Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[ant555]

I'm not at 'dump the coach' stage by any means, however, I'm not lost on the irony of coaches demanding that players learn from their experience, when their own recent lesson was so obviously ignored.

Maybe Brad was really also more focused on the umpiring than on what he and his staff could have done better; which begs the question of whether there is a systematic reflective process built into a post-game meeting the day after, involving Brad and his staff and beginning their review at the past week's selection process.

Problem is on the outside you are only looking at part of the picture. What you see on the TV if you are not at live games and even if you are seeing live games are a lot of variables missing that we simply do not know about behind the scenes. Virtually no one is seeing the weekly match sim to start with and that has a bearing on selection.
I did not think they got it right for sure but even with the info I get every now and then I do not know what boxes the players are ticking off selection wise behind the walls.
Sometimes when you are building the culture attempting to fulfill the game plan has more weight than actual output which is not the case the further down the track you get.

 

[ghostdog]

Problem is on the outside you are only looking at part of the picture. What you see on the TV if you are not at live games and even if you are seeing live games are a lot of variables missing that we simply do not know about behind the scenes. Virtually no one is seeing the weekly match sim to start with and that has a bearing on selection.
I did not think they got it right for sure but even with the info I get every now and then I do not know what boxes the players are ticking off selection wise behind the walls.
Sometimes when you are building the culture attempting to fulfill the game plan has more weight than actual output which is not the case the further down the track you get.

That's fair enough. I get that there's more context outside the frame of the photo.

The bolded part sounds like you're suggesting that they'd rather not make the adaptations they know will be necessary, such as those for weather, for the sake of rebuilding or shaping culture. Can't say I wholly get that, for a couple of reasons;
1. Brad has said numerous times that they focus on winning games; on putting the players in a position to be able to win. Tall selections for last night didn't do that, and the subsequent damage to player trust in the coach's choices won't have worked favourably for the cukture rebuild.
2. Resilience and adaptability are valuable cultural qualities. This week's game was a perfect opportunity to develop that, starting at the selection table.

I agree with you about context, of course. Of course it's also possible, though, that they dropped the ball this week.

 

[Nicholas61]

There is something wrong with our gameplan, we never put our game dominance on the scoreboard and it always feels like we have to play perfect football to get a win.

It looks like that. I think part of that is other teams have better structure and aren't all attracted to the ball so usually we don't end up with spares - it is harder work for us to get a goal. Then occasionally when we do have spares streaming forward we burn it - a classic example was Archie against Carlton that night and 2MP against the Pies. Going forward we will have to make hard decisions on guys who lack IQ and can't pick these things up such as guarding space and routinely making fast correct basic decisions. Even looking at Hobbs' decision making of late you think of Mahoney's comments on us having low IQ players.

 

[ant555]

That's fair enough. I get that there's more context outside the frame of the photo.

The bolded part sounds like you're suggesting that they'd rather not make the adaptations they know will be necessary, such as those for weather, for the sake of rebuilding or shaping culture. Can't say I wholly get that, for a couple of reasons;
1. Brad has said numerous times that they focus on winning games; on putting the players in a position to be able to win. Tall selections for last night didn't do that, and the subsequent damage to player trust in the coach's choices won't have worked favourably for the cukture rebuild.
2. Resilience and adaptability are valuable cultural qualities. This week's game was a perfect opportunity to develop that, starting at the selection table.

I agree with you about context, of course. Of course it's also possible, though, that they dropped the ball this week.

Walk before you run is the context of the bolder part. You have to simply get the team working on the basic structures over and over and over early on. It is a discussion I have had with a number of senior coaches at various levels from Division 1 and 2 senior footy at city and country level to VFL coaches and a couple of ex AFL coaches. Is also part of the level two coaching course I did . There is a fine line to building the system for sure and not all he decisions will be right and you will lose a few along the way you should not but it has been a consistent theme in discussions with coaches that have actually done it and had success at various levels. Not simply my opinion. Things I have learnt over 30 years.

 

[ghostdog]

Walk before you run is the context of the bolder part. You have to simply get the team working on the basic structures over and over and over early on. It is a discussion I have had with a number of senior coaches at various levels from Division 1 and 2 senior footy at city and country level to VFL coaches and a couple of ex AFL coaches. Is also part of the level two coaching course I did . There is a fine line to building the system for sure and not all he decisions will be right and you will lose a few along the way you should not but it has been a consistent theme in discussions with coaches that have actually done it and had success at various levels. Not simply my opinion. Things I have learnt over 30 years.

I respect your insight, and I agree not all decisions will be right along the way.
IMHO, the selection decisions this week were horribly wrong.

 

[Yoda_]

I respect your insight, and I agree not all decisions will be right along the way.
IMHO, the selection decisions this week were horribly wrong.

does make you wonder if the selection integrity is as much down to list management (Wright has no competition on spots) as it does on coaching.

In an ideal world. Wright would have Hunter or Baldwin fighting for his position but doesn't. Cox doesn't have a wingmen pushing him to the side. The small forwards have no pressure so another 0 goal performance from Guelfi sees him picked next week. The half forwards have nothing to worry about because we have no one pressuring from below so can expect Archie to play next week at AFL level. If he does play VFL he goes straight into the (VFL) midfield and doesn't learn his (forward) craft at the lower level. We don rust Bryan.

 

[Mercurial89]

I'm getting a little frustrated with him, mainly because I think I just philosophicaly disagree with the way the team Is being built. Not that he's wrong, just not the way I want it to be done.

I believe you should put players in positions that accentuate their strengths. He seems to be foregoing that for "flexibility".
Play Martin in the forward half, playing him there is what's best for his individual form and it helps the team performance, it may also help other players in that area so it's cumulative.
We seem to be playing Ridley on some of the opposition key players, instead of building on his strengths and orchestrating him loose, or on a weaker player to take advantage of his intercepts and ability to use the ball well.
We are playing Perkins in the midfield, I assume to strengthen the rotation and build his craft, but we have wrecked the kids confidence. I understand playing him, because of his physical gifts, but he's better suited to the Stringer role then stringer is at this point.
When he's played Tsatas he has been sub, or subbed and played on a wing. How is that setting your player up to succeed?


Not calling for his head at all, it does read like I'm telling him how to do his job, I don't pretend that I know better.
Just philosophically these things don't seem like great benefits to the team.

We don't seem to be getting a great look at the youth of the team, we seem to be backing in older players to adapt and fit standards.

It would appear that plan A is ball control and to play a front half turnover game.
Yet we run one of the taller setups in the league with below average to zero small forwards, and our ball use or skill is average and not good enough to play it consistently.
Should we be trying to play a certain way when we don't have the cattle? Or should we adapt to the personnel we do have?
We have decent interceptors, really tall forwards, would we be better playing a heavy contest game and pump more mids into the team?

We arent that young a team, in that our top liners aren't going to be here when we are contending with your Durham/Caldwell core.
So I understand a winning culture, try and win. But I feel like he isn't making great choices with our youth, which if he played a bit more often sure we might lose a bit more but we would get some games into them and we would have access to better talent through drafts.

 

[ghostdog]

It looks like that. I think part of that is other teams have better structure and aren't all attracted to the ball so usually we don't end up with spares - it is harder work for us to get a goal. Then occasionally when we do have spares streaming forward we burn it - a classic example was Archie against Carlton that night and 2MP against the Pies. Going forward we will have to make hard decisions on guys who lack IQ and can't pick these things up such as guarding space and routinely making fast correct basic decisions. Even looking at Hobbs' decision making of late you think of Mahoney's comments on us having low IQ players.

I've missed this. What did Mahoney say about us having low IQ players?

 

[bombreys]

It is real anger.
I know he is not your cup of tea as he backs in the older guys and there have been times he could have played one or two of the young blokes for a bit but it is genuine anger.
Yes we have lost 4 of 6 but two where more about our turnovers / poor goal kicking than being really poor effort wise ( GC and Carlton).

I like hearing it’s genuine anger - I’m a fan of what he says - I just don’t like that he doesn’t seem to back it up with actions.

 

[bombreys]

To be fair he doesn't have a great deal to pick from aside from Setterfield

What are you talking about? We’re close to full health

 

[ghostdog]

I'm getting a little frustrated with him, mainly because I think I just philosophicaly disagree with the way the team Is being built. Not that he's wrong, just not the way I want it to be done.

I believe you should put players in positions that accentuate their strengths. He seems to be foregoing that for "flexibility".
Play Martin in the forward half, playing him there is what's best for his individual form and it helps the team performance, it may also help other players in that area so it's cumulative.
We seem to be playing Ridley on some of the opposition key players, instead of building on his strengths and orchestrating him loose, or on a weaker player to take advantage of his intercepts and ability to use the ball well.
We are playing Perkins in the midfield, I assume to strengthen the rotation and build his craft, but we have wrecked the kids confidence. I understand playing him, because of his physical gifts, but he's better suited to the Stringer role then stringer is at this point.
When he's played Tsatas he has been sub, or subbed and played on a wing. How is that setting your player up to succeed?


Not calling for his head at all, it does read like I'm telling him how to do his job, I don't pretend that I know better.
Just philosophically these things don't seem like great benefits to the team.

We don't seem to be getting a great look at the youth of the team, we seem to be backing in older players to adapt and fit standards.

It would appear that plan A is ball control and to play a front half turnover game.
Yet we run one of the taller setups in the league with below average to zero small forwards, and our ball use or skill is average and not good enough to play it consistently.
Should we be trying to play a certain way when we don't have the cattle? Or should we adapt to the personnel we do have?
We have decent interceptors, really tall forwards, would we be better playing a heavy contest game and pump more mids into the team?

We arent that young a team, in that our top liners aren't going to be here when we are contending with your Durham/Caldwell core.
So I understand a winning culture, try and win. But I feel like he isn't making great choices with our youth, which if he played a bit more often sure we might lose a bit more but we would get some games into them and we would have access to better talent through drafts.

I agree now with the last paragraph. I wouldn't have earlier in the season when we were winning, but our form is shaky now and allows reason.

 

[mike ross]

What are you talking about? We’re close to full health

He probably means in terms of quality.

 

[bombreys]

He probably means in terms of quality.

Perhaps - he obviously doesn’t follow the VFL at all

 

[Nicholas61]

I've missed this. What did Mahoney say about us having low IQ players?

When Dodoro and Mahoney had a verbal at each other, Mahoney had a go at him for recruiting low footy IQ players. Ant555 mentioned this in a post a while back. Going a bit further Clarko had a thing that if a player at a certain point couldn't pickup basics of strategy and kept doing the same thing he would say thats it if you haven't picked it up by now you won't and have to go.

I have sided with Parish critics in the past but this year he was defensively standing in the right positions putting pressure on the opposition when they were exiting - so he has been able to learn things he would have earlier in a more professional environment. I much prefer that version of Parish than the one freewheeling forward and putting it down the throat of opposition defenders. Last night we were particularly bad at where we were standing, multiple guys going up for a mark in the wet etc, but positioning has been getting worse of late.

 

[bennyg12]

Can someone send Scott the weather forecast before he picks the side

 

[faible]

He probably means in terms of quality.

Our forward-line delivered very little last night.

We don't have a lot of forward talent ready to go in the VFL right now, the one who we wanted to see playing was Caddy, and he's playing, and kicked 0 goals last night.

Basically it's Setterfield that's fit and in form right now.

Tsatas is doing well but not physically ready to be an inside mid at AFL level, Hobbs has been a bit underwhelming thus far in the VFL.

Otherwise it's maybe a Hayes or Roberts.

We might be 'fit' but there's a lot of young guys that need another year or so of physical development before being able to meaningfully contribute at AFL level.

 

[MiguelM]

I get that Brad always talks about the process etc, etc. and said last night re missing an opportunity that it is only 4 points.

But for us long suffering fans it was a huge opportunity even if deep down we all know we are batting above our average with ladder position.

That was an 8 point game and virtually put to bed any chance of top 4 unless a miracle happens.

 

[ant555]

I get that Brad always talks about the process etc, etc. and said last night re missing an opportunity that it is only 4 points.

But for us long suffering fans it was a huge opportunity even if deep down we all know we are batting above our average with ladder position.

That was an 8 point game and virtually put to bed any chance of top 4 unless a miracle happens.

It is Brads job to make sure expectation from long suffering fans does not see us wet the bed and look for another quick fix .

 

[MiguelM]

It is Brads job to make sure expectation from long suffering fans does not see us wet the bed and look for another quick fix .

I know,

I suppose it was just so disappointing as a whole.

I totally get why he he does this. I think it is one of the issues with expectation.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

I know,

I suppose it was just so disappointing as a whole.

I totally get why he he does this. I think it is one of the issues with expectation.

He has done a good job to have us even in contention for top 4. When people looked at our list pre season the general comments were "hard to get a read on them/ so many unanswered questions/ likely bottom 6 but could end up in 8-12 bracket with some luck".

He has the players all on same page and apart from Saturday and the Port game I would say the effort and intent has been unquestionable from them. This has covered up some glaring holes in the playing list but when we come up against the best and/or well drilled teams you can't really hide these holes with teamwork.

There's a reason we are trying jones/cox as wingers, it's because we only have one natural winger in the team (who fell into our lap and wasn't actually sought out) and also don't have rucks/key forwards capable of taking a contested grab. Against a teams like the pies/eagles jones/cox we were able to exploit their height advantage but against cats/dees they were exposed for their lack of understanding of the position. The Don The Stat guys called it in their preview podcast, Langdon is one of the best wingers going and was always going to out work them, they were hoping jones/cox could expose windsor for his lack of height but I guess the rain hampered that.

Similarly our forward line looks fine until we come against the good intercepting teams like Dees/Cats. All our forwards are good individually but too many of them need space to lead in to, we don't have a guy who consistently takes pack mark/brings it to ground and we also don't have good crumbing forwards to take advantage of messy ball going into the 50.

I think our list management team finally acknowledge these are concerns but so far the fixes are longer term projects (caddy, Roberts, davey twins) and I'm only very confident in Caddy solving one of the issues. It's good to see they went after berry/perryman/stengle but alas they all have re-signed or look likely to re-sign so I think we have to be patient for a couple of years still till these young guys come on/or we find some ready to play mature bodies that plug these gaps.

 

[Vindicater]

I had us anywhere from 7-13 at the start of the season and I reckon we finish 10th so basically he has done what I expected.

The late season fade outs are still a major concern though. Is our fitness staff rubbish? (That is rhetorical by the way)

 

[joey_jo_jo]

I had us anywhere from 7-13 at the start of the season and I reckon we finish 10th so basically he has done what I expected.

The late season fade outs are still a major concern though. Is our fitness staff rubbish? (That is rhetorical by the way)

Maybe Im being too optimistic but Im still not calling it a late season fade out, if we were the same as last year we wouldn't have even been in the game with Cats up to half time and we would have folded against pies after their hot start.
The next month will really tell us how much we improved though!

 

[MiguelM]

Maybe Im being too optimistic but Im still not calling it a late season fade out, if we were the same as last year we wouldn't have even been in the game with Cats up to half time and we would have folded against pies after their hot start.
The next month will really tell us how much we improved though!

Yeah, we have bounced back post Port & Cats debacle's so lets see how we respond this week.

I really think our problem is between the ears and resillience when things get tough on match day.

 

[andleanback]

Perhaps - he obviously doesn’t follow the VFL at all

Yeh and who should come in other than Hobbs.
Roberts does deserve a crack but he’s not quality yet with his defensive running etc which they’re teaching him

 

[Zach Package]

The trend at the moment is very much 3 genuine key backs if not 3 genuine key backs plus a hybrid that’s very good overhead and then probably a more mobile, flexible front half.

Brad is probably the only one challenging that by consistently playing basically 5 marking forwards, the balance is out of whack and it has been all season.