Jimcor2

I'm not sure what the appeal of Bugg over Trengove is. I think that Bugg is no faster or harder than Trengove and, in my opinion, Jack is far more reliable kick than Bugg. What am I missing? Also, I would hope that if Pedo puts in a good performance at Casey, Weid will get a rest next week. I am sure both of them are happy to put in at Casey but I'd prefer to see them both given a chance at the highest level.

"Most honest institutions around"....big call. Based on what? Institutions aren't honest, individuals are. I've seen nothing in my life to suggest that footy clubs are any more honest than other large businesses. Cultures are shaped by individuals and they then help create institutions. And "supporters want transparency"....big statement again. I, for one, expect that senior leaders show respect and discretion in relation to the young men they are blessed to help shape. Some issues are, in my mind and in my experience, best kept between those involved. Jones has certainly done enough for the MFC to be treated respectfully and I agree that the circumstances of his finding out about the co-captaincy, if accurate, left a bit to be desired. Players are entitled to be told honestly and sincerely about all relevant aspects of their game. But, with respect. I have no problem with Goodwin making the co-captain call but if the behaviour of players is subject to the oversight by the playing group (according to the Leading Teams model you seem to support so strongly), why would the structure of the captaincy be the coach's decision. Consistent? Goodwin is new to the role and with support and guidance may become a fine coach that leads us to great success. This member of the jury will reserve his verdict until all the evidence is in. ps I've made a deliberate spelling mistake(s) so you can 'sic' me again if you can find it/them. Anyway, your original comment about JW's omission was accurate and timely. Well done!

I make no comment on the usefulness or otherise of the Leading Teams Model, I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. In fact, I would be a strong advocate for absolute honesty and accountability within the group. My issue is with the efficacy of letting this become an issue outside of the group. In my view (once again), this can only be counter-productive. Managers (and coaches) have a duty of care to their employees and this has begun to have an unpleasant taste of bullying about it. Bloggers blog, that's their job but there has to be a realisation that exposing individuals to abuse on and in the media might be reckless. It might just be that Jack is a huge talent that refuses to accept that he needs to be a mongrel. I have to say that many of his performances have been what's kept me going to games season after season. Anyway, that's my five cents worth. It's late over here.

In my view (and that's all it is, my view), it is never wise to cause a subordinate unnecessary embarassment in front of their peers, never. The power dynamic is so imbalanced that you just end up damaging the level of loyalty that the person feels towards you and your organisation. The momentary glow of satisfaction is far outweighed by the potential loss of a considerable asset. In dIrect answer to your "question", we have absolutely no problem spinning a yarn when it suits and, as many have suggested on this thread, that would have been a more sensible approach "in my view". However, as I said, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye. I look forward to hearing more from Jack in his memoir after a long, productive, premiership & Brownlow-winning career.

As a long time observer and supporter of Jack, I've followed this discussion with some interest. The vitriol which he attracts is remarkable given the loyalty he has shown and the contribution he has made through all the darkest times. Like many correspondents, I find it hard to understand what the coaches had in mind when they felt it necesary to embarrass him publicly over the last couple of months. In any school of management, this would be frowned upon. However, I don't pretend to know what works fro footy coaches, just what doesn't work in the outside world. Last year, the footy department thought he was in our best five players in 2016. Apparently something has since happened to cause them to feel it necessary to manage it in the way they have. To me, it's still a mystery. Regardless, over the years , I have seen Jack repeatedly find space on the field and be ignored. Why are our players not instructed to look for his leads given that he is one of (if not the best) of our converters? I can only think there must be more to this than has been said but, for the life of me, I can't see what it is. If this is an attempt to instil some 'mongrel' into him, so be it. If it doesn't happen then, all I can say is that the coaches' approach was wrong. A good mate once said to me 'there's no such thing as a bad player, just bad coaches'. I hope the JW experiment confirms this to be the case and Jack can attain whatever aspirations the coaches have for him. If not, Jack might be better off looking elsewhere for coaches that will help him to realise his unbelievable potential. They will be queueing up, I suspect. I will be very sad to see it.