stevethemanjordan

I know posters are sick of hearing me harp on about it, but if you haven't seen some of the reasoning given for supporters being 'pro-Garland leaving' then I'm not sure who's posts you've been reading. All of the reasoning is absolutely valid. I will say this however. Garland's game on the weekend was the best I've seen of his this year. He more often than not defends well in most games, but against Collingwood he also played with flair, was creative with the ball, provided run and played with much more intensity. If he played like that all the time, I think you'd find most would be keen for him to stay. But he doesn't. He is a senior player who's form is up and down like a yo-yo and he plays in a backline that is one-dimensional. We desperately need creativity, run and carry, urgency and foot-skills in our backhalf. No one is 'bashing' Garland. Supporters are looking at ways in which we can improve our list all over the ground and that takes into account many things. Things like who is coming out of contract this year? What are they offering the club presently? Are they or are they not a FA? Could our team and backline gain from losing a player like Garland given that he is a FA? There are many questions. It's not as simple to say, 'he is clearly best 22 atm therefore he's important'. Jordie McKenzie, Bail, Matt Jones and Terlich were best 22 not long ago. If you adopt that kind of a philosophy about a list, it's not going to improve or grow very much.

Please, for the love of God stop! ....

I think you'll find you're on your own or at the very least in the minority with that one. Yarran's kicking skills are elite.

He has shown that he can be lazy.Just as Watts has. They've both also shown that they have an ability to not be lazy. I'd argue that Yarran over his career has shown more of an appetite to chase and tackle than Watts. But that's not the point. Your outlandish comments are absurd. One week you say how putrid we are. The next you say we'll be a team of superstars next year. It's the same when you make ultimatums about players. Yarran is not a lazy footballer. He is simply not playing at the required level at the moment.

Haha. Honestly. Some supporters. I can only imagine what you and others would be saying about Watts if he was at Carlton and Yarran if he were at the dees. The exact opposite to what you just said I'd suggest. Yarran is a proven talent, an elite kick, elite speed and is simply playing in a side who are going through a rough patch and is clearly not responding in a way you'd like as coach. Garlett was playing in a very similar way last year under Mick. He was also playing in the VFL. Look at what he's doing for us atm? You're all blind. Saying that Watts has 'got it' and Yarran doesn't. Lols. Yarran would be an extremely valuable addition for our side. It doesn't matter what way any bias Melbourne supporter paints it. He is supremely talented and has runs on the board. But like many players, is struggling at a club who are shot.

Like it.

Yes but why do you see him as important?I asked how you think he played on the weekend? Why do you think he's more important to hold onto when compared to someone like Frawley? Regardless of the different levels of compo. What is he actually contributing as far as positive change goes for the club?

I disagree that it was a mistake because at the time it was clearly necessary. Neeld, (for everything he did wrong) rightly saw the complete lack of professional leaders at our club. Players who had a natural willingness to compete for example. I understand Dawes is way underperforming, his form has been horrible this year and his skills have always been questionable, but his addition to our club at that time was again the result of a failed previous coaching tenure and ability to address serious problems with our list. One being the lack of professional senior figures at our club. Dawes is much less of a failure than Rodan and Byrnes. But yes, what we are seeing now with him is again just intergenerational list problems.

This and also that they've clearly done very well at the draft. They've nailed some quality picks. It's a combination though. The issues at our club are so deeply-rooted it's hard to spit them all out in a paragraph or two but ever since 07, different facets of the club have failed. When those failings, (list management and many off-field problems) were addressed, it was a failure again. Enter mark Neeld era, another failure. What we see are, (for lack of a better word) intergenerational list issues. And there is not one or two or three. There are many. This is the reason we as supporters are subject to this chaotic mess on the weekends. Whether it be full games, quarters, halves or passages of play. The effects of the past are still there to see on game day. The only way I see us overcoming these problems is by continuing to recruit the right personalities to the club and to move on problematic players who are for the most part the perpetrators. The players who have been 'Melbourne-ised'. Once we have a core group of players who share a similar playing philosophy and professional attitude, only then will we start to see more sustained success. Brayshaw and Viney. Players who's instincts are to tackle, chase, block and do anything in their power to win the ball. Let's call it the 'Brayshaw instinct'. A non-negotiable quality that we need to see more of. When you don't have senior figures who display these non-negotiables every time they play, your list is already in trouble. That is one of so many problems that young players who do not possess that 'Brayshaw instinct' at our club have been subject to over the years which means it doesn't become a club standard or it doesn't become a theme. St Kilda yesterday exemplified what I am saying. The influence Lenny Hayes and Nick Riewoldt alone would have on any young player who walks through that door at that club would so far surpass any young player at our club it's not funny. Especially if that player doesn't posses the 'Brayshaw instinct'. Players who need to know what the standard is. What is required before they get a game. When I look at Garland, Jamar, Dunn, Watts, Howe, Frawley, Sylvia and so many other players who were part of that senior and more experienced group that were at our club not long ago, absolutely none of them display that 'Brayshaw instinct' consistently. None of them. And none of them had the right people to hold them accountable. So we see the effects now. It means we've had to bring in players like Cross and Dawes. Players who do display those instincts but are less-skilled and have been let go of their previous clubs because their previous clubs have had a plethora of senior figures who display those instincts and they can afford to release those players as part of list management. Whilst our younger players have without doubt benefitted from having players like Cross and Dawes over players like Sylvia and Frawley to look up to, our game has suffered because of the skill level of these players. Again, another one of many problems our club is facing. I won't continue to go on about other examples but to me it's pretty simple. There has to be an overhaul and another two seasons of list culling of current senior players, fringe players and NQR's until we begin to see a young and committed core group of players emerge who possess that 'Brayshaw instinct' in spades and who hopefully have the fundamental football skills to match. Trading for positional players and hitting FA will obviously help but it's recruiting those kids who will be the leaders of our club that we need to nail. When those players become the core group at our club and eventually the next leaders, that's when we'll see a period of sustained success on-field. (Providing everything off-field continues to hold up).

If supporters don't believe that underperforming senior players with questionable skill-level, fitness and general intent when playing isn't a significant contributing factor in performances like today, last week and many other weeks this year, you need to wake up a bit. Seriously. Club's don't continue to display these kinds of insipid and skill-less games for years upon years without there being some seriously deeply rooted problems with some senior figures at that club.

I just had a look, you're right. Out of interest, what did you think of Garland's performance today?

It's the sign of a true one-eyed Melbourne supporter. Love all senior players and back them in even to the detriment of their own club. Frawley, Sylvia, Moloney.... The same supporters throwing out the same lines.

Yes, and I'll be the first to raise my hand and say that the club clearly think he's an important player moving forward. But we're not there yet and I'm confident he'll be gone. I'm asking Ron why he believes Garland is untouchable and why he thought the same of Frawley even though he knew we'd receive such good compo.

As I've said, the attraction to me of moving Garland on is not about what draft pick we are given. It's how we use it. You are assuming we'll go to the draft and I have never said we will only go to the draft with that pick and hopefully pick up a great player, (even though I believe we could.) But we have options. I said that Roos and co have been able to use the picks we've received from losing players very wisely and I have no doubt we'd be able to do that again. Whether it be packaged with something else for a trade or going to the draft or allowing us to bring another FA in who would cover the loss of a 'senior' player etc. All bases would be covered. We have already covered the loss of 'experienced players' in Frawley and Sylvia in Vince and Cross so I can't understand the 'losing another senior player' argument. It's invalid. As for the draft. If you want to play games like the 'look at the recent pick 26's' then I'll challenge you to dig a bit deeper and perhaps look at some of the quality players selected around that pick. Both before and after. Also look at how many high draft picks we [censored] up during the BP years and compare those with the ones we've been getting right since Jason Taylor and the beefed up recruiting department walked through the door. The point is we're in much better hands to both get a pick right and develop the talent. One more rebuttal. Remind me what pick Garland was? It's a silly argument.

My 'obsession' with Garland isn't any different to Ron's except that we have differing views about his value to the side. He posts about it just as much as me and yet I don't hear you calling it an 'unhealthy obsession'... I know why that's so. It's simply the emotional attachment one holds to a player who has played many years at the club that we're in love with. My obsession is with desperately wanting us to continuously transform as a club and as list until there comes a time where we stop having periods of play and games where we play the most embarrassing bad football the AFL world is witnessed to. I want to know why Ron thinks Garland is such an important signing? I want to know because he said the same thing about Frawley and it makes me think that he and the others who 'like' those statements have no idea that changes like these are just as important as recruiting well or trading well. It's not so much about the pick we'll be receiving for Garland. You all seem to bang on about it. It's more to do with the fact that we have too many one-dimensional footballers all over our list but especially in the backline with a consistent theme being 'not skilled enough'. Just take an objective stance for a minute and look at what we need to continue to improve and you will all realise this individualised player shmoosing just doesn't make sense. Not when we are a club who is still so short of real leaders, skilled and smart footballers and smart decision makers. Don't be afraid of change. You might lose something good but you may gain something better. All of the players we have moved on or who have left since Roos has been in charge we have without a doubt benefited from. Look at what Vince, Cross and Garlett have done in the short time they've been here and compare that with what Garland has achieved? Feel the mother [censored] change ya'll. It's coming.

You and many others said the exact same thing about Frawley. Look how that turned out? I cannot for the life of me understand this way of thinking. What makes him a quality player in your eyes? What is his value to our side presently?

You know nothing John Snow.

I think we should be looking at our list needs. Aish is not that player. He is almost identical to Toumpas in style of play, height and weight.

You're calling it because it was speculated on the news? Or you know something we don't?

I'm always happy to defend my view so I'll move past what 'annoys' you about my posting and get to the point. Pleasant opening line though, thanks. You and others who consistently 'defend' Garland seem to almost entirely miss the much broader and more relevant picture. The rebuilding and reshaping of our list. I'll repeat that. The rebuilding and the reshaping of our list. Is there a complete lack of awareness of how [censored] putrid our club has been over this period of time? It sure feels like it when talking about things like this. You all write the same response. 'It's hardly Garland's fault', 'He plays his role', 'Who do we have to fill his role'. etc etc. The same [censored]. When you are faced with reshaping one of the worst lists seen in AFL football, some difficult decisions are going to need pondering. Read some of these stats from only last year: * Lowest average score since 1920 * 20 straight losses at Etihad * 15 straight losses at Subiaco * Second worst total score ever in a 22 game season There are plenty more. I'll also mention our consistent drop-offs in effort and skill during games. Brisbane game last year at etihad. The last half against GWS at the G when they had blokes dropping like flies from injuries. This year against GWS after half time. Our non effort until the last quarter of last weeks game. These are a few examples of SO MANY. How about other stats like goals scored to opposition teams from our turnovers this year? Inside 50 deferential averages. The lists are endless and these astonishing records that we've tallied up point directly to the deeply rooted problems that have surrounded our club and list for so long now. We've had a leadership void. We've had a shocking recruiting strike rate with high picks meaning many less talented players have been playing many more games at AFL level than they should have. We've had terrible trade ins and FA bring ins through the Neeld days. We still have so much work to do with the list. That can't be stressed enough. With all that in mind I'll now talk about Garland and my view is as follows. He is unique in that he's yet to sign a contract and he is a restricted FA meaning there is some value there for us. We wouldn't talking about the guy if I wasn't out of contract and wasn't a FA. He has been with us since 07 and he offers no inspired change on the field which is one of the things we so desperately need and can get through moving someone like him on if there is potential for a player upgrade. He is part of a back six who have some of the most questionable footskills and decision making skills in the AFL and as a backline we are desperate for attacking run and footskills. He plays a role and position that can be easily covered and we've seen that in the games that he hasn't played this year. Garland is not 'the' problem. But he is part of the 'problem'. Tough decisions need to be made with guys like him who are coming out of contract and who are not inspiring change at the club. The very thing we need most.

Nice to hear there are some supporters who see it too.

DE? You're not really looking at that are you? It is sooooooo misleading. I'm using him as one of many in our backline who do not use the ball well enough.. They don't make smart decisions and they don't kick well. You can't have a backline with most of the players sharing the same weakness.

Whilst I don't wish to 'pick' on him, can some of you watch Garland today and tell me what he's adding to the side today? He's already fluffed kicks. One of which was to a player less than 15 metres away on his own. Do people see how one-dimensional our backline is? Garland has value through FA. We need a different skill set in our side and in our backline. Watch Garland for the rest of the day and you'll see what I mean. He is insignificant. Irrelevant.

And I'd agree with you. But we wouldn't be 'disposing' him. And that's the point. We'd receive compo which could set us up to get someone decent through a trade. That's the whole point of this. He still has value.

I saw it also. In any workplace, the relationships you hold have to be strong while you're there. I don't think a 'hug' after a win is any indication that Garland is a required player... But that's just me.