Roast The match committee’s decision to drop Stanley

(Log in to remove this ad.)

romeohwho

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2015
9,033
9,404
AFL Club
Geelong
I read a quote somewhere that Scott said they ‘agonised’ over the dropping Stanley decision. So it’s quite concerning to me that something so bleedingly obviously wrong was given more than two minutes discussion before being dismissed as a foolhardy idea. Sounds like they are all too far in the bubble or something to see the forest for the trees.
 

Vdubs

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 1, 2008
29,548
27,815
48 J 09
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Arsenal
This comment to me seems accurate and probably points to why we won't win the flag.
It essentially reading between the lines infers that Scott doesn't have full trust in his system or personnel to get the job done, so he needs to make coaches box masterclass tweaks to win us games.

When we were comfortably the best side in the comp under Bomber you'd never see him do s**t like this. He knew he had the best side, the best game plan for that side, and if they played even remotely close to decent that they'd win.

Deep down Scott has not got unwavering faith in this team, and he doesn't trust his game plan. The latter is most definitely all on him.
That's because he knows the deficiencies of this team, its players. Bringing up comparisons with the flag teams is part of the issue. This current team, is in no way near that quality. That team was so good that in 2011 it was player driven, and we did not even need a coach while Bomber was doing his Essendon jaunt, so we are constantly told. Our current team is just hanging in there, and CS is guilty of that. Topping up, melding together a team that can get up in H & A, failing in finals.
I certainly hate the Stanley out decision as well, and CS will have to wear that, but we have seen enough even this year to suggest how fickle our form and fortunes are.
 
Last edited:

allrighty

Premium Gold
Jun 5, 2007
7,033
10,221
Over the hill and far out
AFL Club
Geelong
Not so. Board members can be 'recruited' on a skills basis and then selected by existing Board Members. Don't have to go back to members, if there are any. In the case of the GFC there are members. It is a long time since an open election was held for example, three Board Members retiring every year, the vacancies advertised widely and Members vote. The last time that I asked about that sort of process I was told that it is too expensive.
Really the only thing that your membership gives you as an exclusive is access to GF tickets in the ballot, it doesn't give you any sense of belonging.
Members are entitled to vote. That's the law. A sense of belonging is not going to happen, that's where the boys' club mentality is rife.
 

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
78,249
101,571
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
Not so. Board members can be 'recruited' on a skills basis and then selected by existing Board Members. Don't have to go back to members, if there are any. In the case of the GFC there are members. It is a long time since an open election was held for example, three Board Members retiring every year, the vacancies advertised widely and Members vote. The last time that I asked about that sort of process I was told that it is too expensive.
Really the only thing that your membership gives you as an exclusive is access to GF tickets in the ballot, it doesn't give you any sense of belonging.

11. VOTES AT MEETING AND ELECTIONS 11.1 VOTING MEMBERS (a) Subject to this Constitution the following requirements must be satisfied for a Member to be eligible to vote at Meetings of the Club: (i) the person must have purchased a membership with access to five (5) home games or more; (ii) the membership must be current and valid; and (iii) the Member must be aged eighteen (18) years and over, unless the person is: (iv) a Life Member: (v) a Social Club Member with right to vote at Meetings of the Club under this Constitution; or (vi) holds any other Category of Membership that includes a right to vote at Meetings of the Club as determined by the Board under clause 6. (b) Any Member who satisfies the requirements listed at clause 11.1(a) shall be deemed to be an Ordinary Voting Member and will be entitled to vote. (c) Unless the Board determines otherwise, an AFL Club Support Member who purchases a Ground Entry Entitlement Subscription to attend five (5) or more home games of the Club will be deemed to be an Ordinary Voting Member.

13. ELECTIONS 13.1 ELIGIBILITY Any candidate for election to one (1) of the seven (7) director positions on the Board must be an Ordinary Voting Member over the age of eighteen (18) years or a Life Member of the Club.

13.2 NOMINATION PROCEDURE

(a) Thirty five (35) days at least before the holding of the Annual General Meeting in any year in which an election for members of the Board is required the Club will by advertisement on the Club’s website specify the closing dates of nominations for such election.

(b) Every candidate for election as a member of the Board must be proposed and seconded by two (2) Ordinary Voting Members.

(c) The nomination form must be executed by the two (2) Ordinary Voting Members and delivered (i) by hardcopy; (ii) electronic means; or (iii) as otherwise specified in the advertisement outlined at clause 13.2(a), to the Chief Executive Officer no later than 5.00pm on the day being twenty eight (28) days before the date of the Annual General Meeting in each year in which an election is to occur.

(d) The Chief Executive Officer shall display all nominations upon the notice board, being the area designated by the Club from time to time for the posting of notices, in the Office immediately upon receipt.

(e) Nominations may be withdrawn by notice in writing signed by the candidate and delivered to the Chief Executive Officer at any time prior to the close of the nomination.

13.3 NUMBER OF CANDIDATES

(a) When no more than the required number of candidates are nominated for election as members of the Board those candidates nominated shall be declared elected at the Annual General Meeting.

(b) If less candidates than the number of vacancies are nominated the vacancies may be filled by the Board following the Annual General Meeting.

(c) Where there are more nominations for election as members of the Board than there are vacancies to be filled an election by ballot shall be conducted.

13.4 ELECTION BY BALLOT PROCEDURE

(a) All Ordinary Voting Members will be entitled to vote on any election for members of the Board. 28

(b) The Board shall appoint a Returning Officer to conduct the election. The Returning Officer’s decision shall be final in all matters relating to the conduct of the election.

(c) The Returning Officer shall within fourteen (14) days of the closing of the nominations post and/or send electronically (as the Returning Officer shall determine) to all Members entitled to vote at their address shown in the Register:
(i) the relevant ballot material along with the appropriate instructions;
(ii) a candidate profile sheet containing a photograph 3 cm x 3 cm of each candidate (if this is supplied by the candidate) together with their manifesto not to exceed one hundred and fifty (150) words which they shall prepare and submit to the Chief Executive Officer at the time of their nomination; and
(iii) the ballot paper and candidate profile sheet shall list candidates in order as decided by lot by the Returning Officer.

13.5 VOTING PROCEDURE

(a) Ballot material shall be issued to Ordinary Voting Members no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the close of voting.

(b) An Ordinary Voting Member voting shall vote in accordance with the voting instructions issued with the ballot material.

(c) Voting under this section may be made by postal or electronic vote provided it is not contrary with the instructions provided with the ballot material. Any ballot paper returned otherwise than in accordance with those instructions may be rejected by the Returning Officer.

(d) An Ordinary Voting Member voting must ensure that the ballot material is lodged with the Returning Officer at the office nominated by the Club by 5.00pm two (2) days prior to the Annual General Meeting. No ballot paper received after that time will be counted.

(e) The Returning Officer has the entire control of the ballot and may appoint such persons to assist him or her as he or she thinks fit. The Returning Officer will count the votes received for each candidate, and advise the Chief Executive Officer as to the result of the election.

(f) Each candidate may if he or she so desires appoint a scrutineer to represent him or her at the counting of votes by completing the appropriate scrutineer form and lodging it at the Office of the Club with the nomination form pursuant to clause 13.2.

(g) Any ballot paper returned by post must be enclosed in an envelope which specifies the number of the membership ticket of the Ordinary Voting Member voting. 29 (h) Each individual Ordinary Voting Member will only be entitled to one (1) vote irrespective of how many Categories of Membership that individual Ordinary Voting Member retains from time to time.
Seems pretty simple to me. Any voting member can vote for a position on the board and/or apply for a position on the board, subject to member election.
 

CatFan79

Premiership Player
Sep 25, 2004
4,510
3,111
AFL Club
Geelong
I read a quote somewhere that Scott said they ‘agonised’ over the dropping Stanley decision. So it’s quite concerning to me that something so bleedingly obviously wrong was given more than two minutes discussion before being dismissed as a foolhardy idea. Sounds like they are all too far in the bubble or something to see the forest for the trees.
Scott is blinded by his own arrogance and denial.. Wasn't it Scarlett who said we need to defend with the ball in our hand?

With that level of 'intelligence' I'm not surprised.
 

steady2

Club Legend
Jun 25, 2013
2,522
4,098
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Unfortunately this thread very quickly deteriorated into a hostile and very personal Scott-hate session. It should be merged with the other Scott-hate thread.

David King hates Chris Scott, I think Scott flattened him on several occasions when they played on each other. I remember his prediction in late 2011 that Brad would win a premiership before Chris. While much of what King wrote is quite correct, there is clearly some personal animosity included in the wording.

Stanley leaping at Kreuzer at the beginning of the Carlton game, tapping it way forward, Danger leaping on to the ball and kicking a goal in the first 10 seconds of the game gave us a big psychological boost. A few 1%s in a teams favour and a few against the opponent can be the difference between winning well and losing badly, especially at finals time. I'm sure Stanley was mentally preparing himself for the biggest game of his life, until told that Blitz would take on Grundy.

Scott admitted the mistake after the game, that was good. However in the conversation he mentioned there were "6 or 7 people" present involved in the decision. The buck stops with the coach! I was disappointed with this attempt to share the blame, however maybe that is the case. One would assume that the coach would have the final word. Surely Scott must have agreed with the decision. If he preferred Stanley and was overruled there is something wrong at the Cattery. I am inclined to think Scott must have suggested the idea or certainly agreed with it. He should have accepted full blame.
 

Gavin Excell

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 22, 2007
27,769
29,358
Bentleigh
AFL Club
Geelong
Unfortunately this thread very quickly deteriorated into a hostile and very personal Scott-hate session. It should be merged with the other Scott-hate thread.

David King hates Chris Scott, I think Scott flattened him on several occasions when they played on each other. I remember his prediction in late 2011 that Brad would win a premiership before Chris. While much of what King wrote is quite correct, there is clearly some personal animosity included in the wording.

Stanley leaping at Kreuzer at the beginning of the Carlton game, tapping it way forward, Danger leaping on to the ball and kicking a goal in the first 10 seconds of the game gave us a big psychological boost. A few 1%s in a teams favour and a few against the opponent can be the difference between winning well and losing badly, especially at finals time. I'm sure Stanley was mentally preparing himself for the biggest game of his life, until told that Blitz would take on Grundy.

Scott admitted the mistake after the game, that was good. However in the conversation he mentioned there were "6 or 7 people" present involved in the decision. The buck stops with the coach! I was disappointed with this attempt to share the blame, however maybe that is the case. One would assume that the coach would have the final word. Surely Scott must have agreed with the decision. If he preferred Stanley and was overruled there is something wrong at the Cattery. I am inclined to think Scott must have suggested the idea or certainly agreed with it. He should have accepted full blame.
Agree.

The suggestion from an earlier poster was that it was solely his decision and one Scarlett for instance disagreed with.

Whatever the dilution of the blame stinks
 

romeohwho

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2015
9,033
9,404
AFL Club
Geelong
Unfortunately this thread very quickly deteriorated into a hostile and very personal Scott-hate session. It should be merged with the other Scott-hate thread.

David King hates Chris Scott, I think Scott flattened him on several occasions when they played on each other. I remember his prediction in late 2011 that Brad would win a premiership before Chris. While much of what King wrote is quite correct, there is clearly some personal animosity included in the wording.

Stanley leaping at Kreuzer at the beginning of the Carlton game, tapping it way forward, Danger leaping on to the ball and kicking a goal in the first 10 seconds of the game gave us a big psychological boost. A few 1%s in a teams favour and a few against the opponent can be the difference between winning well and losing badly, especially at finals time. I'm sure Stanley was mentally preparing himself for the biggest game of his life, until told that Blitz would take on Grundy.

Scott admitted the mistake after the game, that was good. However in the conversation he mentioned there were "6 or 7 people" present involved in the decision. The buck stops with the coach! I was disappointed with this attempt to share the blame, however maybe that is the case. One would assume that the coach would have the final word. Surely Scott must have agreed with the decision. If he preferred Stanley and was overruled there is something wrong at the Cattery. I am inclined to think Scott must have suggested the idea or certainly agreed with it. He should have accepted full blame.
Disagree re king-have been listening to him the last few weeks he has actually been quite even handed in his commentary on Geelong and Scott. He has made some valid comments about Scott’s coaching that are worth giving some thought to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BORIS332

Club Legend
Dec 22, 2016
2,036
3,319
AFL Club
Geelong
Mods, I am hoping this isn’t merged into the Chris Scott re-signs’ thread....

I have staunchly defended Scott over the past five years, on BF and amongst friends.

But when I heard the pre-game news that Stanley was out, he lost me. I don’t know if it was his decision solely or whether the ‘brains trust’ decided having no ruck and taking Blicavs out of defence would be a good idea.

I thought it was crazy. I’d checked the BOM Radar and I couldn’t see any rain on the horizon. What was Scott thinking?

The game was lost in the first 10 minutes. Our defence was a rabble. Coincidence that our defence was without Blicavs?

I don’t know if Scott can recover from this monumental stuff up
Bit harsh to pin it all on CS. I very much doubt the decision was his and his alone. Terrible call, completely agree with you, but CS isn’t solely to blame. And the fact Bews, Dahlhaus, Rohan, and Duncan all got injured during the game and we only lost by 10pts says we did a lot right on the night.
 

goyoucatters

Premiership Player
Jan 31, 2008
3,233
6,757
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Stockport County, Chicago Cubs
When you make a selection call that transparently means your team will have to win the game despite that call rather than in any way because of it, you know a horrendous error has been committed.

However it happened, the decision was basically indefensible even before the evidence of the game playing out proved its utter idiocy.

I think you would be hard pressed to find even a rookie coach who could comfortably preside over such a monumentally dumb call. So I will be intrigued to see whether the coaching staff and players can pull together for this week's SF after such a divisive and demoralising moment before such a crucial game.
 

Gavin Excell

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 22, 2007
27,769
29,358
Bentleigh
AFL Club
Geelong
When you make a selection call that transparently means your team will have to win the game despite that call rather than in any way because of it, you know a horrendous error has been committed.

However it happened, the decision was basically indefensible even before the evidence of the game playing out proved its utter idiocy.

I think you would be hard pressed to find even a rookie coach who could preside over such a monumentally dumb call. So I will be intrigued to see whether the coaching staff and players can pull together for this week's SF after such a divisive and demoralising moment before such a crucial game.
Wonder if we now have players lacking confidence in the coaching direction
 

OddYears

All Australian
May 6, 2013
834
1,453
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Geelong
The worst decision from a coach this year but not even Scott’s worst finals decision ever. That’s how idiotic he is. The rain excuse is total BS. It was planned in advance and he needs to take responsibility. It’s the knock on effect that really screws us. Lose one of our best defenders, sav spends the most time in the ruck he ever has in his first final. Blitz was rolling back and letting Grundy run riot then we have to listen to Scott say he’ll reserve his judgement on how impactful Grundy was. Seriously get off your high horse and own it. Getting absolutely destroyed at stoppages lost that game. It’s on Scott.
 

goyoucatters

Premiership Player
Jan 31, 2008
3,233
6,757
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Stockport County, Chicago Cubs
Wonder if we now have players lacking confidence in the coaching direction
Surely no need to wonder. There would have to be issues within the coaching group and from there through to the players after such a deflating and self-defeating decision cost the club so much in a vital game.
 

BORIS332

Club Legend
Dec 22, 2016
2,036
3,319
AFL Club
Geelong
When you make a selection call that transparently means your team will have to win the game despite that call rather than in any way because of it, you know a horrendous error has been committed.

However it happened, the decision was basically indefensible even before the evidence of the game playing out proved its utter idiocy.

I think you would be hard pressed to find even a rookie coach who could comfortably preside over such a monumentally dumb call. So I will be intrigued to see whether the coaching staff and players can pull together for this week's SF after such a divisive and demoralising moment before such a crucial game.
If you think Grundy was the difference then you and I were watching a different game.
 

cats_09

Spec Moderator
Jun 21, 2011
15,145
27,503
AFL Club
Geelong
If you think Grundy was the difference then you and I were watching a different game.
I know that majority of Collingwood's goals were from clearances, but that includes clearances from our end of the ground where they were able to run with the ball and we failed to stop that.

Pendles goal in the 3rd quarter was directly from the tap work of Grundy, but when you watch the replay of that passage I want to know where the Geelong players were - there's something like 3 Collingwood players not under direct pressure from a Geelong opponent.
 

goyoucatters

Premiership Player
Jan 31, 2008
3,233
6,757
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Stockport County, Chicago Cubs
If you think Grundy was the difference then you and I were watching a different game.
He wasn't the difference. But he was a very important point of difference. And ensuring that he would become so is entirely on the nonsensical decision to enter a massive finals game against the AA ruckman without a recognised ruck.

Key stoppage losses for us and important link-up plays for the Pies were set in motion via the absence of a meaningful opponent for Grundy. A situation that was entirely foreseeable and thus potentially preventable.

Maybe even more pertinent is the question of what difference it made for us to have Blitz contesting in the ruck instead of playing in his best role as an elite defensive stopper. Whether you think the difference that made was very large or relatively minor, I would imagine most observers could definitely agree that it wasn't a positive difference for us.
 

goyoucatters

Premiership Player
Jan 31, 2008
3,233
6,757
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Stockport County, Chicago Cubs
I know that majority of Collingwood's goals were from clearances, but that includes clearances from our end of the ground where they were able to run with the ball and we failed to stop that.

Pendles goal in the 3rd quarter was directly from the tap work of Grundy, but when you watch the replay of that passage I want to know where the Geelong players were - there's something like 3 Collingwood players not under direct pressure from a Geelong opponent.
That sounds like one of our better moments regarding accountability on the night, then.

The level of disrespect shown by our players defensively as Pies players ambled by them at contests for most of the night was both embarrassing and infuriating in the extreme.
 

lolcat

Debutant
Sep 18, 2007
100
78
Canberra
AFL Club
Geelong
I believe the current match committee strategy is too complex for them to handle. i.e. they've bitten off more than they can chew.

Let me explain...

For the better part of a decade now, it appears that the primary strategy of the match committee is to tinker around with tricky team selections and try to outsmart the opposition. E.g. for the next game, the stats show that <insert_opposition_club> will likely beat us in this particular area, or that one. Based on the stats, if we mix-up/change the team selection by <insert_baffling_team_selection_decision> then we are more likely to achieve a result.

Now, in theory, this sort of approach works. It is based on Red Sox Moneyball approach. However, it takes some *very* smart and able people to pull this sort of thing off effectively.

In the H&A season, it tends to work out ok - this is likely the reason we haven't completely tumbled down the ladder.

However, this is the important point, being tricky with team selections doesn't work in finals footy.

It has been obvious for years - opposition teams can easily beat Geelong in a final by implementing one simple tactic...

Come out insanely hard in the first few minutes of a game, and while the Geelong players are still trying figure out themselves how to settle in to their new roles and work together with the latest mind-boggling team structure, you (the opposition) can run around/through them. Panic sets in, you score goals and voila, Geelong is playing catch-up for the rest of the game.​
----

So, what should the match committee do?
  • Get back to basics in finals
    • Finals footy will always be won, to some degree, through shear strength
    • Finals footy is also about confidence
    • If you can show the opposition you know what you are doing, that you are in charge, and that you are bloody confident together as a team, then they won't have a chance to run around/through you.
    • Simple things.
  • Stop trying to be tricky
    • Trying to outsmart the opposition doesn't work in finals
    • Settle on your best team and positions throughout the year
    • Stop making random decisions in September
  • Let the players off the leash
    • At the end of the season, show the players you believe in them
    • Remind them that they are in the finals because they implemented the game plan well all year so far
    • Tell them them to get out there and keep doing what they've been doing so well already - but now with more strength and force
    • Give them the freedom, through simplicity, to not have to think too hard about where to play, who to link up with, who to rely on, etc...

Dear Geelong Football Club - the above recommendations are provided as an opportunity for improvement. Given your current dismal finals results over the past decade or so, what have you got to lose? Why not try them out? If you have any better ideas, by all means let us know what they are and give them a go. But please, just stop persisting with your current strategy, it is not working!

P.S. I only suspect this to be the case, I don't know if it is true.... stop threatening your players with passive/active consequences if they talk back too much or if they stray too far from your 'on-paper game plan'. Let them be humans and make their own mistakes every now and again.
 

cats_09

Spec Moderator
Jun 21, 2011
15,145
27,503
AFL Club
Geelong
That sounds like one of our better moments regarding accountability on the night, then.

The level of disrespect shown by our players defensively as Pies players ambled by them at contests for most of the night was both embarrassing and infuriating in the extreme.
No disputing that Stanley should have played, but this morning I was happy to read Robbo put some heat back on our players for what happened Friday night

4. Don’t always blame the coach

Chris Scott is taking a standing 10 count from the media for dropping Rhys Stanley, but his players must also accept responsibility for their lack of punch. Gazza looked like he didn’t want contact, Tom Hawkins kicked four behinds, Gary Rohan dropped his bundle, Joel Selwood couldn’t influence things as much as he would have liked, and the players didn’t or couldn’t stop Collingwood marking the ball. The Pies took 123 to Geelong’s 74. We always ask more of the champs and when it’s Ablett’s lowest-ranking game of the season, the scrutiny is deserved. Credit to Collingwood’s Brayden Maynard. He is an old fashioned hard bugger, but Ablett has dealt with Maynard types for 15 years and flourished. The Cats need a big game from him on Friday night.
 

lolcat

Debutant
Sep 18, 2007
100
78
Canberra
AFL Club
Geelong
4. Don’t always blame the coach

Chris Scott is taking a standing 10 count from the media for dropping Rhys Stanley, but his players must also accept responsibility for their lack of punch. Gazza looked like he didn’t want contact, Tom Hawkins kicked four behinds, Gary Rohan dropped his bundle, Joel Selwood couldn’t influence things as much as he would have liked, and the players didn’t or couldn’t stop Collingwood marking the ball. The Pies took 123 to Geelong’s 74. We always ask more of the champs and when it’s Ablett’s lowest-ranking game of the season, the scrutiny is deserved. Credit to Collingwood’s Brayden Maynard. He is an old fashioned hard bugger, but Ablett has dealt with Maynard types for 15 years and flourished. The Cats need a big game from him on Friday night.
Fair call, but I do wonder how much the coaches behaviour and approach impacts on the players ability on the day. e.g. if the coach comes out beforehand and says to the players, "we're going to try out some crazy idea of not having a ruckman, oh, and we're going to destabilise the backline by pulling out one of our best defensive players to fill that ruck role, and now I want you all to suck it up and run with it" I wonder how this impacts their ability to concentrate in the first few minutes of a game.

I do believe that type of thing is what is happening in finals - year after year after year - the players get smashed in the first few minutes of finals games. This coach (and match selection committee), that has had these repeated bad results with so many different players over many many years is absolutely responsible for this. There is one common element to these poor final results over these recent years...
 

Turbocat

Premium Platinum
Dec 10, 2003
40,986
38,630
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
Unfortunately this thread very quickly deteriorated into a hostile and very personal Scott-hate session. It should be merged with the other Scott-hate thread.

David King hates Chris Scott, I think Scott flattened him on several occasions when they played on each other. I remember his prediction in late 2011 that Brad would win a premiership before Chris. While much of what King wrote is quite correct, there is clearly some personal animosity included in the wording.

Stanley leaping at Kreuzer at the beginning of the Carlton game, tapping it way forward, Danger leaping on to the ball and kicking a goal in the first 10 seconds of the game gave us a big psychological boost. A few 1%s in a teams favour and a few against the opponent can be the difference between winning well and losing badly, especially at finals time. I'm sure Stanley was mentally preparing himself for the biggest game of his life, until told that Blitz would take on Grundy.

Scott admitted the mistake after the game, that was good. However in the conversation he mentioned there were "6 or 7 people" present involved in the decision. The buck stops with the coach! I was disappointed with this attempt to share the blame, however maybe that is the case. One would assume that the coach would have the final word. Surely Scott must have agreed with the decision. If he preferred Stanley and was overruled there is something wrong at the Cattery. I am inclined to think Scott must have suggested the idea or certainly agreed with it. He should have accepted full blame.
Compare Scott to the Cricket Capt Paine. Now he admitted mistakes..took it on and we will move on... Scott , in his presser , could not do that he still was in the mindscope of we could discuss how affective Grundy was...
What has not been explored enough is what he did to the backline and how it shook them up... Other times he had replaced Blitz with Henderson... not this time... by the time we regained our balance ...Collingwood was in manage the game mode.. and the game was gone.
 

Turbocat

Premium Platinum
Dec 10, 2003
40,986
38,630
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
No disputing that Stanley should have played, but this morning I was happy to read Robbo put some heat back on our players for what happened Friday night

4. Don’t always blame the coach

Chris Scott is taking a standing 10 count from the media for dropping Rhys Stanley, but his players must also accept responsibility for their lack of punch. Gazza looked like he didn’t want contact, Tom Hawkins kicked four behinds, Gary Rohan dropped his bundle, Joel Selwood couldn’t influence things as much as he would have liked, and the players didn’t or couldn’t stop Collingwood marking the ball. The Pies took 123 to Geelong’s 74. We always ask more of the champs and when it’s Ablett’s lowest-ranking game of the season, the scrutiny is deserved. Credit to Collingwood’s Brayden Maynard. He is an old fashioned hard bugger, but Ablett has dealt with Maynard types for 15 years and flourished. The Cats need a big game from him on Friday night.
That reads like a protect his fellow 360 panellist.. I doubt we will see ultra tough questions for scott on the show
 

Top Bottom