Jimcor2

I'm with you, I think. Not once have I seen or heard anyone from the Football Dept acknowledging their responsibility for this failure. Not one person in the FD has said that they were unable to find a way to trigger JW's undoubted potential. As far as they're concerned, the fault is all is the player's. As they say in the classics, 'Weak as [censored]'! We have yet to see the winning formula realised and they need to be aware that their performance should be analysed and responded to in exactly the same way that JW's has been. I hope my instincts are wrong but if they are not, I hope they will be hung out to dry and humiliated in the same way.

And to you, Ernie 'well said'. One last 'last comment' from me on this sad & sorry saga; the focus now moves back to where it always belonged, the ability of the Football Department to maximise potential, devise a winning strategy and motivate a team to enact it.. Having 'fire-sold' a favourite, the bed has been made and they are about to lay in it. I hope that the pressure is keeping them awake at night looking for the winning formula.

What you fail to acknowledge is that raw talent and intelligence is, of course, generally not enough unless it is supported by competent coaching. We are taliking about the possibility of realising potential and sadly, Jack has had more than a fair share of really poor coaches. I'm hoping but am not overly optimistic that Goodwin is not another one that a talented playing group has to tolerate. Once again, I thing Roos is the stand out exception to the coaching debacles. Elvis has now definitely left the building.

This is not right. No one should be surprised by what they find out at an exit interview. Competent coaching would require continuous feedback about a player's performance and an 'exit interview' should merely be an opportunity to summarise the season past and agree on a strategy for the future. If there is any doubt, this meeting is the best opportunity to clarify any confusion, I would have thought.

So much for my last post! For what it's worth, P.Attack, your disrespect for me and my opinion is only exceeded by your disrespect for the player and his efforts. If you don't 'wanna' (sic) make it sound like a potshot at me, don't make such an arrogant and personally directed statement. If you can't respect my opinion, so be it. Frankly, this board would be much better served with you off it. Satire is about the use of mockery and ridicule to criticise. That wasn't my intention and you needn't try and suggest it was. CP should ask you to stop bringing his name into disrepute.

Perhaps my last contribution to this discussion. I have watched Jack Watts both during games and at training since he joined the club. I was at his debut when no-one flew the flag on his behalf when he got his first touch and right through to the end of 2016 when I moved O/S. I have seen him run selflessly week after week and watched him being ignored by his team mates. And wondered why the coaches didn't instruct others to honour leads. I have been amazed that his loyalty to the club hasn't wavered and wondered why, unlike another No.1 pick, he didn't tell the MFC to GAGF. I still believe that the club will be poorer IN EVERY REGARD if he goes. To me, it is a sad indictment of all (except Roos) his coaches both line and senior that they haven't been able to help him reach his potential. Macca may be great with the kids but he too has let JW down. If he does leave, I hope that he continues to disappoint but I know in my gut that he's a great player and will rise to the top with the right coaching. I have watched this team since 1957 and genuinely believe JW has the wherewithal to be one of the greats. Goodwin is simply wrong and everyone will suffer for his poor judgement.

A shaving reference! New thread required.

The fact that Jack has been in the media spotlight for so long and his perceived flaws so exposed for so long, that the indicated clubs have chosen to explore the possibilities surely says something about the man and the player. Hinkley and Scott (and maybe Bucks & Horse) are neither inexperienced or dumb. What are we? Maybe JW is rightly sick of unappreciative and unsupportive coaches at MFC. I hope not.

And why do those who keep on quoting his B&F finish not point out that the very Football Department that decided he needs to go are the same ones that vote in the B&F?? This same FD that ignored Cam Pederson regardless of his impressive performances until they were forced to select him because of injuries to others. This whole JW saga is disgusting and disappointing. The MFC has found yet another way to shoot itself in the foot. The President should be very certain that he's providing useful strategic advice that action being taken benefit the club. The fact that other clubs are lining up for someone who has demonstrated skill, loyalty, fortitude and good humour should be sending a message. Jack's behaviour should be rewarded not transferred.

Not sure if this is an argument in favour of retaining Hardwick (or Goodwin) but, if it is, it's spurious. No-one can say with any certainty if Richmond would have done better, sooner with a new coach in 2010 so why say it. The only certainty is that they are in a GF seven years after 2010. Like RPFC, BB and many others I would give Goodwin a pass for this last season but with the same acknowledgement that the coaching panel must be held accountable for team selection, game plan, match day agility and player mental and physical preparation. I am ever optimistic that we will see improvement next year. Faith is built on results, not dreams.

PS do we have to tolerate the ongoing personal criticism by idiots of players and posters just because this is a public forum. Surely, 'public' does not mean that any fool can simply say whatever they like. Surely 'constructive' should be the minimum requirement before deciding whether to allow a comment to be published.

Thanks RPFC. If I had a better footballing brain I would have written something very similar. Agree totally about the coaching failures in relation to our inability to protect our players from unfair criticism and our inability as yet to develop on-field leadership. These are COACHING not playing failures. Regardless, Goodwin needs to develop the guts to take his share of the blame when things go wrong and I look forward to him doing so next season.

I am surprised and disappointed that the finger continues to be pointed just at the players. For the second successive year we have had the opportunity to make the Finals and have failed. No one seems to be asking who picks the teams, who creates the gameplan, whose job is it to make sure that the selected players have the right mindset, who is responsible for ensuring that the selected players have the required skills? I cannot recall one occasion where any responsibility for our failures has been sheeted home to the Football Department and accepted by Goodwin as a significant part of the problem. No coaches are ever publicly humiliated by dropping them to Casey for non-performance. It would be appropriate for them (and perhaps beneficial to the playing group) to publicly accept their part in this latest disappointment.

Have to agree. In fact, I have no problem with both Salem & Watts being given a run at Casey to prove their fitness & focus. Moreover, they should have both been brought in via the 2s in the first place. The fact that they weren't is a shocking indictment of the FD's lack of man-management skills. They now have two undeniably talented players (and I've certainly no one complain about Salem's hardness!) who have been made to waste three weeks and to lose confidence. I would have more respect for Goodwin if he just said that the FD had made a mistake of bringing them back when they did and in the way that they did. When do you hear him ever say that the FD hasn't performed as well as expected? I hope they both dominate and fight their way back in next week.

You seemed to have missed the point. I should have been clearer. ‘Good’ coaches do not select ‘bad’ players. If they do, they are a bad coach. They have the choice of either training them to do the job they want them to do or leaving them out of the side. If Jack Watts is unable or unwilling to perform his role, then he should not have played. I do not believe this to be the case. I think there are only two scenarios : that he needed a run at Casey after being cleared to play in order to get back up to speed that he was doing what was asked but the delivery from the midfield was poor. Either way, the coaches are ultimately responsible. I think that it was a bit of both but if it was the latter, the coaches needed to adjust the tactics mid-game and preferably, mid first quarter. They didn’t we lost! Hopefully they will learn.

One of the more sensible comments amid the usual cavalcade of self-opinionated but under-informed commentators. A former coach who I respected a lot once said to me 'there are no bad players, just bad coaches'. Coaches are responsible (among other things) for: Ensuring players are fit for selection purpose i.e. fit enough to do what's expected of them. Clear on what their responsibilities are in relation to the team structure and plan Provided with the appropriate resources (training,etc) to contribute to achieving the desired result Adjusting the plan when circumstances require it to be adjusted From what I've seen over the last two weeks, it's been a coaching failure primarily. I, among many others, am a bit sick of arrnchair potting of players when their criticism should rightfully go elsewhere. I agree with many other posters who have suggested that the delivery into the F50 was poor. The players haven't changed that much so what can the cause possibly be? Injuries, divine intervention, poor coaching? You choose.

It was not too long ago that a lot on here said that Pedersen was not worth a spot because, not only was he not best 22, he was a 'spud'. I think that school of thought (on both counts) has now been put to bed. IMO Trengove deserves a run. He is brave, skilfull, strong overhead, a good decision maker and a reliable kick at goal. He is also smart. He may very well follow Pedo's lead and surprise a few.

On the strength of the last three games, in my view he is unarguably in our best 22 and will hopefully be given an extended run even after Gawn or Spencer returns. Application, persistence and loyalty should be rewarded.

Agreed. How good is that going to be if we kick better over 4 quarters? And I suspect the second principle (if there is one) is that when things start to go wrong, have someone who knows how to retrieve the situation take charge. Not much need for leaders when it's all going well but when the chips are down, someone needs to take charge. Leadership is a trainable skill but it's not obvious to me that there's much trainng taking place. It is not sufficient to merely be an excellent practitioner of the game, leadership is something more.

Just want to say that having re-watched the 3rd quarter and feel good to be alive. It's not often I have said that after a loss. I cannot wait for the day when we can play like that for 4 quarters.

Bit harsh! March 1957, in fact. All I was trying to say was that I think it's great that Pedo has finally been given the chance to cement a place in the best 22 and we will all be better placed to put ProDee's 'spud' comments in perspective in a couple of weeks. Personally, I think Goodwin has made a couple of bad errors since taking over from Roos including the pre-season public treatment of Jack Watts and the Pedo/Weid selection farce. Having said that and for what it's worth, overall I think Goodwin's doing pretty well and mistakes are going to happen. I don't think anyone should be above criticism by the likes of us however MFC employees need to set the bar a bit higher than we do. These are just my opinions so there is no need to be defensive on anyone's behalf.

I tend to agree overall (not sure about "Whenever Pedo has played he is best 22") but it's a fair bit more competitive now. Like you, I'm thrilled that he'll have an extended run in the ones but it will do him no harm to have to compete for his spot. I'll certainly be happier when this criterion is seen to be applied across the whole playing group as, like many of you, I think he should have been selected three or four weeks ago. I'm also interested to find out how long Jack Trengove has to wait for another chance given that, in my opinion, he provides more leadership and disposal efficiency than Bugg and appears to be no slower. Anyway, good on him for sticking it out!

So, in defence of ProDee, whose judgement re Pedo has been questioned (and whose judgement re Jack Watts is also in some doubt), one good game does not make a season. Pedo, like JW, has got to continue to show his worth over the next six weeks to cement his place in the 22. This week he has shown he (CP) is currently a better bet than Weideman up forward and Watts in the ruck. Allowing Watts to play forward throughout helped us kick a score that was defendable. We'll have to wait and see if this performance is able to be sustained. I hope (and think) that it is.

I agree. That duck in his first game for us was probably the best thing that could have happened as I've never seen him shirk a contest since. He is competent forward, back and in the ruck. His slimming down can only have improved his speed. I would contend that at the moment there is a case for including him in our best 22.

KC, I don't understand why Pedo is not featuring in your 'Best'. 32 disposals, alone, would almost always earn a guernsey. What did he do wrong?