Are Geelong making a mistake in giving Chris Scott a new contract extension?

[Toump Ass]

Scott has a great record and Geelong have done a remarkable job to stay near the top after three flags. Maybe it's catching up with them slowly, but I wouldn't read too much into one game.

It's not one game mate- It's seven games. Geelong are completely impotent in finals. What's the point of a great H & A record when you're useless when it matters?

Hawkins, Selwood, Dangerfield, Tuohy, Motlop, Henderson, Duncan, Taylor is the equal of Riewoldt, Prestia, Martin, Cotchin, Rance, Caddy, Grigg, Vlastuin.

Bullshit.

Riewoldt, Martin, Cotchin, Rance > Hawkins, Selwood, Dangerfield, Duncan.

After that Geelong's talent drops off sharply. Motlop is shit.

 

[RightYouAreThen]

The size of our home ground v the MCG wasn't an issue until the last couple of years. IMO posters are trying to find reasons for our finals losses which are tenuous at best. Our side is a patched together mob of rookies and late draft picks with a few top quality players, it might be more that we overachieve during the regular season.

Re our home ground we got beaten in a final there the same way we have lost most of those seven finals, by getting jumped in the first quarter.

yes true. but was a ground reconfig considered in redevelopment?
Im saying its good business to keep it in current shape.

 

[Kram]

Was a bizarre decision not to play Menzel.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Was a bizarre decision not to play Menzel.

If by bizarre you mean completely idiotic...then yeah

 

[The 747]

Was a bizarre decision not to play Menzel.

Yep, especially considering we played Hawkins up at CHF so completely lacked a lead out of F50 player.

 

[Ron The Bear]

It's not one game mate- It's seven games. Geelong are completely impotent in finals. What's the point of a great H & A record when you're useless when it matters?

They got caught out on the night by a combination of factors that went against them - underdone players, under lights, in slippery conditions, at the opposition's home ground. Perhaps a touch of complacency after owning Richmond for so long also.

The team has been transitioning from a great era. Maybe they're just not as good as they were, and where they've finished is where they deserved to finish. They could've let the likes of Chapman, Kelly and Johnson continue and perhaps won an extra final here or there, but they've taken harder decisions than that.

Scott's 0-6 with his six youngest finals teams, 5-1 with the older half dozen. I see some good younger players coming through rather than great ones. How much they top up or pare back at the end of the year will be interesting.

Anyway, they get another chance next week.

 

[kickazz]

Maybe they're just not as good as they were, and where they've finished is where they deserved to finish.

Anyway, they get another chance next week.

There's no maybe about it. They aren't close to being as good as they were. But they did beat every other top 5 side, so aren't rubbish or anything. But never really put a reasonable team away all year - I don't think there is much to fear about Geelong in that sense.

And with Sydney's form, it's a bit of a Clayton's double chance this time around, but both teams were well aware of that before last night.

 

[giggler99]

Yes! I have said it all along his rebound style tactics don't hold up in finals, you can finish second every year but when you have such a soft underbelly and horrible tactics its not gonna win you many finals,

All Chris is good at is papering over cracks.

 

[The 747]

They got caught out on the night by a combination of factors that went against them - underdone players, under lights, in slippery conditions, at the opposition's home ground. Perhaps a touch of complacency after owning Richmond for so long also.

The team has been transitioning from a great era. Maybe they're just not as good as they were, and where they've finished is where they deserved to finish. They could've let the likes of Chapman, Kelly and Johnson continue and perhaps won an extra final here or there, but they've taken harder decisions than that.

Scott's 0-6 with his six youngest finals teams, 5-1 with the older half dozen. I see some good younger players coming through rather than great ones. How much they top up or pare back at the end of the year will be interesting.

Anyway, they get another chance next week.

We will top up again. I suspect if we have a really bad year soon we will take the opportunity to cut deep and go to the draft but at the moment we have poor draft picks and trading is the best way to bring in talent for us right now.

We certainly do not have the high level talent we had in years gone by, we have done well making AFL players out of rookies and speculative picks but the only youngish star I see is Duncan (maybe Cockatoo if he ever gets some continuity).

Another point I would make about our team in years past is that there was a strategy to play each player in the position they played best and if someone better was there they had to wait - we have gotten away from that and it is not helping us. As an example Taylor is not a forward and should be playing back - if that means Kolo and Stewart have to wait their turn then so be it. And Kolo and Stewart basically play the same role as well. Motlop is a forward, Guthrie is a.midfielder and so on. The side is so unbalanced at selection that it is quite impressive that we win so often. Anyways.....onto next week where I fear the Swans will demolish us as usual.

 

[TGFC]

At least this Scott doesn't ever blame the roof.

Yet

 

[Ian Dunross]

Still think they don't play like a team.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Time to throw some babies out with the bathwater at geelong?

 

[cats251]

Still think they don't play like a team.

Either do I.
It will only get worse as we try and sign up more mature aged players in Devon Smith and Gary Ablett.
Jake Stringer's name is also in the mix.

Seriously, I'm surprised our top dozen players even know the names of the rest of their teammates.
We should be referred to as the Geelong Top Up's.

 

[volcboy]

Between 2007 and 2011, Geelong came out playing a specific game plan every week (attacking, taking the game on, trying to blow teams out of the water) and dared other teams to beat them. Sometimes they did (2008 GF, 2010 PF), but more often than not, Geelong won.

Hawthorn played a particular style that suited their playing list from 2013-2015 and dared sides to beat them. When Sydney play, you know what they are going to do, but very few teams have been able to stop it in the 2nd half of the year. Adelaide have developed their own brand of football based on their playing list, and it is paying dividends.

Since 2012, we've slowly reverted to unnatural, defensive structures and tricksy gimmicks (Taylor to FF on Rance, dropping Menzel) to try and win games. The blame for this lies at the feet of the coaching staff (Chris Scott included) and particularly the Director of Coaching (Simon Lloyd). Chris Scott was voted the coach that was 'hardest to coach against' by his peers, but that just means they don't actually know what style of game Geelong plays. I'd much prefer we were voted 'the hardest side to play against', as we used to be.

We've got the talent on our list, but it isn't being utilised as well as it could be, that's for sure.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Between 2007 and 2011, Geelong came out playing a specific game plan every week (attacking, taking the game on, trying to blow teams out of the water) and dared other teams to beat them. Sometimes they did (2008 GF, 2010 PF), but more often than not, Geelong won.

Hawthorn played a particular style that suited their playing list from 2013-2015 and dared sides to beat them. When Sydney play, you know what they are going to do, but very few teams have been able to stop it in the 2nd half of the year. Adelaide have developed their own brand of football based on their playing list, and it is paying dividends.

Since 2012, we've slowly reverted to unnatural, defensive structures and tricksy gimmicks (Taylor to FF on Rance, dropping Menzel) to try and win games. The blame for this lies at the feet of the coaching staff (Chris Scott included) and particularly the Director of Coaching (Simon Lloyd). Chris Scott was voted the coach that was 'hardest to coach against' by his peers, but that just means they don't actually know what style of game Geelong plays. I'd much prefer we were voted 'the hardest side to play against', as we used to be.

We've got the talent on our list, but it isn't being utilised as well as it could be, that's for sure.

A side with Guthrie, Duncan, Dangerfield, Tuohy, Motlop (I know, he needs to lose 10kg first), should be playing fast paced footy, breaking lines with run and carry imo.

 

[PhatBoy]

They got caught out on the night by a combination of factors that went against them - underdone players, under lights, in slippery conditions, at the opposition's home ground. Perhaps a touch of complacency after owning Richmond for so long also.

The team has been transitioning from a great era. Maybe they're just not as good as they were, and where they've finished is where they deserved to finish. They could've let the likes of Chapman, Kelly and Johnson continue and perhaps won an extra final here or there, but they've taken harder decisions than that.

Scott's 0-6 with his six youngest finals teams, 5-1 with the older half dozen. I see some good younger players coming through rather than great ones. How much they top up or pare back at the end of the year will be interesting.

Anyway, they get another chance next week.

Pretty good indicator of the level of unfounded hysteria from our own fans, that the most sensible post on the issue comes from a fan of the side who beat us on Friday.

Well said.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Pretty good indicator of the level of unfounded hysteria from our own fans, that the most sensible post on the issue comes from a fan of the side who beat us on Friday.

Well said.

Concern about Scott's tactics though?

 

[PhatBoy]

Concern about Scott's tactics though?

I still haven't watched the game start to finish.

But two things that have been brought up regularly are these:

- Menzel's omission. It seems that every supporter to a man can be concerned about Menzel's ability to compete for the ball when it's not in front of him, and to apply pressure. But when the head coach acts on the same notion, it is suddenly a mistake. It was a scrappy, skill-less and very messy game for 75 per cent of its duration (of the other 25 per cent, maybe 5 of that was with the game on our terms, 20 with the game on Richmond's). It was the EXACT sort of scenario that Menzel would be ill-suited for. The guy has a touch of brilliance but it isn't 'Eddie Betts, no one else can get a clean touch but I'll pick it up one handed and snap a no-look goal' type class. So that was one tactical aspect he's copped it over that in my eyes is completely unfounded.

- Taylor up forward. 5 goals against the same opponent last meeting, and the fact that he probably has the best hands in the team should have dictated that he at least started forward. As ever, of things start to get out of hand at the other end, shift him back. Now true enough, eventually things DID start to get out of hand defensively..... after three quarters. Why would we move a key forward (regardless of his quality and pedigree, that's what he was playing as) to defence when we'd only conceded 40-odd points in 3 quarters? By the time we did start to flag in defence, time was running short enough that we had to take risks in the forward half anyway.

So on those two areas I have absolutely no problem with his logic.

As far as our game style itself goes, I really haven't seen enough of it to make a comment.

 

[year of the cat]

A side with Guthrie, Duncan, Dangerfield, Tuohy, Motlop (I know, he needs to lose 10kg first), should be playing fast paced footy, breaking lines with run and carry imo.

And that's when we play our best footy. When we move the ball quickly and take the game on.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Was a bizarre decision not to play Menzel.

Well, they're forcing him out the door by lowballing him, so not playing him in a final kind of makes sense.....but not really.

 

[Kram]

Well, they're forcing him out the door by lowballing him, so not playing him in a final kind of makes sense.....but not really.

Would you take him at Hawthorn?

 

[fnerd]

The size of our home ground v the MCG wasn't an issue until the last couple of years. IMO posters are trying to find reasons for our finals losses which are tenuous at best. Our side is a patched together mob of rookies and late draft picks with a few top quality players, it might be more that we overachieve during the regular season.

Re our home ground we got beaten in a final there the same way we have lost most of those seven finals, by getting jumped in the first quarter.

Minor point but you didnt get "jumped" in the final against fremantle at all....in fact it was the other way round,freo eventually steadied and got the game on their terms to even it up and eventually win.

The game freo jumped you was 2012 at the mcg

 

[cats251]

Would you take him at Hawthorn?

O'Meara and Whitecross already have bad knees. Not sure they would add another to the list.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Would you take him at Hawthorn?

No defensive pressure

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Would you take him at Hawthorn?

Nope. Wrong age for mine.