Drop a player but name him as an emergency

[ashdemons22 235]

What the [censored] is the point?

I was under the impression if you get ommited, you go back to the VFL work on things then come back after your form is good.

What good is dropping Watts this week and Rodan in round 1 then having them as emergencys the following week.

Players like Taggert, Kent, Magner,Stark, Strauss should all be emergencys not a player who has been dropped for bad form.

It makes no sense just like Mark Neeld as coach.

[Adam The God 30,403]

Yep. Another bad move.

[bing181 9,328]

It makes no sense just like Mark Neeld as coach.

It could make perfect sense, depending on the circumstances.

Neeld explained why Watts was kept at the MCG. An Emergency is just that.

[ashdemons22 235]

It could make perfect sense, depending on the circumstances.

Neeld explained why Watts was kept at the MCG. An Emergency is just that.

Why drop him then?

What is he learning not playing at any league.

Just stupid.

[dazzledavey36 55,315]

I don't get it either! if your dropped you are told you need to go back to VFL and work on your game not sit the game out. Wont do his confidence any good..!

[ashdemons22 235]

I don't get it either! if your dropped you are told you need to go back to VFL and work on your game not sit the game out. Wont do his confidence any good..!

It just shows his incompetence as a coach.

[daisycutter 29,711]

it wasn't just watts - all three emergencies missed out on valuable game time

[cfe 30]

Copied from my post in the Jack Watts thread (didn't see this one, sorry):

The Sunday Inquisition on ABC just absolutely ripped into the club's handling of Watts (and not just the past few weeks - going all the way back to his first game).

I have to say, I completely agree with them, especially in relation to the way he has been dealt with in the last few weeks. Here is what they said (and I agree with) in summation:

1. He should not have been subbed and thereby made into an easily identifiable target and scapegoat v. the Bombers - plenty of other players had played worse than or just as bad as him to that point, and no need to do that to someone who is already a lightning rod in the first place.

2. For the same reasons, he probably should not have been dropped.

3. Finally, if he was going to be dropped, he should not have been held back from Casey this weekend to be an emergency for the firsts. You don't improve by not playing football. I've heard Neeld's explanation with respect to the need to have him in Melbourne as a backup tall and it is BS - find someone else to be your tall emergency.

[ashdemons22 235]

Casey and MFC were playing at the same time.

Clark was under an injury cloud.

Needed Watts as insurance

Sellar, Pederson could have played the forward line role if M Clark did not come up. And Spencer could be the second ruck

Not saying they would do it well but it was and option. Hey I am not a coach and I can come up with plan B how come Neeld cannot.

Watts has trained in the backline all preseason. What so is he a forward now? I am confused

[DeeSpencer 26,070]

Rodan and Spencer would of been fine to me. Spencer isn't going to improve with 1 more VFL match. We know what we are getting at VFL with him. Same with Rodan although I'd like to see him play at Casey. It's Watts that is the confusing one. They almost have to play him back in the seniors this week because otherwise its a waste of time dropping him.

[praha 11,240]

Watts is done. He'll be gone at year's end.

[Young Dee 1,303]

Watts is done. He'll be gone at year's end.

Why don't you just start a 'please abuse me' thread - it will be easier for everyone!

[Grand New Flag 3,227]

All three were running the tan this morning.

I agree Watts has been treated terribly. Why would be want to stay at the club years end? Surely he will ask to be traded. Blame should primarily fall on Neeld. I believe Neeld is our primary problem. Our only hope is that he is quickly replaced with a coach who can install some confidence back into the group. A coach who can get his players up. Part of me wants us to lose next week so Neeld can be replaced quickly

[Young Dee 1,303]

So we are going to sack a coach to keep a player that fails to show desire for the footy?

[titan_uranus 25,042]

Unfortunately, this is a shocking decision from Neeld.

The question is not 'why did we have our emergencies at the MCG?', because that's easily answered in Neeld's favour - the VFL game was in Ballarat, and think of what would have happened if we'd have had a player get injured in the warmup and our emergencies were in Ballarat. Before you say 'what were the chances of that?', it happened to Beau Waters.

The real question is why Watts was an emergency at all. We knew, and have known for months, that Casey played in Ballarat the same time as we played at the MCG. Neeld would have, or should have, known this when deciding to drop Watts. Despite all this, he still decided to make him an emergency, knowing this would take him out of the VFL, as cover for Clark.

That's a bad move. Watts may well be our 23rd best player, but there surely has to be more to dropping him than making him sit a week out. Surely, surely, we're hoping for him to gain confidence and form at VFL level, and for that, he should not have been named an emergency to allow him to play.

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

The quote I read from Neeld was that while it would have been good to give Watts a game at Casey, the team and the club's interests must come first and that's why Watts was the 23rd player (in case Clark didn't get up).

Now I'd understand this if we were a good side, but given where we're at, it is not going to make much difference if Watts or someone else was the 23rd player and was required to come in to the side. We lost by 94 points - would it really have made much difference (if Clark didn't get up) if we brought in Watts or one of the other emergencies?

I would argue it's more important for the team and club to develop Watts and you don't develop him by having him sitting in the stands.

Terrible decision and completely and utterly lacking in common sense for me.

[Fat Tony 5,262]

Why didn't the club hire a helicopter?

[Tricky 341]

Unfortunately, this is a shocking decision from Neeld.

The question is not 'why did we have our emergencies at the MCG?', because that's easily answered in Neeld's favour - the VFL game was in Ballarat, and think of what would have happened if we'd have had a player get injured in the warmup and our emergencies were in Ballarat. Before you say 'what were the chances of that?', it happened to Beau Waters.

The real question is why Watts was an emergency at all. We knew, and have known for months, that Casey played in Ballarat the same time as we played at the MCG. Neeld would have, or should have, known this when deciding to drop Watts. Despite all this, he still decided to make him an emergency, knowing this would take him out of the VFL, as cover for Clark.

That's a bad move. Watts may well be our 23rd best player, but there surely has to be more to dropping him than making him sit a week out. Surely, surely, we're hoping for him to gain confidence and form at VFL level, and for that, he should not have been named an emergency to allow him to play.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter...