On the whole, I like Chris Scott. I think he was a good appointment, and for a long while have thought (and possibly still think?) he's the right person for the job. So I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the doubts that have slid their way in like rising damp over the past 2 years.
I find it hard to understand that the major weaknesses in our game two years ago, are all but the same now. I've no doubt Scott is more acutely aware of them than anyone here, but the fact that he's been unable to rectify them, does not reflect well on him. He's either incapable of planning his way out if it, or incapable of motivating and communicating his plans to the players.
The thing I find most perplexing is his aversion to using 'lack of effort' as an explanation for losses. It's just odd. There's not that many explanations, and none of them are particularly complimentary.
If he genuinely believes it's never effort, and it really is the 'easy response when you don't know the real answer', then that puts him at odds with every other coach in the league, who seeming all mention 'effort' at some time or another. Does he think he knows something the other coaches don't?
Is it an attempt to shield the players from criticism? I could understand the instinct, but why continue with this protection when they don't respond to it; particularly when some players might be deserving of an external rocket. Indeed it might be good for them.
I'm not sure he realises how frustrating it is for the average fan when he refuses to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
Can he not see that taking effort off the table as an explanation, only leaves his ability to strategise/coach/motivate? Personnel is no longer the issue, and you can only push the 'waiting for the team to gel' barrow so far.
I'm not writing him off. I think he's clearly a smart, articulate guy. But as each year passes. my concern grows.