No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

Remove this Banner Ad



Good goals, and Harley will surely win (particularly with Daicos splitting votes), but this just seems like a fairly bland selection given we've seen some other rippers this year.

Seriously how does Daikos 1st goal get included in the final 3, these type of goals happen weekly. Will Days goal against Port was far better.

Reids & Daikos other goals are quality.
 


Good goals, and Harley will surely win (particularly with Daicos splitting votes), but this just seems like a fairly bland selection given we've seen some other rippers this year.


None of these goals are anywhere close to being as good as Weddle's against Carlton.
 
Is Chris Scott about to retire? What’s up with the last two weeks of articles and media segments pushing him as the greatest living coach? I just saw a Nick Riewoldt article naming him the coach of the century, clearly better than Matthews, Clarkson and Hardwick. Is Scott sick or something?

Genuinely, what’s going on? Someone sent out a memo.

1725496856302.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Genuinely, what’s going on? Someone sent out a memo.

View attachment 2100970

I like Kaneo - but I don't think you could 'easily' make the case just because of a third flag. He and their list management folk have done a good job at treading water for a long period of time without having to do a hard rebuild - absolutely. But if you can lure 'home' players like Dangerfield and Cameron then it makes that battle a lot bloody easier.

If Chris Scott gets another flag then becomes the inaugural coach of the Devils and can have them playing finals footy inside 3-4 years then let's start the GOAT talks. At present he sits on two flags and one of them was basically him inheriting a top tier side. When you consider the amount of top 4 finishes he's had for only 1 flag since that time then it doesn't make it 'easy' to call him the greatest.
 
I am not accusing you of trivialising head injuries by the way - just more defending why Tassie might be a bit defensive and possible hyperbolic on comparisons between head trauma and joint issues.

The argument of my original post, which I have enjoyed watching get missed as we once again devolve into the same old tired CTE bad discussion, was that the zero-risk mindset adopted to any unknown outcome (which CTE is, hence the still ongoing long term studies) means that even hip injuries must be prevented as their long term consequence is also unknown and potentially debilitating and expensive to address. There is no limiting principle to zero-risk short of zero. No one denies that head trauma is serious. Some people wish to argue, however, that despite being serious it’s an acceptable risk for an individual to assume. We adopt that standard for other long term, debilitating injury. We should adopt it for CTE as well.
 
The argument of my original post, which I have enjoyed watching get missed as we once again devolve into the same old tired CTE bad discussion, was that the zero-risk mindset adopted to any unknown outcome (which CTE is, hence the still ongoing long term studies) means that even hip injuries must be prevented as their long term consequence is also unknown and potentially debilitating and expensive to address. There is no limiting principle to zero-risk short of zero. No one denies that head trauma is serious. Some people wish to argue, however, that despite being serious it’s an acceptable risk for an individual to assume. We adopt that standard for other long term, debilitating injury. We should adopt it for CTE as well.

Then we should adopt it for recreational drug use too - which I know you absolutely won't agree to. So your absolute false equivalency between joint injuries and head trauma is some pretty absurd hypocrisy.
 
Then we should adopt it for recreational drug use too - which I know you absolutely won't agree to. So your absolute false equivalency between joint injuries and head trauma is some pretty absurd hypocrisy.

Wait. Because I disapprove of drug use I must also accept zero risk for any potential injury while playing AFL? Apparently, if someone doesn’t support unrestricted drug consumption then they can have no pro-liberty principles at all. I did not know that.
 
Wait. Because I disapprove of drug use I must also accept zero risk for any potential injury while playing AFL? Apparently, if someone doesn’t support unrestricted drug consumption then they can have no pro-liberty principles at all. I did not know that.

Well yeah I thought while we are playing the logical fallacy game why not bring a strawman argument into it. It is blatant hypocrisy though. Which is fine - we are all guilty of hypocrisy. But if you are saying the risks of CTE are an acceptable consequence of playing a contact sport then the mental and physical risks of players indulging in recreational drugs are just as acceptable. This is the fun game of 'I am pro-liberty!' eventually you will come to a point where you want to ban or restrict something so it's just patently dishonest to claim you are all for liberty 100% of the time with zero restrictions.
 
I like Kaneo - but I don't think you could 'easily' make the case just because of a third flag. He and their list management folk have done a good job at treading water for a long period of time without having to do a hard rebuild - absolutely. But if you can lure 'home' players like Dangerfield and Cameron then it makes that battle a lot bloody easier.

If Chris Scott gets another flag then becomes the inaugural coach of the Devils and can have them playing finals footy inside 3-4 years then let's start the GOAT talks. At present he sits on two flags and one of them was basically him inheriting a top tier side. When you consider the amount of top 4 finishes he's had for only 1 flag since that time then it doesn't make it 'easy' to call him the greatest.
Not even top 5
 
Not even top 5

I hate saying this, but in fairness to the glum campaigner he would be easily (to use Kane's term) top 5 I feel if he got another flag. It would be hard to ignore someone's achievements if they had a career winning percentage in the high 60% range and 3 flags under their belt. However, all time coaches have moved clubs, had to rebuild lists and cultures etc. Scott has walked into a well oiled machine and kept it ticking over. Not diminishing what he's achieved - a 68% winning percentage is absurdly good. However I think to even come close to being the all time greatest he'd have to show he could do it all over again by either doing a hard rebuild with Geelong in the post-Dangerfield and Cameron world or by working wonders with a completely crap list (i.e. a Richmond present day type of debacle) or with the new Tassie side.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I like Kaneo - but I don't think you could 'easily' make the case just because of a third flag. He and their list management folk have done a good job at treading water for a long period of time without having to do a hard rebuild - absolutely. But if you can lure 'home' players like Dangerfield and Cameron then it makes that battle a lot bloody easier.

If Chris Scott gets another flag then becomes the inaugural coach of the Devils and can have them playing finals footy inside 3-4 years then let's start the GOAT talks. At present he sits on two flags and one of them was basically him inheriting a top tier side. When you consider the amount of top 4 finishes he's had for only 1 flag since that time then it doesn't make it 'easy' to call him the greatest.
Let's see him take a young side from the bottom of the ladder before we can even start to think about these sort of silly labels.

He was handed one of the greatest lists of all time, and they've managed to the avoid the dip since then by good coaching, but also great list management, and some geographical and financial advantages.

Recency bias in footy commentary is silly.
 
Let's see him take a young side from the bottom of the ladder before we can even start to think about these sort of silly labels.

He was handed one of the greatest lists of all time, and they've managed to the avoid the dip since then by good coaching, but also great list management, and some geographical and financial advantages.

Recency bias in footy commentary is silly.

Yup, agreed. If he can keep his win percentage above 60% taking over a bottom side/Tassie then he can enter the GOAT conversation.
 
My thoughts on Chris Scott are that he
inherited a very good side, has had a great run
specifically in deals with minnow clubs like the Gold Coast
so when the league signs off on Geelong getting free
impending players AND draft picks for nothing
on the proviso that Geelong simply prosper as payment
no-one even questions this.

As far as I can tell, he's been given a free ride
coming into a club on the back of Mark Thompson
compromising training with chemicals known
only to very few within the inner sanctum of that
miserable club. The sudden growth of muscle
probably indicates something untoward took place
likely as a result of Thompson and Dank being
in the same place. Lightning rarely strikes twice,
so how did this happen?
How the hell did two key motivators in the
Essendon drug saga start at Geelong, together move
down to Essendon and no one investigates the growth?

Please only read the first letters of each line. (except this one)
 
I like Kaneo - but I don't think you could 'easily' make the case just because of a third flag. He and their list management folk have done a good job at treading water for a long period of time without having to do a hard rebuild - absolutely. But if you can lure 'home' players like Dangerfield and Cameron then it makes that battle a lot bloody easier.

If Chris Scott gets another flag then becomes the inaugural coach of the Devils and can have them playing finals footy inside 3-4 years then let's start the GOAT talks. At present he sits on two flags and one of them was basically him inheriting a top tier side. When you consider the amount of top 4 finishes he's had for only 1 flag since that time then it doesn't make it 'easy' to call him the greatest.
His record if you exclude the first year taking over a 2 time flag side in auto pilot. His record is 1 flag better than hinkley.

And Hinkley can at least hang his hat on bringing port adelaide back from their darkest period in the clubs history.

In recent times, Hardwick and Clarkson ahead of him. Then back further you have Lethal and even Roos but I rank coaches higher knowing what they started with so Paul Roos lifting sydney up and then turning Melbourne around and heading in the right direction.

Clarkson build Hawthorn from trash to flag in 4 years and then lost heaps of players and built again. His 3rd build at Hawthorn failed and he only just started a 4th when replaced by Mitchell.

If Clarkson gets North a flag he's the undisputed GOAT....for now.
 
My thoughts on Chris Scott are that he
inherited a very good side, has had a great run
specifically in deals with minnow clubs like the Gold Coast
so when the league signs off on Geelong getting free
impending players AND draft picks for nothing
on the proviso that Geelong simply prosper as payment
no-one even questions this.

As far as I can tell, he's been given a free ride
coming into a club on the back of Mark Thompson
compromising training with chemicals known
only to very few within the inner sanctum of that
miserable club. The sudden growth of muscle
probably indicates something untoward took place
likely as a result of Thompson and Dank being
in the same place. Lightning rarely strikes twice,
so how did this happen?
How the hell did two key motivators in the
Essendon drug saga start at Geelong, together move
down to Essendon and no one investigates the growth?

Please only read the first letters of each line. (except this one)
This is an all time goat post 😂
 
The argument of my original post, which I have enjoyed watching get missed as we once again devolve into the same old tired CTE bad discussion, was that the zero-risk mindset adopted to any unknown outcome (which CTE is, hence the still ongoing long term studies) means that even hip injuries must be prevented as their long term consequence is also unknown and potentially debilitating and expensive to address. There is no limiting principle to zero-risk short of zero. No one denies that head trauma is serious. Some people wish to argue, however, that despite being serious it’s an acceptable risk for an individual to assume. We adopt that standard for other long term, debilitating injury. We should adopt it for CTE as well.
The cost and benefits of running all belong to the individual. The risks all belong to the individual for professional sports people however the benefits do not all flow in full to them. The clubs, administrators, coaches and sponsors of the sport may all stand to benefit much more from the risk the players are taking than the players themselves. The incentives dont align with the risk, especially with insurers now discontinuing cover for concussion related injuries. I think that is a clear principle by which we can assess these sorts of health risks.
 
Chris Scott’s record overall in finals is pretty poor.
Never understood the hype given he has been gifted numerous top 5 players via free agency , father sons, generous trading deals from Gold Coast and GWS and big home ground advantage .
 
Seriously how does Daikos 1st goal get included in the final 3, these type of goals happen weekly. Will Days goal against Port was far better.

Reids & Daikos other goals are quality.
Day's goal against Port, Weddle from up against the boundary x 2.

At least the Mark of the Year has better contenders, though Bobby Hill's is the best by a mile. That sit and stay was absolutely perfect, slight rotation, and to land on the feet. Phwoar.

 
His record if you exclude the first year taking over a 2 time flag side in auto pilot. His record is 1 flag better than hinkley.

And Hinkley can at least hang his hat on bringing port adelaide back from their darkest period in the clubs history.

In recent times, Hardwick and Clarkson ahead of him. Then back further you have Lethal and even Roos but I rank coaches higher knowing what they started with so Paul Roos lifting sydney up and then turning Melbourne around and heading in the right direction.

Clarkson build Hawthorn from trash to flag in 4 years and then lost heaps of players and built again. His 3rd build at Hawthorn failed and he only just started a 4th when replaced by Mitchell.

If Clarkson gets North a flag he's the undisputed GOAT....for now.
Its hard to take this talk seriously when right now it isnt even clear he is the best coach of his club this century, let alone the league.
 
McQualter bringing Baker and Graham to WCE feels like a very smart decision on his part.
Baker has at least 3 years of quality footy ahead, and Graham is an experienced, very successful campaigner who will help the young list grow!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top