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

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Really were a powerful team that seemed to crush teams at will. The only thing I seem to recall we crushed teams in one amazing quarter or half and then cruised through the game, was it against Adelaide we score 9 or 10 goals in one quarter for eg?
Wonder if we got a bit of complacency as a result of how easy we were winning

Do you seriously believe Geelong wasnt also crushing teams at will?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Collingwood have a history of chopping their favorite sons and i dont think anything would have changed with Daisy, especially after his injuries.

Without Malthouse at Carlton, Daisy would not have had ridiculous money thrown at him and been recruited by them with no due diligence. Of course things would be different.

 

[left at home]

Have we worked out what went right or wrong yet, it’s now 7-9 years later.
Time to move on and talk about his coaching, game plan ect than the past that cannot be changed.

 

[westozpie]

Do you seriously believe Geelong wasnt also crushing teams at will?

No doubt they were, I'm talking about Collingwood and whether Collingwood got complacent.

 

[HeathySure]

Without Malthouse at Carlton, Daisy would not have had ridiculous money thrown at him and been recruited by them with no due diligence. Of course things would be different.

the contempt he had for Buckley i doubt it

 

[Gone Critical]

Collingwood have a history of chopping their favorite sons and i dont think anything would have changed with Daisy, especially after his injuries.

Lesser contract than he got at Carlton but would have been kept on and had a great post footy reputation to help with further endeavours.

 

[Gone Critical]

the contempt he had for Buckley i doubt it

I suspect fertilised by MM instead of the reverse as it should have been.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

the contempt he had for Buckley i doubt it

He would have had to suck it up. He would have failed the medical at 16 other clubs.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

No doubt they were, I'm talking about Collingwood and whether Collingwood got complacent.

In 2011? What an idiotic premise.

 

[westozpie]

In 2011? What an idiotic premise.

Why

 

[TKiL]

He would have had to suck it up. He would have failed the medical at 16 other clubs.

Melbourne medical fraternity knew Daisy's ankle was cactus - Malthouse told Carlton medicos to sort it or his job would be cactus as well

 

[TKiL]

I suspect fertilised by MM instead of the reverse as it should have been.

If you're suggesting Daisy was fertilised by MM, that takes the father figure bit to another level

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Why

Because we made the grand final and were beaten by the only team we couldn’t beat all year. It’s an idiotic premise to assume the team was coasting or overconfident or smug in 2011.

Exactly at what point in time did this complacency manifest itself? 3/4 time in the granny when we were just 7 points down? Did the team say, well done boys, that’s close enough, we won last year?

Things didn’t go right in September 2011 ( injuries, coaching, selection) and we were beaten on the day by a great team that we hadn’t beaten in the home and away. Simple as that. We needed everything to go right to beat Geelong and it didn’t happen.

 

[mike123]

The list needed rejuvenation by 2013 regardless of who the coach was. If we'd kept Malthouse I'm sure he would have artfully avoided the 4 knee recos to key players and season restricting ankle injury to Thomas and would have led us to another grand final where he would have coached impeccably as he did in the 2011 GF (and 2003 for that matter).

And we'd still have O'Brien, Wellingham, Shaw Beams and Thomas. But we wouldnt have Varcoe, Broomhead, Aish, De Goey, Crisp, or Greenwood.

Malthouse only had a few years left in him anyway so I'd guess by 2014 or 2015 we'd have a new coach by now.

The bolded could end up like this descending on how we trade.

 

[Gone Critical]

If you're suggesting Daisy was fertilised by MM, that takes the father figure bit to another level

That's very good, wished I thought of it.

 

[westozpie]

Because we made the grand final and were beaten by the only team we couldn’t beat all year. It’s an idiotic premise to assume the team was coasting or overconfident or smug in 2011.

Exactly at what point in time did this complacency manifest itself? 3/4 time in the granny when we were just 7 points down? Did the team say, well done boys, that’s close enough, we won last year?

Things didn’t go right in September 2011 ( injuries, coaching, selection) and we were beaten on the day by a great team that we hadn’t beaten in the home and away. Simple as that. We needed everything to go right to beat Geelong and it didn’t happen.

So I take it you don't subscribe to the theory that if you're off by a few % you can lose to any one. Maybe we were better than Geelong but we're off by that few %
Idiotic premise wow pity my comment came when you are in such a s**t mood and a simple question got you so riled.
Tell you what's idiotic, your stupid sarcastic question "did it manifest itself at 3/4 time".
Thomastown, don't know it to well but I will do some research and find out a bit about it, like why people from there seem to get angry at nothing.

 

[PieNSauce]

I don't think that is correct. Back in 2009 there was not the same sort of feeling against appointing rookie coaches as there is now. Bucks had an offer on the table to coach North is what was reported at the time. I think the 3 options were. Option 1 reappoint MM outright which apparently to board was against. It needs to be remembered the deal was as much about Eddies desire to keep MM at the club as not losing Bucks to elsewhere. Option 2 Sack Mick and appoint Bucks (certain element in the club were pro this). Option 3 Eddies Kirrabilli deal.

I can't see how you could appoint an experienced coach to mentor Bucks on the basis they would hand over to him at a future date. That seems unworkable and not what was reported at thetime. Below is a link to an article with a mix of news from that time

http://websites.sportstg.com/assoc_...&sID=56333&articleID=9603819&news_task=DETAIL

Yes I probably gave the wrong impression with how I worded that. What I was trying to suggest was a bit of a secret deal with Bucks to come to the club as an assistant in the private knowledge that he would become senior coach down the track. You may be right about the attitude to rookies but I have my doubts the Collingwood faithful would accept it and I also doubt that the board was comfortable with that option. In any case, the main tenet of what I was getting at is that I believe the succession plan was so poorly implemented that we'd have been better off had they just sacked Mick outright. Where that would have left Bucks is not particularly important in terms of the point I was trying to make.

 

[PieNSauce]

My recollection is Bucks, probably in a 2012 interview, said he considered offering to stand aside during 2011 when we were firing but ultimately decided not to. Whether it would of worked is debatable. During the 2011 season various factions seemed to develop, some loyal to MM some to Bucks and Eddie as the 3rd party. At some point I suspect this made MM staying on untenable. I wouldn't blame Mick alone for this, I suspect all factions were pulling in different directions.

You may well be right on that point but I have a vague recollection that Bucks had since clarified that his decision not to resign was heavily influenced by Eddie. To me this effectively means that he did offer to resign but was talked out of it. Sadly I haven't been able to find anything in the media about it so I guess it goes down as an unsupported suggestion but that is certainly how I understood it.

 

[jmac70]

Have we worked out what went right or wrong yet, it’s now 7-9 years later.
Time to move on and talk about his coaching, game plan ect than the past that cannot be changed.

Well said! We have great mods but it’s about time the succession plan talk is ended. At present this thread represents a trash can.

 

[Gone Critical]

You may well be right on that point but I have a vague recollection that Bucks had since clarified that his decision not to resign was heavily influenced by Eddie. To me this effectively means that he did offer to resign but was talked out of it. Sadly I haven't been able to find anything in the media about it so I guess it goes down as an unsupported suggestion but that is certainly how I understood it.

Have found the relevant quotes. It was August 2016 when Bucks was on the Coaches Box on SEN.

The candid interview where he also said he "was on the hook" for 2017 and wouldn't be reappointed if we didn't make finals. Once I found it you can see it was pretty heavily reported by the media. Attached is one such report from the AFL site which was pretty representative of how it was reported.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-19/no-way-buckley-will-stay-if-pies-miss-finals-in-2017

A couple of interesting quotes were

"He also said he considered delaying his planned succession of Mick Malthouse at the end of 2011 given the strong position the club was in at the time.

"Right so this is happening, we're talking about this publicly," Buckley said."

Pretty clear that he considered it. He also said in the interview no one at the club approached him about delaying the change. Given that Eddie was later quoted as saying Bucks was too honest and shouldn't have given the interview I think if Bucks had clarified at a later date that Eddie had heavily influenced him not to resign that would have been big news. I don't recall any such suggestion.

"Fundamentally, when I sat down with myself and others I asked do we as a club — and clearly this will sound bizarre given our on-field performance since, but if you really want to dig deep into that you'll see the reasons for it — but I fundamentally felt will I positively impact this environment and the football club for long-term success?"

This quote explains why he chose not to delay. By the end of 2011 when he considered it he felt goingwith the plan was going to be a better long term influence than delaying. That speaks to concerns about where the playing group was going. The "if you dig deep" reference pretty implies he saw significant issues with the playing group from inside which he thought needed to be remedied. The "bizarre" reference acknowledges this sounds funny in hindsight given our fall down the ladder.


"We didn't have the locker room for a while, there were a lot of influences in that part of the club and we needed to change things up," he said.

"I think that accelerated it (my development as a coach).

"The influences on the playing group had had their success and were happy to just roll along.

"That's a tale for another time.

"Absolutely yeah (I have the locker room now) ... it's been a long haul."

This quote further illustrates where Bucks saw the playing group at the end of 2011 and going into 2012. I wouldn't say I think he got it right as I haven't been the greatest fan of his coaching as much as I admire him but it explains where he was coming from. The "happy to role along" and tale for another time" reference implies there is plenty we don't know from behind the scenes at that time.

 

[Gone Critical]

Yes I probably gave the wrong impression with how I worded that. What I was trying to suggest was a bit of a secret deal with Bucks to come to the club as an assistant in the private knowledge that he would become senior coach down the track. You may be right about the attitude to rookies but I have my doubts the Collingwood faithful would accept it and I also doubt that the board was comfortable with that option. In any case, the main tenet of what I was getting at is that I believe the succession plan was so poorly implemented that we'd have been better off had they just sacked Mick outright. Where that would have left Bucks is not particularly important in terms of the point I was trying to make.

No worries

Sacking him outright for mine would have risked losing the most successful Collingwood side, 2010-11, I have seen. We would never know but in retrospect I doubt a new experienced coach could have come in and emulated what took place at Collingwood those seasons and we would probably still be looking for flag no 15.

 

[Gone Critical]

Well said! We have great mods but it’s about time the succession plan talk is ended. At present this thread represents a trash can.

Not sure I agree. The megathread is just that, a thread for all Buckley coaching discussion. Posters get pinged for taking this discussion elsewhere. The past still informs a lot of what happens with Bucks coaching going forward so remains a talking point

Maybe we can strike a better balance but in this hiatus the "present" talk has stalled as there isn't much happening so the past comes to the fore. That will change as the season approaches.

 

[jmac70]

Not sure I agree. The megathread is just that, a thread for all Buckley coaching discussion. Posters get pinged for taking this discussion elsewhere. The past still informs a lot of what happens with Bucks coaching going forward so remains a talking point

Maybe we can strike a better balance but in this hiatus the "present" talk has stalled as there isn't much happening so the past comes to the fore. That will change as the season approaches.

I describe this thread as a trash can because everything gets thrown in it. The succession plan no longer has any relevance to Buckley as coach.

 

[jmac70]

Well putting all emotion aside and coming from a purely logical stance, which coach do you think would have had a better chance of winning that PF:

(i) a novice coach who did not totally have the playing group on side;

(ii) an experienced premiership senior coach who had most of the players on side and who had journeyed to the top of the mountain and also experienced the pain of a GF loss with these players?

Note I have put no names to these coaches.

We were beaten by a better side. It happens.

 

[Gone Critical]

I describe this thread as a trash can because everything gets thrown in it. The succession plan no longer has any relevance to Buckley as coach.

It will always have relevance at least until he leaves or becomes a success. His coaching career, the perception of it and what could have been will remain a heavy influence. I can't see anyway of getting beyond that.