Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[eth-dog]

Talking about the mentality of our squad earlier, what does this mean? (outside of us 100% winning the next 2)

Here are the pre game odds sentiment and the result; (gamble responsibly)

1 v Haw, equal odds = win

2 v Syd, underdog = lost

3 v stk, underdog = win

4 v port, underdog = lost

5 v dogs, underdog = win

6 v ade, equal odds = win

7 v coll, underdog = draw

8 v wce, favorite = won fell over the line

9 v gws, underdog = win

10 v north, favorite,= win

11 v Richmond, favorite = win fell over the line

12 v suns, favorite = lost

13 v carlton, favorite = lost

14 v bye

15 v wce, favorite = win fell over the line

16 v geel, favorite = lost

17 v coll, underdog = win

18 v melb, favorite = lost

19 v ade, favorite = lost

20 v stk, favorite = lost

21 v freo, underdog = win

22 v gc, favorite = lost

23 v syd, underdog =

24 v bris, underdog =

So rough numbers from our 12 / 9 record

We have won (or drawn) 8 times either being underdog or equal odds

We have lost 7 times being favorite

Of our 4 wins being favorite 3 we fell over the line against bottom sides.

So either we cant handle the pressure of being favorited, or we go in taking it easy being favorite?

We loosen up being underdog and just play, or we need our backs to the wall to show something?

Or is the whole odds market a load of nonsense anyway...

I think we all know deep down there has always been this trend in us, to win when we shouldn’t and lose when we shouldn’t, it’s the most frustrating yet exhilarating part of being a bomber.

If scotts job is to rewire this club, here is one mental issue that needs attention

We weren't favourite (stop with the yank spelling) against Carlton, Geelong or GC first time.

 

[Howard Moon]

We weren't favourite (stop with the yank spelling) against Carlton, Geelong or GC first time.

Trust eth to miss the point and look for semantics... We were absolutely fav v Geelong they were on a losing streak and had multiple key injuries while Stewart couldn't get a kick. It was their last ditch by playing kids and throwing the magnets , if not fav v Carl and gc it was atleast equal

 

[faible]

Pretty sure it's not a coaching decision to kick 1.9 from 19 i50s and a 84% time in forward half in a quarter.

We had 11 more i50s for the game, broke even in clearances despite losing the hitouts, had more marks, marks i50, tackles and tackles i50. Lots of positive signs.

Our transition defence remains poor which meant they got the usual end-to-end goals we tend to give up, along with some bad turnovers in the corridor.

I'd say by eye our i50 entries weren't as bad as they had been, but our goal conversion was poor in the last quarter after previously being fine. This is on the forwards IMO.

 

[eth-dog]

Trust eth to miss the point and look for semantics... We were absolutely fav v Geelong they were on a losing streak and had multiple key injuries while Stewart couldn't get a kick. It was their last ditch by playing kids and throwing the magnets , if not fav v Carl and gc it was atleast equal

We were rank outsiders against all three. Squiggle had us 20+ points down on all three games, plus the odds were also in their favour. You want to paint a picture about us failing when favourites, fine, but do so accurately.

Also not missing the point, ignoring it. It isn't semantics to say that three games we were underdogs as you call it you've listed us as favourites because it suits your argument.

 

[Skipper_]

It’s pretty crazy that we have had more inside 50s than our opponent in every game since round 5.

 

[bombreys]

We were rank outsiders against all three. Squiggle had us 20+ points down on all three games, plus the odds were also in their favour. You want to paint a picture about us failing when favourites, fine, but do so accurately.

Also not missing the point, ignoring it. It isn't semantics to say that three games we were underdogs as you call it you've listed us as favourites because it suits your argument.

We were definitely favourites against Geelong

 

[faible]

All it says to me are that betting odds are a pretty bad way of predicting a winner. We've got a historically bad record against Geelong, and despite ladder position weren't exactly an imposing side for any team to come up against.

 

[eth-dog]

All it says to me are that betting odds are a pretty bad way of predicting a winner. We've got a historically bad record against Geelong, and despite ladder position weren't exactly an imposing side for any team to come up against.

Betting odds are an accurate reflection of what the betting companies think. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a week ago, Carlton were still ahead of Hawthorne, Dogs and Geelong

 

[Happyskeret]

It’s pretty crazy that we have had more inside 50s than our opponent in every game since round 5.

Thats the silver lining. We are not far off being a good side. Just a couple of holes we need to address.

 

[dank420_]

Ethan why are you like this?

HM mentioned he was going off odds as clarification.

 

[eth-dog]

Ethan why are you like this?

HM mentioned he was going off odds as clarification.

I'll concede Geelong as multiple people have corrected me but we were definitely underdogs as he calls it in the other two

 

[Milanista28]

so if we sack Scott, clean out the veterans without a plethora of draft picks, where does that leave us?

This forum cracks me up. Calling for his head after only a few years in the job.

He has inherited an average list with a poor culture, and a back room that has just reshuffled. No one could turn that around quickly. Also, the coach isn’t the only piece of the puzzle.

One last thing. If we had won by 5 points last night would the rhetoric be the same?

You don't sack Scott, you aggressively change the list and be prepared for a possible 12 wins from the next 3 years type of situation. Winning 10-12 games a season isn't helping us.

Edit: Or aggressively try and change the forward line, it's a massive concern.

 

[faible]

One last thing. If we had won by 5 points last night would the rhetoric be the same?

No, the situation would be the same, but the moaning and groaning from a whole heap of posters wouldn't be happening.

 

[Howard Moon]

I'll concede Geelong as multiple people have corrected me but we were definitely underdogs as he calls it in the other two

So just to clarify, is it you don't agree with the general premise that we often lose when we are supposed to win and often win when we are not fancied? Or does Americanised spelling annoy you enough to disagree with the general post anyway, just loading my defense...

 

[eth-dog]

So just to clarify, is it you don't agree with the general premise that we often lose when we are supposed to win and often win when we are not fancied? Or does Americanised spelling annoy you enough to disagree with the general post anyway, just loading my defense...

I have no real disagreement, I don't like the American spelling, I was just correcting you on where we were favourites and where we weren't

 

[MPMonkeys]

I have lost count of the number of times this year where a team has scored against us from a stoppage close to goal - usually via a scrambled kick that bounces through.

There are three problems here:

1. Why are we allowing the opposition to get a possession close to goal from stoppage.
2. Why is there a path between the opposition (usually their sweeper) and their goal which allows the scrambled kick to get through.
3. If defensive stoppage is an issue (ie we don't have the personnel), then why is the path between the contest and goal not being blocked.

This is fundamental coaching 101. Now either our defenders are not switched on and ignoring the coaches instructions or for some unfathomable reason, we are allowing the opposition sweeper as a loose in our defensive 50.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Im a big backer of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater after 2 seasons. At the end of the day almost every journo and most of our supporters predicted a bottom 4 finish or an 8-12 finish for those being more optimistic.
We exceeded expectation at the start of year but there was always an issue with forward line structure as well good users of the footy. Dont let the media hype at mid point of season fool you, we were never a top 4 team.

On other hand it is disappointing that we couldnt over come our mental demons and/or find a Plan B once teams took us seriously and worked out that sitting someone on Merrett, putting a decent key position back on Langford and pressuring our backline into mistakes was the way to go.
Despite similar w/l result to last year it is still an improvement although a bit smaller than I wouldve hoped considering we have a healthier list this year and gave ourselves a much better start to season.

Having said all the above, If there isnt a bit of a shake up of the list this off season I will start to be skeptical of what Scott says as just lip service, because the only way to change the malaise amongst the playing group is to move on some of the guys who have the poor mentality and bring in people who fill required needs and have a competitive personality.

I have said it before but it really concerns me how many guys in the 25-30 bracket that are only good but not great players are on long contracts. We really overrate our playing group and reward mediocrity dont we? At end of day between parish/ridley/redman/mcgrath/langford there is only one AA jumper amongst them and none of them have displayed leadership qualities this year when we have been under the pump. I dont think we are going to get far with all these guys forming the core of our senior group.

 

[chambo00]

It’s pretty crazy that we have had more inside 50s than our opponent in every game since round 5.

Feel like this is a little bit like a false economy the inside 50 stat for us...When we don't kick goals, there is more of a chance to get a repeat inside 50. Saturday night for example, GC we kicking down the line after our misses, easier to get a repeat inside 50.

I noticed this a lot in the Carlton game and the 2nd quarter against the Cats, when we had repeat inside 50 after inside 50, there was basically 30 players in our forward 50. Tough to kick goals and lots of dirty ball coming out, which leads to more repeat entries.

 

[BomberManU]

Looks like we'll finish 10th - 13th, with a terrible percentage. We finished 11th last year, with a terrible percentage.
At times, it looked like we'd improved a lot, almost unrecognisable for patches - but never for an entire game, that I can remember??
We NEVER put sides away and build momentum. The close losses show that we're mentally fragile, as everyone knows.
I DON'T want Scott sacked, I desperately want him to fix it. But what he does, or doesn't do, this off season might start to change my mind.
Easiest thing in the world is to scapegoat the coach, hardest thing is cutting and re-assembling the list. Let's hope we go hard.

 

[faible]

A few things to compare (based on averages per-game);

2023:
16th for Tackles
14th for Tackles i50
17th for Clearances
16th for Contested Possessions
2nd for Marks
15th for i50s
12th for Goals
13th for Behinds

2024:
7th for Tackles
4th for Tackles i50
12th for Clearances
14th for Contested Possessions
5th for Marks
3rd for i50s
13th for Goals
9th for Behinds

I just picked a few stats I thought might be relevant, I'd say we've seen positive improvements in most of those areas.

We've been better in situations where the ball is in-dispute (contested possession, clearances, tackles). We've got the ball i50 more often, and we've had more scoring shots (though I'd guess our accuracy is down).

It's an incremental step, but there's positives to take from the season and a lot of those things haven't come off the back of older players dominating, but off younger guys stepping up e.g. Caldwell and Durham.

 

[thebigboy]

A few things to compare (based on averages per-game);

2023:
16th for Tackles
14th for Tackles i50
17th for Clearances
16th for Contested Possessions
2nd for Marks
15th for i50s
12th for Goals
13th for Behinds

2024:
7th for Tackles
4th for Tackles i50
12th for Clearances
14th for Contested Possessions
5th for Marks
3rd for i50s
13th for Goals
9th for Behinds

I just picked a few stats I thought might be relevant, I'd say we've seen positive improvements in most of those areas.

We've been better in situations where the ball is in-dispute (contested possession, clearances, tackles). We've got the ball i50 more often, and we've had more scoring shots (though I'd guess our accuracy is down).

It's an incremental step, but there's positives to take from the season and a lot of those things haven't come off the back of older players dominating, but off younger guys stepping up e.g. Caldwell and Durham.

Jeez doesn't this highlight something that all fans know though - our forward line is a mess and our delivery inside 50 is still a problem. Mental toughness and continued fitness growth aside, the forward 6 needs to be seriously reworked.

Can't be going out there again with a Wright/Langford/Caddy/Draper/Stringer lineup ever again.

 

[faible]

Jeez doesn't this highlight something that all fans know though - our forward line is a mess and our delivery inside 50 is still a problem. Mental toughness and continued fitness growth aside, the forward 6 needs to be seriously reworked.

Can't be going out there again with a Wright/Langford/Caddy/Draper/Stringer lineup ever again.

I think we've got issues with balance in the forward-line, which is exacerbated by our lack of genuine high-quality small forwards.

If one or both of the Davey's can make the grade at AFL level, if Gresham can be more of a scoring threat, if Kako has 'it', then I think it'll start to turn as our forward-pressure goes up, which helps with those easy transition goals, but also having more scoring threat at ground level makes those relatively decent i50 numbers far more dangerous.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Jeez doesn't this highlight something that all fans know though - our forward line is a mess and our delivery inside 50 is still a problem. Mental toughness and continued fitness growth aside, the forward 6 needs to be seriously reworked.

Can't be going out there again with a Wright/Langford/Caddy/Draper/Stringer lineup ever again.

Its something that really couldnt be fixed with the personnel at hand though. Caddy added something different at least and was a good start, bringing in Kako will also help change the balance.
Personally I would look at Joe richards from Pies as a trade target as another small pressure forward, but we will still be short a key position forward.

 

[thebigboy]

I think we've got issues with balance in the forward-line, which is exacerbated by our lack of genuine high-quality small forwards.

If one or both of the Davey's can make the grade at AFL level, if Gresham can be more of a scoring threat, if Kako has 'it', then I think it'll start to turn as our forward-pressure goes up, which helps with those easy transition goals, but also having more scoring threat at ground level makes those relatively decent i50 numbers far more dangerous.

Its something that really couldnt be fixed with the personnel at hand though. Caddy added something different at least and was a good start, bringing in Kako will also help change the balance.
Personally I would look at Joe richards from Pies as a trade target as another small pressure forward, but we will still be short a key position forward.

Agreed - we aren't exactly flushed with a balanced forward line option for 2024, however for 2025, there's no excuses for us to be aggressive in fixing these issues.

Caddy is a lock, likely Langford & Wright too & then 3 smalls need to be the rest of the combination. Whether thats Gresham, Kako, A or J Davey or someone who's not our list right now, we can't be that tall again after this year's results.

 

[The Dustbin]

The club needs to give Brad licence to go as hard & deep as he wants this offseason.

He did that last season by recruiting Goldstein and retaining Dyson.