Play Nice Bye bye Brad

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
RobZombie said:
Mostly agree WB - we all know deep down that as a first time senior coach Brad was going to have to learn on the job, and I think there's a fair bit of evidence that he has. He's also been progessively given better support resources over time as the club could afford them, and that's showing too. I'll again point people to http://www.footyalmanac.com.au/geel...atistical-premiership-window-and-trend-lines/ and the North graph therein, which shows us getting significantly better at offense or defense in every year of Brad's tenure (though interestingly, not both in any one year). Surely that's as much his development as a coach as it is the list.

Fair to say also though, that knowing we need a more defensive gameplan and having the tactical wherewithal to install one aren't the same thing, and on the surface Tudor probably deserves a fair share of the credit.
Click to expand...

I will agree Tudor has been a good get. But the senior coach cops the hits then he also gets the credit IMO.
 
Wild Bill said:
I will agree Tudor has been a good get. But the senior coach cops the hits then he also gets the credit IMO.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? He's shit and he's always been shit. He deserves as much credit as Carlton recycling premiership coaches because they can't make their own, and ruining their reputations.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

verypoorboy said:
This thread should stay open forever
Click to expand...
If you think today's result had anything to do with Scott then your understanding of the game is putrid. Not even Harvey could hit a target. The players had a shocker.
 
Wild Bill said:
If you think today's result had anything to do with Scott then your understanding of the game is putrid. Not even Harvey could hit a target. The players had a shocker.
Click to expand...

Yeah not too sure about that, the coaches had a shocker also.



Sent from my waffle machine using Tapatalk.
 
Bigeasy said:
Yeah not too sure about that, the coaches had a shocker also.



Sent from my waffle machine using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...
We got smashed on the ground. 7 of their 1st 9 goals were from our direct turnovers. That is not on Scot. Our ball use was atrocious.
 
Ball use doesn't help when you look up and see a wall of magpie players meanwhile north players are trying to run back solely to force a contest. Was like round 1 all over again nothing to kick to. Structures were questionable
 
Spitta09 said:
Ball use doesn't help when you look up and see a wall of magpie players meanwhile north players are trying to run back solely to force a contest. Was like round 1 all over again nothing to kick to. Structures were questionable
Click to expand...

The amount of 20-30m passes we missed coupled with hospital handballs was crazy. Never seen that many in an AFL game in 1 half.
 
Spitta09 said:
Ball use doesn't help when you look up and see a wall of magpie players meanwhile north players are trying to run back solely to force a contest. Was like round 1 all over again nothing to kick to. Structures were questionable
Click to expand...
Bloody oath this. Skills will always look shit when there is no working system to our ball movement. It looked like we were playing without a plan. Piss poor puss
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wild Bill said:
If you think today's result had anything to do with Scott then your understanding of the game is putrid. Not even Harvey could hit a target. The players had a shocker.
Click to expand...
I would think Currie's inclusion has something to do with Scott. Not the reason why we lost but certainly contributed.
Petrie still being captain has something to do with Scott. Petrie still in the team has something to do with Scott.
 
Every score the Pies put on us in the first quarter (5.4.34) was as a direct result of our turnovers.

Brad doesn't kick the footy for us.
 
verypoorboy said:
Who puts the players that turn the ball over on the park?
Click to expand...

If we dropped everybody that has ever turned the footy over we'd have to fold the club next week.
 
Pretty simple Collingwood were fresh after only a praccie game last week (Melbourne ) no pressure extra days break, whereas North had a tough pressure game (had to beat swans to break hoodo) on wet ground.Strange as it may sound but a letdown although playing at the G should have counteracted that but didnt happen and Collingwood applied unreal pressure and it showed.Could have been a blowout but wasnt.
 
Flawed Genius said:
If we dropped everybody that has ever turned the footy over we'd have to fold the club next week.
Click to expand...
I see what your saying and I agree. I'm pointing out the fact that those stating Brad had 'nothing' to do with the loss are very naive. He's the god damn coach, of course he has a big role in whether we win or lose. He's responsible for selection, the structures, the matchups and just about everything else. He is responsible for our wins and he is responsible for our losses. Half the blame for our loss certainly needs to be directed at Scott.
 
Think about it this way: Scott has control of our structures, the key matchups and the rotations for the entire game therefore he would certainly have to shoulder more responsibility for making the bigger decisions in the scheme of things than say Boomer does in his decision to kick and handball. Boomer's decisions effect the team in that passage of play, Scott's effect the team for the entire match.
 
Jack Reacher said:
B.Scott was totally outcoached yesterday, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
Click to expand...

He was outcoached in Round 1 and he was outcoached yesterday. No getting around it. The players have their own responsibilities once the ball is bounced and they failed those responsibilities. Not a good day all round.
 
Wild Bill said:
If you think today's result had anything to do with Scott then your understanding of the game is putrid. Not even Harvey could hit a target. The players had a shocker.
Click to expand...
Err no Wild Bill, I think the fact that you're suggesting the result had 'nothing' to do with Brad Scott at all, makes you sound like the misinformed one.
 
verypoorboy said:
I would think Currie's inclusion has something to do with Scott. Not the reason why we lost but certainly contributed.
Petrie still being captain has something to do with Scott. Petrie still in the team has something to do with Scott.
Click to expand...
Who did you want in? Daw is under done and Tarrent injured. When you spend the summer planning for 3 talls in the forward line we had to play him. So you wanted Petrie and Currie in the twos? Who plays forward? Petrie had enough runs on the board to let him play his way out of a form slump.

Our players let us down - nothing the coach could have done - nothing would have changed the result at the selection table. You do know 2 of our best 5 are not playing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

hilly
Bye bye Rawling
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Sphynx
S
Chadwiko
  • Locked
Bye Bye Jen Watts
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
Flawed Genius
Flawed Genius
RossHenshaw
  • Locked
Bye bye Clarkson
56 57 58 59 60
Replies
1K
Views
64K
Twinkletoes
Twinkletoes
Gasometer
Roast Bye bye Roo Mascots
Replies
4
Views
416
Gasometer
Gasometer
Uncle_Leo
Bye bye Game Day Announcer
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
koshari
koshari
J
Bye Bye player songs after a goal.
Replies
11
Views
771
Caracas
Caracas
Psi-Roos
Win v The Bye
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Caracas
Caracas

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top