2 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

What rubbish. 20 disposals and 12 marks 4 of them inside 50 I think) and a few shots on goal. Can't kick it as long it seems due to the hammy though. But played all over the ground and easily the best ball user out there today. 

Also, that report was the softest thing I've ever seen. As he said on the interview at the end of the game "if I get done for that..."

look at the time that i posted it; when he was getting pantsed by tippett

he was okay - he'll definitely put pressure on the likes of hannan, harmes and petracca tomorrow to play well enough to keep in the side ahead but he wasn't in the best for mine

that report should be thrown out because he didn't hit him hard enough, but he still jumped into him to do it and it was the lack of willingness to go for the mark in the contest that was disappointing

 

you have to wonder what is the instruction that is being mis-taken by our players...

2 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

look at the time that i posted it; when he was getting pantsed by tippett

he was okay - he'll definitely put pressure on the likes of hannan, harmes and petracca tomorrow to play well enough to keep in the side ahead but he wasn't in the best for mine

that report should be thrown out because he didn't hit him hard enough, but he still jumped into him to do it and it was the lack of willingness to go for the mark in the contest that was disappointing

 

Haha yep, sorry I j jumped onto the Casey thread afterwards and saw your other posts. 2nd quarter was pretty scrappy and the move into the midfield helped him. 

Yes he did arrive late, but he had to commit to the contest. Would have looked even worse had he pulled out. Trust Watts to get reported for one of the softest bumps you'll ever see. 

That report is a joke.

The only one likely to be rubbed out for that is the umpire for rank incompetence (or scalp hunting).

He's one to be watched, VFL No 6.

11 hours ago, Demons1858 said:

Lets not forget that he playing in teams with limited competition for votes.

And he's been mostly injury free for his entire career

5 hours ago, loges said:

It was that innocuous I wouldn't label it anything.

I can't believe they'd waste their time even reporting that

Great. Watts attempts some physical aggression and gets reported for touching someone. Do the umpires book players on some personal bell-curve of previous levels of contact? Hopefully he isn't scarred for life like that time when those meanies from Collingwood gave him a shove. Big bullies.

16 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

look at the time that i posted it; when he was getting pantsed by tippett

he was okay - he'll definitely put pressure on the likes of hannan, harmes and petracca tomorrow to play well enough to keep in the side ahead but he wasn't in the best for mine

that report should be thrown out because he didn't hit him hard enough, but he still jumped into him to do it and it was the lack of willingness to go for the mark in the contest that was disappointing

 

This just reeks to me of ridiculous anti-Watts bias.

He gets pilloried for not getting airborne or crashing into packs. So he does exactly that and you crack into him for a "lack of willingness to go for the mark".

He genuinely cannot win in the eyes of too many MFC supporters.

he had a decision to make and he made the wrong one - instead of going for the mark and opening his body up, he opted to tuck his arm in and jump into the contest with the express purpose of taking his opponent out rather than go for the ball

Jack Watts reported!!

FMD!!

Never expected to see that!

why did he do that?  Good decision-maker.  Contact-averse, as some on here would say - so, why do that?  Trying to get back into the seniors perhaps?

10 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

he had a decision to make and he made the wrong one - instead of going for the mark and opening his body up, he opted to tuck his arm in and jump into the contest with the express purpose of taking his opponent out rather than go for the ball

 

best thing about the report that it fired him up for the last 10-15 minutes of the game and he started to use his pace around the contest

13 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

he had a decision to make and he made the wrong one - instead of going for the mark and opening his body up, he opted to tuck his arm in and jump into the contest with the express purpose of taking his opponent out rather than go for the ball

rubbish. he didn't have the option to mark as he was late to the ball. take his opponent out? what a laugh, he just tried to put a bit of pressure on the marker, a little clumsy maybe but the contact was minimal.......you do exaggerate

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

rubbish. he didn't have the option to mark as he was late to the ball. take his opponent out? what a laugh, he just tried to put a bit of pressure on the marker, a little clumsy maybe but the contact was minimal.......you do exaggerate

I agree i just saw the footage and agree there was no way he could make that ball and barely made contact. If he gets rubbed out for that it will be as bad as Redpath's suspension. Im glad he played well and hopefully he gets a recall next week,

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

rubbish. he didn't have the option to mark as he was late to the ball. take his opponent out? what a laugh, he just tried to put a bit of pressure on the marker, a little clumsy maybe but the contact was minimal.......you do exaggerate

Imagine what some would say if he had pulled out of the contest?

But actually he was a bit a victim of his own instinct. His instinct not to fly aggressively for contested marks that is. I reckon he slightly hesitated before going to the contest. Someone like the weed would have not hesitated and in tat split second perhaps given himself enough time to get to the contest and go for the mark.

Still at least Watts went. There is no way he will copy a suspension for that contest. No way. As evidence it wasn't late was that the willy player didn't mark it, hence why there was no 50. It was actually not a bad spoil. Made him earn it and in some ways unlucky to even have the free kick paid.

I watched the game, and Jack in particular, and was underwhelmed despite his evident lift in intensity at several stages in the game. He's  not finding, creating or impacting in a way that demands a promotion, though I've no doubt it was an improvement.

i thought Maynard was more vibrant and impacting around the ball. 

If it wasn't Watts, I doubt we'd be calling him up...

23 hours ago, Redleg said:

Glad somebody noticed.

Jack is probably our leading goal assist, best kick for goal and handy goal kicker himself.

I hope he is back and playing well next week against the Pies.

This is pure rubbish and some kind of weird conformation bias RL. He isn't even in the top 6 at Melbourne,

ANB is ranked eq 9th in the league with 1 per game

NJones eq 23 /0.86 pg

CPetracca 29th /0.85

TBugg 37th / 0.80

C Oliver 72nd / 0.70

J Garlett 100th /0.63

 

Watts in 110th in the league at an average of 0.6 per game

Watts played OK yesterday. I thought well enough for a recall. Partic given the difficult circumstances of the ground and the team they were playing. Very congested and contested footy not great for high disposal numbers.

23 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

This is pure rubbish and some kind of weird conformation bias RL. He isn't even in the top 6 at Melbourne,

ANB is ranked eq 9th in the league with 1 per game

NJones eq 23 /0.86 pg

CPetracca 29th /0.85

TBugg 37th / 0.80

C Oliver 72nd / 0.70

J Garlett 100th /0.63

 

Watts in 110th in the league at an average of 0.6 per game

Well maybe I see goal assists differently to the stats people. Interesting no backs, only mids  and forwards. Therefore they don't see them as assisting goals. Clearly they must. If they only look at the possession preceding a goal that is too limited. 

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Jack Watts reported!!

FMD!!

Never expected to see that!

Jack attacked that contest like a rampaging bull that he is. 

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Well maybe I see goal assists differently to the stats people. Interesting no backs, only mids  and forwards. Therefore they don't see them as assisting goals. Clearly they must. If they only look at the possession preceding a goal that is too limited. 

Score involvements might be a better stat. Jack averages 5 a game, same as Nibbler 

2 hours ago, Mickey said:

Score involvements might be a better stat. Jack averages 5 a game, same as Nibbler 

And then there are the would-be score involvements initiated by Jack that should or could eventuate but don't.  T-Mac is another who is under-appreciated in that area.

Back in the day we just viewed these sort of players as terrific team players with excellent vision.  i.e ... "Bringing other players into the game"

Oliver is another but he's got genuine A-grade quality as an add-on.  Hunt is getting tbere and Frost can get there as well.  Brayshaw is another.

4 hours ago, Mickey said:

Score involvements might be a better stat. Jack averages 5 a game, same as Nibbler 

Thanks Mickey, I knew I wasn't imagining the part Watts plays in so many goals.

 

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

This is pure rubbish and some kind of weird conformation bias RL. He isn't even in the top 6 at Melbourne,

ANB is ranked eq 9th in the league with 1 per game

NJones eq 23 /0.86 pg

CPetracca 29th /0.85

TBugg 37th / 0.80

C Oliver 72nd / 0.70

J Garlett 100th /0.63

 

Watts in 110th in the league at an average of 0.6 per game

Well it seems he is our leading score involvement player with Nibbler at 5 a game.

So maybe my statement wasn't "rubbish" after all.

15 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Well it seems he is our leading score involvement player with Nibbler at 5 a game.

So maybe my statement wasn't "rubbish" after all.

Not leading score involvements... Jonesy averages 7 and Trac andClarry average 6. But he certainly plays a role in a fee at 5. (Sorry if I led you astray)