Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

625 Excellent

About robbiefrom13

  • Rank
    Mighty Demon

Previous Fields

  • Favourite Player(s)
    Mann Flower Jakovich Jurrah Watts Salem

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Stef Martin found it hard at Melbourne. I saw him once with the guys at Fed Square, looking very ignored and detached. Look at him now. Watts seems to struggle to get into the rhythm of the job, as though on some level an outsider. My speculation about Watts centres on this. What is going wrong? Jurrah was pretty much the same, with that never-ending injury. I saw a game a few years back where Jones marked just forward of centre and looked around for options. I posted on Demonland about it at the time. Watts led to centre-half forward, clear in front of his man, and Jones ignored him. Shortly afterwards, Jones kicked it to Watts, in a huge amount of space out near the boundary except that his man was wearing him like a glove, and the ball ended up over the boundary - as it was always going to. Kick not to advantage etc. At the time I thought, Jones doesn't really like - or understand - this guy. And now he is chucking him under the bus (Nield's old bus, as I remember it - he certainly didn't like Watts). My speculation: is it the intuitive, the intelligent, the non-grunt guys that we can't incorporate into our team? Maybe we as a club think such guys can't play the game "the way it should be played"? Is our culture a monoculture that fails to get the best out of its different guys? Robbie Flower has always been the top of the pile for me. I'm not here likening Watts to Flower in anything other than being not-the-standard-model. Plenty thought someone as different as Flower was going to be useless - he was scorned by Melbourne supporters around me for his first two quarters, mostly because he didn't look like what they thought a footballer should look like. Ok he turned out to be great from his first game, but plenty of ultimate stars of the game have taken time to come on. Roos had it right - treat them all as individuals, with respect. Watts is no complainer, but how do you feel supporting a club where a loyal employee said "I just wanted to be treated as a human being"? And, this was referring to a time when one of his presumed mates was Jones? Are there things to be learned on the other side of this straining relationship too? Melbourne chucking players under buses in recent years has happened too often for a club with its back to the wall, and we know with hindsight what disastrous results some of those sackings have had. Goodness knows how morale was affected among the "survivors" each time we unwisely threw away a loyal player. If you got no talent, clearly you have to go, I accept that. But if you don't make the most of your talent, before the club says goodbye, what I want to see is the motivators showing some skill. And yet, here we have, yet again, a boot up Watts' arce (just as the bus comes into view) as our deliberately-made-public approach supposedly to motivating what is a skilled, intelligent and multi-talented, committed and apparently sensitive human being... I remain convinced that Watts has it in him to cut the big games apart, using the skill, the speed, and the imaginative flair that we saw when he took off from behind the centre once Oscar got the ball against Collingwood. Watch the vision again, and watch his thinking. and on that occasion his move was honoured by his team-mate, and (slow-motion) moments later it had reduced Collingwood players to their knees, literally. That's what he can do, at that stage of a big game - and nobody else, on either side - saw or attempted the move: Watts used brains, comprehension of the game, beyond anyone on the field. A rare talent, albeit not yet fully harnessed to the team.
  2. Would be a bullet in the foot that might take down a lot more than Jack Watts.
  3. Jack Watts (again)

    why did he do that? Good decision-maker. Contact-averse, as some on here would say - so, why do that? Trying to get back into the seniors perhaps?
  4. Jack Watts (again)

    you have to wonder what is the instruction that is being mis-taken by our players...

    As a matter of interest, is anyone able to say whether we have ever won a game umpired by Nichols? Free kick count? Who we beat?
  6. The 2017 Membership Thread

    Voracious. Respectfully, OD, it is so different. Veracious they aren't, surely?
  7. Saturday talking point: Intraclub and the State of the List

    Labouring a point, but... WJ you rightly command a lot of respect on here, but you put your thoughts out there on a discussion board, and what should other posters do when they find something not quite right? Let it go? - and then there comes that old Demonland chestnut "if you read what I wrote..." The bit of your post that I was commenting on said - There is a group of players who comprise about a quarter of the club's list who were unavailable either through injury or because they were rested (and in Jake Melksham's case because of suspension for the year) and, judging by some of the names of those missing, it will be an essential to get as many of these players up and running as possible if we are going to see major improvement in 2016. They are - 2. Nathan Jones 5. Christian Petracca 6. Chris Dawes 8. Heritier Lumumba 9. Jack Trengove 18. Jake Melksham 19. Ben Newton etc How can getting Melksham up and running this year be an "essential" for the club? I didn't think you should have had him on that list. Melksham cannot be part of "They are.." For a supporters' discussion board to suggest the club should be doing anything to get Melksham up and running this year seemed to me to look like ignoring the decision of CAS. Plenty of others around the AFL appear to be inclined that way - I'd hope we clearly and visibly are not. I thought your post was open to misinterpretation, and could influence somebody's impression of how Melbourne supporters view the CAS decision. Hence I clumsily weighed in. I'm sorry I did - but I still think that on this occasion you posted carelessly, on a point that is not trivial.
  8. Saturday talking point: Intraclub and the State of the List

    maybe, maybe not. Discreet ignore till then, I think.
  9. Saturday talking point: Intraclub and the State of the List

    yes. Overlooking Melksham's status seems to me to be a mistake suggestive of a wrong attitude. Not saying WJ has a wrong attitude, but his inclusion of Melksham on his list makes it sound like he is not respectfully aware of the enormous black mark against Melksham's name for the duration of 2016. All of us should, in my opinion, be very conscious of MFC having become implicated after the event (quite unnecessarily) in something disgraceful. I wish we'd never recruited any of the 34, and certainly wish we now maintained a very careful distance from Essendon's and the media's attitude to CAS's sanction. Melksham is an embarrassment on our list in 2016; he can offer the club absolutely nothing but shame this year.

    The further it goes, the clearer the picture seems to emerge of the character of those involved. Totally unashamed, untroubled by being seen to be arguing loopholes rather than innocence, brushing off or destroying evidence, defying the world. At every development, I find it is further than I'd imagined possible. How did Melbourne interview Melksham and not see this matter of attitude/character? Or did MFC in doing their due diligence on Melksham actually see no real problem with the EFC culture? The AFL appear to have been comfortable with Essendon's values and conduct, the players' association likewise, MFC certainly have to have looked into part of it and apparently saw no issue of concern - where in the football world does it stop? Are we all implicated, in that the key entities in the football world in fact all condone (maybe even are quietly embracing) the Essendon initiative? Are all developing their plans for undetected compliance with this new regime? Where in the football world is the unambiguous condemnation of everything to do with what Essendon did? Why is nobody who speaks with authority in the football world shouting "enough!"?
  11. Cam McCarthy takes indefinite leave

    I'll get jumped all over again, but contract law requires equality of bargaining position between the parties, and a whole lot of specifics about this that I can't remember. When one party is in an unequal position - and I'd say the monopolistic rights of the player's club in an instance like that of CM makes it a very lopsided negotiation (not adequately balanced up by large amounts of money, if what the boy really wants is to play AFL footy). Yes he signed the contract, but in circumstances that effectively deny him the right to choose another employer, and which therefore justify questioning the fairness of the AFL's rules about contracts. The AFL denies him the right to choose a different employer. One day, this will be challenged, I'm sure. Maybe after the excesses of the Essendon FC's behaviour with their employees gets the legal light of day being admitted into what goes on in an AFL club. Law aims to provide fair rules, and the AFL does things their own way, for their own greater good. Some poor kids are going to get called out by Essendon later this year, and the AFL denies them access to the competition which likely enough they belong in, by merit, just as the AFL (and most fans) will not countenance the player deciding who they play for. Robbie Flower, Tassie Johnson, a lot of guys in the past stood out for a year to get to their own choice of club - but surely there can be better system. I know what that means about Hogan for example, but once the player is older his departure is allowed. Think Ablett, Franklin, etc - it isn't necessarily the end of the world, and perhaps it shows respect and allows agency in the players' own lives that should be considered. McCarthy raises questions about fairness to the player that I think deserve consideration; the system maybe is missing something that can matter to a young man. He is a talented athlete, with ambition and ability to entertain with his prowess. But we want to deny him reasonable rights that he would like to have, and we call him names when he respectfully seeks leave-of-absence under the pressure of his situation. "Supporters" - of the game, not the players. Are they mere gladiators to us?
  12. Cam McCarthy takes indefinite leave

    fair points - but it still is not a fair system. Bit like Essendon players who may not have been too rapt in the jabs - but how can you say "stuff it, I'll just not be part of it"? They want to play the game, so they put up with terms that are not reasonable. Well, not reasonable in my opinion.
  13. Cam McCarthy takes indefinite leave

    I disagree. It's a restraint-of-trade thing, I think: the AFL dictates to teenagers who they are allowed to work for - they are like slaves being sold on the block. If a boy was "chosen" by Essendon - or GWS for that matter, or anyone who for whatever reason they didn't want to work for - we call him names for not wanting to go there, or stay when the concerned club refuses to trade him. Have in mind we are talking about someone of outstanding skill - absolute elite in his field; and he has no say over where he works. Smacks of Stalinist Russia to me, and I will be interested to see one day a legal challenge to this system.
  14. just like Liam would be welcomed back too, his time served...
  15. Jack Watts in 2016?

    goal-kicking wing, with 4 tackles per game.