TBR, look I know this is your schtick, fair enough we need all types, but its the "clearly" part that gets me. Objectively, it is not clear, objectively. You can have an opinion that he's the best, and fair enough, and premise it with "arguably" and cite some facts to back it up, H&A W/L being the obvious one, consistent finals the other, but "clearly" is just taking the *smile*. Ludicrous in fact.
I feel like you missed the third word of my post. It's my opinion.
I watch a lot of footy, I feel like I understand the game very well and am well-educated on how AFL is played at the highest level.
Based on that, my opinion is that from the time the ball is bounced until the final siren goes, Chris Scott is clearly the best coach in the competition. By clearly I mean he is well ahead of the coaches who are on the next tier. There's no scoreboard for that so other people will have different opinions.
What rot. How many flags does Scott have if he doesn't inherit most of Thompson's dual premiership team? No matter what you think AFL football is all about premierships. If Scott wins three he will be lauded as one of the best. Until that happens he can win every home and away game and it won't matter.
So your contention is the list of best ever AFL coaches is the same as the list of premiership winners? For example Malcolm Blight is a better coach than Paul Roos or John Longmire? John Worsfold is better than Ross Lyon and so on?
Richmond sides over recent years are renowned for coming from behind but Hardwick's match day coaching is supposedly a weakness.
Here's what I think about Hardwick. Mick Malthouse is a three time premiership coach but he isn't a great match day coach. What Malthouse was exceptional at was working out a way to play that would be successful, educate his players on how to do it and then create a relationship with his players so they would fanatically execute that method without deviation.
On match day his work is essentially done. His plan either works or it doesn't and essentially his coaching when it doesn't is to switch personnel through the same roles and to attempt to draw a greater focus and application out of his players to execute the plan.
To me Hardwick is a very similar coach. He has a unique method that is brilliantly devised and has a relationship with his side where they fanatically execute his method. Again when the chips are down he will tweak personnel within the method and attempt to generate more effort. The wins you talk about to me are a result of the method being executed emphatically until it simply breaks down the opposition.
Both those men are brilliant coaches but to me they are most brilliant for the 165 other hours in the week and less brilliant for the three hours of game time.
Coaches like Chris Scott or Kevin Sheedy operate with a different methodology. They have a fundamental method but are not fanatical about it and put emphasis on manipulating the game during the game via variation in playing style. They attempt to take the opposition strengths away and attempt to progress their chances with a variety of tactics and moves during the game. Scott does that exceptionally well in my eyes and hence I rate him highly in the time from bounce to final siren.
