Col Garland POSSIBLY playing against the Crows today. The big question is at who's expense?

Edit - Changed "is" to "POSSIBLY" reason: to satisfy Nasher so he can cool down a bit before the opening bounce.

Edited April 11, 201015 yr by billy2803
changed misleading title

And where did you hear/read that?

And where did you hear/read that?

Only emergency not to play for Casey last night. I wouldn't read in to that normally, but it is following a Twitter message from Cam Schwab that reads "Really pleased for Col Garland. He has had a tough time since he last played just over 12 months ago. He is a very impressive young man."

While this could mean well done on getting back on a field of any type, I am doubtful.

Only emergency not to play for Casey last night. I wouldn't read in to that normally, but it is following a Twitter message from Cam Schwab that reads "Really pleased for Col Garland. He has had a tough time since he last played just over 12 months ago. He is a very impressive young man."

While this could mean well done on getting back on a field of any type, I am doubtful.

Probably means that Sylvia hasn't come up.

Only emergency not to play for Casey last night. I wouldn't read in to that normally, but it is following a Twitter message from Cam Schwab that reads "Really pleased for Col Garland. He has had a tough time since he last played just over 12 months ago. He is a very impressive young man."

While this could mean well done on getting back on a field of any type, I am doubtful.

It's really, really frustrating when people post assumptions as if they're fact. Having one emergency not play is standard practice, otherwise none would be available to play in the case of an 'emergency', which would defeat the purpose wouldn't it? Since Cheney and Spencer both played, then it's Col who is the designated non-playing emergency. That's all there is to it.

Schwab's Twitter post also means nothing. He would not give anything that wasn't confirmed already when it comes to team selection.

That's not to say that Col G won't play (and there's obviously a good chance he will given Sylvia may pull out), but there's absolutely no concrete evidence at this stage to suggest he will.

Only emergency not to play for Casey last night. I wouldn't read in to that normally, but it is following a Twitter message from Cam Schwab that reads "Really pleased for Col Garland. He has had a tough time since he last played just over 12 months ago. He is a very impressive young man."

While this could mean well done on getting back on a field of any type, I am doubtful.

Garland and Sylvia trained impressively yesterday.It is usual that one emergency covers a possible late withdrawal however with Garland being possibly short of match practice one would believe he would play somewhere. Therefore, I agree ,he will play. Bartram may miss.

In other injury news- Rivers did not train- went bike riding instead. Wona stated he was being kept in cotton wool- should be ready to resume next week. Gawn was kicking goals from 50 metres out- what a speciman of a young man- going to be a man mountain.(just turned 18 last December) and Fitzpatrick was nursing a sore groin.Meeson was there but not training as yet. Tapscott the only one that I was hoping to see- but did not seem to be there.

It's really, really frustrating when people post assumptions as if they're fact. Having one emergency not play is standard practice, otherwise none would be available to play in the case of an 'emergency', which would defeat the purpose wouldn't it?

Schwab's Twitter post also means nothing. He would not give anything that wasn't confirmed away when it comes to team selection.

OK Nasher, now that you're over your little Sunday morning rant, does this mean that Garland is not fit? If he was fit, but wasn't going to play today, wouldn't he benefit from having a run in the 2's, rather than keeping him on standby just in case one of our seniors doesn't get up? Wouldn't it have been better to leave out Spencer or Cheney and give Garland match time for Casey?

Have a feeling it will be Colin for Colin.

OK Nasher, now that you're over your little Sunday morning rant, does this mean that Garland is not fit? If he was fit, but wasn't going to play today, wouldn't he benefit from having a run in the 2's, rather than keeping him on standby just in case one of our seniors doesn't get up? Wouldn't it have been better to leave out Spencer or Cheney and give Garland match time for Casey?

I don't disagree with any of that, but it's still all assumptions and not fact. With your "Garland in" topic heading and OP, anyone who opens the thread is going to think they're getting news, when they're just getting opinion. I'm not the only one who finds this irritating.

Col Garland is playing against the Crows today. The big question is at who's expense?

Spencer played for Casey yesterday

I don't disagree with any of that, but it's still all assumptions and not fact. With your "Garland in" topic heading and OP, anyone who opens the thread is going to think they're getting news, when they're just getting opinion. I'm not the only one who finds this irritating.

That's the joy of forums Nasher - sorry if you nearly choked on your cornflakes when you opened this thread and it didn't give you what you wanted.

The jury is out whether he will play or not, they will return with their verdict at about 11:30am when the team sheet is lodged. But, at this stage, they have been given enough evidence to safely find him guilty of playing.

Out of curiosity, would you really think I'd reveal my source on a forum just to keep you satisfied? Throwing it out there this early gives our fans time to prepare for the possibility that Garland is in.

I hope one Col is not replacing the other as I have just amended my Supercoach and Dream teams to include Sylvia.

Not that I dont wish Garland in. Perhaps he can replace Bate or Bartram.

So it's official... Garland might play today.

So it's official... Garland might play today.

Seems that we're not allowed to say that he IS playing without revealing a source, you are right in assuming that Col MIGHT play today Barry!

That's the joy of forums Nasher - sorry if you nearly choked on your cornflakes when you opened this thread and it didn't give you what you wanted.

The jury is out whether he will play or not, they will return with their verdict at about 11:30am when the team sheet is lodged. But, at this stage, they have been given enough evidence to safely find him guilty of playing.

Out of curiosity, would you really think I'd reveal my source on a forum just to keep you satisfied? Throwing it out there this early gives our fans time to prepare for the possibility that Garland is in.

Billy do you like the smell of your own crap? And would you be upset if someone told you it stank?

Let it go mete Nasher is just dong his job as a moderator.

Have a feeling it will be Colin for Colin.

GO COL !

Hopefully Michael Newton.

When's the deadline?

If Colin does end up playing, I will be elated (just not at the expense of the other Colin, please).

Colin G is one of my favourites, and I really think that (in time) he can become our bonefide swing-man. Playing on talls or smalls in the backline, as required, then going forward and playing a KPF role when we are in need of a little extra up there.

That said, if he does play, and does absolutely nothing, let's not be too surprised or concerned. He's been out of the game for a very long time and will probably need a few weeks to come up to speed again. I just hope the 'only as good as your last game' brigade don't fire up too much if he has a couple of slow games to start with. He's definitely best 22 when fit and firing. It's going to be awesome to have him back. GO COL!!

This just posted on the AFL site

Final teams: Melb v Adel

Round three

MELBOURNE v ADELAIDE

Melbourne

B: Matthew Warnock, James Frawley, Clint Bartram

HB: James McDonald, Joel Macdonald, Lynden Dunn

C: Rohan Bail, Jackson Trengove, Aaron Davey

HF: Brad Green, Matthew Bate, Cameron Bruce

F: Tom Scully, Michael Newton, Ricky Petterd

Foll: Mark Jamar, Jack Grimes, Brent Moloney

I/C: Nathan Jones, Jordie McKenzie, Jamie Bennell, Colin Garland

Changes to the selected side

In: Colin Garland

Out: Colin Sylvia

Adelaide

B: Michael Doughty, Ben Rutten, Jared Petrenko

HB: Simon Goodwin, Nathan Bock, Richard Douglas

C: Tyson Edwards, David Mackay, Myke Cook

HF: Jason Porplyzia, Kurt Tippett, Chris Knights,

F: Andrew McLeod, Trent Hentschel, Brett Burton

Foll: Ivan Maric, Scott Thompson, Brent Reilly

I/C: Taylor Walker, Bernie Vince, Patrick Dangerfield, Chris Schmidt

Changes to the selected side

In: Chris Schmidt

Out: Scott Stevens

Edited April 11, 201015 yr by melbourneboy

Yay and damn at the same time. I guess my annoyance and happiness even themselves out.

This surprises me. I didn't think Garland would be fit. I also thought Sylvia would be ready.

If we had doubts over Sylvia, and I think we did because there was an article a couple of days ago saying we'd be giving Sylvia every chance, shouldn't we have left Cheney out of the Casey team? Losing Sylvia means we lose run, and Garland doesn't provide that. Although he probably could free Bruce up from defence.

Well there it is! Well done Garland although would have loved to see them both playing today...

If Garland gets injured today after coming straight in I won't be a happy camper.

Good to see Garland get a game but Sylvia is a massive loss he was needed badly last week and will be needed today