Arguments like this make you appear to have the intellectual and emotional maturity of an 8 year old.

Please try to stick to the topic instead.

Whats your fascination with 8 year olds? Thats your 2nd reference to it, to two different posters.

If you keep it up people will think you are a paedophile (yes, I prefer the UK spelling)

I just like the number 8, for apparently-not-quite-so obvious reasons.

Whats your fascination with 8 year olds? Thats your 2nd reference to it, to two different posters.

If you keep it up people will think you are a paedophile (yes, I prefer the UK spelling)

Reminds me of a Michael Jackson joke a while ago....

Why does he love twenty eight year olds?

Because there are 20 of them!!!!!

Reminds me of a Michael Jackson joke a while ago....

Why does he love twenty eight year olds?

Because there are 20 of them!!!!!

good one - hadn't heard that one

I just like the number 8, for apparently-not-quite-so obvious reasons.

8 is a lucky number in Chinese.

8 is a lucky number in Chinese.

Hmmmm, maybe Keyser Söze is chinese. Hadn't considered that

I just like the number 8, for apparently-not-quite-so obvious reasons.

JCB, its obviously your avatar thats the problem

Here is a suggested replacement

JCB, its obviously your avatar thats the problem

Here is a suggested replacement

It's a bit old for me - I look nine here and not mean enough.

Edited December 31, 201014 yr by jayceebee31

Time for your meds rpfc. Settle down, it's not your own personal board.

Are you competing with RR for attack dog of the month?

You dish out as much tripe as anyone and you certainly don't stop at being personal

Just chill out and show a little class

Yeah, I can be trying at times.

But I don't get personal - I don't call anyone a loser, insist they have poor judgment, or intimate that a poster is a "c***".

And I don't send PMs like our friend John does. They are passive aggressive, unnecessary, and intimadatory.

I really don't think that there is any parallel.

My recent idiocy was the "superior supporter" argument and I apologised for that.

You should PM your friend, you obviously have a rapport, and tell him to show some class.

Edited December 31, 201014 yr by rpfc

Can you just leave it there?

None of this is necessary.

& John, if Garland ever plays on a wing, I will come to training with you.

Can you just leave it there?

None of this is necessary.

& John, if Garland ever plays on a wing, I will come to training with you.

You are welcome anytime- but bygee I'll take your offer up- I hope he does play there (at least on occassions)for the best interest of the team.Believe me- there will be some positional changes this year due to the sub situation.Many players will have to be flexible and play in all types of roles.He may even play at CHB or Full back(my tongue is in my cheek whilst I type this).I see several others playing other roles too- such as Grimes in the guts. Bails has tried many things over the last few years- Newton on a wing,Warnock at CHF, PJ in a back pocket- whilst he was accussed of tanking,and I don't want to get into that argument - he has tried players in different roles.Jones as a tagger last year -will do him well in future years.It is a part of development. Furhermore Neita played CHB before FF,Lyon on a wing before CHF, FF .That is why I think Garland could and at times play there.However, I respect all other views but definately wanted to protect mine. HT said I could not keep of this thread-I should have listened to him before now .Anyhow it was getting to personal and out of control just for a view. Keyser your on..see you soon at training - prepare for March/April after he lines up in the NAB cup.Will you also meet me at training if LJ plays occassionally on the wing also. Flexibilty will be the name of the game in 2011. And we have the players to suit..I feel it is the best up & coming list in the comp.

Edited December 31, 201014 yr by jayceebee31

Will you also meet me at training if LJ plays occassionally on the wing also.

That's nothing new, it has happened before. He has played through the middle in spurts a few times.

That's nothing new, it has happened before. He has played through the middle in spurts a few times.

YEP- but as you know at training- he is doing a hell of a lot more running and I feel they will play up up the field more as time goes by as well as a forward.Don't forget Davey was a only forward pocket going back a couple of seasons ago.Nothing is new,all I am saying is the team will be more flexible this year.LJ spent alot of time on the bench this year and last- I see him on the ground alot more in 2011. .Garland played on the forward line in his first few games, I think he kicked a goal with his first kick my memory.

Edited December 31, 201014 yr by jayceebee31

YEP- but as you know at training- he is doing a hell of a lot more running and I feel they will play up up the field more as time goes by as well as a forward.Don't forget Davey was a only forward pocket going back a couple of seasons ago.Nothing is new,all I am saying is the team will be more flexible this year.LJ spent alot of time on the bench this year and last- I see him on the ground alot more in 2011. .Garland played on the forward line in his first few games, I think he kicked a goal with his first kick my memory.

I reckon the reason he is doing more running is because he needs to get fitter. He still couldn't run out whole games in 2010, hence the spending time on the bench.

I reckon the reason he is doing more running is because he needs to get fitter. He still couldn't run out whole games in 2010, hence the spending time on the bench.

No doubt you are correct as well.

No doubt

No doubt

But obvious as all players are running to get fit.

If anyone watched tonight's gamne and still thinks Garland is a key defender- get some glasses or a brain.He is too small, too light and simply not good enough to be a key defender. Maybe a half baqck flanker but a wing is definately a better position for him.Ac dead set shocker tonight but all the 3 main things I mentioned really showed up.

Shiiiit, not this again.

Edited February 24, 201114 yr by eth38

Garland was poor, and yet he was still better than Warnock.

He is a Key Defender for the Dees because we have to use him as a KD.

And everyone knows he is very good at what he does.

Unbelievable. The first loss in a NAB Cup game.

A bit trigger happy, JCB? Looking to much to win an argument you have already lost?

I was hoping my "Vent your spleen" topic would keep other threads on topic. How I was mistaken!

Garland was poor, and yet he was still better than Warnock.

He is a Key Defender for the Dees because we have to use him as a KD.

And everyone knows he is very good at what he does.

Unbelievable. The first loss in a NAB Cup game.

A bit trigger happy, JCB? Looking to much to win an argument you have already lost?

do you not remember the predictions of doom after a certain loss to "hopeless" Freo?

Completely agree on Garland.

He had barry crocker tonight, but is still the best KPD we have after Frawley.

Warnock is handy depth, but not much more.

Rivers impressed at times tonight.

The big difference was that they played more desperately, as if this were a final.

At times we played as if it were a NAB cup match.

Garland was poor, and yet he was still better than Warnock.

He is a Key Defender for the Dees because we have to use him as a KD.

And everyone knows he is very good at what he does.

Unbelievable. The first loss in a NAB Cup game.

A bit trigger happy, JCB? Looking to much to win an argument you have already lost?

Just because many disagree doesn't say that I have lost the argument. The two key defenders we have on our list are Frawley & Rivers. The others are fill ins- we need to recruit another tall to go with Davis although Cook could play there and that means we should try to gain another tall utility. Please note, I am not trying to knife Col - it is just he is too small, too light and not good enough(tries to do to much) to consistently play at full back or CHB. . Although he can pinch hit on occassions,no doubt. I watch him train reguarly, I watch him play all practice and real matches.That is my opinion.

Just because many disagree doesn't say that I have lost the argument. The two key defenders we have on our list are Frawley & Rivers.

And Warnock? You mentioned him earlier in this thread as being more suited to a key defensive role than Garland.

Where is he now? Jumped off after one awful NAB game?

The others are fill ins- we need to recruit another tall to go with Davis although Cook could play there and that means we should try to gain another tall utility.

Ok, so Warnock is a fill-in. Davis is a kid. Davis is a teenager. Cook is the same and a forward.

Recruit a better tall defender than Garland?

Now that is a good option - at what cost? In what timeframe? In which trade week?

Please note, I am not trying to knife Col - it is just he is too small, too light and not good enough(tries to do to much) to consistently play at full back or CHB. .

I think he is good enough, and he is much better with an AA defender right next to him.

And, again, find a better option. But in what timeframe? At what cost? And which tradeweek?

Although he can pinch hit on occassions,no doubt. I watch him train reguarly, I watch him play all practice and real matches.That is my opinion.

When does a pinch hitter become a starter?

That isn't rhetorical. He is our starting 2nd tall with Rivers an excellent floating/3rd tall.

And I am glad you watch him train, I have no idea why you feel the need to constantly mention it.

Bailey also watches all training seesions and matches - people still think his opinion is off the mark.

Geez... I've never been a massive Garland fan but the guy was sub'd off halfway through the game (replaced by J. Howe) due to a "calf complaint"!

Here's hoping he pulls up ok.