Certified Legendary Thread 2 x Premiership Coach Chris Scott contracted to 2026 (aka the Chris Scott volumes

[barmy44]

That's the thing though. There are plenty of things absolutely under Scott's control that he is either defended for, or never acknowledge. 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.

Sure, no real argument with anyone of that and definitely don't disagree on the broad points.

He has done plenty wrong in his tenure and is absolutely not above criticism... anyone who has coached for any length of time has and isnt.

There's at least 22 players, and a whole bunch of others who shoulder blame for that and more.

Not to mention pesky opponents who put effort into beating us and negative our strengths on the park and in the box each week and season.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

17/18 chance if being accurate each season. Only batting below average once your flag drought extends beyond 18 years.

it is the ultimate cowards call to try and abuse other posters, trying to force down the throats of other posters declaring " if we do not win the premiership you are wrong, and i have a right to abuse you over it". When in fact nobody states geelong has to win the premiership or the joint should be sacked and called a failure besides the trolls who keep saying it over on repeat to shift goal posts because things like the great geelong decline never happened over the decade.

I recall at one point these same posters as they all say the same things, said that we need to at least make a grand final for it to be successful and competing for a flag, but when that happened the narrative quickly shifted to " well playing in a grand final doesnt mean your competing for a flag" which tops the cake for illogical posting on this thread and probably big footy.

 

[barmy44]

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.

Ok, I do see your point, but I still see it differently. Periods of zoning, and the fact clubs have different level of resourcing, and thousands of other variables, in my opinion, takes it beyond a simple 1 in 18 is average. Guess it's how you look at it - all things being equal, 1 in 18. But things (particularly in sport) never have been and never will be "all equal".

It is a way of assessing who is broadly above and below average I agree, but I wouldn't say you'd "expect" every team to have 1 premiership per 18 years in the comp, as you would expect to pull a spade about 25% of the time (and the others largely the same) when choosing a card at random from a shuffled deck 1,000 times.

Just different ways of looking at it, really.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Sure, no real argument with anyone of that and definitely don't disagree on the broad points.

He has done plenty wrong in his tenure and is absolutely not above criticism... anyone who has coached for any length of time has and isnt.

There's at least 22 players, and a whole bunch of others who shoulder blame for that and more.

Not to mention pesky opponents who put effort into beating us and negative our strengths on the park and in the box each week and season.

unless you think geelong is just a superior club to all the other clubs and we have something magical in the water, you cannot play out seasons as competitively and strongly as we have for a decade long period without quality draft picks or A graders being traded in and all the star retiremements we have had, and still remain such a good side without the coach and administrative team being of an exceptional quality. There is just no two ways about it with rational thoughts.

 

[barmy44]

That's the thing though. There are plenty of things absolutely under Scott's control that he is either defended for, or never acknowledge. 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.

Just as an aside, and no offence intended, I do think you are a little too anti "luck" in sports, just from memory of your posts on here. Not saying I'm right, and you're wrong by any means, just my view is your a bit more "it all comes down to the day, no excuses".

There are some really interesting things I personally find fascinating in sport modelling, often US based due to the numerous professional leagues and sports.

Sports like baseball and ice hockey are considered highly random (eg, a bad team beats a good team quite often); while basketball and football are considered less random (eg, a better team usually beats a bad team).

I still say, play the 2008 GF 100 times, Geelong wins probably 70 of them. Unfortunately, our reality turned out to be one of those 30 odd bummers.

It's also interesting to consider 3 game knockout finals series. Imagine you have a 75% chance of win in each of the finals: QF, PF, GF. Seems crazy, heavy favourites in each game! Anything other than a premiership should be a failure?

Actually, your chance of winning all 3 of those in a row is a tad over 42%. Better than even chance of not winning the flag. Odds heavily in your favour individually, but overall not.

Also, the team finishing top not winning the flag sounds like a real flop, but in all but the most extreme seasons, the odds of the #1 ranked team winning the flag that season is lower than the odds of one of the 7 other teams winning it.

There's also concepts such as strong link and weak link sports. Soccer is a "weak link" sport - you are better off with a team of solid players, than a team with 2 superstars. Basketball is a "strong link" sport - better off with one massively paid superstar.

I'd say aussie rules is less random (eg, better team usually beats weaker team), and a weak link sport.

So yeah, definitely not saying Scott has only been unlucky. And as I said, I'd favour change personally, so I'm no blind "Scott can do no-wronger" (and again, no offence intended, but there are a couple of those on here from memory!)

 

[barmy44]

unless you think geelong is just a superior club to all the other clubs and we have something magical in the water, you cannot play out seasons as competitively and strongly as we have for a decade long period without quality draft picks or A graders being traded in and all the star retiremements we have had, and still remain such a good side without the coach and administrative team being of an exceptional quality. There is just no two ways about it with rational thoughts.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this either! He has done plenty "right". The club as a whole have. They've done a lot "wrong", too.

It's nuanced.

Honestly, and only being slightly facetious, I think the only correct answer to the age old BF question is "Scott is a good coach, Scott is a bad coach".

It's like Schrodinger's Cat, except it's Scott's coaching. Open the box on a particular day and see what you get. And understand there is a competition trying to stop the rest, including Geelong and Scott.

The problem is the need to nail your colours to one single mast and never budge. That's kind of the internet as a whole, though.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Yeah, I don't disagree with this either! He has done plenty "right". The club as a whole have. They've done a lot "wrong", too.

It's nuanced.

Honestly, and only being slightly facetious, I think the only correct answer to the age old BF question is "Scott is a good coach, Scott is a bad coach".

It's like Schrodinger's Cat, except it's Scott's coaching. Open the box on a particular day and see what you get. And understand there is a competition trying to stop the rest, including Geelong and Scott.

The problem is the need to nail your colours to one single mast and never budge. That's kind of the internet as a whole, though.

do you actually believe a coach who is average 50/50 at his job of mistakes and good decisions, would be able to fool some of the best administrators in the game like Cook and now Hocking into getting contract extensions for so long?

Most would agree we have gotten in 1 A grade player over his tenure via trading, which was dangerfield, who was far from a superstar when we played our best grand final year anyway, but besides that the trades have been for B graders with very late first rounders or 2nd/3rd round picks, i would say other clubs have traded in better talent over the last decade than we have in terms of genuine stars.

I do not think it is possible for an average coach who makes so many mistakes to consistently take a group over a period of a decade with so many star retirements and poor draft picks at your disposal, to so many deep finals finishes the entire time. The output is too high given what we have had to work with.

 

[barmy44]

do you actually believe a coach who is average 50/50 at his job of mistakes and good decisions, would be able to fool some of the best administrators in the game like Cook and now Hocking into getting contract extensions for so long?

Most would agree we have gotten in 1 A grade player over his tenure via trading, which was dangerfield, who was far from a superstar when we played our best grand final year anyway, but besides that the trades have been for B graders with very late first rounders or 2nd/3rd round picks, i would say other clubs have traded in better talent over the last decade than we have in terms of genuine stars.

I do not think it is possible for an average coach who makes so many mistakes to consistently take a group over a period of a decade with so many star retirements and poor draft picks at your disposal, to so many deep finals finishes the entire time. The output is too high given what we have had to work with.

That's a literal strawman argument. No, I don't belive Scott is an average coach who is fooling some of the best administrators in the game into getting contract extensions, and I never said that.

Let me throw a strawman at you: do you honestly believe Scott has never made a bad decision as coach?

I get this is your shtick, but I'm not really interested in it tbh - no offence. Scott has made plenty of mistakes as coach, all coaches do.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

That's a literal strawman argument. No, I don't belive Scott is an average coach who is fooling some of the best administrators in the game into getting contract extensions, and I never said that.

Let me throw a strawman at you: do you honestly believe Scott has never made a bad decision as coach?

I get this is your shtick, but I'm not really interested in it tbh - no offence. Scott has made plenty of mistakes as coach, all coaches do.

over a 12 year period has a coach made a mistake? of cause. has he made a truck load of big costly mistakes and does so on a frequent basis that equates to " he is both good and bad" which is basically another way of phrasing your just average at your job. I would say impossible given his contract extensions over a long period of time by extremely competent administrators judged some of the best in the game evaluating his performances, as well as our obviously high finishing positions over a long period of time.

the overall sum is that of an extremely good coach, and i think hocking said it perfectly when he described him as one of the best coaches in the AFL. which is far from what your posts are saying. if your posts were accurate descriptions and he had stuffed up so many big decisions, he would have been sacked a long time ago and we would have never gotten back to a the grand final either in 2020.

 

[PhatBoy]

That's the thing though. There are plenty of things absolutely under Scott's control that he is either defended for, or never acknowledge. 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.

A few things:

Who has claimed that some of those recruits were masterstrokes? No one

The point is this: at any given time there are what, 40(?) spots to fill on a a list. These are filled by a combination of players we already have under contract, recruits picked up through the draft, trades, free agents, and elevations from rookie lists etc.
Were the names you listed busts? Mostly yes. Scott Selwood wasn’t a star but was far from the worst player going around and outside of finals Rohan has been fine. The rest were sub par. However every man and his dog whinged ad nauseum for years: ‘Hawkins can’t do it all himself, he’s double teamed every week, why can’t we find someone to help him.’ So a noted capable forward is on the market. We pick up Mitch Clarke for not much. It doesn’t work. Ok. But we had a need and we tried to fill it. It was a risk, it didn’t work. Same as picking up Menegola, Kelly and Stewart. They were risks. They were older. Less scope for improvement. They did work.
We had little if any ruck cover to follow Brad Ottens - every player we tried was ordinary. We took a gamble on a 100-gamer who’s biggest crime was to not be as good as his elite club mate. It didn’t work either.
Jack Steven had issues, we know that, he also had plenty of ability. We had a side that was good, very good even, but could have done with some extra grunt in the middle. We took a gamble on him, it didn’t work.

No one is going try and say those were good decisions that worked.

But to put it in the most blatant terms possible: you sound like a f****wit if you sit there going ‘what a stupid call why would you do it.’
Pretending that there was no reason for at least considering those players is as stupid as pretending that they were good recruits.
We took the same gamble on Tyson Stengle. If we used the ‘any gamble is a bad one’ philosophy you’re promoting, then we don’t get him either. That has a long way to play out but for the moment it looks like a great move.
Show me which club has all 40-odd of their list and recruiting decisions spot on. I’ll wait.


The ruckman selection gets brought up ad bloody nauseum and to it I always say this:

If you have half a brain cell that is willing to engage, you will understand that we were taking on a red hot Brodie Grundy. No specialist ruckman on our list, or most others, was going to seriously push him or beat him. So the selection committee of which Scott is a part, says ‘ok, we don’t think we have anyone who can beat him. So maybe our best bet is to put Blicavs on him who at the very least can match him for run and effort, and might force him to have to play more two-way footy.’

Again, did it work? No. You won’t find anyone on either side of the debate who thinks it did. In fact in hindsight given Stanley’s ever growing portfolio of games where he seems to match the good rucks a week after being trounced by an average one, maybe in hindsight he could have been the random to actually stop Grundy’s awesome run.

But again, to pretend as though there was no possible explanation is as stupid as pretending it worked.


So yeah, for myself, I have no problem saying that he, and the club, have made mistakes. I have no problem saying that I can see the reasoning for having a go at most of them, though. We have roles to fill, it’s the job of the hierarchy to fill them as best they can.

If they think they need ‘xyz’ to go from also rans to winners, in the off season they look at all potential ‘xyz’ options and they find the one that they think can best do the job, and be attainable.

If we have a gap in defence and Jeremy McGovern is available then yeah he’s the guy you want. But if you don’t have trade bait, or high enough picks, then you can’t get McGovern so you look at the options you CAN get. It isn’t going to always work. Sometimes it does.

In the same way it won’t kill the optimists to say ‘we got that one wrong’ it’s not going to kill you to say ‘we also got some right.’

 

[barmy44]

over a 12 year period has a coach made a mistake? of cause. has he made a truck load of big costly mistakes and does so on a frequent basis that equates to " he is both good and bad" which is basically another way of phrasing your just average at your job. I would say impossible given his contract extensions over a long period of time by extremely competent administrators judged some of the best in the game evaluating his performances, as well as our obviously high finishing positions over a long period of time.

the overall sum is that of an extremely good coach, and i think hocking said it perfectly when he described him as one of the best coaches in the AFL. which is far from what your posts are saying. if your posts were accurate descriptions and he had stuffed up so many big decisions, he would have been sacked a long time ago and we would have never gotten back to a the grand final either in 2020.

You aren't accurately summarising my POV or my position, so you're not actually responding to it at all.

I remember you see Scott as an excellent coach - cool, you're entitled to.

I agree he has been and can be an excellent coach. He also has weaknesses and makes mistakes. As do all coaches in every sport.

The club obviously believe that what he gets right, what he gets wrong, what he does well, and what he does poorly is a net benefit to the club. They probably also hire people around him to emphasise his strengths and negate his weaknesses. This is what every club do, or at least try to.

Have they got it right? They have their own metrics, and they keep extending it so they must think they have. But it's possible they don't, or they could have a better balance with someone else.

Who knows.

 

[STPer18]

Not sure where this fits but:

Cats poach AFL fixture guru for new executive role

AFL administrator Marcus King will head down the highway to join former colleague Steve Hocking at Geelong

www.afl.com.au

 

[standupand]

do you actually believe a coach who is average 50/50 at his job of mistakes and good decisions, would be able to fool some of the best administrators in the game like Cook and now Hocking into getting contract extensions for so long?

Most would agree we have gotten in 1 A grade player over his tenure via trading, which was dangerfield, who was far from a superstar when we played our best grand final year anyway, but besides that the trades have been for B graders with very late first rounders or 2nd/3rd round picks, i would say other clubs have traded in better talent over the last decade than we have in terms of genuine stars.

I do not think it is possible for an average coach who makes so many mistakes to consistently take a group over a period of a decade with so many star retirements and poor draft picks at your disposal, to so many deep finals finishes the entire time. The output is too high given what we have had to work with.

Clearly the club is paying Cameron too much money for a B grader.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

You aren't accurately summarising my POV or my position, so you're not actually responding to it at all.

I remember you see Scott as an excellent coach - cool, you're entitled to.

I agree he has been and can be an excellent coach. He also has weaknesses and makes mistakes. As do all coaches in every sport.

The club obviously believe that what he gets right, what he gets wrong, what he does well, and what he does poorly is a net benefit to the club. They probably also hire people around him to emphasise his strengths and negate his weaknesses. This is what every club do, or at least try to.

Have they got it right? They have their own metrics, and they keep extending it so they must think they have. But it's possible they don't, or they could have a better balance with someone else.

Who knows.

anyone listening or reading your summary of scott would assume just an average coach if they had never followed footy before. Do you actually think if you got what your saying as a performance review at work you would be flattered? i see the angle your trying to fire it off as, but it is not coming across the way you think it is as perfectly balanced. It is quite negatively angled.

to retain your job as a senior head AFL coach for that long a period of time, especially without winning a premiership, you have to be extremely highly rated. Not someone rated as average with some strengths and weaknesses with a net gain of being positive, but a genuinely top line coach.

I can assure you hocking and Cook have extremely high standards and expectations, and would not keep someone in the job that long unless they are excellent at what they do as a whole and one of the best.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Clearly the club is paying Cameron too much money for a B grader.

ah sorry yep, cameron as well. He is only really as of this year thought as he hardly played last year and was underdone most of it when he did.

 

[barmy44]

anyone listening or reading your summary of scott would assume just an average coach if they had never followed footy before. Do you actually think if you got what your saying as a performance review at work you would be flattered? i see the angle your trying to fire it off as, but it is not coming across the way you think it is as perfectly balanced. It is quite negatively angled.

to retain your job as a senior head AFL coach for that long a period of time, especially without winning a premiership, you have to be extremely highly rated. Not someone rated as average with some strengths and weaknesses with a net gain of being positive, but a genuinely top line coach.

I can assure you hocking and Cook have extremely high standards and expectations, and would not keep someone in the job that long unless they are excellent at what they do as a whole and one of the best.

GC26, I remember you well from when I used to post regularly - you often put up these outlandish interpretations of posters positions and then argue against those instead. This is called a straw man (straw person, maybe...) argument, and I've never quite figured out if you do it knowingly or not.

I'll leave it there with you - all the best.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

GC26, I remember you well from when I used to post regularly - you often put up these outlandish interpretations of posters positions and then argue against those instead. This is called a straw man (straw person, maybe...) argument, and I've never quite figured out if you do it knowingly or not.

I'll leave it there with you - all the best.

if i am misinterpreting you so badly as you say, which i do not believe at all i am, but lets ask some simple clarifying questions on your thoughts then.

1. do you think scott is one of the best coaches in the AFL? (top 3 or 4 in the system)
2. what would you rate him out of 10?

 

[catempire]

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.

I have a question about your post:

What happened to your ‘shift’ key?






But seriously, nice post.

 

[catempire]

Gary Rohan. 80+ goals in 3 seasons from pick 61.

Successful trade.
Absolutely irrefutable.

Through gritted teeth, 100% true.

 

[catempire]

Ok, I do see your point, but I still see it differently. Periods of zoning, and the fact clubs have different level of resourcing, and thousands of other variables, in my opinion, takes it beyond a simple 1 in 18 is average. Guess it's how you look at it - all things being equal, 1 in 18. But things (particularly in sport) never have been and never will be "all equal".

It is a way of assessing who is broadly above and below average I agree, but I wouldn't say you'd "expect" every team to have 1 premiership per 18 years in the comp, as you would expect to pull a spade about 25% of the time (and the others largely the same) when choosing a card at random from a shuffled deck 1,000 times.

Just different ways of looking at it, really.

The 1 in 18 is a useful benchmark to think about but not ever likely to be reality, even in the long run. Better resourced teams and teams who find competitive advantages over the long run will fare better.

 

[barmy44]

The 1 in 18 is a useful benchmark to think about but not ever likely to be reality, even in the long run. Better resourced teams and teams who find competitive advantages over the long run will fare better.

Yep, exactly my point (at least what I was trying to say) / thoughts.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

The 1 in 18 is a useful benchmark to think about but not ever likely to be reality, even in the long run. Better resourced teams and teams who find competitive advantages over the long run will fare better.

true. the system ends up being even worse than 1-18 when you think about it, and seems to be more about clubs going through a period of dominance for 3-4 years than dropping off for 20-30 or even longer as a very common scenario... When you are up and abouts, you need to make the most of your opportunities

 

[barmy44]

I have a question about your post:

What happened to your ‘shift’ key?






But seriously, nice post.

When I used to post, I kind of made non-capitals "my thing". I decided to change to adult typing after that first post

 

[Partridge]

Sure, no real argument with anyone of that and definitely don't disagree on the broad points.

He has done plenty wrong in his tenure and is absolutely not above criticism... anyone who has coached for any length of time has and isnt.

There's at least 22 players, and a whole bunch of others who shoulder blame for that and more.

Not to mention pesky opponents who put effort into beating us and negative our strengths on the park and in the box each week and season.

Absolutely. As you said (better than I could), he and the club do plenty right. No doubt at all. And I'm not one who thinks the 2011 flag was easy. They're too hard to win. My gripe is against the decisions where the risks were large, obvious, and everyone could see them coming. To me it's reasonable than fans are more optimistic and hopeful, and willing to look the other way about a player's form or injury history (or age obviously). I would expect the club to be more hardhearted, because the opposition is not going to show any sympathy. That's why the very obvious blunders like McIntosh and Steven are far more irritating.

 

[Partridge]

it is the ultimate cowards call to try and abuse other posters, trying to force down the throats of other posters declaring " if we do not win the premiership you are wrong, and i have a right to abuse you over it". When in fact nobody states geelong has to win the premiership or the joint should be sacked and called a failure besides the trolls who keep saying it over on repeat to shift goal posts because things like the great geelong decline never happened over the decade.

I recall at one point these same posters as they all say the same things, said that we need to at least make a grand final for it to be successful and competing for a flag, but when that happened the narrative quickly shifted to " well playing in a grand final doesnt mean your competing for a flag" which tops the cake for illogical posting on this thread and probably big footy.

Funniest statement of the year considering who has made it and who it's directed to.