2008 Most Improved

[Deeoldfart 8,061]

Hard for me to separate Warnock, Garland and PJ, but I'll give the nod to Warnock, because I think he must have been close to being delisted last year.

[timD 994]

I think Garland by the length of the straight.

[45HG 1,559]

I'd say Warnock.

Green has been great, but has always played up to this level, just probably never as consistently. Garland really has improved out of sight, but even then it's only his 4th year of playing footy, and is only young, so any improvement is to be expected. Miller has stepped up, but again, he is coached by the same man who essentially brought him to AFL, has been given responsibility and is now the focal point in a weakened forward line showing many of the same signs he has shown glimpses of in the past.

Warnock, however, at 24, and previously looking more out of place on a football field than Sidney Poirtier at a KKK meeting, to now presenting himself as a viable option in becomming a key member of our backline

[Jaded No More 68,972]

I think Garland by the length of the straight.

How does one win the award for most improved, when one has only played 4 games prior to 'improving'?

[Guest Schtacker]

I can't see how Green can be the most improved, given you've highlighted his 4th finish last year versus 1st (with McLean gone) this year. I imagine a few players have improved more than three rankings in the B&F. I also imagine that by almost any measure, other players have improved more than Green.

well I do have him listed as below Miller you will notice

Garland and the rest have been handy - Green has been our best

[Rogue 585]

How does one win the award for most improved, when one has only played 4 games prior to 'improving'?

I fail to see the logic in that - it's not like he was just born (or even just joined the Club).

If he only had a couple of games prior to this season, it's clear he wasn't anywhere near our best 22 last year.

I'd say that was the case for Garland, and I'd suggest that he's clearly in our 22 atm.

[Jaded No More 68,972]

I fail to see the logic in that - it's not like he was just born (or even just joined the Club).

If he only had a couple of games prior to this season, it's clear he wasn't anywhere near our best 22 last year.

I'd say that was the case for Garland, and I'd suggest that he's clearly in our 22 atm.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Garland played 2 AFL games in 2007. How many players establish themselves in their club's best 22 after two senior games?

He then went on to play 2 average games this year, and has since really established himself and grown in confidence. That is just the natural progression that most young players take.

If we're going to award Garland the tag of 'most improved', we might as well mention Aussie and Morton as well.

When I think of a player who has really improved this year, I think of players who have been in the system for a while and are now showing real signs of maturity. For example Miller, Wheatley and even CJ has started showing glimpses of real improvement.

Garland was always going to improve with age and experience... I just can't believe it took him a whole 13 games to do it!

[Rogue 585]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Garland played 2 AFL games in 2007. How many players establish themselves in their club's best 22 after two senior games?

He then went on to play 2 average games this year, and has since really established himself and grown in confidence. That is just the natural progression that most young players take.

If we're going to award Garland the tag of 'most improved', we might as well mention Aussie and Morton as well.

When I think of a player who has really improved this year, I think of players who have been in the system for a while and are now showing real signs of maturity. For example Miller, Wheatley and even CJ has started showing glimpses of real improvement.

Garland was always going to improve with age and experience... I just can't believe it took him a whole 13 games to do it!

I understood, I simply disagree. You speak about improvement like it is inevitable. However, it's not.

I believe the average AFL career span is ~ 3 years, and most players never cement a spot in the best 22. Players don't always improve with age and experience, and certainly not at the rate that Garland has. From the end of last season to the end of this season, his status will have improved out of sight.

Garland has gone from two games as a bit-part player in 2007 to 11/14 matches this season, most playing a key role and with plenty of game time. I think you're selling Garland's improvement so far short it's not funny - he's come further this season than Miller, Wheatley, and CJ have.

[bjgc 0]

Most improved has to be Garland he had done nothing to suggest that he was going to have the year he is having. His first 2 games were terrible. I rate him a lot higher than Warnock who has improved considerably I would play Garland on the best forward before Warnock. P.J has been a big improver as well.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I don't think PJ has improved a great deal. I just think he is now getting more game time, more opportunities and a few less injuries.

[mo64 5,880]

I understood, I simply disagree. You speak about improvement like it is inevitable. However, it's not.

I believe the average AFL career span is ~ 3 years, and most players never cement a spot in the best 22. Players don't always improve with age and experience, and certainly not at the rate that Garland has. From the end of last season to the end of this season, his status will have improved out of sight.

Garland has gone from two games as a bit-part player in 2007 to 11/14 matches this season, most playing a key role and with plenty of game time. I think you're selling Garland's improvement so far short it's not funny - he's come further this season than Miller, Wheatley, and CJ have.

I'm with Jaded on this one. DB obviously saw the potential in Garland that most on this site didn't, and probably isn't surprised with his development.

You can't describe a young kpp in his 1st season as a "bit-part player". Based on that criteria, Jonathon Brown was a bit-part player in his 1st year. I'm sure he didn't win most improved in his 2nd season at the Lions.

[Nasher 33,617]

You can't describe a young kpp in his 1st season as a "bit-part player". Based on that criteria, Jonathon Brown was a bit-part player in his 1st year.

How did Jonathon Brown play in the reserves in his first year?

Jaded's examples of Morton and Aussie don't fly. They're first year players. There's no basis for comparison, and without a basis of comparison you can't measure "improvement". In the latter half of last year Garland was just going at Sandy. In the games he played for MFC, he contributed nothing. He really struggled in the first round or two this year. He's now our first choice full back, with daylight second, and has some big scalps to his name.

I completely agree with Rogue. Second year player or not, Garland has improved out of sight. Definitely the most improved player for me.

[torpedo 33]

I guess it's just how you've interpreted the question. I took at as meaning who will win the Most Improved Award - in my experience at club footy such an award goes to guys who have improved against the odds so to speak - so for me that cancels out 1st & most 2nd year players - ie, Garland, and the majority of older players, ie Wheatley, Green, Miller. Its just a matter of how you perceive the award should be based, I dont think there is a right or wrong answer.

If the question is simply who has improved the most this season then that could mean anybody. However, even then I'd be hesitant to bring up the performances of guys like Wheatley, Green & Miller because they're simply playing at a level thats been expected of them for many years already, I'd say they've under performed in recent years rather than improved this year.

[mo64 5,880]

How did Jonathon Brown play in the reserves in his first year?

Jaded's examples of Morton and Aussie don't fly. They're first year players. There's no basis for comparison, and without a basis of comparison you can't measure "improvement". In the latter half of last year Garland was just going at Sandy. In the games he played for MFC, he contributed nothing. He really struggled in the first round or two this year. He's now our first choice full back, with daylight second, and has some big scalps to his name.

I completely agree with Rogue. Second year player or not, Garland has improved out of sight. Definitely the most improved player for me.

Firstly, Jono Brown spent his 1st year at the club playing for the Brisbane Cubs, which is what you'd expect from a young kpp.

Without blowing my own trumpet, I was happy with what I saw of Garland at Sandy. He didn't rack up big stats, but his decision making, disposal and athleticism impressed me. It's far more difficult for a young player to shine in a successful side, when established players like Biddlecombe, Lamb, Crowe and Sauntner are filling your preferred position. His development is not too dissimilar to Jared Rivers.

BTW, did Jared Rivers when most improved in the year he won the Rising Star?

[Rogue 585]

I guess it's just how you've interpreted the question.

Yes - like everything. For me, most means greatest. Improvement implies a comparison from the past to now, season 2008.

If you rank the list 1-40-ish at the end of 2007, and then rank the list 1-40-ish at the end of 2008, Garland will have improved his status more than most, IMHO.

To cite potential upside as a reason to exclude someone from most improved is diabolical.

I'm with Jaded on this one. DB obviously saw the potential in Garland that most on this site didn't, and probably isn't surprised with his development.

You can't describe a young kpp in his 1st season as a "bit-part player". Based on that criteria...

Based on what criteria? That he only warranted two games in a season in which almost everyone played, and that in those two games he couldn't crack much game time?

Was he more than a 'bit-part' player in 2007? How would you characterise his contribution last year? In hindsight, 'bit part' player is generous, given that he was really no more than an extra - two games, and limited game time within those games.

Being 'surprised' by development isn't mentioned in 'most improved' as far as I can see

Jaded's examples of Morton and Aussie don't fly. They're first year players. There's no basis for comparison, and without a basis of comparison you can't measure "improvement".

Indeed.

[Jaded No More 68,972]

Can I just make it clear that I am by no means trying to belittle the development or form of Garland. He has been an absolute revelation at FB and has impressed me beyond expectations.

IMO those who think he is 'most improved' are probably those who thought he won't make it after 4 senior games.

And Garland may not be a first year player, but he has spent a lot less time playing football than both Morton and Aussie, so he is pretty much on a level playing field.

[Rogue 585]

IMO those who think he is 'most improved' are probably those who thought he won't make it after 4 senior games.

Why do you make that assumption? By - my - definition, improvevement judges output this season versus past, not output versus potential. I don't know about the others in this thread, but I certainly didn't tag him as a no-hoper after four senior games in one and a bit seasons.

[Jaded No More 68,972]

Why do you make that assumption? By - my - definition, improvevement judges output this season versus past, not output versus potential. I don't know about the others in this thread, but I certainly didn't tag him as a no-hoper after four senior games in one and a bit seasons.

Fair enough, but again his output last season stands at a grand total of 2 games. IMO that's not enough to classify someone as 'most improved'.

He has been fantastic this year, without a doubt, and he has exceeded most people's expectations, but IMO it is a lot harder to improve when you've been in the system for a number of years, then it is when you are growing in experience.

That's why guys like Miller, Wheatley etc... are real improvers, because after many years in the system they are finally showing us what they are capable of. Whereas with Garland, there is almost nothing to compare his current form to.

This really does sound like I don't rate Garland or his development

[Nasher 33,617]

Why do you make that assumption? By - my - definition, improvevement judges output this season versus past, not output versus potential. I don't know about the others in this thread, but I certainly didn't tag him as a no-hoper after four senior games in one and a bit seasons.

Likewise.

[Rogue 585]

Fair enough, but again his output last season stands at a grand total of 2 games. IMO that's not enough to classify someone as 'most improved'.

Doesn't the fact that in a year where virtually everyone played, he was only able to notch up two games, tell us something about his standing in '07?

If you compare that to this year, there's a massive turnaround - he's on track to end up with almost as few games at Sandy in '08 as he got with Melbourne last year!

He has been fantastic this year, without a doubt, and he has exceeded most people's expectations, but IMO it is a lot harder to improve when you've been in the system for a number of years, then it is when you are growing in experience.

It might be, but it's not the award for 'most surprising improvement'

Do you think that'd be Warnock? At 24, he's a late bloomer, and he's getting big jobs and doing alright.

This really does sound like I don't rate Garland or his development

I don't get that impression at all. All the comments in this thread that I can recall have been positive about Garland's development, regardless of whether they think he's been the most improved.

PS. Although this season's nothing to write home about in terms of wins and losses, it's nice to be debating the merits of various relatively young players who have improved, while the majority of those who have stalled (or worse) probably wouldn't be part of our future due to age anyway.