2 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:

You.. By suggesting that the club barrelled on regardless of the player.

I assumed that you suggested the opposite idea of the club not taking action. 

If not... What specifically should the club have done? 

I would have preferred we used the Neil Balme approach.

I don't discuss player contracts, and stick to it.

It's just one step up from no comment...

47 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

For a bloke with 5 posts you sure know everything there is to know about Demonland.  I wonder how you've done that... ?

Not sure what there is to wonder about how I've done that. Or why you would need to wonder. Wouldn't have to read too many threads on Demonland to come to the conclusion that little is backed up by fact. Particularly when it comes to player performance (or team performance for that matter). Happy for you to prove me wrong. But I won't hold my breath!!

I have actually been a reader for a long long time. Have never felt a desire to say anything before but I was becoming deeply fearful with the mess that the club/Goodwin/Jack was creating after Roosy (and PJ) had done so much to create some respect for us in the competition and had prevented us from descending into eternal basketcasedness (??). It was reminding me too much of the Neeld age and I wanted to express my concerns. And that drove me to sign up and post for the first time last night.

Expect I'll go back into hibernation after this goddamn mess is over.

17 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Which is more than you could say for some I guess.

Thank you. I take that as a compliment. Hahahahaha. (Hope they let me out on my own tonight!!!!!!)

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

You think we look shiny clever ?  We appear to not know whats happening with one of our players. Puts us at a needless disadvantage.

We know exactly whats happening with him. Why would you think we don't know what's happening with him? All the consternation seems to be coming from supporters, internally the club seems unified on this issue.

26 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

For a bloke with 5 posts you sure know everything there is to know about Demonland.  I wonder how you've done that... ?

Poster is actually looking at evidence and making their point from there, rather than starting with their subjective opinion and ignoring or trashing evidence that doesn't support it.  Stats comparison with Lynch is totally legitimate place to start.

2 hours ago, sue said:

Yes there would have been rumblings, but so what. What's more important, pandering to noisy impatient people or running a tight ship on these matters.  I know which I'd choose however much I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the Club.

Come on sue, look at how some supporters are losing their collective minds about Watts (potentially) leaving. Can you imagine the criticism the club would be copping if the media and Watts were commenting on looking at options elsewhere at the suggestion of the club and the club remained silent? 

31 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

What?  He came back from injury, played like poo and was subsequently dropped before coming back for the game against the Pies this year.  

No one contends that he performed poorly following his hamstring injury in 2017. 

This is exactly the one instance I had thought would be raised in response (in addition to not being included in the pre-season games this year). Relevantly, he overcame his poor performances post injury and ultimately performed strongly enough at Casey to be selected against the Pies.

Watts was however in great form in 2016 and 2017 (prior to the hamstring injury). 

The Watts naysayers throw everything into the mix against him - they seemingly can't delineate between issues, facts and their own confirmation bias settings.

 

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

Except that the club probably needed Jack more when he signed the contract than they do now.

Jesse, Weid, TMac, Pedo for a year or two more and Gawn resting, plus Jack Watts, is too many talls for the forward line, especially when you add Trac ,VDB and Hannan who are all around the 188cm  mark. 

You're game putting Weids in with that lot Mr Leg.  You must be seeing something that I haven't so far or have far more faith in his ability.  I hope he makes it but would need a huge and consistent improvement in the VFL first before I would take another look.  Very ordinary so far IMO and unworthy of a place in that list.

42 minutes ago, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

Thanks Ron for responding to mo64. I wasn't going to bother. Sometimes it's just best to ignore ignorance.

Thanks for posting the stats. I found it to be a very interesting point of comparison, particularly because:

- I think Watts can be our Lynch; and

- the club had a red hot crack at recruiting Lynch a year or so ago.

It seems to me that the issue Goodwin and others have with Watts is not borne out in those stats. It seems to do with his attitude and commitment to training and rehabilitation etc.

As a Watts supporter, I can see this. The Watts naysayers however throw everything into the mix, even if the stats plainly demonstrate something completely different.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Come on sue, look at how some supporters are losing their collective minds about Watts (potentially) leaving. Can you imagine the criticism the club would be copping if the media and Watts were commenting on looking at options elsewhere at the suggestion of the club and the club remained silent? 

Yes I can imagine it and it would mean SFA.  Once you go down that road you are under pressure to comment on every wild rumour or alleged  personality clash.

1 hour ago, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

So much of what I read on Demonland is conjecture and opinion made to sound like fact. 

My missus does the same and I call her out on it all the time (except when it's about how gifted I am in bed - hahahaha). Fortunately she has a giggle every time call 'bull***t' on her 'facts'!! She takes it in the way it was intended - just me wanting to clarify if what she is saying is fact or not.

Demonland would be so much more productive and informative if every now and again opinions/claims were supported with fact.

So after seeing mo64's comment re Jack being an under performing player (which is so like many others on here) I thought that for the greater good of the universe, if I am to do anything today, it must be to pull together some 'facts' about Jacks performance for the esteemed and highly educated and insightful followers of Demonland.

I figure there are 2 ways in which the 'performance' of a player can be assessed:

1. Against other 'similar' players in the competition (e.g. those with similar skills, roles, etc. - how do their stats compare)

2. Against the standards expected of the player given the players perceived talent and skill

The 2nd option is obviously quite subjective and will differ (very widely in Jack's case) from person to person depending on things like their 'affection'/bias for the player, their own assessment of what skills are important and their own assessment of how far the player goes to meeting them. This assessment is highly influenced by personal opinion and not necessarily by fact and so I won't go down that track. (My own opinion is that Jack doesn't produce what I believe he is capable of because I believe he has sublime talents and an uncanny ability to create time and space when he gets the ball. BUT I do believe that he produces at an acceptable level (for me) for an AFL footballer - I just wish he'd do it more. But some of the reason, I believe, for Jack not appearing to do enough is that I'm not sure that they have ever settled him in a role or known how to use him).

The 1st option lends itself to being able to be more factually based. For me, I really admire what Tom Lynch does for Adelaide and the role they have him play. I wouldn't say that he's particularly 'tough' and 'manic' around the ball but I consider him incredibly efficient with his disposal and a great decision maker. And I think the role he plays for Adelaide is a role that somebody needs to play at Melbourne - the link up man. And IMO Jack is the perfect man for that role. The difference at the moment IMO is that Adelaide players more frequently look for their 'link man' when they are coming out of the backline whereas Melbourne doesn't.

So how does Jack, in terms of performance, match up against Tom Lynch. Below are the averages from the 2016 and 2017 seasons. All sourced from https://afltables.com/.

I'll leave it to each person who reads this to make up their mind as to how Jack measures up against Tom Lynch:

Thanks.

These stats are quite compelling.

They show that in Jack's 2 best seasons he's still 20-40% below the output of a similar player in many of the metrics that matter for a tall link player who pushes forward, i.e. kicks, marks, disposals, inside 50's, CP, & UCP. 

They're similar in most other stats with Jack ahead in the contested marking stakes and Lynch ahead in goal assists.

Also, Lynch has been performing at a consistently high level for the last 5 years, not just the two quoted above.

Jack has most definitely progressed, but your table shows how much room there still is for improvement.  It will be a shame if he never reaches the levels one suspects is commensurate with his natural ability.  

12 minutes ago, Akum said:

Poster is actually looking at evidence and making their point from there, rather than starting with their subjective opinion and ignoring or trashing evidence that doesn't support it.  Stats comparison with Lynch is totally legitimate place to start.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make at all.  I was just pontificating about this possibly being a former poster under a different name.  Nothing more than that.

10 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

You're game putting Weids in with that lot Mr Leg.  You must be seeing something that I haven't so far or have far more faith in his ability.  I hope he makes it but would need a huge and consistent improvement in the VFL first before I would take another look.  Very ordinary so far IMO and unworthy of a place in that list.

IMO Weideman is being given the time out of the spotlight and the space that a young Mr Watts would have benefited from, immensely, upon his arrival at the club. I am quite confident the Weid has what it takes. As long as they are able to develop and handle him in a way that builds/maintains his confidence and develop his strengths rather than focus only on his weaknesses. 

28 minutes ago, rjay said:

I would have preferred we used the Neil Balme approach.

I don't discuss player contracts, and stick to it.

It's just one step up from no comment...

Don't be rediculous Rjay.  Are you suggesting this issue could have been better managed behind closed doors by our relevant club officials!??  After seeing how we have handled this I figured all contracted AFL players who put in an ordinary year were just thrown out in the cold, left to squirm and then publicly humiliated / spoken about as if they were an uncontracted player.  Well I never!! 

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

That wasn't the point I was trying to make at all.  I was just pontificating about this possibly being a former poster under a different name.  Nothing more than that.

Oh. Ok. I probably missed your point too Wiseblood.

5 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

That wasn't the point I was trying to make at all.  I was just pontificating about this possibly being a former poster under a different name.  Nothing more than that.

Chewie was a Wookie....it doesn't make sense.

THAT IS WHY YOU MUST ACQUIT THIS MAN!

9 minutes ago, ChewyOnMyBoot said:

IMO Weideman is being given the time out of the spotlight and the space that a young Mr Watts would have benefited from, immensely, upon his arrival at the club. I am quite confident the Weid has what it takes. As long as they are able to develop and handle him in a way that builds/maintains his confidence and develop his strengths rather than focus only on his weaknesses. 

I am all for that method Chewy,. Provided he is also not given the next opportunity until or unless he has broken the door down at VFL level over a reasonable period (not 1 or 2 decent games in the odd week).  This should be the method for all rookie listed players (ie, those who have played less than say 50 games or so), including JKH etc.. As to why we keep looking at them when they haven't is beyond me..... Severe injury list the only exception.

2 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Great post - perfect assessment IMO.

I too am very relieved that Mahoney has spelled out the situation clearly and without ambiguity. This had the potential to get really ugly, although I personally take some comfort from Mahoney's comments.

I'm really glad the club promoted Mahoney into a leadership/management position. He has performed extremely well in this role.

I'd like to see Jack Watts spend his career with the red and the blue. Clearly he needs to lift his approach to training though and not merely rely on his natural ability to deliver on the field, which IMO he generally has over the past 2 years.

Seemingly Watts needs to realise that, given his age and time at the club, he is a leader and needs to behave like one, even if he does not ultimately wish to have a formal leadership position.

Really hope to see him in the red and blue next year. Dominating.

 

 

2 hours ago, Akum said:

Another excellent first post. Welcome aboard.

Thanks for the kind words and warm welcome.

Totally agree, Ron - Mahoney has been fantastic. Jack dominating next year would be a sight to behold. With a few more recruits, lessons learned and some self-belief, we'll be unstoppable.

For sure! But it would be a hell of a journey to watch! @willmoy

32 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Thanks.

These stats are quite compelling.

They show that in Jack's 2 best seasons he's still 20-40% below the output of a similar player in many of the metrics that matter for a tall link player who pushes forward, i.e. kicks, marks, disposals, inside 50's, CP, & UCP. 

They're similar in most other stats with Jack ahead in the contested marking stakes and Lynch ahead in goal assists.

Also, Lynch has been performing at a consistently high level for the last 5 years, not just the two quoted above.

Jack has most definitely progressed, but your table shows how much room there still is for improvement.  It will be a shame if he never reaches the levels one suspects is commensurate with his natural ability.  

Do you mean in the 2 seasons that Jack has been treated like a human? (Quoting Roosy).

Understand your reading and point of view based on the stats. Interestingly though, in the areas where it seems people (and the general football public) seem to have a real concern with Jack (the contest e.g. Tackles, Contested possessions, Contested marks and One percenters), he is certainly up with Lynch.

I'm not convinced that Jack is used/sought out as the 'link player' at Melbourne in quite the same way as Lynch. Adelaide looks with much more intention/purpose for Lynch than we do for Jack (who I think quite often makes fantastic position on the ground but is overlooked).  I'm not certain, but I'm thinking this could explain the reason that Jack is well below in disposals.

I find the stats really interesting given the level of praise that generally gets heaped on Lynch as a player and as a link man by the media compared to what Jack cops. Just sayin'! It kind of adds to my confusion and inability to come to a definite pro or nay Jack position in my own mind.

Thanks for taking the time to review the stats and form an opinion on the data.

34 minutes ago, sue said:

Yes I can imagine it and it would mean SFA.  Once you go down that road you are under pressure to comment on every wild rumour or alleged  personality clash.

A player currently with 2 years to run on his contract is spotted at Adelaide airport and is touring facilities of opposition clubs. The media are aware, all opposition clubs are aware of the circumstances and MFC says nothing and you don't think the supporters would be freaking out and demanding answers? This isn't just a rumour, it's been confirmed by Watts himself.

32 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

That wasn't the point I was trying to make at all.  I was just pontificating about this possibly being a former poster under a different name.  Nothing more than that.

Oh right. Misunderstood, sorry.

 

24 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I am all for that method Chewy,. Provided he is also not given the next opportunity until or unless he has broken the door down at VFL level over a reasonable period (not 1 or 2 decent games in the odd week).  This should be the method for all rookie listed players (ie, those who have played less than say 50 games or so), including JKH etc.. As to why we keep looking at them when they haven't is beyond me..... Severe injury list the only exception.

By way of comparison, heard on radio that apparently Dipper had 90-something games with Hawthorn reserves before getting a run in the seniors. Times have changed.

42 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Thanks.

These stats are quite compelling.

They show that in Jack's 2 best seasons he's still 20-40% below the output of a similar player in many of the metrics that matter for a tall link player who pushes forward, i.e. kicks, marks, disposals, inside 50's, CP, & UCP. 

They're similar in most other stats with Jack ahead in the contested marking stakes and Lynch ahead in goal assists.

Also, Lynch has been performing at a consistently high level for the last 5 years, not just the two quoted above.

Jack has most definitely progressed, but your table shows how much room there still is for improvement.  It will be a shame if he never reaches the levels one suspects is commensurate with his natural ability.  

Pro one very important Stat that needs to be taken into account here and would effect many of JW's around the ground stats Vs Lynch, including inside 50s, Marks Inside 50, Contested Marks and Goal averages etc.... and that's Hit Outs!!

Jack has played a fair amount of time in the ruck, covering for Big M over the last two seasons.  Lynch a big fat Zero.

People forget the value of diversity and i heard plenty of praise for Jack's ability to step up and at least compete in this role which played a part towards us winning a few games during the time Big M was sidelined and allowed us the opportunity to make finals.

This may have also resulted in Watts getting the soft tissue injury or contributed to it, which saw him sidelined and return somewhat under done.  And he certainly wasn't alone in that regard!

6 minutes ago, Akum said:

By way of comparison, heard on radio that apparently Dipper had 90-something games with Hawthorn reserves before getting a run in the seniors. Times have changed.

Tuck played 50 as well Akum. Hard to get into the Hawks team in that period, Brett Lovett couldn't get a game and he is one of the best half back flankers i have seen

2 minutes ago, Akum said:

By way of comparison, heard on radio that apparently Dipper had 90-something games with Hawthorn reserves before getting a run in the seniors. Times have changed.

Correct Akum.  Also Tuck played many games and had to kick over 80 goals in his first season and a bit, including 24 goals in his first four reserve matches in 1972 season before getting a look at seniors.  He kicked 3 goals on debut but was then dropped after one more match and didnt return again until Rnd 13 of the ressies for a few more matches after kicking another 5 goals in a BOG performance.  But was still out of the team mostly until cementing a place, almost 2 years later in 1974.

How times have changed. And not for the better in our case IMO.  Standards are way too easy now IMO and based too much on "star potential" rather than consistent results over many weeks.