Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - Part II [NEW POLL ADDED]

[geelong_crazy26]

He won't
In fact, he's got a better chance of missing the top four in consecutive seasons for the first time in his coaching career.

Now where is this contract extension you promised us all was coming?

The contract extension cook said was happening? He's signed locked in for another two years. I mean sure if you want to get another prediction wrong by all means continue to post saying he isn't, I won't stand in your way

 

[barmy44]

I say he cost us the flag in 08 and 10 because we had the best list in the AFL by the length of the Flemington race track, and he lost them both embarrassingly. This is not on the same page at all as 13 and 16 where we didn't have the best list in the AFL, nothing at all like 08 11.

That side was a once in a lifetime side and he stuffed it up from going down as the greatest side ever without dispute due to his poor coaching strategies.

If Scott wins one more premiership, he will go down as one of the greatest coaches of all time. His win loss record which is best of all time along with two premierships will elevate him to the league of Matthews sheedy Clarkson Malthouse and co.

yeah, there would still be some doubt and scope for argument. theres been some very good sides in 'ever'.

not to mention we might not have been in that position to 'lose' a 3 or 4 peat without him, so... what can you do? take the bad with the good!

it is odd that you cant defend scott without denigrating the previous coach, though.

we will probably just have to agree to disagree from here, in any event.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

In the posting history of a man who has made cherry-picking into an art form, this is truly one of your very best.

If you do this 'finals wins' table over the entirety of Scott's time at the club (that's simply six years instead of your 'preferred' five), we are actually in clear third place behind the runaway leaders Hawthorn and Sydney.

Clearly doesn't suit you to include figures which incorporate our last flag, though. Particularly when you attribute precious little credit to Scott for anything to do with that resounding success.

As has often been the case with you, conveniently choosing the sample size to suit your agenda does you no credit and exposes the empty rhetoric you are engaging in yet again on here.

yep sums up how blighty posts. Doesn't look at the big picture much, just what suits his argument. 2011 never existed basically

 

[Bobby_]

2017, 2018.
With or without GAJ?

No CHF, shit ruck brigade, and now have to deal with both Taylor and Lonergan regressing in unison.
Ablett would possibly make us top four again but only if he got back to his best, but even that would not win us a grand final.

We're so far away it's sad a lot of you cannot see it at all.
Look at the teams who are expected to do well this year, West Coast is a good example, they have no ruck stocks but look just as formidable as what they did this same time last year. Can you imagine just how much better they are going to be if we fast forward and they have Lycett and Naitanui back in the team.

 

[Bobby_]

I mean sure if you want to get another prediction wrong

lol, you need to go take a good look at your posting history mate. Your threads over the years are pretty dire when it comes to predictions so it's a bit rich of you to poke fun at others on that particular topic of conversation.
It seems like you continually give yourself a pat on the back over the same 5 threads you let everyone know about but ignore the other 20 you got so horribly wrong.

 

[Vdubs]

No CHF, shit ruck brigade, and now have to deal with both Taylor and Lonergan regressing in unison.
Ablett would possibly make us top four again but only if he got back to his best, but even that would not win us a grand final.

We're so far away it's sad a lot of you cannot see it at all.
Look at the teams who are expected to do well this year, West Coast is a good example, they have no ruck stocks but look just as formidable as what they did this same time last year. Can you imagine just how much better they are going to be if we fast forward and they have Lycett and Naitanui back in the team.

Our rucks are fine.
Hawkins will take on CHF.
Black will nab FF.
Blicavs will take on a KD role.
Menzel, Linc, GAJ, Murdoch, Lang, Cocky, Parfitt will be competing for forward roles.
Selwood, Danger, Duncan, Guthrie, GHS, Menegola, SS, Parsons, Motlop--what a formidable MF.
Kolo, Thurlow, Stewart, Hendo, Tuohey, Blicavs-, Bews, Ruggles-- we are laughing in defence.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

lol, you need to go take a good look at your posting history mate. Your threads over the years are pretty dire when it comes to predictions so it's a bit rich of you to poke fun at others on that particular topic of conversation.
It seems like you continually give yourself a pat on the back over the same 5 threads you let everyone know about but ignore the other 20 you got so horribly wrong.

lol. You do the exact same. Always remember the hits but the misses are ignored (deleted).

 

[Bobby_]

Our rucks are fine.
Hawkins will take on CHF.
Black will nab FF.
Blicavs will take on a KD role.
Menzel, Linc, GAJ, Murdoch, Lang, Cocky, Parfitt will be competing for forward roles.
Selwood, Danger, Duncan, Guthrie, GHS, Menegola, SS, Parsons, Motlop--what a formidable MF.
Kolo, Thurlow, Stewart, Hendo, Tuohey, Blicavs- we are laughing

Why do you rate Stanley and Smith?
Stanley's been dominated in both games this year. Smith can't even get a game.
Black is a poor man's Kersten and he's older with far less upside.
Blicavs I agree on, still yet to see the coach implement such an idea.
Just not much coming through in the key posts and that's where finals are won.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

yeah, there would still be some doubt and scope for argument. theres been some very good sides in 'ever'.

not to mention we might not have been in that position to 'lose' a 3 or 4 peat without him, so... what can you do? take the bad with the good!

it is odd that you cant defend scott without denigrating the previous coach, though.

we will probably just have to agree to disagree from here, in any event.

he was our most recent coach for comparison.

It isnt debatable because bomber stuffed up badly losing 08 which was a football wide laughing stock that Geelong has never heard the end of, and 2010 which was a big embarrassment also, both years we had easily the best AFL list. We should have won four premierships with that group, not 3. Could have even gone for 5.

He did well with the help of the assistants, which he had very good ones helping him out

 

[Vdubs]

Why do you rate Stanley and Smith?
Stanley's been dominated in both games this year. Smith can't even get a game.
Black is a poor man's Kersten and he's older with far less upside.
Blicavs I agree on, still yet to see the coach implement such an idea.
Just not much coming through in the key posts and that's where finals are won.

Stanley was fine against the 211 giant- competed as well as possible given the 11cm.
Smith will be back in this week, and he too is competitive.
Even with 211 shoving the ball down the throat of Fyfe, it doesn't necessitate dominance.
As long as we compete in all areas on the ground as ruckmen, we will be fine. And they do.
Black will produce.
Finals are not just won in the key posts, and you know it. Nor in the ruck contests.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

lol, you need to go take a good look at your posting history mate. Your threads over the years are pretty dire when it comes to predictions so it's a bit rich of you to poke fun at others on that particular topic of conversation.
It seems like you continually give yourself a pat on the back over the same 5 threads you let everyone know about but ignore the other 20 you got so horribly wrong.

Happily compare my posting history with yours, hands down easily win that one with the predictions, you have stuffed up that many im surprised you still have more goes at it. Most would get discouraged. But then again you never really thought for yourself, you have always been a follower of others, just how you follow blighty and his opinions around like a puppy dog. Try original thinking occasionally

 

[Bobby_]

Happily compare my posting history with yours, hands down easily win that one with the predictions, you have stuffed up that many im surprised you still have more goes at it. Most would get discouraged. But then again you never really thought for yourself, you have always been a follower of others, just how you follow blighty and his opinions around like a puppy dog. Try original thinking occasionally

To be truthful, I did start a Chris Scott thread about four years ago which was quickly shut down by the mods https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...n-chris-scott-and-the-coaching-staff.1039156/
Had reservations back then, obviously more so right now but just because I rate Blighty's view on footy, doesn't mean I follow and have no opinions of my own.

And if your as great as what you say you are, please come join us in the punting thread and you can help everyone win money

 

[Vdubs]

Happily compare my posting history with yours, hands down easily win that one with the predictions, you have stuffed up that many im surprised you still have more goes at it. Most would get discouraged. But then again you never really thought for yourself, you have always been a follower of others, just how you follow blighty and his opinions around like a puppy dog. Try original thinking occasionally

To be truthful, I did start a Chris Scott thread about four years ago which was quickly shut down by the mods https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...n-chris-scott-and-the-coaching-staff.1039156/
Had reservations back then, obviously more so right now but just because I rate Blighty's view on footy, doesn't mean I follow and have no opinions of my own.

And if your as great as what you say you are, please come join us in the punting thread and you can help everyone win money

All I can say is, imho, you are both prolific and excellent posters on this board, the only board I read, and I always read every word of all your posts. Entertaining, thought-provoking, topical, interesting and rarely in agreement, yet both passionate Cats supporters.

 

[barmy44]

never really got the big deal with 'predictions' on this site to be honest... so someones guess turned out to resemble what actually happened? who cares, its a sport the outcome of which is dependent on, lets go conservatively, about 100,000 variables throughout a season. a few guesses are going to come up. it means nothing.

 

[Bobby_]

Finals are not just won in the key posts, and you know it. Nor in the ruck contests.

The only year I can think of was Sydney's 2012 victory but even then, they needed Goodes and RTL to come up big when it mattered.
Would the Dogs have won it without Boyd and Stringer last year?
I can't imagine Hawthorn doing much without Roughead or Gunston.

Adelaide was probably the last side to do it without any genuine talls. Jarmen was the guy who turned it on. They had Robran, but he was barely much at all.

 

[barmy44]

he was our most recent coach for comparison.

It isnt debatable because bomber stuffed up badly losing 08 which was a football wide laughing stock that Geelong has never heard the end of, and 2010 which was a big embarrassment also, both years we had easily the best AFL list. We should have won four premierships with that group, not 3. Could have even gone for 5.

He did well with the help of the assistants, which he had very good ones helping him out

like i said, agree to disagree. 'football wide laughing stock' is a bit much, though. i dont hear much about '08 anymore, to be honest. dont remember the last time i heard anything about it outside of this site.

mark thompson - great geelong coach with flaws; chris scott - good, hopefully great by the end of his time, geelong coach with flaws. thats my view.

 

[Vdubs]

The only year I can think of was Sydney's 2012 victory but even then, they needed Goodes and RTL to come up big when it mattered.
Would the Dogs have won it without Boyd and Stringer last year?
I can't imagine Hawthorn doing much without Roughead or Gunston.

Adelaide was probably the last side to do it without any genuine talls. Jarmen was the guy who turned it on. They had Robran, but he was barely much at all.

Shane Ellen . Came from defence and nice mark, nice kick- on a whim, Blighty selected him for the GF in Modra's absence and he slots 5. Watched that in awe.

That can and does happen, and even a Thurlow could end up being a match-winner.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Stanley was fine against the 211 giant- competed as well as possible given the 11cm.
Smith will be back in this week, and he too is competitive.
Even with 211 shoving the ball down the throat of Fyfe, it doesn't necessitate dominance.
As long as we compete in all areas on the ground as ruckmen, we will be fine. And they do.
Black will produce.
Finals are not just won in the key posts, and you know it. Nor in the ruck contests.

He wasn't fine. He got smashed. Freo's ineptness rendered the ruck domination irrelevant, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant against better sides. That was apparent against North.

 

[Vdubs]

He wasn't fine. He got smashed. Freo's ineptness rendered the ruck domination irrelevant, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant against better sides. That was apparent against North.

Depends on your expectations.
The NM ruckman took us by surprise. Would not be surprised if Stanley was a bit sore on Sunday.
But 211 has always killed most rucks for hitouts, he is just too huge.
I had no expectation or hope that we were going to do any better than we did, and in fact, I still thought Stanley did well enough around the ground.
Smith does ok. Not a real concern of mine- we have had worse rucks by a long shot and made prelims.

 

[BlightysCats]

In the posting history of a man who has made cherry-picking into an art form, this is truly one of your very best.

If you do this 'finals wins' table over the entirety of Scott's time at the club (that's simply six years instead of your 'preferred' five), we are actually in clear third place behind the runaway leaders Hawthorn and Sydney.

Clearly doesn't suit you to include figures which incorporate our last flag, though. Particularly when you attribute precious little credit to Scott for anything to do with that resounding success.

As has often been the case with you, conveniently choosing the sample size to suit your agenda does you no credit and exposes the empty rhetoric you are engaging in yet again on here.

My sample size excludes a clear statistical outlier when talking about finals (2011) and as anyone who had even basic maths skills would understand when analysing data over a long period of time you always exclude the statistical outlier to get accurate results. Even apart from that having such a poor finals record in consecutive years over half a decade deserves critical statistical analysis. You can try escaping the cold hard fact that in 5 consecutive years which in fractional terms would be 5/6ths of Scotts reign 8 teams have outperformed us/him in finals, but the fact is it's a complete disgrace and defending it if you really support Geelong and want them to have success is even more disgraceful and the ultimate admission you ultimately care little for the clubs success and would rather celebrate mediocrity than change coach or admit frailty in backing a clearly substandard coach.

 

[00VicWard001]

Stanley was fine against the 211 giant- competed as well as possible given the 11cm.
Smith will be back in this week, and he too is competitive.
Even with 211 shoving the ball down the throat of Fyfe, it doesn't necessitate dominance.
As long as we compete in all areas on the ground as ruckmen, we will be fine. And they do.
Black will produce.
Finals are not just won in the key posts, and you know it. Nor in the ruck contests.

This called tactics for those who don't understand. It's a lot about coaching...

 

[00VicWard001]

My sample size excludes a clear statistical outlier when talking about finals (2011) and as anyone who had even basic maths skills would understand when analysing data over a long period of time you always exclude the statistical outlier to get accurate results. Even apart from that having such a poor finals record in consecutive years over half a decade deserves critical statistical analysis. You can try escaping the cold hard fact that in 5 consecutive years which in fractional terms would be 5/6ths of Scotts reign 8 teams have outperformed us/him in finals, but the fat is it's a complete disgrace and defending it if you really support Geelong and want them to have success is even more disgraceful and the ultimate admission you ultimately care little for the clubs success and would rather celebrate mediocrity than change coach or admit frailty in backing a clearly substandard coach.

Before we all go down the path of explaining maths to you, who determines that 2011 is a statistical outlier? And why?

Does the AFL (the official body) exclude it from data?

What else do we exclude when we discuss AFL seasons and game?

Shall we exclude finals Scott's post 2011 finals record as statistical outliers because during the regular season this average is so high?

You are not even a good troll.

 

[goyoucatters]

My sample size excludes a clear statistical outlier when talking about finals (2011) and as anyone who had even basic maths skills would understand when analysing data over a long period of time you always exclude the statistical outlier to get accurate results. Even apart from that having such a poor finals record in consecutive years over half a decade deserves critical statistical analysis. You can try escaping the cold hard fact that in 5 consecutive years which in fractional terms would be 5/6ths of Scotts reign 8 teams have outperformed us/him in finals, but the fat is it's a complete disgrace and defending it if you really support Geelong and want them to have success is even more disgraceful and the ultimate admission you ultimately care little for the clubs success and would rather celebrate mediocrity than change coach or admit frailty in backing a clearly substandard coach.

You are seriously in need of some new material.

First you return to the old 'statistical outlier' chestnut. Congrats on circling back to yet another well-worn path to draw your preferred conclusion.

Scott's reign (and his record in finals) can only be objectively analysed if you include all the data. Anything less is obviously disingenuous and a blatant attempt to avoid 'unpleasant yet indisputable facts' that don't support your argument at all.

And then the latest in the succession of strawmen that you roll out day after day. Point me to one post where I defend the team's finals record in recent years. Our finals record since 2011 is disappointing and that reached its nadir for me in the first 15 minutes of last year's PF. I don't like it and I certainly don't jump on here to defend it.

Finally, you return to outright lies in stating I 'care little for the club's success and would rather celebrate mediocrity'. Nothing I have ever posted here would intimate that in any way whatsoever.

So, again we have:

(1) some of your pet phraseology rolled out in a vain attempt to exclude meaningful data that does not suit your agenda;
(2) the positing of yet another strawman to match your emotive rhetoric;
(3) the fabrication of supposed 'admissions' by me that simpy do not exist.

Another six lines of text from you resulting in yet another trio of chronic missteps in 'arguing' your position.

For someone who accuses our current coach of 'never learning', you appear to have more than a little in common.

 

[Sttew]

My sample size excludes a clear statistical outlier when talking about finals (2011) and as anyone who had even basic maths skills would understand when analysing data over a long period of time you always exclude the statistical outlier to get accurate results.

You never cease to amaze. I doubt whoever came up with the theory of excluding "Statistical outliers" was talking about 6 years as a long period of time. But when you are trolling let's not let reality get in the way of a good argument

 

[Partridge]

Depends on your expectations.
The NM ruckman took us by surprise. Would not be surprised if Stanley was a bit sore on Sunday.
But 211 has always killed most rucks for hitouts, he is just too huge.
I had no expectation or hope that we were going to do any better than we did, and in fact, I still thought Stanley did well enough around the ground.
Smith does ok. Not a real concern of mine- we have had worse rucks by a long shot and made prelims.

Why not though? Smith and Stanley were specifically recruited to solve the ruck problem. One gets thrashed by a second gamer and the other runs around in the seconds. That seems a bit of a concern I would have thought.