42 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

If you agree that Geelong as a club has advantages due to Geelong the city being regional and thus can attract athletes that want the geographical advantages that come with living there, then you can’t unthether that from any coaching record for whomever is coaching Geelong.

its been 20 years since it was called ‘sleepy hollow’ pervasively in the media.

Athletes want to live there and on the Bellarine and Surf Coasts

I lived there then and now live on the Bellarine - generationally (compared to 1,2 and 3 decades ago) athletes want different things and live in quieter places  due to the scrutiny placed in them daily/weekly.

All in all, GFC has significant advantages compared to Melbourne based clubs when  players start having families and want a different lifestyle that Melbourne clubs can’t offer.

its their unique selling point and there is no coincidence that that is why the list profile of Geelong ("too old, too slow") is the way it is. 

*This does not at all take away from Chris and his coaching ability.

What factor of advantage, the ability to attract and recruit a particular demographic,  is worth considering and mulling over.

Swings and roundabouts. As you say, different athletes want different things. Being able to maximise your advantages and minimise your disadvantages is part of the game. Ten years ago no one wanted to play for Brisbane, they had players walking out left right and centre. These days they attract people from other states to play for them. Brisbane is seen as a great place for an athlete to play, with players able to enjoy warm weather all year round and a reprieve from the footy-mad bubble over the Barassi Line. When Gold Coast eventually come good, the same will be said for them. "What an advantage they have, players can jump into the warm surf every day!"

More than anything Athletes like to win, and being a consistently top performing side would be the most attractive proposition Geelong have to offer over cheap plots of land and the surf coast.

24 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

More than anything Athletes like to win

Whilst true, that’s their hope of course, but after a while they recognise where they are at in the AFL ecosystem and mostly just want employment.
 

Hence yearly movement to up and coming clubs…  Jordan Lewis to us, premiership tigers to the GCS over the years,  Jack Darling this year to North, etc etc 

Edited September 22, 2024Sep 22 by Engorged Onion

Chris Scott and Geelong are over rated. Apparently if they play finals it’s evidence of their greatness. If we play finals it’s evidence of our failure. 2022 is judged harshly on here but is looking more and more like some kind of feat. As is the following year, based on the previous two. Home and away records shouldn’t be sneered at.  Judging coaches is a very difficult thing to do from the outside. Wins and losses and finals records are not the whole picture of what someone has to work with. Is Clarkson a genius or did he just get lucky with his list? Who you have to play/coach against at the time has a lot to do with it. It’s very possible some coaches who achieve nothing are great coaches in clubs who can’t give them what they need. Geelongs record hasn’t amounted to heaps and it is still unclear that their approach is the best way to build a club.

18 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

I'm sorry but this is just a terrible way to assess coaches for a number of reasons and I'll tell you why.

1. Your finals winrate isn't affected by missing finals completely so coaches who have fewer finals appearances are more likely to have a better winrate.

2. Losing a QF and winning a Semi then losing a PF gives you a [censored] winrate worse than a coach who wins an EF but loses the Semi, despite the PF being a greater achievement.

3. Unless you win the flag you are guaranteed to lose at least one final so the winrates are very difficult to raise, especially if you're making top 4 where you could lose two finals but still make a prelim as I already mentioned.

Since Goodwin has been coach Scott has coached in 7 finals series including 6 prelims, 2 Grand finals and 1 flag.

Goodwin has had 4 finals series, 2 prelims, 1 GF, 1 Flag and 2 straight sets.

Finals winrate means nothing compared to actual results.

 

1 flag v 1 flag, those are the actual results

On 21/09/2024 at 11:17, titan_uranus said:

Why is this so triggering to so many?

Chris Scott is one of the greatest coaches of all time.

That is impacted to some extent by Geelong being extremely well run off field and having an inherent competitive advantage by being in a regional town where a lower cost of living means players can take lower wages to help “beat” the salary cap.

Doesn’t make Goodwin any better or worse. 

It's triggering because Chris Scott is an obnoxious Karmichael Hunt 😂😂😂

He was a 🤡 of a player but made the most of what he had.  And has done very much the same as a coach - an expert at maximising what they have and under him Geelong have stayed successful.  Still can't stand him though

44 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

1 flag v 1 flag, those are the actual results

Simple-minded view.

7 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Simple-minded view.

Why?

8 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Simple-minded view.

Lol, you’re twisting yourself in knots to avoid giving Goody any credit but that doesn’t make your view any better just cos it’s complicated. 

3 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Whilst true, that’s their hope of course, but after a while they recognise where they are at in the AFL ecosystem and mostly just want employment.
 

Hence yearly movement to up and coming clubs…  Jordan Lewis to us, premiership tigers to the GCS over the years,  Jack Darling this year to North, etc etc 

I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. You initially argued that Geelong have a distinct advantage in their recruitment that is essentially a caveat on Scott's record. Now you're saying players don't really care who they play for and just want to be on a list. I think that second argument is pretty absurd and only really true for players who are on the scrapheap anyway. Players tend to have preferences and good players have options because many clubs want those players to play for them.

4 minutes ago, von said:

Why?

It's a gross over-simplification that basically implies the only thing that matters are flags. Flags are the pinnacle but no one is going to buy an argument that Mark Neeld is as good of a coach as Ross Lyon, Nathan Buckley or Chris Fagan just because none of them have won a flag.

3 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Lol, you’re twisting yourself in knots to avoid giving Goody any credit but that doesn’t make your view any better just cos it’s complicated. 

How so? My argument is that Scott is a demonstrably better coach than Goodwin. I've yet to see anyone make a convincing argument otherwise.

Bit needy if you require any criticism of Goodwin to be prefaced with a song and dance about how I rated his coaching in '21.

10 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

My argument is that Scott is a demonstrably better coach than Goodwin. I've yet to see anyone make a convincing argument otherwise.

 

When you have such an entrenched position on this as you have in this instance, then it's pretty clear why you've yet to see a convincing argument to the contrary.

1 minute ago, rjay said:

When you have such an entrenched position on this as you have in this instance, then it's pretty clear why you've yet to see a convincing argument to the contrary.

I don't think it's a particularly outlandish view. Maybe for Demonland it is.

18 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

It's a gross over-simplification that basically implies the only thing that matters are flags. Flags are the pinnacle but no one is going to buy an argument that Mark Neeld is as good of a coach as Ross Lyon, Nathan Buckley or Chris Fagan just because none of them have won a flag.

How so? My argument is that Scott is a demonstrably better coach than Goodwin. I've yet to see anyone make a convincing argument otherwise.

Bit needy if you require any criticism of Goodwin to be prefaced with a song and dance about how I rated his coaching in '21.

Lol I’m needy? Who’s got 30+ posts in this thread chopping and changing arguments to rate Scott over Goody. Fine we get it, you don’t rate Goody.

Not sure when prelims became more important than flags but ok. Or why Roos gets more credit than Goody for our flag? But knock yourself out.. 

23 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

It's a gross over-simplification that basically implies the only thing that matters are flags. Flags are the pinnacle but no one is going to buy an argument that Mark Neeld is as good of a coach as Ross Lyon, Nathan Buckley or Chris Fagan just because none of them have won a flag.

How so? My argument is that Scott is a demonstrably better coach than Goodwin. I've yet to see anyone make a convincing argument otherwise.

Bit needy if you require any criticism of Goodwin to be prefaced with a song and dance about how I rated his coaching in '21.

So is it better to hang out in above average mediocrity land like he has than to ride the ups and downs like hawthorn have? If it’s not about flags how do we measure? I agree with you, but which things do we include? Stability of the club makes you look a better coach than you are. Luck of the list you inherit. Luck of those who work alongside you. I think there’s a better argument to be made that Geelong are run well than there is that Scott is an amazing coach.

4 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Lol I’m needy? Who’s got 30+ posts in this thread chopping and changing arguments to rate Scott over Goody. Fine we get it, you don’t rate Goody.

Not sure when prelims became more important than flags but ok. Or why Roos gets more credit than Goody for our flag? But knock yourself out.. 

Chopping and changing? What are you talking about. I've been pretty consistent. I have a lot of posts because people like you are responding to me so I'm having a conversation. Maybe don't engage if you're not interested in the topic.

Never said half of what you've suggested. You're making massive inferences. I suggest you re-read or don't bother engaging.

6 minutes ago, von said:

So is it better to hang out in above average mediocrity land like he has than to ride the ups and downs like hawthorn have? If it’s not about flags how do we measure? I agree with you, but which things do we include? Stability of the club makes you look a better coach than you are. Luck of the list you inherit. Luck of those who work alongside you. I think there’s a better argument to be made that Geelong are run well than there is that Scott is an amazing coach.

Well, I mean he's still won two flags so I wouldn't say that's a portrait of mediocrity anyway.

Geelong have been thereabouts for nearly every year of his tenure, they always give themselves a chance to win.It's a pretty good position for a club to know that every year they are a very good chance of going deep into finals. As I said, flags are the pinnacle but I think we can go a bit deeper than that when we measure coaches.

Agree it's difficult to determine where the influence of a coach begins and ends but I tend to believe they are the most important figure within a football department so if we can't make a judgement on them based on results then who can we judge?

Scott was clearly hurting post match. I'm enough of a [censored] to have enjoyed that.

51 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

It's a gross over-simplification that basically implies the only thing that matters are flags. Flags are the pinnacle but no one is going to buy an argument that Mark Neeld is as good of a coach as Ross Lyon, Nathan Buckley or Chris Fagan just because none of them have won a flag.

Ross Lyon is the most overrated coach in the AFL. How he didn't win a flag with the St. Kilda team he had is beyond belief.

His results with Freo and Saints now are actually speaking volumes.

38 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

It's a gross over-simplification that basically implies the only thing that matters are flags. Flags are the pinnacle but no one is going to buy an argument that Mark Neeld is as good of a coach as Ross Lyon, Nathan Buckley or Chris Fagan just because none of them have won a flag.

How so? My argument is that Scott is a demonstrably better coach than Goodwin. I've yet to see anyone make a convincing argument otherwise.

 

Agree with you on the flags in your first paragraph as it is way too simplistic a measure to be definitive.

Fwiw, I also think Scott is a better Coach than Goodwin, but I am unsure on that description “demonstrably.”

It is very hard to measure who is the better Coach, because of so many variables in the analysis.

An interesting comparison could be to look at the last final we played against each other  in 2021 PF where they had a great side on paper with Selwood and multiple other stars and we smashed them.

Then this year when they were in red hot form and unbeaten we beat them with a much poorer side on paper.

Does that go some way to helping with a decision, maybe/maybe not? Does it prove who is the better Coach, no it doesn’t.

In the final it was do or die and in our recent meeting it was a red hot team being beaten for the first time.

That would at least though suggest Goodwin did pretty well in those games, against the Coach some say is the best in the game.

 

48 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

It's a gross over-simplification that basically implies the only thing that matters are flags. Flags are the pinnacle but no one is going to buy an argument that Mark Neeld is as good of a coach as Ross Lyon, Nathan Buckley or Chris Fagan just because none of them have won a flag.

How so? My argument is that Scott is a demonstrably better coach than Goodwin. I've yet to see anyone make a convincing argument otherwise.

Bit needy if you require any criticism of Goodwin to be prefaced with a song and dance about how I rated his coaching in '21.

You say that it is oversimplifying to think that the only thing that matters in assessing a coach is flags.

Unbelievable! The amount of criticism that Goody has received on this forum, on the basis that with his unrivalled list (with which Fagan, Voss and others might disagree) he has only won one flag: sorry, but you can't have it both ways. His supporters, including me, think that he was given a promising list and a healthy administration and developed a team which since 2020 has been EXTREMELY competitive (with the exception of the last few matches this year with no Petracca, Oliver in a terrible state and Gawn with a broken leg). I don't know if we are the MOST successful team in the last five years but we are right up there. On that measure he can't be criticised.

29 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Maybe don't engage if you're not interested in the topic.

I’m always interested in dodgy logic and inconsistency. You’re happy to talk records and metrics but when someone points out Goody’s finals record is better then suddenly metrics aren’t good and what counts is making finals more often, even if you lose more of them..?

Cats home ground advantage gets them half way to finals every year, then they crumble an awful lot when they have to play good teams on the G (2022 obviously the exception). We’ll find out how good he really is now that Hawkins follows Selwood into retirement, and Danger can’t be far behind. 

11 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

You say that it is oversimplifying to think that the only thing that matters in assessing a coach is flags.

Unbelievable! The amount of criticism that Goody has received on this forum, on the basis that with his unrivalled list (with which Fagan, Voss and others might disagree) he has only won one flag: sorry, but you can't have it both ways. His supporters, including me, think that he was given a promising list and a healthy administration and developed a team which since 2020 has been EXTREMELY competitive (with the exception of the last few matches this year with no Petracca, Oliver in a terrible state and Gawn with a broken leg). I don't know if we are the MOST successful team in the last five years but we are right up there. On that measure he can't be criticised.

You seem to be taking issue with things others have said and applying them to a separate argument I am making.

For the record I don't think Goodwin is a bad coach at all but I do think his style is very similar to his own former coach Neil Craig. He drills his players to play a very particular way and backs them in to get it done playing that style. It worked really well in 21 when we had all our players in ripping nick and form but it became less effective in the following years as other teams started to chase different trends and worked out how to strangle our forwardline and we struggled to stop that. In that way I find him quite inflexible which I think holds him back at times. He's not getting sacked any time soon so he has time on his side to get the team going again.

For comparison I think Chris Scott got a bit inflexible inbetween 2017-21 which held the Cats back a bit. In 2022 they changed things up by going all out attack and reaped the rewards.

6 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

I’m always interested in dodgy logic and inconsistency. You’re happy to talk records and metrics but when someone points out Goody’s finals record is better then suddenly metrics aren’t good and what counts is making finals more often, even if you lose more of them..?

Cats home ground advantage gets them half way to finals every year, then they crumble an awful lot when they have to play good teams on the G (2022 obviously the exception). We’ll find out how good he really is now that Hawkins follows Selwood into retirement, and Danger can’t be far behind. 

Agree, a lot is made of Geelong's rebuild on the run but the 2022 flag side still had 3 players from the 2011 flag side playing and two of them were still on the list this year. Let's see how the complete new generation goes.

8 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

I’m always interested in dodgy logic and inconsistency. You’re happy to talk records and metrics but when someone points out Goody’s finals record is better then suddenly metrics aren’t good and what counts is making finals more often, even if you lose more of them..?

Cats home ground advantage gets them half way to finals every year, then they crumble an awful lot when they have to play good teams on the G (2022 obviously the exception). We’ll find out how good he really is now that Hawkins follows Selwood into retirement, and Danger can’t be far behind. 

I already explained how finals win percentage is a flawed stat, you haven't really countered that. Also compared the amount of finals qualifications for both coaches in my first post in the thread. But yes, clearly making finals is better than not making finals are you seriously contending that?

On 21/09/2024 at 23:28, Moonshadow said:

Really? I count only about 10 or 11 really good players on that list of 45

This is what Goodwin inherited:

Primary list
1. Brayshaw, Angus
2. Bugg, Tomas
3. Dawes, Chris
4. Dunn, Lynden
5. Frost, Sam
6. Garland, Colin
7. Garlett, Jeff
8. Gawn, Max
9. Grimes, Jack
10. Harmes, James
11. Hogan, Jesse
12. Hulett, Liam
13. Hunt, Jayden
14. Jetta, Neville
15. Jones, Matt
16. Jones, Nathan
17. Kennedy, Ben
18. Kennedy-Harris, Jay
19. Kent, Dean
20. King, Mitch
21. Lumumba, Heritier
22. McDonald, Tom
23. McDonald, Oscar
24. Melksham, Jake
25. Neal-Bullen, Alex
26. Newton, Ben
27. Oliver, Clayton
28. Pedersen, Cameron
29. Petracca, Christian
30. Salem, Christian
31. Spencer, Jake
32. Stretch, Billy
33. Terlich, Dean
34. Trengove, Jack
35. Tyson, Dom
36. vandenBerg, Aaron
37. Vince, Bernie
38. Viney, Jack
39. Watts, Jack
40. Weideman, Sam
Category A rookie list
41. King, Max
42. Michie, Viv
43. Wagner, Josh
44. White, Mitch
Category B rookie list
45. Smith, Joel

Those were the days

Scary that the list before that was materially worse