Opinion Who will be our next head coach?

[Therealsaint]

Yes, they win if they don't appoint him because he's s**t and they avoid stepping in it.

yeah of course,you surely know more than bassett and co if he is appointed,maybe you should apply

 

[MrFoster]

The first part is anecdotal but the second part contains some very fine points Gringo.
These are a convincing platform to launch an argument to the whole debate and I really can’t counter any of them off the top of my head without research.
Well done on lifting the standard and presenting an argument lacking in emotion.

I’m not set on Scott.. the best candidate wins in my opinion.. but let’s look at the arguments:

1. Not a fan favourite - very subjective, is this based on some forum posters opinion? apart from successful coaches, who are true fan favourites, even our successful coaches Grant Thomas, Ross Lyon divides opinions..

2. His record doesn’t look that good - his record is as good as Ratten at 50%, making 2 prelims compared to Ratten’s 1. and Ratten had absolute stars in Judd; Fevola; Gibbs; Murphy; Kreuzer; Betts; Stevens during that time.. Clarkson wouldn’t pick us, any untried coaches have winning percentages of 0%. Clarkson has 61% and 4 premierships.

3. He won’t bring players to the club - doesn’t money, winning culture and opportunity matter also.. i guess coaches represent winning culture, again, which of the successful coaches will pick us?

4. He is not from a good system - a system matters only if you are looking at an untried coach? He has coached for 10 years

5. He is giving perception of being out of date - subjective..

In summary, a lot of the arguments are based on if we have the pick of the coaches out there including current successful coaches like Clarkson, we don’t.. and untried coaches carries their own risk.. see Watters; Watson; Richardson.

So Ratten vs Scott, may the best tried coach win!!

 

[stfan]

Well done on lifting the standard and presenting an argument lacking in emotion.

So if you did not consider arguments such as these, what were you basing your support of Scott on?

Why I do not want him is based on his coaching record and lack of success over decade. That he could suddenly turn this around in one off season would seem to me logically improbable.

We need to enter 2020 with momentum. Appointing some one with Scott's baggage (ie poor coaching record etc) means enter the season with a the hand brake on.

That he would also negatively impact factors such as membership is to me another good reason to not appoint him.

 

[Jade Buddha]

I won't because the club make dumb decisions all the time.

so the club will be the panel?

 

[Jade Buddha]

No.

Besides these panels can be a farce.

I may be 100% wrong, and if he gets the job I hope that I am 100% wrong, but I just do not believe that there are not better candidates.

But they haven't even sacked Richo let alone appointed a panel. Farce ahahahahha.

So what process would you advocate? Someone speaks to their friends who speaks to another person who knows someone that has spoken to a certain person that may have an idea about a certain process that could lead to someone knowing which person we are talking about in the first place.

 

[Jade Buddha]

I'll walk away from the club until round one next year in protest.

That'll show them...splitters

 

[VDS66]

In which case let’s dump Richo right now!
Seriously though, I think there’s more to it than just that. They are a completely different team.

I reckon the club saw the writing on the wall and have targeted Horse.

He found out and quit early imo.

That'll show them...splitters

Yeah I back up my tough talk with actions.

 

[From 45]

He's backed kids in who Scott had told the club were no good, he's built the game plan around the sides strengths as well. They have all these hard nuts, he's made them a hard nut team. He's made some nuanced changes in the game plan rather than kick it to Brown. North supporters are ringing in talking about winning the premiership the way they are playing. I rate what Shaw has done to turn the side around from the dull lifeless corpse that they looked when he took over. When people called in to rate lists North were down with us as s**tter than Carlton and GC on SEN before he took over.

Man seriously, I think you want to believe that because of your bias against Scott.

None of that is remotely accurate. Scott obviously had the belief they didn't need to rebuild which was opposit of the club's thinking. Fair enough.. the only solution was to part ways

The way they're playing at the moment vindicates Scott. Not the other way around.

Their system as a foundation hasn't changed. A few tweaks here and there , yeah of course, those nuances have worked but as a whole , their game style remains the same.

We can't underestimate the attitude of players when they're put into that scenario. They could either completely flop or rise to the occasion.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

He's backed kids in who Scott had told the club were no good, he's built the game plan around the sides strengths as well. They have all these hard nuts, he's made them a hard nut team. He's made some nuanced changes in the game plan rather than kick it to Brown. North supporters are ringing in talking about winning the premiership the way they are playing. I rate what Shaw has done to turn the side around from the dull lifeless corpse that they looked when he took over. When people called in to rate lists North were down with us as s**tter than Carlton and GC on SEN before he took over.

I agree, he's been ******* impressive has Shaw.

He just seems to have the undefinable "something" that good coaches have, in that his message seems to get through to the young footy players under him and they end up being willing to run through brick walls for him. He seems to preach simplicity as well which is always helpful.

You can't always predict who'll take to coaching like a duck to water but he seems to be one of those guys.

 

[Pardon me]

So if you did not consider arguments such as these, what were you basing your support of Scott on?

Why I do not want him is based on his coaching record and lack of success over decade. That he could suddenly turn this around in one off season would seem to me logically improbable.

We need to enter 2020 with momentum. Appointing some one with Scott's baggage (ie poor coaching record etc) means enter the season with a the hand brake on.

That he would also negatively impact factors such as membership is to me another good reason to not appoint him.

I was waiting for someone with an opposing view to my own to present an argument based on fact not emotive opinion.
His coaching record is better than Richo’s (as already discussed) and identical to Ratten.

I fully agree with your next sentiment about momentum but don’t believe Scott will arrest any potential running start. Again it’s a subjective view from both sides regarding this as there’s no evidence his appointment will affect any momentum one way or another prior to the fact.

Your point about affecting membership is personal opinion until he’s appointed and lapsed members actually cite his appointment as the direct reason for not renewing.

So far only gringo2011 and possibly BrutThough have (to my memory - and I apologize to any others that have and I’ve missed) presented arguments based on facts and reason as to why he shouldn’t be a potential candidate.

 

[stfan]

But they haven't even sacked Richo let alone appointed a panel. Farce ahahahahha.

So what process would you advocate? Someone speaks to their friends who speaks to another person who knows someone that has spoken to a certain person that may have an idea about a certain process that could lead to someone knowing which person we are talking about in the first place.

I was not saying not to use a panel. Indeed we should or at least a working group/ sub-committee.

What I was saying that using a panel does not guarantee success, and indeed sometimes panels (not just on coaching) are biased. Depending who was on the panel may yield markedly different results.

ie

Lethers, Finnis, Bassat

Roo, Sheldon, Bassat

Ball, GT, Bassat

 

[Dr Spaceman]

So he's still s**t but an angry pissed off little man as well?

He sure is one angry mutha

 

[gringo2011]

yeah of course,you surely know more than bassett and co if he is appointed,maybe you should apply

I don't think many can stand up to Lethlean, he'll shout down the others and get his mate up. If a club decides who they want they generally make the "process" fit the outcome.

 

[goodie23]

Good mate of mine whose opinion I trust supports North, couldn't stand Scott and glad to see the back of him, another reason for my not wanting him.

 

[gringo2011]

Man seriously, I think you want to believe that because of your bias against Scott.

None of that is remotely accurate. Scott obviously had the belief they didn't need to rebuild which was opposit of the club's thinking. Fair enough.. the only solution was to part ways

The way they're playing at the moment vindicates Scott. Not the other way around.

Their system as a foundation hasn't changed. A few tweaks here and there , yeah of course, those nuances have worked but as a whole , their game style remains the same.

We can't underestimate the attitude of players when they're put into that scenario. They could either completely flop or rise to the occasion.

Okay, Scott is a genius that has built the list up to be better than when he was there. He didn't play kids when he was there like Richo.

If we are bottom 4 for the next 3 years don't whinge about it then.

 

[triggering bro]

I can’t put my finger on it exactly but something doesn’t sit well with me about this bloke.

 

[Jade Buddha]

I was not saying not to use a panel. Indeed we should or at least a working group/ sub-committee.

What I was saying that using a panel does not guarantee success, and indeed sometimes panels (not just on coaching) are biased. Depending who was on the panel may yield markedly different results.

ie

Lethers, Finnis, Bassat

Roo, Sheldon, Bassat

Ball, GT, Bassat

Of course it doesn’t guarantee success
What you are suggesting is that it isn’t possible for Scott to be the best candidate or are you suggesting if the panel decides on Scott then in your opinion they have no credibility?
Bit of bias residing in there Stefan
Well which ever way it goes let’s hope there will be the integrity as I’m sure there will be

 

[Diehard Saint]

Well which ever way it goes let’s hope there will be the integrity as I’m sure there will be

Well if they at least interview the candidate that’ll be one step better than last time

 

[gobbles]

Rhys Shaw anyone ?

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Well if they at least interview the candidate that’ll be one step better than last time

 

[stfan]

Of course it doesn’t guarantee success
What you are suggesting is that it isn’t possible for Scott to be the best candidate or are you suggesting if the panel decides on Scott then in your opinion they have no credibility?
Bit of bias residing in there Stefan
Well which ever way it goes let’s hope there will be the integrity as I’m sure there will be

What I am saying is for example that if Lethers is say a huge Scott fan and that he picks the panel members, one of which is him, that you may have a panel who could be more skewed towards selecting Scott.

If for example Roo chose the panel you may get an entirely different result.

Both panels choose who they think is best, but they may well pick different people.


PS:
I am not say that it is not possible that Scott is not the best candidate. But I am saying that in my view he is not the best candidate.
I do not think that Clarkson or Beveridge are achievable.
Longmuir may be
Carecella of the assistant coaches would for example be a worthy candidate
I believe that Ratten has learnt more since he was a head coach.

If we go for an assistant coach then I think that he needs a solid CV which includes success. ie Carecella

 

[VDS66]

The only way to settle this is to get Bevo...

 

[gobbles]

I do not thank that Clarkson or Beveridge are achievable.

I think Bevo could be - deep down he’s die hard Saints - if Bulldogs eventually have enough of him he’s gettable. Maybe we keep Richo next year hahah

 

[Crusty Undies]

Man seriously, I think you want to believe that because of your bias against Scott.

None of that is remotely accurate. Scott obviously had the belief they didn't need to rebuild which was opposit of the club's thinking. Fair enough.. the only solution was to part ways

The way they're playing at the moment vindicates Scott. Not the other way around.

Their system as a foundation hasn't changed. A few tweaks here and there , yeah of course, those nuances have worked but as a whole , their game style remains the same.

We can't underestimate the attitude of players when they're put into that scenario. They could either completely flop or rise to the occasion.

Actually Scott thought the club needed a rebuild, so he hasn't been vindicated he's been proven entirely wrong.

 

[CaptainRisky]

If Scott is the man as i have been told , Ratts wont be there next year