Colin Garland

[dee-luded 2,958]

No- he is a dashing HBF or could make a sensational winger. Notbig enough to be a tradional key Full back or Centre half back but could definately go there if required.A great versatile player. Warnock, Frawley, Rivers would be my key tall backman with Davis and maybe Cook developing behind them.I also see Tom McDonald being a key player there if we develop him accordingly.Garland is too critical of a player to not utilize his speed in a flank or wing position IMO.

I agree, about his dash & flair & the value of his mobility & speed to shut down dangerous opponents like Franklin up field.

I do not want to see him bulk up Too Much. I want him to be a running defender or pinch hit as a half forward.

For those who want him become a bigger key player who can outbody big forwards, I think that would be a waste. For me, a Max of 3 more Kgs. Nothing more

[jayceebee31 692]

Wide awake up here.

He has played on the second tall. Frawley gets the best tall and Garland gets the second best. They try to get Rivers on a resting ruckman or slower tall.

Warnock is not a weapon in terms of using the footy when we turn it over and can only play a negative role.

Campbell is a ruckman and won't play a defensive role at all, I have no idea where you are getting this idea from. I have heard nothing from the FD that would see Campbell as anything other than a ruckman to support Jamar.And put Garland into our midfield? No spots for him in our blue chip midfield.

We need to negate at times and Warnock can be a spoiler.And Rivers has not got the dash of Garland- no way..however I do accept Deeluded's point ..that on occassions he may play on a Franklin because of his speed- but I'd play Frawley in this role before Garland and another tall on Roughead.And you must have been sleeping up there as Campbell has played as a key backman for Hawthorn on many occassions in particular when Hawthorn needed a tall to play on a man mountain..

And I never EVER said Garland should play as a midfielder-I said,repeat HBF or winger. Or a replacement for Bruce- a versatile , flexible Mr Fix it..

Edited December 19, 2010 by jayceebee31

[Eth 4]

Wow.

Completely with rpfc on this one.

[rpfc 27,676]

We need to negate at times and Warnock can be a spoiler.And Rivers has not got the dash of Garland- no way..however I do accept Deeluded's point ..that on occassions he may play on a Franklin because of his speed- but I'd play Frawley in this role before Garland and another tall on Roughead.And you must have been sleeping up there as Campbell has played as a key backman for Hawthorn on many occassions in particular when Hawthorn needed a tall to play on a man mountain..

And I never EVER said Garland should play as a midfielder-I said,repeat HBF or winger. Or a replacement for Bruce- a versatile , flexible Mr Fix it..

I have no idea why you are continuing with this 'sleeping' meme - if I am sleeping, you're in a coma...

Campbell was/is a ruckman. If he was back there then it was the same way that Jeff White was back there. Rivers will play on those 'men mountains' unless Campbell is in the ruck and following his man down there.

AND when HAVE you EVER said THAT Garland COULD play MIDFIELD?

Wing is midfield, otherwise Davey isn't a midfielder.

[titan_uranus 23,142]

Rivers is the better 'floater' if that is what you are envisioning.

Garland, as Sylvinator said, allows us to have a defender on a FF/CHF or 'key' forward and still use him as a offensive weapon.

Yeah, you're right.

Still, in my perfect world, I reckon Garland doesn't play FB or CHB. But we'lll go alright with him in that role.

[e25 5]

In the future, Davis at FB, Frawley as CHB and Garland the 3rd tall.

Bliss.

[jayceebee31 692]

Yeah, you're right.

Still, in my perfect world, I reckon Garland doesn't play FB or CHB. But we'lll go alright with him in that role.

Don't need him permantly there..maybe sometimes ONLY..

My back 6 are:

Bartram Warnock Rivers

Grimes Frawley MacDonald..

with the possibility of Garland,Martin, Campbell coming in if or when needed..

Edited December 19, 2010 by jayceebee31

[e25 5]

No- he is a dashing HBF or could make a sensational winger. Notbig enough to be a tradional key Full back or Centre half back but could definately go there if required.A great versatile player. Warnock, Frawley, Rivers would be my key tall backman with Davis and maybe Cook developing behind them.I also see Tom McDonald being a key player there if we develop him accordingly.Garland is too critical of a player to not utilize his speed in a flank or wing position IMO.

Honestly, he either is... or he isn't.

This says it all for me.

Textbook contradiction and clearly shows you don't really know what you're talking about.

Garland is a KPD, with the ability to play as a flanker or even further afield.

Clear as mud.

[Red Sox 2]

Versatile Key Defender. Gun.

[BAMF 3,852]

Absolutely love this guy. There was a couple of times last season where his opponent would give him a whack in the guts out of pure frustration (port game he got more than one.)

For mine he is a versatile defender. Wouldn't say KPD but can play that role if needed.

I usually think of a HBF as a defending midfielder eg. Grimes. He's Definitely not a winger.

[jayceebee31 692]

Honestly, he either is... or he isn't.

This says it all for me.

Textbook contradiction and clearly shows you don't really know what you're talking about.

Garland is a KPD, with the ability to play as a flanker or even further afield.

Clear as mud.

Sorry for some that I need to spell it out to them..I am saying for the MFC that Garland is capable of playing FB or CHF if needed or suited.However, he will not be picked on a continuous basis in that role.He most probably will play either HBF or BP as he did in 2010..

[Nasher 33,246]

Versatile Key Defender. Gun.

This. IMO in the coming years he's the "A grade" needed to complement Frawley's "elite".

To answer the question: yes, I see him as a modern key defender.

[Eth 4]

Sorry for some that I need to spell it out to them..I am saying for the MFC that Garland is capable of playing FB or CHF if needed or suited.However, he will not be picked on a continuous basis in that role.He most probably will play either HBF or BP as he did in 2010..

He never played HBF or BP.

He played FB/CHB, switching with Frawley as required. Rivers played the Maxwell role as a third tall.

[ox_5 163]

The thing is, backmen dont necessarily have positions as such nowadays compared to years ago.

They have opponents and they often play the role on that opponent. Or they work with their back 6 to find the best structure depending on who lines up there.

If he has the ability to play on a tall forward, then he is a KPD. Which he is.

[daisycutter 28,723]

Wow i couldn't disagree more.

The thing I love most about our defence is that we have 2 tall, exceptionally quick, versatile, highly skilled key backs who, most importantly, invariably seem to have a nack for getting in a spoil and preventing a mark in the forward 50. The two men, Frawley and Garland, will be the cornerstone of our defence for the next 10 years. The other defensive spots can be slotted in around them, because we know that Chip and Garland are capable of taking on, beating, and rebounding against the best forwards in the league.

Garland's exceptional attribute is his ability to almost always spoil his opponent through his speed, long arms, positioning and reading of the play.

I would be truly disappointed if we broke up this tandem.

The great thing is that no matter if the opposition's 2 best forwards are small (Betts and Yarran) or tall (Franklin and Roughead), the same two blokes can take on and beat them!

Gotta agree with jcb here

Garland might be a key player but he aint a key position backman. That is he isn't a genuine CHB or FB. He may have been played there from time to time out of neccesity and he can pinch-hit there but he is too exposed to a genuine key position forward.

Melbourne have been so starved of good genuine key position backmen for so many years that we forget sometimes what one is

JMHO

Edited December 19, 2010 by daisycutter

[Maldonboy38 6,093]

Setting up a forward line, midfield or backline has totally changed. I reckon Col Garland is a KPP and a natural defender but I think you have to place him within the best back 6 we have and THEN determine his role. Most great modern backlines have two KP defenders, one great reader of the play who is the 'third-man-up', 2 runners and one annoyingly good small stopper. I was a great Matthew Whelan fan as an expert small defender (quite apart from flattening Hird in that Eliminiation final at the 'G - greqat moment and I was there to witness it).

Col Garland fits in as a cross between a KP backman and a runner. His creativity when he gets the ball and looks up gives a similar sense of confidence as when Grimes gets the ball.In the same way I cringe when Bartram gets in the clear and tries to c reate something! As a stopper he is great. As a running and creative backman he is a real worry.

The surprising thing about Col Garland is he rarely gets beaten by monster forwards. Has he ever played on Jonathan Brown?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I have been in Melbourne watching every game whilst you have been in Canberra sleeping.Garland has played on either as a HBF or BP for most of the games but he has been mainly the kicker in whilst Grimes has been sleeping.Wake in in 2011 at least.I have just watched 15 replays from this year to confirm my point.With the recruiting of Campbell as a back up ruckman/defender , you might ,and I hope he does, play on a wing this year..

I dont.

He is 1cm shorter than Rivers and 4kgs lighter but can play tall and small. He is a better kick, quicker and has better balance than Rivers hence he can play a number of defensive positions. Wing is not one of them.

[needafullback 82]

Definitely a KP back in my view. He is strong in ropey kind of way, like Dustin Fletcher. He is certainly not so easily brushed aside in a body-on-body that you would decide not to play him on someone just because of a perceived difference in size. More importantly he is clever with his body use and won't get sucked into wrestling when he can stand off and then use his fantastic closing speed. He played very well on Fevola who is physically considerably bigger. It made no discernible difference.

Also, there don't seem to be many Fraser Gehrig types around who will look to monster a smaller opponent at every opportunity.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Gotta agree with jcb here

Garland might be a key player but he aint a key position backman. That is he isn't a genuine CHB or FB. He may have been played there from time to time out of neccesity and he can pinch-hit there but he is too exposed to a genuine key position forward.

Melbourne have been so starved of good genuine key position backmen for so many years that we forget sometimes what one is

JMHO

This is the thing with matchups these days with the flexablity to roam the ground. Garland did play on Buddy Franklin a couple of years ago, could go with him because of his speed & mobility agility. But I wouldn't like to see him one out on a bigger bulked Franklin, Deep in the goal square, or on a Pavlich deep forward.

Save him for the high roles roaming the H/Backline & into the Mid zone.

Otherwise he would be a magnificent attacking tall defender bringing the ball to offence.

Or he can sneak forward on occasion. He may end up one day as a key defender, but I hope not. I'd rather than that, to see him as a forward.

[Nasher 33,246]

I based my answer on another question: does he play on key position forwards? Given that he's considered a good matchup for Franklin and I consider Franklin to be a key position forward, then yes, he plays on key position forwards. Who plays on key position fowards? Key position defenders, of course.

I guess the whole point of this question is the definition of KPF and KPD is a lot more fluid than it used to be, so it's all open to interpretation.

[daisycutter 28,723]

I based my answer on another question: does he play on key position forwards? Given that he's considered a good matchup for Franklin and I consider Franklin to be a key position forward, then yes, he plays on key position forwards. Who plays on key position fowards? Key position defenders, of course.

I guess the whole point of this question is the definition of KPF and KPD is a lot more fluid than it used to be, so it's all open to interpretation.

Thats the problem with so many definitions these days, they get so fluid or flexible that they lose their meaning and become meaningless

These days some (not saying you) would describe even Stephen Milne or Stevie Johnson as key position forwards, but they are obviously not CHF or FF's. This may be an exception example but it illustrates the trend to butcher the vernacular.

Not all teams have a genuine goal to goal line set of KPPs. Obviously they have someone playing in each KP but that is more out of neccesity than true ability and consequently they are forced to work around it by employing certain match day tactics. This just camouflages the issue. Some do it better than most.

You don't have to have 5 traditional genuine KPP's to win a premiership. If not you just compensate elsewhere.

But lets try and call a spade a spade. A KPP is not just a description of a physical position but also a description of a certain type of player and role. Someone is not a true KPP just because they plays a KP

IMO, and at the moment, MFC does not have a genuine FF, CHF or CHB. I'm not saying either that we necessarily need all three.

I would be happiest with a "dummy" FF, but a genuine CHF and CHB (all of which I can possibly see in the list depending on development)

Hope this makes some sense

[rpfc 27,676]

I based my answer on another question: does he play on key position forwards? Given that he's considered a good matchup for Franklin and I consider Franklin to be a key position forward, then yes, he plays on key position forwards. Who plays on key position fowards? Key position defenders, of course.

I guess the whole point of this question is the definition of KPF and KPD is a lot more fluid than it used to be, so it's all open to interpretation.

It most definitely is.

But Colin has played, and will play on the best forwards (cue the versatility of him and Frawley) tall, medium, or small.

He is a key defender for the MFC, he is quick enough, strong enough and has been groomed for this versatile role - in matches and in training. He will develop to become a major player in our backline for a decade (foot problems permitting).

I think most of us are in agreement.

Case closed.

[e25 5]

He never played HBF or BP.

He played FB/CHB, switching with Frawley as required. Rivers played the Maxwell role as a third tall.

Can't remember if it was Josh Mahoney or Sean Wellman, but one of the 2 referred to Garland as the prototypical defender for the way the game of AFL has evolved / is evolving.

100% have to agree with that sentiment.

edit: meant to reply to Nasher's post, but this comment stands alone anyway.

Edited December 19, 2010 by e25

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Similar to Dustin Fletcher in that while he doesn't possess great body strength he has the speed to stay in the contest and the judgement, athleticism and flexibility to get a fist in. Like Fletcher he has a booming kick and very good hands.

His decision making was a little off at times during the season and it took him a while to get into the swing of things, he was out of footy for a season.

Possibly the most under-rated footballer on the list.

[Rocknroll 945]

Give Colin the school yard test.

Line all our backmen up against the shed and pick your team. I doubt Col would stand there very long.

I dare say when they look at who plays who in the backline these days they do not look at traditional positions. Each week the FD would look at the possible opperstion forward line up and look for the best possible match ups. If frawely has to play in the pocket on Milne because he is the most dangerous and chip has the speed, so be it. Col great advantage is that he can match up on a variety of different forward types. So each week his role would change from HFB to CHB to FB to BP for best possible match up.

The 80's style of footy that we all seem to miss has long gone. Stereotypical backmen traits exist but stereotypical backman positions don’t.