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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love the way some posters use the "Ed didn't want Bucks to go to North" line as though that in itself was some driving factor in the succession plan. I don't think you can say it had zero bearing but the bizarre suggestion here is that Mick was pushed specifically to make space for Bucks. The simple truth is that Mick was washed up. The board wanted him out as did a large percentage of the fans. He was increasingly being seen as "Mr Almost" with a bad attitude and that was the prime mover for the succession plan. Eddie still insists that it was Mick who said he was finding it increasingly difficult to keep going. The fact that Bucks was available and highly regarded if a bit raw was little more than serendipity in terms of what evolved in Eddie's and the board's heads.

I also find the suggestion that Mick can be absolved for his decision to sign a contract and later renege to be absolutely ridiculous. The suggestion in that is that both he and his manager are 5 year old children who don't know their own minds. Clearly I believe that the club did not do due diligence in the matter but as far as I'm concerned that is just as true of Mick.

A/ Although not official it is highly likely that Ed did not want Bucks to go to North, that would be difficult to argue against
B/ To say that the truth was that MM was washed up is not, it is speculation unless of course you know him personally and he told you as much or you were in the same room when he told Eddie he was not coping - speculation. I'd argue that if the board wanted him gone it is not necessarily a correct position and may have been proven otherwise
C/ Don't think you'd find many who'd agree that MM should be absolved on the way he reacted, if you are thinking I'm saying this in my post that would be incorrect. I was merely making an observation that he reacted poorly because he thought he was hard done by in the "plan"
D/ Nail, hammer, head - MM and the club have a lot to answer for. The writing was on the wall when you could visually see MM get his nose out of joint, this plan was never ever ever going to succeed. The poor schlep who has had to take pot shots from all comers because of it is Nathan, and still shows to be the consummate professional

Lastly, although it would be bad pr I'd like the club to come out and publicly admit fault and apologize to us - that would be satisfying, however I know they won't and know they shouldn't.

Way to p*** your fans off Collingwood:(
 
A/ Although not official it is highly likely that Ed did not want Bucks to go to North, that would be difficult to argue against
B/ To say that the truth was that MM was washed up is not, it is speculation unless of course you know him personally and he told you as much or you were in the same room when he told Eddie he was not coping - speculation. I'd argue that if the board wanted him gone it is not necessarily a correct position and may have been proven otherwise
C/ Don't think you'd find many who'd agree that MM should be absolved on the way he reacted, if you are thinking I'm saying this in my post that would be incorrect. I was merely making an observation that he reacted poorly because he thought he was hard done by in the "plan"
D/ Nail, hammer, head - MM and the club have a lot to answer for. The writing was on the wall when you could visually see MM get his nose out of joint, this plan was never ever ever going to succeed. The poor schlep who has had to take pot shots from all comers because of it is Nathan, and still shows to be the consummate professional

Lastly, although it would be bad pr I'd like the club to come out and publicly admit fault and apologize to us - that would be satisfying, however I know they won't and know they shouldn't.

Way to p*** your fans off Collingwood:(
I'm pretty sure that the board wanting Mick out is a little bit more than just some theory but it's not that important to the point which you so eloquently make. Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, I actually believe we'd have been better off had Mick been summarily sacked at the end of 2009 and an experienced coach appointed. Naturally my standpoint is nothing more than speculation but I kike to think that we'd have at least 2 premierships in those circumstances.
 
I'm pretty sure that the board wanting Mick out is a little bit more than just some theory but it's not that important to the point which you so eloquently make. Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, I actually believe we'd have been better off had Mick been summarily sacked at the end of 2009 and an experienced coach appointed. Naturally my standpoint is nothing more than speculation but I kike to think that we'd have at least 2 premierships in those circumstances.
I can't agree with you on this. Mick was a driving force behind the 2010 flag, and without him I doubt we would have reached the pinnacle. It's just a shame he couldn't get over his ego in 2011, because that side should have gone back to back.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I can't agree with you on this. Mick was a driving force behind the 2010 flag, and without him I doubt we would have reached the pinnacle. It's just a shame he couldn't get over his ego in 2011, because that side should have gone back to back.
This is just a myth that has going round the the Collingwood supporters for the last 7 years. Our forward press was beaten by Geelong in the 2011 GF just as it was the other two times the sides played that year. The proof of that is that no-one plays the forward press any more. It could have been different if we hadn't had injuries near the end of the home and away in 2017, or if the side hadn't come off the boil before the finals. We deserved to go to back to back but it didn't happen and no-one should be blamed, not Malthouse, not Buckley. The club and Buckley have moved on since then, pity a few of our supporters are still living in the past.
 
I can't agree with you on this. Mick was a driving force behind the 2010 flag, and without him I doubt we would have reached the pinnacle. It's just a shame he couldn't get over his ego in 2011, because that side should have gone back to back.
That's fair enough. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I just happen to believe that about 75% of a premiership is the players and the remaining 25% is down to the staff and management. It's a personal opinion but one I'm comfortable with. I'm not a believer in super-coaches!
 
This is just a myth that has going round the the Collingwood supporters for the last 7 years. Our forward press was beaten by Geelong in the 2011 GF just as it was the other two times the sides played that year. The proof of that is that no-one plays the forward press any more. It could have been different if we hadn't had injuries near the end of the home and away in 2017, or if the side hadn't come off the boil before the finals. We deserved to go to back to back but it didn't happen and no-one should be blamed, not Malthouse, not Buckley. The club and Buckley have moved on since then, pity a few of our supporters are still living in the past.
I think the two sides were very evenly matched. The blowout in the final round was due, IMO, to two main factors - 1. The players losing some focus due to the MM saga 2. Missing players and fatigue.

We were not at our best during the finals series. I think we would have been better placed to execute our best footy had Mick been able to stay focussed.
 
I think the two sides were very evenly matched. The blowout in the final round was due, IMO, to two main factors - 1. The players losing some focus due to the MM saga 2. Missing players and fatigue.

We were not at our best during the finals series. I think we would have been better placed to execute our best footy had Mick been able to stay focussed.
All of that may be true, but let's not forget they beat us three times that season. They were the best side in the GF. It gets farcical when the Collingwood supporters want to lynch Buckley for abandoning the forward press that Malthouse created. The forward press outlived its usefulness when Chris Scott found a way to overcome it 2011. Since then all teams have been developing new strategies to win games of footy. Malthouse found out the hard way when he accepted the Carlton job, that the football world moves on.
 
Who started the forward press in 2010? Mick the Head coach or Nathan the fwd line coach? If it was Nathan does Mick owe Nathan? Just asking...

Irrespective it'll be credited to Mick. Doubt that there's a debt per se as the role of assistants is to offer those sort of things I'd have thought. Coaches job is to sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of those ideas and implement.
 
The simple truth is that Mick was washed up. The board wanted him out as did a large percentage of the fans.
Can you backup this statement with any evidence? Even links to postings on this forum.

In 2009, we finished top 4 and made the prelim final. How is a coach with those achievements in that year considered to be deemed "washed up"
 
Who started the forward press in 2010? Mick the Head coach or Nathan the fwd line coach? If it was Nathan does Mick owe Nathan? Just asking...
I dont think it was Nathan even though he was designated forward coach.

One of the first things Bucks did when he took over as head coach was scrap the forward press.
 
This is just a myth that has going round the the Collingwood supporters for the last 7 years. Our forward press was beaten by Geelong in the 2011 GF just as it was the other two times the sides played that year. The proof of that is that no-one plays the forward press any more. It could have been different if we hadn't had injuries near the end of the home and away in 2017, or if the side hadn't come off the boil before the finals. We deserved to go to back to back but it didn't happen and no-one should be blamed, not Malthouse, not Buckley. The club and Buckley have moved on since then, pity a few of our supporters are still living in the past.

If Pendlebury had been allowed to play on and the goal awarded, instead of being called back the 1st time we played Geelong in 2011, we would have beaten them so the fwd press wasn't our downfall in that game - the blowout twds the end of the season was a one off - after the GF Scott commented that he didn't understand why we changed our game plan that day - for whatever reason 2011 was a missed opportunity.

When did we last go back to back - in the Cretaceous period?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Can you backup this statement with any evidence? Even links to postings on this forum.

In 2009, we finished top 4 and made the prelim final. How is a coach with those achievements in that year considered to be deemed "washed up"

10 years without a flag. How many coaches get that long without bringing silverware?
 
I'm pretty sure that the board wanting Mick out is a little bit more than just some theory but it's not that important to the point which you so eloquently make. Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, I actually believe we'd have been better off had Mick been summarily sacked at the end of 2009 and an experienced coach appointed. Naturally my standpoint is nothing more than speculation but I kike to think that we'd have at least 2 premierships in those circumstances.
You speak about the board like they are separate from Eddie. The reality is they were all appointed by Eddie absent of election. It is not coincidental that the review deemed change at board level - up to 50% was necessary. Eddie has appointed every board member, coach and CEO during his tenure and every aspect of the succession plan and the fallout is Eddies doing and responsibility as was the Gubby disaster and consequent loss of Balme. The board have been largely irrelevant but for ratification purposes and compliance with the constitution and even that was amended to facilitate the non election appointments.
 
Last edited:
You speak about the board like they are separate from Eddie. The reality they were all appointed by Eddie absent of election. It is no coincidental that the review deemed change at board level - up to 50% was necessary. Eddie has appointed every coach and CEO during his tenure and every aspect of the succession plan and the fallout is Eddies doing and responsibility as was the Gubby disaster and consequent loss of Balme. The board have been largely irrelevant but for ratification purposes and compliance with the constitution and even that was amended to facilitate the non election appointments.
By your comments then if the board are Ed's lackies and the board wanted Mick sacked then by extension Eddie must have wanted Mick sacked.
Seems Ed went to a lot of trouble to not sack someone that he and "his" board wanted sacked.
 
Can you backup this statement with any evidence? Even links to postings on this forum.

In 2009, we finished top 4 and made the prelim final. How is a coach with those achievements in that year considered to be deemed "washed up"
During the year there was a lot of stuff in the media about his health and how it was impacting on his family.
 
I dont think it was Nathan even though he was designated forward coach.

One of the first things Bucks did when he took over as head coach was scrap the forward press.
We still play a forward press.
 
What about bringing in an experienced football person that might need some work?

like...

Mark Thompson?

Too soon ? I'll see myself out......

Left field...............I don't mind it.

But in a world that is completely dictated by PC....................sorry no chance.

But I for one would support it.
 
Left field...............I don't mind it.

But in a world that is completely dictated by PC....................sorry no chance.

But I for one would support it.
Do you foresee any negatives?
 
We still play a forward press.

We do? Really! Well I'll be.

Funny how the 2010/11 forward press, which many argue Buckley was the architect (ya reckon Mick would have allowed that?), was a powerful strategy that decimated opponents and nigh on lead to back to back flags.

And yet the current forward press (which I must admit I was not aware of it) is no where near as potent notwithstanding the same architect is at the helm.

Funny!
 
We do? Really! Well I'll be.

Funny how the 2010/11 forward press, which many argue Buckley was the architect (ya reckon Mick would have allowed that?), was a powerful strategy that decimated opponents and nigh on lead to back to back flags.

And yet the current forward press (which I must admit I was not aware of it) is no where near as potent notwithstanding the same architect is at the helm.

Funny!
I didn’t say we play it well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top