16 minutes ago, sue said:

Surely you aren't denying that Watts was 'singled out'?  There were other good performing players from last year, apparently not injured but not given a game but no comment was made about them by the club.  And if you counter that if Goodwin is asked about a particular player he has to comment on him, you are not using your imagination.  I think (ie. don't know) that it is quite possible the club has mishandled this in an attempt to improve Watts or impose standards. Let's hope my fear is misplaced.

BTW, please keep your politics out of it.

Firstly, I won't be moderated by you. 

Secondly, some players are behind in the pecking order.   In a list of 40 players plenty won't get a look in.  They'll either be depth, young, not in great form, or simply not as talented.  Goodwin has made it clear that he's been getting game time into his best team.

There's no suggestion that other player's training "intensity" has been below standard, only Watts.

There's no evidence whatsoever that Watts has been singled out and it's mindnumbingly stupid to suggest otherwise.  Goodwin would have made it clear what he expected of the group and Watts has been found wanting.  He didn't meet quantifiable criteria.  I don't know what that criteria was, but I don't need to know. 

Credit to him that he's taken it on board and risen to the challenge and takes his place back in the team. 

1 hour ago, deespicable me said:

I have every right to have an opinion. I said in my post "I think". I said nothing about I know.

For you and Pro Dee just remember there is a lot of love for a new coach in their "honeymoon" period.

Goodwin has chosen to single out Jack and whether wittingly or not it once again became a big issue that Jack has had to deal with.

I agree with Saty that Jack was a bit down at the intra club, and he may have had issues off field but I don't agree with how its been handled. My opinion. I'm not desperate to prove anything Pro Dee, just my opinion.

And I'm happy for you to have yours. But for me its a black mark as much against Goodwin as it is Watts.

Whats he going to do when Jack doesn't perform in a game. Coz we all know he will have off days.

I will judge Goodwin by how he and we respond to a loss. That is quite often where a coach can lose his players. Roos has been a master at keeping a cool head and protecting the players sometimes when they don't deserve it. If this is an indication of how Goodwin handles his gun players "I think" we're in a bit of trouble.

That o.k with you Wiseblood

 

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.  Your entire opinion is based on nothing.  

And the idea that Goodwin singled out Jack is ludicrous.  I can't even believe you typed those words down.  Watts should know what the expectations are and it's his fault if he hasn't met them, not Goodwin's.  He's been in the AFL landscape long enough to understand this.

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.  Your entire opinion is based on nothing.  

So? He's allowed.

Just now, jnrmac said:

So? He's allowed.

Where did I say he wasn't, Einstein?  Thanks for your contribution, as always.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Surely you aren't denying that Watts was 'singled out'?  There were other good performing players from last year, apparently not injured but not given a game but no comment was made about them by the club.  And if you counter that if Goodwin is asked about a particular player he has to comment on him, you are not using your imagination.  I think (ie. don't know) that it is quite possible the club has mishandled this in an attempt to improve Watts or impose standards. Let's hope my fear is misplaced.

BTW, please keep your politics out of it.

Jetta? There's been no comment from the club because there's been no questions about him being left out.

I think by about round 8 people will be talking about this move by Goodwin being a master stroke! We need a hungry jack watts determined to hold his place, not auto pilot jack watts. 

He is good enough to be on of our only match winners and we need that consistently to play finals 

8 minutes ago, Abe said:

I think by about round 8 people will be talking about this move by Goodwin being a master stroke! We need a hungry jack watts determined to hold his place, not auto pilot jack watts. 

He is good enough to be on of our only match winners and we need that consistently to play finals 

Maybe it's the "Hungry Jacks" Watts that's the problem

15 minutes ago, ProDee said:

These are the types of comments I find absurd.  You have no basis of fact to back up this comment.

You'd rather blame the coach for not accepting poor standards than the player not producing what's required. 

Unfathomable to me. 

Jack has shown no poor standards "outside" the inner sanctum of the Footy club. He has been reasonable to fine according to track watchers. Yet Goodwin has chosen to criticise Jack "outside" the inner walls of the Footy club. He has chosen to let criticism of one of his star players play out in the media. This was a choice of Goodwin. Would Roos have acted the same way? I'm not sure. I don't think he would have criticised Jack publicly. I don't think he did. This is the point Pro Dee, it's not taking Jack to task for approaching 2017 with a poor attitude. It's the danger of going public.

So fine. Goodwin has layed down the law. We want everyone to follow high standards etc etc.

No problems, he saw a chance to set standards and did it.

I don't need to criticise Goodwin and back in Jack. I don't see it as one thing or the other. There's nothing I would like to see more than Melbourne kick the Saints butt and Jack be best on ground and come off the ground and give Goodwin a great big hug and publicly thank Goody for giving him the kick up the butt he needed. I want us to win. I don't need to be right.

Now Pro Dee I understand your view and I think it's fine. It's the company line, and the company line always holds sway over the individual. But you surround your views with such dramatic words. "Unfathomable". "Absurd". You find my view unfathomable and absurd. Well, that's a little sad. I was hoping we could bond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joel Selwood has cost his club the TAC sponsorship. I await the "penalty" with baited breath.  

Hope I haven't derailed the arguing. 

50 minutes ago, Demon_spurs said:

Maybe it's the "Hungry Jacks" Watts that's the problem

Maybe it's a marketing ploy to announce our back of jumper sponsor this week?

2 hours ago, demon9 said:

That's because the media didn't ask about Jetta or Frost or Garland etc. The media loves a Jack Watts story so it was actually them who singled Watts out. The club just responded. Garland may also be down in his standards but no one cared to ask.

My point was that the club doesn't have to answer whatever a journo asks.  If they ask about Watts they could have wheeled out the usual drivel avoiding commenting directly.

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Firstly, I won't be moderated by you. 

 

What a joke. I ask you to please keep politics out of a footy forum after your irrelevant 'left-wing putdown' comment a few posts back and that's your response .  There is nothing left-wing (or right-wing for that matter) about having a different view than you about this issue.  Not sure why I bothered to use the word please.

As for the rest of your repetitive guff, I guess I am mindnumbingly stupid.  

Please lock this thread Mod, Training on Monday appears to be passed

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Training is more than just the sessions we are lucky enough to have our track watchers report from. There's also time spent in the gym and doing other stuff we don't get to see or hear about. Who knows - maybe the failure to meet KPIs was for not spending enough time in the gym. Or he turned up late to (or fell asleep in) a team meeting. If our seasoned track watchers think Jack's intensity on the track looks fine, maybe they're right and it's not on the paddock that any problems exist.

 

Not going to add any more fuel to this raging inferno but would just make this observation, as one of the regular track watchers by the way.  The track watchers (myself included) naturally focus on the actions of the guys with ball in hand....and Watts has been elite in that space for some time.  The rub on Jack (particularly from Goodwin and McCartney) at the end of 2015 going in to 2016 was his defensive stuff and attack on the football...attributes that they are adamant are the cornerstones of how Melbourne FC will play its footy.  It's not too much of a stretch then to conclude that Jack may well have had a relapse in this area and/or returned in less than stellar shape fitness wise.  The possibility of off-field indiscretions has also been raised but nobody has thus far shared credible intel.  To conclude that he's been targeted or made a victim frankly beggars belief.

Enough.  Training finished.