Mega Thread The new Bucks mega-thread. It's Official. 2 Year Deal for Bucks.

[BringouttheGimp]

Given that trav got a few of us with his Greg Swan joke, I'm kinda hoping he is playing us along. Please say it's so Trav.
If not Trav buddy I don't think even Hitler is as hated as Bucks seems to be with you. He is a Collingwood legend did you forget he won a Norm Smith in the granny against the best midfield of all time. He is our coach let's forget what happened 7/8 years ago, embrace him as our coach and lets hope for better results.
The sensible Trav I reckon I could discuss Collingwood over a beer all day long the angry Trav...?

It does not bother you that there are elements of bias in the decision to re-appoint him? Let's just throw a party and embrace the decision. Let's just overlook it right?

It bloody bothers me no end. It's plain and simply.. not right at all!

 

[Jasper84]

My gripe with this whole thing is not necessarily Buckley's re-appointment. If he is deemed to be the best candidate then so be it. What should of happened though is that Buckley be made to re-apply for the job with all of the other prospective candidates, which clearly didn't happen because you can't formally interview applicants until their season is done.

Even if they went through the process, interviewed other candidates and doctored the outcome, at least they show to the members/supporters that everything is now done with due diligence and consideration.

It's the hypocrisy of saying that you went through an extensive and exhausting review only to not go through an extensive search for the right coach which really irks me.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Damn I was holding a candle.

Go and hold a candle in Ed's Masonic Lodge mate. You can find yourself a skulls and bones trilateral Commission Bilderberger outfit from a fancy dress shop.

 

[Bad Horse]

My gripe with this whole thing is not necessarily Buckley's re-appointment. If he is deemed to be the best candidate then so be it. What should of happened though is that Buckley be made to re-apply for the job with all of the other prospective candidates, which clearly didn't happen because you can't formally interview applicants until their season is done.

Even if they went through the process, interviewed other candidates and doctored the outcome, at least they show to the members/supporters that everything is now done with due diligence and consideration.

It's the hypocrisy of saying that you went through an extensive and exhausting review only to not go through an extensive search for the right coach which really irks me.

They went through an extensive and exhaustive review to find reasons to do what they wanted to do all along. Having found them, they acted swiftly and decisively.

 

[Bad Horse]

Go and hold a candle in Ed's Masonic Lodge mate. You can find yourself a skulls and bones trilateral Commission Bilderberger outfit from a fancy dress shop.

I'd rather be naked and covered in taramasalata.

Sure you woudnt care to join me?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

My gripe with this whole thing is not necessarily Buckley's re-appointment. If he is deemed to be the best candidate then so be it. What should of happened though is that Buckley be made to re-apply for the job with all of the other prospective candidates, which clearly didn't happen because you can't formally interview applicants until their season is done.

Even if they went through the process, interviewed other candidates and doctored the outcome, at least they show to the members/supporters that everything is now done with due diligence and consideration.

It's the hypocrisy of saying that you went through an extensive and exhausting review only to not go through an extensive search for the right coach which really irks me.

But no club does that when the give an existing coach a contract extension

 

[westozpie]

It does not bother you that there are elements of bias in the decision to re-appoint him? Let's just throw a party and embrace the decision. Let's just overlook it right?

It bloody bothers me no end. It's plain and simply.. not right at all!

If you want to believe or you have knowledge that Geoff Walsh is someone that was bullied into putting this report together to suit Ed it's up to you.
Tell you what I understand, Geoff Walsh by all reports I have seen is a man of integrity and a man that knows footy clubs backwards, better than us two...babe.
It's hillbilly stuff to think he just went along with this review just for show. I believe it's what he truly believes is best for the club in its entirety and the board rubber stamped it

 

[MarkT2]

But no club does that when the give an existing coach a contract extension

That is true. Then again, no club has given an existing coach an extension after 6 years of decline (2017 ladder/win/loss semantics aside).

 

[Gone Critical]

C'mon man this 1 in 17 odds is a load of hog wash. Every breath we take is a gamble.. everything we do in our lives is a gamble.. to suggest it's an even playing field for all of us is complete garbage.

I agree it's not a level field. Just amused by you arguing against 17:1 using a team that has that as their flag average.

Real point is each season there are teams with much better than 1:18 odds for the flag some much worse. Thats ok to argue but isnt useful in saying what actions a club should take. Trick is to take measures to make your chances of success as good as possible. All teams do with varying degrees of success. We need to get ourselves to the pointy end, we are trying and hopefully Bucks is the man.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

That is true. Then again, no club has given an existing coach an extension after 6 years of decline (2017 ladder/win/loss semantics aside).

Again Mark, your focus is on the negative...it must do your head in at times

 

[HeathySure]

My gripe with this whole thing is not necessarily Buckley's re-appointment. If he is deemed to be the best candidate then so be it. What should of happened though is that Buckley be made to re-apply for the job with all of the other prospective candidates, which clearly didn't happen because you can't formally interview applicants until their season is done.

Even if they went through the process, interviewed other candidates and doctored the outcome, at least they show to the members/supporters that everything is now done with due diligence and consideration.

It's the hypocrisy of saying that you went through an extensive and exhausting review only to not go through an extensive search for the right coach which really irks me.

But "they think they identified why we were going wrong"

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I ask you this..

You keep referring to the 1 in 17 odds of winning a premiership.

Well then what are Geelong and Sydney thinking.. they're a 1 in 17 chance? Geelong gets gifted games on a silver platter in Geelong.. and we all know how rigged Sydney's chances are. So effectively.. they are a 1 in 8 chance at the very least of winning a premiership every f yr.

We have to devise a plan of being a 1 in 8 chance at the very least.. f this 1 in 17 BS.. there are teams like Brisbane and Carlton who are null and void as well.

I think it's one in eighteen, but anyway.
That's why having better players better advatages boosts your chances.
As it's not the casino roulette wheel you can move the odds a bit but ultimately not that much

Unless

You have the better players

 

[BringouttheGimp]

I agree it's not a level field. Just amused by you arguing against 17:1 using a team that has that as their flag average.

Real point is each season there are teams with much better than 1:18 odds for the flag some much worse. Thats ok to argue but isnt useful in saying what actions a club should take. Trick is to take measures to make your chances of success as good as possible. All teams do with varying degrees of success. We need to get ourselves to the pointy end, we are trying and hopefully Bucks is the man.

Buckley is an AFL endorsed product. You know that. A select few are. It's not only a Collingwood decision to keep him in charge.. it's the AFL bougeouis that put one hand on eye.

 

[jmac70]

Buckley is an AFL endorsed product. You know that. A select few are. It's not only a Collingwood decision to keep him in charge.. it's the AFL bougeouis that put one hand on eye.

Now you're being silly.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

I think it's one in eighteen, but anyway.
That's why having better players better advatages boosts your chances.
As it's not the casino roulette wheel you can move the odds a bit but ultimately not that much

Unless

You have the better players

Yeah ok.. spoken like a true saint who has been in love with the track for 50 yrs or whatever.

I trust your post.. 110%

 

[Saintly Viewed]

At 15% seems like he was fortunate to be extended

Fortune favours the brave.

Ofcourse he was fortunate by general football behaviour, coach gets it more often than not.

Bringing in jock McHale Norm smith Clarkson wouldn't increase the odds significantly without quality players.

Bring in lynch as an example we already better....

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I walk into a nightclub.. 1000 patrons.. 500 male.. 500 female.. am I a 1 in 500 chance of picking up now?

If you like your odds in dishlickers and nag racing when the mighty mare Winks is racing in the Echuca dip spit classic agst 16 other shit kicking horses is Winks a 1 in 17 chance?

Don't understand you seriously!

• Your chances in a night Club would

• 1,000/1 of picking up

• Once you start talking 10,000/1 of picking up

This might come as a shock to you, but I didn't say it's 18/1, actually that's odds

I said only 1 team each year is truly successful.
That's 1 success and in essence 17 other failures.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Yeah ok.. spoken like a true saint who has been in love with the track for 50 yrs or whatever.

I trust your post.. 110%

Im not 50

 

[Jasper84]

But no club does that when the give an existing coach a contract extension

That shouldn't preclude Collingwood from doing it. No club spruiks it's amazing review process either but we sure like to bang on about how diligent it was.

 

[jmac70]

Im not 50

Gimp has a problem with old people.

 

[surfer1]

Could this be the quickest thread to reach 100 pages?

 

[HeathySure]

Fortune favours the brave.

Ofcourse he was fortunate by general football behaviour, coach gets it more often than not.

Bringing in jock McHale Norm smith Clarkson wouldn't increase the odds significantly without quality players.

Bring in lynch as an example we already better....

if the ball doesnt get delivered to lynch properly we are not better

 

[Baltimore Jack]

That shouldn't preclude Collingwood from doing it. No club spruiks it's amazing review process either but we sure like to bang on about how diligent it was.

They all do

 

[jmac70]

Could this be the quickest thread to reach 100 pages?

Mods should just merge all the Bucks threads into one.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

as an odds person you should know that not every race is even. There are trainers who's horses are always better trained and placed better and therefore a better chance of winning the race, Geelong, Sydney, Hawthorn etc are all much shorter odds than that, Collingwood's are much worse, I would suggest going by history we are a $100/1 chance next year and maybe 30/1 the next year IF we improve next year, Together we might be 25/1 to win one in the next 2 years.
I would suggest if Malthouse was kept on in 2012 we would have been about a 4/1 chance to win, the following years, who knows, depends on what we recruited cos i an guarantee our side would be totally different compared to what we have now. What we did by appointing Buckley was change our odds from short to long. They are even longer now.
Sometimes thats a good plan for long term gain... unfortunately this did not work out, as our previous history has told us.
so we took Collingwood off Bart Cummings and gave him to Jim Marconi...

Your odds scenario is far better than mine.
Don't agree 4/1 with Mick, ageing elite players by then but certainly we still would have made the prelim.
But Hawthorn was ready and they would have sliced us up, I'd say.

Not sure I'd say Mick was Bart, mick a great coach but different league is Bart.

Mick might have been Jack Denham, irascible but very astute.
Nathan isn't Jim Marconi either.

Jim only trained a few at a time, his own pretty much, has a few beauties, Taras Bulba, Cossack Prince spring to mind. Taras Bulba would be his best Horse I'd suggest, something like 5 group 1s (might be 4 but 5 is my guess including AJC Derby.)

Nathan a bit more like a young trainer given medium bred types with a few two year olds still in the paddock.