Mega Thread The 2016 Buckley Coaching Discussion

[PhiloBeddoe]

An interesting post - defending Buckley's zoning strategy on the grounds that we cannot go man on man with faster and more skilful opponents...

Okay, so...

WTF have we been doing for the past several seasons to recruit players who can play man on man?

No, it wasn't a post defending Buckley's zoning. It was meant address those who want man on man yet say that we are poorly skilled and don't have any speed. Those who have already written off our players as duds.
I'm an advocate of zoning but it depends on where and when the zones are taking place. Am I an advocate of Buckley's zoning strategy? It doesn't seem to be working so of course not.

 

[sr36]

I will say it again, Bucks will walk before he is sacked if and when that seems inevitable

On of Bucks's most admirable traits is a never give up, keep working hard approach to life. He was an ordinary junior footballer who warmed the bench for his school team. In order to become the player he became, he played footy 12 months of the year and trained much harder than anyone else. The guy isn't going to give up and quit. If he leaves, it'll be because he is pushed. I have no doubt if he is pushed, he will go gracefully.

 

[PicaBoo]

Whatever you think of Buckley's speech, "Churchillian" is the last term that'd be used to describe it ...

... unless it was an attempt at sarcasm or irony.

Churchill was very uniting, his speeches were very uniting. He used lots of "we" pronouns in an inclusive manner (eg: he was talking to every Brit in his famous "We will fight them on the beaches ..." speech)

By contrast, Buckley uses a lot of "I" / "you" pronouns. Have a watch of his speech again and pay attention to the way he addresses you, the viewer. Pay attention to the way he talks about himself and the team and the club. Is he uniting or separating?

When he specifically uses terms "the club" and "us" (without qualifying them), is he implying that you are a part of that?

There is a point where he says "... and finally, if I had to put myself in your shoes, a Collingwood member and supporter right now, I'd be wondering if ...". He didn't need to express it that way. He is a Collingwood member and supporter. He is one of us (albeit in a privileged and responsible position). He is in our shoes!?!? Isn't he?

What was the purpose of this 'speech'? To unite the members and supporters behind the team and the coaching staff and administrators? He could have done a much better job of that.

I'm not knocking Buckley for this - it happens throughout the club starting from the very top.

For many years I've felt that the club have put up a big thick glass wall between themselves and their members / supporters.

The club have made itself exclusive not inclusive.

It kinda defeats the notion of what a 'club' is about, all the more so for a club that once prided itself on being the peoples' club.

It's not healthy, and it's going to have to be fixed at some stage if "Good Old Collingwood" is going to be "Forever".

Up to a point agree. To put the blame on the board is very easy. Maybe something to do with the supportersbase too? The disunity was created by the succession plan where the club went in a unpopular direction that not veryone was ready to follow. Bucks might have been given benefit of the doubt but the disgruntled supporters from those days would always be coming out of the woodwork when things go bad. And in the wake of general discontent, convincing other supporters that it is the clubs fault, widening the gap. The club has underestimated how successful that white anting has been for the past years. Club has been doing themselves no favors by raising expectations but not meeting them (partially out of their control) further fuelling the discontent.
Now they finally realize that they haven't effectively addressed the lingering doubts, if not hatred, about the decision regarding Bucks.

 

[sr36]

No, it wasn't a post defending Buckley's zoning. It was meant address those who want man on man yet say that we are poorly skilled and don't have any speed. Those who have already written off our players as duds.
I'm an advocate of zoning but it depends on where and when the zones are taking place. Am I an advocate of Buckley's zoning strategy? It doesn't seem to be working so of course not.

Our midfielders are one paced, but in terms of our defenders, we could pick a very fast defence - Marsh, Sinclair, Toovey, Goldsack, Frost - these guys all fly and are pretty good defensively, Brown and Reid are probably average to above average in terms of pace for their position. Personally, I'd like to see our defenders go man to man and our midfielders and half forwards zone back to cover the dangerous spots - it's the way most teams seem to do it. It also has the added advantage of when we do make an interception we are likely to have midfielders in space to feed it off to .

 

[Chameleon75]

Up to a point agree. To put the blame on the board is very easy. Maybe something to do with the supportersbase too? The disunity was created by the succession plan where the club went in a unpopular direction that not veryone was ready to follow. Bucks might have been given benefit of the doubt but the disgruntled supporters from those days would always be coming out of the woodwork when things go bad. And in the wake of general discontent, convincing other supporters that it is the clubs fault, widening the gap. The club has underestimated how successful that white anting has been for the past years. Club has been doing themselves no favors by raising expectations but not meeting them (partially out of their control) further fuelling the discontent.
Now they finally realize that they haven't effectively addressed the lingering doubts, if not hatred, about the decision regarding Bucks.

is that you paul roos?

 

[sr36]

Up to a point agree. To put the blame on the board is very easy. Maybe something to do with the supportersbase too? The disunity was created by the succession plan where the club went in a unpopular direction that not veryone was ready to follow. Bucks might have been given benefit of the doubt but the disgruntled supporters from those days would always be coming out of the woodwork when things go bad. And in the wake of general discontent, convincing other supporters that it is the clubs fault, widening the gap. The club has underestimated how successful that white anting has been for the past years. Club has been doing themselves no favors by raising expectations but not meeting them (partially out of their control) further fuelling the discontent.
Now they finally realize that they haven't effectively addressed the lingering doubts, if not hatred, about the decision regarding Bucks.

To me the current disgruntlement and disunity is simply a matter of us achieving well below our expectations. This always results in the knives coming out. The succession plan is merely a convenient focal point for the disgruntled.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Whatever you think of Buckley's speech, "Churchillian" is the last term that'd be used to describe it ...

... unless it was an attempt at sarcasm or irony.

Churchill was very uniting, his speeches were very uniting. He used lots of "we" pronouns in an inclusive manner (eg: he was talking to every Brit in his famous "We will fight them on the beaches ..." speech)

By contrast, Buckley uses a lot of "I" / "you" pronouns. Have a watch of his speech again and pay attention to the way he addresses you, the viewer. Pay attention to the way he talks about himself and the team and the club. Is he uniting or separating?

When he specifically uses terms "the club" and "us" (without qualifying them), is he implying that you are a part of that?

There is a point where he says "... and finally, if I had to put myself in your shoes, a Collingwood member and supporter right now, I'd be wondering if ...". He didn't need to express it that way. He is a Collingwood member and supporter. He is one of us (albeit in a privileged and responsible position). He is in our shoes!?!? Isn't he?

What was the purpose of this 'speech'? To unite the members and supporters behind the team and the coaching staff and administrators? He could have done a much better job of that.

I'm not knocking Buckley for this - it happens throughout the club starting from the very top.

For many years I've felt that the club have put up a big thick glass wall between themselves and their members / supporters.

The club have made itself exclusive not inclusive.

It kinda defeats the notion of what a 'club' is about, all the more so for a club that once prided itself on being the peoples' club.

It's not healthy, and it's going to have to be fixed at some stage if "Good Old Collingwood" is going to be "Forever".

Good post.

It all starts from the top though in my opinion.

Ed has been there a tad too long and is starting to lose sight of things. The focus of the club appears to be all about revenue and having something to brag about to the outside. But what is more worrisome is the way the club seems to trumpet it's greatness even to members and supporters.

I mean, at what point does all this off field greatness translate to on field greatness?

 

[PicaBoo]

To me the current disgruntlement and disunity is simply a matter of us achieving well below our expectations. This always results in the knives coming out. The succession plan is merely a convenient focal point for the disgruntled.

For newcomers like me, it is astounding how many times MM gets mentioned.
You don't realise how toxic that succession has become due to relentless white anting. Even when things go well, Bucks would be measured against MM. They remind me of whinging POM's.
To quote Churchill "if you are going through hell, keep going".

 

[No SPIN]

I haven't heard that Buckley had wanted MM to another year and would not have believed it if I had. The two men thoroughly disliked each other in the end. If MM had stayed, the men would never have harmonious coached together.

Maybe MM secretly believed that Buckley would not make a good coach?. Perhaps Buckley's relationship with the players was not how MM would have interacted, or maybe he saw that Buck's inner self-talk motivation approach was no match for his mix of fire and brimstone and love of the boys?

Surely the difference in their styles was evident in the cultural revolution under Buckley that outed Thomas, Shaw, Didak, Wellingham and others? To suggest that Bucks and Mick could amicably have spent another year together, and that Bucks actually suggested the arrangement to Ed, is ludicrous.

People criticise Bucks that he should have allowed MM to continue for another year - now the suggestion the he did make the offer, is seen as incredulous, rather than what it really was, ie a magnanimous gesture for the good of the club, which is entirely consistent with his CLUB FIRST philosophy.

Only those who believe he does not have a CLUB FIRST philosophy would choose to disbelieve he made the offer.

 

[No SPIN]

The succession plan was made in 2009.

Unless folks are prepared to wind the clock all the way back to 2009, they can't say it failed.

The Swans have shown that a succession plan can work. Roos -> Longmire delivered them the 2012 Premiership.

How can people debate the success or failure of the succession plan when it never started - MM dumped us and so the succession plan never started.

 

[Chameleon75]

To me the current disgruntlement and disunity is simply a matter of us achieving well below our expectations. This always results in the knives coming out. The succession plan is merely a convenient focal point for the disgruntled.

there is a strong element of truth in that, but I think it goes a little further. The club didn't manage expectations adequately. when the succession plan was announced it was well received, but coming off a flag and a 23W 3L season there was a shift amoungst many to a more pragmatic time line.

The clubs response was to present it as a continuation of the same regime albeit with a different leader, you even have the hierarchy talking premiership in the first year. What transpired was completely different, leading teams shaking up the players, turn over of list, new game plan, thats a far cry from minimalist change that that was presented.

They should've been honest, new coach new direction rather than presenting it as a continuation of the old.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

How can people debate the success or failure of the succession plan when it never started - MM dumped us and so the succession plan never started.

If it doesn't end up in a Pies flag during Buckley's tenure, you can guarantee that it will be regarded as a failure. The media and forums will talk about how it was stupid to begin with and how the blame lies firmly on Eddie and Buckley. Fair or not, the white anters won't be scrutinised.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

there is a strong element of truth in that, but I think it goes a little further. The club didn't manage expectations adequately. when the succession plan was announced it was well received, but coming off a flag and a 23W 3L season there was a shift amoungst many to a more pragmatic time line.

The clubs response was to present it as a continuation of the same regime albeit with a different leader, you even have the hierarchy talking premiership in the first year. What transpired was completely different, leading teams shaking up the players, turn over of list, new game plan, thats a far cry from minimalist change that that was presented.

They should've been honest, new coach new direction rather than presenting it as a continuation of the old.

But I don't think any of that was stated by the Club it was more of a fan expectation, not necessarily a Club expectation

 

[Chameleon75]

But I don't think any of that was stated by the Club it was more of a fan expectation, not necessarily a Club expectation

On April 30, Collingwood chief executive Gary Pert told The Age that the succession planning was ''designed to minimise the disruption to the football program so you get all the advantages of bringing new people in like a Nathan Buckley but you don't have to do what quite often happens - which is change the whole football program when you change your coach''.

''So in essence, the transitional plan we've got in place … is designed to have minimal change across the board,'' Pert said.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/buckley-regime-taking-shape-20110630-1gt29.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...er-flag-first-up/story-e6frf9jf-1226280287764

Fan expectations were shaped by comments coming from the club.

 

[doodles98]

there is a strong element of truth in that, but I think it goes a little further. The club didn't manage expectations adequately. when the succession plan was announced it was well received, but coming off a flag and a 23W 3L season there was a shift amoungst many to a more pragmatic time line.

The clubs response was to present it as a continuation of the same regime albeit with a different leader, you even have the hierarchy talking premiership in the first year. What transpired was completely different, leading teams shaking up the players, turn over of list, new game plan, thats a far cry from minimalist change that that was presented.

They should've been honest, new coach new direction rather than presenting it as a continuation of the old.

I disagree with this in that in Buckley's first year, 2012, the team was left unchanged pretty much and played to their familiar style with only a few tweaks. The club, players and Buckley all said as much. I didn't see any major shift in that year. There was a notable drop in intensity though and the press was being picked apart by other gameplans. We had an atrocious year with injury and ended up playing a lot of inexperience but still managed a prelim and only lost to the eventual premier. I think Bucks did well this year actually. Whether or not what transpired after 2012 was inevitable/ the right call will always be a point of debate.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/buckley-regime-taking-shape-20110630-1gt29.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...er-flag-first-up/story-e6frf9jf-1226280287764

Fan expectations were shaped by comments coming from the club.

Thanks

 

[Chameleon75]

I disagree with this in that in Buckley's first year, 2012, the team was left unchanged pretty much and played to their familiar style with only a few tweaks. The club, players and Buckley all said as much. I didn't see any major shift in that year. There was a notable drop in intensity though and the press was being picked apart by other gameplans. We had an atrocious year with injury and ended up playing a lot of inexperience but still managed a prelim and only lost to the eventual premier. I think Bucks did well this year actually. Whether or not what transpired after 2012 was inevitable/ the right call will always be a point of debate.

thats not what im arguing, I'm talking about how the club managed expectations

 

[sr36]

there is a strong element of truth in that, but I think it goes a little further. The club didn't manage expectations adequately. when the succession plan was announced it was well received, but coming off a flag and a 23W 3L season there was a shift amoungst many to a more pragmatic time line.

The clubs response was to present it as a continuation of the same regime albeit with a different leader, you even have the hierarchy talking premiership in the first year. What transpired was completely different, leading teams shaking up the players, turn over of list, new game plan, thats a far cry from minimalist change that that was presented.

They should've been honest, new coach new direction rather than presenting it as a continuation of the old.

Expectations in 2012 were high and rightfully so as we were a dominant team. I reckon the club did a wonderful job of lowering expectations and turning over the list between 2013 and this year, without copping a great deal of supporter or media backlash. This year the expectation was that the time was right for the club to make a big step forward. That big step doesn't appear likely to occur so the knives are out.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I abandoned my belief in Buckley as coach at around 4pm last Saturday. If he can turn it around I will happily get back on the bandwagon. That is the nature of footy, coaches are judged on results, we are currently uncompetitive against teams that are themselves uncompetitive against quality teams. That is how far we have dropped in only three games. Alarm bells are ringing my friend.

Some good and fair points.
But sometimes reading too much BigFooty brings too much negativity.
Sometime soon better to have a nice drink, or a walk, a bit of a relaxing time...
Then a good game or two by our boys and life is ok again.

Funny thing as bad as we have been (and it's bad) for all that we sit 1 - 2 so long long way from doom.
A few more games will tell more of the tale.

Sport in general is vicious...

 

[Saintly Viewed]

A poster on The Collingwood Blog refers to the "Churchillian speech by Nathe on Buck’s Brief."

Uh huh.

Did the poster know / realise Churchill came back and won the premiership once again, then rule for a good time?
Knowledge is a dangerous thing at times

 

[PicaBoo]

Expectations in 2012 were high and rightfully so as we were a dominant team. I reckon the club did a wonderful job of lowering expectations and turning over the list between 2013 and this year, without copping a great deal of supporter or media backlash. This year the expectation was that the time was right for the club to make a big step forward. That big step doesn't appear likely to occur so the knives are out.

Did they actually manage to lower expectations? Judging by the way people go on about the 'successful' team that was dismantled , they did a bad job in doing that.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Whatever you think of Buckley's speech, "Churchillian" is the last term that'd be used to describe it ...

... unless it was an attempt at sarcasm or irony.

Churchill was very uniting, his speeches were very uniting. He used lots of "we" pronouns in an inclusive manner (eg: he was talking to every Brit in his famous "We will fight them on the beaches ..." speech)

By contrast, Buckley uses a lot of "I" / "you" pronouns. Have a watch of his speech again and pay attention to the way he addresses you, the viewer. Pay attention to the way he talks about himself and the team and the club. Is he uniting or separating?

When he specifically uses terms "the club" and "us" (without qualifying them), is he implying that you are a part of that?

There is a point where he says "... and finally, if I had to put myself in your shoes, a Collingwood member and supporter right now, I'd be wondering if ...". He didn't need to express it that way. He is a Collingwood member and supporter. He is one of us (albeit in a privileged and responsible position). He is in our shoes!?!? Isn't he?

What was the purpose of this 'speech'? To unite the members and supporters behind the team and the coaching staff and administrators? He could have done a much better job of that.

I'm not knocking Buckley for this - it happens throughout the club starting from the very top.

For many years I've felt that the club have put up a big thick glass wall between themselves and their members / supporters.

The club have made itself exclusive not inclusive.

It kinda defeats the notion of what a 'club' is about, all the more so for a club that once prided itself on being the peoples' club.

It's not healthy, and it's going to have to be fixed at some stage if "Good Old Collingwood" is going to be "Forever".

Interesting points.
Nothing is more unifying than winning a flag.
Ofcourse the Club has a wall between the actual stuff they do and the supporters.
In reality we choose to support etc and we are really a mechanism to deliver the Club and AFL funds, ratings etc.
Eg: grand final, let's be brutal here, who gets main dibs on tickets? Big money.
Not saying it's an absolute terrible thing, just saying the reality as I see it.
Conversely,
We support Collingwood because we chose them, for whatever reason, and we like supporting in sport. Not more complicated than that. But Collngwood in return needs to deliver to satisfy us.
Eg see the negativity when we do badly, that's humans saying, "I love Collingwood, but I'm happy to rip the place apart knock everyone off, coach, players, board, etc unless I get my way and the team performs to MY expectation." We humans are very interesting like that.
Ultimately each component plays a part in different ways, but everyone is sort of using everyone else.
Just how it is.
Eg: You really think Eddie for all his love of Collingwood isn't on the massive ego trip? It's how these things play out.
It's not a criticism, just a look at how we humans interact. Fascinating

 

[neilk]

Not sure if this has been discussed or whether this is the place to discuss this, but there were several callers to SEN yesterday claiming to have sources that have told them the players are divided. It seems after the Keeffe/Thomas situation arose the players got together and decided that this could not happen again and everyone had to give away the drugs for the good of the club. When the positive hair-test story came to light it meant that quite a few felt betrayed by those that had tested positive after entering into the pledge to stay away from drugs. May be BS but thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Not sure if this has been discussed or whether this is the place to discuss this, but there were several callers to SEN yesterday claiming to have sources that have told them the players are divided. It seems after the Keeffe/Thomas situation arose the players got together and decided that this could not happen again and everyone had to give away the drugs for the good of the club. When the positive hair-test story came to light it meant that quite a few felt betrayed by those that had tested positive after entering into the pledge to stay away from drugs. May be BS but thought it was worth mentioning.

Someone in here also pointed out that the group was divided.
It's not hard to make up a story like that based on what arose last year however it's also possible that there is some truth to it. None of it surprises.

 

[CFC2010]

Not sure if this has been discussed or whether this is the place to discuss this, but there were several callers to SEN yesterday claiming to have sources that have told them the players are divided. It seems after the Keeffe/Thomas situation arose the players got together and decided that this could not happen again and everyone had to give away the drugs for the good of the club. When the positive hair-test story came to light it meant that quite a few felt betrayed by those that had tested positive after entering into the pledge to stay away from drugs. May be BS but thought it was worth mentioning.

Let me get this right......the players made a pact not to take drugs during their break??

Sounds Legit