Opinion The Official Brad Scott Thread - Back, at the club (Relax - bumped thread)

[Mav]

About a quarter hey you what that means?

For the kids playing along at home that means that we get to watch two more ten goal floggings this very year.

I for one can't wait.

But it's not Scott's fault It's on the players.

Check again, you've just made the assumption we will lose 8 games. If that happens even Wild Bill and Phillyroo will doubt Scotts!

 

[Mav]

This coach is killing my love for the Roos. Last year I dropped my membership from Schimma to Archer. Next year it will be Archer to GA. If they reappoint Scott next year it will be GA to no membership.

Scott is the Passion Killer

i hear ha. Watching our games has resulted in less cheering and more head shacking with mumbles of, we're such a dumb team.

 

[Wild Bill]

In his 122 games, Brad Scott has coached for 57 losses so roughly a quarter of the times his side loses they lose by 10 goals.

Schimma lost 35 games so his 10 goal losses are about 30% of his losses.

Mckenzie lost 57 games so his 10 goal losses are just under 15%.

There is a problem.

When was the last time we had a 16 win season?

We beat Port we are in the same w/l position with a much tougher draw as last year.

 

[Only Forwards]

Check again, you've just made the assumption we will lose 8 games. If that happens even Wild Bill and Phillyroo will doubt Scotts!

Yeah my math is wrong.

That's what I get for posting so early.

 

[royals1922]

Yeah my mate is wrong.

That's what I get for posting so early.

Possibly another 10 goal shellacking is on the cards.

 

[DJ Dupree]

Last night was the 180th time NMFC lost a game by 10 goals or more. The club has played 1880 games so that's 9.57% of games resulting in a 10 goal loss.
Last night was the 15th time NMFC lost a game by 10 goals or more under Brad Scott. He's coached 122 games so that's 12.30% of his games resulting in 10 goal loss.
Only John Kennedy coached NMFC to more 10 goal losses than Brad Scott.

Coaches who have coached NMFC for >50 games and their 10 goal losses
Paddy Scanlon (1935-37) 54 games - 12 10 goal losses = 22.22%
Bob McCaskill (1941-47) 102 games - 3 10 goal losses = 2.94%
Wally Carter (1948-62) 208 games - 11 10 goal losses = 5.29%
Allan Killigrew (1963-66) 70 games - 5 10 goal losses = 7.14%
Keith McKenzie (1967-1970) 82 games - 9 10 goal losses = 10.98%
Ron Barassi (1973-80) 198 games - 2 10 goal losses = 1.01%
Barry Cable (1981-84) 76 games - 6 10 goal losses = 7.89%
John Kennedy (1985-89) 113 games - 16 10 goal losses = 14.16%
Wayne Schimmelbusch (1990-92) 66 games - 10 10 goal losses = 15.15%
Denis Pagan (1993-2002) 240 games - 14 10 goal losses = 5.83%
Dean Laidley (2003-09) 149 games - 14 10 goal losses = 9.40%
Brad Scott (2010- ) 122 games - 15 10 goal losses = 12.30%

Not sure if anything can be read into these stats, the coaches and their team. They are what they are. The Schimma/Kanga era surprises me. The Barassi era must have been remarkable for consistent competitiveness (There were 4 losses between 50-60pts. NMFC didn't lose a game by 50+ for 128 games between R7, 1973 and R9, 1978).

I think that what makes the 10 goal losses under Brad particularly frustrating is that every year, the side has shown it's capable of matching any side if it brings it's best football. Perhaps in the other eras, some of the losses were half expected to an extent.

It's certainly very concerning that we're back to 2010 style hapless drubbings, the year after making a prelim. We seem to have a flakiness thats always there just beneath the surface, and every time we think we've banished it to history, it rears it's ugly head again.

There are rebuilding times when I'd expect a few of these losses. Then there is a time to get our s*** together and not accept it anymore, and that time is now.

 

[kelman]

The majority of our team get found out when the pressure is on, which has been well and truly proven over the last nine weeks. The majority of our team is more experienced than Jacobs, so why does he always cop the stick?

Jacobs is the worst.

Regardless, it's not about dominating VFL. It's about setting standards. I'd be happy for Max Warren to get a game in the seniors just based on him doing his job in the twos and doing team things, because it would illustrate the non-negotiables which are seemingly very negotiable right now. I'd be equally happy for someone other than Jacobs/Wright/Wood/Nahas to get dropped too, because again it would send a message that players aren't safe and comfortable in the seniors.

You don't have to drop half the side at all, but you can't argue that our VFL/AFL promotion/demotion under Scott has been very predictable, and many players in the seniors quite clearly aren't held to account for poor displays.

This is a fans view. It is not reality. How often do you see this from other teams? It is usually an indication that the coach and players have poor communication. You are also assuming that the guys in the VFL are doing everything asked of them - which may not be the case, so what message does promotion send.

Gibson is clearly a guy who follows team rules but is the most common player people call to be demoted around here. Brown and Turner worked hard, played their role and got games in the finals.


...and Scott was roundly criticised for giving Warren a game because Warren did not perform.

 

[Only Forwards]

Last night was the 180th time NMFC lost a game by 10 goals or more. The club has played 1880 games so that's 9.57% of games resulting in a 10 goal loss.
Last night was the 15th time NMFC lost a game by 10 goals or more under Brad Scott. He's coached 122 games so that's 12.30% of his games resulting in 10 goal loss.
Only John Kennedy coached NMFC to more 10 goal losses than Brad Scott.

Coaches who have coached NMFC for >50 games and their 10 goal losses
Paddy Scanlon (1935-37) 54 games - 12 10 goal losses = 22.22%
Bob McCaskill (1941-47) 102 games - 3 10 goal losses = 2.94%
Wally Carter (1948-62) 208 games - 11 10 goal losses = 5.29%
Allan Killigrew (1963-66) 70 games - 5 10 goal losses = 7.14%
Keith McKenzie (1967-1970) 82 games - 9 10 goal losses = 10.98%
Ron Barassi (1973-80) 198 games - 2 10 goal losses = 1.01%
Barry Cable (1981-84) 76 games - 6 10 goal losses = 7.89%
John Kennedy (1985-89) 113 games - 16 10 goal losses = 14.16%
Wayne Schimmelbusch (1990-92) 66 games - 10 10 goal losses = 15.15%
Denis Pagan (1993-2002) 240 games - 14 10 goal losses = 5.83%
Dean Laidley (2003-09) 149 games - 14 10 goal losses = 9.40%
Brad Scott (2010- ) 122 games - 15 10 goal losses = 12.30%

Not sure if anything can be read into these stats, the coaches and their team. They are what they are. The Schimma/Kanga era surprises me. The Barassi era must have been remarkable for consistent competitiveness (There were 4 losses between 50-60pts. NMFC didn't lose a game by 50+ for 128 games between R7, 1973 and R9, 1978).

I wonder what celebration of the Brand the marketing department has planned for his record equalling 16th ten goal loss.

It's likely that Boomer 400th isn't the only milestone we'll get this year.

 

[CURVE]

I find it interesting that as a player Brad Scott was tough, intense, fearless and determined and probably got more out his game than his talents warranted, yet as a coach his has been unable to instil any of the values into his players. I would suggest that his is a good coach of young developing players but perhaps is unable to garner the last 10% that lifts a good or very good team into a great or premiership winning team.

If I was management at North, for the first time in 6 years I would be questioning Scott's ability to take us to the next level.

 

[Bigeasy]

i hear ha. Watching our games has resulted in less cheering and more head shacking with mumbles of, we're such a dumb team.

I'm over the mediocrity and after 6 years of this crap where we are going nowhere with an ageing list I will divert my funding elsewhere like a holiday in September.

 

[Mav]

When was the last time we had a 16 win season?

We beat Port we are in the same w/l position with a much tougher draw as last year.

Is it really that much tougher

Last year we were the 10th team playing teams that finished:
3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15

This year we are the 6th team playing:
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15.

last year we had played 5 teams that had finished above us, this year only 4!

The tough draw is just another excuse used by those that accept mediocrity.

 

[Dirty_11]

Attacking our coach is poor form. Supporters support.

There is nothing wrong with questioning BS at the moment Wild Bill. I have never been a BS basher but six years he has had to develop this list. We don't owe him anything, we pay him good money to get results and have a right to be concerned. He and the players are the current custodians of our football club, we don't owe them anything, if anything they owe us. Remember when he is finished and drinking beers with his Brisbane mates at premiership reunions we will still be here passionately waiting for ours.

 

[Phillyroo]

There is nothing wrong with questioning BS at the moment Wild Bill. Six years he has had to develop this list. We don't owe him anything, we pay him good money to get results and have a right to be concerned. He and the players are the current custodians of our football club, we don't owe them anything, if anything they owe us. Remember when he is finished and drinking beers with his Brisbane mates at premiership reunions we will still be here passionately waiting for ours.

I think questioning is ok...
Calling him a campaigner (when clearly the other c word is the intention), and other over the top terms, just smacks of petulance and makes us all look like Richmond supporters.

 

[dus]

Ok lets be rational again.

Scott won't be sacked if we miss the 8 this year. He won't. We don't do that. The pressure will be on next year though.

By the same token, if we simply make the 8 this year, he shouldn't receive and extension either. No way. The pressure will be on next year.

If we make another prelim, he still shouldn't receive an extension. There will be less pressure next year, but expectations will be high.

If we win the flag this year, he can have an extension. Eg. Not happening by the looks of it at this point in time.

So, next year, about round 15, if we aren't firmly entrenched in the top 4, we are still inconsistent, still getting flogged every 4 weeks, players haven't come on as expected, Boomer Wells Waite Dish NDS ect about to retire or very close and no closer to a flag than we were 5 years ago.

How can a rational person give him another contact extension?? They can't.

 

[Phillyroo]

Ok lets be rational again.

Scott won't be sacked if we miss the 8 this year. He won't. We don't do that. The pressure will be on next year though.

By the same token, if we simply make the 8 this year, he shouldn't receive and extension either. No way. The pressure will be on next year.

If we make another prelim, he still shouldn't receive an extension. There will be less pressure next year, but expectations will be high.

If we win the flag this year, he can have an extension. Eg. Not happening by the looks of it at this point in time.

So, next year, about round 15, if we aren't firmly entrenched in the top 4, we are still inconsistent, still getting flogged every 4 weeks, players haven't come on as expected, Boomer Wells Waite Dish NDS ect about to retire or very close and no closer to a flag than we were 5 years ago.

How can a rational person give him another contact extension?? They can't.

Despite what I have been running with throughout this thread..... You are probably right.
The performance on Saturday night was just so bloody disheartening. I expected more.
Things can turn quick though...
Amongst our next 4 games we play the three teams that are 2 games ahead of us and equal 2nd on the ladder. On current form we are **** all chance of winning all three of those games BUT who amongst us thought we could beat Hawthorn last year after we lost to Brisbane the week before. If, and I know it's a BIG if, can get in a roll, show some heart and jag the next 4.... Fanciful as it may be.. All of s sudden things look a lot better, with the softest part of the draw to come.
The doubt will then be on what's happened already this year, and how unacceptable our 3 big losses have been. However we saw in September last year what a bit of momentum can do.
I'm not saying extend Brad now
I'm not saying extend him if we make the 8... Anymore
I'm saying that, if he is under pressure, Good!
Wells and Spitta should be back in the next couple of weeks, Turner and Daw sound like they played great games yesterday... Mullett is getting himself into form. Let's not be bloody Richmond and tear the joint apart. If Scott isn't getting the job done by round 15 next year, then we move on. But if we make a run this year, and have a good injury year next year and are as good as we think we can be, extend the shit out of him.

 

[Dirty_11]

Best guess?

I would think Scott would keep Freo in Fremantle and Ross Lyon move North to Tassie.

Nah, supporters are doing a good enough job with that themselves. So excepting of the move to 2 home games, then to 3.[/QUOTE]

 

[Only Forwards]

Things can turn quick though...

We have some tests coming up against in form sides in the next 4

West Coast
Sydney
GWS

If we went 4 from 4 it would be ridiculously huge for us.

After that we play a bogey side at their home ground in Brisbane it is a massive milestone for us and would be completely disrespectful to lose.

But the biggest test we have is in round 21, if we don't run those pricks to the line then last year was just an anomaly.

We're in shit form and 4-4 we might make high level finals from this point, however given how we've gone when faced real opposition this year we'll get exposed.

 

[Kanga1996]

Too many untouchables on our list . No point holding our junior players accountable at the selection table each week.

 

[Event Horizon]

McMahon, Daw and Mullett.

Liam Anthony and Ayden Kennedy before that.

McMahon - done and dusted.
Daw - will get his chance, but is hardly knocking the door down at VFL. And we've seen enough of him at AFL level to know there are glaring holes in his game.
Mullet - had just two VFL games. Will get in comfortably when ready
LA - enough said
Ayden Kennedy - where was the queue of other clubs to at least rookie list him when he was cut?

 

[Event Horizon]

We have some tests coming up against in form sides in the next 4

West Coast
Sydney
GWS

If we went 4 from 4 it would be ridiculously huge for us.

After that we play a bogey side at their home ground in Brisbane it is a massive milestone for us and would be completely disrespectful to lose.

But the biggest test we have is in round 21, if we don't run those pricks to the line then last year was just an anomaly.

We're in shit form and 4-4 we might make high level finals from this point, however given how we've gone when faced real opposition this year we'll get exposed.

Next 4 weeks:

Collingwood: 50/50
West Coast: 50/50 given it's in Hobart
Sydney: 40/60 but given it's Etihad, I reckon we can do it.
GWS: 40/60. We'll see what the form is just before the game, but we don't look like being favorites at this stage.

I'd say 2:2 would be a pass mark, given that our draw gets far easier after the bye. 3:1 would be a good outcome, and 4:0 would put us back in the frame for top 4.

 

[Only Forwards]

McMahon - done and dusted.

Then why did we keep him on the list?

If it is the case we should have cut him loose.

 

[Event Horizon]

Then why did we keep him on the list?

If it is the case we should have cut him loose.

He was contracted, worked his arse off in the offseason, and may be good mentor in VFL for younger blokes.

 

[royals1922]

If we get flogged by 10 goals by either Wce or Sydney, the repercussions should be much more brutal. NMs percentage is 90%, allready the equivalent of another loss.

 

[Only Forwards]

Next 4 weeks:

Collingwood: 50/50

if we're serious then this game needs to be more like 80/20

West Coast: 50/50 given it's in Hobart

If we are serious about Hobart being our home ground then this game needs to be 90/10

Sydney: 40/60 but given it's Etihad, I reckon we can do it.

On current form it would be more like 20/80

GWS: 40/60. We'll see what the form is just before the game, but we don't look like being favorites at this stage.

The way this team is playing they are going ot be scary.

I'd say 2:2 would be a pass mark, given that our draw gets far easier after the bye. 3:1 would be a good outcome, and 4:0 would put us back in the frame for top 4.

If a third 10 goal flogging actually hurt then these blokes need to come out and make amends for it. 4-0 needs to be what is deemed acceptable.

Could we do it sure.

We could also lose to the pies this week which is utter crap.

 

[Only Forwards]

He was contracted, worked his arse off in the offseason, and may be good mentor in VFL for younger blokes.

Here's a novel idea, if a guy has VFL form we play him ahead of a guy who is out of form in the AFL.

People will say that he only found form the last couple of weeks but here is another novel idea

Any VFL form >>>>>> weeks of no footy.