No, the post says that we've only been beaten by smaller forwards. In which it is implicit that we haven't been beaten by tall forwards. Which is mostly true.
For example, last year we had 8 occasions where a forward took 5+ marks inside 50 against us (7x a key forward). This year we've halved that to 4 occasions: Nick Larkey, after Jones and O'Brien went down in the first half and we only had one key defender and Naughton. A decrepit Jack Riewoldt last week when we only had two key defenders. Jamie Elliot, who isn't a key forward and Mitch Lewis, our opponent this week. The only time this year we conceded 5 marks inside 50 to a key forward while using 3 key defenders. That happened 7 times last year. The taller defence has worked for... defending taller forwards.
C'mon man. Better against who? Certainly not tall forwards.
Happy for you to replace Daniel with literally anyone else that plays the position.
This is a bigger stretch than Victor Wembanyama warming up. There are other arguments such as… our small defenders aren’t all great defenders and we play wide and overpossess the ball… that are more plausible than one extra tall defender entirely destroys our ability to both defend and attack.
A majority of dangerous forwards? That sounds like Pandora’s Box of vibepinions I’m not going to open.
The problem with the second part of what you’re saying, and your argument overall, is the assumption that every contest is 1v1. We don’t play three tall defenders just to stick to three tall forwards.
