If Strauss is ever a best 22 player Melbourne will be seriously in trouble.

Normally agree with you CB, Strauss issues are mental and if he can overcome them he has some serious physical assets which could see him become a importat player on out list.

Absolutely right about Sellar, Bob. It's the only reason we drafted him at all.

Along the same lines, how about Tom McDonald? Another pick in the 50s, but has excellent endurance (see 3km TT), good speed, and when he grows into his body might be ideal for the N. Riewoldt types. Except that he might turn out to be better offensively than just having a negating role.

A more attacking defence (by releasing Frawley to a more attacking role) and a more defensive attack! Like it!

Pray tell me, simple minded as I must be, just how has Strauss "improved his game" since his injury??? I am not aware that he has actually played a game, so how could he possibly improve it?? Have I missed something? He may have improved his "approval rating" here, but not his game!!

Perhaps substitute the word 'before' for 'since' and you have what BRFE is getting at.

Then you can skip all the clever hyperbole!

Easy as that.

old and I are not saying that Sellar is guaranteed to make it, but as I said, we recruited him for a reason. He has all the attributes to play the role we want very well. We need someone to perform that role, and he's as good a chance as anyone. He hasn't yet done it, so we all wait and see.

I am not saying that you are saying he is guaranteed to make it - I am saying that the role you have envisioned for him: to take the forward that Frawley usually takes is a massively high ceiling for the bloke.

And I realise that the FD might 'want' him to fill that role, but as I see it - a lower ceiling that Sellar might be able to reach is to take the forward that Garland/Rivers struggle with when Frawley is otherwise occupied.

I just can't see Sellar being given such a massive task in his first year at the club after his struggles at the Crows.

To be perfectly honest with you - we are talking past each other here - we both see a role in the backline if his form is good enough.

I just don't believe it will be good enough for the FD to say "he's ready to do what Frawley has done."

Remember the guy was AA in 2010.

Perhaps substitute the word 'before' for 'since' and you have what BRFE is getting at.

Then you can skip all the clever hyperbole!

Easy as that.

It's the blind leading the blind.

Don't worry Big Red, made sense to me, it's amazing how much better players get around here when they are injured.

If Strauss is ever a best 22 player Melbourne will be seriously in trouble.

Haha christ.

I really hope we fire you to cover BP's job. So insightful and knowledgable and you always back up your thoughts with great hard facts!

Pray tell me, simple minded as I must be, just how has Strauss "improved his game" since his injury??? I am not aware that he has actually played a game, so how could he possibly improve it?? Have I missed something? He may have improved his "approval rating" here, but not his game!!

Notsureifserious

Don't worry Big Red, made sense to me, it's amazing how much better players get around here when they are injured.

Strauss was on a definite improvement gradient before his injury - some great shutdown work and some attacking play too. He's got a body to be reckoned with. Some will struggle to get past his fumble with Campbell Brown. He's no sure thing but he's got attributes. Maybe he's just the new Belly or maybe, like BP hoped, our Lindsay Gilbee.

So, yes, IF Sellar or maybe Davis or Tom McDonald can take that role then we could be onto a good thing, freeing up Chip for the running, clearing, directing role, which we know he can do, but unless and until then ?????

I really liked Tom McDonald's back play last year under Viney and how this enabled Garland to play a much more attacking role. I was a bit disappointed when I heard Tom was training with the forwards but then I thought about Sellar's role and was happier - we might win both ways. And yes there's Troy Davis too, but as Bob says Sellar is ready body-wise now.. I think Lonergan is a great example - I had him firmly as a "spud" forward but he's been great back. Adelaide have had Rutten for gorillas and I'm less convinced about his attacking attributes, Sellar was probably competing with Rutten for a role - Bock and then Davis were the Scarlett types - Sellar doesn't relace them.

Pray tell me, simple minded as I must be, just how has Strauss "improved his game" since his injury??? I am not aware that he has actually played a game, so how could he possibly improve it?? Have I missed something? He may have improved his "approval rating" here, but not his game!!

This is exactly my point. In peoples minds he seems to have improved since he was last on the park. Prior to injury he was just starting to make his way now to alot he seems integral to our back 6 for this season.

Strauss was on a definite improvement gradient before his injury - some great shutdown work and some attacking play too. He's got a body to be reckoned with. Some will struggle to get past his fumble with Campbell Brown. He's no sure thing but he's got attributes. Maybe he's just the new Belly or maybe, like BP hoped, our Lindsay Gilbee.

Agreed Strausss was definitely improving with game time and showing some signs but was far from being a definite starter or integral to our make up.

TBH i find Bail & Strauss are given a massive wrap on this site. Both could be great players for us, but neither of them are quite there yet IMO

Agreed Strausss was definitely improving with game time and showing some signs but was far from being a definite starter or integral to our make up.

Maybe that's in some other thread - I didn't see it in here. I like him as a defender who can take the kick-ins but agree he will have some stiff opposition for a spot in the back 6 - particularly if as seems likely Grimes plays there. Frawley, Rivers, Garland, Sellar, Grimes, Bartram, Bennell, Tapscott, Strauss, Macdonald, Nicholson - they can't all play together. I think the back 6 remains an area where you're trying get some stability and a group that is used to working together. Midfield and forward rely on rotations - backline relies on flexibility, stability and co-operation.

TBH i find Bail & Strauss are given a massive wrap on this site. Both could be great players for us, but neither of them are quite there yet IMO

Why not give them praise for potential? We all hope they will be great servants of the club, just like we hope the rest of the players will be.

To say they are 'not quite there yet' does not relate to where they are in their careers.

Haha christ.

I really hope we fire you to cover BP's job. So insightful and knowledgable and you always back up your thoughts with great hard facts!

Probably a little harsh with my wording, I just can't see Strauss being much more than an average VFL player from what I have seen of him. I hope he turns out to be a very good player, I just don't hold high hopes. A broken leg doesn't help.

Probably a little harsh with my wording, I just can't see Strauss being much more than an average VFL player from what I have seen of him. I hope he turns out to be a very good player, I just don't hold high hopes. A broken leg doesn't help.

Initially I didn't think much of Strauss but I thought he showed a bit just before he was injured, he seemed to get a bit of mongrel in his game and that was missing earlier on. He showed that he wants to succeed and that's always a good sign.

I am not saying that you are saying he is guaranteed to make it - I am saying that the role you have envisioned for him: to take the forward that Frawley usually takes is a massively high ceiling for the bloke.

And I realise that the FD might 'want' him to fill that role, but as I see it - a lower ceiling that Sellar might be able to reach is to take the forward that Garland/Rivers struggle with when Frawley is otherwise occupied.

I just can't see Sellar being given such a massive task in his first year at the club after his struggles at the Crows.

To be perfectly honest with you - we are talking past each other here - we both see a role in the backline if his form is good enough.

I just don't believe it will be good enough for the FD to say "he's ready to do what Frawley has done."

Remember the guy was AA in 2010.

There are different roles in the backline. Sellar wouldn't be that good at playing the roles that you think he'll play.

Garland is a very nimble defender that can play on talls and smalls. He gives the defence huge flexibility and is also a good rebounding player. Sellar is not this type of player because he is not as nimble as Garland and is not as talented in an attacking sense.

Rivers is a zoning defender who marks opposition kicks. Sellar is not a natural reader of the game, which means that he cannot play the role that Rivers plays.

Frawley is a couple of different players. He is a damaging, attacking, big bodied rebounding player who can play on tall and small opponents. He is also a defensive stopper. Sellar is not the former, however he could well end up being the latter. A player whose only role is to follow a man around and not be rag dolled. Sellar is big, strong and athletic, so he is well equipped for such a role. His is the blocker for the extra defender to mark uncontested.

You are looking at the defence as being 6 individuals who all have to beat their men individually. That's not how Collingwood defend, it's not how Geelong defend, its not how St Kilda defend and its not how Hawthorn defend. In fact, Darren Glass doesn't even play the role of the primary stopper for West Coast any more - that is left to McKenzie. These teams defend as a team, where individual players play specific roles within the team defence.

Collingwood defend with Tarrant as the gorilla wrestler (a la Sellar) with Reid as the defensive playmaking tall (Frawley), who zoned back and took marks as the third man while the key forward was preoccupied in a wrestle with Tarrant. They then had the rebounding creator (Davis), the line breaker (Shaw - playing on a wing) and the zone defenders (Maxwell and O'Brien) as well as the small stopper (Toovey). These players combined as a team because they never let the opposition get one on one with their opponent.

The days of needing Silvagni to play on Ablett are over, because you defend with the team rather than individuals. Sellar can be an important part of that team defence because, for what you lose in playing Sellar on the gorilla instead of Frawley, you gain by having Frawley in a more dangerous role elsewhere. Frawley's value goes up as a result of having Sellar take his old role.

A thoughtful summary Axis. That's how I see the roles also.

Maybe he's just the new Belly or maybe, like BP hoped, our Lindsay Gilbee.

Looks like Belly to me.

Both strong, quick and athletic. Perfect sizes for the game and both actually have great skills but IMO they aren't there mentality.

Very hesitant, quick to lose confidence and always unsure of themselves.

Hope Strauss makes it cause we need his type but his name isn't in my mind going forward.

There are different roles in the backline. Sellar wouldn't be that good at playing the roles that you think he'll play.

Garland is a very nimble defender that can play on talls and smalls. He gives the defence huge flexibility and is also a good rebounding player. Sellar is not this type of player because he is not as nimble as Garland and is not as talented in an attacking sense.

Rivers is a zoning defender who marks opposition kicks. Sellar is not a natural reader of the game, which means that he cannot play the role that Rivers plays.

Frawley is a couple of different players. He is a damaging, attacking, big bodied rebounding player who can play on tall and small opponents. He is also a defensive stopper. Sellar is not the former, however he could well end up being the latter. A player whose only role is to follow a man around and not be rag dolled. Sellar is big, strong and athletic, so he is well equipped for such a role. His is the blocker for the extra defender to mark uncontested.

That's not quite what I am saying...at all.

You are comparing him to players - Rivers and Garland - because I have said he could take some forwards they usually take, yes?

Well, I wrote that 'Sellar might be an option to take the players Rivers or Garland FAIL ABYSMALLY at taking.' If Sellar can take one of Cloke or Dawes - hallelujah!

That's where I see his worth, that's where you see it too, but you have upgraded the expectations to allow Frawley to leave the best big forward to Sellar.

And we all know that Frawley is an attacking weapon but it doesn't ameliorate the fact that he is an AA defender because he beats opponents and we might not have the luxury of leaving Sellar on someone who Frawley would have a better chance of beating.

You are looking at the defence as being 6 individuals who all have to beat their men individually. That's not how Collingwood defend, it's not how Geelong defend, its not how St Kilda defend and its not how Hawthorn defend. In fact, Darren Glass doesn't even play the role of the primary stopper for West Coast any more - that is left to McKenzie. These teams defend as a team, where individual players play specific roles within the team defence.

Collingwood defend with Tarrant as the gorilla wrestler (a la Sellar) with Reid as the defensive playmaking tall (Frawley), who zoned back and took marks as the third man while the key forward was preoccupied in a wrestle with Tarrant. They then had the rebounding creator (Davis), the line breaker (Shaw - playing on a wing) and the zone defenders (Maxwell and O'Brien) as well as the small stopper (Toovey). These players combined as a team because they never let the opposition get one on one with their opponent.

The days of needing Silvagni to play on Ablett are over, because you defend with the team rather than individuals. Sellar can be an important part of that team defence because, for what you lose in playing Sellar on the gorilla instead of Frawley, you gain by having Frawley in a more dangerous role elsewhere. Frawley's value goes up as a result of having Sellar take his old role.

Oh, the game has changed, AoB?

Of course it has, and defenders rarely have one-on-one battles with forwards anymore, but there are occasions when a big forward require a defender worthy of his talents and in that case, I know the person the coach will call on to beat him.

And at the moment it is Frawley.

Some good points in this thread. I think RPFC and AOB actually are thinking along the same lines, the difference is one thinks that Sellar is up for the job and one doubts it.

I have not seen anything of Sellar, how does he differ from Warnock?

In 2003 Matthew Scarlett was an All-Australian playing as a defensive stopper. Geelong finished 12th.

He's also been an All-Australian 4 times in the last 5 years .... but not as a defensive stopper.

Who would you rather be playing on, Matthew Scarlett or Tom Lonergan? Well, if you were the number 1 forward, you'd be playing on Lonergan and then maybe Taylor if you were going well. But you will never be directly opposed to the person that you'd have most difficulty against - Scarlett.

Why? Because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Why did Rivers fail abysmally against Cloke? Why was Rivers on Cloke at all? Why wasn't Frawley on Cloke, given that he was an AA and our number one defender?

The answer is because Frawley is more damaging than just being a stopper. Frawley was better off on Dawes because he could exploit his lack of pace and be a damaging rebounder. You wouldn't waste a pure stopper on Dawes. Rivers played on Cloke because Frawley was too valuable to waste on him. In the end we were forced to play Frawley on Cloke and it was only then that Collingwood really ran away from us.

In that situation, I see Frawley playing on Dawes and Sellar on Cloke, unless Dawes is being used as a decoy, in which case Rivers goes to him and Frawley can play on Collingwood's 5th best forward.

You need to look at the team, rather than narrow your focus onto the indivdual match ups. That's where my Chris Judd analogy comes in. Judd would be the best defensive back pocket around with his speed, strength, size etc. But you wouldn't waste him there because he has a greater impact on the team elsewhere. Duigan is honest enough and competitive, but he's more of a chance to lose his position than Judd would be if he played there.

This is the same situation. Sure, Sellar may be more of a chance to lose his position, but if Frawley is going to benefit the team more by being released from the stopping role then you would be crazy to keep him spoiling in the goalsquare.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Some good points in this thread. I think RPFC and AOB actually are thinking along the same lines, the difference is one thinks that Sellar is up for the job and one doubts it.

I have not seen anything of Sellar, how does he differ from Warnock?

I think we are thinking along similar lines, but for different reasons.

I think he is being recruited to be Zac Dawson, while rpfc thinks he's being recruited to be Ben Holland. That is, I believe that he is being recruited to wrestle with the opposition's number one forward (a la Zac), allowing Frawley to play more of a Scarlett/Reid/Fisher type of role. Rpfc believes that he is being recruited to take a less dangerous tall forward for the odd occasions (a la Holland) where Rivers or Garland aren't big enough (eg, the resting ruckman) while Frawley take the number 1 defender.

As an example, assume that we are playing North Melbourne.

I think that the coaching staff would like to play Sellar on Petrie, while Frawley plays on a lesser player, like Aaron Edwards, to allow Frawley to attack. rpfc thinks the coaches want to play Frawley on Petrie and Sellar will be playing with Casey because there is not match up for him that week, or possibly play him in case McIntosh or Goldstein rest forward.

So it's a difference in the philosophy of why Sellar was recruited. Which one is right? I don't know because I wasn't involved in the decision. But that's how I have interpreted the situation, while rpfc interprets it a different way.

Also, I haven't said that Sellar is up to the job. I am saying that he has a good chance based on history and what I envisage the role to be. I have no idea if he's capable of doing it yet and I am not making any judgement on that.

There are different roles in the backline. Sellar wouldn't be that good at playing the roles that you think he'll play.

Garland is a very nimble defender that can play on talls and smalls. He gives the defence huge flexibility and is also a good rebounding player. Sellar is not this type of player because he is not as nimble as Garland and is not as talented in an attacking sense.

Rivers is a zoning defender who marks opposition kicks. Sellar is not a natural reader of the game, which means that he cannot play the role that Rivers plays.

Frawley is a couple of different players. He is a damaging, attacking, big bodied rebounding player who can play on tall and small opponents. He is also a defensive stopper. Sellar is not the former, however he could well end up being the latter. A player whose only role is to follow a man around and not be rag dolled. Sellar is big, strong and athletic, so he is well equipped for such a role. His is the blocker for the extra defender to mark uncontested.

You are looking at the defence as being 6 individuals who all have to beat their men individually. That's not how Collingwood defend, it's not how Geelong defend, its not how St Kilda defend and its not how Hawthorn defend. In fact, Darren Glass doesn't even play the role of the primary stopper for West Coast any more - that is left to McKenzie. These teams defend as a team, where individual players play specific roles within the team defence.

Collingwood defend with Tarrant as the gorilla wrestler (a la Sellar) with Reid as the defensive playmaking tall (Frawley), who zoned back and took marks as the third man while the key forward was preoccupied in a wrestle with Tarrant. They then had the rebounding creator (Davis), the line breaker (Shaw - playing on a wing) and the zone defenders (Maxwell and O'Brien) as well as the small stopper (Toovey). These players combined as a team because they never let the opposition get one on one with their opponent.

The days of needing Silvagni to play on Ablett are over, because you defend with the team rather than individuals. Sellar can be an important part of that team defence because, for what you lose in playing Sellar on the gorilla instead of Frawley, you gain by having Frawley in a more dangerous role elsewhere. Frawley's value goes up as a result of having Sellar take his old role.

That's eloquently argued Bob. Not saying I totally agree but nevertheless a well constructed post

Now we just need to see whether Sellar is up to the the job. The last 6 years says no but I'll be happy if he can change his spots (for old dee's sake)

This is the same situation. Sure, Sellar may be more of a chance to lose his position, but if Frawley is going to benefit the team more by being released from the stopping role then you would be crazy to keep him spoiling in the goalsquare.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

If only it were so simple.

Frawley is our best pure defender, he is also a damaging rebound player.

Which is more important to the team?

Which is the easier role to find?

They are questions that have to be answered by the individual.

If Sellar can "the punching in the goalsquare" on the player that Frawley would usually take I will gladly hail the recruitment of what would have to be one of the most undervalued players in the AFL up to 2011.

However, if we are being found out then Frawley has to go back on Jack Riewoldt because keeping him from keeping 8 is far more important than Frawley being able to get 18 touches and 5 Rebound from D50.

(If we can form a structure where Rivers is always there to help Sellar, other teams can counteract that structure. At some point he has to beat his opponent.)

In essence, Thomo is right - I believe that the hypothetical of Sellar becoming a solid, reliable defender is still very hypothetical.