frawley?

Isolated case.

Basing a decision on a player on whether they are from the past or not is a mistake. Base that decision on their contribution to the team, skill, errors, etc. Not on that they have too much experience!

For those wishing the club retain Garland, how much do you believe we should pay to do so? Uncontracted RFA that may attract second-round compo. Any 'decision' will be dictated to us by the market.

No.

Why jump to a silly ultimatum when it's easy to see what the post is referring too?

We are talking about blokes who have been here since the Bailey days and some from before.

The blokes who are insignificant players at our club but who should really be the leaders.

Nathan Jones isn't in that bracket and neither is Viney both for different reasons.

Why is it so hard to understand?

Because you argue based on someone leaving because they have been here too long. Does not make sense and is a mistake.

Not every player also needs to be an overt leader, I am sure there would be young players who would look up to the Garlands and Jetta's of the world, quiet achievers who get their job done with little fanfare. I know as a kid these were the sort of people I sought out, not the overt look at me I am leader type, they left me cold, and still do. You need a mix of both.

Jamar and Garland along with Dunn, Frawley, Sylvia are and were a core group of underperforming, inconsistent players who were and have been with us since the pre-Bailey era. Howe came along not long afterwards.

All of them, (for various reasons) have at times during their career shown a lack of care and commitment to be fiercely competitive at all times.

They also share these following traits:

* Lack of skill level and decision making. Sometimes to the point of making comical extremely comical errors.

* Have never improved their individual games over the course of their careers in a consistent way like Nathan Jones. Form has always been up and down.

* An extremely low level of leadership qualities present in their game and in the way that they play.

When you have a group of older/experienced players such as these guys who share those sort of traits, it doesn't bode particularly well for your club, the list, the younger generation of players etc etc.

There is a reason Frawley and Sylvia are gone. And no I do not believe that Roos would have preferred to keep them regardless of what he said to the media during that time.

Jamar and Garland are another two that will be gone for the same reasons and Howe has seemed to follow trend with this lot and we can still net something really good for him.

Someone please tell me what Garland adds to our club in it's present state? What?!

I wonder if any noticed it shown on AFL360 (or possibly the telecast itself) after the Geelong win, when Roosy came into the rooms seconds after the win, Garland in his civvies with a big grin on his face, giving Roosy a big hug.

I think they have a strong enough relationship & I don't think Garland will be going anywhere.

We'll see.

I saw it also.

In any workplace, the relationships you hold have to be strong while you're there.

I don't think a 'hug' after a win is any indication that Garland is a required player...

But that's just me.

Jamar and Garland along with Dunn, Frawley, Sylvia are and were a core group of underperforming, inconsistent players who were and have been with us since the pre-Bailey era. Howe came along not long afterwards.

All of them, (for various reasons) have at times during their career shown a lack of care and commitment to be fiercely competitive at all times.

They also share these following traits:

* Lack of skill level and decision making. Sometimes to the point of making comical extremely comical errors.

* Have never improved their individual games over the course of their careers in a consistent way like Nathan Jones. Form has always been up and down.

* An extremely low level of leadership qualities present in their game and in the way that they play.

When you have a group of older/experienced players such as these guys who share those sort of traits, it doesn't bode particularly well for your club, the list, the younger generation of players etc etc.

There is a reason Frawley and Sylvia are gone. And no I do not believe that Roos would have preferred to keep them regardless of what he said to the media during that time.

Jamar and Garland are another two that will be gone for the same reasons and Howe has seemed to follow trend with this lot and we can still net something really good for him.

Someone please tell me what Garland adds to our club in it's present state? What?!

The other thing in common, they all came through the club during a leadership void. They have and to work it out themselves, and to a large degree are getting there over the last 18 months or so. Unless you can replace them with better leaders then the current young ones will come up in a void of leadership as well. That is not a good thing.

Garland would also add leadership to the quieter players, the ones who aren't into the jock crap that football clubs can throw about, and the reason I stopped playing in my 20's. No interest in it, Garland offers an alternative.

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by Chris

Jamar and Garland along with Dunn, Frawley, Sylvia are and were a core group of underperforming, inconsistent players who were and have been with us since the pre-Bailey era.

Howe came along not long afterwards.

All of them, (for various reasons) have at times during their career shown a lack of care and commitment to be fiercely competitive at all times.

They also share these following traits:

* Lack of skill level and decision making. Sometimes to the point of making comical extremely comical errors.

* Have never improved their individual games over the course of their careers in a consistent way like Nathan Jones. Form has always been up and down.

* An extremely low level of leadership qualities present in their game and in the way that they play.

When you have a group of older/experienced players such as these guys who share those sort of traits, it doesn't bode particularly well for your club, the list, the younger generation of players etc etc.

There is a reason Frawley and Sylvia are gone. And no I do not believe that Roos would have preferred to keep them regardless of what he said to the media during that time.

Jamar and Garland are another two that will be gone for the same reasons and Howe has seemed to follow trend with this lot and we can still net something really good for him.

Someone please tell me what Garland adds to our club in it's present state? What?!

lets dissect the under-performing time frame. lets say from the start of year 2000

lets go right back past the bailey era... for a moment. Which players did not like to work really hard all the time, on defensive work running, chasing, manning up, being accountable; prior to Jamar, Garland, Dunn, Frawley, eras?

lets list the ones who didn't like to do the hard stuff like, physical tackling bringing opponent crashing to ground, always leave opponent off his feet, chasing flat out, running to spread & receive, crashing packs when necessary, dropping off to help teammate, sacrificial acts like run to draw opponent,

I'd offer our first rounder + Howe, and that still probably wouldn't get it done

Spot on. It's probably fantasy.

I think Roos rates Garland, as do I, so I would surprised to see him go.

I think he might rate him too, as do I, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him shown the door if we can get adequate compensation. As 'Steve' intimates, less of the 'scarred' brigade the better. It wasn't their fault they were drafted to the rabble that was the MFC 2007-2013, but some seem perpetually unable to stand up in times of need.

This could even mean that we look to trade Toumpas too, but only if we can get something decent in return, otherwise his potential upside offers greater reward. The same probably goes for Garland.

The longer the delay the more likely that one or both are goneski especially if Howe was offered big money from GWS. Shame about Howe is that he is one of the few on our list who the kids like to follow.

The kids'll like to follow a winning team. If Howe leaving in some way contributes to that, I'm all for it.

I occasionally work in schools and the number of kids that run around with Hawthorn jumpers on, where there is not a Melbourne jumper in sight, is alarming. What's more, I work in pretty affluent, traditionally "Melbourne" supporting areas too. We've currently lost a whole generation of supporters, but kids are fickle. If we have some sustained success, kids will jump on board.

What happened last time we threw out the past and bought in the future?

What if you could replace Garland with a best 22 mid that was in his age bracket. Would you do it?

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by AdamFarr

Isolated case.

Basing a decision on a player on whether they are from the past or not is a mistake. Base that decision on their contribution to the team, skill, errors, etc. Not on that they have too much experience!

Well actually, this is the only case of it happening under Roos (if you don't count Sylvia) and Gus Brayshaw is working out alright for me. So's Bernie Vince if we're counting that. I'll trust this FD to make the right call.

I saw it also.

In any workplace, the relationships you hold have to be strong while you're there.

I don't think a 'hug' after a win is any indication that Garland is a required player...

But that's just me.

I have no doubt Garland is a required player.

I just think it demonstrates that Garland also does not have a foot out the door and an eye on his wallet either.

What if you could replace Garland with a best 22 mid that was in his age bracket. Would you do it?

Would be worth thinking about.

i'm not advocating nor predicting for col to go

i'd be happy whether he stays or goes

if he goes i don't think it would necessarily hurt us, depending on what compo we get and how we use that compo

So we are 1/3 of the way through the season. Having so many injuries might be a blessing from a long-term perspective because it gives the club an indication which of the fringe players can step up and earn their spot, or otherwise demonstrate themselves as list-cloggers.

At this stage, I would say the following players may well be delisted at season's end -

McKenzie

Terlich

M.Jones

Bail

Fitzpatrick

Players that may well be traded -

Grimes

Toumpas

Howe

Watts

Trengove (if any takers)

Thoughts?

I tend to think you are probably right. Of the first list I would have been happier to have more of a look at Terlich this season in our better team. Not sure many will agree with that I have only ever really seen him during very bad times. The second list I would trade the lot only exception maybe Howe.

Col is clearly best 22, i hope he stays

Personally I think there are far more marginal players to 'dispose of' than Garland.

Personally I think there are far more marginal players to 'dispose of' than Garland.

^ this.

Jamar and Garland along with Dunn, Frawley, Sylvia are and were a core group of underperforming, inconsistent players who were and have been with us since the pre-Bailey era. Howe came along not long afterwards.

All of them, (for various reasons) have at times during their career shown a lack of care and commitment to be fiercely competitive at all times.

They also share these following traits:

* Lack of skill level and decision making. Sometimes to the point of making comical extremely comical errors.

* Have never improved their individual games over the course of their careers in a consistent way like Nathan Jones. Form has always been up and down.

* An extremely low level of leadership qualities present in their game and in the way that they play.

When you have a group of older/experienced players such as these guys who share those sort of traits, it doesn't bode particularly well for your club, the list, the younger generation of players etc etc.

There is a reason Frawley and Sylvia are gone. And no I do not believe that Roos would have preferred to keep them regardless of what he said to the media during that time.

Jamar and Garland are another two that will be gone for the same reasons and Howe has seemed to follow trend with this lot and we can still net something really good for him.

Someone please tell me what Garland adds to our club in it's present state? What?!

STMJ, the thing I'll say in relation to Garland is that he's been cruelled by injury. If you remember, pre injury he was proving a revelation. He's a player who has seen the footy swept into his area in the last five years, more than some backmen see in a lifetime. I'd cut him a little slack and let him do a full pre-season.

Personally I think there are far more marginal players to 'dispose of' than Garland.

this is true maurie, but these others (apart from howe if you include him) don't have any trade or compo value

so it's an apples and oranges comparison

biggest worry are those who are more marginal that have contracts beyond eoy

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by daisycutter

Personally I think there are far more marginal players to 'dispose of' than Garland.

And I'd agree with you. But we wouldn't be 'disposing' him. And that's the point. We'd receive compo which could set us up to get someone decent through a trade.

That's the whole point of this. He still has value.

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

I think it's extremely unfair to group Jamar, Dunn and Garland in with Sylvia and Frawley.

I'm adamant that the first three have given their all for this club, and I will always respect them for that.

White is a first year rookie showing a little promise with a deadly left foot. Why get rid of him when he costs SFA and doesn't take a spot on the main list?

Rookies get two year deals absolute! Agree plenty of upside!

That's ridiculous.

Garland still makes all the same mistakes he has over the journey has learned nothing

Others have. Simple really.

Mc Donald going the same way then!! disposal very iffy and does not get enough body on body in contested ball!

Cloke destroyed him on this point!

Mc Donald going the same way then!! disposal very iffy and does not get enough body on body in contested ball!

Cloke destroyed him on this point!

Hey Picket, I didn't know you weren't a fan of Tom McDonald

Retired: Jamar

Delist: M.Jones Mckenzie Bail Terlich Fitzpatrick

Upgrade: vandenBurg Harmes

Draft: 5, 23, 41, 59.

Look to bring in a free agent and draft 3 players. It is a shallow draft this year.

Jamar and Garland along with Dunn, Frawley, Sylvia are and were a core group of underperforming, inconsistent players who were and have been with us since the pre-Bailey era. Howe came along not long afterwards.

'steve' you can't just dump Garland in with the likes of Sylvia, Frawley and Howe, he offers far more than any of them.