Mega Thread The 2016 Buckley Coaching Discussion

[sr36]

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".

I know what you mean, but I would add that many anti-MM fans bring him up ad nauseum and then go onto whine about him being discussed.

 

[PicaBoo]

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.

TradeDraft mentioned that y'day. Was a separate thread before merged with his random thoughts thread.

 

[sr36]

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.

During 2013, 2014 and 2015 we saw significant decline, yet there were no voices in the media decrying Bucks and the vociferous voices amongst supporters were a small but vocal minority. Most were of the opinion that this was the recession that we had to have in order to achieve a later period of sustained success.

P.S. I'm not really sure why you put 'successful' in quotation marks - they were successful. 'Dismantled' would have more appropriately been put into quotation marks.

 

[Maggie5]

I know what you mean, but I would add that many anti-MM fans bring him up ad nauseum and then go onto whine about him being discussed.

I would be very interested to know who these anti MM posters are that bring it up first as to me they normally respond to the pro group that haven't gotten over his leaving.

 

[PicaBoo]

During 2013, 2014 and 2015 we saw significant decline, yet there were no voices in the media decrying Bucks and the vociferous voices amongst supporters were a small but vocal minority.Most were of the opinion that this was the recession that we had to have in order to achieve a later period of sustained success.

P.S. I'm not really sure why you put 'successful' in quotation marks - they were successful. 'Dismantled' would have more appropriately been put into quotation marks.

Supporters might have been silent, it doesn't mean approving. I can understand that the club interpreted that as such Most of the MM is not that we picked the wrong man for the succession job but still lingering resentment that MM had to go in the first place. So the club did a bad job at managing expectations there.
Successful in quotes as I doubt by the time the ladder slide/'dismantling' started, it would have brought more success under MM than what Bucks achieved.

 

[Jonno94]

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

Sounds Legit

More like they made a pact to all buy from the same legitimate dealers.

 

[CFC2010]

More like they made a pact to all buy from the same legitimate dealers.

Legitimate dealers made me LOL.......thanks

The rumour is crap they are just trying to destabilise our Club.

Sunday could not come around quick enough for me.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Legitimate dealers made me LOL.......thanks

The rumour is crap they are just trying to destabilise our Club.

Sunday could not come around quick enough for me.

I'd say that they are attempting to cast even more doubt on Buckley's leadership rather than destabilise the club. In their minds, Buckley being axed now will benefit the club.
Spread the rumour to destabilise, or spread the rumour to kill off Buckley? Some think that both reasons are mutually exclusive.

 

[Vicky Park]

We shall fight them on the beaches...sorry, wrong forum. As you were.

 

[loki04]

Things can turn around for Buckley and Club but it want to come over the next 3 weeks before we hit the top clubs to instil some form of confidence and form going into those tougher games.

 

[Scodog10]

What a load of crap that is with the pact lol.

No playing group is ever fully committed to the cause some players go along to get along, but to palm it off on illicit drugs causing the problem is false.

FWIW I'd say it's more likely a Buckley sympathiser putting it out there to put the pressure on the players and take it off the coach.

 

[swoop42]

Teams constantly evolve in terms of personnel from year to year.

Players retire, get injured, come in as young draftees and get recruited from other clubs.

The Hawthorn premiership side of 2008 had an average age of 24y 219 days.

The Collingwood side of 2010 an average of 24y 57 days.

But that isn't even the important point.

The Hawthorn grand final side of 2012 only had 10 individuals who played in 08.

In there premiership year of 2013 that figure was one less at 9.

That's more than half a team different in the time frame that we've gone from premiership contender to finals pretender while the hawks have just completed the three peat.

For me the succession plan has proven to be both a short term brilliant success and a medium term complete failure.

I'll maintain to the day I die that the succession plan was the catalyst for our premiership in 2010, that it drove the very best out of Mick as coach at a time the list was primed and hungry for success with a sound mix of youth and experience.

However in hindsight I believe cooler heads should have prevailed during our dominant 2011 home and away season with Buckley asked to put aside his ambitions for at least another 12 months with Malthouse retained as senior coach for 2012.

Now whether either man would have accepted this is unclear but if it had come to be then you feel Malthouse would have felt less bitter about the succession plan, that he wasn't robbed of another serious tilt at a flag in 2012 and may have been willing to undertake the director of coaching position.

Arguably even more importantly the players themselves many of which naturally felt strong loyalty to there long time and premiership coach would have been more accomodating of the goal of the succession plan and as competitive individuals not left with the feeling of a reduced opportunity to win another flag with a rookie coach.

Alas it didn't turn out like that and in the years since the dynasty Ed had envisaged has all but evaporated.

Probably the biggest direct consequence of the coaching handover has been the continual loss of the players who with those who remain from 2010 could have been the back bone of continued success like Hawthorn

While I don't put all the blame squarely on the shoulders of Buckley it's clear that personality issues arose with some players under his reign that were once loyal servants of Malthouse.

Again this isn't entirely the fault of the coach but it would be interesting to know if Shaw, O'Brien, Thomas, Wellingham and Beams would all still be at the club if Malthouse was still coach.

That loss of experience has hurt us in the short to medium term and we've cut to deep in trying to bring about "culture" change which some would argue wasn't required to begin with and has been a failure anyway it would seem.

While there loss is still being felt we did get something back in terms of top 20 draft selections and players so it's not sole reason for our current position nor an excuse and as Hawthorn has shown with smart targeted recruiting you can lose many members of a premiership side and still remain highly competitive 5 to 7years later.

Unfortunately since securing Ball and Jolly we haven't had any real success in this area until Varcoe last season have we?

That's a 6 year gap and plainly not a good enough performance from our recruitment staff and coaches and yet another reason why we've fallen off the pace as a team.

So here we are it's 2016 and our first 3 weeks have mostly been a putrid display of football.

There might be many excuses given or reasons for our current position and Buckley isn't responsible for all but he is for the game plan and it's been plainly awful this year and had major flaws in the past which have only been magnified to all and sundry of late and not simply appeared from nowhere.

If we don't improve markedly over the next 3 months he'll rightfully face the sack.

For a coach in his 5th season that appears highly reasonable to me.

 

[Chameleon75]

Teams constantly evolve in terms of personnel from year to year.

Players retire, get injured, come in as young draftees and get recruited from other clubs.

The Hawthorn premiership side of 2008 had an average age of 24y 219 days.

The Collingwood side of 2010 an average of 24y 57 days.

But that isn't even the important point.

The Hawthorn grand final side of 2012 only had 10 individuals who played in 08.

In there premiership year of 2013 that figure was one less at 9.

That's more than half a team different in the time frame that we've gone from premiership contender to finals pretender while the hawks have just completed the three peat.

For me the succession plan has proven to be both a short term brilliant success and a medium term complete failure.

I'll maintain to the day I die that the succession plan was the catalyst for our premiership in 2010, that it drove the very best out of Mick as coach at a time the list was primed and hungry for success with a sound mix of youth and experience.

However in hindsight I believe cooler heads should have prevailed during our dominant 2011 home and away season with Buckley asked to put aside his ambitions for at least another 12 months with Malthouse retained as senior coach for 2012.

Now whether either man would have accepted this is unclear but if it had come to be then you feel Malthouse would have felt less bitter about the succession plan, that he wasn't robbed of another serious tilt at a flag in 2012 and may have been willing to undertake the director of coaching position.

Arguably even more importantly the players themselves many of which naturally felt strong loyalty to there long time and premiership coach would have been more accomodating of the goal of the succession plan and as competitive individuals not left with the feeling of a reduced opportunity to win another flag with a rookie coach.

Alas it didn't turn out like that and in the years since the dynasty Ed had envisaged has all but evaporated.

Probably the biggest direct consequence of the coaching handover has been the continual loss of the players who with those who remain from 2010 could have been the back bone of continued success like Hawthorn

While I don't put all the blame squarely on the shoulders of Buckley it's clear that personality issues arose with some players under his reign that were once loyal servants of Malthouse.

Again this isn't entirely the fault of the coach but it would be interesting to know if Shaw, O'Brien, Thomas, Wellingham and Beams would all still be at the club if Malthouse was still coach.

That loss of experience has hurt us in the short to medium term and we've cut to deep in trying to bring about "culture" change which some would argue wasn't required to begin with and has been a failure anyway it would seem.

While there loss is still being felt we did get something back in terms of top 20 draft selections and players so it's not sole reason for our current position nor an excuse and as Hawthorn has shown with smart targeted recruiting you can lose many members of a premiership side and still remain highly competitive 5 to 7years later.

Unfortunately since securing Ball and Jolly we haven't had any real success in this area until Varcoe last season have we?

That's a 6 year gap and plainly not a good enough performance from our recruitment staff and coaches and yet another reason why we've fallen off the pace as a team.

So here we are it's 2016 and our first 3 weeks have mostly been a putrid display of football.

There might be many excuses given or reasons for our current position and Buckley isn't responsible for all but he is for the game plan and it's been plainly awful this year and had major flaws in the past which have only been magnified to all and sundry of late and not simply appeared from nowhere.

If we don't improve markedly over the next 3 months he'll rightfully face the sack.

For a coach in his 5th season that appears highly reasonable to me.

good summation, though I do think we tried to extend our run recruiting young, russell, lynch, hudson to do specific roles but it didn't work out and our hand forced after that. Possibly could've managed that period a little better.

 

[sr36]

I would be very interested to know who these anti MM posters are that bring it up first as to me they normally respond to the pro group that haven't gotten over his leaving.

Not sure of the names. There has been much discussion about Malthouse on this board over the last few years. Much of it has begun with posters having a go at Buckley and comparing him to Malthouse, but much of it has also begun by posters having a go at Malthouse.
I'm an unashamed Malthouse fan, who thinks he should be remembered as a Collingwood great, despite his multiple flaws. For a few years, sinking the boot into Malthouse has been fair game on this board. - he was an opposition coach so I get it, but much of the posting has been criticism about the time that he was Collingwood coach. When I and other posters have responded to Malthouse abuse related to his time with us, the fashionable response has been to complain that we are bringing up the past.

 

[Scodog10]

I would be very interested to know who these anti MM posters are that bring it up first as to me they normally respond to the pro group that haven't gotten over his leaving.

I'll name a name (mods can delete if they like), buckleyismyhero. During the pre-season I was lamenting our injury issues and they attempted to lump problems from 2013-2014 on MM and it stuck in my mind because of the absurdity of it.

There are posters out there that do it and despite my dislike of MM the person both during his time with us and since there are two things you have to respect about him a) his coaching record and b) his ability to squeeze every last drop out of a list. Neither of which Buckley can hold a candle to currently.

 

[Maggie5]

Not sure of the names. There has been much discussion about Malthouse on this board over the last few years. Much of it has begun with posters having a go at Buckley and comparing him to Malthouse, but much of it has also begun by posters having a go at Malthouse.
I'm an unashamed Malthouse fan, who thinks he should be remembered as a Collingwood great, despite his multiple flaws. For a few years, sinking the boot into Malthouse has been fair game on this board. - he was an opposition coach so I get it, but much of the posting has been criticism about the time that he was Collingwood coach. When I and other posters have responded to Malthouse abuse related to his time with us, the fashionable response has been to complain that we are bringing up the past.

I see his name brought up after almost every game that we lose so I very much doubt it is the anti group that bring the name up. That was all I was saying.

 

[Maggie5]

I'll name a name (mods can delete if they like), buckleyismyhero. During the pre-season I was lamenting our injury issues and they attempted to lump problems from 2013-2014 on MM and it stuck in my mind because of the absurdity of it.

There are posters out there that do it and despite my dislike of MM the person both during his time with us and since there are two things you have to respect about him a) his coaching record and b) his ability to squeeze every last drop out of a list. Neither of which Buckley can hold a candle to currently.

I don't have to accept/respect either a) nor b).

 

[Scodog10]

I don't have to accept/respect either a) nor b).

True, but that probably reflects more on you than it does MM.

 

[Maggie5]

True, but that probably reflects more on you than it does MM.

Ooh that was a bit nasty. Oh well, life goes on and look no wound landed.

 

[Scodog10]

Ooh that was a bit nasty. Oh well, life goes on and look no wound landed.

Nasty? The guy has 3 premierships to his name, 8 grand finals, coached in the most finals ever and the most games ever. No, nasty is to say you can't accept the quality of his deeds as a coach!

It's like a Buckley hater saying they don't accept or respect Buckley's playing record.

 

[Bazzamatazz]

Youngest team in the league last week, and as Leigh Matthews has always stated:

"Cattle is 80% of a flag"

 

[sr36]

I see his name brought up after almost every game that we lose so I very much doubt it is the anti group that bring the name up. That was all I was saying.

I agree that it does, but this particular MM discussion didn't come up like that as many others don't. It's often easier to notice and remember things that you disagree strongly with than things you agree with.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

What a load of crap that is with the pact lol.

No playing group is ever fully committed to the cause some players go along to get along, but to palm it off on illicit drugs causing the problem is false.

FWIW I'd say it's more likely a Buckley sympathiser putting it out there to put the pressure on the players and take it off the coach.

Whereas it could also be a Buckley hater who is highlighting that the cultural changes have achieved nothing and there's a core group of 'up to 11' who still couldn't give a shit. Then they can go back to the players who were supposedly moved on due to cultural issues, lament the fact that they are no longer with us and say "see, all for nothing". Who's to blame for all of this? Buckley.

 

[Bazzamatazz]

Youngest team in the league last week, and as Leigh Matthews has always stated:

"Cattle is 80% of a flag"

 

[Maggie5]

Nasty? The guy has 3 premierships to his name, 8 grand finals, coached in the most finals ever and the most games ever. No, nasty is to say you can't accept the quality of his deeds as a coach!

It's like a Buckley hater saying they don't accept or respect Buckley's playing record.

Yawn...