Slartibartfast

Have you got any idea how boring you are with this stuff?

Stuie you'll probably find this a bit difficult so concentrate. This is a forum where many people read and participate. If you only meant the comment for one person then sent them a PM. I, like many others, are over you making the same point time and time and time and time again. It's particularly frustrating because in the majority of cases it's not usually and interesting point to start with.

Surely you're not taking his position seriously?

Clearly, whether you agree or not, the FD wanted to keep both Michie and Hunt on the list but also wanted to have four spots for selections in the National Draft. As both Michie and Hunt were out of contract and were the only ones able to vacate a spot to allow for 4 ND picks then one had to be delisted and rookied. The FD would have then had to determine the best way to achieve this goal. When a club wants to move a player to the rookie list they can't simply transfer him, he must be delisted and then taken as a rookie. The danger of course is the delisted player can either elect to go to another club as a delisted free agent or be picked up by another club in the ND, PSD or rookie draft. So the transfer involves some "risk". Clearly the FD decided that there was less risk involved in moving Michie rather than Hunt. That's why the club did it the way they did, it was all about giving them the best chance of achieving their objective and may not have anything to do with how they rated the players. This is contrary to your position of rating the players and then trying to get the objective - a greater risk. I don't agree with your position of favouring Michie over Hunt anyway, it's a simplistic position and not well thought through.. Michie has had five years in an AFL environment and appears to be no more than a meat and potatoes midfielder (sorry Samuel). He sits comfortably with players like Newton, M Jones and co as players that will be AFL depth at best. N Jones, Vince, Viney, AVB, Tyson and Brayshaw are clearly ahead of him. Petracca, ABN, Stretch, Melksham, Bugg, Salem, Kennedy, Harmes, Oliver, Trengove all have midfield aspirations which leave Newton, Michie and Jones all well down the pecking order for spots. Hunt has shown nothing really except he does have some AFL characteristics. He is blindingly quick, has clean hands and can break lines. If he succeeds he can add something to our team that we don't have. Like you I have low expectations but I'd much rather have him on the list than a mid that in five years on an AFL list sits outside the top 10 in terms of midfield hierarchy on exposed form.

Ok Dazzle. Why would the club have done it the way they did? Its not that hard to work out.

Pro there is no need to go on. You're arguing with Stuie, you've won and you won't educate him. For what it's worth Jones was played out of position for much of Bailey's time. Bailey thought he was too small to play midfield and so played him on a wing/flank. Neeld played him in his rightful position and he flourished.

This is far more interesting than most realise. Roos said from day one that he had to teach us how to play and he has said multiple times over the journey that he is really more focused on what we are doing than the opposition. The appointment of Jennings is recognition that we are now ready to plan to play individual opposition teams rather than just worrying about what we are doing. It's a significant step. The clear hand over to Goodwin is also significant. Roos in his first two years focused on culture and was a buffer between a poorly performing club and the media. He is one of the few that could buy us that buffer. He has clearly now handed the football team to Goody while he plays as much a mentoring role to the team as anything else. He says he will focus this year on other areas of the club, but make no mistake, he is our coach in name only. Roos has done his job for which I'm extremely grateful. But he is not without his significant weaknesses and the move to Goodwin will be a welcome one, one which David King alluded to sometime ago as being necessary. Mahoney and Jackson are no fools. I think these things in tandem indicate the club thinks it's ready to become a competitive team and the journey to this point, which was Roos' job is now done. And that Goodwin is the man for the future. It is however an uncomfortable truth that Goody was "first in line for the good stuff".

Thanks Saty and good to have you back providing information.

I think you've missed my point. There can only be one real coach. When there is debate on an issue one will prevail. That is Goodwin but only the more astute will realise. It gives Goodwin a year where he can learn and mould a team he takes into 2017. Brilliant strategy designed by Jackson.

Interesting. Roos almost seems superfluous. Great management by Jackson. Goodwin gets to coach this year and Roos takes the heat. Perfect.

Thanks everyone for the fantastic reports. Any comments on my boy Stretcher?

Did he say anything about Corcoran?

Why raise tanking again Red? Every time you complain the wound just gets opened. I think we tanked, you don't. But by raising it you just remind me we did. We all know what happened. Help the club and move on.

Poor Jack.

Joke?

The ban was back-dated to 31 March 2015, when the AFL Tribunal decision was handed down. CAS did not need to back-date, and exercised its discretion to do so based on the delay in bringing the matters on for hearing: para 171. The Panel recognised there were some factors in favour of back-dating (e.g. intense, “if sporadic” media spotlight for more than three years), and others against (e.g. some of the delay was caused by the Players’ unsuccessful attempt in the Federal Court of Australia to quash the infraction notices), but decided to back-date on balance.

Thanks H_T but I was hoping to avoid having to read a 40 page judgement and borrow another's intellectual property with a quick and simple answer. TBH I don't care enough to fight my way through that!

This may have been addressed before but can someone explain to me why the 2 year penalty was backdated to the date the AFL let them off? The banned players played during that period which makes no sense to me. In reality it's a 23 week ban.

Sage words Jack and thanks for your response and I agree with you that there is no such thing as the Norm Smith Curse, but it does strike me as odd that from the time he left we seem to have endured a rare and rather vile run of bad luck. Or am I just being paranoid? I remember Collingwood got the indigenous members of our great country to do some sort of dance to rid Collingwood of the curse they endured over the Winmar incident and they won a couple of flags in the time we've not tasted that finest of experiences but I'm not sure if the "dance" was before or after their 1990 flag - one we should really have won IMHO. Are you aware of any equivalent ritual that we could use to just make sure that Norm isn't up there having a good old belly laugh at our expense? I reckon you might have picked up something in your recent trip to the Caribbean, I reckon you might have been into a bit of that stuff!

Welcome back Jack, I hope you enjoyed the Caribbean where with luck the cruise proved to soothe the nerves a little after a hectic pre Christmas period where everyone's nerves were a little on edge and some poor decisions were made. Also we've missed your sharp insights and wonderful recollections. I particularly liked this post and felt compelled to respond. I'm heartened to know that you think in 50 years we've come a long way in our pre season training and I'm wondering if you can put your finger on why. Could it be the greater professionalism of the players, the fact that pre season is significantly longer than it was in the past, the better diet of the players, the greater focus on development, the better pathways that exist, the improvements in video and other electronic advancements over the period, the greater scrutiny the players face, advances in science and medical procedures that allow players to train more and stay fitter longer or something else I've missed? Perhaps the boots are better. I'd be interested in your thoughts. I'm also interested in your observation about players now being bigger. Whilst I doubt many would have made this observation I've also thought this but never had the stats to back it up. How do you think John Nichols would go in the ruck now? Would Stuart Spencer and Ian Ridley be the exceptional players now they were then? Did Graeme Wise start the trend of teams only playing one ruckmen? Where do you think players like Barry Bourke got past the Norm Smith philosophy of "imposing" size? Great memories when you start thinking about it and interesting to discuss. I'd appreciate your insights. Heart warming story about you and your grandson being the only people at training at Casey a couple of years ago (along with the Salems). Hope the little tacker has a bit to cheer this year because like you I'm full of optimism about the year to come. Just hoping Track can get over that toe injury. Have you heard anything?

Apparantly TimD and Alotta got to training but sadly can't post a report. Good session from all accounts.

It's not only here Pro. IIRC when Jack played his 100th game the AFL website in their wisdom put up a package of his bloopers. I can't find the link - perhaps the AFL realise how tasteless it was. Lots of No1 picks have been under the microscope but I'd contend that if you aggregated these comments Jack would have them covered 3 fold. Anyway I've had my say. Cheers BB

I've said in my post a ban wasn't warranted. We should try and educate, not ban. And I think Demonland should start setting a standard. You suggest that "an unfortunate aspect of celebrity is the hate/harassment they will get both in public and on the internet, and footballers, being in the public eye, will know this and be able to accept this" but I'd contend that this is tenuous at best and others will know better than me examples of celebrity where continuous and bullying public comment has caused damage to the individual. But it begs the question of community attitudes and respect for others. We clearly differ in that I don't believe that the continual abusive critique of Watts is acceptable and it goes well beyond the responsible use of free speech. I'm not trying to make "people think in a different way", I'm just applying what I would hope would be normal community standards of respect towards an individual and the avoidance of bullying. Perhaps we just draw the line in a different spot. Interestingly TimD could add much to this conversation but he was banned for having a dispute and showing a lack of respect to a poster. It was no worse than has occurred many times on this site but the target just happened to own the site. It's a pity rules aren't applied consistently Cheers. BB

I agree with much of what you say but as someone once said "with free speech comes responsibility". In my opinion that line of responsibility has been passed and the criticism of Jack has gone well past the "constructive criticism" some claim. Here is a link to the "Jack Watts" threads in the past 12 months alone. http://demonland.com/forums/search/?&q=jack%20watts&type=forums_topic&search_in=titles&start_after=year It's nonsensical to claim this is any sort of normal discussion. It's gone so far past "constructive criticism" (although how a supporter on an internet forum can think his critique of a player is "constructive criticism" is beyond me and to suggests posters insights can be more valuable than the myriad of line and development coaches we now have is preposterous). The damage done by social media is well known and accepted. An internet forum is "social media". I contend that what is happening now for Jack is bashing, bullying, tasteless and thoughtless and perhaps even dangerous. Some almost seem to have a vendetta against Jack born out of their disappointment which were in part fuelled by the inept management he received under Schwab, Connolly and Bailey. I'm all for sensible footy forum internet discussion and I think players should be subject to critique but what Watts is now subject to goes well beyond that and is now just an irresponsible use of "free speech". Who hasn't had their say? Who hasn't had an opportunity to offer their opinion? What purpose does it serve to have the same people present the same opinion over and over again. As for banning people I agree you couldn't ban Deeluded for his post but in essence it added nothing, wasn't funny and served no purpose. It just astounds me that people have so little respect for a person that they would post that dribble. Demonland should set a standard and act on the Jack Watts bashing and bullying that goes on here.