Most of the time, I'm a fan, but he still exhibits too much of what is now the typical MFC senior player "baggage", if you will. Goes missing when we need leaders in games against lowly sides, gap between his best and worst is too large for a senior player, at times has the worst body language on the field you'll ever see (again, in the context of being a leader, not good enough).

Be that all as it may, I do rate his work in defence and I think he played some outstanding football at times in 2015.

One of the reasons we have been average at best for so long. 

Disappears when the heat is applied. 

Yes he cares but that is only half the job....

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Most of the time, I'm a fan, but he still exhibits too much of what is now the typical MFC senior player "baggage", if you will. Goes missing when we need leaders in games against lowly sides, gap between his best and worst is too large for a senior player, at times has the worst body language on the field you'll ever see (again, in the context of being a leader, not good enough).

Be that all as it may, I do rate his work in defence and I think he played some outstanding football at times in 2015.

Spot on....

14 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

You give JW a hard time, evil....calling C and B a 'typical' supporter is a bit rich coming from you...

Really, I thought it more typical in here to defend watts & have a go at Garland, which is completely backward in my humble opinion. (Little bit more irony there or you buddy)

and yes, I am very rich, cheers. 

Edited January 7, 20169 yr by thevil1

21 minutes ago, thevil1 said:

Really, I thought it more typical in here to defend watts & have a go at Garland, which is completely backward in my humble opinion. (Little bit more irony there or you buddy)

and yes, I am very rich, cheers. 

Okay. Awesome.

I'm done.

20 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Just like Sylvia... except:

• He has never had off field trouble
• He is lauded by the coaches
• He has performed admirably season after season
• I've never heard anybody say he is a wasted talent
• He hasn't been traded to another club with "better development" that could fix him up
• He hasn't been delisted 

 

Yeah, but his first name is Colin.

On 1/7/2016 at 2:37 PM, H_T said:

How was what i said fence sitting?

 

Love Col's loyalty but really for someone who nearly won & B&F a coupla years ago he has been pretty disappointing.  

At his best he plays with dash & confidence, takes the game on & provides lots of run out of defence.  At his worse he is timid, lacks any physicality, hesitates & won't take the first option & invariably goes sideways & backwards. 

 

Not as much love for Col as some initially thought. I don't see his new 3 year contract as proof that he's a part of the future and a guaranteed starter. I see it more as shoring up depth while Oscar learns his trade and Frost tried to get on the park. With 18 clubs real depth becomes very important. I think we've hedged our bets and signed him for a modest amount. If he can recapture his best form we do well out of the deal if he doesn't then he hasn't cost us much but he is ready to go. Like many others needs to get over the past and now. We have been heading in the right path for a couple of years now, and as I've stated before you don't just simply loose your ability. I think what will help Garland a lot along with Tmac and Dunn is two weapons off half back. We need both Salem and Melksham (or a combination of attacking players) on the back flanks. We can't be so arrogant to think we can just play one and have Grimes on the other because the opposition will only need to try and shut one player down. We need two options off half back. This way players like Garland can concentrate on defending and not trying to be too creative when we have the ball. People bag Tmac for trying to do to much but can we blame him for trying to create something. Surround these players with elite ball users and their game will grow.

135 games and 9 seasons. Col should simply be better at reading the play, backing himself in and impacting contests.

He's OK but not what we need him to be which is a mainstay of our defence. And a general in the backline. He offers very little offensive drive IMO and is prone to brainfades. It's great that he's a loyal footsoldier but he also needs to be driving and educating the younger brigade with his on-field deeds. I don't believe he does this anywhere near enough.

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

135 games and 9 seasons. Col should simply be better at reading the play, backing himself in and impacting contests.

He's OK but not what we need him to be which is a mainstay of our defence. And a general in the backline. He offers very little offensive drive IMO and is prone to brainfades. It's great that he's a loyal footsoldier but he also needs to be driving and educating the younger brigade with his on-field deeds. I don't believe he does this anywhere near enough.

Offensive drive is not his role.  Being a lockdown defender, something he does very well, is his role.  I agree, even as a Garland fan, that he is still prone to the odd brainfade but we have plenty of players who are prone to those as well.  We all love Tom McDonald but how often do we have our hearts in our mouths when he looks to switch play?

Garland has a role in our side and one he plays well.  

I disagree that he doesn't make the effort to drive and educate our young players.  How would you know that he isn't doing that?  I know you've focused on his on-field deeds, but from all reports he is a highly committed trainer who has put plenty of extra hours to get around and work with the younger players on our list.  That's a darn good effort in my book.

Being a defender for Melbourne over the last few years would have been a bloody tough gig. Sure he has made a few stuff ups but in most games he would be under constant pressure as Melbourne received its usual belting.

He has stuck it out honourably and honestly. Good on him!!

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Offensive drive is not his role.  Being a lockdown defender, something he does very well, is his role.  I agree, even as a Garland fan, that he is still prone to the odd brainfade but we have plenty of players who are prone to those as well.  We all love Tom McDonald but how often do we have our hearts in our mouths when he looks to switch play?

Garland has a role in our side and one he plays well.  

I disagree that he doesn't make the effort to drive and educate our young players.  How would you know that he isn't doing that?  I know you've focused on his on-field deeds, but from all reports he is a highly committed trainer who has put plenty of extra hours to get around and work with the younger players on our list.  That's a darn good effort in my book.

You're making a very big assumption that his role is simply a lockdown defender. You don't know that. Very few players have a singular role like that. I could name plenty that can lockdown a player and give offensive drive. They are not mutually exclusive.

57 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You're making a very big assumption that his role is simply a lockdown defender. You don't know that. Very few players have a singular role like that. I could name plenty that can lockdown a player and give offensive drive. They are not mutually exclusive.

I understand that, but his role would be to lockdown his opponent and peel off as a third man up for 80-90% of the time.  That's not a tough assumption to make if you watch our games.  Salem, for example, had a higher focus on the offensive drive off half back than someone like Garland.  Even McDonald is given more freedom.  Garland, on the other hand, generally stays pretty close to home on a dangerous forward while providing support to others as well.

I would argue when we have the ball every player needs to have (now I know some people hate these Americanised terms) offensive capabilities and when we dont have the ball every player becomes a defender. To suggest Garlands game doesn't require anything offensively is no different to saying that Hogan and Garlett don't need to try and lock the ball in when it enters our forward 50. Yes players have their specific roles but considering how fast the game is these days and how one dropped mark or one misdirected kick can result in a turnover and the ball being slingshot up the other end of the ground, players will find themselves at times out of position and switching between offence and defense in seconds and without warning. Yes every team has their preferred users of the football, but as we know at times on the break players will be caught out. Garland can't simply wait for Salem to present himself before offloading the footy. I don't think it's as easy as saying someone's game is x amount offensive and y amount defensive. In a thread last year I argued that even Jetta's position is under threat, for example if White gets elevated of the rookie list during the course of the year our back six could look like

White Tmac Melksham

Garland/Frost Dunn ?

In the back pocket if our midfield was firing and we didn't have many injuries Salem/Stetch/ANB could be an option for back pocket. If we have a player that can do as good as a defensive job as Jetta but offer more going the other way why wouldn't we use him. A scenario like that would make us very hard to match up on and we wouldn't find ourselves getting bogged down in our back 50 so much. This is what made Geelong sand Hawthorn so great is the flexibility in their teams. Our team has been stuck in the past for years, coaching has been a large part of that, and allowing players to think their role is simply doing one thing. I would like to think that McCartney is teaching Oscar and the likes both sides of the game.

Edited January 9, 20169 yr by Bombay Airconditioning

11 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

I understand that, but his role would be to lockdown his opponent and peel off as a third man up for 80-90% of the time.  That's not a tough assumption to make if you watch our games.  Salem, for example, had a higher focus on the offensive drive off half back than someone like Garland.  Even McDonald is given more freedom.  Garland, on the other hand, generally stays pretty close to home on a dangerous forward while providing support to others as well.

Nah I just think Salem and McDonald are better at it. They have better footy smarts and know when to peel off. The Hawthorns of the comp play a zone defence and while they have a Gibson as a primary lock down (and to some extent Frawley) they cover for each other  and both still provide offensive drive. 

I dont think being solely a lockdown are Garland's instructions I just think Garland is no good at providing the balance of offense.

I like the way Col points out things that some players miss...

20 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

I like the way Col points out things that some players miss...

Either that or Col is away with the pixies while everyone else is focused on the job at hand.....

On 1/9/2016 at 9:54 AM, jnrmac said:

Nah I just think Salem and McDonald are better at it. They have better footy smarts and know when to peel off. The Hawthorns of the comp play a zone defence and while they have a Gibson as a primary lock down (and to some extent Frawley) they cover for each other  and both still provide offensive drive. 

I dont think being solely a lockdown are Garland's instructions I just think Garland is no good at providing the balance of offense.

Garland averaged roughly 3 rebound 50s a game and 1.5 Inside 50s a game as well for 2015.  That's better than someone like Salem, who averages slightly less rebounds outside 50 and the same inside 50s.  

McDonald and Dunn average over 4 in terms of rebound 50s but, apart from those two and Jack Grimes, Garland averages more than anyone else.  He may not provide as much but basic stats show that he provides some drive out of defence each game while also being able to get the ball further up the ground as well.  

I know stats don't tell everything, they never do, but in it's basic form it shows that Garland can, and does, provide some offence for the team.

In under 24 hours we will know precisely where we are with Melksham. If it is 3 months suspension for the 34 players (which is what was predicted by Ross Campbell) on today's 3AW Rumpur File) then maybe we will see White take his role. Any other predictions?

22 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

I like the way Col points out things that some players miss...

Identical look to John Howard after lighting up pre game in 'The Club'. It was a majestical seagull.....

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Garland averaged roughly 3 rebound 50s a game and 1.5 Inside 50s a game as well for 2015.  That's better than someone like Salem, who averages slightly less rebounds outside 50 and the same inside 50s.  

McDonald and Dunn average over 4 in terms of rebound 50s but, apart from those two and Jack Grimes, Garland averages more than anyone else.  He may not provide as much but basic stats show that he provides some drive out of defence each game while also being able to get the ball further up the ground as well.  

I know stats don't tell everything, they never do, but in it's basic form it shows that Garland can, and does, provide some offence for the team.

2015 games played.

20 - Garland 

10 - Salem

I see what your getting at but Salem may not of been the best example. Ideally this season we will have  good users of the footy on both back flanks not just one.

 

Edited January 11, 20169 yr by Bombay Airconditioning

17 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

2015 games played.

20 - Garland 

10 - Salem

I see what your getting at but Salem may not of been the best example. Ideally this season we will have  good users of the footy on both back flanks not just one.

 

You do understand the concept of average? So really games played does not have too significant effect, unless you are talking about Salem having an inability to find form due to his injury, but he played pretty well when he did play so i doubt that is what you were hinting at.

Garland, whilst he has some deficiencies, provides us with great defensive felxibility and sits firmly in our back 6. Whilst he does sometimes struggle to perform offensively, I personally think it is rare that he is convincingly beaten by his opponent and that is step one to being a good defender. His worst habit is that he does sometimes completely give up on a lost situation but these are not always his fault and the fact that we turn it over so often coming out of the backline does not help players playing on the mid/small forwards.
 

13 hours ago, Mad_Melbourne said:

You do understand the concept of average? So really games played does not have too significant effect, unless you are talking about Salem having an inability to find form due to his injury, but he played pretty well when he did play so i doubt that is what you were hinting at.

Garland, whilst he has some deficiencies, provides us with great defensive felxibility and sits firmly in our back 6. Whilst he does sometimes struggle to perform offensively, I personally think it is rare that he is convincingly beaten by his opponent and that is step one to being a good defender. His worst habit is that he does sometimes completely give up on a lost situation but these are not always his fault and the fact that we turn it over so often coming out of the backline does not help players playing on the mid/small forwards.
 

My thoughts with regards to averages when applying them to football is what are the variables. When comparing two players averages on a stat like rebound 50's I would consider how many games the two played together/individually and the quality of opposition for those games. Then i can get a greater appreciation for the worth of the stat.