7 hours ago, hemingway said:

Jack Watts had more than a baptism of fire. I cannot think of any player that has been the subject of so much criticism and ridicule from the football world and Melbourne supporters. His form this year tells us a lot about his talent and his character. We knew he had the talent but not the physical and mental toughness to make it. He proved me wrong and many others. It also shows good judgement by the club in sticking by him. I was as frustrated as many others with his game. So happy for him to see him emerge from the darkness.  In this dog eat dig world that craves immediate success, it is a lesson that patience and persistence can pay off. It shows that Jack despite being labelled as soft has a resilience and toughness that has sustained him.  He has succeeded when many would have failed under the weight of public opinion.

They have tried to trade him at least once, and possibly twice, in the last few years.

12 hours ago, Hell Bent said:

Yeah i saw him cop a few hits and even dish out a bit that i thought would take the stuffing out of him, but he just soldiered on. He is becoming a very dependable player who now gives his all which could not be said in any previous year he has played!

The late mark against Collingwood was big for his confidence stood up ready to take the hit and copped nothing and got rewarded with a mark and goal. Small wins like that can help him push to go harder in the future. He tried everything to keep us in the game, but was one of only a handfull I would say were good. 

11 hours ago, hemingway said:

Jack Watts had more than a baptism of fire. I cannot think of any player that has been the subject of so much criticism and ridicule from the football world and Melbourne supporters. His form this year tells us a lot about his talent and his character. We knew he had the talent but not the physical and mental toughness to make it. He proved me wrong and many others. It also shows good judgement by the club in sticking by him. I was as frustrated as many others with his game. So happy for him to see him emerge from the darkness.  In this dog eat dig world that craves immediate success, it is a lesson that patience and persistence can pay off. It shows that Jack despite being labelled as soft has a resilience and toughness that has sustained him.  He has succeeded when many would have failed under the weight of public opinion.

He didn't prove you wrong.  You correctly evaluated what you were seeing and his effort in contests was substandard.  It led to him being shopped around and dropped twice in his 7th season.  I'm not sure how any of that was proving you "wrong".

With good development and coaching, a mind-shift from the player and hard work he's greatly improved the contested side of his game.  I'm stoked we now have a player that can impact games and make us better.  But he'll always need to make sure he's working on this aspect of his game.

Edited June 20, 20169 yr by ProDee

5 hours ago, ProDee said:

He didn't prove you wrong.  You correctly evaluated what you were seeing and his effort in contests was substandard.  It led to him being shopped around and dropped twice in his 7th season.  I'm not sure how any of that was proving you "wrong".

With good development and coaching, a mind-shift from the player and hard work he's greatly improved the contested side of his game.  I'm stoked we now have a player that can impact games and make us better.  But he'll always need to make sure he's working on this aspect of his game.

If Hemingway thought Jack Watts was a bust and wasn't worth retaining Jack has gone some way to proving him wrong.

If he was critiquing his performance to the end of last year you're spot on.  Hemingway may like to clarify his position.

You have (correctly in my view) critiqued Jack's performance at various times but without going back I think you also wanted him off the list.  As we sit here today are you pleased that we've held on to him or would you have preferred to remove him from the list and given a go to another player who may or may not have done better?  What many may not have considered is the opportunity cost of keeping Jack.

I'd be interested in your view.

1 hour ago, Vogon Poetry said:

If Hemingway thought Jack Watts was a bust and wasn't worth retaining Jack has gone some way to proving him wrong.

If he was critiquing his performance to the end of last year you're spot on.  Hemingway may like to clarify his position.

You have (correctly in my view) critiqued Jack's performance at various times but without going back I think you also wanted him off the list.  As we sit here today are you pleased that we've held on to him or would you have preferred to remove him from the list and given a go to another player who may or may not have done better?  What many may not have considered is the opportunity cost of keeping Jack.

I'd be interested in your view.

I would have tried to move him on (depending on what was on offer in return) as I thought 7 years was well and truly enough time to see if he was ever going to contest in the fashion required of a top-line AFL player.  

I never envisaged he could improve his contested footy to the extent he has and I'm glad he's been retained.  The decision to off-load him would have been wrong in hindsight.  It's a pity I can't crystal ball gaze.

But, as you'd be aware, I take back none of my previous criticisms. 

has had a rippa year and will be aone of those players that get better when players around him get better

 

I offered an opinion boys. It may be right or wrong but I am not interested in some kind of justification of what I wrote. It becomes pedantic and a boring exercise. I don't mind debate but it gets to a point where it becomes very boring very quickly. Point scoring does not interest me. My theme was simply that Jack has shown great character to cop all the criticism and abuse and play good footy this year. I did not think this was possible but he proved me wrong.

4 hours ago, ProDee said:

Would have tried to move him on (depending on what was on offer in return) as I thought 7 years was well and truly enough time to see if he was ever going to contest in the fashion required of a top-line AFL player.  

I never envisaged he could improve his contested footy to the extent he has and I'm glad he's been retained.  The decision to off-load him would have been wrong in hindsight.  

 

Pretty sums up a fairly even minded position. Seemed the thoughts at the time. 

Glad hes still here . Think he is stil got another level in him.

Just hope he isn't one of those players who finds a gear when he's OOC and then goes back to his normal ways onces he's signed on, we need him to keep building on this form, even now i think he has a lot of improvement left in him.

I'll buy in.

To me Jack Watts has only met minimum standards.

For me the minimum standard varies from player to player. It does not depend on where they were taken in the draft. It purely depends on the evaluation of their talent and that is very subjective. I have eaten at Vue De Monde and also at my local fish and chip shop - both are great but the expectation of what they should deliver is vastly different.

I have been sorely disappointed with the consistency of his output prior to this season. He has always shown glimpses of what he is capable of but has only put consistent performances together this year.

This season he has been good but it is the minimum that he should be delivering.

I think it  is pretty easy to judge a players talent early on - can they kick ? can they mark ? do they have tricks ? What is really difficult  - do they have the appetite to get the most out of themselves and/or will they develop it - the "above the shoulders" talent . This to my mind has been the biggest knock on Watts - to get the most out of himself - and for Watts that meant hitting contests regularly. He has always been gifted with his delivery, vision, evasive skills. But his willingness to get involved has been rightly questioned. I am not necessarily talking about crashing packs - i am talking going when it is his turn and desire to get to contest after contest.

We have had a plethora of opinions ranging from he will get there to whether he just will never develop an appetite. To me, this season, his talent is pretty much what it has always been. What has lifted is his appetite to get involved. To me he has reached a minimum involvement level and if that's all he has got and he continues at this level, then we have a good player. I don't think he will ever get to a Viney/Jones passion for "involvement" but if he can lift his intent even more then he will go from the good player he has been this season to a new level and the player that many of us have hoped he will become.   

I still wish he went harder at the contest than he currently does.

For a player of his talents he's yet to stamp himself decisively on a win, yet to generate the acclaim or acknowledgement that his talent should demand. It appears that hes previously been content to be a contributor rather than a dominator and leader. 

But he's improving with age and becoming an elder player in a young group, and a game bursting performance now feels more likely than ever before. 

 

25 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

For a player of his talents he's yet to stamp himself decisively on a win, yet to generate the acclaim or acknowledgement that his talent should demand. It appears that hes previously been content to be a contributor rather than a dominator and leader. 

But he's improving with age and becoming an elder player in a young group, and a game bursting performance now feels more likely than ever before. 

 

Essentially I agree, but from my seat he at least seems to be moving into that direction now. Whatever inertia was holding him back he seems to have been working to shake off.

It'll be a mental thing now. Some switch needs to go on...then move to "max"  He could be our Riewoldt ( Nick  ) if he wanted to be. He has ALL the skills and abilities....just needs that dare do well and cavalier disregard for one's own health  lol

This is not a knock to Roos but I could have sworn the team played with a different swagger under Goody in the Nobody cares Cup. Will be very interesting to see how we go next year. Roos is very holistic..Goody very coalface. I think Jack will respond well to Goody's idea of style.

just my thinking really

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

This is not a knock to Roos but I could have sworn the team played with a different swagger under Goody in the Nobody cares Cup. Will be very interesting to see how we go next year. Roos is very holistic..Goody very coalface. I think Jack will respond well to Goody's idea of style.

 

Roos is as much said that he is a manager more than a coach and relies heavily on his assistants. He said new coaches are usually much more hands on.

I am agree that a player of Watts temperament will benefit from the Goodwins style/input during the week and then the same style and approach to him coming through on match days next year.

18 hours ago, ProDee said:

I would have tried to move him on (depending on what was on offer in return) as I thought 7 years was well and truly enough time to see if he was ever going to contest in the fashion required of a top-line AFL player.  

I never envisaged he could improve his contested footy to the extent he has and I'm glad he's been retained.  The decision to off-load him would have been wrong in hindsight.  It's a pity I can't crystal ball gaze.

But, as you'd be aware, I take back none of my previous criticisms. 

Yep, agree with that.  Where I differed is that I would have leaned towards keeping him given his upside.  But a very good offer would have seen me keen on a trade.

16 hours ago, hemingway said:

I offered an opinion boys. It may be right or wrong but I am not interested in some kind of justification of what I wrote. It becomes pedantic and a boring exercise. I don't mind debate but it gets to a point where it becomes very boring very quickly. Point scoring does not interest me. My theme was simply that Jack has shown great character to cop all the criticism and abuse and play good footy this year. I did not think this was possible but he proved me wrong.

Hemingway PD and I go back a fair way.  We debate our differences vigorously but we agree on most things. I was interested in your position, not using you as "point scoring".

5 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Yep, agree with that.  Where I differed is that I would have leaned towards keeping him given his upside.  But a very good offer would have seen me keen on a trade.

Hemingway PD and I go back a fair way.  We debate our differences vigorously but we agree on most things. I was interested in your position, not using you as "point scoring".

thanks. i don't think you are a vogon after all.

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

I'll buy in.

To me Jack Watts has only met minimum standards.

For me the minimum standard varies from player to player.

So Nut where does Travis Johnstone come on your minimum standard rating?  If he delivered below your minimum standard should we have traded him out earlier and if so when?

And the attributes of "minimum standards" you quote all related to skills.  What about a persons mental capabilities?  Surely a players minimum standards should take these into account.  And his development (standard of development coaches).  And the players around him.  And his physical development (some kids develop later than others).

With Jack we can all evaluate his skill set but and we can make some judgements regarding his football development. But the other aspects have a significant impact on his output and we can only guesstimate these.  How can you deal with this when determining your "minimum standards".  Am I right in thinking your minimum standards have nothing to do with whether he should be on our list or in our team but where you thought he would be better or worse than he actually was?  

8 minutes ago, hemingway said:

thanks. i don't think you are a vogon after all.

  I could always change my name to Grunthos the Flatulent  if yuo thought it appropriate.

 

Or: 

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings^[1] was a poet who wrote the worst poetry in the universe. In fact, her poetry is still considered to be the worst in the Galaxy, closely followed by that of the Azgoths of Kria and the Vogons.

She lived at 37 Wasp Villas, Greenbridge, Essex, GB10 1LL.^[2]

Here is an excerpt of her poetry:

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool.

They lay. They rotted. They turned

Around occasionally.

Bits of flesh dropped off them from

Time to time.

And sank into the pool's mire.

They also smelt a great deal.

Edited June 21, 20169 yr by Vogon Poetry
Completeness. Mods delete if this derails a Jack Watts thread. We wouldn't want that to happen.

Given Jack Watts' improvement in 'standard', how far do posters here think he can go? Can he reach elite status? I think you'll need to define your elite status, and what makes a player elite? 

Personally I think there is more room for improvement. The increased standards of training and competition for spots coupled with the overall improvement of the teams performance and clubs performance - as well as the determined focus on further improvement with higher goals being set...could well result in a stronger, more influential Jack Watts.

7 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

  I could always change my name to Grunthos the Flatulent  if yuo thought it appropriate.

 

Or: 

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings^[1] was a poet who wrote the worst poetry in the universe. In fact, her poetry is still considered to be the worst in the Galaxy, closely followed by that of the Azgoths of Kria and the Vogons.

She lived at 37 Wasp Villas, Greenbridge, Essex, GB10 1LL.^[2]

Here is an excerpt of her poetry:

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool.

They lay. They rotted. They turned

Around occasionally.

Bits of flesh dropped off them from

Time to time.

And sank into the pool's mire.

They also smelt a great deal.

I prefer Vogon over Grunthos and Paula but I do like the poem! Very descriptive and evocative. 

I believe there IS another level for his to attain...Elite ?  Be great...a bit short of...still good.

Its now all between the ears

17 minutes ago, hemingway said:

I prefer Vogon over Grunthos and Paula but I do like the poem! Very descriptive and evocative. 

youd love the No T$  No B$ thread...very up your alley I suspect 

2 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

So Nut where does Travis Johnstone come on your minimum standard rating?  If he delivered below your minimum standard should we have traded him out earlier and if so when?

And the attributes of "minimum standards" you quote all related to skills.  What about a persons mental capabilities?  Surely a players minimum standards should take these into account.  And his development (standard of development coaches).  And the players around him.  And his physical development (some kids develop later than others).

With Jack we can all evaluate his skill set but and we can make some judgements regarding his football development. But the other aspects have a significant impact on his output and we can only guesstimate these.  How can you deal with this when determining your "minimum standards".  Am I right in thinking your minimum standards have nothing to do with whether he should be on our list or in our team but where you thought he would be better or worse than he actually was?  

As to the point of development standards and the players around him - I have always maintained that it is easier to be "complete" at Hawthorn  than Melbourne as they absolutely developed players ( which has been completely absent at the MFC up until the Roos era) and it easier to develop with stars around you ( Gunston had 2-3 years as the third string forward behind Roughy and Franklin - yet we rely on a 20 year Hogan to be our number one forward  - it speaks volumes for his ability). But you can play the hand you are dealt  - and we have had some footballer that have flourished despite our club being a cesspool.

I may not have expressed clearly enough because minimum standards is about both physical talent and mental capabilities.  But physical talents are much more of a known and what you see early on, in the main doesn't change too much over the career ( after a few preseasons a bigger tank does help to get to more contests and run harder for longer - Oliver will be better in a couple of years) - mental capabilities is a different matter  - it affects how hard you go to the contest, your desire to get the contest. To me Nathan Jones  will never be elite  - I believe his skill set/physical talent is good but he is not exceptional. I believe his mental skills are exceptional ( he has been tagged out of the game occasionally) . So you know that Jones is going to try and deliver 100% every time he runs onto the ground. You cant ask for much more. 

Watts skills to my mind are exceptional - but he has in previous seasons had mental capability  issues - he has picked and chosen which contests to go to - he has not gone hard enough when it is his turn. This have vastly improved this season to a point that he is now playing very good football. If his willingness to get involved dropped off he would be back to how he was in previous seasons - a tease. Therefore this is the minimum i expect of him and if he lifts his intensity even further then because his skills are sublime his output would increase further ( As opposed to Jones - i don't think he can raise his intensity much more and his skills are what his skills are). A player like Watts has a much higher ceiling than Jones.

Trapper - what a good question. Time has erased my inconsistent memories of him but he is probably a good comparison to Watts. Over the journey though Travis did win a B&F in 2005, in 2002 was 4th in the brownlow and was pretty good in 2006. So I remember him as doing much more in his career than Watts has to date. Trapper tore opponents apart in many games which Watts hasn't done yet.

As to trading out earlier - I can be critical but I am the worst bleeding heart of all time and I would have half the players delisted still on our list as I always believe "they will come good" ! (except Col Sylvia - I realised after his fifth season of  "if only he had a full preseason" that no amount of full preseasons was going to get his head right.)

I heart Jack Watts.

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

 

Thanks Nut. Can you just clarify this:

"Am I right in thinking your minimum standards have nothing to do with whether he should be on our list or in our team but where you thought he would be better or worse than he actually was?   "