Skuit

I have no need to insinuate anything Fifty-5. If I want to say something I'll just go ahead and say it. A fear of contact doesn't equate to mental weakness. Not fully applying oneself doesn't equate to mental weakness. One is instinctive and the other is a personal choice, and neither of them in of themselves are value judgements outside of cultural connotations. I'm afraid of spiders, but will happily swim in crocodile-inhabited waters. Weak, tough, stupid, I don't care. But if I want to live in the rain-forest, I have to learn to deal with spiders. I go about most of my life in a half-arsed fashion. Am I mentally weak because I have no interest in being a career high-flyer? Again, I don't particularly care. I tend not be half-arsed though if I'm part of a team, because I, personally, place a lot of self importance on pulling my weight when there are others involved. And I also get annoyed when I feel that someone else within my team isn't contributing their best effort, no matter how tough, weak, bright, stupid, skilled, friendly etc.they may be, because we naturally tend to judge others by the values we hold important to ourselves.

This is a top-notch post P-man. I almost agree point for point but for a minor quibble or two in conclusion. But I said I wouldn't comment again on the specific topic and I won't. But thank you for the balance and not being simply reactionary.

I heard that Adam Oxley bloke goes okay too. Maybe we could get them both?

Some players have flaws that can't be overcome through commitment and effort - physical shortcomings or skill deficiencies which no amount of practice will entirely eradicate. Others have surmountable problems and when they don't address them it's those who I take exception to. You tell me to trade in my brain, or people dismiss a critique of Watts as 'Watts-hating' - and I'll take exception to that as well. I think I'm a fair poster - and many others here who dare to criticize Jack are as well. I only ever get stuck in when I consider that a player won't make it, and that's after carefully watching them for a period and respectfully assuming a projected natural improvement. That, and when I don't think a player is fully committed. Scroll through my history, and the list of limited players I've defended is far greater than those who I've struck a line through. I still miss Jack Fitzpatrick if that gives you any clue. I don't hate Watts - no reasonable human would, and his evident fear of contact is probably an admirable trait from an evolutionary perspective. I also agree with every positive comment made about Jack, and how he adds to the dynamic of our forward-line. But he plays football. It's a contact sport. We also have a very important focus on forward pressure for our game-plan to come to fruition. And I can't just merrily accept what Stretch Johnson perfectly described as 'half-baked efforts' in exchange for the 'crucial touches' he has on occasion. I also don't obsess, but it irks me week in week out when he does the exact same thing and then people sing his praises - e.g receiving votes for the brief positive impact he had even if it was hugely influential in the ultimate outcome. He doesn't seem interested in ever living up to his potential, and that's entirely his prerogative, but I'm happy for him to go and coast through his career somewhere else. And I say that knowing full-well the detrimental impact it might well have on our near-future results as well as membership etc., but I now consider it in the same way as you might a top-level talent with off-field issues or a disruptive nature. Colin Sylvia for e.g. He has some currency, and I would hope the negative impact of losing Jack would be outweighed by the long-term future benefits to the team as a whole. A team of competitive beasts: all for one, and one for all. Regardless, that will be the last I ever say about Jack Watts on this forum, because it's far easier that way. In exchange, please don't go tell me to trade in my membership again.

And some supporters are content with being fed grapes. Most have come to terms with Jack Watts the football player and accept he will never be the hard-nosed type but offers a lot of value in other areas. Yet, Kent doesn't put in once (it has been more than once, but it was a specific instance which got everyone's back's up), and the pitch-forks are out. We've deliberately built an ultra-competitive team, and Jack is somehow held apart from the standards everyone else is held to. Is he that much of a prodigious talent? How do you think Garlett feels when he busts his gut to put pressure on and trap it in only for all that effort to go to waste because a team-mate doesn't bother pitching in? A supposed senior leader? As a supporter who would give everything for my club, one who suffers the pain of every setback, I'm content with the likes of Harmes and Frost making mistakes, because it's evident they put in 100% and hurt when they're beaten. Just like us.

Haven't read the last part of this thread. But if I watched the game again, I'm sure I would zone in on a memory of Watts in the pocket at some stage in the 2nd qtr where he waved a vague hand as a defensive effort and let someone run past him straight after. That's why he and Lewis don't get votes. And that is what my post was about - the Age votes. Harmes was just as important as Watts in turning the tide and doesn't get a remote mention. Pedo has being doing the same as Watts in the ruck but doesn't get the same apologies and pat on the back. Hibberd only got 7 as well in those Age votes and played for four quarters. You can't just pick and choose when to compete. That's the exact complaint of everyone on here - we don't rock up switched on. We're not committed. Jack Watts' contribution weighed up against Jack Watts' non-contribution for me adds up to trade.

Said on another thread - 21 contested possessions on the weekend, 11 clearances, and seven of those in the centre (as well as a few of the standard super-human head-shakers). In 71% ToG. He's racking up these numbers in less than 3 qtrs of a game. Yet the kid barely got a mention in the Demonland votes. We've become very complacent very quickly re. Clayton's contributions, and that is full credit to him. No one has put up the same figures week in week out for the MFC ever, and yet we still know he's capable of more and hold him to that standard. After 23 games. Astonishing.

And a sublime i50 in the second quarter when no one else could manage. However, if you had told me four years ago that the only available/selected survivors from our list overhaul besides Jones and Viney for yesterday would be Cameron Pedersen in the ruck, Neville Jetta as our best shut-down defender, and Jack Watts and Tom MacDonald as our KPF/second rucks, I would have followed Neeld right on out that door.

Should've kicked it.

No doubt. And this is why I prefer he doesn't play half-back. Also had an very ordinary JLT so didn't deserve to be in the selection mix early. But I would say a lot of his poor disposal has been rushed or unbalanced - he goes at 100mph (and this largely why I'm fond of him), so basically lacking poise, yet, people have been quick to write him off and I think that was a combination of forgetting he was a young developing player (or dismissing his potential due to his draft number). He - along with ANB - has been one of the few players to have stepped up their intensity in our close final quarters. To date, they haven't had the skills to turn the match, but if everyone had followed suit we would be sitting much prettier right now, and these will be invaluable attributes come finals time. Maybe we got a taste of it yesterday - as Harmes was a lesser lauded but equally important member of our 3rd quarter purple patch.

I think they actually meant in terms of getting him out of the forward line.

Best: Adelaide. Worst: Essendon was horrible. Improved: Frost (as the most unexpected). Lift: Viney (in terms of importance). Bluey: Clayton (no contest) Recruit: Hibberd (no contest) Finals: Yes.

Yes. That is exactly what I mean when I say we're a young team. Everyone deep down understands it and it's less-winded than having to qualify it every time. A huge number of our most important players are kids. The three players I mentioned as looking tired/out of sorts in Petracca. Oliver and Hunt have all played under 30 games of AFL football. If they were all out of the team in the lead-up to a final, we would be wildly concerned about our chances.

Canberra certainly seems another planet to me.

Mostly I meant having the confidence to rest key players both senior and junior at certain times. I thought our core drivers in the Adelaide win looked very tired vs. North and I was worried going into GC after their bye. Petracca seems spent and is possibly carrying a niggle. Oliver is being managed through ToG%. Hunt is out of sorts after/since the knock. People seem convinced Watts has the flu. But Goodwin's probably not at the stage where he can rest players after a win such as Adelaide (from a morale/development point of view), and our bye was also just around the corner. We're a young team whether our fans want to accept it or not, and our senior leaders aren't the Energiser Bunny types. We have a punishing schedule coming up, travel and short breaks, and if we're to make any real assault on the finals, we will need to manage the players. Geelong, Hawthorn, Freo - all these teams in recent years have done so as an ingredient of their success in getting to the grand final.

The only way to qualify the stats is through our heavy high press and Simon's Tsunami tactic. Ironically, it effectively creates a flood against. More possession, more i50s, more tackles and pressure acts as we trap it in and try to find an avenue to goal. The flip-side is that we leak easy and quick scores against when a team gets through - hence the W-L column and why we win a large share of quarters without them being comprehensive wins. We're labouring to goal, while our opposition scores with much less effort - possibly the reason why we've also struggled to get over the line at the end. Simon has rolled the dice - and this was always the way it would be.

I can't fathom Oliver's common omission. Slow to work his way into the game (and started on the bench?), but was instrumental in turning it from the middle. 21 contested possessions and 11 clearances - along with opening up space for numerous scoring chains - what team has everyone been watching to think this is some sort of luxury?

Probably should have given Oliver a vote. Just had a look at the Demonland votes thread - and for all the vitriol against Watts and then over-protectionism on here, he still failed to register a mention. But I thought Pedersen played well as one of our only players to contest and dispose of it properly in the first half - while he barely rated a mention also. So we all see it differently at times.

You felt his performance was on par with Hibberd's? I should clarify before I get accused of being a Watts-hater (which at times yesterday I really really was). Jacks Watts was a massive factor in us turning the game - Pedo moving forward freed him up to do what he's better at, but what I feel should be basically a pass-mark. Lead up and catch the ball. He was still being beaten in the more areal contests by some guy I had never heard of with 5 games to his name, and some of his efforts earlier were frankly unforgivable. Maybe he has a cold?

Universities now have to operate as pseudo-corporate entities in the liberal-economic market - hence, they become naming sponsors of football-ovals in regions far removed from their primary campus . . . ?

A Rising Star nominated game. Often think people forget he's also just a kid/there's unfair prejudice based on his draft number. If he continues to clean up his disposal, he has all the other attributes to make it. Did everything yesterday that Kent should be doing.

No one has yet to really outclass us with top-flight footy (North probably played the best game against imo). Such that there's no reason to mark down the Dogs for example as a loss. The dates and venues are the real killer. Multiple, consecutive six-day breaks, a regional backwater tour, and only one game at Etihad (in the bizarro world we now find ourselves in). Otherwise I would feel confident backing us in. Player-management will be key, and in a contradictory sense, so will settling the team and getting a run on with our sails up. I'm not sure our young coaching brigade will have the confidence (or luxury) to pull the right levers at the right time. Note to OP: UNSW is in Canberra (as far as I'm aware).

IN: Gawn, Hogan, Salem OUT: a little squeak of delight

The one stat to rule them all.

WattsTF? Think they may have confused a couple of Hannan's efforts as Jack's