Collingwood FC needs your input

[bradrowe#32]

This year was always going to be a transition period and it didn't matter who the coach was, it was destiny with retirement of these players.

It will take another two to three years for Scharenberg, Freeman, Broomhead, Kennedy, Grundy etc to get games. We still have top talent, I just hope they aren't too old by the time the younger generation comes through.

 

[invinciBlues]

I didn't realise that there was a tried and true formula for a proper apprenticeship. Please send said formula to Carlton management as they seem to have struggled with their coaches recently. Whilst you are at it you might wish to point out to them that MM is struggling in the 'handling the media' aspect of senior coaching.

I also don't see a huge difference between Longmire & Buckley in their apprenticeships. Both did one at the club they are now senior coach of.

Longmire served under Eade and Roos for several years before getting the nod. Buckley was told he'd be head coach regardless of performance in 2 years time.

I'd say there's a fair bit of difference between them. A better comparison would be to Voss.

 

[Gone Critical]

Of the list I quoted? Your core players didnt really change much in 2012 except for the Neon and Brown departures. Internally your club expected a flag, the media expected a flag, you can say "oh but they're getting all old, but that doesnt change the fact you put an inexperienced coach at the helm expected him to deliver and now you have to rebuild because of it.

There was pressure on Buckley and he made sure the s**t rolled downhill to your players and caused more than a few of your core group to leave because of it. It would also explain why you under performed in 2012.

But you can keep on rewriting history if you want rather than facing facts.

If you want to do a fair critique of 2012 I think you would say Bucks did a fair job in that year. Brown and Leon departed.Tarrant also missed a lot of games, that was important because by the Adelaide match mid season our only fit KPB was Keefe who had played less than 10 games and he did an ACL in that game. Nathan Brown missed the 1st part of the season coming back from a knee reco. The pre season was interrupted by injuries to the extent we had 4 debutants playing against the Hawks in round 1. Bucks got the team up and going after a few rounds and early in the 2nd half of the season we had won 10 on end and were equal flag favs.

However the cumulative injury toll with 4 knee recos on top of Nathan Brown returning from one, Krakouer, Luke Ball, MacCaffer and Lachie Keefe caught up with us. In addition Didak (11 games played) and Ben Johnson (8 games played) missed most of the season. As well Dale Thomas and Nick Maxwell, although they played most games, played injured and were much less effective than they had been. We made a PF and in that week the playing group also dealt with the tragic death of John MaCarthy.

When all that is considered we finished one win away from our 2011 position and in 2011 we only just made it through our PF. Buckley contended with a lot that year including the ongoing war between Eddie and Mick which people were trying to drag him into. 2012 I think he did a good job

 

[MaddAdam]

Could be it. What's up with Swan? Injury? Tatt fatigue? Or just tired of the whole BS of being an AFL star?

It would help if the president didn't get involved in the footy department, but who's going to tell him?

Exactly, I don't they know exactly who is control - is it Eddie? Or is it FIGJAM? The players have certainly tried to throw some weight around.

 

[PieBeast]

Its never Buckley's fault is it?



Yeah but, Eddie said Buckley was expected to deliver the 2012 flag. Eddie might be a campaigner, but he knows how to play the media and wouldnt direct undue external pressure if there wasnt already internal expectations. Why would Bucks need to do any preparation at all? Just walk in son, this team coaches itself?

My theory is that Bucks couldnt handle it well and took it out on the players and which caused the exodus at the end of 2012.

Like you I find the feeble attempts to rewrite history by suggesting great things weren't expected in the first few years of Bucks' reign and rebuild was always on the cards laughable but in 2012 we actually had a swag of genuine excuses and did well under the circumstances.
But there's no doubt that the aftermath of the 2012 deserves scorn or a close scrutiny at the very least.
Our Club wasn't a happy place to be in 2013 and while they've tried to address the situation and give the players more voice and latitude this season there's probably no one left to speak up or lift the spirits of the side now.

 

[Damon_3388]

Its never Buckley's fault is it?

Why does it have to be solely Buckley's fault? Why are people so intent in heaping blame on him?

Yeah but, Eddie said Buckley was expected to deliver the 2012 flag. Eddie might be a campaigner, but he knows how to play the media and wouldnt direct undue external pressure if there wasnt already internal expectations. Why would Bucks need to do any preparation at all? Just walk in son, this team coaches itself?

I wouldn't have expected Eddie to have said anything else TBH. I doubt Buckley would have deemed it "undue pressure" either. Most other club presidents aren't as outspoken as Eddie, but in the same situation, I can't imagine any of the others saying anything different either.

My theory is that Bucks couldnt handle it well and took it out on the players and which caused the exodus at the end of 2012.

"Exodus"?

Chris Dawes, Sharrod Wellingham and Tom Young traded, for draft picks that would net us Brodie Grundy and Tim Broomhead, among others. None of them were exactly setting the world on fire during 2012 (Dawes in particular was in horrid form). Would any of them make the current side better?

Simon Buckley, Jonathon Ceglar, Paul Cribbin, Daniel Farmer, Shae McNamara, Luke Rounds, Lachlan Smith, Trent Stubbs, Kirk Ugle and Cameron Wood de-listed. Only real loss there would be Ceglar (thought he deserved another year at the time), and maybe Ugle (thought he had some upside), but nobody could have forseen Ceglar becoming the handy ruckman he has so quickly. Apart from Cam Wood, none of the others have made it back to an AFL list since.

Chris Tarrant retired, at age 32, after 15 seasons. His time had simply come to an end.

Please...

 

[biggiemediums]

I think that's it TBH.

Its top end talent is outstanding - Pendlebury, Beams, Cloke for a start.

Swan is definitely struggling. I'm not sure if it's an extended form slump or if he's reached 'that' point.

Harry O is done as a top flight footballer I think. Luke Ball seems to be on the other side of the hill.

The problem is guys like Frost, Seedsman, Blair etc - it's next tier of players just aren't very good.

What a joke. Agree with everything you've said except the two bolded. Two of the greenest guys on the list. Frost has held some very good defenders to 0-1 goals in his first season, will be a solid defender and Seedsman will genuinely be a gun running of the HB. Stupid call with those two.

 

[Jade]

What a joke. Agree with everything you've said except the two bolded. Two of the greenest guys on the list. Frost has held some very good defenders to 0-1 goals in his first season, will be a solid defender and Seedsman will genuinely be a gun running of the HB. Stupid call with those two.

Welcome to check the robust arguments I've had on Frost.

Long story short, he's bog average - nay, less than average.

 

[biggiemediums]

Welcome to check the robust arguments I've had on Frost.

Long story short, he's bog average - nay, less than average.

At the end of the day I've watched him in person many times and like how he's tracking, so your arguments are moot because they won't convince me against what my own eyes have seen. What's your query with Seedsman?

 

[Power Raid]

roos would be a good choice

 

[Monkey King]

We didn't create the succession plan at the end of 2011 but in 2009 so the decision to bring a new coach wasn't linked to the fact we made a GF. It is also one of the reasons that made us win the 2010 flag. So Eddie's plan actually worked to some extent.

This is a major delusion Pies fans need to move on from. Correlation is not causation. Malthouse didn't suddenly try harder because a succession plan was put in place. This is just some mental fail safe that some Pies supporters use to avoid having to face the fact that Eddie may have made a blue.

... the reality is Malthouse's game plan at Collingwood was found out and not working at the end of 2011.

And yet with one quarter remaining for the season, you were balls deep in with a shot at the flag. It wasn't the gameplan that failed you. Geelong players stood up a level and Pies players didn't.

One thing for sure, is you hope the inner sanctum at the Pies don't deluded themselves with this crap. Buckley inherited a list that was dominating the comp. There should be no excuse making. That said, he's got to be allowed to realise the vision he's set for his team and at this point there's no quick fixes. He's got a good man in Hine to keep delivering quality players to the club and it's a process Pies supporters are just going to have to patient with until the pendulum starts to swing the other way again.

 

[SpongePie]

This is a major delusion Pies fans need to move on from. Correlation is not causation. Malthouse didn't suddenly try harder because a succession plan was put in place. This is just some mental fail safe that some Pies supporters use to avoid having to face the fact that Eddie may have made a blue.

I think Gary Pert came out and said that the premiership may not have happened if they didn't light the rocket under Mick. The theory goes that he saw the need to start dropping some of the old favourites. Maybe you are right, I dont know.

 

[Fadge]

I think Gary Pert came out and said that the premiership may not have happened if they didn't light the rocket under Mick. The theory goes that he saw the need to start dropping some of the old favourites. Maybe you are right, I dont know.

Saw that comment from Pert as well. Would probably take his assessment of the situation from within the inner sanctum than Monkey King's from afar.

But maybe that's just me...

 

[Vankri]

This is a major delusion Pies fans need to move on from. Correlation is not causation. Malthouse didn't suddenly try harder because a succession plan was put in place. This is just some mental fail safe that some Pies supporters use to avoid having to face the fact that Eddie may have made a blue.



And yet with one quarter remaining for the season, you were balls deep in with a shot at the flag. It wasn't the gameplan that failed you. Geelong players stood up a level and Pies players didn't.

One thing for sure, is you hope the inner sanctum at the Pies don't deluded themselves with this crap. Buckley inherited a list that was dominating the comp. There should be no excuse making. That said, he's got to be allowed to realise the vision he's set for his team and at this point there's no quick fixes. He's got a good man in Hine to keep delivering quality players to the club and it's a process Pies supporters are just going to have to patient with until the pendulum starts to swing the other way again.

You are wrong, on both account, and grossly misrepresenting what I am trying to say. Strawman argument.

Who said Malthouse "suddenly tried harder"? It's a change of timeframe. Developing a list is a long-term outlook, it influences how much experience you put into youngsters in a particular season, how pressed you are to fill the gaps in the list and how you adapt your game plan to the players you have. In this instance, the succession plan put an end date to Malthouse's tenure as a head coach. The following pre-season saw us go for mature age recruits Ball and Jolly. Jolly would have been the most surprising to Pies fans as they had been calling for the recruitment of a ruck man for years.

You really sound like you want your story to be true on this, but just as it can't be said that the success plan is the reason we won the 2010 flag, ti can't be said either that it didn't play a role in how the club dealt with the following years. Good and bad included.

Secondly, you are just like your fellow Blues supporter in this thread in that you don't understand how close things are in the latter stages. Making a prelim, losing to the eventual premiers in their home turf is NOT a bad result, even for a premiership list. Especially when you consider the list was heavily hit by injuries.
Making back-to-back-to-back grand finals is extremely difficult and odds are against us on this. The difference between a prelim and GF is at the same time huge in terms of getting everything right, and minimal in that you were 2 games away and a bit of luck could have gone your way.

However odds put aside, you need to look at how we played and how teams beat us to understand why we have changed the way we play since 2012. We did not play well in the last rounds of 2011 and I'm not post-rationalising as I thought this at the time. We were hammered by Geelong in Rd 23, a game which we wrongly approached as a useless dead rubber. And we did not play well against West Coast, Hawthorn and Geelong.

I am not trying to score anything against your current head coach. I don't know what was said behind doors in 2011, but I said at the time we should have told Malthrouse that if we were to win the GF, he should get another year, and Buckley should have agreed. If they didn't offer this, they made a mistake.

 

[Falchoon]

Saw that comment from Pert as well. Would probably take his assessment of the situation from within the inner sanctum than Monkey King's from afar.

But maybe that's just me...

I don't know, logically it doesn't make sense. If it's his last shot he'd be more inclined to go with the known rather than develop the unknown.

But maybe that's just me...

 

[Sector 7G]

If you want to do a fair critique of 2012 I think you would say Bucks did a fair job in that year. Brown and Leon departed.Tarrant also missed a lot of games, that was important because by the Adelaide match mid season our only fit KPB was Keefe who had played less than 10 games and he did an ACL in that game. Nathan Brown missed the 1st part of the season coming back from a knee reco. The pre season was interrupted by injuries to the extent we had 4 debutants playing against the Hawks in round 1. Bucks got the team up and going after a few rounds and early in the 2nd half of the season we had won 10 on end and were equal flag favs.

However the cumulative injury toll with 4 knee recos on top of Nathan Brown returning from one, Krakouer, Luke Ball, MacCaffer and Lachie Keefe caught up with us. In addition Didak (11 games played) and Ben Johnson (8 games played) missed most of the season. As well Dale Thomas and Nick Maxwell, although they played most games, played injured and were much less effective than they had been. We made a PF and in that week the playing group also dealt with the tragic death of John MaCarthy.

When all that is considered we finished one win away from our 2011 position and in 2011 we only just made it through our PF. Buckley contended with a lot that year including the ongoing war between Eddie and Mick which people were trying to drag him into. 2012 I think he did a good job

Davis didn't just leave. Had a great 2011 and was offered less money to stay. His presence was badly missed in 2012 (though I think we were all glad Taylor had one less thing to crap on about). That was poor list management.

 

[burningdwarf]

I've been critical of the likes of Witts, Kennedy and Adams, but having seen them more of them throughout the year they've been quite impressive.

When you consider that the young stars Scharenberg and Freemen haven't been seen through injury, and the injuries to key players throughout the year, I think Collingwood have done well to be in the top 8 at this stage.

I don't think too many were thinking they would be serious contenders, with this being seen as a rebuilding year, getting several high quality young players in. No doubt that injuries have taken a toll, but there's been more than enough there to be positive about the coming years. I think Collingwood will be fine.

 

[carnthedons]

I've got input. For years Collingwood wore a predominantly white jumper which clashed less with the predominantly dark jumpers of many other clubs (Carlton, Essendon etc). Go back to that one.

 

[RuFiO]

Should've posted this on our board.
Everything is fine and dandy to most there.

 

[MarkT2]

I don't know, logically it doesn't make sense. If it's his last shot he'd be more inclined to go with the known rather than develop the unknown.

But maybe that's just me...

One known was that Fraser wasn't going to ruck Collingwood to a premiership. Hell even a mug punter like me had been saying it for 5 years. Another know was that post Burns Collingwood lacked a good clearance mid. Jolly and Ball were known quanties and filled the two biggest holes in the list. Those holes didn't suddenly appear. what did suddenly appear was a finite timeframe. Rather than draft or recruit a developing ruck and mid, for the first time in a decade, proven players with limited remaining career spans were targetted and landed.

 

[MarkT2]

I've got input. For years Collingwood wore a predominantly white jumper which clashed less with the predominantly dark jumpers of many other clubs (Carlton, Essendon etc). Go back to that one.

That isn't predominanly white or black. It is black and white stripes with a white background number sewn on the back. I'd love to go back to that for every game. The black colar is just a bonus.

 

[carnthedons]

That isn't predominanly white or black. It is black and white stripes with a white background number sewn on the back. I'd love to go back to that for every game. The black colar is just a bonus.

Agreeds but the white on the back with black numbers and white to the sides of the jumpers is much better, less clashing and the CFC traditional jumper IMO

 

[Monkey King]

You are wrong, on both account ... In this instance, the succession plan put an end date to Malthouse's tenure as a head coach. The following pre-season saw us go for mature age recruits Ball and Jolly. Jolly would have been the most surprising to Pies fans as they had been calling for the recruitment of a ruck man for years.

Not sure why it's surprising. It was business as usual for Malthouse, who recruited mature players to the Pies throughout his tenure and only a couple of years earlier, spent a first round draft pick on a ruckman who didn't work out. These trades were pretty standard fare, so I'm always bemused when Pies posters point to this as some massive succession plan inspired deviation. The only difference is that Ball and Jolly worked out really well compared to some other trades; but again that has nothing to do with a succession plan and correlation is not causation. Mick and Hine would have done those trades under those terms any old season. A premiership ruckman, who was prepared to nominate your club, for a late first rounder; Ball taken with a 30's pick; had Malthouse's MO written all over it.

... I said at the time we should have told Malthrouse that if we were to win the GF, he should get another year, and Buckley should have agreed. If they didn't offer this, they made a mistake.

And I said at the time that the call should have been made during the home and away season when your team was dominating the comp. Pushing ahead with major changes at that point was a mistake. Not sure if it was arrogance, stubbornness or whatever. I was flabbergasted at the time, but pleased because I thought it only a matter of time before you joined the Dons and us on 16 flags. Of course most Pies posters shouted me down back then, saying they were being modern and sustaining success, but give it a few years and threads like these start popping up. I just hope Buckley is given a fair run.

 

[Monkey King]

I think Gary Pert came out and said that the premiership may not have happened if they didn't light the rocket under Mick. The theory goes that he saw the need to start dropping some of the old favourites. Maybe you are right, I dont know.

Honestly, if Pert made that assessment, I'd say it's not a good sign for the club that they indulge in this fail-safe examination of the succession plan.

 

[MarkT2]

Honestly, if Pert made that assessment, I'd say it's not a good sign for the club that they indulge in this fail-safe examination of the succession plan.

The succession achieved a result. I have always said that. To anyone who watches Collingwood closely the differences in decision making and urgency were clear. In any event that is a past decision without and reversal option. The current coaching decision is a completely different analysis with only forward looking assesment criteria. Pert's job now is to ensure the right people are in place to make the coching calls. He doesn't make them himself. His view of the drivers for a previous premiership are of value because he was there but they are of no consequence for Buckley's contract now.