Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[Lore]

Who's having a crack? I'm stating we're not a young side, as is evident in being the older team 4 weeks in a row.

On every line and in every position? Or just the ruck?

And that Scott prefers to play the older guys, as is evident by being the only club in the bottom 8 not to debut someone and no younger player breaking into and cementing his spot in the 22 since he's been here.

The latter is not evidence of the former.

 

[jmoo wan]

i feel like we’ve all aged several years since this discussion started

 

[bombreys]

On every line and in every position? Or just the ruck?

The latter is not evidence of the former.

The best 22/23.

It is though, especially when you combine it with everything else.

 

[ant555]

Monty - definitely a bit stiff early, but form did waiver to end the year
Voss - probably the same as above, though rollercoaster form came at bad time(s). He was solid early and late in the season but his poor VFL form mid-year probably came at the time he was most likely for an AFL call up
Bryan - stiff last year vs Flip, but Draper and Goldy are quite simply better footballers - can't really complain this year
Baldwin - probably the unluckiest - I think both BZT and Lav were top/bottom 10 (BZT second?) in goals scored against, so Baldwin definitely could have been given a go, especially with how undersized we were last year.

How is asking which young players have broken into and cemented their spot in the side 'an attempt to move the goal posts'? Because the answer doesn't suit/fall in line with your own opinion? Again, you need to understand that first and second year players don't all just come in 'not ready'. Some of them come in ready or are ready for the big stage very early on. I'd argue that both Roberts and especially Hayes should be in contention this week (given the size of the Port KPF's & Ridley's unavailability) - at least as emergencies.

We're one of only five teams left not to give anyone a debut this season. And the only side to finish in the bottom 8 from last year not to do so. And it's again looking like we'll be a bit older than Port this weekend, which will potentially make it 4/4 rounds we're the older side.

This is simple.
You started with Scott does not play the young blokes. Did it at North and doing it here.
The facts do not support it.
He has played some young blokes and not played others. That is a fact.
Yes you can argue some could have played more which I agree with as far as Baldwin and Bryon goes but both got games. It is only opinion on who was performing and who was not. Lets face it we where in the finals race until 3/4 of the way into the season.
The argument does not add up. He has played some and not others.

As for this year and not giving anyone a debut.
Caddy crash landed and hurt his back and has now knocked his tooth out. He has played 1 full game in the last two months.
Roberts going well and is on watch. Form good .Is knocking on the door you would think.
Lual. Quiet start to match sim. Okay VFL R1. Better last week.
J Davey. Has not played for 2 years. Simply not ready.
Visentini . Done a few nice things but is nowhere near ready.
Hunter. Injured.
We have played 3 games. Who could have debuted ?
And why are you crossing over into another subject ?
Who cares if we are slightly older. That was not my point.
Again my point was you said Scott prefers to play the older players. The fact is he does not. He has played young and old. How much more evidence do you need me to provide ?
Two of the blokes you could make a case for last year did actually play anyway.

 

[ant555]

Who's having a crack? I'm stating we're not a young side, as is evident in being the older team 4 weeks in a row. And that Scott prefers to play the older guys, as is evident by being the only club in the bottom 8 not to debut someone and no younger player breaking into and cementing his spot in the 22 since he's been here.

Fake news.
I have already provided the evidence this is false. The age of the side has nothing to do with this.
He does not. He has played more young guys than he has not played.
He has also played young guys with limited form. Jones. Cox. Tstatas.
He pumped the midfield time into Perkins despite his form being just average.
He played Menzie all year.
He has played Davey.
He has played Reid.
He has played Hobbs.
And who could we have debuted this year ?
We have 7 blokes on zero games. 4 from last years drafting ( Caddy / Roberts / Lual / Visnetini ). One who has been injured twice and is out for the season ( Hunter). One who was picked last year but has not played for two years ( J Davey) and Hayes who was not ready last year and maybe will press this year at some stage.
Some fact would be good.
Seriously. The arguments are not linked . Yes we are not the youngest side or even a young side a lot of weeks. That does not change the fact that we "have" played a number of young guys.

 

[bombreys]

This is simple.
You started with Scott does not play the young blokes. Did it at North and doing it here.
The facts do not support it.
He has played some young blokes and not played others. That is a fact.
Yes you can argue some could have played more which I agree with as far as Baldwin and Bryon goes but both got games. It is only opinion on who was performing and who was not. Lets face it we where in the finals race until 3/4 of the way into the season.
The argument does not add up. He has played some and not others.

As for this year and not giving anyone a debut.
Caddy crash landed and hurt his back and has now knocked his tooth out. He has played 1 full game in the last two months.
Roberts going well and is on watch. Form good .Is knocking on the door you would think.
Lual. Quiet start to match sim. Okay VFL R1. Better last week.
J Davey. Has not played for 2 years. Simply not ready.
Visentini . Done a few nice things but is nowhere near ready.
Hunter. Injured.
We have played 3 games. Who could have debuted ?
And why are you crossing over into another subject ?
Who cares if we are slightly older. That was not my point.
Again my point was you said Scott prefers to play the older players. The fact is he does not. He has played young and old. How much more evidence do you need me to provide ?
Two of the blokes you could make a case for last year did actually play anyway.

Fair enough.

Some decisions frustrate me more than others. Weideman as emergency this week annoys the hell out of me. Asking genuinely, do you think he deserves to be an emergency based on form?

 

[ant555]

Fair enough.

Some decisions frustrate me more than others. Weideman as emergency this week annoys the hell out of me. Asking genuinely, do you think he deserves to be an emergency based on form?

Davey is an emergency as well and he was worse than Weideman. Weideman was actually okay on Sunday not that I am cheering for him. Caddy has not played enough footy to be emergency if someone is sick. Tsatas is also an emergency. So that is two young blokes and an old plodder.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Discussions like this make me appreciate ignore lists

 

[Kong]

Discussions like this make me appreciate ignore lists

I don't know about you, but I only have 5 pages in this thread

 

[ghostdog]

Discussions like this make me appreciate ignore lists

I dunno. I've enjoyed it

 

[ghostdog]

I don't know about you, but I only have 5 pages in this thread

...but I have 142 pages

 

[MiguelM]

Goldstein's tapwork is elite. I don't see any issue with our developing ruckmen playing and training with one of the best to ever do it.

Good thing is whenever he retires we are surely a good chance of keeping him as a ruck coach.

 

[faible]

Davey is an emergency as well and he was worse than Weideman. Weideman was actually okay on Sunday not that I am cheering for him. Caddy has not played enough footy to be emergency if someone is sick. Tsatas is also an emergency. So that is two young blokes and an old plodder.

Also people seem to forget that Emergencies are just that, it's not a 'reward for form' like some people want to treat it. There's usually a balance to the players selected, and this week the VFL plays before the AFL (and is in a different state) so if you're selected as Emergency then it means you're pretty likely not to get any game this week.

We have a midfield emergency in Tsatas (best performed VFL mid), a small in A Davey, and a tall that 'can' play forward or back in Weideman. Roberts could have been named in place of Davey, but it's largely meaningless if he's not actually playing.

If Roberts continues this form he'll almost certainly be the first to debut, Caddy had a minor opening with the Wright suspension but as mentioned has barely played and Jones played quite well so will hold his spot (for now).

Otherwise J Davey and Lual are coming from a fair way back, Hunter is injured, Visenti is a multi-year prospect, and Hayes has been solid but probably gets more out of playing a game this week than travelling as an emergency and not playing.

 

[Vindicater]

I always assumed emergencies were the guys we do not mind missing a VFL game.

 

[Zach Package]

Had a stinker.

Arrogance or stupidity, whatever the reason, you can’t not have a sweeper off the back of the stoppage against Port. Yes we don’t have the same physical tools to take off out of the front of the stoppage like they do but you have to at least try to make it difficult for them.

 

[supportyourteam]

they have a go at stoppages but getting the ball in the clear and moving from stoppages needs coaching input. It's a mess.

 

[BrunoV]

Sure the centre bounce is an issue but what do we really expect? Our mids quality is generally subject to the leeway afforded by an opponent.

It's also a flawed approach because over the course of a season it balances out. Every time Goldy dominates the middle, as in R1, will be cancelled out by something like last night. It's the nature of the centre.

But it wasn't even the most heinous thing about last night. That'd be the ground defence which is something we actually have control over but chose to do little to nothing about.

We play this reactive weak football as long as we play weak players. No amount of identifying as a professional changes that reality. The players are what they are.

Brad needs to trust the 32 year old rather than allowing wisdom to con him into believing things that are not true.

Mouthguards to training every time this happens. The player who get the midfield minutes are the ones who engage physically. No compromise. Actually be prepared to lose the Hawthorn game to set standards. Give up something to make it look real and more than corporate speak. That's when I'll believe he isn't chasing results at the expense of building something real.

We bounced off the Port players in the rain at the G last year. It was just as embarrassing but Port didn't play the conditions and didn't blow us away in the first quarter when it had something like 8 more scoring shots.

 

[brain taylor]

Arrogance or stupidity, whatever the reason, you can’t not have a sweeper off the back of the stoppage against Port. Yes we don’t have the same physical tools to take off out of the front of the stoppage like they do but you have to at least try to make it difficult for them.

who needs any of that when you have DARCY PARISH

 

[bomberlegend2007]

Until this aggressive press is second nature, we are gonna have some ugly losses.

 

[Old Campaigner]

It's not just that, it needs to be backed up by some dangerous forwards who will make the most of their opportunities whenever the ball is pressed in our half, as well as a midfield and rebounding defenders who can actually get it up our end in the first place.

 

[Zach Package]

Until this aggressive press is second nature, we are gonna have some ugly losses.

All it takes is one person to be out of place in an aggressive press and it’s an automatic 10 goal loss.

I wouldn’t put this particular loss down to that though

 

[WABomber]

Until this aggressive press is second nature, we are gonna have some ugly losses.

Not just that, the fitness and speed of players to track back. He doesn't have the cattle to execute it to the level he wants imo We aren't as far into a rebuild as many would want to accept and when we come across a fast running side that can split the middle on the rebound we are going to cop some big losses imo. But on a positive we play eagles twice this year.

 

[MiguelM]

If we improved our disposal efficiency by 10% and held onto marks inside 50/on the wings we might not be bemoaning defensive pressure.

 

[faible]

If we improved our disposal efficiency by 10% and held onto marks inside 50/on the wings we might not be bemoaning defensive pressure.

Buckley spoke well at half time, said that Port had gone from a zone in Q1 that wasn't getting it done against us, and where we'd failed to put scoreboard pressure on, to a mostly man on man setup.

We didn't adapt and not having a player setup at centre bounces to stop Rozee / JHF running straight forward was poor IMO.

Some of that's a cattle problem, how many of our players would be back to win their position against their opposing number?
Some of it's a setup problem, why were we winning the hitouts but losing the clearances?
Some of it's an injury problem, would Durham have been able to go with Rozee and apply tackle pressure?
Some of it was just us executing poorly when we did get our chances; bad kicking for goal when we got chances, handballing straight to Port players on multiple occasions, not holding marks.

 

[bomberlegend2007]

Not just that, the fitness and speed of players to track back. He doesn't have the cattle to execute it to the level he wants imo We aren't as far into a rebuild as many would want to accept and when we come across a fast running side that can split the middle on the rebound we are going to cop some big losses imo. But on a positive we play eagles twice this year.

I feel like the fitness levels have been raised which is why this year will be full of soft tissue injuries.