For those who think the time has come for Scott (still think you're whistling to think the club is paying him out in the current climate, of course), who are we getting instead?
All very well to say the team he coaches is not getting it done in finals. That is absolutely true at this point. But who is actually available and quite likely to improve the outcome? You've still got to make the finals in good shape to contend, something the current coach has achieved many times.
Are we looking to poach a current coach? Call up a previous success story, and hope they've still got it? Or go with the latest gun assistant who is totally unproven in the big chair?
Genuinely interested to hear what posters think the answer is here. Because if the answer is little more than 'Anyone but Scott', I can understand why the club is not remotely interested in heeding the baying for blood coming from the ABS crew.
Many have noted that he's probably a good coach and not a great coach. So, if a great coach is required, who exactly is out there that instills confidence they could both get the team into a contending ladder position after H&A and then elicit better performances in finals?
Without a compelling case for someone who could actually fill that remit, the club would actually be completely irresponsible to just jettison a contracted coach who is seeing us play finals virtually every year.
So, is it Clarkson? Is it Roos? Is it Caracella? Is it reasonable to think that any of these candidates would come, and do better if they did?
And, before the glib 'nobody could do worse' replies start bouncing in, we've ended up finishing in the final four teams in five of the last nine completed seasons (with 2020 still a live possibility on that front as well). That's hardly a record that justifies bringing in 'anyone', on the basis we couldn't possibly do any worse.
So, who do you see it could be? And under what foreseeable circumstances could they come before Scott's current tenure is concluded?
All very well to say the team he coaches is not getting it done in finals. That is absolutely true at this point. But who is actually available and quite likely to improve the outcome? You've still got to make the finals in good shape to contend, something the current coach has achieved many times.
Are we looking to poach a current coach? Call up a previous success story, and hope they've still got it? Or go with the latest gun assistant who is totally unproven in the big chair?
Genuinely interested to hear what posters think the answer is here. Because if the answer is little more than 'Anyone but Scott', I can understand why the club is not remotely interested in heeding the baying for blood coming from the ABS crew.
Many have noted that he's probably a good coach and not a great coach. So, if a great coach is required, who exactly is out there that instills confidence they could both get the team into a contending ladder position after H&A and then elicit better performances in finals?
Without a compelling case for someone who could actually fill that remit, the club would actually be completely irresponsible to just jettison a contracted coach who is seeing us play finals virtually every year.
So, is it Clarkson? Is it Roos? Is it Caracella? Is it reasonable to think that any of these candidates would come, and do better if they did?
And, before the glib 'nobody could do worse' replies start bouncing in, we've ended up finishing in the final four teams in five of the last nine completed seasons (with 2020 still a live possibility on that front as well). That's hardly a record that justifies bringing in 'anyone', on the basis we couldn't possibly do any worse.
So, who do you see it could be? And under what foreseeable circumstances could they come before Scott's current tenure is concluded?
