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

[allrighty]

I would say Devine is the least liked out of all of them. Even Ayers.
Not sure we've ever made a thing of just wanting Geelong people to coach the team.
Maybe back when Farmer or Goggin coached?

Whoa boy, you is taking shite there bro

 

[Spazz Cat]

Whoa boy, you is taking s**te there bro

Haha. He actually wasn't that hated at the time! A lot were cut that he left.

 

[David the Cat]

Haha. He actually wasn't that hated at the time! A lot were cut that he left.

Say what? There was general celebration when Ayres departed...he was loathed, and by the end, the feeling was mutual.

I loved Johnny Devine as a player...he just couldn't coach.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Say what? There was general celebration when Ayres departed...he was loathed, and by the end, the feeling was mutual.

I loved Johnny Devine as a player...he just couldn't coach.

Wasnt much chop in politics in Tassie either

 

[Cattery]

I think overall, they still are. He has no problem attracting star players to our club. They all genuinely felt the pressure on him in our finals, and as usual, lifted. That is his issue- he can get us to play above ourselves- yes, above, because WCE IS a better balanced team, and should have played in a GF.

This is the team we beat twice this year, who lost at home in round twenty three with a top four spot up for grabs, against a team that didn't even make the eight, then got bundled out by a team with one of the worst finals records over the last eight years, doesn't exactly scream "should have made the GF" to me.

 

[Vdubs]

This is the team we beat twice this year, who lost at home in round twenty three with a top four spot up for grabs, against a team that didn't even make the eight, then got bundled out by a team with one of the worst finals records over the last eight years, doesn't exactly scream "should have made the GF" to me.

You'd have to wonder whether news of Willie affected that Hawks game. IDK, but talent wise they underachieved unlike us.

 

[winty]

You'd have to wonder whether news of Willie affected that Hawks game. IDK, but talent wise they underachieved unlike us.

Can't see how, since the news broke three weeks later.

 

[Cattery]

You'd have to wonder whether news of Willie affected that Hawks game. IDK, but talent wise they underachieved unlike us.

Yeah and maybe it affected them against us as well (any excuse to downplay anything we do I guess) maybe they also had some bad news before round six when we belted them.

You might try knocking of the "overachieved" rhetoric as well while you're at it, five top four finishes in the past eight years, including three equal first finishes and one outright top is a hell of a lot of overachieving don't you agree.

 

[Partridge]

This is the team we beat twice this year, who lost at home in round twenty three with a top four spot up for grabs, against a team that didn't even make the eight, then got bundled out by a team with one of the worst finals records over the last eight years, doesn't exactly scream "should have made the GF" to me.

Yep the evidence doesn't support it.

I freely admit to thinking West Coast were just about flag favourites (in my view) late in the year. I thought they were ticking along nicely, winning consistently and not getting really much focus. Then that Hawthorn loss which really there was no excuse for. And against Geelong in the finals they actually wrestled back momentum and had the lead. But couldn't sustain it. They lost three of the their last four games for the season. They just weren't good enough.

 

[Vdubs]

Yeah and maybe it affected them against us as well (any excuse to downplay anything we do I guess) maybe they also had some bad news before round six when we belted them.

You might try knocking of the "overachieved" rhetoric as well while you're at it, five top four finishes in the past eight years, including three equal first finishes and one outright top is a hell of a lot of overachieving don't you agree.

Been saying that for years. You're finally agreeing. If you don't think their list has more talent than ours, we disagree. No big deal.

Btw, I have been saying that for years (overachievers, via CS), and I did not downplay our win against them in finals. Perhaps WCE were just not as good as many suspected, including me. My opinion matters not. We finish third, and receive draft picks and fixture next year accordingly.

 

[Vdubs]

Can't see how, since the news broke three weeks later.

News broke. You think that's the first time WCE knew about it?
You could be correct.
Someone today, an Ess supporter mate of mine, suggested it as a big reason for that inexplicable form against Hawks.
Anyway, Hawks are pretty good on their day too.

 

[Partridge]

News broke. You think that's the first time WCE knew about it?
You could be correct.
Someone today, an Ess supporter mate of mine, suggested it as a big reason for that inexplicable form against Hawks.
Anyway, Hawks are pretty good on their day too.

They're not that good.

West Coast had absolutely everything to play for. Win and it was a guaranteed top 4 finish. Depending on results even a home final. Hawthorn didn't even make finals. It was a game any team with top 4 aspirations just had to win.

 

[Vdubs]

They're not that good.

West Coast had absolutely everything to play for. Win and it was a guaranteed top 4 finish. Depending on results even a home final. Hawthorn didn't even make finals. It was a game any team with top 4 aspirations just had to win.

Agree. All I am saying is that the previous premiership team, which had added NicNat and Gaff to their 18 lineup, underachieved. Whereas Geelong, just 8th in 18, overachieved. Hawks, who went out in straight sets in 18, are hard to assess. They troubled good teams, including us, yet lost many games inexplicably. Is there really any such thing as an upset? Demons-- which year was their anomaly? You'd have to say 18.But who knows what they'll do next year. Too many variables, and the coach is the least relevant imho.

 

[Nickoo]

I think a reason many here have never warmed to Chris Scott is because he never wore our colors.

People like BiggyBoy didn't like an "outsider" beating out former Cats, Ken Hinkley and Brendan Sanderson, for the job. He and others wanted a "favourite son" coach.

Let's face it. If Scott had been a former Geelong player, you would give him more leeway and be less harsh on him, because he is one of ours.

If Hinkley had coached us, and we had won no flags, he wouldn't cop the same crap, because he played for us. FACT!

Let them answer that but I have gone a bit cold on Chris because he says stupid things.

Bomber I loved, but hated Ayres from day one. Loved blighty. Now none of them played for Geelong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Cattery]

Been saying that for years. You're finally agreeing. If you don't think their list has more talent than ours, we disagree. No big deal.

Btw, I have been saying that for years (overachievers, via CS), and I did not downplay our win against them in finals. Perhaps WCE were just not as good as many suspected, including me. My opinion matters not. We finish third, and receive draft picks and fixture next year accordingly.

Woah there Nellie, think you've misunderstood my post (or are just being funny) I most definitely don't agree with you, saying we overachieve year after year after year is just ludicrous IMO.

More a case of you constantly underrating Geelong while simultaneously overrating a lot of opposition teams.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Agree. All I am saying is that the previous premiership team, which had added NicNat and Gaff to their 18 lineup, underachieved. Whereas Geelong, just 8th in 18, overachieved. Hawks, who went out in straight sets in 18, are hard to assess. They troubled good teams, including us, yet lost many games inexplicably. Is there really any such thing as an upset? Demons-- which year was their anomaly? You'd have to say 18.But who knows what they'll do next year. Too many variables, and the coach is the least relevant imho.

Wouldn't it make more sense that West Coast overachieved last year, rather than underachieved this year?

Geelong finishing 8th last year is offered as proof that they overachieved this year; but West Coast also finished the home and away season 8th in 2017, the year before they won the flag. That year, they won their first final courtesy of a Shuey free kick and Port's inaccuracy, then got pumped the following week by GWS (125-58).

To be honest, this overachieve/underachieve stuff is all a bit silly if you ask me.

 

[Max Milburn]

Wouldn't it make more sense that West Coast overachieved last year, rather than underachieved this year?

Geelong finishing 8th last year is offered as proof that they overachieved this year; but West Coast also finished the home and away season 8th in 2017, the year before they won the flag. That year, they won their first final courtesy of a Shuey free kick and Port's inaccuracy, then got pumped the following week by GWS (125-58).

To be honest, this overachieve/underachieve stuff is all a bit silly if you ask me.

Thank you Wooden Slug. Thank you.

 

[Vdubs]

Woah there Nellie, think you've misunderstood my post (or are just being funny) I most definitely don't agree with you, saying we overachieve year after year after year is just ludicrous IMO.

More a case of you constantly underrating Geelong while simultaneously overrating a lot of opposition teams.

Yes, I realise you were not agreeing.
Remind me what thread we're in.
This is a pro or anti CS thread, and my efforts for many years to support CS consistently relate to how I perceive that he and his coaches are able to get us to contend, when in reality, we do not appear to be that good.
Some say that maybe no team is that good, and that it's just a bit of luck at the right time.
Imho, right now, the lists of Richmond , WCE, Collingwood and GWS are better.
I also expect us to next year be a little closer to the second half of this year in w/l. That may still see us in the 8.
Any better than that would be in my eyes, overachieving. MANY teams are closely clumped together. I hardly see us as superior to Port, Hawks, Dogs next year and in fact we lost to them on our way to top spot. I never denigrate our individual players, just our list as a whole, and I still rate and value CS.We probably deserve to finish 3rd as we have done, given the season as a whole.
If you think these thoughts are insulting, apologies. But overachieving year after year is easily as ludicrous as saying it- please consider that for a minute.

 

[Partridge]

Wouldn't it make more sense that West Coast overachieved last year, rather than underachieved this year?

Geelong finishing 8th last year is offered as proof that they overachieved this year; but West Coast also finished the home and away season 8th in 2017, the year before they won the flag. That year, they won their first final courtesy of a Shuey free kick and Port's inaccuracy, then got pumped the following week by GWS (125-58).

To be honest, this overachieve/underachieve stuff is all a bit silly if you ask me.

It is. Mostly a way to rationalise either poor results by us or good results to other teams. Every year is different. The same group of players can be very different from one season to the next. West Coast won in 2018 and were absolutely deserving premiers. As it turned out with missing players back in 2019 they just weren't as good. It happens.

 

[Vdubs]

It is. Mostly a way to rationalise either poor results by us or good results to other teams. Every year is different. The same group of players can be very different from one season to the next. West Coast won in 2018 and were absolutely deserving premiers. As it turned out with missing players back in 2019 they just weren't as good. It happens.

Everything you say makes a lot of sense, no exception here. How do you honestly rate our list of 30 players used in the last few years?

 

[Turbocat]

Yes, I realise you were not agreeing.
Remind me what thread we're in.
This is a pro or anti CS thread, and my efforts for many years to support CS consistently relate to how I perceive that he and his coaches are able to get us to contend, when in reality, we do not appear to be that good.
Some say that maybe no team is that good, and that it's just a bit of luck at the right time.
Imho, right now, the lists of Richmond , WCE, Collingwood and GWS are better.
I also expect us to next year be a little closer to the second half of this year in w/l. That may still see us in the 8.
Any better than that would be in my eyes, overachieving. MANY teams are closely clumped together. I hardly see us as superior to Port, Hawks, Dogs next year and in fact we lost to them on our way to top spot. I never denigrate our individual players, just our list as a whole, and I still rate and value CS.We probably deserve to finish 3rd as we have done, given the season as a whole.
If you think these thoughts are insulting, apologies. But overachieving year after year is easily as ludicrous as saying it- please consider that for a minute.

You realise the oxymoronic aspect to this... you have been strong that we really are not in contention to win at all. We are either in contention and can win it or not and we cant . He has eitehr managed to get us to finals with less talent an put us in a position to win it.. or taken us to the finals with les talent in a position to not win it ... which is not being in contention.

 

[catempire]

Wouldn't it make more sense that West Coast overachieved last year, rather than underachieved this year?

Geelong finishing 8th last year is offered as proof that they overachieved this year; but West Coast also finished the home and away season 8th in 2017, the year before they won the flag. That year, they won their first final courtesy of a Shuey free kick and Port's inaccuracy, then got pumped the following week by GWS (125-58).

To be honest, this overachieve/underachieve stuff is all a bit silly if you ask me.

Good post. It’s a nonsense on several levels. At some point in finals you either find your match or you win the flag. Fans like to wring their hands about what might have been if this or that happened. It’s comforting in a way.

Vdubs gets comfort in the opposite way: by saying we were never a chance so nothing has been lost. Fair enough, even if I don’t agree.

 

[Partridge]

Everything you say makes a lot of sense, no exception here. How do you honestly rate our list of 30 players used in the last few years?

I think the club has been too optimistic, and overlooked obvious weaknesses in players hoping that things would turn out ok. Like I said, absolutely reasonable for fans to be like this, but clubs have to be more coldhearted.

I think the last 6-7 years in recruiting is starting to hurt now. We drafted in already clearly damaged players such as McIntosh, Clark, Scott Selwood and even Rohan. All so far have failed. Add the amount of injury prone players we kept, that either were never going to be the same or weren't proven to begin with - that's Menzel, McCarthy, and Cowan for starters - and there are three more failures. It can (and has) been covered up to some extent during home and away. But it gets brutally exposed in finals. And with Scott as coach they've had more than long enough to address it. Nine seasons now.

 

[Vdubs]

I think the club has been too optimistic, and overlooked obvious weaknesses in players hoping that things would turn out ok. Like I said, absolutely reasonable for fans to be like this, but clubs have to be more coldhearted.

I think the last 6-7 years in recruiting is starting to hurt now. We drafted in already clearly damaged players such as McIntosh, Clark, Scott Selwood and even Rohan. All so far have failed. Add the amount of injury prone players we kept, that either were never going to be the same or weren't proven to begin with - that's Menzel, McCarthy, and Cowan for starters - and there are three more failures. It can (and has) been covered up to some extent during home and away. But it gets brutally exposed in finals. And with Scott as coach they've had more than long enough to address it. Nine seasons now.

Good points. HMc and Clark were disasters.
SS is the intriguing one. The allure is obvious- gun brother/captain, great quality bloke, previous B & F. Were we unlucky that he was so cursed by injuries, or should we not have considered him?
Would to do with Cocky now?

 

[David the Cat]

I had no argument with the club keeping Menzel...its not unusual for clubs to stick by injured players (e.g. Morabito) who are top drawer prospects..

McCarthy is a puzzler for me...obvious top talent but we couldn't keep him on the park....then goes to Brisbane...

Some disasters there no doubt, but I suspect other clubs have similar tales of woe....