A bump is irrelevant to the differences we have because we are arguing different things. You will claim victory for yourself if Sellar turns out to be a dud, but that will be irrelevant to my point. If you want to bump then you need an agreed position.

I am arguing what the footy department intended, while you are arguing Sellar's quality. Different arguments, but you can't see that yet.

This isn'this about winning/losing an argument. It is supposed to be a discussion. You have created so many enemies that now you can't see anything else.

Wow.

Where the hell did that come from?

I don't even understand that last line...

I rarely gloat and wouldn't if Sellar doesn't make it, I can't believe I had to write that sentence.

You expect to see Frawley freed up by Sellar.

I expect that to happen rarely, even with Sellar in the team.

We could end it, or we can swap some more passive aggression.

Demonland is groaning in anticipation...

Interesting debate. The main thing I take from this (and perhaps it assumes that AoB's analysis is correct) is that Mark Neeld has a clear vision and game plan that he intends to execute.

Sellar, it seems, fits neatly into what Neeld is looking for in defence. Whether Sellar is good enough or not to effectively play that role, time will tell - but, at this point in time, he is a required piece in Neeld's jigsaw puzzle.

The whole 'best available' methodology seems to have gone out the window a little for the time being. Neeld seems intent on recruiting players who will have defined roles to play in his structure. And I like that - it inspires confidence.

The last line just means that you have been fighting a lot of personal battles with other posters on Demonland in recent months, so you assume that I'm attacking you. I'm not attacking you, so I hope you don't feel that this the case.

That should, hopefully, make the intent of the rest of the post and my other posts more clear.

Cheers.

I think the strategy of freeing up Frawley is a sound one and if Sellar is not up to it, I'd be trying Tom MacDonald back there in a similar role.

I cant see Sellar walking in to our best 22 .Haven't seen enough to know but it would be a big deal if he got 10 games in his first year

The last line just means that you have been fighting a lot of personal battles with other posters on Demonland in recent months, so you assume that I'm attacking you. I'm not attacking you, so I hope you don't feel that this the case.

That should, hopefully, make the intent of the rest of the post and my other posts more clear.

Cheers.

Oh, I assume that do I?

And again, how are you not putting words in my mouth if you are telling me what I assume?

This was a good thread and now we have to sit back and analyse my involvement?

Is every line in the post going to be a question?

No, it's not.

I cant see Sellar walking in to our best 22 .Haven't seen enough to know but it would be a big deal if he got 10 games in his first year

You may be right, but if he can't get a game this year then he probably never will.

I think Sellar, like Clark, was drafted to fill a hole in Neeld's planned structure. If he doesn't walk into our 22 and is unable to fill that hole he won't play many games for the Dees.

I'm not saying he'll play every game but if he can't stamp himself into the 22 by seasons end he'll be pushing fecal matter uphill to be retained on our list beyond 2013. It's now or never for Sellar.

* Sigh *

...... I'm trying. I'm trying.

You may be right, but if he can't get a game this year then he probably never will.

I think Sellar, like Clark, was drafted to fill a hole in Neeld's planned structure. If he doesn't walk into our 22 and is unable to fill that hole he won't play many games for the Dees.

I'm not saying he'll play every game but if he can't stamp himself into the 22 by seasons end he'll be pushing fecal matter uphill to be retained on our list beyond 2013. It's now or never for Sellar.

I am sure that sums up the mature strong bodied Sellar, and Clark recruitments ( and Magner for that matter though as rookie listed player he may take longer to get a run and fit into what is becoming a crowded house in the middle). Both must make a real impact this year or they will be out (not sure about their contracts I must say). Clark I would expect to play the majority of games; Sellar almost certainly fewer due to match ups.

There are 'development players' such as Cook, Tom McDonld and Davis amongst others, who hopefully will progress over the next couple of years, but the strategy to recruit these two in particular is to get the club to progress in the meantime. IF they all come on well and good; all won't fit in together but a glut could be useful come trade time too.

Sellar almost certainly fewer due to match ups.

I don't agree with team selection rotation for match-ups in the backline. We want to establish a stable, flexible back 6 and he's either going to be part of it or he's not. IMO he's been drafted to:

- play a permanent role in the back 6 and that lead me to the idea that I opened with and Bob has run with OR

- he's depth in case Frawley gets injured

The top teams don't change their defensive selection for matchups. They look to develop a flexible defence that can adapt to all opposition defences. Look at Geelong's backline (last year). They are able to cover all opposition teams except those that have absolutely no tall forwards.

Lonergan, Taylor, Scarlett, Mackie, Enright, Hunt.

Sellar, Rivers, Frawley, Garland, Grimes, Bartram.

Defensive tall, kick marker, offensive tall, swing man, offensive small, defensive small

Let's match them up against some different style of forward lines.

Collingwood:

Cloke (pea) - Lonergan/Sellar

Dawes (second big tall) - Taylor/Rivers

Brown (resting ruck) - Scarlett/Frawley

Sidebottom (mid/fwd) - Mackie/Garland

Blair/Fasolo (defensive forward) - Enright/Grimes

Krakouer (prime crumber) - Hunt/Bartram

The Pies have two big forward, plus a lesser third tall/resting ruck and a series of small forwards, but no real mid sized players. It's either big or small.

West Coast:

Kennedy (pea) - Lonergan/Sellar

Lynch (second tall forward) - Taylor/Rivers

Cox/Naitanui (resting ruck) - Scarlett/Frawley

Darling (fourth tall) - Mackie/Garland

Nicoski (defensive forward) - Enright/Grimes

LeCras (prime small forward) - Hunt/Bartram

West Coast try to overflow opposition teams with tall forwards, and then use their press to give them many marking opportunities with LeCras at their feet. Their extra tall is also designed to negate Scarlett etc by making them play on tall forwards and have to be more defensive.

Carlton:

Waite (main marking threat) - Lonergan/Sellar

O'hAilpin/Thornton (second tall) - Taylor/Sellar

Walker (mid-sized/defensive forward) - Scarlett/Frawley

Murphy/Gibbs etc (resting mid) - Enright/Grimes

Garlett (speed forward) - Mackie/Garland

Betts (pure crumber) - Hunt/Bartram

This is a completely different style of forward line, where they try to overwhelm teams with speed rather than size. This forces the opposition to use offensive small (ie, Enright/Grimes) more defensively to cover dangerous small forwards, robbing them of run.

So, as you can see, these setups are designed to force teams to use their attacking players in more defensive roles, so they don't get a chance to rebound and hurt the opposition. West Coast forces the talls to play defensively (ie, Scarlett and Frawley) while Carlton forces the smalls to play defensively (ie, Enright and Grimes).

By having attacking smalls and talls then we have the flexibility to play all types of teams, building cohesiveness as a unit and having the players perfect their roles.

Bump.

One of the Mods should change the title of this thread to Sellar in the Backline or something.

Aside from the crap at the end of this thread - it's a good read about where Sellar can impact onfield.

It hasn't been relevant now but with the recent revelation of Sellar it's relevance has recently risen.