Wasn't he the guy in charge of the rules of the game when they bought back the sub?Brad Scott hates the sub
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wasn't he the guy in charge of the rules of the game when they bought back the sub?Brad Scott hates the sub
Wasn't he the guy in charge of the rules of the game when they bought back the sub?
You don’t happen to remember roughly who they had rounding out the top 5 do you?Hudson and King had Scott as the 5th best coach in the league on first crack tonight.
Montagna had him as 3rd.
KingYou don’t happen to remember roughly who they had rounding out the top 5 do you?
Very sensible takemartin is very fit and performs noticeably better in fourth quarters, so it may be that he would've had a dominant fourth quarter in any position.
of course, we will never know. all we can say is that he was moved and we got very close to winning.
I think the sub rule is redundant now that you have a rotation cap. The concern with a bigger bench was guys being able to go faster for longer and hence increasing congestion around the ball (the idea is always to open the game up) and bigger collisions etc etc.Coaches voted for the sub. The sooner it is gone the better. 4 on the bench, 5 on the bench whatever, just remove the sub completely.
I think the sub rule is redundant now that you have a rotation cap. The concern with a bigger bench was guys being able to go faster for longer and hence increasing congestion around the ball (the idea is always to open the game up) and bigger collisions etc etc.
The sub rule was to ensure that teams would pull guys off the ground in cases of high contact to conduct HIA. I think you go back to that aim but maybe expand it.
Potentially keep 4 on the bench and make the Sub a player than can only replace a player that is off the ground for HIA. If that player has to go off under HIA then the sub may remain on the field. Teams can't abuse this process as all concussions now have to miss the following week, so you couldn't use it as an extra player.
Totally fine with Scott discussing it.. but I saw Port win a game with 1 guy left on the bench and I've seen examples of that for decades. They made the call to sub Jones, they could have left it with a rotation and waited and then subbed another player and played with 3 on the bench. That was their call.
Personally I would scrap the Sub rule and just play with 4 on the bench. Sometimes bad luck is bad luck.
King
1. Chris Scott
2. Adam Kingsley
3. Michael Voss
4. John Longmire
5. Brad Scott
Montagna
1. Chris Scott
2. Adam Kingsley
3. Brad Scott
4. John Longmire
5. Michael Voss
Hudson's is cut off in my replay.
It’s just semi-educated guess work isn’t it?Kingsley, Voss & B Scott above Longmire, interesting
It’s just semi-educated guess work isn’t it?
I’m agreeing with you....on what basis would Longmire be behind these guys?Yeah, and obviously means nothing. Just thought everyone's top two would have to be C Scott & Longmire...
I’m agreeing with you....on what basis would Longmire be behind these guys?
Kingsley, Voss & B Scott above Longmire, interesting
Interesting as it basically reflects top of table / teams predicted to go deep in finals.It’s just semi-educated guess work isn’t it?
Looking for clicks. Longmire has so many more runs on the board and again another iteration of the Swans under Longmire will contend. Brad could be what Longmire is though.Kingsley, Voss & B Scott above Longmire, interesting
From what I understand it's just on this year.
Did some analysis on midfields this year. Turns out Essendon are the best in the comp.
Ground ball gets we're ranked 8th, but it doesn't seem to matter that much. Hawthorn are ranked 1st for example. This site is great for stats https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_stats_team.html?year=2024Nice work, do you have any access to ground ball gets data? Would be interested to see how we rank for loose/hard ball wins. Cant seem to find this data but to naked eye it feels like we are doing a lot better than previous years.
A flow on effect of our midfield getting first hands to the ball is we have significantly improved our frees for/frees against as umps generally favour the team getting first possession.
Did some analysis on midfields this year. Turns out Essendon are the best in the comp.
Did some analysis on midfields this year. Turns out Essendon are the best in the comp.
Great analysis and this is including the beating Port gave Essendon's midfield. We have a great balance of speed and ferociousness in the midfield. Caldwell, Perkins, Setterfield and Durham are a big reason why we've been dominant.
The midfield is in a good spot for the first time in 20 years. Whilst I'm happy with it especially the scoring from stoppages, I feel like we're too reliant on it. Beat us in the midfield like Port did and everything falls apart. The top sides like Sydney and Geelong have other scoring avenues.
The problem is teams like Collingwood, Sydney, GWS and Geelong can punish turnovers very heavily and that's where we suck. If we could at least be average defensively (and not outright bottom 6) by defending turnovers and forcing turnovers especially in the front half then we'd be a top 6 side.
It'd be interesting to see the differential in points scored/conceded from turnovers and other defensive stats. I'd imagine we're one of the bottom teams in the competition.