Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - PART III

[Art Vandelay_]

Familiar, isn't it.

It's tragic he gets moaned at for voicing his opinion, because he's just so cogent.

Glorious.

Another rendition on Saturday hopefully.

 

[Partridge]

It's all very well in saying that but in the entire country there are about 7 blokes who are decent AFL coaches and we have one of them. Throw me some names fam. If you say Brett Ratten I will backhand you.

Brett Ratten.

Not entirely sure why he must be one of the candidates though.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

I'm sure all the Scott nuthuggers would have had a fit if we got rid of Thompson after 2010 on our own accord... Had a pretty similar season to Scott this year except he already had 2 flags to his name and built the team himself - got called a team in decline after finals beltings. Look what happened when we introduced a new coach with fresh ideas, players suddenly had something to prove, tactics got tweaked and a premiership was delivered. Risk is required to win big, at the moment it seems like our club is happy to entertain us with an over the hill Ablett and Dangerwood. Great for membership numbers but not enough to give us another premiership - we need a new coach with fresh ideas to kick our blokes up the ass.

We will always be mid table or better while we still have Dangerwood and Hawkins + relatively good backline + home ground advantage. So the worst that happens is the new coach is absolute shit and we continue to depend on our stars and we end up mid table again. Best that happens is it creates the right mix, younger guys step up and the team performs in finals. I'd rather we take that chance than cruise along at this speed with no sign of change in tactics or finals performances.

 

[Mahlepi]

I'm sure all the Scott nuthuggers would have had a fit if we got rid of Thompson after 2010 on our own accord... Had a pretty similar season to Scott this year except he already had 2 flags to his name and built the team himself - got called a team in decline after finals beltings. Look what happened when we introduced a new coach with fresh ideas, players suddenly had something to prove, tactics got tweaked and a premiership was delivered. Risk is required to win big, at the moment it seems like our club is happy to entertain us with an over the hill Ablett and Dangerwood. Great for membership numbers but not enough to give us another premiership - we need a new coach with fresh ideas to kick our blokes up the ass.

We will always be mid table or better while we still have Dangerwood and Hawkins + relatively good backline + home ground advantage. So the worst that happens is the new coach is absolute shit and we continue to depend on our stars and we end up mid table again. Best that happens is it creates the right mix, younger guys step up and the team performs in finals. I'd rather we take that chance than cruise along at this speed with no sign of change in tactics or finals performances.

yeah, but injuries to young players have killed us
players like egan and menzel have been smashed
thurlow, cockatoo, gregson, mccarthy etc

 

[Partridge]

yeah, but injuries to young players have killed us
players like egan and menzel have been smashed
thurlow, cockatoo, gregson, mccarthy etc

That covers a ton of territory though. Egan hasn't played in ten full seasons. Completely irrelevant now. It's like saying we're missing Paul Lynch. Besides which his gap was filled immediately with Harry Taylor without missing a beat, the club really didn't miss anything there.

Menzel was fit this year. As was Thurlow. Cockatoo was in and out but did manage 11 games, and did play in the Prelim. The only two that were missing for most of the season were Gregson and McCarthy. I don't think injuries played a major part in 2017.

 

[TEDDY24INC]

That covers a ton of territory though. Egan hasn't played in ten full seasons. Completely irrelevant now. It's like saying we're missing Paul Lynch. Besides which his gap was filled immediately with Harry Taylor without missing a beat, the club really didn't miss anything there.

Menzel was fit this year. As was Thurlow. Cockatoo was in and out but did manage 11 games, and did play in the Prelim. The only two that were missing for most of the season were Gregson and McCarthy. I don't think injuries played a major part in 2017.

Cocky, Gregson, McArthy and Parfitt all missed the majority of the year via injury.. that really really hurt us given our forward mix of Hawk and Menz

 

[Partridge]

Cocky, Gregson, McArthy and Parfitt all missed the majority of the year via injury.. that really really hurt us given our forward mix of Hawk and Menz

Parfitt didn't miss the majority of the year. He played 11 of the last 13 games and 15 games for the year in total. Didn't seem to hurt us in the lead up to the finals when they were able to beat Richmond, Collingwood, and (in particular) GWS. Sure it wasn't ideal to be without Gregson and McCarthy but it's not like they're core members of the team.

 

[Ricketz]

Parfitt didn't miss the majority of the year. He played 11 of the last 13 games and 15 games for the year in total. Didn't seem to hurt us in the lead up to the finals when they were able to beat Richmond, Collingwood, and (in particular) GWS. Sure it wasn't ideal to be without Gregson and McCarthy but it's not like they're core members of the team.

We ran Simpson and Parsons through half forward, Parfitt, Guthrie and Buzza all had cracks you would not have expected them to get. Cunico and O'Connor got a run where you would think they wouldn't be close in any other team, and we were lucky Tom Stewart could lift to fill the HBF position. We got smashed by injuries, and we did not have a settled line up for most of the year. That isn't saying anything about guys like Paddy and Joel running sore for chunks of the season, or the suspensions we copped on top of that.

 

[Mahlepi]

We ran Simpson and Parsons through half forward, Parfitt, Guthrie and Buzza all had cracks you would not have expected them to get. Cunico and O'Connor got a run where you would think they wouldn't be close in any other team, and we were lucky Tom Stewart could lift to fill the HBF position. We got smashed by injuries, and we did not have a settled line up for most of the year. That isn't saying anything about guys like Paddy and Joel running sore for chunks of the season, or the suspensions we copped on top of that.

We lacked the depth to cover the above
People forget the dog act by McEvoy
The dog act by Sloane
The dog act by buddy

But the afl just wanted to suspend Hawkins for a simple jumper punch
Yet Cotchin escaped time and time again

 

[Spazz Cat]

We ran Simpson and Parsons through half forward, Parfitt, Guthrie and Buzza all had cracks you would not have expected them to get. Cunico and O'Connor got a run where you would think they wouldn't be close in any other team, and we were lucky Tom Stewart could lift to fill the HBF position. We got smashed by injuries, and we did not have a settled line up for most of the year. That isn't saying anything about guys like Paddy and Joel running sore for chunks of the season, or the suspensions we copped on top of that.

Wasn't too bad. Our most important players played most games.
We've got no one to blame anyway.
If we rely on Mcarthy, Menzel and Scooter who's fault is that? It's like saying we missed Cowan.
The club and Selwood himself chose to go back on the ground.
Ditto goes for Danger.

 

[And_ROOS]

We lacked the depth to cover the above
People forget the dog act by McEvoy
The dog act by Sloane
The dog act by buddy

But the afl just wanted to suspend Hawkins for a simple jumper punch
Yet Cotchin escaped time and time again

Had Sloane or Cotchin gone the jumper punch in the Prelim they would have been allowed to play in the GF. Both should have been suspended. Disgraceful when you think about the fact Sloane hit Dangerfield high with an elbow and he under performed from that point on, and it barely got looked at.

And Cotchin, had he done that in round 5, would have gotten 3 weeks.

 

[Ricketz]

Wasn't too bad. Our most important players played most games.
We've got no one to blame anyway.
If we rely on Mcarthy, Menzel and Scooter who's fault is that? It's like saying we missed Cowan.
The club and Selwood himself chose to go back on the ground.
Ditto goes for Danger.

We had 8 debutantes - are you really suggesting that that had no impact on our performances? In reality, the team doesn't settle, we lose continuity, and our more experienced players have to work harder. None of our debutantes, with the exception of Stewart, were top 4 team standard, IMO.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

We had 8 debutantes - are you really suggesting that that had no impact on our performances? In reality, the team doesn't settle, we lose continuity, and our more experienced players have to work harder. None of our debutantes, with the exception of Stewart, were top 4 team standard, IMO.

How many games did those debutants play? How many did they play together?
O'Connor played 2 games, Cunico played 1 game, Simpson played 4, Buzza played 6, Guthrie 9. Hardly an overwhelming amount of gametime put into those players. In Zuthrie's case, he was given a spot in the side over a more experienced player in Thurlow, so that was a path the match committee opted to take rather than one they were forced to.

You claim Geelong was smashed by injuries. It's true that we were playing kids who had no place in a top 4 side, and that was damaging, but that's not because Geelong had any kind of unusually high injury toll. Geelong was not the victim of any greater player loss than any other top side. The difference, however, is that Geelong lacks depth. That is why Geelong had to play these kids and contend with the outcomes.

Geelong used 36 players in 2017
GWS used 37
Richmond used 38

If the problem was instability caused by so many players being rotated through the side, how do you explain Richmond's success, keeping in mind 7 of Geelong's 36 played 5 games or less? The injury toll and number of players being rotated were nothing unusual. I would say that Geelong's injury run the last couple of years has been reasonably ideal - Dangerfield and Selwood have played nearly every game, Hawkins has only missed due to suspension, the KPDs have almost always been available, Duncan has played nearly every game. It's when key players start going down that you'll see what it's like to face an injury crisis. At this point, no one should be surprised that McCarthy, Cockatoo or Gregson is going down injured.

 

[Spazz Cat]

We had 8 debutantes - are you really suggesting that that had no impact on our performances? In reality, the team doesn't settle, we lose continuity, and our more experienced players have to work harder. None of our debutantes, with the exception of Stewart, were top 4 team standard, IMO.

But that's our list and who we've chosen to keep on it and who we've recruited.
Absolutely nothing to do with bad luck whatsoever. All teams cop injuries. That's the way it is.
It's like recruiting Mitch Clark and then calling it bad luck if he hardly plays.

 

[Catman]

What about proof he can't coach getting smashed by Richmond and Adelaide? Or the other finals failures where he has been unable to prepare the team properly or implement a game plan that works on the biggest stage? Majority here seem happy with top 4 and then getting constantly smashed by lower ranked teams in the finals. If we are never going to go close to a premiership with this list/coach we should bring in someone else who can prove if its the list or coach. I have seen nothing to suggest Scott has learnt from previous finals failures - he is too stubborn for his own good and too many yes men at the club. Everythings fine though because we got Dangerfield and Ablett to entertain our supporters for the next few years.

So when does the actual playing group take some responsibility? The same group smashed Sydney in as good a performance that I can remember from us, then produced nothing in the other two finals, other than turning the ball over with relentless ease.

Why is it so black and white with you anti-Scott crew?

 

[winty]

If the problem was instability caused by so many players being rotated through the side, how do you explain Richmond's success, keeping in mind 7 of Geelong's 36 played 5 games or less? The injury toll and number of players being rotated were nothing unusual. I would say that Geelong's injury run the last couple of years has been reasonably ideal - Dangerfield and Selwood have played nearly every game, Hawkins has only missed due to suspension, the KPDs have almost always been available, Duncan has played nearly every game. It's when key players start going down that you'll see what it's like to face an injury crisis. At this point, no one should be surprised that McCarthy, Cockatoo or Gregson is going down injured.

Richmond had 9 players play all 25 games, 3 players miss 1 game and another 2 miss a couple of games.

Compare that to Geelong who had 2 players play all 25, 2 miss 1 game and another 3 miss 2.

But yeah, since Richmond played 2 more players they had more instability.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Richmond had 9 players play all 25 games, 3 players miss 1 game and another 2 miss a couple of games.

Compare that to Geelong who had 2 players play all 25, 2 miss 1 game and another 3 miss 2.

But yeah, since Richmond played 2 more players they had more instability.

Richmond also had more players play fewer than 10 games over the course of the year than Geelong did. I don't think Geelong or Richmond were any more or less stable. They both had players who came in and played a small number of games, which I don't think makes a huge difference, and Geelong had a few more players than Richmond who were a couple of games off playing the maximum amount of games for the season, which I again don't think makes a huge difference to stability. I don't think Mackie playing 23 games rather than 25 really threw out the side's capacity to gel together.

The key difference I'm asserting between Geelong and more successful sides from a list management point of view, then, is not that Geelong was hit harder by injury and was consequently more destabilised than others but that it simply did not have the quality of player on the fringe of the best 22 or beyond to come in and play. The fact that Geelong were playing a bunch of very inexperienced and speculative kids on the rookie list proves this. Geelong's persistence with perennially injured players has also hurt them. A list spot being taken by Cowan in 2017 exemplifies this.

The bulk of the Geelong side has not had the ideal amount of time playing together, either, but this is again not due to any bad luck with injuries but a result of list management decisions. If you build a large part of your list through recruiting from other clubs, a lot of players won't have that experience playing together. Richmond's core group had spent more time playing together than Geelong's has.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Richmond also had more players play fewer than 10 games over the course of the year than Geelong did. I don't think Geelong or Richmond were any more or less stable. They both had players who came in and played a small number of games, which I don't think makes a huge difference, and Geelong had a few more players than Richmond who were a couple of games off playing the maximum amount of games for the season, which I again don't think makes a huge difference to stability. I don't think Mackie playing 23 games rather than 25 really threw out the side's capacity to gel together.

The key difference I'm asserting between Geelong and more successful sides from a list management point of view, then, is not that Geelong was hit harder by injury and was consequently more destabilised than others but that it simply did not have the quality of player on the fringe of the best 22 or beyond to come in and play. The fact that Geelong were playing a bunch of very inexperienced and speculative kids on the rookie list proves this. Geelong's persistence with perennially injured players has also hurt them. A list spot being taken by Cowan in 2017 exemplifies this.

The bulk of the Geelong side has not had the ideal amount of time playing together, either, but this is again not due to any bad luck with injuries but a result of list management decisions. If you build a large part of your list through recruiting from other clubs, a lot of players won't have that experience playing together. Richmond's core group had spent more time playing together than Geelong's has.

Didn't the Bulldogs in 2016 have the most injuries to best 22 players in the whole comp?
Can't believe we're playing the injury card.
Even Chris Scott doesn't do that.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

So when does the actual playing group take some responsibility? The same group smashed Sydney in as good a performance that I can remember from us, then produced nothing in the other two finals, other than turning the ball over with relentless ease.

Why is it so black and white with you anti-Scott crew?

simple stuff from the flat earthers catman.

Find something however weak to discredit wins, the Sydney win was "they were cooked" but absolutely pillory him when we lose. Pillory Scott and only Scott. Not the players, coaches or fitness staff, just Chris Scott. Pathetic bunch of wet blankets.

 

[Spazz Cat]

simple stuff from the flat earthers catman.

Find something however weak to discredit wins, the Sydney win was "they were cooked" but absolutely pillory him when we lose. Pillory Scott and only Scott. Not the players, coaches or fitness staff, just Chris Scott. Pathetic bunch of wet blankets.

Yeah right.
More often that not if you criticise any of the usual suspects (except Stanley and Motlop) you get the spiel about how great they are & my personal favourite "yeah but most played poorly so you can't blame him".
Ive had dozens of irate posts aimed back at me for daring to question or criticise the fitness staff.
So it's never the serial underperforming finals players fault, never the coaches fault actually no one at the clubs fault.
Lucky we might of finally just worked it out.
Now it's injuries!

 

[goyoucatters]

So when does the actual playing group take some responsibility? The same group smashed Sydney in as good a performance that I can remember from us, then produced nothing in the other two finals, other than turning the ball over with relentless ease.

Why is it so black and white with you anti-Scott crew?

Because you couldn't run the line that 'Scott has no idea' any other way.

Otherwise you would have to admit that it is actually a complex issue with a number of variables (coaching quality included) to determine how a team can be outstanding one week and abysmal the next. Which is exactly what we witnessed in this year's finals series from our boys.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah right.
More often that not if you criticise any of the usual suspects (except Stanley and Motlop) you get the spiel about how great they are & my personal favourite "yeah but most played poorly so you can't blame him".
Ive had dozens of irate posts aimed back at me for daring to question or criticise the fitness staff.
So it's never the serial underperforming finals players fault, never the coaches fault actually no one at the clubs fault.
Lucky we might of finally just worked it out.
Now it's injuries!

Now you're just being silly. The vitriol Scott gets in this thread is nothing short of a disgrace.

 

[Deep]

Didn't the Bulldogs in 2016 have the most injuries to best 22 players in the whole comp?
Can't believe we're playing the injury card.
Even Chris Scott doesn't do that.

What's funnier is people playing the injury card over guns such as McCarthy and Gregson

 

[Spazz Cat]

Now you're just being silly. The vitriol Scott gets in this thread is nothing short of a disgrace.

How is it silly that is exactly what happens on here.
The silly excuses and not being able to have a sensible discussion on realistic possible problems are a major reason why this whole thing turns into a such a shitfight.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

How is it silly that is exactly what happens on here.
The silly excuses and not being able to have a sensible discussion on realistic possible problems are a major reason why this whole thing turns into a such a shitfight.

Because it is silly that every time we lose a small subsection of wet blankets call for his head. What plonkers.
That's not "sensible discussion", that's just the same old crap repeated ad nauseam. Something we could do with less of, not more.