Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - PART III

[selwoodsbandage]

You're called "Emu" because you have your head in the sand

(That's when you don't have your head shoved up a part of your body).

Except, I am not called Emu. I am electrical tape on gauze.

 

[Vdubs]

Ahhh...I see you are back...albeit apparently, temporarily.

The bolded is unsubstantiated nonsense...but do carry on.....

Why would you say that?

 

[David the Cat]

Ambush

 

[Landgraft]

After a radio interview earlier in the year with CS it seems like he'll wanna retire when this contract is up.
I think it would be a great move to throw money at McCartney and promise him the senior role at the end of 2019.
He could start to work with the young players ASAP while also learning our system from our current coaches.
All coaches say they were better the 2nd time around.

That was an interesting interview, talking about the way senior coaching jobs impact on the family.

If we're giving second chances I wouldn't mind a look at Sanderson, but McCartney would be great for our kids.

 

[Spearman]

That was an interesting interview, talking about the way senior coaching jobs impact on the family.

If we're giving second chances I wouldn't mind a look at Sanderson, but McCartney would be great for our kids.

What aspect is Sanderson especially good at?
Which one would make a better head coach?

 

[David the Cat]

What aspect is Sanderson especially good at?
Which one would make a better head coach?

Well....you could ask Adelaide....they sacked him.

 

[Spearman]

Well we know McCartney's a great developer, always thought Dogs owed him big time for the foundations he laid there. I have no idea what Sanderson's strengths are.
The senior position is so much more about organization, well before the director of coaching job was invented. It's almost like a baseball manager. The assistant's more crucial at the coal face. In this hypothetical scenario about bringing back ex-assistants, who would be better in the big chair? How much of their 'magic' would be lost if they were not in their asst. role.

 

[Landgraft]

What aspect is Sanderson especially good at?
Which one would make a better head coach?

He knows about turning around a footy career, and provided mentorship to our great players while they were still developing before stepping straight into an assistant coaching role for the premiership years (07-11).

He got Adelaide so close to a Granny (the cruel farce of the 2012 prelim vs the Hawks) before they had two lacklustre seasons but I never thought he was their problem. He oversaw a lot of development from guys like Sloane, Danger and Brad Crouch. Has worked with young talent at the AFL national academy and has now been given the Sisyphean task of improving Collingwoods forward line and ball movement.

Imo he was the better coach than B-Mac, who remains the better developer. Odds are neither will get a second chance though, the AFL industry tends to see 'failed' coaches as inherently flawed.

 

[Deep]

He knows about turning around a footy career, and provided mentorship to our great players while they were still developing before stepping straight into an assistant coaching role for the premiership years (07-11).

He got Adelaide so close to a Granny (the cruel farce of the 2012 prelim vs the Hawks) before they had two lacklustre seasons but I never thought he was their problem. He oversaw a lot of development from guys like Sloane, Danger and Brad Crouch. Has worked with young talent at the AFL national academy and has now been given the Sisyphean task of improving Collingwoods forward line and ball movement.

Imo he was the better coach than B-Mac, who remains the better developer. Odds are neither will get a second chance though, the AFL industry tends to see 'failed' coaches as inherently flawed.

Sando may but probably won't. B Mac no chance in hell apparently he treated Dogs players like trash whilst there.

 

[Spazz Cat]

What aspect is Sanderson especially good at?
Which one would make a better head coach?

Could find out off Danger. He helped get him sacked.
Didn't spend enough time with younger players apparently.
Meanwhile Scott doesn't even speak to them for 12 months and doesn't show up to exit interviews LOL.

 

[Sttew]

B Mac no chance in hell apparently he treated Dogs players like trash whilst there.

Did he, or did the rat pack not like that he made them work hard? I don't have any inside info, but wasn't Ryan Griffen one of the guys with who B Mc was at loggerheads? Next thing the club trades him.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

The anti-Scott crew get a great run on here because we have to respect a 'diversity of opinions'. I guess that is fine on the surface, but unfortunately, in our post-truth age, we mistake opinions for facts.

The fact is the 2011 flag counts. The fact is his H/A record counts. The fact is he has only missed the finals once while transitioning a list. The fact is the finals wins against Haw (2016) and Syd (2017) count. The fact is he among the most statistically successful coaches in V/AFL history. The fact is we still finished the 2017 h/a season second after the disaster of rd.17 when no one gave us a chance. The fact is he successfully changed the game plan after rd 8, when we had been found out, and in doing so saved the season.

These are facts. They aren't just opinions.

I don't state these facts because I am a 'Scott-lover'. On the contrary, I have my criticisms of Scott. I state these facts because I respect reality. It is clear he can coach - his record and longevity suggest he is a very good coach. Whether he is the coach to take us to our next flag remains to be seen. If he fails to do that in the next two years, then he will move on, and I've no doubt the separation will be mutual and professional.

I would confidently bet that the heroes who like to claim that Scott has 'NFI' are people whose highest level of football achievement is a few High School games. I say that with total conviction. Because I don't believe anyone who has played the game at a decent level would devalue his achievements in the way the keyboard warriors do.

 

[barmy44]

The anti-Scott crew get a great run on here because we have to respect a 'diversity of opinions'. I guess that is fine on the surface, but unfortunately, in our post-truth age, we mistake opinions for facts.

The fact is the 2011 flag counts. The fact is his H/A record counts. The fact is he has only missed the finals once while transitioning a list. The fact is the finals wins against Haw (2016) and Syd (2017) count. The fact is he among the most statistically successful coaches in V/AFL history. The fact is we still finished the 2017 h/a season second after the disaster of rd.17 when no one gave us a chance. The fact is he successfully changed the game plan after rd 8, when we had been found out, and in doing so saved the season.

These are facts. They aren't just opinions.

I don't state these facts because I am a 'Scott-lover'. On the contrary, I have my criticisms of Scott. I state these facts because I respect reality. It is clear he can coach - his record and longevity suggest he is a very good coach. Whether he is the coach to take us to our next flag remains to be seen. If he fails to do that in the next two years, then he will move on, and I've no doubt the separation will be mutual and professional.

I would confidently bet that the heroes who like to claim that Scott has 'NFI' are people whose highest level of football achievement is a few High School games. I say that with total conviction. Because I don't believe anyone who has played the game at a decent level would devalue his achievements in the way the keyboard warriors do.

i think the 'he has NFI' and the flip side of those arguments are largely just internet hyperbole driven by ego and personality clash.

most people who genuinely support geelong or footy generally would acknowledge chris did a great job in 2011. one way to look at it is even if that job was cimply 'staying out of the way' as the players 'coached themselves' (highly unlikely), at least he did what needed to be done and put ego aside. but he did have that team playing some of the best football of this particular era. he did a great job, imo.

however, it was 7 seasons ago now.

manchester city had mancini win them their first title in 44 years recently. then they wanted to make a splash in europe. so they dumped him, and got in pellegrini. he got them a second title, but nothing in europe. then guardiola got pursued. and he finally has them humming. a massive threat in european competition. they dumped title winners quite quickly, because they were ruthlessly pursuing the best. they know seem to have it.

do we already? maybe. could we do better with a new coach? yes. could we do worse? of course.

but winning a flag doesnt and never has guaranteed life tenure. especially one 7 seasons back. successful coaches can go stale, lose their edge, or simply have their ideas out-paced.

i love chris scott - as a person, and as a coach. but he has flaws. can they be surmounted? yeah, he could win another. are there better options that could be pursued? probably. but its a crapshoot.

he has had a long career at geelong, far longer than AFL/VFL average for a coach. no matter how good a coach is - and i think he is a very good one - their message can go stale. i dont think parting ways and seeking a fresh approach would be that radical a proposition at this stage.

when the argument becomes more about the personalities involved, though - thats when we hit the hyperbolic 'straw men' at opposite extremes.

 

[Cronin]

i think the 'he has NFI' and the flip side of those arguments are largely just internet hyperbole driven by ego and personality clash.

most people who genuinely support geelong or footy generally would acknowledge chris did a great job in 2011. one way to look at it is even if that job was cimply 'staying out of the way' as the players 'coached themselves' (highly unlikely), at least he did what needed to be done and put ego aside. but he did have that team playing some of the best football of this particular era. he did a great job, imo.

however, it was 7 seasons ago now.

manchester city had mancini win them their first title in 44 years recently. then they wanted to make a splash in europe. so they dumped him, and got in pellegrini. he got them a second title, but nothing in europe. then guardiola got pursued. and he finally has them humming. a massive threat in european competition. they dumped title winners quite quickly, because they were ruthlessly pursuing the best. they know seem to have it.

do we already? maybe. could we do better with a new coach? yes. could we do worse? of course.

but winning a flag doesnt and never has guaranteed life tenure. especially one 7 seasons back.

i love chris scott - as a person, and as a coach. but he has flaws. can they be surmounted? yeah, he could win another. are there better options that could be pursued? probably. but its a crapshoot.

he has had a long career at geelong, far longer than AFL/VFL average for a coach. no matter how good a coach is - and i think he is a very good one - their message can go stale. i dont think parting ways and seeking a fresh approach would be that radical a proposition at this stage.

when the argument becomes more about the personalities involved, though - thats when we hit the hyperbolic 'straw men' at opposite extremes.

What do you think his flaws are?

Personally, I don't think he plays players in their best positions.

 

[barmy44]

What do you think his flaws are?

Personally, I don't think he plays players in their best positions.

i agree with that.

youve put me on the spot here, so off the top of my head - broadly, i think he out-thinks himself a lot. i think he is often 'too clever by half'. i think he wants to build a team of 'every men', instead of focusing on a team that can function as a sum of its parts. i think he is possibly too 'old school' - the leigh matthews school, playing old fashioned football (weird to say, it wasnt that long ago). i dont think he moves with the times that well. i think he is stubborn, and trusts 'his system' to overcome on field issues in game. i think the approach to drafting is not trying to craft a well-balanced team that is dynamic, i think its too homogenous. we draft the same type of player routinely. and i think wells himself (a degree of separation from a 'scott flaw', i admit) 'believes his own hype' and tries to pluck 'wells picks' too often - those bizarre 1s round choices that likely would have been available in the 3rd.

but theyre all my views from well removed. i can only guess, and im hardly up on what happens during the week at the club, let alone in the box.

the guy has a silver tongue, though - speaks a great game.

and his record of win % speaks for itself...

overall, i like him. i think he is a very good coach.

but that doesnt mean there isnt a better and more 'now' coach out there to be found.

 

[Cronin]

i agree with that.

youve put me on the spot here, so off the top of my head - broadly, i think he out-thinks himself a lot. i think he is often 'too clever by half'. i think he wants to build a team of 'every men', instead of focusing on a team that can function as a sum of its parts. i think he is possibly too 'old school' - the leigh matthews school, playing old fashioned football (weird to say, it wasnt that long ago). i dont think he moves with the times that well. i think he is stubborn, and trusts 'his system' to overcome on field issues in game. i think the approach to drafting is not trying to craft a well-balanced team that is dynamic, i think its too homogenous. we draft the same type of player routinely. and i think wells himself (a degree of separation from a 'scott flaw', i admit) 'believes his own hype' and tries to pluck 'wells picks' too often - those bizarre 1s round choices that likely would have been available in the 3rd.

but theyre all my views from well removed. i can only guess, and im hardly up on what happens during the week at the club, let alone in the box.

the guy has a silver tongue, though - speaks a great game.

and his record of win % speaks for itself...

overall, i like him. i think he is a very good coach.

but that doesnt mean there isnt a better and more 'now' coach out there to be found.

I think he needs more support as well in terms of assistant coaches' input/output.

Personally I think James Rahilly is useless as a forward's coach and I'm still unsure about Matthew Knights.

 

[barmy44]

I think he needs more support as well in terms of assistant coaches' input/output.

Personally I think James Rahilly is useless as a forward's coach and I'm still unsure about Matthew Knights.

i dont mean this in a snarky 'challenging' way, but how do you arrive at that? genuine question - i personally have no idea who are good or bad assistants, and wouldnt know where to start judging them... i doubt i could even begin to explain how responsibility is divided up amongst coaches during the week or on match day. is it based on the output / style of the forward line? or have you had some insight at training, VFL matches etc?

 

[The rabbi]

i dont mean this in a snarky 'challenging' way, but how do you arrive at that? genuine question - i personally have no idea who are good or bad assistants, and wouldnt know where to start judging them... i doubt i could even begin to explain how responsibility is divided up amongst coaches during the week or on match day. is it based on the output / style of the forward line? or have you had some insight at training, VFL matches etc?

 

[Cronin]

i dont mean this in a snarky 'challenging' way, but how do you arrive at that? genuine question - i personally have no idea who are good or bad assistants, and wouldnt know where to start judging them... i doubt i could even begin to explain how responsibility is divided up amongst coaches during the week or on match day. is it based on the output / style of the forward line? or have you had some insight at training, VFL matches etc?

It's an opinion based purely on what I've seen with my own eyes and what I see in an inept, disfunctional gathering of headless chooks with no direction or purpose and it took our best midfielder and best defender to make it look half competent.

Now I know these forwards are better than what they're being led to showcase and with the amount of ball that gets down there we should be kicking cricket scores with a better structure; the lack of movement and proactivity is what I notice the most.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

i think the 'he has NFI' and the flip side of those arguments are largely just internet hyperbole driven by ego and personality clash.

most people who genuinely support geelong or footy generally would acknowledge chris did a great job in 2011. one way to look at it is even if that job was cimply 'staying out of the way' as the players 'coached themselves' (highly unlikely), at least he did what needed to be done and put ego aside. but he did have that team playing some of the best football of this particular era. he did a great job, imo.

however, it was 7 seasons ago now.

manchester city had mancini win them their first title in 44 years recently. then they wanted to make a splash in europe. so they dumped him, and got in pellegrini. he got them a second title, but nothing in europe. then guardiola got pursued. and he finally has them humming. a massive threat in european competition. they dumped title winners quite quickly, because they were ruthlessly pursuing the best. they know seem to have it.

do we already? maybe. could we do better with a new coach? yes. could we do worse? of course.

but winning a flag doesnt and never has guaranteed life tenure. especially one 7 seasons back. successful coaches can go stale, lose their edge, or simply have their ideas out-paced.

i love chris scott - as a person, and as a coach. but he has flaws. can they be surmounted? yeah, he could win another. are there better options that could be pursued? probably. but its a crapshoot.

he has had a long career at geelong, far longer than AFL/VFL average for a coach. no matter how good a coach is - and i think he is a very good one - their message can go stale. i dont think parting ways and seeking a fresh approach would be that radical a proposition at this stage.

when the argument becomes more about the personalities involved, though - thats when we hit the hyperbolic 'straw men' at opposite extremes.

I agree with all you say here. No coach has life tenure, and every coach (whether good, excellent, or poor) has to move on eventually. The message gets stale; new approaches are needed, the culture needs refreshing, etc.

But Scott earned his new contract because he achieved all the goals the club asked of him at the end of 2010. When he arrived, there were a few very ambitious things the club wanted to achieve. 1. see if another flag was possible with a then ageing list (tick). 2/ transition the list and have a new premiership window in five years time (tick). 3/ do all this without bottoming out and remaining a finalist (tick).

They were never going to move on a coach that had met all these goals (unless he had lost the playing group, which he hasn't).

The contract extension he has received seems very transparent to me. It's recognition of his achievement, while also giving him a shot over the next two years to win a flag while the premiership window is still open (or at least the club believe it is still open). Win a flag in that time or not, I wager strongly that he and the club are professional enough to mutually part ways at the end of that term.

My issue is with the silly suggestion—so common in this thread—that he can't coach. He clearly can, and the reasons for his contract extension are obvious.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

I agree with all you say here. No coach has life tenure, and every coach (whether good, excellent, or poor) has to move on eventually. The message gets stale; new approaches are needed, the culture needs refreshing, etc.

But Scott earned his new contract because he achieved all the goals the club asked of him at the end of 2010. When he arrived, there were a few very ambitious things the club wanted to achieve. 1. see if another flag was possible with a then ageing list (tick). 2/ transition the list and have a new premiership window in five years time (tick). 3/ do all this without bottoming out and remaining a finalist (tick).

They were never going to move on a coach that had met all these goals (unless he had lost the playing group, which he hasn't).

The contract extension he has received seems very transparent to me. It's recognition of his achievement, while also giving him a shot over the next two years to win a flag while the premiership window is still open (or at least the club believe it is still open). Win a flag in that time or not, I wager strongly that he and the club are professional enough to mutually part ways at the end of that term.

My issue is with the silly suggestion—so common in this thread—that he can't coach. He clearly can, and the reasons for his contract extension are obvious.

He can't prepare the team or coach for shit in finals. Fact. His tactics work fine at Skilled but go to shit away. Fact. We are not going to win another premiership while Scott is head coach. Opinion backed by FACT.

 

[Ricketz]

He can't prepare the team or coach for shit in finals. Fact. His tactics work fine at Skilled but go to shit away. Fact. We are not going to win another premiership while Scott is head coach. Opinion backed by FACT.

Not really. Sydney says he can coach for shit in finals. Our away record proves our tactics work away from skilled. Claiming we won't win another premiership under Scott isn't really going out on a limb, it is just really difficult to win a premiership - 17 teams don't every year. So, this is just your opinion.

 

[cynical]

The anti-Scott crew get a great run on here because we have to respect a 'diversity of opinions'. I guess that is fine on the surface, but unfortunately, in our post-truth age, we mistake opinions for facts.

The fact is the 2011 flag counts. The fact is his H/A record counts. The fact is he has only missed the finals once while transitioning a list. The fact is the finals wins against Haw (2016) and Syd (2017) count. The fact is he among the most statistically successful coaches in V/AFL history. The fact is we still finished the 2017 h/a season second after the disaster of rd.17 when no one gave us a chance. The fact is he successfully changed the game plan after rd 8, when we had been found out, and in doing so saved the season.

These are facts. They aren't just opinions.

I don't state these facts because I am a 'Scott-lover'. On the contrary, I have my criticisms of Scott. I state these facts because I respect reality. It is clear he can coach - his record and longevity suggest he is a very good coach. Whether he is the coach to take us to our next flag remains to be seen. If he fails to do that in the next two years, then he will move on, and I've no doubt the separation will be mutual and professional.

I would confidently bet that the heroes who like to claim that Scott has 'NFI' are people whose highest level of football achievement is a few High School games. I say that with total conviction. Because I don't believe anyone who has played the game at a decent level would devalue his achievements in the way the keyboard warriors do.

as usual only pro Scott opinions matter

there are many valid criticisms of Scott and his tactics that have been mentioned many times, but fall on deaf ears to the believers

fact - Chris Scott has a terrible finals record
fact - home and away records count for nothing, flags are what matter

 

[Partridge]

most people who genuinely support geelong or footy generally would acknowledge chris did a great job in 2011. one way to look at it is even if that job was cimply 'staying out of the way' as the players 'coached themselves' (highly unlikely), at least he did what needed to be done and put ego aside. but he did have that team playing some of the best football of this particular era. he did a great job, imo.

however, it was 7 seasons ago now.

Did he ever. Premierships are far too difficult to win to think anything different. Same as the home and away record. Whether that home and away record masks deficiencies only exposed in finals is a different matter.

As you said at the end, as great as it was, that premiership was 6 full seasons ago now. Like all coaches he's going to be ultimately judged on results. And the results of the last 6 seasons can't be just ignored.

 

[Partridge]

as usual only pro Scott opinions matter

there are many valid criticisms of Scott and his tactics that have been mentioned many times, but fall on deaf ears to the believers

fact - Chris Scott has a terrible finals record
fact - home and away records count for nothing, flags are what matter

Well you have to include everything as far as I'm concerned. The good, the moderate, and the bad.

Fact - He's a premiership coach. Deservedly so.
Fact - His home and away record is outstanding.
Fact - His finals record is 6-8.
Fact - His recent finals record is not good - 3-8 in the last 6 years (before arteries are burst the full finals record is immediately above it).

Can't wait to be told how they are opinions.