3, Sandilands 3.8

Hit Outs Per Game: Sandilands 27.4, Cox 21.5, Stynes 11.8

Goals Per Game: Stynes 0.5, Cox 0.5, Sandilands 0.4

This has Stynes ahead or equal top in all areas but hit outs and handballs, and even each of those can be contributed to less stopages when Stynes played (less hit outs) and more long kicking when he played also (less handballs).

Clearly I know this shows I have nothing better to do but it did get me thinking. Am I just looking at this through red & blue coloured glasses or are my work mates as I suspect just idiots?

What's everyone elses opinion on Jim as a ruckman in the last 20 years?

Hit outs were certainly the weakest part of his game. But his all round game was exceptional for a big man the time and he was very versatile. Most other ruckmen were lumbering types. Made very few clangers too though best forget the 1987 prelim. Was courageous and fair. If he could have been more dominant in the ruck we might have got closer to a flag during his time. One often stated criticism of him at the time was that he got a lot of cheap possessions by playing a kick behind the play. But then at the time just about every ruckman did that also. Stynes just got more of the ball.

Edited May 20, 201114 yr by america de cali

Your mates are idiots.

Brownlow as well, how many ruckmen have done that?

Yep...his value as a 'follower' outstriped even his more than handy Rucking. He would bob up everywhere and often play the 'post' in a link up play often through the middle. Actually Whitey did similar things. But it was as a leader of men he truly excelled. Never the Captain, but youd follow him through thick and thin as you knew he'd NEVER give in.

Ok this has come from a conversation I had with an idiotic Essendon supporter at work today.

Just in gerneral football talk we were talking about some of the best players we've seen play over the last 20 years and I made the comment that in my opinion (probably with red & blue goggles) that Jim Stynes was the best ruckman I've seen play the game.

This Essendon supporter then proceeds to tell me how overated Jim was and that he wouldn't be close to his top 5, he was then backed up by a filth supporter of all people to cap that off. He named Cox & Sandilands as 2 that he thought were miles ahead. This then got me looking up some of their stats by comparison.

Games: Stynes 264, Cox 209, Sandilands 163

Kicks Per Game: Stynes 12.3, Cox 8.7, Sandilands 5.3

Handballs Per Game: Sandilands 7.7, Cox 7.2, Stynes 6.6

Disposals Per Game: Stynes 18.9, Cox 15.9, Sandilands 13

Marks Per Game: Stynes 5.7, Cox 5.3, Sandilands 3.8

Hit Outs Per Game: Sandilands 27.4, Cox 21.5, Stynes 11.8

Goals Per Game: Stynes 0.5, Cox 0.5, Sandilands 0.4

This has Stynes ahead or equal top in all areas but hit outs and handballs, and even each of those can be contributed to less stopages when Stynes played (less hit outs) and more long kicking when he played also (less handballs).

Clearly I know this shows I have nothing better to do but it did get me thinking. Am I just looking at this through red & blue coloured glasses or are my work mates as I suspect just idiots?

What's everyone elses opinion on Jim as a ruckman in the last 20 years?

Rucks then were allowed to grab the ball too without penalty if tackled. I don't think this counted as a hitout but there were a lot of grabs and if I remember Stynes was quite adept at grabs.

Rucks then were allowed to grab the ball too without penalty if tackled. I don't think this counted as a hitout but there were a lot of grabs and if I remember Stynes was quite adept at grabs.

Spot on Daisy. I recall Jimmy doing this on a number of occasions. Scored a number of goals doing so too. Almost a ruck rover type in terms of his following role. He played alongside Strawbs O'dwyer for a time and would sometimes scout the pack for the crumb when he wasn't in the main rucking dual and off he'd go. I'm probably spouting stuff that most peeps know already i realise.

I always believed he had the mind of a classic ruck rover/utility type from that era in the body of a ruckman lol.

I recall heading into the rooms after a match at Waverley park where we'd smashed the Hawks (one of the rare occasions out there ...i think we smashed em. We won anyway lol) on a pretty wet day (what day wasn't pretty wet and windy out there!?). I spotted him amongst the boys having their drinks etc and yelled out at the top of my lungs "Hey Jimmy! Great roving mate!". Suffice to say he looked around a little non-plussed wondering what the hec i was on about lol. Believe me when i say i was on plenty ....again ...HIC!

For me Simon Madden and maybe Paul Salmon for their ability to turn a match on it's head. Lenny Thompson was also pretty steadfast and had to be up there winning a brownlow. And John Nichols for his man mountain marking, opponents inability to move him in a ruck contest and (what i thought at the time as i was a little tacker) were amazingly long torpedoes lol! And maybe they were! So many others from past years (Polly Farmer etc). How could you possibly say how he ranks versus all of them.

I just recall Madden turned so many games for the Bombers (from memory), especially out at Windy Hill. Seem to recall us almost putting them to the sword on a few occasions out there, only to have him star in the final quarters (among others who starred for the Bombers) and they'd turn the game. Me and bro walking home with long faces on most occasions. I only recall one win out there (and even that's vague now...actually it was probably all a little vague after half time lol) in all my years trudging out there.

Stynes was a stalwart rock of a player though and IMO different to the more traditional style of ruckman produced up till then. As someone said in a post, can't grab ball out of ruck today which would hinder his style somewhat. I'm sure he'd adapt though. Not sure where i'd rate Cox and Sandilands in comparison.

Personally i think people forget how relatively good (or maybe not so depending on where you sit) these historic players are unless one sees some extensive old video to jog the memory before trying to compare to latter day players.

I'm sure there's many many great/quality ruckman i've missed and didn't have the fortune of seeing that others will remember.

As you said, his stats sure hold up against these two though (in most areas).

Edited May 20, 201114 yr by Rusty Nails

Rucks then were allowed to grab the ball too without penalty if tackled. I don't think this counted as a hitout but there were a lot of grabs and if I remember Stynes was quite adept at grabs.

Under Balmey, Jimma and Scwarta made a very good tandem tall brigade, plucking the ball out of the ruck.

Under Balmey, Jimma and Scwarta made a very good tandem tall brigade, plucking the ball out of the ruck.

I still don't understand why they made it illegal. Well not illegal, but don't allow for prior opportunity. Just another trick they removed from a ruckmans arsenal.

What pizzes me most in ruckwork now is the use of arms when jostling for position. I'm sure when I was young that that would be pinged for "shepherding in the ruck". Its just so effinn ugly now

Jim was a good (very very good) player, but not neccesarily a very good ruckman if that makes sense (even though that's where he played). Like others have already mentioned, he was a big on-baller who incidentally took the ruck contests. His true value was in his ability to link up and find mountains of the footy. IIRC, he averaged around 26-27 disposals per game in his Brownlow year; huge numbers for a ruckman.

Jimmy was my favorite player so i guess my opinion of him as a player is skewed by my bias, but i thought he was a gun. Maybe not the best ruckman of the last 20 years, but a damn good all-round player.

He was a superb ruckman at ground level and around the ground, but not the best tap ruckman.

I still don't understand why they made it illegal. Well not illegal, but don't allow for prior opportunity. Just another trick they removed from a ruckmans arsenal.

What pizzes me most in ruckwork now is the use of arms when jostling for position. I'm sure when I was young that that would be pinged for "shepherding in the ruck". Its just so effinn ugly now

I agree. I thought it was a great big man skill, and added that bit more of an unpredictable thing. Especially close to goal.

They did a lot of things that changed the character of the game over the last 15 Years. I'm glad we've reversed one of them with the reduced bench. Lets hope they leave the drawn game well alone.

Looking at those stats, eh would have been a dreamteam star!!

Yeah, not the biggest ruckman in his day, remember his contest with "harry" madden. But his value around the ground changed the nature of ruckmen and their role.