There is plenty of chance for Tommy to play in the future, but right now we have a very good back six and there simply isn't room for him. No doubt he'll be in line for a call-up if someone is injured, or perhaps to be trained up as a versatile player as Bailey likes to do with his good talls. We might see him in the forward 50 before the back.

I'd quite like McNamara as a lead-up forward - a few passages of play versus North suggested to me that he could be handy providing a link from defence to attack.

It's just an opinion mate. I didn't think as much of Garland's game as some. I know it was him at nowhere near his ability, and it looked to me like he was short of a gallop.

He was. He's now had the gallop.

Bruce doesn't have to play defence if we don't need him there.

Indeed.

Might be a little difficult.

Aw, c'mon - I imagine the bigger difficulty is to go back in time and have Melbourne playing Richmond, but that's what a forum is for

He was. He's now had the gallop.

It's interesting to note that many posters called for Bate to be dropped to the VFL because he was short of a gallop, but Garland gets a reprieve this week... Not directing this at you Rogue, as I don't recall which of the multitude of Bate bashers in recent weeks have posted that opinion. Just pointing out that no-one seems to have called for Garland to be dropped based on what was unequivocally a VERY rusty first up effort. He looked well behind the pace of the game and will need quite some time to reach an acceptable AFL standard let alone the lofty standards he set in 2008.

So to relate this to the actual topic of this thread, there is no reason why T Mac or Rivers or Cheney could not come in to replace Garland, given he is nowhere near ready for AFL footy at this stage of his recovery (how many practice/Casey games has he actually played??? I think only one full game at Casey and one half game!!! In a whole 12 months!!! Not great preparation!!!) Not at all saying that I think these players are better than Col, just that their worth to the team may be more at this point in time. I understand the eagerness of the match committee to get him back in the side and hence his premature (in my opinion) selection on the weekend, but I think after Sunday's performance they may consider a re-think. Of course considering we're playing the Tigers, they may feel they can 'afford' to keep him in for another week... Which wouldn't bother me too much, as long as we win the game and he comes out better for the run. Though I would like to see players earn their spot a bit more. The runs aren't in the bank for Col anymore after a whole season ruined by injury. I think he should have been made to earn his stripes for a bit longer in the VFL prior to playing his first game.

It's interesting to note that many posters called for Bate to be dropped to the VFL because he was short of a gallop, but Garland gets a reprieve this week... Not directing this at you Rogue, as I don't recall which of the multitude...

No problems. For what it's worth, it wasn't me.

I think he should have been made to earn his stripes for a bit longer in the VFL prior to playing his first game.

Given that he was selected for the Adelaide game, I don't see why the selectors would then decide he needs to prove himself at Casey.

I think your point has merit, but if the selectors wanted to go down that road they could have picked someone like Cheney last week.

No problems. For what it's worth, it wasn't me.

Given that he was selected for the Adelaide game, I don't see why the selectors would then decide he needs to prove himself at Casey.

I think your point has merit, but if the selectors wanted to go down that road they could have picked someone like Cheney last week.

I actually think they had no choice. When they decided Sylvia wouldn't play, I'm pretty sure they would have only had the one option, as Cheney had already played the night before and Garland was left as the one emergency who hadn't played (I think Spencer was the other emergency and he also played the night before). Not sure if that's the case, but I guess if he was that one emergency left out of the casey game in case of Sylvia not playing, then he would have been the one selected (ahead of Cheney) and expected to be up to AFL standard already (not just filling in the numbers or selected as an emergency just to whet his appetite for coming weeks).

I actually think they had no choice. When they decided Sylvia wouldn't play, I'm pretty sure they would have only had the one option, as Cheney had already played the night before and Garland was left as the one emergency who hadn't played (I think Spencer was the other emergency and he also played the night before). Not sure if that's the case, but I guess if he was that one emergency left out of the casey game in case of Sylvia not playing, then he would have been the one selected (ahead of Cheney) and expected to be up to AFL standard already (not just filling in the numbers or selected as an emergency just to whet his appetite for coming weeks).

As others have said in other threads, that must have been deliberate; otherwise it makes no sense. If someone's 'short of a gallop' like Garland was, they wouldn't have selected him as an emergency and not played him in the Casey game unless they were absolutely sure he was going to play, because otherwise he could have ended up not playing at a game at all. That's obviously the opposite of what you want when a player needs a run.

The club must have known by Saturday that Sylvia was not going to play, and made the conscious decision that a 'short of a gallop' Garland was a better selection than Cheney, so they allowed Cheney to play for Casey and left Garland out.

It's just an opinion mate. I didn't think as much of Garland's game as some. I know it was him at nowhere near his ability, and it looked to me like he was short of a gallop. Rivers was in very good form before he got hurt, and has had a sparkling pre-season.

You wanna have a discussion about why "in our right minds" Rivers would come in? He's a sensational footballer curtailed by injury. He's not in the leadership group for nothing, and I think he's important to the side.

Yes we've done well in defence these last two weeks, and that certainly doesn't work in his favour, but I think he has the runs on the board. But that's just me.

Sylvia is the bigger one for mine. We're in desperate need of a marking forward who's hard at it, solid hands and can kick goals at long range. Given how our defence is rebounding, and how our midfield is holding its own under Jamar, Sylvia could make us a 4 goal better side.

Sorry Dan understand its your opinion and you have every right to it. I just disagree that Rivers is a sensational footballer and struggle to see how people think that. He is a great reader of the play. He is an excellent third man up. However he is very limited in his flexibility of who he can play on. He is very poor on a lead up player and not great on a stronger bodied opponent. He has sub par disposal and does not have the attacking flair to counter these deficiencies. I think he is best suited to a style of football that is no longer played.

I agree with you that Sylvia is the important one and cant wait to see him back in the red and blue.

"The runs aren't in the bank for Col anymore after a whole season ruined by injury. I think he should have been made to earn his stripes for a bit longer in the VFL prior to playing his first game"

Didn't copy whole reply, again we have wandered off topic but believe this needed answering, Col Garland only had a foot injury, he didn't have his talent and ability surgically removed, the Club would have been itching to get him in the side as soon as possible

Might be a little difficult.

not if grimes sits next to him at the G.... But i would prefer grimes on the field rather than in the stands

As others have said in other threads, that must have been deliberate; otherwise it makes no sense. If someone's 'short of a gallop' like Garland was, they wouldn't have selected him as an emergency and not played him in the Casey game unless they were absolutely sure he was going to play, because otherwise he could have ended up not playing at a game at all. That's obviously the opposite of what you want when a player needs a run.

The club must have known by Saturday that Sylvia was not going to play, and made the conscious decision that a 'short of a gallop' Garland was a better selection than Cheney, so they allowed Cheney to play for Casey and left Garland out.

Exactly - Schwab admitted as much on Sunday - Sylvia was right to go but they thought he just needed another week to build the confidence in his jaw, taking a few hits to the chin.

It wasn't a game-time decision, it was something that been predetermined.

Ducks & drakes.

Fwiw I thought Garland was pretty good. I didn't realize how much he'll help us, I was beginning to think there'd been a lot of hype (there has) but he really is a very good & important player for us going forward.

Something that never stood out for me in he past, but that he club really rates, is his decision-making coming out of defence.

Might release Grimes to the midfield eventually.

As others have said in other threads, that must have been deliberate; otherwise it makes no sense. If someone's 'short of a gallop' like Garland was, they wouldn't have selected him as an emergency and not played him in the Casey game unless they were absolutely sure he was going to play, because otherwise he could have ended up not playing at a game at all. That's obviously the opposite of what you want when a player needs a run.

The club must have known by Saturday that Sylvia was not going to play, and made the conscious decision that a 'short of a gallop' Garland was a better selection than Cheney, so they allowed Cheney to play for Casey and left Garland out.

Yeah that's what I was trying to say. Maybe I just worded it poorly.

Exactly - Schwab admitted as much on Sunday - Sylvia was right to go but they thought he just needed another week to build the confidence in his jaw, taking a few hits to the chin.

It wasn't a game-time decision, it was something that been predetermined.

Ducks & drakes.

Fwiw I thought Garland was pretty good. I didn't realize how much he'll help us, I was beginning to think there'd been a lot of hype (there has) but he really is a very good & important player for us going forward.

Something that never stood out for me in he past, but that he club really rates, is his decision-making coming out of defence.

Might release Grimes to the midfield eventually.

Understand your sentiments re Garland's importance going forward, but from my point of view, if his game was pretty good on the weekend, then Bruce and Bate had blinders.

I will agree that on a couple of occasions he did show that he can deliver the ball nicely and make decent decisions coming out of defence. But as a defender he was generally a touch off the pace in terms of positioning, contesting with his opponent and judgement in the air.

I still want him in the team long-term, but I feel that one more week at least at Casey would have been beneficial. Having said that, I am trusting that Bailey knows what he's doing and believes that the run in the AFL will be more beneficial than a VFL hit-out. I seem to be contradicting myself there, but all I'm trying to say is that the coach is the coach for a reason and has the right to select whoever he thinks will most benefit the club either immediately or over the coming weeks. He may actually be thinking 2 weeks ahead to the Brisbane game, for example, and reckoning that a fit and firing Garland against the forward prowess of Brown, Fev, Brennan et al. will be of greater worth than a Cheney or McNamara.

I'm also surprised Garland came straight in so soon, but now that he's in there he can't be sent back.

It wouldn't make sense.

And even a touch off the pace I think he did as well as any of our alternatives could have at the time, bearing in mind Rivers was not fit.

Oh come on. Am I really missing something that Rivers doesn't get a game before Joel MacD? MacDonald played on Cloke, Burton. Which of those couldn't Rivers have played on, and done it better?

"The runs aren't in the bank for Col anymore after a whole season ruined by injury. I think he should have been made to earn his stripes for a bit longer in the VFL prior to playing his first game"

Didn't copy whole reply, again we have wandered off topic but believe this needed answering, Col Garland only had a foot injury, he didn't have his talent and ability surgically removed, the Club would have been itching to get him in the side as soon as possible

Agree. The talent is still there. But a year out of the game is a year out of the game. And the kid is still only just that in football terms... a kid.

Let's say it was Jonathan Brown, for example, who had a year out of the game. HE can come back straight into the senior line-up. eE has banked plenty of runs over a long and distinguished career. He has a wealth of experience and the undoubted quality to contribute significantly and reliably from game 1 back.

Col Garland is about 21 years old, had 1 good breakout season and then sustained a long-term injury that has curtailed his development. Even just looking at his physical shape, he is yet to achieve the body of a fully mature AFL footballer. So when you say that he only had a foot injury and didn't have his talent surgically removed, you are quite correct. And the club would absolutely be itching to have him back in the team and playing the type of football he did in 2008. But unfortunately he is not yet a Jonathan Brown or a Nathan Buckley or a James Hird. He is Colin Garland... a very promising footballer who has yet to reach the level of A-grader that we hope he will become. Who is not a seasoned ten year veteran with the experience and smarts to waltz straight back into the toughest comp in the land with minimal prep. Therefore my opinion that bringing him back up to speed in the VFL for a week or 2 more would have been in our best interests. But hey, it's all opinion

Oh come on. Am I really missing something that Rivers doesn't get a game before Joel MacD? MacDonald played on Cloke, Burton. Which of those couldn't Rivers have played on, and done it better?

It's probably more to do with drive out of defence than being 'on' someone.

The idea that anyone here could claim to know better than those who spend every day with the players on what stage of fitness or game-readiness they are is pretty laughable.

It's probably more to do with drive out of defence than being 'on' someone.

Bingo, but that is why we've had Garland, Grimes and Bruce there.

Chippa has been pretty good fantastic in this area too.

The idea that anyone here could claim to know better than those who spend every day with the players on what stage of fitness or game-readiness they are is pretty laughable.

Bingo again.

The idea that anyone here could claim to know better than those who spend every day with the players on what stage of fitness or game-readiness they are is pretty laughable.

The assertion that anyone here claimed to know better than those who spend every day with the players is laughable.

We're all sitting here debating selection issues based on what we saw out on the field on the weekend and our own perceptions. You are very quick to jump on people's opinions Inner and ridicule them without any counter argument. Maybe just allow us to debate and throw around ideas and you in turn can post your own rebuttals.

We as supporters are allowed to have opinions about selection issues. Do you declare unequivocally that team selection is NEVER wrong or never to be criticized because we couldn't possibly know as much as the selectors do? I'm sure selectors often regret decisions with the benefit of hindsight. Is it not conceivable that those at the club felt Garland was ready, for example, and then maybe had a re-think after his performance in the game? Have you ever seen a player come back too early and re-injure himself? Did the club who risked the player 'know better' at that stage? All decisions such as these are based on educated guesses. The club may be more educated than us in their decision making process, but I don't see how that makes debating the issue here "laughable".

Rivers to Riewoldt. Frawley to Morton. Warnock to Post. Garland to Nason. Bartram to Tambling. Grimes to Cousins.

Doesn't seem that hard.

Garland and Nason I dont think so 192cm vs 179 cm doesnt seem a good fit. Maybe Cheney or Bartram

Just to change angle here - we are over weight in Backs and arguably in tall backs - Rivers, Warnock, Frawley, Garland,others - and underweight in tall forwards (short term) Miller, Martin, Newton (Watts, Morton)who from the backs can adapt to playing forward sometime?

not if grimes sits next to him at the G.... But i would prefer grimes on the field rather than in the stands

My point precisely.

Garland and Nason I dont think so 192cm vs 179 cm doesnt seem a good fit. Maybe Cheney or Bartram

Just to change angle here - we are over weight in Backs and arguably in tall backs - Rivers, Warnock, Frawley, Garland,others - and underweight in tall forwards (short term) Miller, Martin, Newton (Watts, Morton)who from the backs can adapt to playing forward sometime?

Garland is very adaptable and can play tall and small. He has played a number of roles on shorter opponents and done well.In 2008, he absolutely blanketed Jeff Farmer who could not get a sniff of leather as Garland had him for pace and judgement That's one aspect to the class of this kid that we have missed for sooo long.

Cheney is not fast enough. And Bartram has a huge tank to run with Tambling.

Steady on. We won last week and only lost by one point the week before. How many changes do you think there are going to be?

Sylvia in if fit? I would in a flash. For who?

Newton Dropped for Martin/Watts/Spencer? That too.

That is a fit top-22 player coming back, and a very disappointing tall replaced, probably by Martin or Spencer who can help Jamar in the ruck. Watts, Martin and Spencer all had good games for Casey on the weekend.

Thats two changes. How many more can we expect in a winning team?

If McNamara gets a game later, it will probably come as a replacement for Dunn or Bate. Hes 190cm, not 193.

Oh come on. Am I really missing something that Rivers doesn't get a game before Joel MacD? MacDonald played on Cloke, Burton. Which of those couldn't Rivers have played on, and done it better?

I think that is the decision that needs to be made. Although Joel Mc has been serviceable I think that I would probably choose Rivers.

Joel MacDonald is 188cm. I see him as a defender who can play on talls and smalls. I would liike to play both Rivers and JMacD. Maybe drop Bartram and put Joel on a small?