Except he had been clear in his messaging that he was wanting the young players to get to a point that when they came in they could stay in with sustained success. Did that not happen? Saying they forced his hands seems to contradict what was the stated goal from the start.
He got stuff wrong, I am not clapping him, but we need to think about what is going on before assuming that things that work are simply because Scott got lucky somehow.
Youāre new here arenāt you?
Whether we like it or not, we all need to appreciate that Scott will see out his tenure. Barham has tied his position to Scott as Campbell and Brasher were tied to Worsfold/Rutten. If it gets bad, we might get a faux handover process. But outside of that itās Brad for two more years.
Do those numbers include the trade outs of Mitchell, OāMera, Gunston, Ceglar, Brockman, Kositche & another couple of spuds whose name i cant remeber over the last 2-3 years?
Exactly, Brad Scott didnāt leave the highly regarded role at the AFL, to come in for 2-3 and eventually get sacked.
I would assume he was given the assurance from the Board that he has til the end of his contract at a minimum.
I think of all the fkn stupid things scott has done, nothing will ever, ever beat playing weideman over hayes imo
That was that bad, you could swear heās deliberately sabotaging us
I canāt stand him. Havenāt listened to barely anything heās said because heās a fkn lying, fake tough guy. Consistently says one thing, does another
Do you think any coach would sign a contract and not be assured by the club/board he will see out the contract at a minimum?
Spot on @IceTemple
For me ,nothing will ever beat playing Kelly up forward and on the wing for the dumbest thing he has done
I think youāre right that Scott wants the young players to be ready but I feel that when the time comes heās scared of pulling the trigger. Bryan should have been in from the bye onwards. His VFL form was good and it was obvious that Goldstein was cooked. Same with Roberts and Hayes is still waiting. Hobbs is ending up like Massimo, being wasted as a sub. Heās losing game time and confidence. Iām hoping that Scott will be analysing his own performance and be more trusting of young players next season. For what itās worth, I think weāll see positive changes. Itās started with list changes already.
Playing Hayes for the very last game of the year might have been fine, equally, not playing him made no difference and would not really have been of any great point. Weeds had been playing as well as Hayes in the VFL. Personally I would have played Hayes, but still not sure it is some sort of hanging offence. It was the last game of the year, big whoop.
Yeah agreed. Both Bryan and Roberts should have played earlier. My comment was more a reference to not making the same mistake as the last few games of last year. It still wasnāt great overall, but he did make some changes.
Hobbs I am a little uncertain about, not sold on what he brings. I like him but he seems limited as a player. Hopefully that is simply a product of the lack of consistency and not playing his natural role. But as an AFL level player he needs more strings to his bow and be able to move around a bit in the field due to matchups and form.
I like that Scott finally realised he needed to leave Tsatas at VFL for the year and get him to work on his kicking as well as getting him playing his main role. I am also glad he did not bring him in but allowed him the full time. I think it really helped him and was a good call. Hopefully he comes on for next year and has an impact in the AFL. No more sub for him please, either play him full time or donāt play in the side.
Its the fact of what is the actual point playing a bloke your 100% going to delist for one game over a kid who just signed on for two years. Just epitomises brads fkd up backwards thinking around more mature plsyers.
4 games too late in both cases.
100% hey?
Itās absolutely crazy really. I still canāt believe he played Sam over Heppell in what would of been his last game in Melbourne infront of us. Heppell then went on to have 35 possessions the week after.
He at the time said it was him picking his ābest team availableā
How the fark do supporters still stand by him after that?! He has absolutely no clue and that was a great example.
The bloke started playing Shiel in the middle instead of Durham fark sake. Way to develop your players. Fraud of the highest order.
The sub is a no win situation for a coach. There is rarely at good option.
Yeah, theres only one scenario that could make this better
Heppell should have played his farewell game against Sydney in place of Kelly.
Hayes should have been selected instead of Weidemanā¦100%
Kelly replaces Hepp for his Farewell in the last round.
I actually posted this scenario prior to the Sydney game.
I sort of saw the logic of it. They wanted to see if Weid was any good a a key back and it probably is better for Hayes to come into the side with a clear role after a pre season. Just my thoughts on that decision.