Coach Chris Scott re-signs to 2022 (aka the Chris Scott discussion Part IV)

Do you support Scott coaching from 2020 onwards?


  • Total voters
    215

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we thrashed 2 teams and were thrashed once then its more likely to be our own doing.

Being thrashed twice and then thrashing the Swans I'd say its more likely they were cooked, especially considering our other poor finals in 2016.

But keep trying to provoke where you can.

You do realize every single match in the finals last year was won by 6+ goals?? Everyone got smashed. It was just a reflection of the way the game was being played rather than anyone being poor.
 
Funny how they looked a superstar side smashing essendon by 11 goals the week before. The only reason you think they were cooked is because we outplayed them

Or it could be that Essendon weren't anywhere near as good.

Repeat - Sydney were not that good last year. The result against us wasn't an accident. We were a better team when it mattered.

(Can't wait to see the last sentence get twisted now.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we thrashed 2 teams and were thrashed once then its more likely to be our own doing.

Being thrashed twice and then thrashing the Swans I'd say its more likely they were cooked, especially considering our other poor finals in 2016.

But keep trying to provoke where you can.

Here's an idea - perhaps the four teams concerned, including us - that's Geelong, Richmond, Adelaide, and Sydney - were actually at differing levels of quality? Revolutionary concept isn't it?

Something like Richmond -> Adelaide ---> Geelong ---> Sydney. In September last year. Born out by those pesky things called results.

But no, if you dare point out that Geelong were miles too good for Sydney it apparently means you hate Geelong. An absolutely moronic view.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Or it could be that Essendon weren't anywhere near as good.

Repeat for those with severe mental difficulties - Sydney were not that good last year. The result against us wasn't an accident. We were a better team when it mattered.

(Can't wait to see the last sentence get twisted now.)

sydneys seasons last year is very difficult to gauge. yes, they started 0-6. they then went 14-2 with their only 2 losses being to hawthorn by a single goal each time.

id say both ends of their season were kind of 'out of the box'. they were probably far better than an 0-6 team, but probably not as good as a 14-2 team either...

ultimately, who cares though? most QF losers win the SF, and we were the QF loser. we should have expected to beat sydney, and we did.

the two GFists smashed us and GWS, and we smashed sydney and GWS smashed WC. all history now.
 
sydneys seasons last year is very difficult to gauge. yes, they started 0-6. they then went 14-2 with their only 2 losses being to hawthorn by a single goal each time.

id say both ends of their season were kind of 'out of the box'. they were probably far better than an 0-6 team, but probably not as good as a 14-2 team either...

ultimately, who cares though? most QF losers win the SF, and we were the QF loser. we should have expected to beat sydney, and we did.

the two GFists smashed us and GWS, and we smashed sydney and GWS smashed WC. all history now.

Yep, and it will be interesting to see if Sydney receive their now typical non-scrutiny if they fail to make top 4 again this year.
 
Or it could be that Essendon weren't anywhere near as good.

Repeat for those with severe mental difficulties - Sydney were not that good last year. The result against us wasn't an accident. We were a better team when it mattered.

(Can't wait to see the last sentence get twisted now.)

You said Sydney where cooked, what signs of being cooked did they display? Your purely basing this off us giving them a belting
 
Here's an idea - perhaps the four teams concerned, including us - that's Geelong, Richmond, Adelaide, and Sydney - were actually at differing levels of quality? Revolutionary concept isn't it?

Something like Richmond -> Adelaide ---> Geelong ---> Sydney. In September last year. Born out by those pesky things called results.

But no, if you dare point out that Geelong were miles too good for Sydney it apparently means you hate Geelong. An absolutely moronic view.

Well Sydney did finish 6th at the end of the home and away season while we finished 2nd.

It was only the horrible beating we received from them the year before that made a lot of us think we'd lose.

The win was a surprise (due to our terrible finals record) but the result was pretty indicative of the ladder positions.
 
Well Sydney did finish 6th at the end of the home and away season while we finished 2nd.

It was only the horrible beating we received from them the year before that made a lot of us think we'd lose.

The win was a surprise (due to our terrible finals record) but the result was pretty indicative of the ladder positions.
Mostly true. I think the size of win was more surprising than anything. And Sydney's ladder position was mainly due to their poor start to the season. Their form in the latter part of the season was pretty good.
 
Mostly true. I think the size of win was more surprising than anything. And Sydney's ladder position was mainly due to their poor start to the season. Their form in the latter part of the season was pretty good.

their form from round 6, at least W/L although it looks like a healthy % as well, was league best. 2 teams beat them, hawthorn by 6 points twice and geelong in the SF.
 
Mostly true. I think the size of win was more surprising than anything. And Sydney's ladder position was mainly due to their poor start to the season. Their form in the latter part of the season was pretty good.

No doubt. But ultimately they, like us and everyone else, has to be judged on finals performances. When they faced a top four team - us - they weren't just beaten by a couple of goals; they were completely outclassed.
 
No doubt. But ultimately they, like us and everyone else, has to be judged on finals performances. When they faced a top four team - us - they weren't just beaten by a couple of goals; they were completely outclassed.
Hopefully, ladder positions don't dictate what happens tomorrow night.
 
Well Sydney did finish 6th at the end of the home and away season while we finished 2nd.

It was only the horrible beating we received from them the year before that made a lot of us think we'd lose.

The win was a surprise (due to our terrible finals record) but the result was pretty indicative of the ladder positions.

So you and partridge have now done a flip from Sydney were cooked which has no foundation to Geelong outclassed them.

Good to see
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Clarkson implementing the Scott blue print against hawthorn.

They have gone from invincible to looking beatable because of what Scott has dissected and implemented against them.

geelong and scott made them look beatable by losing to them twice?

looks like clarkson should have implemented the pyke, simpson, hinkley or cameron blue print...
 
geelong and scott made them look beatable by losing to them twice?

looks like clarkson should have implemented the pyke, simpson, hinkley or cameron blue print...

We lost to them by 3 points with ablett missing a sitter to win the game he usually kicks 9/10 times. What we did clearly works.

Nobody else gotten close to them at the MCG.

Quite a shame hawthorn decided to abandon the game plan the second half and let the game open up.

Attacking football does not beat Richmond
 
Yep, and it will be interesting to see if Sydney receive their now typical non-scrutiny if they fail to make top 4 again this year.
Why should they make top 4?
They finished 6th.
I think they did well to make the 8.
 
Mods ban me from threads as it dawns on them that I've been right all along. They can't handle it. What was true in 2012 is true in 2018. Scott isn't up to it, and it shows come finals time.
Yes, he is up to it. We don't need to sack him. We can't easily now anyway. Thasnki you early contract

The real issue is the direction he has taken us. Too defensive. Over coached looking team. The versatility thing for instance is him getting the pieces on the board to wherever he likes. Meanwhile the team's skillsets have gone top the shitter. The club needs a review. A big one. But we don't need a new coach. We need to figure out how to create a team that can play finals. Scott, all by himself does not seem to know how to do that. He is not the only coach. Geelong needs skills.
 
OK, so what's Scott's finals record now since 2011, 3 and 10?

The club committed to a guy long term who can't coach a side to play finals - FACT

Our captain is showing he can't influence the side to get 'up' for finals either - FACT

Nothing will change. The club is soft, mentally and physically. Wholesale change required, just making finals isn't good enough. This side isn't hungry and carrying a bunch of players who need to harden up. The coach is promoting a culture that supports it.
 
OK, so what's Scott's finals record now since 2011, 3 and 10?

The club committed to a guy long term who can't coach a side to play finals - FACT

Our captain is showing he can't influence the side to get 'up' for finals either - FACT

Nothing will change. The club is soft, mentally and physically. Wholesale change required, just making finals isn't good enough. This side isn't hungry and carrying a bunch of players who need to harden up. The coach is promoting a culture that supports it.
Beautifully put - watch all the Scott apologists make excuses for him. He is an abject failure as a finals coach - no other way to analyse it people...
 
OK, so what's Scott's finals record now since 2011, 3 and 10?
The stats regarding Geelong's first quarter efforts and the various shellackings they've copped are probably more alarming than the record itself. They paint a picture of almost complete ineptitude in finals, which really isn't good enough given the approach taken to building the list and the H&A performances in that time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top