I have seen this subject raise by a number of contributors, I would like to see it tried however our coach obviously does not think it is an option.

Last week we could not score to save ourselves, at three quarter time I thought surely now was the time for something different.

But basically no change to the forward line, obviously the brains trust does not think much of the idea of garlend into the forward line.

However this perhaps says more about our coach than the player. I not suggesting changing the coach, I hope I am wrong but it seems that when the plan does not work there does not seem to be a plan B.

What do you all think or am I the only one in the band in step!!!

Im with you. I didn't think of it at the time, but the last quarter was the perfect time to try Garland as a forward. He was getting smashed by Le Cras and our forwardline was completely dysfunctional. If DB thought of it and decided not to send him up forward, you have to wonder if he ever will.

I hope I am wrong but it seems that when the plan does not work there does not seem to be a plan B.

I've been thinking about this a lot since last week. Bailey made no noticeable changes to get us working last week. I was really upset that Bailey would go out at the quarter and half time breaks and give the boys a spray, and then just sit there in the box and do nothing to change the fact that we were getting beaten.

However. It is a development year. Anyone thinking finals or anything else is fooling themselves. Bailey is trying to get the number 1 game plan working.

Once we get that right I reckon we will start seeing plan B if needed.

I really hope we see Garland go forward soon. Wasn't Grimes suppose to be spending a lot more time in the middle this year as well?

Bailey made lots of changes like this towards the end of last season! EVEN trying blokes like Frawley and Warnock down forward! haha maybe for other reasons though....

...so we can find a spot for Rivers??

Garland is a capable defender who can play on smalls and talls, has good pace and drive and is part of an effective defence.

Given we are grooming Watts and we will have Jurrah back soon why would we weaken a strong area for us?

...so we can find a spot for Rivers??

Garland is a capable defender who can play on smalls and talls, has good pace and drive and is part of an effective defence.

Given we are grooming Watts and we will have Jurrah back soon why would we weaken a strong area for us?

He was drafted as a forward and we have obvious deficiencies there, why not give it a try when he is having a poor game in defence? We have four very capable tall defenders (the recent hate for rivers is ridiculous, he isn't what he was, but he would still get a game in pretty much every defence in teh league), and can spare garland for a one quarter experiment, without tangibly 'weakening' a strong area.

Defensivley i wouldnt change anything and the stats support that

Its not the time to start filling holes

They did it with Flower and Neitz and IMO thats not the way to build a successful football team

I have heard DB on several occasions say GArland will play up fwd this year. Not sure what he's waiting for though....

He was drafted as a forward

So was Mick Martyn

I have heard DB on several occasions say GArland will play up fwd this year. Not sure what he's waiting for though....

Damn it. I keep missing this. Where have you heard it? I remember reading that Garland himself said he's been told he's a defender, and that's that.

He was drafted as a forward and we have obvious deficiencies there, why not give it a try when he is having a poor game in defence?

Paul Johnson was also drafted as a forward. Ricky Petterd was drafted as a defender. Where the kids played as juniors is largely irrelevant once they make another position their own.

Garland is a defender -- and a very good one -- and I think we're just going to have to get used to that.

I also don't think he was that bad on Le Cras despite it looking poor on paper. Every time Le Cras lead, Garland was right on his tail. Le Cras is very fast, leads very well and received some good delivery. Maybe I've got rose coloured glasses, but I didn't think there was a great deal more he - or anyone - could do on the day.

I remember reading that Garland himself said he's been told he's a defender, and that's that.

Likewise. In fact, I got that from the horse's mouth some weeks ago.

Paul Johnson was also drafted as a forward. Ricky Petterd was drafted as a defender. Where the kids played as juniors is largely irrelevant once they make another position their own.

Garland is a defender -- and a very good one -- and I think we're just going to have to get used to that.

I also don't think he was that bad on Le Cras despite it looking poor on paper. Every time Le Cras lead, Garland was right on his tail. Le Cras is very fast, leads very well and received some good delivery. Maybe I've got rose coloured glasses, but I didn't think there was a great deal more he - or anyone - could do on the day.

Agree.

but the last quarter was the perfect time to try Garland as a forward. He was getting smashed by Le Cras and our forwardline was completely dysfunctional. If DB thought of it and decided not to send him up forward, you have to wonder if he ever will.

Wrong. The issue was not forward but midfield. We could not get it forward across the WCE zone. You might also wonder if Bailey has a bigger picture than your currently seeing.

I dont believe that we need to be looking at attempting to make players forwards, especially Col Garland who is such a good defender and will only get better. Last year cost him a bit as far as development and continuity with a developing backline and by years end with an injury free year we will see Col blossom further as his confidence rises. His athleticism will shine as he runs off opponents, this will increase further the more our midfield dictates play......same as we have seen from Chip.

IMO Bailey has done an excellent job in developing a great backline, this is where all the great teams begin and the stats will tell us that we are currently the 3rd best defence in the league as far as points against....this is fantastic and will only get better as our midfield grows and dominates....the ball ends up in our defence quite a bit but to still hold such a strong record for points against is one of the dees best signs for the future not counting all our great picks.

IMO the same now has to start with our forward line - we have continually lost players in this area, Petterd, Sylvia, Bate, Wonna, Jurrah have all missed games, some for longer periods than others.

Adding youngsters such as Jack Watts and a Luke Tapscott (I like what I hear about this guy)to a forward line that includes Jurrah, Wonna, Bate, Petterd, Sylvia and giving them some time together is what the forward line needs. (4 out of that 7 are currently sidelined!) That is without adding names such as Bennell or Jetta!

The 7 I mentioned IMO all have different attributes and X factors that a good side needs and will hopefully see a nice spread of goalkickers into the future.

All the talk in other forums of trading for a Taylor Walker, Westhoff, Stanley, Dawes IMO is misguided.

We have the cattle and plenty of potential in the guys above and I am very confident that they will prove to be ALL fantastic players and part of a very potent front line!!

Edited May 20, 201015 yr by Demon Jack 16

Coaches have often thrown defenders forward at key times when things aren't quite working. Sometimes it's a masterstroke sometimes it makes little difference but not giving it a chance is a bit 'head in the sand' for mine.

North Melbourne in the 90's and early 00's would often send Glenn Archer forward in desperate times and he won more than a couple of games for the Roo's.

Sheedy would do it with nearly anyone.

Matthews would use Justin Leppitsch.

Sydney would even use Paul Roos on occassion.

I remember the Demons using Marcus Seecamp as a pinch hit forward more than once, with some effect.

More recently we've seen Brendon Goddard deployed forward when required and lets not forget Brian Lake tearing the heart out of the Demons with 5 minutes of damaging, albeit lucky, play at the end of the game only a couple of weeks ago.

Garland gets swithched forward for a qtr against the WCE in a game we are likely to lose any way and he fails to impact the scoreboard, no big deal.

He goes forward and jags a couple however, and not only might we steal a win but his confidence is on a high, we have an extra string to our bow and opposition coaches have to plan for another variable out of their control.

It was a perfect opportunity to experiment and see what the kid can offer and DB missed the boat. In fairness he hasn't missed to many boats recently, but i hope he doesn't miss the next one.

Coaches have often thrown defenders forward at key times when things aren't quite working. Sometimes it's a masterstroke sometimes it makes little difference but not giving it a chance is a bit 'head in the sand' for mine.

North Melbourne in the 90's and early 00's would often send Glenn Archer forward in desperate times and he won more than a couple of games for the Roo's.

Sheedy would do it with nearly anyone.

Matthews would use Justin Leppitsch.

Sydney would even use Paul Roos on occassion.

I remember the Demons using Marcus Seecamp as a pinch hit forward more than once, with some effect.

More recently we've seen Brendon Goddard deployed forward when required and lets not forget Brian Lake tearing the heart out of the Demons with 5 minutes of damaging, albeit lucky, play at the end of the game only a couple of weeks ago.

Garland gets swithched forward for a qtr against the WCE in a game we are likely to lose any way and he fails to impact the scoreboard, no big deal.

He goes forward and jags a couple however, and not only might we steal a win but his confidence is on a high, we have an extra string to our bow and opposition coaches have to plan for another variable out of their control.

It was a perfect opportunity to experiment and see what the kid can offer and DB missed the boat. In fairness he hasn't missed to many boats recently, but i hope he doesn't miss the next one.

Deeceiving - I wouldn't argue with your point as far as pinch hitting is concerned.....but IMO this is not required at this stage. We are still developing players currently and I stick by my point that we need to develop continuity in a group of forwards that will take us into the future.

Sure, should we find ourselves in games and need a spark on a given day I have no problem and would expect our coaching staff think outside the square to try to get a result, but for the overall I would not be worrying about sending players all over the field.

In 2 years time when hopefully all pieces of this great looking puzzle come together and we are 'expecting' to win everytime we play...yep, got no problem with sending guys to other positions for that 'spark'

PS - Seecamp did some nice work for us but cant say I can remember anything of significance he did up forward?!

Given we are grooming Watts and we will have Jurrah back soon why would we weaken a strong area for us?

Why look at it as weakening "a strong area" instead of trying to win a game of football?

At three quarter time last week we didn't have the luxury of a Jurrah and Watts hasn't developed yet. He was playing only his 4th game. We went on to score a lousy two points in the last quarter.

Would it have hurt to try someone up forward in the final quarter of a game that was slipping away from us - especially when the player was getting creamed? After all, the good coaches are the ones who show flexibility that can win e did nothing to change the flow of the game and we inevitably lost it.

Really, you get some absurd ideas thrown around here from time to time.

Why look at it as weakening "a strong area" instead of trying to win a game of football?

At three quarter time last week we didn't have the luxury of a Jurrah and Watts hasn't developed yet. He was playing only his 4th game. We went on to score a lousy two points in the last quarter.

Would it have hurt to try someone up forward in the final quarter of a game that was slipping away from us - especially when the player was getting creamed? After all, the good coaches are the ones who show flexibility that can win e did nothing to change the flow of the game and we inevitably lost it.

Really, you get some absurd ideas thrown around here from time to time.

At the end of the day, last week was a shocker and Garland, Frawley and Warnock could've been sent down there, it wouldn't have made a difference as I cant remember the ball getting to our forwards at all during the last qtr. West Toast weren't even that good.....we just couldn't get going through the middle and didnt get a spark that we needed.

I dont believe that we need to be looking at attempting to make players forwards, especially Col Garland who is such a good defender and will only get better. Last year cost him a bit as far as development and continuity with a developing backline and by years end with an injury free year we will see Col blossom further as his confidence rises. His athleticism will shine as he runs off opponents, this will increase further the more our midfield dictates play......same as we have seen from Chip.

IMO Bailey has done an excellent job in developing a great backline, this is where all the great teams begin and the stats will tell us that we are currently the 3rd best defence in the league as far as points against....this is fantastic and will only get better as our midfield grows and dominates....the ball ends up in our defence quite a bit but to still hold such a strong record for points against is one of the dees best signs for the future not counting all our great picks.

IMO the same now has to start with our forward line - we have continually lost players in this area, Petterd, Sylvia, Bate, Wonna, Jurrah have all missed games, some for longer periods than others.

Adding youngsters such as Jack Watts and a Luke Tapscott (I like what I hear about this guy)to a forward line that includes Jurrah, Wonna, Bate, Petterd, Sylvia and giving them some time together is what the forward line needs. (4 out of that 7 are currently sidelined!) That is without adding names such as Bennell or Jetta!

The 7 I mentioned IMO all have different attributes and X factors that a good side needs and will hopefully see a nice spread of goalkickers into the future.

All the talk in other forums of trading for a Taylor Walker, Westhoff, Stanley, Dawes IMO is misguided.

We have the cattle and plenty of potential in the guys above and I am very confident that they will prove to be ALL fantastic players and part of a very potent front line!!

I agree we are developing a significant amount of forward depth - with Tapscott and Fitzpatrick in view for playing time it looks to be getting better over the next year. I think there is this perception that playing forward is just something that you can have a go at and see if it works. Its a different skill than playing defense it has to be learned. A few quesitons - is he a really good set shot kick cause if he aint why go to all the trouble of getting him the ball if he cant kick straight? If you really thought that Garland was a forward in the making then I would recommend that he be played there for Casey for some weeks to develop his skills and confidence. At the moment I see him as a more certain part of the defence than Rivers. I think we are one too many tall backs which results in mismatches like Garland vs Le Cras (for a while Frawley was following hime around) and there is more development potential in Garland in defence than Rivers. But with injuries and form dips we have adequate depth in defence.

Why look at it as weakening "a strong area" instead of trying to win a game of football?

The problem we had was in the midfield nad the lack of run. Address the cause not the consequence. Its very easy for supportrs outside the main action to pick wizard moves based on the little they see.

Really, you get some absurd ideas thrown around here from time to time.

Indeed.

I'm with those who think some of our backs should be tried forward. Following the game Frawley and Lyon discussed it on the Radio and concluded Bailey had been out coached. Frawley mentioned young chips earlier experience as a forward. Garland started as a very young forward in Tassie senior football and kicked something like 7 in his first game ( if my memory is correct and I'm not mixing him up with Tony Locket ), Rivers came as a back/forward. How much is it Bailey and how much is it Mahony

The problem we had was in the midfield nad the lack of run. Address the cause not the consequence.

There wasn't just one problem that could be identified as "the problem we had". We were comprehensively beaten in many parts of the field apart from the midfield ... and yes, we lacked run. But the forward line was also cactus on the day and it's not unreasonable to suggest some fine tuning and positional changes as a possible way of addressing the problem might have done the trick.

Its very easy for supportrs outside the main action to pick wizard moves based on the little they see.

Indeed, and the same goes for some of the analyses I've read above.

There wasn't just one problem that could be identified as "the problem we had". We were comprehensively beaten in many parts of the field apart from the midfield ... and yes, we lacked run. But the forward line was also cactus on the day and it's not unreasonable to suggest some fine tuning and positional changes as a possible way of addressing the problem might have done the trick.

Ugh. If you dont win the midfield you dont win the game. Our lack of run was through the midfield and from the backline. The forward line suffered as a result. You could put Peter Hudson up forward and that would be useless as we really attacked inside 50 with any purpose.

Indeed, and the same goes for some of the analyses I've read above.

In respect of your summation, I agree.

Ugh. If you dont win the midfield you dont win the game. Our lack of run was through the midfield and from the backline. The forward line suffered as a result. You could put Peter Hudson up forward and that would be useless as we really attacked inside 50 with any purpose.

Perhaps if you took the time to read what's being written instead of parroting on about the midfield being important you might get the point I'm making.

I never said the midfield wasn't important. We all know that it is but we got the ball forward enough times to kick a winning score but failed to mark the ball or apply pressure in our own forward line to keep the ball in. For the record, I was discussing the coach's ability to swing positional changes that can affect the outcome of a game.

For the record, I was discussing the coach's ability to swing positional changes that can affect the outcome of a game.

Whilst positional changes can or have affected outcomes of games. Rarely does it happen when players have poor efficiency for long periods of the game in their disposal and are being punished for creating turnovers for the opposition to take advantage and score.

We all know that it is but we got the ball forward enough times to kick a winning score but failed to mark the ball or apply pressure in our own forward line to keep the ball in.

Sorry you're wrong again. We had insufficient entries into F50 and what went in was poorly delivered.

Dress it up how you like though