Mate. You started this topic.

You asked the question. What were you expecting from this?

If you think that it is the absolute truth that Colin Garland is a KPD, then why did you start this topic?

For general debate? Because it looks like you have waited until someone (deeluded) disagree's with you and then jumped all over their opinion. In fact it seems that you have actually taken great pleasure that deeluded has disagreed and that Doggo has 'pinned him down'

As I have already stated. I agree that he is a KPB. But the fact that no one can disagree with the group think around here any more is a real shame.

Maybe to take a straw poll, analyze the result and dispel a seemingly common misperception that Garland is anything other than a KPD?

I mean, to contend that he is a winger, for example, is pure lunacy.

But we've come to expect that.

Mate. You started this topic.

You asked the question. What were you expecting from this?

If you think that it is the absolute truth that Colin Garland is a KPD, then why did you start this topic?

For general debate? Because it looks like you have waited until someone (deeluded) disagree's with you and then jumped all over their opinion. In fact it seems that you have actually taken great pleasure that deeluded has disagreed and that Doggo has 'pinned him down'

My crass 'pinned down' comment concerned Doggo managing to twist Deeluded in knots after he opined that he would prefer a situation that became untenable - Warnock being the weakest of the 4 tall defenders and having him play ahead of Rivers because of some wanton desire to make Garland a third tall.

You cannot (well you can but people will point it out) give alternatives that don't pan out to reason.

Other than crass gloating, I don't really see an issue with the comment.

As I have already stated. I agree that he is a KPB. But the fact that no one can disagree with the group think around here any more is a real shame.

People can disagree with the 'group think' on here if they wish.

I disagree it with myself on occasion (if such a thing exists).

But I don't aggrandise my arguments by suggesting that those who disagree with me are just engaging in 'group think.' Not that you just did, I realise. I just don't like the term.

Extremely well stated-just a question though.You state that IYO that Col is a KPB.Does this mean you think he is best suited as a half back flanker or a back pocket or more universal than that such as or wherever needed on the backline.

"By Key Position Back do you mean HBF, BP, or defensive utility?"

Or he might mean Key Position Back...

I still think for the team sake he would make a sensational winger- great defensive whilst strong attacking style. Whilst everybody on Demonland disagrees with me-I will stick to my opinion as Bails will pick him to play there this year on occassions and I'll have the last laugh even at HT's expense.

Still curious as to who you remove from our midfield to give Col a go...

...with Davey, Moloney, Sylvia, Jones, Scully, Trengove, Morton, Batram, Gysberts, Jetta, Bennell, Blease, Strauss, Grimes, Maric, and Bail all trying to be crammed into approx. 9 or 10 positions in the 22?

And playing him on a wing for ten minutes a game does not a change of position make.

It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul Allen... who only loaned you $3.30 in the first place and isn't concerned about getting it back.

"By Key Position Back do you mean HBF, BP, or defensive utility?"

Or he might mean Key Position Back...

Still curious as to who you remove from our midfield to give Col a go...

...with Davey, Moloney, Sylvia, Jones, Scully, Trengove, Morton, Batram, Gysberts, Jetta, Bennell, Blease, Strauss, Grimes, Maric, and Bail all trying to be crammed into approx. 9 or 10 positions in the 22?

And playing him on a wing for ten minutes a game does not a change of position make.

Here is my best team for 2011 -you and others can pick it to pieces. To me to have two tall wingers can give the team plenty of drive - similar to Clay & Woods many moons ago but still very suited to the modern game.Please note positional changes will be made due to the team that they play.However, my best team is as follows

Here it is:

2011 OPENING TEAM:

B: BARTRAM WARNOCK RIVERS

HB: GRIMES FRAWLEY MACDONALD

C: MORTON MOLONEY GARLAND

HF: GREEN WATTS BATE

FF: DAVEY JURRAH CAMPBELL*

R: *JAMAR McKENZIE SCULLY

I: DUNN (S) PETTERD SYLVIA JONES

* Change ruckman in forward pocket

EMERG: WONA BAIL GYSBERTS TRENGOVE

Note- some of the emergencies will play depending on match ups..

I now let you pick hell out of it and just for the record-I have picked a developing team with it..

2011 developing team:

B: BAIL DAVIS McNAMARA

HB: STRAUSS MARTIN NICHOLSON

C: BLEASE EVANS TRENGOVE

HF: HOWE COOK JETTA

FF: WONA NEWTON FITZPATRICK

R: SPENCER GYSBERTS MARIC TAPSCOTT

I: GAWN BENNELL JOHNSON TAPSCOTT

EMERG: LAWRENCE McDONALD

Now you & others can rip it apart..

Edited December 29, 201014 yr by jayceebee31

Here is my best team for 2011 -you and others can pick it to pieces. To me to have two tall wingers can give the team plenty of drive - similar to Clay & Woods many moons ago but still very suited to the modern game.Please note positional changes will be made due to the team that they play.However, my best team is as follows

Here it is:

2011 OPENING TEAM:

B: BARTRAM WARNOCK RIVERS

HB: GRIMES FRAWLEY MACDONALD

C: MORTON MALONEY GARLAND

HF: GREEN WATTS BATE

FF: DAVEY JURRAH CAMPBELL*

R: *JAMAR McKENZIE SCULLY

I: DUNN (S) PETTERD SYLVIA JONES

* Change ruckman in forward pocket

EMERG: WONA BAIL GYSBERTS TRENGOVE

Note- some of the emergencies will play depending on match ups..

I now let you pick hell out of it and just for the record-I have picked a developing team with it..

2011 developing team:

B: BAIL DAVIS McNAMARA

HB: STRAUSS MARTIN NICHOLSON

C: BLEASE EVANS TRENGOVE

HF: HOWE COOK JETTA

FF: WONA NEWTON FITZPATRICK

R: SPENCER GYSBERTS MARIC TAPSCOTT

I: GAWN BENNELL JOHNSON TAPSCOTT

EMERG: LAWRENCE McDONALD

Now you & others can rip it apart..

few things, warnock has shown this yr that he is not in our best side however this might change throughout the next year but come round 1 2011 if everyone is fit there is no way warnock will be in the side because garlo plays 2nd KP defender much better!

* its moloney not maloney

bate is the same with warnock and to have dunn and petterd on the bench instead of half forward is a joke!

and trengove will not in a million yrs be an emergency

having said all this I can see why ud want garlo playing on the wing because of he's athleticism, great kicking skills and tough match up he'd make for the opposition. The thing is, even though it is portrayed how strong our backline is, we desperately need garland down there to take the 2nd best forward so it frees up rivers to be the 3rd man up. If someone like davis comes along to be a very good player in a couple of years this may free up garland to play wing as you desire but i cannot see this happening in the near future!

and col sylvia is our best midfielder so he will start in the guts in every game!

few things, warnock has shown this yr that he is not in our best side however this might change throughout the next year but come round 1 2011 if everyone is fit there is no way warnock will be in the side because garlo plays 2nd KP defender much better!

* its moloney not maloney

bate is the same with warnock and to have dunn and petterd on the bench instead of half forward is a joke!

and trengove will not in a million yrs be an emergency

having said all this I can see why ud want garlo playing on the wing because of he's athleticism, great kicking skills and tough match up he'd make for the opposition. The thing is, even though it is portrayed how strong our backline is, we desperately need garland down there to take the 2nd best forward so it frees up rivers to be the 3rd man up. If someone like davis comes along to be a very good player in a couple of years this may free up garland to play wing as you desire but i cannot see this happening in the near future!

Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake of Beamer- he will never forgive me as he hates it.I'll re edit my last post.If indeed, Dunn & Petterd should be in the starting 22, then I accept Bate not to start -I don't see this as a big deal but who would you also cut out.Also whom would you cut out to include Trengove- I truthfully could not cull anyone-if Campbell is needed to play as a second ruckman. As stated,it also depends on the make up of the team and whom we are playing.And also got your point with Beamer in the guts instead of Sylvia. Both will play there - interchange reguarly.Just put Beamer first due to his leadership position.

Edited December 29, 201014 yr by jayceebee31

Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake of Beamer- he will never forgive me as he hates it.I'll re edit my last post.If indeed, Dunn & Peeterd should be in the starting 22, then I accept Bate not to start -I don't see this as a big deal but who would you also cut out.Also whom would you cut out to include Trengove- I truthfully could not cull anyone-if Campbell is needed to play as a second ruckman. As stated,it also depends on the make up of the team and whom we are playing.

haha, um I would just take warnock out of the side then put garland back in defence and move trengove to the wing!

you guys are nuts. he's a kpd when thats his best matchup for the team, he's a back pocket when thats his best match up for the team. isn't that good enough lol?

you guys are nuts. he's a kpd when thats his best matchup for the team, he's a back pocket when thats his best match up for the team. isn't that good enough lol?

LOL to ya 2 -however I differ with my opinion- surely we are allowed to have one..you are why can't we?

and col sylvia is our best midfielder so he will start in the guts in every game!

i agree and disagree, he is a possibility to be our best midfielder this season, and if he is then ill be rapt, but the other thing is usually our better midfielder starts on the bench, to aboid the tag, and see who will be tagging them for the match, even if it is assumed knowledge. this is also used so with the new interchange system so that players are able to get onto the field in time and be running solo.

but this is not always true haha

you guys are nuts. he's a kpd when thats his best matchup for the team, he's a back pocket when thats his best match up for the team. isn't that good enough lol?

No, because some are adamant that Colin NEVER, EVER will be a KPD. He's apparently NOT TALL ENOUGH or STRONG ENOUGH to be a KPD, nor, according to some, has he EVER played as a KPD.

But I don't agree. He can play on a variety of forwards - from Betts to Fevola. In this instance he does go from being a KPD to a BP but will still invariably pick up a focal point, an important forward, and he will invariably do well. And he will, unlike Warnock, do some damage with the pill and make his direct opponent think about somehting other than getting the ball himself.

He's value in the backline and I don't think he should be playing as a wingman.

Here is my best team for 2011 -you and others can pick it to pieces. To me to have two tall wingers can give the team plenty of drive - similar to Clay & Woods many moons ago but still very suited to the modern game.Please note positional changes will be made due to the team that they play.However, my best team is as follows

Here it is:

2011 OPENING TEAM:

B: BARTRAM WARNOCK RIVERS

HB: GRIMES FRAWLEY MACDONALD

C: MORTON MOLONEY GARLAND

HF: GREEN WATTS BATE

FF: DAVEY JURRAH CAMPBELL*

R: *JAMAR McKENZIE SCULLY

I: DUNN (S) PETTERD SYLVIA JONES

* Change ruckman in forward pocket

EMERG: WONA BAIL GYSBERTS TRENGOVE

Now you & others can rip it apart..

Aside from the obvious that isn't a bad team.

FB Rivers Frawley Batram

HB Grimes Garland MacDonald

C Davey Scully Sylvia

HF Petterd Watts Wonaeamirri

FF Campbell Green Jurrah

R Jamar, Moloney, McKenzie

I Trengove Dunn Morton

S A runner from the following:

E Bate, Bennell, Jones, Gysberts, Bail, Warnock, Maric, Jetta, Blease, Strauss, Tapscott, and the rest.

I think we need to begin campaigning for the AFL to change the rules, allowing more players on the field.

I think we need to begin campaigning for the AFL to change the rules, allowing more players on the field.

agree- agree -agree ,make it at least 32 to fit most of our list in..It is hard to come up with the best line up-that is why I think Morton & Garland at times(most) make the best wingman in our team..& that is not saying that Garland is not a very good backman.However, I will say, that he is not a player to play most times at CHB or full back.I would definately give that task to Frawley, Rivers, Warnock and now possibly Campbell ahead of Garland.He is best suited if indeed as a key backman as a role of HBF- similar to O'Brien (Magpies)or Kennelly ofthe Swans.Garland is 1cm taller than Bruce and 2 kls heavier.And can anyone tell me that Bruce was or would make a key postional defender.No Garland is to short & too light to play on a Brown, Roughead or any heavy tall forward IMO..

Edited December 29, 201014 yr by jayceebee31

That is terrible justification.

We'll ignore that even if Garland is capable of playing on a wing, he is hardly one of the best wingmen on the list.

We have ridiculous amounts of promising young talented mids/wingers and a handful of excess solid KPD.

Your solution is to shift our 2nd best KPD to a wing so we can fit more good ordinary defenders into our side at the expense of young could-be-anythings...

Crazy.

That is terrible justification.

We'll ignore that even if Garland is capable of playing on a wing, he is hardly one of the best wingmen on the list.

We have ridiculous amounts of promising young talented mids/wingers and a handful of excess solid KPD.

Your solution is to shift our 2nd best KPD to a wing so we can fit more good ordinary defenders into our side at the expense of young could-be-anythings...

Crazy.

I respect your opinion...good on ya..and have a great New Year..GO DEES.

Rather than worrying about where Garland is best suited let's be grateful that we have such a versatile and adaptable player on our list. He is,undoubtedly,the prototype player of the future. 192cm, quick, agile, good reader of the play, good skills and a definite "defensive" mind set.

With our current list of players,however, his best position is in the backline - his dash and athleticism complement the strength and hardness of Frawley and Rivers.

No, because some are adamant that Colin NEVER, EVER will be a KPD. He's apparently NOT TALL ENOUGH or STRONG ENOUGH to be a KPD, nor, according to some, has he EVER played as a KPD.

C'mon rpfc thats not a good or fair summary of some of the views that don't match yours. Such comments just stifle reasonable debate and show you are either not capable of appreciating subtleties in other's arguments or are running out of arguments and resorting to banal generalities

Garland is a good player (not A grade yet) who I hope will continue to improve/develop in 2011. I think many posters on this thread have got a little bit carried away with how good he is at this stage in his career

Whats wrong with wanting another great KPD (in the future) and having Garland in one of the other 5 back positions (assume one interchange is a defender) and being able to play KPD occassionally due to interchange/injury of KPD or neccessitated by match day matchups? In the meantime he obviously plays KPD.

agree- agree -agree ,make it at least 32 to fit most of our list in..It is hard to come up with the best line up-that is why I think Morton & Garland at times(most) make the best wingman in our team..& that is not saying that Garland is not a very good backman.However, I will say, that he is not a player to play most times at CHB or full back.I would definately give that task to Frawley, Rivers, Warnock and now possibly Campbell ahead of Garland.He is best suited if indeed as a key backman as a role of HBF- similar to O'Brien (Magpies)or Kennelly ofthe Swans.Garland is 1cm taller than Bruce and 2 kls heavier.And can anyone tell me that Bruce was or would make a key postional defender.No Garland is to short & too light to play on a Brown, Roughead or any heavy tall forward IMO..

Weight and height can be overblown. Frawley is only a cm taller than Garland. He's as tall as Morton.

What does it tell you?

In and of itself - nothing.

And Garland has towelled up Fev twice now. And he's the heaviest FF going around.

And Garland has towelled up Fev twice now. And he's the heaviest FF going around.

you know fev was below par physically on both occasions so why keep peddling this line.

Edited December 29, 201014 yr by daisycutter

Weight and height can be overblown. Frawley is only a cm taller than Garland. He's as tall as Morton.

What does it tell you?

In and of itself - nothing.

And Garland has towelled up Fev twice now. And he's the heaviest FF going around.

Please for Godsake if you are going to debate get your facts right.Go to the MFC website where you will see the following:

Frawley is 193 cms tall & 91 kls

Garland is 191 cms & 87 kls

Morton is showing he is 192 cms tall & 85 kls.

However, at training Frawley looks like he is at least 8 kls heavier and Morton seems to have grown and one other poster claims Morton has put on 7 more kls..and if you are interested in coming down to training andseeing it for yourself I am willing to pick you up at the airport ,take you to training and taking you back to the airport..

Edited December 29, 201014 yr by jayceebee31

How can you possibly ask someone to get their facts straight, then in the same breath explain that the facts are not readily available?

If the MFC website listed height & weight are obsolete, surely it is possible that he is correct.

By my judgement, Garland is only marginally shorter than Frawley, while Morton is the tallest of the 3.

Height isn't everything.

All 3 are at least as tall as Fevola.

How can you possibly ask someone to get their facts straight, then in the same breath explain that the facts are not readily available?

If the MFC website listed height & weight are obsolete, surely it is possible that he is correct.

By my judgement, Garland is only marginally shorter than Frawley, while Morton is the tallest of the 3.

Height isn't everything.

All 3 are at least as tall as Fevola.

Well I am going to ask you to re read my post then come back and apologise. Let your brain take in what I said.I stated the facts are ON THE MFC WEBSITE..however I also said that at training Morton looks taller.I did not make any change to Frawley's height or did I to Garland.Why don't you read before you open up a barrage of abuse when you also are incorrect.Maybe you also should not comment till you get your facts right also.And whilst you are correct that Fevola is not taller than the 3 mentioned ,he is 15 kls heavier based on the Brisbane players statistics on there website. Therefore, height may not be everything but 15kls is alot to give away.As I have stated many times and I repeat it for you to understand, Garland is a good defender whom would make or will make a great defender playng on the right opponent. It is just my opinion his best maybe as a winger.Aren't I ALLOWED AN OPINION LIKE YOU.And lastly if height and weight is not an issue for defenders to cover tall, heavy forwards ,why don't we play Wonaeamirri there?

Edited December 29, 201014 yr by jayceebee31