pm24

So are you suggesting that a club (the employer) has no responsibility for the decisions it makes with respect to how it recruits and then develops players (the employee) ......and that is solely the responsibility of the player (the employee) to develop themselves and become the best they can be even if they are not given the proper development or training opportunities by the club? As for the students.......obviously it was pointless for me to try and make what I thought was an appropriate comparison with another scenario where development of a person takes place. Lesson learned. I'll just clarify something else, I'm not suggesting that Jack should be absolved of all responsibility for his development, my view is that both the club and the player have a responsibility to their development. But if one of the two fails in that responsibility then the player will never be what they could be. It is a shared responsibility. That is a point I probably haven't explained properly yet.

I seriously don't get this attitude that any player owes anyone a refund unless they are intentionally playing below standard after being given a nice sum of money. You see this in the US where players have career years in the year their contract is up for renewal. I have only seen improvements from Jack the last few years, as he has shirked the contest less, has shown a greater willingness to back into packs to get the mark, greater aggression when he has the ball in hand (taking the game on) and his pressure has improved. Now it may not be where everyone wants it to be, but just because the club chose Him as it's no.1 pick does not mean he owes us any more than someone picked at pick 50. It was the club's decision to make that pick, and they must take responsibility for it. To suggest that the club has no responsibility or has not contributed to the lack of development of a player is like saying that a teacher is not responsible for the development of a school student. A person can only develop so much based on the skill of those who are instructing/teaching them.

So a lot of draft pundits have suggested that in hindsight we should have chosen Martin instead of Scully or Trengove. Well, if Richmond lose Martin, I'll be glad we chose Scully because rather than losing Martin for nothing like Richmond look like doing, we ended up with deals that lead us to getting Toumpas, Hogan and Barry.

Most of the early picks we've had have failed to develop over the last 6 or so years, so Watts is not alone in this. The club has failed to properly develop it's players, and only in the last couple of years has started to embed professional standards into its football department, and for the first time last year, it actually put in place a player development program. That's the club's fault not the players. Potential has to be developed, and if the club doing the development isn't doing it well, then the potential of the player will never be fulfilled.

You can't be serious can you???? Fitzpatrick showed some encouraging signs, but that's about it. He could be good, but Watts was a vital part of our ball movement, and in the second half of the year, also contributed on the scoreboard, to the point where he was our second leading goal kicker for the season. Watt's second half of the year saw him being more aggressive with ball in hand, taking more shots on goal from 50 while on the run, and also taking more marks going back with the flight. He was more aggressive in taking the game on, and looking to beat his opponent. His pressure on the ball was also better, even if he didn't lay more tackles. I think Jack re-signing is great for the club, and I believe he will take another step in his play next season. However, he'll always be a polarizing player.

Well a ruckman starts in the middle of the field, so we could run an argument that he is a mid-fielder.....

Based on what he has shown to date, yes I would still go for Swallow over Aish. Swallow has at least shown that he can become a top flight midfielder in the AFL. Aish has shown nothing at AFL level to date. And if Swallow's injuries are not long-term, then I would view him as just as much of a valuable investment for the future as the no.2 pick in this years draft. There's only 2 years difference in age, which in the scheme of things is not that much.

Gysberts - did not play one game for the Kangaroos senior side, which suggests he hasn't really developed into anything more than a good VFL footballer at this stage. Moloney - helped create the poor culture that has been put in place and was only ever interested in himself, thank goodness Neeld and Co let him go. Rivers - left to play finals football, and it was reported by Neeld in one of his pressers that there were concerns about Rivers' knees, and lo and behold he has only played 8 games (including finals) this season. Others: Petterd - I wonder whether we would have been better off moving him back to play off the half-back line as he has looked quite good there for the Tigers. Wouldn't mind having him back. Stef Martin - has hardly played at Brisbane due to injuries (sound familiar), only five games, and looks to have been overtaken in the forward line by Lisle, and in the ruck by Longer. Wouldn't get a game ahead of Fitzy, Gawn and Spencer anyway. Morton - has only played a couple of games for West Coast, and was a sub for most of those with little impact. Probably wouldn't have even gotten a game if not for all the injuries to the West Coast midfield. Bennell - didn't play a senior game. Similar to the Gysberts situation. I'm not sure who I've missed, but going through the list of players we let go at the end of the year, Petterd looks to be the only one who might have been worth holding onto as he is the only one that has played regalar games this year, and has performed a role that we have a need for off the half back line.

But is Aish as good as a ball winner as Swallow, our greatest area of need. If the answer is no, then grab Swallow. We've got Blease and Dom Barry to provide speed.

I'm starting to think that Garland may be a good captain. He actually one the leadership award from the best and fairest, now has 100 games under his belt, came 2nd in the B&F voting, and seems to have a great temperament. He or Jones as captain, I would be perfectly happy with. With that said, I've not been dissatisfied with Grimes and Trengove, particularly given how Trengove's performance improved over the second half of the year. I reckon missing most of the preseason really hurt his form early on.

I would imagine that we have become a much more attractive destination for all players, from draftees, to veterans, to under 12's.

I understand the logic that picking up Sloan and Shuey would have been game changers for us, based on the players they are now, but I am big doubts that we would have been able to turn them into the players they are now based on how poor we've been at developing players over the years. I reckon it would be easy to argue that had Strauss and Blease not gotten injured, and had they been recruited by a different club, then they would be better players then they are now, AND, we might be talking about how we stuffed up selecting Sloan and Shuey instead of those two.

Basically the entire team was a disgrace against the kangaroos, so why do you feel the need to single out Watts. There seems to be this obsession with Watts having to be a gorilla marking forward who is dominating every game, despite the fact that other similar type forwards like Kennedy and Hendersen didn't come into their own until they were about 22/23 before they took that next step, but they would have had a better culture and development program to assist them in their development. Both were also top 5 picks, so maybe we should be comparing Watts to the Kennedy's and Henderson's of the world, and realise that tall players who come into the game with slender builds, take that little bit longer to have an impact, and a little bit longer to become consistent players.

Has anyone considered that it was not Green, nor is it Watt's role to get in and under to get the ball out, but rather to receive the ball so that they can use their elite disposal skills to best benefit the team. I don't get this obsession with Watts needing to go in and get every ball. Watch other key forwards and rucks etc, they don't go in after every single ball. There are plenty of examples of Cloke, Buddy, Roughead, all hovering around the outer of the packs waiting to receive the ball, rather than being the one digging it out. I think in general, Watts' work rate has improved dramatically this year. I thought he was great against the dogs too. There was one passage in where he lead through the middle in the first quarter, when Tommy Mac had the ball coming out of the back half, and he had about 10 mtrs on his man. What happened next.....Tommy Mac didn't see him, so Watts then sprinted to the wing. Tommy Mac gave the ball to Chippa who kicked to Jones, who drew the free kick, Watts kept running, received the handball outside 50, and then delivered to Kent for the goal. Many are often quick to criticize Watts' work ethic, but he was on about a 70metre lead, from out of our forward line when Tommy didn't see him, he then ran probably another 50 metres, to get to a position to get the handball receive before delivering to Kent. He did not stop pushing to get into space, he kept working to be in position to receive the ball. I've seen multiple examples of him working into space only to be ignored, and then working hard to get back for another lead. He has dominated players like Dale Morris on the lead, who couldn't keep up with him. That's his strength, and he plays to it. So we may want him to be a Jonathon Brown, but he's not that type of player. He is a leading forward with speed, more like a Josh Kennedy type. Sometimes I wish people would focus on what improvements he has shown, rather than just lamenting how he isn't playing how they want him to play. If he's playing the role the coach has for him, then he is doing his job.

Though I think Jetta's position in the team is in jeopardy, he seems to have been winning more of the ball recently (particularly in Casey) and we saw how good he could be in a couple of situations on the weekend. That run he took through the middle, using some good evasive skills, was just great to watch. He may also have a better chance of being retained with Davey and Rodan retiring as he becomes the only real small forward/defender who can go through the midfield with skills that in some small way replicate what those two provided. Not to mention that he has had a lot of injuries over the years and has struggled to get a consistent run in the firsts thanks to those. I can't see Gillies being retained, nor Couch and Magner (as they have to be promoted to the senior list this year, or released I believe), with Tynan and Davis being the other two I think could be at risk. I think Sellar has showed enough to be a depth player and I would have him ahead of Davis and Gillies. It'll be interesting to see what happens, but regardless, I'm happy to wait until after a head coach is appointed.

Rivers has only played games this year due to injury, and I think if he was still lining up for us, people would be suggesting we possibly made a mistake keeping him as he is becoming injury prone later in his career. Petterd has also been injured this season, and is being used off the half back line. I'm not sure whether, if he played off half back for us, he would be getting a game ahead of terlich or clisby either. He's got talent, but I just don't think he fitted on our list any longer. As for Moloney, if what came out about his attitude is true, then I don't care how well he has been playing up north, it sounds like he was part of the problem with the culture, and I'm glad to see the back of him if that is true. On balance though, I think the additions/subtractions that took place over the last 12 months have finished off with us in a better position for the future. The recruiting staff deserve a pat on the back, even for the additions of Rodan and Byrnes, as both have apparently been great role models and mentors for our younger players. Considering neither cost us anything to really get, they have made positive contributions to the club, and in my view have been good additions.

Why is it a mistake if he made a positive impact in the locker room to our young players, and possibly helped with their development???

I reckon they were starting from a better base level of fitness then us. Misson always said it would take three preseasons for the team to get to an AFL fitness level. I mean, we may still be getting pushed off the ball a little, but we've played a tougher more demanding brand of football the last few years then we did in those years where we were openly panned for playing "bruise free" football.

Is anyone else a little surprised by how much stronger Watts looks. I've noticed his body shape improving over the course of the season, and in some of those photo's he's finally starting to look like his matured physically. Now he just needs to translate that into consistently having a greater physical presence on game day.

Terlich for mine. Has been consistent across the entire year, while matt jones has also been very solid. If Viney had played more games, then he could have challenged, but injuries stopped that.

So rather than just labelling my post as garbage, do you mind explaining why you think it is garbage. Also, what evidence do you have the Boak "single handedly turned Port around?" or is it not fact, but rather just your perception. I could easily run an argument that the cultural change was a result of Hinkley being appointed, as well as the other staff that were appointed to support him. I mean Port's fortunes only turned around this year after Hinkley was appointed, given they finished 16th and 14th in 2011 and 2012. Same for Selwood. How did he turn their culture around? Are you suggesting that guys like Ling, Harley, Ablett Jnr, Scarlett, Milburn, Mooney, Bartell, Chapman, Ottens contributed nothing to that club culture? Here's some background, from Wikipedia (yes it's not always the most reliable) but it refers to an article from the time, which highlights that Chapman could actually have been the one that helped lead the turn around the culture, and that Mark Thompson also passed on criticisms of players. No mention of Selwood: It appeared Geelong would repeat the outcome of the previous season after five rounds of the 2007 season, where Geelong was positioned tenth on the ladder with two wins and three losses, with the latest loss being against the Kangaroos at Skilled Stadium. Following this unexpected loss at their home ground, player Paul Chapman publicly criticised the club's culture,[19] expressing frustration at the lack of team mentality present with many of the players,[19] and urging the club as a whole to change this underachieving culture for the better.[19] Chapman's criticisms, which followed a similar assessment from coach Mark Thompson,[19] led to a group discussion involving all of the club's playing and coaching staff,[19] and produced frank assessments of both individuals and the club in general. The article they link to is here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/more-sports/chappy-swipes-at-cats/story-e6frfglf-1111113436723 You seem to be getting confused about what I'm saying. I'm in no way suggesting that the players you have mentioned have not contributed positively to the culture of the club, but they are not solely responsible for turning around a club culture. If a culture is to change it has to come from the top down. If the leadership and football department of the club are not on board, then regardless of the leadership of one individual, change in the culture is unlikely. You say Ward has "held them together". No doubt he has lead from the front but that doesn't determine a culture. He was a great contributor at the Bulldogs as well, but regardless, that doesn't determine a club's culture. Nathan Jones leads from the front, but we still have a club culture. You do not seem to understand what I mean when I refer to a club culture. Rather, you seem to be focusing on which players are great leaders in their clubs. They are two different points. Thanks for the sledge by the way as one of those "Jack Watts types". Actually, my approach to sport was always to work your backside off, to go hard as soon as you cross that white line, and to compete until the final siren. But feel free to sledge away and make personal attacks against someone just voicing an opinion slightly different to your own. Very mature of you.

If culture was just rubbish, why has Peter Jackson, our new President Bartlett, Neil Craig and others all focused on the need to have a better culture? If culture was just rubbish, why are clubs like Sydney and Geelong lauded for their success, with credit being given to the culture within the club? If culture was just rubbish, why is Paul Roos lauded as such a fantastic coach because of the way in which he set up a winning CULTURE at Sydney? If culture was just rubbish, why is Port's form turnaround often credited to an improvement in standards driven by cultural change? If culture was just rubbish, why is it's importance constantly referred to across the league???? Every club can have professional standards, but the culture is a big influencer in the achievement of those standards.

A first year players shows what can be done? I was referring to cultural change. I made no mention of Watts or any other player, so how about actually reading the words of the post, rather than reading into it what you want. The examples you provide are not relevant to Melbourne because Selwood walked straight into a club with one of the best culture's in the AFL. He did not shape the culture of the club. Nathan Jones and Viney are good players with great attitudes, but our clubs culture remains weak at best. As for Boak, Port Adelaide was a shambles last year until the CLUB sorted out the mess and provided a better environment for the players, and created a better culture. Or are you suggesting that Port has been successful and a better club since Boak walked in the door in 2007. When Boak arrived in 2007, Port was near it's peak. Since then they missed finals in 08' and 09, before being cellar dwellers from 2010 - 2012. Despite this, Boak didn't walk into a club with a bad culture, he walked into a club with a winning culture which then turned bad or lazy until the club took steps to fix it again. As for Ward, he's a good player but he's rarely been apart of a winning team, apart from his early years at the bulldogs where they were regular finals contenders . Once again, he walked into a successful club with a good culture. My point remains, a player cannot change a culture. Rather only when all the players are on board can a culture be changed. And the responsibility for getting all of the players on the board rests with the club, from the Administrators all the way down to the head coach. Then, from there, the players become responsible for maintaining that culture into the future. So next time you criticise my argument for being "ridiculous" how about you actually read the words first, and use that thing called "comprehension" to understand it before just throwing out some random rubbish statements. Let me finish with a question? If a player is drafted and has only ever been exposed to the training standards at a TAC Cup or state team level, who does he learn professional standards from once he enters an AFL team? The player can bring with them a great attitude, but the culture and the professional standards are set by the Club not the first year player just starting his AFL career.

I can't help but feel that our club is killing our players, not the players killing the club. The new president has already identified that our culture is non existent, yet we keep expecting the players to build the culture. The club needs to set the standards and ensure they become engrained in the attitudes of the players, who will then drive those standards into the future. Jackson also identified the culture as an issue. Is was identified as a problem before Neeld started to. You can only blame the players for so much.

I was so tempted to say this, but you did it for me. I remember being knocked out cold from an uppercut to the jaw from an errant forearm in a rebounding drill at training. Elite and even local senior basketball is tough. If you don't believe it, it's likely because you've never played it.