Both players are about the same size & have the same level of natural ability in fact Col is probably more talented.  Gibson is more aggressive & tenacious & pushes the rules ie hangs on & scrags a lot & is invariably looking to attack. 

Gibson now has 2 B&F's, an AA and is a premiership player. 

A few years ago Col was 2nd in the B&F & looked set to become an elite player.  Since then he has gone backwards, become timid & hesitant.  Maybe he could take a leaf out of Gibson's book & turn out to be the player we all hoped for.

I am glad he has been dropped hopefully it is the kick up the ars# that he needs. 

 

2 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Both players are about the same size & have the same level of natural ability in fact Col is probably more talented.  Gibson is more aggressive & tenacious & pushes the rules ie hangs on & scrags a lot & is invariably looking to attack. 

Gibson now has 2 B&F's, an AA and is a premiership player. 

A few years ago Col was 2nd in the B&F & looked set to become an elite player.  Since then he has gone backwards, become timid & hesitant.  Maybe he could take a leaf out of Gibson's book & turn out to be the player we all hoped for.

I am glad he has been dropped hopefully it is the kick up the ars# that he needs. 

 

Needs Gibson's foot skills to start with.

Since the other thread has been locked (why?) I'll comment here - wtf is going on at this club? Who is Wagner and why are we bringing in more under-developed kids? He's had one good game (apparently) in a VFL practice match and looked all at sea in the NAB Challenge games.

They better hope they pull their collective finger out on Sunday. With Garland out you would assume Dunn and Frost both play so does that mean Grimes, Stretch and Oliver miss out? Or are we moving Pedersen from CHF and playing short up front? Because we can't be going in undersized again down back after getting monstered by Daniher last week.

I'll watch with anticipation to see 1) how the players front up after last week and 2) what the coaches do with regards to match-ups and positional changes on the day. They need a rocket because a lot of supporters are teetering on the brink of chucking it in after last week. 10 years of [censored], we need something.

6 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Both players are about the same size & have the same level of natural ability in fact Col is probably more talented.

Stopped reading after that bit...

 

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Since the other thread has been locked (why?) I'll comment here - wtf is going on at this club? Who is Wagner and why are we bringing in more under-developed kids? He's had one good game (apparently) in a VFL practice match and looked all at sea in the NAB Challenge games.

They better hope they pull their collective finger out on Sunday. With Garland out you would assume Dunn and Frost both play so does that mean Grimes, Stretch and Oliver miss out? Or are we moving Pedersen from CHF and playing short up front? Because we can't be going in undersized again down back after getting monstered by Daniher last week.

I'll watch with anticipation to see 1) how the players front up after last week and 2) what the coaches do with regards to match-ups and positional changes on the day. They need a rocket because a lot of supporters are teetering on the brink of chucking it in after last week. 10 years of [censored], we need something.

Couldn't have put it better myself Dr. 

This club needs to change now. No more fluffing around. 

47 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Both players are about the same size & have the same level of natural ability in fact Col is probably more talented.  Gibson is more aggressive & tenacious & pushes the rules ie hangs on & scrags a lot & is invariably looking to attack. 

Gibson now has 2 B&F's, an AA and is a premiership player. 

A few years ago Col was 2nd in the B&F & looked set to become an elite player.  Since then he has gone backwards, become timid & hesitant.  Maybe he could take a leaf out of Gibson's book & turn out to be the player we all hoped for.

I am glad he has been dropped hopefully it is the kick up the ars# that he needs. 

 

 

Col's become a  'nice'  citi-zen,  & Gibson is unsociable,  & had to be to play bigger.   Col plays more small now.

 

the coaches have to remove the  'nice'  from our teams DNA.

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

Both players are about the same size & have the same level of natural ability in fact Col is probably more talented. 

 

Just no. What planet are you on?

Gibson is:
- Stronger
- Fitter
- reads the play much better
- uses the ball better

Garland was a decent player for a while there but my mail is ankle injuries have ruined his top endurance and now he's more suited to sitting deeper and playing on an opponent. Unfortunately he doesn't have the skill set to play on genuine talls (neither does Gibson) so is limited there. 

He's a great clubman and can come in and do a role, and maybe after being dropped he gets confidence back in the VFL and starts attacking contests more, but I'll be shocked if he ever compares to a star of the comp like Gibson.

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

Both players are about the same size & have the same level of natural ability in fact Col is probably more talented.  Gibson is more aggressive & tenacious & pushes the rules ie hangs on & scrags a lot & is invariably looking to attack. 

Gibson now has 2 B&F's, an AA and is a premiership player. 

A few years ago Col was 2nd in the B&F & looked set to become an elite player.  Since then he has gone backwards, become timid & hesitant.  Maybe he could take a leaf out of Gibson's book & turn out to be the player we all hoped for.

I am glad he has been dropped hopefully it is the kick up the ars# that he needs. 

 

I don't even think I could agree with that... 

25 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Garland was a decent player for a while there but my mail is ankle injuries have ruined his top endurance and now he's more suited to sitting deeper and playing on an opponent. Unfortunately he doesn't have the skill set to play on genuine talls (neither does Gibson) so is limited there. 

Lucky we just signed him for 3 years then 

(As you can tell, not in a good place with this club right now)

No comparison between them. But Gibson has the advantage/luxury of playing in a well organised side surrounded by A graders. Garlo .... not so such!!

Dropping Garland isn't going to fix the lack of overall team defence.

Our forward and mid field defence was non existent last week.

Going forward, Essendon had all the time in the world to pick out Daniher.

Garland, Bugg & Jetta had no hope one on one against the high ball coming in to him.

Not sure where Tom was most of the time, but would have expected him to go man on man after the first quarter.

 

 

Can't even compare Garland to Gibson on any level. In relation to his natural ability we get told about Garland's athleticism. I fail to see him use it to the best of his ability. A few years ago when he came second in the B and F he looked quick and had a good leap which meant he was quite versatile because he could play tall and small. Ever since that season though, maybe due to injuries it seems he's lost a lot of speed and spring. His disposal is average at best, most of his balls coming from defence are just long high bombs down the line. 

Gibson is not only a great reader of the play- he is probably the best third man up in the game, but he takes contested marks, has great disposal coming out of defence and due to his big body even though he is undersized still can play on those big talls. 

Garland always had potential but a bit disappointed that he hasn't taken his game to the next level. 

I think it's time to develop the next lot of tall defenders. Playing Frost down back would be great as he not only has height but also size. He'd be able to help TMac out on playing on the tall forwards. 

My views on Garland have been pretty strong and I'm not going to enter into the Gibson vs Garland debate as it's pointless and there are many variables that have contributed to Gibson's dominance since his move to Hawthorn. (Although I do think he's the superior player).

As Gonzo alludes to, it seems there's not much coherency at a coaching, team selection, and game plan level at present. I think the fact that Garland has been dropped for Wagner proves what many have been saying and what I've been screaming for over the past year in regards to our defence. Kicking skills and decision making. Now whilst the selection of Wagner seems quite premature so far as that it has gone against Roos' mantra of selecting players that are 'in form', it's clear this is a unique situation. Our team defence has been diabolical and again if you watch the replay of last week, you'll see we need to be far more creative, smart and calm with ball in hand down back. 

The game in my view has moved past Garland. We have players who can offer his services and then some. And that is entirely the point at hand and the reason why a bloke like Wagner is getting his chance (on top of the fact that Garland has been really poor in general).

Run, skills and smarts are needed in bucket-loads for your team's back six to be successful in this day and age of AFL football and whilst there have been arguably more pressing issues to address with our list, this is definitely one that seems to have fallen off the radar. 

On top of that, having two of your most experienced players in and out of the starting 18 as well as the leadership group, has surely got to worry you as a coach. Dunn and Garland. Problem players.

I think acquiring the services of Hurley should be on top of our priority list for next year. Dunn and Garland are no longer young recruits who are still learning their craft. They should be staple best 18 players who perform weekly like most other experienced leaders and this is largely the problem at hand. You don't see senior leaders from other clubs going through these kinds if form dips and of you do and it absolutely contributes to poor team performance and morale.

Good luck to young Wagner on the weekend 

Edited April 8, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

24 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

My vinews on Garland have been pretty strong and I'm not going to enter into the Gibson vs Garland debate as it's pretty pointless and there are many variables that have contributed to Gibson's dominance since his move to Hawthorn. (Although I do think he's the superior player).

As Gonzo alludes to, it seems there's not much coherency at a coaching, team selection, and game plan level at present. I think the fact that Garland has been dropped for Wagner proves what many have been saying and what I've been screaming for over the past year in regards to our defence. Kicking skills and decision making. Now whilst the selection of Wagner seems quite premature so far as that it has gone against Roos' mantra of selecting players that are 'in form', it's clear this is a unique situation. Our team defence has been diabolical and again if you watch the replay of last week, you'll see we need to be far more creative, smart and calm with ball in hand down back. 

The game in my view has moved past Garland. We have players who can offer his services and then some. And that is entirely the point at hand and the reason why a bloke like Wagner is getting his chance (on top of the fact that Garland has been really poor in general).

Run, skills and smarts are needed in bucket-loads for your team's back six to be successful in this day and age of AFL football and whilst there have been arguably more pressing issues to address with our list, this is definitely one that seems to have fallen off the radar. 

On top of that, having two of your most experienced players in and out of the starting 18 as well as the leadership group, has surely got to worry you as a coach. Dunn and Garland. Problem players.

I think acquiring the services of Hurley should be on top of our priority list for next year. Dunn and Garland are no longer young recruits who are still learning their craft. They should be staple best 18 players who perform weekly like most other experienced leaders.

Good luck to young Wagner on the weekend 

Was about to hit "Like" but there's a major flaw In the above. It's "Deeabolical" Steve... DEEabolical!!

At some point you have to work out which players are up to it and when to give young blood a try. There are players who are 'uncoachable' or won't listen to coaches instructions, players who are limited in their talent or have major flaws in their game. Or  players who continually make the same mistakes.

Garland is a really flawed player IMO. He is not the one on one superhero that some think he is. His biggest problem is reading the game and positioning himself and knowing when to leave his man and get to a contest. Too many times I have seem him leave his man only to go to a contest and have no impact at all: either because he pulls up at the last minute because there are other Melbourne players there already; or, enter the contest but have no impact - he doesn't kill the ball, mark it or get it to our advantage. Numerous times the ball ends up with the player that he has left. He is a player who has a limited footy brain. His other major flaw is disposal. Its just not good enough. He offers no offensive drive at all which is a real problem for a defender.  Yep there are some defenders who don't offer a lot of drive, say Brian Lake, but their defensive skills are first class. That can't be said about Garland.

Something happened with Garland a few years ago. He went from being a good reliable defender to being a liability a lot of the time. He became prone to brain fades and second guessing himself.

I am sorry for him that he has been dropped and I sincerely hope he goes back to the dewies and gets some confidence in his game. But in many ways Garland reflect why our team is so bad. A 27yo with 137 games should be a rock in our defence and sadly he ain't.

14 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

At someintsovidingu have to wisrkisout which players are  to itinand when to give young btsood a try. There are players who are 'uncoachable' or won't listen to coaches instructions, players who are limited in their talent or have major flaws in their game. Or  players who continually make the same mistakes.

Garland is a really flawed player IMO. He is not the one on one superhero that some think he is. His biggest problem is reading the game and positioning himself and knowing when to leave his man and get to a contest. Too many times I have seem him leave his man only to go to a contest and have no impact at all: either because he pulls up at the last minute because there are other Melbourne players there already; or, enter the contest but have no impact - he doesn't kill the ball, mark it or get it to our advantage. Numerous times the ball ends up with the player that he has left. He is a player who has a limited footy brain. His other major flaw is disposal. Its just not good enough. He offers no offensive drive at all which is a real problem for a defender.  Yep there are some defenders who don't offer a lot of drive, say Brian Lake, but their defensive skills are first class. That can't be said about Garland.

Something happened with Garland a few years ago. He went from being a good reliable defender to being a liability a lot of the time. He became prone to brain fades and second guessing himself.

I am sorry for him that he has been dropped and I sincerely hope he goes back to the dewies and gets some confidence in his game. But in many ways Garland reflect why our team is so bad. A 27yo with 137 games should be a rock in our defence and sadly he ain't.

Could not agree more with regard to leaving his man and trying to get to a contest to provide a chop out. There's a time to do so and then there Isnt. Getting caught In no mans land as that contest (or his timing/understanding of where that contest/ball drop) Is too far away from where he left his man. Then his direct man Is loose and Garlo seems unaware/or unable to recover quickly enough to find hIm again.

Too often the player he has just left Is the one the opponent goes to on the rebound. Damaging stuff all round. Have seen this a number  of times In the last 2 or 3 years.

Edited April 8, 20169 yr by Rusty Nails

There is no real comparison. Gibson has always been better in the air and with ball in hand. Gibson is the smarter footballer.

No doubt Gibson has been better developed and had his weaknesses masked by an elite structure/club whereas the opposite would apply for Garland. 

However, Garland is similar to a lot of Melbourne players over the past ten years: good early start to the career but never really kicking on to greater heights. A bits and pieces player; not strong enough to go with KPFs and not quick or smart enough to adequately man elite smalls. 

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

At some point you have to work out which players are up to it and when to give young blood a try. There are players who are 'uncoachable' or won't listen to coaches instructions, players who are limited in their talent or have major flaws in their game. Or  players who continually make the same mistakes.

Garland is a really flawed player IMO. He is not the one on one superhero that some think he is. His biggest problem is reading the game and positioning himself and knowing when to leave his man and get to a contest. Too many times I have seem him leave his man only to go to a contest and have no impact at all: either because he pulls up at the last minute because there are other Melbourne players there already; or, enter the contest but have no impact - he doesn't kill the ball, mark it or get it to our advantage. Numerous times the ball ends up with the player that he has left. He is a player who has a limited footy brain. His other major flaw is disposal. Its just not good enough. He offers no offensive drive at all which is a real problem for a defender.  Yep there are some defenders who don't offer a lot of drive, say Brian Lake, but their defensive skills are first class. That can't be said about Garland.

Something happened with Garland a few years ago. He went from being a good reliable defender to being a liability a lot of the time. He became prone to brain fades and second guessing himself.

I am sorry for him that he has been dropped and I sincerely hope he goes back to the dewies and gets some confidence in his game. But in many ways Garland reflect why our team is so bad. A 27yo with 137 games should be a rock in our defence and sadly he ain't.

So why is he contracted til the end of 2018? Surely the FD haven't gone from seeing him as irreplaceable to the point of offering a 3 year contract to not even being best 22 in the space of 6 months and 2 senior games? They either completely miscalculated and stuffed up offering him a lengthy contract or completely stuffed up dropping a senior player to the VFL.

His contract is looking like the Jamar/Jordie 3 year contracts from 2012.

58 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So why is he contracted til the end of 2018? Surely the FD haven't gone from seeing him as irreplaceable to the point of offering a 3 year contract to not even being best 22 in the space of 6 months and 2 senior games? They either completely miscalculated and stuffed up offering him a lengthy contract or completely stuffed up dropping a senior player to the VFL.

His contract is looking like the Jamar/Jordie 3 year contracts from 2012.

Contract management is not cut and dried. You have to manage when players are coming in and out of contract and salary caps etc. You are never sure of the timeline for development on the younger players and you need insurance for injuries. Some players play well in contract years and then coast in the others. Not every player who is signed up is a starting 22. Terlich is another one.

Just another poor bloke that has been beaten down by the harsh drum of defeat. Plays like a loser. Always will. Harsh reality when you get bombarded week in, week out in the backline for the first 8 years of your career. Might be time to move him on. We need to continue weeding out these Daniher and Bailey-era players out of the club.

Edited April 8, 20169 yr by praha

On what planet can Garlo be compared with Josh Gibson? Chalk and cheese.

Key difference is one reads the play better than most and one just watches and reacts to his opponent.

Garland is not even worthy of being a pimple on Gibson's backside.

No comparisons,Gibson is miles better. Garland wish list should be getting drafted to the Hawks next year. Every player at the club can be compared to players at other clubs. Not  many of our guys would measure up.