So Grand Final or Scott's a dud.
Very insightful.
Point out where I used the word dud will you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So Grand Final or Scott's a dud.
Very insightful.
Certainly...Point out where I used the word dud will you.
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.
You are correct.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.
Perhaps someone will need to explain to me the differences between 2019 and 2013,
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.
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.Paul Chapman had a hamstring for much of the season, and struggled (plus the fact that he was looking to leave)
I don't wish to appear needlessly critical.
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.
Why does this thread, in particular, always end up in an endless loop of "the same old s#$%"?
2013 was 6 years ago people.
It's where he deserved to be.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.
Yeah, he was clearly finished at that point. Proved it in the next game too.It's where he deserved to be.
Paaaast history
And the next one too..Yeah, he was clearly finished at that point. Proved it in the next game too.
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.
Apparently, when we reply, it forms part of their therapy, particularly when these afflictions fall out of remission into recurrences.Why does this thread, in particular, always end up in an endless loop of "the same old s#$%"?
2013 was 6 years ago people.
I don't think that's tottally fair Max. Bit harsh.So Grand Final or Scott's a dud.
Very insightful.
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 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.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.
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.