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.

Are you kidding?

Tom McDonald has shown more in his young career than Garland has in his entire career.

McDonald was playing himself into AA contention early this year and his form has dropped off. He offers run and carry and offensive drive, beats his man and plays with 100% intensity all of the time. He had a howler on the weekend. Why on earth are you comparing the two?

He is one of the worst decision makers by foot in the team. And that's not because he constantly turns the ball over to the opposition. It goes beyond that. He usually takes the soft option (15-20m kick sideways or up the line), and he rarely takes the opposition on even when he has space.

If Roos/Goodwin decide that it's time to have a more offense minded gameplan next year, Garland will be let go.

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.

Garland has had a far better year than Dunn and Lumumba.

Dunn has been a massive disappointment this season, especially given that he had a good season last year. A fair indication of his season is that he has less Demonland Player of the Year votes than Toumpas and Dawes! Obviously not the be all and all, but to me he is more symptomatic of Melbourne's problems than any other on Melb's list.

Lumumba is rubbish in the air and is king of the hospital handball. He has less Demonland votes than Viv Michie! (4). Definition of headless chook.

Garland has had a far better year than Dunn and Lumumba.

Dunn has been a massive disappointment this season, especially given that he had a good season last year. A fair indication of his season is that he has less Demonland Player of the Year votes than Toumpas and Dawes! Obviously not the be all and all, but to me he is more symptomatic of Melbourne's problems than any other on Melb's list.

Lumumba is rubbish in the air and is king of the hospital handball. He has less Demonland votes than Viv Michie! (4). Definition of headless chook.

Somehow I don't think 'demonland votes' is going to give you the best indication...

Edited August 22, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

Some how I don't think 'demonland votes' is going to give you the best indication...

I said it is not the be all and end all, but it is a decent indication of both Dunn and Lumuba's crapness!

I have never understood the anti-Garland sentiment around here.

He is an introvert and not a leader but he is a damn fine player.

As I have posted before, how many backs in the league can play on talls, small forwards and resting mids?

Anyone who thinks Lumumba has had a better year than Garland is dreaming. Get serious. Now.

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.

You want to know what I see in Garland, Steve?

I see a bloke who brings experience to our side. I see a bloke who can play well on quicker talls and smalls, something our side lacks. We have the players who can play tall OR small, but not someone like Garland who can do both very well.

In this stage of the clubs development I believe Garland is someone we can ill afford to lose. We have covered Chip well this year, even though he didn't play down back in his last year with us, but Garland provides the experience, understanding and (relative) skill that we just can't cover right now. With the emergence of Gawn, Jamar has become expendable. And I would be fine to see him go. But Garland I wouldn't.

I agree though that he doesn't necessarily exude the leadership that you might expect from him, but has he ever actually been a leader? I believe he was chosen as there wasn't anyone else at the time. That's been put right with his omission from the leadership group.

Lastly, when the chips are down for the club during games you could hardly lay the blame at this feet. Who would want to play in that backline? If a team is putting on huge amounts of pressure and getting 50+ Inside 50s a game then you would expect the backline to struggle.

It's not over my head. Just because I disagree with you on most of it doesn't mean I don't get it. People can see things differently.

Are you kidding?

Tom McDonald has shown more in his young career than Garland has in his entire career.

McDonald was playing himself into AA contention early this year and his form has dropped off. He offers run and carry and offensive drive, beats his man and plays with 100% intensity all of the time. He had a howler on the weekend. Why on earth are you comparing the two?

For someone who complains that I don't read their posts you should take some of your own advice.

I was comparing nothing more than turnovers. Both Garland and McDonald make them. How many times have we seen McDonald miss a target or make a bad decision by foot? Lots of times. I was not comparing anything else. So settle down.

For someone who complains that I don't read their posts you should take some of your own advice.

I was comparing nothing more than turnovers. Both Garland and McDonald make them. How many times have we seen McDonald miss a target or make a bad decision by foot? Lots of times. I was not comparing anything else. So settle down.

But McDonald should get better as time goes on, These little parts of his game he can fine tune...he is only 22 ...Garland hasn't managed to do this through his many years at the club. He is a very replaceable player, whether he can play on talls and smalls...we won't miss him if he goes...

IF he wants to stay and isn't asking us to overpay him then keep him. If he's got wild notions of earning $600,000 a year then let him go earn it somewhere else. Simple. He's a good enough player to keep on the list, but not such a world-beater that we need to pay him overs to keep him.

Pretty much like Howe really.

Garland needs to go

Frawley is a dud

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.

You've got to be joking.

Garland is pretty good one on one albeit he has got pinged a few times for wrapping arms around qpponents.

On any one day he is generally never the worst of our back six and has had very good games when he only has to play his role. He suffers as many do, not just Melbourne defenders, when we are under the pump and losing because he generally just goes back to old habits of just stopping his player when perhaps the team needs someone to step up and attack off half back.

I reckon Garland is a smart bloke and he has lived through such club horrors that the self preservation instinct kicks in and he sort of thinks that if he just takes care of his man he can't get overly criticized. I think Grimes sometimes plays that way when we are getting pumped. I would like to see him play with a bit more freedom if he gets the chance and we actually start winning more games than we lose, (a couple of big ifs). He deserves that. I hope he wants it for us and himself rather than the answer to the question in the change rooms when someone asks how do you go about playing better footy and it seems like they all say "go to another club".

I think Suckling would be rubbish at Melbourne, under searing pressure his passing would go to crap.

I would like to keep Garland and hope he would like to stay and the club and he can agree to terms. But I think that of most players. I hate free agency.

You've got to be joking.

No I'm not joking. Care to actually make any kind of point or ask anything related though?

Garland is pretty good one on one albeit he has got pinged a few times for wrapping arms around qpponents.

On any one day he is generally never the worst of our back six and has had very good games when he only has to play his role. He suffers as many do, not just Melbourne defenders, when we are under the pump and losing because he generally just goes back to old habits of just stopping his player when perhaps the team needs someone to step up and attack off half back.

I reckon Garland is a smart bloke and he has lived through such club horrors that the self preservation instinct kicks in and he sort of thinks that if he just takes care of his man he can't get overly criticized. I think Grimes sometimes plays that way when we are getting pumped. I would like to see him play with a bit more freedom if he gets the chance and we actually start winning more games than we lose, (a couple of big ifs). He deserves that. I hope he wants it for us and himself rather than the answer to the question in the change rooms when someone asks how do you go about playing better footy and it seems like they all say "go to another club".

I think Suckling would be rubbish at Melbourne, under searing pressure his passing would go to crap.

I would like to keep Garland and hope he would like to stay and the club and he can agree to terms. But I think that of most players. I hate free agency.

Great summation, especially your point on Suckling.

Our backmen need to be assessed on how they play two-way football. In recent games, Grimes has actually tried to take the game on, but his disposal and decision making are poor. Garland rarely does, so he doesn't draw obvious criticism.

You lost me at the Jed Adcock point... You seen him play at all this year ? He is well and truly over the hill

we are so quick to denigrate our own players how many times have people declared a player a dud and that we should dump him only to find they have the ability to rise up, Gawn would have been gone, as would most if not all of our Jacks, with probably Hogan the only one exception based on the experience and wisdom of this forum. we do not have a team playing as a team consistently when we have we have played well often including many of those people have called duds and wanted traded. Bringing any player into our team is not in itself going to solve our problems we need team play made up of A, B and C graders all doing their jobs.

Has been up and down this year but offers good flexibility match up wise and whilst not great with ball in hand beats his opponent more often than not. Many more to prune off list before he would be a priority. If he wants to stay for a fair 2 year deal yes but if we lose him I wont lose any sleep.

we are so quick to denigrate our own players how many times have people declared a player a dud and that we should dump him only to find they have the ability to rise up, Gawn would have been gone, as would most if not all of our Jacks, with probably Hogan the only one exception based on the experience and wisdom of this forum. we do not have a team playing as a team consistently when we have we have played well often including many of those people have called duds and wanted traded. Bringing any player into our team is not in itself going to solve our problems we need team play made up of A, B and C graders all doing their jobs.

Have you looked at our record over the past 8 years? Identifying flaws in players is part and parcel of supporting a poorly performed team, and questions need to be asked of the players that have been there during that period.

Gawn is a poor example, because he showed something before constantly battling injuries.

Would you prefer that we sit on our hands list wise, and hope that all the average performers improve?

we are so quick to denigrate our own players how many times have people declared a player a dud and that we should dump him only to find they have the ability to rise up, Gawn would have been gone, as would most if not all of our Jacks, with probably Hogan the only one exception based on the experience and wisdom of this forum. we do not have a team playing as a team consistently when we have we have played well often including many of those people have called duds and wanted traded. Bringing any player into our team is not in itself going to solve our problems we need team play made up of A, B and C graders all doing their jobs.

This is a completely different comparison. You're referencing blokes that are in the early 20s in Gawn and Watts. Garland is 27 and his scope for improvement is limited.

Have you looked at our record over the past 8 years? Identifying flaws in players is part and parcel of supporting a poorly performed team, and questions need to be asked of the players that have been there during that period.

Gawn is a poor example, because he showed something before constantly battling injuries.

Would you prefer that we sit on our hands list wise, and hope that all the average performers improve?

I don't think anyone would really be arguing that. I know I've defended Garland to a large extent in this thread, but that doesn't mean I would be against further list changes with other players. Our record indicates we need to.

What I'm arguing is that there is still a need for Garland in our side at this time. His ability to play tall and small is very good and while he is no Matt Suckling or Nick Malceski with ball in hand he generally does enough with it for it not to be a huge problem. He is a required player.

I'd be upset if we let him go if he is open to signing a reasonable deal

He has had a good year and defensively is very good.

Deserves better for having stuck it out

Has given away the first goal.

I'll watch him closely today, and see what he is providing the team both offensively and defensively as well as how he carries himself as a senior player and leader.

Edited August 23, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

Just missed a 20 metre target under no pressure and then kicked the ball on the full.

I'm deliberately pointing this out because this is the [censored] I'm talking about.

What the [censored] does he offer us?

Are people honestly telling me we don't have someone else on our list who can play the same simple defensive role?

Haha.

Seriously. Y'all are delusional. We will not move forward in leaps and bounds if we continue to preserve this idea of 'rewarding' senior players who have 'been through it all'.

What the [censored] is he offering us!?

I'd be upset if we let him go if he is open to signing a reasonable deal

He has had a good year and defensively is very good.

Deserves better for having stuck it out

What on earth does that even mean?

Deserves better?! What?!