On 05/04/2015 at 06:31, rpfc said:

You two can laugh at 'jokes' all you like...

The myth that Watts has never shown something like he showed yesterday pops up about 5 times a season.

Such regularity should trigger some self-reflection but those incapable can't be reasoned with.

I may have just 'thrown numbers around' but until they are sufficiently batted down - they are out there, without dissent.

It was a legitimate question. If you don't get to games you just miss so much.

I've got home from games and watched replays over the years and often thought if I wasn't at the game Watts wouldn't have looked nearly as poor.

  On 05/04/2015 at 06:37, ProDee said:

It was a legitimate question. If you don't get to games you just miss so much.

I've got home from games and watched replays over the years and often thought if I wasn't at the game Watts wouldn't have looked nearly as poor.

I have to agree.

I've been to games in the past and focused on Watts for exteneded periods of time.

There's been games where his work ethic was seriously down (as you mention), while I've also seen quite the opposite during others.

Some games I've seen him work like crazy and continually lead with very little or very poor deliviery, and thus little reward or even statistical output.

Either way bar the odd couple mistakes, I thought he was excellent yesterday.

  On 05/04/2015 at 06:37, ProDee said:

It was a legitimate question. If you don't get to games you just miss so much.

I've got home from games and watched replays over the years and often thought if I wasn't at the game Watts wouldn't have looked nearly as poor.

Those of us that cannot make it to more than a handful of games a year would argue that while we see through the lens of a TV camera, our views shouldn't be rejected simply because of it.

I have seen, in the flesh, the work that Watts does that isn't seen on the TV screen - I have also seen the terrible displays and 'attempts' on the footy that give critics like yourself fuel for your argument that he is a failure.

Again, I argue that he has shown in the past what he showed yesterday - and I won't let history be re-written to suit a narrative.

Watts' job will only become easier from here on in - with a better midfield, more Inside 50s, other forward targets, and the level of talent around him - but he was not without production in the last 4 years and he certainly wasn't a failure by any definition - and I am still waiting for the definition of his failure by the way?

  On 05/04/2015 at 03:28, ProDee said:

I've doubted his output at the beginning of every year over the last 4 years and haven't been wrong.

Is that you Ben?

  On 05/04/2015 at 06:51, bing181 said:

Is that you Ben?

Wouldn't that be fun?

Hannabal/BenHur/TweedPig/Lone Wolf/whatever else and Dr Who/hangon007/T&W agreeing with each other?

But BH said he would not return the last time he left - too busy agreeing with 13 year old Richmond supporters about how bad Watts is...

But you don't believe in them so how can you use them to support your argument?

BTW I agree with you. Watts has shown steady improvement under Roos and unlike you I believe stats are indicative and don't lie.

PD has a different view. I can live with that.

  On 05/04/2015 at 07:38, Baghdad Bob said:

But you don't believe in them so how can you use them to support your argument?

BTW I agree with you. Watts has shown steady improvement under Roos and unlike you I believe stats are indicative and don't lie.

PD has a different view. I can live with that.

I think he was always going to be a good player in a good team. We know he's not physical a la Jonathan Brown but yesterday with the beginnings of a good team around him his skills and smarts really stood out.

He played a really good game. Let's hope he sees it as a new beginning and starts to dominate a few games.

Is my stalker really asking me whether I think 'ALL STATS ARE LIES'?

Go and find that quote BB...

Stats do lie, and while I was playfully paraphrasing the old idiom of lies; 'lies, damn lies, and statistics,' I believe I was referring to the GC game last year in which the scoreboard (I legislatively important stat) lied about the possibility of a win.

That doesn't mean I don't use them and study them - I have started threads regarding the stats I regard important - you would remember them surely? I will start another soon to help you remember...

As for this argument that Watts is a failure. On what measure?

We can't judge trades for years after the event - surely the 'body' of Watts' work will decide whether he is a failure of a number one draft pick? Hawkins was not a failure early in his career - he was building a career. Same with the early years of Goddard.

I know hubris, I think even my stalker will agree, and there is a stack of it around when it comes to the judgement of Watts' career.

I don't think Watts had been a failure.

He may not have lived up to expectations but he has now played nearly 100 games of footy, including a handful of great games, many good games, many more solid games and a handful of stinkers.

In that time he has grown into his body, spent time learning to play forward, midfield and defence, all while having no senior onfield leaders to guide him, 6+ coaches and accompanying game plans to learn, and has had to play alongside one of the most inept and worst performed football teams in the history of the AFL/VFL as a predominantly outside finisher type player who typically relies on the ball coming out.

I don't know how he could be considered been a failure. I'd argue that he is still sticking it out and improving, that he has had a successful beginning to the start of his career, developed a bit slower than hoped but not really slower than can be expected based on the above, nor on his height, and he is now about to come into his prime as a player and as a leader.

Edit: autocorrect typos

Watts played a great game Saturday.

Made a couple of bad errors, but he quickly redeemed himself within minutes.

His goal from the boundry line was a pearler

On the subject of coaches taking blame, it's interesting that North Melbourne hit the proverbial wall last night. Brad Scott has done well with the team and it was a great performance to get them to a semi final last year but his teams have a habit of doing what they did last night every once in a while making it hard for them to get credibility as a team. Yet Scott is always whining and blaming others. Time he took the onus for not preparing the team well enough.

  On 06/04/2015 at 00:09, The Oracle said:

On the subject of coaches taking blame, it's interesting that North Melbourne hit the proverbial wall last night. Brad Scott has done well with the team and it was a great performance to get them to a semi final last year but his teams have a habit of doing what they did last night every once in a while making it hard for them to get credibility as a team. Yet Scott is always whining and blaming others. Time he took the onus for not preparing the team well enough.

Preliminary.

  On 05/04/2015 at 10:11, deanox said:

I don't think Watts had been a failure.

He may not have lived up to expectations but he has now played nearly 100 games of footy, including a handful of great games, many good games, many more solid games and a handful of stinkers.

In that time he has grown into his body, spent time learning to play forward, midfield and defence, all while having no senior onfield leaders to guide him, 6+ coaches and accompanying game plans to learn, and has had to play alongside one of the most inept and worst performed football teams in the history of the AFL/VFL as a predominantly outside finisher type player who typically relies on the ball coming out.

I don't know how he could be considered been a failure. I'd argue that he is still sticking it out and improving, that he has had a successful beginning to the start of his career, developed a bit slower than hoped but not really slower than can be expected based on the above, nor on his height, and he is now about to come into his prime as a player and as a leader.

Edit: autocorrect typos

People are too quick to be black and white, to brand something a success or failure and ignore the space in between.

In terms of Watts' game last night it was very, very good, and like Melbourne's season, it would be nice to look back at the end of 2015 and be satisfied with what we saw.

What i liked about Watts' game was that I felt as if a corner has been turned. The work rate was consistent and he was aware of his role. It felt sustainable.

  On 06/04/2015 at 00:18, jabberwocky said:

People are too quick to be black and white, to brand something a success or failure and ignore the space in between.

In terms of Watts' game last night it was very, very good, and like Melbourne's season, it would be nice to look back at the end of 2015 and be satisfied with what we saw.

What i liked about Watts' game was that I felt as if a corner has been turned. The work rate was consistent and he was aware of his role. It felt sustainable.

I particularly agree with that last paragraph. Over the past few years I've felt that watts often want sure what he was meant to do. Stay outside and hope for it to come? Make good position? Run to the ball? Some of these uncertainties are in his own game, but others are lack of trust in his team mates who wouldn't win the ball when they should, who didn't kick it to him in a good position, or who didn't move to the right area for him.

  On 06/04/2015 at 00:37, deanox said:

I particularly agree with that last paragraph. Over the past few years I've felt that watts often want sure what he was meant to do. Stay outside and hope for it to come? Make good position? Run to the ball? Some of these uncertainties are in his own game, but others are lack of trust in his team mates who wouldn't win the ball when they should, who didn't kick it to him in a good position, or who didn't move to the right area for him.

This is the sort of stuff you don't notice on TV.

Over his entire career Watts has avoided copious amounts of contests he could and should have positively impacted. He's held back when he's needed to contest. Unless you're at the game you don't always pick this up on TV. This explains why some supporters don't always understand the angst towards Watts.

Watts' game on Saturday was arguably the best I've seen him play. His work rate, patterns and ability to be a target or impact contests was first rate.

  On 05/04/2015 at 07:00, rpfc said:

Wouldn't that be fun?

Hannabal/BenHur/TweedPig/Lone Wolf/whatever else and Dr Who/hangon007/T&W agreeing with each other?

But BH said he would not return the last time he left - too busy agreeing with 13 year old Richmond supporters about how bad Watts is...

  On 05/04/2015 at 09:37, rpfc said:

Is my stalker really asking me whether I think 'ALL STATS ARE LIES'?

Stats do lie,

I'm not stalking you rpfc, I'm just trying to help you understand your inconsistencies. I thought you'd be grateful for my help but you seem to take it as an affront. Can't understand why.

You said stats lie while your sig quotes stats you like. You quote stats when it suits your cause (even start threads on them) and dismiss them when they don't. You think the stats in the Gold Coast game last year lied. Well here's a stat for you. We lost by 8 points. That margin was aided, IMO, by a poor free kick to Ablett in the last quarter who kicked a goal when we had all the momentum. GC didn't put us away? They were always in control? They are all opinions, not stats, and the stats don't support your position which is why you dismissed them.

Another of your inconsistencies is the "unnecessarily personal" defense you present. You get all huffy when things get a little bit personal ( I think I had the audacity to call you a pedant, a shocking personal insult, not) and then you make the above comment about another poster. Can you see the inconsistencies (I've avoided the word hypocrisy as that's a harsh word).

We all make mistakes rpfc, hard to believe this could include you but it does. Just acknowledge it and move on.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

BBob

  On 06/04/2015 at 02:18, Baghdad Bob said:

I'm not stalking you rpfc, I'm just trying to help you understand your inconsistencies. I thought you'd be grateful for my help but you seem to take it as an affront. Can't understand why.

You said stats lie while your sig quotes stats you like. You quote stats when it suits your cause (even start threads on them) and dismiss them when they don't. You think the stats in the Gold Coast game last year lied. Well here's a stat for you. We lost by 8 points. That margin was aided, IMO, by a poor free kick to Ablett in the last quarter who kicked a goal when we had all the momentum. GC didn't put us away? They were always in control? They are all opinions, not stats, and the stats don't support your position which is why you dismissed them.

Another of your inconsistencies is the "unnecessarily personal" defense you present. You get all huffy when things get a little bit personal ( I think I had the audacity to call you a pedant, a shocking personal insult, not) and then you make the above comment about another poster. Can you see the inconsistencies (I've avoided the word hypocrisy as that's a harsh word).

We all make mistakes rpfc, hard to believe this could include you but it does. Just acknowledge it and move on.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

BBob

Lol. When you're finished helping Rp realise his full potential as a poster there are a few others around that could use your help, myself included..

  On 05/04/2015 at 07:00, rpfc said:

Wouldn't that be fun?

Hannabal/BenHur/TweedPig/Lone Wolf/whatever else and Dr Who/hangon007/T&W agreeing with each other?

But BH said he would not return the last time he left - too busy agreeing with 13 year old Richmond supporters about how bad Watts is...

Don't forget 'The Myth'.

He is possibly off fundraising to raise the legal fees for Andrew Bolt's next defamation case.

  On 06/04/2015 at 01:38, ProDee said:

This is the sort of stuff you don't notice on TV.

Over his entire career Watts has avoided copious amounts of contests he could and should have positively impacted. He's held back when he's needed to contest. Unless you're at the game you don't always pick this up on TV. This explains why some supporters don't always understand the angst towards Watts.

Watts' game on Saturday was arguably the best I've seen him play. His work rate, patterns and ability to be a target or impact contests was first rate.

I think that the aid you don't notice on tv tends to be Watts supportive.

You can see he could have got a contest and turned it to a 2 on 1 but then we'd have the bask and be a man down. Instead he chooses to trust his team mate to win and offer an option for a quick give, but gets let down.

You cab see him run 150 m to a great position, open, you see his team mate look up scan and possibly ignore him while holding onto the ball too long.

He certainly isn't perfect, and his physicality had left a lot to be desired (I get frustrated when he gets pushed off the ball or out marked), but while his mistakes are magnified and reported his strengths are often ignored in the same report.

Watts was always going to improve when the team did. He looks a much better player when his work rate to move to the right spots and continue presenting is rewarded. The physical side will continue to be a work in progress, but his talent isn't in doubt and never has been. Goals like the one he kicked from the boundary are team lifting goals. Invaluable.

The world isn't black and white - said that a few times on here. The Stalker can do a search if he wishes... (a few dozen times) Stats are also grey. I read into them and when I do I try to back them up with arguments as to why I am reading into them the way I am.

To argue that 'I only pick the stats that suit my argument' is akin to saying 'you always make arguments and try to back them up with evidence'...

I also start threads on KPIs and Stats - like the one I did today, because there is no argument for them to 'back up' - at the moment they are just raw numbers that one can't read much into at all.

I don't know how you would reconcile that 'inconsistency,' BB. But you won't bother... Speaking of stats - how many of your posts of late have been purely to 'help' me? There are so many others desperate for goading and pointless needling...

Why don't you join the conversation, instead of waiting for me to say something you can jump on?

  On 06/04/2015 at 01:38, ProDee said:

This is the sort of stuff you don't notice on TV.

Over his entire career Watts has avoided copious amounts of contests he could and should have positively impacted. He's held back when he's needed to contest. Unless you're at the game you don't always pick this up on TV. This explains why some supporters don't always understand the angst towards Watts.

Watts' game on Saturday was arguably the best I've seen him play. His work rate, patterns and ability to be a target or impact contests was first rate.

We understand the angst, we have it.

I have seen him avoid contests, arrive late, 'run' after opponents, 'tackle' (or hug) his opponents, etc.

But I have also seen him play dozens of games with the workrate and intensity, and smart leading that he showed on Saturday. The difference is that the team had 11 more Inside 50s than they averaged last year and thus more opportunity for the previously starved forwards - non more starved than the 195cm flanker Watts. It also looked to be getting in there quicker from where I sit, 700km away.

To call Watts game some sort of breakthrough belies the past - and makes a mockery of his game on Saturday; it was good, but it wasn't great and he has played better in the past.

The only thing he needs to break through is to the place where he can give that performance with such regularity that it is what we see as a baseline, consistent performance.

I knew he could do what he did - I have seen it - now I want to see it every week. It's the only thing that will dispel the failure myth.

His game was the most rounded I've seen from a team and role perspective, ergo, for me it was his "best".

And unfortunately, only seeing the game on TV places you at an extreme disadvantage when making qualified judgements.

I think it's called "agreeing to disagree".

I liked that when he made a mistake he didn't sook, straight up and went again, his work rate was really quite good.

  On 06/04/2015 at 04:45, ProDee said:

His game was the most rounded I've seen from a team and role perspective, ergo, for me it was his "best".

And unfortunately, only seeing the game on TV places you at an extreme disadvantage when making qualified judgements.

I think it's called "agreeing to disagree".

'Extreme disadvantage'? I don't 'agree' with that at all. I guess you know what I think that's called...

Welcome back, Big Footy not doing it for you? Thought I read you would never be back.