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

[Catsace]

What do you all think about our performance against Hawthorn? We looked s**t - Dangerfield carried us on his own boot. Collapsed like a sack of potatoes in the last quarter and nearly choked out a loss if not for Smith saving us again. Where were the tactics to ice the game? Why did we fail so miserably to slow the play in the last 10 minutes? Big failures on the coaching department and team.

Probably a case of having an already depleted midfield with Danger forward, C.Guthrie still smarting from being booted in the face by Stodge (not a mention of that in the MRP as well) and no natural tagger with S.Selwood out. The mark by Shoenmakers was ordinary though as the only ones near the contest were Kolidasnji and Bews, we needed Lonergan, Harry or someone like that there too.

I am also taking some of these wins with a little bit of a grain of salt, as twice in recent games Geelong's won by dint of a missed final kick of the game, and the Port game had the ball in our defensive goal-square at the end too. But perhaps that's just the luck Geelong didn't get in the 70's and 80's when i was younger and seemed top lament us always losing the close ones.

If one checks Rogers Results site, he reveals that Geelong has now won 11 of the 25 games decided by less than 5 points between the Hawks and Cats.

The 25th match between these two won by 1 to 5 points and the 11th won by Geelong (including 8 of the last 10 2001-17).

Any wonder i wrote that Hawk rant thread years ago! So of the first 15 games between Geelong and Hawthorn decided by such a margin, Geelong had won just three!! So some of this might be nothing more than the great leveller....some reversion to mean from a number that was already crazily in favour of one side.

Just a side note, and a bit of a thing about the paradox of mathematics re percentages. John Devine coached Geelong to 28 wins and a draw in his 66 games. His win percentage in H & A, well all up given he never made Finals was 43.18%

Chris Scott has coached 81 more H & A games....for 80 more wins and one extra draw. And his win percentage despite the same denominator is just 31% more. In a way, that staggering statistic in winning 80 extra games out of 81 over John Devine doesn't even come close to doing him mathematical justice.

 

[JumpyHolden]

That's a tremendous retrospective from someone who joined in April 2016.

I've been around for a lot longer than 2015, you can read posts without joining, I'm sure you didn't join the day you stumbled on this site.

 

[JumpyHolden]

If Scott isn't given credit for keeping Geelong competitive because we got Dangerfiled than no coach can ever get credit for winning a premiership .It is always the players who execute the game plan and skills out on the field , not the coach .It's just like saying Clarkson only coached hawthorn too 3 premierships in a row because he had the best players in the comp .

Sure you can say that Geelong depend on Danger more than most other top 4 sides depend on their best player but all that really does is make our side harder to coach for Scott. It would be much easier to coach our 2011 side when we had 10-12 A grade players supported by another 12 solid B graders .

We also shouldn't think that Geelong has taken the easy way by recruiting Danger and some other good mature age players . These recruitments just balance out the fact that Geelong has been more deprived of early draft picks over the past 13 years than any other club.

That just shows if a coach inherits so much talent and they are so much easier to coach, then most coaches can lead them to a grand final.

 

[romeohwho]

What do you all think about our performance against Hawthorn? We looked s**t - Dangerfield carried us on his own boot. Collapsed like a sack of potatoes in the last quarter and nearly choked out a loss if not for Smith saving us again. Where were the tactics to ice the game? Why did we fail so miserably to slow the play in the last 10 minutes? Big failures on the coaching department and team.

Yep, we didn't play a great game. Thought we were a bit relaxed actually and played a strange sort of game. Assumed that we are more intent on the road ahead where we will face real contenders. You know we struggle against lower sides! Nothing to be learned here-enjoy the win and move on.

 

[supahoops]

Many saying Hardwick has coached his socks off this year. End of day wouldn't be close to the eight without Martin. Not sure there's a whole lot to be gained from some of these arguments..

 

[PhatBoy]

What do you all think about our performance against Hawthorn? We looked s**t - Dangerfield carried us on his own boot. Collapsed like a sack of potatoes in the last quarter and nearly choked out a loss if not for Smith saving us again. Where were the tactics to ice the game? Why did we fail so miserably to slow the play in the last 10 minutes? Big failures on the coaching department and team.

Collapsed in the last?

Yeah mate. We kicked 2 goals to 3, and their third came with 40 seconds to go.

F*** my mouth.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's lucky for us when the opposition misses a late kick but somehow we are also lucky when Hawkins misses a kick for victory against GWS

 

[Vdubs]

What do you all think about our performance against Hawthorn? We looked s**t - Dangerfield carried us on his own boot. Collapsed like a sack of potatoes in the last quarter and nearly choked out a loss if not for Smith saving us again. Where were the tactics to ice the game? Why did we fail so miserably to slow the play in the last 10 minutes? Big failures on the coaching department and team.

It's how you choose to view it.
Smith missed a difficult shot, but a minute before that, Danger should easily have slotted through his 6th.Then the game would have been beyond their reach. So what if we were not perfect in executing that final minute- that gives CS et al plenty to work on for the next 9 weeks. It all counts, and meanwhile, we are #2 again. How can you complain about that? GWS have had some very close and lucky wins too.
The game was like that all day.
We finished on top.
I didn't even pick us as I thought Hawks would play above themselves for that game, AND because their form leading in was excellent- GWS, Swans, Crows, Pies.
Losing SS, and Mackie squared the talent levels out there.
Again, it's how you choose to assess that entire game.

 

[Vdubs]

Probably a case of having an already depleted midfield with Danger forward, C.Guthrie still smarting from being booted in the face by Stodge (not a mention of that in the MRP as well) and no natural tagger with S.Selwood out. The mark by Shoenmakers was ordinary though as the only ones near the contest were Kolidasnji and Bews, we needed Lonergan, Harry or someone like that there too.

I am also taking some of these wins with a little bit of a grain of salt, as twice in recent games Geelong's won by dint of a missed final kick of the game, and the Port game had the ball in our defensive goal-square at the end too. But perhaps that's just the luck Geelong didn't get in the 70's and 80's when i was younger and seemed top lament us always losing the close ones.

If one checks Rogers Results site, he reveals that Geelong has now won 11 of the 25 games decided by less than 5 points between the Hawks and Cats.

The 25th match between these two won by 1 to 5 points and the 11th won by Geelong (including 8 of the last 10 2001-17).

Any wonder i wrote that Hawk rant thread years ago! So of the first 15 games between Geelong and Hawthorn decided by such a margin, Geelong had won just three!! So some of this might be nothing more than the great leveller....some reversion to mean from a number that was already crazily in favour of one side.

Just a side note, and a bit of a thing about the paradox of mathematics re percentages. John Devine coached Geelong to 28 wins and a draw in his 66 games. His win percentage in H & A, well all up given he never made Finals was 43.18%

Chris Scott has coached 81 more H & A games....for 80 more wins and one extra draw. And his win percentage despite the same denominator is just 31% more. In a way, that staggering statistic in winning 80 extra games out of 81 over John Devine doesn't even come close to doing him mathematical justice.

Excellent post, and that Hawks rant thread is indelibly etched in my footy memory. You summed up the thoughts of most of us .

 

[geelong_crazy26]

What do you all think about our performance against Hawthorn? We looked s**t - Dangerfield carried us on his own boot. Collapsed like a sack of potatoes in the last quarter and nearly choked out a loss if not for Smith saving us again. Where were the tactics to ice the game? Why did we fail so miserably to slow the play in the last 10 minutes? Big failures on the coaching department and team.

Blighty Cats we won and were the 2nd best performed side after 16 rounds in the competition.

We are not perfect , no side is perfect and perfection is not possible in this game .

 

[Tony Barber]

What do you all think about our performance against Hawthorn? We looked s**t - Dangerfield carried us on his own boot. Collapsed like a sack of potatoes in the last quarter and nearly choked out a loss if not for Smith saving us again. Where were the tactics to ice the game? Why did we fail so miserably to slow the play in the last 10 minutes? Big failures on the coaching department and team.

As much as you guys just love arguing about Scott for the sake of it, I really don't understand any comment about Saturday's game.

Yes danger going forward unsettled hawthorn. And yes danger was good enough to get the job done.
But what the hell do you think was happening in our coaches box?

"Hey coach, our most offensive mid has gone down. We'll move him forward" 's**t'
"We're going to need to get hawk out of there" 's**t'
"And Menzel" 's**t'
"Oh and we really need to change Stanley's role and tell him not to go in there. Leaving both he and smith higher up the ground" 's**t'
"It gets worse. Mitchell is cutting us up so we will need Blicavs at 17/22 centre bounces. Which means we will be down another attacking mid. Oh, and that obviously means the Blicavs to smith matchup can't happen" 's**t,s**t,s**t'.

I thought it was a brilliant coaching effort to move that side around and instruct them so clearly that they all followed a plan they obviously hadn't even considered during the week.

In fact, had danger gone off and stayed off we may have been even better. Because there would have been no need to throw the team upside down.

 

[evolutionbaby]

I've been around for a lot longer than 2015, you can read posts without joining, I'm sure you didn't join the day you stumbled on this site.

About 2 weeks before.

 

[Vdubs]

About 2 weeks before.

on the day- my brother led me to the site on xmas day at his place.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

In fact, had danger gone off and stayed off we may have been even better. Because there would have been no need to throw the team upside down.

... I love your optimism but can't help but feel it's not quite reality... Better off without Dangerfield carrying us? Go look at 2015 for what our team is like without Dangerfield.

 

[Vdubs]

... I love your optimism but can't help but feel it's not quite reality... Better off without Dangerfield carrying us? Go look at 2015 for what our team is like without Dangerfield.

Agree re Danger.
One of the great things about following Geelong.
We ALWAYS have something, someone to look forward to.
Someone that makes the game that bit special.
Polly Farmer.
Sam Newman
Mike Turner
Gary Ablett snr
Gary Ablett jnr
Dangerfield
There have been heaps of others, but that group there had that wow factor.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Many saying Hardwick has coached his socks off this year. End of day wouldn't be close to the eight without Martin. Not sure there's a whole lot to be gained from some of these arguments..

I gain nothing from your argument.
You seen any footy this year? How many close games have Richmond won?
How many times has Martin made the difference in getting them over the line?
They may have dropped 2 places at absolutely most without him.
To compare his influence to Dangerfield on our team is not reality.
He took a team from 10th to 2nd.
There'll be some deluded arguments that is was Chris Scott or our other recruits, or even a combination of all 3.
Reality is it's Danger that has pulled back into the top 4 again.
To me it's utterly pointless arguing against that.

 

[Tony Barber]

... I love your optimism but can't help but feel it's not quite reality... Better off without Dangerfield carrying us? Go look at 2015 for what our team is like without Dangerfield.

Nice that you did actually quote the second sentence after cutting the rest out.
Unfortunate you didn't read it.

We are not better without danger. I never said that. I'm not from radelaide.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Nice that you did actually quote the second sentence after cutting the rest out.
Unfortunate you didn't read it.

We are not better without danger. I never said that. I'm not from radelaide.

You implied Dangerfield going off and staying off could have served our team better - simply not true.. He won us that game - no disputes. There is no 'could' of in your hypothesis because its as likely as pigs flying.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Many saying Hardwick has coached his socks off this year. End of day wouldn't be close to the eight without Martin. Not sure there's a whole lot to be gained from some of these arguments..

Every team is reliant on their best player to perform. It is a silly argument.

All it does is strengthen the argument of how good a coach Chris Scott is when you say we are a 1-2 man side. It is much easier to coach a side with half your side being A grade talent and the other half B grade talent, compared to coaching a side with only a couple of elite players.

Coming up with strategies and tactics to compensate such a talent gap on your current playing list to be sitting second on the ladder beating all the sides who have a great spread of quality talent, is only a feather in the cap of Chris Scott.

Football these days is a complete team defensive and offence effort. If Scott has us sitting second on the ladder with a team that relies only on two players, then he is a genius tactician to be able to pull that off.

 

[Tony Barber]

You implied Dangerfield going off and staying off could have served our team better - simply not true.. He won us that game - no disputes. There is no 'could' of in your hypothesis because its as likely as pigs flying.

This is a thread about the coach right?
My post was about his coaching around the Dangerfield effect. I give up.
Good luck on your crusade.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

This is a thread about the coach right?
My post was about his coaching around the Dangerfield effect. I give up.
Good luck on your crusade.

Yes Chris Scott was a genius placing one of the games best players in the forward line after injuring one of his legs limiting his running abilities. Just like the genius of placing an AA backman in the forward line for majority of the season even after it failed multiple times.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Every team is reliant on their best player to perform. It is a silly argument.

All it does is strengthen the argument of how good a coach Chris Scott is when you say we are a 1-2 man side. It is much easier to coach a side with half your side being A grade talent and the other half B grade talent, compared to coaching a side with only a couple of elite players.

Coming up with strategies and tactics to compensate such a talent gap on your current playing list to be sitting second on the ladder beating all the sides who have a great spread of quality talent, is only a feather in the cap of Chris Scott.

Football these days is a complete team defensive and offence effort. If Scott has us sitting second on the ladder with a team that relies only on two players, then he is a genius tactician to be able to pull that off.

I see your point and it is a good effort.
When we were a 1 man team though we finished 10th and were unlikely to improve that position.
Now we are a 2 man team however we are looking at a 2nd top 2 finish.
I don't care if you dig up Norm Smith out of the grave (if he's dead). NO coach can be successful without the cattle.
It is amazing the influence that Danger has had on this team.
Someone may be able to think of someone but I can't think of any player who has ever had an immediate impact to a team as him.

 

[catempire]

If people want to know what a "one man team" looks like check out the Gold Coast for the past seven years.

It's laughable to suggest we are a one man team.

 

[Landgraft]

I gain nothing from your argument.
You seen any footy this year? How many close games have Richmond won?
How many times has Martin made the difference in getting them over the line?
They may have dropped 2 places at absolutely most without him.
To compare his influence to Dangerfield on our team is not reality.
He took a team from 10th to 2nd.
There'll be some deluded arguments that is was Chris Scott or our other recruits, or even a combination of all 3.
Reality is it's Danger that has pulled back into the top 4 again.
To me it's utterly pointless arguing against that.

I'm curious - if you're that certain that it was Dangerfield and Dangerfield alone that improved us then why do you think the Suns have been going nowhere fast despite having Gaz?

 

[Spazz Cat]

I'm curious - if you're that certain that it was Dangerfield and Dangerfield alone that improved us then why do you think the Suns have been going nowhere fast despite having Gaz?

Gaz was there from the very start. They were a start up team. What was there to improve on? What other out and out stars have they acquired? He actually had them heading to the finals BTW before he got injured.
I'm curious if you actually have a different opinion than it wasn't all Danger that improved our team so much.