I think its time too try Garland forward. He would be a tough match up for any opposition.

Its not foreign to him! Play for Tassie down there.

With the addition of Tom McDonald down back we can afford to release Garland up forward.

Backs - Frawley, Rivers, Sellar, Tom McDonald, Joel Macdonald, Grimes, Bartram etc.

Why do people want to keep fiddling with the team when the backline is one of the things we have going for us.

Macdonald will probably be gone at the end of this year, Sellar is no good, Mcdonald has played what- 6 games? Grimes isn't exactly mr reliable with his injury history and Rivers works best being able to play loose- with Garland out he will have to be accountable for a player.

This is what we are developing Cook for.

My view is, and will remain until our backline doesn't have to deal with Fitzroy level I50s, they are doing fine.

We know what Frawley can do down there, we know what Garland can do down there - let's keep them there.

Get Grimes into the middle though...

Garland showed what a versatile player he is last night picking up Milne and I have no doubt he could do well forward or even in the middle. I guess it's going to depend on who comes through over the next couple of years with Cook, Sheahan, Davis and Fitz along with what we do with Martin. Not forgetting Blease, Strauss, Taggert, Tynan, Tapscott and Bennell.

At the moment he probably needs to stay back but I'm not against the idea of him being able to swing forward or to even run as a defensive forward against a Fisher/Murphy type.

With the strucures these days you don't see coaches as willing to make the big match winning move during a game anymore. Silvagni to FF, Hunter back to forward. The sub seems the only move, pity.

Grimes to the middle, yep again depending on who comes through.

Tom McDonald will play forward eventually. Last night was just a tutorial on how to play forward by one of the best forwards of the last 20yrs. McDonald has the engine to run ANY defender into the ground (ala. N. Reiwoldt), and in 5yrs time when he fills out, he will be one of the best forwards in the competition.

Might sound pretty stupid by making such a statement after 6 games, but I genuinely believe it

I would like too see it happen for at least half the season. I believe Tom McDonald will play for the remainder of the year down back.

Give it a go!

If not Garland, try Tom McDonald!

I was extremely pleased we picked up Tom McD he was dedicated to playing AFL and succeeding and that's the type of player we want. I'd leave him where he is at the moment and maybe next year move him forward, I'd also leave Garland down back I think we have other options in the forward line.

BTW If Tom McD played for one of the fashionable clubs the media would be all over him.

Edited April 29, 201213 yr by RobbieF

Garland, Frawley, Tom Mac, Grimes,a fit Strauss & Rivers till he is replaced by a younger player Davis/Shehan or someone else will be the backbone of our defence in the future, we do not need to Tinker with it

No.

Let's try and find some forwards. Not defenders who we like so we thrust them forward because we don't have any forwards.

Leave the defence as a unit. Eventually the midfield will get better and then our defence will be a rock solid unit. Garland is also a versatile defender, as he showed on the weekend playing on Milne.

Outside of tanking, I can't find a good reason to move Garland forward.

I've heard a bunch of reports about how he was a very good forward when he played junior footy. That being said, he's too valuable down back to move up forward. He can play on small, tall and medium sized forwards and hold his own. I assume Garland would be a marking forward, and that's not what our forward line needs; we need a crumber.

If Clark, Watts and Howe all go down at once, maybe try him up there. Until that happens, leave him in defence.

Yeah, cos we definitely don't have enough mid-sized forwards..........

Why? Garland is a very important defender, he can either play small or tall, which is pivotal as his versatility means he is often able to stop any kind of forward! He is pivotal in defense and hardly loses a one on one, while we are at it though, let's try Mitch Clark at full back when he is fit!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Good one Jungle Dee!!!

That's the thing though. If Sellar can play his role and McDonald too, we can afford to through Garland forward. Still think he's a better defender (but that's only because I think extremely highly of his capabilities down there). Played brilliantly as a forward tonight though.

Sellar stepped up, to the surprise of many, in the absence of Frawley.

Garland up forward also exerts some defensive pressure.

Good move. Long term - ??

Yep - remains to be seen if the move has any longevity, but it was a masterstroke on the night. Good call jungle dee.

Just voted yes...... Too late perhaps!

Leave him there for a few games, leave Watts back - gain some versatility to be able throw Watts forward when we need something different and the Garland can back when needed as well - love it

I drive the crowd I sit with mad each week with my ‘we should try Garland forward’ speech. Last night we finally got to see it. Fair to say a few had joined my campaign by the end of the night.

It could very well work. In essence Watts and Garlo have switched positions. Do remember there were calls for Garland to play on the wing early in the preseason. Watts and Garland have the agility to push up the ground when needed.

Sellar essentially came in for Chip. So Chip will most likely come in for Sellar.

I drive the crowd I sit with mad each week with my ‘we should try Garland forward’ speech. Last night we finally got to see it. Fair to say a few had joined my campaign by the end of the night.

I am close to someone who has been championing this for a long time also.

Kudos to those that called it, and Neeld for having the initiative to try it.

From Emma Quale's article in the age:

Neeld moved Garland forward after reviewing the players' draft reports this week and noticing that he had been recruited from Tasmania as a forward.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/desperate-dees-find-will-to-win-20120602-1zpew.html

I'm actually surprised it fell into place that way, and would have expected it to have been dismissed earlier through the "too valuable down back" argument.

He certainly has the skills and smart for a forward. But I suspect the surprise element caught out the Dons. He will be given a lot more respect if he plays forward in the future.

It was an excellent move, and with Watts developing his game in the backline we could see more of Col up forward.

I am close to someone who has been championing this for a long time also.

Kudos to those that called it, and Neeld for having the initiative to try it.

From Emma Quale's article in the age:

http://www.theage.co...0602-1zpew.html

I'm actually surprised it fell into place that way, and would have expected it to have been dismissed earlier through the "too valuable down back" argument.

Really good to see him have such an influence the onyl thing I'd say about the Quale article is I would have thought Neeld, another line coach would have known about Garls?all players playing history. Lets hope it is able to be something for the long term.

Really good to see him have such an influence the onyl thing I'd say about the Quale article is I would have thought Neeld, another line coach would have known about Garls?all players playing history. Lets hope it is able to be something for the long term.

I thought the same.