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

[Ray Donovan]

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.

That interpretation is just asking for trouble

 

[BlightysCats]

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.

Ho do you figure that kiddo? I said if you make a GF you're a challenger nothing else. Also when I said it I was just stating a fact.

 

[BlightysCats]

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

Interpretation too is irrelevant to fact.

 

[BlightysCats]

Preference denied.

Like the fact I predicted the Dogs flag (back in 2013 or after their first final in 2016) was denied by you? You say a clock is right twice a day which means statistically it is wrong the majority of the time yet I predicted a Dogs flag after final one, which meant I still needed three subsequent finals victories after that point for the dogs to win and my prediction to come true, this ultimately means statistically I destroyed your dismal clock argument! and let's just remember you were completely wrong on all those occasions!!! Your predictions are like a broken clock except not even right twice a day aren't they?

One of my great hopes was that I'd be able to go and watch the Bulldogs play in person before I left for Vietnam and it was just so satisfying last night to watch them play a quarter and a half of top draw footy and beat Collingwood. They're so beautiful and exciting to watch and it again confirmed to me how good Geelong could be with Joel Corey as their coach, but alas we sign Scott for 3 years and by the time he's gone so Joel Corey will also be gone coaching someone else instead of Geelong.

 

[BlightysCats]

One is recognised as far more likely Premiership contender than the other.

Wrong! One is more likely than the other to win the premiership, not be a contender. There is no market at all for premiership contention just the premiership winner itself.

 

[catempire]

Wrong! One is more likely than the other to win the premiership, not be a contender. There is no market at all for premiership contention just the premiership winner itself.

You just run with your own meaning for words eh? The dictionary means nothing to you.

Now contender = winner.

 

[Mr Meow]

Like the fact I predicted the Dogs flag (back in 2013 or after their first final in 2016) was denied by you? You say a clock is right twice a day which means statistically it is wrong the majority of the time yet I predicted a Dogs flag after final one, which meant I still needed three subsequent finals victories after that point for the dogs to win and my prediction to come true, this ultimately means statistically I destroyed your dismal clock argument! and let's just remember you were completely wrong on all those occasions!!! Your predictions are like a broken clock except not even right twice a day aren't they?

One of my great hopes was that I'd be able to go and watch the Bulldogs play in person before I left for Vietnam and it was just so satisfying last night to watch them play a quarter and a half of top draw footy and beat Collingwood. They're so beautiful and exciting to watch and it again confirmed to me how good Geelong could be with Joel Corey as their coach, but alas we sign Scott for 3 years and by the time he's gone so Joel Corey will also be gone coaching someone else instead of Geelong.

The most uneasy part of Chris Scott's tenure for me is how he has relentlessly destroyed the psyche of what was once surely a charming and affable fellow.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Interpretation too is irrelevant to fact.

Let the lawyers deal with this one

 

[barmy44]

Let the lawyers deal with this one

oh man, im at it again... (very sorry to all those not involved in this pettiness, and have to deal with it).

lets not, let let the people who are familiar with the english language:

'hey mate, who were the realisitc challengers in the 1993 AFL season?'

'essendon and carlton obviously, but every team who made finals really - there was a game and a half separating the top 6. even geelong could have been a challenger if final round results fell their way, they were probably the form team in the comp at that stage. i mean, the team that won the flag was down by 7 goals at half time in the PF!'

'wrong! only essendon and carlton were!'

'really? how do you figure?'

'because i asked you who made the GF'

'no, you didnt...'

'yeah - thats the only indisputable interpretation of "who was a realisitic challenger of a competition in year x"'

'so why didnt you just ask me "who made the GF?" why did you word that question in such a vague and ambiguous way? i f***ing hate trick questions'

'it wasnt a trick question, its indisputable fact!'

'i... ive got to get new friends'

 

[Ray Donovan]

oh man, im at it again... (very sorry to all those not involved in this pettiness, and have to deal with it).

lets not, let let the people who are familiar with the english language:

'hey mate, who were the realisitc challengers in the 1993 AFL season?'

'essendon and carlton obviously, but every team who made finals really - there was a game and a half separating the top 6. even geelong could have been a challenger if final round results fell their way, they were probably the form team in the comp at that stage. i mean, the team the won the flag was down by 7 goals at half time in the PF!'

'wrong! only essendon and carlton were!'

'really? how do you figure?'

'because i asked you who made the GF'

'no, you didnt...'

'yeah - thats the only indisputable interpretation of "who was a realisitic challenger of a competition in year x"'

'so why didnt you just ask me "who made the GF?" why did you word that question in such a vague and ambiguous way? i f***ing hate trick questions'

'it wasnt a trick question, its indisputable fact!'

'i... ive got to get new friends'

Just quietly I didn't reply to any of your posts or comment on essendon I have no interest in this argument at all.

The quote to blighty was meant as such in terms of let others argue interpretation.

 

[barmy44]

Just quietly I didn't reply to any of your posts or comment on essendon I have no interest in this argument at all.

The quote to blighty was meant as such in terms of let others argue interpretation.

i know, which is why i lead with an apology.

 

[Ray Donovan]

i know, which is why i lead with an apology.

All good man

 

[Ray Donovan]

See Cat empire mis - quoting happens by accident sometimes i noticed you liked it even though it has nothing to do with me

 

[barmy44]

See Cat empire mis - quoting happens by accident sometimes i noticed you liked it even though it has nothing to do with me

my post, you mean? if so, i deliberately quoted you... my post was in response to you sating 'leave it to the lawyers'. happy to leave it here though, i wasnt 'having a go' at you, in any way.

 

[Ray Donovan]

my post, you mean? if so, i deliberately quoted you... my post was in response to you sating 'leave it to the lawyers'. happy to leave it here though, i wasnt 'having a go' at you, in any way.

Why reply directly to me then?

If you want to comment on a separate argument with blighty?

When I have nothing to do with any of your previous posts or engaged you once at all.

None of the above can be related to my one post to blighty. That he replied too

If you want to spray someone don't do it through me when I'm not involved. Feel free to quote my comment through your own quote but I have nothing to do with the essendon and Carlton scenario

" i need to get new friends "
" familiar with English language"

This happened to me the other day I responded to something and my context wasn't correct and I was rightly pulled up.

 

[barmy44]

Why reply directly to me then?

If you want to comment on a separate argument with blighty?

When I have nothing to do with any of your previous posts or engaged you once at all.

None of the above can be related to my one post to blighty. That he replied too

If you want to spray someone don't do it through me when I'm not involved. Feel free to quote my comment through your own quote but I have nothing to do with the essendon and Carlton scenario

" i need to get new friends "
" familiar with English language"

This happened to me the other day I responded to something and my context wasn't correct and I was rightly pulled up.

mate! you inserted yourself into a conversation with 'leave it to the lawyers'... i said, 'lets not', and then took the conversation in another direction that had nothing to do with you personally, but a little something to do with your comment that this stupid word play argument was 'one for the lawyers', instead of one for people who speak english.

those two quotes youve extracted were not directed at or about you.

i didnt 'spray' anyone, i tried to set out the weirdness of this dumb semantics argument with a silly made up conversation for a bit of a laugh.

im truly sorry you took exception to it, but i think youve totally misconstrued this particular side-show, in a thread that is basically a long line of side-shows.

i dont come on here to disrespect or belittle anyone - so, again, i am sorry if it come across in any way like i was doing so to you.

 

[catempire]

Why reply directly to me then?

If you want to comment on a separate argument with blighty?

When I have nothing to do with any of your previous posts or engaged you once at all.

None of the above can be related to my one post to blighty. That he replied too

If you want to spray someone don't do it through me when I'm not involved. Feel free to quote my comment through your own quote but I have nothing to do with the essendon and Carlton scenario

" i need to get new friends "
" familiar with English language"

This happened to me the other day I responded to something and my context wasn't correct and I was rightly pulled up.

You get yourself in this situation more than any poster I've ever seen Ray.

Nobody has it in for you. Try to understand what people are discussing and who they are discussing with before you take offence please. It clogs up too many threads.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Ray, I think everyone knows who that post was taking the piss out of.
Gold, Barmy.

 

[BlightysCats]

Meanwhile Chris Scott the gift that keeps on giving to Geelong, destroying our team on field isn't enough he has to destroy our culture as well.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/03...n-disappointed-geelong-champions-says-mooney/

 

[romeohwho]

Meanwhile Chris Scott the gift that keeps on giving to Geelong, destroying our team on field isn't enough he has to destroy our culture as well.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/03...n-disappointed-geelong-champions-says-mooney/

Scott has been the coach during a period of time when a lot of players have been seen off from the club, several champions included.
How many first hand, direct to the media accounts have actually emerged from these players saying they were not happy with Scott's role/handling please?
Ps hi bc have had a pleasant summer thanks. Hope you did too.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Meanwhile Chris Scott the gift that keeps on giving to Geelong, destroying our team on field isn't enough he has to destroy our culture as well.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/03...n-disappointed-geelong-champions-says-mooney/

SEN is basically this:

Making these two Cam Mooney and Mark Robinson, I guess.

EDIT: it's also inevitable that some players will be unhappy around retirement. Many don't want to go, and there is underlying resentment as a result.

 

[00VicWard001]

Meanwhile Chris Scott the gift that keeps on giving to Geelong, destroying our team on field isn't enough he has to destroy our culture as well.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/03...n-disappointed-geelong-champions-says-mooney/

That's exactly what Cam Mooney said. Nice work. So far, the only thing that you're demonstrating is how poor you are at arguing any of your points.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

When the team does not react to the wishes of the coach then its time to move the coach on. The only explanation for our frequent lapses in games is mental. Where there is smoke there is fire - Chris Scott has failed to develop this team and improve on our deficiencies. Without Dangerfield 2016 would have been a mess - lets be honest with ourselves. The team has kept way too many injury prone players on the hope of 'talent' - now they are on the field many are proving that this magical talent is unfortunately not there. We now have a team of c-graders and b-graders which again means 2017 will be the result of Dangerfield and Selwood carrying everyone around them.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

When the team does not react to the wishes of the coach then its time to move the coach on. The only explanation for our frequent lapses in games is mental. Where there is smoke there is fire - Chris Scott has failed to develop this team and improve on our deficiencies. Without Dangerfield 2016 would have been a mess - lets be honest with ourselves. The team has kept way too many injury prone players on the hope of 'talent' - now they are on the field many are proving that this magical talent is unfortunately not there. We now have a team of c-graders and b-graders which again means 2017 will be the result of Dangerfield and Selwood carrying everyone around them.

I have an excellent football brain and I can tell you that lapses can be caused by more than just mentality.

In our case its more to do with the opposition playing a game style that is effective against us but is so demanding they cant do it for a full game .

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

I have an excellent football brain and I can tell you that lapses can be caused by more than just mentality.

In our case its more to do with the opposition playing a game style that is effective against us but is so demanding they cant do it for a full game .

Hmm not sure I buy that as the whole answer. I think mentality and hunger is a huge part of football - look at the bulldogs final campaign. I don't think getting smacked by Essendon in the first quarter is a result of them playing a demanding style and us not keeping up... Both teams would be fit and fresh. Chris Scott has admitted publicly the team has a bad habit of switching off for large periods of time - and he still hasn't figured out how to fix it.