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

[sr36]

Nah life's good. That's the thing, some of you paid up members of the Mick fan club don't get offended by anything he does, yeah that's not so vicious but as one of many barbs paints a picture of him as a bitter prick. Not that you could ever bring yourself to say it, just keep on patting him on the back and saying good onya
mate.
As for type of coach no that's not what I'm trying to say mate, he's not our coach now and it's the barbs after he stopped coaching Collingwood that I'm posting about.
So yes wanted him as Collingwood coach at the time even though he was an embarrassment even then but unlike you think he's a sniping selfish prick nowerdays due to his behaviour. Reckon most posters on here have a similar view to mine.

There's quite a lot of character assassination of MM that goes on from those who had nothing to do with him, but you don't tend to hear it from those who worked with and for him. In fact they tend to show a fair bit of warmth towards him.

 

[westozpie]

There's quite a lot of character assassination of MM that goes on from those who had nothing to do with him, but you don't tend to hear it from those who worked with and for him. In fact they tend to show a fair bit of warmth towards him.

Nah I think it's more the afl industry. When was the last time any one said something negative publicly about somebody, even Herd hardly got publicly criticism by any one in the industry bar few media

 

[sr36]

Nah I think it's more the afl industry. When was the last time any one said something negative publicly about somebody, even Herd hardly got publicly criticism by any one in the industry bar few media

Agree with your comment about the AFL industry, but I just get the impression that there has always been a vastly differing perspective from the public's perspective of MM than from those who actually knew and worked with him

 

[westozpie]

Agree with your comment about the AFL industry, but I just get the impression that there has always been a vastly differing perspective from the public's perspective of MM than from those who actually knew and worked with him

I think if you're in with him he will be a staunch aly, ie Rob Wiley from Eagles, Buttifant, Daisy with us and many more.
Just think when he turns he's very nasty. All his 4 clubs that he coached at he left in a strained messy way, but he seems to have saved his venom for us, don't think I've seen anything negative towards Carlton.
I'm with you about being a driven successful coach, we prob disagree about the other side of Mick

 

[sr36]

I think if you're in with him he will be a staunch aly, ie Rob Wiley from Eagles, Buttifant, Daisy with us and many more.
Just think when he turns he's very nasty. All his 4 clubs that he coached at he left in a strained messy way, but he seems to have saved his venom for us, don't think I've seen anything negative towards Carlton.
I'm with you about being a driven successful coach, we prob disagree about the other side of Mick

My take on it is that MM is an intensely loyal bloke who expects extreme loyalty in return. When his loyalty isn't returned, he wants vengeance.

I reckon what went down is that Eddie did his best used car salesman work and convinced MM that the 'succession plan' was effectively for MM to become the equivalent of an English football manager with Bucks being the coach underneath him. When Eddie actually revealed the details of the plan and the fact that MM was being sidelined, his wrath was piqued.

 

[westozpie]

My take on it is that MM is an intensely loyal bloke who expects extreme loyalty in return. When his loyalty isn't returned, he wants vengeance.

I reckon what went down is that Eddie did his best used car salesman work and convinced MM that the 'succession plan' was effectively for MM to become the equivalent of an English football manager with Bucks being the coach underneath him. When Eddie actually revealed the details of the plan and the fact that MM was being sidelined, his wrath was piqued.

The whole succession has become a dogs breakfast. While not agreeing with you it is something that could easily be the case as you say.
From my perspective Mick and his manager are no shrinking violets and I can't image him signing on to something that wasn't attractive to MM financially and job description wise.
The handover was agreed mid 2008, I think winning the grand final changed everything and maybe Mick could see more success given was a young team.
The hand over concept was good and was copied by Sydney and Melb with success because the coach was happy to honour the handover and walk away something Mick didn't.

 

[sr36]

The whole succession has become a dogs breakfast. While not agreeing with you it is something that could easily be the case as you say.
From my perspective Mick and his manager are no shrinking violets and I can't image him signing on to something that wasn't attractive to MM financially and job description wise.
The handover was agreed mid 2008, I think winning the grand final changed everything and maybe Mick could see more success given was a young team.
The hand over concept was good and was copied by Sydney and Melb with success because the coach was happy to honour the handover and walk away something Mick didn't.

I reckon there was a contract and attractive remuneration in place, but the job description wasn't there other than in handshake/Eddie's salesman pitch terms. Mick didn't crack it until mid 2011 when he finally got Eddie to stipulate the job description. And crack it he certainly did - like a jilted lover.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I reckon there was a contract and attractive remuneration in place, but the job description wasn't there other than in handshake/Eddie's salesman pitch terms. Mick didn't crack it until mid 2011 when he finally got Eddie to stipulate the job description. And crack it he certainly did - like a jilted lover.

Even if the role wasn't fully defined, WTF did Mick think he was signing on for?

 

[sr36]

Even if the role wasn't fully defined, WTF did Mick think he was signing on for?

I think he thought he was signing on to what the job title implied - Director of Coaching (apologies if I've got this wrong) I reckon he thought he was going to sit above Bucks in the coaching hierarchy and I reckon that this is how Eddie would have sold the role to him.

 

[westozpie]

I reckon there was a contract and attractive remuneration in place, but the job description wasn't there other than in handshake/Eddie's salesman pitch terms. Mick didn't crack it until mid 2011 when he finally got Eddie to stipulate the job description. And crack it he certainly did - like a jilted lover.

Again it may be that but would be very odd, remember his manager is pretty successful and surely would have wanted more information about the new position if wasn't detailed. It's hard to imagine those two hard nosed types signing away merrily something so vague as you say. Even if the scenario is as you say why the going to war, we let him walk away any way.
Not sure you should be so much in Micks corner over Eddie, one has put in 1000s of unpaid hours trying his best for Collingwood the other had a great run at Collingwood when we were struggling earnt millions was given a chance of ongoing employment with a very generous income and then spewed venom on us first chance he could.

 

[sr36]

Again it may be that but would be very odd, remember his manager is pretty successful and surely would have wanted more information about the new position if wasn't detailed. It's hard to imagine those two hard nosed types signing away merrily something so vague as you say. Even if the scenario is as you say why the going to war, we let him walk away any way.
Not sure you should be so much in Micks corner over Eddie, one has put in 1000s of unpaid hours trying his best for Collingwood the other had a great run at Collingwood when we were struggling earnt millions was given a chance of ongoing employment with a very generous income and then spewed venom on us first chance he could.

Don't get me wrong. I love them both. But just as Mick has a nasty vindictive side, Eddie has a sleazy salesman side. I just reckon the fallout isn't one-sided and is likely the result of those two negative sides of fantastic Collingwood personalities.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I think he thought he was signing on to what the job title implied - Director of Coaching (apologies if I've got this wrong) I reckon he thought he was going to sit above Bucks in the coaching hierarchy and I reckon that this is how Eddie would have sold the role to him.

So he thought he was still going to be coach?

He may be an arrogant flog but surely he didn't really think this.

Did he think he could continue to malign Bucks & just make him the guy that turned of the lights for a video presentation?

 

[sr36]

So he thought he was still going to be coach?

He may be an arrogant flog but surely he didn't really think this.

Did he think he could continue to malign Bucks & just make him the guy that turned of the lights for a video presentation?

I reckon he envisaged a re-orginasation of coaching duties.

 

[westozpie]

Don't get me wrong. I love them both. But just as Mick has a nasty vindictive side, Eddie has a sleazy salesman side. I just reckon the fallout isn't one-sided and is likely the result of those two negative sides of fantastic Collingwood personalities.

Fair enough, at least you are one of the few Mick fans that has the guts to admit he is nasty and vindictive. Many seem to be more than happy for him to pot away at us and rub Micks tummy saying good onya Mick please keep potting.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I reckon he envisaged a re-orginasation of coaching duties.

What does that mean?

 

[sr36]

What does that mean?

The succession plan was sold to the media and us as though it was some kind of revolutionary concept. If it was just the case of senior coach fading quietly into retirment and his assistant becoming the coach - where the hell was the revolution.

 

[sr36]

Fair enough, at least you are one of the few Mick fans that has the guts to admit he is nasty and vindictive. Many seem to be more than happy for him to pot away at us and rub Micks tummy saying good onya Mick please keep potting.

I'd argue that many, without actually knowing the full story (just as I don't), are happy to pot away at a Collingwood legend who played a major role in turning us from a laughing stock to an object of fear. And to be honest, I still don't know what he has done that was so terrible - other than intitially fight to retain his job - a job that he was doing bloody well at the time. Yep he's made a few minor quips in the media, but other than that, what is there to fuel the bile that gets spewed in his direction.

 

[mike123]

I think he thought he was signing on to what the job title implied - Director of Coaching (apologies if I've got this wrong) I reckon he thought he was going to sit above Bucks in the coaching hierarchy and I reckon that this is how Eddie would have sold the role to him.

I think he knew what he signed on for and just accepted at the time to keep coaching Collingwood. I reckon he thought or hoped winning the premeirship would change things but it didn't.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Nah life's good. That's the thing, some of you paid up members of the Mick fan club don't get offended by anything he does, yeah that's not so vicious but as one of many barbs paints a picture of him as a bitter prick. Not that you could ever bring yourself to say it, just keep on patting him on the back and saying good onya
mate.
As for type of coach no that's not what I'm trying to say mate, he's not our coach now and it's the barbs after he stopped coaching Collingwood that I'm posting about.
So yes wanted him as Collingwood coach at the time even though he was an embarrassment even then but unlike you think he's a sniping selfish prick nowerdays due to his behaviour. Reckon most posters on here have a similar view to mine.

I don't recall painting MM as a model citizen who is considerate of the very man next to him and patting him on the back as you say. Can you quote or link a post of mine saying so? His coaching? No doubt, thought he was a wonderful coach and his consistency in having us in contention - and a flag - says so and am truly grateful for that.

As for the bolded, no s**t sherlock! I know you're saying that. Do tell how is that going to make us a better club now? And if you wanna have a dig at MM how about you add the architects of this "succession" plan, after all they're just as guilty for the failure plan as MM was. Unless of course you believe it was entirely MM's doing which of course would be certifiably insane to think that

 

[sr36]

I wonder if the game plan has either been over complicated or has been taught /coached in a complicated manner - more than one commentator stated last year that our players seemed confused.

Nathan has a tendency to use convoluted language which does not help. We need a simple, competitive game plan that is taught /coached effectively in the simplest method possible.
(Edit)

I'd argue that we've had some major strategic issues during Bucks time. A couple of years ago, we started the year attempting to play a zone defence, yet tried to maintain Bucks's strategy of the time of having players automatically peel off to pressure the ball carrier. It was the most strategically incompetent thing that I've ever seen in sport at any level. It showed a complete non-understanding of how to zone. It simply meant that we automatically left a huge hole in the zone at the easiest point to penetrate the zone. God it was bad.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's practically impossible to know from the outside but that's certainly a possibility. Of course it might just as well be that some of the assistants were not good at conveying what was required or something altogether different. In the first few years it seems obvious that at least in part the problem involved some players refusing to play to instruction. Whatever the more recent reasons, let's hope that they've been identified in the review and a plan put in place to address them.

Agreed, externally at least it "looked" there was some sort of "protest vote" in the way they played and when it was obvious to the paying members and supporters that's when those same people were pissed because from a simplistic view point it could have been avoided i:e a "too early succession plan". Although it is purely speculation there is merit in the argument that the plan should have been postponed just as much as there is merit in the argument we may not have won 2010 if the plan wasn't announced in 2009.

IMV, if possible, announce it in 09 but put it in place a further 2 seasons down the track. If that could've been achieved I have every confidence we'd have another cup in the cabinet under MM and be in the same conversation from the last 10 years as the cats, hawks and swans. Certainly from the dominance of the 2011 season this was entirely possible and that also gives Nathan a further 2 years apprenticeship which from history since 2012 may not have gone astray

 

[PieNSauce]

What this means is the wrong person was picked to replace MM. There was no process other than to keep NB at the club.

In a sense you're right and I'm guessing that had the succession plan not been in play that most likely would have happened. What should have happened was that Mick should have been sacked at the end of 2009 and an experienced replacement hired with Bucks potentially doing his apprenticeship either under this new coach or elsewhere. Sadly, the lack of due diligence of the club and the lack of integrity of Mick combined to put us where we are now.

 

[Help My Club]

Clearly there is/has been a game plan or an assortment thereof. I think it is highly unlikely that any AFL senior coach, least of all Buckley, would instruct the players to simply go out and get a kick and enjoy themselves.

So by extension these game plan(s) or implementation thereof have been flawed as we have regressed for 6 years. A reasonable assumption I would have thought. Please corect me if I am wrong. Further, who should be primarily held acccountable for these flaws over an extended time frame. Let me guess - the tea lady, boot studder etc. If it's not the senior coach and his coaching staff, who are primarily responsible for the mechanations of a game plan, then why the * have them in their respective roles in the first place? I find it staggering how in this case, the

So he thought he was still going to be coach?

He may be an arrogant flog but surely he didn't really think this.

Did he think he could continue to malign Bucks & just make him the guy that turned of the lights for a video presentation?

Worked for 2010/11. Another 2 years of that might have been handy.

 

[Help My Club]

I'd argue that many, without actually knowing the full story (just as I don't), are happy to pot away at a Collingwood legend who played a major role in turning us from a laughing stock to an object of fear. And to be honest, I still don't know what he has done that was so terrible - other than intitially fight to retain his job - a job that he was doing bloody well at the time. Yep he's made a few minor quips in the media, but other than that, what is there to fuel the bile that gets spewed in his direction.

Nailed it mate.

My questioning of Buckley's bona fides and McGuire's conflicts pales into insignificance vis-a-vis the personal vitriol towards Malthouse. You'd swear he is the devil incarnate.

 

[TKiL]

I'd argue that we've had some major strategic issues during Bucks time. A couple of years ago, we started the year attempting to play a zone defence, yet tried to maintain Bucks's strategy of the time of having players automatically peel off to pressure the ball carrier. It was the most strategically incompetent thing that I've ever seen in sport at any level. It showed a complete non-understanding of how to zone. It simply meant that we automatically left a huge hole in the zone at the easiest point to penetrate the zone. God it was bad.

Sounds like another case of over complicating the game plan...