Farewell Jack Watts

[Dr.D 1,771]

at the same time stats dont tell the full story.  jack watts would avoid going hard at the footy and hesitate only to lay a pretty weak tackle. that would still count as fwd pressure right?. its like saying tmac is a good kick and then reel of his disposal efficiency. I'd prefer to trust the 150 games and 400 hours of games that ive seen.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If the only moves we made this season were out Watts in Lever we're already ahead. Lever is a better player and only 21..

Why is Lever the better player? Their stats in the disposals area are almost identical. Lever is a defender, Watts a forward. Don't tell me you think Lever has better disposal than Jack. 

[Skuit 9,169]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I picked up "The Coach" the other day about North's 1977 season. Plenty of great quotes from Barassi and I've only just finished the section on preseason. A lot to do with people getting the best out of themselves and naturally gifted players who coast because they've never had to try to succeed but the ones that push themselves are those who become champions. This quote I've uploaded seemed quite apt.

Also notable, Barassi kicked a very popular player in Kekovich out of the club to the Magpies during the 77 season for similar issues, lack of effort, lack of professionalism, thinking he could coast on talent. Obviously North went on to win the flag.

'You've got to weed out the people who breed an atmosphere of non-professionalism'?

Jeez Gonzo. Way to ruin a pleasant debate with such an ugly incisive quote from some football guy. I would think that citing Tony Robbins and Oscar Wilde on Australian Football list-management is much more in line with this thread-vibe.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Skuit

[What 18,810]

10 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Why is Lever the better player?  

Id guess because he has a lot better preparation, works harder and is just better at the game of footy.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Question for you Bobby - are you always prone to over the top statements, such as the last one? A year wasted before it's begun because we are trading one player? I hope you can see how silly you sound. 

 It is not so silly if the replacement is not up to Watts standards. Most unlikely this will happen with late 2nd or even 3rd round picks. Even if the kid picked is a POTENTIAL star it's not going to help us next season.   He would take a couple of years to fully develop and this could be too late for our premiership aspirations.   Can you name more than 10 players in our best 22 with adequate skills? MFC is going to chuck one out. However, all shall be revealed. Look, I would love to be proved wrong on this one but it just won't happen. We will drop a couple of spots in '18.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

4 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Id guess because he has a lot better preparation, works harder and is just better at the game of footy.

You failed to answer the final part of my question Petra.

[Akum 2,660]

12 hours ago, PaulRB said:

This is BS. Jack Watts is yet to believe or commit Jack Watts to undertaking the required essential to be part of a successful team, and indeed for that to to indeed be successful.

If Jack Watts had Jack Viney's professionalism, intensity and commitment to making himself a better player and winning, he'd be a dead set champion. But he doesn't, and he's weirdly surprised that the MFC think he should... 

Sorry mate, I'm really not trying to stalk you. But you just keep making these assertions that cast Watts in the most negative light, and in so doing, miss some important aspects of the team.

Jack Viney, like all players, has strengths and weaknesses. His great weakness is his ball use. Oppositions prefer to tag Oliver and Petracca, because those two can hurt them a lot more with their disposals, and they tend to bring others around them into the game. Viney has been at the club for a few years now, and there is no discernible improvement in his ball use. He still tends to follow his instinct to just bang it forward, but when he does take more care and lower his eyes and look for someone, he's actually pretty good, and much more damaging.

Yet there seems to be no pressure from the club on Viney (and Jones and T-Mac and Tyson, among others) to take more care with his disposal. Yes, Viney smashes it in the gym, but does he work on the things that would make him a more dangerous player? His mate Ollie Wines, by contrast, seems to have put a lot of work into his ball use since he was drafted.

And if Watts does extra work in practising his goal shooting, or hitting a target, or controlling the ball at full speed, does he get as much credit for it as Viney coming in on his days off to smash the weights in the gym?

You're right that Jacks Viney and Watts are probably opposite ends of the footballer spectrum, and the attributes they bring to the team are vastly different. But my point is: they're both equally important to team performance, and need to be both regarded as such. You need several who can do what Viney does in a successful team, but also a few who can do what Watts does. And which are harder to find?

My concern is that we overvalue what Viney is good at (crashing in and winning contested ball, and tackling) and undervalue what Watts is good at (putting it to damaging use once he's got the ball, and pressure acts). This is largely why Watts is so criticised for not being good at the things Viney is good at. But as a team, we're mostly good for contested ball, good (although erratic) for tackling and pressure, but not good at all for things like turnovers, uncontested ball and entries into forward 50. In other words, the things we have to improve on as a team are the things that Watts is good at, not necessarily the things that Viney is good at (though of course we need to maintain those). And we're not good at those areas of the game that we undervalue, and we won't get better unless we sanction our players, especially our team leaders, who fail to improve in these areas.

[Akum 2,660]

12 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I think you are reading to much into it myself. I don’t think the club has done anything wrong, other than be honest. 

Would you prefer the denial route for weeks on end?

Mahoney laid it all out there last week, if Jack wants to come back and work harder, he is most welcome. 

IF Jack Watts really loves the Club as stated, that is what he will do. 

If he walks to another club thinking it will be easier, Good luck with that

The club has been dishonest in my view in trying to give the impression that Watts is welcome to stay. If the option to stay truly was open to him - even if Goody said to him that he's not going to pick him in the firsts for the next two years, no matter how well he does for Casey - he would not be talking to other clubs. It's clear that hardly anybody buys the club's fable that he's on the market by his own choice.

All that Watts has said in the media is that it's not his choice to leave, he's being pushed out. As I've explained above, and so many other times: he's gone, he was probably gone since just before he started talking to other clubs, and those who think he's staying need to get with the rest of the footy industry and accept it. But he hasn't bad-mouthed the club, he hasn't criticised his coaches, and he hasn't whinged about being hard done by. He's just accepted his coaches' decision and got on with what he needed to do. On the other hand, when any senior MFC person gives an interview, they seem unable to resist the urge to take another whack at Jack, which just makes our club look terrible.

It wouldn't have hurt the club to act with the same level of character and integrity that he's shown. That's my biggest disappointment in all this. My club has been shown up badly in this regard, but that's their fault, not his.

[Akum 2,660]

12 hours ago, Dr.D said:

just because you're an outside player doesn't mean you dont have to go in hard when its your turn to go.  and thats why you cant build a culture with a repeat offender.

... except that, as far as I know, the club hasn't yet used "not going in hard enough" as a reason for pushing him out. 

But it's "what everybody knows"? Well, clearly it hasn't stopped a number of good hard clubs from chasing him ... hard.

And you could equally say: "kicking is a basic skill in footy; just because you're a hard inside player doesn't mean you shouldn't execute a basic skill to an adequate standard".

But we don't say that, do we? Are we better for not insisting on high standards of ball use?

[Akum 2,660]

12 hours ago, Socrates said:

Gee some of the comments from the pro Trade Watts group are pure TRUMP like. I reckon some of you drink clubs bath water.

Suddenly we seem to have a lot of neo-Saty's everywhere, who follow / swallow the club's line no matter what.

Saty is at least to be admired for being consistent and for not making stuff up. 

[Akum 2,660]

11 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

If it is that premeditated SWY then it must go all the way to his manager who has been reported as saying he will never allow Jack to return to the MFC given the way he's been treated?

To be fair, it was some journo on SEN (I think) spouting that he didn't think Paul Connors would ever allow Jack to get back to Melbourne. Not a "report", just a journo's opinion.

[Akum 2,660]

2 hours ago, bing181 said:

Once again, and for the nth time, this isn't primarily about Watts' on-field performance.

I was responding to a poster who accused Watts of not putting in the effort to increase his performance. My main point was in the last sentence - I'm concerned if the club doesn't consider his elite performance in inside 50s and forward pressure acts (i.e. what he DOES do well) significant, and I'm also concerned about how we're going to replace that elite performance in these areas when Watts is gone.

I'm about the future, not the past. Watts is gone and the Dees will carry on without him. But if our coaches are blind to the holes that his going leaves, then we'll have problems.

[Skuit 9,169]

41 minutes ago, Akum said:

Suddenly we seem to have a lot of neo-Saty's everywhere, who follow / swallow the club's line no matter what.

Akum - I don't actually believe the club line. See below.

46 minutes ago, Akum said:

... the club hasn't yet used "not going in hard enough" as a reason for pushing him out. 

 

There was a moment during I think the Port game when Jack clearly chose not to contest, and I thought to myself, 'Gee, Goody will not like that one bit'. I wondered if we'd maybe have ourselves another on-field visual representation of a player's card being stamped a la Morton and Fitzy.  Who knows (and he was admittedly selected for a game or two afterwards), but I sincerely believe that the training lapses have provided a convenient excuse.

Also don't know if true, but there were reports at the time that Jack likewise failed to sufficiently contest in our intraclub (I think actually from Saty, but I may be wrong), and I have been of the belief that this was the genuine reason for his pre-season omission. Many are screaming blue murder over Jack's current treatment, but I think maybe we are being kind and sugar-coating the real reason.

Why the 'hard' teams like Sydney and Geelong are pursuing him then is certainly a valid question, but I assume they assume they can better lay down the law with a fresh recruit. Goody has his non-negotiables, and, as you have, it's reasonable to argue the merit of those, but without being an MFC sycophant I agree with his bottom-line.

[jnrmac 18,954]

From last years B&F:

Upon receiving his fifth-place award, Watts said “I’ll make it (speech) short, it’s taken me a while to get up here (on stage). “Usually, I’m down there feeling a bit awkward drinking free p---”.

Roos: “Decide to be great. It is a decision, it doesn’t happen by accident. You have to want to be great. And greatness is not going to happen when you turn up on November 1 or whenever you turn up and Simon has got the whistle in charge. Greatness is going to happen when you walk out of this room tonight. That’s when greatness starts. You have to commit to it you have to want to do it and I would love nothing more than to see Simon and Nathan holding up the premiership cup."

Watts was dropped from the pre-season games.

People who think Goodwin has some 'vendetta' against Wats are deluded. He is a serial under-performer who has chosen his level of commitment to professionalism. That level is unacceptable. Posters that think Jack has to be treated with kid gloves and 'positive reinforcement' are crazy.  

Talent only gets you so far. Unprofessional players in a club are like a cancer.

Watts' finishes in the B&F:

2016 5th

2015 18th

2014 4th

2013 11th

2012 16th

2011 9th

2010 25th

You could mirror the arguments about Sylvia.

The club has done the right thing. And if Watts stays and commits to becoming a great player then everyone will be happy. If he goes and we get a good draft pick/player in return then I for one will be happy.

Edited October 8, 2017 by jnrmac

[Biffen 12,323]

4 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Id guess because he has a lot better preparation, works harder and is just better at the game of footy.

He looked to me like he had almost no muscle and like he'd never seen the sun.

[Skuit 9,169]

Oh, and contrary to my recent speculation, it seems this thread is a metaphysical reality:

'In a paper published in the journal Science Advances, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi show that constructing a computer simulation of a particular quantum phenomenon that occurs in metals is impossible – not just practically, but in principle.

The pair initially set out to see whether it was possible to use a technique known as quantum Monte Carlo to study the quantum Hall effect – a phenomenon in physical systems that exhibit strong magnetic fields and very low temperatures, and manifests as an energy current that runs across the temperature gradient. The phenomenon indicates an anomaly in the underlying space-time geometry.

Quantum Monte Carlo methods use random sampling to analyse many-body quantum problems where the equations involved cannot be solved directly. Ringel and Kovrizhi showed that attempts to use quantum Monte Carlo to model systems exhibiting anomalies, such as the quantum Hall effect, will always become unworkable. They discovered that the complexity of the simulation increased exponentially with the number of particles being simulated.'

I humbly stand corrected, but still insist that he MFC should use the Monte Carlo method and direct-sampling to assess Jack's many-body quantum problem. Please discuss.

[Skuit 9,169]

5 hours ago, Skuit said:

'

 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Skuit

[Sir Why You Little 34,443]

4 hours ago, Akum said:

The club has been dishonest in my view in trying to give the impression that Watts is welcome to stay. If the option to stay truly was open to him - even if Goody said to him that he's not going to pick him in the firsts for the next two years, no matter how well he does for Casey - he would not be talking to other clubs. It's clear that hardly anybody buys the club's fable that he's on the market by his own choice.

All that Watts has said in the media is that it's not his choice to leave, he's being pushed out. As I've explained above, and so many other times: he's gone, he was probably gone since just before he started talking to other clubs, and those who think he's staying need to get with the rest of the footy industry and accept it. But he hasn't bad-mouthed the club, he hasn't criticised his coaches, and he hasn't whinged about being hard done by. He's just accepted his coaches' decision and got on with what he needed to do. On the other hand, when any senior MFC person gives an interview, they seem unable to resist the urge to take another whack at Jack, which just makes our club look terrible.

It wouldn't have hurt the club to act with the same level of character and integrity that he's shown. That's my biggest disappointment in all this. My club has been shown up badly in this regard, but that's their fault, not his.

No. This whole thing is the fault of Jack Watts. 

After 9 years he never gave 100% application

i wonder how many warnings he was given in that time. 

Port Adelaide will love Jack

[Gator 16,892]

5 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Why is Lever the better player? Their stats in the disposals area are almost identical. Lever is a defender, Watts a forward. Don't tell me you think Lever has better disposal than Jack. 

Lever's best footy is 4 years away, but principally his courage in the air and aggression in the contest.

Lever is a competitive animal.  In many ways he's the antithesis of a young Jack Watts.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,384]

Will Jack Watts sign with Port today? [censored] knows. But he could. 

# ETthetradebreaker.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Ethan Tremblay

[Dr evil 1,185]

Sounds like jack will take toumps spot as the token Melbourne reject on ports list

[Dee Zephyr 17,451]

1 minute ago, Dr evil said:

Sounds like jack will take toumps spot as the token Melbourne reject on ports list

I only caught a bit of SEN, has he chosen Port?

[Dr evil 1,185]

Just now, Demon77 said:

I only caught a bit of SEN, has he chosen Port?

Yes

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,876]

I'm in the Watts to stay camp. Having said that I think Port is a poor choice, I would of thought Sydney or Geelong would of suited him better and would increase his chance of success. 

[Ethan Tremblay 28,384]

Trade radio reported Watts hasn’t made a decision yet, he’ll make one within the next few days. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Ethan Tremblay