Dropped means he should play 2s - unless he isn't eligible because they're playing finals. Will be interesting to see what comes of this. It maybe that a trade has been already agreed to and if so, you don't want the deal being spoiled by Watts doing an ACL.

It does seem though that all the tough talk from the club might be followed up by some action in the next month and a half...perhaps.

Edited September 4, 201510 yr by grazman

Can't find anything from the club. Any media about this?

Maybe it's a just clever Roos (sic)? Maybe it's no coincidence that each of the extended interchange are midfielders? Expect N. Jones to be a late withdrawal and Watts to line up in his regular position!

I get it but why? This game means nothing to both clubs.

I'll tell you 'Watts' going on - too many posters here are talking dribble. If this was anyone else in our side it would barely rate a mention.

Watts? Oh, it must mean he is going to be traded. Ridiculous.

If Jack was to be traded, I would be extremely disappointed in the club not allowing him a final game in the red and blue.

He has been a staunch and loyal player and works beyond the call of duty to meet kids, members etc.

Deserves the game, if to be traded that is.

No final game would leave a bitter taste as did the attempted trade of Jack T last year, which by all accounts he only reluctantly agreed to.

So, don't think he is up for trade.

Edited September 4, 201510 yr by Lucifer's Hero

What are the eligibility rules for playing with Casey in finals?

Maybe he needs one more game with them to play, and maybe they want him to play as part of his development like trying him in a new position, or to get finals experience.

If Jack was to be traded, I would be extremely disappointed in the club not allowing him a final game in the red and blue.

He has been a staunch and loyal player and works beyond the call of duty to meet kids, members etc.

Deserves the game, if to be traded that is.

No final game would leave a bitter taste as did the attempted trade of Jack T last year, which by all accounts he only reluctantly agreed to.

So, don't think he is up for trade.

Id like to think if Watts has approached Roos and told him he's off that Roos has stuck to his word.

Conspiracy theories will abound over the coming weeks that Jack Watts may well be put up for trade. However to me it seems a little strange to drop him for the last game if trying to maintain his trade value. Jeremy Howe could similarly have been dropped several times for indifferent form during the season but wasn't. Again theories on keeping up Howe's trade worth were touted as reasons for not doing so if he chose to leave - or the club wished to move him on. My theory on Howe was that they were keen to get him to 100 games in case a spring-heeled baby with a great work ethic came along and we could take him as a father-son!

My theory on the dropping of Watts is that while his form has been better in the second half of the season, he still has some work to do over the summer and the clear message is for him to not get too comfortable in his own skin. McCartney and Goodwin have put alot of work into him in terms of improving his competitiveness and the results were starting to show. He is such a great decision maker and user of the ball, I would be disappointed to let go what the team has been crying out for in that regard.

This may also send the same message to the rest of the playing group that there is still much to be done and everyone needs to improve. If Jack was sick or sore for this week's game, I think he would have been listed as such.

His eligibility for free agency next year and Roos' views on potentially trading away a year before only adds intrigue to the situation. I hope he stays.

Yeah, there's zero chance our list strategy and management of Howe is predicated on him having children. As soon as I read that, I couldn't take the rest of your post seriously.

What are the eligibility rules for playing with Casey in finals?

Maybe he needs one more game with them to play, and maybe they want him to play as part of his development like trying him in a new position, or to get finals experience.

If a player plays an AFL game after July 1 they are ineligible to play VFL finals unless they've played a total of at least 6 VFL games that season.

I'm not sure how many VFL games Watts has played this season, doubt it's more than 5.

Edit: According to Casey website, 1 game.

Edited September 5, 201510 yr by Ethan Tremblay

I get it but why? This game means nothing to both clubs.

Disagree. We earmarked 7 wins this year as our target. Win this and the FD can say it's been largely a success.

He's been dropped.

No biggie.

Personally, I don't think he was our worst last week, but that's the world of Jack Watts.

Perhaps Jones won't get up?

I hope he leaves or retires - never, ever, has one player faced sooooo much scrutiny at such an inherent microscopic level.

Look after your mind, young man.

I'll tell you 'Watts' going on - too many posters here are talking dribble. If this was anyone else in our side it would barely rate a mention.

Watts? Oh, it must mean he is going to be traded. Ridiculous.

Worth the discussion, seeing as there's been no mention of a reason at all. Usually they'll say something if he has a niggle, or they're just wanting to rest him.

Why do you think he was dropped?

Guys, he's just not up to it.

It's that simple. It's not a conspiracy, it's not part of a bigger plan. He's had a lot of opportunity this year and in the last 5-6 weeks his form has been ordinary. He was clearly set some tasks and he didn't do them.

It's a game designed for consistent winners. If we don't change a team that's made up of players that don't win their roles then how can we expect a winning team?

Worth the discussion, seeing as there's been no mention of a reason at all. Usually they'll say something if he has a niggle, or they're just wanting to rest him.

Why do you think he was dropped?

Why do they have to explain it? I would have thought 'omitted' says enough.

As I said before mate, if this was anyone else there wouldn't be an entire thread dedicated to it. We've brought in 4 young kids for a run this round to go with the many others we are already playing, and Watts simply may have been the one to miss out this week in a game that means nothing.

Why do they have to explain it? I would have thought 'omitted' says enough.

As I said before mate, if this was anyone else there wouldn't be an entire thread dedicated to it. We've brought in 4 young kids for a run this round to go with the many others we are already playing, and Watts simply may have been the one to miss out this week in a game that means nothing.

I think the point is that 99% of MFC fans and footy watchers wouldn't have thought he was worthy of being omitted this week.

Team selection has been strange all year. I guess there is a method to it but it escapes me.

I think the point is that 99% of MFC fans and footy watchers wouldn't have thought he was worthy of being omitted this week.

Even the likes of myself find his omission odd. I mean who would have M Jones in your team in lieu of Watts?

Weve had Howe all but out the door and he's not ostracised, so why Jack if that was the applied notion.

Maybe just being 'rested'

Yeah, there's zero chance our list strategy and management of Howe is predicated on him having children. As soon as I read that, I couldn't take the rest of your post seriously.

Hence the exclamation mark so that that part could be seen as a bit tongue-in-cheek - but hey that's ok.

As far as Watts and others being eligible to play for Casey tomorrow, I'm guessing that as both the seniors and Casey are playing this weekend there is still a natural selection process even though Casey's game is a final. This wouldn't usually occur but the AFL finishes a week later this year. It would be the case for all VFL teams if so. So maybe the number of games to qualify rules don't apply this weekend.

As I said I am guessing though so perhaps KC or someone could clarify.

And as stated above, a late change could well bring Jack Watts back into the team tomorrow. Nathan Jones must be highly doubtful for one.

Why do they have to explain it? I would have thought 'omitted' says enough.

As I said before mate, if this was anyone else there wouldn't be an entire thread dedicated to it. We've brought in 4 young kids for a run this round to go with the many others we are already playing, and Watts simply may have been the one to miss out this week in a game that means nothing.

What I'm saying, is that I thought they would have mentioned something about why, as they usually do - and Jack has been playing pretty well all season.

I'd be very interested if it were any of our well performing players. It's close to trade time, so I think that there will always be speculation no matter the player, if they are omitted in round 23 with no explanation.

Note: Isn't there a segment on DeeTV about selection, usually?

What I'm saying, is that I thought they would have mentioned something about why, as they usually do - and Jack has been playing pretty well all season.

I'd be very interested if it were any of our well performing players. It's close to trade time, so I think that there will always be speculation no matter the player, if they are omitted in round 23 with no explanation.

Note: Isn't there a segment on DeeTV about selection, usually?

the explanation is "omitted". it's exactly the same as m. jones and countless other players omitted during the season where no further explanation was given

there again there is always the asio conspiracy theory to consider.....

Jack's been a fascinating case study for us - for everyone - since day dot, so a wildfire discussion was bound to happen.

Since last night I've changed my tune and don't think there's a crackpot theory behind this. It's the last round, yes, but I don't think the coaches see it that way - where everyone is winding down. Matt Jones got dropped, too, and Jamar doesn't get a 'farewell' game. Big deal.

If Jack becomes trade bait, I'm all for it - he's been fattened up for sale this year if that's the case.

the explanation is "omitted". it's exactly the same as m. jones and countless other players omitted during the season where no further explanation was given

there again there is always the asio conspiracy theory to consider.....

M Jones is a list clogger and has battled for games all year. Jack has been one of our best and most consistent performers. I don't see it as exactly the same at all.

I'm not necessarily saying that I think he will be traded, I'm just interested in why, and that no reason was mentioned.

We've clearly gone small after what happened in the Bulldogs game, Etihad is clearly a faster track than most places, especially the G, but Watts is quicker and uses it better than the following players playing tomorrow:

JKH, Cross, Garland, Howe, Grimes, White, OMac, Newton, Michie.

Still think it's a strange decision.

would not be surprised if watts still has the flu from a couple of weeks ago,along with jones and vince whose form dropped off about 3 weeks ago,I have it for weeks and not get rid of it

Team selection has been strange all year. I guess there is a method to it but it escapes me.

And me.