Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[faible]

didn't emphasise defence

pressure is a fundamental

So he did emphasise defence.

the defensive system

As opposed to the defensive system

One is not the other. One is more complex than the other.

 

[faible]

Unless you are kicking more goals than the opposition.

Not sure Geelong's gamepan is overly complex.

Geelong's gameplan uses zone defensive structures to allow a guy like Stewart to largely focus on intercept marking instead of playing one-on-one defence.

Complex in terms of astrophysics? No. Complex in terms of reliably executing the appropriate choices under physical duress, week-in-week-out? Yes.

 

[BrunoV]

So he did emphasise defence.



As opposed to the defensive system

One is not the other. One is more complex than the other.

It's the emphasis of defence relative to attack.

It's the whole post in context. The whole post.

Haven't you don't year 9 English yet?

 

[Don Won]

It's the emphasis of defence relative to attack.

It's the whole post in context. The whole post.

Haven't you don't year 9 English yet?

A like for the strong use of ironing in the last sentence.

 

[faible]

It's the emphasis of defence relative to attack.

It's the whole post in context. The whole post.

Haven't you don't year 9 English yet?

Yeah, it feels a lot like you're trying to talk around being wrong here.

Nothing about how EFC played under Rutten was offense-first.

We played a simple forward-half pressure focused gameplan in Year 1 that was found out in finals, despite having actual fast small forwards to apply pressure.

They tried to ratchet up the complexity with a more complex full-ground zone, without fast small fowards to apply front-half pressure, and failed to execute it.

Sounds like Scott is going back to Year 1 with a simple forward-half pressure focused gameplan. Which we already know doesn't win finals. So will still have to implement a more complex full-ground system over time.

 

[DERO]

Yeah, it feels a lot like you're trying to talk around being wrong here.

Nothing about how EFC played under Rutten was offense-first.

We played a simple forward-half pressure focused gameplan in Year 1 that was found out in finals, despite having actual fast small forwards to apply pressure.

They tried to ratchet up the complexity with a more complex full-ground zone, without fast small fowards to apply front-half pressure, and failed to execute it.

Sounds like Scott is going back to Year 1 with a simple forward-half pressure focused gameplan. Which we already know doesn't win finals. So will still have to implement a more complex full-ground system over time.

I think what happened was the plan was too much for our players to take in and execute so we have reverted to more on the move, instinctive defence rather than the flat-footed, complicated zones that confused the hell out of them.

Losing Snelling and Tippa pretty much removed any chance of a tackle inside 50 although Guelfi tried hard. Things might look a little different if we start laying more tackles inside 50 and get the balance between attack and defence right. Hopefully anyway. My 2c.

 

[Lore]

Yeah, it feels a lot like you're trying to talk around being wrong here.

Nothing about how EFC played under Rutten was offense-first.

We played a simple forward-half pressure focused gameplan in Year 1 that was found out in finals, despite having actual fast small forwards to apply pressure.

They tried to ratchet up the complexity with a more complex full-ground zone, without fast small fowards to apply front-half pressure, and failed to execute it.

Sounds like Scott is going back to Year 1 with a simple forward-half pressure focused gameplan. Which we already know doesn't win finals. So will still have to implement a more complex full-ground system over time.

It makes sense to build confidence and good habits doing the basics before adding in complexity, but it seems like every new coach has to do it when the complexity of the previous coach’s second year plan kills both their confidence and his predecessor’s career…

Good thing Scott is on a long term deal I guess

 

[faible]

It makes sense to build confidence and good habits doing the basics before adding in complexity, but it seems like every new coach has to do it when the complexity of the previous coach’s second year plan kills both their confidence and his predecessor’s career…

Good thing Scott is on a long term deal I guess

Part of the issue is availability; no AMT, no Snelling, no Langford, Parish / Shiel / Merrett aren't particularly noteworthy two-way runners and we had no midfielders playing in the VFL to drop them for.

Also expectations were overly high since we made finals in 2021 with less wins than has been needed for almost a decade, and we had an absoutely brutal draw to start the season and some very close losses (e.g. to Collingwood).

 

[yodellinhank]

Good thing Scott is on a long term deal I guess

Just increases the payout.

 

[Lore]

Just increases the payout.

Which should hopefully be prohibitive

 

[yodellinhank]

Which should hopefully be prohibitive

I'd prefer it's results that prohibit a coach from getting the sack.

 

[Lore]

I'd prefer it's results that prohibit a coach from getting the sack.

How uncharacteristically idealistic of you

 

[BrunoV]

A like for the strong use of ironing in the last sentence.

God dammit.

Lol

 

[ant555]

Geelong's gameplan uses zone defensive structures to allow a guy like Stewart to largely focus on intercept marking instead of playing one-on-one defence.

Complex in terms of astrophysics? No. Complex in terms of reliably executing the appropriate choices under physical duress, week-in-week-out? Yes.

Not just Stewart . De Koning . Henry. Kolodjashnij . All pretty decent intercept players. I think it is what we are trying to build with Ridley , Cox and co.

 

[BrunoV]

Yeah, it feels a lot like you're trying to talk around being wrong here.

Nothing about how EFC played under Rutten was offense-first.

We played a simple forward-half pressure focused gameplan in Year 1 that was found out in finals, despite having actual fast small forwards to apply pressure.

They tried to ratchet up the complexity with a more complex full-ground zone, without fast small fowards to apply front-half pressure, and failed to execute it.

Sounds like Scott is going back to Year 1 with a simple forward-half pressure focused gameplan. Which we already know doesn't win finals. So will still have to implement a more complex full-ground system over time.

Simple forward half pressure has been the goal the whole time. There is nothing new there.

Rutten was not emphasising defence, which is the defence of the ground, when he was asking the players to do what they've been asked to do the whole time.

Look at the history of the team. 2017, 2019, 2021 bounce into finals on the back of aggressive ball movement. 2018, 2020 and 2022 fall apart and there are issues with attempts to change defensive plans.

Essendon has had among the worst ground defence in the league for the entire time ground defence has been a thing.

We were not able to defend the transition under Rutten at any time. The only guy to pull it off was Bomber and that came with its problems.

What do you want, longer posts spelling out every obvious detail? I thought I already used too many words.

"They tried to ratchet up the complexity with a more complex full ground zone'.

Why did they do that? Anything to do with an increased focus or emphasis on defence? Has there been any stat you could point to that would be evidence that we prioritised defence over ball movement? And why don't they start there?

I'd say you're a troll but it's strangely personal with you. There is no dispute between our substantive positions.

There is a reason I don't engage you. I wish you'd just take the hint.

 

[faible]

Simple forward half pressure has been the goal the whole time. There is nothing new there.

Rutten was not emphasising defence, which is the defence of the ground, when he was asking the players to do what they've been asked to do the whole time.

Look at the history of the team. 2017, 2019, 2021 bounce into finals on the back of aggressive ball movement. 2018, 2020 and 2022 fall apart and there are issues with attempts to change defensive plans.

Essendon has had among the worst ground defence in the league for the entire time ground defence has been a thing.

We were not able to defend the transition under Rutten at any time. The only guy to pull it off was Bomber and that came with its problems.

What do you want, longer posts spelling out every obvious detail? I thought I already used too many words.

"They tried to ratchet up the complexity with a more complex full ground zone'.

Why did they do that? Anything to do with an increased focus or emphasis on defence? Has there been any stat you could point to that would be evidence that we prioritised defence over ball movement? And why don't they start there?

I'd say you're a troll but it's strangely personal with you. There is no dispute between our substantive positions.

There is a reason I don't engage you. I wish you'd just take the hint.

Trying to reframe what defense means is an interesting method of trying to move the goalposts, that's for sure.

Rutten clearly did emphasise defense, and started with the lowest common denominator of consistent forward half pressure, for a side that has been somewhere between bad and appalling when it comes to defensive work-rate. Partly through long-term coaching failure to emphasise it, partly through continual drafting of players who don't do it.

He moved on too far, too fast, and wasn't able to get the playing group to execute. That's his failure to own. The club has clearly also failed him in it's lack of resourcing though given the drastic upswing in assistant coaches brought in to work with Scott.

The bolded was rather amusing though, kudos.

 

[EnolaGay]

Simple forward half pressure has been the goal the whole time. There is nothing new there.

Rutten was not emphasising defence, which is the defence of the ground, when he was asking the players to do what they've been asked to do the whole time.

Look at the history of the team. 2017, 2019, 2021 bounce into finals on the back of aggressive ball movement. 2018, 2020 and 2022 fall apart and there are issues with attempts to change defensive plans.

Essendon has had among the worst ground defence in the league for the entire time ground defence has been a thing.

We were not able to defend the transition under Rutten at any time. The only guy to pull it off was Bomber and that came with its problems.

What do you want, longer posts spelling out every obvious detail? I thought I already used too many words.

"They tried to ratchet up the complexity with a more complex full ground zone'.

Why did they do that? Anything to do with an increased focus or emphasis on defence? Has there been any stat you could point to that would be evidence that we prioritised defence over ball movement? And why don't they start there?

I'd say you're a troll but it's strangely personal with you. There is no dispute between our substantive positions.

There is a reason I don't engage you. I wish you'd just take the hint.

By the time we work out how to "ground defence" it won't be a thing

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk

 

[Keystone agony]

Our ability to get the ball back is the biggest issue

We dont seem to have the cattle to physically tackle and cause turnovers. If we cause a stoppage we arnt good at those with the smaller mid bodies. We have some potential interceptors but our lack of pressure means its hard to operate that mechanism and thats from both mids and fwds

Every team in the AFL is trying to setup very similar zones and trying to cause just as many i50 stoppages. Execution, cattle and discipline is another thing

Small fwds to apply pressure and more physical mids should assist but think we need better buy in and mentality to want to get the footy off the opposition. Dont see that from our mids, they want others to do that

Imo Ridley has the ability to be one of the best interceptors in the comp. It would be nice if we could more often release him as the extra behind the ball if the pressure is there up the field

 

[ant555]

Simple forward half pressure has been the goal the whole time. There is nothing new there.

Rutten was not emphasising defence, which is the defence of the ground, when he was asking the players to do what they've been asked to do the whole time.

Look at the history of the team. 2017, 2019, 2021 bounce into finals on the back of aggressive ball movement. 2018, 2020 and 2022 fall apart and there are issues with attempts to change defensive plans.

Essendon has had among the worst ground defence in the league for the entire time ground defence has been a thing.

We were not able to defend the transition under Rutten at any time. The only guy to pull it off was Bomber and that came with its problems.

What do you want, longer posts spelling out every obvious detail? I thought I already used too many words.

"They tried to ratchet up the complexity with a more complex full ground zone'.

Why did they do that? Anything to do with an increased focus or emphasis on defence? Has there been any stat you could point to that would be evidence that we prioritised defence over ball movement? And why don't they start there?

I'd say you're a troll but it's strangely personal with you. There is no dispute between our substantive positions.

There is a reason I don't engage you. I wish you'd just take the hint.

So when he lost the players by introducing a team defense style that included running a box style zone defense to protect the middle of the ground he was not emphasizing defense ? Not being able to sell it and not emphasizing it are not the same thing.

As for the last line. Its a public forum. If you do not want people to engage your opinions don't post them or use the ignore option

 

[BrunoV]

So when he lost the players by introducing a team defense style that included running a box style zone defense to protect the middle of the ground he was not emphasizing defense ? Not being able to sell it and not emphasizing it are not the same thing.

As for the last line. Its a public forum. If you do not want people to engage your opinions don't post them or use the ignore option

Go back and read my original post.

My whole point was that he didn't start with defence. I clearly acknowledge that he tried defence, in his second year.

 

[ant555]

Go back and read my original post.

My whole point was that he didn't start with defence. I clearly acknowledge that he tried defence, in his second year.

He did start with defense . They had started a basic plan that was supposed to have a new aspect every season. You start with the basics and work from there. The fact they could not do it well is not a factor in saying they where not looking at defense . I did read you original post. It was wrong. They where absolutely working on defensive structure from the start. He did start working on a basic defensive plan to build on. Problem was the jumped a couple of steps leading into last year and a number of the players where not totally buying into the basic plan so it went belly up. Now Scott has gone back to step 1.
The issue is Worsfold was just coaching out time and empowered the players and Truck never got the time to turn over the list to build the culture he wanted and could not sell the message and get the buy in.

 

[BrunoV]

He did start with defense . They had started a basic plan that was supposed to have a new aspect every season. You start with the basics and work from there. The fact they could not do it well is not a factor in saying they where not looking at defense . I did read you original post. It was wrong. They where absolutely working on defensive structure from the start. He did start working on a basic defensive plan to build on. Problem was the jumped a couple of steps leading into last year and a number of the players where not totally buying into the basic plan so it went belly up. Now Scott has gone back to step 1.
The issue is Worsfold was just coaching out time and empowered the players and Truck never got the time to turn over the list to build the culture he wanted and could not sell the message and get the buy in.

How did the defensive basics differ from previous years? How would that have looked different to what was being done from the perspective of players who had supposedly been listening to Rutten for 2 years?

How is it that Rutten couldn't just build on 2020 (or what he had been trying to do since 2019)?

If I check your posting history am I going to see commentary on why it is that interim coaches and first year coaches usually see immediate results? Is it commonly accepted that this has anything to do with freeing players to focus on fundamentally offensive aspects of the game, contested ball and offensive ball movement? How many of the interim coaches in particular can't then rein it back in?

You can't seriously think I'm saying there was no defense.

My point was he didn't drill a focus/emphasis on defence that would change the side's fortunes and start to break down the recalcitrants.

He then had to skip parts or do to much or something too complicated because of that massive defensive focus in 2021?

I remember a time when Knights was being hammered for not focusing on defence. That was never to say there was no defensive system, it just wasnt good (i tried to defend it because we were recording 100 tackles in games). I recall cliches about defence winning premierships and building from the back.

Rutten didn't do that. If he did we wouldn't have finished in the top 8 in 2021, most likely 2022 would have reflected linear improvement and Rutten would probably still have a job.

He let front runners be front runners in 2021 and that's the single biggest reason 2022 fell apart to the extent it did. In my book that's not what a coach focused on defence allows.

 

[ant555]

How did the defensive basics differ from previous years? How would that have looked different to what was being done from the perspective of players who had supposedly been listening to Rutten for 2 years?

How is it that Rutten couldn't just build on 2020 (or what he had been trying to do since 2019)?

If I check your posting history am I going to see commentary on why it is that interim coaches and first year coaches usually see immediate results? Is it commonly accepted that this has anything to do with freeing players to focus on fundamentally offensive aspects of the game, contested ball and offensive ball movement? How many of the interim coaches in particular can't then rein it back in?

You can't seriously think I'm saying there was no defense.

My point was he didn't drill a focus/emphasis on defence that would change the side's fortunes and start to break down the recalcitrants.

He then had to skip parts or do to much or something too complicated because of that massive defensive focus in 2021?

I remember a time when Knights was being hammered for not focusing on defence. That was never to say there was no defensive system, it just wasnt good (i tried to defend it because we were recording 100 tackles in games). I recall cliches about defence winning premierships and building from the back.

Rutten didn't do that. If he did we wouldn't have finished in the top 8 in 2021, most likely 2022 would have reflected linear improvement and Rutten would probably still have a job.

He let front runners be front runners in 2021 and that's the single biggest reason 2022 fell apart to the extent it did. In my book that's not what a coach focused on defence allows.

The bold is the issue. You are just presuming he did not focus on it or have a plan. Did you go to training ? did you have conversations with people from within the club ? talk to people who had an idea of what was going on with training ?
I know for a fact there was a plan for defense and it was more than they had previously been working on. They started working it in 2020 but there where issues with the covid bubble and how much development work they could do. What they did in 2021 was the start of the plan after 2020 being a wipe out for development. You do not just jump into a game plan from year 1. You build the basics and add to it.

They skipped ahead in the plan because of the pressure for results. The pressure was we can not go backwards. Problem was they lost a lot of the playing group in pre season who thought it was a few steps too far and they did not have the development staff to fully do it.

You are having a complete guess based on the results of the coach messing up his own plan by trying to jump too far forward after they played above themselves in the first season. There was also the factor that they had no forward pressure as there where no small forwards in 2022. The biggest issue with out play in 2022 was we could not stop the footy coming out of the forward half and that was more personal issues than game plan.

They worked a lot on defense before 2021. I know they did. The players failing to pick it all up and the plan being a bit of a fail give the results that happened. The did focus on defense. The plan failed. That is what happened. To say they did not is simply wrong. They already knew they could run in front of the footy. Speak to anyone who had a inside line into that first pre season. They will say the same.

Your book is wrong. It is missing some pages and you have not got all the info.

Take the bloody tip. I know from more than 5 sources that under Truck the main plan and effort from day 1 was improving the team defense and trying to play a harder brand of footy. That was the focus. For various reasons it failed including Truck not having the ability or respect a longer term coach has to be able to sell the message. That is on top poor leadership to drive it on field . Injuries at time to key players.
like Snelling who was one who organized the team defense a lot.

They did more work on their defensive actions during 2021 than they did working on offence.
I will say that at times in 2021 they did improve their team defense. Merrett certainly got better. There where games when they defended for a lot longer than previously. I am pretty sure you will find match threads where I said as much. They where not great but there where improved efforts.

Last year crashed because they did not get the full and went into round 1 and got burnt by a side that had years of fine tuning.

Lets face it Jake Stringer pretty much won us 3 games on his own in the middle of 2021. We had Walla for forward pressure.

Of course the real basic of it is your defensive game plan could be a dud. You could concentrate on it until the cows come home but a dud will be a dud. However it would still be the focus of your plan.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Inside the evolution: How Brad Scott is changing Essendon

Brad Scott has already changed Essendon and Bombers insiders say his impact on the players has been profound.

www.theage.com.au

 

[rumply]

paywalled