Analysis The theory that Collingwood wasn't broken post 2011

Remove this Banner Ad

Markfs

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 13, 2008
26,143
20,798
Fremantle
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sydney Sweeney's Shaving Team...
For years, I have been hearing the argument that Collingwood wasn't broken when Buckley began his coaching career. Supposedly, we had the youngest list and premierships should have been won. He wanted to impose himself - or so the story says - to change the culture when the old culture had won premierships. There was supposedly no need for change. People say this stuff but I wondered what was the reality. The attempt here is to see which players were delisted and to determine whether they had more in the tank... and whether that would have delivered more premierships. I do this because I just wasting my time going back over old arguments.

So first, we look at the delistings for 2012-2014. The players in bold are the ones that could have given more in subsequent years. Most of the players that we delisted haven't got a comment because I dont think they warrant it.

2012

Simon Buckley
Jonathon Ceglar - He performed well but other hawks were preferred in finals. His output wouldn't have made much of a difference to Pies post 2012.

Paul Cribbin
Chris Dawes (trd) - He has had injuries Melb years with his healthiest year being 2014. Compared to 2012, he kicked slightly more goals but wasn't taking more marks, and was getting less disposals. The comparison holds true back to 2010. He might have made a "solid citizen" contribution to another premiership but you could say that Jesse White has delivered about the same.

Daniel Farmer
Shae McNamara
Luke Rounds
Lachlan Smith
Trent Stubbs
Chris Tarrant (ret.)
Kirk Ugle
Sharrod Wellingham (trd) The change in role at WC has made comparisons difficult but he had comparable possessions etc for 2012 to 2010. If his attitude had been right, he would have been kept. The question is whether he would have got back on track at the Pies, as he did at WC when he got a kick in the pants.

Cameron Wood - proven not up to standard
Tom Young (trd) - proven not up to standard

2013
Alan Didak (del) Kicked 41 goals in 2010. Had 590 possessions of which 1/3 were contested. about 3 tackles a game. By 2011, everything down, including impact in finals. 2012 less games and less possessions. Tackling almost non-existent. Less goals... less everthing. No argument from me for delisting him.

Corey Gault (del)
Michael Hartley (del)
Ben Johnson (ret)
Darren Jolly (del) - signficant player in 2010. He kicked 24 goals but that was halved in 2011 and 2012. Tackles were even better in 2012 than 2010 but marking declined from 131 to 58 from only 6 less games. Hit outs remained high but no longer as dominant. He had legitimate claims to being retained but he wasnt delivering what he did in 2010. A reason for the decline.

Andrew Krakouer (del) 30 years of age in 2013 and only able to deliver 10 games in previous 2 years. Irrelevant to this debate as he didnt had much impact in MM's last year or Buckley's first. Another reason for the decline post 2011

Jackson Paine (trd) - proven not up to standard
Ben Richmond (del)
Jordan Russell (del)

Heath Shaw (trd) - A genuine loss - no stats required. We all know his failings but the question is whether another coach than Buckley could have got the best out of him.

Dale Thomas (FA) - Superstar in 2010/2011. Played almost full year in 2014 but possessions down about a 1/3 although played less games. Would have been in a post 2012 premiership team but would not have made anywhere near the contribution. The big question is his pay packet. Another reason for the decline post 2011.

2014

Tony Armstrong (del)
Luke Ball (ret)
Dayne Beams (trd) - Another genuine loss. Did he leave just because of Bucks? I doubt it.

Marty Clarke (del)
Ben Hudson (ret)
Heritier Lumumba (trd) Nothing from the stats indicate he has gotten better or worse. There is a reasonable argument that he could have played his role in post 2011 premierships.

Quinten Lynch (ret)
Nick Maxwell (ret)
Caolan Mooney (del)
Peter Yagmoor (del)
-

Summing Up

As far as I'm concerned, there's very little here to suggest that these players could have maintained Collingwood in the top 4 post 2011. In fact, players like Thomas, Jolly and Didak declined in their performances post 2011, and would probably had gone worse if they had stayed at the Pies. Players like Lumumba and Dawes might have done a similar job but they weren't going to have a major impact on keeping the Pies at the top ....so you cant say the Pies dropped off because they were moved on. Shaw and Beams were key losses. You have to remember that you can't have your cake and eat it too and both players delivered good returns to the Pies when they left.

In the end, I just dont see the argument that it was the loss of these players that caused Collingwood to fall on the premiership ladder. Of course that doesn't mean Buckley wasnt the problem. It just means that I cant see sufficient evidence of the urban myth that Collingwood wasted a talented young list post 2011....

Now I've wasted an hour at work , I can move on to wasting time doing something else.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

I think that had Mick not gone through his tasty, we MAY have won the 2011 Premiership and that's it. 2012 would have probably got the same and then we still would have dropped off a cliff most likely. Yeah we were young, but we still weren't a highly skilled team and the more skilled teams still would have chopped us to bits. "Workman like" doesn't work in today's game and Buckley has tried to take us away from that as painlessly as is possible.

While we're still a hard side, as in, we win the contested ball, I think we're a bit silkier than we were from 11-14. We're only adding to that with Aish and Treloar.
 
I think that had Mick not gone through his tasty, we MAY have won the 2011 Premiership and that's it. 2012 would have probably got the same and then we still would have dropped off a cliff most likely. Yeah we were young, but we still weren't a highly skilled team and the more skilled teams still would have chopped us to bits. "Workman like" doesn't work in today's game and Buckley has tried to take us away from that as painlessly as is possible.

While we're still a hard side, as in, we win the contested ball, I think we're a bit silkier than we were from 11-14. We're only adding to that with Aish and Treloar.

Lets not start the argument again. I did it to kill an hour and because i saw someone on a newspaper site writing that we burnt a talented young list. Lets just let it drift off the board to obscurity
 
Agree with OP.

Also did we make a prelim in 2012 or did I dream that? It always seems to be forgotten that we had a bloody good 2012 but were beaten by the eventual premier. We won 12 games in a row ffs.
 
I think it is a legitimate question to which there is no right answer. 2012 was a key and I believe misinterpreted year. Buckley did a great job in a team wrecked with injury (worse than 13 and 14), with issues fresh in the playing group about Micks departure, Mick and Eddie throwing slingshots at each other from the sidelines and at the end of the year Johnny Macs tragic passing and then funeral 2 days before the PF.

To have such a shocking start to the year (round 1 we had 3 debutants and 3 guys with < 10 games plus Marty Clarke back for 1st game such was our injury toll). By the time we played Carlton we were on our knees, 3 ACLs with another to come. Bucks coached beautifully to win 10 in a row including against the Crows when they were flying, Daisy on Danger, Keefes ACL etc. We were flag favs early in the 2nd half of the season. Ran out of puff and finished 4th. MM would have done no better.

Post 2013 did we need to cut so hard? Not sure. However with hindsight if we retained Shaw and Beams, went for some mature top ups could we have got one of the Hawks flags. I doubt we would have so I reckon we probably didn't miss a flag but are in a better position for 2016 than if we had tried to hang on. Bucks has put it on the line, I hope he turns into a great coach. I believe he has coached for the club not his own survival and no one deserves a flag more than him (or maybe TD)
 
Gotta say I absolutely agree that the young list was never as mind blowing as we liked to think. Has some talent, no doubt. But the game plan, admittedly decided by MM was what set us aside from the rest. We had that press down! But teams worked it out as inevitably they will. Then our lack of foot skills got shown up. And now we are rebuilding. It all makes sense in the natural progression of things to me.
 
Never quite sure how to take Markfs, but in this instance I agree 100%. No doubt that Shaw and Beams are our biggest losses but as he says, we were well compensated. Thomas at his best was a loss, but its since proven to be a godsend. He just didn't put in throughout 2012 and we are better off without him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gotta say I absolutely agree that the young list was never as mind blowing as we liked to think. Has some talent, no doubt. But the game plan, admittedly decided by MM was what set us aside from the rest. We had that press down! But teams worked it out as inevitably they will. Then our lack of foot skills got shown up. And now we are rebuilding. It all makes sense in the natural progression of things to me.
There is an element of truth to that but the flip side is it shows how tough it is to get a "mind blowing " list. My thoughts after seeing every Collingwood side since the late 60's is it's the best we have had in that time. The only side that rivals it for talent was the team from 70-72 which could have should have got a flag. If you extrapolate a bit further back into history we probably haven't had a side as good since the 1930's. That opinion makes me question a little it's pulling apart. We have written the 2010-11 team off a little quickly and heaped a fair expectation on our current list.

It also tempers me a bit when I make predictions for our current rebuild. That we went around 80 years searching for a side as good as 10-11 makes me realise how hard that mountain is to climb again. Our list has potential but that is a dirty word at times. Whatever the sins of MM since late 2011 he did a great job building a list before then. I do think at times the expectation lumped on the likes of Scharenberg and Broomhead is a little over the top. Neither ar at this time best 22 and while we hope they can be it's not a given. I think we are getting a little guilty of counting our chickens early. We still lack star power and A grade players. I really hang my biggest hopes on Treloar, Grundy, De Goey and Moore. We need them to succeed and a lot of other to come through. It's promising but a lot of hurdles yet to jump.

Contending in 2017 + is still more dream than reality. I pray Bucks gets the dream right.
 
There is an element of truth to that but the flip side is it shows how tough it is to get a "mind blowing " list. My thoughts after seeing every Collingwood side since the late 60's is it's the best we have had in that time. The only side that rivals it for talent was the team from 70-72 which could have should have got a flag. If you extrapolate a bit further back into history we probably haven't had a side as good since the 1930's. That opinion makes me question a little it's pulling apart. We have written the 2010-11 team off a little quickly and heaped a fair expectation on our current list.

It also tempers me a bit when I make predictions for our current rebuild. That we went around 80 years searching for a side as good as 10-11 makes me realise how hard that mountain is to climb again. Our list has potential but that is a dirty word at times. Whatever the sins of MM since late 2011 he did a great job building a list before then. I do think at times the expectation lumped on the likes of Scharenberg and Broomhead is a little over the top. Neither ar at this time best 22 and while we hope they can be it's not a given. I think we are getting a little guilty of counting our chickens early. We still lack star power and A grade players. I really hang my biggest hopes on Treloar, Grundy, De Goey and Moore. We need them to succeed and a lot of other to come through. It's promising but a lot of hurdles yet to jump.

Contending in 2017 + is still more dream than reality. I pray Bucks gets the dream right.
I do agree that it's next to impossible to have a super talented list unless you're hawthorn. I just don't think we did in 2010. We had a very good list, no doubt, but the fact that Mark has pointed out what has actually come out of that list shows that it wasn't exactly decimated, it probably wasn't that great in the first place. Hence my view that the game plan really helped make the list. Swan in my view, is still our most dangerous mid. He's still probably our best clearance mid. He's probably our most dangerous mid going forward. Hopefully this young list gets near the top of the ladder again soon because you can be sure other clubs with super young lists are coming.
 
Never quite sure how to take Markfs, but in this instance I agree 100%. No doubt that Shaw and Beams are our biggest losses but as he says, we were well compensated. Thomas at his best was a loss, but its since proven to be a godsend. He just didn't put in throughout 2012 and we are better off without him.

well truth is truth, even if it comes from the devil. I think I made a case that proves to me at least that the urban myth of the Pies "wasted a talented young list" is just that.... a myth. The 2010-12 list wasn't that talented. Buckley didnt throw out or drive away players who were the key ingredients to a premiership. In fact, most of them were going downhill individually. That was my only point.

Of course it's hard to separate the list from the competence of the coach. I didnt prove that buckley could or couldnt coach. He might be a crap coach but he didnt give a POQ to players who would have delivered a premiership.
 
A few variables missing from the OP's contention.

Stats alone don't tell the full story.

Was Jolly, Thomas' decline largely a result of form, or because they were at odds with the coach? Could we have obtained greater input from these two players had we retained stability and continuity in the coaching department?

The OP also minimises the impact destabilising the football department with a complete coaching overhaul has on players. We had tensions for several years within the playing group post-succession that negatively impacted our onfield performance.

Malthouse cultivated a culture, with its flaws, but one that bound the playing group tightly. Don't all teams aspire to have a playing group gel? Ours didn't only gel, they were as tight as Hawthorn's playing group is today. That played a huge role in our success, and that was essentially ripped apart by the imposed succession plan.

Of course performance is going to be affected by that, and it is an aspect that can't be negated.

By retaining our stars and a stable football department, we could've then opted for tweaks to the list through clever trading, recruiting to ensure we remained up the top, which is what Hawthorn has successfully managed to do post-2011 and it's paid dividends.

We unnecessarily caused upheaval and internal turmoil at a time when we were flying in the skies. But what's done is done, and being a Collingwood supporter means supporting your team even if you don't agree with some decisions. I support Bucks today, support the direction we're headed in, but that won't change my opinion that the succession plan - at that time - was a massive f**k up.
 
Never would have won the flag in 2010 if the succession plan hadn't been put in place.

Mick heard his expiry date and finally lost his stubbornness towards rucks and stupid position stubborn moves and unwarranted faith in rubbish players...

Mick knows he needs a result as he has a predecessor...



5 months later we win the flag! (After 10 years of "TRUST ME")




And then Mick went to Carlton (God Bless him!)



Best move ever was the succession plan.

(or maybe everyone wants to be where Mick took Carlton!)
 

I think that I made a mistake explaining Andrew. When I said no impact in the previous 2 years, I meant 2013 and 2012. He played 8 and 4 games respectively. If Jesus and Mary had been coaching the Pies during those years, they wouldnt have got more out of him. He wasn't young either and was due for retirement at the end of 2013. His injuries were another reason for the decline in team performance post 2011.

I suppose that the fact that I remain polite probably proves my stupidity...
 
Never would have won the flag in 2010 if the succession plan hadn't been put in place.

Mick heard his expiry date and finally lost his stubbornness towards rucks and stupid position stubborn moves and unwarranted faith in rubbish players...

Mick knows he needs a result as he has a predecessor...



5 months later we win the flag! (After 10 years of "TRUST ME")




And then Mick went to Carlton (God Bless him!)



Best move ever was the succession plan.

(or maybe everyone wants to be where Mick took Carlton!)

We have other threads for opinions. I made a case on the facts. It wasnt my intention to rehash old arguments based on psychological profiling ...thank you
 
I have tried to make this point on a few occasions:

The teams which historically have won the flag with an extremely young list, did not back that success up immediately. These were Hawthorn 1978, Essendon 1993. Both sides took another 6 years or so before dominating again. The reasons tended to be a mixture of drop away from ageing veterans, a sudden influx of injuries and perhaps pressure to deal with the expectation the following year with a younger list. So even though media commentators are ignorant of this, or choose to ignore it in order to play the shoot down Buckley to increase the ratings game, it tells us that the instant expectation of further success from a young premiership team is a fallacy.

If you examine Collingwoods team after 2010 it was already beginning to show a loss in depth, veterans and form and although we had a stellar first 3/4 of a season, the drop away in form after that was telling. Injury and form issues prevented another flag.

Very briefly, the differences between our list and the dynastic teams - Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney:

1. They had a strong core playing group in the critical middle tier age demographic that came through together. Our demographic was out of kilter compared to theirs.

2. They had very strong and committed leaders in multiples. We had Maxwell and Pendlebury and a bunch of semi-committed party boys and Maxwell was struggling with form and injuries post 2010. We lack leadership mongrel in the critical moments.

3. Our strategy was great for a year and a half (the press) and then got worked out.

4. We always celebrate too hard and treat our players like gods for winning a flag. Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney have a good time, congratulate eachother and then say 'let's do it again next year'. Their players don't seem to need as much time in The fleshpots of Bali, Brazil or Vegas each summer.

5. Since 2010 we have lacked skill, X factor and a cohesive strategy and playing culture.

6. Our injuries are continuous and endemic and happen to key players at critical times - Reid, Didak, Wellingham, Thomas etc. I don't know if our fitness staff and rehab practices are as space age and cutting edge as the best but I hope so. Hawthorn's ability to guide the oldest grand final team in history to a flag after 2 trips to Perth in the finals shows they are absolutely the benchmark in this area.

The OP has made a very good case in conjunction with my own thoughts that our list regeneration was necessary and critical and we should be thankful that we follow a club that has the insight and courage to embark on this course rather than acting out of a deluded sense of entitlement like a Carlton or Brisbane and ending up on the scrap heap for years.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top