Collingwood's decline

[Hamingja]

Yes. Actually. The departures of Dawes & Wellingham amongst the list of others, was declared by all and sundry as Buckley making the list his. Isn't that what was being championed during last off season & early this year. 'this is finally buckley's list, now lets see what he can do' was the attitude of nearly everyone. Dawes & Wellingham amongst the others were the beginning of this transition.

I said you had an opportunity to create a dynasty like Geelong. Geelong didn't turn their list over as severely as you each year. Overall their numbers look similar, but year to year I doubt it. When did Geelong trade out 2 premiership players in the prime age bracket for draft picks in one year? Geelong did it better than Collingwood (as you said) because their's wasn't a complete overhaul in the space of 2 off-seasons.

The difference between Geelong and Collingwood's list turnover post premiership is that basically all Geelong's changes were forced as they had a much older squad than Collingwood and they have shed players through retirement (plus GC start up concessions) rather then churning players in their prime to other clubs. I can only think of two premiership players under 30 that have left Geelong with the clubs blessing, Shannon Byrnes and Trent West, and both had lost their spot in the best 22 and had been playing mostly VFL in the season before they left the club.

 

[etsal1]

The difference between Geelong and Collingwood's list turnover post premiership is that basically all Geelong's changes were forced as they had a much older squad than Collingwood and they have shed players through retirement (plus GC start up concessions) rather then churning players in their prime to other clubs. I can only think of two premiership players under 30 that have left Geelong with the clubs blessing, Shannon Byrnes and Trent West, and both had lost their spot in the best 22 and had been playing mostly VFL in the season before they left the club.

Highlighting my point - Geelong didn't set out to voluntarily overhaul their list. They were more forced changes.

Collingwood made the decision to actively overhaul with changes that weren't all forced. I'm not arguing the success of the changes, more so the decision to make the changes.

 

[gbatman]

For what it is worth I agree the jury is out on Buckleys coaching. Still he has had a start where all 3 seasons he has coached have been interrupted by a significant injury list. 2014 may not have been that bad in that regard but it has still been a problem. It is not the whole answer but using hindsight I dont think Mick M would have snagged a flag either with those injury lists.

It's disappointing to drop away so quickly after 2010-11.

I'm noticing a lot of similarities coming from Collingwood supporters and their current situation than what we did with Ratten.

Ratten had a list that he over rated and topped up with older players while sacrificing draft picks and youth and all the while performed poorly at the trade table. It was a list that did well had some good promising seasons but had no depth and over achieved in 2011. The list really lacked talls and we played a lot players in positions that they were too small to play. Ratten was a good coach but a poor judge of players abilities and future quality and a poor judge of the quality needed to be a genuine top 4 side. In 2012 we did poorly after expecting much better and he was sacked. All the Carlton people blamed injuries that season. Looking back our injuries have been no worse than Hawthorn's this season (had a poor run and still won games) and Collingwood's injuries of that same year (Collingwood finished 4th and Carlton 10th). As it turns out our list was just no good and was made worse by the coache's decisions and misconceptions of our players and the list as a whole. Since then our list has deteriorated further and we are where we are today. It's very easy to blame injuries, everyone having a poor season has injuries and notices them, the top sides have injuries but they never come up, the Swans also have had good players out all year.

Michael Voss was smiliar as a coach. Probably not a bad coach but his list management was horrendous. Lost some very good young players. Traded in some pretty ordinary ones. Another coach who had the wrong idea of the potential of a lot of his players and his list wrong.

I look at Collingwood at the moment and a few injuries really hurt them. They are lacking talls. They have topped up with older players who aren't really much good. I'm not sure if they have been overly active at trade time or overly successful recently. Ratten and Voss had a habit of resigning players who were never going to be overly good but had trade value, is Buckly doing this? These are the things you need to watch out for. Our de-listings were at a minimum under Ratten this is a warning sign IMO.

Thing is you can't tell if a guy is any good until he has had the opportunity to trade and make cuts to a list over a good number of seasons.

The top sides they can tell if a kid will be a gun after a couple of years and they move them on if they aren't. Many clubs will give them draft picks for them and they let them go that way. They turn over a lot of players because their judgement is spot on.

With us Malthouse has had a pretty big cleanout and will likely again because he quickly knows who will and wont turn out. He's a completly different list manager to Ratten. He's let go players thet you think may not have been the right call and then you look at how they are doing at state level or where ever they go and they aren't doing a whole lot.

I think Buckley needs more time but I would be concerned that perhaps he's another Voss or Ratten and he may lack the skill of judgement that separates the poor coaches from the greats. The list will be the tell tale sign.

I think you'd be pretty confident in your recruiters who have done a good job for many years.

 

[10571z]

Replace the 10 kids who played on Saturday with under 50 games with..

Jolly, Didak, Shaw, Thomas, Wellingham, Dawes, Krakouer, Leigh Brown, Maxwell, Davis, Johnson

In there 2010/11 form i dare say we would have had a fair few different results this year. Sure we picked up some dead weight along the way (jordan russell, Lynch, Clarke) which could be the clubs fault but we are starting to develop a few good youngsters and have a few top 10 picks to not even debut.

Fingers crossed we have a good new batch coming through when Sidebottom, reid, beams, pendles ect are still around.

 

[Black Flag]

I think Buckley needs more time but I would be concerned that perhaps he's another Voss or Ratten and he may lack the skill of judgement that separates the poor coaches from the greats.

ratten took carlton up the ladder. bit harsh comparing him to buckley who has taken them the other direction.

buckley wishes he was another ratten.

 

[Geoff Heywood]

Will be interesting to see if Coll supporters turn on Buckley.

In our case, Worsfold did a proper apprenticeship at Carlton under David Parkin and with Ross Lyon.

On the whole though, appointing club favourite sons is fraught with danger. Buckley like Hird and Voss did no proper apprenticeship. Voss decimated Brisbane and Hird will soon bring down Essendon entirely when ASADA issue infraction notices.

Malthouse had to go and his lack of results and poor public perception at Carlton vindicate that. But I feel it won't be long until Coll supporters turn on Buckley. He is a very poor match day coach.

 

[etsal1]

Will be interesting to see if Coll supporters turn on Buckley.

In our case, Worsfold did a proper apprenticeship at Carlton under David Parkin and with Ross Lyon.

On the whole though, appointing club favourite sons is fraught with danger. Buckley like Hird and Voss did no proper apprenticeship. Voss decimated Brisbane and Hird will soon bring down Essendon entirely when ASADA issue infraction notices.

Malthouse had to go and his lack of results and poor public perception at Carlton vindicate that. But I feel it won't be long until Coll supporters turn on Buckley. He is a very poor match day coach.

Malthouse's lack of results at Carlton are predominantly due to Ratten's mistakes. Which strengthens your argument coincidentally.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Voss decimated Brisbane

He really didn't.

It's become readily apparent to anyone (who looks beyond the shallow media narrative) that Voss was doing very, very well at a club absolutely bereft of resources and off-field leadership.

 

[Lana]

I don't think Collingwood has been any slower in turning over its list than Geelong.

Collingwood notable changes by year

2010
Shane O'Bree
Paul Medhurst
Tarkyn Lockyer
Simon Prestigiacomo
Josh Fraser
Jack Anthony

2011
Leon Davis
Leigh Brown
John McCarthy

2012
Chris Tarrant
Sharrod Wellingham
Chris Dawes
Cameron Wood

2013
Ben Johnson
Darren Jolly
Alan Didak
Andrew Krakouer
Dale Thomas
Heath Shaw
Jordan Russell

Compared to Geelong

2010
Ablett
Rooke
Laidler

2011
Ottens
Ling
Milburn
Mooney
Blake

2012
Scarlett
Wojcinski
Byrnes

2013
Chapman
Podsiadly
Corey
Hunt

 

[Geoff Heywood]

Malthouse's lack of results at Carlton are predominantly due to Ratten's mistakes. Which strengthens your argument coincidentally.

Ratten was a coach at Melbourne I believe. Could have been a midfield coach before he got the Carlton job, so he had an apprenticeship.

I don't believe Ratten was a bad coach. He was basically a caretaker coach and took Carlton over when they were at a very low ebb.

Each year Carlton improved. He did a good job. He had a bad year and was sacked.

His sacking was because Carlton thought they needed to go to another level with a new coach. I feel Ratten is different to the 3 examples I raised.

From what I can see, Carlton look slightly dysfunctional offield. Maybe Ratten was part of that, but he was hardly responsible for it all.

 

[gbatman]

ratten took carlton up the ladder. bit harsh comparing him to buckley who has taken them the other direction.

buckley wishes he was another ratten.

Ratten was a poor list manager, who thought the team he had was close to being a flag threat. He couldn't trade and he continued to sign up players who couldn't play. He turned the list over minimally and never took the chance to get something for players he eventually delisted. Just look where Carlton are now. That is Ratten's list management and our poor drafting right there. We went up the ladder under Ratten like a yoyo straight up and straight down. Job was easy while we were getting early draft picks but once that stopped down we came! Ratten and Hughes were no bloody good for Carlton!

Buckley took over when they were at the top, they were always likely to slide back down at some stage. But perhaps not so soon and so much. At least Buckley has a decent recruiter under him.

I think it's fair to suggest that maybe he is going the same way as Ratten and Voss. Know heaps about the game, can coach pretty well but the main skill, list management, you only know if they have it until they've been there for a good few years. An so far I think there are cracks showing in Buckley's time there.

 

[etsal1]

Ratten was a coach at Melbourne I believe. Could have been a midfield coach before he got the Carlton job, so he had an apprenticeship.

I don't believe Ratten was a bad coach. He was basically a caretaker coach and took Carlton over when they were at a very low ebb.

Each year Carlton improved. He did a good job. He had a bad year and was sacked.

His sacking was because Carlton thought they needed to go to another level with a new coach. I feel Ratten is different to the 3 examples I raised.

From what I can see, Carlton look slightly dysfunctional offield. Maybe Ratten was part of that, but he was hardly responsible for it all.

Ratten's issue wasn't as much as tactics and match day coaching etc. if was more of an issue of his poor man management skills, list management decisions etc that let him down and the effects of which can only be felt in the years following. I'm not going to start listing specific examples but as a supporter of Carlton they are more obvious to us than external people and opposition supporters.

 

[Geoff Heywood]

Ratten's issue wasn't as much as tactics and match day coaching etc. if was more of an issue of his poor man management skills, list management decisions etc that let him down and the effects of which can only be felt in the years following. I'm not going to start listing specific examples but as a supporter of Carlton they are more obvious to us than external people and opposition supporters.

You can't blame it all on the coach though. A young coach needs full support and guidance from his list manager, recruiting manager, development manager and the football manager.

Young coaches should have as much assistance as they can. Many aren't qualified or have the experience to make list management decisions.

A lot of Worsfold's mistakes early days was he had no support from these football dept. heads.

 

[SuperSub17]

ratten took carlton up the ladder. bit harsh comparing him to buckley who has taken them the other direction.

buckley wishes he was another ratten.

Lazy, lazy argument. Buckley took over a team that had won two straight minor premierships - you can't exactly improve from there.

Ratten took over a side that had won two spoons in 05 and 06 and finished second-last in 07. You can only go up from there.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

My comment was more tongue in cheek. The issue with judging Buckley is - you can't give an honest appraisal because of how young your list now is. You won't be able to judge him properly for a few more years. And after that, who knows, they might just be wasted years.

They'll only be wasted years if the young players don't develop and aren't given enough games. Plenty of clubs have had turn arounds from a few years of bad coaching with a good list. Most recently, Port Adelaide springs to mind, Freo is also worth a mention but I think Harvey may have been sent unfairly before he could prove himself.

As long as we keep developing the good young talent we have we'll be fine. If Bucks doesn't cut the mustard, we'll make a change. For now, he's the best available really. There isn't any coach out there that I would consider ending a career over yet. (Note: I believe that Bomber Thompson and Roos are completely off limits/not interested). With a lot of our better prospects, and many of our best 22, not having reached 50 games yet, it is unlikely that any coach would be pushing for a flag for a year or two.

 

[PieBeast]

Refreshingly honest approach PieBeast. Plenty of your fellow supporters prefer to pull the wool over their eyes, as though what's gone on the last couple of years was just a kind of natural progression that couldn't have been stopped and under which Buckley's appointment is still some kind of best foot forward masterstroke. But I don't think too many supporters would have been happy back in mid-2011 if you'd said to them that 3 years down the track you'd be where you are now.

The thing with the succession plan and the flag, is that finite timeframes could have still been achieved, but in such a way as to retain the flexibility to make the best decision for the club when the time came, rather than be locked into a predetermined outdated plan. It's a lesson for all football clubs I reckon.

Nah I reckon the timing was right for various previously discussed reasons and Bucks has actually admitted he was contemplating to wait another year had we won the flag in '11. If anything maybe the club itself should have made the decision to postpone the takeover after winning the flag but I suspect the relationship between Ed and Mick would have been strained by that stage..

It's an interesting hypothetical - what would have happened if Malthouse still left, but another coach took over? It seems Buckley is keen to step out of Mick's shadow - so to speak - and make his own mark on the team; not such a bad thing in itself given more usual coaching appointments are done when a team is struggling, but perhaps not the best thing for a team that was in serious contention. I wonder if Buckley's pride meant he didn't want to be seen as managing "Mick's team" to another flag, kind of like how Chris Scott did with Geelong; where there's been a much more gentle transition from then to now.

Yes changing the coach during successful periods isn't a smart thing to do but the problem was the agreement was reached prior to that period.
And Bucks would be the last person to put his pride ahead of the interests of the club, he's also hardly changed anything in his first year at the helm.
Problem was the core of the playing group didn't handle the takeover smoothly and had trouble seeing Bucks as a coach demanding respect and total obedience. I think Geelong handled the transition much better because Bomber left of his own accord while Mick on the other hand went back on his word and played the offended card which affected some players.

That said though, I think Buckley's extension at this point is the right move. You let him come in and try to put his own mark on the team, and it's come at a price IMO, so it would be pretty stupid to have paid that price and then not give him the best chance to deliver on his vision.

This I completely disagree with, the extension based on nothing but a blind faith should never have been made so early in the season.
Would Bucks have got a 3 year extension at the current point in time? No bloody way, at best he would have got 2 years and would have felt more pressure to perform during the year instead of talking about playing the finals half way through the year.

 

[Black Flag]

Problem was the core of the playing group didn't handle the takeover smoothly and had trouble seeing Bucks as a coach demanding respect and total obedience.

makes you wonder why he didn't already have the respect of a playing group who he himself had actually played with.

respect is earned, not bestowed... a concept buckley seems oblivious to.

 

[Black Flag]

Lazy, lazy argument. Buckley took over a team that had won two straight minor premierships - you can't exactly improve from there.

Ratten took over a side that had won two spoons in 05 and 06 and finished second-last in 07. You can only go up from there.

ratten built a competitive side from scratch. buckley dismantled one of the youngest premiership sides ever pretty quickly. the facts don't lie.

 

[SuperSub17]

ratten built a competitive side from scratch. buckley dismantled one of the youngest premiership sides ever pretty quickly. the facts don't lie.

He built a competitive side because it was chock full of first-round draft picks when he got there. Carlton had been down for 6 years.

Buckley also hasn't "dismantled" the side. The "youngest flag side" is also pretty meaningless when you actually look at the core of players that carried the team in the first place. Jolly and Ball were targeted by the club and were a big part of why we were so good in 2010 - Jolly is finished and Ball is just about as well. Swan has been plagued by injury this year and as a result is a shadow of his 10-11 form, Thomas left for greater money and there wasn't anything we could do about it, Didak was our leading goal-kicker and was racking up 25 and 30 touches a game and then fell off a cliff in 2011, and Wellingham requested a trade back to WA. That is the reason our midfield is struggling compared to the dominant force it was in our GF years, and consequently the team as a whole has struggled.

But by all means, use your cheap throwaway lines if you want to.

 

[jimmy35]

ratten built a competitive side from scratch. buckley dismantled one of the youngest premiership sides ever pretty quickly. the facts don't lie.

From scratch. Really?

Amazing insights ITT.

 

[Black Flag]

He built a competitive side because it was chock full of first-round draft picks when he got there. Carlton had been down for 6 years.

Buckley also hasn't "dismantled" the side. The "youngest flag side" is also pretty meaningless when you actually look at the core of players that carried the team in the first place. Jolly and Ball were targeted by the club and were a big part of why we were so good in 2010 - Jolly is finished and Ball is just about as well. Swan has been plagued by injury this year and as a result is a shadow of his 10-11 form, Thomas left for greater money and there wasn't anything we could do about it, Didak was our leading goal-kicker and was racking up 25 and 30 touches a game and then fell off a cliff in 2011, and Wellingham requested a trade back to WA. That is the reason our midfield is struggling compared to the dominant force it was in our GF years, and consequently the team as a whole has struggled.

But by all means, use your cheap throwaway lines if you want to.

ratten had some good picks to work with, i'll give you that, but that should not take away from what he was able to achieve. carlton was a basket case when he took over and i give ratten his due credit.

i don't have the inclination to go through individuals but there's no doubt buckley dismantled his side. i remember hearing about the forthcoming collingwood "dynasty" so many times.... geelong was able to accomplish this through a steady, even-handed approach to their list. collingwood disenfranchised loyal premiership players and traded for second stringers from other clubs.

a recipe for disaster.

 

[SuperSub17]

ratten had some good picks to work with, i'll give you that, but that should not take away from what he was able to achieve. carlton was a basket case when he took over and i give ratten his due credit.

i don't have the inclination to go through individuals but there's no doubt buckley dismantled his side. i remember hearing about the forthcoming collingwood "dynasty" so many times.... geelong was able to accomplish this through a steady, even-handed approach to their list. collingwood disenfranchised loyal premiership players and traded for second stringers from other clubs.

a recipe for disaster.

Geelong are a once-in-a-generation side. They've been able to stay at the top of the ladder for a remarkable amount of time, and no club is usually able to do that. Even Brisbane was really only in flag contention for 4 years - which coincidentally was also the number of years we were. So let's not let Geelong be the judgment of a pass or fail.

Geelong also had a big commitment from its players to stay together and not demand big pay. Thomas didn't do this and Wellingham packed up and left as well when we would have like to have kept him. So there's two chunks of our flag midfield that just disappeared.

I'm also interested in what you mean by "traded for second stringers". Who exactly? We got White for pretty much nothing and got Lynch and Young through FA. None of those three cost us anything.

Buckley has really just had the foresight to see how our list was progressing - and the way Malthouse traded away all our picks in the 09 draft (amongst other trades) left us a bit short on younger talent. The last thing we wanted to do was go into full rebuild mode like our fellow top 4 teams from 2009-10 did in St Kilda and WB - or even West Coast who were 4th in 2011 and 5th in 2012. IMV he's decided to go down the path he has (i.e. trading for some top draft picks) in order to keep the young players coming through and looking to seriously challenge again in a couple of years. IF that eventuates - and there's no good reason why it won't - then that will be a massive benefit and seriously better than the path St Kilda, WC and the Dogs have taken after their flag window disappeared. If that means that expectations have to be tempered for a year or two in the meantime then so be it.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

The difference between Geelong and Collingwood's list turnover post premiership is that basically all Geelong's changes were forced as they had a much older squad than Collingwood and they have shed players through retirement (plus GC start up concessions) rather then churning players in their prime to other clubs. I can only think of two premiership players under 30 that have left Geelong with the clubs blessing, Shannon Byrnes and Trent West, and both had lost their spot in the best 22 and had been playing mostly VFL in the season before they left the club.

Yep but Geelong will soon be facing another mini-rebuild the key for them in the past has been they have staggered the retirements very well and avoided losing a ton of experience all in one year.

 

[BEEG]

Amazing that a team in a rebuild and playing heaps of kids can have a main board thread which is ranked 1st about their decline

Only on Bigfooty

 

[Monkey King]

Nah I reckon the timing was right for various previously discussed reasons and Bucks has actually admitted he was contemplating to wait another year had we won the flag in '11. If anything maybe the club itself should have made the decision to postpone the takeover after winning the flag but I suspect the relationship between Ed and Mick would have been strained by that stage..

All I've heard from Buckley is that he questioned himself during the year, not that he would have postponed had the team won the flag. Too late anyway. For me, completely in hindsight, I think the deal in 2009 was too rigid. And the timing of it's ultimate execution just about as bad as you could get, which I said it at the time.

I was speaking with a mid-60yo Pies supporter I know over the weekend and he was pretty annoyed about the situation; after a lifetime of watching so many near misses, the club got itself into a good position for a sustained assault at contention and then got too cute about it - now he doesn't know if he'll even see another flag in his lifetime.

Problem was the core of the playing group didn't handle the takeover smoothly and had trouble seeing Bucks as a coach demanding respect and total obedience. I think Geelong handled the transition much better because Bomber left of his own accord while Mick on the other hand went back on his word and played the offended card which affected some players.

You had the team playing probably the best football I've ever seen from a Collingwood side and went ahead with a change of dynamic. The result of this lies at the feet of Eddie and Buckley far more than at Malthouse's or the players. Ed made the call to see the plan through, Bucks did too and in the end, these are the guys who are meant to manage the football club and playing group.

This I completely disagree with, the extension based on nothing but a blind faith should never have been made so early in the season.

Then we disagree completely. You installed Buckley as coach at the most stupid of times and let him set about taking you backwards in the hope that his style of team will take you forwards. You've got to give the guy time to do this, otherwise you may as well have never even installed him as coach in the first place. Clearly Buckley's way didn't work with the existing playing group as a whole, so let him build the playing group he wants and see what he can deliver with it.