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

[BlightysCats]

can you honestly imagine a season preview show where a panelist asked who was realistically challenging for a flag and the answer came back 'well, we wont know until GF week'. that person wouldsound like a jackass.

No, he'd sound completely reasonable.

 

[BlightysCats]

0.

Right, so reason/logic dictates that no team realistically challenges for the flag unless they make the Grand Final.

 

[catempire]

barmy44

Really admirable attempt.

 

[barmy44]

Right, so reason/logic dictates that no team realistically challenges for the flag unless they make the Grand Final.

yeah, on one view.

on another, essendon were absolutely realistic challengers for the '99 premiership. not by GF week, though.

anyway, im losing interest in these particular senantics fast.

you can chalk up a win here if you like, im out. i both agree and disagree with you.

 

[BlightysCats]

yeah, on one view.

on another, essendon were absolutely realistic challengers for the '99 premiership. not by GF week, though.

anyway, im losing interest in these particular senantics fast.

you can chalk up a win here if you like, im out. i both agree and disagree with you.

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.

 

[barmy44]

This isn't my opinion, or some barrow I'm pushing, it's indisputable fact! A fact is not about agreement or disagreement.

blightys, mate... its march. GWS, dogs, sydney, hawthorn, eagles, crows... all realistically challenging for this years flag. by GF week, some or all no longer will be.

 

[dazbroncos]

No, he'd sound completely reasonable.

If ever there was an argument for the sake of the argument only.....
This has SFA to do wth GFC, CS or anything GFC related.

its 100% about a pissing match.

Go Catters

 

[00VicWard001]

With what forward line though?
You saw first hand what happens in the finals if you only have one quality forward and it barely got us past a team who were missing their own key forward.

Teams like the Bulldogs, Eagles and Crows have upwards of three key forwards, we have Tom Hawkins.
It is a makeshift forward-line of part timers. Guys like Stanley, Black, Taylor, Blicavs, Henderson, but they have little to no upside.
Western Bulldogs' Redpath/Cloke/Stringer/Boyd & Adelaide's Jenkins/Walker/McGovern/Lynch are superior to what we currently have setup.

You also need to factor in the improvement to both West Coast & Western Bulldogs this year.
At the end of the H&A season, they had a lot of injury concerns (Naitanui, Lycett, MacKenzie, Jetta) & (Wallis, Murphy, Redpath, Adams).
They improve out of sight while Geelong stagnate as our list has not improved at all from last year.

Yes, you're right about not bringing in a new forward to assist Hawk.

But the argument could be made that it's about being more efficient and tweaking a few things to get that improvement. Overall we were very good, while being inconsistent, last year.

I think back to the Hawks, after 2014, they didn't really get too much new personnel (Frawley maybe - but he was injured and surplus to their needs) to impact their gameplan. They just kept improving what they were doing. Likewise the Cats from 2006 to 2007.

More than new personnel, I think its about consistency and getting to play more and more games together.

 

[00VicWard001]

I

I'm not being black and white, reality is black and white, you do not realistically challenge for a flag unless you make the Grand Final. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking nonsense. Again I'll ask how many teams have won a Premiership without playing in the grand final in the last 100 years?

I wonder how many teams have won a Premiership without playing in the finals in the last 100 years.

 

[Partridge]

I wonder how many teams have won a Premiership without playing in the finals in the last 100 years.

Fitzroy in 1916. They won it while finishing last!

 

[winty]

Fitzroy in 1916. They won it while finishing last!

They also finished top 4 too.

 

[barmy44]

Fitzroy in 1916. They won it while finishing last!

not 'in the last 100 years', though!

 

[00VicWard001]

not 'in the last 100 years', though!

Nice one, just outside my terms of reference.

 

[Spazz Cat]

That's purely subjective. I didn't think there was anything one-sided about the umpiring on Grand Final day at all. They sensibly let things go unless they were obvious and the game was better for it (as it always is).

I agree. If you want to see umpire assisted finals watch the 2013 GF or the 2014 prelim.
Dogs deserved it more than the Hawks both those years.
4 finals (2 interstate), only played on the G twice during the season.
Had the Worst injury run to best 22 players out of all 18 teams.
But apparently their "lucky" now.
We must have been Powerball 1st division lucky then with our injuries and final venues.

 

[Spazz Cat]

in hindsight, yes.

I'm so sick of this hindsight thing everyone keeps bringing up.
We played Sydney after we had a week off in rnd 16. The result very similar to the Prelim. They even got a jump on us like the prelim.
Only really different thing we did was play an injured forward for a while.
We had the excuse of hindsight and an excellent chance to learn from the 1st game. Can't use hindsight for the second.

 

[barmy44]

I'm so sick of this hindsight thing everyone keeps bringing up.
We played Sydney after we had a week off in rnd 16. The result very similar to the Prelim. They even got a jump on us like the prelim.
Only really different thing we did was play an injured forward for a while.
We had the excuse of hindsight and an excellent chance to learn from the 1st game. Can't use hindsight for the second.

yeah man, i actually agree with you.

my 'hindsight' comment was more in terms of labeling a team 'pretenders' after the fact not always being an entirely fair assessment - eg, port '07: beat us at home a few weeks previous, dismantled north in the PF, fairly well tipped to win on GF day, happened to run into 'the perfect storm'. they werent the no-hopers they are now made out to be, but 'looking back' they have the reputation as worst GFists in living memory.

worst GF performance, yes probably... worst GFists, not necessarily.

i guess i was trying to say that one inept performance does not necessarily make a team 'pretenders', but viewing results only 'in hindsight' could give that impression.

edit: i probably should have said 'looking back, yes' as opposed to 'in hindsight, yes'.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

yeah man, i actually agree with you.

my 'hindsight' comment was more in terms of labeling a team 'pretenders' after the fact not always being an entirely fair assessment - eg, port '07: beat us at home a few weeks previous, dismantled north in the PF, fairly well tipped to win on GF day, happened to run into 'the perfect storm'. they werent the no-hopers they are now made out to be, but 'looking back' they have the reputation as worst GFists in living memory.

worst GF performance, yes probably... worst GFists, not necessarily.

i guess i was trying to say that one inept performance does not necessarily make a team 'pretenders', but viewing results only 'in hindsight' could give that impression.

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.

 

[barmy44]

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.

dude, i wasnt even talking about geelong.

 

[Spazz Cat]

yeah man, i actually agree with you.

my 'hindsight' comment was more in terms of labeling a team 'pretenders' after the fact not always being an entirely fair assessment - eg, port '07: beat us at home a few weeks previous, dismantled north in the PF, fairly well tipped to win on GF day, happened to run into 'the perfect storm'. they werent the no-hopers they are now made out to be, but 'looking back' they have the reputation as worst GFists in living memory.

worst GF performance, yes probably... worst GFists, not necessarily.

i guess i was trying to say that one inept performance does not necessarily make a team 'pretenders', but viewing results only 'in hindsight' could give that impression.

edit: i probably should have said 'looking back, yes' as opposed to 'in hindsight, yes'.

Yeah fair enough.
Your right about Port. It will always be forgotten what a great job Port did to make the GF that year. It was only a 3 year turn around from winning the flag to being back at the top. They had a lot of young players too.
Only will remembered for us totally pumping them in the Granny though.

 

[BlightysCats]

If ever there was an argument for the sake of the argument only.....
This has SFA to do wth GFC, CS or anything GFC related.

its 100% about a pissing match.

Go Catters

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

 

[Vdubs]

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.

ANY win against HAWTHORN in ANY FINAL by GEELONG is massive.

 

[Vdubs]

yeah man, i actually agree with you.

my 'hindsight' comment was more in terms of labeling a team 'pretenders' after the fact not always being an entirely fair assessment - eg, port '07: beat us at home a few weeks previous, dismantled north in the PF, fairly well tipped to win on GF day, happened to run into 'the perfect storm'. they werent the no-hopers they are now made out to be, but 'looking back' they have the reputation as worst GFists in living memory.

worst GF performance, yes probably... worst GFists, not necessarily.

i guess i was trying to say that one inept performance does not necessarily make a team 'pretenders', but viewing results only 'in hindsight' could give that impression.

edit: i probably should have said 'looking back, yes' as opposed to 'in hindsight, yes'.

Great post and spot on about Port.
Even leading into that GF, opposition players not involved in the GF, were all over Port- too fast, in form , beat us at home.. as you said, one shocker is what they are remembered for.

 

[evolutionbaby]

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.

 

[David the Cat]

Right, so reason/logic dictates that no team realistically challenges for the flag unless they make the Grand Final.

No...the teams that make the top 8 are challengers....those below are not.

They may be, ultimately, failed challengers but they are challengers all the same. The H&A season is to separate the challengers from the non challengers.

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

Its a pretty simple concept really.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

No...the teams that make the top 8 are challengers....those below are not.

They may be failed challengers but they are challengers all the same. The H&A season is to separate the challengers from the non challengers.

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

Its a pretty simple concept really.

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