Garland Forward- Cheney in

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

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

Not really.

We were very lucky throughout the match. Collingwood kicked 22 points.

Our midfield stepped up after the first quarter. They put pressure on Collingwood's ball users and in turn

Collingwood found it hard kicking to a target. They tended to bomb the ball to contested situations and lucky for

us we had a third man go up most times.

[armstrong35 262]

Not really.

We were very lucky throughout the match. Collingwood kicked 22 points.

Our midfield stepped up after the first quarter. They put pressure on Collingwood's ball users and in turn

Collingwood found it hard kicking to a target. They tended to bomb the ball to contested situations and lucky for

us we had a third man go up most times.

i didnt think melbourne did well in the midfield until later in the game. They just couldnt get it out.

i felt like the first qtr melbournes defence didnt give collingwood alot of pressure they just didnt kick well but slowly picked up after that and then they kicked behinds from pressure

[dee-luded 2,959]

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?

I think thats the reason why He Hasn't come in, Yet. That, IF we send some experienced player into the Middle,,, At this Point,,, then we'll have to drop one of our young Mids. This is what I think is the Holdup ATMO. As the KEY young MIDS, mature into their roles,, & the Midfield 'Team',,, I reckon then that more youth rotations will occur. So with all of Scully & Trenners, & McKenzie, Gysberts, plus still juvenile Morton & Bennell, Jetta, there's only so many raw boned kids we can maintain in the side at once.

[Great Sage 126]

I'm with Peanuts on this one. I do not see what we have to lose by trying this option. If Garland goes forward and pays well, we would definitely be a better team. If he doesn't do well then we can shift him back.

It also gives us the opportunity to see if Cheney/Strauss/McNamara can cut it at AFL level at the expense of (probably Miller) who we already know is not a long term option. We need to make important list decisions at the end of the year on some of these players, t makes sense to test them in the heat of battle. It also makes sense to do this in a season where we are unlikely to make finals (which hopefully will be the last year that people say that about us with any confidence).

FWIW I like Cheney and see him as a Peter Walsh type player who could be a solid and consistent contributor.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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.

Firstly we have depth but we dont have the quality. If the Footy dept thought Cheney a better option up back than Garland they would have played him. Hmmm!!

Of course this is all about how we get Cheney into the side at the expense of common sense! How silly of me not to realise it!! Moving Cheney forward might also be the greatest thing MFC has done. Not that you and I would ever get caught uttering hyperbole.

Thank god the footy department shows a little more nous.

[Nasher 33,617]

Rhino you're losing the plot. I know you didn't answer me directly but is this not a development year where we discover things about our list?

"Development" does not imply "experimenting". The time for experimentation was last year when our aim was to lose. Development means playing the players in the positions they're going to play in, for long enough stretches of time that they're going to get practice, so that when we are pushing for a flag they're loaded with experience.

Playing Garland as a forward is not developing him (or anyone) in my eyes. It's just pissfarting about to fit Cheney in to the side, and probably to the detriment of the development of the superior player. I don't get why you'd want to do that just to accommodate a lesser player.

[Guest DeesPower]

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.

And Warnock is developing into one of the most skilled and quick full backs in the game. Very strong set up we have there

[Little Goffy 14,639]

Our 'real' forward line is currently off the field or still on training wheels.

This is a temporary situation.

Moving Garland around from a position he is demonstrably solid in to a position he didn't look comfortable in in his handful of games there at AFL level is a long term decision.

Never make long term decisions for short term problems.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

"Development" does not imply "experimenting". The time for experimentation was last year when our aim was to lose. Development means playing the players in the positions they're going to play in, for long enough stretches of time that they're going to get practice, so that when we are pushing for a flag they're loaded with experience.

Playing Garland as a forward is not developing him (or anyone) in my eyes. It's just pissfarting about to fit Cheney in to the side, and probably to the detriment of the development of the superior player. I don't get why you'd want to do that just to accommodate a lesser player.

Well said Nasher.

Too hard for some.

The very case to move Garland forward could easily be made for Cheney if that switch is necessary.

Our 'real' forward line is currently off the field or still on training wheels.

This is a temporary situation.

Moving Garland around from a position he is demonstrably solid in to a position he didn't look comfortable in in his handful of games there at AFL level is a long term decision.

Never make long term decisions for short term problems.

Sage wisdom there Goffy.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,233]

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.

Correct

[Harrisonrules 273]

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.

Because we have an abundance of backs who cann't all get games. eg. MacDonald

[Harrisonrules 273]

Statistics lie. Keeping your own back quiet is one part of the job, but players work as a team and one players mistakes can lead to others scoring, eg the doggies game. Bartrams fumble cause Lake to goal.

We have 2 athletic players Bartram and Miller who have good speed but both have pedestrian minds, and modest skills in Bartrams case and poor in Millers case.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Because we have an abundance of backs who cann't all get games. eg. MacDonald

Why wouldnt you try those that cant get games in defence, up forward? They may possibly provide more value to MFC there to plug a short term gap up forward then wallowing in the VFL. And use also maintain your strength in defence. Who would have thunk it?

[Red Sox 2]

Wow...I can't believe the number of people wanting a move forward for Garland!!

How about we just swing the whole team around and against the crows go with a forward line of Rivers, Warnock, Grimes, Garland, Frawley and Bartram and have a defense of Bate, Miller, Jetta, Green, Watts and Dunn?????

I know it sounds pretty far fetched....but IMO no less than wanting to get Garland forward.

I almost wish the big Russian had of gone back and slotted that goal himself rather than dishing to Col because as soon as it went through the obvious calls were coming...'move him forward'!!

People we have the following players - Sylvia, Jurrah, Petterd, Wonna, Tapscott, Bennell, Maric, Stef Martin, Jack Fitpatrick down the line - all these boys are the forward lines future and if you ask me a fantastic future for the forward line added to Bate, Watts, Dunn and Green.

Surely the 13 players mentioned here is sufficient enough without wanting to alter what is becoming THE BEST backline in the league!!

I would much rather hope to see Jurrah and Tapscott return later in the year at some stage along with a fit Wonna added to possibly Watts, Sylvia and Bate with Green being the option to float forward from the midfield etc.

[Nasher 33,617]

Because we have an abundance of backs who cann't all get games. eg. MacDonald

So?

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

"Development" does not imply "experimenting". The time for experimentation was last year when our aim was to lose. Development means playing the players in the positions they're going to play in, for long enough stretches of time that they're going to get practice, so that when we are pushing for a flag they're loaded with experience.

Development can imply "experimenting". Good god. That is a ridiculous thing to say. Cale Morton is a perfect example. We play him and have played him in a variety of positions since drafting him.

I would call that experimentation and it certainly hasn't hindered his development. Some players have natural positions and play them very well. Others can be used in a variety of positions.

Awful post.

Playing Garland as a forward is not developing him (or anyone) in my eyes. It's just pissfarting about to fit Cheney in to the side, and probably to the detriment of the development of the superior player. I don't get why you'd want to do that just to accommodate a lesser player.

It's so frustrating to see people so narrow-minded. The truth is, there would be nothing wrong with seeing how it goes for a game. Even half a game. It would hinder nobody's development. Rhino said the exact same thing about Frawley before he could crack a game. Bringing Frawley in was losing a strength and adding a weakness. Didn't want the defense "unsettled" or "meddled" with. But look what has happened. On top of that, Garland takes the third or fourth best forward? We can easily cover for him. Sweet Jesus.

Well said Nasher.

Too hard for some.

The very case to move Garland forward could easily be made for Cheney if that switch is necessary.

Too hard for some?

To think outside of a tiny square box?

Garland has played forward and would be much more comfortable playing there. Not only has Garland played forward before, but he is much more athletic and versatile as a player. Cheney is fairly one dimensional.

Once again. The development of nobody would be hindered if we threw Garland forward for a game or two. If it didn't work, then fine, back he goes. However I see a lot of upside to the move, having a player that could potentially move forward and back depending on who we play. A coaches nightmare to match up on.

Would be a perfect time to try this year as we don't even know what our forward line set up will be like.

Wow...I can't believe the number of people wanting a move forward for Garland!!

How about we just swing the whole team around and against the crows go with a forward line of Rivers, Warnock, Grimes, Garland, Frawley and Bartram and have a defense of Bate, Miller, Jetta, Green, Watts and Dunn?????

I know it sounds pretty far fetched....but IMO no less than wanting to get Garland forward.

I almost wish the big Russian had of gone back and slotted that goal himself rather than dishing to Col because as soon as it went through the obvious calls were coming...'move him forward'!!

People we have the following players - Sylvia, Jurrah, Petterd, Wonna, Tapscott, Bennell, Maric, Stef Martin, Jack Fitpatrick down the line - all these boys are the forward lines future and if you ask me a fantastic future for the forward line added to Bate, Watts, Dunn and Green.

Surely the 13 players mentioned here is sufficient enough without wanting to alter what is becoming THE BEST backline in the league!!

I would much rather hope to see Jurrah and Tapscott return later in the year at some stage along with a fit Wonna added to possibly Watts, Sylvia and Bate with Green being the option to float forward from the midfield etc.

Yes you are correct. Switching the whole defence to the forward line, and the whole forward line to the defence is just as far fetched as trying out Garland as a forward for a game or so......

Ahhhh man.

Edited June 16, 2010 by stevethemanjordan

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It's so frustrating to see people so narrow-minded. The truth is, there would be nothing wrong with seeing how it goes for a game. Even half a game. It would hinder nobody's development. Rhino said the exact same thing about Frawley before he could crack a game. Bringing Frawley in was losing a strength and adding a weakness. Didn't want the defense "unsettled" or "meddled" with. But look what has happened. On top of that, Garland takes the third or fourth best forward? We can easily cover for him. Sweet Jesus.

I have said nothing of the sort about Frawley. So try again.

The fact is you dont know. What we do know is that Garland is a very good player in defence. And you are wrong about the forward he takes. Garland has some significant scalps who have been prime movers.

Now why cant we play Cheney forward if the MFC Footy Dept deem him not good enough to unseat the incumbents??? Hmmm. Its because he is one dimensional and as a defender unless he can show more than incumbents in the role then why should he be picked?

Too hard for some?

To think outside of a tiny square box?

In your case, yes.

[Red Sox 2]

Development can imply "experimenting". Good god. That is a ridiculous thing to say. Cale Morton is a perfect example. We play him and have played him in a variety of positions since drafting him.

I would call that experimentation and it certainly hasn't hindered his development. Some players have natural positions and play them very well. Others can be used in a variety of positions.

Awful post.

It's so frustrating to see people so narrow-minded. The truth is, there would be nothing wrong with seeing how it goes for a game. Even half a game. It would hinder nobody's development. Rhino said the exact same thing about Frawley before he could crack a game. Bringing Frawley in was losing a strength and adding a weakness. Didn't want the defense "unsettled" or "meddled" with. But look what has happened. On top of that, Garland takes the third or fourth best forward? We can easily cover for him. Sweet Jesus.

Too hard for some?

To think outside of a tiny square box?

Garland has played forward and would be much more comfortable playing there. Not only has Garland played forward before, but he is much more athletic and versatile as a player. Cheney is fairly one dimensional.

Once again. The development of nobody would be hindered if we threw Garland forward for a game or two. If it didn't work, then fine, back he goes. However I see a lot of upside to the move, having a player that could potentially move forward and back depending on who we play. A coaches nightmare to match up on.

Would be a perfect time to try this year as we don't even know what our forward line set up will be like.

Yes you are correct. Switching the whole defence to the forward line, and the whole forward line to the defence is just as far fetched as trying out Garland as a forward for a game or so......

Ahhhh man.

You go Steve!!

Yeah my point was probably a bit on the rant side, but I have to take you up on the point in bold above, not sure why you can't see where the forward set up is going to come from, the names below IMO are the names to develop in and around the forward line. The defense has been a work in progress over 18 mths and has come together beautifully. Leave it as it is and lets develop the forward line with these players below:

Green, Watts, Jurrah, Sylvia, Petterd, Wonna, Tapscott, Bennell, Maric, Stef Martin, Jack Fitpatrick, Bate, Dunn, Jetta, Miller.

There are 15 names there....if can't develop from that group and have to rob from our super defensive unit, something will have gone terribly wrong.

[mordja 187]

Happy to stand corrected here , but did anyone catch Bails on the panel of one of the sunday AFL programs? (sunday footy show? with Brayshaw?) where he commented that he could see chip and garland both having a crack at pinch hitting in the forward line if structures for certain games allowed it?

Obviously it doesnt seem so wild an idea to him. I agree that he never implied they would play as fulltime forwards, but he certainly didnt rule out the idea of testing it out as the opportunities arose...

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Remove a strength to create a weakness. No thanks.

Have a look at the James Frawley Thread. You said the above in reference to trying Garland forward and putting Frawley in the backline.

martin is 198cm and 97kg. which small is he playing on?

but i see your point. we suddenly have martin, garland, warnock, frawley and rivers who are all vying for KPD spots of which there are perhaps 3. it is a situation we havnt been in for years...

No we had people crowing when we had Rivers, Carroll, Nicho, Ferg, Bizzell. Fool's gold. Its not the numbers, its the quality of the players.There is alot of promise in Garland, Martin and to a lesser extent Frawley and Warnock.

Just a thought if Rivers comes back fit in 2009 would anyone play him forward???

This is even funnier.

You have suggested a move for Rivers to go forward. Yet you think it's absurd trying Garland there.....

How does that song go by Frank Woodley.....?

"I might contradict myself, but at least I don't contradict myself".....

I have said nothing of the sort about Frawley. So try again.

It was something similar as I showed above. Some pretty interesting thing's... Especially the moving of Rivers !!! Ha !!

Now why cant we play Cheney forward if the MFC Footy Dept deem him not good enough to unseat the incumbents??? Hmmm. Its because he is one dimensional and as a defender unless he can show more than incumbents in the role then why should he be picked?

Sentence needs revising.

Edited June 16, 2010 by stevethemanjordan

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Happy to stand corrected here , but did anyone catch Bails on the panel of one of the sunday AFL programs? (sunday footy show? with Brayshaw?) where he commented that he could see chip and garland both having a crack at pinch hitting in the forward line if structures for certain games allowed it?

Obviously it doesnt seem so wild an idea to him. I agree that he never implied they would play as fulltime forwards, but he certainly didnt rule out the idea of testing it out as the opportunities arose...

Nice to know the thought is there.

Isn't it Rhino....?

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

"Development" does not imply "experimenting". The time for experimentation was last year when our aim was to lose. Development means playing the players in the positions they're going to play in, for long enough stretches of time that they're going to get practice, so that when we are pushing for a flag they're loaded with experience.

Just thought of another example Nasher...

Bennell. What's going on with the positional changes/experimentation there?

Back then forward.... It has certainly done a great deal of damage to his development and game !

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

Happy to stand corrected here , but did anyone catch Bails on the panel of one of the sunday AFL programs? (sunday footy show? with Brayshaw?) where he commented that he could see chip and garland both having a crack at pinch hitting in the forward line if structures for certain games allowed it?

Obviously it doesnt seem so wild an idea to him. I agree that he never implied they would play as fulltime forwards, but he certainly didnt rule out the idea of testing it out as the opportunities arose...

One of the guys (JB?) asked about Frawley going forward as Danny Frawley always fancied himself up front and could therefore could feel some justification if his nephew kicked a few up forward.

Bailey said what you said above - if the game situation suited it they could move Frawley or Garland up forward.

I think what that really means is that they are definitely aware that Garland has some ability as a forward, and just like Brian Lake, Adam Hunter, Dustin Fletcher and many of others Garland could be the guy who gets moved forward when you need a goal or two to win a game, or when injuries to forwards during games happen. But by the fact they keep playing him as a defender I really think that's where they will keep him as long as he holds his spot there. Cheney will have to take another spot in the starting 7 defenders.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Have a look at the James Frawley Thread. You said the above in reference to trying Garland forward and putting Frawley in the backline.

No I didnt Stevie. Another Fail. Not a good one by your standards. A little tip if you are going to quote someone get it right.

I responded to Demons 06 who said Garland into the fwd line and Frawley to take Garland's defensive role. And I have said often recently what you have quoted from 2 years ago. Why remove a strength in putting Garland forward? Here is the quote

<!--quoteo(post=164177:date=Jul 14 2008, 06:35 PM:name=demons06)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(demons06 @ Jul 14 2008, 06:35 PM) ←</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Garland into the forwardline

Frawley to take Garland's spot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Remove a strength to create a weakness. No thanks.

You have suggested a move for Rivers to go forward. Yet you think it's absurd trying Garland there.....

I suggested moving Rivers forward because I dont see him as a LT back solution given we have Warnock, Frawley and Garland. I think he is slow, poor disposal, not good body on body. I dont think he has a future for us up back. At the time in 2009 with our forward stocks so low there might have been an opportunity for him to carve a career up forward.

Garland has been recovering from a serious injury and was out for over 12 months and is now showing the form that made him a must have in defence before he was injured. He is one of our key defenders and its the reason why MFC were soo keen to get him back in defence. In his early games he was pinch hit forwardbut showed more up back If you want to talk development why wouldn't you get Frawley (51 games), Garland (30) and Warnock (49) playing more games together in defence to learn the ropes especially as they're starting to gel well? Oh that right we need to fit a one dimensional player in there from the VFL. Ugh!

Not you best effort Stevie but I know you are trying really hard. And you will get there..eventually.

Keep swinging.

Nice to know the thought is there.

Isn't it Rhino....?

So you'd expect Bailey to make a definitive statement on a Sunday footy show? From Mordja's comments Bailey has not ruled the thought of doing that in or out. But its got you impressed.

Just thought of another example Nasher...

Bennell. What's going on with the positional changes/experimentation there?

Back then forward.... It has certainly done a great deal of damage to his development and game !

Poor example. Bennell was moved up the ground because his defensive skills particularly body on body were poor and was not capable of playing the small defenders role. Bailey still sort to capitalise on his attacking style of play, But he needs to do more when he does not have the ball. As far as development and game is concerned he is doing very nicely in the VFL. I cant see him going back for a while.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Just thought of another example Nasher...

Bennell. What's going on with the positional changes/experimentation there?

Back then forward.... It has certainly done a great deal of damage to his development and game !

Bad example. Bennell had never carved a spot for himself in the back line. Garland has.

Moving players around when they're not settled down is one thing, moving players who are just starting to find form at one end of the ground just for the sake of bringing in someone from Casey is another.