So you are happy for a player to get minimal stats as long as they hit the target. The bloke doesn't want to work hard, he had a team mate ran past him to go and apply pressure, I'm sorry you don't work hard you get dropped. I accept he is an outside player but outside players have to run and run and run, Jack doesn't do this.

I'm hearing you, but who have we got that can do it better than Watts.

Edit: Averaging 17.6 disposals at 71.4% efficiency 12.6 eff disposals

Bernie Vince 21.8 at 54.4%. 11.8

Jack Viney 19 at 62% 11.7

Cam Pederson 11.4 at 56.4 6.4

Michael Evans 8.3 at 39.3 3.2

Opposition sides cannot leave him alone or he will cut them up.

Edited April 22, 201411 yr by ManDee

I like your work mate but you are very hard to read.

was meant to get some writing lessons off the song formerly known as.

but he squibbed it and went back to teaching school kids.

I'm hearing you, but who have we got that can do it better than Watts.

Anyone that wants to work hard and play there role with in the team structure. Jack may have more talent than most on our list but talent means nothing if you wont play your role.

Who at MFC can do it better?

I'm hearing you, but who have we got that can do it better than Watts.

I think the obvious answer is that Watts can. That's the entire point of this discussion. It's not that we have a better ball-user waiting in the wings to take his spot, it's that Roos keeps preaching about non-negotiables and culture. If he's serious about that, then he can't let Jack keep jogging around the field giving half an effort when he feels like it. He needs to back up the talk with action and make a statement that that sort of attitude is unacceptable in a professional AFL player. Give him a set of clearly defined goals to achieve before he gets back into the side and let him loose at Casey. Hell, send him to train with the Storm for a month and see if he doesn't figure it out. Just don't let him keep doing this in the senior side.

Anyone that wants to work hard and play there role with in the team structure. Jack may have more talent than most on our list but talent means nothing if you wont play your role.

Name names.

Laconic = someone who doesn't say much ie man of few words

Maybe you mean effortless?

probably lackadaisical is the intended word

however laconic seems to be commonly used nowadays and i don't mind it......very woody

I think the obvious answer is that Watts can. That's the entire point of this discussion. It's not that we have a better ball-user waiting in the wings to take his spot, it's that Roos keeps preaching about non-negotiables and culture. If he's serious about that, then he can't let Jack keep jogging around the field giving half an effort when he feels like it. He needs to back up the talk with action and make a statement that that sort of attitude is unacceptable in a professional AFL player. Give him a set of clearly defined goals to achieve before he gets back into the side and let him loose at Casey. Hell, send him to train with the Storm for a month and see if he doesn't figure it out. Just don't let him keep doing this in the senior side.

We do not know what Roos has asked him to do.

He may have been asked to hit targets. Tick

He may have been asked to draw opposition players to him to free up team mates. Tick

He may have been asked to hit more targets per match than Vince and Viney. Tick

The point is we don't know. What we do know is that he is excellent with the ball. We have no better.

Name names.

Any player on our list that is prepared to do his job. It is not about being the most talented it is about doing your job. I'd rather have Dan Nicholson playing than Jack Watts putting up lazy, soft performances week after week. Jack has teased us all for to long, he either plays his role or goes.

As with every AFL player, it comes that when it's your turn to go for it and put your body on the line, you do just that, when the opportunity presents. I do not doubt Jack's skills, but he is not exempted from doing the "team" thing, which every AFL player is expected to do. In saying this, I am not asking that he commits football suicide, I simply ask that he takes his turn. No other 'elite' player shirks that responsibility.

We do not know what Roos has asked him to do.

He may have been asked to hit targets. Tick

He may have been asked to draw opposition players to him to free up team mates. Tick

He may have been asked to hit more targets per match than Vince and Viney. Tick

The point is we don't know. What we do know is that he is excellent with the ball. We have no better.

You seriously believe that Roos will tolerate half efforts.

We shall see, lets hope Watts responds...again.

We do not know what Roos has asked him to do.

He may have been asked to hit targets. Tick

He may have been asked to draw opposition players to him to free up team mates. Tick

He may have been asked to hit more targets per match than Vince and Viney. Tick

The point is we don't know. What we do know is that he is excellent with the ball. We have no better.

I'm positive that he would have been asked to tackle, chase and work hard. You listen to Paul Roos press conference, he mentioned the about non negotiables, and followed up with he accepts the turn overs but can not accept players not meeting the non negotiable's of AFL footy.

Any player on our list that is prepared to do his job. It is not about being the most talented it is about doing your job. I'd rather have Dan Nicholson playing than Jack Watts putting up lazy, soft performances week after week. Jack has teased us all for to long, he either plays his role or goes.

I do not think you are serious.

Collectively we would like to see him do more. It annoys people when we see someone with immense talent apparently wasting it through lack of effort.

We do not have any players on our list to replace Watts at the moment. If we do, drop Watts.

I am not for gifting a game to Dan Nicholson to teach a hypothetical lesson to Watts.

Edit: I think it was a bad game by Watts, possibly his worst.

I would only drop Watts for Salem.

Edited April 22, 201411 yr by ManDee

I'd drop Watts for Kent if he's right to come back in - in a heartbeat.

Edited April 22, 201411 yr by Dr. Gonzo

We do not have any players on our list to replace Watts at the moment. If we do, drop Watts.

This is where we differ I think. You are looking at it from the perspective of the next game and weakening the team. It is true that we will be giving up a weapon if we drop Watts. However, I think that in the long run the team as a whole is better off if we do drop him and keep him dropped until he gets his head around what he needs to do on the field. We may be worse off in the next few games, but in the long run not only will he be better for it (or show us that he isn't an AFL player), but the team will be better with the precedent having been set. The longer we let him keep doing what he's doing the harder it will be to change it.

This is where we differ I think. You are looking at it from the perspective of the next game and weakening the team. It is true that we will be giving up a weapon if we drop Watts. However, I think that in the long run the team as a whole is better off if we do drop him and keep him dropped until he gets his head around what he needs to do on the field. We may be worse off in the next few games, but in the long run not only will he be better for it (or show us that he isn't an AFL player), but the team will be better with the precedent having been set. The longer we let him keep doing what he's doing the harder it will be to change it.

Exactly RM. This how you set standards to build a strong culture.

I do not think you are serious.

Collectively we would like to see him do more. It annoys people when we see someone with immense talent apparently wasting it through lack of effort.

We do not have any players on our list to replace Watts at the moment. If we do, drop Watts.

I am not for gifting a game to Dan Nicholson to teach a hypothetical lesson to Watts.

Edit: I think it was a bad game by Watts, possibly his worst.

I would only drop Watts for Salem.

So how are minimum standards enforced?

I do not think you are serious.

I'm serious, I want players that will give there all and do what is required by them. We need to stop accepting talented young players playing on their terms. You do what is needed by the team or you go.

Exactly RM. This how you set standards to build a strong culture.

The premise here is that Watts is not meeting Roos' requirements. He may not be. But it may be an incorrect premise.

If Watts is expected to crash packs and slam tackle then clearly he is failing, drop him. I do not think we will ever get that out of him. But I do not think that is what is expected of him.

Think Robert Flower. If Watts was asked to be the next Robbie Flower would we be happy with that? Well would we?

Edited April 22, 201411 yr by ManDee

The premise here is that Watts is not meeting Roos' requirements. He may not be. But it may be an incorrect premise.

If Watts is expected to crash packs and slam tackle then clearly he is failing, drop him. I do not think we will ever get that out of him. But I do not think that is what is expected of him.

Think Robert Flower. If Watts was asked to be the next Robbie Flower would we be happy with that? Well would we?

you are so off the mark, mandee. give up the apologist rubbish

I'm positive that he would have been asked to tackle, chase and work hard. You listen to Paul Roos press conference, he mentioned the about non negotiables, and followed up with he accepts the turn overs but can not accept players not meeting the non negotiable's of AFL footy.

What about Viney, Grimes, Terlich - all no tackles. Vince, Dunn, Pederson, McDonald, Georgiou 1 tackle each. McKenzie, Evans M Jones, Tyson all less tackles than Watts

Watts was equal 4th for tackles.

You see what you want to see. So if you want to drop players for not tackling , 14 were worse than Watts.

The premise here is that Watts is not meeting Roos' requirements. He may not be. But it may be an incorrect premise.

If Watts is expected to crash packs and slam tackle then clearly he is failing, drop him. I do not think we will ever get that out of him. But I do not think that is what is expected of him.

Think Robert Flower. If Watts was asked to be the next Robbie Flower would we be happy with that? Well would we?

Mate when it is your time to go, you go.

Watts declined more than once on sunday....

you are so off the mark, mandee. give up the apologist rubbish

So you know what the coach has told Watts to do?

This is a witch hunt. Ignore the facts and press on seems to be the mantra here. The truth is we don't know what has been asked of Watts. If he is not delivering drop him! I am no apologist. In the meantime for me the jury is out on Watts.

It's not even that that bothered me on the weekend.

I didn't care that he didn't get physical. But if you are not going to be a physical impact player then be a gut runner and keep providing options in space on the outside. He didn't do that either.

Danyle Pearce is hardly what I would call a physical footballer but at least ( when he is on song) keeps running and running.

Watts looks so good with ball in hand - he just is not presenting himself enough to get touches. Dawes is crash and bash but a lot of his ball comes from presenting and then presenting again...and then if ignored...present again - you don't have to be crash and bash to do that.

Aside from playing for free kicks instead of going for the footy, this is the main issue I have with old mate Wattsy. Drops his head if a ball goes over his or his lead isn't honoured. Your role is to keep presenting, don't worry about everyone else's role, just play your own and go when it's your turn.

So you know what the coach has told Watts to do?

This is a witch hunt. Ignore the facts and press on seems to be the mantra here. The truth is we don't know what has been asked of Watts. If he is not delivering drop him! I am no apologist. In the meantime for me the jury is out on Watts.

no coach would have instructed watts to play the way he did (or didn't!)

the only excuse for him could be he was playing ill, but no-one has suggested this

The premise here is that Watts is not meeting Roos' requirements. He may not be. But it may be an incorrect premise.

If Watts is expected to crash packs and slam tackle then clearly he is failing, drop him. I do not think we will ever get that out of him. But I do not think that is what is expected of him.

Think Robert Flower. If Watts was asked to be the next Robbie Flower would we be happy with that? Well would we?

The thing that disappointed me about his game on the weekend wasn't the fact that he's not crunching players with tackles or putting his head down and barging through a pack like Jones or Viney. I don't expect that of him and it's not his role. The thing that made me think he should be dropped were his efforts on a couple of occasions in 1:1 marking contests I think against Prestia. He has the height advantage but on more than one occasion didn't fight hard enough (or at all) for front position and then was pathetic in the marking contest losing without a whimper to a guy 20cm shorter. This is unacceptable and is why he should be dropped because he showed no fight to win the contest, no intensity to work to front position. There are other examples as well where he stands off packs like a seagull but these marking contests are what did it for me. Standards have to be set for this team and he needs to prove his worth in a stretch of games at Casey before coming back. 1 or 2 games won't cut it he needs to prove it over 4-6 games consistently til it is drummed into him.