Keraten was very highly rated based on a lot of Scott’s comments on him. I remember him distinctly talking about the ‘elite skilled’ players in the squad and Kersten’s name repeatedly came up
Certified Legendary Thread 2 x Premiership Coach Chris Scott contracted to 2026 (aka the Chris Scott volumes
- Thread starter dazbroncos
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Keraten was very highly rated based on a lot of Scott’s comments on him. I remember him distinctly talking about the ‘elite skilled’ players in the squad and Kersten’s name repeatedly came up
catempire
Premium Platinum
Writing contracts of this nature is for lawyers and HR team. What you mean is that Cook had a lot of influence over the parameters that went into the contract. That’s undoubtably true. But it’s neither true to say he designed it or approved it.
Chinacats
Premium Platinum
- Sep 20, 2014
- 5,945
- 6,913
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Ok good middle quarters against hawks then overran in the fourth then. Which do you prefer?
Designing what the content and intent of a contract looks like is down to the CEO then to get HR to fine tune. Then the CEO will reco to the Board. If it's otherwise it is more than likely a dysfunctional organisation. The again more often than not that is the case.
Not trying to be a twat BTW just telling it how I see it.
[EDIT: anyway our convo seems to have moved people along from this thread so, on balance, that is a good thing
]
Last edited:
Yes he does enough, and is enough enough is the question?
The board love Scott because he gets us to a position where it LOOKS LIKE we'll win the flag, so they get to sell a boatload of social club memberships and "premiership guarantee addons".
Pure profits.
Pure profits.
No, they love him because he makes us a chance to some greater or lesser degree almost every year.
You don’t have to look for a conspiracy in literally everything. Usually the most obvious reason for something is the actual reason for it:
They think he’s the most likely available coach to achieve success
I see posters criticizing shedding older players years ago with the excuse that they have to play the kids then witnessing the complete opposite happening in recent years and losing kids as a result.
Some posters may flip flop but many of the "anti-scott brigade" that you label have seen the hypocrisy of these decisions
31 points we lost by - my memory is fuzzy but wasn't it something like a 50 point turnaround in that match and that has been a repeating feature of Chris Scott finals teams.
We scored only 50 points - after playing keep things off for over a half the inevitable happened and we were over-run, same old same old we have seen it time and time again. I agree that we were never in contention and that whole year had a stench of "covid assisted" attached to it - it certainly blinded many (and including the entire club it seems) into thinking we were closer than we were.
Many have whacked Biggy-Boy in the many pages of this thread including yourself but he predicted a number of years ago that the GFC will not win another premiership under Chris Scott and while I thought that was over the top at the time that is still to this day an absolute accurate prediction and no amount of fawning over the coaching genius of Chris Scott will change that - only a premiership will.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 104,642
- 142,698
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
17/18 chance if being accurate each season. Only batting below average once your flag drought extends beyond 18 years.
It's not really that simple.
I think if you told a footy fan his side would make the top 4 7 times in 10 years, most of the time in the top 2, but not win a flag, they'd probably think that's pretty ridiculous.
When you put it like that it seems ridiculous.
You're absolutely right, no argument from me there. I find on this thread a real condescending tone at times from some for anyone who would question in particular Chris Scotts contract extension and his coaching record. I along with many focus more on the list management and in particular in more recent time the loss of what we would perceive as young talent that can't break into the senior side.
I have been waiting for that "I was wrong thread" after we won a premiership where I would be more than happy to ridicule myself for my criticisms over the last few years but that looks a long way off now. IMO I think we are potentially (along with West Coast) the team that is furthest away from having a premiership winning list.
been a while since i posted here... not surprised this one is still going. this will be a long post, i guess - so hopefully people get through it, and of course all just my POV.
scott is a polarising figure, for sure. he has been head coach for 12 years now. that's a huge % of the clubs entire history! 7.5% of it, almost.
i think he is a fine coach. i also think we play a somewhat outdated game-plan and could do with a fresh approach.
i maintain that the search for black and white answers makes this thread pointless. people are trying to prove he is a "good coach" or a "bad coach", often using hard results to do it.
there is a tendency to ignore the variables. you win, you're great; you lose, you're terrible. one of the classics is when we start poorly and he "failed to get them up". almost like he isn't dealing with a team of professional athletes who have a responsibility to be "up" for games. like there is a magic formula, like a playstation controller cheat code, a coach goes through pre-game and if they're not up he hasn't done it right.
we should also recognise that you can do "all the right things" as a coach, and yet your team still loses.
i think AFL generally suffers from a bit of an "if you don't win the flag, you were never in it". the best team in a season routinely loses the premiership. and average teams routinely win it, and then get inflated for seasons after as a result. WC 2018. adam simpson is a premiership coach, and WC were inflated for a few seasons as a result, largely because richmond bogged their pants in the PF.
one of my favourite sports quotes is "seasons arent played to determine the best team. theyre played to determine who won".
premier league football generally gets this. listen to all-time greats jurgen klopp and pep guardiola discuss their results, and you get that a team can do everything to prepare for an opposition, execute perfectly, and meet a GK in hot form and concede an a single counter and lose. different sports, and a little a easier to dominate and lose, but it applies to aussie rules football, too. they acknowledge they can only do what they do, and sometimes theyll lose anyway.
round ball footy uses expected goals (expected goals from the balance of shots, expected goals from the balance of play, adjusted goals where goals scored when a team is being utterly trounced and have largely given up are worth less) to show when a team gets lucky, or gets unlucky. imperfect, but a good measure.
basically, my view is that with a bit more luck (either getting different opposition, or getting the same opposition on different days), scott could be a 3 or 4 time premiership coach.
with a little less luck, alistair clarkson could be an almost coach with 0 or 1 flags. only really 2015 they didnt have a very lucky escape in the PF or GF.
you cant let results alone guide you totally, because as much as people hate to admit it, luck plays a massive part. and when you see your team lose a game by 5 goals, when you have no control, obviously the coach cops it.
none of the above is to say he is beyond criticism because "luck". obviously that isnt the whole truth. you wouldnt just stick, picking a person at random, some fame hungry MAFS contestant and say "its just luck, so go get us a flag". youd be the bottom team, because coaches have a huge role to play. but it isnt them alone that dictates results, and plenty of things outside their control can make their good work look like bad work.
going back to jurgen klopp and pep - they are brilliant football minds. you need to be. they are brilliant at inspiring their players and team, and having them buy into their gameplan. you need to be. but they also acknowledge that a lot out of their control can be the difference between being a winner and a loser, a good coach and a great coach. man city and pep famously beat liverpool to a title by about 1.1 cms. city cleared a liverpool goal off the line to win, and city scored a goal against a bottom club by a few mm to win 1-0.
a single player moves slightly faster or reacts slightly quicker, and pep has his reputation diminished while klopps is enhanced.
you know, if burgoyne had a dodgy curry a night or 2 before the 2013 PF, scott has 2 in 4 seasons and who knows what happens after that. he does absolutely nothing different and its out of his control, but he is a "better coach"?
fine margins.
all this is to say that of course coaching ability matters. scott has it, though. and of course some coaches have reputations enhanced by winning despite themselves. because ultimately, you can only judge on the final outcome. scott has flaws, and is obviously responsible in no small measure for various failings during his tenure.
im totally equivocating here, but my point and belief is that the criteria to judge is flawed, because all we really have to go on is the result each week and each season, and despite them being what they are they are wildly susceptible to chance, and sometimes the difference between "good coaching" and "bad coaching" are things that have nothing to do with the coaching.
i often hear on here that scott routinely losing PFs (and a GF) shows he is incapable of "taking that final step". hes not... he clearly could, even forgetting 2011. an example of my thinking would be tennis. plenty of players capable of winning a major never win a major. strange and incongruent to say andy murray was incapable of winning a major on 9 september 2012 because he had come close and failed, but capable on 11 septemebr 2012 because he had finally done it. he was as capable on both those dates, he just hadnt yet on one and had on the other. if he had lost that one, he may not have won his two wimbeldon titles later. who knows. but he was always capable of it.
personally, i think scott has done all he can - id be more than happy for the club to make a change. but if he stays, he could win another. i think the idea that he has proven he cant or wont is settled totally wrong. must admit though, i do personally doubt scott will be the next geelong premiership coach even if he stays another 5 years.
but a few things he didnt control, and hed be leaving the club as a multiple premiership coach and all of a sudden the assessment of him is totally different despite being judged on identical inputs. its weird.
the real problem with the debate here is that people have dropped anchor at their POV, largely refuse to acknowledge the nuance, and like most forums it becomes a bit more about taking down your poster opponent than the actual discussion.
battle lines have been drawn, and online debate has an almost unerring tendency to polarise to the extremes and never back down. both sides of the scott debate on here need to concede a little and give a little, IMO.
scott is a polarising figure, for sure. he has been head coach for 12 years now. that's a huge % of the clubs entire history! 7.5% of it, almost.
i think he is a fine coach. i also think we play a somewhat outdated game-plan and could do with a fresh approach.
i maintain that the search for black and white answers makes this thread pointless. people are trying to prove he is a "good coach" or a "bad coach", often using hard results to do it.
there is a tendency to ignore the variables. you win, you're great; you lose, you're terrible. one of the classics is when we start poorly and he "failed to get them up". almost like he isn't dealing with a team of professional athletes who have a responsibility to be "up" for games. like there is a magic formula, like a playstation controller cheat code, a coach goes through pre-game and if they're not up he hasn't done it right.
we should also recognise that you can do "all the right things" as a coach, and yet your team still loses.
i think AFL generally suffers from a bit of an "if you don't win the flag, you were never in it". the best team in a season routinely loses the premiership. and average teams routinely win it, and then get inflated for seasons after as a result. WC 2018. adam simpson is a premiership coach, and WC were inflated for a few seasons as a result, largely because richmond bogged their pants in the PF.
one of my favourite sports quotes is "seasons arent played to determine the best team. theyre played to determine who won".
premier league football generally gets this. listen to all-time greats jurgen klopp and pep guardiola discuss their results, and you get that a team can do everything to prepare for an opposition, execute perfectly, and meet a GK in hot form and concede an a single counter and lose. different sports, and a little a easier to dominate and lose, but it applies to aussie rules football, too. they acknowledge they can only do what they do, and sometimes theyll lose anyway.
round ball footy uses expected goals (expected goals from the balance of shots, expected goals from the balance of play, adjusted goals where goals scored when a team is being utterly trounced and have largely given up are worth less) to show when a team gets lucky, or gets unlucky. imperfect, but a good measure.
basically, my view is that with a bit more luck (either getting different opposition, or getting the same opposition on different days), scott could be a 3 or 4 time premiership coach.
with a little less luck, alistair clarkson could be an almost coach with 0 or 1 flags. only really 2015 they didnt have a very lucky escape in the PF or GF.
you cant let results alone guide you totally, because as much as people hate to admit it, luck plays a massive part. and when you see your team lose a game by 5 goals, when you have no control, obviously the coach cops it.
none of the above is to say he is beyond criticism because "luck". obviously that isnt the whole truth. you wouldnt just stick, picking a person at random, some fame hungry MAFS contestant and say "its just luck, so go get us a flag". youd be the bottom team, because coaches have a huge role to play. but it isnt them alone that dictates results, and plenty of things outside their control can make their good work look like bad work.
going back to jurgen klopp and pep - they are brilliant football minds. you need to be. they are brilliant at inspiring their players and team, and having them buy into their gameplan. you need to be. but they also acknowledge that a lot out of their control can be the difference between being a winner and a loser, a good coach and a great coach. man city and pep famously beat liverpool to a title by about 1.1 cms. city cleared a liverpool goal off the line to win, and city scored a goal against a bottom club by a few mm to win 1-0.
a single player moves slightly faster or reacts slightly quicker, and pep has his reputation diminished while klopps is enhanced.
you know, if burgoyne had a dodgy curry a night or 2 before the 2013 PF, scott has 2 in 4 seasons and who knows what happens after that. he does absolutely nothing different and its out of his control, but he is a "better coach"?
fine margins.
all this is to say that of course coaching ability matters. scott has it, though. and of course some coaches have reputations enhanced by winning despite themselves. because ultimately, you can only judge on the final outcome. scott has flaws, and is obviously responsible in no small measure for various failings during his tenure.
im totally equivocating here, but my point and belief is that the criteria to judge is flawed, because all we really have to go on is the result each week and each season, and despite them being what they are they are wildly susceptible to chance, and sometimes the difference between "good coaching" and "bad coaching" are things that have nothing to do with the coaching.
i often hear on here that scott routinely losing PFs (and a GF) shows he is incapable of "taking that final step". hes not... he clearly could, even forgetting 2011. an example of my thinking would be tennis. plenty of players capable of winning a major never win a major. strange and incongruent to say andy murray was incapable of winning a major on 9 september 2012 because he had come close and failed, but capable on 11 septemebr 2012 because he had finally done it. he was as capable on both those dates, he just hadnt yet on one and had on the other. if he had lost that one, he may not have won his two wimbeldon titles later. who knows. but he was always capable of it.
personally, i think scott has done all he can - id be more than happy for the club to make a change. but if he stays, he could win another. i think the idea that he has proven he cant or wont is settled totally wrong. must admit though, i do personally doubt scott will be the next geelong premiership coach even if he stays another 5 years.
but a few things he didnt control, and hed be leaving the club as a multiple premiership coach and all of a sudden the assessment of him is totally different despite being judged on identical inputs. its weird.
the real problem with the debate here is that people have dropped anchor at their POV, largely refuse to acknowledge the nuance, and like most forums it becomes a bit more about taking down your poster opponent than the actual discussion.
battle lines have been drawn, and online debate has an almost unerring tendency to polarise to the extremes and never back down. both sides of the scott debate on here need to concede a little and give a little, IMO.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 104,642
- 142,698
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
Patently false.
It’s a basic statistical measure.
Don’t care for your political spin on it, what you’d tell fans or trying to contextualise it.
On average you should make a GF every 9 years and win 1 every 18. Simple as that.
i dont believe it is as simple as that - that would only be a legitimate statistical measure and expected to hold true over time if the grand finalists and premiers were selected at random from the 18 teams.
if it was true, there wouldnt be such an enormous discrepancy in premierships won by teams over a sample size of about 125.
So the definition of competing for a premiership also now does not include some sides playing off in a grand final??
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the thing though. There are plenty of things absolutely under Scott's control that he is either defended for, or are never acknowledged. Here's a few:
2013 Qualifying Final - starting Chapman as the sub in his 250th game, even though he was critical in the previous week's win. Having a fully fit premiership ruckman in the stands while Blicavs and Vardy got predictably violated by Fremantle. Telling us all season Hawkins' back wasn't going to get worse then it did when the finals. None of those are luck.
2019 Qualifying Final - deciding to pull Stanley out because apparently it was going to rain, and he suddenly was the only ruckman unable to play in the rain. We lost, and that wasn't luck either.
Recruiting absolute potatoes like (including but not limited to) Hamish McIntosh, Mitch Clark, Scott Selwood, Gary Rohan, and Jack Steven. I can hear the "but he's not in charge of list management!!!" banshee wailing already. Maybe not. He absolutely is in charge of who plays each week though.
None of those things are luck. They are conscious decisions. You want to be hailed as a genius because of your home and away record? Fine. You also have to have your finals record put under scrutiny as well. You can't be responsible for one but not the other.
Last edited:
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 104,642
- 142,698
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
It still is that simple. The statistical measurement doesn’t change.
All that has happened is the discrepancy displays the variance between clubs who consistently get it right and are better than the average, and the clubs who can’t solve the puzzle and are worse than average.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 104,642
- 142,698
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
Similar threads
