10 hours ago, McQueen said:

I'm mortified you don't agree with my conclusions.

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to mortify you but it was your own doing.

What is really frustrating and in fact stupid about the reaction to this situation, and it's not just you McQueen, is that nobody really knows the reason for his omission.  You can't come to "conclusions" when you don't have any facts beyond "he didn't play" and a few vague statements from players.  You don't have a conclusion, you have a hypothesis which really means you're guessing until some more facts roll in.

But in the usual "Great, lets bash Jack" you've gone the "soft" line. 

The whole situation is disappointing.  In a week we should be enjoying a really good practice match performance we are talking about someone who didn't play.  The MFC have handled the PR side of this terribly.  They should clear the air and get on with it.

9 hours ago, Copuchas said:

Just wondering if a full transcript of TMac's interview would now be sufficient context for you to work through the scenario of what's played out here?  A F sums it up very succinctly and in essence corroborates the interpretation that PD and I and several others reached a good few hours ago.   The complete overreaction by the media is a separate thread to the core story which is about Simon Goodwin ruthlessly establishing and enforcing standards.   A storm in a tea cup as I said but a story nonetheless, a welcome one in fact as it underscores the extremely professional approach, without exceptions, that's now being taken with this football club.  

Not sure what you are on about.  I am very clear about what has been played out here.  My position has been very clear from the beginning and has not wavered:

See post #96 which was before Max's interview and a many hours before Tom's, I said I believed there was truth in L36's rumour (based on reports from the intra-club) and applauded Goodwin for 'punishing' Jack (if that is what was needed).  Unlike others including the op I did not put any store in the claim Jack had come back from the off-season unfit. The op has since dropped that claim from his posts. 

See post #133 which was after Max's interview (and before Tom's) where he said (and I believed and still do that Jack did not have an attitude problem) I acknowledged there may be other reasons Jack didn't get a game and again I applauded Goodwin. 

It has since come to light via the Ox that the problem was with KPI's and not lack of fitness and not attitude. 

Some posters were quick to make assumptions and criticise Jack's activities during the off-season, blame his Footy Show appearances etc without a skerick of evidence to link those to his 'punishment' and jumped on unsubstantiated reports about lack of fitness and poor attitude. 

I'm glad you and others now accept that Jack:

• did not come back from pre-season unfit,
• does not have an attitude problem,
• any 'punishment' is for other KPI issues, and
• that Goodwin should be applauded for taking a stand. 

Good, we are now on the same page.

 

 

1 hour ago, Stretch Johnson said:

There has been a few references to his performance at the intra-club.  Others will disagree but I think that's what it is about.

Intensity was down and the coaches have decided to act early to stamp it out. 

This is not bad news.

I disagree.

Imo, this isn't about one performance in one intra-club match.

To be not included in a squad of 29 is a statement and being down in one match in a 5 month preseason wouldn't lead to that.

We need to teach young players how to play a straight bat to the media.  If there is issues with Jack Watts or any other player this should be dealt with and kept behind closed doors.  How stupid are Gawn and McDonald to give the media a story, both of them should be dropped this week to punish them for not keeping this in house and once again the Melbourne FC makes Jack Watts a media target.  He will be the first player to sue a club for the post traumatic Stress caused by playing for the club that keeps hanging him out there.

Simple answer Jack missed should be right this week, that is all that needed to be said.

7 minutes ago, drdrake said:

We need to teach young players how to play a straight bat to the media.  If there is issues with Jack Watts or any other player this should be dealt with and kept behind closed doors.  How stupid are Gawn and McDonald to give the media a story, both of them should be dropped this week to punish them for not keeping this in house and once again the Melbourne FC makes Jack Watts a media target.  He will be the first player to sue a club for the post traumatic Stress caused by playing for the club that keeps hanging him out there.

Simple answer Jack missed should be right this week, that is all that needed to be said.

I think the criticism of TMac and Gawn in their responses to the media is just as dramatised as the story itself.

Gawn in particular played a pretty straight bat to the questions thrown at him while re-enforcing that Watts is in a very good headspace and training well. He trotted out the line of it being a sign of stronger depth with no-one's spot being guaranteed, which is fair enough. He certainly was hesitant to suggest it was a disciplinary move.

TMac did eventually succumb to the barrage of Watts related questions with reference to the importance of "doing the team things", but he was quick to emphasise that Watts is still in the best team and training strongly.

Could they have poured more cold water on the story? Possibly. But under the circumstances, with the media looking for anything to latch onto, they handled it pretty well.

1 minute ago, P-man said:

Could they have poured more cold water on the story? Possibly. But under the circumstances, with the media looking for anything to latch onto, they handled it pretty well.

The MFC should have dealt with this and not put Max or Tom in the position of explaining selection.  That's not their job.

 

6 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

The MFC should have dealt with this and not put Max or Tom in the position of explaining selection.  That's not their job.

 

Ideally yes, although club leaders talking about such things in the media is hardly uncommon.

10 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

The MFC should have dealt with this and not put Max or Tom in the position of explaining selection.  That's not their job.

 

Exactly.

A little learning curve for all.

What is the suggestion exactly? Players to avoid all media for the next week due to Watts missing a pre-season game?

They were always going to be asked questions about it.

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Exactly.

A little learning curve for all.

maybe the interviews were booked before the practice match. i'd imagine the players are highly scheduled for extra curricula duties

and yes, a bit of dead-bat coaching wouldn't go astray

10 minutes ago, P-man said:

What is the suggestion exactly? Players to avoid all media for the next week due to Watts missing a pre-season game?

They were always going to be asked questions about it.

Thats the point really Pman, they were always going to be asked.

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Thats the point really Pman, they were always going to be asked.

Right. So I'm asking what is the suggested alternative if the club is meant to deal with it? A media ban for the players?

Storm in a teacup for mine whatever the background.

Unless injured, Jack will be in the side for most of the season. 

13 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Storm in a teacup for mine whatever the background.

Unless injured, Jack will be in the side for most of the season. 

Could not agree more Mr. Leg

This is IMO a classic media beat up.

14 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Storm in a teacup for mine whatever the background.

Unless injured, Jack will be in the side for most of the season. 

Or at least every match where there are four points on offer!

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I'm glad you and others now accept that Jack:

• did not come back from pre-season unfit,
• does not have an attitude problem,
• any 'punishment' is for other KPI issues, and
• that Goodwin should be applauded for taking a stand. 

A bit of revisionist history possibly LH??   Please don't lump me in with others!  My assessment quite a long ways back in the course of this laborious thread was:

The Tom McDonald comments of afl.com.au make it clear that this is not a figment of ProDee's imagination, nor the original poster of the story.  I think the Max Gawn interview did as well but accept it was somewhat open to interpretation whereas TMac is unequivocal and all that's left to ponder is whether a) Watts presented poorly for the intraclub; b) he broke or failed to adhere to team rules in the intraclub (presumably in terms of pressure acts / defensive actions).   It is clearly not about how he presented for preseason training.

Having said that, this is a storm in a tea cup and simply represents an early line in the sand from Goodwin around expectations and the fact that there will be no exceptions, nor any tolerance of non conformance.  Only way to run a footy club that's seriously focused on a journey for mine.  Watts will learn and others that have a propensity to end up in the same space eg Jeffy will sit up and take notice.  All good.  Move on.

 

57 minutes ago, P-man said:

What is the suggestion exactly? Players to avoid all media for the next week due to Watts missing a pre-season game?

They were always going to be asked questions about it.

I reckon Goodwin should have, in his presser prior to the dogs game, said something like:

'We are not selecting Jack this week because although he is fit, his attitude is ok and has been ok at training he has not met some internal KPI's set for him, which remain in house. All players have nonnegotiable KPIs to meet and won't be picked for pre season or regular season game if they are not met'

This would have sent the same message to jack, saved the rumor mill from going into overdrive and made tmac and gawny's job a bit easier.

Of course there would have still been speculation about what the KPIs might have been but discussion would have been limited to that not speculation about wild board short related partying, cocaine and strippers (disclaimer: please note journos that last line was a joke.  I have no knowledge of wild board short related partying, cocaine and strippers, at least in regard to Jack. That fella from Richmond that's another story......)

33 minutes ago, P-man said:

Right. So I'm asking what is the suggested alternative if the club is meant to deal with it? A media ban for the players?

No. Better media grooming

19 minutes ago, binman said:

reckon Goodwin should have, in his presser prior to the dogs game, said something like:

'We are not selecting Jack this week because although he is fit, his attitude is ok and has been ok at training he has not met some internal KPI's set for him, which remain in house. All players have nonnegotiable KPIs to meet and won't be picked for pre season or regular season game if they are not met'

This would have sent the same message to jack, saved the rumor mill from going into overdrive and made tmac and gawny's job a bit easier.

My preferred outcome would be that no one leaked the story in the first place.

...problem solved.

48 minutes ago, P-man said:

Right. So I'm asking what is the suggested alternative if the club is meant to deal with it? A media ban for the players?

No.  The club should have known that Jack not being selected would raise a question when all other "best 22" players were picked.  "A simple throw away line by Goodwin that Tyson, Hibberd and Watts would all likely be right to go next week (he was asked) would have killed this whole issue.  Whatever Jack has done doesn't deserve the storm that has arisen.  All "in house" would know what's going on.  The message to the player and players is the same.  Watts isn't hung out to dry.

They didn't think it through.

11 minutes ago, rjay said:

My preferred outcome would be that no one leaked the story in the first place.

...problem solved.

But as VP points out above there was always going to be speculation as to why JW was not picked after Godwin made a point about picking the best 22. Being straight (as opposed to putting out a half lie or some spin) would have been the go

2 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to mortify you but it was your own doing.

What is really frustrating and in fact stupid about the reaction to this situation, and it's not just you McQueen, is that nobody really knows the reason for his omission.  You can't come to "conclusions" when you don't have any facts beyond "he didn't play" and a few vague statements from players.  You don't have a conclusion, you have a hypothesis which really means you're guessing until some more facts roll in.

But in the usual "Great, lets bash Jack" you've gone the "soft" line. 

The whole situation is disappointing.  In a week we should be enjoying a really good practice match performance we are talking about someone who didn't play.  The MFC have handled the PR side of this terribly.  They should clear the air and get on with it.

Vogon, I concede that the 'soft' call was a bit OTT but  I won't shy away from the call that in my opinion, the interviews with the 2 leaders in Gawn and Tmac spoke volumes that Watts has got a lot of making up to do. I base that on the evidence that Gawn mentioned the "2 to 3 weeks" of good training several occasions. Hardly vague if you're able to join the dots together.

Anyway, you're hypothesising just as much as anyone else on here so don't get too well settled on your golden pony.

31 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

No. Better media grooming

Agree, first rule don't throw your team mate under a bus.  Keep this in house, both guys should of said coaches wanted to expose other guys to match time, Jack will get the game time to ensure he is cherry ripe for round one.  It's done the media moves onto the next topic, you throw out open responses the pit bull Journos will continue to probe until they get something they can use. 

This is all over a player missing a practice match right? ?

Just now, DeeZee said:

This is all over a player missing a practice match right? ?

Yep....world shattering