robbiefrom13

The playing of Watts in that game was a mistake, but I have not seen any discussion of whose mistake it was. At the time, I was pretty disturbed to see the flimsily-built Watts attacked by the Collingwood players and none of his team-mates flying the flag. His first shot went just wide, and no-one showed really any interest. For the first few games he played, no-one would kick it to him. I got used to seeing him running to the boundary trying to get the ball before it went out of bounds. It seemed to me that the team were not proud to have him out there with them, were not looking out for him - there was a sort of standing back which made no sense to me at all. I have wondered about it. It must have undermined him, his leads became really half-hearted, and so on. I wonder whether playing him that day was a Schwab idea? It seems to me exactly the sort of pseudo-symbolic (or whatever it is) nonsense that made up so much of Schwab's thinking. If this were so, it would explain the players' reaction to Watts, as being so similar to what we understand to have been their reaction to Schwab. The cancer at the club has surely extended into the career of Jack Watts, and while many of the problems today may not have been of Neeld's making, yet Neeld was in a position to have given everyone a clean start - and he clearly failed to do so. Whatever happens, my respect for the perseverence and resilience of Watts is colossal; my dismay at the waste of talent is equally colossal - and I do not see how we can blame Watts for it. He has no idea what he has to do, I am sure of it. And don't jump up in frustration telling me about "getting some mongrel" or whatever - this guy who we recruited is not a Mitch Robinson battering ram, he is a supremely gifted and intelligent ball user, who has not found his place in the team. The team has no Watts-shaped place - same as it had no Jurrah-shaped place, same as it had no Green-shaped place, etc. Nice one, Neeldy.

Scully was not struggling under the same disincentives as these players are, arguably, today. A lesser contract may be acceptable when the desire to relocate is greater.

for me, it is first Jurrah, now Watts - if they can't recognise, and develop, and embed the rare talent they acquire, quite right - stuff em. But it hasn't happened yet - and maybe there are cards a competent management could play, in a situation like this? There is no escaping the fact that the players are our ONLY assets. were you being serious, I wonder? I am.

can we trade autocol?