Colin Garland

[dee-luded 2,959]

Collingwood don't have a FB to take on the monsters, yet people talk up their defence a lot...

I rate Maxwell ahead of Rivers, but I rate the Frawley/Garland combination over Brown/Reid.

People may think Garland's not good enough to hold down FB/CHB, but have we got anyone better?

Also deeluded, Cook's not a defender, and never will be.

Eth, we're Not underrating Garland at all. he does have the ability to develop into a bigger player & hold CHB, but, IMO he is far more value in the Role-S he can Now perform with his current agility. getting a lot bigger will limit somewhat his versatility.

And Cook does play both back & up forward effectively. This versatility is much sought after.

Remember both Neita & Lyon started down back before they grew into the game & became ready to take on a Key Forward role. I think you under value the Importance of the multi tasking roles he can currently hold down & will Improve on Greatly.

What I've been looking for is a player with a bigger frame than Garland,,, that will comfortably carry more body weight than Col,, who can swap with Frawley,,, Or, can equally move to CHF, or back to CHB, still leaving Garland &/or Frawley to swap from talls to smalls.

This versatility is a major weapon at the selection table or for emergencies on match day.

I don't know why you feel defensive about discussing our players strengths & weaknesses. It's not a putdown of them.

[daisycutter 29,429]

Collingwood don't have a FB to take on the monsters, yet people talk up their defence a lot...

I rate Maxwell ahead of Rivers, but I rate the Frawley/Garland combination over Brown/Reid.

People may think Garland's not good enough to hold down FB/CHB, but have we got anyone better?

Also deeluded, Cook's not a defender, and never will be.

Never said you have to have all 5 KPPs

I said "Not at all saying a genuine CHB type is a necessity, just a nice to have"

Same applies to any KP. There are plenty of examples of premiership sides missing a KPP

That doesn't mean those clubs didn't want to have one of the missing ones

I thought this thread was about Col as a KPB

Just because he plays very well as a HBF or BP doesn't mean that translates to a great CHB (or FB)

And lets not muddle terms such as key defender with KPP

[daisycutter 29,429]

Look at it another way

Frawley is obviously a genuine KPB

Col is a great defender who can pinch-hit as a KPB esp depending on particular teams/matchups but IMO not a genuine KPB

What happens if Frawley is injured (and he is bound to be sometimes).

We are now seriously exposed

We now possibly have to cover 2 genuine KPFs

Ideally we need to groom another genuine KPB.

If we can, then because of Cols great versatility, there are still plenty of other roles for Col

[rpfc 28,070]

Look at it another way

Frawley is obviously a genuine KPB

Col is a great defender who can pinch-hit as a KPB esp depending on particular teams/matchups but IMO not a genuine KPB

What happens if Frawley is injured (and he is bound to be sometimes).

We are now seriously exposed

We now possibly have to cover 2 genuine KPFs

Ideally we need to groom another genuine KPB.

If we can, then because of Cols great versatility, there are still plenty of other roles for Col

Pinch hit. When does a pinch hitter become a starter? (sorry to finish off the baseball metaphor for those lost)

He has been doing this well for a couple of years now, helping to lower the average score against by 5 goals since 2008.

I have said it before and Doggo isolated it - there is a massive benefit in not just having a negative player who might have a couple centimetres and kgs on Colin.

The value is working over the Fevs of this world so that they don't just have to worry about beating a bloke - they have to worry about where their bloke is when their team doesn't have the footy.

Make Garland a flanker, which he has not been, (and I am pretty certain won't be) and you will end up with him being shadowed and it will limit his effectiveness.

Edited December 20, 2010 by rpfc

[Hannabal 4]

The defensive side of the ground has never been more fluid, but footy is still and always will be about matchups - talls, smalls and mediums. Imo, the term "key" is becoming more and more anachronistic. It has credence because it's still the easiest way to quickly describe a player.

Garland is a tall defender. He's versatile enough to play on talls, mediums, and even smalls. Because of this and because he's smaller than some big defenders, some are uncomfortable labelling him a "key defender".

Imo, he is a key defender, despite the term losing its relevance - at least in my mind. Can he and has he played on the oppositions key forwards ? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Ergo, the only truthful answer to the subject question is "yes".

He's not suited to every key forward, but not many are.

[daisycutter 29,429]

Pinch hit. When does a pinch hitter become a starter? (sorry to finish off the baseball metaphor for those lost)

I think you understood well the context in which I used the term pinch-hit

So you don't think we should be grooming a KPB for the future

And you didn't answer the question as to what happens when Frawley is injured

[daisycutter 29,429]

Make Garland a flanker, which he has not been, (and I am pretty certain won't be) and you will end up with him being shadowed and it will limit his effectiveness.

A flanker is not necessarily a fixed position in todays game with zoning, interchanges etc. Are you suggesting Grimes has his effectiveness limited because he is a "flanker"? I think not.

[rpfc 28,070]

A flanker is not necessarily a fixed position in todays game with zoning, interchanges etc. Are you suggesting Grimes has his effectiveness limited because he is a "flanker"? I think not.

Well, he can't do what Garland can do.

It stands to reason, and I will be more than willing to get into a metaphysical, semantical, or philosophical argument to back this up, that a player whose primary responsibility is the negation of his opponent will be able to exert more influence in an offensive manner.

He plays on Fev, Fev doesn't like to worry about what his opponent is doing and usually they are just standing by his side, he likes that. Garland doesn't do that, he will run off and create and be all the more damaging because he is playing on Fev.

It's Backline Play 101.

[Nasher 33,607]

So you don't think we should be grooming a KPB for the future

Troy Davis. There's one KPB being groomed for the the future. The club will continue to develop new players in every position, and it's (in this case at least) got nothing to do with the incumbents not being good enough.

And you didn't answer the question as to what happens when Frawley is injured

Bring in Warnock, Davis or whoever else is on the list at the time and suits the required match ups.

[e25 5]

Anyone that plays on and holds Fev is a KPD.

This includes Garland.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

What do you want to do with Rivers then?

Where is this 'better than Garland KPD' going to come from? How can you afford him? Who do you trade?

Honestly, some of you think this is a video game - where you can mix and match to your hearts content and change players roles on a whim.

Garland is a mobile and versatile KPD who can be very effective in a rebounding capacity. And if he is playing on a 'CHF' and is damaging in that capacity then it is a win-win as that 'CHF' must then work hard the other way.

Note: I put CHF in inverted commas because I don't want to get hung up on a semantical argument about whether we still have CHFs anymore...

We still have tall blokes that mark the footy don't we?!

Given that I usually find your posts to be well considered I will put the "video game" jibe down to a momentary lack in concentration. The question as you asked it was "is he a key position backman". Not, "is he one of Melbourne's best key defenders?" or "is he capable of playing a key position role?". I prefer to use a wider frame of reference than MFC's current list when evaluating the question and come up with a different answer. Big deal.

As Daisycutter (I think) said it, if Frawley goes down our backline is very exposed as he is really the only one on our list capable of playing genuine KPD week in-week out. That is not to say Col can't do it effectively given the right match-up, but he doesn't inspire the same confidence playing on the true gun KPFs as would Scarlett, Lake, Frawley etc. I would be nervous relying on him to tame Riewoldt, Brown, Pavlich, Franklin etc every week but have no such reservations with Chip.

Garland is a fantastic defender and definitely has more weapons than other tall backmen on our list like Rivers and Warnock. That again doesn't mean he is best suited to the role - it merely implies that necessity would have him fill it at times givn he is better equipped than others we have at our disposal. I stand by my original assertion that he is capable of playing the role at times but IMO is better suited to the third tall role which, among other things, would allow him to zone of more and be creative with his drive.

[daisycutter 29,429]

Troy Davis. There's one KPB being groomed for the the future. The club will continue to develop new players in every position, and it's (in this case at least) got nothing to do with the incumbents not being good enough.

Bring in Warnock, Davis or whoever else is on the list at the time and suits the required match ups.

thanks Nasher for saying nothing but the obvious

Your last point is not a solution merely a reality. In truth we would be very exposed in defense.

FWIW I'm happy to have Col play CHB(FB) at the moment, because 1) there is no other good option, 2) he does do a reasonable CHB(FB) job most of the time and 3) the backline work well together most of the time and compensate for each other.

But you could not describe Col as a backline general in the mould of a true CHB

My wish would be to have another "Frawley" ready in time for our next flag

I see Col as a major player in that time too, but there are a lot of roles he is capable of

P.S. Fevola was crook/out of sorts when they played us this year. As was Browny.

[Nasher 33,607]

As Daisycutter (I think) said it, if Frawley goes down our backline is very exposed as he is really the only one on our list capable of playing genuine KPD week in-week out.

How many other clubs can replace their starting full back with someone out of the 'reserves'? Collingwood '10 with Nathan Brown playing a lot of the season in the VFL is the only club I can think of that have AFL grade key defenders to spare. What do Footscray do if Lake goes down? Morris is in the same mould as Colin. Essendon? Fletcher is approaching 40 - in his time I can only recall two other competent KPD's - Wellman and Pears, with absolutely nothing in between. What do Carlton do if... whoever their FB is goes down? St. Kilda? Geelong? With Scarlett and Taylor their setup is much like ours.

[Nasher 33,607]

thanks Nasher for saying nothing but the obvious

Your last point is not a solution merely a reality. In truth we would be very exposed in defense.

My point, as per my previous post (possibly directly above this one) was that it's unreasonable to expect to replace your FB with anyone of even remotely the same quality. You can't expect another Frawley - if Frawley goes down then you have to put up with someone who's "adequate but not great" - Warnock et al, or you cut your losses, move Rivers on to a key forward and try to strengthen another area. Every club has this problem. Your best players are irreplaceable - this is a fact of life.

Two Frawleys eh? Will go great with our three Liam Jurrahs, four Jack Watts and seven Tom Scullys.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

How many other clubs can replace their starting full back with someone out of the 'reserves'? Collingwood '10 with Nathan Brown playing a lot of the season in the VFL is the only club I can think of that have AFL grade key defenders to spare. What do Footscray do if Lake goes down? Morris is in the same mould as Colin. Essendon? Fletcher is approaching 40 - in his time I can only recall two other competent KPD's - Wellman and Pears, with absolutely nothing in between. What do Carlton do if... whoever their FB is goes down? St. Kilda? Geelong? With Scarlett and Taylor their setup is much like ours.

I agree with you in the main but in the same way that I don't consider Garland a KPD, neither do I consider Morris to be one. In any event, the point is really moot as in any given week, it's more about match-ups than some archaic notion of positions.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

The defensive side of the ground has never been more fluid, but footy is still and always will be about matchups - talls, smalls and mediums. Imo, the term "key" is becoming more and more anachronistic. It has credence because it's still the easiest way to quickly describe a player.

Garland is a tall defender. He's versatile enough to play on talls, mediums, and even smalls. Because of this and because he's smaller than some big defenders, some are uncomfortable labelling him a "key defender".

Imo, he is a key defender, despite the term losing its relevance - at least in my mind. Can he and has he played on the oppositions key forwards ? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Ergo, the only truthful answer to the subject question is "yes".

He's not suited to every key forward, but not many are.

Bottom line, as the poll suggests, there are many who believe Col is a KPD, but some who don't. I don't reckon either side can/will mount an argument compelling enough to make the other side change opinions.

Let's just settle on him being a fu(Ken great defender, tall/KP or otherwise and an invaluable part of the team!

[rpfc 28,070]

DC - What happens when Frawley gets injured?

You replace him someone who isn't as good. You cannot replace your best players. And I hope we aren't going down the track of 'depth' because good depth is a contradiction in terms.

Having a decent 28th player on your list is great if the 16th best player gets injured, but you cannot replace your best players.

As GGR said before - Garland is a tall defender in this new world of fluid backlines and definitions of roles.

I don't think Garland is best suited for a flank, I think any blind monkey can play there (hence why I want Grimes to have a crack in the midfield). I want Garland to beat Fev and make him get a spray because his man is racking up the effective disposals forward of the centre.

I want him to continue to do what he is doing.

[daisycutter 29,429]

Two Frawleys eh? Will go great with our three Liam Jurrahs, four Jack Watts and seven Tom Scullys.

Hahaha, seeing as how you are comprehension retarded

Two "Frawleys" = Two genuine KPB types

Lose 1, still got 50%

One genuine KPB

Lose 1, got 0%

Now what is better?

And I don't give a toss what other clubs have got. We are talking of MFC winning a flag

[daisycutter 29,429]

DC - What happens when Frawley gets injured?

You replace him someone who isn't as good. You cannot replace your best players. And I hope we aren't going down the track of 'depth' because good depth is a contradiction in terms.

Having a decent 28th player on your list is great if the 16th best player gets injured, but you cannot replace your best players.

I'm not talking of having someone outside of the best 22 being the 2nd KPB

I'm talking of having the 2nd KPB playing CHB (or FB depending on matchups)

I'm also talking of the future, cos we don't have the 2nd KPB yet

Then when you lose one, Garland can fill the KPB role (not some depth player outside the top 22)

The fillin outside the top 22 then picks up the flank/pocket position

I don't think Garland is best suited for a flank, I think any blind monkey can play there (hence why I want Grimes to have a crack in the midfield).

You seriously underrate the potential role of a HB flanker. This line is often the first line of attack. Having good finishers and/or line-breakers on the flanks is not in my opinion a role for blind monkeys. A strong HB threesome is a very critical line. This was one area where Geelong really excelled.

And btw I prefer to keep Grimes there (most of the time anyway) for that very reason.

[e25 5]

This is all getting a bit ugly, with the more clueless resorting to insults (usually the refuge that I seek).

Anyway, what happened in 2008 before the emergence of Frawley as a bona fide KPD..?

I'm pretty sure we all got excited at seeing Garland's performances in that very role, with a less-mature body than he now possesses.

Warnock was solid yet unspectacular and Rivers was trying to make a shaky return from perpetual injury status.

A lot of short memories on demonland...

Edited December 20, 2010 by e25

[H_T 3,036]

I don't think Garland is best suited for a flank, I think any blind monkey can play there (hence why I want Grimes to have a crack in the midfield). I want Garland to beat Fev and make him get a spray because his man is racking up the effective disposals forward of the centre.

I want him to continue to do what he is doing.

Can't wait to see what Bailey & Co. do with Grimes. Love him being a rock down back, reads the play exceptionally well. Exquisite, everything you would want in a defender. Whilst a little hesitant in taking him away from the backline, we have to find out if our midfield can become something we've only dreamt of....a real state of the art well oiled, well drilled, synergised midfield outfit. Rolls Royce equivalent.

Mind you, just as excited to see Tapscott, Blease, Gysberts take baby steps amongst it all.

[daisycutter 29,429]

This is all getting a bit ugly, with the more clueless resorting to insults (usually the refuge that I seek).

Anyway, what happened in 2008 before the emergence of Frawley as a bona fide KPD..?

I'm pretty sure we all got excited at seeing Garland's performances in that very role, with a less-mature body than he now possesses.

Warnock was solid yet unspectacular and Rivers was trying to make a shaky return from perpetual injury status.

A lot of short memories on demonland...

Not ugly at all. Just robust debate, not even that robust actually. Ironic coming from you.

Anyway, whats your point about short memories?

Let me make one point clear, I don't think anyone is being critical of Col. Certainly not me. If it reads that way well let me correct you. He's one of my favourite players. I just happen to have a POV that he is not my desirable KPB type except where/when circumstances dictate.

I'm saying this purely with a premiership in mind. 2008 is in the past and buried as far as I am concerned.

Anyway the polling is going 4:1 against my POV

[dee-luded 2,959]

Pinch hit. When does a pinch hitter become a starter? (sorry to finish off the baseball metaphor for those lost)

He has been doing this well for a couple of years now, helping to lower the average score against by 5 goals since 2008.

I have said it before and Doggo isolated it - there is a massive benefit in not just having a negative player who might have a couple centimetres and kgs on Colin.

The value is working over the Fevs of this world so that they don't just have to worry about beating a bloke - they have to worry about where their bloke is when their team doesn't have the footy.

Make Garland a flanker, which he has not been, (and I am pretty certain won't be) and you will end up with him being shadowed and it will limit his effectiveness.

Now I think your just trying to compete to win this argument rather than just understanding what people are trying to share. You've gone on to try to suggest that a true class CHB is somehow Just, a negating player. And then you selected Fev, as the type of power forward to illustrate your theory. I'm thinking more of Pavlich, or a fit & inform Jono Brown, or Petrie, N Riewoldt, et al.

I think what we are talking about is a Jackovich or a Lake or Harley, or. If you really like, an Earl Spalding. This is what I'm looking for. A combo of a Frawley + an Earl Spalding type + Garland as well... Then that Earl Spalding type is good enough to push forward to the H/F Line, as is Garland.

Remember we are still building this team, it's not a completed job lot yet.

[Doggo 32]

I'm not talking of having someone outside of the best 22 being the 2nd KPB

I'm talking of having the 2nd KPB playing CHB (or FB depending on matchups)

I'm also talking of the future, cos we don't have the 2nd KPB yet

Then when you lose one, Garland can fill the KPB role (not some depth player outside the top 22)

The fillin outside the top 22 then picks up the flank/pocket position

I think if Warnock were in the best 22 ahead of Rivers, then you might then get your wish structure-wise. Garland slips into Rivers' 3rd tall spot, Warnock and Frawley are the 2 "genuine KPD", and Rivers is 3rd tall depth. When one of Warnock or Frawley goes down, Garlands fills in the key post and Rivers takes over Garland's place... Is that the type of setup you are envisioning DC?

Just on Warnock. He really has slipped quite a lot from people's minds. After two top 5 B&F finishes, he goes from being one of the first picked in '08 and '09, to a fringe player in '10 and looking towards '11. I personally don't have Warnock in my best 22, but this is mainly because i believe that Garland really is a genuine key position (tall) defender, best suited to that role. Warnock IMO is actually really unlucky we have a player of the quality of Garland filling that 2nd key position defender role.

Garland is effectively keeping Warnock out of the side; not because Warnock isn't good enough IMO, but because Garland is simply better. Warnock's not a bad player; he's strong, a good size, very fast and absolutely dominates VFL level, and is solid at AFL level. I'd go as far as to say that if Warnock were at say, Carlton or Hawthorn, he'd be their #1 defender. But Garland just seems to shade him in all areas as a FB/CHB.

[dee-luded 2,959]

DC - What happens when Frawley gets injured?

You replace him someone who isn't as good. You cannot replace your best players. And I hope we aren't going down the track of 'depth' because good depth is a contradiction in terms.

Having a decent 28th player on your list is great if the 16th best player gets injured, but you cannot replace your best players.

As GGR said before - Garland is a tall defender in this new world of fluid backlines and definitions of roles.

I don't think Garland is best suited for a flank, I think any blind monkey can play there (hence why I want Grimes to have a crack in the midfield). I want Garland to beat Fev and make him get a spray because his man is racking up the effective disposals forward of the centre.

I want him to continue to do what he is doing.

My goodness me. Tell that to Bruce Doull or Guy McKenna or Neil Daniher as a player. Robert flower off half back. The greats of the AFL that dominated oppositions & attacked & setup winning teams from rebound. Class from the defence. I suppose thats why Hodgy was played & half back, to keep him out of the way.