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

[barmy44]

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?

1. At one point, yes. On his day, yes. Maybe not any longer overall. I think there are better "thinkers" about the modern game. But it's all really guesswork, isn't it?
2. Overall? Assessing what exactly? I don't know, 7? Some games 10, some games 1. Some seasons 10, some seasons 5? Bit of a pointless rank really, and I have no idea what he is like doing the actual job hour to hour, just pressers and results, which is a very incomplete picture.

 

[barmy44]

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.

Add Higgins to that list.

Also getting pretty sick of seeing players well beyond their sell by pulling on our jumper each week, while ex first round picks deliver it perfectly inside fifty wearing purple.

Endless ruck issues? Let's recruit Thurlow in the first round in front of Grundy, then barely play him and shift him off for pick 72. Ceglar will do.

Obviously these aren't all Scott's mistakes alone, some of them probably aren't his at all, but I definitely share your frustrations, and probably some you don't feel. And in this game, those frustrations are almost always funneled at the senior coach, right or wrong.

 

[PhatBoy]

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.

And that’s all fine everyone could see those risks but the flip side is to maintain the status quo and take the safe option like playing an older side and retaining players who’s best is behind them and no one likes that safe option either.

There is an equal amount of risk with literally every draft selection as there is with players like the ones you have mentioned

The difference is that at draft time there are MORE options so the chances of getting a few right in amongst the busts, are greater

 

[PhatBoy]

Add Higgins to that list.

Also getting pretty sick of seeing players well beyond their sell by pulling on our jumper each week, while ex first round picks deliver it perfectly inside fifty wearing purple.

Endless ruck issues? Let's recruit Thurlow in the first round in front of Grundy, then barely play him and shift him off for pick 72. Ceglar will do.

Obviously these aren't all Scott's mistakes alone, some of them probably aren't his at all, but I definitely share your frustrations, and probably some you don't feel. And in this game, those frustrations are almost always funneled at the senior coach, right or wrong.

As underwhelming as Higgins has been he’s not in the same bust level as most of them. He’s been serviceable he’s just not made us better

 

[Partridge]

Add Higgins to that list.

Also getting pretty sick of seeing players well beyond their sell by pulling on our jumper each week, while ex first round picks deliver it perfectly inside fifty wearing purple.

Endless ruck issues? Let's recruit Thurlow in the first round in front of Grundy, then barely play him and shift him off for pick 72. Ceglar will do.

Obviously these aren't all Scott's mistakes alone, some of them probably aren't his at all, but I definitely share your frustrations, and probably some you don't feel. And in this game, those frustrations are almost always funneled at the senior coach, right or wrong.

Nah Clark's lazy. This board told me so it must be true. Not like he's having a career best season or anything either.

 

[barmy44]

As underwhelming as Higgins has been he’s not in the same bust level as most of them. He’s been serviceable he’s just not made us better

Serviceable, sure... but my personal Higgins gripe (he is 34!) is that he is keeping a young player who might still be here in 10 years out of the side. And for, in my opinion, not much more (possibly less) than that kid would offer. Would much rather have Narkle (and injury concerns aside, it was almost like the club were allergic to picking him).

Lang, Thurlow, Cockatoo, Clark - lot of high picks running around for other teams or out of the comp entirely, and a lot of draftees that seemingly never get a game.

Again, can't lay that blame at Scott's feet alone. But maybe a shake up at the top would get some new ideas, and maybe push back elsewhere in the club to bad decisions, if the coach isn't responsible for the decisions - dunno.

Not advocating to get rid of him, because I think he is a good coach. But you were discussing taking risks a few posts up in relation to players - that's another, isn't it? Continue with Scott, or get someone else that may be worse, better, or deliver the same. Tough call. The club obviously think he is the best person going forward, and who knows what metrics they apply or if they are even the most appropriate ones.

 

[PhatBoy]

Man for a kid who’s playing decent but unremarkable footy you’d think we’d given away 20 year old Lance Franklin to read some of the teeth gnashing about Jordan Clarke this week

 

[PhatBoy]

Serviceable, sure... but my personal Higgins gripe is that he is keeping a young player who might still be here in 10 years out of the side. And for, in my opinion, not much more (possibly less) than that kid would offer. Would much rather have Narkle (and injury concerns aside, it was almost like the club were allergic to picking him).

Lang, Thurlow, Cockatoo, Clark - lot of high picks running around for other teams or out of the comp entirely, and a lot of draftees that seemingly never get a game.

Again, can't lay that blame at Scott's feet alone. But maybe a shake up at the top would get some new ideas, and maybe push back elsewhere in the club to bad decisions, if the coach isn't responsible for the decisions - dunno.

Not advocating to get rid of him, because I think he is a good coach. But you were discussing taking risks a few posts up in relation to players - that's another, isn't it? Continue with Scott, or get someone else that may be worse, better, or deliver the same. Tough call. The club obviously think he is the best person going forward, and who knows what metrics they apply or if they are even the most appropriate ones.

Thurlow, Lang and Cockatoo had more than enough opportunity in the case of the first two and Cockatoo has been no loss so far if he does manage to string consistent fitness together.

And I agree if Higgins isn’t making us BETTER we would be better off playing Narkle or someone else as the level may not change with them but at least they have a higher ceiling

 

[barmy44]

Thurlow, Lang and Cockatoo had more than enough opportunity in the case of the first two and Cockatoo has been no loss so far if he does manage to string consistent fitness together.

And I agree if Higgins isn’t making us BETTER we would be better off playing Narkle or someone else as the level may not change with them but at least they have a higher ceiling

Yeah, I agree they had their chances - but I guess I was more alluding to often they were big reaches who would have been available in the 3rd round or later most likely, and in one cases we lost one of the best rucks in the game (or at least, a player who was one of the best). We burn a lot of 1st round picks on players who aren't up to it, it seems, which is it's own issue over and above them not getting opportunities.

Scott isn't picking them, but maybe he could have a word to the club or Wells about picking unrated juniors with injury histories in the first round? Or we could get a coach in who would? "Steve, stop trying to be clever and pick the best available for a draft or two!"

And as always, not saying a coach would or even could say that... just thinking out loud about how a coching change may have far reaching impacts on club direction.

12 years is four times the AFL average coaching career, I believe. And as always, not saying he must go or that I even want him to!

 

[Partridge]

Thurlow, Lang and Cockatoo had more than enough opportunity in the case of the first two and Cockatoo has been no loss so far if he does manage to string consistent fitness together.

And I agree if Higgins isn’t making us BETTER we would be better off playing Narkle or someone else as the level may not change with them but at least they have a higher ceiling

That's easy.

Higgins is not making us better.

 

[someday-somehow]

Add Higgins to that list.

Also getting pretty sick of seeing players well beyond their sell by pulling on our jumper each week, while ex first round picks deliver it perfectly inside fifty wearing purple.

Endless ruck issues? Let's recruit Thurlow in the first round in front of Grundy, then barely play him and shift him off for pick 72. Ceglar will do.

Obviously these aren't all Scott's mistakes alone, some of them probably aren't his at all, but I definitely share your frustrations, and probably some you don't feel. And in this game, those frustrations are almost always funneled at the senior coach, right or wrong.

I'm surprised we didn't play Fort more previously as well TBH, he seemed to do OK when he did and he's doing well at Brisbane and would've been handy for a backup ruck for Rhys right now

 

[My Tilly]

I'm surprised we didn't play Fort more previously as well TBH, he seemed to do OK when he did and he's doing well at Brisbane and would've been handy for a backup ruck for Rhys right now

I'm not.
Fort played well at VFL level and deserved a good slate of games. Never one to be a star player but certainly should have been rewarded.

With Brisbane's mounting key forward woes, he now gets more of an opportunity to show what he's got.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Add Higgins to that list.

Also getting pretty sick of seeing players well beyond their sell by pulling on our jumper each week, while ex first round picks deliver it perfectly inside fifty wearing purple.

Endless ruck issues? Let's recruit Thurlow in the first round in front of Grundy, then barely play him and shift him off for pick 72. Ceglar will do.

Obviously these aren't all Scott's mistakes alone, some of them probably aren't his at all, but I definitely share your frustrations, and probably some you don't feel. And in this game, those frustrations are almost always funneled at the senior coach, right or wrong.

Clark is no great loss. He still wouldn't be in our side were he here either btw.
Not short of small/medium defenders. Will have an unremarkable but decent length career at Freo.

 

[barmy44]

Clark is no great loss. He still wouldn't be in our side were he here either btw.
Not short of small/medium defenders. Will have an unremarkable but decent length career at Freo.

Yeah, maybe and fair points.

I'd have him in over Higgins, personally. And we'd at least be able to get another 10 years of nothing special out of him (if that's what his career turns out to be) instead of two.

But still another wasted 1st round pick that probably could have been a wasted 3rd instead. That's drafting though, I guess.

But I'm largely off the topic of Scott's coaching at this point, so I'll leave that tangent be.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

1. At one point, yes. On his day, yes. Maybe not any longer overall. I think there are better "thinkers" about the modern game. But it's all really guesswork, isn't it?
2. Overall? Assessing what exactly? I don't know, 7? Some games 10, some games 1. Some seasons 10, some seasons 5? Bit of a pointless rank really, and I have no idea what he is like doing the actual job hour to hour, just pressers and results, which is a very incomplete picture.

How would you break down point no 2? Give me your own run down of how you have rated his coaching. Each poster has their own style and way of detailing things.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Yeah, maybe and fair points.

I'd have him in over Higgins, personally. And we'd at least be able to get another 10 years of nothing special out of him (if that's what his career turns out to be) instead of two.

But still another wasted 1st round pick that probably could have been a wasted 3rd instead. That's drafting though, I guess.

But I'm largely off the topic of Scott's coaching at this point, so I'll leave that tangent be.

In other words, another Murdoch

 

[barmy44]

In other words, another Murdoch

Are you flirting with me?

With a little more luck, you're talking about 3 x Carji Greeves medallist and future HOFer Jordan Murdoch. A little respect, please.

 

[Partridge]

Yeah, maybe and fair points.

I'd have him in over Higgins, personally. And we'd at least be able to get another 10 years of nothing special out of him (if that's what his career turns out to be) instead of two.

But still another wasted 1st round pick that probably could have been a wasted 3rd instead. That's drafting though, I guess.

But I'm largely off the topic of Scott's coaching at this point, so I'll leave that tangent be.

His "nothing special" looked ok on the weekend. With career best numbers. In a side that currently sits 3rd on the ladder. And he's still both younger and has played far less games than Parfitt, O'Connor, Miers, Atkins, and Ratugolea. But yes, we know with absolute certainty that he isn't now and never will be any good. Right.

Just like we did better with the Josh Caddy trade. Keep saying it and it'll make it come true.

 

[barmy44]

His "nothing special" looked ok on the weekend. With career best numbers. In a side that currently sits 3rd on the ladder. And he's still both younger and has played far less games than Parfitt, O'Connor, Miers, Atkins, and Ratugolea. But yes, we know with absolute certainty that he isn't now and never will be any good. Right.

Just like we did better with the Josh Caddy trade. Keep saying it and it'll make it come true.

Yeah, that's sort of my thinking...

At the risk of being sidetracked further, last night I had a quick glance back over our recent 1st round drafting history.

Happy to be corrected, but discounting SDK who looks OK in his first few games, our last successful first rounder who has played a significant part in our team is Cam Guthrie way back in 2010. And he was taken after Billie Smedts in the first round.

This is only peripherally connected to Chris Scott, I know... and it's a possibly irrational pet peeve of mine, but when we have actually used first rounders we tend to burn them on speculative picks that never work out and who would have been available later anyway.

In fairness, maybe Wells gets wind that other clubs are going to pounce on these players and that's why he went early on them, but I think it is something the club has got wrong for a long time now. If the coach can, I'd love him to ask for best available young guys in the draft and then play them together in consecutive games.

Of course, the flipside is that Wells does get a lot of good stuff out of the lower ends of the draft.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah, maybe and fair points.

I'd have him in over Higgins, personally. And we'd at least be able to get another 10 years of nothing special out of him (if that's what his career turns out to be) instead of two.

But still another wasted 1st round pick that probably could have been a wasted 3rd instead. That's drafting though, I guess.

But I'm largely off the topic of Scott's coaching at this point, so I'll leave that tangent be.

The error was drafting him when there proved to be no place to play him. Wasn’t a pressing need. The attraction seemed to be that he had pace, but wasn’t as good as Menegola, Smith, Duncan or Holmes (2021) on a wing. Wasn’t as good as Henry, Guthrie, Stewart, Bews etc as a small/med defender as his defensive side is woeful.

Good on him for leaving for more opportunity, the wise decision on his part. We ultimately don’t need him as much as say a young midfielder. So doubt we miss him really.

 

[barmy44]

How would you break down point no 2? Give me your own run down of how you have rated his coaching. Each poster has their own style and way of detailing things.

That's a really huge question, and I'm not sure I'm really qualified to do answer it. I'll try.

To try and sum up, I think Scott is possibly a bit old fashioned in his style. Playing a more slow tempo, zonal, possession based game that was cutting edge in 2013 but is often too rigid and not sufficiently tailored to what the opponents are doing.

It seems a common feature of our game that we often get pressured and harassed into looking clueless. Is that coincidence? Do we just often rub into teams who have out of the box pressure games against us? Or are we playing a style that is easy to disrupt? I don't know, but I lean to the latter.

It's also a common perception that we tend to chase games too late. Is that coaching, or coincidence? Again, I don't know. I doubt Scott is issuing "directives" to do nothing in the 2nd and 3rd quarters then before the 4th saying "just go for it!"

A coach can only do so much, and I think it is generally up to the players on game day. I think a coaches job in Aussie Rules is mostly done in pre-season and during the week. Gameday changes look great when they come off, but they obviously totally rely on the player concerned performing and sometimes just the bounce of the ball.

I also think often our team's are over coached. Perhaps they sacrifice a better option that may have been correct instinctively, but doesn't match the "plan" drilled into them.

I follow Man City closely (no one spoil this morning's CL result, please - watching after work tonight). I know soccer isn't the most popular here, but if you enjoy this (IMO great) game, then the City team and Klopp's Liverpool are contrasting and excellent examples of well drilled meeting instinct.

I think we have always had well drilled down under Scott, and I think Scott is great at that, but I personally don't think we have had instinct since about 2013.

Instinct, though... what a nebulous concept. Can you even blame the coach for that? Maybe restraining it, which I fear Scott may do, perhaps even unintentionally.

We are also leaky in defence (scores per I50 conceded) and inefficient in offence. I feel we huff and puff for our goals, and hand up easy ones far too often.

It's also important to note cognitive biases. We judge our own teams harshly and often inflate the problems. I often think Geelong "always" seem to cough up easy goals in red time. They don't, it is just when it does happen, it is annoying and sticks in the memory.

Sort of like buying a Barina then thinking "man, Barina's are everywhere now!" They aren't, you're just now noticing them.

And as always, all just IMO, I don't think I'm a genius and I could be wrong on all the above and I'm happy to be pulled up on any of it.

 

[barmy44]

The error was drafting him when there proved to be no place to play him. Wasn’t a pressing need. The attraction seemed to be that he had pace ...

Yes, I'd say that is probably it - good point.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Good on him for leaving for more opportunity, the wise decision on his part. We ultimately don’t need him as much as say a young midfielder. So doubt we miss him really.

Agree with that

Just a hypothetical question - we can only keep 1 of 2 of our current players

And the 2 players are Parfitt and Stengle - well i know who i would keep - and there wouldnt be a shadow of doubt about it

 

[PhatBoy]

His "nothing special" looked ok on the weekend. With career best numbers. In a side that currently sits 3rd on the ladder. And he's still both younger and has played far less games than Parfitt, O'Connor, Miers, Atkins, and Ratugolea. But yes, we know with absolute certainty that he isn't now and never will be any good. Right.

Just like we did better with the Josh Caddy trade. Keep saying it and it'll make it come true.

And when did one game make it a certainty that he WILL be something special.

Is every example of a player playing a good game for a second club concrete proof that he would have been a superstar for the side he left?

 

[Partridge]

And when did one game make it a certainty that he WILL be something special.

Is every example of a player playing a good game for a second club concrete proof that he would have been a superstar for the side he left?

No one ever said he'd be a superstar. That's you doing your usual 1 + 1 = 37 and then attacking people who came up with 37 (in your mind).

He's a young player who hadn't played that many games that I would have preferred we kept. He has shown this year - and last weekend - he looks perfectly fine at senior level (he also did with us). Given that the lack of first round picks is perpetually bemoaned on here I would have thought hanging on to one might have had some merit.