PaulRB

Agree, its hard to discern the full dialogue between the players in this saga, with public comments we hear, and undoubtedly many private, comments, meetings, etc... I know from working in the corporate sphere, when you let someone go, they've generally had several warnings, notifications, etc... before the axe falls. I've no doubt the FD have done likewise with Jack.

This is BS. Jack Watts is yet to believe or commit Jack Watts to undertaking the required essential to be part of a successful team, and indeed for that to to indeed be successful. If Jack Watts had Jack Viney's professionalism, intensity and commitment to making himself a better player and winning, he'd be a dead set champion. But he doesn't, and he's weirdly surprised that the MFC think he should...

My view is the MFC would prefer Jack pull his finger out, and stay. But after years of encouraging him to do so are frustrated, and if he wont (pull said finger out), we'd be better off without him. There's actually a fair bit of tough love and care in giving a player like Jack such a public correction. I've no doubt if Jack thrives elsewhere (or at the MFC) it will be due in no small part to the harsh reality check he's currently receiving.

Of course it was. I feel with Jack, it is him getting the final 20% of improvement that he’s struggled to commit to or take responsibility for.

Personal responsibility doesn’t mean you don’t make mistakes or have flaws, it means you take responsibilty for learning from your mistakes and working on your flaws. Jack’s just been delivered a very public final ultimatum, after many private suggestions and support. He’s yet to take theses on.

I hope so, and if he has, I hope he stays. But if he hasn’t, I hope he goes. As Jones said “it’s up to him”.

I agree Jack has potential to grow into a better player. But that’s exactly why his inability (or disinclination) to take that step is so vexing. As the saying goes: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”. Jacks had 1st class coaches, facilities, opportunities for the past three years. Many players are flourishing, players now see the MFC as a place to be. But Jack’s been choosing not to fully leverage this opportunity...

There’s an erroneous assumption that these issues of Jack performance are a recent discussion and “are being played out in the public arena”, etc... these questions and doubts about Jack’s commitment have been going on for years... and intensified this year as Jack flatlined as our list improved, to the extent that Jack is now a marginal and expendable element in our forward plans.

To paraphrase what Roos said at last years B&F, and some here have noted, Jack needs to decide to be great, and undertake everything he can that that decision implies. If he made that decision, he could stay with honour, and rebuild the respect of his club that he’s so evidently lost. If unwilling or unable to make that decision to be great (and commit to it) I’d prefer he left.

So we need to keep Jack on as our unofficial “love guru”, to give out snuggly hugs and lead the team in rowdy post-win renditions of “Sweet Caroline”, despite not being as committed to doing all the work required of a senior professional footballer as many of his team mates...?

So the captain is espousing the players take personal responsibility for their performance and respect within the club..? Love it. That some can interpret this as decisive shows the corrosive effect that one player not taking personal responsibility, can have on a group aspiring to elite performance.

I back Jones in this. He is right there, unlike us, and would be acting and talking in alignment with the leadership group, FD, coach and club. His intention is to make us great again as a club, and to lead us to a premiership during his time at the club. I dont feel Jack is as committed to those goals as many (at the club) believe he needs to be...

I remember last year someone reported a discussion they had with Jo Gutnick who told them that Nat Fyfe to Demons was conditional on J Watts leaving... Maybe Nat is the one we’re gunning for..? ???

When Jack’s visiting these clubs for the tour I wonder what he says in response to the inevitable question, “Why are the MFC moving you on? And what are you going to do to address these areas/concerns?”...

Jack (Jake) upon arriving at his post-season interview...

I think the Coach's comments about Jack's preparation and professionalism are leading some to assume (correctly in my view) that Jack Watts is a long way behind Jack Viney in his preparation, rehab and intensity, and that for a senior player it's poor.

Hannan, while not small, is good on the pressure front and can rove and snap like a small forward. Also, like Vandenbergs pressure and presence when up and running, will be interesting if he regains and improves further when back from injury.

Goodwin has from the outset been primarily focused on building a team and game style that will win finals. Physical, tough and aggressive players would rank highly under this criteria. Love that Lever is an in-your-face sledger of opponents, who also doesn't shy away from physically following it up.

Low blow Ron.

Aside from what Lever brings directly, bringing him in may also pay big in allowing TMac to morph into a tall forward/2nd ruck role while also being able to go back when required.

I applaud Goodwin and Jones coming out in public and commenting on Jacks inadequate prep and efforts, and acknowledging the club's preparation to trade him off our list. For the single reason that they, and many in here no longer believe Jacks intention and approach to his football is beneficial to the club. Several attempts have been made to jolt (Neeld) or love (Roos) Jack into lifting his game, none have been especially successful for long. Of the three scenarios from here with Jack the first has become the least palitable to the club: 1: Jack stays and continues his inadequate approach to his prep and the contested elements of the game. 2: Jack leaves and we get a pick and move on, demonstrating a new high set of expectations to the team. 3: Jack stays and as a result of the public flaying and prospect of being booted from the MFC, makes some decisions about his footy that dramatically improve his game and contribution to the team.

It's a shame the people rarely describe Jack as having a ferocious attack on the ball, or as a manic tackler or even committed to the contest. He'd need to change his spots to be able to be an asset in a final or GF.

Why does the club owe "loyalty" to a very well payed player who's lack of application has had him dropped at various points by his past four coaches, and being on the verge of being traded for peanuts compared to his No#1 draft cost..?

Touchy... there can be more than one reason. Jack being in and out of the team ( and now likely to be traded) as he has been, means his selection is not as automatic as you seem to think...

Trade value.