![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/geelong.png)
With you here, Lana. We're backing team defence as a system over individuals being isolated into 1v1 contests. In relation to the bolded, then, I see it as the 'difference' between Tuohy getting beaten by 5 metres to a loose ball that results in a goal, with the alternative being Bews getting beaten by 1.5 metres to a loose ball that results in a goal.Our defensive group is all about maximising the number of players capable of making the outlet kick. Think back to last year and the effect of when Sav had the ball in hand, any chance of a quick threatening ball movement gone. You want as many players with the confidence to move the ball forward through congestion and with the quick decision making ability to switch to get the ball to 2nd player into space. Every poor ball user reduces the angles that the otherside's structure has to cover. Which allows them to play more compact. Having Tuohy sitting on the arc as the connecting kick for the switch, forces them to cover the centre of the ground, even if we don't switch at all and go up the skinny side, it opens up space for our forwards (Dempsey, Miers, Cameron) to work into who then break through the zone without having to win a contest, aerially or on the ground.
On Duncan and Tuohy, they don't have to be player they were., their kicking will be the last thing to go. And their on paper defensive weakness becomes irrelevant in the same way playing shorter KPDs is, if we can't score it doesn't matter how much we concede, and if our team defence fails then no amount of gut running by small defenders will be enough over the entire body of contests to make up for it.
Given both circumstances result in goals for the opposition, the superior option for our defensive set-up would be the player who can help you most when you actually win the ball defensively and are looking to transition swiftly and effectively the other way.
And that player certainly isn't Jed.