Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott - Playing the kids!

[ant555]

I can understand how you would have blocked Lewis Hayes putting together a genuinely very good year in key defence and Scott going back to Sam Weideman from your memory.

Well Weideman had the better form in defense in the VFL. Played on the number 1 forwards and was better. I would have said Hayed should have got a few games late in the year to replace Laverde.

 

[Old Campaigner]

I can understand how you would have blocked Lewis Hayes putting together a genuinely very good year in key defence and Scott going back to Sam Weideman from your memory.

Wow, one whole player who might've missed out. Better sack this Scott fellow

 

[jdstorm]

Who performed in the VFL and got overlooked in favour of his favourites?

Team was better at the start when Will Setterfield was playing. Should have gotten a lot more games

 

[faible]

Team was better at the start when Will Setterfield was playing. Should have gotten a lot more games

Setterfield got injured early, by the time he got back we'd been using Durham and Caldwell in the middle much more substantially. So would have had to reduce their time there to accommodate him.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Ive got a lot of criticisms with the way Scott handled things last season (mainly in 2nd half) but really dont think he plays favourites when it comes to selection.
I think he has a best available philosophy and doesn't use the senior team for player development, and he also puts a lot of emphasis on on-field leadership (which we have a big gap in) so it can seem like older players are getting favourable treatment.

 

[jdstorm]

Setterfield got injured early, by the time he got back we'd been using Durham and Caldwell in the middle much more substantially. So would have had to reduce their time there to accommodate him.

Why?

Teams at minimum have at minimum 4-5 main mids
Durham, Caldwell + Merrett only equals 3.

so there’s one more spot there.

Setterfields point of difference made him more valuable to the mix then Parish/hobbs/sheil.

 

[faible]

Why?

Teams at minimum have at minimum 4-5 main mids
Durham, Caldwell + Merrett only equals 3.

so there’s one more spot there.

Setterfields point of difference made him more valuable to the mix then Parish/hobbs/sheil.

That's not really how CBA setups work, you've got 3 mids taking most of the CBAs, with another 1 - 2 supporting that. Setterfield doesn't really do well outside a high CBA role.

Moving Merrett to a flank (like they've trained this off-season) opens up more of his CBAs, but Hobbs and Tsatas needs to be accommodated in there somewhere as well. It's a bit simplistic to say 'fit Setterfield in!' IMO.

 

[jdstorm]

That's not really how CBA setups work, you've got 3 mids taking most of the CBAs, with another 1 - 2 supporting that. Setterfield doesn't really do well outside a high CBA role.

Moving Merrett to a flank (like they've trained this off-season) opens up more of his CBAs, but Hobbs and Tsatas needs to be accommodated in there somewhere as well. It's a bit simplistic to say 'fit Setterfield in!' IMO.

We’re talking specifically last year where the goal wasn’t player development but rather to win games.

Players were supposed to get the minutes they could earn. Setterfield was the best bigger mid on the team and deserved one of those 4 spots.

he’s clearly a much better footballer then Kelly/hind and they played a bunch of games

 

[faible]

We’re talking specifically last year where the goal wasn’t player development but rather to win games.

Players were supposed to get the minutes they could earn. Setterfield was the best bigger mid on the team and deserved one of those 4 spots.

he’s clearly a much better footballer then Kelly/hind and they played a bunch of games

I don't think it's accurate to say the goal wasn't player development.

Perkins, Durham and Caldwell all got opportunities in the midfield, Caddy played the second half of the season, ADJ got games despite being a bit meh form-wise, Reid was clearly in the best-22 for R1 then got injured

Setterfield can't play the roles either Kelly or Hind played, so it's irrelevant whether he's 'better' than them. He also can't play KPD so being better than Weideman is similarly irrelevant.

 

[jdstorm]

I don't think it's accurate to say the goal wasn't player development.

Perkins, Durham and Caldwell all got opportunities in the midfield, Caddy played the second half of the season, ADJ got games despite being a bit meh form-wise, Reid was clearly in the best-22 for R1 then got injured

Setterfield can't play the roles either Kelly or Hind played, so it's irrelevant whether he's 'better' than them. He also can't play KPD so being better than Weideman is similarly irrelevant.

Essendon dropped Heppell and blooded Wiedman in a big game publicly saying that they were trying to win.

Scott paid lip service to having standards and making guys earn their spots. Perkins form dropped off terribly and he got dropped. Not a good example of a player holding their spot.

Caddy and ADJr same. There were opportunities there due to the team being bad

Caldwell finished the season playing injured so probably should have been out of the side, he also would have been a great candidate to play some HB due to his outside skills.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Essendon dropped Heppell and blooded Wiedman in a big game publicly saying that they were trying to win.

Complaining about this is a great way of saying you pay no attention to what's happening in the VFL. Wied was playing better than Hayes.

Paying lip service to making guys earn their spot? He made Caddy and Roberts string together a number of good games in the 2s before they got their opportunity, to me that sounds exactly like the sort of thing you're whinging about not happening

 

[bombreys]

Ive got a lot of criticisms with the way Scott handled things last season (mainly in 2nd half) but really dont think he plays favourites when it comes to selection.
I think he has a best available philosophy and doesn't use the senior team for player development, and he also puts a lot of emphasis on on-field leadership (which we have a big gap in) so it can seem like older players are getting favourable treatment.

I agree with you mostly. Rushing Guelfi back from a hamstring for a dead rubber in Round 25 was absolutely moronic. He simply has to be better than that, there's no excuses there.

The Heppell situation, whilst frustrating, was more understandable - I'd only argue that the timing of his eventual omission from the team seemed off, at least to me. I'd have either dropped him earlier (when his form suggested it was due) - or just kept him in and let him retire from the senior side. Dropping him with three or four games to go seemed an odd decision to me.

Scott's job is principally to win games, which he obviously believes the older guys will help to achieve, rightly or wrongly.

 

[bombreys]

Complaining about this is a great way of saying you pay no attention to what's happening in the VFL. Wied was playing better than Hayes.

Paying lip service to making guys earn their spot? He made Caddy and Roberts string together a number of good games in the 2s before they got their opportunity, to me that sounds exactly like the sort of thing you're whinging about not happening

I think that's a bit harsh - there wasn't a huge gap in their form, if any. I'd actually say Hayes had better long-term VFL form than Weideman did. McKay was still in the AFL side too, so Hayes really would have been a better fit than Weideman, who'd been playing FB in the VFL.

 

[faible]

I think that's a bit harsh - there wasn't a huge gap in their form, if any. I'd actually say Hayes had better long-term VFL form than Weideman did. McKay was still in the AFL side too, so Hayes really would have been a better fit than Weideman, who'd been playing FB in the VFL.

Hayes was already contracted for 2025, Weideman wasn't. That game (and the lack of interest in Laverde) ultimately confirmed the decision to delist Weideman.

 

[bombreys]

Hayes was already contracted for 2025, Weideman wasn't. That game (and the lack of interest in Laverde) ultimately confirmed the decision to delist Weideman.

Which is fine.

But to suggest he was paying "no attention to what's happening in the VFL" isn't accurate - if that game was Weid's last chance, that's fine. My point was more than he wasn't streets ahead of Hayes on VFL form. If Hayes had have played that game ahead of Weideman, that would've been perfectly reasonable.

 

[jdstorm]

Complaining about this is a great way of saying you pay no attention to what's happening in the VFL. Wied was playing better than Hayes.

Paying lip service to making guys earn their spot? He made Caddy and Roberts string together a number of good games in the 2s before they got their opportunity, to me that sounds exactly like the sort of thing you're whinging about not happening

Heppell is/was much better then Weid and dropping him for Weid made no sense.

He deserved to get dropped when Ridley returned mostly because they played the same role. But he started the season well and is a much better player than Weid. Not to mention playing Weid + McKay pushes Lav into a 3rd tall role and just gives us no players capable of moving the ball. With Kelly back there as well.

Young players not getting opportunities and having to have an extended run of form is pretty normal for Scott

I’m convinced that Scott was coaching to not get fired and expose systemic problems rather than win games. Because if he was trying to win he’s an idiot

 

[Old Campaigner]

Heppell is/was much better then Weid and dropping him for Weid made no sense.

He deserved to get dropped when Ridley returned mostly because they played the same role. But he started the season well and is a much better player than Weid. Not to mention playing Weid + McKay pushes Lav into a 3rd tall role and just gives us no players capable of moving the ball. With Kelly back there as well.

Young players not getting opportunities and having to have an extended run of form is pretty normal for Scott

I’m convinced that Scott was coaching to not get fired and expose systemic problems rather than win games. Because if he was trying to win he’s an idiot

Comparing Heppell and Weid is daft, they're completely different players. We were struggling somewhat in defense because McKay isn't especially well suited to taking the big forwards, it made some sense to bring Weid in ahead of Hayes and his form certainly warranted it. Slow/poor ball movement is a consequence of poor list management over a long period of time, playing Heppell or Hayes ahead of Weid doesn't fix it.

We've already been over the myth about young players not getting any opportunity. Hayes was the only one who could have been considered unlucky but I believe he had specific tasks to work on in the VFL, and he signed a contract extension during the season so it's not like he's on the outer. It's not uncommon for talls to wait a long time to debut in order to build the required strength.

Requiring players to demonstrate an extended period of good form is the sort of standard setting we should be celebrating, not complaining about.

"Coaching to not get fired rather than win games" WTF are you on about? The best way to not get fired is to win games. Finals were still in play and he'd be mad to not play the best possible side.

I think that's a bit harsh - there wasn't a huge gap in their form, if any. I'd actually say Hayes had better long-term VFL form than Weideman did. McKay was still in the AFL side too, so Hayes really would have been a better fit than Weideman, who'd been playing FB in the VFL.

No it's not. Weid had shown good form and demonstrated an ability to compete phyically with the big key forwards that Hayes has yet to develop.

 

[jdstorm]

Comparing Heppell and Weid is daft, they're completely different players. We were struggling somewhat in defense because McKay isn't especially well suited to taking the big forwards, it made some sense to bring Weid in ahead of Hayes and his form certainly warranted it. Slow/poor ball movement is a consequence of poor list management over a long period of time, playing Heppell or Hayes ahead of Weid doesn't fix it.

We've already been over the myth about young players not getting any opportunity. Hayes was the only one who could have been considered unlucky but I believe he had specific tasks to work on in the VFL, and he signed a contract extension during the season so it's not like he's on the outer. It's not uncommon for talls to wait a long time to debut in order to build the required strength.

Requiring players to demonstrate an extended period of good form is the sort of standard setting we should be celebrating, not complaining about.

"Coaching to not get fired rather than win games" WTF are you on about? The best way to not get fired is to win games. Finals were still in play and he'd be mad to not play the best possible side.

No it's not. Weid had shown good form and demonstrated an ability to compete phyically with the big key forwards that Hayes has yet to develop.

At Essington papering over the cracks and winning games gets you expectations which gets you fired when players decide not to apply the level of effort and commitment needed to win.

Scott unquestionably chose to play underdone/injured players. Despite publicly saying health and effort were his primary selection criteria.

I’m not talking about playing young players but rather optimising the list for success and playing as many of the good players as possible.

 

[ant555]

Seems that he is not getting 100% of selection right for some supporters so it is a problem. Yes they had some selection errors. A few really average ones in some games but what club outside the top two does not ? even the fans from sides that are winning more often than not have selections that their fans do not agree with. You only have to do a quick read of the opposition boards or listen to SEN for 10 minutes after 12pm to see it.

My view. Yes made a few selection blunders but overall he was solid. And had no issue with giving Weideman one last crack as he had very good VFL form all season. They had to know 100% how that VFL defense form translated to AFL level. It would have been a mistake not to.

 

[yodellinhank]

After Weideman's body of work they still needed that game to get a look. And now we can reset the 8 year plan, it's a shame it didn't all work out.

 

[Old Campaigner]

At Essington papering over the cracks and winning games gets you expectations which gets you fired when players decide not to apply the level of effort and commitment needed to win.

Scott unquestionably chose to play underdone/injured players. Despite publicly saying health and effort were his primary selection criteria.

I’m not talking about playing young players but rather optimising the list for success and playing as many of the good players as possible.

You're all over the shop here. Winning games gets you fired? So he's supposed to try not to win?

I'm sure he'd love to only play 100% fit players but there's form and team balance considerations too. Caldwell played injured a bit but it’s not like we had oodles of midfielders to pick a replacement for.

Who do you think was played ahead of good players (I think that’s what you’re claiming happened)?

It seems like you've decided you don't like the coach and are just making up a bunch of shit to justify it.

 

[jdstorm]

You're all over the shop here. Winning games gets you fired? So he's supposed to try not to win?

I'm sure he'd love to only play 100% fit players but there's form and team balance considerations too. Caldwell played injured a bit but it’s not like we had oodles of midfielders to pick a replacement for.

Who do you think was played ahead of good players (I think that’s what you’re claiming happened)?

It seems like you've decided you don't like the coach and are just making up a bunch of shit to justify it.

Winning games got truck fired when the list couldn’t back it up the next season. Essendon coaches not making it past season 2 recently has been a thing.

He did what kept him employeed. Ran Sheedy/Dodoros favourites into the ground while repeating that the list wasn’t good enough. Now that pair is at Port Melbourne:

Re midfielders: Towards the end of the season we had Setterfield, Tsatas and either Hobbs or Sheil onball in the VFL and were ripping through the comp. Any of those three could have played in place of an injured Caldwell. It was the one place we did have depth.

Midfield was one of the few places we did have depth/balance.

Re form: at the start of last season Scott specifically said effort and health were his primary selection criteria. If your injured your not in form your underdone and a risk to further hurt yourself you shouldn’t be picked. Then didn’t stick to it.

it’s not like the unhealthy players were winning us games.

In general I like Scott and the stability he has bought the club. However I believe in flack where flack is due.

 

[Keystone agony]

There is also the fact that we wanted a final look at Weidmean at AFL level defense to see we wernt about to rid something that was actually there and very capable as shown by his VFL. It was one final look with an eye to list management imo

The only thing next year ill be abit annoyed about is if we turn to Shiel Setterfield, Laverde, Gresham or still have them in the side round 6 if were 3-3

For me you keep Stringer, dont push Laverde, Kelly, Hind types out, come out and say were focusing draft and give us a 3 year time frame if your not about developing in 2025

 

[ant555]

Winning games got truck fired when the list couldn’t back it up the next season. Essendon coaches not making it past season 2 recently has been a thing.

He did what kept him employeed. Ran Sheedy/Dodoros favourites into the ground while repeating that the list wasn’t good enough. Now that pair is at Port Melbourne:

Re midfielders: Towards the end of the season we had Setterfield, Tsatas and either Hobbs or Sheil onball in the VFL and were ripping through the comp. Any of those three could have played in place of an injured Caldwell. It was the one place we did have depth.

Midfield was one of the few places we did have depth/balance.

Re form: at the start of last season Scott specifically said effort and health were his primary selection criteria. If your injured your not in form your underdone and a risk to further hurt yourself you shouldn’t be picked. Then didn’t stick to it.

it’s not like the unhealthy players were winning us games.

In general I like Scott and the stability he has bought the club. However I believe in flack where flack is due.

He deserved some flack for some selections but I do not agree with a few of your selection issues either. Just on playing unhealthy players every club rolls the dice on that one. They played a few at times when they should not have but it was not large scale.

 

[Mercurial89]

I don't think giving Weid a game was much of anything useful. People can say list management decision, I think it looks like bad process tbh.

There is a mountain of evidence that he is not good enough, he had some fine form at VFL, not dominant, just fine.
Was that one game going to change things? If it did, if it was either he plays well and gets rewarded or plays poorly and gets delisted, there's an issue with your talent evaluation and ability to self scout, the evidence was sitting there prior.


Scott's made errors in selection, game plan, personel, and messaging. Which is fine for now, many coaches do.
It's not sackable, but they are red flags against him and the criticism is warranted.
Calls for sacking? No not yet.