I mentioned this a couple a days ago - there are those that thought Neeld was so inept that he was the reason for us being where we were.

And they, and you, are coming to the realisation that it wasn't just Neeld failings that sent us to where we currently dwell.

Our list needs work, our best players need help, our forward line was, and still is to lesser extent, in massive trouble only a few weeks ago.

And his wage has nothing to do with how quickly he can turn us around - only how well and lasting the turnaround will be.

He got Cross and Vince and had a few months with the group in Pre-season - I don't see that as sufficient to get us to where you think we should be.

I was thinking about this over the weekend, as Richmond were being criticised for their high number of recycled players.

Now, I've not had a close look at the drafts to see who else was available at their picks, but what if hardly anyone else was available?

I think Hardwick is actually a half-decent coach, but what if it simply, by the opportunities present to them, was not possible for Richmond to have built a better list, and then there was only a marginal amount of extra improvement to be gleaned from the list of players, so in effect they couldn't have really don't any better to date?

It's not like they used 1st round picks on guys like Petterd, Matt Thomas and Orren Stephenson.

They used late picks and rookies, and it's not as if kids taken at that stage have grossly outperformed them.

There's also a train of thought that a lot of MFC supporters have come around to, that it's better to maintain a list with sufficient mature players, so as to already be at the stage of competing when you introduce young talent.

Obviously the expansion clubs have vacuumed up a lot of the available young talent, leaving the rest of the competition with slim pickings.

Also, some of their young picks just haven't come on as they would have wished, and that could be put down to the recruitment staff.

So, what if Richmond in Hardwick's tenure haven't actually underperformed?

Who's to say that they haven't performed just below the maximum potential output for the opportunities they have been dealt by fate?

And by the very same token, although it was clear that Neeld wasn't up to coaching a team in Melbourne's then condition, who's to say he could have done much better?

I think, if put in charge of a team like Geelong, he wouldn't have performed as well as Chris Scott, but he may have fared a hell of a lot better than he did at the dees, and would probably still be in that role.

I don't want to make any excuses for Neeld, but I don't think we should look for and target a single scapegoat to blame in perpetuity, as we tend to do as supporters as a whole.

And once we find one, as soon as they are gone we are looking for the next.

But I think it is devoid of pragmatism and perspective.

They talked about Watts on SEN this morning and Plough Wallace's thoughts were that the best option was for Roos to give Watts 4 to 6 weeks playing on the wing where he trained to be all season and see what he has to offer the team and tell him that is what you are doing. That is you have 4 to 6 weeks to demonstrate your worth. This seems a reasonable approach because the club has tried him in many rolls to try to identify his niche position. Most players are happy and willing to play the role they are assigned to.

This approach gives Jack some certainty of his near future and a sense of urgency that he needs to start to perform and a level of accountability as long as Roosey's expectations are made clear. Those expectations may be as simple as minimum tackle counts, pressure acts, defensive acts etc, all the stuff that anyone who is committed to the cause could do. All the things we don't see Jack do.

I would also have a sports psychologist working with him, some of those dropped marks under no pressure and handballs backward to anyone else remind me of someone who is not focused on the job at hand, devoid of confidence, thinking negatively about what could I stuff up next.

I'd be shocked if most of this hasn't been done already over the last 5yrs.

Dane swan took many years to develop. Stop picking on the poor boy.

Swan's breakout year was 2007.

Sixth year by comparison, which this year is Watt's.

By the starts of Swan's sixth season, he had played 20 less games than what Watts had at the start of this year, effectively meaning he had one less year of experience.

He won the Pies' B&F in his seventh season, in which he also played his 100th game.

The difference is that Swan was also supposed to be a late bloomer, and never had the weight of expectation on his shoulders.

Watts still has a LOT to learn about the game and winning despite having played 20 more games than Swan had at the same point in his career, at which point he "broke out".

Is Watts any closer to breaking out now than he was in mid-2011, mid-2012, when he was at Swan's level of experience when he started playing A-grade football?

The Swan comparison is unfair because he didn't really spend so many years in a toxic culture under a succession of coaches.

I would say Neeld was more victim than villain. List management specialists Schwab and Connolly deserve a worthy mention.

I would agree. But it goes back longer than 2008/9. Way longer.

Well done, Roosy. This is clearly the way to play Jack. You've just gotta keep nurturing him until it clicks. He realises how important Watts could be. I'm glad Roos is the coach. He'll sort him out.

In Roos we trust

I was thinking about our overall progress the other day....

Keeping Sydney goalless for a qtr, kept them to 9 goals for the game and only lose to them by 31 pts - I'd say that's progress.

Let's be patient, we're in good hands and the ship is being turned slowly.

Ahhh Anglesea, beautiful place. I have family down there.

they're all family 'round those parts, aren't they.

close ties to van demonsland

I would say Neeld was more victim than villain. List management specialists Schwab and Connolly deserve a worthy mention.

The issues go back beyond that. Thats why we changed coach & administration back 2007. But still didn't get things right, in fact made them worse. The list was going nowhere but down, & the culture was already Hollywood Boulevard. Had been for a long while.

at least now thru all those mistakes the real micro cracks are beginning to be seen, & the onfield cultural fix can take place.

But the same old forces that cause the corrosion of our culture, once we've repaired it, keep wearing away at the new one, until it also fatigues, back to an 'Us & Them'.

Whilst you're right to an extent, RN, I think perhaps Watts' disposal efficiency in the past has wallpapered the other flaws in his game.

Clearly his disposal was not the main issue. I was merely saying that the one thing that can shield hm from some heat most weeks was all but completely absent on the weekend - that is his classy use of the ball. It only served to highlight his usual lack of intensity.

To a limited extent out in the public eye yes, i personally look for that in every AFL footballer when watching the game ie, defensive effort side vs attacking capability and disposal skills. It' s pretty much a minimum required standard from all AFL clubs now that you're capable going both ways....regardless of how clever a player might be with disposal skills.

I was thinking about our overall progress the other day....

Keeping Sydney goalless for a qtr, kept them to 9 goals for the game and only lose to them by 31 pts - I'd say that's progress.

Let's be patient, we're in good hands and the ship is being turned slowly.

It's a hopefull sign Worm. Need Garland to return and find some form off HB though IMO as well as one or 2 other classy running outsiders through the middle who can hit targets. Possibly Salem/Kent/Tyson here?

Need the Hulk on the park as well and a full season under his belt with the rest of the crew. 2016 maybe?

Edited April 29, 201411 yr by Rusty Nails

We should all just start separate threads about our opinions on Watts...

Some posters thought it was a good idea with Mitch from memory.