Who is the best Key Defender of the 21st Century?

[Mr Meow]

Didn’t Egan make AA in 2007? Enright made AA in 2008/09/10/11. Taylor made AA in 2010. Harley made AA in 2008. Milburn AA 2007.

Rance played his entire career with not a single defender from Richmond making AA around him.

Scarlett and his co-defenders were having an AA party during their dynasty.

This is not Scarlett’s fault, but of course it’s going to be easier to defend in a defence containing 5 other All-Australians.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

This has been used by you to death to downgrade the quality of essentially every Geelong individual...that they had so many good players around them or it was easy to score/easy to defend. But then you try to argue Richmond were as strong as that Geelong side or close to it; at least as strong as the best of the contenders they faced.

So you're really just flipping positions based on whether it's time to elevate an "underrated" Richmond individual or the "underrated" Richmond team. It's incredibly inconsistent and transparent for all to see. But just to confirm Scarlett was AA when Geelong were terrible, decent, at their peak and at the end of their premiership run.

The last 3 seasons he had more freedom and he could be more attacking but his quality was the same when he was ultra defensive (pre 2007) and a balance of both (2007-2009) when the gameplan was at it's most fluent.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Scarlett, he actually played and beat the opposition key forward.

Scarlett also did it better for longer.

I am intrigued to know who you think Rance played on then?

And why did Rance get roughly 30% more coaches votes(through their prime years) and 60% more contested possessions on average?

 

[boncer34]

Fletcher.

 

[Mr Meow]

I said that Taylor obviously ‘took the best forward a lot’ … you then confirm Scarlett played closer to home. So if the best forward in the opposition was playing a ‘roaming CHF’ role (eg Riewoldt, Pavlich etc…) there’s a good chance Taylor played on them, right?

So from the arrival of Taylor in 2008, Scarlett played a good portion of games not playing on the oppositions best forward, as they may not have been playing close to goal - is that a fair statement?

I’m not saying this was a blight on Scarlett, as obviously Taylor was more suited to running players. But it did mean Taylor often took the oppo’s best forward …. which is what I said. Then Lonergan often took the oppo’s best forward, which is also what I said.

So from 2008-2012 Scarlett was often not playing in the oppo’s best forward.

Is that incorrect?



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

No, the implication to begin with was that for a large part of Scarlett's career he was deliberately moved off the best forwards to be some kind of loose change mopping up type, chasing junk kicks. In reality he took the most dangerous deep lying forward as the defensive 50 was his realm. He was the anchor. The most accountable part of the field there is.

A couple of years earlier he was taking Gehrig in the St Kilda matches. In 2008 he took Fevola and Franklin. Lloyd was a common opponent. Pavlich when he was full forward. Likewise Cloke. It changed in 2010/2011 when Lonergan took the gorillas.

 

[boncer34]

I am intrigued to know who you think Rance played on then?

And why did Rance get roughly 30% more coaches votes and 60% more contested possessions on average?

Rance's biggest test was when he was asked to go to an American with 42 games under his belt.

He spent the night watching the bloke out point him all over the ground while waving his finger at everyone else for not helping him.

Was a great 3rd man up, but one on one was terrible.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Rance's biggest test was when he was asked to go to an American with 42 games under his belt.

He spent the night watching the bloke out point him all over the ground while waving his finger at everyone else for not helping him.

Was a great 3rd man up, but one on one was terrible.

This has already been shown to be a myth. Rance lost roughly 1 in 5 of his defensive 1 v 1's, in line with the vast majority of leading key forwards since the stat was published. The differences with Rance were:

• he got involved in more 1 v 1 contests than all other key defenders I can find
• he has equal to the highest average of contested possessions per match when compared to all other key defenders this century
• he has very high rates of tackles, spoils & 1%ers when compared to all other key defenders this century
• he appears to have the highest rate of coaches votes when compared to all other key defenders this century.
• he appears to have has the highest rate of disposals when compared to all other key defenders this century.

 

[boncer34]

This has already been shown to be a myth.

Nah.

Great loose man Rance, that's all.

 

[doppleganger]

I am intrigued to know who you think Rance played on then?

I asked you who he played on in the 2017 finals series...you listed every Adelaide goal kicker.

IMHO Rance more often than not took a less dangerous forward, so he could zone off and effectively come in and spoil other contests, he did this very well.

When he actually had to sit on a player (Astbury, Chaplin or Grimes weren't available as first choice) he wasn't anything special.

And why did Rance get roughly 30% more coaches votes(through their prime years) and 60% more contested possessions on average?

Define their prime years?

Scarlett in 2002-04 went runner up in BnF, won the BnF, and runner up in the BnF and grabbed two All Australians. He was Geelongs best player. Come 2011 he was still elite.

Scarlett had a 10 year period where he was the dominant defender in the game.

Rance had a prime that was basically half the length of Scarlett, 5 years.

More CP - Rance was busier than Scarlett, and as noted overall CPs recorded per game increased from when Scarlett played to Rance.

More votes - Rance only had the one real champion Dusty to compete with for votes, the Geelong team was much stronger. It was easier for Rance to stand out in a solid team for the majority of his career compared to Scarlett who had champions all over the park.

Scarlett was better and he sustained his elite level of footy for a decade, he was the constant mainstay in Geelong's dominant defence.

It was Grimes who was Richmond's most important defender during their glory era.

 

[Fadge]

This has already been shown to be a myth. Rance lost roughly 1 in 5 of his defensive 1 v 1's, in line with the vast majority of leading key forwards since the stat was published. The differences with Rance were:

• he got involved in more 1 v 1 contests than all other key defenders I can find
• he has equal to the highest average of contested possessions per match when compared to all other key defenders this century
• he has very high rates of tackles, spoils & 1%ers when compared to all other key defenders this century
• he appears to have the highest rate of coaches votes when compared to all other key defenders this century.

Serious question - how many games did you see Scarlett play?

 

[doppleganger]

Rance's biggest test was when he was asked to go to an American with 42 games under his belt.

He spent the night watching the bloke out point him all over the ground while waving his finger at everyone else for not helping him.

Was a great 3rd man up, but one on one was terrible.

The Richmond Rance fluffers will argue that Rance wasnt playing on Cox (despite video of Cox purple patch in Q2 showing otherwise).

 

[boncer34]

The Richmond Rance fluffers will argue that Rance wasnt playing on Cox (despite video of Cox purple patch in Q2 showing otherwise).

It's a bit like me trying to argue Kernahan didn't towel up Fletcher in the '93 Grand Final.

Bizarre stuff.

 

[Fadge]

The Richmond Rance fluffers will argue that Rance wasnt playing on Cox (despite video of Cox purple patch in Q2 showing otherwise).

Indeed. They tried that, until video evidence was provided to prove otherwise.

Then it was 'Come on man, it was just one game...' after hearing for the past two years in the Dusty thread about how finals define a career and home and away matches are nothing more than meaningless qualifying games...

 

[Noidnadroj]

Egan was AA in 2007 and never played a game again after the end of that 2007 h&a. Enright isn't a key defender, Scarlett was 3 x AA before Harley got his and 2 before Milburn received his, Taylor only started at Geelong in 2008 and Scarlett had 5 AAs before Taylor got his first.

Scarlett was shutting them down, talls and smalls for years before all of the rest of them were being named AA. It was only the second half of his career when he was able to play a more rebounding role.

Yes, agree with all that. Rance didn’t have the level of quality defenders around him, and didn’t have other defenders taking the oppo’s best forward at any stage of his career.

I don’t think any of that is incorrect.

I think it would be easier playing with at times 2,3 or 4 AA defenders around me… I don’t think that would be incorrect either.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Doc1763]

No love for Zac Dawson

Zac Dawson

Age

38

Ht

197cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.0

3star

K

3.4

1star

HB

6.6

4star

M

3.7

4star

T

1.5

3star

MG

34.4

1star

No current season stats available

D

8.0

2star

K

3.0

1star

HB

5.0

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.4

4star

??? I dont understand!!

 

[philthy05]

Scarlet. Easily.


Rance was the best of his era, an era where the afl basically nerfed offenses so bad the game became almost unwatchable. And there was so few actually great key defenders at their peak in the same era. I can’t even recall any outside maybe McGovern who again, enjoyed an era where he barely had to watch anyone and could fly for the high bomb long kicks. Not too mention how weak an era it’s been for key forwards after we lost the last batch of great kfs. heck most of rances era the Coleman ladder was packed with small forwards from memory.


Chad Cornes was one of the pioneers of leaving your man to attack the ball in the air rather than following your man around (following on from Leppitsch)

At least when Leppitsch and Cornes were doing it they were actually gambling on when to leave their man and judge the ball.

Rance and McGovern played in an era where there’s so much flooding there was next to no chance their man (if they had one) was going to be open if they commited to attacking the ball in the air.

Damn good players at what they do though.

I reckon if rance was at his peak now he’s still a very good player, but he’s sharing those all-Aus awards rather than being the only candidate. I just don’t see how he would be easily ahead of what Moore is doing right now.

Scarlet played on generational kfs, in an era defenders played against kfs, not the whole team.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I asked you who he played on in the 2017 finals series...you listed every Adelaide goal kicker.

IMHO Rance more often than not took a less dangerous forward, so he could zone off and effectively come in and spoil other contests, he did this very well.

When he actually had to sit on a player (Astbury, Chaplin or Grimes weren't available as first choice) he wasn't anything special.

Define their prime years?

Scarlett in 2002-04 went runner up in BnF, won the BnF, and runner up in the BnF and grabbed two All Australians. He was Geelongs best player. Come 2011 he was still elite.

Scarlett had a 10 year period where he was the dominant defender in the game.

Rance had a prime that was basically half the length of Scarlett, 5 years.

More CP - Rance was busier than Scarlett, and as noted overall CPs recorded per game increased from when Scarlett played to Rance.

More votes - Rance only had the one real champion Dusty to compete with for votes, the Geelong team was much stronger. It was easier for Rance to stand out in a solid team for the majority of his career compared to Scarlett who had champions all over the park.

Scarlett was better and he sustained his elite level of footy for a decade, he was the constant mainstay in Geelong's dominant defence.

It was Grimes who was Richmond's most important defender during their glory era.

If you watch the highlights of the 2017 GF you will see Rance paired up with Otten, Jenkins, Walker at different times. He was voted 3rd BOG by both coaches.

Rance is clearly the defender Richmond wanted to get to maximal contests, and why wouldn't you. So his direct opponent often depended simply on who the opposition wanted to put in the hottest spots. You would presume this was their best key forward most of the time, unless Rance was doing so much damage against them the opposition team was forced to switch.

So to me, "Scarlett played on the best opposition forward" as some sort of delineator between he and Rance seems fanciful at best. Rance was by far Richmond's dominant 1 v 1 contest attender throughout his prime. There is no way that can occur if he is playing on chumps because it is the opposition team's choice to kick to Rance v chump or a lesser defender like Astbury/Chaplin v gun. They are directing that ball to the other contest every single time they can. That they didn't do this shows really clearly Rance was playing mainly on the primary target.

On longevity:

Rance played 84 games less than Scarlett. But this does not mean Scarlett was a better player than Rance in the matches they played.

Rance had 6 seasons 28 or more coaches votes(including seasons of 51 and 46) and was selected AA in 5 of those.

Scarlett had 1 single season of more than 28 coaches votes, when he got 30 exactly in 2008. To be fair to Scarlett there were no coaches votes before 2006, but from what I can see he is highly unlikely to have gotten much closer to matching Rance in the 5 earlier seasons after getting to a decent level.

On the question of their primes I took those as being the seasons in which they turned 22 until the seasons in which they turned 30(Rance's last).

The reason you think it was Grimes who was the most important Richmond defender during their dynasty is simply because Rance did not play half of it due to doing his knee. Grimes, Astbury, Vlastuin etc did an admirable job through this period, but none of these players are anywhere near Rance's class.

Scarlett played in teams that won 64% of their matches.

Rance played in teams that won 54% of their matches.

But the "easier to stand out" argument for why Rance got more coaches votes does not wash with me. You have basically admitted Rance played as part of an outstanding defence. You look at the leaderboards of coaches votes each season, I don't see a lot of evidence in support of the "easier to stand out theory."

Rance got more coaches votes simply due to being a more outstanding player than Scarlett. This is the same reason Rance won way more contests, got more tackles, 1%ers etc etc etc he was simply a higher value player who could do more.

 

[Noidnadroj]

This has been used by you to death to downgrade the quality of essentially every Geelong individual...that they had so many good players around them or it was easy to score/easy to defend. But then you try to argue Richmond were as strong as that Geelong side or close to it; at least as strong as the best of the contenders they faced.

So you're really just flipping positions based on whether it's time to elevate an "underrated" Richmond individual or the "underrated" Richmond team. It's incredibly inconsistent and transparent for all to see. But just to confirm Scarlett was AA when Geelong were terrible, decent, at their peak and at the end of their premiership run.

The last 3 seasons he had more freedom and he could be more attacking but his quality was the same when he was ultra defensive (pre 2007) and a balance of both (2007-2009) when the gameplan was at it's most fluent.

I’m not downgrading him, just stating the facts … he wasn’t required to play on the oppositions best forward for decent chunks of his career.

So when assessing 1v1 contests he’s involved in, goals kicked against him, contested possession rates etc… it probably goes a long way to explaining why Rance was involved in more 1v1’s, had a far higher rate of contested possessions, more 1%ers etc…. because Rance was always the central figure in Richmond’s defence.

I’m not saying this makes him better or worse, as you can only play the position you are given. It’s not like when Taylor is assigned to N Riewoldt or Pavlich or Lonergan is assigned to Buddy or Cloke that Scarlett gives two sh*ts. And it’s not like when Rance is assigned to Riewoldt and Buddy every single time he has a choice either … ?

But when Scarlett’s role might help explain a discrepancy in statistical output in the contested side of the game then it’s relevant to the discussion - not a ‘he’s better or he’s worse’ discussion, but a logical reason for differences.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

If you watch the highlights of the 2017 GF you will see Rance paired up with Otten, Jenkins, Walker at different times. He was voted 3rd BOG by both coaches.

Rance is clearly the defender Richmond wanted to get to maximal contests, and why wouldn't you. So his direct opponent often depended simply on who the opposition wanted to put in the hottest spots. You would presume this was their best key forward most of the time, unless Rance was doing so much damage against them the opposition team was forced to switch.

So to me, "Scarlett played on the best opposition forward" as some sort of delineator between he and Rance seems fanciful at best. Rance was by far Richmond's dominant 1 v 1 contest attender throughout his prime. There is no way that can occur if he is playing on chumps because it is the opposition team's choice to kick to Rance v chump or a lesser defender like Astbury/Chaplin v gun. They are directing that ball to the other contest every single time they can. That they didn't do this shows really clearly Rance was playing mainly on the primary target.

On longevity:

Rance played 84 games less than Scarlett. But this does not mean Scarlett was a better player than Rance in the matches they played.

Rance had 6 seasons 28 or more coaches votes(including seasons of 51 and 46) and was selected AA in 5 of those.

Scarlett had 1 single season of more than 28 coaches votes, when he got 30 exactly in 2008. To be fair to Scarlett there were no coaches votes before 2006, but from what I can see he is highly unlikely to have gotten much closer to matching Rance in the 5 earlier seasons after getting to a decent level.

On the question of their primes I took those as being the seasons in which they turned 22 until the seasons in which they turned 30(Rance's last).

The reason you think it was Grimes who was the most important Richmond defender during their dynasty is simply because Rance did not play half of it due to doing his knee. Grimes, Astbury, Vlastuin etc did an admirable job through this period, but none of these players are anywhere near Rance's class.

Scarlett played in teams that won 64% of their matches.

Rance played in teams that won 54% of their matches.

But the "easier to stand out" argument for why Rance got more coaches votes does not wash with me. You have basically admitted Rance played as part of an outstanding defence. You look at the leaderboards of coaches votes each season, I don't see a lot of evidence in support of the "easier to stand out theory."

Rance got more coaches votes simply due to being a more outstanding player than Scarlett. This is the same reason Rance won way ore contests, got more tackles, 1%ers etc etc etc he was simply a higher value player who could do more.

But he couldn’t, could he. He wasn’t as skillful, couldn’t run the most well oiled attacking team of the millennium from its own defensive end, and be arguably as important to his team’s attack as he is to its defence in the way that Scarlett was regardless of what sort of numeric spin you try and put on it, and the people in here who are all disagreeing with you know that because they all watched both players and they all know exactly what I am saying. Scarlett was skilful enough to be a midfielder. You know why he wasn’t? Because he was the best fullback in the competition and he was good enough that the last - maybe ever - great full forward in the competition rated him the best opponent he ever played on. He was busy shutting down those guys so that’s where he stayed, and for a long time at the start of his career, when the rest of his team weren’t quite good enough to be any more than promising, he was the only real star we had, and he was the stand out, and getting AA jerseys because he was the best at doing his job.

Suddenly a few years later his teammates had caught up to something approaching his level and shutting down opponents wasn’t all he had to concentrate on.

His ability to read play and dispose of the ball like a 25-touch-per game attacking midfielder could be put to good use in an side that was about to start dominating the comp, and he had friends at then back that could allow him to do that.

Suddenly instead of us having to do what most teams did, and absorb pressure at the back end, and spoil the ball, soak it up, and slowly work the ball upfield, we could zone off our opponents and start moving the ball through chains of possession as quickly as humanly possible and pile on goals one after the other.

But that’s not good enough for you.

All that does for you is give you a stat like uncontested possessions or whatever other meaningless metric you want to use to try and tell everyone that they must be wrong because they disagree with you

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Scarlet. Easily.


Rance was the best of his era, an era where the afl basically nerfed offenses so bad the game became almost unwatchable. And there was so few actually great key defenders at their peak in the same era. I can’t even recall any outside maybe McGovern who again, enjoyed an era where he barely had to watch anyone and could fly for the high bomb long kicks. Not too mention how weak an era it’s been for key forwards after we lost the last batch of great kfs. * most of rances era the Coleman ladder was packed with small forwards from memory.


Chad Cornes was one of the pioneers of leaving your man to attack the ball in the air rather than following your man around (following on from Leppitsch)

At least when Leppitsch and Cornes were doing it they were actually gambling on when to leave their man and judge the ball.

Rance and McGovern played in an era where there’s so much flooding there was next to no chance their man (if they had one) was going to be open if they commited to attacking the ball in the air.

Damn good players at what they do though.

I reckon if rance was at his peak now he’s still a very good player, but he’s sharing those all-Aus awards rather than being the only candidate. I just don’t see how he would be easily ahead of what Moore is doing right now.

Scarlet played on generational kfs, in an era defenders played against kfs, not the whole team.

This post is music to my ears.

So the 90's when 100 goal kickers were lining up 2 and 3 to a season this is because they were great key forwards.

In the Rance era when nobody ever kicked more than about 80 goals in a season, this WAS NOT because there were great key defenders.

--------------------

Rance v Darcy Moore

Is admittedly closer than Rance v Matthew Scarlett

But Rance has Darcy Moore covered in basically every statistical measure. Player ratings, Coaches votes, disposals, contested possessions, tackles, spoils, 1%ers. Moore does a little better for contested marks and intercept marks.

----------------------

Scarlett played on generational key forwards you say? Isn't that what every teams best key defender does in every generation?

 

[Noidnadroj]

Scarlet. Easily.


Rance was the best of his era, an era where the afl basically nerfed offenses so bad the game became almost unwatchable. And there was so few actually great key defenders at their peak in the same era. I can’t even recall any outside maybe McGovern who again, enjoyed an era where he barely had to watch anyone and could fly for the high bomb long kicks. Not too mention how weak an era it’s been for key forwards after we lost the last batch of great kfs. * most of rances era the Coleman ladder was packed with small forwards from memory.


Chad Cornes was one of the pioneers of leaving your man to attack the ball in the air rather than following your man around (following on from Leppitsch)

At least when Leppitsch and Cornes were doing it they were actually gambling on when to leave their man and judge the ball.

Rance and McGovern played in an era where there’s so much flooding there was next to no chance their man (if they had one) was going to be open if they commited to attacking the ball in the air.

Damn good players at what they do though.

I reckon if rance was at his peak now he’s still a very good player, but he’s sharing those all-Aus awards rather than being the only candidate. I just don’t see how he would be easily ahead of what Moore is doing right now.

Scarlet played on generational kfs, in an era defenders played against kfs, not the whole team.

Scarlett played on generational key forwards…. ?? Really ??

Given Buddy launched in 2008 and Lonergan played on him from 2010. And given Jack Riewoldt launched from 2010. And Hawkins played for the Cats. And Lloyd’s last good year was 2004.

What’s your list of generational KPF’s Scarlett regularly played on?

Rance regularly played on:

Buddy (4th all time goals) - overlapped Rance’s entire career.
Hawkins (14th) - entire career
Nick Riewoldt (24th) - 9 x seasons
Josh Kennedy (22nd) - entire career
Pavlich (26th) - 8 seasons
Walker (34th) - entire career
Cameron (40th) - 8 seasons

So 7 of the top-40 all time goal kickers. Cameron and Walker are still going so it’ll end up likely 7 of the top-28 all time goal kickers.

Scarlett played on some excellent KPF also, but not sure how it would compare? It certainly would not be a superior list to the above.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[doppleganger]

Indeed. They tried that, until video evidence was provided to prove otherwise.

Then it was 'Come on man, it was just one game...' after hearing for the past two years in the Dusty thread about how finals define a career and home and away matches are nothing more than meaningless qualifying games...

Or the most baffling trying to run with Rance had a player rating of 14.2 for the game, so it was actually one of his better finals games.

 

[Fadge]

Or the most baffling trying to run with Rance had a player rating of 14.2 for the game, so it was actually one of his better finals games.

Oh yeah, forgot about that.

And a better performance than Bobby Hill's Norm Smith Medal game in the 2023 Grand Final....

 

[doppleganger]

Oh yeah, forgot about that.

And a better performance than Bobby Hill's Norm Smith Medal game in the 2023 Grand Final....

The 2018 PF was Rance's 2nd best final performance ever according to the AFL player ratings.

His best was the 2015 EF, when North kicked 100+ and all 3 of their KPFs - Waite, B.Brown and Petrie - kicked multiple goals.

Good old Rance kept himself busy whilst the opposition key forwards won the game.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

But he couldn’t, could he. He wasn’t as skillful, couldn’t run the most well oiled attacking team of the millennium from its own defensive end, and be arguably as important to his team’s attack as he is to its defence in the way that Scarlett was regardless of what sort of numeric spin you try and put on it, and the people in here who are all disagreeing with you know that because they all watched both players and they all know exactly what I am saying. Scarlett was skilful enough to be a midfielder. You know why he wasn’t? Because he was the best fullback in the competition and he was good enough that the last - maybe ever - great full forward in the competition rated him the best opponent he ever played on. He was busy shutting down those guys so that’s where he stayed, and for a long time at the start of his career, when the rest of his team weren’t quite good enough to be any more than promising, he was the only real star we had, and he was the stand out, and getting AA jerseys because he was the best at doing his job.

Suddenly a few years later his teammates had caught up to something approaching his level and shutting down opponents wasn’t all he had to concentrate on.

His ability to read play and dispose of the ball like a 25-touch-per game attacking midfielder could be put to good use in an side that was about to start dominating the comp, and he had friends at then back that could allow him to do that.

Suddenly instead of us having to do what most teams did, and absorb pressure at the back end, and spoil the ball, soak it up, and slowly work the ball upfield, we could zone off our opponents and start moving the ball through chains of possession as quickly as humanly possible and pile on goals one after the other.

But that’s not good enough for you.

All that does for you is give you a stat like uncontested possessions or whatever other meaningless metric you want to use to try and tell everyone that they must be wrong because they disagree with you

You have encapsulated perfectly why Scarlett was a great player.

This goes absolutely nowhere in explaining why you think he is better than Rance. Scarlett never approached rance's contested possession rate before or after his team-mates stepped up. He did all you said but Rance simply did more. Rance got to more contests, won ore contests, effected more spoils, created more turnovers, had may ore 1%ers and coaches votes. These things didn't occur because Rance got some special favours from somewhere. He was simply a better overall player. Unusually for a Tiger player he was recognised by all the usual metrics you might use to elevate a Dangerfield or Ablett v Dustin Martin. Rance got AA selections at a greater rate than Scarlett, got coaches votes at a greater rate than Scarlett, and won an absolute shedload more contests, clearly due to a rare and unique ability for a key defender to rush from his defensive role into contests that would be out of reach for most others.

Scarlett was a really high quality player. Clearly a terrific ball user and his kicking was a great and valuable asset. There is absolutely nothing else that he has over a player like Rance, who was simply a different level of athlete.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Oh these ones are always fun.

I have found it’s easiest just to say Scarlett and then agree that the next best is the cumulative careers of the other Geelong key defenders, with extra credit given to careers cut short by injury.