KozzyCan

Not a stretch, no. But a bit of hindsight there too. I remember 2010, Ablett and Thompson leaving, most thought the Cats were on the slide and Collingwood were destined to be the next dynasty. Scott came into a good side but he didn't screw it up and has reinvented them twice over since.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Simple-minded view.

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.

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.

Maybe Goodwin should have hung it up after the flag, then his finals win rate would be untouchable!

If Goodwin makes finals every year for the next 8 years he will absolutely have my support. That's the record he would need to match in your example.

Yes he absolutely inherited a good young side. We just missed finals in 2017 and were playing off for a Grand Final spot in 2018. There was a capable team there already. Focusing on the flag side is too narrow a view.

I agree with the last bit, that's why I find the argument that Scott benefits from amazing list management and inheriting a great side a little unfair when people are claiming Goodwin built this team himself at the same time. Feels like trying to have it both ways. Both Goodwin and Scott would have a big influence in recruitment and even more in development. Geelong recruited extremely well over the 22 and 23 off-seasons but Scott has harnessed that talent and turned a bunch of nobodies into important cogs in a well oiled machine. On injuries I'll just say that we seem to hit a tipping point very quickly when our players start getting injured, quicker than other teams tbh. For example last year Collingwood had a lot of injuries in the middle of the year but managed to keep things steady and win the flag. Goodwin really needs everything going right for us to be a chance. I think this also has a lot to do with how we've managed injuries under Goodwin, pushing players to play through injuries rather than relying on depth which has hurt us as well.

I've heard people say this but not seen any actual evidence of it. I find the notion a bit absurd. Was Roos just sitting back drinking martinis on a $1.5m salary while Goodwin did all the work? I doubt it.

Nah, I tipped Brisbane to win. They had twice as much talent on the field as Geelong. Really a massive effort from Geelong to get within spitting distance of a GF with the team they had out there.

What exactly are you basing the Goodwin coached all of 2016? That seems like a bit of a myth. He was still an apprentice at that stage. I stand by my point that every year of Goodwin's tenure we had a list capable of making finals. By that metric half his seasons were failures. People use injuries as a massive cop out. Like we're the only club to ever deal with injuries. We went from a prelim final to second last. That's a terrible result no matter how you look at it. There's simply no metric where Goodwin is as good of a coach than Scott. It's not even a contest.

He really can't help himself lol.

Bit more to it than just looking at premiership players. Jones, Vince Jetta and Lewis were all playing great footy at the start of Goodwin's tenure. Tmac, Melksham and Hibberd were in their prime. Oliver was already a star at this point. Brayshaw and Petracca weren't quite there but still quality. We had a real shot at it in 2018. 2019 and 2020 were disasters and completely wasted seasons.

The bulk of the work was done before Goodwin took the reigns. The core of the team was built and he's always had a list capable of making finals. Don't understand the reference to trading Watts and Hogan, both decisions that made our team better not worse. If we're giving Goodwin credit for all the list management decisions post Roos then we must do the same for Scott. Rebuilt Geelong twice over only dropping out of finals for single years each time.

Lewis, Hibberd and Melksham all came in in his first year. Our list in 2017 was solid outside of our backline.

Need some sauce for that chip on your shoulder.

Outstanding game.

Again, Goodwin has missed finals in 4 of 8 years including a bottom 2 and bottom 6 finish. Geelong's advantages are not so great that they guarantee the sort of consistency Scott has been able to conjure. Any disadvantage we may have is not so crippling that it excuses our inconsistency.