Aaron Sandilands' legacy

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Sandilands is a beast. I'm still surprised he didn't kill Phil Davis in that collision all those years ago.

Not sure what's going on with Jacobs though. He doesn't usually allow his opponents to dominate him and it's happened a couple of times this season.
 
Cox is the most overrated ruckman of all time.
post-11470-I-started-an-I-hate-Cox-chat-r-FfPp.jpeg
 
You've conveniently omitted four years of games and the game in 2006 that Sandilands conclusively won, while keeping the game in 2006 that Sandilands was injured with a broken jaw before half time.

Eg in the second Derby of 2006, the yeah Cox was at his "peak" in terms of disposals around the ground and Sandilands just got a game because he was tall

http://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2006/081820060827.html

Cox 13 disposals, 0 clearances, 13 hitouts
Sandilands: 22 disposals, 5 clearances, 20 hitouts, 2 Brownlow votes.

For the early part of their careers, Cox was the better and more consistent ruckman. For the latter part, Sandilands had greater presence around the contest, won the battle conclusively against Cox - often as a lone hand.

Well yes, i was providing statistics in games that Cox looked to have greater or equal impact on the games up against Sandilands.

Fully aware that Sandi towelled Cox up more than a few times, but it worked both ways.
 
Sandi absolutely monsters some ruckmen - Jacobs was on the end of it yesterday by the looks of it.
He is also good at ball ups around the ground, and in a wet contested game with a lot of stoppages he absolutely dominated.

As far as his legacy. I think he will be remembered by many as an underrated colossus who had he not been injured could have had 6 all AA and been remembered as one of the greatest. He will perhaps be still remembered as one of the best, simply because he rarely got beaten and was at times absolutely dominant.

Still feel he underachieved, but that is largely because it took so many years to get to his peak, and he still does little aside from win hit-outs. If he keeps this up for another couple of years he will be in the top echelon.
 
Gary Dempsey could hang onto 15 -20 marks a game too. He probably still holds the record for most in a game.

Sandi, hit out machine who should be because of his physical dimensions.

When he's finished, for me he will be a trivia question. Who was the AFL's first 7 footer?

Should have been an all time great but imp has been largely underwhelming in every facet of the game excepting hit outs. (Yes he has torn Geelong a new one a few times, but he should have been doing it to everyone all the time.

He's a bigger version of Drew Petrie.
I know, Matthew Burton. The gentleman giant.
 
You've conveniently omitted four years of games and the game in 2006 that Sandilands conclusively won, while keeping the game in 2006 that Sandilands was injured with a broken jaw before half time.

Eg in the second Derby of 2006, the yeah Cox was at his "peak" in terms of disposals around the ground and Sandilands just got a game because he was tall

http://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/2006/081820060827.html

Cox 13 disposals, 0 clearances, 13 hitouts
Sandilands: 22 disposals, 5 clearances, 20 hitouts, 2 Brownlow votes.

For the early part of their careers, Cox was the better and more consistent ruckman. For the latter part, Sandilands had greater presence around the contest, won the battle conclusively against Cox - often as a lone hand.

So in other words, they both had games where they got the better of each other?

That's a little different to "Sandi beat Cox every time they played"
 
Not sure he has Cox covered, but they're completely different players. The simpletons who point to his size as the only reason he is good may want to have a look at Peter Street (another 211), Matthew Burton (210, solid ruckman) and then guys like Warnock (206) who is bog average.

Sandi is a footballer, smart, no fuss. He has some weaknesses but I can't think of any ruck getting the best of him consistently since 2006. He has beat Goldy & Sauce convincingly the last two weeks and had one of his best games last year against Sauce when the talk was he was the no.1 ruck.

Don't stir the monster. Our most important player - including Fyfe.
 
Sandi absolutely monsters some ruckmen - Jacobs was on the end of it yesterday by the looks of it.
He is also good at ball ups around the ground, and in a wet contested game with a lot of stoppages he absolutely dominated.

As far as his legacy. I think he will be remembered by many as an underrated colossus who had he not been injured could have had 6 all AA and been remembered as one of the greatest. He will perhaps be still remembered as one of the best, simply because he rarely got beaten and was at times absolutely dominant.

Still feel he underachieved, but that is largely because it took so many years to get to his peak, and he still does little aside from win hit-outs. If he keeps this up for another couple of years he will be in the top echelon.
There's still a pretty good chance he could be 6 time AA.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Even despite the injuries he's had, I think it's pretty amazing that a guy his size is now in his 14th AFL season, and has gotten 225 games out of himself so far. Pretty difficult for ruckmen of any height/weight to have that sort of longevity, let alone be high-quality, valueable players at the same time.
 
Sandilands' career can be summed up by one quote:

Nobody roots for Goliath
Wilt Chamberlain

Two things stick out for me. One: that Fremantle's stars have generally had days out against Geelong, but Sandilands is the one that has routinely abused us to the greatest extent, even going back to when Ottens was still around. And two: whenever there has been the obligatory flavour-of-the-month mid-season AA ruck choice of critics in recent years (one of those guys that has been thereabouts for years, but never made the final team), when that guy comes up against Sandilands, Sandi will annihilate him. It's the one position in the AA side where you can look at head-to-head performances to judge the contenders. And in those match-ups, Sandilands tends to make the other guy look like Michael Quinn.

He's simply the most under appreciated star of the past decade and it's not even close.
 
Never as good as Cox. If Sandi was 10cm shorter he wouldnt be anythung special. He dominates the hitouts due to his size and strength, with very few other strings to his bow. Not noted for marking, around the ground or kicking goals. Not near Cox imo.

And if Robert Harvey (or Cox, for that matter) wasn't such a running machine, he would have just been another good player. If Dustin Fletcher had Daniel Rich-proportion arms, maybe he doesn't even get to 200 games. Why is size/strength the only natural attribute that is marked harshly, as if it's some sort of unfair advantage? Shouldn't elite pace, endurance, leaping ability, coordination or massive hands be looked at the same way?
 
Never as good as Cox. If Sandi was 10cm shorter he wouldnt be anythung special. He dominates the hitouts due to his size and strength, with very few other strings to his bow. Not noted for marking, around the ground or kicking goals. Not near Cox imo.

I love dumb comments like this.

It's as dumb as saying if Dustin Martin had a kick 10m shorter he wouldn't be anything special.
If Alex Rance was 10kg lighter he'd be nothing special.
If Steve Morris had 10% more IQ he'd still be as dumb as a brick.

You can't take what sets people apart and use it as a counter argument.

JUST DUMB
 
Never as good as Cox. If Sandi was 10cm shorter he wouldnt be anythung special. He dominates the hitouts due to his size and strength, with very few other strings to his bow. Not noted for marking, around the ground or kicking goals. Not near Cox imo.
And if Pendlebury was 10cm taller he would be slower, weaker below the knee's and shit

Sandilands is the second best ruckman i've ever seen, he's constantly abused ruckmen all his career. It's a rare mix being 120 kilos and clocking up the amount of work around the ground as an AFL player is required to.

People will knock him for "not kicking more goals"

Sandilands has murdered everyone in tap contests and creating contests in the defensive 50, He's one of the better players in you can bomb it to him and he'll neutralise a contest at worst case if it happens to be a 2-3 on 1 against him. Which is more importaint then "Kick a goal now and then!"
 
Will be remembered as the 2nd best ruckman since the turn of the century (behind Cox, ahead of Ottens, Primus, Jolly and others I'm forgetting).

I think it will be a while before we have another ruckman who dominates the competition in the manner Cox and Sandi have. Probably another 15 years at least (maybe Grundy or Longer do, but unlikely for me that they reach the same standards).

To me that's a pretty high standing in the game.
 
And if Robert Harvey (or Cox, for that matter) wasn't such a running machine, he would have just been another good player. If Dustin Fletcher had Daniel Rich-proportion arms, maybe he doesn't even get to 200 games. Why is size/strength the only natural attribute that is marked harshly, as if it's some sort of unfair advantage? Shouldn't elite pace, endurance, leaping ability, coordination or massive hands be looked at the same way?
Exactly. If Gary Ablett Jnr wasn't the son of Gary Ablett Snr would he be as good? Maybe, being the son of Gary Ablett Snr didn't guarantee anything (although I'll always believe Nathan wasted his god given talent).

I also think the only flaw GAJ has is his lack of height. If he was as tall as Nathan he'd be the greatest of all time.
 
And if Robert Harvey (or Cox, for that matter) wasn't such a running machine, he would have just been another good player. If Dustin Fletcher had Daniel Rich-proportion arms, maybe he doesn't even get to 200 games. Why is size/strength the only natural attribute that is marked harshly, as if it's some sort of unfair advantage? Shouldn't elite pace, endurance, leaping ability, coordination or massive hands be looked at the same way?

I love dumb comments like this.

It's as dumb as saying if Dustin Martin had a kick 10m shorter he wouldn't be anything special.
If Alex Rance was 10kg lighter he'd be nothing special.
If Steve Morris had 10% more IQ he'd still be as dumb as a brick.

You can't take what sets people apart and use it as a counter argument.

JUST DUMB
Those guys still have other great attributes (except Steve Morris who sucks in everything except courage and effort). Sandilands for me has one great attribute and isnt much better than any other ruck at anything else. In quite a few areas hes below a number of them (impact around the ground, possesion, mobility, contested marking, goalkicking).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Aaron Sandilands' legacy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top