There is nothing wrong with the question in the thread.

A bit of objectivity around this place wouldn't go astray.

I once went to a talk hosted by David Parkin, designed to gee up the staff. The best thing I got from it was the sandwiches afterwards.

So someone who has NOTHING to do with the club says a young player that has played 3 games has the wrong attitude?

David Parkin is an old [censored]. I've noticed a lot of these older football commentators commenting on how his attitude must not be right if he isn't playing. Back in the days, school and body didn't matter; if you had the skills, you played in the seniors. Isn't like that anymore.

If Watts' attitude wasn't right, why would he be picked to play?

It's just this mentality running through the minds of the old codgers that if someone isn't playing, there must be something wrong. It's not always the case. There was nothing ever wrong with Jack Watts, it was just a matter of him being prepared to play AFL footy.

David Parkin is a [censored] that is decreasing in worth in football circles. I can't believe the man still has a job in the media. He's worse than Leigh Matthews with some of the pretentious and outrageous dribble that comes out of his hole.

Seeing young Jack:

drooling drunk on a weeknight when he had training the following day;

challenging friends to drinking contests; and

smashing down shots like they were going out of fashion,

makes me think that he may have some attitude problems.

However he has plenty of time to get it right so not a great deal of concern

Sorry for adding the above - sick of people deluding themselves

  On 14/05/2010 at 01:52, BennytheJet said:

Seeing young Jack:

drooling drunk on a weeknight when he had training the following day;

challenging friends to drinking contests; and

smashing down shots like they were going out of fashion,

makes me think that he may have some attitude problems.

However he has plenty of time to get it right so not a great deal of concern

Sorry for adding the above - sick of people deluding themselves

Ah, anonymity, the forum equivalent to Parliamentary Privilege... care to back those statements up (assuming your tongue wasn't planted firmly in your cheek)?

Im not anonymous - a lot of people here know who I am or have met me before at one of the forum games.

  On 14/05/2010 at 01:58, hardtack said:

Ah, anonymity, the forum equivalent to Parliamentary Privilege... care to back those statements up (assuming your tongue wasn't planted firmly in your cheek)?

And how is your dig any different.

  On 14/05/2010 at 02:02, BennytheJet said:

Im not anonymous - a lot of people here know who I am or have met me before at one of the forum games.

A rather strange interpretation of "anonymous" in relation to a public forum... but, whatever. Anyway, the real point was, "care to back those statements up?".

  On 14/05/2010 at 02:20, dandeeman said:

And how is your dig any different.

Not really a dig... it is a comment relating to the fact that people can make statements that discredit without having to back it up or expose themselves in the process... just as politicians use Parliamentary Privilege.

Your comment might be more plausible if I was to reveal BennytheJet's true identity and make unfounded claims of him engaging in questionable behaviour while keeping my own identity hidden.

I can't think of anyone more removed from Jack & MFC in all of AFL football media.

Not one person.

So of course, he must be on the money with this one.

  On 14/05/2010 at 01:52, BennytheJet said:

Seeing young Jack:

drooling drunk on a weeknight when he had training the following day;

challenging friends to drinking contests; and

smashing down shots like they were going out of fashion,

makes me think that he may have some attitude problems.

However he has plenty of time to get it right so not a great deal of concern

Sorry for adding the above - sick of people deluding themselves

Sounds like me at that age and I turned out just fine.

  On 14/05/2010 at 01:52, BennytheJet said:

Seeing young Jack:

drooling drunk on a weeknight when he had training the following day;

challenging friends to drinking contests; and

smashing down shots like they were going out of fashion,

makes me think that he may have some attitude problems.

However he has plenty of time to get it right so not a great deal of concern

Sorry for adding the above - sick of people deluding themselves

Well I'll balance out that story with one where I saw Jack in the off season out with mates and he did not drink, and was extremely well behaved.

I guess the truth lies somewhere in between those two scenarios. He isn't perfect, but if he was a habitual mid-week drinker he wouldn't be getting a game for Casey or for Melbourne. Ever. Not under Bailey anyway.

  On 14/05/2010 at 02:28, Jaded said:

but if he was a habitual mid-week drinker he wouldn't be getting a game for Casey or for Melbourne. Ever. Not under Bailey anyway.

But he would be an automatic selection at Carlton.

  On 14/05/2010 at 02:36, Thomo said:

But he would be an automatic selection at Carlton.

I thought it was a prerequisite!

He'd be captain.

The problem with this sort of thread is that "attitude problem" is such an easy accusation to make, and that no matter what anybody says to the contrary, there are always some who remain absolutely convinced that he has an attitude problem.

Let me assure you that if Jack had any attitude "issues", there'd be a long line of family & friends waiting to kick his butt. Anybody who's actually spoken to Jack knows that his attitude is fine.

  On 14/05/2010 at 00:58, dandeeman said:

There is nothing wrong with the question in the thread.

A bit of objectivity around this place wouldn't go astray.

It's got nothing to do with objectivity. To start a whole thread based on one BS journo stirring the pot with a story which is not backed up anywhere else is just a waste of space - especially when there are plenty of JW threads already.

Reminds me of the off-season, where we spent the whole time discussing hypothetical "what ifs".

  On 14/05/2010 at 03:36, Akum said:

The problem with this sort of thread is that "attitude problem" is such an easy accusation to make, and that no matter what anybody says to the contrary, there are always some who remain absolutely convinced that he has an attitude problem.

Let me assure you that if Jack had any attitude "issues", there'd be a long line of family & friends waiting to kick his butt. Anybody who's actually spoken to Jack knows that his attitude is fine.

The real problem with this topic and Watts goes back to prior to him being drafted.

There was a suggestion floating around questioning his attitude and belief that he may have had things a bit too easy and didn't have to work hard enough, the whole relying on his ability to get him through. At the time I'd heard these rumours (nothing more, nothing less, only rumours) and was concerned that we might overlook a kid who had the right attitude in spades (aka NicNat) and take a very talented kid who had never been tested. For a number one pick that's a huge perceived risk.

At the time (pre draft) I was probably the most anti-Watts person on this website, however since then there's nothing that I've seen to prove that opinion. I'm fully converted to Watts and I'm now firmly of the belief that not only did we do the right thing, but Watts will be far superior to NikNat that it will be an embarrassing comparison to make.

I've seen this kid do things that only the recent greats like Hird can do. His awareness and lateral movements are sublime. Once he grows into his body, builds his fitness up and plays the way that the FD want he's going to be an absolute gun.

All we need is just a little bit more patience.

  On 14/05/2010 at 01:52, BennytheJet said:

Seeing young Jack:

drooling drunk on a weeknight when he had training the following day;

challenging friends to drinking contests; and

smashing down shots like they were going out of fashion,

makes me think that he may have some attitude problems.

However he has plenty of time to get it right so not a great deal of concern

Sorry for adding the above - sick of people deluding themselves

Melbourne is a very small place. I doubt that young Jack could hide anything for long.

"Bennies" were a nick name for a stimulant known as Benzadrine and "Bennythejet" might be under the influence of a stimulated imagination.

  On 14/05/2010 at 04:18, bing181 said:

It's got nothing to do with objectivity. To start a whole thread based on one BS journo stirring the pot with a story which is not backed up anywhere else is just a waste of space - especially when there are plenty of JW threads already.

Reminds me of the off-season, where we spent the whole time discussing hypothetical "what ifs".

It's got everything to do with it.

From those who claim that Jack Watts is the second coming who are ridiculously sensitive to any suggestion that he has a couple of faults that he needs to work on.

to those who claim that he is an out of control upstart busy drinking and cavorting with older ladies and farm animals.

There is a stance in the middle that is supported by the evidence.

There is nothing wrong with the OP asking a question.

  On 14/05/2010 at 05:27, dandeeman said:

There is a stance in the middle that is supported by the evidence.

There is nothing wrong with the OP asking a question.

Of course there is nothing wrong with asking the question, but I have to ask, what exactly is the evidence that you talk of. I certainly haven't seen any incontrovertible evidence in this, or any other thread.

  On 14/05/2010 at 05:43, hardtack said:

Of course there is nothing wrong with asking the question, but I have to ask, what exactly is the evidence that you talk of. I certainly haven't seen any incontrovertible evidence in this, or any other thread.

The only evidence that is conclusive is that which you see with your own eyes and even that is open to interpretation.

Evidence can be in the form of documents and testimony. There have been more than enough accounts to suggest to me that Jack Watts has some things to work on. Isolated things don't mean much on thier own. When accumulated they begin to tell a story. I am not going to itemise them again. This is my considered opinion on what I have read, seen and heard.

FFS this does not mean that the kid won't be a champion. He is a kid that needs to get his head around being an AFL footballer. I haven't had to deal with it. I can only assume it is a bug ask with many pitfalls.

Anyhow this week Jack Watts is being rewarded with a senior game because he has taken steps forward and responded to a challenge from the coach.

Great to see.

  On 14/05/2010 at 05:55, dandeeman said:

Anyhow this week Jack Watts is being rewarded with a senior game because he has taken steps forward and responded to a challenge from the coach.

Great to see.

Agreed. And as for the rest of your explanation... fair enough.

  On 14/05/2010 at 05:43, hardtack said:

Of course there is nothing wrong with asking the question, but I have to ask, what exactly is the evidence that you talk of. I certainly haven't seen any incontrovertible evidence in this, or any other thread.

  On 14/05/2010 at 05:55, dandeeman said:

The only evidence that is conclusive is that which you see with your own eyes and even that is open to interpretation.

Evidence can be in the form of documents and testimony. There have been more than enough accounts to suggest to me that Jack Watts has some things to work on. Isolated things don't mean much on thier own. When accumulated they begin to tell a story. I am not going to itemise them again. This is my considered opinion on what I have read, seen and heard.

In other words, you don't have any evidence.

Here's an idea. Let's rehash this topic at about this time tomorrow, when we have seen JW's efforts and all important 'attitude' out on the MCG tomorrow? Makes sense to me!

If there is somthing that needs to be discussed or worth a 2 page thread after tomorrow we can all get on board then!!

Hope he comes out firing and sticks it up a few people who want to hang sh'it on one of our own. You have no evidence one way or the other about any rumoured 'attitude problems'.

The way I see it is that JW came straight out of the APS schoolboy comp where the slight hint off a biff sees you sent off (trust me, I was once reported for an aggressive stance pfft) and has never been played in a side against men until last year. I for one thought he held his own last year in the few games he did play. Unlike Trengove who played seniors against men and ex AFL guys. The FD seemed to want to make it clear that everyone, no matter how good they were told they were as a junior, is equal at this club and must perform as a man to get a game. To his credit, Jack has done what was asked of him, tuffed it out at Casey, kicked 4 goals and had 20 odd touches and has an opportunity to show us what he is all about. How badly do you think he wants to show what he's got?

Real Bad!!!! That was the whole point of teh FD's little 'excercise'.

Please move on!!