I think some of these comments are a little simplistic. Col wouldn't be moved on because of his body language, he'd be moved on, because he doesn't put his stamp on the game as a senior player. He struggles to impact at contests and his man beats him more often than not these days. His skills are poor and he has engrained bad habits, such as Andrew Hamilton AFL

The Courier-Mail

August 24, 2015 8:00PMfailing to take the first option, yet taking the first option has clearly been a strong mandate from the coaching group this season.

You have little knowledge about football, any player that gets around like he does doesn't belong on a young list, his display this year if I recall in Darwin was disgraceful next please

Adam Farr did you see Frawley last night body language is everything the knowledge you have about AFL is very limited stop embarrassing yourself

Passive player, not just body language wise, the guy doesn't know how to kick forward. Mr Sideways or backtrack. Still better than some other options, and it seems he tried his luck in the FA market for no interest. Kind of what I was anticipating.

Still has a bit of value to us, would be a little more inclined to retain if Grimes and a couple of other plodders are on the way out. Handy for depth at least. Meh, all very meh decisions.

Passive player, not just body language wise, the guy doesn't know how to kick forward. Mr Sideways or backtrack. Still better than some other options, and it seems he tried his luck in the FA market for no interest. Kind of what I was anticipating.

Still has a bit of value to us, would be a little more inclined to retain if Grimes and a couple of other plodders are on the way out. Handy for depth at least. Meh, all very meh decisions.

I seem to remember him taking the game on a lot more under Neeld (and getting more of the ball). Hopefully Goodwin can reignite that while keeping Roos defensive foundations

You have little knowledge about football, any player that gets around like he does doesn't belong on a young list, his display this year if I recall in Darwin was disgraceful next please

I also have little knowledge about football, and I welcome the like-mindless to the list.

I seem to remember him taking the game on a lot more under Neeld (and getting more of the ball). Hopefully Goodwin can reignite that while keeping Roos defensive foundations

Meh. It's kind of been our problem for a while though- we have too many types that need to be motivated, whilst other clubs have more players that provide the motivation. Meh

Meh. It's kind of been our problem for a while though- we have too many types that need to be motivated, whilst other clubs have more players that provide the motivation. Meh

Has been just another problem added to a long list of problems which our own supporters on this forum for some reason refuse to either believe or see.

The amount of senior figures we've had who just don't have the tonic to 'do it' themselves. Always requiring some sort of external motivation.

A great example is the amount of times we've seen some of these players 'respond' only after an incredibly humiliating loss.

These are issues that happy-go-lucky supporters either cannot see or completely underestimate their significance.

If some of the posters on here had their way and players like Sylvia and Frawley were held on to because of this fixation with individuals at our club, imagine how we'd be faring...

I just find it scary. It's like trying to talk to Bill O'Reilly about Darwinism.

Meh. It's kind of been our problem for a while though- we have too many types that need to be motivated, whilst other clubs have more players that provide the motivation. Meh

True, but we are now recruiting and drafting players with self drive and the will to succeed and get better..

Jesse Hogan said that clearly numerous times in his Rising star media rounds. Having him recognize and state on public record that we are bringing in the right types of players shows we are definitely on the right track

Edited September 23, 20159 yr by hogans_heroes

Has been just another problem added to a long list of problems which our own supporters on this forum for some reason refuse to either believe or see.

The amount of senior figures we've had who just don't have the tonic to 'do it' themselves. Always requiring some sort of external motivation.

A great example is the amount of times we've seen some of these players 'respond' only after an incredibly humiliating loss.

These are issues that happy-go-lucky supporters either cannot see or completely underestimate their significance.

If some of the posters on here had their way and players like Sylvia and Frawley were held on to because of this fixation with individuals at our club, imagine how we'd be faring...

I just find it scary. It's like trying to talk to Bill O'Reilly about Darwinism.

I know you've copped a fair bit of flack for your criticism of Garland but I'm glad you've opened up the discussion and stuck to your guns.

Groupthink is a very real thing on this forum, and if you're on the wrong end of it, look out. Just be thankful you're criticising Garland and not McDonald. Or worse yet, not being in favour of the club receiving a priority pick.

I'm a bit on the fence with Garlo. Due to his experience and versatility, I don't think we're in a position to be letting him go just yet, but I'd hope the next iteration of our back six will see a few upgrades.

58% in favour is hardly a ringing endorsement

If you take out the foolish sentimental votes you'd be looking at around 20%

I wonder how close Garland is to a club record of losses played in

He represents losing itself

58% in favour is hardly a ringing endorsement

If you take out the foolish sentimental votes you'd be looking at around 20%

I wonder how close Garland is to a club record of losses played in

He represents losing itself

Nowhere near Nathan Jones, who has played in 150 losses. (Garland has played in 102)

Robbie Flower tops the list, having played in 184.

Current MFC players who have a worse win-loss ratio:

Matt Jones

Tom McDonald

Dom Tyson

Jeremy Howe

Jack Grimes

Nev Jetta

Edit: should quote my source, the excellent AFL Tables: http://afltables.com/afl/stats/alltime/misc_players.html

It's worthwhile noting as well that all of the players mentioned above are in the bottom 20 for current players' win-loss ratio, along with Jordie McKenzie and Rohan Bail.

Edited September 24, 20159 yr by Dr. Mubutu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6qS17Hzgeo

Have a look at the 30sec mark in this video. It tells you everything you need to know about Garland. (if someone can do the GIF thing it would be easier to see!). After watching him closely over the past three years this is the moment he lost me for good.

7mins into the game against St Kilda Rd 17.

Garland leaves Reiwoldt alone in the fwd 50 to run to a pack on the members wing.

Garland makes a lame effort to spoil in a pack and stops half way through and falls off the back.

The ball is gathered by the Saints who kick it to Reiwoldt in the fwd 50.

NJones makes a valiant attempt to chase down Reiwoldt but just misses.

After we scored the first goal Garlands error cost us a goal and St Kilda took the momentum. Incredibly frustrating from a senior player and it was totally avoidable.

Yes this is an isolated incident but in this game he was abysmal and shows why he should go. He has made many similar mistakes in 2015.

Its 7mins into the game and set a poor tone for the rest of the match. He is a 'leader' but other players now second guess their roles, where to run, who to cover etc.

Dumb move to leave Reiwoldt.

Dumb move to run to the wing when there were already 4(!!!!!) other MFC players there.

Fails to impact the contest - in fact pulls out of the contest and lamely waits at the back of the pack.

So poor defensive skill, poor reading of the play, poor decision to run to pack of MFC players, no sense as to when to leave his man, once he decided to leave his man had no impact on the contest.

In short he gives us very little offensively, I think very little defensively but he detracts a lot and is one of the players that is reponsible for the breakdown in structure that Roos talks about.

Edited September 24, 20159 yr by jnrmac

I know you've copped a fair bit of flack for your criticism of Garland but I'm glad you've opened up the discussion and stuck to your guns.

Groupthink is a very real thing on this forum, and if you're on the wrong end of it, look out. Just be thankful you're criticising Garland and not McDonald. Or worse yet, not being in favour of the club receiving a priority pick.

I'm a bit on the fence with Garlo. Due to his experience and versatility, I don't think we're in a position to be letting him go just yet, but I'd hope the next iteration of our back six will see a few upgrades.

I can see a problem with accusing a number of people with the same view point of groupthink...

Frankly, it's an easy out for an individual who shares a view with a minority of people to simply dismiss the majority of having 'goupthink.'

State a case, defend it, let people decide, change your mind if the facts demand it, or stick to what you think. Rinse and repeat.

I can see a problem with accusing a number of people with the same view point of groupthink...

Frankly, it's an easy out for an individual who shares a view with a minority of people to simply dismiss the majority of having 'goupthink.'

State a case, defend it, let people decide, change your mind if the facts demand it, or stick to what you think. Rinse and repeat.

I think we've been over this before so I won't derail the thread to go over it again. You have your view, I have my own. I've witnessed it too often to not believe that it happens with some regularity.

I think we've been over this before so I won't derail the thread to go over it again. You have your view, I have my own. I've witnessed it too often to not believe that it happens with some regularity.

^^^ Textbook groupthink.

I think we've been over this before so I won't derail the thread to go over it again. You have your view, I have my own. I've witnessed it too often to not believe that it happens with some regularity.

Well, I know a number on here feel the same as you...

Chalk it up to GroupThink © I guess, so I don't have to think about it anymore...

in fact pulls out of the contest and lamely waits at the back of the pack.

For the record I voted for Garland to go and I agree with pretty much everything you listed in your post jnrmac.

But I have to pull you up on that false claim. Watching the contest you refered to, he was clearly blocked out of the contest by Bruce. He shouldn't have left Riewoldt and he stuffed up by failing to impact the contest. But don't make go making false claims about what he did.

Well, I know a number on here feel the same as you...

Chalk it up to GroupThink © I guess, so I don't have to think about it anymore...

A condescending dismissal? How out of character

Yes, let's move on.

For the record I voted for Garland to go and I agree with pretty much everything you listed in your post jnrmac.

But I have to pull you up on that false claim. Watching the contest you refered to, he was clearly blocked out of the contest by Bruce. He shouldn't have left Riewoldt and he stuffed up by failing to impact the contest. But don't make go making false claims about what he did.

Hate to drag this on further but no, he wasn't blocked by Bruce. Bruce outmuscled Lumumba who Garland clumsily semi-runs into whilst making this attempted spoil.

I'm assuming most have played at some level and would know if you're leaving that much space between yourself and your opponent as a defender, (in this case about 100 metres and the opponent being Roo), you'd better kill the ball or you're going to be in trouble. Not only does he not kill the ball. He doesn't even fully commit in the air. It's a half-arsed attempt in my eyes and I see this as being more of a lack of aggression in the contest with him than anything else. Ala Watts.

Anyway, of course many players make these kinds of mistakes and they're forgivable when it's occasional. But as others have already alluded to, he makes too many of these kinds of mistakes. Whether it's decision making, not being strong enough in the mind/contest or kicking.

The interesting part in all of this is still where he finished in the B&F and I still can't figure it out. Would love to know who votes.

Edited September 24, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

Hate to drag this on further but no, he wasn't blocked by Bruce. Bruce outmuscled Lumumba who Garland clumsily semi-runs into whilst making this attempted spoil.

We all see things differently I guess STMJ, don't think either of us will convince the other.

But I do agree, he stuffed up by not being able to kill the contest.

For the record I voted for Garland to go and I agree with pretty much everything you listed in your post jnrmac.

But I have to pull you up on that false claim. Watching the contest you refered to, he was clearly blocked out of the contest by Bruce. He shouldn't have left Riewoldt and he stuffed up by failing to impact the contest. But don't make go making false claims about what he did.

Might I respectfully suggest you watch it again. He actually runs to the pack as if he was going to jump and spoil. He runs into the back of Lumumba and then lamely drifts off the back.

Have we seriously starting basing this on a few pieces of footage?

Do we want to start showing the footage of terrific spoils, good tackles and out marking his opponent? He does all those things too, and quite regularly I might add.

But to each their own I guess.

A condescending dismissal? How out of character

Yes, let's move on.

I know you've copped a fair bit of flack for your criticism of Garland but I'm glad you've opened up the discussion and stuck to your guns.

Groupthink is a very real thing on this forum, and if you're on the wrong end of it, look out. Just be thankful you're criticising Garland and not McDonald. Or worse yet, not being in favour of the club receiving a priority pick.

I'm a bit on the fence with Garlo. Due to his experience and versatility, I don't think we're in a position to be letting him go just yet, but I'd hope the next iteration of our back six will see a few upgrades.

Have we seriously starting basing this on a few pieces of footage?

Do we want to start showing the footage of terrific spoils, good tackles and out marking his opponent? He does all those things too, and quite regularly I might add.

But to each their own I guess.

Wiseblood Id dare say we could find "good" footage and "poor " footage and a lot in between. When he's on he's on...; sometimes hes that horrible second behind the play.

I like him when he fit and raring.. he's a bit like tapioca otherwise.

Am hoping he enjoys a solid preseason and comes out firing

Edited September 24, 20159 yr by beelzebub

He hasn't re-signed yet, and for that he can walk.

Most of our defenders are expendable anyway - with all due respect.