News Jimmy Bartel retirement - how was it handled?

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #51
Bingo.

He was finished, they did the right thing.
I luv Jimmy as much as the next bloke, and getting him to 300 was important in many ways IMO.

But going on in 2017, for mine, would have been ok BUT he was not a lock to play every week and the selection should have been performance based. A little slack yes but not massive amounts.

As for playing on, Boomer got the shunt as well and IMO had more in the tank than Jimmy did.
I'd take Jimmy 100 times out of a 100 as the better player, but in terms of players at the end whom could offer more in that "final" year Boomer had him covered.

GO Catters
 

romeohwho

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 20, 2015
10,809
12,262
AFL Club
Geelong
There is an awful lot of comparison between scott and ayers. Both made the gf in their first year using a team created by the previous coach. Both have been terribly average at handling retirement of star players. Both have been very defensively mindset. Both traded away lots of draft picks to try and build a side for the here and now and sacrifice the future after they are gone. Both had clear favourites resulting in bizarre team selections.
And of course, key and important difference -one of them won a flag off the back of a finals flogging and the other one got an even worse flogging off the back of a finals flogging.:)
 

ATSAM

Club Legend
Mar 6, 2009
2,913
2,733
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Badly and in the end Jimmy is one of us Scott is not so it is always going to look horrible when a champion is treated poorly. Just hope that in losing Bartel-who I am not convinced was 'cooked' can be replaced by someone else with on filed leadership. Not every player has to be fast and speedy and running 100metrse in under 10seconds. Sometimes they need to be able to read the play, take a mark, kick a goal, tell younger players where to move to and slow the game down when it is needed.
Not sure who we have now that can do that. Bartel could.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #55
My issue is with KROCK releasing snippets of it for everyone to froth over for a few days before we get the whole thing in context.
They got requests from other media outlets to release segments. The full interview will be on Sunday I understand. When the Hun asks the junior newspaper partner for content, they are gonna get it. Its all the same pool.

And the Hun has already run the story as CS takes a shot at Bartel. He never takes a ping from what ive heard of it - he answers a question on whether it was handled well and answered both parties could have been cleaner with it.

And who was the mystery caller to KROCK back before the FREO game that called and told them to look into the reason behind Jimmy being rested for that game - and that the trigger clause in his contract was the potential root of it.

Now i'm not saying Jimmy did it himself or had it done, but it raises some questions. Who knows about trigger clauses in contract and if the club was to release that info, what possible gain would they take from it. Jimmy, his close family and friends perhaps and his manager.

The bottom line is no one is gong to gain anything from the outcome. Its done. It's only going to get worse in realty and someone ultimately will get offended from it.

Go Catters
 
They got requests from other media outlets to release segments. The full interview will be on Sunday I understand. When the Hun asks the junior newspaper partner for content, they are gonna get it. Its all the same pool.

And the Hun has already run the story as CS takes a shot at Bartel. He never takes a ping from what ive heard of it - he answers a question on whether it was handled well and answered both parties could have been cleaner with it.

Exactly.
KROCK could have said no. The whole issue is that only a portion of the the whole thing has been released. As such, all context is lost.

Last year, I heard the full original response from Bartel about his playing future, when he said something along the lines of "Of course if I want to play on, I will only play on if I can play seniors depending on injury and form." Then, of course, the media runs with just the first half of that quote, and not the underlined bit. The masses then lap up the sensationalism.

Media 101. I wish people were not so stupid and read/listened/assessed the whole thing.
 

Nickoo

Norm Smith Medallist
May 13, 2015
6,700
6,239
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Chris I think is referring to the fact that Jimmy let it be known he wasn't happy to go and obviously rankled the coach as it implied that Geel wasn't going to honour the play on clause. I suspect that is what Scott was referring and now jimmy is being squeezed by his media involvement to indicate a response. Not good but Chris is being honest and he was honest with Jimmy last year when he obviously told him he didn't want him to go but that they would honour the contract. These things are always hard and people see things differently. Personally I think Jimmy played it right to the end. He was spent but the mind was willing. Same with chappy. Two or three ok games with Ess didn't mean he should have gone on and yet we offered chappy 8 games.

Also good on scott for not playing so much politics and indicating what he thought and that is jimmy could have handled it better. SJ is a different kettle of fish. He probably should have stayed but on less money; would he do that? Obviously not and he went north like delidio last year. Is this really an issue with geel in isolation or just a problem we all have especially if we overestimate our where we fit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bulletproof

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2003
8,418
19,838
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Geelong
Difficult not to conclude that there is a personal element to this. Going way back to when Bartel was not guaranteed a game, despite his form being pretty solid, Scott has not been overly rational in his handling of it.

Yes, the right decision was reached in retiring him, but his ‘up-front’ media shtick looks more than a little self serving here. He is dressing up it up as ‘just being honest’ but this is a back hander, plain and simple.

I don’t know the detail, and Scott may have very good reasons for his frustration with Bartel but he should rise above.

Bartel is not covering himself in glory either.

Unedifying spectacle.
 
He seems to be having a melt due to the pressure building on him now that he's traded the future away for the now and keeps failing in finals. He's starting to be exposed as people look past 2011 to see what he really is, and he's not handling that well at all.
And has a contract extension, 2 years, 3 years?
Who is not handling that well?
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,366
46,594
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
After reaching exceptional highs in 2007 and 2008 bartels career was a bit of disappointment. He was in the top 5 players in the game then and if anyone compared Mitchell or hodge (one the same age and the other a year older) to Bartel then they would of been laughed off. Now it's the other way. Yes the 2011 GF was a great cameo and there were a few others as well, but they were nothing more than cameos. Even players like Johnson, Chapman, Enright and Selwood have all past him as having better careers. One wonders what happened to the fire.
 
Aug 31, 2008
23,265
46,441
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Nuggets
After reaching exceptional highs in 2007 and 2008 bartels career was a bit of disappointment. He was in the top 5 players in the game then and if anyone compared Mitchell or hodge (one the same age and the other a year older) to Bartel then they would of been laughed off. Now it's the other way. Yes the 2011 GF was a great cameo and there were a few others as well, but they were nothing more than cameos. Even players like Johnson, Chapman, Enright and Selwood have all past him as having better careers. One wonders what happened to the fire.

From an outsider's point of view I think Bartel was a victim of his own versatility. Which is a bit like what Hodge has experienced over the years.

Both players were/are at their best playing in the midfield and in particular in big games (well I can certainly say that for Hodge, and from watching Geelong games I feel that applies to Bartel too), but both sides have had strong midfields over their journeys which has meant that both players could be used elsewhere for the betterment of the team.
 
From an outsider's point of view I think Bartel was a victim of his own versatility. Which is a bit like what Hodge has experienced over the years.

Both players were/are at their best playing in the midfield and in particular in big games (well I can certainly say that for Hodge, and from watching Geelong games I feel that applies to Bartel too), but both sides have had strong midfields over their journeys which has meant that both players could be used elsewhere for the betterment of the team.
Good blokes too.
 

Benny78

Cancelled
BeanCoiNFT Investor
Apr 4, 2016
8,847
7,061
Australia
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Ken Hinkley
Think he should've played on given he had 1 year left on his contract. Also given he is a club legend. Geelong simply wouldn't accept him playing on despite him and club having a contract, which is pretty bad.

Sure he wasn't as good last couple of years, but nothing to say he might've had a better 2017. As far as I see it it's only one spot on our list and he could've been in our 22 with 12+ players better than him.

All depends on whether he wanted to keep playing or not, and whether he would've accepted a sub 400k wage to keep playing, not compromising our cap. Don't see why he needed to play VFL our list has thin talent and not a great amount of depth. Could've easily played in the 22 every week without compromising a rebuild there would've still been 6 or so spots up for grabs every week. Could easily find a spot in playing 2 not 3 ruckman every week, rotating them until one finds form.
 
Oct 5, 2013
9,443
15,271
AFL Club
Geelong
After reaching exceptional highs in 2007 and 2008 bartels career was a bit of disappointment. He was in the top 5 players in the game then and if anyone compared Mitchell or hodge (one the same age and the other a year older) to Bartel then they would of been laughed off. Now it's the other way. Yes the 2011 GF was a great cameo and there were a few others as well, but they were nothing more than cameos. Even players like Johnson, Chapman, Enright and Selwood have all past him as having better careers. One wonders what happened to the fire.

We need to remember that Bartel was copping a lot of concussions when he was at the peak of his powers. Bartel was one of the players who made health specialists re-evaluate their stance of head knocks for their athletes. I'm not saying it was solely down to Jimmy but he was one of them.

This meant he could no longer spend as many minutes deep in the heart of the action. He had to shift from a permanent inside midfielder to other areas of the ground. This did impact his career significantly. We saw Stokes and Kelly spend the bulk of time in the middle while Bartel roamed around the half forward and half back flanks.
He was never a renown goal kicker early in his career either, he succeeded by doing essentially what Selwood does today and to be forced to shift away from that familiar role, it did effect his game.
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,366
46,594
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
We need to remember that Bartel was copping a lot of concussions when he was at the peak of his powers. Bartel was one of the players who made health specialists re-evaluate their stance of head knocks for their athletes. I'm not saying it was solely down to Jimmy but he was one of them.

This meant he could no longer spend as many minutes deep in the heart of the action. He had to shift from a permanent inside midfielder to other areas of the ground. This did impact his career significantly. We saw Stokes and Kelly spend the bulk of time in the middle while Bartel roamed around the half forward and half back flanks.
He was never a renown goal kicker early in his career either, he succeeded by doing essentially what Selwood does today and to be forced to shift away from that familiar role, it did effect his game.
Fair reason if that is true. I've never heard that before. Not sure playing out of the midfield and moving to the forward and defense where he became involved in more aerial contests would help limit the chance of concussion though.
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,366
46,594
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
From an outsider's point of view I think Bartel was a victim of his own versatility. Which is a bit like what Hodge has experienced over the years.

Both players were/are at their best playing in the midfield and in particular in big games (well I can certainly say that for Hodge, and from watching Geelong games I feel that applies to Bartel too), but both sides have had strong midfields over their journeys which has meant that both players could be used elsewhere for the betterment of the team.
Sometimes it was at the betterment of the team. Highly questionable for Geelong after 2011 though. We really needed an extra a grade mid more than anything from 2012 onwards.
 
Think he should've played on given he had 1 year left on his contract. Also given he is a club legend. Geelong simply wouldn't accept him playing on despite him and club having a contract, which is pretty bad.

Sure he wasn't as good last couple of years, but nothing to say he might've had a better 2017. As far as I see it it's only one spot on our list and he could've been in our 22 with 12+ players better than him.

All depends on whether he wanted to keep playing or not, and whether he would've accepted a sub 400k wage to keep playing, not compromising our cap. Don't see why he needed to play VFL our list has thin talent and not a great amount of depth. Could've easily played in the 22 every week without compromising a rebuild there would've still been 6 or so spots up for grabs every week. Could easily find a spot in playing 2 not 3 ruckman every week, rotating them until one finds form.
Bartel was embarrassingly << his best the past 2 seasons. Occasional goals and cameos, but way too slow, none of his previous marking ability, no leap, just not Bartel any more. Even his kicking penetration dropped off. There is really no disputing his time was up by most, although some will agree with you.
 

CatsDoItBetter

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 9, 2015
5,622
9,508
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Melbourne Renegades
Agree with other that Bartel didn't get as much out of his career as it seemed he would. I certainly longed for him to play more through the midfield.
A question that I'd pose is:
was he shifted around to assist him to find a spot as they didn't think he could keep playing through the midfield all the time?
Or was it just about team balance and bring others through the midfield?

The club has made some very tough calls not all good or bad ones. And they'll be easier to judge in time.
Bartel and Kelly both seemed like they shouldn't get another year. Stevie and Chappy could've played again.

We hope they are being made on a case by case and with form and fitness as they judge not age.

I think it's a concern how Mackie and to a lesser degree Lonergan go this year. Lonergan will probably be fine but with so many other tall backs it's a juggling act.
Why Mackie was given two years or Bartel given a trigger clause I don't know.

As I've said before I don't think over 30 year olds should get more than 1 year. If form warrants they should play no matter the age but the decline can come quick and the club is bigger the individuals.
 
I wore the #3 on my back, one of my absolute favourite players to pull on the hoops, but there was a noticeable decline from Jimmy over the last couple of seasons, and as others said that while things weren't handled the best late last year the end result is the right outcome.

I can remember commenting during the 2015 season that if you looked at Jimmy's face during & after matches you could see the toll the game was taking on him, his eyes just didn't seem to have that same look of others who seemed in better positions to be playing on - he was looking tired and old (I know he wasn't young), he wasn't the same as he was even in 2014.

Trigger clauses in contracts present dangers for both the club & player involved - the club could decide to restrict games to ensure the trigger clause isn't activated even if the player is deserving of a spot in the side, while on the flip side you could have a Chappy at Essendon type situation where he forced himself to get up for games during his first year there to ensure he triggered the second year of his contract, and he later admitted that he played games when he shouldn't have played but the 2nd year of his contract was the pull.

In the Bartel situation you wonder if the club regretted adding the trigger clause to his last contract, or that if last year we had a few more options of players during the season - Scooter, Menegola, Cockatoo etc who missed chunks with injuries, that maybe Bartel would have been "managed" through the season to not reach the trigger point so that the current discussions aren't occurring.

Its going to be interesting to listen to the Scott interview in full and get the context & answer of the Bartel related questions in full rather than just as snippets as they have currently been released.
 
Teams were starting to do to Jimmy what they did to Archer at the end of his career and that was to play through his man.
Finishing up at the end of the year was the right call for if he played on this year there was a major chance that he could have been embarrassed in games.

Best to finish up will a few millilitres left in the tank, then running it totally dry.
 
I wore the #3 on my back, one of my absolute favourite players to pull on the hoops, but there was a noticeable decline from Jimmy over the last couple of seasons, and as others said that while things weren't handled the best late last year the end result is the right outcome.

I can remember commenting during the 2015 season that if you looked at Jimmy's face during & after matches you could see the toll the game was taking on him, his eyes just didn't seem to have that same look of others who seemed in better positions to be playing on - he was looking tired and old (I know he wasn't young), he wasn't the same as he was even in 2014.

Trigger clauses in contracts present dangers for both the club & player involved - the club could decide to restrict games to ensure the trigger clause isn't activated even if the player is deserving of a spot in the side, while on the flip side you could have a Chappy at Essendon type situation where he forced himself to get up for games during his first year there to ensure he triggered the second year of his contract, and he later admitted that he played games when he shouldn't have played but the 2nd year of his contract was the pull.

In the Bartel situation you wonder if the club regretted adding the trigger clause to his last contract, or that if last year we had a few more options of players during the season - Scooter, Menegola, Cockatoo etc who missed chunks with injuries, that maybe Bartel would have been "managed" through the season to not reach the trigger point so that the current discussions aren't occurring.

Its going to be interesting to listen to the Scott interview in full and get the context & answer of the Bartel related questions in full rather than just as snippets as they have currently been released.
Glad you weren't referring to 2016. That hairy look did not help his cause one iota.
 
Back