Too many excuses for players at times when they can't  execute the one percenters.....

How many tackles as he laid in the last 3 weeks....8 in total thats 2.6 per game with only 2 against GWS...

Were is the intensity & pressure?

Edited August 12, 20178 yr by Hogan2014

Watts is an important part of our team, when in form, he seems to be regaining some touch but what he seems to have lost is the appetite for the contest, mainly aeriel; which will never be a strength of his but he had worked on and improved since early last year (ruck work seemed to have helped with this which he was back up in vfl today). But with brayshaw and hannan coming back in it gives goodwin a chance to have hannan forward more and release petracca to his more damaging forward flank. Atleast i hope brayshaw takes midfield minutes and isnt played out of position.

I think Hannan and petracca have watts' spot this week, but a slip up from pedo might see him back in the vfl. Mcdonald weed pedo in the same forward line could cause easy rebounds. I would perfer 2 talls mcdonald and best performed of pedo weedeman. If watts gets his aeriel contest work back then he could replace weed or pedo but until then hes competeing with lead up mobile flankers like hannan and trac

 

*edit also if watts regains form it wouldnt be direct swap for hannan, i think he would push hannan into a more mid rotating role and push someone like harmes out. While i love harmes commitment and contest, his skills let him down 

Edited August 12, 20178 yr by scarlett

Well I don't know

sure as hell hope that Goodwin and the coaching team know what they ate doing

Watts is an effective player even on his worst day. He plays a laconic but sometimes (rarely) dominant style

He is still among the best statistical performers in the current game

 

He my be surplus to our  winning  requirements against Saints. I hope so.

14 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Well I don't know

sure as hell hope that Goodwin and the coaching team know what they ate doing

Watts is an effective player even on his worst day. He plays a laconic but sometimes (rarely) dominant style

He is still among the best statistical performers in the current game

 

He my be surplus to our  winning  requirements against Saints. I hope so.

I just think the coaches think they can get more out of the selected forward structure than the one with watts. But as i detailed above a slight improvement from jack either pushes someone out down the line like a harmes or if his aeriel competitiveness improves he could push out the lesser performed of pur 2 secondary talls weed or pedo. I think it would be weed because i think mcdonald plays better as the closest to goal forward and i think weed plays best there too but mcdonald plays it better at the moment.

*edit also it should be mentioned jack plays better when things a forced onto him. His rucking. His aeriel play when he was forced to be one of the main targets with hogan last year. Maybe with the extra talls hes lost his role and isnt competing as the second forward in his head.

Edited August 12, 20178 yr by scarlett

Sort of agree scarlett

watts does play a role rather than a dominator.

i think he contributes more than negates

A bad Watts day is better than most other players bet days

 

i hope we can rest in him in twos. But we must bet the saints

14 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Sort of agree scarlett

watts does play a role rather than a dominator.

i think he contributes more than negates

A bad Watts day is better than most other players bet days

 

i hope we can rest in him in twos. But we must bet the saints

Personally i would have liked to have played him. But i think the way he has played since coming back hes not in front of pedo weed or mcdonald (according to the coaches, i would have preferred weed in the 2s as i think he and mcdonald are too similar)as a kpp and isnt offering as much as a hannon harmes combo compared to watts hannon. With such an important game i cant see the coaches dropping him to teach him lesson. It would be about team performance. So its taken a while but what I'm trying to get at is watts might offer more then hannan one v one but he has to be good enough for the difference in hannan v harmes if hannan moves i to harmes posi

So the VFL report on Jack's performance reads thus...

"Jack Watts: He had 22 disposals, including 10 contested possessions, six marks, six hit outs and kicked 1.2. For the reasons why Wattsy was left out of the AFL team, I thought a number of good things came out of it. He was able to get his hands on the ball and generated some scoring opportunities through some of his ability to win the ball. There were signs of improvement around his performance and I think he would’ve got a bit of confidence from it. We still think that he’s capable of being better, but it was an improvement."

So Mr Plapp identify's that Jack had to work on the following areas:

1. "...get his hands on the ball..",
2. "generate scoring opportunities",
3. "... win the ball"

Then gives Jack not exactly a ringing endorsement with: 

• "..signs of improvement..."
• "...would have got a bit of confidence from it."
• "... he's capable of being better.."

Has he done enough to warrant a recall to the AFL team?

Edited August 16, 20177 yr by PaulRB

6 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

So the VFL report on Jack's performance reads thus...

"Jack Watts: He had 22 disposals, including 10 contested possessions, six marks, six hit outs and kicked 1.2. For the reasons why Wattsy was left out of the AFL team, I thought a number of good things came out of it. He was able to get his hands on the ball and generated some scoring opportunities through some of his ability to win the ball. There were signs of improvement around his performance and I think he would’ve got a bit of confidence from it. We still think that he’s capable of being better, but it was an improvement."

So Mr Plapp identify's that Jack had to work on the following areas:

1. "...get his hands on the ball..",
2. "generate scoring opportunities",
3. "... win the ball"

Then gives Jack not exactly a ringing endorsement with: 

• "..signs of improvement..."
• "...would have got a bit of confidence from it."
• "... he's capable of being better.."

Has he done enough to warrant a recall to the AFL team?

I think so

Plapp also needed to add that JW did some hard running to help out a teammate and create space

Edited August 16, 20177 yr by jumbo returns
syntax

If Watts were to come in, it would be have to be for Weideman.

I'm all for developing young players' by exposing them to AFL, but with finals on the line, we cannot afford not to play our best 22 (Jack is ahead of Weed, for the time being anyway).

7 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

 

Has he done enough to warrant a recall to the AFL team?

Not from the report - it feels as though they are looking for him to back it up again next week before considering him for senior selection. 

2 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

If Watts were to come in, it would be have to be for Weideman.

I'm all for developing young players' by exposing them to AFL, but with finals on the line, we cannot afford not to play our best 22 (Jack is ahead of Weed, for the time being anyway).

My view is they are different cogs in the machine, and Weed will go out when Hogan is back or Frost comes in to allow TMac to move forward again. Jack is not a KPF.

Watts position was actually made less secure by Brayshaw, Melksham, Hannan, Harmes all playing well.

8 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

I think so

Plapp also needed to add that JW did some hard running to help out a teammate and create space

Plapp only gets a paragraph - do you want him to talk about how well he ran off for rotations, or how well he pointed at space as well?  

Just now, Wiseblood said:

Plapp only gets a paragraph - do you want him to talk about how well he ran off for rotations, or how well he pointed at space as well?  

Why not?

Is there interest in Casey listed players? Of course not! This is JW

9 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Not from the report - it feels as though they are looking for him to back it up again next week before considering him for senior selection. 

Really?

1 minute ago, jumbo returns said:

Why not?

Is there interest in Casey listed players? Of course not! This is JW

Send him a review email then.  Make sure you condense it into one paragraph though as you outline what he needs to do to improve.

1 minute ago, jumbo returns said:

Really?

Yes, really.

I know your love for JW has reached 'can't tell if he loves him or he's just trolling us' levels, but I do feel from his report that they may give him another week at Casey.  Just my opinion big fella.

1 minute ago, jumbo returns said:

Really?

If you take item 1 & 3 of what they were looking for from Jack, namely "...get his hands on the ball.." and "... win the ball" which resulted in him getting just 22 disposals, followed by the comment "... he's capable of being better..". it looks like a polite way of saying "yeah nar keep trying Jack..." 

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Yes, really.

I know your love for JW has reached 'can't tell if he loves him or he's just trolling us' levels, but I do feel from his report that they may give him another week at Casey.  Just my opinion big fella.

WB, the former..

I made my peace with this bloke a long time ago

He may not suit the new look Dees at the moment (and it goes without saying we've got some hard nuts in this team) but there's still room for his silky finishing, his human leadership and decision making

And, please keep debating. I never take anything personally and love a chat

2 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

WB, the former..

I made my peace with this bloke a long time ago

He may not suit the new look Dees at the moment (and it goes without saying we've got some hard nuts in this team) but there's still room for his silky finishing, his human leadership and decision making

And, please keep debating. I never take anything personally and love a chat

I 100% agree - there is absolutely a place for him in our side.  No doubt about it, and I would never debate that.  

I just felt that the review suggested that, while there was improvement, they are still looking for a little more from him.  I may be wrong, but the review wasn't exactly a glowing one.

39 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

My view is they are different cogs in the machine, and Weed will go out when Hogan is back or Frost comes in to allow TMac to move forward again. Jack is not a KPF.

Watts position was actually made less secure by Brayshaw, Melksham, Hannan, Harmes all playing well.

The fwd line looks the most dangerous with just pedo down there, whenever hogan or watts comes back it would have to be at the expense of Pedo and Weideman.

On a side note the days of playing 2 or 3 talls up fwd are coming to an end, which will also have a knock on effect with the backs. It's all about mobility and pressure round the ball now.

Watts has talent but his application can often be found wanting

From the sounds of Plapp's report, it doesn't sound like he did enough to force his way back in the side

Watts is physically tall, but he certainly doesn't play it.

Harmes, Hannon et  al make contests when required. JW often avoids the contest either by not competing or falling over ...

15 hours ago, Garbo said:

The fwd line looks the most dangerous with just pedo down there, whenever hogan or watts comes back it would have to be at the expense of Pedo and Weideman.

On a side note the days of playing 2 or 3 talls up fwd are coming to an end, which will also have a knock on effect with the backs. It's all about mobility and pressure round the ball now.

I agree, and think one of the virtues of both Watts and Hogan is that they are able to play further up the ground, even in the backline as circumstances require. Your point about pressure around the ball apprears to be where Jack is struggling at the moment.

It's always interesting to read the views of posters regarding selection. Some people have a best 22 in mind and desperately want whoever is in that best 22 named regardless of form. Some have favourites that they see potential in and want them selected (sometimes prematurely). Others use selection as an opportunity to punish often in a short sighted manner. And others have a player or two that they simply don't like (O Mac, Watts, Frost, Bugg, Salem etc . . .) and campaign for their omission.

I think Goodwin and the selection panel have succeeded in balancing the short term need to win games with the medium and long term development needs. Goodwin has also done a good job of not playing favourites. The only chink in the armour was the regular early selection of Melksham but again he seems to have got that one right. I'm really interested to see what happens now that we're within touching distance. Surely he wants Watts and Salem playing in his finals team. Surely he wants to ensure we get there. My guess is that Watts and Salem will both be selected against Collingwood and that Hogan will come straight in. It will be a gamble but one I think we need to take. I'm not sure, however, where Frost stands. He's either straight back this week or maybe out of favour for the rest of the year. Fingers crossed Viney gets up. We're so close to getting our best team on the park. If we do that and Hogan, Salem, Watts, Pertracca and Garlett all find some form then the sky is the limit.

17 hours ago, PaulRB said:

So the VFL report on Jack's performance reads thus...

"Jack Watts: He had 22 disposals, including 10 contested possessions, six marks, six hit outs and kicked 1.2. For the reasons why Wattsy was left out of the AFL team, I thought a number of good things came out of it. He was able to get his hands on the ball and generated some scoring opportunities through some of his ability to win the ball. There were signs of improvement around his performance and I think he would’ve got a bit of confidence from it. We still think that he’s capable of being better, but it was an improvement."

So Mr Plapp identify's that Jack had to work on the following areas:

1. "...get his hands on the ball..",
2. "generate scoring opportunities",
3. "... win the ball"

Then gives Jack not exactly a ringing endorsement with: 

• "..signs of improvement..."
• "...would have got a bit of confidence from it."
• "... he's capable of being better.."

Has he done enough to warrant a recall to the AFL team?

YES lets not beat around the bush Watts is STREETS ahead of WEEDS at present. Not that I dont think Weeds will not be a very good player, but we need to get him into form for a probable finals assault. Time at CASEY ARCTIC is not the answer. Must play this week IMO