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

[jmac70]

Time to move on son. Let him go.

I am your father.

 

[Robroy22]

Lots of judgements in your post. FYI I attended 1958, 1960 and 1964 GFs. Bile is an extremely strong term to use. Alternative view is don't be happy with 3 wins from 14 GFs - accepting mediocrity is a sure way of maintaining mediocrity - I only want a successful Cwood and there's much the Club can do (I think it's made a small start) to return itself to being a powerhouse on the field.
Edit - if the majority of supporters contacted the club and said they were happy with overall performance that wouldn't be helpful at all.

Their raison d'etre should be flags nothing less.

I find it hard to understand how someone who lived and supported CFC through the 60's and '70's and 80's only concentrates on current CFC administration? If it's 3 wins from 14GF's that's so important, why aren't we dissecting the Rose, Hafey era's with equal flair and disdain? For all it's Machiavellian intrigue the Malthouse/Buckley interchange is but a drop in the ocean compared to the previous 40 years!

 

[TKiL]

I find it hard to understand how someone who lived and supported CFC through the 60's and '70's and 80's only concentrates on current CFC administration? If it's 3 wins from 14GF's that's so important, why aren't we dissecting the Rose, Hafey era's with equal flair and disdain? For all it's Machiavellian intrigue the Malthouse/Buckley interchange is but a drop in the ocean compared to the previous 40 years!

Simple answer - nought can be done about previous administrations - (maybe you haven't seen my posts on Galbally vs Sherrin etc) - the McGuire administration is current - hence it's open to review and discussion here -

 

[Robroy22]

Simple answer - nought can be done about previous administrations - (maybe you haven't seen my posts on Galbally vs Sherrin etc) - the McGuire administration is current - hence it's open to review and discussion here -

Lol....you must have had a pretty sharp pitchfork (and a bunch of dissident mates) before the internet.
Now there's a swell I have to get up for in the morning so I will bid you adieu...its been fun, I hope tomorrow is a good day for you as well!

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I find it hard to understand how someone who lived and supported CFC through the 60's and '70's and 80's only concentrates on current CFC administration? If it's 3 wins from 14GF's that's so important, why aren't we dissecting the Rose, Hafey era's with equal flair and disdain? For all it's Machiavellian intrigue the Malthouse/Buckley interchange is but a drop in the ocean compared to the previous 40 years!

Yep.

Don't hear much about how the players played a role in hafeys demise.

Ungrateful lot they were too.

 

[TKiL]

Yep.
Don't hear much about how the players played a role in hafeys demise.
Ungrateful lot they were too.

Tom (so close to a flag) but that era now ancient history - McGuire and Buckley are the here and now - for better or worse

 

[Gone Critical]

Certainly.

But you may recall that the bulk of the 2011 GF side played in 2012 and 2013 but alas almost from Round 1 of 2012, they lost their potency. Sure they won alot of games in 2012 but they just weren't the same in terms of efficiency/potency/firepower etc.

So I agree it is the players but those same players were far more powerful/synergistic only one year earlier. Interesting!

Sorry this is just untrue. 2012 we were decimated by injury in the pre season and through the season. 4 ACLs amongst others.

There were 8 changes from the GF team to round 1 2012 and the replacements were 3 debutants, Paine, Yagmoor and Seedsman, 3 who were playing either their 5th or 6th AFL game Rounds, Keefe and Sinclair plus Marty Clarke returning after 2 years away and Goldsack

They replaced Leon, Dids, Tarrant, Maxwell, Brown, Wellingham, Johnson and Krakouer. 4 previous s AAs, 2 other 200+ game players, our best recent crumbling forward and another solid flag player. Because of injury the 2012 side was clearly inferior to 2011. They were not the same playing group and whether MM or Bucks was coaching the 4th we managed was a bloody good effort. 2012 was marred by bad luck and we had no chance to put our best foot forward regardless of the coach.

 

[noideaatall]

I am your father.

You have a lot to answer for.

 

[noideaatall]

Sorry this is just untrue. 2012 we were decimated by injury in the pre season and through the season. 4 ACLs amongst others.

There were 8 changes from the GF team to round 1 2012 and the replacements were 3 debutants, Paine, Yagmoor and Seedsman, 3 who were playing either their 5th or 6th AFL game Rounds, Keefe and Sinclair plus Marty Clarke returning after 2 years away and Goldsack

They replaced Leon, Dids, Tarrant, Maxwell, Brown, Wellingham, Johnson and Krakouer. 4 previous s AAs, 2 other 200+ game players, our best recent crumbling forward and another solid flag player. Because of injury the 2012 side was clearly inferior to 2011. They were not the same playing group and whether MM or Bucks was coaching the 4th we managed was a bloody good effort. 2012 was marred by bad luck and we had no chance to put our best foot forward regardless of the coach.

Spot on. Luke Ball's injury was significant also. The perception was we were the best team in 2011 but injuries cost us the gf so of course we'd win 2012. 4th was seen as an average performance but perhaps in retrospect was actually a damn good effort.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Sorry this is just untrue. 2012 we were decimated by injury in the pre season and through the season. 4 ACLs amongst others.

There were 8 changes from the GF team to round 1 2012 and the replacements were 3 debutants, Paine, Yagmoor and Seedsman, 3 who were playing either their 5th or 6th AFL game Rounds, Keefe and Sinclair plus Marty Clarke returning after 2 years away and Goldsack

They replaced Leon, Dids, Tarrant, Maxwell, Brown, Wellingham, Johnson and Krakouer. 4 previous s AAs, 2 other 200+ game players, our best recent crumbling forward and another solid flag player. Because of injury the 2012 side was clearly inferior to 2011. They were not the same playing group and whether MM or Bucks was coaching the 4th we managed was a bloody good effort. 2012 was marred by bad luck and we had no chance to put our best foot forward regardless of the coach.

Spot on.

People dont seem to acknowledge that we lost a lot of depth at the end of 2010 also with Lockyer OBree Fraser Prestigiacomo and Medhurst all leaving. So Bucks had to manage/develop their replacements too as well as the 2011 retirements to Davis Didak Maxwell L Brown etc.

Add 4 knee recos to premiership/GF players N Brown Ball Krakouer and Maccaffer and injuries to others including Dale Thomas and fourth place in 2012 was a pretty solid result. Dawes also failed to transition to a ruck-forward and it was becoming apparent that maybe he wasnt the long term answer. Not to mention the unprecedented situation of having to attend a former teammates funeral in the week leading up to the PF.

By 2013 Beams* and B Reid had joined the injury list.

*mystery injury

 

[Buckley is my hero]

Spot on. Luke Ball's injury was significant also. The perception was we were the best team in 2011 but injuries cost us the gf so of course we'd win 2012. 4th was seen as an average performance but perhaps in retrospect was actually a damn good effort.

We're we distracted also by the death of one of our ex-players and by most of the players attending his funeral just before the Sydney semifinal which we lost?

 

[PieNSauce]

Sorry this is just untrue. 2012 we were decimated by injury in the pre season and through the season. 4 ACLs amongst others.

There were 8 changes from the GF team to round 1 2012 and the replacements were 3 debutants, Paine, Yagmoor and Seedsman, 3 who were playing either their 5th or 6th AFL game Rounds, Keefe and Sinclair plus Marty Clarke returning after 2 years away and Goldsack

They replaced Leon, Dids, Tarrant, Maxwell, Brown, Wellingham, Johnson and Krakouer. 4 previous s AAs, 2 other 200+ game players, our best recent crumbling forward and another solid flag player. Because of injury the 2012 side was clearly inferior to 2011. They were not the same playing group and whether MM or Bucks was coaching the 4th we managed was a bloody good effort. 2012 was marred by bad luck and we had no chance to put our best foot forward regardless of the coach.

Well said GC. I get sick of reading so much nonsense from those who flat out ignore the obvious. As some of us have said until we're blue in the face, when you compound the obvious injury issues with the retirements and dissent amongst a number of players it's pretty unfair to judge anyone on Buckley's first few years other than the architects of the succession plan and Mick himself. Even that criticism needs to be tempered in the knowledge of where the team was at physically.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Petulant brats they were in deed my W. A mate. I'm of the opinion you can't have the tail wagging the dog. Would you be ok with the tail being the boss?

Not usually no, but in this case yes. There was so much potential in that team it seemed an opportunity wasted, very hard to disagree against a team of such dominance, not since Essendon in 2000 have we seen such a force and I'd argue more so than the 95 team of carlton. It was very highly likely that another flag was there for the taking.

Question is, had the plan been changed to 2 years further down the track, would we have another flag - or 2- in the cabinet? I'd be willing to put my house on yes! It's a good bet, to deny it's not a good bet is naive

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think this is a very interesting discussion.

I'm actually happy to accept the argument that Buckley sought to have the start date on his tenure as senior coach pushed out. So if true, why wasn't his magnanimous gesture acted upon. Well the answer lies with one or more of the other individuals involved - McGuire, Pert, Malthouse and the forgotten one - Kelly. Let's hypothesize:

(i) Malthouse - chose not to accept Buckley's gesture out of sheer bloody mindedness but I would have thought that McGuire could have persuaded him, for the sake of the playing group and possibly another flag, to stay on.

(ii) McGuire - so this bring's McGuire into question. This is the interesting one. Why wouldn't he have accepted Buckley's selfless gesture? It really doesn't make sense as this would have been his dream scenario - keep Malthouse in play and the playing group happy whilst retaining his boy, Buckley, for later. Happy days all round.

(iii) Pert and Kelly - I think the answer lies with these 2 shadowy figures. I think it was common knowledge that Pert and Malthouse did not see eye to eye whilst Kelly leveraged his position as Buckley's manager to create the succession plan whereby his client would ultimately become Collingwood senior coach. Kelly used the spectre of moving Buckley to another club to bait good old Ed who simply couldn't cope with the thought of his boy being at another club. So notwithstanding Buckley's supposed gesture, the likes of Pert and Kelly were able to convince/pressure McGuire to stay the course, even if it was not in the best interests of the club.

Summary - if true, all big Ed is guilty of is being a deluded emotive fool. The 2 other guys are the insidious assholes responsible for this sham, if true.

Agreed, and as I've said earlier it would be bad pr if the club came out and admitted the plan was a f*** up. However this is the part that really gets up my nose, the continual rose coloured glasses rhetoric from the club since, it's like we're unintelligent children none the wiser - very offensive

 

[Carringbush2010]

I would like to take the direction of the discussion elsewhere.

I would like to engage discussion on the strengths of Buckley coaching on-field. Off-field stuff such as "he is great with the media" doesn't interest me one bit.

I'll start. Moving Jeremy Howe to defense is one of the best coaching moves he has done in career. It as resulted in Howe game from being an inconsistent forward to a borderline All-Australian squad player.

Excellent post! I'll add, it is obvious that Nathan's "vision" (game plan) is very difficult to defeat - when it comes off. If we had the disposal efficiency to pull it off consistently we'd all be having a very different conversation right now

 

[TKiL]

Excellent post! I'll add, it is obvious that Nathan's "vision" (game plan) is very difficult to defeat - when it comes off. If we had the disposal efficiency to pull it off consistently we'd all be having a very different conversation right now

If disposal efficiency is preventing the proper execution of the game plan, do the following:

1. Improve disposal efficiency (= kicking skills?), or

2. Tweak the game plan to align with skills at disposal

3. Mix of 1 and 2

Coaching panel should be right on to this.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Howe was playing in defence for the Dees in the season before he came to us, so it wasn't really a move. The recruiting of Howe was a good one though. Under Bucks, we've done well with recruiting obviously talented guys who were underachieving - Howe, Varcoe, WHE. That's about as positive as I can get about Bucks's term. Having said that, last year I could see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel with the players seeming 100% committed for the first time since he took over.

That is true, however we did recruit Howe as a forward that was the plan originally. Buckley rolled the dice and rolled it well.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If disposal efficiency is preventing the proper execution of the game plan, do the following:

1. Improve disposal efficiency (= kicking skills?), or

2. Tweak the game plan to align with skills at disposal

3. Mix of 1 and 2

Coaching panel should be right on to this.

And it seems the club recognizes this and are actively addressing it yes? So don't be surprised if we see a number 3 in 2018 and finally Nathan and his panel can be proven as worthy coaches.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Love your perspective.

Perspective is lost on people sometimes.

Question? Is this the only "perspective" you accept? Regardless of anyone's perception the fact will always remain that 2011 was clearly a dominant team and worthy of another flag. Another coach was appointed and that didn't work, so the perspective question is if we didn't change the formula would we have our 16th or even 17th flag?

Many speculative views would say yes, and to back it up - it is hard to argue against

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Question? Is this the only "perspective" you accept? Regardless of anyone's perception the fact will always remain that 2011 was clearly a dominant team and worthy of another flag. Another coach was appointed and that didn't work, so the perspective question is if we didn't change the formula would we have our 16th or even 17th flag?

Many speculative views would say yes, and to back it up - it is hard to argue against

Hard to argue it’s 2018.

I moved on a long long long time ago.

(Ps I’m not fussed on other perspectives each as valid as the next)

 

[Carringbush2010]

Hard to argue it’s 2018.

I moved on a long long long time ago.

(Ps I’m not fussed on other perspectives each as valid as the next)

Yep it's 2018 and am quietly confident, and thank you for being open minded on all of the perspectives!

 

[Help My Club]

Sorry this is just untrue. 2012 we were decimated by injury in the pre season and through the season. 4 ACLs amongst others.

There were 8 changes from the GF team to round 1 2012 and the replacements were 3 debutants, Paine, Yagmoor and Seedsman, 3 who were playing either their 5th or 6th AFL game Rounds, Keefe and Sinclair plus Marty Clarke returning after 2 years away and Goldsack

They replaced Leon, Dids, Tarrant, Maxwell, Brown, Wellingham, Johnson and Krakouer. 4 previous s AAs, 2 other 200+ game players, our best recent crumbling forward and another solid flag player. Because of injury the 2012 side was clearly inferior to 2011. They were not the same playing group and whether MM or Bucks was coaching the 4th we managed was a bloody good effort. 2012 was marred by bad luck and we had no chance to put our best foot forward regardless of the coach.

Are you sure. Check your records again.

The 2011 GF side and the 2012 PF side had 17 of the same players respectively ie 17/22

And they were - Tarrant, O'Brien, Toovey, Reid, Johnson, Shaw, Wellingham, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Jolly, Swan, Blair, Krakouer, Fasolo, Dawes, Cloke and Thomas. Have I missed anyone?

Now before you argue the point of injuries in 2012, let's not forget the injuries to players that besieged Collingwood in 2011 during the H&A and particularly in the finals series to clutch players.

 

[westozpie]

Not usually no, but in this case yes. There was so much potential in that team it seemed an opportunity wasted, very hard to disagree against a team of such dominance, not since Essendon in 2000 have we seen such a force and I'd argue more so than the 95 team of carlton. It was very highly likely that another flag was there for the taking.

Question is, had the plan been changed to 2 years further down the track, would we have another flag - or 2- in the cabinet? I'd be willing to put my house on yes! It's a good bet, to deny it's not a good bet is naive

Good points buddy and maybe could have snuck one more. I'm glad you acknowledged in a earlier post Bucks magnificent gesture in delaying the handover, possibly twice.
It certainly shows the outstanding character of a man he is and his love of Collingwood first, to the few on here who have played the man with regards Buckley shame on you, you are embarrassing and as more facts come out you look more embarrassing and you probably should support Richmond and not a great club like Collingwood.
P S agree with you think we will go real good this year

 

[jmac70]

Are you sure. Check your records again.

The 2011 GF side and the 2012 PF side had 17 of the same players respectively ie 17/22

And they were - Tarrant, O'Brien, Toovey, Reid, Johnson, Shaw, Wellingham, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Jolly, Swan, Blair, Krakouer, Fasolo, Dawes, Cloke and Thomas. Have I missed anyone?

Now before you argue the point of injuries in 2012, let's not forget the injuries to players that besieged Collingwood in 2011 during the H&A and particularly in the finals series to clutch players.

I suppose we would have won that game with Mick?

 

[westozpie]

Not usually no, but in this case yes. There was so much potential in that team it seemed an opportunity wasted, very hard to disagree against a team of such dominance, not since Essendon in 2000 have we seen such a force and I'd argue more so than the 95 team of carlton. It was very highly likely that another flag was there for the taking.

Question is, had the plan been changed to 2 years further down the track, would we have another flag - or 2- in the cabinet? I'd be willing to put my house on yes! It's a good bet, to deny it's not a good bet is naive

Tongue in cheek time mate, I come in peace.
Have some amount of accepting another two years and continuing what could easily been a dynasty.
BUT!! could have or would have Uncle Mick changed his mind again along with some of his boys.
As I say joke post not being serious.