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

[Cataholic]

In Scott's own words.

At times we just got out of the way this year because we had such an incredible group of players.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...-grand-final-win/story-e6frep5o-1226155638436


They do need a coach but shit their job is made all that much easier when they inherit what Scott did. Do you think he would have won the flag at Melbourne if he had of got that job?

Coaches need good players.

Good players still need a good coach.

 

[Catgirl]

Don't disagree, but the assertions that 'anyone could've coached this or that side' suggests some teams really don't need a coach.....

Like Crazy, I think you've taken it a bit out of context. There is a huge difference between coming into a side where almost everyone around you has been an embodiment of leadership for the good part of a decade, and coming into a side where there are no leaders to speak of. Bomber, amongst others, had come to a Geelong whose leaders had all but left the club for dead. Over the span of 11 years, we had transformed into a club with wealth in leadership - both in its coaches and players. Scott came to the club when these values had already been instilled in the players. I think it's fair to say that the foundations of our 07-11 group were so strong (as 7 years of pain prior should dictate) that any AFL coach, qualified or not, could have led us to the flag in 2011. That's not a stab at Chris, but a credit to our club.

 

[Partridge]

That's fine , than 2011 was Scotts side.

Absolutely it was. I've never said anything differently.

 

[Cataholic]

Like Crazy, I think you've taken it a bit out of context. There is a huge difference between coming into a side where almost everyone around you has been an embodiment of leadership for the good part of a decade, and coming into a side where there are no leaders to speak of. Bomber, amongst others, had come to a Geelong whose leaders had all but left the club for dead. Over the span of 11 years, we had transformed into a club with wealth in leadership - both in its coaches and players. Scott came to the club when these values had already been instilled in the players. I think it's fair to say that the foundations of our 07-11 group were so strong (as 7 years of pain prior should dictate) that any AFL coach, qualified or not, could have led us to the flag in 2011. That's not a stab at Chris, but a credit to our club.

Don't necessarily disagree, but players and coaches need each other.

Dismissing the contribution of one or the other to any success, as has gone on here, is just ungracious.

 

[Catgirl]

Don't necessarily disagree, but players and coaches need each other.

Dismissing the contribution of one or the other to any success, as has gone on here, is just ungracious.

As I literally just said, no one here is dismissing Scott's contribution. Of course he played his part in the 2011 flag; it's just that he had a very small role to play given 99% of the work had been done by Bomber, spanning over a decade prior to Scott's employment.

 

[abet]

As I literally just said, no one here is dismissing Scott's contribution. Of course he played his part in the 2011 flag; it's just that he had a very small role to play given 99% of the work had been done by Bomber, spanning over a decade prior to Scott's employment.

Well said and that's exactly what no one here is willing to acknowledge.

 

[Cataholic]

As I literally just said, no one here is dismissing Scott's contribution. Of course he played his part in the 2011 flag; it's just that he had a very small role to play given 99% of the work had been done by Bomber, spanning over a decade prior to Scott's employment.

Evaluating Scott's contribution as worth little more than 1% is dismissive in itself.

On that basis, the club could've saved money and not employed a coach in 2011. The result was virtually guaranteed it seems.

I agree that Bomber laid a great foundation, but during a time of upheaval (Bomber n Gazza left, a new coach arrived) Scott did a bit more than he's being given credit for.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Evaluating Scott's contribution as worth little more than 1% is dismissive in itself.

On that basis, the club could've saved money and not employed a coach in 2011. The result was virtually guaranteed it seems.

I agree that Bomber laid a great foundation, but during a time of upheaval (Bomber n Gazza left, a new coach arrived) Scott did a bit more than he's being given credit for.

This. Couldn't have typed it better if I tried.

 

[Catgirl]

Evaluating Scott's contribution as worth little more than 1% is dismissive in itself.

A general statement clearly and obviously not an exact statistical determination, if that is even possible to obtain. Please don't resort to that sort of straw-pulling because I really do enjoy the significant majority of your postings.

On that basis, the club could've saved money and not employed a coach in 2011. The result was virtually guaranteed it seems.

Scott was not brought in with the expectations of winning a flag. He was hired to rebuild our club, something that his contract renewal is evidence of. He exceeded expectations in his first year, but not because of his tactical strengths or anything of the like. The man himself said that all credit lies on the quality and integrity of our players and the examples they had set before he joined Geelong.

I agree that Bomber laid a great foundation, but during a time of upheaval (Bomber n Gazza left, a new coach arrived) Scott did a bit more than he's being given credit for.

Ablett's departure was never going to affect our playing group to a large extent. We were never a one-man team and we proved that to the rest of the footy world that had neglected to observe this the following season. Our best player and coach had left, however their work had been done by the time they had left. Both Bomber and Ablett left the club accomplished and successful, having influenced our club only positively; them leaving did not rob anything from the playing group.

 

[Cataholic]

A general statement clearly and obviously not an exact statistical determination, if that is even possible to obtain. Please don't resort to that sort of straw-pulling because I really do enjoy the significant majority of your postings.


Scott was not brought in with the expectations of winning a flag. He was hired to rebuild our club, something that his contract renewal is evidence of. He exceeded expectations in his first year, but not because of his tactical strengths or anything of the like. The man himself said that all credit lies on the quality and integrity of our players and the examples they had set before he joined Geelong.


Ablett's departure was never going to affect our playing group to a large extent. We were never a one-man team and we proved that to the rest of the footy world that had neglected to observe this the following season. Our best player and coach had left, however their work had been done by the time they had left. Both Bomber and Ablett left the club accomplished and successful, having influenced our club only positively; them leaving did not rob anything from the playing group.

Yes, a general statement, and a statistical determination that will never be ascertained. Simplistic, but based on your estimation that 99% of the credit was due to the players.

I concede that a lot of the hard work was already done, but fair is fair, he had a worthwhile contribution to the success of 2011.

The best midfielder ever didn't leave a sizeable hole in our side?? Ok.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The man himself said that all credit lies on the quality and integrity of our players and the examples they had set before he joined Geelong.

There is a notion known as modesty you know, would bet it played a part in his attitude towards 2011.

 

[Catgirl]

I concede that a lot of the hard work was already done, but fair is fair, he had a worthwhile contribution to the success of 2011.

Feel free to elaborate on this worthwhile contribution of his that you're quite valiantly defending, brave effort by the way. I'm all ears and counter arguments.

The best midfielder ever didn't leave a sizeable hole in our side?? Ok.

Never said that, you keep taking things way out of context for the benefit of your argument. Of course, any team is better with an Ablett in it, but we had too many good players to compensate for what we lost. Hence we were never a one-man team. He was not the sole contributor or earner at the GFC and this was proven the following year.

 

[Partridge]

Plus i don't really care if you or anyone else thinks it's insulting, it's the way i see it and if you or anyone else don't like it then it's bad luck.

Well said.

You need to be careful; if it's insulting, then it's a short step to being outrageous or offensive. Obviously we can't have that.

 

[Catgirl]

There is a notion known as modesty you know, would bet it played a part in his attitude towards 2011.

Not only is it modesty, it is a 100% fact.

 

[Cataholic]

Feel free to elaborate on this worthwhile contribution of his that you're quite valiantly defending, brave effort by the way. I'm all ears and counter arguments.


Never said that, you keep taking things way out of context for the benefit of your argument. Of course, any team is better with an Ablett in it, but we had too many good players to compensate for what we lost. Hence we were never a one-man team. He was not the sole contributor or earner at the GFC and this was proven the following year.

I'm not defending Scott at all costs.

I'm moreso pointing out that it is ungracious to say that his contribution was virtually negligible.

Saying that Ablett (and Bomber) 'didn't rob the playing group' implies that they were just as strong without him. Disagree. Yes, still strong enough to win without him, but still weaker for his absence.

 

[Cataholic]

Well said.

You need to be careful; if it's insulting, then it's a short step to being outrageous or offensive. Obviously we can't have that.

How is a debate advanced by insults?

Like watching parliament. Insults just diminish the poster.

 

[Catgirl]

I'm not defending Scott at all costs.

I'm moreso pointing out that it is ungracious to say that his contribution was virtually negligible.

I've given reason as to why I think his contribution was minuscule, you have an opportune moment to tell Bigfooty why you think Scott played a bigger role in the 2011 premiership than initially thought. I'm looking forward to hearing it.

Saying that Ablett (and Bomber) 'didn't rob the playing group' implies that they were just as strong without him. Disagree. Yes, still strong enough to win without him, but still weaker for his absence.

I say they didn't rob the playing group because they didn't. They were contributors in a TEAM before their departure, and they will continue to be viewed as contributors of a TEAM post departure. One-man bands do not win premierships. In saying that they did not rob Geelong, I contended that they did not take away from our club culture and code of conduct. This is something that not only Ablett and Bomber adhered to in their time at Geelong, but the 40 odd other players and numerous board members who put their soul into this club.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Not only is it modesty, it is a 100% fact.

No, it's an opinion, an opinion I don't share.

 

[Catgirl]

No, it's an opinion, an opinion I don't share.

Evidently NSFB, evidently

 

[abet]

Evidently NSFB, evidently

Someone needs to put an option where I can like your posts more than once.

 

[Cataholic]

I've given reason as to why I think his contribution was minuscule, you have an opportune moment to tell Bigfooty why you think Scott played a bigger role in the 2011 premiership than initially thought. I'm looking forward to hearing it.


I say they didn't rob the playing group because they didn't. They were contributors in a TEAM before their departure, and they will continue to be viewed as contributors of a TEAM post departure. One-man bands do not win premierships. In saying that they did not rob Geelong, I contended that they did not take away from our club culture and code of conduct. This is something that not only Ablett and Bomber adhered to in their time at Geelong, but the 40 odd other players and numerous board members who put their soul into this club.

I've made no assertion about the value of Scott's contribution to the 2011 flag. It can't be measured, as you yourself said. But, as you agreed a couple of pages back, Scott DID play a role in that success.

That comment went on to say that the succcess doesn't define him as a coach, and 2016/17 is waiting for him to prove himself one way or the other. Wholeheartedly agree.

I also agree that the departures didn't detract from the culture of the playing group and club. I was pointing to the skill on the ground. Any side is definitively weaker, skill wise, without Ablett in it.

 

[Catgirl]

I've made no assertion about the value of Scott's contribution to the 2011 flag. It can't be measured, as you yourself said. But, as you agreed a couple of pages back, Scott DID play a role in that success.

I, as well as various other posters in this thread alone, made an assertion that Scott's contribution to the 2011 flag was small; comparatively speaking, a lot smaller than it would be if he was to win a flag next season with our current group. I think this is a fair presumption on the basis of compiled facts, though you vehemently disagree with these sentiments. You cannot argue without a point - ultimately, your point was that Geelong supporters claiming Scott did not have a significant role in the 2011 premiership was ungracious and, in want of a plainer term, wrong. Therefore the only possible conclusion to allude to is that you think he deserves more credit. My proposed question has been and still is, more credit for what? No one has denied his contribution, why is more credit necessary?

That comment went on to say that the succcess doesn't define him as a coach, and 2016/17 is waiting for him to prove himself one way or the other. Wholeheartedly agree.

I also agree that the departures didn't detract from the culture of the playing group and club. I was pointing to the skill on the ground. Any side is definitively weaker, skill wise, without Ablett in it.

Sigh, thank you! Finally

 

[Cronin]

I watched the 10' PF the other day and we were absolutely shot, before losing our best player and coach.
I think most teams after all that would struggle, yet we managed to go 13-0, beat the reigning premiers 3 times and win the flag;
IMO Chris Scott has to get a lot of credit for atleast revitalising and motivating a still high quality list to perform at the level that they did.

I think he needs to improve aspects of his coaching in order for us to succeed regardless of who we put out on the park, but he was a big part of our 11' season.

 

[Cataholic]

I, as well as various other posters in this thread alone, made an assertion that Scott's contribution to the 2011 flag was small; comparatively speaking, a lot smaller than it would be if he was to win a flag next season with our current group. I think this is a fair presumption on the basis of compiled facts, though you vehemently disagree with these sentiments. You cannot argue without a point - ultimately, your point was that Geelong supporters claiming Scott did not have a significant role in the 2011 premiership was ungracious and, in want of a plainer term, wrong. Therefore the only possible conclusion to allude to is that you think he deserves more credit. My proposed question has been and still is, more credit for what? No one has denied his contribution, why is more credit necessary?


Sigh, thank you! Finally

No, I disagreed with the disparaging spirit of the various posts. I wasn't disputing fact, nor did I ever say someone was wrong.

And condescending replies don't encourage good debate.

 

[Catgirl]

No, I disagreed with the disparaging spirit of the various posts. I wasn't disputing fact, nor did I ever say someone was wrong.

I agree that Bomber laid a great foundation, but during a time of upheaval (Bomber n Gazza left, a new coach arrived) Scott did a bit more than he's being given credit for.

In a direct response to posters' refusal to give Scott too much credit, you claimed that Scott deserved more credit than we were giving him. There is no mention of spirit here as there was in some of your other posts; this scenario evidences a clash of opinions. An opinion I'm sure you hold firm to but are not willing to justify. That's fine too.

And condescending replies don't encourage good debate.

It really isn't a point of debate to begin with. To each their own though.