Vogon Poetry

Yep, you're probably right, they probably put no thought into how they'd structure their last hit out before the season proper, just fly by the seat of their pants and hope for the best. Alternatively they thought it would be funny to play a joke on Jack, tell him he was playing and then say "just tricking" at the last moment. Or perhaps they just wanted to pizz him right off and get him and all his mates offside. What a wicked bunch they are. Honestly sometimes I despair but I'll just move on.

I think you underestimate the benefit of players playing together. It's about knowing what your teammates do, where they run and how they play. It's no surprise that good teams are stable teams. Our first few games are critical to our season and we need to maximise those chances. Giving a game to someone who is probably between 25 and 30 on our list (the FD opinion not mine) when players such as Kent, Garlett, Hibbert, Frost and perhaps Smith are close is of no benefit to MFC. I like Jack but we need to stop thinking of him as a good bloke who we want to give a go to and look at what's best for MFC.

Goodwin: "Jack your just outside the best team this week and you'll play if we get any fresh injury. We are going to take an extra player to cover us but they won't get a run if there are no injuries. You're the man but if you don't want to go over there on that basis we'll take someone else" Trengove: "Go stuff yourself Goodwin. I was captain of this club long before you came and you're not respecting me as a player. Take someone else, I don't want the chance if it comes up". Not.

What's Hunt? Blond and a gun as well.

You were spot on about Jetta Pro, I had no inkling but you picked it. Great get. I'll trust you on Spencer.

Has Pedersen rucked much? Against Hawks, when Hogan was absent and Watts was a key forward Pedersen played and Watts rucked. And he just about won the game for us in the last quarter with passes to Pedersen and a couple to Tyson. If Watts doesn't play I think Spencer must play and I don't like that at Etihad particularly. The whole Watts situation stinks.

No, I think it's both. All things being equal we'd be in a better position if Watts had had the appropriate game time prior to R1. He hasn't. That hurts the team so it does penalize the team and the player. But why on earth did it get to this stage? Madness.

R1 is best 22. You're last sentence is developing Weideman here, not playing best 22. But I recognize that Weideman is a good chance to play round one (as is Smith) but if this happens then Goodwin's meaning of "best 22" is not mine. My definition of best 22 is the 22 that gives you the best chance of winning the game. If your assertion is right then Goodwin is saying it's the best 22 to win games in the future. Unless of course he thinks Weideman is best 22 now. I haven't seen it.

This comment deserved more than a "like"!

Last year was a genuine development year and we saw players promoted before having genuinely earned their spots (Hunt, Wagner, McDonald) and we saw others with no future but good form miss out. This year is not a development year, this year is a year to get our best possible result. I fully support playing Weideman in all practice games - at some point he will be a permanent feature and he could have been this year if he'd shown something. But in two games he's had 12 possessions and one contested mark and kicked two "joe the goose" goals. Yesterday, when we dominated the game, he was ineffectual as a tall forward. If he plays against Saints they will have a low risk player to combat and that will allow them to put more resources to Hogan. Watts must play round 1, if he doesn't we aren't serious. For all the talk I don't get the Watts situation. He's effectively had a two match penalty for "not showing the appropriate intensity at training" but "has done very well at training for 3 or so weeks". What on earth happened to let it get to a situation that meant an appropriate penalty was at least 2 games? Watts is not a rebellious difficult person. He's a guy who is continually seeking advice and feedback. How could it have got to a stage that he's at risk of missing? The club have GPS data on every training session. They have 2km time trial data and they would have weights data and probably a whole lot more. Did nobody tell Watts he wasn't training hard enough and that if he didn't lift his game he'd not be selected? I'm befuddled (I love that word) by the situation. On other selection decisions I think Garlett will play. It was a 3 to 4 week injury and he had 5 weeks to go. He doesn't need match practice he just needs to be switched on. Kent and Tyson, assuming they play next week will get two games under their belt as they'll play for Casey the week before the season proper. And Spencer doesn't get a spot R1 on Etihad.

Why has everyone picked Weideman? Promising and potential yes but not afl standard yet.

Macca I'm with you on Tommy. Has his days but I also noticed Lewis miss a simple pass yesterday under no pressure, Vince turn it over on a kick out and Jones miss a simple target early. If we had a different Board for each player we could list their mistakes and Tommy wouldn't be the worst. Just look for the Tom McDonald take a good hard look at yourself thread Dazzle started last year and as you go through it you'll notice a change of heart. I think Tommy is always a bit rusty at the beginning of the season but I've not got a worry in the world about him. I'm surprised at the total positiveness after yesterdays game. I thought it was a bit like the Brisbane game last year that we won by 10 goals. I thought we were just going. Gawn was pretty quiet, Weed has taken one contested mark in two games, Harmes and AVB just went, Stretch was quiet, Johnson unsighted, Spencer failed to follow up on last week and ANB is also below AFL standard. Smith is very enthusiastic and I'm a fan but he was fumbley yesterday. That's just my take. We were killing them at quarter time but didn't make much headway after that, particularly in contested possessions and disposals. We had a couple of avenues to goal and they didn't and it showed. IMO there is lots of room for improvement and the game wasn't nearly as impressive as last week. I agree with Pro, we won by our minimum margin and if we were on our game as we should have been we'd have won by 100 points. But the positives, of which there were many, were the pressure we applied to Carlton, Melksham who I thought really played well in the second half, Hogan putting fear into all those around him, Oliver for his continued excellent play, Petracca for starting to really impose himself, the defence working as a team and the generally very good performances of our older brigade. I liked Viney forward and if he had kicked straight he'd have had 4 or 5 and Hoges in the centre will be interesting. I think we really need Garlett back and Tyson, Watts and Kent will make us much better. I like Frost but how does he fit in? And as others have said it's almost inconceivable that Jetta struggles for a spot but he is. I was warned about it but I didn't believe it. Now I do. WCE looked very good early yesterday against Freo and I'll be interested to see how we go in a couple of weeks against a team I think is one of the rare "certainties" for the 8.

I always pay cash at VFL grounds because I assume they won't take cards. I don't recall seeing credit card facilities at any grounds I've visited, Coburg, Port, Sandy, Werribee, Essendon. i understand you're frustration but it was pretty dumb going without enough cash to get in. Obviously not a Boy Scout of old.

Not a problem for members. Silly not to carry some cash anyway. They should have just let you in.

Trenners misses.

I think Pro is just trolling for "likes".

I wasn't having a crack at Joe, I was just correcting an inaccuracy.

No problems McQueen, I guess my point is we don't know what's gone on so to make any judgement is impossible. The "good training" my relate to Watts now doing the team things as T Mc suggested and has nothing to do with effort or attitude. Really, in the end, who cares? He's done the whole preseason, he's fit and he's best 22. Some gentle realignment form the FD won't hurt. Anyway this is my last post, something has gone wrong with the PR and sadly it could so easily have been avoided.

No. The club should have known that Jack not being selected would raise a question when all other "best 22" players were picked. "A simple throw away line by Goodwin that Tyson, Hibberd and Watts would all likely be right to go next week (he was asked) would have killed this whole issue. Whatever Jack has done doesn't deserve the storm that has arisen. All "in house" would know what's going on. The message to the player and players is the same. Watts isn't hung out to dry. They didn't think it through.

The MFC should have dealt with this and not put Max or Tom in the position of explaining selection. That's not their job.

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to mortify you but it was your own doing. What is really frustrating and in fact stupid about the reaction to this situation, and it's not just you McQueen, is that nobody really knows the reason for his omission. You can't come to "conclusions" when you don't have any facts beyond "he didn't play" and a few vague statements from players. You don't have a conclusion, you have a hypothesis which really means you're guessing until some more facts roll in. But in the usual "Great, lets bash Jack" you've gone the "soft" line. The whole situation is disappointing. In a week we should be enjoying a really good practice match performance we are talking about someone who didn't play. The MFC have handled the PR side of this terribly. They should clear the air and get on with it.

Watt's clearly has done something to cause him not being selected last week. You've got no idea what. "Soft ways"! Give me a break.

I go a lot further. I think the poster that "leaked" it should be banned. I've got no idea if this is where the media got the story or whether it was from another source but on the assumption that Leoncelli_36 was given inside information he's hurt the Club and the player. If the MFC had wanted it public they would have announced it. There are people on this site privy to confidential and potentially harmful information who show good sense and don't big note themselves by posting it. We have a poster that didn't show good judgement and has hurt the club. He's shown he's more interested in promoting himself than helping the club. I'd take away his ability to do that here.

That's not correct. Gutnick knocked back the Olympic Park site. The Gardner Board signed the MOU to develop our current training and FD precinct at Olympic Park in 2004.

Sorry, Healy. Autocorrect.