Hannabal

Rubbish. There are always greats of an era, whether it be Hadyn Bunton, Whitten, Skilton, Matthews, Ablett, Carey, or Hird. Clearly they all played in different eras. For some of them the game was hardly even semi-professional, but they're still recognised as greats of their era. Just like we'll look back in 25 years time and discuss the greats of the current era. Watts may, or may not be one of them. One thing is certain though, the greats of any era had earmarked their greatness at a relatively young age - which is the point I continue to make and the one that seems hardest to grasp around here. And yes, your idea of a star and mine couldn't be further apart.

You will usually have winning teams when it comprises star/s. Stars win flags as a general rule, not always, but usually. And I'm not talking about your garden variety star. Make no mistake, the Dees took Watts because they hoped he'd become a genuine star. Now, he may or may not, but that was the clubs expectations when they called out his name at pick one. Clearly they're not easy to come by as we haven't had one in 30 years. Hmm, wonder if there's any correlation to us not winning a flag in that time. I wonder. Time will tell if Watts becomes one. PS: there's been that many debates on here as to whether you need a star to win a flag, or top 6 of your team's 22 versus bottom 6 (depth) that I won't rehash here. Needless to say, no-one advocates that a star will win a flag simply complimented by a bunch of B graders.

The term "star" is unquestionably too easily bandied about. Some supporters think that Davey is a "star", ffs. I nearly always use the term "star" in conjunction with "great of the game", which is why I don't consider Neitz a "star". He was a great of the MFC, but not of the game. If one waters down "star" to your levels then the lines are too easily blurred. I accept that there'll be differing opinions anyway, but not nearly as much with my definition.

He'd had about 2 months at Casey. I'd hardly call that "little match fitness".

Seeing as you want Ben Cousins to Melb, as depicted in your profile, I fear my words are wasted. Whilst our forward-line is most certainly struggling, it's the midfield where we've been losing matches. Jurrah needs match fitness and he'll get it where he needs to - Casey.

Just so there's no confusion, I make no reference to "trading him", and nor do I talk about "how long to persevere". My comments purely refer to the chances of him being a bona fide "great of the game", or as some say "star". I think at worst he'll become a good player. He's coming from a fair way back if he's going to be a great of the game, which is why he was drafted. We need him to become a star to win a flag, imo.

I'm as aware of Watts' attributes as you, so I don't need "convincing" as to his potential upside. I'm also aware as to how far behind the greats of the game he is at a similar age. This seems to escape you and many others who want to rely solely on 'raw stats' and not their eyes. Btw, I don't see Naitanui as a "likely superstar".

And I'd simply argue that none of the players you mention are going to be "stars of the game", which is the crux of my point. Brereton and Carey weren't "men" when they started, they were skinny teenagers. Lloyd and Nick Riewoldt weren't "men" and nor was Buddy. Fraser Gehrig, Alistair Lynch, David Neitz, Fevola and Barry Hall were relatively late bloomers as key forwards and certainly more at odds with my theory, but they were also a rung below the best key forwards of other eras, so, below what I was hoping Watts would become. The competition is certainly ready for its next star key forward and probably overdue, but I don't see a genuine star in "Gumbleton, Cloke, Hansen, Kennedy, Nic Nat etc etc". It will be interesting to see how Jack Riewoldt develops, but I doubt he'll become top shelf. Lockett had great pace over the first 10 metres and it would hold him in good stead in any era. Although he wouldn't have been allowed to get so big in today's running game.

Kernahan being established by 22 is exactly my point. He was a star at 19 in the SANFL and kicked 10 in a match winning display for SA against the Vics, before making the cross to Carlton the following year. He won Glenelg's B&F in 1983 at 19, and followed it up winning in 1984 and 1985 - 3 straight. He topped the Magarey Medal as a 19 year old in 1983, but was ineligible to win it. What a pity he didn't have McLure as a chop out while he was in SA. Dunstall was a really good player at 21 kicking 77 goals. At 18 Lockett kicked 77 goals and followed it up with 79 at 19. Carey kicked 39 goals from CHF as a 19 year old, including a bag of 7 - 8 marks and 22 possessions. In that year as a 19 year old Carey represented NSW in State of Origin and came runner up in the B&F. So Carey can talk all he likes about his slow start, but he was very much a key player at 19 - his second year. Lloyd kicked 63 goals as a 19 year old. By the time he was 22 ke kicked 100. Franklin kicked 100 goals as a 21 year old. Brereton kicked 50 goals from CHF as a 20 year old in 1984. He was aggressive towards the footy from the beginning. As far as chop outs go, Kernahan would have been as good without McLure, Brereton as good with Gladys, Carey as good without Longmire, and Lloyd without Salmon and Lucas. They were stars because they were stars. There would have been other players fill the breach. Stop looking at excuses and just acknowledge the quality of those players at a young age. The facts are that all of those players were stars, or well on the way, by the age of 20/21; some earlier. Watts will be rewriting the record books if it takes him until the age of 23 to show the signs that the others showed at a much earlier age. Watts will be 20 for the bulk of 2011 and 21 for 2012. I hope that in that time he shows enough to suggest that he's an AFL star in the making. If he doesn't he won't become one. Next year is pivotal. Or, we can just keep making excuses.

My dogs leave the room when I'm watching Melb on tv.

Cam Bruce has a very high effective rate for Hospital handballs. One of the best in the league.

It's a difficult question as I still harbour hopes for Watts becoming the forward we craved. I knew Rich would be plug and play and liked the look of Hill, although the latter has come on quicker than I anticipated. Rich gets a bit of a bum wrap, imo. That left foot is exquisite and arguably the best I've seen. I still wouldn't take Naitanui and I reckon Hurley has been overrated. So, on exposed form I'd say Rich and Hill would tempt me. Btw, you're falling into the trap of making excuses about why 'stars' were 'stars'. I believe that 'stars' are 'stars' because they're 'stars'. Go back and review the careers of Lockett, Brereton, Dunstall, Lloyd, Carey, Franklin, Riewoldt, Kernahan and tell me how good they were at 20/21.

As of round 13 we're arguably the worst team in the competition. West Coast could give us a run for our money, but at least they beat us at the G. The good news for Bailey is that we're under the radar. The media have gone very soft on us. But, we all understand it's a work in progress. While we have players that are clearly not good enough for us to become a top 4 side then we'll tread water until the talented youth develop. So I don't get too many jollies contemplating one spud replacing another.

I don't think there's much wrong with his kicking from a technical point of view. His kick to Dunn after breaking away from the centre was superbly weighted, as was his kick to Bate against the Bulldogs when Bate had a shoebox to work in. Errant kicks are more likely to come from poor decisions made under intense pressure with little time, or not enough movement from static teammates up the field. I saw Ablett turn it over with a shocking kick on Friday night and Judd regularly miss targets this year. Scully's kicking gives me no cause for concern. His decision making will improve as he continues to come to grips with the tempo of the game.

Of course it's all relative, but I don't remember other key forwards looking so far out of their depth as Jack, which is why I'm not taking much notice of the raw stats you provided. It's understandable to an extent when one considers he's come from playing school footy 2 years ago to the top grade now. We're trying to get games into Watts to fast track his development, where as players that may have been at a similar level simply stayed in the VFL, such as Jarrad Grant, who played no games in his first year and only one in his second. Nick Riewoldt was terrific in his second year and Jono Brown was holding down CHF in a premiership team kicking 38 goals. So you'll understand if I don't take too much notice of the stats provided. Everyone likes to say that in reality this is Watts' first year and that he's yet to do a full preseason. I can run with this for two reasons; a) it's true and B) I'm a Melb. supporter and have been used to making excuses for players for 30 years. But in reality, I'll really want to see some signs that Watts has the potential to be a "star" in 2011 - his third year. Some of the reasons that have been provided by other posters as to why Jack is still some way from finding his feet are valid, but I also know that the key forwards who have ultimately become genuine "stars of the competition" have been really good players by the time they were 20. Watts turns 20 early next season. If you go through them all you'll understand the significance. I saw Watts play numerous times in the flesh when he was still playing juniors. Perhaps I was seduced by his height, pace, agility, clean hands, beautiful kicking off both sides, decision making, etc, and just thought that it would seamlessly translate to the AFL once he found his feet. I mean, he's a beautiful looking footballer. But there are intangible ingredients that make up the composition of a 'star', and I may have pulled the trigger too early in my estimations. From what I've seen, there are no guarantees Watts will become a 'star'. At worst I think he'll become a good AFL player, but that will be a big disappointment to me. The club needed a bona fide 'star' when they drafted him. I hope he delivers.

Out: green deck chairs In: blue deck chairs

You could have included Jack Riewoldt. I don't think that many would be concerned by his raw stats, more the fact that he is so far out of his depth and well behind the intensity of AFL footy. I've been more concerned by some of the relatively easy marks I expected someone of his talent to jag - especially the one against Collingwood where Bate set him up beautifully running towards goal. I look forward to having a look at him next year with another 6 or 7 kilos.

Supporters, in the main, want their team to have a crack. They didn't and they deserve the flogging they're getting.

It's pretty simple really. There are too many potatoes still in the team and the senior players are B graders.

Where did I say that he should be dropped ? He had a quiet game, but I didn't care whether he got dropped or kept his spot. It's the future that is the concern for Gysberts and they'll get games into him as they see fit. If he gets promoted I'll back their judgment and if he gets dropped I'll back their judgment. There was no care factor for me. Disposal is an area of his game that he definitely needs to improve and I'm sure he will.

If he stays fit til season's end it will be his first good year. He owes the MFC and needs to repay the faith. Happy he signed.

My palate is no more forgiving than years ago, but I've learnt not to swallow.

There's much I agree with in your post, but I don't completely concur on Miller. I don't think that he has always puts his body on the line. If he did, I'd have him in the team every week for the reasons you mention. Miller needs to be the big, aggressive, enforcer and protector in the forward line. He either doesn't have the confidence, smarts, or ability to adequately take charge of this role. He'll have his good days in this regard and when he does we'll go a long way to winning those matches - see Port game. I also don't agree on Joel MacDonald. He's a fringe player at best.

If you may what ? Your comment is a bit vague, but if you think that I swing with the breeze and make player assessments on whether we win, or lose then you couldn't be further from the truth. Alternatively, I suspect you're saying that I only want what is played out on the field to be recorded and not have any mitigating circumstances discussed, i.e. experience and age of the player; whether a player is coming back from injury; whether they're still adjusting to the tempo of senior footy; what development mode they're in; if they're playing a new position on the ground; taking into account the quality of the opposition; etc. It's obvious that there can be a myriad of reasons why a player plays in a certain way and there are certainly appropriate times to make mention of these. I don't plan on prefacing every comment with the circumstance of each player, as most will be obvious. Why does plain speak offend so many ? Don't assume that one isn't aware of the circumstances of a player just because reference to said circumstance isn't constantly referenced. A case in point is Freak saying that Gysberts disposal was "shabby" against Collingwood. It was, but someone immediately felt the urge to come to the defence of the young player as if he'd been vilified. The over-reactions and constant excuses made by some are nauseating.

There's been a deep seated apathy that has permeated this club for decades. Unfortunately, most Melb supporters I've met sound exactly like you and needless to say I don't warm to them. They're often very nice people, but they know jack [censored] about footy. Nice people, nice supporters, nice club. It shits me to tears.