Lucifers Hero

I saw that yesterday when updating my schedule. Can't imagine what software they used to make this a leap year!! And did you notice how they rectified it for the 'March' page...they gently eased the 29th out again! So the rest of the calendar is ok.

I agree. They won last year because we were not to good at zone defence (early days) and they kept getting the ball out the back. (Essendon, Port and Sydney did the same). We have refined the zone and taken a lot of the risk out of it. Nonetheless, the real answer is to stop supply to him out of the middle. Given how strong our mids now are and how we use 'angles' around the ground I reckon we can stop him getting too much of the ball.

Salem with be in our top players whatever position he plays in. The main reason Roos played him in the back line is because we didn't have the right people to play there. Anyway, it was good for his development. We now have several players who can be attacking and accurate out of the backline so don't see a reason for him to play back again. He is much more dangerous around the middle and forward.

Good to see Essendon lose

The writer seems to rely on Jones' comments...maybe Jones forgot there is a VFL practice game next week. I get what the club is doing with Watts but to give him no match practice, even at VFL practice games, just doesn't make sense as it compromises his readiness to play be it VFL or AFL. Goodwin himself said Jack needs to be ready to play when selected so if other players get VFL practice games so should Jack, as by all accounts he has been doing all that is required for the last 2/3 weeks; unless there is something else behind the 'suspensions'.

Hope both Jordan Lewis and Sam Mitchell play...entertaining to watch them on opposing (new) teams! Even better if the line up on each other!

Agreed. If we miss a top 2 spot the %age we gave up today will be a major factor. Having said that the umpires didn't help us (I rarely comment on them so feel my gripes today are legit)...In the first quarter the Blues first goal was from a non-free, free kick. The second was from a dubious free, beautifully staged for by the Carlton player. They went goalless until the last when they were given a non free in their F50 that set up the first goal of that quarter (their 3rd for the game). Unfortunately, that set their momentum going and we were caught flat footed. And even tho we won, there went our big %age boost. By the way the AFL has decided that whoever finishes on top hosts a Home Grand Final. Lots to play for still!

So what is your theory on his non-selection, Saty? Can't imagine he would be in the Watts category of 'not meeting preseason KPI's' In the pre-season reviews Macca hinted Jetta had to work hard to maintain his spot in the team. "He’s now part of a really competitive group of mid-sized defenders/wingers, so he’s up for the challenge of winning his spot and keeping his spot..." Surely, Hibberd and Melksham haven't displaced him as 'first 22', already - without playing a game? Will be disappointed if Jetta doesn't get a chance to show his stuff in a JLT game so that he he will be well placed to 'win and keep his spot.'

I think clubs can upgrade a rookie if they don't have a 'full list' of players. I think we were deemed to have a 'full list' when the AFL disallowed a replacement (ie rookie upgrade) for Lumumba. As an aside, the LTI rookie upgrade situation is now rather interesting. Generally, the LTI upgraded rookie goes back to the VFL when the injured player returns. But, in 2015 the AFL allowed StK to continue to play (Sinclair or Schneider, I think) in the seniors even tho the LTI had returned. If the AFL were consistent with that, the Mitch King upgrade could stay in the seniors. It would be a neat move by mfc. But the AFL rarely seem consistent nor disposed to helping us maintain a full list ie no Melksham top up, no Lumumba rookie upgrade, so I wouldn't be optimistic.

While its tough on Mitch it is a good chance for Joel Smith to get an upgrade to the seniors. By all accounts he is performing really well and is impressive.

Caroline has her say: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-20170224-gukxno.html These two paragraphs sum it up rather nicely: "The varying degrees of delusion in that bunker occupied by Paul Little, James Hird, Mark Thompson and Danny Corcoran can be summed up by concluding that all were in desperate positions but none – at least in the recording – showed contrition for the damage they had caused and were continuing to create". "Those who allowed this to happen should be so ashamed of themselves that any personal grievances remain red herrings to what they put their players through. And the side issue in the form of a push for a parliamentary inquiry smacks of an attempt to rewrite the key facts of the club's dreadful recent history." She makes very strong links of Bomber to the recording.

That narrows the options and sets the imagination racing!

Great News! That will put paid to any fantasy Eddie and his cohorts had of getting him over to their side of the paddock!!

Mark Stevens has tweeted Jack will not be selected this week. Then he tweeted: Melb going with theory of picking best side possible ... setting tone early. Reckon Watts will play R1 but battl on now Hmm...Jack not in our best 22... battle on for round 1... Its one thing for Goodwin to set the tone early and it is another to hang a player out to dry. Goodwin must know how the media will have a gorge fest over it and hope he has a plan to support Jack in the background and publicly if the media frenzy eventuates.

Not sure what you are on about. I am very clear about what has been played out here. My position has been very clear from the beginning and has not wavered: See post #96 which was before Max's interview and a many hours before Tom's, I said I believed there was truth in L36's rumour (based on reports from the intra-club) and applauded Goodwin for 'punishing' Jack (if that is what was needed). Unlike others including the op I did not put any store in the claim Jack had come back from the off-season unfit. The op has since dropped that claim from his posts. See post #133 which was after Max's interview (and before Tom's) where he said (and I believed and still do that Jack did not have an attitude problem) I acknowledged there may be other reasons Jack didn't get a game and again I applauded Goodwin. It has since come to light via the Ox that the problem was with KPI's and not lack of fitness and not attitude. Some posters were quick to make assumptions and criticise Jack's activities during the off-season, blame his Footy Show appearances etc without a skerick of evidence to link those to his 'punishment' and jumped on unsubstantiated reports about lack of fitness and poor attitude. I'm glad you and others now accept that Jack: did not come back from pre-season unfit, does not have an attitude problem, any 'punishment' is for other KPI issues, and that Goodwin should be applauded for taking a stand. Good, we are now on the same page.

That is a selective quote, out of context. McDonald's quoted comments, in full were: "It's about realigning what's important for the team," McDonald said. "I can't really tell you guys (the media) what we're working on, but it's about understanding there's roles that have to be played. "For our team it's not about kicking goals and getting touches, it's about doing what is required for the team." So when I read the the first two lines (you omitted) I saw what followed in the context of Max's comments ie trying 2 ruckman and giving Vand and Weideman a go so no room for another tall. And, the realignment perhaps is Max's comment about playing 2 ruckman: Gawn/Spencer; Gawn/Watts. Interesting how comments look when in context.

But The Age Headline is: "Max Gawn insists Melbourne Demons teammate Jack Watts doesn't have attitude problem" http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/max-gawn-insists-melbourne-demons-teammate-jack-watts-doesnt-have-attitude-problem-20170221-guhi2q.html I wonder if the HS people actually listened to the interview. Max said Goodwin wanted to try playing 2 rucks (him and Spencer) and test other forwards who had trained well, specifically Van d and Weideman. No room for another tall last week. He also said Watts' attitude wast the best he had seen in 7 years. He was then asked if he (Gawn) would be playing forward more this year. He said it depends if the ruck combination is Gawn/Watts in which case he will ruck most of the time. But if the rucks are Gawn/Spencer he will play forward more often. People can believe whatever but the JLT games are about experimenting with structures/players/positions so I see nothing sinister in Watts not playing. If he was left out for other reasons then so be it; a coach's prerogative. As a footnote: The most interesting things from the interview was that Max may cut his beard off later in the season and that Goodwin is considering a Gawn/Watts ruck combo. To me they are far more interesting headlines that click bait 'journo's' taking stuff out of context.

If there is nothing else to report from Max, can the mods merge this with the 'Jack Watts' thread please, otherwise this will have the same 5 pages repeated, ad nauseum!

We all know that Damo scours fan forums. We know how much Damo loves to hate the Dees! Any chance Damo gets to stick the boots in he does it. There is no hint of evidence/quotes that Cleary has seen Jack, been to training or talked to coaches. So Cleary is relying on second hand info...from Damo? Damo, who probably got half of it form DL then embellished it. I rest my case as to why Cleary is not credible!!

What we have is: -'Leoncelli36' (I think) in the post game thread said Watts was 'punished' for his attitude (no mention of poor condition). It was also mentioned in the 'Who was Missing' thread. To give 'Leoncelli36' credit he referred to his source's mfc connections and reliabilty. -This Cleary guy (from Perth) embellishes it adding Jack came back unfit; no sources but alludes to Goodwin. For mine, all our DL training reporters can't be wrong when they said Watts came back in great nick. However, in one thread (the intra club, I think) one or two posters were disappointed Jack wasn't really having a go. So there may be some truth in Leoncelli36's info on Jack's attitude but there has been nothing from anywhere to support the Cleary embellishments on lack of fitness. To say Jack was being punished is a stretch. But, lets assume Goodwin thought it necessary, then I say: hooray for Goodwin! It is exactly what I expect of a coach if a player, any player does not show the behaviour expected.

Maybe 3AW got that from Demonland ... wouldn't be the first time. Or did the commentator name a source/evidence?

Thanks. That is great step by step advice. Just one question: what level of spec modem/router would you suggest to minimize buffering...seems to happen a lot when I watch live stuff on an internet connected device eg Smart TV or my pc. Cheers

Roos is the master of smokescreens. Last year he said the players were tired after round 2. Round 2! He kept that smokescreen up for the rest of the season! Goodwin is playing his best 22 in the preseason comp because he wants them ready to go round 1 and win early season games. He has seen what the media (and fans) can do to a new coach if they lose quite a few early on. He will get a honeymoon period but it won't be a long one. He won't be worried about players tiring after round 12.

The most important part of that article from PJ is" "We're looking at that because this [the MCG] is our spiritual home and there is a great emotional advantage in solving that one". PJ gets it! He understands we want: a place to call Home, to have our colours permanently featured, to have pictures of our heroes deck the halls and above all somewhere to display our 12 Premiership cups and Flags.

I can think of a few things that might make that 'pivotal moment' when the Republican Party will no longer support him. Agree when that moment is is anyone's guess. But for now, the phrase: "give him enough rope and ..." comes to mind.