Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[Petrify]

I wanted Clarko, pre-racism knowlege, but I didn't even realise Brad Scott was an option. Once his name came up he made total sense. Yze was clearly going to be not what we needed and Lyon is one of the most overrated coaches in history, just because he's got the media on his side

 

[Petrify]

Interesting line from Merrett suggested Brad Scott was the first coach he'd had who put a lot of time into stopping the oppositions best players. Pretty big indictment on Rutten & Worsfold.

 

[DERO]

Interesting line from Merrett suggested Brad Scott was the first coach he'd had who put a lot of time into stopping the oppositions best players. Pretty big indictment on Rutten & Worsfold.

This is spot on. it goes further than that though. Zach has mentioned that expectations around roles, requirements etc had never been clearly defined enough and now they are. Zach and Brad are clearly well-aligned.

We might still be a few players away from being a top line side but at least we finally seem to have the systems and processes in place to be successful. There is a cultural shift off the back of good solid leadership. It is encouraging.

 

[Agronomus]

Interesting line from Merrett suggested Brad Scott was the first coach he'd had who put a lot of time into stopping the oppositions best players. Pretty big indictment on Rutten & Worsfold.

Just an additional big indictment on both of them

 

[faible]

Just an additional big indictment on both of them

Worsfold was very big on the whole player led thing, which is fine in theory, but probably only works with a fairly mature list that knows what success looks like, and great leaders. A club like Geelong with Selwood for example.

Rutten was that Richmond-ethos where they just played and backed their system. Which again, is fine in theory - Richmond won 3 Premierships doing it - but also requires a mature list that knows exactly where to be and what to do, plus a little bit of star power for when it's not working. Like prime Dusty.

Neither coach is necessarily 'bad' just not necessarily a good fit. Worsfold's softly softly approach was probably the right thing in the first 2 - 3 seasons post suspensions, but went on too long. A lot of the stuff Rutten identified as needing to be fixed - blue collar football - is really the same thing Scott is doing, Scott just seems a better fit for where our list is at right now, and has the experience to keep the off-field side of EFC at bay.

If Rutten had the same list at his disposal that Scott does, with more defensively hard-working players, I don't think he appears as bad. That said, would Rutten have been able to get them all pulling in the same direction that Scott appears to have?

 

[Old Campaigner]

I think Scott is helped by having Merrett as captain as they seem quite well aligned. They both seem like quite uncompromising personalities and maybe that style of leadership is what the list needed to shift out of its old ways.

 

[Yoda_]

Makes sense now why we didn't challenge the Wright one, nor the Redman one, now the Jones one


Scott knows the system and obviously sees we'd have little to no chance of overturning or reducing so let it be.

 

[Old Campaigner]

You’d think he’d also know who the brown paper bag full of cash needs to be addressed to though

 

[ghostdog]

Worsfold was very big on the whole player led thing, which is fine in theory, but probably only works with a fairly mature list that knows what success looks like, and great leaders. A club like Geelong with Selwood for example.

Rutten was that Richmond-ethos where they just played and backed their system. Which again, is fine in theory - Richmond won 3 Premierships doing it - but also requires a mature list that knows exactly where to be and what to do, plus a little bit of star power for when it's not working. Like prime Dusty.

Neither coach is necessarily 'bad' just not necessarily a good fit. Worsfold's softly softly approach was probably the right thing in the first 2 - 3 seasons post suspensions, but went on too long. A lot of the stuff Rutten identified as needing to be fixed - blue collar football - is really the same thing Scott is doing, Scott just seems a better fit for where our list is at right now, and has the experience to keep the off-field side of EFC at bay.

If Rutten had the same list at his disposal that Scott does, with more defensively hard-working players, I don't think he appears as bad. That said, would Rutten have been able to get them all pulling in the same direction that Scott appears to have?

Rutten wasn't given the same depth of quality coaching staff with whom to work. I think improving the footy department was a Barham focus, but it also had to be; Barham led the purge so needed to set up Brad for success, lest he himself be viewed as a wrecker.

He could have offered Truck the same support but instead hung him out to dry.

Brad has proven to be a master communicator though.

 

[Godzke]

Rutten prioritised being liked by the players as opposed to being respected. He never would've gotten the playing group to where it is now. And unsurprisingly he yet back to Richmond and got overlooked in favour of Yze.

Scott speaks with a seriousness at all times which commands respect. Even when he's in a good mood. It's what we need. Too long mollycoddled through the supplement saga, it made sense to bring in a non-Essendon person to give them the boot camp treatment and it is seemingly working in reshaping our psyche.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Scott comes across as a guy you absolutely do not want to **** with, while also being as supportive as he needs to be to help players get the best out of themselves.

 

[ant555]

Rutten prioritised being liked by the players as opposed to being respected. He never would've gotten the playing group to where it is now. And unsurprisingly he yet back to Richmond and got overlooked in favour of Yze.

Scott speaks with a seriousness at all times which commands respect. Even when he's in a good mood. It's what we need. Too long mollycoddled through the supplement saga, it made sense to bring in a non-Essendon person to give them the boot camp treatment and it is seemingly working in reshaping our psyche.

The irony of Rutton being liked by the players too much was while he was an assistant the club sent him to do some sort of leadership course because they thought one of his weak points was being a bit hard on the players.

 

[Godzke]

The irony of Rutton being liked by the players too much was while he was an assistant the club sent him to do some sort of leadership course because they thought one of his weak points was being a bit hard on the players.

comes back to his inability to effectively communicate

 

[ant555]

comes back to his inability to effectively communicate

It does.
Some blokes are smart footy brains but you also have to be a teacher and manage 40 different personalities and the pressure of expectation from the board and fans. Of course he would not have minded the football department spend and development coaches we now have.

 

[fairbump_playon]

Scott comes across as a guy you absolutely do not want to heck with, while also being as supportive as he needs to be to help players get the best out of themselves.

Rutten’s very first communication to camera after getting the Bombers job was so disastrous. I wrote him off immediately. He had no gravitas.

 

[Agronomus]

Worsfold was very big on the whole player led thing, which is fine in theory, but probably only works with a fairly mature list that knows what success looks like, and great leaders. A club like Geelong with Selwood for example.

Rutten was that Richmond-ethos where they just played and backed their system. Which again, is fine in theory - Richmond won 3 Premierships doing it - but also requires a mature list that knows exactly where to be and what to do, plus a little bit of star power for when it's not working. Like prime Dusty.

Neither coach is necessarily 'bad' just not necessarily a good fit. Worsfold's softly softly approach was probably the right thing in the first 2 - 3 seasons post suspensions, but went on too long. A lot of the stuff Rutten identified as needing to be fixed - blue collar football - is really the same thing Scott is doing, Scott just seems a better fit for where our list is at right now, and has the experience to keep the off-field side of EFC at bay.

If Rutten had the same list at his disposal that Scott does, with more defensively hard-working players, I don't think he appears as bad. That said, would Rutten have been able to get them all pulling in the same direction that Scott appears to have?

I thought Rutten was fine until I heard him speak. His voice and diction just doesn't seem to inspire

 

[Phone]

whispers quietly you know, Zach player under James Hird and Mark Thompson too..........

Makes sense now why we didn't challenge the Wright one, nor the Redman one, now the Jones one


Scott knows the system and obviously sees we'd have little to no chance of overturning or reducing so let it be.

well yes, we didn't challenge them because there was no chance of overturning them. that was perfectly obvious for each case at the time. It didn't require a retrospective from Scott. And for Wright and Redman, we've seen players subsequently get suspended for fairly similar actions. (Wright, see: Toby Greene, Redman, see: Mabior Chol). Players have been getting suspended for a decade for tackles like Jones' one (and for like 7 of those years, we constantly saw umpires not even pay a free-kick against the player. This one really was a throw back to when the AFL started punishing this action!)

I guess I don't really understand brad scott's comments here. we want the MRP to make incorrect decisions so that the tribunal can overturn them?

A fair few of the decisions that the tribunal have overturned recently, such as Jesse Hogan and Brayden Maynard have been because the MRO said that was something was a reportable offence and then the tribunal instead said that it was not reportable. (With Hogan's one relying on a wonderful loop-hole). Really Scott's just complaining about not being lucky enough to have one that we can over-turn via a loop-hole. Wright's one was the closest, but Toby Green's later ban clearly shows that Wright didn't have a hope.

 

[yodellinhank]

whispers quietly you know, Zach player under James Hird and Mark Thompson too..........

Bomber wasn't one to focus too much on an opposition I don't think. He backed his plan and his teams, so you would see GAJ go to Judd etc.

Not sure that Hird ever ran with a tagger either, Welsh was on the way out and Hocking started to play that blocking role instead. We relied on an extra at the stoppage and Jobe to get first hands on ball.

well yes, we didn't challenge them because there was no chance of overturning them. that was perfectly obvious for each case at the time. It didn't require a retrospective from Scott. And for Wright and Redman, we've seen players subsequently get suspended for fairly similar actions. (Wright, see: Toby Greene, Redman, see: Mabior Chol). Players have been getting suspended for a decade for tackles like Jones' one (and for like 7 of those years, we constantly saw umpires not even pay a free-kick against the player. This one really was a throw back to when the AFL started punishing this action!)

I guess I don't really understand brad scott's comments here. we want the MRP to make incorrect decisions so that the tribunal can overturn them?

A fair few of the decisions that the tribunal have overturned recently, such as Jesse Hogan and Brayden Maynard have been because the MRO said that was something was a reportable offence and then the tribunal instead said that it was not reportable. (With Hogan's one relying on a wonderful loop-hole). Really Scott's just complaining about not being lucky enough to have one that we can over-turn via a loop-hole. Wright's one was the closest, but Toby Green's later ban clearly shows that Wright didn't have a hope.

Not sure why you'd try to refer to precedent, the tribunal don't.

 

[Phone]

Bomber wasn't one to focus too much on an opposition I don't think. He backed his plan and his teams, so you would see GAJ go to Judd etc.

Not sure that Hird ever ran with a tagger either, Welsh was on the way out and Hocking started to play that blocking role instead. We relied on an extra at the stoppage and Jobe to get first hands on ball.

I agree, but the reality is we've got people crapping on Rutten and Wosfold while Zach's first two coaches are going without a mention. it applies to all four of them, not just the two that didn't captain Essendon. And it probably applies to like 90% of the coaches from the past 15 years too...?

 

[fairbump_playon]

I agree, but the reality is we've got people crapping on Rutten and Wosfold while Zach's first two coaches are going without a mention. it applies to all four of them, not just the two that didn't captain Essendon. And it probably applies to like 90% of the coaches from the past 15 years too...?

Like .. fair point but suddenly Hird & Bomber do seem like a long time ago

Not sure it’s that they’re captains. I reckon it just feels like distant past now

 

[ghostdog]

I thought Rutten was fine until I heard him speak. His voice and diction just doesn't seem to inspire

Message for mine. "Blue collar" simply spoke for effort, and he wasn't wrong with that, but effort is variable and subjective. Everyone thinks they're putting in effort.
"Edge" is a minimum standard that makes the expectation much clearer.

Rutten was right, and Scott has tactfully acknowledged that a couple of times, but Scott is definitely more crafty with his language.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Message for mine. "Blue collar" simply spoke for effort, and he wasn't wrong with that, but effort is variable and subjective. Everyone thinks they're putting in effort.
"Edge" is a minimum standard that makes the expectation much clearer.

Rutten was right, and Scott has tactfully acknowledged that a couple of times, but Scott is definitely more crafty with his language.

I think Scott would have been far more forthright in his message behind closed doors too.

Rutten strikes me as more of a "please be a bit more blue collar" whereas Scott I'd imagine would have no issues with "show some effort or gtfo of my football club"

 

[ghostdog]

I think Scott would have been far more forthright in his message behind closed doors too.

Rutten strikes me as more of a "please be a bit more blue collar" whereas Scott I'd imagine would have no issues with "show some effort or gtfo of my football club"

Yeah I don't know about that. Rutten was a Hardwick understudy. I can't imagine Dimma being a softy in team meetings. That said, who knows what 'learnings' Truck had under Worsfold.

 

[Kong]

Yeah I don't know about that. Rutten was a Hardwick understudy. I can't imagine Dimma being a softy in team meetings. That said, who knows what 'learnings' Truck had under Worsfold.

Also, working under someone doesn't mean you're the same.

 

[yodellinhank]

Yeah I don't know about that. Rutten was a Hardwick understudy. I can't imagine Dimma being a softy in team meetings. That said, who knows what 'learnings' Truck had under Worsfold.

Rutten started off great, then they said he needed empathy and sent him off for brainwashing.