Buckleys coaching in the Grand Final

[Farang83150]

So OP's contention is that West Coast didn't win the flag, Collingwood lost it?
I'll take it

Who's Buckley coaching ?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Disagree with the OP about Mason Cox and bringing the ball to ground inside 50. That is a very low percentage strategy and should not be regarded as a positive.

Collingwood's problem is where they kicked the ball. In the Prelim final the week before they kicked the ball into the space near him, where he could get a run of half a dozen steps and use his height and leap to mark the ball over the defenders. In the grand final they fell into the trap of kicking the ball right at him so he had to stand and deliver in the middle of a pack, result was that he hardly marked anything and barely touched it in the first half.

In fact I think it was Collingwood's problem all day, kicking the ball too long and directly over the heads of their forwards, not slightly in front so they could get a run at it. Really played in the hands of West Coast defenders using that strategy.

 

[Kwality]

OP is on a slippery slope. When you win a close game all analysis like this does is make a case you should have lost the game. Ultimately that's disrespectful to the Eagles in a what was a great win.

Spot on Isaac, winning a GF should bring out the best in criticism in comments about the other mob GF day.

Think back to epic 2000s GFs, Roosy & Woosha, & the really poor critics would have cried choker if one lothag grabbed both & they would have been wrong.

 

[caloschwaby]

Buckley isnt a part of Collingwood? News to me

Who's Buckley coaching ?

Re-read my post because I'm not quite sure where you're coming from.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Buckley gave Collingwood every chance possible to win the game, how much can a coach actually do in the final 3 minutes of a football game? Paul Roos himself basically said he was powerless late in those Sydney/West Coast games.

The last five or so minutes but.. Leigh Matthews telling Akermanis to "get to the front" resulted in his famous left foot snap which clinched the 2002 grand final.

From Lions.com.au

Among all the unforgettable moments of the Brisbane Lions premiership hat-trick one moment is as vivid as any … the clutch goal which clinched the 2002 grand final against Collingwood. It was a classic piece of Jason Akermanis wizardry. Responding to a message from coach Leigh Matthews to ‘get to the front’, he crumbed the ball beautifully off Alastair Lynch, steadied, and snapped brilliantly over his shoulder on his left foot.

 

[Apsaalooke]

Dom Sheed misses that goal and we'd be talking about how, despite the preparation, Simpson allowed Collingwood to jump West Coast in the first quarter and get out to a five goal lead.

I'll admit I didn't analyse everything to the nth degree but my git feel on the day was that Buckley gave Collingwood every opportunity to win.

Did Simpson make moves to correct things after Collingwood's 5 goals or did he rely on his system to come good?
Genuine question for those who analysed the game, as it would help to settle the old question of how much influence a coach has on gameday

 

[Rich01]

Can’t blame the coach when half a dozen of his players went missing in the last quarter. Pendles especially.

Beams coming into the side helps Buckley not having to make the hard call on Pendles, now he can legitimately move him out of the midfield because of the depth they have, not just because he’s cooked.

DeGoey playing for the cheap over the top in the final two minutes led to the match winning goal. Would have been a glorious statement in kicking the sealer if it came off. Instead it ended up costing them a flag.

 

[sr36]

Thoughtful thread, but I think you're overly focussed on match ups and assume they are the main reason why we won or lost, whereas the whole coaching community has shifted to a systems based approach. After quarter time, our system struggled and we weren't able to transition the footy from defence effectively and the game pattern became Collingwood kicking it long down the line, which plays into WCEs strength. After quarter time the game was played on WCE terms. It's possible that our system struggled due to our transition being driven by a few key personnel - Pendlebury, Sidebottom and Grundy and thus your match up theory is correct in that it was able to shut down our system by shutting down these guys. However there are several other reasons that could have stopped our transition. I'm not a good enough analyst to identify what was the primary reason, or more likely which combination of reasons made the match be played on WCE terms, but a few possible reasons are:

• Collingwood may have gone into a protect their lead frame of mind and lost their dare and flair and thus went long down the line because it is the more conservative option (I think this happened to some degree in the second half of our prelim against Richmond)
• 4th final game in a row meant that we lacked a bit of run and thus blokes didn't make themselves an option as often as necessary
• Simpson employed a tactic that stopped our transition working. Maybe clearing out space in forward 50 meant that you had a better wall back at half forward to stop us getting past.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

Honestly what is the point of Eagles and Pies fans debating this? It was one of those games with so many cut and thrust moments, Eagles managed to just win it and Collingwood almost won it. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep second guessing Buckley's coaching and I think for Collingwood fans they'd be just torturing themselves overthinking it also. Leave this debate for the neutrals IMO.

 

[Damon_3388]

Honestly what is the point of Eagles and Pies fans debating this? It was one of those games with so many cut and thrust moments, Eagles managed to just win it and Collingwood almost won it. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep second guessing Buckley's coaching and I think for Collingwood fans they'd be just torturing themselves overthinking it also. Leave this debate for the neutrals IMO.

This.

If that last big play from the Eagles doesn't happen, the Pies are premiers, and all this talk is for naught.

 

[Damon_3388]

Beams coming into the side helps Buckley not having to make the hard call on Pendles, now he can legitimately move him out of the midfield because of the depth they have, not just because he’s cooked.

Lol.

Pendlebury still has a lot left in the tank as a genuine midfielder, and was probably our best defensive midfielder this year too (in terms of tackling and one percenters, and setting the tone for that through the middle, which was an area we needed a lot of improvement in leading into the 2018 season), while Beams is a notorious one-way runner (something he's somehow gotten worse at after leaving Collingwood).

 

[Damon_3388]

Disagree with the OP about Mason Cox and bringing the ball to ground inside 50. That is a very low percentage strategy and should not be regarded as a positive.

Collingwood's problem is where they kicked the ball. In the Prelim final the week before they kicked the ball into the space near him, where he could get a run of half a dozen steps and use his height and leap to mark the ball over the defenders. In the grand final they fell into the trap of kicking the ball right at him so he had to stand and deliver in the middle of a pack, result was that he hardly marked anything and barely touched it in the first half.

In fact I think it was Collingwood's problem all day, kicking the ball too long and directly over the heads of their forwards, not slightly in front so they could get a run at it. Really played in the hands of West Coast defenders using that strategy.

Perhaps it wasn't a deliberate choice, but a result of West Coast's pressure.

 

[HTT]

Did anyone else think this was going to be about people with the surname ‘Buckley’ coaching in GFs - and their likely losing record?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Did Simpson make moves to correct things after Collingwood's 5 goals or did he rely on his system to come good?
Genuine question for those who analysed the game, as it would help to settle the old question of how much influence a coach has on gameday

He openly said he did nothing and backed in his system.

 

[doppleganger]

I think in the spectacle that was the closeness of the Grand Final and the many epic moments it had, a key point that was missed was just how poorly Bucks coached during the day itself. Now I have watched the game many many many times and it was probably only the 2nd time I watched it I realised just how many poor decisions Buckley made. Considering he was named coach of the year I think the performance he had on the day deserves more scrutiny then it got. A few key errors were

1. De Goeys time as a deep forward - Fact of the matter is DeGoey spent way too much time as a deep forward. The 3 goals he kicked. 2 came from him being in the midfield and getting onto a receive 60m out from goal and the other one came from him leading running back inside 50 and shrugging a few tackles in open play. Fact is by half time, De Goey had not won a single aerial contest one on one and in all reality he wasnt going too. Schofields strength is his aerial ability. Schofields weakness is tracking his man when he runs up the ground. De Goey needed to spend alot more time up the ground. By half time this was clear as day yet nothing changed during the game. Even in the final throngs of the game with 5 minutes left, De Goey was the deepest forward losing the aerial battles still.

2. Sidebottoms use - Even Adam Simpson admitted. Eagles were worried about when Sidebottom was coming off a half back flank. So much so we put Rioli or Ryan to follow him into the square when he came off the back and only moved Hutchings onto Sidebottom during the next stoppage in play. Question is why the hell did Bucks not put him at half back flank? If he took Hutchings down into our forward line it would have been a net loss for us at the time. Sidebottom was clearly struggling. Buckley mentioned after the game he lamented his teams lack of dare and drive of half back. Surely Sidebottom would have helped this? I think the acceptance of this matchup despite the fact it was going against them was odd

3. Tagging Elliot Yeo - It didnt make much sense to me. Buckley was the first person all year to tag him and while it was working in stopping his influence, the reason people dont tag Yeo was all too apparent by half time. Shuey is the more damaging player. Shuey had struggled with the tag two weeks in a row too. The decision to make the change at half time seemed weird to me also. Given the flow of the game it would have made more sense to get Adams to play tighter on Shuey rather then just change all your matchups

4. Use of Jaimes Aish - Guy was on our weakest link in the forward line. The guy you would want to run off. Aish didnt do this. Worst part of all is Bucks just let it continue. It was a missed opportunity here. We got a nil all draw from our worst player for the day in Venables because of this

5. Mason Coxs use - At half time he decided to move Cox up the ground more. While he took more marks, it played into our hands as it meant the next kick was easier to pick off as a mark. Cox got 1 possession but he was bringing the ball to the ground in the first half. Once he moved up the ground McGovern, Schofield and co were alot more happy and comfortable with things. They should have cleared space for Cox in the forward 50, not move Cox to more space

I can think of more myself still. Whether it be Siers weirdly low TOG, Pendlebury not heading down back a bit more to help set up play. Overall though it was a poor performance from Buckley. He made reactionary decisions to quell our influence (swapping tags) rather then to improve his own teams influence (moving De Goey to the midfield). I think he coached a team as if it was losing the game all too often. It was not befitting of a so called coach of the year and it is probably a game Bucks will look back on with a ton of regret

1. DeGoey was basically playing as FF for us for the majority of the 2nd half of the year....he was instrumental in us beating Giants and Richmond in that role.

2. Sidey battled in all 3 games against WC in 2018...as did Pendles actually.

3. Yeo killed us in the QF, was the obvious choice.

4. Aish was our 22nd player, who never got back to his pre-knee form. Nothing wrong with him or his use

5. Cox played same role, problem in 2nd half was that the ball was in Eagles forward half so he was up on the wing more...that happens with all forwards, team battling so they go up to become a target to try and transition the ball...team on top and they have more options in F50.

Sier was getting 60-70% TOG most weeks, he doesn’t have the tank yet.

Eagles outplayed us, just like they did in all 3 games...

 

[Admiral Byng]

Perhaps it wasn't a deliberate choice, but a result of West Coast's pressure.

Perhaps. But it was not necessarily a reflection of poor coaching by Buckley in playing the bloke out of position.

 

[Dazzler9]

Buckley hugging the cheer squad lady when the banner broke was where it all went wrong.

 

[Rich01]

This.

If that last big play from the Eagles doesn't happen, the Pies are premiers, and all this talk is for naught.

So it’s all Degoeys fault then.

 

[psychobrown]

I can see what you mean OP, it's humiliating to be that far up in a GF with all the momentum of home support behind the team then capitulate in such a fashion, but at the end of the day, sometimes individual brilliance is the difference. J-Gov was everywhere in the second half, the game rewards possession counts which is a shame, because he was getting to every major contest to spoil or at least put his body on the line and Darling Jacky put his purse down in Q3 and got down to BUSINESS.

 

[juss]

Theres a good reason nobody talks about it, because coach who gets within a goal on GF day did alot more good than they did bad.

A thread entirely on how poor Buckley was on grand final day has a bad taste about it.

Had the result gone the other way, im sure Simpson had equally as many poor decisions on the day.

Buckley gave Collingwood every chance possible to win the game, how much can a coach actually do in the final 3 minutes of a football game? Paul Roos himself basically said he was powerless late in those Sydney/West Coast games.

Coughing up a 29 point lead to lose the Grand Final. That's poor coaching. Absolutely the players play, but you've got to protect that lead better, that rarely happens in a GF, usually 29 points is game over.

 

[HTT]

Coaches are very system based and they back that system in 99% of the time. That system they implement is drilled into their players and any change to it can cause a major break down in how the team operates.
We have seen it with West Coast on numerous occasions when we don’t have Darling and Kennedy playing, we play the same way and it breaks down because the cattle is not there and we lose.
It is always easy in hindsight to say a coach should of done this or should of done that, Simpson openly admitted that when the Eagles were 5 goals down he did nothing in the box, he backed in their system.
Buckley did the same thing also and came up only very short in the end and one could say was a little unlucky.
The only thing that stood out to me and this was only after watching a couple of times was the Pies persistence in kicking it long to a contest in the last quarter, they went the same side every time and kept getting the same result of the Eagles marking it and bombing it back into our forward line, why they chose never to go the other side of the ground or kick short to hold possession I find a little strange but again it comes back to they backed in their own system.
Buckley and Simpson both did a great job, for those who have never coached at a reasonable level you might be surprised to hear how helpless you can feel in a coaching box, there simply is times you cannot do much about things. 99% of the coaching work happens during the week, on game day most coaches back in their plan.

To add to this there’s an interesting chapter in Konrad Marshall’s book about our 2017 when he sat in the coaches box on Anzac Day eve. It was a wet night and the coaches, despite touching on it pre game and sending the runner out on numerous occasions, simply could not get the players to stop overusing the ball, and play for metres gained. That’s seems like such a simple thing to change yet it can be so difficult.

 

[WillieNillie]

1. DeGoey was basically playing as FF for us for the majority of the 2nd half of the year....he was instrumental in us beating Giants and Richmond in that role.

2. Sidey battled in all 3 games against WC in 2018...as did Pendles actually.

3. Yeo killed us in the QF, was the obvious choice.

4. Aish was our 22nd player, who never got back to his pre-knee form. Nothing wrong with him or his use

5. Cox played same role, problem in 2nd half was that the ball was in Eagles forward half so he was up on the wing more...that happens with all forwards, team battling so they go up to become a target to try and transition the ball...team on top and they have more options in F50.

Sier was getting 60-70% TOG most weeks, he doesn’t have the tank yet.

Eagles outplayed us, just like they did in all 3 games...

1. I know that and I understand why he played full forward for the first half., but he was clearly having more of a impact when he went up the ground more . Sometimes you adjust to the game conditions. Buckley did this when he moved Greenwood to Shuey, so why not make the same change here? Im not saying move him into the midfield. Im saying I would have moved him to CHF

2. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This kind of proves my point if anything. If you lose twice in a row, and are losing for a third time, why not change it up? Just accepting the loss was odd

3. Was it? In any case My hiccup was less with tagging Yeo and more the changing of the matchup as I mentioned. Id have told Adams to tighten up on Shuey before I completely changed our midfield matchups is all im saying. You went from 1 winning contest and 1 losing contest to 2 losing contests with that move

4. He is and was but Bucks post game lamented the lack of drive from his half back flank. If he believes in that comment, why did he leave the same two guys to play HBF the entire game. Would it not have made sense to alter the personnel rather then complain about it post game? Options existed. Its not like Aish also cant move into the midfield as well if he is not providing enough down back. He mentioned it as a key factor in the loss but didnt do anything about it while the game was on

5. He was up the ground contesting the kick ins more. A bit more then just up the ground on the wing. It was a clear positional swap. Not as key as the previous 4 points but still one that backfired. To Bucks credit he realised and moved Cox back to FF in the last

 

[WillieNillie]

This.

If that last big play from the Eagles doesn't happen, the Pies are premiers, and all this talk is for naught.

Disagree. The conversation would be different not naught

The conversation would be about Eagles wasted goal kicking opportunities instead.

The idea a loss happens without cause is a bit too simplistic. Collingwood have escaped criticism because of the focus on micro moments. Probably a unhealthy thing when its all said and done.

Hell Alex Woodward copped more blame and analysis then Nathan Buckley. The runner guys.... As crazy as this may sound I have the belief that the coachs performance deserves more analysis then the guy carrying the water. Not so according to the AFL public however

 

[doppleganger]

1. I know that and I understand why he played full forward for the first half., but he was clearly having more of a impact when he went up the ground more . Sometimes you adjust to the game conditions. Buckley did this when he moved Greenwood to Shuey, so why not make the same change here? Im not saying move him into the midfield. Im saying I would have moved him to CHF

2. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This kind of proves my point if anything. If you lose twice in a row, and are losing for a third time, why not change it up? Just accepting the loss was odd

3. Was it? In any case My hiccup was less with tagging Yeo and more the changing of the matchup as I mentioned. Id have told Adams to tighten up on Shuey before I completely changed our midfield matchups is all im saying. You went from 1 winning contest and 1 losing contest to 2 losing contests with that move

4. He is and was but Bucks post game lamented the lack of drive from his half back flank. If he believes in that comment, why did he leave the same two guys to play HBF the entire game. Would it not have made sense to alter the personnel rather then complain about it post game? Options existed. Its not like Aish also cant move into the midfield as well if he is not providing enough down back. He mentioned it as a key factor in the loss but didnt do anything about it while the game was on

5. He was up the ground contesting the kick ins more. A bit more then just up the ground on the wing. It was a clear positional swap. Not as key as the previous 4 points but still one that backfired. To Bucks credit he realised and moved Cox back to FF in the last

1. DeGoey had been playing about 80% FF and 20% mid as a maximum for most of second half of season, because he is our most dangerous deep forward. It was the same in the GF, he looked most dangerous and actually beat Schofield a couple of times....nobody else looked like doing that.

2. Sidey was pushed around, he spent time at FF being manned by Schofield in Q3...WC mids were just too good and he couldn’t get his usual ball.

3. Yeo was BOG in the QF, Redden and Sheed were also huge, whilst Shuey was quiet. It was obvious we would try to stop Yeo. It worked...but bloody Sheed was great again and Shuey was great.

4. Trying to single out Aish as some kind of validation of poor coaching is just baffling...he did the job nullifying his opponents, that was his role.

5. What are you on about? Cox, like the rest of the team, spent majority of his time in WC half in Q4...took some big marks across our HB from kick ins...because we lost the inside 50s something like 35-20 in 2nd half. When we won the inside 50s in 1st half he was targetted inside 50 more often for no result as Barrass had his measure. Our goals came from broken plays and turn-overs in first half. Cox almost won the game for us when he got involved more in the second half after being useless in the first.

Buckley did what he had been doing all year, backing in the players to perform their role....it resulted in the Pies leading for what 90 per-cent of the game and having our closest result of the three clashes against the Eagles.

DeGoey became our FF he plays deep best, Cox regularly used as a down the line option when we are struggling to transition the ball, Greenwood our main tagger who we would play shut down, Aish a meh HBF-wing player....it was all the same in the GF, Buckley backing what worked for us almost all season.

We were quite simply beaten by a better team. Pie fans still go on about poor coaching in 2003 and 2011 costing us, but not this time.

You are trying to find something that just isn’t there.

 

[Benny78]

I think in the spectacle that was the closeness of the Grand Final and the many epic moments it had, a key point that was missed was just how poorly Bucks coached during the day itself. Now I have watched the game many many many times and it was probably only the 2nd time I watched it I realised just how many poor decisions Buckley made. Considering he was named coach of the year I think the performance he had on the day deserves more scrutiny then it got. A few key errors were

1. De Goeys time as a deep forward - Fact of the matter is DeGoey spent way too much time as a deep forward. The 3 goals he kicked. 2 came from him being in the midfield and getting onto a receive 60m out from goal and the other one came from him leading running back inside 50 and shrugging a few tackles in open play. Fact is by half time, De Goey had not won a single aerial contest one on one and in all reality he wasnt going too. Schofields strength is his aerial ability. Schofields weakness is tracking his man when he runs up the ground. De Goey needed to spend alot more time up the ground. By half time this was clear as day yet nothing changed during the game. Even in the final throngs of the game with 5 minutes left, De Goey was the deepest forward losing the aerial battles still.

2. Sidebottoms use - Even Adam Simpson admitted. Eagles were worried about when Sidebottom was coming off a half back flank. So much so we put Rioli or Ryan to follow him into the square when he came off the back and only moved Hutchings onto Sidebottom during the next stoppage in play. Question is why the hell did Bucks not put him at half back flank? If he took Hutchings down into our forward line it would have been a net loss for us at the time. Sidebottom was clearly struggling. Buckley mentioned after the game he lamented his teams lack of dare and drive of half back. Surely Sidebottom would have helped this? I think the acceptance of this matchup despite the fact it was going against them was odd

3. Tagging Elliot Yeo - It didnt make much sense to me. Buckley was the first person all year to tag him and while it was working in stopping his influence, the reason people dont tag Yeo was all too apparent by half time. Shuey is the more damaging player. Shuey had struggled with the tag two weeks in a row too. The decision to make the change at half time seemed weird to me also. Given the flow of the game it would have made more sense to get Adams to play tighter on Shuey rather then just change all your matchups

4. Use of Jaimes Aish - Guy was on our weakest link in the forward line. The guy you would want to run off. Aish didnt do this. Worst part of all is Bucks just let it continue. It was a missed opportunity here. We got a nil all draw from our worst player for the day in Venables because of this

5. Mason Coxs use - At half time he decided to move Cox up the ground more. While he took more marks, it played into our hands as it meant the next kick was easier to pick off as a mark. Cox got 1 possession but he was bringing the ball to the ground in the first half. Once he moved up the ground McGovern, Schofield and co were alot more happy and comfortable with things. They should have cleared space for Cox in the forward 50, not move Cox to more space

I can think of more myself still. Whether it be Siers weirdly low TOG, Pendlebury not heading down back a bit more to help set up play. Overall though it was a poor performance from Buckley. He made reactionary decisions to quell our influence (swapping tags) rather then to improve his own teams influence (moving De Goey to the midfield). I think he coached a team as if it was losing the game all too often. It was not befitting of a so called coach of the year and it is probably a game Bucks will look back on with a ton of regret

You West Coast supporters are starting to get a bit Richmondy. I thought he did a good job at coaching. It was his players lack of urgency to seal the win.