Axis of Bob

It really does feel like a science v religion argument. One side sees the other as lacking morality, while one side sees the other as irrational. Ne'er the twain shall meet, since each side is basing their opinions on very different values.

I wasn't upset by the comment at all. It was my expression, and more specifically its interpretation, that I wasn't comfortable with.

Fair enough, my bad. As long as it isn't being used as a justification.

But could these players stop Lawrence Angwin? Could they stop Angwin, Clark and Fev at the same time? Recruit Angwin!

Which is of no concern to the recruiting staff.

Given his speed, his size and his lack of strength, you would have to think that he will take longer than most key forwards to come through. If he doesn't have great pace then he will need to be much better than most at winning contested footy, since he will usually be competing directly with an opponent. But he does have some excellent attributes that should help him in this role. He is a very good contested mark, is tall for a KPP and doesn't waste the footy when he gets it. I see him playing the same sort of role as Dawes or Koschitzke, where he is a long kick marking forward. However Cook also has a massive tank, which may make him more versatlie, and also uses the ball much better than either of those players. But he definitely needs body size so that he can start to take contested marks against AFL sized players. That will take time. Maybe 3 or 4 years. Until then we will have to sit and wait.

It's probably because what he (and Blease) do really well can't be coached, but what they need improvement in can be coached. Improving their knowledge of team structures and defensive pressure can be improved through coaching and it is the coaches' job to make sure G & B play their roles properly. But if they can do that then their other, more unique, gifts can really add to the team.

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.

Recruit Fev!!!

* Sigh * ...... I'm trying. I'm trying.

No. That's why they need to seek permission.

Hypothetically ..... ... if O'Meara is allowed, it doesn't necessarily mean Viney should. O'Meara and Crouch have already been selected through trades. We haven't selected Viney, we just said that we will. We haven't spent anything on him yet, just like GC with Swallow last year. Edit- Exactly the same as what SM said. Sorry, I'm blind!

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.

Conn has been trying to get rid of Ponting since the last Ashes series. In the past he was saying it was because he wasn't making any runs. Now he's saying it's because he IS making runs and should go out on top. It is hard not to view his articles as simply serving an agenda he has.

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.

I was clarifying our positions to Thomo, who thought we were arguing the same thing. I said nothing controversial, just a summary of our respective arguments. If you thought I misrepresented you then you'd have told me. Conversely, I told you not to put words in my mouth because you were stating that my position was that Sellar was good enough, despite me having directly said that this was not the case. You were misrepresenting my position and I was correcting this misrepresentation. Since you are struggling to pinpoint my position, I will state it succinctly. I believe that Sellar has been recruited with the intention to play him in a similar role to Dawson/Lonergan, where he plays as the primary defensive stopper on the opposition's gorilla forward. This frees Frawley up to play a more attacking role in defence. This makes no judgements on how good Sellar is and whether or not he is capable of doing this. It is only a judgement on what role I think he has been recruited for. Given the 'amount of text I have put in this thread about it', it shouldn't be hard for you to find where I have said that Sellar is good enough. So, given that, quote me to show where I have said that. In response, I will quote you all of the times where I have specifically and explicitly said that I am making no judgement on this. The ball is in your court.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have said no such thing. In fact, I specifically pointed out that I'm making no judgement on whether he is good enough or not. I have not seen him play that role, so I have no idea. I can feel optimistic based upon previous instances where players in similar situations have succeeded, but I am making no judgement on Sellar because I just don't know yet. If anything, the only person who has made judgement on Sellar is you. You say that you don't think he's good enough. I have said that I don't know whether he's good enough. I assume that the football department think he's a good chance of being good enough, otherwise they wouldn't have drafted him, but I don't have the information available to allow me to make an informed judgement.

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.

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.

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.

You don't want to be India and lose 4 for none to finish off the innings. If pitches keep having more grass left on them then lower order runs are only going to get more important. If you fail to plan then you plan to fail.

Imagine if England had a weak tail. They'd have been rolled for 100. As it is they are still in the game ... albeit not going well.

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 think Dawson is an underrated spud! He's not much of a talent, but he is underrated in his role.

What do the following players have in common? Trent Croad, Zac Dawson, Chris Tarrant and Tom Lonergan. 1) They are the 'gorilla tamers' at the last 4 Grand Final clubs. 2) None of them started their career as a defender. (Croad - forward, Dawson - ruck, Tarrant - forward, Lonergan - forward) 3) All of them frustrated and were traded or delisted before finding their role. (Croad - traded, Dawson - delisted, Tarrant - traded, Lonergan - delisted) 4) All were athletically gifted, but there were worries about their footy smarts. Their role is to put body pressure on the opposition number one big forward and compete. The role is simple, so you don't need Scott Pendlebury's poise, skills or decision making to play it, but you do need some important attributes: speed, strength and size. All you need to do is be big, be competitive and be next to your opponent, because you just have to keep your opponent on the ground while your team mates are able to jump for the ball. Why does it take more time for them to come through and be recognised than other players? Because their main requirement are those that improve a lot with age. They need a mature body, so it can take them many years to achieve that. James Sellar fits perfectly into this category. He was recruited as a ruck/forward (and has played as one up until very recently). He is athletically very gifted, with speed, strength, power and is very big for a key position player. He is now at the age where he can start physcially dominating in AFL company. For the role we want him to play, he has all the hallmarks of those who have done it in the past. He has all the attributes. For the price we paid, he has the ability to help our team a lot. Will he do it? I don't know. But we recruited him for a reason.