Which current coach do you dislike the most?

[JimmyBC]

Fremantle supporter doesn't understand making &/or winning Grand Finals.. more at 11

 

[Freomaniac]

Fremantle supporter doesn't understand making &/or winning Grand Finals.. more at 11

Ah Yes... lol

Well once your mob is done with Ken Hinkley, dump him at Freo oval if you like.

I will happy have him for 10-12 years if that includes back to back finals multiple times and 3 or 4 finals wins. lol

 

[candyapple]

Hinkley should be removed from the poll, if Hinkley got the power a flag they would still call for his and his greyhounds heads.

Either of the Scotts for mine, absolute whingers!

 

[Schulzenfest]

I will happy have him for 10-12 years if that includes back to back finals multiple times and 3 or 4 finals wins. lol

That's because you're a loser who supports a loser club.

 

[RichLeMonde]

I can't stand Brad Scott for killing the shinboner spirit

So Brad Scott killed your shinboner?

 

[tiger_tough]

Serious question. Has a supporter group ever hated a long term coach as much as Port supporters hate Hinkley?

Every club has had a coach who has done poorly for 2-4 years, been unpopular as a result and got moved on. I'm talking about a long term coach who has actually produced some reasonable results. Can't think of anyone as hated as hinkley.

Opposition fans love Kenny.

 

[Tredrea1870]

Ken is so far out of his depth as an AFL coach it is not funny..

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Brad Scott was way better at North than Hinkley has been at Port.

He reached the same high water mark of a prelim final in less seasons and with a list that could only manage 50%.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Ah Yes... lol

Well once your mob is done with Ken Hinkley, dump him at Freo oval if you like.

I will happy have him for 10-12 years if that includes back to back finals multiple times and 3 or 4 finals wins. lol

This is really sad to read. But if you really don't care about winning, do you want David Koch as well?

 

[arrowman]

Taper can we close the poll when Hinkley gets to 119, please?

 

[bomberclifford]

Taper can we close the poll when Hinkley gets to 119, please?

I support this.

 

[PhatBoy]

Bevo will always be a hero of mine. Took a particularly putrid element of the media on and landed some brilliant blows. The media have since taken great pains to depict him as some sort of odious human being, and from this thread it appears some people have swallowed it hook line and sinker. As far as I have ever known Bevo is a fantastic person. Whenever Kath Loughnan interviews him pre-match she has a face on like a sucked lemon, it is pathetic.

So Bevo is the coach I dislike the least. Love to see him take the mutts to another flag.

Chris Scott does press conferences about his press conferences, his public persona is straight out weird. One minute he is claiming to know more than the opposition coaches who constantly outsmart him, then he is guarding state secrets, then he is prefacing major excuse making with statements like "we don't want to be seen to be making excuses, but..."

Brad Scott massive blame shifter and well known under-handed self interested liar.

McRae seems to be in a rush to tell the world how good a coach he is at every press conference.

Adam Yze seems a really down to earth, honest and insightful person.

Who are these coaches who constantly outsmart Chris Scott?

As there are 0 in the history of the competition with a better winning percentage im fascinated as to which ones ‘constantly outsmart’ him.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Who are these coaches who constantly outsmart Chris Scott?

As there are 0 in the history of the competition with a better winning percentage im fascinated as to which ones ‘constantly outsmart’ him.

The competition is decided in finals.

His overall finals record is W 44% L 56%

His finals record v teams finishing top 4 is W 7 L 14 33%

So if what you are saying is correct, and he has the best overall winning % of any coach in history, then to return 33% win record from 21 finals against teams finishing top 4 means he is constantly being outsmarted.

 

[PhatBoy]

The competition is decided in finals.

His overall finals record is W 44% L 56%

His finals record v teams finishing top 4 is W 7 L 14 33%

So if what you are saying is correct, and he has the best overall winning % of any coach in history, then to return 33% win record from 21 finals against teams finishing top 4 means he is constantly being outsmarted.

Sorry remind me again why it’s only finals matches in the top four which count?

Like yeah I understand that you want to cherry-pick certain games that count and certain ones that don’t right from the very beginning but why is it ones against the top four that count?

Is this like your grand final criteria where it’s only ones played in the first week of scheduled grand finals that count and replays don’t?

‘Constantly being outsmarted?’

I’d say it means nothing of the sort. I’d say it means he’s being outsmarted 14 times across 13 seasons, even using your hand-picked criteria.

 

[MJG14]

Kenny had very few votes early in the thread. Now all the Port fans have joined and he has rapidly risen up the ranks to be on top

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sorry remind me again why it’s only finals matches in the top four which count?

Like yeah I understand that you want to cherry-pick certain games that count and certain ones that don’t right from the very beginning but why is it ones against the top four that count?

Is this like your grand final criteria where it’s only ones played in the first week of scheduled grand finals that count and replays don’t?

‘Constantly being outsmarted?’

I’d say it means nothing of the sort. I’d say it means he’s being outsmarted 14 times across 13 seasons, even using your hand-picked criteria.

In my world being the best in the bottle means nothing if you get outdone in the bottle neck.

It is not me cherry picking this criteria, I am simply recognising the way the competition is configured. Scott has had 21 chances to beat teams who finished top 4 in finals and won 7 of them. On average he had roughly just as good a chance of winning as losing across all those, so he has been outdone, consistently, in the bottle neck that is football finals.

 

[Pistol Night]

In my world being the best in the bottle means nothing if you get outdone in the bottle neck.

It is not me cherry picking this criteria, I am simply recognising the way the competition is configured. Scott has had 21 chances to beat teams who finished top 4 in finals and won 7 of them. On average he had roughly just as good a chance of winning as losing across all those, so he has been outdone, consistently, in the bottle neck that is football finals.

What if you prefer cans?

 

[PhatBoy]

In my world being the best in the bottle means nothing if you get outdone in the bottle neck.

It is not me cherry picking this criteria, I am simply recognising the way the competition is configured. Scott has had 21 chances to beat teams who finished top 4 in finals and won 7 of them. On average he had roughly just as good a chance of winning as losing across all those, so he has been outdone, consistently, in the bottle neck that is football finals.

Lollllll, now it’s ‘top 4 in finals’ so as not to allow for other situations like when he has beaten, say, Alistair Clarkson in a qualifying final a week before Hawthorn bow out in straight sets


Nah, nice try.

I’ll get back to preparing for my regular birthday - it’s due soon.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Lollllll, now it’s ‘top 4 in finals’ so as not to allow for other situations like when he has beaten, say, Alistair Clarkson in a qualifying final a week before Hawthorn bow out in straight sets


Nah, nice try.

I’ll get back to preparing for my regular birthday - it’s due soon.

I listed all finals.

And then I listed the essential finals you need to win to get anywhere, ie those against teams who finish top 4. Being able to out-coach your opponent in those is ultimately what all coaches are judged by.

Scott is 7w 14l 2 Premierships(1 of these after inheriting a dynasty team.) 33% win rate.

Clarkson for instance inherited a cellar dweller, and v teams finishing top 4 his record stands at 12w 9l and therefore he has 4 Premierships. 57% win rate.

Scott's other main person who outsmarted him repeatedly, Damien Hardwick, also inherited a cellar dweller, and his record v teams finishing top 4 in finals was 7w 5l and therefore he won 3 Premierships. 58% win rate.

These are the toughest games to win, and the most important games to win. Scott inherited a team that coached itself to 3 from 3 in these games in his first year. His real record is when his influence kicked in after that. From then on he has gone 4w 14l for a 22% win rate.

 

[PhatBoy]

I listed all finals.

And then I listed the essential finals you need to win to get anywhere, ie those against teams who finish top 4. Being able to out-coach your opponent in those is ultimately what all coaches are judged by.

Scott is 7w 14l 2 Premierships(1 of these after inheriting a dynasty team.) 33% win rate.

Clarkson for instance inherited a cellar dweller, and v teams finishing top 4 his record stands at 12w 9l and therefore he has 4 Premierships. 57% win rate.

Scott's other main person who outsmarted him repeatedly, Damien Hardwick, also inherited a cellar dweller, and his record v teams finishing top 4 in finals was 7w 5l and therefore he won 3 Premierships. 58% win rate.

These are the toughest games to win, and the most important games to win. Scott inherited a team that coached itself to 3 from 3 in these games in his first year. His real record is when his influence kicked in after that. From then on he has gone 4w 14l for a 22% win rate.

He loses one of the games you cherry pick per year on average.

Constantly.

He’s constantly losing these games.
Constantly.
He’s constantly losing these matches and getting outcoached and having to make excuses.

The irony of all this is, even though we’ve only won one flag the year after a coaching handover, in 13 seasons, you have to make an excuse for it roughly every 3.4 nanoseconds because you’re such a bitch

Yes yes he inherited a flag team of course he did. Same as every other flag winning coach inherited their team from the coach before them, unless they are their club’s inaugural coach. Richmond could coach itself in 2021. Hardwick inherited them from himself. Couldn’t even make the finals. When they did return in 2022, again, he inherited a 3 time premiership team, which could coach itself, from himself. This time they made it to the finals but he couldn’t coach them any further even though they could theoretically have coached themselves to a flag.

F***en hell. The lengths you will go to to prove your intellectual ineptitude.

Constant

 

[Meteoric Rise]

He loses one of the games you cherry pick per year on average.

Constantly.

He’s constantly losing these games.
Constantly.
He’s constantly losing these matches and getting outcoached and having to make excuses.

The irony of all this is, even though we’ve only won one flag the year after a coaching handover, in 13 seasons, you have to make an excuse for it roughly every 3.4 nanoseconds because you’re such a bitch

Yes yes he inherited a flag team of course he did. Same as every other flag winning coach inherited their team from the coach before them, unless they are their club’s inaugural coach. Richmond could coach itself in 2021. Hardwick inherited them from himself. Couldn’t even make the finals. When they did return in 2022, again, he inherited a 3 time premiership team, which could coach itself, from himself. This time they made it to the finals but he couldn’t coach them any further even though they could theoretically have coached themselves to a flag.

F***en hell. The lengths you will go to to prove your intellectual ineptitude.

Constant

That is simply not how inheritance works.

To inherit is to receive from a predecessor. You cannot pre-decease yourself, though in your case I might look into whether that would be ok.

 

[PhatBoy]

That is simply not how inheritance works.

To inherit is to receive from a predecessor. You cannot pre-decease yourself, though in your case I might look into whether that would be ok.

No no your rules are that we inherited a team that could coach itself ergo we must have won the flag in 2010 OR all teams who win the comp must have won the flag the year before or should just win the flag the year after they win it.

Your f**khouse rules not mine genius.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No no your rules are that we inherited a team that could coach itself ergo we must have won the flag in 2010 OR all teams who win the comp must have won the flag the year before or should just win the flag the year after they win it.

Your f**khouse rules not mine genius.

Jeez this is new. An angry Chris Scott fanboi.

The thread asks which current coach we most dislike, not which current bf poster you most dislike. So I suggest unless you have a current coach you dislike, you leave Chris Scott's many dislikers to enjoy this previously wonderful thread.

 

[PhatBoy]

Jeez this is new. An angry Chris Scott fanboi.

The thread asks which current coach we most dislike, not which current bf poster you most dislike. So I suggest unless you have a current coach you dislike, you leave Chris Scott's many dislikers to enjoy this previously wonderful thread.

No anger here mate, just a slavish devotion to these new rules.

You didn’t win the comp the year before under one coach, ergo you should be expected to win the following year under a new one.

That’s how it works.

Richmond should be morals to win the flag this year. Your new coach inherited a side who should be able to coach itself.

Edit: actually how will this work?
Richmond and the Suns technically both fit the criteria: they both theoretically have new coaches, neither won the flag in 2023, so they should, what, both coach themselves to a title in 2024, using your rock solid criteria?

 

[Iago]

My point is if you have a new coach, a new director of football and list managers, then you can look at a coach and go... "its the lists fault, its just not good enough". Nobody is blaming Nicks or Mitchell for taking over basketcase clubs so early on for example, they just want to see progress.

When the same blokes have been there a decade, and the most responsible bloke has been there 11 years, any issues with the list are on him and them.

Example: "But Port dont have a ruck....."

Why?

We had Ladhams and let him loose for nothing because he didnt want to murder dogs, we have Dixon but for some reason he wants to be a forward and gets to call the shots, we have Hayes but never backed him in enough to develop him, we had Frampton but never gave him a chance, we had Lycett but we ran him in to the ground with poor management, we had many opportunities to see these problems coming and recruit blokes like Naismith. All these things are on the selection panel and head coach.

I could easily make a similar post about our defensive stocks. In fact tell me one tall thats been developed at Port in the last 11 years that isnt Todd Marshall. Hinkley has no foresight, no ability to plan, no strategic nous to develop a plan b and c, no understanding of the value of different player roles beyond "More pressure acts! Work harderer!"

What's the story to this?