Vogon Poetry

I think the selections would be much easier to understand and accept if they matched Roos' rhetoric. He preaches reward for good form and yet there are some very protected species in this team. I like Vanders, Harmes and Garlett but two have been ordinary for a while and one is rewarded for a good game at Casey. In the mean time Newton, ANB and Grimes play well week in week out for no reward. It's clear these three are not in our forward thinking. If that's the case I hope there is more honesty shown to the player in private than is being shared with the supporters because at the moment Roos is treating us with little respect.

No, it would be very sad but I would rejoice in seeing the player succeed regardless of where it is.

I'll back his 98 games against your 26,826 posts even using you're judgement of his ability.

If you've read even a quarter of this thread and you're still asking that question you'll never understand.

Totally agree. If he doesn't get 100 games I'll lose some respect for the Club as it will show they, like some here, don't value people. A club can't survive and thrive if it doesn't. Those using the argument that "it's a business" clearly haven't run or understand business.

I can never work out whether you are being argumentative or stupid. I'll go with the first and just decline to debate. If and when Grimes plays this year what will annoy the living crap out of me is when he does turn one over (which every player will) the haters will get on here saying "I told you he couldn't kick". It sounds like he's got half a season to salvage his career, a little like our other ex captain Jack. I'm not optimistic about either but genuinely want to be wrong. That happens regularly so there is still hope.

Tex was a scholarship player and tied to Adelaide. We couldn't have got him.

ProDee has said this more completely but you may have missed it. You are 100% wrong. We are big enough to give him 100 games. Well said Pro.

Did Jake get of the sling tackle charge?

Thanks Nut, I was really after a one word answer and I'm more confused than ever now but we'll move on. I also heard from a reliable source that Watts was on the table meaning we were prepared to sell him for a price. It doesn't mean we didn't want him, only that we suspected he might have a higher value in the market than we thought he was worth and that we thought he had/has weaknesses we thought were serious but not fatal. If he'd been delisted he would have been on an AFL list somewhere meaning he had a price. And in the hope of a simple answer do Dawes and Hogan have the same "minimum standard" to be selected in the seniors?

Thanks Nut. Can you just clarify this: "Am I right in thinking your minimum standards have nothing to do with whether he should be on our list or in our team but where you thought he would be better or worse than he actually was? "

I could always change my name to Grunthos the Flatulent if yuo thought it appropriate. Or: Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings[1] was a poet who wrote the worst poetry in the universe. In fact, her poetry is still considered to be the worst in the Galaxy, closely followed by that of the Azgoths of Kria and the Vogons. She lived at 37 Wasp Villas, Greenbridge, Essex, GB10 1LL.[2] Here is an excerpt of her poetry: The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

So Nut where does Travis Johnstone come on your minimum standard rating? If he delivered below your minimum standard should we have traded him out earlier and if so when? And the attributes of "minimum standards" you quote all related to skills. What about a persons mental capabilities? Surely a players minimum standards should take these into account. And his development (standard of development coaches). And the players around him. And his physical development (some kids develop later than others). With Jack we can all evaluate his skill set but and we can make some judgements regarding his football development. But the other aspects have a significant impact on his output and we can only guesstimate these. How can you deal with this when determining your "minimum standards". Am I right in thinking your minimum standards have nothing to do with whether he should be on our list or in our team but where you thought he would be better or worse than he actually was?

Yep, agree with that. Where I differed is that I would have leaned towards keeping him given his upside. But a very good offer would have seen me keen on a trade. Hemingway PD and I go back a fair way. We debate our differences vigorously but we agree on most things. I was interested in your position, not using you as "point scoring".

If Hemingway thought Jack Watts was a bust and wasn't worth retaining Jack has gone some way to proving him wrong. If he was critiquing his performance to the end of last year you're spot on. Hemingway may like to clarify his position. You have (correctly in my view) critiqued Jack's performance at various times but without going back I think you also wanted him off the list. As we sit here today are you pleased that we've held on to him or would you have preferred to remove him from the list and given a go to another player who may or may not have done better? What many may not have considered is the opportunity cost of keeping Jack. I'd be interested in your view.

It's not a matter of whether I'm satisfied or not. And I'm not "setting the bar" anywhere, I'm not using a spade and I'm not using a ladder. I'm saying if he's best 22 he plays regardless of where he sits when measured against expectations (minumum standards). It's nonsensical to suggest I don't want him (and every other player in the team) to be better.

You do realize Dazzle that in any negotiation there will be offer and counter offer, it's the way things work.

Of course this is where the use of language gets very difficult. Is there anyone on this site who believes Jack Watts doesn't deserve his spot in the team at present? I doubt it. This, according to some, is some sort of "minimum standard". Is there anyone on this site who believes Jack Watts wouldn't deserve his spot in the team if he dropped his output slightly? I doubt it. But of course he would be playing below his "minimum standard". Hence much of this discussion is bluster and posturing. I'd suggest that the concept of "minimum standard" is related to peoples expectations based on his talent. It's got nothing to do with whether he is "value to the team". It's pretty simple. Jack gets a game while there is nobody better to play his role. He is value to us when he is one of the best 22 players on the list. This silly concept of "minimum standard" allows people to pontificate about "he could have been so much more" or "he got everything out of himself". I dislike ProDees setting of "minimum standard criteria" because it allowed him (PD) to pronounce him a failure if he doesn't achieve them and that would support and justify PD's previous stated position on Watts. I think it was nothing more than a clever slight of hand. But of course if he kicks 37 goals instead of 40 he isn't a failure particularly when you look at the other functions he's now playing in the team. ProDee is no fool and most were taken down his path. So just recognize that the whole concept of "minimum standard" is for each of us to set and ultimately make a judgement on. Jack will play and be value to us as long as he is better than others on the list that can play his role.

In those conditions I can't believe we are going in so tall. Mc x 2 and Frost back, Hoges, Dawes and Watts forward as well as Max. Just dumb I could have thought.

Fair enough. I'm just not that good at it. Too many misjudgements in the past to have much confidence in my judgement. Lets hope I get one right. First time I saw Clarry I thought he'd be a gun. Has to learn to get it on the outside. Plenty of time.

Add Michelle Cowan. Sounds like an outstanding individual.

Jamar, Watts, Frawley, Garland (for a time), Morton (for the wrong reasons), Jetta and the list goes on. I get very few right. Christ, even Scull Scull seems to have it together and it's taken him a very long time. I reckon lots of players surprise over the journey.

Leave me out of your petty banter Stu, it hurts the site and makes you look silly.

Your concept of "minimum standard" is an interesting one. Often have we heard the statement "he's not playing up to his standard". Of course your expectation of his standard was elevated from day one when you announced him as a great recruit for the MFC. You defended him vigorously in your famous Leigh Matthews interview post and we all applauded you. You saw the talent, you saw a young kid making his way, you saw him be subject to the worst development of young talent in the games history operating under a dysfunctional football department. He disappointed you and all of us and you turned on him with an almost obsessional venom. You threw him under the bus, made snide cracks about nothing hard ever coming out of Brighton Grammar and you wanted nothing to do with him at our club. You reacted to the here and now and didn't have the foresight to recognize that because of the underdeveloped talent and the path he was forced to lead he was worth the punt of persevering with. You were not alone but there was another group that thought differently. Hence the continual debate. Personally I find your definition of "minimum standards" to be self serving. It's not what your level of minimum standard is and not what mine is. The question is "does he deserve his spot in the team, are we better with him or without him"?. Unquestionably the answer is we are better with him and that we would also be better with him if he wasn't playing as well as he is. His current standard is significantly above the standard required to play meaningful AFL football. Frankly your "minimum standard" is just bluster. Unlike many, and I suspect like you, I'm not sold on Jack Watts. 12 games doesn't make a player, he needs to keep doing it and after 7 less than inspiring years, it will take more than the first half of this season to convince me that Jack has arrived. But unlike you I'll not try and tarnish his terrific year to date with silly measurements of "40 goals", "minimum standard" and "Gunston is better" narratives along with continual harping about his first 7 years. I'll be thrilled for a kid who has been through more than most others when it comes to public ridicule (remember when the AFL website ran a "Jack Watts greatest bloopers" highlight reel for his 100th game) and I'm glad he is finally getting some joy and reward from the game. Your mean spirited attitude doesn't serve you well.

Can't agree. He has been poor to fair for us since coming from the Pies and a shadow of the player he was. I think that far from being important to us we've hardly missed him. He's extremely outside and makes poor decisions. Wagner. I like Wagner but I think when history is written White will be a better player. Wagner looks great skill wise but makes too many unforced errors. I've seen White regularly at Casey and his disposal is elite. With Lumumba and Salem on the sidelines it's a good time to give White some games and this week could be good with the weather conditions suggesting some talls could be dropped. Mark Jamar is an All Australian who had some good B&F finishes. Like Jamar, Lumumba is well past his prime. Anyone who thinks that H's issue is purely concussion is living in fairy land. I find it amusing that on this thread DL is complaining that there is speculation regarding his situation and on another regarding Salem DL is complaining about the lack of information. Would be interesting to see if the same posters were posting in each. I can't see Lumumba playing any meaningful role for us going forward. I reckon we are better without him and we will unquestionably benefit from getting games into Hunt, Wagner and White rather than Lumumba.