I'm wondering how supporters are feeling about him.

Let's say it was the choice of the coach and you being the coach had a decision to make about retaining him or releasing him. All things considered, what would you do for the betterment of the club?

I've watched him closely this year and I know there are some fans of his who are sick of hearing me go on about it but I genuinely believe he is a problem player who is part of this NQR group of long time serving MFC players. I believe he is a 'nothing' player. For his age and games experience I expect more from him in terms of on-field leadership, competitiveness and football smarts during game day. Never have I seen someone who plays so within themselves. I implore people to go back and just look at the way he plays and what he's actually offering us presently. Go and have a look at the beginning of the doggies game and tell me that he's providing something for this club that someone else couldn't do.

I've used him before as an example, but Frawley has been extremely underwhelming in his first year at Hawthorn in all capacities. This isn't only my view. Several Hawthorn supporting mates that I speak to share the same view. They believe his decision making, football smarts and skills are very average and that he looks genuinely lost on the field for them. A boy amongst men. Now, obviously I'm aware that he's playing in an unbelievably skilled side who happen to be the cream of the crop but I am talking more about the leadership qualities he supposedly had.

This is a guy who was in our leadership group last year and who is now looking like a school boy playing in a different side. For those who excuse this by saying things like 'he's learning a new system' etc etc, I am talking about basic body language and general intensity and energy shown whilst playing the game. Frawley doesn't show this. Garland doesn't show this and I strongly believe that this kind of lack of general intensity shown by players like that filters through and breeds bad habits and is almost certainly part of why we have such unbelievably poor drop offs in games still, regardless of the areas people believe that we have improved in.

When I think of that, and remember that Frawley was in the leadership group last year, it makes me feel a little bit sick. It's no wonder Neeld tried to bring in so many older, experienced heads from other clubs whom he thought would make a more positive and genuine culture change at the club. It was a failed experiment for various reasons but Roos' attempt has proven a success. Cross for example.

Let's look at him and let's look at the Bulldogs. They had the luxury of letting a player like him go and I bet your bottom dollar that he has been far more influential, sped up the development and provided far more knowledge than Garland, Dunn and Frawley combined. He plays and carries himself in a way that leaders and senior figures must. He competes and fights nail and tooth at all times and the tragic part of it all is that he is still getting games for us because we lack this kind of psychology and energy. His skills and speed are awful but he provides what players like Garland and Frawley should have provided.

Coming back to Garland. What is it that supporters get so hung up about when pondering his value to the side? Given what has just been said.

When I look at Jed Adcock, I think wow, here's another opportunity to bring in another player who possesses the same type of leadership qualities that players like Cross possess and he's played a big part in developing some of those younger leaders at Brisbane. Here's an opportunity to fill that 'games experience' void that supporters would worry about in losing him and it also provides an opportunity for us to put someone back there who will provide more attacking drive and better foot-skills and decision making skills which is something our back six are screaming out for.

Frankly, I can't understand any argument that is pro keeping Garland other than sentimental feeling or bias for him as an individual.

The whole Garland/Frawley/Jamar/Dunn debate is only one of several problems that our club has experienced. But I strongly believe we need to continue to weed the list and proactively and aggressively add to our list so that this core group or Hogan, Viney, Brayshaw, Salem etc continue to grow, continue to be inspired by their leaders and most importantly want to stay the course to take us to our first finals series in almost ten years.

Him along with Jamar are two more I'd like seen gone by the end of the season.

Didn't know whether this was a Frawley thread or Garland lol..

But yes i get your point..

offer him what we can afford, but not more than he's worth to us at our stage of repair.... I like /Garlans as a person, but if he chooses to leave, it will help the rebuild/refresh.

I've watched him closely this year and I know there are some fans of his who are sick of hearing me go on about it

Understatement of the year.

Not only have you waffled on... and on... and on about him you've gone and started a thread just so you can repeat yourself. Again.

We get it mate, you don't rate him and you've got time on your hands to write an essay to rival the Gettysburg Address to let us know.

Garland isn't the problem.

Understatement of the year.

Not only have you waffled on... and on... and on about him you've gone and started a thread just so you can repeat yourself. Again.

We get it mate, you don't rate him and you've got time on your hands to write an essay to rival the Gettysburg Address to let us know.

Garland isn't the problem.

I can only assume it annoys you because of an emotional bias.

Considering at no point do you ever elaborate on your one word statements on the subject, I genuinely wonder whether you have a clue what you're talking about?

At no point did I say he is 'THE' problem. I said that he along with that group of players that I mentioned are and have been problematic. Garland happens to be coming out of contract which is why I'm speaking about him.

Your other option is to not even open the thread. But you took the time to read it and respond only in expressing your annoyance about me.

It all says much more about you, than me...

I can only assume it annoys you because of an emotional bias.

Considering at no point do you ever elaborate on your one word statements on the subject, I genuinely wonder whether you have a clue what you're talking about?

At no point did I say he is 'THE' problem. I said that he along with that group of players that I mentioned are problematic. Garland happens to be coming out of contract which is why I'm speaking about him.

Your other option is to not even open the thread. But you took the time to read it and respond only in expressing your annoyance about me.

It all says much more about you, than me...

this is right, and Key is that Colin is currently 27yrs 3 moths of age.

in 2 seasons time, he will be struggling for a new Mfc contract, with our young rising kids... if he can grab a 3yr or more deal Now, its in his better interests to go for it.

Understatement of the year.

Not only have you waffled on... and on... and on about him you've gone and started a thread just so you can repeat yourself. Again.

We get it mate, you don't rate him and you've got time on your hands to write an essay to rival the Gettysburg Address to let us know.

Garland isn't the problem.

If I recall correctly, the Gettysburg Address was only about 250 words long.

Probably why it is so well known.

As for Garland -

- If "Category 1" is players who clearly aren't going to be AFL standard and should be cut at the end of 2015

- And "Category 2" includes players who are making a barely adequate contribution right now, but who we must hope will either improve or be overtaken by kids soon.

Then Garland slots into category 2 at the moment. Not for just dumping in a year with at least half a dozen cuts coming already, but definitely needs to improve to survive any longer than 2016.

I can only assume it annoys you because of an emotional bias.

Considering at no point do you ever elaborate on your one word statements on the subject, I genuinely wonder whether you have a clue what you're talking about?

At no point did I say he is 'THE' problem. I said that he along with that group of players that I mentioned are and have been problematic. Garland happens to be coming out of contract which is why I'm speaking about him.

Your other option is to not even open the thread. But you took the time to read it and respond only in expressing your annoyance about me.

It all says much more about you, than me...

Well why don't you make it about that group of players? By focusing on just one, Garland, you give the impression that you believe out of all of them he is the bigger problem.

Just because Garland is OOC is a poor excuse. Jamar is OOC also. Players can be traded very easily if need be, or others recruited to fill their role. You have focused, consistently, on Garland throughout this year and this is just a further example of that. As you mentioned yourself there are guys out there like Adcock who can fill a role for us that may have been filled by one of these players you have trouble with.

You might claim it's about the others as well but we all know that's not entirely true. You have it in for Garland and have so all year.

And I'm not annoyed through emotional bias. Far from it. We have holes on our list and variety of players that aren't up to standard. Garland, however, isn't one of them. You have no proof that he brings no value to the side other than his 'intensity'. Name me the times he's been beaten this year, or caused costly turnovers? There are far more players on our list we should be focusing on than Garland.

My only beef about Colin is that he kicks too many up and unders Cale Morton style.

For me he is one of a number who need to be moved on ASAP in order for us to change our style of play. I have never liked Garland and he does not offer much more than a stock standard first or second year defender. At times when he breaks the lines out of defence and kicks the ball long he is very handy, but this occurs probably once or twice a season.

Name me the times he's been beaten this year, or caused costly turnovers? There are far more players on our list we should be focusing on than Garland.

As an example you have called for, I think the most recent was the North game, where he turned over more than half his 10 possies, with a number resulting in opposition goals.

He has been a good servant of the MFC, but he still turns the ball over often, with a high kick, or a misguided kick, or a handball to the feet etc.

As an example you have called for, I think the most recent was the North game, where he turned over more than half his 10 possies, with a number resulting in opposition goals.

He has been a good servant of the MFC, but he still turns the ball over often, with a high kick, or a misguided kick, or a handball to the feet etc.

Fair call on the North game, although after the first quarter when we were smashed all over the ground he did his job defensively very well which he does most weeks. He is a reliable, experienced player who is irreplaceable at the minute. Some might argue that Frost is being earmarked for his role, and that may well be, but he is still unproven and was played forward at the start of the year.

Plus if we want to talk about turnovers then you could also argue someone like Tom McDonald does them regularly as well, and sometimes they are more costly.

Weird isn't it. Better than Dunn, Lumumba and many others. Will finish in Bluey top-10. Tags the opposition's best resting midfielder. Get rid of him!

Weird isn't it. Better than Dunn, Lumumba and many others. Will finish in Bluey top-10. Tags the opposition's best resting midfielder. Get rid of him!

He is not better then Dunn and Lumumba. Thats just laughable.

And he will NOT finish top 10. I will be very very shocked if he did.

He is not better then Dunn and Lumumba. Thats just laughable.

And he will NOT finish top 10. I will be very very shocked if he did.

He hasn't played any worse than either of them this year. He has had a better year than Lumumba at any rate.

When Roos talks about players with "scars from the past" the first player I think of is Garland.

Ripper bloke and ok player, but can't help but feel he would be happier elsewhere and we would have one less player who drops their head. If it was JUST about performance I would be on the fence, but it's not, it's about confidence, culture and team spirit, and I just see Col as a guy who is fragile in those areas after coping it for so hard for so many years. I don't blame him at all, and that's why i think it'd be best for both club and player if he moved on.

He has had a better year than Lumumba at any rate.

Hardly think that's as cut and dry as you're trying to make it out to be.

H is teaching us some vital things about moving with and without the ball, Col still goes back over the mark every time. Also, H is delivering more numbers wise in almost every important category.

I can only assume it annoys you because of an emotional bias.

Considering at no point do you ever elaborate on your one word statements on the subject, I genuinely wonder whether you have a clue what you're talking about?

At no point did I say he is 'THE' problem. I said that he along with that group of players that I mentioned are and have been problematic. Garland happens to be coming out of contract which is why I'm speaking about him.

Your other option is to not even open the thread. But you took the time to read it and respond only in expressing your annoyance about me.

It all says much more about you, than me...

He never does that. Ignore him. He is happy to take pot shots with pathetic snide comments like some superior being. Doesn't address any points. Most boring poster on Land and that is saying something.

For me he is one of a number who need to be moved on ASAP in order for us to change our style of play. I have never liked Garland and he does not offer much more than a stock standard first or second year defender.

For me he's just too lackadaisical/lethargic.

He never does that. Ignore him. He is happy to take pot shots with pathetic snide comments like some superior being. Doesn't address any points. Most boring poster on Land and that is saying something.

That's ironic.

Starting to come around to Steve's side a little bit and can see the benefits of letting him go

I know it was mentioned above but getting in someone like Adcock while White/another draft pick develops could be a good option

I voted let go, but that's only on the assumption that there's another player that's is already committed to coming to the club next year to play off half back, like a David McKay or Matt Suckling etc.

Otherwise I'd have no issue in holding onto him. I certainly wouldn't let him walk purely for the sake of getting a draft pick.

For me he's just too lackadaisical/lethargic.

Agree 100% when he lifts his intensity he can be a great attacking defender..

His 27 and his best football should be now but it's seems it's very much behind him.

Well why don't you make it about that group of players? By focusing on just one, Garland, you give the impression that you believe out of all of them he is the bigger problem.

Just because Garland is OOC is a poor excuse. Jamar is OOC also. Players can be traded very easily if need be, or others recruited to fill their role. You have focused, consistently, on Garland throughout this year and this is just a further example of that. As you mentioned yourself there are guys out there like Adcock who can fill a role for us that may have been filled by one of these players you have trouble with.

You might claim it's about the others as well but we all know that's not entirely true. You have it in for Garland and have so all year.

And I'm not annoyed through emotional bias. Far from it. We have holes on our list and variety of players that aren't up to standard. Garland, however, isn't one of them. You have no proof that he brings no value to the side other than his 'intensity'. Name me the times he's been beaten this year, or caused costly turnovers? There are far more players on our list we should be focusing on than Garland.

Honestly, you may as well just stick to pot-shotting posters and forget about the subject matter. You're better at it.

Let's look at that group of players:

Frawley is underperforming at Hawthorn and was a pretty poor and underachieving senior figure for us apart from his one AA year

Jamar has had one AA year and since then has done SFA, he has never been a leader and will now look like he'll end his career at the MFC as a casey player.

Dunn had his first break-out season as a full-back last year and this year whilst not as good, has still been solid. He is now in the leadership group. He is not OOC.

Garland is coming OOC and is a FA, hasn't played good consistent footy for too long, is not performing as well as he should be as a senior figure who's been at the club for years and does not offer anything in terms of leadership on the field.

Why I need to spell this out I have no idea.

They are and were a problematic group. Reasons being: lack of leadership and genuine care to get the best out of themselves, lack of intensity, extremely inconsistent form over their careers.

This particular thread is about Garland and I'm sharing my thoughts as to why I think as a club we'd be better off without him and I'm interested in other supporters thoughts about him and what he offers vs what he doesn't.

It's clearly over your head.