Chris Scott on Doc Larkins - "unprofessional"

[Ricketz]

That post literally makes no sense whatsoever.

Ok, I'll make it simple. Your coach doesn't have much to smile about so you have a crack at ours.

 

[eastfreo75]

Finally someone has asked a simple question, and a pertinent one rather than simply go the low hanging fruit.

To the men above you, god that was some sad posting.



Doc starts off questioning the integrity of Ch 7 commentary and is corrected by Bristle, and further backed up by Pete Ryan.



Then proceeds to reply to Joe blow off the street essentially calling Geelong and reading between the lines its medical team delusional.



So no wonder Scott has RIGHTLY said what he did today. Dr Larkins has called into question the professional integrity of medical department and if the shoe were on the other foot he’d be bloody pissed off I bet.

Everyday media are critical of coaches tactics and team selection.

A medical expert is critical of another medical expert is not unprofessional, its just a view.

Scott seems to be always the one trying to pick a fight.

 

[Ricketz]

Did that give you false hope? If so, how did you manage to overcome it?

I have so much false hope right now I'm not sure how I'll cope if Stewart can't play should we make the GF. Like everyone, I can't see any possible way he would be ready to play, but can you imagine if he doesn't? All this false hope for nothing.

Personally, I'm loving all the false hope. Seems to be working over the opposition supporters just nicely. This whole thing was a beat up because Larkins has to be a relevant media personality, not because he is a doctor.

The club has been straight up front and consistent from them get go.

 

[HairyO]

Everyday media are critical of coaches tactics and team selection.

A medical expert is critical of another medical expert is not unprofessional, its just a view.

Scott seems to be always the one trying to pick a fight.

Anything to remove the pressure from the actual football... and to keep him in the spotlight.

False hope?

Probably. "2 to 3 weeks" seems to mean anything up to an entire season.

 

[Hoops]

Jack Gunston was listed as 2 to 3 weeks for most of the year. Played 1 game.

False hope?

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I think most supporters were surprised he wasnt picked until week 8 or 9, and then quite shocked that he didnt play again. It doesnt bode well for the rest of his career either, given the type of injury and surgery.

However, apparently while Lisfranc can take 6 to 12 months to fully recover, there is near zero loss in athletic ability. So Stewart should be back to 100% by next year.

That's great news, thanks! I hope you're not selling me false hope though.

Edit: referring to Stewart obviously. That sucks re Gunston, if he never gets back to full fitness.

 

[eastfreo75]

Anything to remove the pressure from the actual football... and to keep him in the spotlight.



Probably. "2 to 3 weeks" seems to mean anything up to an entire season.

Spot on.

 

[Hoops]

Probably. "2 to 3 weeks" seems to mean anything up to an entire season.

I still feel Egan could be a late inclusion for this game.

 

[Obeanie1]

I reckon he meant the Geelong club was delusional to think he would be right to play, not so much the medical assessment by the club doctors was delusional.

Its delusional that they think a player who has had surgery and been unable to fully train for how long would maintain AFL finals required match fitness.

So lets assume they make it and he gets picked. He has not been able to train at any intensity for how long? Kick the ball at high intensity for how many weeks?

But sure, Stewart is a big name and a bloody good player........when fully fit. He'd be lucky to be at 80% match fit come the GF. So yes, delusional if Geelong think they will be getting a fit Stewart playing in the decider. When McGovern played with busted ribs in 2018 he was injured playing 7 days before the GF, not 7 weeks.

 

[HairyO]

I still feel Egan could be a late inclusion for this game.

GAJ?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Ok, I'll make it simple. Your coach doesn't have much to smile about so you have a crack at ours.

That makes even less sense.


I don't have a coach. I don't barrack for the Suns (assuming that's what you were implying by 'my coach') and I wasn't bagging Chris Scott.

 

[Percel]

No issues here. Larkins out of line by commenting. Not privy to full scope of information. Scott defending his club and employees.

Carry on.

How would you feel if it was Callum Urch commenting on Geelongs approach?

 

[PhatBoy]

Anything to remove the pressure from the actual football... and to keep him in the spotlight.



Probably. "2 to 3 weeks" seems to mean anything up to an entire season.

Keep him in the spotlight? What does that even mean?

 

[BF Tiger]

I’m torn on this one TBH.

On one hand good on Scott for going in to bat for his medical staff.

On the other, we’ll, we all know Twitter is a swamp and he was caught by swamp bait.

Thing with Scott is he appears highly emotive. It’s either all or nothing and when it’s “all” it’s like he’s Yeates lining up Brereton, in a verbal sense. He’s the AFL version of Donald Trump.

What should he have responded with? How about “that’s just one opinion, but I’ll be running with the advice of our medical staff… next question”.

 

[demondavey]

How would you feel if it was Callum Urch commenting on Geelongs approach?

I’d respect every single word he said. That’s gospel stuff that is. Full on Moses with the tablet set up.

 

[Ricketz]

That makes even less sense.


I don't have a coach. I don't barrack for the Suns (assuming that's what you were implying by 'my coach') and I wasn't bagging Chris Scott.

Well that's not my fault is it? You have a GCS jumper on your profile, might help to avoid confusion for you in future.

 

[Ricketz]

Keep him in the spotlight? What does that even mean?

I think it means Hawks fans are desperately keen to keep the focus on anything other than how their club is being run right now.

 

[Ricketz]

"and I wasn't bagging Chris Scott."

I don't know what you think the word flog means either.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Everyday media are critical of coaches tactics and team selection.

A medical expert is critical of another medical expert is not unprofessional, its just a view.

Scott seems to be always the one trying to pick a fight.

Poor take is poor.
It was a cheap shot and Doc copped his rightful whack for it.

 

[eastfreo75]

Poor take is poor.
It was a cheap shot and Doc copped his rightful whack for it.

My take is the Dr Larkin got it wrong.

That's not a cheap shot.

Why is Scott and yourself so snow flake about a comment?

 

[Norm De Guerre]

The ironing of somebody who's entire career has been in the sports entertainment dismissing the views of a medical professional as that of an entertainer is pretty special.

 

[Shadow89]

I’m torn on this one TBH.

On one hand good on Scott for going in to bat for his medical staff.

On the other, we’ll, we all know Twitter is a swamp and he was caught by swamp bait.

Thing with Scott is he appears highly emotive. It’s either all or nothing and when it’s “all” it’s like he’s Yeates lining up Brereton, in a verbal sense. He’s the AFL version of Donald Trump.

What should he have responded with? How about “that’s just one opinion, but I’ll be running with the advice of our medical staff… next question”.

To be fair, Dimma is the exact same - and has had many of his own moments like this when defending players/club decisions/stances over the past few seasons. Coaches hate nothing more than outside reps making comments on things they're not privy to.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

My take is the Dr Larkin got it wrong.

That's not a cheap shot.

Why is Scott and yourself so snow flake about a comment?

He did it twice.

Called into question Ch 7 integrity, then followed up with the medical team.

copped it back deservedly

 

[Shadow89]

I want to hear what the other 14 coaches not coaching this weekend think?

13* Carlton don't have a coach right now, still posting their want ads on Gumtree

 

[Shadow89]

My take is the Dr Larkin got it wrong.

That's not a cheap shot.

Why is Scott and yourself so snow flake about a comment?

Called our medical team 'delusional', on a social media platform - pretty sure that's the epitomization of a 'cheap shot'