Coach Chris Scott re-signs to 2022 (aka the Chris Scott discussion Part IV)

[Cattery]

So Grand Final or Scott's a dud.
Very insightful.

Point out where I used the word dud will you.

 

[Max Milburn]

Point out where I used the word dud will you.

Certainly...

So I don't see it as unreasonable for there to still be some scepticism, and it will probably remain until the trend of the last seven years is reversed, preferably with a Premiership, but at least with making it beyond a PF.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

I don't wish to appear needlessly critical. but this is not the first time Geelong has started well under Chris Scott. I don't think his H&A record has ever been in dispute; it's the capacity to transfer that form into finals. And every time a good H&A Geelong team fails to stand up, it inevitably all comes back to blaming the list. With posters now proclaiming that Scott finally has the talent to get it done, I would hope that excuse does not get trotted out again if the the same scenario plays out in finals.

Perhaps someone will need to explain to me the differences between 2019 and 2013, in which we went 7-0, beat much-touted grand finalists from the previous year in R1 and then the premiers in R4. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Or even 2014, in which Geelong also won 6 of its first 7 games. Or 2016, in which Geelong won 7 of its first 8 games.

This isn't to say the team's current form isn't good and I'm not enjoying it. There's a lot to like. But equally, there was plenty to like from the early form of the side in 2013, 2016 and even 2017 (though we hit a rough patch a bit earlier there). But in those cases, the early season form wasn't built on, sides went past Geelong and Geelong fell apart in finals. What I would like to know is what makes this side different to those sides - what has happened to the list that suddenly makes it such a winner in comparison to those? If this team fails in finals in similar fashion, will there be any responsibility attributed to the coaching department, or will it again be a case of the talent just not being there?

What this season has thus far proven is that Scott can get a team playing good footy in the early rounds of the season, but he didn't need to prove that. I've seen it before. We all have. Not saying it's not good, but winning H&A has never been a point of contention.

 

[Max Milburn]

I don't wish to appear needlessly critical. but this is not the first time Geelong has started well under Chris Scott. I don't think his H&A record has ever been in dispute; it's the capacity to transfer that form into finals. And every time a good H&A Geelong team fails to stand up, it inevitably all comes back to blaming the list. With posters now proclaiming that Scott finally has the talent to get it done, I would hope that excuse does not get trotted out again if the the same scenario plays out in finals.

Perhaps someone will need to explain to me the differences between 2019 and 2013, in which we went 7-0, beat much-touted grand finalists from the previous year in R1 and then the premiers in R4. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Or even 2014, in which Geelong also won 6 of its first 7 games. Or 2016, in which Geelong won 7 of its first 8 games.

This isn't to say the team's current form isn't good and I'm not enjoying it. There's a lot to like. But equally, there was plenty to like from the early form of the side in 2013, 2016 and even 2017 (though we hit a rough patch a bit earlier there). But in those cases, the early season form wasn't built on, sides went past Geelong and Geelong fell apart in finals. What I would like to know is what makes this side different to those sides - what has happened to the list that suddenly makes it such a winner in comparison to those? If this team fails in finals in similar finals, will there be any responsibility attributed to the coaching department, or will it again be a case of the talent just not being there.

What this season has thus far proven is that Scott can get a team playing good footy in the early rounds of the season, but he didn't need to prove that. I've seen it before. We all have. Not saying it's not good, but winning H&A has never been a point of contention.

You are correct.
Although I did smile at your first sentence.

 

[David the Cat]

Perhaps someone will need to explain to me the differences between 2019 and 2013,

Yes...that's easy....we have a completely different list.....

I understand what your saying Biggy, but I have to say that this years performances are as good as I've seen for quite sometime. There's class everywhere..

Of course 2013 was one that got away....but we all know you need a little luck to get to a GF and it wasn't with us in 2013.

Retreating to the sanctuary of "but can he coach in a final" is a natural response from the doubters (note I didn't say haters) and caution at this stage is also fair enough, but in purely football terms, this Geelong side looks superior to recent squads...Scott and his team are doing the job right now and that's all we can ask.

 

[Max Milburn]

If you're after weight of history Biggy, take comfort in the fact that the last four April premiers became September Premiers.

 

[Catters 070911]

I don't wish to appear needlessly critical. but this is not the first time Geelong has started well under Chris Scott. I don't think his H&A record has ever been in dispute; it's the capacity to transfer that form into finals. And every time a good H&A Geelong team fails to stand up, it inevitably all comes back to blaming the list. With posters now proclaiming that Scott finally has the talent to get it done, I would hope that excuse does not get trotted out again if the the same scenario plays out in finals.

Perhaps someone will need to explain to me the differences between 2019 and 2013, in which we went 7-0, beat much-touted grand finalists from the previous year in R1 and then the premiers in R4. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Or even 2014, in which Geelong also won 6 of its first 7 games. Or 2016, in which Geelong won 7 of its first 8 games.

This isn't to say the team's current form isn't good and I'm not enjoying it. There's a lot to like. But equally, there was plenty to like from the early form of the side in 2013, 2016 and even 2017 (though we hit a rough patch a bit earlier there). But in those cases, the early season form wasn't built on, sides went past Geelong and Geelong fell apart in finals. What I would like to know is what makes this side different to those sides - what has happened to the list that suddenly makes it such a winner in comparison to those? If this team fails in finals in similar fashion, will there be any responsibility attributed to the coaching department, or will it again be a case of the talent just not being there?

What this season has thus far proven is that Scott can get a team playing good footy in the early rounds of the season, but he didn't need to prove that. I've seen it before. We all have. Not saying it's not good, but winning H&A has never been a point of contention.

The difference between 2013 and 2019 is that we had a lot of injuries in 2013- Tom Hawkins had a bad back which was nursed through the season (and was a late withdrawal from the QF that we lost to Fremantle, as we didn't have another tall up forward, Paul Chapman had a hamstring for much of the season, and struggled (plus the fact that he was looking to leave) and Travis Varcoe, who many never rated here, missed many weeks with a shoulder injury, after not having a pre-season because of a foot injury that plagued him throughout 2012).

Add to that the continued absences of Menzel, Vardy, McCarthy and Cowan, and our depth was sorely tested.

Given all that, we only missed the Grand Final by a goal. Which shows how close Scott got us despite having a massive injury list.

This year is the first year I remember under Scott, since 2011, that most of our starting 25 have had full pre-seasons, bar Zac Touhy (which is ironic, since he was one of the most durable players in the league). We are also blooding youth, and not relying on so many premiership heroes who are close to the end (Ablett is playing like a youngster, for example).

Now, time will tell with finals. Yes, we have seen this before. But the problem I have always had with you is that you don't approach the problem as to how we need to improve in finals, and what needs to change. Your answer has always been "Sack Chris Scott" as if he is the SOLE determinant to our success. You alieviate the players of any responsibility, even though they are the ones who refuse to tackle in finals, and seem to get stagefright. When do you expect players to take ownership for their own performances, like they did in 2007, which turned things around as a club. It wasn't coach-driven then, so why should it be now? Surely Chris Scott does not tell his players to not tackle in finals, so whose fault is it then?

Look, you make some good points in this post, but I am jaded by your continual personal attack and sole focus on Chris Scott as the reason for all the ills of the club. I could give a list of things that have changed since 2011, but you want to blame the coach because he isn't Bomber Thompson or because you wanted the club to appoint Ken Hinkley and they didn't. You have sooked up ever since.

I wonder if you REALLY do want Geelong to succeed this time. Wouldn't that then mean that Chris Scott can ACTUALLY coach? I want to see it, because I love the club, and to see how you will explain away, minimise or throw shade away from Scott's contribution to the victory, since you have never given him credit for the flag he actually DID win, in 2011.

I can't wait to see Geelong win a flag and the next day, I come on here and rub it in your face, when you have acknowledge, once and for all, that Chris Scott has taken two groups of teams (with 90% different personal) to flags. No longer can you use the excuse that it was someone else who built the list. This will be his team, his victory, and since you give him 100% blame when we fail, then it would only be right to give 100% blame for the GF victory (something you have STILL failed to give him credit for, given the 2011 flag). I will happily send you a spatula to wipe the egg off your face. So be careful what you ask for.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Paul Chapman had a hamstring for much of the season, and struggled (plus the fact that he was looking to leave)

He wasn't looking to leave. He was offered a shitty deal after the club treated him poorly. Nobody made Scott place him on the bench for half the QF.

 

[Down at K Park]

I don't wish to appear needlessly critical.

You lost us all here.

 

[Catters 070911]

He wasn't looking to leave. He was offered a shitty deal after the club treated him poorly. Nobody made Scott place him on the bench for half the QF.

Firstly, that is Chapman's side of the story, a side where he blames everyone else but himself.

Secondly, he WAS looking to leave. At the end of the 2012 season, he came out and said that he wanted a two-year contract, and if he didn't get it, he would go to other clubs who had made offers to him.

He said that the club OWED him because he turned down other offers in the past, and stayed at Geelong instead (poor petal, imagine turning down other clubs to play in three premierships, while encouraging other players to stay at the club so they can build a dynasty together). He put this out to the media and the public space, embarrassing the club about something that was in-house.

He eventually signed for one year. Then he got a hamstring injury, which lasted for eight weeks. He then ran around in the VFL for a couple of weeks, to test said hamstring.

Also, about the QF. Firstly, Chapman started as the sub (to manage him, as his hammy was dodgy, and he was vital to keep uninjured for finals). He actually got a run early on, when one of our players went off under the "concussion sub" rule.

Chapman then went back to being the sub once the other player was cleared of concussion, and then Chappy was re-activated later into the game when needed.

It might not be Chappy's fault that he was the sub for half the QF, but it is his fault that he sat on the bench with the vest on, with his arms folded and sooking up that he wasn't given 100% of game time. He is meant to be one of the leaders of the club, and he sooks up on the bench. Not a good look.

It also isn't Scott's fault that Chapman took out Westoff in the SF, getting rubbed out for one week, meaning that he missed the PF against Hawthorn. Given that he averaged 2-3 goals in most games, especially finals, his absence might have made all the difference.

Then he runs the media and again demands a new contract, or he will walk. He says that he has blown all his money, and needs to play on, and unless Geelong can guarantee him 22 games plus finals, so he will look elsewhere.

Other clubs came. North Melbourne, Richmond and Bulldogs, all of who needed a player like Chapman, then turned him down, once he failed their physical.

The only club who kept being interested was Essendon. An interesting fact. Paul Chapman asked to be traded from Geelong to Essendon the exact same week that Essendon announced that Mark "Bomber" Thompson was appointed caretaker coach of Essendon for season 2014. Coincidence? I mean, I wouldn't want to put on a tin foil hat and suggest that Chappy wanted to go to the club coached by his former coach who he was a favourite of, and who turned a blind eye to some of his antics in the past.

Look, I can see why many people are Chappy fans. He was a great players, awesome in finals, won us the 2009 flag, and is the best kick off one step I have ever seen. But he sold us out to the media, instead of negotiating his new contract to the club behind closed doors (who else tells the media that they want a better deal from the club, and badmouths them, DURING contract negotiations. It smacks of something Jason Akermanis would do (I now consider Chappy the "Aker" of 2007-11, in both the good and bad ways). His running to the media is what I find unforgivable.

No, I believe that Chappy wanted out, and used this as a way to deflect blame on himself leaving, seeing how feral supporters were when Ablett left, and instead played the victim and blamed the club for not bending over to him, like they did when Bomber was at the helm.

 

[Max Milburn]

Why does this thread, in particular, always end up in an endless loop of "the same old s#$%"?
2013 was 6 years ago people.

 

[Catters 070911]

Why does this thread, in particular, always end up in an endless loop of "the same old s#$%"?
2013 was 6 years ago people.

BiggyBoy was the one who brought up 2013 to begin with.

 

[Pollywaffle]

There was a tired look to the 2013 team. Never really thought they would go all the way.
Getting some good vibes from this years collective. As people have rightly pointed out, all the ducks need to be lined up. But there seems to be a quiet determination coming from all levels of the club.
Much like 2011..
As has been already said, early days

 

[Vdubs]

He wasn't looking to leave. He was offered a shitty deal after the club treated him poorly. Nobody made Scott place him on the bench for half the QF.

It's where he deserved to be.
Paaaast history

 

[Biggy_Boy]

It's where he deserved to be.
Paaaast history

Yeah, he was clearly finished at that point. Proved it in the next game too.

 

[Vdubs]

Yeah, he was clearly finished at that point. Proved it in the next game too.

And the next one too..

Is that where it all started for you, this dislike of Chris Scott?
He continues to be himself, which is an excellent state of the art coach.
Were you appalled when Mooney and Milburn were cut from the 11 prelim/GF teams?
Or does the flag exonerate such (wisdom in) decision making?

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't wish to appear needlessly critical. but this is not the first time Geelong has started well under Chris Scott. I don't think his H&A record has ever been in dispute; it's the capacity to transfer that form into finals. And every time a good H&A Geelong team fails to stand up, it inevitably all comes back to blaming the list. With posters now proclaiming that Scott finally has the talent to get it done, I would hope that excuse does not get trotted out again if the the same scenario plays out in finals.

Perhaps someone will need to explain to me the differences between 2019 and 2013, in which we went 7-0, beat much-touted grand finalists from the previous year in R1 and then the premiers in R4. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Or even 2014, in which Geelong also won 6 of its first 7 games. Or 2016, in which Geelong won 7 of its first 8 games.

This isn't to say the team's current form isn't good and I'm not enjoying it. There's a lot to like. But equally, there was plenty to like from the early form of the side in 2013, 2016 and even 2017 (though we hit a rough patch a bit earlier there). But in those cases, the early season form wasn't built on, sides went past Geelong and Geelong fell apart in finals. What I would like to know is what makes this side different to those sides - what has happened to the list that suddenly makes it such a winner in comparison to those? If this team fails in finals in similar fashion, will there be any responsibility attributed to the coaching department, or will it again be a case of the talent just not being there?

What this season has thus far proven is that Scott can get a team playing good footy in the early rounds of the season, but he didn't need to prove that. I've seen it before. We all have. Not saying it's not good, but winning H&A has never been a point of contention.

You appear needlessly critical

 

[Vdubs]

Why does this thread, in particular, always end up in an endless loop of "the same old s#$%"?
2013 was 6 years ago people.

Apparently, when we reply, it forms part of their therapy, particularly when these afflictions fall out of remission into recurrences.

 

[Spazz Cat]

So Grand Final or Scott's a dud.
Very insightful.

I don't think that's tottally fair Max. Bit harsh.
I think you should judge how we actually perform in the finals and who we're playing.
As long as we play at our best, I think that's good enough GF or not.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Perhaps someone will need to explain to me the differences between 2019 and 2013, in which we went 7-0, beat much-touted grand finalists from the previous year in R1 and then the premiers in R4. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Or even 2014, in which Geelong also won 6 of its first 7 games. Or 2016, in which Geelong won 7 of its first 8 games.

You forgot 1963, when we were 6-1.

 

[cynical]

Scott gets s**t because he is too busy trying to win home and away games instead of a team built for finals.

This team looks a bit better but we have had pretty good luck with injury and form so far considering our age profile and heavy reliance on particular players.

You dont get a prize for continually finishing top 3 and then getting smashed in prelims.

 

[OddYears]

Firstly, that is Chapman's side of the story, a side where he blames everyone else but himself.

Secondly, he WAS looking to leave. At the end of the 2012 season, he came out and said that he wanted a two-year contract, and if he didn't get it, he would go to other clubs who had made offers to him.

He said that the club OWED him because he turned down other offers in the past, and stayed at Geelong instead (poor petal, imagine turning down other clubs to play in three premierships, while encouraging other players to stay at the club so they can build a dynasty together). He put this out to the media and the public space, embarrassing the club about something that was in-house.

He eventually signed for one year. Then he got a hamstring injury, which lasted for eight weeks. He then ran around in the VFL for a couple of weeks, to test said hamstring.

Also, about the QF. Firstly, Chapman started as the sub (to manage him, as his hammy was dodgy, and he was vital to keep uninjured for finals). He actually got a run early on, when one of our players went off under the "concussion sub" rule.

Chapman then went back to being the sub once the other player was cleared of concussion, and then Chappy was re-activated later into the game when needed.

It might not be Chappy's fault that he was the sub for half the QF, but it is his fault that he sat on the bench with the vest on, with his arms folded and sooking up that he wasn't given 100% of game time. He is meant to be one of the leaders of the club, and he sooks up on the bench. Not a good look.

It also isn't Scott's fault that Chapman took out Westoff in the SF, getting rubbed out for one week, meaning that he missed the PF against Hawthorn. Given that he averaged 2-3 goals in most games, especially finals, his absence might have made all the difference.

Then he runs the media and again demands a new contract, or he will walk. He says that he has blown all his money, and needs to play on, and unless Geelong can guarantee him 22 games plus finals, so he will look elsewhere.

Other clubs came. North Melbourne, Richmond and Bulldogs, all of who needed a player like Chapman, then turned him down, once he failed their physical.

The only club who kept being interested was Essendon. An interesting fact. Paul Chapman asked to be traded from Geelong to Essendon the exact same week that Essendon announced that Mark "Bomber" Thompson was appointed caretaker coach of Essendon for season 2014. Coincidence? I mean, I wouldn't want to put on a tin foil hat and suggest that Chappy wanted to go to the club coached by his former coach who he was a favourite of, and who turned a blind eye to some of his antics in the past.

Look, I can see why many people are Chappy fans. He was a great players, awesome in finals, won us the 2009 flag, and is the best kick off one step I have ever seen. But he sold us out to the media, instead of negotiating his new contract to the club behind closed doors (who else tells the media that they want a better deal from the club, and badmouths them, DURING contract negotiations. It smacks of something Jason Akermanis would do (I now consider Chappy the "Aker" of 2007-11, in both the good and bad ways). His running to the media is what I find unforgivable.

No, I believe that Chappy wanted out, and used this as a way to deflect blame on himself leaving, seeing how feral supporters were when Ablett left, and instead played the victim and blamed the club for not bending over to him, like they did when Bomber was at the helm.

You can't defend the benching of chappy because he 'sat on the bench with his arms folded' haha that was one of the stupider scott moves. Up there with no ruckman against west coast.

 

[allrighty]

It’s funny how people get a mindset over certain things.

Not that much different to those wanting to hang Bomber for 2008 and 2010.

Everyone’s as bad as each other so suggest the high horse gets shelved.

 

[Ray Donovan]

The coaching Panel Chris Scott, scarlett, enright etc have all had excellent starts to the season. Wells and co have had a brilliant off-season in retrospect and when that happens it flows onto the field.

They have addressed some flaws in personnel defensive pressure introduced some new faces. So really have ticked a lot of boxes you would like to see after a review.

Ability to score Rohan, dangerfield lots of time forward throw in dalhaus and miers it looks dangerous. Hawkins and sav another area that has really struggled in previous and of season forays.

Kolo, Taylor, Blicavs much more versatile key defenders dropping it ended up being Henderson has allowed for much more switching in defence but this is one area of the ground Scott always did well regardless of how the team was travelling.

Will it hold up all season in the midfield no idea can the younger players keep putting pressure on the senior crop I hope so. I think injuries and availability forced geelong into some youth and the reaped the rewards so I hope they stick with it. I would be disappointed come end of year if we only have 3 changes to last years in the latter rounds of the season

To be honest coming into this season geelong were an unknown with the early season draw and last seasons finish. So to be travelling better than any side at this point of the season playing last seasons grand finalists beating both and destroying Melbourne it's a dream run.

In terms of the final hurdle it's winning finals. That comes for analysis after the regular season.

 

[Cataholic]

Scott gets **** because he is too busy trying to win home and away games instead of a team built for finals.

This team looks a bit better but we have had pretty good luck with injury and form so far considering our age profile and heavy reliance on particular players.

You dont get a prize for continually finishing top 3 and then getting smashed in prelims.

We've had 'pretty good luck with..... form'??

I'd say form has a pretty direct correlation with training and effort, and relies far less so on luck.