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".

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!!!)

I have no problem with questioning things or having thoughts/opinions of your own, it's when people declare things to be the case in such emphatic fashion when they have zero real knowledge of the situation that gets me. Our FD is quite consistent on not rushing players in when under injury clouds as we've seen in countless recent scenarios. To boldly declare that they have played someone who is "nowhere near ready for AFL footy at this stage of his recovery" is claiming knowledge you simply do not possess.

Yes, I am quick to jump on these baseless 'statements of fact' because I don't believe they meaningfully contribute to a conversation.

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 could.

I'm not sold on him as a forward, but it's not like we've got tonnes of KPFs keeping him out. Conversely, we've got a decent enough defence without him.

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.

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

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.

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

I have no problem with questioning things or having thoughts/opinions of your own, it's when people declare things to be the case in such emphatic fashion when they have zero real knowledge of the situation that gets me. Our FD is quite consistent on not rushing players in when under injury clouds as we've seen in countless recent scenarios. To boldly declare that they have played someone who is "nowhere near ready for AFL footy at this stage of his recovery" is claiming knowledge you simply do not possess.

Yes, I am quick to jump on these baseless 'statements of fact' because I don't believe they meaningfully contribute to a conversation.

Inner, only your selective quoting of my post backs up your call. I have highlighted what you quoted as my "emphatic" declaration. It is very clear in the rest of said post (and my subsequent posts) that I gave an opinion. I clearly state it as my opinion numerous times (including just after the excerpt you partially quoted for your own purposes in your post). I made no claim that it is fact. My only error was perhaps to put a couple too many exclamation marks.

Regardless mate, I just want to play nice on this site and I can't see how your original condescending post does anything other than boost your ego. I would think that a logical reply to my opinion would be to actually make a case that Col WAS ready for an AFL game based on the performance you saw at the game on the weekend.

Edited April 14, 201015 yr by pringle

Regardless mate, I just want to play nice on this site and I can't see how your original condescending post does anything other than boost your ego.

No need to reply to everyone who quotes you.

As an aside, it'd be a pretty boring forum if we couldn't post on things we know less about than the people who work at the Club full-time.

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.

Actually, I did

As I said in the "team changes" thread, he hasn't fully recovered his fitness or his form and would be better served rebuilding his game at Casey.

Actually, I did

As I said in the "team changes" thread, he hasn't fully recovered his fitness or his form and would be better served rebuilding his game at Casey.

One of the few Ralphy. It is interesting that most here are quite happy to have him gain touch in the seniors but are intolerant of a rusty Bate. But you better be careful posting such a crazy opinion on here. Inner might not find that sort of thinking acceptable from anyone other than Dean Bailey and his most senior fitness adviser.