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

[CatsDoItBetter]

Chris Scott master plan

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...y/news-story/0be5c592ad631f9dc9cf1f5f80821ca2

 

[BlightysCats]

Only a few games (including pre season ones) but since O'Bree has taken over the Vfl they look much more organised. They have a much clearer structure, are more vocal, the Vfl players know their role and they're winning games.
Last year I questioned the Vfl coaching and was quickly shut down but I go to a fair few Vfl games. And they are travelling a lot better this year having players available makes a big difference. But the Vfl team is always going to truffle a bit with personal issues.
The coaching structures around both teams were significantly improved over the off season. And we are seeing the pay off from that I think that's on par with the players that have been recruited in.

It's often joked about building a statue for Wells and he rightly deserves all the plaudits. But in a few years time with a completed stadium, premierships, no or minimal debt and established as a power club. We can look back and reflect on how significant he impact of Brian Cook has been. If he was at a bigger club he'd get even more credit. But the fact is he's taken a club from a small town and helped turn them into a power club of the competition. Setting up the club to not only win now but establishing the culture and structure to do so well into the future.

Top draw post! Measured, informed, and accurate. I too think the coaching restructure has been underrated.

 

[DanA]

You could argue that since O'bree left midfield coach and Knights took over we have looked a lot better in midfield. That argument makes sense. Of course having ruckmen and adding Dangerfield helps a fair bit.

You can also argue Scarlett has had a big impact on our defence. The backline have all said a large part of it is pressure up the field but again as the backline coach it makes sense to assign some praise.

But how can you argue a director of coaching is responsible for our on field structure? That bit doesn't make sense. All his interviews talk about him coaching the coaches, putting systems in place to make sure they're doing their job. Not about him bringing new on field structures and implementing a game plan. How Blighty has converted off field systems to meaning on field structures has me more than a little miffed.

3rd quarter fade out, uncontested style, 2011 team coached themselves and all the other stuff assigned to Scott's "style" has put a lot of egg on faces. And hiding behind "Loyd changed our structures" rather than putting your hand up and admitting you're wrong is weak and quite rightly getting called out. Give credit to the coaching restructure, praise the new recruits but also give Scott his due credit as the guy in charge of it all.

 

[BlightysCats]

You could argue that since O'bree left midfield coach and Knights took over we have looked a lot better in midfield. That argument makes sense. Of course having ruckmen and adding Dangerfield helps a fair bit.

You can also argue Scarlett has had a big impact on our defence. The backline have all said a large part of it is pressure up the field but again as the backline coach it makes sense to assign some praise.

But how can you argue a director of coaching is responsible for our on field structure? That bit doesn't make sense. All his interviews talk about him coaching the coaches, putting systems in place to make sure they're doing their job. Not about him bringing new on field structures and implementing a game plan. How Blighty has converted off field systems to meaning on field structures has me more than a little miffed.

3rd quarter fade out, uncontested style, 2011 team coached themselves and all the other stuff assigned to Scott's "style" has put a lot of egg on faces. And hiding behind "Loyd changed our structures" rather than putting your hand up and admitting you're wrong is weak and quite rightly getting called out. Give credit to the coaching restructure, praise the new recruits but also give Scott his due credit as the guy in charge of it all.

The club itself said he has say in tactics and game plan on this very board, Hocking's MO to Lloyd was 'influence' and it's incredibly naive and disingenuous of you to say he's only changed or influenced off field systems when the interview I posted and The Official Club reply proves otherwise.

 

[DanA]

The club itself said he has say in tactics and game plan on this very board, Hocking's MO to Lloyd was 'influence' and it's incredibly naive and disingenuous of you to say he's only changed or influenced off field systems when the interview I posted and The Official Club reply proves otherwise.

I haven't seen the bit where it was said he had a say in tactics. Are you referring to the preseason interview where he said "we have some work to do" and point out varies areas like stoppages, structures etc. I think you are misinterpreting if that is the case.

He's a physiologist isn't he, isn't it their MO to influence. He coaches the coaches and the example I saw was him telling players why they aren't selected and what they need to do.

Call me incredibly naive and disingenuous because I don't believe he has a say in tactics and structures.

 

[BlightysCats]

I haven't seen the bit where it was said he had a say in tactics. Are you referring to the preseason interview where he said "we have some work to do" and point out varies areas like stoppages, structures etc. I think you are misinterpreting if that is the case.

He's a physiologist isn't he, isn't it their MO to influence. He coaches the coaches and the example I saw was him telling players why they aren't selected and what they need to do.

Call me incredibly naive and disingenuous because I don't believe he has a say in tactics and structures.

Well I will considering the club on this very board said he does.

 

[hbk_aus]

Well I will considering the club on this very board said he does.

Are you sure that is what they said? Or just twisting it to suit your agenda again?

 

[DanA]

Well I will considering the club on this very board said he does.

Where?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Are you sure that is what they said? Or just twisting it to suit your agenda again?

Twisting like a pretzel.

Would cause too much egg on face to admit Scott is a good coach

 

[FredLeDeux]

Where?

↑
Hey Official Cats just wondering if you could answer a simple question: Has Simon Lloyd had or does he have significant input in to the GFC's new game plan, set ups, and tactics?

That's a very broad and not simple question Blighty!
What we can say is that all the coaches (senior, director of coaching, assistants) regularly meet among themselves and with the playing group around the areas you discussed. None of those areas fall to one coach in particular.​

The important thing to note is that all the coaches have input.

Despite the claims, nowhere in that reply or in the oft-cited Magic Bullet Interview is there any statement or implication that Lloyd has more input than anyone else.

In particular, there is absolutely b/all justification in that interview or anywhere else for the delusional claim that "Lloyd at the very least has pretty much driven the way we set up on the field".

Lloyd in "The Interview" makes it clear that his jobs are
- to set up off-field systems in conjunction with Scott and Hocking
- in his own words, to "coach the coaches"
- in the match-day box, assume Balme's old role of making sure that each individual coach sticks to his own area of responsibility and doesn't gob off about or interfere in the larger scheme of things.

 

[Lana]

You could argue that since O'bree left midfield coach and Knights took over we have looked a lot better in midfield.

Knights became our midfield coach before the 2015 season started, I don't remember anyone singing him praises for his job last year. People were still getting stuck into O'bree even though he was a development coach last year.

 

[Bobby_]

yeh I think it comes down to a bloke named Patrick Dangerfield as to why we look so much better in midfield.

I truly believe, and I know this will erk some but Kelly, Stokes and Johnson were past their best and it was making us stale and fairly slow. When they departed, it allowed some of the younger guys to flourish which has also contributed to our freshness through the middle this season.

 

[Boxhead_31]

↑
Hey Official Cats just wondering if you could answer a simple question: Has Simon Lloyd had or does he have significant input in to the GFC's new game plan, set ups, and tactics?

That's a very broad and not simple question Blighty!
What we can say is that all the coaches (senior, director of coaching, assistants) regularly meet among themselves and with the playing group around the areas you discussed. None of those areas fall to one coach in particular.​

The important thing to note is that all the coaches have input.

Despite the claims, nowhere in that reply or in the oft-cited Magic Bullet Interview is there any statement or implication that Lloyd has more input than anyone else.

In particular, there is absolutely b/all justification in that interview or anywhere else for the delusional claim that "Lloyd at the very least has pretty much driven the way we set up on the field".

Lloyd in "The Interview" makes it clear that his jobs are
- to set up off-field systems in conjunction with Scott and Hocking
- in his own words, to "coach the coaches"
- in the match-day box, assume Balme's old role of making sure that each individual coach sticks to his own area of responsibility and doesn't gob off about or interfere in the larger scheme of things.

Damn you and your facts Fred
Poor Blighty be like

 

[Partridge]

That's it, you're booted from the Scott-Bashers Society, please return your sash and other regalia immediately.

I wish there was a sash and regalia. That'd be cool.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

↑
Hey Official Cats just wondering if you could answer a simple question: Has Simon Lloyd had or does he have significant input in to the GFC's new game plan, set ups, and tactics?

That's a very broad and not simple question Blighty!
What we can say is that all the coaches (senior, director of coaching, assistants) regularly meet among themselves and with the playing group around the areas you discussed. None of those areas fall to one coach in particular.​

The important thing to note is that all the coaches have input.

Despite the claims, nowhere in that reply or in the oft-cited Magic Bullet Interview is there any statement or implication that Lloyd has more input than anyone else.

In particular, there is absolutely b/all justification in that interview or anywhere else for the delusional claim that "Lloyd at the very least has pretty much driven the way we set up on the field".

Lloyd in "The Interview" makes it clear that his jobs are
- to set up off-field systems in conjunction with Scott and Hocking
- in his own words, to "coach the coaches"
- in the match-day box, assume Balme's old role of making sure that each individual coach sticks to his own area of responsibility and doesn't gob off about or interfere in the larger scheme of things.

Great post FredLeDeux
I think we have been well ahead of the curve in terms of organisational structure and best practice since the Cook review.
The Lloyd appointment is another great example of innovation , I dare say the new fitness coaches have added greater value than we have had before as well.
However structure is one thing - personalities are another.
Look at the egos recently at play at the Pies - McGuire/Malthouse/Buckley and Essendon - Hird/Bomber
There's no grandstanding at the Cats - looks like egos are put aside and everyone does their role , no fuss , no attention seeking
If you operate that way you generally develop synergies far greater than the sum of the parts , I'm sure we can keep this going and hopefully on field success will follow

 

[hbk_aus]

yeh I think it comes down to a bloke named Patrick Dangerfield as to why we look so much better in midfield.

I truly believe, and I know this will erk some but Kelly, Stokes and Johnson were past their best and it was making us stale and fairly slow. When they departed, it allowed some of the younger guys to flourish which has also contributed to our freshness through the middle this season.

Agree Bobby. That's why I think if the club is ever in some doubt about whether to finish up and older player or not, they should finish them. Whilst the older players might be serviceable for another year as Johnson may well have been, the benefits we are getting from younger players getting more game time and more responsibility are invaluable.

 

[PhatBoy]

yeh I think it comes down to a bloke named Patrick Dangerfield as to why we look so much better in midfield.

I truly believe, and I know this will erk some but Kelly, Stokes and Johnson were past their best and it was making us stale and fairly slow. When they departed, it allowed some of the younger guys to flourish which has also contributed to our freshness through the middle this season.

In which case, wouldn't it be accurate then, to say that it wasn't Scott's coaching, but the speed (or lack of) in our mid-field that was proving to be an issue?

The bloke is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Dangerfield has obviously helped, no-one is ever going to dispute that. However, the improvement of players like Caddy, Motlop, Gregson, Lang, Guthrie etc over varying periods of time, at a stage where Scott repeatedly said "be patient with these guys, we know what they're capable of" has been equally important.

Kudos to him for his development ideas and persistence.

 

[Partridge]

In which case, wouldn't it be accurate then, to say that it wasn't Scott's coaching, but the speed (or lack of) in our mid-field that was proving to be an issue?

The bloke is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Dangerfield has obviously helped, no-one is every going to dispute that. However, the improvement of players like Caddy, Motlop, Gregson, Lang, Guthrie etc over varying periods of time, at a stage where Scott repeatedly said "be patient with these guys, we know what they're capable of" has been equally important.

Kudos to him for his development ideas and persistence.

Do you mean Scott is damned if he does, what, win? No he isn't. If he keeps winning he'll rightly receive praise. And if we to win the ultimate prize he would rightly receive the ultimate praise.

 

[PhatBoy]

Do you mean Scott is damned if he does, what, win? No he isn't. If he keeps winning he'll rightly receive praise. And if we to win the ultimate prize he would rightly receive the ultimate praise.

We're winning, and many still refuse to acknowledge that he's had any part to play in it. So no, he isn't receiving praise, at least not from all corners like many coaches do when their team is in the sort of form we have been for most of his tenure.

FWIW I was more referring to the fact that on one hand people are saying that our improvement is because we got rid of some slow players and sped up the mid-field, on the other hand people were blaming Scott's tactics for why were weren't up to scratch last year.

If our improvement is because we've sped up, then surely that would, in turn, mean that Scott's tactics last year were less influential on our poor quality than our slowness was.

 

[CharacterFirst]

An interesting thing that Jackson Thurlow said during the K-Rock call on the weekend, was that the first coach who tells players that they have been dropped is Simon Lloyd, said Scott still has a catch up with the player but Lloyd is the one to tell the player they are out of the side and why. Said this has give Scott time to work on the strategy side of each week.

SL would be well skilled in his ability to do this, looking at his background.

Also allows Scott to be the positive influence - which I think he naturally tends towards.

So much easier to have the players play for you and respond to you when you don't have to also be the bearer of bad news.

Excellent process improvement.

Well done GFC.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Great post FredLeDeux
I think we have been well ahead of the curve in terms of organisational structure and best practice since the Cook review.
The Lloyd appointment is another great example of innovation , I dare say the new fitness coaches have added greater value than we have had before as well.
However structure is one thing - personalities are another.
Look at the egos recently at play at the Pies - McGuire/Malthouse/Buckley and Essendon - Hird/Bomber
There's no grandstanding at the Cats - looks like egos are put aside and everyone does their role , no fuss , no attention seeking
If you operate that way you generally develop synergies far greater than the sum of the parts , I'm sure we can keep this going and hopefully on field success will follow

Yep.

That's why character is so very important to a clubs success.

Character First. In a team environment - Chemistry second. Then Competence third.

The mistake most make is to put competence first. While its very important, it is not as important as people think.

 

[BlightysCats]

Where?

Official Cats thread. Sorry if you were unaware of it, I thought you'd seen it hence why I was being a bit harsh.

 

[iameviljez]

Official Cats thread. Sorry if you were unaware of it I thought you'd seen it hence why I was being a bit harsh.

How dare you change your picture! I loved School Bully.

 

[BlightysCats]

↑
Hey Official Cats just wondering if you could answer a simple question: Has Simon Lloyd had or does he have significant input in to the GFC's new game plan, set ups, and tactics?

That's a very broad and not simple question Blighty!
What we can say is that all the coaches (senior, director of coaching, assistants) regularly meet among themselves and with the playing group around the areas you discussed. None of those areas fall to one coach in particular.​

The important thing to note is that all the coaches have input.

Despite the claims, nowhere in that reply or in the oft-cited Magic Bullet Interview is there any statement or implication that Lloyd has more input than anyone else.

In particular, there is absolutely b/all justification in that interview or anywhere else for the delusional claim that "Lloyd at the very least has pretty much driven the way we set up on the field".

Lloyd in "The Interview" makes it clear that his jobs are
- to set up off-field systems in conjunction with Scott and Hocking
- in his own words, to "coach the coaches"
- in the match-day box, assume Balme's old role of making sure that each individual coach sticks to his own area of responsibility and doesn't gob off about or interfere in the larger scheme of things.

Listen to the Krock interview I posted in the 'Why have we improved thread.' Also the official cats response proves he has some input into tactics and game plan at the very least (which some still refuse to accept)....As obviously do the other coaches because that's their job, I've never claimed Lloyd controls all facets of our game plan just that he's had a significant impact on it.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Listen to the Krock interview I posted in the Why have we improved thread. Also the official cats response proves he has input into tactics and game plan at the very least (which some still refuse to accept)....As obviously do the other coaches because that's their jobs, I've never claimed Lloyd controls all facets of our game plan just that he's had a significant impact on it.

The key points of that very same KRock interview are summarised in my above post, the one which you just quoted.

That's the same interview of which you made the claim that "it is clear from his interview that Lloyd at the very least has pretty much driven the way we set up on the field". There is, of course, absolutely no basis whatever in that interview to support that claim in any way, shape or form. The claim is ridiculously delusional, and utter, unmitigated rubbish.