Not a knock on Scott - more the AFL but lets come back to him & the media later....

The Sub (that's what this is about).

In my time we started with 19th & 20th men.

Very rigid & unless there was an injury you were lucky to get a few minutes junk time at the end of a game.

The idea of interchange came into football in 1978, 2 interchange players replaced the 19th & 20th men. This was a great idea I think & added some flexibility. Particularly in local footy as a young kid going from U17's to senior footy I found myself on the bench for just a few minutes of game time in the senior side a number of times.

In 1994 the introduction of the blood rule saw interchange go to 3

Then in 1998 they thought 4 would be a good number...now we are running into problems as we move into flood territory with too many fit players with unlimited interchanges.

2011 we bring in the sub...3 interchanges 1 sub. This was due to coaches whinging about the advantage the opposing have if one of their players get injured. The idea of 21 fit men v 22....now smart people would have said this wasn't going to work. How about we cut heavily on the rotations then the effect of losing one won't be as great.

...but no we went with the sub. Then the coaches started whinging about the sub, Roos called it the worst rule change ever invented.

Anyway I could go on with the history...the point is they got rid of the sub then brought it back & now it looks like it's going again but we keep 5 on the bench. Why?

They have reduced rotations but should cut them further & reduce the bench to 4 max. this will even it out if you get an injury plus open the game out.

Back to Scott, he made some point about Cameron & not being able to decide what to do around the sub...but, when he introduced his sub he subbed out Stanley & left Cameron on. Thanks to a limp media we are none the wiser. Was this more about how Brisbane used Neale? It seemed a strange thing to bring up.

Edited Saturday at 14:441 day by rjay

For context. Chris Scott post match interview

Fox sport article

In hindsight the logical answer was to simply cap the interchanges with 4 players. Everyone would have been equal.

We have incorrectly introduced the sub rule and now can't go back to just 4 players on the bench. It has to be 5 now.

Yeah, I don't like the way rotations have affected the game. What do we actually want to see in Aussie rules? What do we proudly boast about if we're explaining our sport to foreigners? It's the marking, kicking (especially the goals from way out or impossible angles), maybe the dodging and same other skills like tackles and smothers and even the footy IQ stuff like the non-ruck tap-ons, toe pokes and hand pases which put a teammate in a much better position. IMO it's not running. While important I just don't care about players running longer or faster - certainly not in comparison with actual football skills. I'd happily have rotations quotas cut way back. Maybe we'd even see less injuries, concussions, congestion and rolling mauls.

This bloke says the same thing when he loses..congratulations to opposition…….there were things behind this loss but I don’t want to go into it ………. But then starts leaking his sorrowful story every time

It’s the same [censored] he rolled out when he lost to us in the finals 2021

6 hours ago, rjay said:

Not a knock on Scott - more the AFL but lets come back to him & the media later....

The Sub (that's what this is about).

In my time we started with 19th & 20th men.

Very rigid & unless there was an injury you were lucky to get a few minutes junk time at the end of a game.

The idea of interchange came into football in 1978, 2 interchange players replaced the 19th & 20th men. This was a great idea I think & added some flexibility. Particularly in local footy as a young kid going from U17's to senior footy I found myself on the bench for just a few minutes of game time in the senior side a number of times.

In 1994 the introduction of the blood rule saw interchange go to 3

Then in 1998 they thought 4 would be a good number...now we are running into problems as we move into flood territory with too many fit players with unlimited interchanges.

2011 we bring in the sub...3 interchanges 1 sub. This was due to coaches whinging about the advantage the opposing have if one of their players get injured. The idea of 21 fit men v 22....now smart people would have said this wasn't going to work. How about we cut heavily on the rotations then the effect of losing one won't be as great.

...but no we went with the sub. Then the coaches started whinging about the sub, Roos called it the worst rule change ever invented.

Anyway I could go on with the history...the point is they got rid of the sub then brought it back & now it looks like it's going again but we keep 5 on the bench. Why?

They have reduced rotations but should cut them further & reduce the bench to 4 max. this will even it out if you get an injury plus open the game out.

Back to Scott, he made some point about Cameron & not being able to decide what to do around the sub...but, when he introduced his sub he subbed out Stanley & left Cameron on. Thanks to a limp media we are none the wiser. Was this more about how Brisbane used Neale? It seemed a strange thing to bring up.

If you listen to his press confrence from 2021 when we smacked them in the prelim it's so similar

"There are lots of reasons and challenges i won't share publicly about how this happened" then immediately after the story did the rounds the cats were riddles with the flu.

I would love Chris Scott to coach Melbourne, he's clearly an all time great but at times he does get a little bit "Sour grapesy" in my opinion

41 minutes ago, Ted Lasso said:

If you listen to his press confrence from 2021 when we smacked them in the prelim it's so similar

"There are lots of reasons and challenges i won't share publicly about how this happened" then immediately after the story did the rounds the cats were riddles with the flu.

I would love Chris Scott to coach Melbourne, he's clearly an all time great but at times he does get a little bit "Sour grapesy" in my opinion

Scott's a little b-i-t-ch. It's everyone else's fault but his own. They live in a little media and football bubble down the highway. It's like the twilight zone down there. Everything is so pristine and perfect that when things don't go their way, there must be a reason that isn't related to something they did (or didn't) do.

Scott and McRae are the two biggest wankers in the coaching ranks. Every time they lose it's always something.

7 hours ago, rjay said:

Not a knock on Scott - more the AFL but lets come back to him & the media later....

The Sub (that's what this is about).

In my time we started with 19th & 20th men.

Very rigid & unless there was an injury you were lucky to get a few minutes junk time at the end of a game.

The idea of interchange came into football in 1978, 2 interchange players replaced the 19th & 20th men. This was a great idea I think & added some flexibility. Particularly in local footy as a young kid going from U17's to senior footy I found myself on the bench for just a few minutes of game time in the senior side a number of times.

In 1994 the introduction of the blood rule saw interchange go to 3

Then in 1998 they thought 4 would be a good number...now we are running into problems as we move into flood territory with too many fit players with unlimited interchanges.

2011 we bring in the sub...3 interchanges 1 sub. This was due to coaches whinging about the advantage the opposing have if one of their players get injured. The idea of 21 fit men v 22....now smart people would have said this wasn't going to work. How about we cut heavily on the rotations then the effect of losing one won't be as great.

...but no we went with the sub. Then the coaches started whinging about the sub, Roos called it the worst rule change ever invented.

Anyway I could go on with the history...the point is they got rid of the sub then brought it back & now it looks like it's going again but we keep 5 on the bench. Why?

They have reduced rotations but should cut them further & reduce the bench to 4 max. this will even it out if you get an injury plus open the game out.

Back to Scott, he made some point about Cameron & not being able to decide what to do around the sub...but, when he introduced his sub he subbed out Stanley & left Cameron on. Thanks to a limp media we are none the wiser. Was this more about how Brisbane used Neale? It seemed a strange thing to bring up.

I missed that comment from Scott, here was I thinking he didn’t have a whinge yesterday.

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

I missed that comment from Scott, here was I thinking he didn’t have a whinge yesterday.

Dogs gotta bark

Are Geelong going to get investigated into letting Jeremy cameron play with a broken arm?

I mean danger said he heard a snap, you could tell it was broken. I'm not sure why Chris Scott was going on about the sub rule.

At 3/4 time why couldn't they just sub him off instead of Rhys Stanley?the guys arm was broken.

The whole point of the sub is to deal with an injured player. It benefitted Scott today even though he couldn't see it. A few years ago he wouldn't have even had the sub and it just becomes another rotation, which is his wish.

The irony is the coaches begged for the sub when the concussion protocols came in. Now they want it gone. It's one of the great examples of AFL reactivity that the coaches have been able to con them into adding a 5th man on the bench.

If coaches don't like the medical sub, thats fine, lets go back to 4 interchange players.... I'm sick of the creep upwards in this space.
As others have said, cap the number of interchanges, slow it down.

In 4-5 years time.... watch how some coach starts complaining that having 5 on the bench and getting an injury or a concussion is unfair and that they need a sub because they are only down to 4 fit players and the rotations are unfair , wah wah wah 😭.

4 on the bench and either cap at 60 interchanges, or something more radical like each player is only allowed to be subbed off the ground 4 or 5 times per game. It will stop the stupid run off the ground after kicking a goal etc... players will fatigue and it's more about skill.

Scott bringing up the sub rule is just a super unsubtle excuse. But he is right, the sub rule sucks! Scrap it ASAP!

16 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Are Geelong going to get investigated into letting Jeremy cameron play with a broken arm?

I mean danger said he heard a snap, you could tell it was broken. I'm not sure why Chris Scott was going on about the sub rule.

At 3/4 time why couldn't they just sub him off instead of Rhys Stanley?the guys arm was broken.

Yep it beggars belief! He was playing one handed. How could Stanley be contributing less.

1 hour ago, Ted Lasso said:

If you listen to his press confrence from 2021 when we smacked them in the prelim it's so similar

"There are lots of reasons and challenges i won't share publicly about how this happened" then immediately after the story did the rounds the cats were riddles with the flu.

I would love Chris Scott to coach Melbourne, he's clearly an all time great but at times he does get a little bit "Sour grapesy" in my opinion

I would not want him anywhere near the place. His constant disingenuousness creates a weird cognitive dissonance. He wants to praise the winners, but at the same time undermines them. It’s a face-saving tactic: the narrative becomes “we were unlucky” instead of “we weren’t good enough.” To the outside world it just sounds like whinging. At the end of the day, Chris Scott just comes across as a very insecure control freak. He can’t admit weakness, because to him weakness equals vulnerability, and vulnerability equals loss of control.

That’s why every presser after a loss has the same flavour: “Not taking anything away from the winners, but…” followed by a laundry list of factors outside Jeelong’s control. It’s his defence mechanism. If he ever just said “we weren’t good enough,” it would shatter the tightly wound self-image he’s built around control and superiority.

It’s actually pretty revealing. To Jeelong supporters it sounds like leadership; to the rest of us it looks like a bloke terrified of admitting fallibility.

I find it incredible that nobody is talking about the head knock. That knock has been checked out all season, but this time nothing.

Was it last week or the week before, where the AFL doctors went into the rooms to check on a players shoulder??? Yet here's a head knock and they ignore it, now the media is ignoring it as well. Especially since half of the city of Geelong is suing the AFL over head injuries, I find it incredible.

At least Catman is taking it well.

11 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

At least Catman is taking it well.

Its chris scott in catman's make up

3 hours ago, FlowerPower said:

This bloke says the same thing when he loses..congratulations to opposition…….there were things behind this loss but I don’t want to go into it ………. But then starts leaking his sorrowful story every time

It’s the same [censored] he rolled out when he lost to us in the finals 2021

They were sick weren't they?

Ummm, maybe it's all good marketing and optics. MacRae keeps saying his players are not losers - even after they just lost. Is it bad for players to believe they're winners and that they can beat anyone and even when 6 goals down with 5 minutes both his team and the opposition still believe Collingwood can win. Maybe it explains some of Collingwood and Geelong's success. Just imagine if Goody could have somehow cryptically explained that something awful happened at three quarter time against St Kilda and thus team morale couldn't / didn't deteriorate and St Kilda next time - actually any team - has a lot more respect for Melbourne before and during games. Maybe Scott and MacRae have got it right. They're there to win games and premierships NOT win over random fans. All the close losses we've had recently suggest maybe we do think were losers. Maybe King can be as much a sore loser and our team can be winners. Hey, again, maybe we get a few big 'trade' fish like May and Lever rather than watch on as Houston and anyone else choose a winner rather than well .... us. 🤔

Time to activate Sympathy Cat for Chris Scott and Geelong supporters

Edited yesterday at 01:211 day by John Crow Batty

2 hours ago, Brenno said:

Scott bringing up the sub rule is just a super unsubtle excuse. But he is right, the sub rule sucks! Scrap it ASAP!

Yep, agree...the sub rule should be scrapped.

9 hours ago, BAMF said:

We have incorrectly introduced the sub rule and now can't go back to just 4 players on the bench. It has to be 5 now.

There's no reason we can't go back to 4 but of course the AFL we go to 5 which to my mind is stupid.

7 hours ago, Go Ds said:

I'd happily have rotations quotas cut way back.

2 hours ago, Ouch! said:

I'm sick of the creep upwards in this space.

Yep, I'm sick of the creep here as well...you can just see the push for an injury sub again in a few years can't you. The answer is cut rotations way back...

2 hours ago, dees189227 said:

Are Geelong going to get investigated into letting Jeremy cameron play with a broken arm?

2 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

he whole point of the sub is to deal with an injured player. It benefitted Scott today even though he couldn't see it.

2 hours ago, old dee said:

Yep it beggars belief! He was playing one handed. How could Stanley be contributing less.

I think he could see it and this whole thing is a bit of a smoke screen...of course the sub was there to be used for Cameron but he chose to sub out Stanley. 'old dee' I think he and Stanley were probably on a par as far as contribution goes.

1 hour ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

I find it incredible that nobody is talking about the head knock. That knock has been checked out all season, but this time nothing.

Yep, it wasn't a good look and not the first time.

2 hours ago, Ouch! said:

something more radical like each player is only allowed to be subbed off the ground 4 or 5 times per game

I like this...

10 hours ago, rjay said:

Was this more about how Brisbane used Neale

I think so...it was a big risk but with big risk comes big reward.

Being able to hold Neale on the bench as a sub for half a game was a huge advantage when they let him lose in the 2nd half. They knew he didn't have a full game in him but gambled he did have half a game and it paid off.

17 disposals and 7 clearances after HT at that rate he would have romped in the Norm...

If they had an injury in the first Q then it would have been seen as a bust perhaps.

...but they didn't and he broke the game open.

I reckon this is what Scott was really pointing too but the media were too dumb to pick up on.

4 hours ago, Ted Lasso said:

If you listen to his press confrence from 2021 when we smacked them in the prelim it's so similar

"There are lots of reasons and challenges i won't share publicly about how this happened" then immediately after the story did the rounds the cats were riddles with the flu.

I would love Chris Scott to coach Melbourne, he's clearly an all time great but at times he does get a little bit "Sour grapesy" in my opinion

Was it the flu again yesterday Snotty?

😂😂😂😂😂

27 minutes ago, rjay said:

Yep, agree...the sub rule should be scrapped.

There's no reason we can't go back to 4 but of course the AFL we go to 5 which to my mind is stupid.

Yep, I'm sick of the creep here as well...you can just see the push for an injury sub again in a few years can't you. The answer is cut rotations way back...

I think he could see it and this whole thing is a bit of a smoke screen...of course the sub was there to be used for Cameron but he chose to sub out Stanley. 'old dee' I think he and Stanley were probably on a par as far as contribution goes.

Yep, it wasn't a good look and not the first time.

I like this...

I think so...it was a big risk but with big risk comes big reward.

Being able to hold Neale on the bench as a sub for half a game was a huge advantage when they let him lose in the 2nd half. They knew he didn't have a full game in him but gambled he did have half a game and it paid off.

17 disposals and 7 clearances after HT at that rate he would have romped in the Norm...

If they had an injury in the first Q then it would have been seen as a bust perhaps.

...but they didn't and he broke the game open.

I reckon this is what Scott was really pointing too but the media were too dumb to pick up on.

Sorry I don't buy the a player with a broken arm can contribute more than a player who has all his body working.

2 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I would not want him anywhere near the place. His constant disingenuousness creates a weird cognitive dissonance. He wants to praise the winners, but at the same time undermines them. It’s a face-saving tactic: the narrative becomes “we were unlucky” instead of “we weren’t good enough.” To the outside world it just sounds like whinging. At the end of the day, Chris Scott just comes across as a very insecure control freak. He can’t admit weakness, because to him weakness equals vulnerability, and vulnerability equals loss of control.

That’s why every presser after a loss has the same flavour: “Not taking anything away from the winners, but…” followed by a laundry list of factors outside Jeelong’s control. It’s his defence mechanism. If he ever just said “we weren’t good enough,” it would shatter the tightly wound self-image he’s built around control and superiority.

It’s actually pretty revealing. To Jeelong supporters it sounds like leadership; to the rest of us it looks like a bloke terrified of admitting fallibility.

Versies his Captain who said in plain English on the day they were too good. What is it with Scott does he have a gracious bone in his body? I know the answer!