Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - PART III

[Art Vandelay_]

Not sure where I’ve moaned about anything?

I have no issue with playing the youngsters - they’re our future.

But I don’t find consolation in the claim we have any depth behind them, because I don’t believe it. From my perspective, the depth is very shallow.

If I meant you I'd have said you.
The quality is irrelevant in the discussion as like most clubs our depth is similar, we're just dipping a little deeper into it atm than most clubs are. It was more centered around having some senior core to draw on, which I think we will do this week. Expect Smith, Thurlow and Murdoch to be heavily in contention.

I'm sure as glad right now we didn't punt GHS like these Couch Recruiters. Easy to make decisions from the couch with no one to answer to if you're wrong.

 

[Cataholic]

If I meant you I'd have said you.
The quality is irrelevant in the discussion as like most clubs our depth is similar, we're just dipping a little deeper into it atm than most clubs are. It was more centered around having some senior core to draw on, which I think we will do this week. Expect Smith, Thurlow and Murdoch to be heavily in contention.

I'm sure as glad right now we didn't punt GHS like these Couch Recruiters. Easy to make decisions from the couch with no one to answer to if you're wrong.

Yes, Smith, Thurlow and Murdoch will be in contention, but the fact that they are almost in our Best 22 is troubling for me.

ie.......Would they be so near the Top 22 if at the likes of Richmond or Hawthorn?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yes, Smith, Thurlow and Murdoch will be in contention, but the fact that they are almost in our Best 22 is troubling for me.

ie.......Would they be so near the Top 22 if at the likes of Richmond or Hawthorn?

I don't think Murdoch and Thurlow are. I think at present they are exactly that, depth.
There'd be best 22 players at other clubs that wouldn't get a look in here, probably midfielders. What's a strength for one club is a weakness in others.

 

[Landgraft]

Yes, Smith, Thurlow and Murdoch will be in contention, but the fact that they are almost in our Best 22 is troubling for me.

ie.......Would they be so near the Top 22 if at the likes of Richmond or Hawthorn?

Richmond started out last year still playing Taylor Hunt by choice.

 

[Cataholic]

Richmond started out last year still playing Taylor Hunt by choice.

Their quality across the ground is so much better that it could carry a ‘great white hope’

 

[Landgraft]

Their quality across the ground is so much better that it could carry a ‘great white hope’

Tbh a lot of differences in player quality, especially around the fringes of selection, is enormously oversold.

We act like the worse players in successful teams are inherently good players just because of the halo effect that success has. In truth there are 18 teams - they are all playing at least some average AFL footballers and nearly all are playing at least some kids. Anyone earning regular senior selection or able to regularly contend for senior selection is a better footballer than they are sometimes credited for, just because of a situation they don't really control.

 

[allrighty]

Yes, Smith, Thurlow and Murdoch will be in contention, but the fact that they are almost in our Best 22 is troubling for me.

ie.......Would they be so near the Top 22 if at the likes of Richmond or Hawthorn?

When you put the current outs back in you take two of these three out of top 22

 

[Cataholic]

Tbh a lot of differences in player quality, especially around the fringes of selection, is enormously oversold.

We act like the worse players in successful teams are inherently good players just because of the halo effect that success has. In truth there are 18 teams - they are all playing at least some average AFL footballers and nearly all are playing at least some kids. Anyone earning regular senior selection or able to regularly contend for senior selection is a better footballer than they are sometimes credited for, just because of a situation they don't really control.

Don’t disagree, but by ‘quality’ I meant more than just the individual parts.

They played with far more belief, had a far better system, far better skill and backed each other far better than we did.

Ergo far better quality across far more aspects of the game.

 

[Cataholic]

When you put the current outs back in you take two of these three out of top 22

But still close.........

 

[Vdubs]

And costing us wins.

No proof of that. Losing GAJ, Cocky and Guthrie cost us big time, as did 2 costly errors by Hawkins, as did a poor decision against Henry- MOST of these things happened while we were in front and had the momentum.

 

[Vdubs]

He has had 7 years to make statements seems weird that he is starting now.

Can't win in any case can he?

 

[Two Planks]

No proof of that. Losing GAJ, Cocky and Guthrie cost us big time, as did 2 costly errors by Hawkins, as did a poor decision against Henry- MOST of these things happened while we were in front and had the momentum.

McEvoy and NicNat most influential players in respective teams wins against us and Smith is absent. We may have won both games by 5 goals if he plays.

 

[Vdubs]

As you know Chris Scott hasn't settled with a fixed structure since we had Pods and even then once he got his favourite pet Blicavs he started trying all sorts of things.

For 5-6 years he has been mixing it up with consistently poor finals results.

Unfortunately I cant see him sticking to a basic 2 KPD, 1/2 Rucks, 2 KPF structure

He will continue to just play the players he wants regardless of structure.

Little wonder our players freeze in finals they dont know who is where (with the exception of bomb it long to hawkins).

Which team and coach would you prefer CS/Geelong to be more like?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

McEvoy and NicNat most influential players in respective teams wins against us and Smith is absent. We may have won both games by 5 goals if he plays.

NicNat did not get a coaches vote...

 

[Vdubs]

McEvoy and NicNat most influential players in respective teams wins against us and Smith is absent. We may have won both games by 5 goals if he plays.

Rubbish- were you at the Demons game? And I actually like Smith. Gawn was even more influential. Are you at every training session and team meeting?
Surely the powers at GFC have more insight and inside knowledge than us disgruntled supporters who have issues with us losing.

 

[Footy Smarts]

What other team that is supposedly contending is playing a 2nd game 20 year old as their number 1 ruckman by choice.

How many other teams to Richmond decided to play a midfielder as 2nd ruck or play a group of kids as small forwards for defensive pressure? It worked ok for them.

We've got a unique situation where we don't have a particularly good traditional ruckman and we've got the best runner in the league who can compete there. Of course we'll lose something in the ruck if we stick to Blics #1 but it's not clear that Smith or Stanley are a better overall choice.

 

[Catters 070911]

For those wanting to skewer the team for not dropping down the ladder and rebuilding.

Roos last night skewered St Kilda for moving on Vet players, dropping down the ladder and trying to rebuild thru the draft alone. Used Hawks, Swans and GFC as example of how it can be done and using FA to stay competitive. Draft picks, and high draft picks alone wont get it done. Its not the panacea its believed to be.

You need a blend. To attract FA, you need success and sustained success to keep their interest. Swans, Hawks and GFC have done that.
There has been 22 #1 overall picks since 1995. Yielded 1 Brownlow Medal - Adam Cooney. Of all those #1 picks, they have played 212 seasons of footy combined. Of the 212 seasons played, there have only been 15 BnF's won in that time - 6 of them by Nick Reiwoldt.

The strategy of bringing in younger players and drafting is essential to build a list, but dropping down the ladder to garner higher picks is a flawed plan. Roos showed it alone wont work.

Hawks bottomed out on 03/04 but there was no FA then. Now, you must stay competitive to stay attractive to external interests. That does not mean only being top 4 every year will yield results, but the talk of dropping all the way down and coming back has been shown to not work. And its Roos suggesting this. Maybe there is something to what he says.

GO Catters

The problem with Roos' argument is that it sounded like he blamed Allan Richardson for moving on McEvoy, Del Santo and Goddard, when it was in fact Scott Watters when he was coaching St. Kilda who made those decisions.

 

[Catters 070911]

Am amazed at how down people on our board are. A half in each of the 3 games has been really impressive- direct and exciting footy with pretty well everyone buying into it. It’s starting to gel. If we can eke out a couple in the next 4 weeks and then we get a few players back we’ll be good to go.

I agree.

We have been in all three games, and lost to Hawthorn because Roughead marked over skinny Zack Guthrie, who was there because Henderson and Taylor are injured, and Lonergan and Mackie are retired.

We got back in front of the Eagles, and lost when we were down to one rotation, because Cockatoo, Cam Guthrie and Ablett were all injured during the game, and Blicavs and Toohey had to get stitches to their hands after crashing into the Optus Stadium fence.

If we had our Best 22 out there, and no injuries, we would be 3-0 now.

 

[Catters 070911]

Posted this in the Esava thread but it's more relevant here:

We all know (and at least now we all know for all the lovers) that Scott is a terrible coach with monumental stuff up after monumental stuff up.

But now, after the same problems have f*cked us for the first 3 games (not to mention the same weakenesses that have f*cked us for years that remain unfixed) he SURELY now has realised that we need to make the following changes:

1. Blicavs to KPD as a FB or CHB.

This stops stupid match ups like Zuthrie on Roughead. We effectively go Blicavs and Kolo as 2 tall defenders, Stewart as the 3rd rebounding defender. Frees up the smaller players too.

2. Bring Smith in to replace Blitz in the ruck.

Smith is our no.1 ruck who should NEVER have been dropped after round one. He is superior to Stanley and 1 bag game shouldn't banish him to the VFL when he is one of our more important players. If Scott played a ruck v West Coast (and I mean 17 other coaches and 99.999999% of Australians would have played a ruck against west coast) the outcome would've been different as Naitanui killed us (as expected) and drove them over the line with 3 goals directly from his taps.

3. Play Esava as a key forward together with Hawkins.

FFS scott, don't ruin this kid too by playing him all over the place (think Gregson, Gurthrie Parfitt playing forward, Lang even Smedts were all played out of position and lost confidence etc.) settle him as a second tall forward. Esava and Blitz can provide relief minutes to Smith, but Smith should be rucking the same minutes as Nank for tigs or Sandi for freo.. ie the maximum.

This give us STRUCTURE. It settles the team and it will improve our defence, ruck and gives Esava more rest up forward to impact games.

It is the most simple, logical and OBVIOUS coaching amendment... surely Scott will know to do this.... surely.... (he probably won't know to do this and will continue with our current set up... what's the definition of insanity again?)

1. Blitz may not play this week since he cut his hand and elbow on the Optus Stadium fence and needed 14 stitches. Hand injuries can sometimes be more serious than you think (I hope it isn't).

2. Playing Smith is fine, but what if Smith has terrible games? Does he get gifted games because he is better than Stanley?

If Smith struggles, and Stanley tears up the VFL, would you play Stanley ahead of Smith then?

 

[Catters 070911]

Don’t disagree, but by ‘quality’ I meant more than just the individual parts.

They played with far more belief, had a far better system, far better skill and backed each other far better than we did.

Ergo far better quality across far more aspects of the game.

Let's see how Richmond are in a year, when everyone copies their "small man forward line" or works it out and defends against it. Also, let's see Richmond's depth when they have an injury list like we have had this year.

A lot of luck fell Richmond's way last year. They might end up being fluke premiers like the Bulldogs were.

I prefer building for dynasties myself, like Geelong did in 2007-11, rather than winning just one flag.

 

[Catters 070911]

No proof of that. Losing GAJ, Cocky and Guthrie cost us big time, as did 2 costly errors by Hawkins, as did a poor decision against Henry- MOST of these things happened while we were in front and had the momentum.

Also Touhy and Blitz cutting their hands on the fence.

Lady Luck ain't smiling on us this year!

 

[Landgraft]

Don’t disagree, but by ‘quality’ I meant more than just the individual parts.

They played with far more belief, had a far better system, far better skill and backed each other far better than we did.

Ergo far better quality across far more aspects of the game.

Okay. That's got nothing to do with Thurlow/Murdoch as players.

 

[Two Planks]

NicNat did not get a coaches vote...

Watch the last 10 minutes of the game again and tell me he didn't win the game for them.

 

[Two Planks]

Rubbish- were you at the Demons game? And I actually like Smith. Gawn was even more influential. Are you at every training session and team meeting?
Surely the powers at GFC have more insight and inside knowledge than us disgruntled supporters who have issues with us losing.

So Smith was training well enough to be the number 1 ruckman against Melbourne, Stanley then trained well enough to be the number 1 ruckman against Hawthorn and Blicavs must have trained great last week to be the number 1 ruckman against the eagles. Sounds like the under 11s where the coach is handing out a McDonald's voucher for the best trainer.

 

[Two Planks]

1. Blitz may not play this week since he cut his hand and elbow on the Optus Stadium fence and needed 14 stitches. Hand injuries can sometimes be more serious than you think (I hope it isn't).

2. Playing Smith is fine, but what if Smith has terrible games? Does he get gifted games because he is better than Stanley?

If Smith struggles, and Stanley tears up the VFL, would you play Stanley ahead of Smith then?

Hawkins plays bad games but never gets dropped. Blicavs plays terrible games but never gets dropped. Kolo plays bad games but never gets dropped.

Stanley plays well in the VFL against a local plumber and Smith gets beaten by Max Gawn and gets the chop, hardly a fair comparison.