Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - Part II [NEW POLL ADDED]

[BlightysCats]

The teams that make the GF are the last two challengers.

The teams that make the Grand Final are the only 2 that have any chance of winning the flag in any given year hence they're the only realistic challengers for the flag, we didn't challenge for the flag last year we challenged for the right to challenge for the flag.

 

[David the Cat]

You thought that North Melbourne were challengers last year, did you?

Serious challengers?...No I didn't....didn't think the Bullies were either .

The point is they were in a position to challenge...

 

[David the Cat]

The teams that make the Grand Final are the only 2 that have any chance of winning the flag in any given year hence they're the only realistic challengers for the flag, we didn't challenge for the flag last year we challenged for the right to challenge for the flag.

Correct...because the other challengers, some of whom may have been realistic challengers ( e.g. GWS ) have been eliminated and are therefore no longer challengers.

Hahahahhahahaa...this is fun....

 

[catempire]

See how at the start of the year the TAB frames a Premiership market and there are 18 teams in it. At one end there's GWS paying $4.50 and at the other there's Brisbane paying $251. One is recognised as far more likely Premiership contender than the other. But while both remain mathematical chances to win the flag they are literally contenders for the Premiership.

What is the concept of a 'realistic' contender?

At this stage of the year there eight teams under $20 for the Premiership. The eighth most likely is Fremantle paying the same as the Western Bulldogs were paying prior to the 2016 season ($17).

There are contenders all throughout the season until they were eliminated from contention. Some are more realistic than others as you can see from the betting markets but it's not a binary thing.

In Grand Final week there were two contenders remaining but that was self-evidently not always the case - in Prelim final week there were four realistic contenders for the flag. In Semi final week there were six, and so on.

To look back at the end of the season and say only the Grand Finalists were realistic contenders for the flag makes no more sense than to say the Premiers was the only realistic contender for the flag.

 

[dazbroncos]

Ego is about a pissing match, ego is irrelevant to facts.

Then take all of it elsewhere. Fact is it has nothing to do with CS or GFC so it sure as * dont need to be here. The social commentary board is over there------>

Main board is THAT way.

Argument for argument sake.

Adds nothing.

GO Catters

 

[Mr Meow]

See how at the start of the year the TAB frames a Premiership market and there are 18 teams in it. At one end there's GWS paying $4.50 and at the other there's Brisbane paying $251. One is recognised as far more likely Premiership contender than the other. But while both remain mathematical chances to win the flag they are literally contenders for the Premiership.

What is the concept of a 'realistic' contender?

At this stage of the year there eight teams under $20 for the Premiership. The eighth most likely is Fremantle paying the same as the Western Bulldogs were paying prior to the 2016 season ($17).

There are contenders all throughout the season until they were eliminated from contention. Some are more realistic than others as you can see from the betting markets but it's not a binary thing.

In Grand Final week there were two contenders remaining but that was self-evidently not always the case - in Prelim final week there were four realistic contenders for the flag. In Semi final week there were six, and so on.

To look back at the end of the season and say only the Grand Finalists were realistic contenders for the flag makes no more sense than to say the Premiers was the only realistic contender for the flag.

Correct. Then in the premier league there was Leicester beginning the 2015/2016 season at $5000 to become champions of England.

It's absolutely improbable that Geelong wins the flag this year. But laughable to declare it an impossibility at this stage. With the new finals format (bye) and Bulldogs success last year, 5th-8th placed teams will be considered "contenders" more so than any time since 2000.

 

[barmy44]

See how at the start of the year the TAB frames a Premiership market and there are 18 teams in it. At one end there's GWS paying $4.50 and at the other there's Brisbane paying $251. One is recognised as far more likely Premiership contender than the other. But while both remain mathematical chances to win the flag they are literally contenders for the Premiership.

What is the concept of a 'realistic' contender?

At this stage of the year there eight teams under $20 for the Premiership. The eighth most likely is Fremantle paying the same as the Western Bulldogs were paying prior to the 2016 season ($17).

There are contenders all throughout the season until they were eliminated from contention. Some are more realistic than others as you can see from the betting markets but it's not a binary thing.

In Grand Final week there were two contenders remaining but that was self-evidently not always the case - in Prelim final week there were four realistic contenders for the flag. In Semi final week there were six, and so on.

To look back at the end of the season and say only the Grand Finalists were realistic contenders for the flag makes no more sense than to say the Premiers was the only realistic contender for the flag.

this continued back and forth is exactly what blightys wants... but it really is a pointless semantics argument, and both views are technically correct.

blightys is arguing for a hyper literal reading of the words 'realistic challengers for a flag' more akin to 'in reality, who ultimately challenged for the 2016 flag?' but even that more narrow wording is open to interpretation: technically, all 18 teams challenged for the flag in 2016, but it is probably getting at who played off in the decider.

if anyone was discussing the '99 season and the topic came up of 'who were the realistic challengers that season?' to simply say 'blues and kangaroos, end of discussion' would be, correct on one interpretation of the question, but obviously not int the true spirit of it. essendon were a realistic challenger that year, obviously (not hard to picture an alternate reality where they won it), and probably more so that carlton, but they had one bad game at the right time.

'realistic challenger for the flag' would probably include those who without bending the bounds of 'what is realistic' could have won the flag. GWS in 2016, for example. essendon '99. i mean, collingwood were one huge final quarter away from 'not being realistic challengers for the '11' flag, apparently.

if being a 'realistic challenger for the flag' was scotts termination clause in his contract, despite probably being void for uncertainty (what does it mean? depends how narrowly you construe it), i doubt a 6 goal PF loss would be the triggering event.

blightys is furthering argument for the sake of it, he knows that particular phrase isnt so narrowly construed, but he has locked himself into saying the 'reasonable answer to who is a realistic challenger for the '17 flag' is 'wait until GF week', despite giving his own list of more than 2 teams earlier in the thread before he settled on this bizarrely narrow interpretation:

No, that's your definition of competing for a flag, and might I say it's a stupid one as until last season with the current finals system no team outside the 4 had won a flag, and to further that in most seasons only two or three teams have a realistic shot at it, and I'm completely comfortable Geelong will not be in that position this season or for the next 5. The teams that have a realistic shot at the flag this season are GWS, Bulldogs, and Sydney - all others are making up the numbers.

in any event, his incredibly narrow interpretation can be used as a positive: chris scott maintains a 100% winning record in years where geelong are 'realistic challengers'?

and im sorry to all who have to read this somewhat petty sideshow. i always try and maintain a self-imposed will not to get caught up in these things, but hey - its been a while!

 

[catempire]

this continued back and forth is exactly what blightys wants... but it really is a pointless semantics argument, and both views are technically correct.

blightys is arguing for a hyper literal reading of the words 'realistic challengers for a flag' more akin to 'in reality, who ultimately challenged for the 2016 flag?' but even that more narrow wording is open to interpretation: technically, all 18 teams challenged for the flag in 2016, but it is probably getting at who played off in the decider.

if anyone was discussing the '99 season and the topic came up of 'who were the realistic challengers that season?' to simply say 'blues and kangaroos, end of discussion' would be, correct on one interpretation of the question, but obviously not int the true spirit of it. essendon were a realistic challenger that year, obviously (not hard to picture an alternate reality where they won it), and probably more so that carlton, but they had one bad game at the right time.

'realistic challenger for the flag' would probably include those who without bending the bounds of 'what is realistic' could have won the flag. GWS in 2016, for example. essendon '99. i mean, collingwood were one huge final quarter away from 'not being realistic challengers for the '11' flag, apparently.

if being a 'realistic challenger for the flag' was scotts termination clause in his contract, despite probably being void for uncertainty (what does it mean? depends how narrowly you construe it), i doubt a 6 goal PF loss would be the triggering event.

blightys is furthering argument for the sake of it, he knows that particular phrase isnt so narrowly construed, but he has locked himself into saying the 'reasonable answer to who is a realistic challenger for the '17 flag' is 'wait until GF week', despite giving his own list of more than 2 teams earlier in the thread before he settled on this bizarrely narrow interpretation:



in any event, his incredibly narrow interpretation can be used as a positive: chris scott maintains a 100% winning record in years where geelong are 'realistic challengers'?

and im sorry to all who have to read this somewhat petty sideshow. i always try and maintain a self-imposed will not to get caught up in these things, but hey - its been a while!

Blightys interpretation is only correct after the Prelim finals are over. Everything before then he is manifestly wrong.

 

[barmy44]

Blightys interpretation is only correct after the Prelim finals are over. Everything before then he is manifestly wrong.

even after the fact, the hyper-literal view is a far too blunt instrument. can you seriously discuss the '99 season challengers without essendon?

someone suggested scott had us 'realistically challenging' during his career, and blightys doubled down in response.

in any event, its pointless wordplay but id say scott has only had us as a really serious threat in '13, and we were spluttering by finals unfortunately - that we were so close to the GF surprised the hell out of me.

'16 i thought we never looked very likely. punvh something, maybe... but some of our losses were not the losses of a realistic challenger.

 

[dazbroncos]

take the oxygen away and the annoying flame that burns you will disappear.

Go Catters

 

[BlightysCats]

some of whom may have been realistic challengers

But ultimately weren't realistic challengers.

 

[BlightysCats]

this continued back and forth is exactly what blightys wants

It's not actually, I'd prefer it if you all just accepted the indisputable fact that nobody realistically challenged for a flag in any given year unless they made the Grand Final.

 

[barmy44]

It's not actually, I'd prefer it if you all just accepted the indisputable fact that nobody realistically challenged for a flag in any given year unless they made the Grand Final.

amen.

 

[catempire]

It's not actually, I'd prefer it if you all just accepted the indisputable fact that nobody realistically challenged for a flag in any given year unless they made the Grand Final.

Preference denied.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

It seems like every 3 to 5 pages this thread devolves into arguing semantics.

I look forward to this "realistic challenger" debate. I expect the word "fact" will get used numerous times, these uses will be almost exclusively incorrect.

 

[Ricketz]

Very hard to crackdown on what you can't see (or judge). The umpires tend to be judged (by umpire coaches) if they've guessed as opposed to missing a free kick.

The pace and congestion makes it very hard to make a call unless they're front on to the player. They do give a bit of license in terms of deciding if the fist made clean contact with the ball off the palm, however I think now the only time they really call a throw is if the ball has clearly left the palm before fist makes contact.

Re the doggies exploiting the rule. I don't believe they set out to do so. I think it probably evolved as the year progressed and they figured if they weren't being called for it then it was within the rules.

There are three umpires on the field. I don't buy that they didn't see them, unless turning a blind eye is what you meant. Throws were prolific last year, as were incorrect disposal in tackles - even with only one umpire on the field you would need to have your eyes checked if you missed them.

 

[Vdubs]

Scott gets us into the finals again based on the aquisition of Tuohy, the return of Thurlow, some natural improvement of younger players (especially Cockatoo) and maybe a wildcard or two (Black?, Parfitt?). We'll win all our home games and win enough away. So it will come down to what we do in finals. Think he must win a final at least this year.

As in 2016

 

[Vdubs]

You thought that North Melbourne were challengers last year, did you?

Can I also take the liberty of replying here?
Until their last 10 weeks, yes.
After that, they just hung onto 8th spot.Other than NM though, it was the most even set of challengers we have seen for many years.
WCE had claims UNTIL Dogs chewed them up.
Ade had claims until WCE embarrassed them.
Hawks always have claims, but their loss to WCE was indicative. Still good enough to challenge us to the last second.
We were flag faves after Swans were beaten by GWS.
GWS were awesome until Dogs controlled them.
Swans were basically the best performed H & A team on %.
Then the Doggies- say no more.

 

[Ricketz]

But ultimately weren't realistic challengers.

It is just a dumb argument - made dumber by the fact that you have still picked an arbitrary goal post that undermines your essential argument by suggesting there could be two. But "ultimately", there was only one challenger who successfully challenged in the end. Therefore, "ultimately" the only realistic challenger to a grand final is the eventual grand final winner. There, fixed. Still a dumb argument though.

 

[David the Cat]

It is just a dumb argument - made dumber by the fact that you have still picked an arbitrary goal post that undermines your essential argument by suggesting there could be two. But "ultimately", there was only one challenger who successfully challenged in the end. Therefore, "ultimately" the only realistic challenger to a grand final is the eventual grand final winner. There, fixed. Still a dumb argument though.

 

[Frappe]

There are three umpires on the field. I don't buy that they didn't see them, unless turning a blind eye is what you meant. Throws were prolific last year, as were incorrect disposal in tackles - even with only one umpire on the field you would need to have your eyes checked if you missed them.

The game goes too quickly for them to pick the throws, and to have the time to think "I'm letting that one go." They are drilled to be instinctive. Pay the decision and move on.

The incorrect disposal is another matter. Not so much the pace of the game but whether prior opportunity has occurred.

 

[Ray Donovan]

It wasn't one inept performance. It was another in a long string of them. Geelong will always be pretenders until they can start standing up in finals. They didn't show that in 2016 with a lucky scrape over the line against Hawthorn and a thrashing from Sydney.

I haven't been worried about Geelong as a club since about 2004. This is the first year I can remember where I worry the wheels could fall off. I have no idea how to grade our list?

I guessed 7 but as a supporter I'm biased!

In relation to us being a top 4 contender keep in mind we have massive holes all over our list. Lonergan is on his last season probably Henderson just isn't a great key defender the best role he plays is more a sweeper where he gets a 3rd key forward. He struggles defensively one on one against a quality forward. Kolo is probably too small at the moment to play full back.

Tom Stewart doesn't instil me with confidence harry Taylor as good as he is really starting to slow down and playing CHF at his age is realistically asking too much considering the amount of time he has played fwd. Still the most taxing position on the ground today's game is built on forward pressure so two lumbering slow forwards added with a Stanley Smith is well a undesirable mix.
If they go down we are onto Black and T.House enough said.

Stanley, Smith, Blicavs all undersized as ruckman and really I'm no closer to working out which one is the pick than I was last season. Neither can play fwd well C-B grade at best as ruckman. Wouldn't be in the top 12-15 in the league.

Half backs crucial area in modern footy we have Tuohy as a main stay mixed with Ruggles, Mackie, Bews, Thurlow I assume Guthrie and Cowan play off half back a bit as well.

Our midfield depth Scott selwood is the pick if he ever gets fit big if.
Duncan, Guthrie, Cockatoo look the most likely to be able to take the next step.

G.H.S, Menegola, Lang, Cowan, Murdoch I don't know how to grade any of them really none have really played many games or stood out I like lang but the coaching panel doesn't menegola can find the pill can't kick.

Our small mid forward department is o.k Menzel is a talent but his body can't be relied upon to do too much. Motlop, Mcarthy, Parfitt and Corey gregson probably looked the most talented of new comers injury plagued.

Selwood and Hawkins are getting to that 29 age. We have 14 yet to debut.

Its all really about Dangerfield delivering another stellar season one of the most damaging in brownlow history.

I had a good look at the early season draw to rd 11 I had us winning 6 as that would be a very good scenario and worst is about 3-8.

I'm afraid of this season to be honest I have no idea where we are at!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

this continued back and forth is exactly what blightys wants... but it really is a pointless semantics argument, and both views are technically correct.

blightys is arguing for a hyper literal reading of the words 'realistic challengers for a flag' more akin to 'in reality, who ultimately challenged for the 2016 flag?' but even that more narrow wording is open to interpretation: technically, all 18 teams challenged for the flag in 2016, but it is probably getting at who played off in the decider.

if anyone was discussing the '99 season and the topic came up of 'who were the realistic challengers that season?' to simply say 'blues and kangaroos, end of discussion' would be, correct on one interpretation of the question, but obviously not int the true spirit of it. essendon were a realistic challenger that year, obviously (not hard to picture an alternate reality where they won it), and probably more so that carlton, but they had one bad game at the right time.

'realistic challenger for the flag' would probably include those who without bending the bounds of 'what is realistic' could have won the flag. GWS in 2016, for example. essendon '99. i mean, collingwood were one huge final quarter away from 'not being realistic challengers for the '11' flag, apparently.

if being a 'realistic challenger for the flag' was scotts termination clause in his contract, despite probably being void for uncertainty (what does it mean? depends how narrowly you construe it), i doubt a 6 goal PF loss would be the triggering event.

blightys is furthering argument for the sake of it, he knows that particular phrase isnt so narrowly construed, but he has locked himself into saying the 'reasonable answer to who is a realistic challenger for the '17 flag' is 'wait until GF week', despite giving his own list of more than 2 teams earlier in the thread before he settled on this bizarrely narrow interpretation:



in any event, his incredibly narrow interpretation can be used as a positive: chris scott maintains a 100% winning record in years where geelong are 'realistic challengers'?

and im sorry to all who have to read this somewhat petty sideshow. i always try and maintain a self-imposed will not to get caught up in these things, but hey - its been a while!

Try and spot the lawyer here.

 

[Ray Donovan]

This isn't my opinion, or some barrow I'm pushing, it's indisputable fact! Agreement or disagreement is irrelevant when dealing with a fact.

Your technically correct blighty but its just interpretation of the below.

Contention ?
Contending ?

To have the latter you need to former.

But you are correct in a relative timeframe concept.

When looking back on data and information.
You can't be wrong anyway.

Its all just interpretation

 

[Ray Donovan]

See how at the start of the year the TAB frames a Premiership market and there are 18 teams in it. At one end there's GWS paying $4.50 and at the other there's Brisbane paying $251. One is recognised as far more likely Premiership contender than the other. But while both remain mathematical chances to win the flag they are literally contenders for the Premiership.

What is the concept of a 'realistic' contender?

At this stage of the year there eight teams under $20 for the Premiership. The eighth most likely is Fremantle paying the same as the Western Bulldogs were paying prior to the 2016 season ($17).

There are contenders all throughout the season until they were eliminated from contention. Some are more realistic than others as you can see from the betting markets but it's not a binary thing.

In Grand Final week there were two contenders remaining but that was self-evidently not always the case - in Prelim final week there were four realistic contenders for the flag. In Semi final week there were six, and so on.

To look back at the end of the season and say only the Grand Finalists were realistic contenders for the flag makes no more sense than to say the Premiers was the only realistic contender for the flag.

Blighty is right on a technicality its a (no win scenario) the above means nothing from his perspective.

Exactly because of the reason of knockout finals. Everyone is contending but in the end only 2 contenders for the cup.

Lame but factually correct