Akum

Funny you should say this. I reckon it would be exactly the same as Jack's position!

Lacks the bananas tho'

Could it just be that he'd prefer it not to be announced until his family get back from Bhutan? Explain why it's a "done deal" by all accounts, but it hasn't actually happened yet. Decision's been made, it's just that he wants to announce it at a particular time.

Seen on a 5.30am flight to Perth????

Coachus interruptus

Yeah, OK. If you're arguing for ditching the Messiah / salvation complex, then I'm with you all the way and more. If you're arguing for not appointing Roos in the first place, then those nice young men in their clean white coats are on their way.

RooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSS!!!!!!!

Would that be when Eade started to coach them?

So no change on this condition then??

They must have got "Kokoda" & "Kakadu" mixed up. I blame Schwab.

Yeh I saw that film - "The Triplets of Belleville"

Going so well until the Pedersen bit.

And what was it that worked for Port? Demoralised team for whom nothing seemed to go right - check! Sacked coach who had seemed the right man at the start, but turned out to be very wrong - check! Moribund club culture, and Board who had no idea of how to build and nurture it - check! They even had a couple of likely coaches turn them down flat (Leon Cameron was one, wasn't he?), and lost some senior players. But there was a long history of tenacity and struggle that Kochie was able to tap into, and to rebuild the club culture - and, most importantly of all, self-respect - very quickly. They then made a wise and careful and unhurried choice of coach. And then (and only then) did key players in Boak & Trengove recommit to the club, because it became clear that things were improving from the base, instead of just papering over the cracks on the surface. For us, so far so good. This time it really does seem to be different because we're building from the base too. The Neeld debacle may have done us a favour in the long run, to show up how deep the problems ran. Unless we stuff it up from here on (sadly, not impossible), no reason why we couldn't bounce back quickly too.

It's like Rip van Winkle in reverse.

All I can say is I hope you're right. I like Craig, but I don't see him as the forward leap that we need. And didn't we nab our last coach with undue haste because we thought others would get him if we didn't? It's not like it's beyond MFC to repeat the same mistake, but you'd think we'd have learned ... wouldn't we???

If there was any doubt left, this must mean that the selectors see no place for Magner, Taggert, Davis, Jetta and probably Tynan, as well as Couch, into the future. So much for player development.

If it's Craig, then he'd better show a lot more initiative than the "more-of-the-same" that he's shown since Neeld left. We need transformation, not "more-of-the-same". Not saying that he doesn't have a new approach and new game plan to what he's shown to date, but he'd better have it. To be fair, he has hinted that if he had the senior coach's job, it would have to be done his way, suggesting that he would want to change things. And if we chose Eade, Williams and especially Roos, we would surely have a better chance of attracting good trades than if we chose Craig.

We suffered much more from having one (or more) less forward than from having an extra (or more) defender. Freo could take risks with their ball movement because Lyon knew we couldn't hurt them the other way. There were a number of times when our only man forward was Fitzy, and the 4 players nearest to him were all Dockers. It also left Michael Johnson unopposed as a sweeper (in a 6-on-5 situation - ours was 7-on-6, so he had much more space), which was ridiculous. A sweeper is no use whatsoever if the mids delivering into the forward line are under no pressure and can pinpoint their delivery (and have the skill to do it, as Mundy & Hill et al certainly do). Freo's ball use made a sweeper useless, no matter who they were. It bothers me that the only tool in Craig's kitbag seems to be putting Watts back as a sweeper early in the game, and leaving him there the rest of the game, no matter what. A sweeper used intelligently can be a good move, but I haven't seen us use it intelligently for a long time.

... and the beauty of this is that should we get Eade or Williams, having all this in place boosts their chances of success too.

Nobody's said anything about Jack Watts being on TFS. Let's keep it that way. D'oh!!

This thread is proof that any thread with the words "Jack" and "Watts" in it brings out the essential moron in far too many posters. This is one of the few posts that gets it right. Let me spell it out. What has Watts actually said about his future with MFC? The only thing he's quoted as saying is "I want to stay." Ask him to his face, that's what he'll tell you. The "Watts will sign when the new coach is appointed" line was spoken not by him, but by Paul Connors. The most likely interpretation of this is that Jack himself actually wants to stay. Connors, however, is fully aware of the prevailing opinion among the other clubs, which is that Jack is an outstanding talent who has been handled very badly by this club ever since he came here, that he'd only need to be handled with a modicum of competence to get a far better performance out of him. Has any other talented player been stuffed up so badly by his club? There must be a number of clubs who think that they could pick up a potential star for a bargain, so "13 clubs" doesn't surprise me. It must be obvious to everybody that Watts has a far greater chance of becoming a star at another club than if he was to stay at MFC, however much he (Watts) wants to stay. I could put it another way and say that if Watts was a "whatever it takes" ego-driven sort of person, he would have left long ago. There is certainly no guarantee that MFC can actually become a competent club over the next few years; so many things would have to be done right. So Connors is merely acting in the best interests of his client, by advising him to wait and see how things pan out, especially with such important appointments as the senior coach, the general manager of football, the others on the coaching panel, and the Board. What advice would you give if you were in Connors' position? It's very likely that Watts would be happy with any of the four main contenders for coaching (including Craig), but whether we can persuade any of them to sign on the dotted line. Because that's by no means guaranteed either.

It could also be Connors trying to get Jack's attention. If so, it could have backfired badly.

There are a number of points to be made about the six tall forwards - Clark, Dawes, Hogan, Watts, Fitz & Howe. First comes availability. We have yet to see Clark & Dawes play together. The chance of all six being available on the same week would have to be remote. I'd expect it to average at about 4 of them available at the one time. We will always need back-up to cover injuries. On the other hand, if more than 4 were available, it just creates tough competition for spots and keeps them all at their absolute peak. Second comes game time. We probably don't need more than 3 or 4 of them on the field at the same time, but picking 5 in the 22 who average 80% game time equals 4 positions on the field at any one time. Third, you'd want two good smalls - one a fast nippy Davey-type crumber, the other a hard-hitter like Sylvia or Tapscott. This would be an unbelievable combination of skill and physical strength. Fourth, the big risk with any tall forward line is lack of defensive pressure - too easy for defenders to run off them and create havoc. However, the six are all fast and mobile and have the tools to apply pressure. Some already do it well - Clark, Fitz, Hogan, and perhaps Dawes; Watts is getting much better, and Howe has the tools but just needs to concentrate. On the other hand, it's relatively easy for good defenders to spoil high balls, and even a tall forward line of this quality could be stuffed by lousy delivery. Again, all these individuals are great for second and third efforts when the ball hits the ground. So it could work really well, at least in theory, and if it does, it will not only be a great weapon, but will make us far less dependent on the number of F50s, and far harder to stop. We would only need a handful of breakaway attacks a term to kick a competitive score. But in practice, who knows? So much would depend on them forming a high level of understanding and teamwork to avoid getting in each others way, and they would have to be coached extremely well. That's why I agree totally with this post: We should keep everybody for 2014, experiment to find the best combinations and positions, and see how far we could push it. But if it does make us too top-heavy, we trade end of 2014. Unless an absolutely elite mid lands on the trade table in a few months ...

The other way of looking at this is that maybe teams like the Swans just have a better idea of umpires' interpretations of what you can & can't get away with in tackling (regardless of what the rules say) and play accordingly. They probably even practice it, especially how to get rid of the ball when you're in a tackle in ways that won't get you penalised. Also, umpires tend to play what they can see, and not pay what they're not sure about. If the player with the ball looks like they're trying to get the ball out, they're not going to try to decide whether it's a genuine attempt or not, unless it's blindingly obvious that they're faking it. So you just have to look like you're trying to get rid of it. If the ball looks like it may have been jolted free in the tackle, it's play on, so if you can drop it in a way that creates doubt about whether it was jolted free, they won't penalise it. If the player with the ball has their two hands close together, the umpire isn't going to try to distinguish whether the one-metre 'give' was a slick handball, a hand-off or even a throw. Weren't we practising different tackling techniques in the preseason, with help from Melbourne Storm? What happened to that?

Let me assure you, PJ is way ahead of you.