Collingwood's decline

[Gone Critical]

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.

Exactly and of course the next big batch to go at Geelong are Enright, Bartel, Kelly, Johnson, Lonergan and Stokes. Stokes is nearly 30 and all the others are 30+. What an effort to keep such a group performing at such a high level into their 30's. That has been outstanding by Geelong. They are the benchmark not the average.

 

[PieBeast]

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

Well playing with them actually worked to his detriment, most of them saw Bucks as their equal and it's also no secret that he's ruffled few feathers back in his playing days being a perfectionist, not to mention the fact Mick was a father figure to a lot of them and they were always going to take some time to warm to Bucks.

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

derp

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I just think where was common sense in all of this? yes the succession plan was constructed in 2009 one year before Collingwood would win the flag but surely after reaching back to back Grand Finals you come to a compromise and try to resolve the situation with Mick and Buckley and perhaps delay it a year or two and just see what happens?

Main priority should of been the Collingwood football club not trying to oust a coach to put in a favourite son with no experience.

 

[Black Flag]

derp

grow up.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

They are in transition, just like Geelong. The difference being that Geelong still have some triple premiership players on our list, where as Pies don't have that luxury.

Ball and Swan are on the decline and they have lost Thomas and Wellingham. That is a considerable amount of their midfield from before. Not to mention they have a very young defense and ruck brigade.

Will go backwards for a while but I think they'll bounce back in a year or 2.

 

[PieBeast]

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.



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.



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.

Yes we do as there was nothing wrong with the timing of the deal and there were plenty of legitimate reasons behind it. It's what followed afterwards is what I have an issue with.
And I would agree with you that we need to see through what Bucks has started if I wasn't of the opinion we can still be a major force in the next year or two with a slight tweaking of the list and under a better guidance. I also reckon Bucks should have been made to sweat on a contract and forced to produce some results just like Mick was in 2010 instead of getting a contract extension so early in the season based on nothing but hope for a brighter future.

 

[The King!]

end of a super era, they have all the facilities, cash, resources and stuff and did well to snag the 1 flag in the 20 odd years well done

buckley can draw on all his success as a player as reshapes the side

 

[SuperSub17]

end of a super era, they have all the facilities, cash, resources and stuff and did well to snag the 1 flag in the 20 odd years well done

buckley can draw on all his success as a player as reshapes the side

This isn't the bay champ

 

[Gone Critical]

I just think where was common sense in all of this? yes the succession plan was constructed in 2009 one year before Collingwood would win the flag but surely after reaching back to back Grand Finals you come to a compromise and try to resolve the situation with Mick and Buckley and perhaps delay it a year or two and just see what happens?

Main priority should of been the Collingwood football club not trying to oust a coach to put in a favourite son with no experience.

Again it is a bit uncertain what the various parties may have considered during 2011. If Collingwood had gone back to back it may have been different. Probably more likely the feud between Mick and Eddie was too far gone but we don't know. From the outside it appears Buckley was the most level headed of the 3.

It is very unfortunate that the Mick and Eddie relationship broke down so much. People forget even when the 2009 deal was struck Eddie remained Micks biggest supporter and without his backing Mick wouldn't have even been at Collingwood in 2010.

The other thing I wonder about is what would have happened if Mick had taken on the directors role in 2011. Hindsight is wonderful and successful people are ego driven so it is very hard for them to plan good exit strategies. If the Buckley-Malthouse team up had of worked I have little doubt Collingwood FC would have had a better run with less disruption internally. Buckley would also have had a better transition.

However Mick of all of them may have had his reputation enhanced and standing in the game enlarged. As it stands his last foray into coaching at Carlton is likely to be a failure and his reputation is diminished. I understand this can be an impossibly hard thing for a man like Mick to embrace but like Roos or Matthews he would have been enhanced by seeing the possibilities of leaving the scene as a success.

 

[rustyg70]

Having Malthouse renege on his contract to be Director of Coaching for 3 years didn't help either.
Had he stayed Buckley would have had a very good mentor to bounce ideas off throughout the year.

 

[Black Flag]

However Mick of all of them may have had his reputation enhanced and standing in the game enlarged. As it stands his last foray into coaching at Carlton is likely to be a failure and his reputation is diminished. I understand this can be an impossibly hard thing for a man like Mick to embrace but like Roos or Matthews he would have been enhanced by seeing the possibilities of leaving the scene as a success.

mick is not afraid of failure... you never reach the top of the mountain. the real failure would have been to quit in fear of failing... and that is why i believe he will eventually succeed.

oh, and btw... a mick/nathan partnership.... no chance.... disaster.

 

[jmac70]

Is this what was expected - a drop off as the team was readjusted with new players brought into the team?

Hard reality is under Buckley team has come from a GF, to prelim finals in his first year, to bundled out week one of the finals in 2013 and now seemingly missing the finals in Buckley's 3rd year.

Your blokes are not too far behind. Don't be fooled by ladder position. If you do finish top 4 it will be straight sets for the Cats.

 

[jmac70]

And to think of all those centrelink funded extra millions they spend on off-field/coaching support. I'd be filthy as a Collingwood supporter. The kids could've had a decent meal on a Tuesday and a nice tatt for Xmas. Eddie has a lot to answer for.

Thanks for that Tony.

 

[jmac70]

mick is not afraid of failure... you never reach the top of the mountain. the real failure would have been to quit in fear of failing... and that is why i believe he will eventually succeed.

oh, and btw... a mick/nathan partnership.... no chance.... disaster.

At Mick's age it is called retirement, and there is no shame in that. I just hope you blokes don't kill him because he is a Collingwood legend after all.

 

[Gone Critical]

mick is not afraid of failure... you never reach the top of the mountain. the real failure would have been to quit in fear of failing... and that is why i believe he will eventually succeed.

oh, and btw... a mick/nathan partnership.... no chance.... disaster.

On the contrary I am not suggesting Mick had a fear of failure rather a drive and an ego that believes he is the best man bar none which makes it very hard for him to stop striving for success until failure eventually overtakes him, which it must eventually.

In many areas successful people have trouble letting go and planning a departure. It is that ability to see the big picture and go in a timely fashion that eludes many. Mick had a perfect senario to ride into the sunset the hero if you like. I understand he may not at all be interested in that. However if you are not interested one of the possibilities is you will leave not at your own calling and in unhappy circumstances.

 

[Black Flag]

On the contrary I am not suggesting Mick had a fear of failure rather a drive and an ego that believes he is the best man bar none which makes it very hard for him to stop striving for success until failure eventually overtakes him, which it must eventually.

In many areas successful people have trouble letting go and planning a departure. It is that ability to see the big picture and go in a timely fashion that eludes many. Mick had a perfect senario to ride into the sunset the hero if you like. I understand he may not at all be interested in that. However if you are not interested one of the possibilities is you will leave not at your own calling and in unhappy circumstances.

mick could have gone out on top after wce.... turn the page.

 

[Gone Critical]

mick could have gone out on top after wce.... turn the page.

I understand. I am just speculating a bit. Not necessarily being critical of anyone. Just an interesting concept that I have seen evidence of in the field I work in. Mick, in recent years has speculated how hard coaching has been in stressing his own family and has had his own health issues. Timing your exit can be difficult. He wants to coach and good luck to him for that. I was just postulating about what the possibilities may have been if he had gone the other way.

 

[Bobby_]

Your blokes are not too far behind. Don't be fooled by ladder position. If you do finish top 4 it will be straight sets for the Cats.

Grundy, Sidebottom, Beams, Adams, Seedsman, Thomas, Blair = 19 hitouts, 18.6 disposals, 2.4 clearances, 3.9 tackles, 0.5 goals & 0.5 assists per game.

Simpson, Guthrie, Duncan, Caddy, Horlin-Smith, Motlop, Christensen = 22 hitouts, 16.8 disposals, 2.2 clearances, 3.6 tackles, 0.5 goals & 0.3 assists per game.

Cats aren't far behind (Collingwood are much more experienced) and Christensen, Caddy have only played 12 games between em this year due to injuries so more upside there as well.
Your mob need to try drafting bigger bodies in the coming years because those midfielders are 181cm between them and they are getting bullied by all and sundry.

 

[Gone Critical]

Grundy, Sidebottom, Beams, Adams, Seedsman, Thomas, Blair = 19 hitouts, 18.6 disposals, 2.4 clearances, 3.9 tackles, 0.5 goals & 0.5 assists per game.

Simpson, Guthrie, Duncan, Caddy, Horlin-Smith, Motlop, Christensen = 22 hitouts, 16.8 disposals, 2.2 clearances, 3.6 tackles, 0.5 goals & 0.3 assists per game.

Cats aren't far behind (Collingwood are much more experienced) and Christensen, Caddy have only played 12 games between em this year due to injuries so more upside there as well.
Your mob need to try drafting bigger bodies in the coming years because those midfielders are 181cm between them and they are getting bullied by all and sundry.

Not sure what this means. You better explain it. What are those stats?

 

[jimmy35]

Useless?

 

[SizeMatters]

Beams is looking at options to move to the Lions apparently. Trouble from within the nest? Apparently he and Buck don't get along that well (who doesn't Bucks get along well with though?)

 

[Black Flag]

I understand. I am just speculating a bit. Not necessarily being critical of anyone. Just an interesting concept that I have seen evidence of in the field I work in. Mick, in recent years has speculated how hard coaching has been in stressing his own family and has had his own health issues. Timing your exit can be difficult. He wants to coach and good luck to him for that. I was just postulating about what the possibilities may have been if he had gone the other way.

i don't think mick would give 2 shits about the (somewhat absurd) notion that he "go out on top"..... and most of the so called issues he was having at collingwood have come from the mouth of eddie, so i'm not sure how much stock to put in them.

 

[Iskender Time]

All 3 teams (Brisbane, Collingwood and Essendon) that brought in favourite sons as coaches without a proper apprenticeship have really suffered for their decisions.

Buckley has not by a long shot headed up the utter balls-ups seen at the other two clubs.

 

[Iskender Time]

Beams is looking at options to move to the Lions apparently. Trouble from within the nest? Apparently he and Buck don't get along that well (who doesn't Bucks get along well with though?)

Says who?

 

[Gone Critical]

i don't think mick would give 2 shits about the (somewhat absurd) notion that he "go out on top"..... and most of the so called issues he was having at collingwood have come from the mouth of eddie, so i'm not sure how much stock to put in them.

I agree. I don't think that stuff is on Micks radar at the moment as I have already said. Just being a bit philisophical and wondering about a bit of sliding doors. Absurd if you like but I think you are missing my point and getting a bit defensive on Micks behalf. He is doing what he is driven to do now, that's the man he is. However I don't agree that Mick wouldn't give a s**t about going out on top. Mick, Sheedy, Roos, Thompson etc would all be very aware of their reputations and value them. If you think Mick isn't interested in his legacy and being known as an all time great I think you are wrong.

As to laying most of the blame at Eddies feet I think both Mick and Eddie haven't handled themselves that well through the whole time. Is is a little unusual that up until 2010 they were close and Eddie was Micks biggest supporter on the board and the one who prevented him getting the chop in 2009. No one seems to remember that and they both seem the biggest of enemies now.