Hi gang,

I remember early on in his career, Colin Garland made quite a handy forward. I note with interest how Cheney is continuing to play really solid defensive footy at Casey (he reminds me of Matty Whelan a bit).

Given our lack of forward targets, how about Garland up forward and Cheney in to the defence. Whatdaya think?

Far too valuable in defence.

I don't understand why people want to screw with our defensive setup. It's our biggest strength. Yesterday it was the sole reason why our heart was still beating at quarter time, and Garland was a huge part of that. If we hypothetically had taken Garland out and replaced him with Cheney? Hmmm.

Inexplicable suggestion.

Agree Nasher.

Yep, agree.

Why mess up our strongest area?

With Jurrah coming back i don't think we need to experiment with Garlo up there.

Maybe we should try Cheney as a forward?

Makes just as much sense.

Inexplicable suggestion.

Agree Nasher.

I was waiting for the person who threw this one up today. Sorry to yell but NO NO NO!!!

We are the 4th to 5th best defensive unit in the league even though we still sit in 13th.....this is an awesome stat and is the most significant reason we have improved. It was always going to be as the kids will still take time.

Garland is a super super defender, people that called for him to have a spell...crazy. You don't run blokes like this around at Casey, he just needed senior game time after 12 mths out. No reason why he cant kick a few goals as he did yesterday by running off his man in defence anyway.

Garland + Frawley = Best two up and coming defenders in the game, in my very biased opinion!

Be patient and wait for Jurrah and Petterd to return, take a bit of pressure of Watts and Bate and the forward line will flourish. Last piece of the puzzle but the pieces are already there.

Edited June 15, 201015 yr by Demon Jack 16

i liked seeing fraw;ey garland and rivers all push forward and be link men in the forward half of the ground yesterday. thought it was great. frawley i thought could of hit the scoreboard had that one particular passage of play got moverd on quicker. garlad also slotted one. i think it must have been an instruction to do so and i think it worked. i believe we'll see more of it in the future. but our defence was excellent yesterday. in the last minutes to they stood up under enormous pressure. don't tinker with it. best defences are settled defences

Inexplicable suggestion.

Agree Nasher.

Rhino, the basic problem is that the better Demon players at Casey are all in the backline. Cheney is going great guns, Strauss is coming along nicely and MacDonald even kicked two goals from the half-back line on Saturday. Cheney's defensive work is first rate and I would promote him next week. To do this something has to give, as he is an out-and-out defender. For me, I would send Grimes to the midfield and replace him with Cheney. Failing that, did someone mention Bruce?

Colin Garland played his best game so far for Melbourne yesterday.

i have been a little worried about him this year, but yesterday he was cool in the crisis and ran really well.

Nice one Judy. That is the game we need from you to help get those cups home in coming years.

Rhino, the basic problem is that the better Demon players at Casey are all in the backline. Cheney is going great guns, Strauss is coming along nicely and MacDonald even kicked two goals from the half-back line on Saturday. Cheney's defensive work is first rate and I would promote him next week. To do this something has to give, as he is an out-and-out defender. For me, I would send Grimes to the midfield and replace him with Cheney. Failing that, did someone mention Bruce?

That is just proof of our depth in that area IMO undeeniable. MacDonald only plays to cover one of Chip, Garland or Rivers. Can't see him playing otherwise...doesn't mean he is not up to it, just not as good as the first choices. Rivers is most susceptible of that three IMO but is still valuable, just wish he was better one on one but I will keep pushing him up as a great free man! Cheney is a ripper and I would've thought would have replaced Bartram by now or at least had a look in but how can Bartram be dropped at the moment? He can't and I have knocked Barts plenty and still have my doubts, in any case this is the spot that Cheney is there to cover or make his own if he gets the chance.

Strauss is the other but I think he can get a spot in multiple spots, midfield or back...but with Junior Mac coming back he is going to have to wait for now.

Rhino, the basic problem is that the better Demon players at Casey are all in the backline. Cheney is going great guns, Strauss is coming along nicely and MacDonald even kicked two goals from the half-back line on Saturday. Cheney's defensive work is first rate and I would promote him next week. To do this something has to give, as he is an out-and-out defender. For me, I would send Grimes to the midfield and replace him with Cheney. Failing that, did someone mention Bruce?

A player playing well in the VFL should only be promoted with respect to team balance and the opposition you are playing. Team balance also includes injuries etc. Fortunately we dont have them so I dont see the problem. Its quite the reverse.

I dont see the point of rejigging the whole team to suit a single player who I struggle to see where their natural match up will be with an opposition side.

If Cheney does come in, who goes out? And then who does he play on? I dont see him as a superior or even equal proposition to the players we currently have in.

Lets remember we have Junior and Sylvia to come back into the AFL team so before you go clogging up the midfield you might want to work out who take out of their and drop from the team.

Cheney is a ripper and I would've thought would have replaced Bartram by now or at least had a look in but how can Bartram be dropped at the moment? He can't and I have knocked Barts plenty and still have my doubts, in any case this is the spot that Cheney is there to cover or make his own if he gets the chance.

Strauss is the other but I think he can get a spot in multiple spots, midfield or back...but with Junior Mac coming back he is going to have to wait for now.

the fact is bartram has had 5 goals kicked on him this season, and has owned the small defender role, taking several players to the cleaners, including leon davis yesterday. cheney in comparrison to bartram IMO is much slower and not as good with the ball, but he is better overhead.

he will play this season, it is just hard to slot him in at the moment, and i think he will struggle to break into the team throughout with our defence being amazingly good. he just provides the depth for if an injury is to occur, same with tommy mc and james strauss this season.

next season there will be an open spot in the backline because bruce is very likely to retire, and i think strauss will slot in ahead of cheney, hence getting a massive workout in defence at casey, and will play that reboundin, kickout defender role, option for the switch that bruce plays averagely.

garland up forward i was a big advocate of this earlier on when it looked like our forward line was in a dissarray, but i think the dunn, bate, jurrah and watts combination will work amazing, with miller standing in quite well too.

morton and garland yesterday were both instrumental off defense, with disposal efficiency over 75%, and moving them from there for cheney whose disposal is questionable, will probably just put more pressure on the melbourne defence and midfield throughout, not that i dont like cheney, i just think, why chop and change a defense that apart from a few matches, has played absolutely amazingly.

the fact is bartram has had 5 goals kicked on him this season, and has owned the small defender role, taking several players to the cleaners, including leon davis yesterday. cheney in comparrison to bartram IMO is much slower and not as good with the ball, but he is better overhead.

he will play this season, it is just hard to slot him in at the moment, and i think he will struggle to break into the team throughout with our defence being amazingly good. he just provides the depth for if an injury is to occur, same with tommy mc and james strauss this season.

next season there will be an open spot in the backline because bruce is very likely to retire, and i think strauss will slot in ahead of cheney, hence getting a massive workout in defence at casey, and will play that reboundin, kickout defender role, option for the switch that bruce plays averagely.

garland up forward i was a big advocate of this earlier on when it looked like our forward line was in a dissarray, but i think the dunn, bate, jurrah and watts combination will work amazing, with miller standing in quite well too.

morton and garland yesterday were both instrumental off defense, with disposal efficiency over 75%, and moving them from there for cheney whose disposal is questionable, will probably just put more pressure on the melbourne defence and midfield throughout, not that i dont like cheney, i just think, why chop and change a defense that apart from a few matches, has played absolutely amazingly.

Hard to argue with those stats for Bartram, MM.....his games against Davis and Brent Harvey are stand outs and I am probably missing some others.

Rhino, the basic problem is that the better Demon players at Casey are all in the backline. Cheney is going great guns, Strauss is coming along nicely and MacDonald even kicked two goals from the half-back line on Saturday. Cheney's defensive work is first rate and I would promote him next week. To do this something has to give, as he is an out-and-out defender. For me, I would send Grimes to the midfield and replace him with Cheney. Failing that, did someone mention Bruce?

No, nothing has to give at all. Cheney to remain at Casey until he becomes a better option than someone already in the side. It's unfortunate that Cheney has been playing consistently good football for Casey and can't get a gig, but the fact of the matter is that he plays in a position where our side is full.

Rewarding good form is nice and all, but the opportunity to promote has to be there. At the moment it isn't and I'm dead against manufacturing opportunities and potentially risk weakening the side. The fact that Cheney has still not got a game suggests the FD agree. For Cheney, that's just tough luck.

Hard to argue with those stats for Bartram, MM.....his games against Davis and Brent Harvey are stand outs and I am probably missing some others.

I was totally shocked when I heard that stat.

That really is amazing. Add Lindsay Thomas to that list too. He's been in goal kicking form.

No, nothing has to give at all. Cheney to remain at Casey until he becomes a better option than someone already in the side. It's unfortunate that Cheney has been playing consistently good football for Casey and can't get a gig, but the fact of the matter is that he plays in a position where our side is full.

Rewarding good form is nice and all, but the opportunity to promote has to be there. At the moment it isn't and I'm dead against manufacturing opportunities and potentially risk weakening the side. The fact that Cheney has still not got a game suggests the FD agree. For Cheney, that's just tough luck.

Grimes was recruited as a midfielder. He is doing a great job at half-back, but he would do a great job anywhere; he would be a better ruck option than Sylvia. It is Grimes who is being played out of position, and we have a ready replacement for him. I am one of the people that have a soft spot for Cam Bruce but (I can't quite believe I am saying this), the clock is ticking.

Grimes was recruited as a midfielder. He is doing a great job at half-back, but he would do a great job anywhere; he would be a better ruck option than Sylvia. It is Grimes who is being played out of position, and we have a ready replacement for him. I am one of the people that have a soft spot for Cam Bruce but (I can't quite believe I am saying this), the clock is ticking.

In the modern game of football, it is pure folly to pidgeon hole a footballer into a spot because he was recruited there. Its such a nothing validation when there are sooo many examples of footballers developing their AFL careers in roles different to the roles they had played in junior football. FWIW, the line difference between midfield and half back is so small its does not help. And from his performances to date Grimes is anything but being played out of position. At times Grimes work in defence is of the highest standard so I cant see the need to rejig it.

And if you push Grimes into the midfield than who comes out given who has to come in again? Too often people use the midfield as a "dumping ground" for a player in order to squeeze another player in.

And atm, love him or hate him, Bruce is fulfilling his role and says. Lets try and put the team's interest first.

I see no real problem with at least giving it a try for a few games. We have a surplus of good backmen atm and a lack of forwards, if Garland doesn't work up forward after a few games then cant we just send him back? Better to give it a try now and see if it works rather than doing it when we are actually in finals contention.

You should think of Neitz when making this comment. Neitz was AA CHB and certainly upset team balance when moved forward. He went on to become the highest goal kicker we've had. We are in a similar situation now.

Neitz was a highly capable athlete that had claims up forward as a junior. He was played a CHB because we had someone called *cough* David Schwarz (pre knee) at CHF. Should we have moved Schwarz?? I dont think so. The situation is different here.

So we take a strength in the backline and move it forward with unknown outcomes and then we bring in a player that cant command the defence position in his own right. And you call that team balance?? Sheesh

And if you push Grimes into the midfield than who comes out given who has to come in again?

For mine, I would move Green to a permanent forward role, Grimes to the midfield rotation and Cheney to the back flank.

Neitz was a highly capable athlete that had claims up forward as a junior. He was played a CHB because we had someone called *cough* David Schwarz (pre knee) at CHF. Should we have moved Schwarz?? I dont think so. The situation is different here.

So we take a strength in the backline and move it forward with unknown outcomes and then we bring in a player that cant command the defence position in his own right. And you call that team balance?? Sheesh

Rhino I must have had something slipped in my coffee at the game yesterday, I've agreed all day with you!!

4th-5th best defence in the league from a team sitting in 13th..this stat is pure gold! No way should there be shuffling of anyone out of that group. Neitz was a super, super CHB but could also play elsewhere without an issue due to his athleticism, I actually played against him as a junior or should put it watched him as a junior as he kicked 8 on me from the centre!!!

Still got forward line players to return to this side that include, Sylvia, Jurrah and Petterd, a kid by the name of Tapscott who will be a beauty, Wonna when he is fit enough to return, Bennell to show a bit more consitency, Watts to develop more and more!!

Leave Garland where is and continue to develop into a star that he will become, leave Cheney where he is until a viable spot opens for him to be a replacement....which is pretty much IMO only Bartrams spot which Clint has made his own so far.

The only way Cheney might get in is for Grimes to eventually move up the ground. Grimes' opponent yesterday was Dick. Not saying Grimes isn't any good in defence, but I think there's a net benefit to be gained by moving Grimes into the midfield and replacing him with Cheney.

Why anyone would suggest moving Garland after his performance yesterday is beyond me.

Neitz was a highly capable athlete that had claims up forward as a junior. He was played a CHB because we had someone called *cough* David Schwarz (pre knee) at CHF. Should we have moved Schwarz?? I dont think so. The situation is different here.

So we take a strength in the backline and move it forward with unknown outcomes and then we bring in a player that cant command the defence position in his own right. And you call that team balance?? Sheesh

Yep.

Schwarz was the established player, so to push into the side the new player in Neitz had to adapt to and excel in a different role.

To push Grimes out of his established position, to give another kid a game cos he can't push his way into the side any other way, would be the opposite and counter-productive.

Rhino Garland is also a highly capable athlete.

Garland also has claims forward as a junior. In these respects he's not dissimilar to Neitz.

What on earth has moving Schwarz got to do with it - I'm not trying to move a KPF back, I'm trying to find out Garland's value as a forward.

Neitz was a fwd at MFC in when the seconds were still in the AFL. We had Jako at FF and Schwartz at CHF. Neitz was player who could not break into that Fwd line consistently. He went into the backline and as a good footballer.

Based on your assessment, we should have moved the Ox to CHB. Thats silly.

And yes, we do take a strength in the backline and move it forward firstly because we have many players who can play back but we don't have many who can play forward. Garland has the physical attributes to play forward.

And yes, distributing assets in abundance (backs) and filling shortcomings (forwards) IS team balance.

So why would you weaken a strength? Why wouldn't you take the lesser players and see if they can offer you more in another role? Therefore you get more value add for the team.

In time Strauss will become a back. If you'd seen him on Saturday you'd have seen he is progressing nicely. Macdonald is a capable back - not as good as Garland but not poor. And we don't know about Cheney and McNamara because they haven't had a go.

Why you seem afraid, in a development year, to try a player forward and use the space generated to develop a young player is strange for someone who is capable of strategic thinking.

Not at all.I have explained my position on that. I am just not narrowing to a situation which has a questionable net benefit to the side. If were strategically thinking you would realise it too.

So why would you weaken a strength? Why wouldn't you take the lesser players and see if they can offer you more in another role? Therefore you get more value add for the team.

In time Strauss will become a back. If you'd seen him on Saturday you'd have seen he is progressing nicely. Macdonald is a capable back - not as good as Garland but not poor. And we don't know about Cheney and McNamara because they haven't had a go.

You are contradicting yourself old timer.

He has already said we have enough depth in our backline to cover for Garland if he went forward and you yourself have also pointed out that we have his spot covered by naming all those defenders above. ^

There would be nothing wrong with trying out Garland in the forward line and bringing someone like Cheney into the side. You are killing two birds with one stone having them both in the side.

Garland - Adds a new string to his bow by playing forward. (Even though this was his position before being drafted)

Cheney/whoever else - Will gain valuable game experience at AFL level rather than VFL.

Garland is by no means our most important defender. He is versatile as most people know and moving him forward could be one of the greatest thing's MFC have done.

why change it?

their trying to get watts use to it.

so i think trying something new now would screw things up that little bit more.

when our defence is playing well melbourne play well.

great example, yestoday our 1st qtr was shocking our defence was poor then our backline lifted and our game picked up a bit

leave it as it is

Edited June 15, 201015 yr by armstrong35