Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - Part 1 [closed, see Part II]

[Partridge]

West is also a #2 ruckman. Very serviceable backup for Ottens in 2011, but a lousy #1 ruck. As far as size, Vardy is 1cm taller and probably as heavy.
We desperately need a fit mobile #1 Ruck. Wold love to have a go for Zac Smith, now that it seems DS is cooked

That wasn't the argument VD. It was erroneous statement that we had no fit ruckmen available in September 2013. We did, and still, very few want to acknowledge it.

As for Vardy, if he's rucking next season he needs to win more than 10 hitouts a game.

 

[year of the cat]

The few issues I have with Scott were again highlighted in his press conference. When asked why the team didn't play well he could give no reason and again (because he has used this excuse before) stated that they will conduct a thorough review (which is fine) before determining what could have been done better.

Now that's all well and good, but when you are coaching a game of footy Chris, you don't get the luxury of taking time out after quarter time to do a thorough analysis before the second quarter starts. You need to have answers right there and then.

My question and concern now is Scott able to when we are performing badly stem the bleeding? Is he capable of analysing in the short time he has available a suitable solution to change the course of a match? Is he capable of either changing the players mindsets, altering our game plan, and finding a solution, quickly, to hopefully change the momentum?

I'm not sure now that he can. He seems almost paralysed in the coaching box recently. When we start badly I'm just not seeing that much initiative to change the situation.

I think Chris, to his credit, is a very good communicator. My perception is that I think he knows how to manage people quite well. I just don't know whether he is a very good match day coach. And to be successful we need someone who can be strong both strategically and tactically on match day.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

But you say that like we SHOULD win every game. I agree some of those loses were disappointing and we were good enough to win some/most of them, but this is not the same team as 5 years ago let alone 2 years ago. People get so use to winning they can't see the forest from the trees and realise this team is completely different and we can't just expect the same level of performance year in year out.

Teams with lots of young players are inconsistent, it's not so simple as to blame the coach for not being able to motivate them to get up every week.

No, I'm saying that we should win against rubbish teams that have proven to be as much throughout the season (St Kilda and Melbourne) and teams that are comparable - at best - with us on talent, yet have nothing - unlike us - to play for (Collingwood).

Yet teams with less to play for outplay us on a consistent basis. And I'm putting that on the coach. The 2009 team would have destroyed Collingwood, Melbourne and St Kilda by 15+ goals. No-one is expecting that. I'm expecting wins against proven inferior teams. Sorry if that's too much to ask.

 

[krisholio14]

It's mildly amusing but mostly annoying and disappointing to see that despite being the club that showed how you build a side from the ground up with patience and perseverance, we still have large groups of supporters getting into any forum they can, and looking for someone or something to blame because they can't handle the fact that you can't win every game, and you can't win the flag every year.

 

[Teriyakicat]

No, I'm saying that we should win against rubbish teams that have proven to be as much throughout the season (St Kilda and Melbourne) and teams that are comparable - at best - with us on talent, yet have nothing - unlike us - to play for (Collingwood).

Yet teams with less to play for outplay us on a consistent basis. And I'm putting that on the coach. The 2009 team would have destroyed Collingwood, Melbourne and St Kilda by 15+ goals. No-one is expecting that. I'm expecting wins against proven inferior teams. Sorry if that's too much to ask.

Of course they are! And that is why the disappointments are so strong and the backlash posts so vehement!

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Of course they are! And that is why the disappointments are so strong and the backlash posts so vehement!

No we're not. We're expecting to bank the four points against terrible teams like St Kilda and Melbourne and to take care of business against a team that's just looking for any excuse to stick the cue in the rack, like Collingwood.

That's the difference between the 2014 team and the team this year. At least last year's team took care of business against the (many) rubbish teams in the league.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

It's mildly amusing but mostly annoying and disappointing to see that despite being the club that showed how you build a side from the ground up with patience and perseverance, we still have large groups of supporters getting into any forum they can, and looking for someone or something to blame because they can't handle the fact that you can't win every game, and you can't win the flag every year.

We're not. Can you point out a poster that expected us to go 22-0 this year?
What we do expect is to comfortably account for the teams that range from mediocre to rubbish and that have nothing to play for. That's it.

 

[krisholio14]

No we're not. We're expecting to bank the four points against terrible teams like St Kilda and Melbourne and to take care of business against a team that's just looking for any excuse to stick the cue in the rack, like Collingwood.

That's the difference between the 2014 team and the team this year. At least last year's team took care of business against the (many) rubbish teams in the league.

We've had some disappointing results mixed in with some very good ones. Sure, we've had Melbourne, St Killda and Collingwood, but there has also been Richmond, Footscray and Sydney.

It's to be expected. Our list right now is largely made up of guys who are physically past it, and guys who aren't quite physically ready yet. We've also had long term injuries to guys that are very important to structure and depth. Inconsistent performances are going to occur when this is the situation.

When we've been able to play our best footy, it's still an excellent brand of footy. When you lose, it doesn't matter how good the team is, it never looks good.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

We've had some disappointing results mixed in with some very good ones. Sure, we've had Melbourne, St Killda and Collingwood, but there has also been Richmond, Footscray and Sydney.

It's to be expected. Our list right now is largely made up of guys who are physically past it, and guys who aren't quite physically ready yet. We've also had long term injuries to guys that are very important to structure and depth. Inconsistent performances are going to occur when this is the situation.

When we've been able to play our best footy, it's still an excellent brand of footy. When you lose, it doesn't matter how good the team is, it never looks good.

I don't think beating Richmond and the Bulldogs is amazing, because I don't think they're any better than we are.

 

[krisholio14]

I don't think beating Richmond and the Bulldogs is amazing, because I don't think they're any better than we are.

Obviously they are, because they've been in the hunt for a top four spot and have beaten teams that are flag contenders, and we haven't. Not to mention they are either in or just entering the point where the core of their side should be ready for a shot at the title. We aren't.

We're not. Can you point out a poster that expected us to go 22-0 this year?
What we do expect is to comfortably account for the teams that range from mediocre to rubbish and that have nothing to play for. That's it.

You say Richmond and Footscray are no better than us, yet we're better than Collingwood, St Kilda and Melbourne. Melbourne I'll give you as a really disappointing performance, but I'd say St Kilda and Collingwood are at a very similar point to us. Both of those sides have also played some good footy against decent teams this year and had some nice wins.

We're at the point where we are having a change of the guard. Right now for me it is all about giving the young blokes some opportunity to show they are ready. Now I'm not going to argue the point on who's getting a fair go and who's not, that is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that a lot of our young players are getting opportunities, and when a team is going through a period of passing the torch like we are, more often than not, the kids are going to have games where they are found wanting. Some days a few of them will be up and others down, then the next week the guys who were up are down and vice versa. That's just how it goes.

It would have been nice to win these games and keep the streak alive, but the reality is we would have been making up the numbers. Perhaps dealing with the disappointment of missing out this year is better for development than making it and getting hammered by a so so side.

A year like this one was always going to happen, and now that it is all but done, I am far from looking at where we are at and contemplating 10 years out of the finals. I look at the list and see a lot of talent there. I feel like we are putting together a strong core of players who can be the impetus for another premiership tilt. If we keep Motlop and sign Dangerfield, Selwood and Henderson, even moreso.

I can tell you now, if I went back to points like r2 2004, the end of 2006 or even as late as r5 2007, I would find many of the posters who are calling for Scott's head on this thread (and who were around at the time) doing the same with Bomba Thompson. And Cameron Ling. And Steve Johnson. And James Kelly. And Corey Enright. Etc etc etc. What I learned from those points in time, because I won't lie, I got the wobbles a little bit at certain points myself (without throwing the baby out with the bathwater), is that unless you can see huge cracks opening up a la Brisbane or Essendon, then you just have to suck it up, be patient and take the good with the bad. I know people are going to say they see huge cracks opening up, but I don't see any basis for it.

Ultimately, I suppose it depends on what you want to follow footy for. I honestly wonder whether a lot of the people melting right now purely watch to give them something to vent at.

 

[Vdubs]

i think we need some fresh blood in the box
knights and o'bree need to go
bring in fresh ideas

Akermanis...

 

[Vdubs]

I don't think beating Richmond and the Bulldogs is amazing, because I don't think they're any better than we are.

But they are.
Depends on which "WE" you refer to.
Our perfectly fit , all available, uninjured 22 may well be better, but the likelihood of us attaining that is ?? as we have all seen.
But overall this year, and into the forseeable future, both those teams have a better balance in their team structure, and accordingly, have won more games.

 

[Seeds]

Our season this year has been like 2006. Where is the review and talks of major changes and question marks regarding the coach? We have become too complacent and accepting of mediocrity. Seriously fear with the direction we are heading. Won't be surprised if Scott leaves with a legacy much better than Gary Ayers even with a flag.

 

[krisholio14]

Our season this year has been like 2006. Where is the review and talks of major changes and question marks regarding the coach? We have become too complacent and accepting of mediocrity. Seriously fear with the direction we are heading. Won't be surprised if Scott leaves with a legacy much better than Gary Ayers even with a flag.

You're kidding aren't you? This year has been nothing like 2006, apart from the fact we haven't made the finals.

 

[catempire]

One of the hallmarks of mid-table sides is inconsistency - winning games as underdogs and losing games as warm favourites. The teams that win all (or almost all) of the games they are expected to don't finish mid-table, they make the top 4. This year Geelong:

- Beat Richmond in Round 5 as $2.30 underdogs
- Beat Collingwood in Round 6 as $2.35 underdogs
- Beat Port in Round 11 as $2.80 underdogs
- Lost to Melbourne in Round 12 as $1.11 favourites
- Lost to the Kangaroos in Round 15 as $1.77 favourites
- Beat the Giants in Round 17 as $2.00 underdogs
- Beat the Swans in Round 19 as $2.00 underdogs
- Drew with the Saints in Round 21 as $1.20 favourites
- Lost to the Magpies in Round 22 as $1.43 favourites

That's nearly half a season of games where the result didn't go as predicted. It would be similar for all of the teams around us on the ladder - Adelaide, Port, GWS and Collingwood who will all finish on around 10-12 wins.

It doesn't reflect on the coach unless the quality of the list is better than the ladder position suggests. In Geelong's case, the quality of the list is clearly middle of the road.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Obviously they are, because they've been in the hunt for a top four spot and have beaten teams that are flag contenders, and we haven't. Not to mention they are either in or just entering the point where the core of their side should be ready for a shot at the title. We aren't.

Those teams had an easier fixture than Geelong, because they didn't finish in the top six last year. We doubled up against Sydney, Hawthorn, Collingwood, North and Adelaide (well, we would have). Richmond doubled up against Carlton, Essendon, North, Collingwood and Fremantle. The Bulldogs? West Coast, Brisbane, St Kilda, Melbourne and Port.

You say Richmond and Footscray are no better than us, yet we're better than Collingwood, St Kilda and Melbourne. Melbourne I'll give you as a really disappointing performance, but I'd say St Kilda and Collingwood are at a very similar point to us. Both of those sides have also played some good footy against decent teams this year and had some nice wins.

Who has St Kilda beaten? Essendon? The Saints have six wins this season for a good resason: because the good teams handle them with ease.

We're at the point where we are having a change of the guard. Right now for me it is all about giving the young blokes some opportunity to show they are ready. Now I'm not going to argue the point on who's getting a fair go and who's not, that is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that a lot of our young players are getting opportunities, and when a team is going through a period of passing the torch like we are, more often than not, the kids are going to have games where they are found wanting. Some days a few of them will be up and others down, then the next week the guys who were up are down and vice versa. That's just how it goes.

That doesn't explain Selwood's horror season. Hawkins has been down. Taylor has looked downright ordinary for most of the season. I don't think we'll have a player even make the initial 40-man AA squad. Which 'older' players (say, older than 25) have met or exceeded expectations this year? Maybe Enright, at a stretch? That's where the drop off has been, not the younger players.

It would have been nice to win these games and keep the streak alive, but the reality is we would have been making up the numbers. Perhaps dealing with the disappointment of missing out this year is better for development than making it and getting hammered by a so so side.

Why? We beat Richmond, we beat Sydney, we beat the Bulldogs...all quite comfortably, I might add. And we might beat Adelaide next week too.

A year like this one was always going to happen, and now that it is all but done, I am far from looking at where we are at and contemplating 10 years out of the finals. I look at the list and see a lot of talent there. I feel like we are putting together a strong core of players who can be the impetus for another premiership tilt. If we keep Motlop and sign Dangerfield, Selwood and Henderson, even moreso.

I look at last year as being that year, except we somehow made the top four. Why not go to the draft, if we were in such a rebuilding phase, instead of going after Clark, Stanley and Blease? The answer, of course, is because the club thought it was reloading, not rebuilding.

I can tell you now, if I went back to points like r2 2004, the end of 2006 or even as late as r5 2007, I would find many of the posters who are calling for Scott's head on this thread (and who were around at the time) doing the same with Bomba Thompson. And Cameron Ling. And Steve Johnson. And James Kelly. And Corey Enright. Etc etc etc. What I learned from those points in time, because I won't lie, I got the wobbles a little bit at certain points myself (without throwing the baby out with the bathwater), is that unless you can see huge cracks opening up a la Brisbane or Essendon, then you just have to suck it up, be patient and take the good with the bad. I know people are going to say they see huge cracks opening up, but I don't see any basis for it.

Ultimately, I suppose it depends on what you want to follow footy for. I honestly wonder whether a lot of the people melting right now purely watch to give them something to vent at.

I've mentioned my basis for it several times: we have been routinely getting outworked by teams when we have ten times more to play for than they do. There's no excuse for that. They just expect it to happen, they don't realise they're in a dogfight until it's too late and they can't overcome a 4-5 goal deficit anymore, like the good old days. And they don't learn their lesson.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

But they are.
Depends on which "WE" you refer to.
Our perfectly fit , all available, uninjured 22 may well be better, but the likelihood of us attaining that is as we have all seen.
But overall this year, and into the forseeable future, both those teams have a better balance in their team structure, and accordingly, have won more games.

This isn't about the foreseeable future; it's about 2015. Those teams had a much easier run with their fixture and we went 2-0 against them when we played. And they have to go back about five and ten years respectively to remember the last time they beat us. I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that I think we're just as good as they are and that I hardly think we should have been considering it a lost cause coming up against the might of the Bulldogs or Tigers at the MCG in September.

 

[MacStradbroke]

Excellent communicator, second only to Bucks for me. Was handed the task of retiring 20 odd star veterans five years ago and has done as good a job as anyone could've hoped to do while remaining competitive at the same time. There is not a single man alive that could've achieved this and kept all our fans pleased. Way too harsh. And can he coach? I know it's been argued to death, he won a premimiership with a team on the slide so that's a definite YES for me and whoever compared him to Gary Ayres earlier is clearly one of those supporters we all cop at the footy from time to time and cringe when they bag our own on a constant basis.

 

[Catatonic Shock]

Jesus Christ people comparing this year to 2006??!?!
2006 we have a huge group of 80-150 game experienced players who had played finals together the previous 2 years who massively underachieved.
This year we have a massively skewed experience playing group of either old tired Champions or kids with sub 40 games, none of which have played any meaningful amount of footy together.

Like I've said elsewhere if this result came when we had no injuries, and guys like Guthrie, Duncan, Motlop, Caddy all on 150-200 games and guys like Gregson, Murdoch, Lang, Bews, Kolo etc all on 80-100 games and considered as a team full of players in their prime years then yes there is an issue.

Right now we are building, we will lose to teams we shouldn't and beat teams we shouldn't, we will run out of puff during games and very much towards the end of the year (as we have), particularly when we lose extremely important players to injury.

Go look at our list, particularly age and experience and where that stacks up against the other clubs and other clubs from a few years ago, considering all that we have actually over achieved....

 

[The Governor]

I strongly, strongly disagree. Essendon people hated Knights and gave him a bad wrap because he wasn't seen as an "Essendon person", and therefore didn't fit the culture of arrogance that has seen Essendon's undoing. He took a side which, under Sheedy, had 3 wins in 2006 and 10 in 2007, and took them to seasons of 8 wins, 10.5 wins and 7 wins. More to the point, he oversaw the turnaround of a list that was ageing rapidly and moved the club away from reliance on the 2000 veterans - particularly Lloyd and Lucas. He didn't deserve the crap he copped from that club, and quite frankly was never given a chance.

He's been very highly spoken of within Geelong. He's overseen development of the VFL team, and took them to back-to-back Grand Finals, including a flag. He's also a highly credentialled assistant coach.

Being sacked as an AFL coach isn't the end of anyone's coaching career. Voss is currently at Port, Ratten at Hawthorn, etc etc.

Given the lack of exposure that we have to assistant coaching staff, I suggest that a lot of blaming assistant coaches is done by hypothesis rather than investigation.

Why don't you look at the way Essendon played under Matthew Knights from 2008 to 2010? They were an offensive team that had no idea on how to defend when the opposition had the ball.

I am prepared to say that David Wheadon, Brendan McCartney and Ron Watt are better teaching coaches than Matthew Knights!

I am also prepared to say that when we won the VFL Grand Final in 2012, most of the good work was done by Brenton Sanderson, Brendan McCartney and Ron Watt back in 2008-2011. When they put in the amount of teaching hours into the draftees, the rewards were going to come in 2012.

 

[Catatonic Shock]

Why don't you look at the way Essendon played under Matthew Knights from 2008 to 2010? They were an offensive team that had no idea on how to defend when the opposition had the ball.

I am prepared to say that David Wheadon, Brendan McCartney and Ron Watt are better teaching coaches than Matthew Knights!

I am also prepared to say that when we won the VFL Grand Final in 2012, most of the good work was done by Brenton Sanderson, Brendan McCartney and Ron Watt back in 2008-2011. When they put in the amount of teaching hours into the draftees, the rewards were going to come in 2012.

From what I have heard Knights is a very good single role coach and developer but not such a great head coach.
I believe that was from Balme on SEN maybe 2 years ago (or perhaps early last year).

 

[Teriyakicat]

Akermanis...

Phew! Thank goodness he doesn't tick the boxes of Cooky's character criteria.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

No, I'm saying that we should win against rubbish teams that have proven to be as much throughout the season (St Kilda and Melbourne) and teams that are comparable - at best - with us on talent, yet have nothing - unlike us - to play for (Collingwood).

Yet teams with less to play for outplay us on a consistent basis. And I'm putting that on the coach. The 2009 team would have destroyed Collingwood, Melbourne and St Kilda by 15+ goals. No-one is expecting that. I'm expecting wins against proven inferior teams. Sorry if that's too much to ask.

And that as just about the same core side that literally threw away a chance to play off for the GF in 2005 when it had the game at it's mercy against Sydney, and blew it. And this same team then put in an absolutely woeful 2006 season. This was partially the coach, but he was given time to learn.

 

[iameviljez]

Why don't you look at the way Essendon played under Matthew Knights from 2008 to 2010? They were an offensive team that had no idea on how to defend when the opposition had the ball.

Well of course they weren't a very good team. They were in the process of losing some of the best players in the club's history and ergo, they were ordinary. Of course they were going to fall short in some areas and Essendon, simply put, couldn't handle being crap.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

And that as just about the same core side that literally threw away a chance to play off for the GF in 2005 when it had the game at it's mercy against Sydney, and blew it. And this same team then put in an absolutely woeful 2006 season. This was partially the coach, but he was given time to learn.

We presumably would have been paying over $4 to beat Sydney that night. We were not outworked. We were just beaten by more experienced and more ready team in hostile territory. None of which was present in the games that I mentioned. We were paying $1.40 against Collingwood; $1.22 against St Kilda and $1.14 against Melbourne. By average games played, Sydney was also over 30 games more experienced than Geelong in the 2005 Semi Final. Compare that to Melbourne and St Kilda (whom we were about 20 games' more experienced than per player) and Collingwood (over 35 games' more experienced, on average).