Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[ant555]

this was a stupid move

he is about to start his 3rd year of a 4-year deal.

Why not just wait until the end of this year and we than sign him if its warranted?

What on earth has brad done to warrant an extension based on his last 2 years? Tell us we have shit standards we already knew we had? Bizarre move for mine.

We have a shit 2025 and we all of a sudden have more pressure on the club.

Agree.
He has set a platform as far as standards and preparation go and the playing group have taken it on board but he has not proven / shown a lot tactically and he has made selection errors both years. This could have easily have been done at the back end of the year. The mulligan the club gave him in year one also ended up costing us as Dodoro pumped up his boys who ended up getting contracts that where way too long. They drank the cool aid and we now pay the price.
I think we can play finals if we have limited injuries but we did not need to be giving the coach extensions right now.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Inb4 it's actually 2 years not 1.

That's more of a dodoro thing

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Had two years to see that standards were nowhere near it. Has had a chance to move on some players along with Dodoro and Sheedy. Now a young team with plenty still to do. 3 year project. Not sure what’s wrong with it

 

[Mercurial89]

Think this is a pretty good summary,

Rosa's strategy and list build plan is 3 years, if your coaches contract is up part way through that vision, and you all understand where the clubs at so results are somewhat secondary to the building of good practices, it makes sense to align the coach with the vision piece.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Think this is a pretty good summary,

Rosa's strategy and list build plan is 3 years, if your coaches contract is up part way through that vision, and you all understand where the clubs at so results are somewhat secondary to the building of good practices, it makes sense to align the coach with the vision piece.

Yeah I think that's a good summary and pretty solid reasoning by the club.

He also knows our shitty fanbase all too well lol

 

[Keystone agony]

I think they like him, but can potentially see a disappointing year but maybe promising years in 26/27 where Caddy, Kako, Elijiah, Reid, Davey, Roberts, Bryan, 4 top 30 picks 2025 are starting to get closer or at their peaks for their play styles whilst not losing any of and still being in a good age

Ridley
Zerrett
Redman
Mcgrath
Mckay
Duursma
Martin
Durham
Caldwell
Parish
Perkins
Draper
El Hawli

Really 90% of the current 23 should still be playing together in 2027

 

[Petrify]

STRONGLY suspect this is to do with being able to pitch stability and a single coach that Harley Reid likes to him right now while the West Coast contract talks are going on

 

[Beerfish]

This will all be moot when we win the flag.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Not happy with this decision because it was not needed. However, it could've been worse.

We could've finished 2025 with a 2 year extension.

 

[ghostdog]

Agree.
He has set a platform as far as standards and preparation go and the playing group have taken it on board but he has not proven / shown a lot tactically and he has made selection errors both years. This could have easily have been done at the back end of the year. The mulligan the club gave him in year one also ended up costing us as Dodoro pumped up his boys who ended up getting contracts that where way too long. They drank the cool aid and we now pay the price.
I think we can play finals if we have limited injuries but we did not need to be giving the coach extensions right now.

I also think the club should have waited, if only to be able to compel Brad to show cause at the end of this season if key goals aren't met. That would have positioned Vozzo to also compel Brad to think more carefully about his targets and how to achieve them in 26 and beyond, as well as seeing how he could support Brad to do this. As it is, it pretty much gives Brad a free kick. It would have been better if they'd waited until the end of the season.

To be clear though, I still would have wanted us to keep him.

 

[Keystone agony]

I also think the club should have waited, if only to be able to compel Brad to show cause at the end of this season if key goals aren't met. That would have positioned Vozzo to also compel Brad to think more carefully about his targets and how to achieve them in 26 and beyond, as well as seeing how he could support Brad to do this. As it is, it pretty much gives Brad a free kick. It would have been better if they'd waited until the end of the season.

To be clear though, I still would have wanted us to keep him.

What do you do at say 2-5 though? Continue to wait, end it a year early or an extra year at that poor win/loss

 

[fairbump_playon]

I also think the club should have waited, if only to be able to compel Brad to show cause at the end of this season if key goals aren't met. That would have positioned Vozzo to also compel Brad to think more carefully about his targets and how to achieve them in 26 and beyond, as well as seeing how he could support Brad to do this. As it is, it pretty much gives Brad a free kick. It would have been better if they'd waited until the end of the season.

To be clear though, I still would have wanted us to keep him.

I see your point reckon but the CEO / board can still ride him and manage him to KPIs without needing to resort to his job being under threat. At least for a couple of years.

In our private lives most of us aren't easily sacked, but we still get raked over the coals if we aren't doing what is needed.

The board has prioritised stability for the whole club, shown commitment to align all the big pieces around their three year strategy, and given him the space to look beyond short term thinking. I think those benefits are worth more than losing the opportunity to put the blowtorch on Scott next year.

 

[jannissary]

This will all be moot when we win the flag.

 

[ghostdog]

What do you do at say 2-5 though? Continue to wait, end it a year early or an extra year at that poor win/loss

2-5 is 7 games.
I'm a full season guy.

 

[JayJ20]

I genuinely like Brad as a coach but why do clubs do this time and time again?

What is the hurry? We haven’t even played a game this year yet and haven’t made finals under him. His contract ended at the end of 2026.

 

[ghostdog]

I see your point reckon but the CEO / board can still ride him and manage him to KPIs without needing to resort to his job being under threat. At least for a couple of years.

In our private lives most of us aren't easily sacked, but we still get raked over the coals if we aren't doing what is needed.

The board has prioritised stability for the whole club, shown commitment to align all the big pieces around their three year strategy, and given him the space to look beyond short term thinking. I think those benefits are worth more than losing the opportunity to put the blowtorch on Scott next year.

Why would his job need to be perceived to be under threat?
All I'm suggesting is that we get a fuller picture of where we're at to be able to inform conversations and future targets, tied to the contract, at the end of the year.
I'm suggesting the contract would still be his; we could have given him that assurance. But we could also have said our review of the last three years, including this one, should be a factor.

 

[Call Me Cake]

We were never going to sack him in 2025, and the club was probably not going to go into 2026 with a high level on scrutiny on his position to affect the team.

So this was probably seen as a middle ground, with an added benefit of looking like the good guys.

I saw it as unneeded (and still do), but the more I thought about it, it could turn out to be a masterstroke. Scott was given a gift but it was wasted on a measly year. This "show of support" is probably the last bit he'll see without the need to warrant it with action. In a way it could put more pressure on him to deliver, not just to repay the faith, but also if he wants a longer tenure as coach down the line.

What was a 4 year tenure, is now 5. We're 2 in, about to start year 3. The time for gifts are over. Any future years must be off the back of incremental improvements.

 

[Vander18]

Cannot for the life of me understand why this was necessary.

As I’ve previously posted, I want to see more from Scott as a coach. It’s still far from proven that he he can inspire and elevate the group on game day. Im also not convinced about him tactically or at the selection table.

Not calling for his head, but I’m not extending him either.

 

[fairbump_playon]

We were never going to sack him in 2025, and the club was probably not going to go into 2026 with a high level on scrutiny on his position to affect the team.

So this was probably seen as a middle ground, with an added benefit of looking like the good guys.

I saw it as unneeded (and still do), but the more I thought about it, it could turn out to be a masterstroke. Scott was given a gift but it was wasted on a measly year. This "show of support" is probably the last bit he'll see without the need to warrant it with action. In a way it could put more pressure on him to deliver, not just to repay the faith, but also if he wants a longer tenure as coach down the line.

What was a 4 year tenure, is now 5. We're 2 in, about to start year 3. The time for gifts are over. Any future years must be off the back of incremental improvements.

There's something to be said for everyone in the club having a clear plan for a period of time, in this case 2025-27.

In the post Sheedy era, Dodoro had forever-security, coaches were always trying (and largely failing) to assert authority on the list, the CEO was trying to make money, the board were.. not sure.. failing to win appeals and taking Sheeds out for a boozy lunch every Tuesday?

Now we have a 3 year talent strategy which starts with draft and develop, and I'm sure has some big fish in the back half. The CEO wants to be good at footy. The coach needs to up the professionalism and get a bunch of youngsters gelling. It all makes sense together, and even more sense when Scott's contract lines up with the rest of it.

 

[Don Won]

I’m surprised by the naivety here. To create stability and confidence in the direction/future of the club it is important to demonstrate faith in your most senior people. They need to know they have your unequivocal support and you will have their back through thick and thin. You don’t want Brad constantly worried about his position, and always watching for the knife about to come. It creates a culture of panic and fear, and makes it really really hard to stick a knife in his back when you decide you don’t want him any more.

 

[BrunoV]

So if we're waiting on a 3 year plan based on targeting the draft are we rebuilding?

There used to be a concept among some of the best soccer clubs in the world, I'm thinking of Ajax and Barcelona in particular, of technical direction. The technical direction is set by a director and the coach is brought in to implement the vision. The point being that recruiting, training and development is consistent, not dependant on a coach.

We've seen with Kingsley and McRae recently and over the stretch with the likes of Hinkley and Sanderson that it takes 1 preseason to get a talented list into and winning finals.

Why do we need to give Brad Scott 5 year to get off his arse to starting doing something?

If Rosa drafts good players there will be a coach out there who is capable of getting them to play good football.

 

[yodellinhank]

My nose is already out of joint, feels out for literally everyone else.

At least you know he’s too passionate and psychopathic

In which case the extension wasn't long enough for mine

 

[yodellinhank]

So if we're waiting on a 3 year plan based on targeting the draft are we rebuilding?

There used to be a concept among some of the best soccer clubs in the world, I'm thinking of Ajax and Barcelona in particular, of technical direction. The technical direction is set by a director and the coach is brought in to implement the vision. The point being that recruiting, training and development is consistent, not dependant on a coach.

We've seen with Kingsley and McRae recently and over the stretch with the likes of Hinkley and Sanderson that it takes 1 preseason to get a talented list into and winning finals.

Why do we need to give Brad Scott 5 year to get off his arse to starting doing something?

If Rosa drafts good players there will be a coach out there who is capable of getting them to play good football.

This new 3 year plan sounds like the club getting ahead of itself again and trying to short cut the 8 year plan. Spells disaster.

 

[Keystone agony]

2-5 is 7 games.
I'm a full season guy.

Theres be media calling for his head half way through the year at that win/loss ratio

 

[Keystone agony]

Contracts means little in this case anyway, its a 6 month pay out if we decide against him

They purely keep the wolves at bay