Mega Thread The 2015 Buckley coaching megathread

[domin8tors]

Its not the being in transition now that im concerned with, all clubs go up and down. The competition is designed to be that way.

Its the not getting the most we could get out of the playing group we had assembled is the part that annoys me. We didnt give ourselves every chance in '11,'12 and even '13 to achieve what we could of and probably should of.

2011 yes we lost that, geelong didn't win. I personally think that we went to hard early on in the season and we looked shot by round 16.
2012. again we were probably a bit stiff. I recall that Sydney final and we got bad call on a few decisions when we had the momentum. especially when Jetta ran 100m and only bounced twice. which has been well reported on.
by 2013 we were well on the decline. and we did try to get a few top ups Lynch and young but results have shown those did not workout. I have no issues on the club endeavouring for one last tilt though
2014 rebuild essentially began. and we had a terrible run with injuries.

 

[Maggie5]

I have a few questions.
1. If not Buckley, which coach was available at the time that we missed out on?
2. Many use Hawthon as a club that has been successful over the past few years, how many other clubs have been successful in emulating them?
3. Of the players that have either gone or we have moved on, how many are doing well at other clubs? For me, I would name Heath and possibly Harry.
4. Many here don't like bringing up injuries but late last year we were barely able to field a full team and that is significant.

Finally, I too don't know Buckley can coach but all this talk of replacing him two weeks into a season is not really about his coaching.
This is 4th year, I am happy to give him the end of the year and a fit list to chose from.

 

[No SPIN]

No point explaining the obvious. A lot of these muppets havent experienced lows as a collingwood supporter, they think success is always just around the corner.

But you guys have all the answers right - Oh wait you only have ONE answer,
- Sack Buckley

Simple minds can't cope with complexity, so your approach is understandable.

 

[Mugavin]

Appointing favourite sons is fraught with danger. If an outside person had overseen a gradual decline like Buckley has, he would be sacked long ago.

That is the reason why people defend his abysmal coaching record. They can't seperate Buckley the player, to Buckley the player.

Eddie has a close relationship with Buckley in terms of friendship. Gary Pert also has a close relationship with Craig Kelly who manages Buckley and formulated the plan.

When you mix business with friendships, the ability to be neutral is clouded.

 

[ksardog]

But you guys have all the answers right - Oh wait you only have ONE answer,
- Sack Buckley

Simple minds can't cope with complexity, so your approach is understandable.

Never mentioned once to sack buckley during the year. U see what u want to see. Do i think he can coach? Yes, but not very well.

 

[PieNSauce]

Appointing favourite sons is fraught with danger. If an outside person had overseen a gradual decline like Buckley has, he would be sacked long ago.

That is the reason why people defend his abysmal coaching record. They can't seperate Buckley the player, to Buckley the player.

Eddie has a close relationship with Buckley in terms of friendship. Gary Pert also has a close relationship with Craig Kelly who manages Buckley and formulated the plan.

When you mix business with friendships, the ability to be neutral is clouded.

Very true if you're happy to ignore the facts of the matter!

 

[Mugavin]

Very true if you're happy to ignore the facts of the matter!

What are the facts of the matter?

No one who formulated the succession plan in 2009 would view our current status as where the club would be.

A good reason why Collingwood has been such a failure in the modern era is the supporter base openly embrace mediocrity. History will record the succession plan as the biggest 'shot in own foot' moment in our club's history.

 

[No SPIN]

Don't underestimate the value of role players in any successful unit. Dawes, Wellingham and guys like L Brown were crucial to the flag and GFs.

I know some people differ to me on this, but I assess the departed on what they did with us, not what they've done under a completely different regime elsewhere.

And you could easily argue the booting of a guy like Shaw starts a snowball effect, hence you lose a guy like Beams.

It's poor management not to be able to hold a list together - Bucks is getting paid $1m a year to manage and massage all of the different personalities and he hasn't been able to do it, and now we find ourselves up shit creek.

OK so this is what Buckley needed to do according to you:
Dawes - not put pressure on Dawes to perform, by recruiting Lynch, AND pay him over the odds
Thomas - pay him overs,
Wellingham - ignore his off field behaviour
Beams - insist his father problems are of no concern to the club AND then lose him as a free agent for LESS compensations than we got
Shaw and Harry - agree to let them do as they like, given both were not prepared to committ to changing inorder to stay
Find the Elixir of youth: for LB, Tarrant, Leon,Krakouer, BJ,Ball,Didak, Jolly.

Now do you see how laughable your suggestions are.

 

[Maggie5]

What are the facts of the matter?

No one who formulated the succession plan in 2009 would view our current status as where the club would be.

A good reason why Collingwood has been such a failure in the modern era is the supporter base openly embrace mediocrity. History will record the succession plan as the biggest 'shot in own foot' moment in our club's history.

Aha, so it is still all about MM and the succession plan and nothing to do with Buckley's coaching. Knew it.
I posted a number of questions in a previous post on this page, would you like to have a go at answering them? No/Yes?

 

[Maggie5]

OK so this is what Buckley needed to do according to you:
Dawes - not put pressure on Dawes to perform, by recruiting Lynch, AND pay him over the odds
Thomas - pay him overs,
Wellingham - ignore his off field behaviour
Beams - insist his father problems are of no concern to the club AND then lose him as a free agent for LESS compensations than we got
Shaw and Harry - agree to let them do as they like, given both were not prepared to committ to changing inorder to stay
Find the Elixir of youth: for LB, Tarrant, Leon,Krakouer, BJ,Ball,Didak, Jolly.

Now do you see how laughable your suggestions are.

You forgot about buying a new crystal ball.

 

[PieNSauce]

What are the facts of the matter?

No one who formulated the succession plan in 2009 would view our current status as where the club would be.

A good reason why Collingwood has been such a failure in the modern era is the supporter base openly embrace mediocrity.

Sorry but that's just pure unadulterated BS. Of course nobody expected us to be where we are because nobody expected that a key player in the plan would pull out or that he would move heaven and earth to destabilise the club in the process.

The fact is that since Mick pulled out, the club and coach have embarked on a process of cultural change which many of us believe was well overdue. You cannot do that without some fallout in terms of existing players who are completely loyal to the one coach that they have ever played under. Interesting to note that for the most part, players who many believe were true clubmen like Maxy, Ball etc got on board and stayed there while some who were renowned for poor behaviour chose to move on. Personally, while I think it's a pity in one or two cases, I am more than happy that most of the players who left are gone and I am happy with the direction of the club. Of course the other fact that some are happy to overlook is the level of unavailability sustained by key members of the playing group over the last few years which admittedly is no excuse in isolation but when added to the decision to rebuild has been fairly crippling.

Those are the facts that so many here are happy to gloss over. You may not like the direction of the club and I can understand that but we supporters are called supporters because we support! It's not about accepting mediocrity, it's about being realistic enough to understand that there's no magical quick fix.

 

[No SPIN]

What are the facts of the matter?

No one who formulated the succession plan in 2009 would view our current status as where the club would be.

A good reason why Collingwood has been such a failure in the modern era is the supporter base openly embrace mediocrity. History will record the succession plan as the biggest 'shot in own foot' moment in our club's history.

The succession plan never happened - MM stuffed it before it started.

I'm happy to accept the "mediocrity" - its the same "mediocrity" that served GEEL, HAWKS and Port well, who stuck by their coaches and won flags by ignoring calls by supporters to dump the coach.

 

[Mugavin]

Aha, so it is still all about MM and the succession plan and nothing to do with Buckley's coaching. Knew it.
I posted a number of questions in a previous post on this page, would you like to have a go at answering them? No/Yes?

There is a saying.

If you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it.

In 1995 Tony Shaw was offered a position to be Carlton's assistant coach. To learn under David Parkin. Shaw himself has said numerous times this was his biggest mistake coaching wise was not to learn in a different culture from Collingwood.

The succession plan may be good in theory but it wasn't in practise. The only positive is it put an end date to Malthouse's coaching stint and he upped the ante.

The poor part of the succession plan was appointing a coach who had no experience in different cultures as a coach and the process of finding a successor was blinded by club figures who were unable to seperate friendships, business relationships and a perception of Buckley as a player and person to do a proper candidate search for the coaching role.

I don't blame the Buckley apologists here. They are unable to do the same when assessing Buckley as a coach from his as a player.

Blind love isn't going to get Collingwood anywhere.

 

[MarkT2]

If players want to leave then there is not much you can do and arguably not much you'd want to do other than move on and recruit players who want to be there. I cannot see how anyone can logically blame Bucks for Thomas following daddy or Shaw deciding that he wanted off the bus just because he was told there were standards he would have to conform to. Beams is in a similar boat to Daisy but I don't think anyone can confidently say that his reasons for leaving have anything to do with Bucks or in fact that they were't all about family.

Shaw didn't want off the bus he was kicked off the bus. Thomas following daddy has to also involve Thomas leaving step daddy. It's far too easy a cop out given the numbers to absolve Buckley of the environment he wanted/created. As for keeping players that want out, generally I agree. What is far more relevant and of utmost importance in ever achieving anything is for players to want to be in, not wanting to be out. It isn't even enough just to not want to be out. They have to really want to be part of the club and team. Ambivalence is certain failure. As for Beams, his manager has said there were numerous issues and one was Shaw going and another Leading Teams. Both of those are Buckley issues. I honestly can't see how this is even debatable. It was flagged even before it transpired into player exits. Of course anyone who flagged it in the media was immediately ridiculed and lambasted by the faithful but what has transpired is what was predicted and it has all unfolded like a replay slow motion car crash.

 

[Maggie5]

There is a saying.

If you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it.

In 1995 Tony Shaw was offered a position to be Carlton's assistant coach. To learn under David Parkin. Shaw himself has said numerous times this was his biggest mistake coaching wise was not to learn in a different culture from Collingwood.

The succession plan may be good in theory but it wasn't in practise. The only positive is it put an end date to Malthouse's coaching stint and he upped the ante.

The poor part of the succession plan was appointing a coach who had no experience in different cultures as a coach and the process of finding a successor was blinded by club figures who were unable to seperate friendships, business relationships and a perception of Buckley as a player and person to do a proper candidate search for the coaching role.

I don't blame the Buckley apologists here. They are unable to do the same when assessing Buckley as a coach from his as a player.

So you can't answer any of the questions, okay, now I understand. Keep pushing the same barrow but if you do read the my questions, I have made no mention of MM, don't know why you keep bring him up and the succession plan.
This thread is about Buckley, not gossip and innuendo.

 

[PieNSauce]

There is a saying.

If you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it.

In 1995 Tony Shaw was offered a position to be Carlton's assistant coach. To learn under David Parkin. Shaw himself has said numerous times this was his biggest mistake coaching wise was not to learn in a different culture from Collingwood.

The succession plan may be good in theory but it wasn't in practise. The only positive is it put an end date to Malthouse's coaching stint and he upped the ante.

The poor part of the succession plan was appointing a coach who had no experience in different cultures as a coach and the process of finding a successor was blinded by club figures who were unable to seperate friendships, business relationships and a perception of Buckley as a player and person to do a proper candidate search for the coaching role.

I don't blame the Buckley apologists here. They are unable to do the same when assessing Buckley as a coach from his as a player.

lol. As in business, sometimes you can't read the future and know that a well formulated plan will be destroyed by an uncontrollable personality. Bucks was not recruited to be head coach immediately and it was well known that as a coach at the AIS he was highly respected. This is why North wanted to appoint him as senior coach without any apprenticeship at all. As far as learning from the past goes, I'm pretty sure that the club has learned that impatience which leads you to sack a coach who has a long term plan before it is implemented probably isn't all it's cracked up to be.

 

[Mugavin]

Back to blaming Malthouse again.

 

[PieNSauce]

Shaw didn't want off the bus he was kicked off the bus. Thomas following daddy has to also involve Thomas leaving step daddy. It's far too easy a cop out given the numbers to absolve Buckley of the environment he wanted/created. As for keeping players that want out, generally I agree. What is far more relevant and of utmost importance in ever achieving anything is for players to want to be in, not wanting to be out. It isn't even enough just to not want to be out. They have to really want to be part of the club and team. Ambivalence is certain failure. As for Beams, his manager has said there were numerous issues and one was Shaw going and another Leading Teams. Both of those are Buckley issues. I honestly can't see how this is even debatable. It was flagged even before it transpired into player exits. Of course anyone who flagged it in the media was immediately ridiculed and lambasted by the faithful but what has transpired is what was predicted and it has all unfolded like a replay slow motion car crash.

I don't need to absolve Bucks of anything because I'm more than happy with what he's working toward and I totally accept the short term pain as a trade off for the long term gain. If Beams wanted off because of the program then as much as I think it's a pity then I'm more than happy he is gone. You can't have people believing that they are above the team. As far as Shaw is concerned I totally disagree given that he was given the opportunity to commit to the team ethos and chose not to . Hardly a matter of being kicked off.

 

[No SPIN]

There is a saying.

If you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it.

In 1995 Tony Shaw was offered a position to be Carlton's assistant coach. To learn under David Parkin. Shaw himself has said numerous times this was his biggest mistake coaching wise was not to learn in a different culture from Collingwood.

The succession plan may be good in theory but it wasn't in practise. The only positive is it put an end date to Malthouse's coaching stint and he upped the ante.

The poor part of the succession plan was appointing a coach who had no experience in different cultures as a coach and the process of finding a successor was blinded by club figures who were unable to seperate friendships, business relationships and a perception of Buckley as a player and person to do a proper candidate search for the coaching role.

I don't blame the Buckley apologists here. They are unable to do the same when assessing Buckley as a coach from his as a player.

Blind love isn't going to get Collingwood anywhere.

The poor part of the "PARTIAL' succession plan was:
MM - not a teaching Bucks anything and treating him like a child, by making him set up chairs for meetings
MM- breaking his contract and choosing not to be DCoaching

If Eddie knew that MM was going to be so uncooperative he would have chosen a different path, its that simple.

 

[ClaytonM]

Yeh there is. They tried to keep Thomas. At the very least Buckley himself has said he didn't want to lose Beams.

It's academic though. If he decided a premiership wasn't what he wanted for cultural reasons and we end up with what we have he's still not the right person IMO. Great coaches get Heath Shaw's to play for them. They understand his medical issues and work with them and make them great players.

So by your argument Clarkson should have been sacked for losing Buddy and if Dangerfield leaves Walsh should be sacked.

I love how Buckley is to blame for Shaw, where is Shaw's accountability in all of this?

 

[PieNSauce]

Back to blaming Malthouse again.

There is no doubt that Mick destroyed the succession plan but if you're referring to where the club is at then I am happy to credit the club with having the courage to embark on a long term plan. Quite a distance from allocating blame to anyone.

 

[MarkT2]

The succession plan may be good in theory but it wasn't in practise. The only positive is it put an end date to Malthouse's coaching stint and he upped the ante.

If that played a material part in getting the flag (IMO it did) then it was the best plan we've come up with since the Mathews succession plan under Bob Rose. The fact we won in 2010 and had a great 2011 for the most part meant it should have been revisited mid way through 2011. The fact it wasn't was a mistake. The way Buckley coached in 2012 though is hard to criticise. What he did post 2012 is hard to justify IMO.

 

[ksardog]

Back to blaming Malthouse again.

Blame someone thats not there anymore, easier that way

 

[ksardog]

If that played a material part in getting the flag (IMO it did) then it was the best plan we've come up with since the Mathews succession plan under Bob Rose. The fact we won in 2010 and had a great 2011 for the most part meant it should have been revisited mid way through 2011. The fact it wasn't was a mistake. The way Buckley coached in 2012 though is hard to criticise. What he did post 2012 is hard to justify IMO.

Yet in 2012 buckley said he didnt change anything re game plan. Seemed to hold up ok.

 

[PieNSauce]

What he did post 2012 is hard to justify IMO.

If what you're referring to is the club's stated intention of a cultural realignment then I respectfully disagree. I'm absolutely unconvinced that the list we had combined with the culture was going to bring us significant success and even if it did, at best it would be very short term. I'm more than happy that the club took an equal risk but longer term path.