Certified Legendary Thread 2 x Premiership Coach Chris Scott contracted to 2026 (aka the Chris Scott volumes

[PhatBoy]

The perennially unanswered questions - why weren't the emergencies used then?

because every selection is a gamble. That’s what you’re doing when you name a team in any circumstance. You’re gambling that player A’s best output under whatever circumstances may be impacting them, will be better than the alternative. Does a star player at 50 per cent represent a better investment than the fringe player at 100 per cent

 

[Spearman]

I wonder if analytics is creeping into the game. Looking at the probabilities of particular players available in a draft vs particular FA/trades, or whether the partially fit veteran will outperform a fit fringe player.
Watching NFL this year, I noticed how much it has taken over decisions on field. A few experts stated that there is an analytics guy on the headset circuit of the coaches.

 

[SJ]

why do people keep saying this and then whinge about trading players in etc? what else are they doing it for if not trying to improve? Just because a tactic doesn’t work doesn’t mean it hasn’t been tried.

Treading water isn’t improvement.

 

[PhatBoy]

Treading water isn’t improvement.

noted, but does nothing to disprove what I said

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Seem to be arguing across purposes SJ

First it was we’re not looking to improve but happy being near success. PB argued how we are trying to improve.

Now you’re saying we haven’t improved. Many more would agree with that

 

[Partridge]

why hold them to a different standard? Every person at the club occupies a spot that someone else could occupy. Is everyone expected to deliver to superstar levels? Of course not. Everyone is expected to deliver to THEIR capability. Cameron didn’t. Neither did many if any of the other 21 players, who’s spots could all have been filled by an alternative player in other circumstances. Singling out one player above others just because his peak is higher than theirs, even though they’ve all missed their peak, is hardly fair.
a full forward who’s team loses the inside 50 count by 15 shouldn’t need to be more accountable because two boardrooms made decisions of what to swap in the transaction that saw him arrive.

One of the main justifications for getting in mature players - for at least the last five seasons - has been that they're ready made. No development period needed. Ready to deliver. And it's superior to drafting because...........well, just because. So when we get extremely high profile recruits - and Cameron has cost us more than anyone else including Dangerfield - instead of quite reasonably expecting results, we actually shouldn't expect them to deliver at all. Makes sense. Good deal for the players.

A full forward who cost us three first round draft picks should absolutely be more accountable. Why the hell did we get him if he turns out to be (another) September dud?

 

[PhatBoy]

One of the main justifications for getting in mature players - for at least the last five seasons - has been that they're ready made. No development period needed. Ready to deliver. And it's superior to drafting because...........well, just because. So when we get extremely high profile recruits - and Cameron has cost us more than anyone else including Dangerfield - instead of quite reasonably expecting results, we actually shouldn't expect them to deliver at all. Makes sense. Good deal for the players.

A full forward who cost us three first round draft picks should absolutely be more accountable. Why the hell did we get him if he turns out to be (another) September dud?

why be a dick about it? Seriously? Where did I say we shouldn’t expect them to deliver? Clue: nowhere. Because I didn’t say it.

as I said, for those at the back. Every player is expected to deliver. The level to which they are expected differs between players, no doubt, but on a relative scale, they are ALL expected to deliver to THEIR capability. does the cricketer who hits half his average and fails, fail any more than his teammate who also hits half his average and fails, simply because their averages are 30 apart to start with?

did Joe root fail any more or less in the ashes than Ollie pope because he’s a better player?

 

[Vdubs]

One of the main justifications for getting in mature players - for at least the last five seasons - has been that they're ready made. No development period needed. Ready to deliver. And it's superior to drafting because...........well, just because. So when we get extremely high profile recruits - and Cameron has cost us more than anyone else including Dangerfield - instead of quite reasonably expecting results, we actually shouldn't expect them to deliver at all. Makes sense. Good deal for the players.

A full forward who cost us three first round draft picks should absolutely be more accountable. Why the hell did we get him if he turns out to be (another) September dud?

If we went your way, there probably is no September for many seasons. And clearly, you probably prefer not to make finals if we are grooming youngsters, but there is no guarantee with them either.

JC contributed to several of our wins in 21.
Ditto Danger every season we have made finals.
If you suggest no Danger and no JC would have been better, because we may have had early round multiple draft picks, I call that very retrospective.

As you have always said, we need to get to finals first, and those 2 are instrumental in getting us enough wins. September is a different issue, but you refuse to look at a case by case explanation.

 

[SJ]

Seem to be arguing across purposes SJ

First it was we’re not looking to improve but happy being near success. PB argued how we are trying to improve.

Now you’re saying we haven’t improved. Many more would agree with that

I probably wasn't quite clear, I am speaking about 'club improvement' not 'team improvement'.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I probably wasn't quite clear, I am speaking about 'club improvement' not 'team improvement'.

Isn’t it all subjective though?

One sub-set see a club content with finals but not winning the big prize.

Others see a club repeatedly for 15+ years have key people like Wells, Cook, Costa, Carter and Scott all sing from the we don’t believe in rebuilds hymn sheet as a club ambitious to win every season and not be a draft hoarding bunch of losers like Carlton, Freo etc.

 

[Partridge]

Isn’t it all subjective though?

One sub-set see a club content with finals but not winning the big prize.

Others see a club repeatedly for 15+ years have key people like Wells, Cook, Costa, Carter and Scott all sing from the we don’t believe in rebuilds hymn sheet as a club ambitious to win every season and not be a draft hoarding bunch of losers like Carlton, Freo etc.

If the club is ambitious to win every season, why did the Club President describe supporters disappointed in not making a Grand final as weird? This is after the team finished the home and away season in top spot as well, it's not like they scraped into 7th.

 

[Partridge]

If we went your way, there probably is no September for many seasons. And clearly, you probably prefer not to make finals if we are grooming youngsters, but there is no guarantee with them either.

JC contributed to several of our wins in 21.
Ditto Danger every season we have made finals.
If you suggest no Danger and no JC would have been better, because we may have had early round multiple draft picks, I call that very retrospective.

As you have always said, we need to get to finals first, and those 2 are instrumental in getting us enough wins. September is a different issue, but you refuse to look at a case by case explanation.

Your self-appointed mindreading abilities have really gone up a gear or two in recent years. I've never said that once. I don't see why we can't develop youngsters - newsflash, every team MUST continually do this - while still competing very hard at the pointy end. Have never once said they're mutually exclusive. If others have - try being honest and take it up with them.

I also never suggested no Dangerfield and no Cameron would have been better. I've said always some deals are absolutely worth doing. As Dangerfield was. Cameron is a good player, but I'm not sure he was worth three first round picks. And I don't apologise about expecting them to deliver in September. Again - wasn't that the whole point of getting them in the first place?

 

[Partridge]

why be a dick about it? Seriously? Where did I say we shouldn’t expect them to deliver? Clue: nowhere. Because I didn’t say it.

as I said, for those at the back. Every player is expected to deliver. The level to which they are expected differs between players, no doubt, but on a relative scale, they are ALL expected to deliver to THEIR capability. does the cricketer who hits half his average and fails, fail any more than his teammate who also hits half his average and fails, simply because their averages are 30 apart to start with?

did Joe root fail any more or less in the ashes than Ollie pope because he’s a better player?

Good to see you're not angry.

Yes, expectations are different. Some players are better, so their expectations are higher. That's obvious.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

If the club is ambitious to win every season, why did the Club President describe supporters disappointed in not making a Grand final as weird? This is after the team finished the home and away season in top spot as well, it's not like they scraped into 7th.

News - Colin Carter and Geelong's "ugly" fans

So Colin Carter said this on 3AW yesterday: "I'm amazed at how ugly a very small rump of the supporters are ... I've had letters over the last couple of weeks which are actually quite foul and these aren't (on) social media, these are people who in some cases who sign their names to letters ...

www.bigfooty.com

Is this the incident you’re referring to? I see ugly fans used but can’t recall weird.

 

[PhatBoy]

Good to see you're not angry.

Yes, expectations are different. Some players are better, so their expectations are higher. That's obvious.

Lol ‘angry’

yes I’m seething

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Even then, when we've given opportunities to young players, the fixation now is overwhelmingly on what they can't do instead of what they can.

And the cutoff point for development used to (sensibly) be around 40-60 games; get some idea of what a guy can do. Now it's 10 games if you're lucky, and the amount of fans who know, they just know, who will make it after that amount, well we've got some extraordinarily gifted supporters it would seem.

Jarvis - his stint at Geelong was bizarre

Scott picks him for his 1st game ( and only game ) in a huge game against Richmond - actually Grimes went up to him - and shook his hand - and said gee they have picked you for a big game - so Grimes must be a decent bloke

In what turned out a deplorable match for Geel at the Gold Coast - i thought Jarvis showed a glint of being an AFL player - took a nice mark etc

Yet gets dropped immediately - banished - we never see him again

Scott and he does deserve great credit for the 2011 flag - however at this point in time - all the Scott fans - and all the Scott sympathises - they cant defend one action of Scotts - and that was picking Dahlaus for basically every game last year ( his form was absolutely garbage- he is long finished as an AFL player ) yet in true bizarre C Scott fashion to a tee - he dropped Dahlhaus for the elimination final against the GWS- because he had his neck on the line in a knockout final

Scotts continual selection of Dahlhaus last year - is undefendable - just the sign of a lazy coach - please wake me up in 2 years time when he is gone

 

[standupand]

Completely agree. You can even date when that started too.

Not easy from the outside. I would say loosely somewhere around 2014 is when I noticed the talk of the 'second-tier' players who 'need to step up / be fast-tracked' etc, and being 'impatient' for more success and so on. Do you have a particular event in mind? The recruitment of Mitch Clark is when I lost quite a bit of faith.

 

[Vdubs]

Not easy from the outside. I would say loosely somewhere around 2014 is when I noticed the talk of the 'second-tier' players who 'need to step up / be fast-tracked' etc, and being 'impatient' for more success and so on. Do you have a particular event in mind? The recruitment of Mitch Clark is when I lost quite a bit of faith.

And Hamish McIntosh.
Both were abject failures, and were predicted to be by most of us.
So they do get things wrong, but had it worked, like the FB that was broken at the Doggies, went to Hawks and was instrumental in flags, we would be saying how shrewd those moves were.

 

[Vdubs]

I thought Hawkins had an overall much better year and finals series than Cameron. In the pf, Hawkins worked hard without much reward, whereas Cameron's two goals were virtually his entire contribution, one Joe the goose early I think and another in junk time. It was a poor performance by anyone's standards. If he was crook, he shouldn't have played at all.

Not as easy as that. Would we have been 2 goals less without him? Who would have been better? I don't see our version of Shane Ellen.
And, quite often, crook players can be dosed up and get through a game, let alone a KO Prelim game.

 

[Partridge]

Not easy from the outside. I would say loosely somewhere around 2014 is when I noticed the talk of the 'second-tier' players who 'need to step up / be fast-tracked' etc, and being 'impatient' for more success and so on. Do you have a particular event in mind? The recruitment of Mitch Clark is when I lost quite a bit of faith.

Sure do. Final round of 2015, and the way the crowd reacted when Dangerfield had the ball after the siren. That confirmed it for me, and have seen nothing since to change that view.

We had missed the finals. We were getting one gun player (like Geelong fans of all fans had never seen star players before). The crowd were acting like we'd won the flag.

 

[Vdubs]

Sure do. Final round of 2015, and the way the crowd reacted when Dangerfield had the ball after the siren. That confirmed it for me, and have seen nothing since to change that view.

We had missed the finals. We were getting one gun player (like Geelong fans of all fans had never seen star players before). The crowd were acting like we'd won the flag.

Something positive to cheer about, apart from our win, and seeing Danger react to it gave us a bit to look forward to. And how good was his 2016? He lifted us to where we were that year.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Claptrap

 

[standupand]

Not as easy as that. Would we have been 2 goals less without him? Who would have been better? I don't see our version of Shane Ellen.
And, quite often, crook players can be dosed up and get through a game, let alone a KO Prelim game.

You're right - the decision to play or not is all very hypothetical. I'm just surprised anyone could try paint that performance - crook or not - as being close to the standard. 4 touches and 0 tackles. 2 goals, one of them well after Melb had put the cue in the rack.

 

[Catman]

Sure do. Final round of 2015, and the way the crowd reacted when Dangerfield had the ball after the siren. That confirmed it for me, and have seen nothing since to change that view.

We had missed the finals. We were getting one gun player (like Geelong fans of all fans had never seen star players before). The crowd were acting like we'd won the flag.

How dare the fans who sat through a disappointing year which ended on a positive with a rousing win at home while fare-welling three club greats have a bit of fun? Dangerfield was probably the best player in the league at that point and most fans knew he was likely coming home.

It was just fantastic timing he had the last kick of the game after the siren. If I recall he never got any adulation throughout the game and it was the fact that the game was over that brought on the applause.

 

[Partridge]

Something positive to cheer about, apart from our win, and seeing Danger react to it gave us a bit to look forward to. And how good was his 2016? He lifted us to where we were that year.

We disagree.