the match where we drew with collingwood highlighted to me, that an offensive, or attacking backmen, is where he is best suited.

he held his opponent, yet he ran forward hard, and used the pill well, off the back flank. he even kicked a goal.

this is his ideal position, hbf, but with an attacking instinct, that match him and morton rotated similar roles, and really were important in our draw.

EDIT: side note highlighted with 7 1% i dont know if they were all spoils, but a good effort none the less.

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.

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.

Agree with these sentiments. The 2010 Prototypical defender. I like that. I voted sometime ago, pretty straight forward. KPD.

Agree with these sentiments. The 2010 Prototypical defender. I like that. I voted sometime ago, pretty straight forward. KPD.

+1. That is the perfect description. There should be nothing more to debate.

Agree with these sentiments. The 2010 Prototypical defender. I like that. I voted sometime ago, pretty straight forward. KPD.

Just for the record Garland played on Petersen the last time they met.Garland's position HBF..Frawley played on Franklin, Rivers on Roughhead...Whilst Garland has been played as a key defender - his role as such has been a Half Back flank..A key defender no doubt but CHB OR FB no way...on a regular basis..

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.

Thats exactly right, the way the game is evolving under the interchange rotations we had. The talls were getting smaller & more mobile & the shorts were disappearing.

So we were witnessing the homogenization of our game under the extreme amounts of rotations off the bench.

We were stepping towards the way american sports are organized.

IMO our Games great strength, was the specialist nature of our game & players plus the toughness & endurance needed to withstand all test that came our way.

The massive interchange rotations were making players like Lockett or Diesel Williams obsolete. That is a travisty for our game, & I'm sure we are starting to remedy that now. So if we want all players to be between 185cm's & 192 cm's, & you happen to fit into that allround size model, good luck. But that is not what our game is or was. We have Key position players & we have rovers & we have flankers & wingers. Not to mention Rucks.

Thats exactly right, the way the game is evolving under the interchange rotations we had. The talls were getting smaller & more mobile & the shorts were disappearing.

So we were witnessing the homogenization of our game under the extreme amounts of rotations off the bench.

We were stepping towards the way american sports are organized.

IMO our Games great strength, was the specialist nature of our game & players plus the toughness & endurance needed to withstand all test that came our way.

The massive interchange rotations were making players like Lockett or Diesel Williams obsolete. That is a travisty for our game, & I'm sure we are starting to remedy that now. So if we want all players to be between 185cm's & 192 cm's, & you happen to fit into that allround size model, good luck. But that is not what our game is or was. We have Key position players & we have rovers & we have flankers & wingers. Not to mention Rucks.

Couldn't not have put it better-your summation superb..I woder if they understand the role of a rover..because Scully will end up a brilliant rover not a midfielder.

Just for the record Garland played on Petersen the last time they met.Garland's position HBF..Frawley played on Franklin, Rivers on Roughhead...Whilst Garland has been played as a key defender - his role as such has been a Half Back flank..A key defender no doubt but CHB OR FB no way...on a regular basis..

I tend to agree with most of this. It is a bit of a misnomer that Garland 'plays on Franklin' or 'is a good match-up for Franklin'. We keep getting this argument on the back of one game three seasons ago.

Don't get me wrong, I rate Col and think he's capable of playing a KPD role at a pinch. However I don't see him most suited to that position and wouldn't want him playing it long term as there are a few big forwards who could probably expose him in this role. I think we would be a stronger defence with another genuine KPD releasing Garland to play the role Rivers currently does.

I tend to agree with most of this. It is a bit of a misnomer that Garland 'plays on Franklin' or 'is a good match-up for Franklin'. We keep getting this argument on the back of one game three seasons ago.

Don't get me wrong, I rate Col and think he's capable of playing a KPD role at a pinch. However I don't see him most suited to that position and wouldn't want him playing it long term as there are a few big forwards who could probably expose him in this role. I think we would be a stronger defence with another genuine KPD releasing Garland to play the role Rivers currently does.

I want to strongly point out that I rate Garland extremely highly.I think he will have a massive year wherever he plays after coming of virtually no pre season tis year gone past. However, fo the best interest of the team -I feel he is best utilized wherever he is required.One game it may be best CHB or FB ..Howecer, I feel he is best suited either on a wing, hbf- where he has played most of his footy with us or a Mr Fixit replacing Bruce..My argument/debate is he is not been playing in either a CHB or FB role on going and he is not suited there as a permanent role.Leave that to others such as Frawley, Rivers,Warnock etc..to go up against the likes of Fevola- Brown etc..

I tend to agree with most of this. It is a bit of a misnomer that Garland 'plays on Franklin' or 'is a good match-up for Franklin'. We keep getting this argument on the back of one game three seasons ago.

Don't get me wrong, I rate Col and think he's capable of playing a KPD role at a pinch. However I don't see him most suited to that position and wouldn't want him playing it long term as there are a few big forwards who could probably expose him in this role. I think we would be a stronger defence with another genuine KPD releasing Garland to play the role Rivers currently does.

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?!

I want to strongly point out that I rate Garland extremely highly.I think he will have a massive year wherever he plays after coming of virtually no pre season tis year gone past. However, fo the best interest of the team -I feel he is best utilized wherever he is required.One game it may be best CHB or FB ..Howecer, I feel he is best suited either on a wing, hbf- where he has played most of his footy with us or a Mr Fixit replacing Bruce..My argument/debate is he is not been playing in either a CHB or FB role on going and he is not suited there as a permanent role.Leave that to others such as Frawley, Rivers,Warnock etc..to go up against the likes of Fevola- Brown etc..

Rivers isn't quick enough, Warnock isn't good enough.

Nor can they hurt the opposition (and their direct opposition ie. making Fev work - and didn't he hate poor Colin's performance on him this season) the way Garland does.

Just for the record Garland played on Petersen the last time they met.Garland's position HBF..Frawley played on Franklin, Rivers on Roughhead...Whilst Garland has been played as a key defender - his role as such has been a Half Back flank..A key defender no doubt but CHB OR FB no way...on a regular basis..

Agree with that Hawthorn encounter, but you will note in other encounters the roles do change and Garland can be used as the KPD, Frawley might take a small and Rivers elsewhere. Btw Petersen wasn't the only man Garland went to.

Rivers isn't quick enough, Warnock isn't good enough.

Nor can they hurt the opposition (and their direct opposition ie. making Fev work - and didn't he hate poor Colin's performance on him this season) the way Garland does.

As I have previously stated it is "Whatever" is the best interest for the club on matchday.I have never said Garland was not a great defender ever.,.Rivers is not slow..I think Rivers may have started his career on the wing with us or the HBF.I do not say Rivers is slow.. I think Rivers is best on a more bulky opponent now he is getting a little. older and injuries have crept up..Suited to the game he played on Roughead - just been watching the replay. We also forget about MacDonald- I think he played a very servicable first year with us and moulded in the backline well.We have a little speed with him and Grimes to take it forward for us..And Garland if played continuously on the HBF as he did for most of this year - does me fine..I think he could become as servicable as Harry O'Brien does at Collingwood.Again, you can have your opinion but,,I will give mine..And we recruited a pretty good colt in Davis who has speed and toughness who will make a very good Key position player- FB or CHB or a brilliant HBF in time..

As I have previously stated it is the best interest for the club on matchday.I have never said Garland was not a great defender ever.,.Rivers is not slow..I think - he may have started his career on the wing with us or the HBF.I do not say Rivers is slow.. I think Rivers is best on a more bulky opponent now he is getting a little. older..similar to the game he played on Roughead - just been watching the replay. We also forget about MacDonald- I think he played a very servicable first year with us and moulded in the backline well.We have a little speed with him and Grimes to take it forward for us..And Garland if played continuously on the HBF as he did for most of this year - does me fine..I think he could become as servicable as Harry O'Brien does at Collingwood.Again, you can have your opinion but,,I will give mine..And we recruited a pretty good colt in Davis who has speed and toughness who will make a very good Key position player- FB or CHB or a brilliant HBF in time..

No-one said you couldn't give your opinion, JCB.

Here's mine - Rivers is slow and one dimensional (it's a bloody good dimension though), MacDonald is servicable but has noithing on Garland (especially playiong on CHFs), Garland played as a KPD for most of 2010, and Davis is an baby taken late in the draft.

And BTW, who do you think are Collingwood's KPDs if O'Brien is a HBF? They had Brown and who in the finals? Maxwell? He is their Rivers, sits in the hole without an opponent.

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?!

Garland is much more skilled than rivers ever will be, he's quicker, much better disposal & balance, agility & attacking flair.

Rivers is a superb 3rd defender who can pinch hit as a key defender with the right matchup, but lacks the offensive vision & disposal. He's fantastic at drifting across to help his fellow defender or to read & cutoff an incoming attack.

Garland is a much closer defender spoiler man on man, but is more valuable as he is with agility & acceleration. Our defence will no doubt become taller like the saints, as long as we don't lose this speed & agility change of direction & great disposal skills.

Warnock & Rivers are limited as we march towards building a Premiership Team/list.

Garland is much more skilled than rivers ever will be, he's quicker, much better disposal & balance, agility & attacking flair.

Rivers is a superb 3rd defender who can pinch hit as a key defender with the right matchup, but lacks the offensive vision & disposal. He's fantastic at drifting across to help his fellow defender or to read & cutoff an incoming attack.

Garland is a much closer defender spoiler man on man, but is more valuable as he is with agility & acceleration. Our defence will no doubt become taller like the saints, as long as we don't lose this speed & agility change of direction & great disposal skills.

Warnock & Rivers are limited as we march towards building a Premiership Team/list.

Well posted.

Frawley and Garland as focal point defenders.

Rivers helping them out.

It is what we will go with for the foreseeable future.

Well posted.

Frawley and Garland as focal point defenders.

Rivers helping them out.

It is what we will go with for the foreseeable future.

If that is the case the whole six defenders named on the day are key defenders as well as focal points...and all 22 players are key players and focal points ..now I'm finished on Garland whom is a key player wherever he plays..Merry Xmas-

If that is the case the whole six defenders named on the day are key defenders as well as focal points...

No

If that is the case the whole six defenders named on the day are key defenders as well as focal points...and all 22 players are key players and focal points ..now I'm finished on Garland whom is a key player wherever he plays..Merry Xmas-

No.

And I'm thinking you're not finished...

Frawley and Garland as focal point defenders.

Rivers helping them out.

It is what we will go with for the foreseeable future.

That may be today's reality, but it doesn't mean Col is a genuine KPD (CHB or FB)

We can cope with current situation and we have versatility

Sometime down the track I'd like to see a permanent genuine CHB

Hopefully one of our young draftee talls will develop into this role

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

I get the impression reading this thread that Cols tyres are getting pumped just a little

To put it another way Col is a great HBF (or BP) but not a great CHB

That may be today's reality, but it doesn't mean Col is a genuine KPD (CHB or FB)

We can cope with current situation and we have versatility

Sometime down the track I'd like to see a permanent genuine CHB

Hopefully one of our young draftee talls will develop into this role

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

I get the impression reading this thread that Cols tyres are getting pumped just a little

To put it another way Col is a great HBF (or BP) but not a great CHB

He can hold it down. And it would diminish his value for him to play on a flank.

I would prefer he mitigate and run off one the 'focal points' then be placed on a flank and have some Dunn-equivalent shadow him around and negate his influence.

There are plusses in not 'freeing up' players.

I get the impression reading this thread that Cols tyres are getting pumped just a little

I dont think that is happening at all to be honest. I think most here have answered the question and stated why they think that to be the case. Nobody is calling him the next Glen Jakovich or even the next Harry Taylor. I think most are aware of the talent Colin has.

That may be today's reality, but it doesn't mean Col is a genuine KPD (CHB or FB)

We can cope with current situation and we have versatility

Sometime down the track I'd like to see a permanent genuine CHB

Hopefully one of our young draftee talls will develop into this role

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

I get the impression reading this thread that Cols tyres are getting pumped just a little

To put it another way Col is a great HBF (or BP) but not a great CHB

Somehow I feel like I know you. I agree with the way you think, most times.

I've been posting about our need for a genuine CLASS CHB, for some months, & we recruited a light weight but class Tall Forward/Back in Cook, + another, as JCB-31 has mentioned, to help facilitate our defensive shortcomings, through the ability to swing players around, as we need, to get the optimum matchups. This is a great way to go IMO, in todays game style. You just cant have a one dimentional list, today, As the Saints can attest to, & even the Cats, I think were caught out a little.

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.

I reckon Garlo is much, much stronger than his light frame and wiry build would suggest. He's got great balance and uses his body and reads the ball exceptionally well in flight. This, along with his leap and long arms, means he is able to play taller than his listed 191cm, IMO. In response to the OP, i voted Yes. He mightn't look like a genuine KPD, and when you consider that his speed, ball-use and run-and-carry are all above what you'd expect from your average key defender, it is easy to argue that he might be better suited up the ground 'freed up', or on the 4th or 5th mid-small forward, like Jack Grimes' role.

Whilst he has shown he can be a pretty good attacking rebounder, as well as a third-man up 'Rivers type'; his best role IMO is as an accountable defender, who can attack and attack well when it's his turn, but whose primary role is shutting down the oppositions 2nd best forward, whether tall or small. Garland's as accountable and disciplined a backman as i've pretty much ever seen at Melbourne. It's not very often you see his man getting easy touches or easy marks on the lead; he always seems to be right on their hammer. He's just never loose! Yet, he still knows how to push up the ground and attack when needed, and is a reliable decision-maker with the ball in hand. This discipline, coupled with great athleticism and aerial ability to mark or spoil, are his best attributes in my opinion and make him invaluable in shutting down lead-up talls. He's wasted on the 4th-5th forward IMO.

When considering some of the potential match-ups with other teams forwards in 2011, i feel more than comfortable in the knowledge that Garland could play on most, if not all, opposition forwards in the league. There aren't too many talls (or smalls) out there i wouldn't back Col a chance against, especially after you factor Frawley into the match-ups.

He can hold it down. And it would diminish his value for him to play on a flank.

I would prefer he mitigate and run off one the 'focal points' then be placed on a flank and have some Dunn-equivalent shadow him around and negate his influence.

There are plusses in not 'freeing up' players.

Exactly!