rpfc

Pinch hit. When does a pinch hitter become a starter? (sorry to finish off the baseball metaphor for those lost) He has been doing this well for a couple of years now, helping to lower the average score against by 5 goals since 2008. I have said it before and Doggo isolated it - there is a massive benefit in not just having a negative player who might have a couple centimetres and kgs on Colin. The value is working over the Fevs of this world so that they don't just have to worry about beating a bloke - they have to worry about where their bloke is when their team doesn't have the footy. Make Garland a flanker, which he has not been, (and I am pretty certain won't be) and you will end up with him being shadowed and it will limit his effectiveness.

He can hold it down. And it would diminish his value for him to play on a flank. I would prefer he mitigate and run off one the 'focal points' then be placed on a flank and have some Dunn-equivalent shadow him around and negate his influence. There are plusses in not 'freeing up' players.

Hey, Neil. I just don't understand why we have to throw money at mute, pant-less bears when we have so many great footballers playing in second tier leagues waiting for a chance?! Couldn't agree more. Now we are off to our next caller who is complaining about the fluffiness of kittens these days. Caller? They are just too fluffy, Neil. Too fluffy.

Because you can have a rookie on $30k a year whereas the minimum is around $65k (ish). And, yeah, it is a little counter intuitive. And they are having a chat as Ox said, about getting rid of the RL. Although the VL is good one as it keeps the older players in the game longer. As half the salary of two 10 year players can be paid outside the cap. Assuming they sign the contract.... (I would put an emoticon here but I don't use emoticons)

Well posted. Frawley and Garland as focal point defenders. Rivers helping them out. It is what we will go with for the foreseeable future.

By being non-existent at training? Sorry for being flippant but people won't forgive/forget Davey's 50s but Green not being in the leadership group at the start of last year (09) for being a ghost and it's a point of pride? He's a great player is Brad, but don't PDMNATMIR.

No-one said you couldn't give your opinion, JCB. Here's mine - Rivers is slow and one dimensional (it's a bloody good dimension though), MacDonald is servicable but has noithing on Garland (especially playiong on CHFs), Garland played as a KPD for most of 2010, and Davis is an baby taken late in the draft. And BTW, who do you think are Collingwood's KPDs if O'Brien is a HBF? They had Brown and who in the finals? Maxwell? He is their Rivers, sits in the hole without an opponent.

One vet means that a rookie can play Rd 1 without an LTI. After Rd 11 another rookie can play without an LTI.

I have thought, maybe, just maybe, your comments will be taken at face value and if you believe you have had a conversation with Chris on a bad day you shouldn't mention it on a forum? Or you shouldn't comment on his personality being abrasive?

Rivers isn't quick enough, Warnock isn't good enough. Nor can they hurt the opposition (and their direct opposition ie. making Fev work - and didn't he hate poor Colin's performance on him this season) the way Garland does.

What do you want to do with Rivers then? Where is this 'better than Garland KPD' going to come from? How can you afford him? Who do you trade? Honestly, some of you think this is a video game - where you can mix and match to your hearts content and change players roles on a whim. Garland is a mobile and versatile KPD who can be very effective in a rebounding capacity. And if he is playing on a 'CHF' and is damaging in that capacity then it is a win-win as that 'CHF' must then work hard the other way. Note: I put CHF in inverted commas because I don't want to get hung up on a semantical argument about whether we still have CHFs anymore... We still have tall blokes that mark the footy don't we?!

It's already happened... Waahhhh!! He's hasn't signed by Round 1 and you know what that means? It means he is going!!! He's going! I hate him! We didn't need him in the first place! Blease will replace him! I will replace him! Why didn't we do enough to keep him?! Should Bailey go because of it?! Chris Connolly is so abrasive! All I did was act like a [censored] and he was so abrasive! The girl at the club is so emotional! She cries whenever I yell down the phone at her! I'm conflicted, and on a horse.

04-07 he played a different role to the one he is playing now. 08 was wrecked thorugh injury. Obviously 09 and 10 were very solid years with 09 being exceptional. I would step back from my verbose championing of Davey over this period but I don't think Aaron is as inconsistent as you recall. He is one player where the ball doesn't need to be in his hands many times for him to damaging. I still stand by the 'get over Aaron's acts' point. Too many on here just bring up the 50s he gives away from time to time and not the reason why he is giving them away - because he is being harrassed constantly by the other team (no help from his more experienced teammates) because he is the only player the other team had to worry about.

Aaron Davey doesn't lift? What about from 2007-2010? Who was the most consistent player in those years? Who lifted the team and the fans with their run and dare and skill? I think Davey is undersold by his own fans. More should sit behind the bench and see how hard he runs, and that isn't hard? That isn't courageous? People need to stop harping on the few churlish and childish things he has done in the past and get over it. He was targetted by other clubs beause he was the only one they had to worry about in the dark days of 08 and 09. Just get over it.

Makes me wonder what Bobby said to him...

Heh. What?!

It most definitely is. But Colin has played, and will play on the best forwards (cue the versatility of him and Frawley) tall, medium, or small. He is a key defender for the MFC, he is quick enough, strong enough and has been groomed for this versatile role - in matches and in training. He will develop to become a major player in our backline for a decade (foot problems permitting). I think most of us are in agreement. Case closed.

Yes, it's like hearing voices in your head. As opposed to where exactly - hearing voices in your legs? That's proper mental. I'm Jimmy Carr, thank you.

I have no idea why you are continuing with this 'sleeping' meme - if I am sleeping, you're in a coma... Campbell was/is a ruckman. If he was back there then it was the same way that Jeff White was back there. Rivers will play on those 'men mountains' unless Campbell is in the ruck and following his man down there. AND when HAVE you EVER said THAT Garland COULD play MIDFIELD? Wing is midfield, otherwise Davey isn't a midfielder.

Wide awake up here. He has played on the second tall. Frawley gets the best tall and Garland gets the second best. They try to get Rivers on a resting ruckman or slower tall. Warnock is not a weapon in terms of using the footy when we turn it over and can only play a negative role. Campbell is a ruckman and won't play a defensive role at all, I have no idea where you are getting this idea from. I have heard nothing from the FD that would see Campbell as anything other than a ruckman to support Jamar. And put Garland into our midfield? No spots for him in our blue chip midfield.

Rivers is the better 'floater' if that is what you are envisioning. Garland, as Sylvinator said, allows us to have a defender on a FF/CHF or 'key' forward and still use him as a offensive weapon.

Where have you been? He has been playing KP back since Bailey threw him in the deep end in 2008. And he is excellent at it.

It's close at the end of Richmond game - we are leaking goals for some reason and Grimes is having an effect but not much. Bailey sends Trengove down to the backline to do the customary swap with Grimes to develop his defensive capabilities. Trengove gets beaten one-out twice and we lose the game - everyone at the G knows that Grimes would have done a better job. I know Trengove will be that much better for the experience. Bailey knows what he is doing. Wins are great, but Bailey obviously has his own measurements (quarters won, reducing the size of 'slaughtering' periods) and, yes, we are young (younger than this time last year which should dampen your expectations but doesn't) but that doesn't mean that playing Gysberts in the midfield ahead of Jones is as good for the team on the day than it is for our flag prospects.

I agree that the forwards are today are more mobile, and teams usually don't have more than one 'gorilla.' Garland will still take the second tall (CHF/FF), and without getting into a semantical pissing match, that makes him a KP defender. Good to see most of us are on the right page.

Why stop with the development of a flag winning team? Because we can finish 6th if we try real hard? I want a flag. And I know Bailey will do what is necessary. And by the way, that doesn't mean we won't play finals, it just means that we keep on playing our talent and expose them - even to the detriment of the team's fortunes on the day.