POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 10

[Akum 2,660]

7 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Further to all the above @Petraccattack, one thing I have noticed about our play this season in particular is that while we have been very good at creating forward 50 entrys and keeping the game played in our forward half, at times we are woefully inefficient at actually scoring, which creates two problems 1.It leaves our defensive half very open for the opposition to get out the back and create quality scoring opportunities from limited entries and 2. We often don't have any score on the board for all our dominance and again letting  the opposition get back in the game when they have the rub of the green for 5 - 10mins.  

Obviously 1. Is somewhat an inherent consequence of playing a high press and very attacking game style, so if we are going to play that way it is somewhat inevitable, though having some very quick players like Frost/Hunt to cover the open ground will help as will players who read the play and position well lIke T Mac and Hibbard.

Once we can become consistly more efficient at picking off targets and scoring from our share of time forward half, we should really be able to put some teams to the sword early in games and set up some easier wins (assuming we don't then sit back and think it's just going to happen like somewhat like the Freo game).

Again balancing the all out attacking with defense, it is encouraging that sometimeswe are getting better at simply controlling the game in between forward thrusts and that was another thing we did well at times in the third quarter against GC (it's just a little hard to know how much of that was due to an incipid oppo on this occasion).

Great to see a succession of thoughtful non-hysterical posts on the previous page or two. I agree that it's easier on the nerves & voicebox to watch when you know the result. But everyone needs to understand this RBG post.

Our game plan is about sustained pressure in our f50, which should end in a goal. Our radically aggressive forward press creates this sustained pressure. But the payback is that if a team gets behind our forward press, which is going to happen several times a game, they will take the ball forward more or less unopposed in what's virtually a training drill for them, and unless they mess it up, there's a high chance of them goaling.

It's impossible to chase as fast as they move the ball, and even if we leave a couple back, they'll struggle to stop 4 or 5 pacy attackers bearing down on them with uncontested ball. Our defence, probably more than any other in the league, will often be faced with speedy open attacks while being not quite in position, and they'll be made to look stupid at times, collectively and individually. 

This is simply the price we pay for such an aggressive game plan. So we just have to get used to it.

But it will pay off for us far more often than against us. If we're playing well, we'll get two or three times the amount of goals than they will from breakaways, and we will do what we've done several times already this year and score a number of goals in succession. Other teams won't be able to stop us, they can only hope that we don't finish it off. 

Because if we don't finish it off (especially if we're an AA big man and a Rising Star KPF short), we're vulnerable to breakaways and we'll struggle.

But as this team gets to play more together, we'll only get better and more consistent at finishing it off. Composure and consistency come mainly from experience and from time playing together. I really like what I'm seeing, though I've hated some of the results (North, Richmond, aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggghhhh!). But it's taking us to a very exciting place.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Akum
pages, not scrolls

[Akum 2,660]

28 minutes ago, Skuit said:

And some supporters are content with being fed grapes. Most have come to terms with Jack Watts the football player and accept he will never be the hard-nosed type but offers a lot of value in other areas. Yet, Kent doesn't put in once (it has been more than once, but it was a specific instance which got everyone's back's up), and the pitch-forks are out. We've deliberately built an ultra-competitive team, and Jack is somehow held apart from the standards everyone else is held to.

Is he that much of a prodigious talent? How do you think Garlett feels when he busts his gut to put pressure on and trap it in only for all that effort to go to waste because a team-mate doesn't bother pitching in? A supposed senior leader? As a supporter who would give everything for my club, one who suffers the pain of every setback, I'm content with the likes of Harmes and Frost making mistakes, because it's evident they put in 100% and hurt when they're beaten. Just like us.

I reckon Garlett loves playing alongside Watts, I think they've got a great chemistry. He's our one player who is able to anticipate what Jack is going to do, and Jack seems to realise that Garlett's usually going to be exactly where he needs him to be. Garlett's 4th goal was a great example.

I think Hogan is included in this chemistry too. Of course they all have flaws - like every single player who's ever played the game does. But the combination of Watts's intelligence, Garlett's instincts and Hogan's sheer footy nous, and the understanding they seem to be developing between them, is going to be great for us to watch over the next few years. 

[davo 209]

1 hour ago, Akum said:

I reckon Garlett loves playing alongside Watts, I think they've got a great chemistry. He's our one player who is able to anticipate what Jack is going to do, and Jack seems to realise that Garlett's usually going to be exactly where he needs him to be. Garlett's 4th goal was a great example.

I think Hogan is included in this chemistry too. Of course they all have flaws - like every single player who's ever played the game does. But the combination of Watts's intelligence, Garlett's instincts and Hogan's sheer footy nous, and the understanding they seem to be developing between them, is going to be great for us to watch over the next few years. 

All players have their flaws it's just some 'supporters' obsessively focus on the flaws, Tyson perfect example, the disdain for Tyson, as with Watts, is totally unwarranted 

[Redleg 37,566]

28 minutes ago, davo said:

All players have their flaws it's just some 'supporters' obsessively focus on the flaws, Tyson perfect example, the disdain for Tyson, as with Watts, is totally unwarranted 

Next you will suggesting supporters also have flaws.

[Scipio 5,868]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Next you will suggesting supporters also have flaws.

But we're all perfect! We never complain, we consider all the facts when presenting an argument and we never let emotion get the better of us, particularly in the post match discussion threads.

[titan_uranus 22,318]

7 hours ago, Akum said:

Great to see a succession of thoughtful non-hysterical posts on the previous page or two. I agree that it's easier on the nerves & voicebox to watch when you know the result. But everyone needs to understand this RBG post.

Our game plan is about sustained pressure in our f50, which should end in a goal. Our radically aggressive forward press creates this sustained pressure. But the payback is that if a team gets behind our forward press, which is going to happen several times a game, they will take the ball forward more or less unopposed in what's virtually a training drill for them, and unless they mess it up, there's a high chance of them goaling.

It's impossible to chase as fast as they move the ball, and even if we leave a couple back, they'll struggle to stop 4 or 5 pacy attackers bearing down on them with uncontested ball. Our defence, probably more than any other in the league, will often be faced with speedy open attacks while being not quite in position, and they'll be made to look stupid at times, collectively and individually. 

This is simply the price we pay for such an aggressive game plan. So we just have to get used to it.

But it will pay off for us far more often than against us. If we're playing well, we'll get two or three times the amount of goals than they will from breakaways, and we will do what we've done several times already this year and score a number of goals in succession. Other teams won't be able to stop us, they can only hope that we don't finish it off. 

Because if we don't finish it off (especially if we're an AA big man and a Rising Star KPF short), we're vulnerable to breakaways and we'll struggle.

But as this team gets to play more together, we'll only get better and more consistent at finishing it off. Composure and consistency come mainly from experience and from time playing together. I really like what I'm seeing, though I've hated some of the results (North, Richmond, aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggghhhh!). But it's taking us to a very exciting place.

Great post.

We have been on top in general play (and by that I mean time in possession, stoppages, inside 50s etc.) for significant periods (and indeed, against Geelong, Fremantle and Richmond for longer than our opponent). But in those periods we have failed to convert the on-field dominance into scoreboard dominance.

Then, whether it's goals out the back (Fremantle) or our pressure and intensity slipping (Geelong, Richmond), our opponent scores goals in the small(er) periods we're not dominating the play.

As you say, the longer the same group of players play together, learn together and grow together, (hopefully) the sooner the patches of inconsistency will disappear and the more we will convert our general play dominance into scoreboard dominance. 

[Binmans PA 26,032]

9 hours ago, Akum said:

Great to see a succession of thoughtful non-hysterical posts on the previous page or two. I agree that it's easier on the nerves & voicebox to watch when you know the result. But everyone needs to understand this RBG post.

Our game plan is about sustained pressure in our f50, which should end in a goal. Our radically aggressive forward press creates this sustained pressure. But the payback is that if a team gets behind our forward press, which is going to happen several times a game, they will take the ball forward more or less unopposed in what's virtually a training drill for them, and unless they mess it up, there's a high chance of them goaling.

It's impossible to chase as fast as they move the ball, and even if we leave a couple back, they'll struggle to stop 4 or 5 pacy attackers bearing down on them with uncontested ball. Our defence, probably more than any other in the league, will often be faced with speedy open attacks while being not quite in position, and they'll be made to look stupid at times, collectively and individually. 

This is simply the price we pay for such an aggressive game plan. So we just have to get used to it.

But it will pay off for us far more often than against us. If we're playing well, we'll get two or three times the amount of goals than they will from breakaways, and we will do what we've done several times already this year and score a number of goals in succession. Other teams won't be able to stop us, they can only hope that we don't finish it off. 

Because if we don't finish it off (especially if we're an AA big man and a Rising Star KPF short), we're vulnerable to breakaways and we'll struggle.

But as this team gets to play more together, we'll only get better and more consistent at finishing it off. Composure and consistency come mainly from experience and from time playing together. I really like what I'm seeing, though I've hated some of the results (North, Richmond, aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggghhhh!). But it's taking us to a very exciting place.

Great post, mate. Completely agree. Despite being incredibly frustrating at times this season, I've found it both fascinating and extremely exciting to see our clear progression. 

9 hours ago, Akum said:

I reckon Garlett loves playing alongside Watts, I think they've got a great chemistry. He's our one player who is able to anticipate what Jack is going to do, and Jack seems to realise that Garlett's usually going to be exactly where he needs him to be. Garlett's 4th goal was a great example.

I think Hogan is included in this chemistry too. Of course they all have flaws - like every single player who's ever played the game does. But the combination of Watts's intelligence, Garlett's instincts and Hogan's sheer footy nous, and the understanding they seem to be developing between them, is going to be great for us to watch over the next few years. 

You're on fire! Another great post.

They all provide something a little akin to a patchwork of creativity and footy offence that is incredibly tough to contain. It's rare you contain all three, if all three are playing. They'll only get better playing alongside each other more.

Flashforward 2-3 years time and Weideman coming on at that stage too, offering a further foil for Hogan and Watts, add another goal sneak, say Devon Smith, and this will be a scary forwardline. Oh and a mercurial talent called Christan Petracca.

[binman 37,991]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Great post.

We have been on top in general play (and by that I mean time in possession, stoppages, inside 50s etc.) for significant periods (and indeed, against Geelong, Fremantle and Richmond for longer than our opponent). But in those periods we have failed to convert the on-field dominance into scoreboard dominance.

Then, whether it's goals out the back (Fremantle) or our pressure and intensity slipping (Geelong, Richmond), our opponent scores goals in the small(er) periods we're not dominating the play.

As you say, the longer the same group of players play together, learn together and grow together, (hopefully) the sooner the patches of inconsistency will disappear and the more we will convert our general play dominance into scoreboard dominance. 

Agree. Terrific post from Akum. I think the key reason we often fail to convert the on-field dominance into scoreboard dominance is that we have too many poor to average kicks, and even handballers, in the team. With that ultra aggressive high push so well described by Akum we are exposed by turnovers more than almost any other team.

In thinking about what sort of players we need in the side a premium must be on players with, dare i say it, elite kicking skills like a suckling. It is one reason why Hibberd has been such a revalation. He is both a long, penetrating, zone clearing kick and a very accurate kick. Great combination.  

Funnily enough whilst there is no doubt Lewis' leadership has been great (well except for getting suspended!) and some of his attacking kicks can really create scoring options i have been amazed how often he has turned the ball over. I expected very few clangers of the variety that gifted GC a goal on the weekend. 

Clearly our best and most dangerous kick (and until Oliver came along handballer too) - and by some margin - is Watts. Which makes any suggestion we should trade him utterly absurd. He is critical to our chances of winning a flag. If we lost his foot skills we would be rooted. I'v said it before but you only need to look at a random selection of the 'all the goals videos' to see one element of how critical he is to our fortunes. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by binman

[Binmans PA 26,032]

25 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree. Terrific post from Akum. I think the key reason we often fail to convert the on-field dominance into scoreboard dominance is that we have too many poor to average kicks, and even handballers, in the team. With that ultra aggressive high push so well described by Akum we are exposed by turnovers more than almost any other team.

In thinking about what sort of players we need in the side a premium must be on players with, dare i say it, elite kicking skills like a suckling. It is one reason why Hibberd has been such a revalation. He is both a long, penetrating, zone clearing kick and a very accurate kick. Great combination.  

Funnily enough whilst there is no doubt Lewis' leadership has been great (well except for getting suspended!) and some of his attacking kicks can really create scoring options i have been amazed how often he has turned the ball over. I expected very few clangers of the variety that gifted GC a goal on the weekend. 

Clearly our best and most dangerous kick (and until Oliver came along handballer too) - and by some margin - is Watts. Which makes any suggestion we should trade him utterly absurd. He is critical to our chances of winning a flag. If we lost his foot skills we would be rooted. I'v said it before but you only need to look at a random selection of the 'all the goals videos' to see one element of how critical he is to our fortunes. 

We also know that Watts is a better player when he's not the sole/key focus of our forwardline. So the sooner Jesse can get back in there, the better. Even Pedersen providing a contest inside 50 on the weekend enabled Jack to get into the game more.

Our coaches need to be smarter in structuring our forwardline going forward and particularly, if Hogan isn't playing in it.

But I reckon Jack will be 20% more potent with Hogan next to him. They do tend to compliment each other well.

Edited May 30, 2017 by A F

[binman 37,991]

17 minutes ago, A F said:

We also know that Watts is a better player when he's not the sole/key focus of our forwardline. So the sooner Jesse can get back in there, the better. Even Pedersen providing a contest inside 50 on the weekend enabled Jack to get into the game more.

Our coaches need to be smarter in structuring our forwardline going forward and particularly, if Hogan isn't playing in it.

But I reckon Jack will be 20% more potent with Hogan next to him. They do tend to compliment each other well.

Yep. I reckon watts makes Hogan 20% more potent too. It was amazing how many of Jessie's goals last year came from Watts assists. On that front i think Watts's 'laconic' (yes, yes i know its the wrong word) style means some of his work goes unnoticed. Two bits of play really stood out for me against against GC. The goal he set up for ANB looked like he was in slow motion but he held his handball and put into the perfect spot for ANB who did did not have to break stride, in fact had to accelerate which put him the perfect spot to run into an open forward line and score. Great stuff. 

The second was the perfect example of things he does that many seem to miss or under appreciate. In fact i have only read one reference to it on DL.  Harmes' third (?) goal was set up by a sublime deflection from Watts who had gone up for the mark. Funnily enough, given what a nong he is Dermie notices it and wondered aloud if he did it deliberately saying if he did it was genius. Well it was. I've watched it a number of times and there is no doubt he meant it. Watts does those sort of taps and deflections a lot and it is one reason he does ok in the ruck. I am convinced it a skill he developed playing basketball.  Trac is terrific at it also.

On Watts, i have no doubt at all he is carrying an injury and has done for a few weeks. You can see it in his movements. He is an incredibly resilient player. Rarely misses games and in this day and age that only comes through super professional preparation and recovery.  

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by binman

[Binmans PA 26,032]

9 minutes ago, binman said:

Yep. I reckon watts makes Hogan 20% more potent too. It was amazing how many of Jessie's goals last year came from Watts assists. On that front i think Watts's 'laconic' (yes, yes i know its the wrong word) style means some of his work goes unnoticed. Two bits of play rally stood out for me against against GC. The goal he set up for ANB looked like he was in slow motion but he held his handball and put into the perfect spot for ANB who did did not have to break stride, in fact had to accelerate which put him the perfect spot to run into an open forward line and score. Great stuff. 

The second was the perfect example of things he does that many seem to miss or under appreciate. In fact i have only read one reference to it on DL.  Harmes' third (?) goal was set up by a sublime deflection from Watts who went had gone up for the mark. Funnily enough, given what a nong he is Dermie notices it and wondered aloud if he did it deliberately saying if he did it was genius. Well it was. I've watched it a number of times and there is no doubt he meant it. Watts does those sort of taps and deflections alot and it is one reason he does ok in the ruck. I am convinced it a skill he developed playing basketball.  Trac is terrific at it also/

On Watts, i have no doubt at all he is carrying an injury and has done for a few weeks. You can see it in his movements. He is an incredibly resilient player. Rarely misses games and in this day and age that only comes through super professional preparation and recovery.  

Wasn't that the goal Tyson kicked?

And on the tap down to Harmes, I remember thinking he'd done it deliberately and yeah, Dermie said as much.

Those little dinky taps and knock ons Jack does, I think they can look great if they come off, but it appears very soft if it doesn't. It can look like IMO he's avoiding body contact by tapping instead of taking possession of the ball. Still, it's definitely that basketball background. I agree.

RE: his injury, he certainly grabbed at his groin in the last.

[binman 37,991]

6 minutes ago, A F said:

Wasn't that the goal Tyson kicked?

And on the tap down to Harmes, I remember thinking he'd done it deliberately and yeah, Dermie said as much.

Those little dinky taps and knock ons Jack does, I think they can look great if they come off, but it appears very soft if it doesn't. It can look like IMO he's avoiding body contact by tapping instead of taking possession of the ball. Still, it's definitely that basketball background. I agree.

RE: his injury, he certainly grabbed at his groin in the last.

Actually ANB kicked to garlett for the easy goal. My mistake

Edited May 30, 2017 by binman

[Skuit 9,169]

10 hours ago, davo said:

All players have their flaws it's just some 'supporters' obsessively focus on the flaws, Tyson perfect example, the disdain for Tyson, as with Watts, is totally unwarranted 

Some players have flaws that can't be overcome through commitment and effort - physical shortcomings or skill deficiencies which no amount of practice will entirely eradicate. Others have surmountable problems and when they don't address them it's those who I take exception to.

You tell me to trade in my brain, or people dismiss a critique of Watts as 'Watts-hating' - and I'll take exception to that as well. I think I'm a fair poster - and many others here who dare to criticize Jack are as well. I only ever get stuck in when I consider that a player won't make it, and that's after carefully watching them for a period and respectfully assuming a projected natural improvement. That, and when I don't think a player is fully committed. Scroll through my history, and the list of limited players I've defended is far greater than those who I've struck a line through. I still miss Jack Fitzpatrick if that gives you any clue.

I don't hate Watts - no reasonable human would, and his evident fear of contact is probably an admirable trait from an evolutionary perspective. I also agree with every positive comment made about Jack, and how he adds to the dynamic of our forward-line. But he plays football. It's a contact sport. We also have a very important focus on forward pressure for our game-plan to come to fruition. And I can't just merrily accept what Stretch Johnson perfectly described as 'half-baked efforts' in exchange for the 'crucial touches' he has on occasion.

I also don't obsess, but it irks me week in week out when he does the exact same thing and then people sing his praises - e.g receiving votes for the brief positive impact he had even if it was hugely influential in the ultimate outcome. He doesn't seem interested in ever living up to his potential, and that's entirely his prerogative, but I'm happy for him to go and coast through his career somewhere else.

And I say that knowing full-well the detrimental impact it might well have on our near-future results as well as membership etc., but I now consider it in the same way as you might a top-level talent with off-field issues or a disruptive nature. Colin Sylvia for e.g. He has some currency, and I would hope the negative impact of losing Jack would be outweighed by the long-term future benefits to the team as a whole. A team of competitive beasts: all for one, and one for all.  

Regardless, that will be the last I ever say about Jack Watts on this forum, because it's far easier that way. In exchange, please don't go tell me to trade in my membership again.

[CBDees 3,162]

13 hours ago, Akum said:

I reckon Garlett loves playing alongside Watts, I think they've got a great chemistry. He's our one player who is able to anticipate what Jack is going to do, and Jack seems to realise that Garlett's usually going to be exactly where he needs him to be. Garlett's 4th goal was a great example.

I think Hogan is included in this chemistry too. Of course they all have flaws - like every single player who's ever played the game does. But the combination of Watts's intelligence, Garlett's instincts and Hogan's sheer footy nous, and the understanding they seem to be developing between them, is going to be great for us to watch over the next few years. 

Another player who enjoys playing alongside Watts is Petracca; in fact, Trac nominated Watts in a recent article as the player he most enjoys playing with since he arrived at Melbourne. (I am trying to find the article so that I can add a link or an exact quote,)

Edited May 30, 2017 by CBDees

[sue 8,424]

5 hours ago, Skuit said:

 A team of competitive beasts: all for one, and one for all. 

Watts is not a total whimp or he wouldn't be playing AFL.  In any team there will be some competitive beasts who are more competitive than some of their team mates.   Watts' skills make up for the fact he is not Nathan Jones. To give an extreme example to illustrate the point - if we had a player who could reliably kick goals from 70 metres out, I would have him in the team even if he was the biggest whimp in the AFL (which is not very whimpy by any other standard).

[chook fowler 18,224]

Apparently Watts is very popular amongst the playing group - he is likeable, good company and really upbeat when morale is low. Best mates with Hogan so very important around the club. Hard to put a value on something like that.

[Scipio 5,868]

25 minutes ago, sue said:

Watts is not a total whimp or he wouldn't be playing AFL.  In any team there will be some competitive beasts who are more competitive than some of their team mates.   Watts' skills make up for the fact he is not Nathan Jones. To give an extreme example to illustrate the point - if we had a player who could reliably kick goals from 70 metres out, I would have him in the team even if he was the biggest whimp in the AFL (which is not very whimpy by any other standard).

Lack of aggression does not equal wimpiness. Watts might not be super aggressive, but he's not a wimp. Totally agree with your other point too.

20 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Apparently Watts is very popular amongst the playing group - he is likeable, good company and really upbeat when morale is low. Best mates with Hogan so very important around the club. Hard to put a value on something like that.

Not surprising at all and have been hearing this for a long time.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Luther
*lack of aggression

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

6 hours ago, Skuit said:

 but I'm happy for him to go and coast through his career somewhere else.

What was it about Jack's game that you found so upsetting?  20 possessions (9th highest and he's not a mid), 8 of them contested (equal 8th highest in the team), second highest for marks and contested marks, equal 10th for tackles (and he's not a mid) and equal top for goal assists.

He's playing out of position because Hogan and Gawn aren't playing and he's played rucking for a lot of the season.  Pretty half hearted rucking against people much bigger and heavier don't you think?

I doubt this will cause many to change their view because those that criticize want him to do things differently but what surprises me is some who can't see that what he does is so very valuable to the team and he does what few can.  The prospect of trading out these skills would reduce our chances of winning flag significantly.

I think it's unlikely we win on Saturday if Watts didn't play and Jack Hill the blind miner can see he's playing very sore.  I was at the game and thought he played just ok.  When I read the criticism of him (and Oscar who I like) on here I looked closely at their games.  I thought Watts was terrific and I thought Oscar had a mare. 

Those who want Watts gone miss the point that a team is made up of many different things and Jack offers some of those things in spades.  And the things he offers are very rare.

Trading him would be a horrendous mistake in my opinion.

[old55 21,288]

8 hours ago, Skuit said:

I don't hate Watts - no reasonable human would, and his evident fear of contact is probably an admirable trait from an evolutionary perspective.

You have to be joking.  Since mid last year he has rucked consistently and courageously against much bigger opponents and has had to do it for extended periods of the game this year when Gawn and Spencer went down.  That has clearly taken a toll on him and it's showing but he is still able to make a significant contribution to the team.  He's a vital component in our quest for a flag.  Jack is our Cyril, they're different players but the value is the same.

[P-man 13,168]

11 hours ago, Skuit said:

Some players have flaws that can't be overcome through commitment and effort - physical shortcomings or skill deficiencies which no amount of practice will entirely eradicate. Others have surmountable problems and when they don't address them it's those who I take exception to.

You tell me to trade in my brain, or people dismiss a critique of Watts as 'Watts-hating' - and I'll take exception to that as well. I think I'm a fair poster - and many others here who dare to criticize Jack are as well. I only ever get stuck in when I consider that a player won't make it, and that's after carefully watching them for a period and respectfully assuming a projected natural improvement. That, and when I don't think a player is fully committed. Scroll through my history, and the list of limited players I've defended is far greater than those who I've struck a line through. I still miss Jack Fitzpatrick if that gives you any clue.

I don't hate Watts - no reasonable human would, and his evident fear of contact is probably an admirable trait from an evolutionary perspective. I also agree with every positive comment made about Jack, and how he adds to the dynamic of our forward-line. But he plays football. It's a contact sport. We also have a very important focus on forward pressure for our game-plan to come to fruition. And I can't just merrily accept what Stretch Johnson perfectly described as 'half-baked efforts' in exchange for the 'crucial touches' he has on occasion.

I also don't obsess, but it irks me week in week out when he does the exact same thing and then people sing his praises - e.g receiving votes for the brief positive impact he had even if it was hugely influential in the ultimate outcome. He doesn't seem interested in ever living up to his potential, and that's entirely his prerogative, but I'm happy for him to go and coast through his career somewhere else.

And I say that knowing full-well the detrimental impact it might well have on our near-future results as well as membership etc., but I now consider it in the same way as you might a top-level talent with off-field issues or a disruptive nature. Colin Sylvia for e.g. He has some currency, and I would hope the negative impact of losing Jack would be outweighed by the long-term future benefits to the team as a whole. A team of competitive beasts: all for one, and one for all.  

Regardless, that will be the last I ever say about Jack Watts on this forum, because it's far easier that way. In exchange, please don't go tell me to trade in my membership again.

With respect, I think this is a little outdated. No-one has been more frustrated by Watts than me over the journey (okay, ProDee has), but he has gotten better with the body contact stuff. It's been a slow crawl but he's getting there. Taking on ruck duties in particular has furthered his development in that area.

He still needs to work on things like getting his arms out in front (enough with the chest marks already), but there's way too much to like about what Watts now brings to the team to even contemplate trading him for mine. He's probably our best kick along with  being our smartest player. They don't grow on trees.

[Deemented Are Go! 3,602]

As an aside (but I know she's been mentioned on this thread), Daisy Pearce is coming to my workplace for an event next Tuesday and I'll be feeding her!!

OMG I'm so excited like a giddy schoolgirl - I'm totally gonna get an autograph and a selfie!

[Skuit 9,169]

13 hours ago, P-man said:

With respect, I think this is a little outdated. No-one has been more frustrated by Watts than me over the journey (okay, ProDee has), but he has gotten better with the body contact stuff. It's been a slow crawl but he's getting there. Taking on ruck duties in particular has furthered his development in that area.

He still needs to work on things like getting his arms out in front (enough with the chest marks already), but there's way too much to like about what Watts now brings to the team to even contemplate trading him for mine. He's probably our best kick along with  being our smartest player. They don't grow on trees.

This is a top-notch post P-man. I almost agree point for point but for a minor quibble or two in conclusion. But I said I wouldn't comment again on the specific topic and I won't. But thank you for the balance and not being simply reactionary.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Skuit

[old55 21,288]

On 5/31/2017 at 3:36 AM, Skuit said:

He doesn't seem interested in ever living up to his potential, and that's entirely his prerogative, but I'm happy for him to go and coast through his career somewhere else.

There's more than an insinuation from you and other posters that Jack Watts somehow lacks the mental toughness that other players have - but I dispute this.

Players regularly miss set shots from positions that I could easily kick goals from.  It's not because of a lack of skills, it's because of lack of mental application in the face of great pressure.  Jack Watts kicks the goal that Isaac Smith missed in the Qualifying final after the siren with 90,000 baying fans.  It's because he is able to calm his mind and execute his skills under maximum pressure.  Even when he's kicking from 15 out directly in front he goes through his mental process and he never misses.  He's the one guy in the whole AFL that you want kicking for the flag.  In field play he consistently finds time and hits targets.  It's primarily about his mental toughness and secondarily about his skills.

Mentally weak players do not fly courageously at the centre bounce against Aaron Sandilands.

[binman 37,991]

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

There's more than an insinuation from you and other posters that Jack Watts somehow lacks the mental toughness that other players have - but I dispute this.

Players regularly miss set shots from positions that I could easily kick goals from.  It's not because of a lack of skills, it's because of lack of mental application in the face of great pressure.  Jack Watts kicks the goal that Isaac Smith missed in the Qualifying final after the siren with 90,000 baying fans.  It's because he is able to calm his mind and execute his skills under maximum pressure.  Even when he's kicking from 15 out directly in front he goes through his mental process and he never misses.  He's the one guy in the whole AFL that you want kicking for the flag.  In field play he consistently finds time and hits targets.  It's primarily about his mental toughness and secondarily about his skills.

Mentally weak players do not fly courageously at the centre bounce against Aaron Sandilands.

Agree. I'd add mentally weak players don't gut run the way Watts does or consistently take the risks Watts often takes with his kicking, for example kicking into the corridor. Yes he has the skills to do it but it take mental strength to take that risk as often as he does and block out the fear of making a mistake that could cost us a goal, particularly given the scrutiny he has always faced and that fact that some football fans seem to revel in any mistake he makes.  

The other thing that takes mental strength is backing up week in week out in one of the most physically taxing professional sports. I have made this point before but Watts must incredibly resilient and obviously very professional in terms of how he prepares and recovers. Since his debut in mid 2009 the dees have played somewhere in the vicinity of 176 games. Watts has played in 147 of them, including every game last year and every game this year. That takes mental strength. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by binman

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

There's more than an insinuation from you and other posters that Jack Watts somehow lacks the mental toughness that other players have - but I dispute this.

Players regularly miss set shots from positions that I could easily kick goals from.  It's not because of a lack of skills, it's because of lack of mental application in the face of great pressure.  Jack Watts kicks the goal that Isaac Smith missed in the Qualifying final after the siren with 90,000 baying fans.  It's because he is able to calm his mind and execute his skills under maximum pressure.  Even when he's kicking from 15 out directly in front he goes through his mental process and he never misses.  He's the one guy in the whole AFL that you want kicking for the flag.  In field play he consistently finds time and hits targets.  It's primarily about his mental toughness and secondarily about his skills.

Mentally weak players do not fly courageously at the centre bounce against Aaron Sandilands.

And if you want to talk about mental toughness just look at Alex Fasalo. 

Jack Watts would be one of the most resilient players I know.  The pressure of expectation coupled with an inept football club and almost unparalleled media scrutiny would have ended the career of most.  That he's stayed the course, has shown loyalty and is now producing consistent good footy deserves our thanks, not harping complaints.  You don't have to love him, you don't even have to like him but at least support him, he plays for your team.

Not that Pro would give a stuff!