Mod. Notice The "I want to talk about old s**t that has nothing to with the OP but has relevence to something" thread.

[Vdubs]

All the right in the world. Being the Senior Coach of an AFL team brings responsibilities, you take on the job you take on the responsibilities. And for that matter accountability to your shareholders- that is us. Without us no AFL.
So Scott has to take the criticism on his intelligence, because that is what we see; on his choices and utterings and on his management of his team, the assistant coaches.
That is what being at the top means.
However none of that warrants hate posts and I don't think that any of us hate . We just have the right to criticise.

Criticism is no issue.
Commenting on intelligence or lack thereof is not the same thing, insinuating that the commenter has superior intelligence to the coach, or whoever it is, based on perceived or alleged dodgy choices for a game. Anyway, everybody operates in their own way.

 

[Vdubs]

You're kidding right? Of course you're not.

The same right as anyone else. Anyone who made a blunder as big as dropping Stanley for that final absolutely deserves to have their intelligence questioned.

He gets paid enough. He can cop criticism.

Or does being Geelong coach mean he is all powerful and immune?

So CS and his MC who made those choices, which were not as blunderous as you make out, given that it was discussed and preempted by many during that week, should cop abuse regarding their intelligence from supporters who have no knowledge of the variables that exist when these choices are made.
Even this week, we had a supporter suggesting Fort plays ahead of Stanley, yet you criticise CS as if it's already happened, which it may well do. You can't let go of your agendas months after the event.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Is the video camera made of two coconuts tied together with vine?

Of course not. That is ridiculous.
Obviously he got The Professor to McGiver him one up with an old radio and a magnifying glass in exchange for letting the Professor blow him behind a palm tree.

 

[Partridge]

So CS and his MC who made those choices, which were not as blunderous as you make out, given that it was discussed and preempted by many during that week, should cop abuse regarding their intelligence from supporters who have no knowledge of the variables that exist when these choices are made.
Even this week, we had a supporter suggesting Fort plays ahead of Stanley, yet you criticise CS as if it's already happened, which it may well do. You can't let go of your agendas months after the event.

Who mentioned that Stanley was ever going to be dropped until it came from the club?

 

[Vdubs]

Who mentioned that Stanley was ever going to be dropped until it came from the club?

When did it come from the club?
Stanley was dropped several times already; not like it was a shock, out of the blue decision. And there was the stormy forecast.


Bit been there done this before.
And I recall discussion all week leading into that game.

 

[Partridge]

When did it come from the club?
Stanley was dropped several times already; not like it was a shock, out of the blue decision. And there was the stormy forecast.

Bit been there done this before.
And I recall discussion all week leading into that game.

- Yes he was. And he shouldn't have been then.
- It was a shock.
- The forecast was then and is now completely irrelevant. If ever there was a ruckman who isn't worried by rain it's him. Scott should just admit he's decided he doesn't like him.

The modern game copes just fine with rain, there's barely a hiccup. The idea that suddenly we have to drop our best ruckman because of rain is as idiotic now as it was then.

I presume you'll be calling for ruckmen to be dropped in June and July when there are wet conditions?

 

[Cataholic]

- Yes he was. And he shouldn't have been then.
- It was a shock.
- The forecast was then and is now completely irrelevant. If ever there was a ruckman who isn't worried by rain it's him. Scott should just admit he's decided he doesn't like him.

The modern game copes just fine with rain, there's barely a hiccup. The idea that suddenly we have to drop our best ruckman because of rain is as idiotic now as it was then.

I presume you'll be calling for ruckmen to be dropped in June and July when there are wet conditions?

I can only assume the collective decision has ruled ruckmen as obsolete and of low priority to the GFC.

 

[Vdubs]

- Yes he was. And he shouldn't have been then.
- It was a shock.
- The forecast was then and is now completely irrelevant. If ever there was a ruckman who isn't worried by rain it's him. Scott should just admit he's decided he doesn't like him.

The modern game copes just fine with rain, there's barely a hiccup. The idea that suddenly we have to drop our best ruckman because of rain is as idiotic now as it was then.

I presume you'll be calling for ruckmen to be dropped in June and July when there are wet conditions?

Stanley gets dropped when he's gotten us into another fine mess.
I doubt that CS does not like him.
Personally, I have always regarded Stanley as one of our weapons , when he is good. But the good games are not frequent enough for the MC's liking.
But he has a history of going missing.
They know his strengths and weaknesses more than we do, so the reasons for dropping him, and Smith when we had him can seem bizarre at times.
But not enough to declare it as a definite reason for losing a game.
Which is what you do . You went on about the rucks in 2013 and can't get over it v 211, as if West would have made THE difference, and similarly, Stanley v Grundy. He may have played well, we will never know, but how about letting it go.
We start again this week.
Rain, wind, no, rarely do vital players get dropped, but it does happen for team balance sometimes, particularly if the replacement is of equivalent value. And Blic can be better value if they only wanted one ruck for the conditions of that game, +/- Sav.

 

[Partridge]

Rain, wind, no, rarely do vital players get dropped, but it does happen for team balance sometimes, particularly if the replacement is of equivalent value. And Blic can be better value if they only wanted one ruck for the conditions of that game, +/- Sav.

Blicavs is never better value than Stanley in the ruck. As proven by the reaming he was predictably given.

As always, like our coach, his many flaws seem to escape unnoticed.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Stanley gets dropped when he's gotten us into another fine mess.
I doubt that CS does not like him.
Personally, I have always regarded Stanley as one of our weapons , when he is good. But the good games are not frequent enough for the MC's liking.
But he has a history of going missing.
They know his strengths and weaknesses more than we do, so the reasons for dropping him, and Smith when we had him can seem bizarre at times.
But not enough to declare it as a definite reason for losing a game.
Which is what you do . You went on about the rucks in 2013 and can't get over it v 211, as if West would have made THE difference, and similarly, Stanley v Grundy. He may have played well, we will never know, but how about letting it go.
We start again this week.
Rain, wind, no, rarely do vital players get dropped, but it does happen for team balance sometimes, particularly if the replacement is of equivalent value. And Blic can be better value if they only wanted one ruck for the conditions of that game, +/- Sav.

Blitz has no value in the ruck in any conditions. Never has never will.
Dunno why we're even mentioning the conditions.
Everyone knew it wasn't going to rain, and Stanley said he was told he was dropped during the week.They're irrelevant.
Just another porky from Mr.Fibs.

 

[Cataholic]

Blitz has no value in the ruck in any conditions. Never has never will.
Dunno why we're even mentioning the conditions.
Everyone knew it wasn't going to rain, and Stanley said he was told he was dropped during the week.They're irrelevant.
Just another porky from Mr.Fibs.

Blitz has been Scott's McGyver

 

[Spazz Cat]

Blitz has been Scott's McGyver

More that he is his pride and joy. A player that he's developed himself to show how clever he is and he can change footy.
Why he wins B+F's he doesn't deserve.

 

[Cataholic]

More that he is his pride and joy. A player that he's developed himself to show how clever he is and he can change footy.
Why he wins B+F's he doesn't deserve.

How much influence does CS have on that voting?

 

[you pick one]

Blitz has no value in the ruck in any conditions. Never has never will.
Dunno why we're even mentioning the conditions.
Everyone knew it wasn't going to rain, and Stanley said he was told he was dropped during the week.They're irrelevant.
Just another porky from Mr.Fibs.

This, the radar was clear when the decision was announced an hour before the start.Some of us commented on it at the time.

 

[Spazz Cat]

How much influence does CS have on that voting?

I think all the coaches vote. As far as I know anyway.

 

[Spazz Cat]

This, the radar was clear when the decision was announced an hour before the start.Some of us commented on it at the time.

Yeah it was clear. Doesn't matter anyway, he was told he wasn't playing during the week.

 

[Cataholic]

Yeah it was clear. Doesn't matter anyway, he was told he wasn't playing during the week.

Didn't he say he was told as early as the Tuesday??

Relying on memory here.

 

[Partridge]

How much influence does CS have on that voting?

Gut feel, way too much.

I wonder the same thing about Ablett not winning it in 2010.

 

[cats_09]

How much influence does CS have on that voting?

Voting system:

After each game the senior coach and assistant coaches rate each player in the AFL team’s performance out of 15. The combined votes are then averaged to give a final score for that game.

To ensure players aren’t disadvantaged by injuries or being managed, each player’s highest scoring 23 games of the season are added together to give a final score for 2019. Therefore, if a player plays 25 games, his lowest scoring two games will be eliminated from the total.

 

[Cataholic]

Voting system:

After each game the senior coach and assistant coaches rate each player in the AFL team’s performance out of 15. The combined votes are then averaged to give a final score for that game.

To ensure players aren’t disadvantaged by injuries or being managed, each player’s highest scoring 23 games of the season are added together to give a final score for 2019. Therefore, if a player plays 25 games, his lowest scoring two games will be eliminated from the total.

Ah, so he has a huge say.

 

[Partridge]

Voting system:

After each game the senior coach and assistant coaches rate each player in the AFL team’s performance out of 15. The combined votes are then averaged to give a final score for that game.

To ensure players aren’t disadvantaged by injuries or being managed, each player’s highest scoring 23 games of the season are added together to give a final score for 2019. Therefore, if a player plays 25 games, his lowest scoring two games will be eliminated from the total.

This is where the ship goes off the rails. Participation trophy level bullshit.

If you get injured, you miss out. If you are managed, you miss out. Tough.

Does that mean Ablett gets the 2008 Best and Fairest now? Because he missed 4 games and Joel Corey didn't miss any? That's where this garbage leads to.

 

[you pick one]

Ah, so he has a huge say.

And the same bloke when asked about opposition players post game who tear his side a new one is likely to think they had little influnce.

 

[you pick one]

Blitz has been Scott's McGyver

It was most definitely the plan,but to often finished up looking like Russell Coight.

 

[Max Milburn]

This thread is totally living up to its name.

 

[Cataholic]

This thread is totally living up to its name.

It's inevitable until something changes.