Roost It

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

1) Post Season Jones and Goodwin say nothing.  Yes they were asked questions about Watts.  Standard answer should have been a straight bat eg

Our List Management Team, like those of other clubs are looking to review and to improve our playing list.  When any information is available about any player we will let you know. 

Instead they carried on with: not meeting expectations, Jack had been in a rut for 9 years,  off-field behaviours, setting example for young players etc etc etc.  Of course, the media jumped all over those comments which fueled more and more questions.

They should have stuck with straight bat, straight bat, straight bat.  Better still not put them on them on air.  Post round 23 Mahoney should be our only spokesperson.

2) After the GF Mahoney should have come out and said something like: 

Our List Management Team has met and we have asked Jack Watts to explore his options with other clubs.  We believe that other list opportunities will result in changes to the structure of our forward line and it is in both parties interests to take this path.  If no suitable trade is found, Jack can remain at mfc. 

Instead he came over real heavy echoing Goodwin's and Jones criticisms and added a few more about being tired of having these conversations with Jack.  

Everything in itallics is factual.  The dirty laundry wasn't necessary.  The media could say what it wanted there was no reason for the club to validate it.

The WB had a similar problem.  Cutting Stringer was swift and brutal.  Thereafter, no one at the club made a single solitary comment.  They let the rumours float around but did not give them validity because they said nothing.  Result:  Supporters were shocked and upset at the decision but were accepting of the process.

Instead MFC made it a death of a thousand cuts for Jack by having coach, captain and football manager give a regular commentary on Jack's deficiencies over a 5/6 week period.   Result:  Supporters were upset at the decision and the process. 

On this thread even most the ardent fans of the decision lamented how it was handled by the club.

Except the fact that by not answering the question the media make up their own story. With Watts it's common knowledge he's not a hard worker and that those in the FD have had enough, just look at his preseason and end of season. You're still not facing the reality that only 2 clubs showed any serious interest. That sums up the player and totally supports the FD. Read what Pelchen said about how the FD handled the trade period and then go cry in your weetbix

1 hour ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

In other words, don't agree with the coach and you are out. Goodwin using his powers again placing personal feelings ahead of good judgement. Bleach your hair and it's see you later!

That's not what I said. His expectTions relate to preparation, commitment, buy in. Watts admits football isn't his be all and end all. Tell that to Dustin Martin. If Watts was at Richmond he'd already be at Port

16 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think you should exercise some caution with this angle given your comments about Watts.

Having seen Hardwick (and others) interviewed on what changed this year, he said that it was after enormous self-reflection and conversations with other players that he quite deliberately amended his ways, showed vulnerability, and invested in the human stuff including the strengths/positives about his players, not so much their weaknesses. This created a great bond and culture at the club.

I'm presently trying to recall which long term MFC players over the years have really exited the club well. The MFC seems to lack EQ. And, for much of the past decade prior to the appointment of PJ and Roos, IQ as well.

I'm sure there are some valuable lessons to be borne out of the Dogs and Tigers' recent flag successes, which have to do with player engagement, and not the overtly technically stuff.

 

From what I hear the players like and respect Goodwin. Of course he has plenty still to learn. What he has done is clearly define expectations of the group. Those that don't buy in will find the door

He's a party boy, that's the facts. He's gone, I liked him so did my young kids. Do we already like Lever more? Hell yeh. If you can't convince you're young kids it's all good you've got bigger issues than Watts playing for Port. And yes I'll boo him with tongue firmly in cheek

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You cannot say our list is superior to Richmond. They performed when asked. 

We haven’t beaten North for 11 seasons

We lost to Freo at home this year. Went Goalless for a full quarter. 

The MFC has been promising for years and delivered nothing

i hope Goodwin can change that

Player to player we have a superior list

4 minutes ago, sue said:

The depressing thing is that Sam does not understand why he was moved on, thought Watts was doing OK.  Surely you see that?  If this is true, then the communciation of the 'message' to the younger team members is a disaster.

It's second or third hand information. If Weed doesn't understand now he soon will. 

Just now, sue said:

It's depressing if that is true.   Very depressing.

It's not depressing. The fact Watts was well liked has nothing to do with it. Surely you know that. 

Just now, picket fence said:

Yeah its called passion and Premiership starvation! After waiting so long it .. happens!!

Performing  under pressure is critical to success

3 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Well this has the propensity to rip the club apart 

We haven't learnt from the junior fiasco and others as well!

Leadership group might want to play "Gengis Khan" but rank and file players??

Again Club in potential disarray!

Do you actually read what you post. Wow that's some serious arm flapping you get up to 

7 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

He does. But we need more options

ready made players

it’s Top 4 next year

the statement has been made

We have the players to win the flag, doesn't mean we will but we have them. Our list is far superiors to Richmonds. We still need some more years under the belt I would think 

30 minutes ago, Diamond said:

No. It’s because he has a contract with the Melbourne Football Club. That’s why we have to pay him. Like we paid Travis Johnstone to play for the bears.

If he worked really hard and hit contests we wouldn't even be having this discussion

3 minutes ago, sue said:

So the club's fault is for paying him too much in his newly signed 3 year contract then.   Seems there must be some fault on the Club's side. How could they get it so wrong?

Yes the club overpaid him but that's not Goodeins fault

3 minutes ago, sue said:

So the club's fault is for paying him too much in his newly signed 3 year contract then.   Seems there must be some fault on the Club's side. How could they get it so wrong?

Yes the club overpaid him but that's not Goodeins fault

The club has secured Lever, easily a top 4 pick was he in the draft add Oliver, Petracca, Viney and Hogan and away we go

2 hours ago, Delusional demon 82 said:

Paid overs for Lever and cop unders for watts... hell , we’ll even paying some of his salary 

MFC best club to negotiate with since 1897

We didn't pay overs for Lever. The reason we're part paying Watts wage is because he has low market value. That's not the clubs fault that's because he's never worked hard enough or hit enough contests 

34 minutes ago, ProDee said:

That's so cute

How else does a club move a well liked underperforming player on with the sharks and the media constantly circling. As a club you're in an impossible situation 

The club asked Watts to explore his options, nothing more. Good wins view on him have been known since the start of the season. For those rattling on about how badly it's been handled accept that there really is no other way. I'd blame his manager and the media for the [censored] not the club 

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

If it came down to a kick after the siren from 40 out -we just traded the guy who I'd like to take that kick.

Unfortunately it required winning a contested ball first so he wasn't available 

11 hours ago, rpfc said:

So Riewoldt and Watts are as talented as each other with the same predispositions in physicality and courage? With the same god given endurance and marking ability?

@Dr. Gonzo - the difference between a Watts and Riewoldt or a Kennedy and a Viney are intangible and tangible. 

The tangible differences between Watts and Riewoldt are so marked and numerous that the difference in intangibles don’t even register. Don’t matter. 

The intangibles that Watts didn’t live up to - commitment, application, ‘giving a [censored]’ - only meant he didn’t become a better version of Jack Watts.

Not some delusional fever dream that he shat away the chance for us to have a great of the game play for us.

Had Watts applied himself in the same way Riewoldt did you have not idea how he would have turned out

16 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

Not so fast, keyboard boy....

NR was playing for a Saints' team that was quite successful in his early tenure there, so his development would have been going along nicely

Compare that to the basket case that JW found himself in

The intention to drive yourself to be the absolute best you can be has little to do with those around you. It comes from within. Jack doesn't have it. 

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

Really, you think this? And the 5 posters so far that liked the above?

You think he was 'application' away from being Nick Riewoldt?

You think he was 'giving a [censored]' away from being a great of the game?

 

I thought this thinking died years ago, and we all came to the conclusion that he was never able to reach those heights because he is not that type of player.

Would you say that Ben Kennedy is 'application' and 'commitment' away from being Jack Viney?

The very fact that some fans think this - floors me. He was never going to be the reincarnation of Nick Riewoldt, and to judge him on not getting there and blaming a lack of application and commitment is delusional and one of the many reasons we this is so personal to so many.

You were promised Nick Riewoldt and no-one ever explained to you it was never going to happen, and no-one took the blame but Jack.

We disagree 

4 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

Nope - I'm talking about your comparison with NR

Had he worked that hard he could of been anything

Just now, jumbo returns said:

Jack was never, ever going to be a Nick Riewoldt....fantasy land

NR is just a freak

He was a 196cm number 1 draft pick. Are you saying he as recruited as a third tall

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Both Goodwin and Roos have tried that at various times but he's always been a media favourite and he's either played too well or too inconsistently to be a traditional role player.

Having a game based on skills isn't really suited to just being a standard role player. If he routinely was the back up ruck and made some contests forward or if he was a hard running half forward every week then it would be easily to control the narrative about him. Unfortunately he's floated around different roles depending on the season/week/game and not got that continuity. A fresh start in a defined role makes that easily to control.

We recruited Jack to be the next Nick Riewoldt. I'll guarantee had he worked as hard on and off the field as Nick he'd be our number 1 forward while we wait for Hogan to fulfill his potential. The fact he's a lazy 3rd forward sums up exactly why we're moving him on for peanuts. Sure he's a good guy and sure most of us like him but I want a flag not a nice 3rd tall to help us finish 2nd