robbiefrom13

Most disappointing thing for me is that we will run out to play Essendon, as though they are sportsmen like us, competing at the same thing as us. What a sham! Everyone seems complicit in the denial, even us. I just can't get onto that page. "Get over it"? That's Essendon's line.

Worksafe sanctioning Essendon would be welcome, but it won't cut it for me. I want to see Sport throw out these crooks. I want to be reassured that Sport rejects cheating, not Occupational Health and Safety finding stuff to complain about. For me, Essendon challenged clean sport, and at this stage are getting away with it. If so, it just has to be a watershed. So, if the full gamut of Sport authorities let it go through, I really am finished with sport. For me, it all comes to an end Tuesday week. I have asked myself what I'll do if in twelve months' time there's a test that proves it, and then the sanctions finally kick in. Not good enough, I think - right now there doesn't seem to be the will to insist Sport be kept clean, and that's the real deal-breaker for me. (Though if in twelve months' time ASADA/WADA/the AFL/whoever run the tests and declare Essendon guilty after all, and annihilate them, maybe if I was missing footy badly enough I'd relax my outrage, and be saying "better late than never" instead of what I now imagine would be a "too little too late" reaction. Maybe...) I can't get to the Sydney game, so right now I'm going on Sunday thinking it may be the last game I see.

They played safe. Had they found against Essendon it would have become a much-quoted precedent; they would have unleashed all sorts of unwelcome consequences; and their judgment would have almost certainly been challenged by the Essendon mafia - at which time presumably clarity about "comfortable satisfaction" would have emerged and been applied to whatever they'd said in their judgment. Maybe they felt exposed and under unfair pressure. By dismissing the matter, all this could so easily be avoided. "Comfortable satisfaction" is vague, and maybe they didn't feel comfortable about exactly how it should be understood. Small wonder they drifted towards the familiar. Still gutless, and wrong. They had a job to do, and they squibbed it, blaming their tools.

Intent to cheat is enough, though, isn't it? And if Essendon tried to get TB4, then whether they got dudded or not has no bearing on their intent... They've been given the benefit of an irrelevancy.

Roos looks a lot calmer in the box than most.

I came to trash. Know already what will happen. I'm a supporter.

yes. One hesitates to mention on here how intelligent and composed and accurate and receivable and downright productive Watts' handballing is. But it is as good as it gets.

yes - and there we go, more "contests"! Down on scoring, but hey... Keep telling it though - us muppets will eventually fold and shut up, won't we, and Roos must hear you eventually too. Physicality and contests is the real thing isn't it? Just keep repeating it, and names-calling anyone stupid enough to trust Roos' judgement. I mean, it's not as though he knows anything is it, or as though he's building the team successfully or anything. Probably just another muppet, Roos - shirking the hard call...

and silly, blind, soft, etc etc Paul Roos just goes on not getting it - why can't the man cotton on, and consult Demonland?? What is the PROBLEM here?!?

How many members, people through the turnstiles, is this guy going to bring? Who's going to go next week now?

He's different to Neita, and one of the differences is excitement level.

This is interesting - of course, nobody is exactly the same as anybody else. If another player is suggested, there will immediately be a whole lot of quite correct objections on the basis of differences between them and Watts. But then what about Brian Wilson who used to go down in a heap with an "injury" more than a lot liked? "Ah, ya down again son!" in a Foghorn Leghorn voice... He was a discard from two clubs at the age of 20, but a star for us for years after. Great contributor - with this downright cringey peculiarity. What about the great Allan Jakovitch, who was not entirely trusted I'd say, because of his idiosyncracies - never fit, was one of them. We kept him in the Reserves, kicking huge bags of goals, for far too long before he got into the seniors. How can you be a footballer if you won't get fit? But he proved you could. Plenty of others come to mind, lacking a presumed non-negotiable. Tiger Crosswell was considered odd. Doull certainly was. Actually, think of the history of discards - people who didn't quite fit the moulds. Diesel Williams, or Ablett senior, for example. Brett Lovett. Even the great Robbie Flower was told yes, he could train if he liked - but really we were looking for good players - the presumption being that without the physique or the mongrel you weren't going to be up to much in AFL. I know that was before we saw what he could do, but it is a true fact that Melbourne supporters in the outer were calling for him to be taken off - and a lot more than once - before half-time in his first game. People looked at what was there and when it didn't fit their mental image they scorned it. So, what should we be looking for in a comparison, a precedent, to justify our having faith in Jack Watts? (Experts that we are... ) Hawkins keeps getting mentioned - Geelong persevered with an over-sized underperformer for a long time while they were right at the top. But, obviously, no-one is going to be exactly like Jack Watts. What can be said is that Watts is involved in goals more often than a lot of other slow-developing players have been. His so-called softness does not prevent his contributing, no matter how much it sticks out in the minds of supporters. But everyone's unique - knowing that was one of Paul Roos' great attributes, and thank goodness we got him! Neeld must have virtually destroyed a lot of individuals at Melbourne. Why don't we just trust the Roos as an authority on the value of Watts? Spectate, take notice, and learn what we don't already know?

In talking about Tunbridge, the famous 50's half-forward whose floaters just kept going through, that recent book the 100 Heroes or whatever-it-was quoted somebody back then commenting on Tunna being so flimsy, and what they said was along the lines of "if he needed protection we'd provide it for him". Of all our players from the 50's, I reckon Tunbridge is still referred to just about as much as anyone. Now legendary, Tunbridge at the time was dangerous, accurate-kicking and pretty-well unclassifiable; a unique member of a powerful team, without the physical attributes a lot today assume are fundamental. Needed looking after, even, and then... Watts is a lot bigger than Tunbridge, but perhaps comparable in needing the team around him before his best is seen. Like the great Tunbridge, maybe he'll still end up known as a one-off with uncanny ability to get goals to happen. A man as hard as Norm Smith rated Tunbridge and was not let down. Roos appears to be able to see Watts' value beyond the absence of other normal qualities.

the players got off because there was no absolute proof of what they had taken. The club must not get off because of these inarguable facts: they ran a longterm injection programme but deny there are any written records: GONE. The paper trail behind that injection programme has illegal drugs in it, without satisfactory explanations as to intent or eventual disposal, while there is no evidence of legal drugs in sufficient quantities being bought: GONE. The club claims there are not even any memory records of their longterm injection programme: GONE. In the early days of that injection programme the club got the players to sign waivers for injections (the nature of which injections they claim nobody can identify - which is absurd: at least one person among the players or the administration saw the need for the waivers, and somebody if not everybody would have asked what exactly were the injected substances that the waiver was referring to): GONE. The club had the injections administered away from the club and without the club doctor overseeing the process or the records of it: GONE. And since being asked about all of this the club have made multiple legal efforts to prevent the scrutiny of their injection programme: GONE. That is unquestionably a rogue club. Players who have refused to speak up are complicit, so that if the club goes down the players will then have to go down with it. Otherwise, as numerous posters have said, Essendon has established the blueprint and drugs are going to go through sport like wildfire. There may be legal issues and power issues and money issues, but sport is as good as dead in 3 weeks if WADA lets this go.

I'll tell you what I can and will do. If Essendon gets away with it, I will walk away. There's plenty else in life that doesn't reek of lies, cheating, money and corruption.

Likely enough these are all good points, I think; maybe it is exactly as you see it - except that I can also see him on all fours in a pack, cool and firing out a superb handball to someone going past. Second and third efforts on the ground in the middle of a pack. Seen it more than once. TV especially has shown that part of his repertoire. In such situations, his composure is outstanding. I think his real difficulty is when he can't see team-mates around him. Needs to be part of the whole. I believe interviews he's given support this reading. So I still hold out hope - in a well functioning team, he could be a world-beater.

hmm. Don't go mad, dee-luded. If you were playing out there with him, I'd venture to suggest you'd get dragged, quick smart! Reminds me of Keating, who would look indolent and unperturbed. You should read Don Watson on the Redfern speech. Drove people up the wall, but I think history is going to rate Keating fairly well. Contrast with the hyper-active onionman... Sherlock Holmes appeared indolent. Thinkers can, and so too can those who appear to have all the time in the world, just because they read the situation so much quicker. Watts goes sometimes, and sometimes when he doesn't it may well be that he could see not to. Like a batsman shouldering arms at a widish ball - the better he is the finer he can judge it. All I'm saying is, if Roos was driven up the wall by Watts he would not be playing him. If we are of a different mind to Roos, surely we should be asking what it is that we are missing... And whatever else Roos might be thinking, he's certainly NOT being motivated by a desire to spare Casey the frustration!

Can't argue. But he continues to get picked. What are we missing? I'm suggesting there must be something else to take into account.

or as in "soft players are no good because they're soft". The conclusion depends on the premise being a reason for itself. Firstly yourself. What did you think I was saying? I beg to differ re his skills. Possibly I'm in the majority, in this opinion. "So what?" So these are worthwhile and by no means run-of-the-mill skills. Why should he retire? Why not try to use the skills? Which is what he and the club are working on. "when there is the slightest implied pressure" - that's just silly talk. If it were true, and he was known to be soft (as he is), in the AFL he'd be scoring 0% efficiency.

ok. It's a difference of opinion. it is possible that his role is not to be the extractor. I don't know if this is the case, but suppose it is; then while it seems obvious to us that there are times when he must be taking that definition of his role too literally, and it would be better if he went in and got the thing, so that we think he is letting the side down through not playing what we take for granted would be his role; yet he doesn't get dropped. You'd have to wonder why he is still in the team - Roos can see what we see. Hence my thinking there may be more to it than we have understood. As to Robbie Flower, I saw him too. I remember him one time late in his career coralled by David Rhys-Jones, Flower with the ball but undecided where to go, and Rhys-Jones with his arms spread waiting for Flower to move. Nothing happened for what seemed a very long time - Rhys-Jones clearly figured he would be evaded if he lunged, while Robbie equally appeared unsure which way to go and I imagine convinced he'd be walloped if he tried to go anywhere. it was an absolute stalemate. Both guys had their strengths, and neither was confident of doing anything. Eventually the ball ended up over the boundary line, and nobody in hospital. There are times when the obvious isn't obvious, and "going" because you're there can be useless. I just don't think the thing with Watts is as obvious as some on here think. If Roos drops him, ok, we can see what's going on - until then, our frustrated thoughts are not making clear any definite facts - not as Roos apparently sees it anyway. I see your point - and I do wonder if maybe only tough guys can be useful. But Roos keeps picking him...

The prophets of doom often have the satisfaction of being vindicated - most items in any category of things turn out to be average - it's the statistical bell curve. Isn't the average AFL career around 5 years? So that on the law of averages Watts has done ok so far. Number one draft pick? Everybody thought so at the time; surely time to let that one go. The real question surely is whether or not we will ever get a regular match-winner out of his mix of skills/deficiencies. the impatient anti-Watts crowd are making a lot of noise - but will history prove them right? Here's my couple of thoughts: 1. Talk about Watts being tough and playing aggressively, even thumping someone, is "begging the question" in that it offers as grounds for dumping him the fact that he isn't the sort of player that he isn't. It amounts to the question "Is a soft player worth anything?" being answered with "no, because he's soft." Robbie Flower wasn't one to hit anyone. Lots of good players aren't. It is at least theoretically possible that a team can have a "soft" player who is still worth a game. Whether Watts is one of them - well, that's the question. So, what criteria can we think of (other than hitting people, bashing and crashing) that might be grounds for valuing his contribution - when his value is not going to be in terms of "toughness"? What KPI's can we come up with for a player like Watts? I'd suggest we could look at, for example, things like efficient disposals compared to possessions lost due to his alleged softness; or examples of possession retained through his exceptional skills where we might well have lost possession had a less silky player had the use of the ball - the sort of break-the-game-open things that a Robbie Flower did used to do. The impact of his involvements on momentum in the game. And maybe also we might consider excusing his failing to win or retain possession if tougher players left him unsupported... I'd suggest this is not special pleading, but really just like saying Jetta cannot be expected to outmark Buddy, and so criticising him for failing to do so is just ignoring a fact. No doubt Roos has his ideas of what to factor into his assessment of Watts, weighing whether his skills outweigh his deficiencies. It seems to me that on Demonland we keep hearing frustrated voices shouting here that Watts has deficiencies - and from my point of view those ventings of frustration must not be taken as the whole of the story... Jetta (or anybody) can still be a good player despite there being things he cannot do. Ditto Watts. 2. We are clearly still trying to work out how to use Watts. Garry Lyon offered his thoughts, and Roos is apparently still trying to nut it out. We have a player with these wonderful skills, but cannot get them into play often enough. For many of us his shortcomings keep obscuring the picture of what he brings to the team. I say there is a need - on here, at Demonland - for a more carefully weighed evaluation of what Watts offers. It reminds me of Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty who dreamed up that absolute lunacy the Allied attack on Gallipoli in 1915. In fact, everything he did in politics was a fiasco until he became Prime Minister, replacing the insipid Chamberlain in the desperate days of the Blitz, and then Churchill eventually astonished his critics by becoming unmistakably the greatest of all British Prime Ministers. They finally had him in the job where his excellences were exactly what was needed; and his undoubted peculiarities and poor judgment simply didn't matter. Or Abraham Lincoln - a loose cannon personally and no fiscal manager, took the country through a most destructive civil war, but he abolished slavery. Great things can be done by people with great talents, despite their very-evident failings - if you can put them into the position to use their skills. If the times call for those particular skills. Remember Norm Smith taking his old mate's boy who couldn't quite cut it, and creating the new ruck-rover position for him. Barassi had some excellences and some shortcomings - but the right fit unleashed all his good points and he became a superstar. Until we really have worked out where Watts ought to be played to maximise his undoubted skills, and to minimise the effect of his weaknesses, we haven't made use of him properly; and we won't really know. While there is no clarity about his proper role - and I think it is clear enough that there isn't yet - I think we have to hold back from passing judgment. It is fascinating watching. Tantalising, seeing his first game last year, his first game this year - and then having him not kick on. Of course we'd like to see him grow stronger, with a more obviously competitive nature. But meantime, there are star qualities in there! All the Watts-hating on here is disappointing, because it ignores the real issue. What I want to see is the right fit; then and only then will we be able to gauge his value. Until Roos gives him a settled position, and then either lets him and his team-mates grow into his playing that position, or else discards him as a failure in that position - I'd prefer to wait. I think I trust Roos to get it right in the end. Meantime I'm disappointed repeatedly, but still live in hope. Loving it when Watts deservedly gets named in the best. I still think that on skill - vision, hands, kicking, coolness - he is an outstanding talent. Such an amiable and patient person too - I wish it was easier to have the same qualities when watching him play for us!

disgusted - but don't have any solution other than what's been suggested; though you are quite comfortable about it being a bad idea to sanction Essendon's systematic cheating and defiance of any sort of accountability? The destroying of the game is not a matter of whether or not we have a bye in the fixture - it's about whether or not the game is riddled with drug cheating. And if Essendon has gotten away with it, every time they win a game we will be one step closer to the pharmacological precipice. Don't be so naive as to suppose there aren't a whole heap of Danks watching, waiting like vultures who smell opportunity and weakness. What kind of message do you think would be a step effective in ensuring no-one ever tries the Essendon method again?

the ones that come out to play?

Olympic wriggling?

I don't like Anzac Day - i reckon Leunig has it pretty well covered. Hate it all, especially when you see Abbott scratching around for a war, to shore up his flagging popularity among the moron electorate. So if Essendon tarnish that great piece of culture I don't much mind. But they are destroying sport. Immunity, by means of denials and barefaced rejection of responsibility, has been accepted at AFL level - if ASADA and WADA concede or agree, it'll be "game over" in more ways than one. What will we do - have an annual remembrance day for when sport used to be part of Australian culture? For when we used to stand before the world and show how we Australians play the game?