Yes. Brad Scott.
The messaging couldn’t have been any clearer when he was appointed. Both Brad and Dave sat there and said this is a long term appointment.
Brad literally said “‘i said to Dave (in the interview), I’m not interested in this job if your looking for a short term fix…… the issues at this club need a long term commitment’.
I looked at the numbers and durhams numbers didnt go down until parish came back but then yeah, durhams numbers went down and we prioritised shiel. A few head in the sand, club does no wrong people on here believe its because he was “banged up” despite being arguably BOG v Adelaide
Im not sure what it would take to convince people that when the pressure is on, scott always backs older guys.
Shiel is Dodoro and Campbell’s gift that keeps on f*cking us over.
Playing Kelly, Jones, Cox and at times Heppell on a wing while not rating Mass and losing him for nothing takes the cake for me.
Any success the Dons have in the next couple of years will be in spite of Scott being the coach……certainly NOT because of him!!!
So do you think other coaches sign a contract for three years but get told if we don’t meet certain criteria by year two you’ll be sacked?
That depends what the triggers are.
I don’t believe there would have been too many performance clauses on Brad Scott’s first 2 years, Considering where the club was at when he was appointed.
The view of the Board, was that Brad Scott was doing the club a favour by leaving a highly paid, cushy role at the AFL…… for a club that had players who deliberately just had their previous coach sacked, was in internal turmoil at Board Level, just sacked the CEO, had a scathing external review of the club, and has had no success in 20 years.
I think you are more right than wrong.
The prevailing undercurrent was Scott doing the same things as last year, with reluctant change.
The extent to which he made change, in my view needed to be phased in earlier in the year, before we became stale and stagnant.
What he did do, was kind of like shutting the barn door after the horse had bolted.
There was just a horrible period there, where he dropped some senior guys and then we lost and without playing any games anywhere to justify their reinclusio , miraculaously they are back in, and to what end?
He simply lacks courage and trust and at the moment is just too risk averse.
But the crazy thing is, he can’t see the risk he is taking by being that way.
He perseveres with options that on current evidence aren’t delivering good outcomes and the upside is minimal, and the downside is … well we all saw it.
He is just Not at all inspirational, and I would think the longer this goes on, a Marketing Nightmare.
Absolutely nothing to get excited about … just Blah Blah Blah
Tsatas as sub and on the wing? Heppell for the whole year? Goldstein? Persevering with Menzie? Martin HBF?
I think that was just media talk, you want to attract the best coach available at the time and you’re not going to get the best candidate unless you assure them club stability and a long tenure. The exception I guess would be if given the job as a caretaker or installed by the AFL like a Roos at Melbourne with the clear intention of handing over to an assistant. But to be honest unless your in the room during the negotiations you just wouldn’t know.
I don’t think brads previous job comes into it at all. Scott gave up that job a chose to coach us because he wanted too, not as a favour.
Whatever his thinking …
Gee he has got some things horribly wrong.
Hey … we all make mistakes
Let’s just hope he is self aware enough not to be stubborn to the point of perpetual and lack lustre failure.
Hey Hey My My …
It’s better to burn out than fade away
Can’t wait for round 1 next year
R Goldy Shiel Parish
C Jones Merrett Cox
Oh baby, throw in Martin across HB and Durham playing FP and that’s some serious Brad ball right there.
Too bad Kelly and Heppell retired
Yeah he has made some obvious mistakes, but other than that game against Melbourne where we went in too tall……. Team selection hasnt played a part in any of the losses.
Heres another good one
Dropping Hepps and Wright to make a statement only to bring them back in without them even playing a game of VFL hahaha. I dont even think Roberts was in the side yet
I understand Scott’s philosophy. But in my opinion, a big part of development is accepting poor short term performances by younger players for long-term benefits
Compare Scott’s philosophy to what Mitchell said two years ago when he traded O’Meara and Mitchell
" What was the alternative?" Mitchell asked on Footy Classified .
"We got together as a list-management committee … and we decided, ‘How can we build this club back to premiership success? What can we do to get there?’.
"The most viable option for us was to try and get young players together, to get a good list of young players and build them together.
"If we had’ve kept Jaeger and Tom it means that Will Day is not playing in the midfield. It means young (Cam) Mackenzie is not playing in the midfield because he’s going to be pushed out into some other position.
I don’t think so as the list was delisting / retirements but I could check if you’re really interested
we played experience almost every time the choice was between youth and experience, and ended up with pick 8, abject failure of his and the boards, if we ended up here but went youth at every juncture itd be much more palatable. Embarrassment FC
I wouldn’t say that’s wildly different to last year bringing in Tsatas for the last 4 games of the year, dropping Weideman for Cox for the last 6, Bryan came in for 6 of the last 7, Baldwin for the last couple. Main difference would be last year they came in a week or two before we dropped out of the 8, this year it was the week after.
I get it as one of those can’t change again folk, I’m not advocating that thouhg down on him, my view is that for any two good calls there were 10 other horrible, steange or unaccountable ones, so it was a massive mess of a second half (again) and by the end of next year I would not be surprised by a parting of the ways. Things are looking pretty bad after two years at the helm, the talent levels, lack of development and game style don’t look supportive of a long term successful coach unfortunately. And yes, I think he will need to get lucky for success to come on sooner in the form of players returning to prior peak form and/or getting healthy, both a big ask at Essendon.