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

[Partridge]

Blitz has a terrible field kick. Why you’d want that up the ground astounds me.

Limit the damage. He's a decent long kick. Tell him to kick long 100% of the time.

 

[Partridge]

The decision to not play Stanley because of the weather forecast will resonate with me for a long time....

What were they thinking...?

It can't be defended rationally. And the reason it's such a poor excuse is this - when was the last time Grundy got dropped due to the weather? Or Gawn? Or Goldstein? I'm going with never. Rain if anything makes a good ruckman more important.

 

[cats_09]

True. But he should not have been anywhere near that end of the ground, because he'd played the entire season as a full back.

As was already asked - who decided to move him from there?

Pretty sure this has been discussed ad nauseam, but it would appear the MC made the decision to shift Blicavs from defence to firstly the ruck due to a seemingly lack of trust in Stanley (or any of our rucks). Then he was shifted to the wing after injuries to both Clark & Duncan, while Selwood moved from the wing to his more accustomed role in the middle of the contest

Alternatively it was Danger who made the decision because aside from player, he also holds roles as team selector & list manager

 

[Seeds]

Limit the damage. He's a decent long kick. Tell him to kick long 100% of the time.

And to do it as soon as he gets the pill. Its not just his field kicking that is the problem. It is that he is very slow to move the ball on allowing defenders to flood back.

Blitz is where fast attacking plays go to die. It is diabolical having him on the wing.

Scott did it two finals in a row out of spite this year because his grand plan of putting him in the ruck in week one was ridiculed by everyone. He didnt want to admit he was wrong so he acted like a child and put him on the wing. Cost ourselves a grand final.

 

[winty]

Blitz is where fast attacking plays go to die. It is diabolical having him on the wing.

A bit like Lingy circa 2006.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

And to do it as soon as he gets the pill. Its not just his field kicking that is the problem. It is that he is very slow to move the ball on allowing defenders to flood back.

Blitz is where fast attacking plays go to die. It is diabolical having him on the wing.

Scott did it two finals in a row out of spite this year because his grand plan of putting him in the ruck in week one was ridiculed by everyone. He didnt want to admit he was wrong so he acted like a child and put him on the wing. Cost ourselves a grand final.

Spot on - an astute observation - Blics is no David Dench

Blics gets the ball in defence from a mark or free kick - honestly he goes back and takes nearly as long as Ben Brown to kick the ball - then when he finally kicks it - sometimes it goes higher than longer

Theres no bullet like kicks from him

 

[Cattery]

I think it's a bit of all three.

The way the list has been put together, there are a lot of players from other clubs. And others developed from local leagues and/or mature agers. Just about all have known flaws. We can get away with this in home and away a lot of the time. But it tends to get exposed under the September furnace.

The system is similar. It works pretty well during home and away. It works even better at Geelong in particular. Squeeze the opposition and outscore them. Unfortunately finals are played on a wider ground, there's more space, and two things hurts us - lack of accountability in our midfield, and lack of pace.

And the last one is coaching itself. Dropping Stanley was insane. That can't be excused. Playing Blicavs in the ruck and on the wing after playing all year in defence was equally stupid. You really wonder whether Scott makes these decisions thinking he's going to get pats on the back from assistant like giggling schoolgirls. How about stick with what works.

Getting a bit radical making a suggestion like that.

Have to agree, those decisions you mention (Stanley and Blicavs) were the straw that broke the camels back for me with Scott, any chance we had of making the GF went out the window, or at the very least became much harder.

 

[someday-somehow]

Why would i discuss ken hinkleys coaching? Others bring up ken hinkley here not me. If you want to go and ask the AFL coaches why hinkley was voted hard to coach against go ask them. Scotts vote is self evident by his phenomenal record. We are discussing scott not hinkley.

Typical anti scott stuff. I produce a list of accredited people who rate his coaching and according to you they are all insignificant because they dont suit yours and others agenda. The list includes.

Steve johnson saying we won 2011 because of scott- apparently not credible.
AFL coaches- apparently not credible people to rate other coaches, big footy fans know better.
Colin carter and brian cook heap praise on him- dont know what they sre talking about either.
Alistair clarkson has said he wants to emulate what scott has done at geelong- apparently doesnt know anythibg either since we have been a s**t failure according to you and others more knowledgeable on bf.
His amazing coaching record. Apparently anyone could have done that also.

Continue to live in whatever land suits your ideas. I will live in the land of reality and facts backed by expert opinions and results of sustained success

And no he didnt inherit a premiership group, he inherited one that got embarrassed in the 2010 prelim and then lost the conpetitions best player to severely weaken it. That tean wasnt close to a flag in 2010. As steve johnson said it was all because of scott

Your the one that keeps quoting that Poll as evidence to your claims, I was just bringing into question the validity of the poll and wow....what a melt!.

Still didn't answer the question:

Do you think Chris Scott is fallible?

 

[someday-somehow]

The team had a chance to prove themselves in September but s**t the bed in front of goals in both the qualifying & preliminary finals - convert our chances & it may have been a very different September

sorry but I reckon the tiges shanked as many as we did in the prelim. We never looked like winning that after 1/2 time

 

[dazbroncos]

Limit the damage. He's a decent long kick. Tell him to kick long 100% of the time.

especially in front of goal.

GO Catters

 

[Partridge]

sorry but I reckon the tiges shanked as many as we did in the prelim. We never looked like winning that after 1/2 time

Especially in the last quarter. They missed some sitters towards the end.

 

[Danger2Jenkins]

Over the last 8 years I've seen more than enough. Give the role to someone the players can love like Boris or even Lingy

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I've had a sour disposition over it since Ottens retired. And yes, I saw the quote even before you posted it but just because it is slim pickings this year doesn't absolve them of their role in mismanaging the position for the last 8-years. The comments in this thread are about Scott's entire tenure.

That’d be ok if our ruck problem was the fault of the coach, but imo he’s merely a secondary factor at best.

1) the series of ruck missteps at the draft. CE has been over this ad nauseam but the problem traces back to McIntosh, and by extension Stephenson and Ottens.

Ottens retires after trade period 2011. Cats panic and draft Stephenson. Not good enough they see off season 2012 to redress the matter. Not believing Grundy would get to them trade for Hmac. Grundy slides, having already spent capital to acquire a ruck they overlook him. Have spent the next 7 years drafting, trading in and free agent acquiring ruckman of varying ability to fix the problem. Best we’ve found is Stanley who is middle of the road in the comp. not in the elite category however, is in the same ballpark as recent premiership ruckman.

2) The club does not and has not fully funded a specialist full time ruck coach. Often a part time role and at times no one in the role at all, remember one year I think Nigel Lappin had to act as ruck coach.... WTF

 

[Seeds]

That’d be ok if our ruck problem was the fault of the coach, but imo he’s merely a secondary factor at best.

1) the series of ruck missteps at the draft. CE has been over this ad nauseam but the problem traces back to McIntosh, and by extension Stephenson and Ottens.

Ottens retires after trade period 2011. Cats panic and draft Stephenson. Not good enough they see off season 2012 to redress the matter. Not believing Grundy would get to them trade for Hmac. Grundy slides, having already spent capital to acquire a ruck they overlook him. Have spent the next 7 years drafting, trading in and free agent acquiring ruckman of varying ability to fix the problem. Best we’ve found is Stanley who is middle of the road in the comp. not in the elite category however, is in the same ballpark as recent premiership ruckman.

2) The club does not and has not fully funded a specialist full time ruck coach. Often a part time role and at times no one in the role at all, remember one year I think Nigel Lappin had to act as ruck coach.... WTF

Stephensen was a solid player. Scott just didnt want to play him. Like with west who wasnt great but was servicable. Simpson was looking like making it before injury struck. Unlucky. Scott did take his sweet time to play him though. Mcintosh was too injury prone by the time he got here.

 

[AM]

Limit the damage. He's a decent long kick. Tell him to kick long 100% of the time.

Opposition coaches say thanks.

 

[Spearman]

A bit like Lingy circa 2006.

They put Ling on the wing
must have been such a sight, Lingy loping magnificently like a thoroughbred, threatening defenses with his dash

 

[barmy44]

Limit the damage. He's a decent long kick. Tell him to kick long 100% of the time.

but its all kind of just irrelevancies at this stage, criticising blicavs being forward because he missed a goal... too many unknowns.

blicavs had a shot on goal because, im sure i remember correctly, he laid a brilliant tackle on a richmond player running it out of defence. if blicavs wasnt forward, maybe thats a goal. therefore blicavs being forward is a net positive of 7 points to geelong. he possibly saved a goal, and scored a point. sure another player, or blicavs himself if he had a second shot, might have slotted it.

but it simply isnt the case that if blicavs wasnt forward, another player who is a better set shot nails the goal.

there wouldnt have been a shot to worry about missing badly in that play without him up there... and indeed the ball may have gone back over his head in defence for a goal in that same play, anyway.

criticising decisions in a loss is a means to an end. you can always, every loss, point to decisions and say 'if that wasnt made or made differently, the game may have been won'.

not necessarily defending anything or anyone, it was an awful set shot from a player who definitely plays his best football in defence, and chris scott obviously has his weaknesses for sure... but arguing things, espcially sport, by the ultimate outcome alone - we lost, so decisions x, y and z were the reason - is really rather futile.

 

[Seeds]

but its all kind of just irrelevancies at this stage, criticising blicavs being forward because he missed a goal... too many unknowns.

blicavs had a shot on goal because, im sure i remember correctly, he laid a brilliant tackle on a richmond player running it out of defence. if blicavs wasnt forward, maybe thats a goal. therefore blicavs being forward is a net positive of 7 points to geelong. he possibly saved a goal, and scored a point. sure another player, or blicavs himself if he had a second shot, might have slotted it.

but it simply isnt the case that if blicavs wasnt forward, another player who is a better set shot nails the goal.

there wouldnt have been a shot to worry about missing badly in that play without him up there... and indeed the ball may have gone back over his head in defence for a goal in that same play, anyway.

criticising decisions in a loss is a means to an end. you can always, every loss, point to decisions and say 'if that wasnt made or made differently, the game may have been won'.

not necessarily defending anything or anyone, it was an awful set shot from a player who definitely plays his best football in defence, and chris scott obviously has his weaknesses for sure... but arguing things, espcially sport, by the ultimate outcome alone - we lost, so decisions x, y and z were the reason - is really rather futile.

Blicavs had a whopping 10 touches playing as a midfielder all game. If another player had been there instead then he would of had more and contributed to goals as well. Plus you would like to think blicavs would of stopped 1or 2 of lynchs goals if he is this great full back we all say he is.

 

[barmy44]

Blicavs had a whopping 10 touches playing as a midfielder all game. If another player had been there instead then he would of had more and contributed to goals as well. Plus you would like to think blicavs would of stopped 1or 2 of lynchs goals if he is this great full back we all say he is.

not really that relevant to my post, i was talking about a single passage, not the entire game. but i also dont really disagree - youve kind of somewhat re-written the first sentence of my last paragraph.

 

[Vdubs]

but its all kind of just irrelevancies at this stage, criticising blicavs being forward because he missed a goal... too many unknowns.

blicavs had a shot on goal because, im sure i remember correctly, he laid a brilliant tackle on a richmond player running it out of defence. if blicavs wasnt forward, maybe thats a goal. therefore blicavs being forward is a net positive of 7 points to geelong. he possibly saved a goal, and scored a point. sure another player, or blicavs himself if he had a second shot, might have slotted it.

but it simply isnt the case that if blicavs wasnt forward, another player who is a better set shot nails the goal.

there wouldnt have been a shot to worry about missing badly in that play without him up there... and indeed the ball may have gone back over his head in defence for a goal in that same play, anyway.

criticising decisions in a loss is a means to an end. you can always, every loss, point to decisions and say 'if that wasnt made or made differently, the game may have been won'.

not necessarily defending anything or anyone, it was an awful set shot from a player who definitely plays his best football in defence, and chris scott obviously has his weaknesses for sure... but arguing things, espcially sport, by the ultimate outcome alone - we lost, so decisions x, y and z were the reason - is really rather futile.

You would make a compelling closing speech.

 

[Vdubs]

Spot on - an astute observation - Blics is no David Dench

Blics gets the ball in defence from a mark or free kick - honestly he goes back and takes nearly as long as Ben Brown to kick the ball - then when he finally kicks it - sometimes it goes higher than longer

Theres no bullet like kicks from him

There's plenty of great stuff we get from Blics. It seems futile comparing him to who he isn't. Let's celebrate what we actually do get from him, which is 100% effort every week, anywhere CS/MC see the need. And most teams would jump at the chance to pick up such a player.

 

[Seeds]

There's plenty of great stuff we get from Blics. It seems futile comparing him to who he isn't. Let's celebrate what we actually do get from him, which is 100% effort every week, anywhere CS/MC see the need. And most teams would jump at the chance to pick up such a player.

Which players dont give 100 percent effort every week?

Its weird that the main thing you use to argue that blicavs is a good player is something thats just expected of every footballer.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Which players dont give 100 percent effort every week?

Its weird that the main thing you use to argue that blicavs is a good player is something thats just expected of every footballer.

Chris Scott said there's no such thing as effort cause every player gives 100% every single week.
Said it many times.
Also there's no such thing as confidence.
He has actually said that.
He is coaching an elite professional sports team.

 

[Partridge]

Which players dont give 100 percent effort every week?

Its weird that the main thing you use to argue that blicavs is a good player is something thats just expected of every footballer.

Precisely. There's a reason we don't have a statue of Tim Hargreaves out the front of Kardinia Park. He gave 100% every week too.

Every amazing quality turns out to be rather vague when you ask what exactly it is. Or even better, it's just reverted back to "well the coach / match committee seem to think so". Compelling arguments.

 

[Max Milburn]

Precisely. There's a reason we don't have a statue of Tim Hargreaves out the front of Kardinia Park. He gave 100% every week too.

Every amazing quality turns out to be rather vague when you ask what exactly it is. Or even better, it's just reverted back to "well the coach / match committee seem to think so". Compelling arguments.

Are you sure?
I could have sworn I saw it the other week.
Right next to the statue of our Premiership Winning Recruiter.