Colin Garland

[juzzk1d 1,354]

Garland is a dumb footballer.. Tries to spoil when he should mark, and tries marks when he should spoil.

Edited August 25, 2015 by juzzk1d

[praha 10,270]

All players part of the club on 186 with the exception of McDonald should be moved on.

[rpfc 27,443]

Does that mean performances like the weekend's are of little interest to you also?

Do you not see any correlation between consistently under-performing senior players (ie Garland), and our inability as a team to perform for an entire match?

I think it's fairly obvious that a significant part of why we still to this day are having these howlers of games is because of this problematic and virus-like group of players.

Frankly, I can't understand why you're so impartial.

It's a major concern for me.

It shouldn't be. If Roos and co. think he is worth another contract or not, it will not be the major driver of our continued resurgence.

It is of little consequence.

And I am indifferent to the comings and goings of bit part players now, I have developed a callous to anything other than important roles and who can fill them, emerging midfielders who can play consistent footy, and generational talents.

I don't buy into the cancer stuff, I don't buy the 'scar argument' anymore, but I don't want us to act like anything other than a professional and yet ruthless club.

When it comes to Garland - it is a mundane situation of a club offering or not offering their 35th most important player a one or two year deal.

And that just doesn't excite me. Same with Howe. Same with everyone else OOC and a few contracted for next year.

[Scipio 5,868]

All players part of the club on 186 with the exception of McDonald should be moved on.

You really don't like the skipper anymore, do you?

[Chris 2,892]

Garland to me looks mentally cracking (not broken yet but on the way). He is an introvert and by reports the intellect of the group. You need to get in his head and give him belief to get the best out of him.

I would keep him for two reasons, 1: at his best he is easily good enough to have a place in the team and his best is only confidence away; and 2: We are a large part of the reason he seems to be mentally cracked, I would never leave him like that and would support him no matter what. This is what you should do for your team mates, if that is not in your culture then it is not a culture worth having.

[jnrmac 18,951]

*sigh*

I don't even know what to think anymore. I'm exhausted thinking about the off season, all the holes we need to fill and how we are going to attract anyone the club.

I still think the club will re-sign him and let Howe go but most are probably right when they say it makes little difference if he stays or goes.

So you have gone off your love child Garland?

Geez you're fickle. At least have the courage of your convictions. You were happy to pot anyone last week that said he was giving us no value.

What a goose.

[mo64 5,209]

Garland to me looks mentally cracking (not broken yet but on the way). He is an introvert and by reports the intellect of the group. You need to get in his head and give him belief to get the best out of him.

I would keep him for two reasons, 1: at his best he is easily good enough to have a place in the team and his best is only confidence away; and 2: We are a large part of the reason he seems to be mentally cracked, I would never leave him like that and would support him no matter what. This is what you should do for your team mates, if that is not in your culture then it is not a culture worth having.

You can't blame his mindset on the club. He's in the wrong occupation if he can't self motivate. If he's mentally cracking, cut him loose for the sake of both parties.

I didn't have Garland in our best 22 at the start of the year based on his form last year, and what I saw of him during preseason. I found his lack of drive during match simulations underwhelming, and he hardly struck me as a leader as some have suggested. His ineffectual disposals were evident back then, and nothing has changed throughout the year.

[Chris 2,892]

You can't blame his mindset on the club. He's in the wrong occupation if he can't self motivate. If he's mentally cracking, cut him loose for the sake of both parties.

I didn't have Garland in our best 22 at the start of the year based on his form last year, and what I saw of him during preseason. I found his lack of drive during match simulations underwhelming, and he hardly struck me as a leader as some have suggested. His ineffectual disposals were evident back then, and nothing has changed throughout the year.

Most people would suffer mentally (potentially frustrated, depressed, irritable, down and out etc etc) if you went to work and in the space of 7 years you had 6 or so different bosses, the big boss die, a few company legends and leaders die, co-workers go nuts and leave, co-workers get depressed and leave, get pilloried by the customers and media constantly, and all in the name of very little success.

The club is responsible for the well being of the players, or has the EFC debacle taught us all nothing?

If the best thing for Garland is to no longer be at the club then that is a decision for him to come to with the club. It would not be right to turf him out.

[mo64 5,209]

Most people would suffer mentally (potentially frustrated, depressed, irritable, down and out etc etc) if you went to work and in the space of 7 years you had 6 or so different bosses, the big boss die, a few company legends and leaders die, co-workers go nuts and leave, co-workers get depressed and leave, get pilloried by the customers and media constantly, and all in the name of very little success.

The club is responsible for the well being of the players, or has the EFC debacle taught us all nothing?

If the best thing for Garland is to no longer be at the club then that is a decision for him to come to with the club. It would not be right to turf him out.

Most people work to live, and would kill to be a highly paid sportsperson. If you can't handle the pitfalls that go with it, then get out. You're making alot of assumptions about Garland's headspace. Maybe he's just not as good a footballer as you think.

And making comparisons to the EFC debacle is drawing a long bow. The primary concern of the club is success, so players will come and go. Clubs won't retain players out of sympathy.

[Chris 2,892]

Most people work to live, and would kill to be a highly paid sportsperson. If you can't handle the pitfalls that go with it, then get out. You're making alot of assumptions about Garland's headspace. Maybe he's just not as good a footballer as you think.

And making comparisons to the EFC debacle is drawing a long bow. The primary concern of the club is success, so players will come and go. Clubs won't retain players out of sympathy.

It makes no difference what the job is, how many people want it, or how much it pays, the response of the people involved would be the same. Could you really say you wouldn't be affected by what I described above?

I am making assumption about Garland, you are right. I am going off what I see of him on the ground. I may be wrong about his head space.

The bow to the EFC case is actually very short. The club employ the players and are responsible for their well being in the workplace, no different from any other employer employee relationship. The club is not a suburban football club, it is a medium to large business that employees lots of people to whom it has certain certain responsibilities. And I never said keep him out of sympathy, you thinking that is what I said shows a lack of understanding of the issues I have raised.

[mo64 5,209]

It makes no difference what the job is, how many people want it, or how much it pays, the response of the people involved would be the same. Could you really say you wouldn't be affected by what I described above?

I am making assumption about Garland, you are right. I am going off what I see of him on the ground. I may be wrong about his head space.

The bow to the EFC case is actually very short. The club employ the players and are responsible for their well being in the workplace, no different from any other employer employee relationship. The club is not a suburban football club, it is a medium to large business that employees lots of people to whom it has certain certain responsibilities. And I never said keep him out of sympathy, you thinking that is what I said shows a lack of understanding of the issues I have raised.

Port Adelaide and Adelaide players have endured tragedies that have hit far closer to home, and their collective performances have been unaffected.

As an employee, if my performance is being affected by the issues you raise, I'd be looking for a new employer.

IMO, you're using the club as a copout for Garland's lack of form. IF, and that's a big IF Garland has been mentally affected, surely it's in his interests to move on. The AFLPA can also provide counselling if required.

Edited August 25, 2015 by mo64

[Chris 2,892]

Port Adelaide and Adelaide players have endured tragedies that have hit far closer to home, and their collective performances have been unaffected.

As an employee, if my performance is being affected by the issues you raise, I'd be looking for a new employer.

IMO, you're using the club as a copout for Garland's lack of form. IF, and that's a big IF Garland has been mentally affected, surely it's in his interests to move on. The AFLPA can also provide counselling if required.

Port Adelaide and Adelaide have endured tragedies, you are right, they have done so well so far but have still lost a player to the game who could not handle what has occurred.

This is very different to the prolonged experience at the dees.

Did you think that maybe Garland is committed to the Dees and doesn't want to leave and wants to put the club ahead of himself? This is a possibility.

I don't think I am using the club as a cop out either, I think the reasons I have raised are there, I think the club should show faith and stand by him. Give him confidence and he will grow.

It may also be in his interest to move on, that I why I said that if has to go then it should be his decision with the club, not the club throwing him out.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

It makes no difference what the job is, how many people want it, or how much it pays, the response of the people involved would be the same. Could you really say you wouldn't be affected by what I described above?

I think Nathan Jones has without doubt proven this line of thought wrong.

Drafted at a similar time, have been subject to all of the things you speak of, yet the natural development and comsistency in form has been there with one and not the other. It's a case study done for you.

Personally I just can't understand the apologists. I don't go to functions, I don't meet the players and therefore I never display any sort of emotional bias on a personal level. All I hear from your posts and from the posts of others is a feeling of 'sorry'. Almost as if the club owes him something other than the pay check and opportunity to play a sport at it's highest level.

I agree Garland has shown at times during his career that he can play a valuable role for us when he's in form. But I ask how often that has been? His body language has always been the same in my eyes from day dot. He's quiet, doesn't like to get in the face of opposition players, doesn't play with any spunk and has never displayed any sort of 'follow me' leadership qualities.

For the survival of the club, something has to give. For the last two or three years there have been a dysfunctional group of senior players who I've mentioned who have all displayed similar traits. Traits that have contributed to the teams abysmal performances.

Edited August 26, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[JackDeMan 42]

What our club needs more than anything else is above-average footballers with leadership qualities.

Garland is average at best, and has no leadership qualities. He opted out of the leadership group at the start of the year - that says it all.

He has yet to commit to a club whose playing group has performed so badly since 2007, and he has been a member of that playing group for most of those years.

I cannot think of a single sensible reason to keep him - he wants to go, so let him go.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,875]

Most people would suffer mentally (potentially frustrated, depressed, irritable, down and out etc etc) if you went to work and in the space of 7 years you had 6 or so different bosses, the big boss die, a few company legends and leaders die, co-workers go nuts and leave, co-workers get depressed and leave, get pilloried by the customers and media constantly, and all in the name of very little success.

The club is responsible for the well being of the players, or has the EFC debacle taught us all nothing?

If the best thing for Garland is to no longer be at the club then that is a decision for him to come to with the club. It would not be right to turf him out.

Most people would suffer mentally (potentially frustrated, depressed, irritable, down and out etc etc) if you went to work and in the space of 7 years you had 6 or so different bosses, the big boss die, a few company legends and leaders die, co-workers go nuts and leave, co-workers get depressed and leave, get pilloried by the customers and media constantly, and all in the name of very little success.

The club is responsible for the well being of the players, or has the EFC debacle taught us all nothing?

If the best thing for Garland is to no longer be at the club then that is a decision for him to come to with the club. It would not be right to turf him out.

Your right and in the best interest of the players we can trade them out. Starting with Howe, Grimes, Dawes and Garland.

I'd hate to see them suffer any longer.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,875]

Most people would suffer mentally (potentially frustrated, depressed, irritable, down and out etc etc) if you went to work and in the space of 7 years you had 6 or so different bosses, the big boss die, a few company legends and leaders die, co-workers go nuts and leave, co-workers get depressed and leave, get pilloried by the customers and media constantly, and all in the name of very little success.

The club is responsible for the well being of the players, or has the EFC debacle taught us all nothing?

If the best thing for Garland is to no longer be at the club then that is a decision for him to come to with the club. It would not be right to turf him out.

How would they cope if they had a real problem.....

[Chris 2,892]

I think Nathan Jones has without doubt proven this line of thought wrong.

Drafted at a similar time, have been subject to all of the things you speak of, yet the natural development and comsistency in form has been there with one and not the other. It's a case study done for you.

Personally I just can't understand the apologists. I don't go to functions, I don't meet the players and therefore I never display any sort of emotional bias on a personal level. All I hear from your posts and from the posts of others is a feeling of 'sorry'. Almost as if the club owes him something other than the pay check and opportunity to play a sport at it's highest level.

I agree Garland has shown at times during his career that he can play a valuable role for us when he's in form. But I ask how often that has been? His body language has always been the same in my eyes from day dot. He's quiet, doesn't like to get in the face of opposition players, doesn't play with any spunk and has never displayed any sort of 'follow me' leadership qualities.

For the survive of the club, something has to give. For the last two or three years there have been a dysfunctional group of senior players who I've mentioned who have all displayed similar traits. Traits that have contributed to the team's performances.

Nate Jones just shows that not all people are affected the same. He has shown exceptional resilience but he still drops his head when things go bad.

Garland can also expect everything from this club that we do from our employer. I do not say what I do out of a feeling of sorry, I say it because that is what is right. I also have not said we must keep him, although I think we should, I just think we need to look after our players a build a culture where we look after each other. Hard decisions will be made, but there is a right way to make them.

[Chris 2,892]

How would they cope if they had a real problem.....

How do you know he doesn't?

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,875]

How do you know he doesn't?

Well if he has go away and sort it out. And I mean a real problem not Jack Watts whole career has been ruined by playing on QB when he wasn't ready or Jack Grimes can't dispose of the ball after 7 years on the list because he was made captain to early type of problem.

I cant wait until they are gone from this club and we can move forward. As for suffering mentally, I personally think that's crap, if that's the case leave now, not the end of the season, right now. It's simple Chris, they don't care. If they did they wouldn't be here.

[Chris 2,892]

Well if he has go away and sort it out. And I mean a real problem not Jack Watts whole career has been ruined by playing on QB when he wasn't ready or Jack Grimes can't dispose of the ball after 7 years on the list because he was made captain to early type of problem.

I cant wait until they are gone from this club and we can move forward. As for suffering mentally, I personally think that's crap, if that's the case leave now, not the end of the season, right now. It's simple Chris, they don't care. If they did they wouldn't be here.

It could also be that they care too much. None of this is black and white.

[Pipefitter 2,014]

You just have to look at how long he spends on the ground after he loses a contest or gives away a free kick that results in a goal. He's one of the mentally scarred Roosy talks about.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

You just have to look at how long he spends on the ground after he loses a contest or gives away a free kick that results in a goal. He's one of the mentally scarred Roosy talks about.

It's disgusting isn't it.

Several times this year I've noticed him doing do it. It's like he's completely unaware of the fact that if he got up off the ground, jogged a couple of steps over, he'd be able to make an impact at the next contest even if only providing an extra number.

Even when he's on his feet, he is soooooo 'opponent conscious', he refuses to get on his bike and provide an option when we're in possession of the footy. He literally runs around holding his opponent and looks like he's been shot whenever he runs. It's as if he's never done a pre-season.

Provides absolutely nothing offensively and has been so-so defensively for the majority of the year.

Edited August 27, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Nate Jones just shows that not all people are affected the same. He has shown exceptional resilience but he still drops his head when things go bad.

Garland can also expect everything from this club that we do from our employer. I do not say what I do out of a feeling of sorry, I say it because that is what is right. I also have not said we must keep him, although I think we should, I just think we need to look after our players a build a culture where we look after each other. Hard decisions will be made, but there is a right way to make them.

No he doesn't drop his head. He never drops his head. FCS this is the first year in how many that he's had games where he's been ineffective and hasn't been an influence. That doesn't mean he drops his head. He contests at 100% intensity at 100% of the time.

Does he go to ground and sit there for prolonged periods of time like Garland? No, he doesn't.

You are on of the many who for some reason thinks keeping NQR senior players is going to help the club's culture. I vehemently believe that Garland and this group I speak of have contribute to the poor culture we have for various reasons. Some are so subtle that supporters may miss them. Like the sitting on the ground after losing a contest. All of these things filter into a playing group. It all has an effect.

Do you ever see anyone at Hawthorn, (other than Frawley) do [censored] like that? Any of their 27+ age bracket of players?

Do you ever think that part of the reason Watts is taking so long to implement these kinds of habits into his game is partly because we've had this group of NQR senior figures who also lack this general intensity, effort and willingness during game day?

Wake up man. This [censored] is viral and it needs to be cut off asap.

[Young Blood 1,985]

I've always seen Garland as pretty consistent. But I haven't watched him closely like other posters this year.

He has OK size and length to go against oppositions secondary tall forwards and works well as a loose backman coming over to help out. Always a great spoiler of the ball and contested mark.

OK so if he does need to go. Who do we replace him with? I guess Frost comes in?

Is it not worth keeping him for another season or two until we can develop players like Mcdonald Jnr? Or another young backman?

I do think he is a part of a group of Melbourne players that need to go. But I think he could have value for a season or two more. Even if it means him playing as a backup backman. Spending most of his time at Casey.

[Chris 2,892]

No he doesn't drop his head. He never drops his head. FCS this is the first year in how many that he's had games where he's been ineffective and hasn't been an influence. That doesn't mean he drops his head. He contests at 100% intensity at 100% of the time.

Does he go to ground and sit there for prolonged periods of time like Garland? No, he doesn't.

You are on of the many who for some reason thinks keeping NQR senior players is going to help the club's culture. I vehemently believe that Garland and this group I speak of have contribute to the poor culture we have for various reasons. Some are so subtle that supporters may miss them. Like the sitting on the ground after losing a contest. All of these things filter into a playing group. It all has an effect.

Do you ever see anyone at Hawthorn, (other than Frawley) do [censored] like that? Any of their 27+ age bracket of players?

Do you ever think that part of the reason Watts is taking so long to implement these kinds of habits into his game is partly because we've had this group of NQR senior figures who also lack this general intensity, effort and willingness during game day?

Wake up man. This [censored] is viral and it needs to be cut off asap.

I have seen Jones look very despondent and drop his head, not often but it does happen. I agree though that he still gives his all even when he does.

No point discussing Garland as you clearly have it in for the bloke.