On 10/07/2016 at 06:56, Members' Wing said:

This is rubbish. Sport is about winning.

Of course it is. But supporting a club isn't just about winning, or we'd all barrack for Hawthorn.

Each to their own. If anyone here is more interested in autographs than results, then who are we to criticise?

It takes all sorts.

  On 10/07/2016 at 03:42, Satyriconhome said:

As I have explained before but I'll do it again, every player on an AFL list,  in my opinion, has the potential to be an AFL standard player, some to a higher standard than others,  there are others that show potential but peeter out, injury cruells some, poor development can also stymie.......for the last few years MFC has seen all these examples.

I just don't feel the need for the constant comparison between players both in the same team and in the opposition, coz last time I looked it required 22 of them playing as a team for 4 quarters to a really good standard, to give a chance for a win, sure you need a few of the higher standard players, but you also need the role players who work their arses off as well, I place Matt Jones in this category

I go along and as long as each player has a crack, I come away satisfied, I have never seen a player in all my 39 years of watching footy that hasn't ducked his head once, shirked a contest coz they were knackered, misplaced a kick or handball, missed an easy shot or tackle etc etc................(some of the old 'heroes' now commentating who keep bemoaning skills better make sure there are no skeletons lurking in the video closet)

  On 10/07/2016 at 06:37, Stretch Johnson said:

Invoke football communism.

Every player gets the same money. Rotate them equally to give them all a go.  

Hell lets get rid of the scoreboard we cant have any of the lads feeling down about losing.

I dunno.  Surely supporting the players in your team, and silently thinking "yep, that was due" when they get the flick aren't mutually exclusive.  They're not for me, anyway. 

One mor yeAr!

One more year!

One more year!

There are 40 players on the AFL list. There are certain players who due to their age and stages of development ( or possibly coming back from injury) may be given a bit more time and leeway. Each player has an opportunity to raise his standing in the club to a top 22 player or as a fringe/depth player. Jetta is an example a player who has elevated himself from fringe to starting 22. 

If Jones keep playing good football he gets a game - simple as that. At the end of the season we have to let a certain amount of footballers go - that's the harsh reality. Matt Jones is no certainty to get another contract and is no certainty not to. Pretty much the ball is in his court. 

  On 10/07/2016 at 21:42, nutbean said:

There are 40 players on the AFL list. There are certain players who due to their age and stages of development ( or possibly coming back from injury) may be given a bit more time and leeway. Each player has an opportunity to raise his standing in the club to a top 22 player or as a fringe/depth player. Jetta is an example a player who has elevated himself from fringe to starting 22. 

If Jones keep playing good football he gets a game - simple as that. At the end of the season we have to let a certain amount of footballers go - that's the harsh reality. Matt Jones is no certainty to get another contract and is no certainty not to. Pretty much the ball is in his court. 

This is the key point.

i'm not sure contractually how they stand but those on the list under pressure IMO will be:

Dawes 28y/o

Lumumba 30y/o this year

Dunn 29y/o

JKH

Newton

Grimes 27y/o

Matt Jones 29y/o this year

Terlich

Trengove

In reality he is 30 next year and plays a role that is easier to fill than a KP.  We have to make changes.  I think he will struggle.

  On 10/07/2016 at 11:47, Nasher said:

I dunno.  Surely supporting the players in your team, and silently thinking "yep, that was due" when they get the flick aren't mutually exclusive.  They're not for me, anyway. 

I support the club and the players that play for it.

Supporting the club means that I watch the players.  Watching the players I form opinions on them.  Coming to Demonland allows me to express those opinions on occasion.

Stalinyrconhome would like us all to stop expressing these opinions.

 

  On 10/07/2016 at 22:28, Stretch Johnson said:

I support the club and the players that play for it.

Supporting the club means that I watch the players.  Watching the players I form opinions on them.  Coming to Demonland allows me to express those opinions on occasion.

Stalinyrconhome would like us all to stop expressing these opinions.

 

  On 10/07/2016 at 06:47, Jaded said:

 Why don't we give Grimes more than one game to make that call?

Being coached by Neeld didn't stop Jones, Watts, TMac etc from adjusting their game. 

though Watts and TM took a bit longer than Nathan.....have come good though agreed. 

  On 09/07/2016 at 03:37, binman said:

People are being a bit unkind to the author OP. The full title of the thread should have read Matt Jones has played his last game for MFC....this weekend.

I have said this before about MJ so apologies for repetition. Roos and the other coaches clearly rate him as a best 22 player. It came as no surprise to me he was brought back last week after only a couple of VFL games. Of course he has limitations but he is quite quick, super fit and gut runs back and forward as an important link man. And most importantly he plays the role he is assigned.

MJ again showed why he is a valued and important cog in out team on the weekend. 30 odd possessions and ran himself into the ground on a hot steamy night for football.

I watched the first half (in the period we won the game it is worth noting) again last night and not only was he an important link man between defense and attack he was was involved in a number of scoring chains. His importance to the team was summed up by Roos post match: 

"Our wings were really effective today – Matty Jones (30 disposals), Billy Stretch (12 disposals) and 'Grimesy'. Every role is important but I think the wing role has never been more important in football than now."

By the by in that same article Roos talks about the decision to change Grimes's role form HB to wing. Perhaps rather than being hard and unfair in not picking him Roos has actually given Grimes a career lifeline given his style of defending (eg holding the ball up, chip it around, very focused, on manning up, kicking not really an attacking  weapon) does not fit well with modern footy with its focus on zone defense and attacks coming from HB. Well played Roos.

  On 10/07/2016 at 23:39, binman said:

MJ again showed why he is a valued and important cog in out team on the weekend. 30 odd possessions and ran himself into the ground on a hot steamy night for football.

I watched the first half (in the period we won the game it is worth noting) again last night and not only was he an important link man between defense and attack he was was involved in a number of scoring chains. His importance to the team was summed up by Roos post match: 

"Our wings were really effective today – Matty Jones (30 disposals), Billy Stretch (12 disposals) and 'Grimesy'. Every role is important but I think the wing role has never been more important in football than now."

By the by in that same article Roos talks about the decision to change Grimes's role form HB to wing. Perhaps rather than being hard and unfair in not picking him Roos has actually given Grimes a career lifeline given his style of defending (eg holding the ball up, chip it around, very focused, on manning up, kicking not really an attacking  weapon) does not fit well with modern footy with its focus on zone defense and attacks coming from HB. Well played Roos.

He is also doing the same with ANB ....trying to add another string to his bow as he will find it hard to break into the side otherwise ...it reiterates to me that we have a very astute coaching panel!!

  On 03/07/2016 at 08:08, Allen Jakovich said:

Calling it now.

You were wrong, but not by a lot.  He played 5 more games.

Stu and some others must be flabberbasted (sic).

  On 29/09/2016 at 02:43, ProDee said:

You were wrong, but not by a lot.  He played 5 more games.

Stu and some others must be flabberbasted (sic).

Should we talk about Watts while we're rehashing the past "ProDee"?

 

  On 29/09/2016 at 05:12, stuie said:

Should we talk about Watts while we're rehashing the past "ProDee"?

 

Surely nobody with any semblance of a footy brain thought Matt Jones would get another contract?

I was in the camp that he was pretty valuable for us at times this year in a position we are light on in. But his VFL grand final sealed the deal if it wasn't already that he's just not an AFL player and we had to try someone different. If not a kid there's going to be outside runners in state leagues or delisted by other clubs worth a shot.

  On 29/09/2016 at 05:25, Members' Wing said:

Surely nobody with any semblance of a footy brain thought Matt Jones would get another contract?

Hmmm is that what this thread was about?

 

  On 29/09/2016 at 05:37, stuie said:

Hmmm is that what this thread was about?

 

I was just wondering. I hadn't seen anybody criticising the decision or advocating that he should get another contract, had you?

  On 29/09/2016 at 05:48, Members' Wing said:

I was just wondering. I hadn't seen anybody criticising the decision or advocating that he should get another contract, had you?

I'm not so much criticising the decision but you surely see the reasons for keeping him. I stand by my opinion that he would be useful depth next year given his run and spread. We lack that in any sufficent quantities, spread in particular. However, I am also not all that torn up by him leaving, I suspect most who thought he would be good depth would be similar.

  On 29/09/2016 at 06:03, ArtificialWisdom said:

I'm not so much criticising the decision but you surely see the reasons for keeping him. I stand by my opinion that he would be useful depth next year given his run and spread. We lack that in any sufficent quantities, spread in particular. However, I am also not all that torn up by him leaving, I suspect most who thought he would be good depth would be similar.

Bottom line is Matt Jones wasn't getting anywhere near our best 22 next season, and at 29 in a couple of weeks time and out of contract, what was the point of keeping him?

I'd much rather see Stretch, Salem, Vince, Brayshaw, Hunt or Melksham on a wing.

  On 29/09/2016 at 06:03, ArtificialWisdom said:

I'm not so much criticising the decision but you surely see the reasons for keeping him. I stand by my opinion that he would be useful depth next year given his run and spread. We lack that in any sufficent quantities, spread in particular. However, I am also not all that torn up by him leaving, I suspect most who thought he would be good depth would be similar.

Yes spot on - a good depth player & versatile to boot.  Still handier than some still on the list who are lucky enough to have contracts.  I reckon the Casey capitulation would have sealed it for some of the borderline players. like MJ.

I think Matty Jones got the most out of his potential, drafted as a mature age player he probably thought he'd missed his chance at AFL level but he came in and played a few years and some pretty good game and had a crack in every game he played, even when others didn't all the time. 

all the best for the future matty.

Well, I haven't commented on this thread since the day it was opened, so with any luck today we can close it.

Since Allen Jakovich made the 'calling it now' declaration that Matt Jones had played his last game, Jones has played 5 of the maximum 8 games remaining in the season. So the call has been unequivocally wrong and should be a reminder to anyone feeling like starting a whole thread for no reason except to burn off post-game steam.

In those 5 games he was mostly pretty ordinary, with highly visible clangers, but not generally our worst in any given game.

The Footy Dept has now made the call that he is not a required player, understandably given that he is not a standout in a role for which we have multiple better and younger options.

Just shy of 29 years old, his AFL career is presumably over, though he is likely to earn a few more years at VFL level if he chooses to.

Let's not taint his service to the club by letting any discussion about him be shaped by some numbnuts chest-beating from July.

  On 29/09/2016 at 06:25, Little Goffy said:

Well, I haven't commented on this thread since the day it was opened, so with any luck today we can close it.

Since Allen Jakovich made the 'calling it now' declaration that Matt Jones had played his last game, Jones has played 5 of the maximum 8 games remaining in the season. So the call has been unequivocally wrong and should be a reminder to anyone feeling like starting a whole thread for no reason except to burn off post-game steam.

In those 5 games he was mostly pretty ordinary, with highly visible clangers, but not generally our worst in any given game.

The Footy Dept has now made the call that he is not a required player, understandably given that he is not a standout in a role for which we have multiple better and younger options.

Just shy of 29 years old, his AFL career is presumably over, though he is likely to earn a few more years at VFL level if he chooses to.

Let's not taint his service to the club by letting any discussion about him be shaped by some numbnuts chest-beating from July.

That's fair enough.

Got 60 games in 4 years which is not a bad effort at all. Should hold his head up high and be proud that he's achieved something on here many would love to do. He's a fully qualified sparky do at least he has that to fall back on.

A footy career in the EFL beckons.

Good luck in the future Jonesy.

I reckon Matt Jones would've got quite a few games next year had he received an extension, but the FD formed the view that they can secure a better, experienced mid in the trade period (i.e. upgrade slightly with someone like Barlow) and that's why didn't receive another year.

Pretty confident he wasn't on the outer with the FD like some of the experts here seem to think. He just wasn't quite as good as some of the names that are seemingly 'gettable' this trade period.