Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[faible]

In for a s**t couple of weeks with Setterfield and Draper missing. That’s all your physicality and all your grunt gone.

He won’t have anything close to a lever to pull if Port or the Crows get going.

Set the Goblin loose.

 

[Vindicater]

Has done a great job with our injuries.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Set the Goblin loose.

Gobba and caldwell head to head with rozee and butters?

 

[andleanback]

Gobba and caldwell head to head with rozee and butters?

It was mentioned the other night. But I’d love to see merrett go head to head with butters.

 

[maskmcgee]

Seems angry

 

[TheGrizz]

Seems angry

Good. I hope some of it is self-directed.

 

[Lore]

Good. I hope some of it is self-directed.

Why?

 

[Lore]

Seems angry

You mean because he was banned from having any contact with his players between the siren and the press conference because ASADA was too busy watching them all pee into cups?

 

[TheGrizz]

Why?

Because his poor tactical decisions had a direct, negative impact on us after 3QT.

 

[bommer16]

The subbing of Menzie was surprising. I thought he had a good game.

 

[Lore]

Because his poor tactical decisions had a direct, negative impact on us after 3QT.

Why do you think he chose that tactic?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Why do you think he chose that tactic?

It was a bad decision considering we all know that Shiel has hands of steel in wet weather.

 

[fairbump_playon]

It was a bad decision considering we all know that Shiel has hands of steel in wet weather.

Omg you can hear the ping from the back of the top tier. Ironman, iron hands.

 

[Lore]

It was a bad decision considering we all know that Shiel has hands of steel in wet weather.

Yeah, so Shiel was the sub and we got an unexpected(?) pile of rain in Q3. About 5 minutes into Q4 the rain stopped, as best I could tell from my TV.

Is that the only problem with that tactic? That it rained for 5 minutes after we activated the sub?

 

[citizen-erased]

Yeah, so Shiel was the sub and we got an unexpected(?) pile of rain in Q3. About 5 minutes into Q4 the rain stopped, as best I could tell from my TV.

Is that the only problem with that tactic? That it rained for 5 minutes after we activated the sub?

i don't think mids are a good sub idea. esp when you've already got Merrett, Parish, Caldwell, Hobbs & Stringer + rolling the flankers through

I'd also say, if Shiel is ready he's in the 22. if he's not in the 22 he's not in the side.
Doesn't strike me as a sub.

was a bit of an eyebrow raiser when i heard it

 

[Lore]

i don't think mids are a good sub idea. esp when you've already got Merrett, Parish, Caldwell, Hobbs & Stringer + rolling the flankers through

I'd also say, if Shiel is ready he's in the 22. if he's not in the 22 he's not in the side.
Doesn't strike me as a sub.

was a bit of an eyebrow raiser when i heard it

So why do you think he did it?

Did he think it was a good idea?

What other choice could he have made?

 

[Lore]

I originally wrote this in the autopsy thread but that thread will disappear off the first page in a few days and in any case plenty of people don't read those things, so I'm going to put a copy here:


Scott specifically said several times when he was first hired that he would not have taken the job if the board felt that we were on the cusp of contending for a premiership. He has emphasised development over and over and over again. He has consistently hosed down any talk of finals, or anything more long-sighted than the next game on the fixture.

Scott and every player who has been interviewed this year are talking glowingly of how we're a "strengths-based" team*. Most of the players are riding high on a burst of confidence in their own abilities because they're being put in a position where those attributes are of value to the team. It's good coaching for a team whose collective mindset has been pretty suspect for about a decade.

Every game we play in the post-match press conference, journos were pointing out that we were 2-0 and then 3-0 and then 4-0 and then 4-1 and then 5-2 and whatever through to 8-5, and every week he was consistently pointing out that while the win-loss record is nice to have, we hadn't been able to match it with the best teams in the comp, and we're working toward the 4 quarter effort required.

The way we played in the game against Port on Saturday is the closest we've gotten to matching it with an actually good team all year – and it's notable that Port is one of the few that also beat the post-bye funk that has ended in disaster for almost every team in the last few weeks, and playing at the MCG where they're not known for their form. So we got close against a good team when they're theoretically playing in their worst circumstances of the year.... so congrats? What else can we point to, Melbourne with no Gawn?

Anyone can see that our game plan is basically the same one we've had since 2016, but with a wee dram of game day strategy and some slightly better coaching so the players actually remember what they're supposed to be doing slightly more often when it actually counts. We're at the point that expectations are now so high that we've got a small riot on the forum when it's not completely perfect.


*That "strengths-based" approach is just the spin, the hype, the marketing, the window-dressing on what is, in reality, the year of getting to know the players, earning their trust, trying to find what will get the best out of them individually and collectively. He has exposed several young or fringe players to runs of games at AFL level, and runs of games in different positions. He is coaching for confidence, mindset, individual development, team culture, leadership, and standards.



When you look past the "strengths-based" spin, you notice that he has changed as few things as possible. He actually didn't change the leadership group at all... Heppell stepped down, the other two got automatically promoted, and otherwise there is no change at all. He hasn't changed the game plan. He hasn't even really changed the best 22. He was too late to have any influence on list management. He didn't change the coaching panel.

It's all "softly softly catchee monkey".

He is coaching to convince the club and the players that this "game plan that works" and this "list that just needs development" won't go all the way even when the coaching is good. That they're not going to win games because 150 years or because Essendon.

The only thing he has changed is hearts and minds, but that is clearly exactly where he needed to start given how fractured the place was not even 12 months ago.


Altogether, this team is extremely clearly NOT a finished product, the coach KNOWS that it will not go the distance in finals, and has been telling us so all year.

Seeing it for yourself doesn't make it news.

 

[citizen-erased]

So why do you think he did it?

Did he think it was a good idea?

What other choice could he have made?

Hind/Mass have been used of late. Cox could have been interesting. Could have played anywhere too
Didn't see it, but reports Tippa is trimmer...could have been a sub to close it out. and in wet weather, he's a specialist.

Can't really see the rationale behind it tbh. Shiel is too good to be sub. Either he's in the side, or not for me

 

[Happyskeret]

Look one thing I want to say is emotion is the key!!! You can crap on about stats and 5 year plans and everything but then a coach walks in like McCrae for Collingwood and they dominate. Brad has done that from a certain degree for us. After a while you get sick of losing and it’s player driven in the end.

 

[Lore]

Hind/Mass have been used of late.

We normally play 7 defenders. At the start of the year it was Zerk-Thatcher, Ridley, Laverde, Langford, Kelly, Redman, McGrath.

Whenever Langford has had to go forward, or whenever we've had injuries in defence (Zerk's ankle, Ridley's concussion, Laverde's shoulder, Kelly's concussion) we brought in D'Ambrosio, Baldwin, and Hind.

But currently, Langford is starting forward and staying forward, and the injuries in defence have mostly resolved, other than Reid and Stewart.

Adding D'Ambrosio or Hind would give us too many defenders, with the obvious possibility of sending Heppell or McGrath to the wing or Laverde/Redman into the forward line, and that still wouldn't resolve the problem of what to do with Shiel.

Cox could have been interesting. Could have played anywhere too

Doesn't sound like he's in great form in the VFL, and they don't even know what position he should play in. If you put him on a wing in the AFL, do you send Durham or Martin inside for Caldwell or forward for Menzie?

And what do you do with Shiel, pay him megabucks in the VFL?

Didn't see it, but reports Tippa is trimmer...could have been a sub to close it out. and in wet weather, he's a specialist.

As of today, yes. He will have particular milestones to reach before he gets his reward though. Would much rather he played a whole game in the VFL for his fitness and mental health than a quarter in the AFL.

Can't really see the rationale behind it tbh. Shiel is too good to be sub. Either he's in the side, or not for me

I don't think you can leave him in the 2s, so you have to find a spot for him. And with that in mind, something has to give. On a like-for-like basis Hobbs or Caldwell would be in the 2s, or you have to rotate them forward. And if you're going to rotate them forward, you have to take a forward out of the game.

 

[Lore]

Look one thing I want to say is emotion is the key!!! You can crap on about stats and 5 year plans and everything but then a coach walks in like McCrae for Collingwood and they dominate. Brad has done that from a certain degree for us. After a while you get sick of losing and it’s player driven in the end.

Collingwood were already a good team before McRae walked in... 12 of their 2018 grand final team are still in their 22 even now, and more of them were still there when he took over last year.

 

[Happyskeret]

Collingwood were already a good team before McRae walked in... 12 of their 2018 grand final team are still in their 22 even now, and more of them were still there when he took over last year.

Haha the only reason I said he walked in was because of the experienced players he had on hand. When you have a team like that they basically coach themselves.

Brad himself has had to guide them because unfortunately our leaders have never experienced any form of success. So imo using emotion is the key to make them believe in themselves and be the best versions of themselves they can be.

 

[Lore]

Haha the only reason I said he walked in was because of the experienced players he had on hand. When you have a team like that they basically coach themselves.

Brad himself has had to guide them because unfortunately our leaders have never experienced any form of success. So imo using emotion is the key to make them believe in themselves and be the best versions of themselves they can be.

McRae is basically in the same situation as what the other Scott had when he took over at Geelong lucky him I guess.

This Scott seems not to mind a challenge.

But yes, mindset, attitude... all that.

 

[citizen-erased]

And what do you do with Shiel, pay him megabucks in the VFL?


I don't think you can leave him in the 2s, so you have to find a spot for him. And with that in mind, something has to give. On a like-for-like basis Hobbs or Caldwell would be in the 2s, or you have to rotate them forward. And if you're going to rotate them forward, you have to take a forward out of the game.

yeah, i don't think you make Shiel a sub if he's fit to play is where i'm at.

that said, the mega bucks to play VFL conversation could be one to have with the trajectory of our kids.

 

[Happyskeret]

McRae is basically in the same situation as what the other Scott had when he took over at Geelong lucky him I guess.

This Scott seems not to mind a challenge.

But yes, mindset, attitude... all that.

I agree probably lucky but this guy wanted to take us on warts and all. I don’t think it would have appealed to Brad to have the situation you mentioned. This is why I have fallen in love with him because he wants to fix us. Do I think he is perfect…. No but he is good for us that I am sure.