Play Nice Bye Bye Brad [v4.0] - IT'S HAPPENING!!!

[TennisPlayerAndy]

All-time games coached without making a grand final:

Bill Stephen: 258
Terry Wallace: 247
Brad Scott: 202

Next on the list is Neil Criag at 177, Jack Hale at 174 and then our very own Dean Laidley with 149.

Laughable.

 

[kingcarey1]

Terry Wallet was unbelievably shit.

Bradley is going to chase him down.

 

[kangaspurs]

Terry Wallet was unbelievably shit.

Bradley is going to chase him down.

Indeed, yet he still got a gig analysing stuff he did terribly.

Looking forward to Brad taking up the moniker "The Selection Manager" in his post-coaching career.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Indeed, yet he still got a gig analysing stuff he did terribly.

Looking forward to Brad taking up the moniker 'The Selection Manager" in his post-coaching career.

'The Back-Them-In Bullshitter'

 

[Junk yard]

All-time games coached without making a grand final:

Bill Stephen: 258
Terry Wallace: 247
Brad Scott: 202

Next on the list is Neil Criag at 177, Jack Hale at 174 and then our very own Dean Laidley with 149.

Laughable.

Never trust a man with two first name's. This list is filled with them, coincidence? I think not.

 

[FlyHigh18]

10 years is a long time and regardless of the result he won't be around much longer.

Most don't realize he's in the same boat as us fans... always promised a superstar (to coach) but never given one.

There's always two sides to a story.

 

[tazaa]

All-time games coached without making a grand final:

Bill Stephen: 258
Terry Wallace: 247
Brad Scott: 202

Next on the list is Neil Criag at 177, Jack Hale at 174 and then our very own Dean Laidley with 149.

Laughable.

Irrelevant since the turn of the millenium

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Irrelevant since the turn of the millenium

In what way?

 

[Mcarcherey]

All-time games coached without making a grand final:

Bill Stephen: 258
Terry Wallace: 247
Brad Scott: 202

Next on the list is Neil Criag at 177, Jack Hale at 174 and then our very own Dean Laidley with 149.

Laughable.

if scott made a GF in 2014 or 2015 would anything change though? this thread would still exist.

 

[hotham]

10 years is a long time and regardless of the result he won't be around much longer.

Most don't realize he's in the same boat as us fans... always promised a superstar (to coach) but never given one.

There's always two sides to a story.

Brad can take his side of the story and try it out at another club.

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

if scott made a GF in 2014 or 2015 would anything change though? this thread would still exist.

What are you talking about 'if' he made it - he didn't hence the stat - it's not hard to follow.

 

[Mcarcherey]

What are you talking about 'if' he made it - he didn't hence the stat - it's not hard to follow.

it's easy to follow mate, this thread would still exist if he made a GF - the only difference would be some other arbitrary stat.

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

it's easy to follow mate, this thread would still exist if he made a GF - the only difference would be some other arbitrary stat.

Of course the thread would still exist because Scott a mediocre coach who has coasted along for 10 years who has been repeatedly called out for his performances.

The stat in TPA's post was that Scott is third in all-time games coached for not making a GF. Don't introduce the ..'but he made prelims'...that's not the stat - the stat is making GF's.

 

[Tas]

Problem is if you're not an elite ball user you always take the safe easier options, like your 15 to 30m sideways chips.
Elite ball users take the riskier option and turn defensive situations in to attacking situations and usually F50 entries.

We need more elite ball users, especially from the back half.

30m doesn't necessarily need to be sideways. If you are 25m out of our defensive goal in the back pocket and you can hit a loose play 50m out of goal in the corridor and that play can go 75-80m out to the wing or through the corridor and exit out the back of the press then that is fine, the missing link is then making sure we a) create space for players to lead into and b) have mids or half forward present so as soon the defender picks the ball up so as soon as he looks up he can see an option and have trained extensively over the pre-season what to expect so we don't take an eternity to move the ball. If those options do not exist then yeah, you might have to go lateral or end up going long to a contest but in those scenarios the leaders in the back line and in the midfield should telling players who weren't moving out of where they were standing around or those that weren't presenting what they were doing wrong and had to do the right thing in the next passage of play.

On-field leadership is something we suck hard on.

We had a number of games last year where we didn't always take the safe option, we don't always go the sideways chip. We do that excessively when we are under the pump and have lost confidence in what we are doing, lost confidence in each other. When people say we can't do X or Y they need to account for the games where we did play well, you can't have that many anomalies.

Even the loss vs Richmond the difference was our errors, we played a pretty decent standard of footy although we struggled to get through their press, we don't quite have the skills/personnel to execute what we are trying to do consistently enough, however, we have a lot of players with below par skill levels.

Defenders with suspect skill level:
Williams, McDonald, Thompson, Pittard, McKay*, Macmillan

* Early days for McKay but he is currently looking shaky.

The defenders I haven't named are not what I would call elite long kicks, they are just reliable in the short-to-medium range by foot.

It would be great if we had 6 elite kicks down back but that is going to be extremely hard to pull off, how many elite kicks do we have on our list? Not enough to fill a back line even if they were capable of being good defenders. It would be a much easier exercise making the most of what you have at your disposal and when the opportunity arises, replace someone solid with someone that is elite.

 

[Mav]

Interesting to see what happened after each of the loses listed in this article.

It doesn't excuse the overall trend or blowout games but I'll be putting on $$$ for us to win this week.

View attachment 643203

Scotts tenure:
2015 R1: Lost the game after the win
2011 R23: This game didn't matter as both teams couldn't make the finals.
2013 R9: Lost the next 2 games after the win.
2012 R 7: The port game was actually Round 8, so yep we won the next game but went on to let Hawks kick 27 goals the week after. The Port loss and the Hawks thumping, along with the R1 loss cost us a top 4 spot.
2015 R9. Lost 2 of the next 3 including a 9 goal thumping by a bottom 4 Gold Coast.
2019: Beating Brissy is wallpaper.

Our % every year under Scotts:
2010: 87.4
2011: 101.1
2012: 112.5
2013: 119.5
2014: 117.00
2015: 106.8
2016: 105.2
2017: 87.6
2018 108.9

 

[Samsquanch]

it's easy to follow mate, this thread would still exist if he made a GF - the only difference would be some other arbitrary stat.

And if your Aunty had balls...

 

[Bigeasy]

it's easy to follow mate, this thread would still exist if he made a GF - the only difference would be some other arbitrary stat.

We will never know will we being the epitome of average.

 

[tazaa]

In what way?

As an organisation.
We have no presence

 

[archereleven]

All-time games coached without making a grand final:

Bill Stephen: 258
Terry Wallace: 247
Brad Scott: 202

Next on the list is Neil Criag at 177, Jack Hale at 174 and then our very own Dean Laidley with 149.

Laughable.

Bard will lead that list by a considerable amount after his times up.

Another team will pick him up after he is finished at NMFC, and it'll be a team like StK, Carlton, GC where he gets 3-5 years to turn them around...

He could conceivably coach 300+ games without a GF appearance lol

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[tales129]

All-time games coached without making a grand final:

Bill Stephen: 258
Terry Wallace: 247
Brad Scott: 202

Next on the list is Neil Criag at 177, Jack Hale at 174 and then our very own Dean Laidley with 149.

Laughable.

**** me thats a dire bunch of individuals

 

[shintemaster]

10 years is a long time and regardless of the result he won't be around much longer.

Most don't realize he's in the same boat as us fans... always promised a superstar (to coach) but never given one.

There's always two sides to a story.

Sure, sure. I'm betting Schimma sits there sometimes and ponders whether he'd have a premiership coach tag next to his name if he came into the team a couple of years later. At some point though, if you rate the impact of the job that you do as an individual on the team and individual's performance you have to accept and own your own contribution. As a coach it is your job to build superstars or a team that can win without one. Fair or not, at some point, the buck stops with you.

 

[shintemaster]

...we have a lot of players with below par skill levels.

Defenders with suspect skill level:
Williams, McDonald, Thompson, Pittard, McKay*, Macmillan

* Early days for McKay but he is currently looking shaky.

The defenders I haven't named are not what I would call elite long kicks, they are just reliable in the short-to-medium range by foot.

It would be great if we had 6 elite kicks down back but that is going to be extremely hard to pull off, how many elite kicks do we have on our list? Not enough to fill a back line even if they were capable of being good defenders. It would be a much easier exercise making the most of what you have at your disposal and when the opportunity arises, replace someone solid with someone that is elite.

I think that’s a pretty tough call on Thompson. I mean every player is going execute different skills poorly at times, overall and when under pressure he’s solid. I wouldn’t agree with him in that group at all, he is exceptionally reliable with his disposal, particularly compared to that list. McKay as you rightly point out, it is way too early to make a call either way. Don’t disagree with your comments overall though. Can’t keep putting the same skills on the park and expecting the gameplan to make up for it, it can to a degree and it can sometimes but you need a hell of a lot going right elsewhere all of the time for it not to bite you hard at some point. It’s pretty easy to see why we’d want a player like Wright back in pronto…

At a point in time though as a team / coaching staff you have to accept that if you keep putting players on the field with certain skills you are going to get commensurate results. We have had a bit of a history over the last decade plus of identifying a weakness and then putting a single player in there and expecting them to lift that weakness (ie. Wells in our midfield, arguably Wright in our backline). It just doesn’t seem that sustainable to me. Fair enough to play a game with one full time ruckman, you lose him to injury that game well that’s just a bit of bad luck. Not the case going into games with one or two good users under pressure in every group of 6, or 1 or 2 good two running pressure players in the middle (Jacobs, Anderson). It just seems to me that’s a very vulnerable way to structure up.

 

[Tas]

I think that’s a pretty tough call on Thompson. I mean every player is going execute different skills poorly at times, overall and when under pressure he’s solid. I wouldn’t agree with him in that group at all, he is exceptionally reliable with his disposal, particularly compared to that list. McKay as you rightly point out, it is way too early to make a call either way. Don’t disagree with your comments overall though. Can’t keep putting the same skills on the park and expecting the gameplan to make up for it, it can to a degree and it can sometimes but you need a hell of a lot going right elsewhere all of the time for it not to bite you hard at some point. It’s pretty easy to see why we’d want a player like Wright back in pronto…

At a point in time though as a team / coaching staff you have to accept that if you keep putting players on the field with certain skills you are going to get commensurate results. We have had a bit of a history over the last decade plus of identifying a weakness and then putting a single player in there and expecting them to lift that weakness (ie. Wells in our midfield, arguably Wright in our backline). It just doesn’t seem that sustainable to me. Fair enough to play a game with one full time ruckman, you lose him to injury that game well that’s just a bit of bad luck. Not the case going into games with one or two good users under pressure in every group of 6, or 1 or 2 good two running pressure players in the middle (Jacobs, Anderson). It just seems to me that’s a very vulnerable way to structure up.

Thompson isn't the worst ball user we have but he has a propensity of going long under the pump and he doesn't have elite skills so he will often miss targets going long, he used to be a very good rebounding defender a fair way back but he bombs the ball too often and I am assuming he was encouraged to do that a lot less.

Last year he went at 74.8% disposal efficiency from his 15.1 disposals per game but he only averaged 5.5 contested possessions a game so who wasn't or shouldn't have been under pressure for 2/3rd of his disposals and averaged 260.5 meters gained per game (17.3m per disposal)

Someone who is lambasted like Macmillan last year went 77.4% DE from 18.6 disposals per game and 5.2 contested possessions for 368.9m gained (19.8m per disposal).

For the most part I think players who tend to not get a lot of contested ball aren't too bad with short to medium range disposals, most players on average do not go that far with their disposals, ie last year Polec averaged 19.5m per disposal and he went 490.6m per game at 70.1%, on face value he is a worse user of the ball than Macmillan, he just got less of the ball so didn't cover as much real estate, however, Polec gets a lot more contested possession so you have to take that into consideration. What Polec adds isn't really quantifiable by general statistics.

Ultimately, a significant chunk of disposals for anyone at AFL level is fairly solid when they come from uncontested possessions when the target is at short-range. It is the decision making and execution of a small number of disposals per game which differentiate between the average from the good or the elite and it is these critical disposals that get lost in the statistics.

When the pressure is on, guys like Thompson, Macmillan and co are very prone to making bad decisions and executing poorly. It doesn't make them poor footballers though. The type of players like Pendlebury or Wells who are calm in a crisis, seemed to have a lot more time and space when they are under the pump and can hit targets when the heat is on are pretty difficult to find. The longer you try to go with a kick, it becomes exponentially harder to execute. Most players can dish off a 5m handpass when under the pump to someone close by, hitting a longer target by foot under pressure is extremely hard to do.

It is what I mean about us being able to significantly improve the standard of our football by improving our skills/decision making and system so we focus on the short to medium range disposal, we need the targets that are in the right position so we can take pressure off the defenders. In the short-range by foot or hand, it is something you can work on with any player, we aren't realistically going to find any Pendlebury or Wells type of players in the draft let alone enough to base a defensive unit around.

 

[pupstar]

What is the definition of a good coach.One who makes grand finals or one who wins flags

 

[Mav]

What is the definition of a good coach.One who makes grand finals or one who wins flags

I'd be happy with a coach that can get us into the top 4.