Chris Scott's legacy if he gags in another finals series?

Remove this Banner Ad

StillAtLarge said:
I must have watched a different game- Rohan was trash in that prelim. Kicked 2 of his 3 goals with less than 2 minutes to go and until then was soundly beaten by a rookie. On balance you'd still pick him for the GF but don't rewrite history and tell us he had a really strong game the week before
Click to expand...

He never does. It's Gary Rohan 101. Unsighted when a game is hot - any game, against any opposition - but when the pressure drops, and we're anywhere from 5-10 goals up, nothing surer than him popping up with a couple of late (and frequently cheap) goals. Then you get the fist pump to the crowd.

Unfortunately, Saturday had two unpleasant realities for him - an opposition team that kept the pressure up all game, and a top quality defender. Result - unsighted. And not surprisingly, immediately defended for keeping Grimes quiet. Ah, yeah.
 
Partridge said:
He gets hailed as a genius endlessly for his home and away record. If he's responsible for those he is equally responsible for finals results.
Click to expand...


Who hails him as a genius? He is very accomplished and is acknowledged league-wide as a great game day coach and tactician. It's sitting in a coach's box and office and planning for football games, not taking down a walled city with 34 men armed only with led pencils. he's not a genius, he is just very very good at what he does, so are the staff around him, so are the players wearing the jersey.
 
PhatBoy said:
Yes he would face the same scrutiny but I doubt the blanket explanation would be something as silly as 'he doesn't know how to coach preliminary finals' or whatever.
Click to expand...

I think the simple answer is that whilst Geelong has been in the top half dozen or so sides for about 15 years now, it's been quite a few years since they've been the best side in the competition. Scott has done a great job (along with Wells) to keep the side competitive for a long time now, which would suggest he's a decent enough coach, but not necessarily the best side in any given year.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Partridge said:
He never does. It's Gary Rohan 101. Unsighted when a game is hot - any game, against any opposition - but when the pressure drops, and we're anywhere from 5-10 goals up, nothing surer than him popping up with a couple of late (and frequently cheap) goals. Then you get the fist pump to the crowd.

Unfortunately, Saturday had two unpleasant realities for him - an opposition team that kept the pressure up all game, and a top quality defender. Result - unsighted. And not surprisingly, immediately defended for keeping Grimes quiet. Ah, yeah.
Click to expand...

Well Grimes was clearly best on ground last time when Rohan didn't play and leading into the game a big question mark was how we keep Grimes quiet. Footy is a 2-way game and he clearly did basically nothing offensively but a lot defensively. Is that better or worse than say Danger who did not much offensively and not much defensively? I don't know. But it's sort of weird to single out a guy who cost us basically nothing in terms of picks, is on a low wage and did his primary job for specific criticism.
 
Footy Smarts said:
Well Grimes was clearly best on ground last time when Rohan didn't play and leading into the game a big question mark was how we keep Grimes quiet. Footy is a 2-way game and he clearly did basically nothing offensively but a lot defensively. Is that better or worse than say Danger who did not much offensively and not much defensively? I don't know. But it's sort of weird to single out a guy who cost us basically nothing in terms of picks, is on a low wage and did his primary job for specific criticism.
Click to expand...

At least you don't say "free hit" like others do.

This is where I disagree. It's not nothing. It's a list spot. It's a spot in the senior team. For a perennial, repeated, serial, finals failure. Why would we get someone like that if the whole point is to have a team that can contend? He turns 30 next year so he's not young either.

Sure Grimes starred last time. But Grimes has become a gun based on shutting forwards down and out of the game. He provides some rebound, but never like Vlastuin or Short. He's also starred without getting much of the ball, it's just you forget his opponent is even playing. It's not like Richmond depend on Grimes getting 20 touches - he had single figure disposals in every finals game this year.

It seems more to me like Geelong fans don't want to face the reality about Rohan so they've reached for a desperate reason why a player who regularly fails under pressure .....failed under pressure. It's a mystery.
 
Wojcinski said:
People also may forget that he worked this year for free to allow GFC to retain some other staff members who may otherwise have lost their jobs due to covid. His post game presser was quite good, no whinging, excuses just praise for the club for they way they dealt with this season, the AFL and for Richmond. I'm not a Scott fan to be honest but I can't help but respect the way he has gone about it this year. People will sh*t on me for saying this but even though we lost, I think this year was still a success for GFC.
Click to expand...

IMO definitely a successful year. The runner up of the GF is always judged harshly I reckon. The cats threw everything at them in the first half and missed some chances, who knows how things may have ended up. Kudos to the tigers for being the better team on the day.
 
evo said:
Why do you think the cats came out so flat after half time? I was shocked to be honest. All through half time break I was flat as a pancake and told my son we were gone. Geelong barely fired a shot in the second half. Why?
Click to expand...

This somewhat surprises me you'd have thought that. I do get that as a supporter of the team, you're more emotionally invested so it's harder to be pragmatic about it. I posted to a friend online at the time my thoughts at half time:

"Geelong were controlling that first half... Richmond still within striking distance though, expect them to lift in the 2nd half"

I know it's easier to read games when you have no stake in it. :p Just seemed so obvious though. My impression was Geelong would need to play better than they did in the first half to be able to curb any Richmond surge. At 3/4 the game was over, to me. My wife came and watched the last 6-7 minutes and she said Geelong can still win. I had a hard time explaining to her without hubris, given she's not a football follower, that the game is over, Geelong maybe technically can win but they absolutely will not. I would have bet anything on it with zero fear. You can just tell how these things go sometimes.
 
TheGhostOfJohnBelushi said:
This somewhat surprises me you'd have thought that. I do get that as a supporter of the team, you're more emotionally invested so it's harder to be pragmatic about it. I posted to a friend online at the time my thoughts at half time:

"Geelong were controlling that first half... Richmond still within striking distance though, expect them to lift in the 2nd half"

I know it's easier to read games when you have no stake in it. :p Just seemed so obvious though. My impression was Geelong would need to play better than they did in the first half to be able to curb any Richmond surge. At 3/4 the game was over, to me. My wife came and watched the last 6-7 minutes and she said Geelong can still win. I had a hard time explaining to her without hubris, given she's not a football follower, that the game is over, Geelong maybe technically can win but they absolutely will not. I would have bet anything on it with zero fear. You can just tell how these things go sometimes.
Click to expand...


i thought we were gone at 3qt as well but thought if we got the first one of the last, suddenly the game starts again. Richmond goaled real early on and you could feel the air go out of the game
 
Partridge said:
At least you don't say "free hit" like others do.

This is where I disagree. It's not nothing. It's a list spot. It's a spot in the senior team. For a perennial, repeated, serial, finals failure. Why would we get someone like that if the whole point is to have a team that can contend? He turns 30 next year so he's not young either.

Sure Grimes starred last time. But Grimes has become a gun based on shutting forwards down and out of the game. He provides some rebound, but never like Vlastuin or Short. He's also starred without getting much of the ball, it's just you forget his opponent is even playing. It's not like Richmond depend on Grimes getting 20 touches - he had single figure disposals in every finals game this year.

It seems more to me like Geelong fans don't want to face the reality about Rohan so they've reached for a desperate reason why a player who regularly fails under pressure .....failed under pressure. It's a mystery.
Click to expand...
Weird take, I don't think any Geelong supporters are happy with his output. I've never really read that anywhere
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I just feel every year Geelong is predicted to plummet and they don’t. Can the coach really be that bad if the team always does better than a lot predict? Very few people would have Geelong in the Grand Final this year, especially once they left Victoria.
 
Duskfire said:
I just feel every year Geelong is predicted to plummet and they don’t. Can the coach really be that bad if the team always does better than a lot predict? Very few people would have Geelong in the Grand Final this year, especially once they left Victoria.
Click to expand...

He continually plays older players more so than what any other team does.
We had over 650 days more experience than Richmond on Saturday night.
There were 7 players who came from other clubs, Tuohy, Henderson, Rohan, Dangerfield, Ablett, Dahlhaus, Stanley. Richmond has just 4 of them.
Next year, instead of trying to develop Ratugolea or Kreuger, we will bring in Jeremy Cameron.
We are also after Shaun Higgins.

It would be interesting to see if we end up playing Steven and Jenkins as well. All of this contributes to Geelong's ability to remain relevant. People talk about Hawthorn's recruitment strategies over the years but Geelong have identified you don't necessarily have to bottom out in order to remain in finals contention. Some teams prefer to develop youth while teams like Geelong prefer to draft in players from other clubs.
Has it worked yet? No. Still no elusive premiership medallion for Dangerfield and co.
 
catscollector said:
He continually plays older players more so than what any other team does.
We had over 650 days more experience than Richmond on Saturday night.
There were 7 players who came from other clubs, Tuohy, Henderson, Rohan, Dangerfield, Ablett, Dahlhaus, Stanley. Richmond has just 4 of them.
Next year, instead of trying to develop Ratugolea or Kreuger, we will bring in Jeremy Cameron.
We are also after Shaun Higgins.

It would be interesting to see if we end up playing Steven and Jenkins as well. All of this contributes to Geelong's ability to remain relevant. People talk about Hawthorn's recruitment strategies over the years but Geelong have identified you don't necessarily have to bottom out in order to remain in finals contention. Some teams prefer to develop youth while teams like Geelong prefer to draft in players from other clubs.
Has it worked yet? No. Still no elusive premiership medallion for Dangerfield and co.
Click to expand...


Again, and it is the elephant in the room whenever anyone tries to criticise the method we have used.

Where is the proof that we would have achieved anything different (in fact chances are we wouldn't have achieved anything at all) by not doing this, and going to the draft and rebuilding.

It is all very well to say it hasn't won us anything. As long as the alternative route is a complete unknown, there is no evidence whatsoever to say we should have looked at that alternative.
 
Meteoric Rise said:
I think the Pies have conceded that for whatever reason they just had no energy from the start.

I lined up loads of years of finals series right back to 2000 where Grand Finalists had played common opponents on the way to the GF, as happened with Cats and Tigers both playing Port and Lions at the same venues this year.

What I noticed is the form is normally very true from these matches, and they are normally a great indicator of the GF result.

This year prior to the GF we had the highly unusual situation of Tigers beating Port on their merits and Cats losing to Port and appearing after adjustments to be only around level with Port on form at best, maybe slightly ahead. This formline appeared to put the Tigers slightly ahead of the Cats if anything.

But v Lions both at the Gabba, the Tigers lost by 2.3 without Lynch with his position being obliterated by the Lions on the night. So you could maybe bring the Tigers that beat Port up to roughly level with the Lions, possibly even slightly ahead. But then Cats came out and beat the Lions by 5.10 at the same venue, and totally dominated them.

Given the normal pattern is for form to ring true from crossover matches like this, and now looking at it with the benefit of hindsight, it does appear the Brisbane v Geelong prelim was a big anomaly for whatever reason. I thought the Cats played really well in that, so maybe they just match up particularly well against that opponent, having beaten them well earlier in the season also. Or maybe the Lions were a bit off.

I racked my brain over this in the lead up to the GF trying to find a betting angle I could be confident with, but in the end I couldn’t be sure whether that Cats v Lions PF was true form or not. Now it looks obvious that the Lions that faced Richmond played at a much better level than the Lions who played the Cats. It did look a bit that way watching the respective matches as well, but at the time I was thinking two Cats opponents in succession not turning up at their best is looking too big a coincidence. I am now of the opinion this is true.

Cats and Tigers both played Port at near their(Port’s) best.

Tigers played Brisbane at near their best. Cats played Brisbane not near their best.

Tigers played Cats both near their best.
Click to expand...
It's time someone introduced you to the saying 'You can only play as well as your opponents let you...'
 
PhatBoy said:
Again, and it is the elephant in the room whenever anyone tries to criticise the method we have used.

Where is the proof that we would have achieved anything different (in fact chances are we wouldn't have achieved anything at all) by not doing this, and going to the draft and rebuilding.

It is all very well to say it hasn't won us anything. As long as the alternative route is a complete unknown, there is no evidence whatsoever to say we should have looked at that alternative.
Click to expand...

Had we gone down the rebuilding road, we would be looking forward to competing in the years 2021-2026. As it stands, we have been competing in the years 2016-2021 and so far, made one grand final (same as what Collingwood, Adelaide, West Coast, GWS and Bulldogs have) for zero premierships.
What this essentially means is this, beyond 2021, our list is going to take a very big hit and we will not be in a position to make the finals. Effectively, our strategic plan has failed us since the Dangerfield recruitment.
To add further insult to injury, we will have no choice but trade away future talent as they simply won't get games ahead of established ready made players like Higgins, Steven or Cameron.

I also don't see a few older players maintaining a satisfactory level next year. But due to Chris Scott's form, such players will continue to get picked to play no matter how poorly their from warrants it.
 
catscollector said:
Had we gone down the rebuilding road, we would be looking forward to competing in the years 2021-2026. As it stands, we have been competing in the years 2016-2021 and so far, made one grand final (same as what Collingwood, Adelaide, West Coast, GWS and Bulldogs have) for zero premierships.
What this essentially means is this, beyond 2021, our list is going to take a very big hit and we will not be in a position to make the finals. Effectively, our strategic plan has failed us since the Dangerfield recruitment.
To add further insult to injury, we will have no choice but trade away future talent as they simply won't get games ahead of established ready made players like Higgins, Steven or Cameron.
Click to expand...

No we wouldn't. We have no idea what we'd be looking forward to. We could be looking forward to our third coach in 6 years. We could be looking forward to having a 3-14 record for the season just gone and our best player wanting to go to another club. We could be looking at a different bunch of kids wondering if they can actually play and wondering where they would get their experience from playing alongside hardened seasoned players, rather than saying "well we haven't got a huge crop of youngsters its true but the ones we've got have cut their teeth alongside good, tough players like Tuohy, Henderson, Stewart, Blicavs, Duncan, and a handful of champions like Selwood, Taylor, Hawkins and Dangerfield.'

Its like these idiots in cricket sides who are constantly looking at 'blooding players for the 2067 Ashes tour' or something. It overlooks what you have and what you can achieve.

I will stop going for Geelong, or any other team for that matter, before I accept a deliberate willingness not to aim at winning. It's a losers mentality.
 
Fadge said:
It's time someone introduced you to the saying 'You can only play as well as your opponents let you...'
Click to expand...

It is a fair statement you make, and I agree with it.

You CAN only play as well as your opponent lets you in any sort of oppositional sport, as opposed to say diving or downhill skiing or time trialling or say golf, where the opponent can have no direct influence upon your performance. These sports you essentially compete against a course to produce your best performance and this is then measured against what others can do. Footy, like tennis, boxing, basketball and so on, you directly oppose your opponent, so the better they perform, the less opportunity you have to score or stop them scoring. But you know this.

What we cannot be certain of when watching say

Richmond beat Geelong comfortably,or

Geelong beat Brisbane easily, or

Brisbane beat Richmond comfortably,

all at the same venue,

is how much of one team's result can be attributed to their own performance, and how much can be attributed to their opponent’s performance. Mostly, if we want to measure that, it requires us to exercise our judgement. If all those teams played near their best but only played as well as their opponents “let” them, then how does team A beat Team B who beat team C who beat team A?

Surely that suggests some variance in performance. So why for example in the Brisbane v Geelong match should we assume the only variance in performance possible is that Geelong played better than in their match against Richmond? Isn’t it at least equally likely that Brisbane played worse than in their match v Richmond?

Maybe you CAN only play as well as your opponent let’s you, but you DO only play as well as that, less any deficit in your performance below your best?
 
Meteoric Rise said:
It is a fair statement you make, and I agree with it.

You CAN only play as well as your opponent lets you in any sort of oppositional sport, as opposed to say diving or downhill skiing or time trialling or say golf, where the opponent can have no direct influence upon your performance. These sports you essentially compete against a course to produce your best performance and this is then measured against what others can do. Footy, like tennis, boxing, basketball and so on, you directly oppose your opponent, so the better they perform, the less opportunity you have to score or stop them scoring. But you know this.

What we cannot be certain of when watching say

Richmond beat Geelong comfortably,or

Geelong beat Brisbane easily, or

Brisbane beat Richmond comfortably,

all at the same venue,

is how much of one team's result can be attributed to their own performance, and how much can be attributed to their opponent’s performance. Mostly, if we want to measure that, it requires us to exercise our judgement. If all those teams played near their best but only played as well as their opponents “let” them, then how does team A beat Team B who beat team C who beat team A?

Surely that suggests some variance in performance. So why for example in the Brisbane v Geelong match should we assume the only variance in performance possible is that Geelong played better than in their match against Richmond? Isn’t it at least equally likely that Brisbane played worse than in their match v Richmond?

Maybe you CAN only play as well as your opponent let’s you, but you DO only play as well as that, less any deficit in your performance below your best?
Click to expand...
Yep, agree there is variance in a team's performance between one match to the next, in the same way a golfer can come out and shoot 6 under one day, and shoot 6 over the following day on the same course and in the same conditions.

But in football, the performance of your opponent does have a significant impact on how well you are able to play, both as an individual and also as a team.

The other consideration is that some teams just match up better against other teams.
 
PhatBoy said:
alongside good, tough players like Tuohy, Henderson, Stewart, Blicavs, Duncan, and a handful of champions like Selwood, Taylor, Hawkins and Dangerfield.'

Its like these idiots in cricket sides who are constantly looking at 'blooding players for the 2067 Ashes tour' or something. It overlooks what you have and what you can achieve.

I will stop going for Geelong, or any other team for that matter, before I accept a deliberate willingness not to aim at winning. It's a losers mentality.
Click to expand...

Blicavs is everything I knew he was on Saturday night.
A deer in the headlights and horribly out of his depth.
Duncan illustrated he is elite this finals series and deserves to be in the same conversation as Dangerfield and Hawkins as A graders. I'd also put Stewart in that category as well.

Menegola made significant inroads this season but Guthrie still remains an enigma. His best is quite brilliant but he goes from having 8 touches a quarter to zero the next.
Stanley, Guthrie and Rohan are all similar types of players. Their inability to remain consistent for a number of years in a row is a reason why they will never achieve the ultimate success in their sport. I would much prefer workhorses like Nankervis, Prestia and Castagna opposed to the others. At least you know what you will get from week to week.
 
catscollector said:
Blicavs is everything I knew he was on Saturday night.
A deer in the headlights and horribly out of his depth.
Duncan illustrated he is elite this finals series and deserves to be in the same conversation as Dangerfield and Hawkins as A graders. I'd also put Stewart in that category as well.

Menegola made significant inroads this season but Guthrie still remains an enigma. His best is quite brilliant but he goes from having 8 touches a quarter to zero the next.
Stanley, Guthrie and Rohan are all similar types of players. Their inability to remain consistent for a number of years in a row is a reason why they will never achieve the ultimate success in their sport. I would much prefer workhorses like Nankervis, Prestia and Castagna opposed to the others. At least you know what you will get from week to week.
Click to expand...

Duncan was sensational. No argument there.

Blanket statements like the one above are ridiculous. Mark Blake won a premiership. Shannon Byrnes won 2 of them.

What you're actually saying is literally this: "Guthrie and Stanley and Rohan were all within one half of good footy from either themselves or 9-10 teammates literally 2 days ago, of achieving the ultimate success in their sport. They will never achieve the ultimate success in their sport."

Sorry but I'm not going to cop that an All Australian midfielder, because he had 14 disposals in a shortened game on grand final day, is suddenly not good enough. NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO PLAY WELL EVERY GAME THEY PLAY. That is a simple fact. Gary Jr couldn't do it, so no-one else can.
 
PhatBoy said:
Duncan was sensational. No argument there.

Blanket statements like the one above are ridiculous. Mark Blake won a premiership. Shannon Byrnes won 2 of them.

What you're actually saying is literally this: "Guthrie and Stanley and Rohan were all within one half of good footy from either themselves or 9-10 teammates literally 2 days ago, of achieving the ultimate success in their sport. They will never achieve the ultimate success in their sport."

Sorry but I'm not going to cop that an All Australian midfielder, because he had 14 disposals in a shortened game on grand final day, is suddenly not good enough. NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO PLAY WELL EVERY GAME THEY PLAY. That is a simple fact. Gary Jr couldn't do it, so no-one else can.
Click to expand...

Shannon Brynes was a better footballer than Gary Rohan. He was quite instrumental in helping us win the 2009 grand final. Rohan would have withdrawn into his shell if you reversed players in time.

Guthrie was ok on Sat night but all in all, was not a stand out. Certainly did not elevate or play as consistently as what Mitch Duncan did.

Ablett Junior has not played consistently for years so why even mention his name?
When he came back to Geelong, no one expected him to be a dominant force. I don't think many would have expected his drop off to be so sudden either.
Was barely best 22 this season.
 
PhatBoy said:
Your last sentence is the key one. Yes we didn't play out the full four quarters at the level we wanted to. But the first half - and lets be honest, we were 'better' by enough to be more than 22 points in front, probably showed that our form was well and truly up to it. We just didn't know how to handle what Richmond was doing in the second half.

The other thing that was noticeable - and PLEASE don't take this as a way of saying 'Richmond just got lucky' because I absolutely don't intend it to be that way - was that in the second half every loose ball seemed to find a Richmond player. Ruck contests where there was no definitive winner, ball on the deck situations etc, the ball was continually spilling straight to a Richmond player. To me that says firstly that Richmond got their positioning spot on and their players' ability to read the ball was first class. But I think we were setting up for those situations as though the scoreboard was 0-0 and there was no momentum in the game. Sometimes when an opponent starts to get on top you need a safety first mentality so that you can say "ok they're winning everything at the moment so we need to be more vigilant about where the opposition players are, rather than focusing on the ball itself."
Click to expand...

And this is basically what Ken alluded to when asked with time to reflect, what he could have done to get us over the line in the Prelim, throw numbers at the stoppages to support the mids.
When Richmond throw the switch you basically have to give away your own scoring capacity and focus on shutting down theirs.
Do that and the belief in the system fades quickly, then you hurt them on the counter.
Geelong went in at half time in the perfect situation, 3 goals infront, but they didnt quell the inevitable Richmond surge instead trying to stretch the lead with Danger in the forward line.
You have to rate your oppo and understand how they operate, unfortunately CS thought Danger was about to kick a bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PieLebo87
Intimate finals series
Replies
6
Views
390
Hamingja
Hamingja
Chief
News Chris Scott's coaching milestone; Crisp 200 in a row - Round 19 Milestones, Key Stats, Fixture, more!
Replies
0
Views
225
Chief
Chief
Connar
  • Poll
West Coast AFL another flag before Fremantle AFL's first
2 3
Replies
57
Views
1K
dockshark
dockshark
Power Play
Geelong's record in finals under Chris Scott
2 3 4 5
Replies
110
Views
4K
My Tilly
My Tilly
Chief
Preview AFL Community Series 2024
Replies
2
Views
425
PowerfulPies2023
PowerfulPies2023
AllHart
AFL Grand Final Video highlights of the 2023 AFL Grand Final Parade held in Melbourne on Friday 29 September 2023.
Replies
0
Views
315
AllHart
AllHart
GC2015
2023 AFLW Final Series
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
4K
Arwib
Arwib

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top