Given his pride is more important to him than anything, I can’t see him playing Stanley now
Roast The match committee’s decision to drop Stanley
- Thread starter Sttew
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I read through this too quickly and thought it was an actual quote. Wah wah wah you just make it up.
Liger
Club Legend
- Jul 1, 2013
- 2,400
- 4,883
- AFL Club
- Geelong
FFS it’s not the point! It was as much about the mindset of the move as it was the impact on the game Chris!
"In reviewing the water damage we didn't think removing the finger from the dike supported the theory that is why the village was flooded."
Well if we lose he can inevitably point blame at players. Certainly won’t be his fault
Charlatan
Monorail for sale
Apologies for the intrusion, but I find Scott's comments and Stanley's comments to be at odds with each other.
---------------------------
Stanley confirmed on Monday he had been dumped from the side following training on Thursday last week and watched on as the Pies converted four goals from stoppages in the first term – as a major part of the result.
Scott disagreed on both fronts.
"We were still talking about the call 90 minutes before the game time, so we didn't need more time necessarily," Scott said
---------------------------
I agree with you guys about the non inclusion of Stanley. I really think it cost you the game, especially when you factor in Dangers comments about being better at the stoppages and that it starts from the ruck.
Of course if you don't like what I've posted then give me a belting, but I think there's a bit of animosity there.
---------------------------
Stanley confirmed on Monday he had been dumped from the side following training on Thursday last week and watched on as the Pies converted four goals from stoppages in the first term – as a major part of the result.
Scott disagreed on both fronts.
"We were still talking about the call 90 minutes before the game time, so we didn't need more time necessarily," Scott said
---------------------------
I agree with you guys about the non inclusion of Stanley. I really think it cost you the game, especially when you factor in Dangers comments about being better at the stoppages and that it starts from the ruck.
Of course if you don't like what I've posted then give me a belting, but I think there's a bit of animosity there.
Surely you joke. He'll play whomsoever he thinks will get the choccies. If pride comes into it at all it will be to not go out in straight sets.
This just sums it up for me...
To quote Chris Scott in his press conference today
By the looks of it, it appears it is Chris' way or the highway...
Chris, mate, it's not intended to be a contest. It's feedback mate. You're not the bloody Oracle of Delphi when it comes to coaching. Everyone makes mistakes - you included. It's those that are too arrogant to accept and learn from their mistakes that are doomed to keep repeating them.
To quote Chris Scott in his press conference today
By the looks of it, it appears it is Chris' way or the highway...
Chris, mate, it's not intended to be a contest. It's feedback mate. You're not the bloody Oracle of Delphi when it comes to coaching. Everyone makes mistakes - you included. It's those that are too arrogant to accept and learn from their mistakes that are doomed to keep repeating them.
I thought Scott said we decided to leave stanley out on Thursday, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t be a late inclusion. So it wasn’t set in concrete and they were still open to playing him right up till time’s up.
Of course scott can be quite hard to get a read on. Didn’t see animosity on any side though.
What is the point of this statement exactly?
It seems to have no purpose but to absolve his disastrous decision, say it was irrelevant and move blame elsewhere.
At first he was shifty about being responsible ("6 or 7 others involved "). Now he is saying it wasn't a factor.
Is it any wonder a lot of us are losing faith
- Nov 24, 2008
- 7,031
- 15,065
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Still is. That quote was all we, we, we.
Looks like he's taken to dribbling wees as well now.
How can you be a late inclusion when you are already listed to play.
Why is anyone surprised by this. Mission accompolished was the final straw in determining whether scott was arrogant and unable to accept mistakes. That was many years ago now and we have numerous examples since to recognize he will never change his mind regardless of the results.
- Aug 21, 2009
- 886
- 1,561
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I have coached sport for over fifty years, in all that time I don't believe a coach wins games from the coaches box, or the selection table. In the end the players win matches. Having said that poor coaching/selection can surely lose games.
Oh well ‘doesn’t preclude’ then? You listen to his presser-he does like to meander!
David the Cat
Moderator
- Moderator
- #270
As it should be.....in the end, the buck stops with him.
Has the media ever pressed a coach?
I'm still livid about the Stanley fiasco
Any reasonable analysis would have raised huge red flags :
> Stanley had broken even earlier in the year with Grundy and had just come off a very good effort against Kreuzer - he was in form
> Blitz had been pantsed by Stef friggin Martin FFS , Grundy is the best follower going around so huge risk
> Blitz out of defence takes direction and flexibility from our settled defence
> Blitz in the ruck meant Sav spent more time rucking than he would had Stanley rucked - weakens our forward line
Much too bigger risk IMHO , we need to admit we have a post Bye and Finals issue and if we haven't addressed this internally someone should be sacked for gross incompetence.
- Feb 28, 2011
- 12,104
- 19,576
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Manchester Utd, New York Rangers
I'm still livid about the Stanley fiasco
Any reasonable analysis would have raised huge red flags :
> Stanley had broken even earlier in the year with Grundy and had just come off a very good effort against Kreuzer - he was in form
> Blitz had been pantsed by Stef friggin Martin FFS , Grundy is the best follower going around so huge risk
> Blitz out of defence takes direction and flexibility from our settled defence
> Blitz in the ruck meant Sav spent more time rucking than he would had Stanley rucked - weakens our forward line
Much too bigger risk IMHO , we need to admit we have a post Bye and Finals issue and if we haven't addressed this internally someone should be sacked for gross incompetence.
I don't understand how they come to that decision to be honest, the worst part about it is we pulled our bnf full back out to play ruck which is ludicrous, as soon as you do that you throw all forms of structure out, if they had been playing that way for 6 weeks and it was working then fine but changing it week to week doesn't give the side a chance to get get settled, im not saying Stanley would have been the difference (Grundy pantses most rucks) but having Blics down back would have at least allowed the backline to be settled but instead they were running into each other all night like headless chooks.
BlakeyNoFlakey
Brownlow Medallist
Don't believe it. It has come out this week that Stanley was informed he wasn't playing Wednesday before the game. They named him purely to mess with Collingwoods selections, Scott never planned on playing Stanley. The whole rain thing was a lie.
Last edited:
catempire
Premium Platinum
The Stanley decision was diabolical. But why people insist on concocting this “lie” theory is a mystery.
Rain was forecast all week. He was named in the 22 to keep Collingwood guessing. You don’t need to submit team sheets until 90 minutes before game time. They took the punt it was going to be wet. It was stupid either way. The plan never changed from the match committee meeting. There was no lie.
Similar threads
- Locked
