pitmaster

He was training last Friday. I didn't notice he was hampered in any way but I also didn't know he was supposed to be carrying anything so maybe I didn't look closely enough. For the casual observer, he was fine.

"Our lack of notification was either someone in the Comms department messed up (big, big time)"...LH you are definitely on to something there. My annual report and club financial statement turned up addressed to someone else entirely. I only knew to open the envelope because I received a call from the club that they'd messed up the mailing and I could go ahead and open the mail even though it was addressed to some bloke I don't know, have never heard of etc. Something has gone awry in the club's records system. Having said that, my membership arrived pre-Christmas as promised.

I've made my opinion clear near the start of this thread and enough agree with me...can we just stop talking about this phoney who goes to water under pressure. I would be astonished if in the same off season we dropped Jack W that we picked up this [censored].

I am over reggae now.

This is such a misguided thread. Hartung is one of my benchmarks for Hawthorn struggling in future. Wish they were keeping him because he is no good under pressure. A waste of space.

You missed accelerate (double l in the original) but otherwise nice work SD. I always like to see toe the line corrected, and as for people resorting to the German language when there is a perfectly fine English option - anguish - it simply defies logic. So spot on SD, but I would still give Sailing Demon a solid pass for mostly clean copy, apart from the odd literal blue, and also commend the Sailor for a thoughtful analysis from one of JW's generation. Now to you, Sailor, can you share with us your initial reaction when confronted by your coach/boss? Was your epiphany instantaneous or did you need to digest the criticism before you could wear it? (It seems Jack still has some way to travel on that journey.)

Relevant JM quotes ripped from the official site: “All of these calculations are based on having Jack Watts at our footy club and Jake Lever there as well, and all of our other players, so it’s got nothing to do with money,” he said. “Jack’s is purely about performance. Our expectation on Jack, as a nine-year player and 150 games is what this discussion is about. “That’s where it’s at, at the moment, and it’s been well-documented that he’s looking at different options at the moment and we’ve encouraged that. But if it ends up that he’s at Melbourne Football Club, well, he’s very clear on our expectations around him.” Mahoney said he wasn’t surprised to hear Watts talk about his love for Melbourne at a media conference on Monday. “To hear him speak is no surprise because he’s a very passionate person,” he said. “He said how he was very frustrated and disappointed and we probably agree – we don’t want to be having these discussions with Jack Watts after nine years and we want him to be the player he should be and that’s where this discussion has got to.” Mahoney said it was “retrievable” that Watts and the club could work together in the future. “We’ve seen lots of these situations and it’s not unique to Jack,” he said. “There is a certain stage where you have to look at opportunities. “If it ends up that there are no opportunities that we think as a club is good for our club, or Jack thinks it’s not good for him, then we’ll get back together and be very clear again on what we expect from him.” Well said: take your pick if it's good or bad news. For mine: good in the hope that this kerfuffle is the making of a champion.

Tell us more because I don't know of this. Jack has not been charged with any of the usual out of control footballer offences such as being arrested for D & D, caught on CCTV in a scuffle, pinching a team mate's squeeze, consorting with crims or fleeing the scene of a car crash. So how do we know he's been told to cut back on the partying? Quotes please...

Would be rapt if he said he wanted to stay...to prove himself. Doubt it will happen though

My goodness some people do over react. As Channel 7 pointed out the Titanic theme overdub of Watts' goal was the work of a fan. Get over yourselves,

I hate the alternate jumper scene but in addition to the notorious pink umpires costing us a game against the 'Dogs in '10 I also remember Peter Walsh under pressure 40 minutes from the Essendon goal hand passing to...James Hird, who duly kicked a goal in what was a crucial point against the Bummers. Would hate to see that in a GF (and of course the Essendon clash strip in another AFL stuff up has even MORE RED than usual).

So much to like in this post but especially the comments about the Richmond game. We had them on the ropes, hit by injuries in the first half and it still took them until 20 minutes into the final term to lead us. Really would like to see them brought undone today. Oh let it be so!

And to think I was about to buy a new car.

Sorry if this is covered elsewhere but The Age is reporting that the Crows are so sure of Lever coming to us that that fact prompted their query about the possibility of trading for Petracca or Oliver. They were told no chance on both counts.

Err...what's that?

That is laughable. Could they at least have someone write this stuff who has English as their first language?

Yeah right, a team replete with turnover merchants decides to trade one of its best users of the ball. That's what is wrong with this thread...not thought through.

Kochie is a child who would not be in the position if it weren't for his TV profile. His comments demeaning his players and questioning their commitment after an extra time loss show he knows nothing about the game. He is just a mouth wearing a scarf.

It would be hilarious if the Tiges went out in straight sets. Lose tonight and it's likely, with the Swans waiting after their 'friendly' warm up this weekend just to keep their form line. If the Tiges went on and won, I'd cope. At least it wouldn't be one of the usual suspects...and it would prove that a team could win with four good players and a bunch of also rans.

It would be hilarious if the Tiges went out in straight sets and lose tonight and it's likely, with the Swans waiting after their friendly warm up this weekend. If they went on and on, however, I'd cope. At least it wouldn't be one of the usual suspects...and it would prove that a team could win with four good players and a bunch of also rans.

Obst.

What he actually said was that the rooms were very quiet pre-game.

I appreciate the sentiment but dogs are great: loyal, friendly, funny and empathetic so how about you find a new descriptor for appalling behaviour. (BTW your son plays Australian Rules football, not AFL. It's a personal hate of mine. I like our indigenous game to be known by its origins, not by a competition that we all happen to follow.)

And here is Option Two Can sporting clubs acquire a losing or winning culture over sustained periods of failure or success and have that culture maintained despite the constant coming and going of new and retiring players. Discuss with reference to Melbourne Football Club post-1964, Hawthorn Football Club post-1961 and St Kilda Football Club any time. That culture matters in football can be inferred from Neale Daniher’s approach when appointed to coach the MFC. Among his first moves were classroom sessions in which he laid down his football principles and challenged the players he had inherited with very basic questions such as who they played for: themselves? their team mates? their club? These questions were scrawled on a whiteboard that Daniher turned away when visitors entered the room. Daniher was trying to create a culture, a way of behaving that all understood but that was fully known only to the playing group and coaching staff. Veteran trainer, Sam Allica commented to Demon magazine how refreshing it was to see players instructed in fundamentals as simple as “protect the ball carrier”. Such basics had become overlooked. Well-run clubs use periods of success to create a sense of culture with “self talk” designed to reinforce standards. North Melbourne had “Shinboner Spirit” of which little is heard these days since they are struggling. Sydney has “Swans” Footy”. Both amount to a code for players to play up to including taking hits for the team when it’s your turn and never, ever throwing in the towel. Former St Kilda and Hawthorn coach Allan Jeans said that he had seen ordinary coaches, and ordinary teams win premierships, but he had never seen an ordinary administration succeed. The off-field scene determines culture as much as the playing group. Hawthorn did not become a powerhouse after winning one, or even two titles (1961 and 1971). It did so much later and with sound administration. For a contrasting example consider former St Kilda chairman Rod Butters’ admissions of crucial club decisions made in a fog of substance abuse or the fact that the Saints for long period in the 1970s and beyond were the “party club” with players motivated by what was on offer in the social club post match. But culture can be changed. When Ron Barassi returned to coach Melbourne he complained that the players “had forgotten how to win”. Barassi changed expectations and John Northey who succeeded him benefitted as a result , taking Melbourne into multiple finals campaigns and a grand final. Northey’s teams were gritty and tough, qualities personified by players such as Lyon, Grinter, Yeats and Brett Lovett. Later, Daniher moulded a culture and led Melbourne to another grand final. Recently, Paul Roos began the process again and there is a strong hint that Simon Goodwin is continuing that work. The dropping of Jack Watts and Christian Salem for two weeks as the finals approached in 2017 is as much a lesson to the rest of the group: measure up, play your role or you are out: no-one is immune. It is a mistake to conflate the post-1964 years as one thing emblematic of club culture. Those five decades only look the same if you don’t examine the detail. Following periods of renewal however, Melbourne confronted outstanding teams at the peak of their powers in those two finals. With more luck that history could look very different.

OPTION ONE: Is the high-intensity, numbers-to-the-contest style of play adopted by Melbourne in 2017 too draining for younger teams to sustain over a full season and does this explain Melbourne's fade out in that year? Thanks to those who took up the essay challenge. I posted the topics for light relief but since a few had a dip Clayton Oliver style I figure I should try to answer my own puzzle. So to begin, I reviewed our match statistics, which is not something I usually dwell on much, but I hoped there might be some patterns that might go some way to explaining our weak end to the year, losing three and recording two uninspiring wins among the last five games. I found that: In its 12 victories Melbourne won contested possession, clearances and tackles in seven matches. Every one of these seven was up to, and including round 13 against the Dogs. The sole exception to this rule was that we were beaten for contested possession in the win against Essendon, but wiped them on clearances. From this it would seem Melbourne’s early victories were founded on a basis of winning contested possession, winning more clearances and pressuring the opposition. No surprises there. In the five victories in the second half of the year Melbourne won these statistical categories on only one occasion, the round 22 win over Brisbane. In the other four wins Melbourne was beaten in at least one of these categories. Even during its five losses in the first half of the year Melbourne scored well on these measures, winning the contested possession battle and the clearances count on three occasions while matching the opposition for the tackle count except in the round 9 loss to North (78-94). Indeed, in the round 7 loss to Hawthorn the Demons won contested possession 153-128 and clearances 37-30. Tackles were 85 apiece. So even when Melbourne lost in the first half of the year it was competitive on these measures. In the second half of the year, the Demons drop off, just as they did during their second half victories. Of the five defeats beginning from round 15 (Swans) to round 23 (Collingwood return match) Melbourne trailed its opposition in clearances and tackles in every case, and several times by big margins. The Swans won contested possessions 157-124 and the clearances 38-27. In round 20 the Giants won the clearances 60-43 and out-tackled Melbourne 119-86. Melbourne also lost the clearances and tackle count by a big margin in round 17 (Adelaide). All this suggests to me that there is something in the suggestion that a young side faded as the season progressed. Melbourne’s best wins were against Adelaide in round eight, and over the reigning premiers in round 13. Even the wins in the second half of the year - let alone the losses - suggest the side could not maintain the pressure it exerted earlier. Obviously, injuries were a big factor in the outcome as well and not everything can be put down to an unseasoned side. Gawn, Hogan and Brayshaw missing half or more of the season were massive losses. Equally important were injuries to Jones, Watts and Viney, while the inability of Gawn and Watts to recover their pre-injury form meant the group could not settle into a cohesive unit. In this context 12 wins looks like an advance. But nothing explains that feeble effort in the first quarter of round 23.