Did you say "he hasn't played there" ?

Recently.

a) you don't know that because he hasn't played there

B) players play different roles at different stages of their career

c) it's as irrelevant as saying that Frawley only plays in the backline because he can't impact games in the forward-line

d) you're pushing an agenda as opposed to participating in a discussion

I thought JW played forward in the pre season where Malthouse, Carey and others bagged the crap out of him. Also most of JW's lamer efforts this year came when the pill was in the forward line. I like JW where he is because without him there on Saturday we wouldn't have won and we wouldn't have won with him playing Wing/On the ball or forward.

The difficulty of playing forward or back is irrelevent in a lot of ways . What's important is where a player is best suited or which area he's better at . Hardeman was a great rebounding/marking backman . Schwartz was a great CHF - for our club anyway . Both Gary and David rarely went up the other end of the ground yet they both might have been ok at that role (but not great) . There's probably a long list of players who were star forwards at junior level but ended up as VFL/AFL backmen .

Watts was drafted as a forward . But , so what if he ends up being a top line backman . The problem is , because he was a no.1 draft pick and there was so much publicity surrounding him , people have fallen into thinking that he must be a successful forward and don't want to change their minds . Just accept him for what he is , or what he could be . In a lot of ways he's looked an obvious backman ever since Dean Bailey threw him back there last season . There are a few other poster's who've said much the same thing .

Does anybody remember what position Ben Reid at Collingwood was drafted as ? I had a friend tell me the other day and to be honest , I had no clue that he was earmarked as a forward .

Tom McDonald looks a decent backman but who's to say he won't be able to hold down the CHF position in the future . Garland the same .

'Dee Zee' mentioned the Tom McDonald idea in another thread .

far easier to play in the back half. read the play, help out your team mates and run straight at the pill. forwards are held to ransom by their mids. you have to think what they are doing aswell as yourself.

for mine Watts can play antwhere he likes, as noted his footskills are just what we need coming out of our d50

The difficulty of playing forward or back is irrelevent in a lot of ways . What's important is where a player is best suited or which area he's better at .

Hardeman was a great rebounding/marking backman . Schwartz was a great CHF - for our club anyway . They rarely went up the other end of the ground .

Watts was drafted as a forward . But , so what if he ends up being a top line backman . The problem is , because he was a no.1 draft pick and there was so much publicity surrounding him , people have fallen into thinking that he must be a successful forward and don't want to change their minds . Just accept him for what he is , or what he could be . To me , he's an obvious backman and I've been saying it ever since Dean Bailey threw him back there last season . There are a few other poster's who've said the same thing .

Does anybody remember what position Ben Reid at Collingwood was drafted as ? I had a friend tell me the other day and to be honest , I had no clue that he was earmarked as a forward .

Tom McDonald looks a decent backman but who's to say he won't be able to hold down the CHF position in the future . Garland the same .

'Dee Zee' mentioned the Tom McDonald idea in another thread .

Spot on i have seen Jack play his best games down back. That is where he has had the most impact for the MFC so that is where I want to see him play. If in the next couple of weeks he gets 50 tapouts and kicks 10 goals in the ruck well guess what? That's where I would want him to play. The proof is in the pudding and there are plenty of empty pudding cups at this stage down back.

He's a point guard - we shouldn't really be surprised.

He's a point guard - we shouldn't really be surprised.

This is the low point of a great few days - I agree with Jose

I've just watched the replay, and I saw Jack knock the ball out of Essendon hands when things were tight in close - a completely reflex action - quick as lightning and saved a couple of clearances - these things aren't noticed by the media - and I'm no expert but it proved instructive to watch the replay closely - if you want to relive a bit more of the win, run the tape through looking at Jack in the rucks and malls - not overwhelmning physical presence, but overwhelming smarts and quickness.

Go DEES

Watched a bit of the repay before and Hurley picked the ball up did a spin through a couple of player and kicked the ball; well the commentators were rapt and went on about how he has great skill to be able to do this. Just a little later Sellar did a similar thing, picked up the ball did a spin around an opponent or two and kicked the ball; the commentators never even mentioned it though.

He's a point guard - we shouldn't really be surprised.

What the hell's a point guard??

Don't follow basket ball - I'd really like to know.

it's a really interesting point, I always thought (as did many others) that Brad Green should have spent his career at full-forward - certain coaches put him elsewhere because they deemed it more importnat for the team. Same goes for Davey, he should have stayed as a forward crumber his whole career, instead of getting tagged out of effectiveness in the midfield. I say wherever they do the best job put them there and leave them there. Of course, D.Neitz provides a counter-argument for this theory

What the hell's a point guard??

Don't follow basket ball - I'd really like to know.

I do follow basketball (somewhat) and although I have heard the term used I couldn't explain what differentiates one position from another. They all basically run up and down the court doing the same thing. Wasn't Jordan a point guard?

Here's wiki's link to the term

Point guard (PG), also called the one, play maker or "the ball-handler," is one of the standard positions in a regulation basketball game and is commonly abbreviated "PG." A point guard has perhaps the most specialized role of any position – essentially, he is expected to run the team's offense by controlling the ball and making sure that it gets to the right players at the right time. Above all, the point guard must totally understand and accept his or her coach's game plan; in this way, the position can be compared to a quarterback in American football.

I do follow basketball (somewhat) and although I have heard the term used I couldn't explain what differentiates one position from another. They all basically run up and down the court doing the same thing. Wasn't Jordan a point guard?

Here's wiki's link to the term

Point guard , Quarterback , Playmaker . Sweeper at the back . All fairly similar but perhaps we can come up with an 'Aussie' term to describe what Goddard does and what Jack is fast becoming .

It's not a new thing really . Doull and later Bradley had similar type roles at Carlton . Gary Hardeman was fantastic for us back in the 70's as a great 'rebounder' . McKenna at the Eagles etc etc .

I really liked how Jack got a big fist on the ball many times . He could be anything back there with the way he reads the game and his efficient disposal .

All I want is for him to be a valuable member of the team, I couldn't care less if he does this as a backman. Look at the opportunity it's allowed Garland.

Interesting to hear McCartney talking on "On the Couch" tonight. He was saying that the so called loose defender is more often than not a peel off defender, it's not an easy position as some think and it takes a lot of experience to play this role, he needs to make the decision when to go and when to stay, rates Enright as the best at it. Watts seems a natural in this role, to me he just needs to take the game on a bit more and become an effective attacking defender if that makes sense.

I do follow basketball (somewhat) and although I have heard the term used I couldn't explain what differentiates one position from another. They all basically run up and down the court doing the same thing. Wasn't Jordan a point guard?

Here's wiki's link to the term

Thanks....

How can I reply without being my typical self ? I wouldn't be me, would I ?

There are some things that never change. Footy has always been won in the midfield. Finals are at an intensity that are well above 'home and away'. And invariably the best players of history (and today) play ahead of the ball (forward-line) because it's harder. Now you can try and convince yourself otherwise, but it's clearly easier to 'react' than 'initiate'. It's harder to make the play and easier to defend. I'm fine if you disagree and your thoughts are there for the world to see and so are mine. Others can judge the merits of our respective views.

Even Harry Taylor coming off 6 goals against GWS when asked this morning on SEN whether it's easier to play in the back-line or forward-line replied, "definitely the back-line". But what would he know ?

See Benny boy, you do have it in you to provide an interesting reply without carrying on like a two-bob watch. Thanks for listening to my advice, makes your posts far more tolerable.

However, we will have to agree to disagree. At the levels of football I've played at, the backline is the easiest place to play as, as you said, it's easier to react than initiate. But, that's why I never made it to AFL standard, where all players must have the ability to initiate or they turn out to have a career like Matt Warnock.

I think you will find, if you watch him very closely, that Watts, while playing in the backline (aka in the "react" position), is doing far more initiating, hence his 3 BOG's in the last 3 weeks (approx). I'm sure you will agree that it takes a pretty special player to be able to initiate play from the backline (see Matthew Scarlett - a defender who basically won a grand final for his team). Actually, you won't agree becuase it is Watts we're talking about and you are still dirty on the fact that he was recruited as a key forward yet we are playing him the backline.

Watts has the ability/potential to make any position look easy (the sooner you appreciate that the better you will feel about his drafting). At the moment he is doing it in the back half as it suits "him" at the moment. When Watts has the ball, he has that ability to know what player should get the ball in 3 kicks time, that's before he gets rid of it himself. Playing where he is, he can guide/force the team to play on the same wavelength as he is, which makes the forwards job a lot easier. Look at all the good teams, the main role of the forwards is generally to run to a certain position and mark it (not that difficult) because the defenders and midfielders are disciplined enough to kick it to certain spots each time they go forward. The MFC isn't there yet, hence why Watts is playing where he is - because our players find it more difficult playing in the backline to set up such moves forward.

I remember hearing Neeld say the other day that the problem with the U18 system is that it spends so much time on teaching the kids to attack rather than defend. Why's that? Because at that level, and the demands that the AFL clubs put on the elite level juniors, it's easier for them to attack than defend.

FWIW, the Harry Taylor interview (while I didn't hear it) means nothing in this arguement. He's just kicked 6 against GWS. Do you really think he'd come out and say that playing forward is "easy", considering he's played 99 games in the backline and 1 up forward? Obviosuly you did. Ask Tom Hawkins if he thinks it's easier to play forward, back or ruck.

See Benny boy, you do have it in you to provide an interesting reply without carrying on like a two-bob watch. Thanks for listening to my advice, makes your posts far more tolerable.

However, we will have to agree to disagree. At the levels of football I've played at, the backline is the easiest place to play as, as you said, it's easier to react than initiate. But, that's why I never made it to AFL standard, where all players must have the ability to initiate or they turn out to have a career like Matt Warnock.

I think you will find, if you watch him very closely, that Watts, while playing in the backline (aka in the "react" position), is doing far more initiating, hence his 3 BOG's in the last 3 weeks (approx). I'm sure you will agree that it takes a pretty special player to be able to initiate play from the backline (see Matthew Scarlett - a defender who basically won a grand final for his team). Actually, you won't agree becuase it is Watts we're talking about and you are still dirty on the fact that he was recruited as a key forward yet we are playing him the backline.

Watts has the ability/potential to make any position look easy (the sooner you appreciate that the better you will feel about his drafting). At the moment he is doing it in the back half as it suits "him" at the moment. When Watts has the ball, he has that ability to know what player should get the ball in 3 kicks time, that's before he gets rid of it himself. Playing where he is, he can guide/force the team to play on the same wavelength as he is, which makes the forwards job a lot easier. Look at all the good teams, the main role of the forwards is generally to run to a certain position and mark it (not that difficult) because the defenders and midfielders are disciplined enough to kick it to certain spots each time they go forward. The MFC isn't there yet, hence why Watts is playing where he is - because our players find it more difficult playing in the backline to set up such moves forward.

I remember hearing Neeld say the other day that the problem with the U18 system is that it spends so much time on teaching the kids to attack rather than defend. Why's that? Because at that level, and the demands that the AFL clubs put on the elite level juniors, it's easier for them to attack than defend.

FWIW, the Harry Taylor interview (while I didn't hear it) means nothing in this arguement. He's just kicked 6 against GWS. Do you really think he'd come out and say that playing forward is "easy", considering he's played 99 games in the backline and 1 up forward? Obviosuly you did. Ask Tom Hawkins if he thinks it's easier to play forward, back or ruck.

You could have saved yourself a few lines. I'm as aware of the benefits of Watts playing back as you. I'm also as aware of his strengths. Seemingly though I have a greater grasp of his weaknesses.

I doubt there's a player in the AFL that thinks playing forward is easier than playing back, even though it may play to their particular strengths. That you in particular disagree isn't stunning news.

Also, without wanting to be a pedant, there's only one 'e' in the word "argument". And for that matter, there's no 'e' in "truly".

Have a great day.

Im a bit Johnny come late to this... been o/s. Not going to try to read all threads etc but whilst I dont mind the notion that Jack is better id rather just quietly closet it than broadcast it..lol Two rather different players I would think though. But still agree we might well have the better of the two. For mine it comes down to dimensionality. Theres more strings to Watt's bow that Hurley's. . Watts may well end up our best forward playing in defence.

its curious the nmentions of whether one end of the ground is better or easier to play than the other. Theyre different. I really only ever played up the pointy end but had some time rucking ( hated it..lol ) but you have to understand the back mans mindset in order to play forward well ( imho ) Hes trying to outsmart you and you have to doubly outsmart him.

Then again my era was quite different and this is where I feel JW could well find his own. Typically a backmans role is /was to negatre a forwards. i.e to deny, frustrate, to rebound. A really good defender can and does start a teams offence and does it from whatever opportunities come his way. Really valuable defenders looktoget things rolling and as its happens the previously mention Harry O is very good at this (Id have him in a flash ). The defender that can keep his feet, keep his poise and use the ball have always been the unsung heroes in many teams. Coaches dont undervalue them though..

I like Jack...hes a thinker. I sense hes just found his place...and just starting to grow it. Hes fast, he looks lethargic at times but its more often an illusion. Does Usain look like hes running fast ? not to me but he leaves others in his dust.

How dangerous a fast mobile athletiuc defender who can easily cruise forward in play and kick between sticks !!

Todays defender needs to be aware of what is the next play even whilst hes trying to stop his direct opponent. if hes really lucky the defender will have his opponnent more worried about him than the other way around and in so has won the first battle.... that of the minds . Thats a major win considering 99% of footy is between the ears.

Check this out:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/137779/default.aspx

Check this out:

http://www.afl.com.a...79/default.aspx

The notion of the 'intercept' is not tobe weighed too lightly. Its a game changer. It swings the momentun on its own axis . Turns all those involved on their stride ( sts)

It just doesnt negate an offence it swings it around. If you have fast canny mids torun it or decnt mitts down field to mark the resultant incoming you can coast to coast. The turnaround coast to coast is perhaps the hardest piece of footy to counter as most players are out of position or off guard and in total reaction mode and possibly not where their own defensive structure suggests they be.

Isnt it funny how so many have 'suddenly' seen Jack. ....as if hes beeen hiding all this time

When Watts has the ball, he has that ability to know what player should get the ball in 3 kicks time, that's before he gets rid of it himself.

hyperbole

Check this out:

http://www.afl.com.a...79/default.aspx

There will still be demonland posters ready to bag Watts, despite the sort of stats highlighted in the article. I can just see it:

• Yes but where's he ranked in tackles
  
• You can't put a measure on desire
  
• Of course you'd pick up lots of stats floating free in the back half
  
• Wait till they tag him
  
• He has funny hair and still has peach fuzz
  
• Big deal, i mean he's a number one draft pick, these sort of numbers are ware the minimum you'd expect
  
• This is so frustrating, it shows he can do it, then why hasn't he before - you can't just turn it on when you feel like it
  
• We drafted him as KPF not a floating half backer who doesn't like to get his hands dirty
  
• Demons fans get excited by a handful of kicks and a couple of easy intercepts
  
• He's just an average player, if there was a draft today he'd go low 30's
  

You could have saved yourself a few lines. I'm as aware of the benefits of Watts playing back as you. I'm also as aware of his strengths. Seemingly though I have a greater grasp of his weaknesses.

I doubt there's a player in the AFL that thinks playing forward is easier than playing back, even though it may play to their particular strengths. That you in particular disagree isn't stunning news.

Also, without wanting to be a pedant, there's only one 'e' in the word "argument". And for that matter, there's no 'e' in "truly".

Have a great day.

Ben, thanks for the spelling lesson. eye coodnt kare howe menny wirds eye spelled rong.

The problem with you, and it's a big reason why I'm glad you don't have anything to do with the coaching/development of this club, is that you are too busy focusing on this kid's weaknesses, rather than playing to his strengths. Neeld has shown that the move to the backline is highlighting Jack's strengths, and as a result, he is playing the best footy he has in the red and blue.

While we disagree, you haven't convinced me to think differently. I've given you examples of why I believe the backline isn't the easiest place on the field to play, all you've given is because it's easier to react than initiate. You have not provided any evidence in your opinion, as a result, it earns no respect from me.

There will still be demonland posters ready to bag Watts, despite the sort of stats highlighted in the article. I can just see it:

• Yes but where's he ranked in tackles
  
• You can't put a measure on desire
  
• Of course you'd pick up lots of stats floating free in the back half
  
• Wait till they tag him
  
• He has funny hair and still has peach fuzz
  
• Big deal, i mean he's a number one draft pick, these sort of numbers are ware the minimum you'd expect
  
• This is so frustrating, it shows he can do it, then why hasn't he before - you can't just turn it on when you feel like it
  
• We drafted him as KPF not a floating half backer who doesn't like to get his hands dirty
  
• Demons fans get excited by a handful of kicks and a couple of easy intercepts
  
• He's just an average player, if there was a draft today he'd go low 30's
  

If he learns to attack the ball harder, we'll all love him. It's as simple as that. Very encouraging statistics.

hyperbole

Really Old? Ok, maybe it's only 2 kicks.

The elite performers in a lot of sports have one thing in common, and that's being able to see plays before their opposition/opponent can. I have a strong belief of this. The fact that Watts has that quality proves to me that he could possibly join similar ranks. I also think $cully has it - even in his handful of games he knew in his head where a teammate should be, handballed it there, but that player wasn't on the same thought level.

When there is one small step for the MFC, it will be one giant leap for Jack Watts.