I watched the first half of the Casey match that was posted on the MFC site. Fitzpatrick misread a few marks but overall he was very good, his kicking was a lot better than I expected. Toumpas also looked good in the first half but it sounds like he dropped off a lot in the second half. I think I would be happy with the change of Dawes in for Watts, he has only doing the bare minimum for the past few games and I think he needs to get his confidence back up at Casey.

Don't know that we'll be dropping JKH with Kent out.

Watts wrong with Jack? Nothing in my opinion. Everyone loves being booed by their home crowd on their 100th.

It's a team game.

If a few guys are down on the day, it affects a lot of others up the ground.

Last week was a great team game, this week was a game of individuals.

Our midfield was murdered by the best I have seen this year.

But the standouts to go for me are McKenzie ( kicking hasn't improved)

Grimes (kicking hasn't improved) Watts (game hasn't improved)

In Dawes, Jetta if fit, Riley.

Jack Watts may or may not be banished to Casey. Either way he needs some proactive action to 're-program' his approach to 'the contest' as simply dropping him may just worsen the problem. He shows plenty of personal pride and courage. The problem seems to be mental as he is also fit and skilled.

I wonder if the club is using a sports psychologist to help Jack change his approach and get more involved. A sports psychologist may also help him deal with the constant battering he gets in the media and supporters and get his confidence back. No shame in this. Many top sportspeople use them (right now one is helping Travis Cloke who has also been hopelessly out of form).

He shouldn't be the first person to be dropped this week, IMO. Would think Grimes, and McKenzie would go first. JKH may also be looked as he often tries to do the 'fancy' things (and be a bit of a hero) and ends up in trouble/turnover. I think it was this type of play that Roos was referring to 'when a player focuses on their own game and plays to be be in the stats' rather than team play. Lots of others as guilty as JKH. An interesting week at the selection table.

Edited May 4, 201510 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Didn't he get dropped a couple of years back? What was his numbers like when he returned?

I think the team is better with him in it regardless.

Didn't he get dropped a couple of years back? What was his numbers like when he returned?

I think the team is better with him in it regardless.

I would like to believe that but i cannot.

We need to think about a team without Jack in it as when he is in we are effectively a man down for most of the game.

JW for what ever reason has no hunger to play and I really think he will retire this year barring some sort of Miracle

I would like to believe that but i cannot.

We need to think about a team without Jack in it as when he is in we are effectively a man down for most of the game.

JW for what ever reason has no hunger to play and I really think he will retire this year barring some sort of Miracle

Spare me.

Your spared

I would like to believe that but i cannot.

We need to think about a team without Jack in it as when he is in we are effectively a man down for most of the game.

JW for what ever reason has no hunger to play and I really think he will retire this year barring some sort of Miracle

That idiot Barrett will now break an "exclusive" story on the footy show that Watts will retire at the end of the season.

Your spared

You're generous.

Right, so he won't be playing THIS WEEK then hey DC? Need me to get the calculator?

oh please stuie - give it up

2-3 weeks means this coming week or the one after (wanchors was the week 1)

fmd

oh please stuie - give it up

2-3 weeks means this coming week or the one after (wanchors was the week 1)

fmd

Mate, you tried to talk maths and now you're talking interpretations.... Pick a lane.

If we're talking facts and numbers rather than what you think things mean, then Misson said on (and after) the 28th April it's 2-3 weeks. Now, even if it's exactly the minimum of that time frame it's still after the game coming up.

So again I'll tell you, Viney won't play against the Swans.

FMDer.

Mate, you tried to talk maths and now you're talking interpretations.... Pick a lane.

If we're talking facts and numbers rather than what you think things mean, then Misson said on (and after) the 28th April it's 2-3 weeks. Now, even if it's exactly the minimum of that time frame it's still after the game coming up.

So again I'll tell you, Viney won't play against the Swans.

FMDer.

It depends on how he goes this week, he was fine at training last week, I had a really good chat to him, did most of the pre season so fitness not the issue, just confidence in the leg, he was bouncing around and said there is no problem

I truly hope Watts is not dropped. He is out of form but I don't believe anything will be gained playing him at Casey. If you look at our record over the last 3 years, every game we have won with the exception of Richmond 2 weeks ago Watts was a standout. I am happy we can now win without Watts, but we can't afford not to play him.

I believe he will come good this week.

I believe he will come good this week.

Hee wont fire a shot against the Swans. Or Hawks.

Nothing is surer.

I truly hope Watts is not dropped. He is out of form but I don't believe anything will be gained playing him at Casey. If you look at our record over the last 3 years, every game we have won with the exception of Richmond 2 weeks ago Watts was a standout. I am happy we can now win without Watts, but we can't afford not to play him.

I believe he will come good this week.

generally when a team wins its because most players play well, how did he go in the other 60 games over 3 years, consistency.

You know it's desperate when people are calling for Bail's inclusion.

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, I think Grimes should remain in the team this week. He did a good job in keeping Walters and then Ballantyne quiet, even though he didn't win much of the ball himself.

Whether Watts remains in or not... I'm indifferent. No longer worth wasting words on that issue.

Edited May 5, 201510 yr by Django

You know it's desperate when people are calling for Bail's inclusion.

Bail as sub doesn't bother me, he at least has some speed and can kick a goal

McKenzies selection was ridiculous however

Bail as sub doesn't bother me, he at least has some speed and can kick a goal

McKenzies selection was ridiculous however

It might have seemed ridiculous but the selectors would have picked him for a reason. He must have been doing what was asked of him at Casey.

Mckenzie's game reminded me of when Nicho came in for one game last year. If he's dropped this week i reckon he's gone. Just not good enough at this level unfortunately despite his best efforts.

You know it's desperate when people are calling for Bail's inclusion.

Bail had a good season last year and is kick 2-3 goals a game and getting 25ish possesions in casey. Better player than grimes.

I'd have no dramas with him in the team!

Mate, you tried to talk maths and now you're talking interpretations.... Pick a lane.

If we're talking facts and numbers rather than what you think things mean, then Misson said on (and after) the 28th April it's 2-3 weeks. Now, even if it's exactly the minimum of that time frame it's still after the game coming up.

So again I'll tell you, Viney won't play against the Swans.

FMDer.

where did i say he would play against the swans?

i didn't give any prediction

i just explained misson's comment meant swans or hawkes (2-3)

Watts won't be dropped . Roos talked about our young mids being 3-4 kms per game off the required running capacity thus a need for an extra rotation so it's one ruckman . Jetta misses again . Id go with the same team what's the point in bringing in less talented or like for like . Get games into the kids that played last week Jkh brayshaw . Hopefully as the year builds in the 2's we see White Harmes Neal Bullen given a run in the firsts .