Buckley on the Couch's Interview of Brodie Grundy

[sr36]

as a commentator buckley had every right to express that view....but this is a player that he coached the year before and grundy reacted to the question by sarcastically calling him coach. The point of my original post was that grundy visibly clammed up after the question. He shut up shop and the rest of the boys on the couch commented on it....

its usual that when a commentator is interviewing a player, they keep it light. It's not a coaching feedback session. That was the point of the thread.

No other commentator (no-one else really - other than a few in the Grundy thread) would have begun by giving Grundy negative feedback after that last quarter.

 

[swoop42]

Is there a guy with a greater “love” for a player than Brereton for Cameron? He also used to gush over Patton.

It was a terrible interview. Watching live I didn’t get the same sense as the OP, but in hindsight I see it. Buckley was correct in his assessment though and I suppose if that threw Grundy it says more for him than Bucks.

FWIW it’s only a thought, but the interview seemed to highlight the pride Grundy has in his performance and the McRae approach may not be the best at tickling that “stinging” reaction out of a player.

Not sure I can entirely agree with that assessment.

While there might have been some truth in the Buckley assessment I also thought it was a quite blunt and rude first up question by Buckley not long after a fighting win by the team and a big individual last quarter performance from Grundy (and a very courageous one given what we know now) and I'm not sure if he would have been so brave with a player he didn't have a long personal association with.

Compare that then to Grundy who when asked about the differences between McRae and Buckley as coaches elected to reply in a respectful manner and swat the question away when he potentially wanted to take a swipe and speak his truth.

 

[Albert Parker]

Bucks has been giving off the tiniest "my farts don't stink" vibe since returning the the media. Just a vibe. A little too pleased with himself.

Bucks has a right to be proud of what he achieved as a footballer and coach of about a decade. He can rightly be confident when he presents. He's clearly brighter and more articulate than most of his contemporaries in the media.

At the same time, I know that when he spoke to a mate of mine's daughter in an interaction where she was serving him in Coles, and she didn't know much about who he was and his history, he rightly set her straight that he was sacked from his role as coach when she asked why he left his job. I think he is realistic about who he is, wants to be unbiased as a professional in whatever he turns his hand to, but also wants the players he coached and club he loves to have success.

 

[Markfs]

No other commentator (no-one else really - other than a few in the Grundy thread) would have begun by giving Grundy negative feedback after that last quarter.

its a long thread but the essence is that buckley operated that way with a player that he coached from starting out as a schoolboy....and the reaction from grundy was effectively "here we go again coach". The two of them fell back into a relationship that they had for a decade and Grundy didnt look happy....after a great win where he really made a difference in the final quarter. Something is wrong and maybe it indicates a problem with the buckley method of dealing with players....

And it fits into the context of so many other things.... the super positive approach by macrae...... even macrae's joking advice to buckley in the first week to "lighten up". In the context of what we know about buckley for 20 years... that the narrative that he finally discovered in 2018 that relationships were the important thing, probably ignored the fact that he is still too honest sometimes....cant help himself.

now that's a lot to read into an interview but it convinces me that buckley had to go. Im wondering whether the macrae approach to grundy - to the players in general - is going to work post buckley.

 

[Markfs]

Grundy clammed up because he knew the "coach" was right.

i agree but he looked unhappy after a great win. I'm not sure that's a great outcome - although i recognise that it's not buckley's responsibility anymore. The two were coach-player for a decade. I just think it gave an indication of how their relationship operated and it hasnt worked post contract - and that might be the more important factor. It's a complicated world. I like to think that the interview gave an insight.....maybe i'm wrong. It was just my impression

 

[Markfs]

Bucks has a right to be proud of what he achieved as a footballer and coach of about a decade. He can rightly be confident when he presents. He's clearly brighter and more articulate than most of his contemporaries in the media.

At the same time, I know that when he spoke to a mate of mine's daughter in an interaction where she was serving him in Coles, and she didn't know much about who he was and his history, he rightly set her straight that he was sacked from his role as coach when she asked why he left his job. I think he is realistic about who he is, wants to be unbiased as a professional in whatever he turns his hand to, but also wants the players he coached and club he loves to have success.

I think he intimidates a lot of people with his confidence in himself.... the fact that some respond with the figjam stuff says more about them. But it would be silly to ignore that some players might be intimidated by buckley and it doesnt allow them to be authentic - as macrae would say.

 

[Scodog10]

Not sure I can entirely agree with that assessment.

While there might have been some truth in the Buckley assessment I also thought it was a quite blunt and rude first up question by Buckley not long after a fighting win by the team and a big individual last quarter performance from Grundy (and a very courageous one given what we know now) and I'm not sure if he would have been so brave with a player he didn't have a long personal association with.

Compare that then to Grundy who when asked about the differences between McRae and Buckley as coaches elected to reply in a respectful manner and swat the question away when he potentially wanted to take a swipe and speak his truth.

I think the competition needs more of those honest discussions. Grundy’s response to the McRae/ Buckley question gives us nothing. I would love to hear his honest feedback and I for one would 100% have his back as would the entirety of the media if it were less than glowing toward Buckley. I think the industry is pretty tired of glib responses to questions that could bring forward discussion and I think Buckley would take it like a champ unlike most flogs in the media (specifically Cornes who has really stunk it up with Collingwood views over the past 6 months).

 

[Mkcaptain]

Not sure I can entirely agree with that assessment.

While there might have been some truth in the Buckley assessment I also thought it was a quite blunt and rude first up question by Buckley not long after a fighting win by the team and a big individual last quarter performance from Grundy (and a very courageous one given what we know now) and I'm not sure if he would have been so brave with a player he didn't have a long personal association with.

Not sure about that. I heard him interview Clayton Oliver on SEN just before the start of the season, and one of the questions he asked was sort of framed the same way as the Grundy question. He said about how Oliver used to look unfit and struggled covering the ground, and whether he agreed that his amazing form was linked to him being a better runner.

Obviously a slightly different context to asking the question right after a win though.

I'm probably biased cause I love Bucks on SEN and the bits I see of him on Fox Footy. But I thought it was a very fair question that he asked Brodie. As a fan the turnaround between the third and fourth quarter was very obvious, and I would have loved to have heard Brodie's response on if there was anything specific that sparked it.

 

[Anzacday]

The ”negative“ questioning is well founded imo as it fits with what occurred.
Another way to look at it - Bucks is saying you identified what needed to be fixed and fixed it.
Same applies with the Oliver interview as raised by Mkcaptain.
They talk about media setting the agenda - Markfs there might be a job for you.

PS: I’d love to see the Bucks/Mcrae interview if someone has a link.

 

[Markfs]

The ”negative“ questioning is well founded imo as it fits with what occurred.
Another way to look at it - Bucks is saying you identified what needed to be fixed and fixed it.
Same applies with the Oliver interview as raised by Mkcaptain.
They talk about media setting the agenda - Markfs there might be a job for you.

PS: I’d love to see the Bucks/Mcrae interview if someone has a link.

i said a number of times that buckley's analysis was probably right... although i personally didnt notice either ruckmen in the first half....

i called it "negative" because the question initially started off with the fact that buckley said that draper beat him in the first 3 quarters. And then he said that Grundy fixed it......BUt THAT IS MY POINT Grundy's reaction was to the first part of the question. He reacted to the negative assessment more than the overall question in total.

That is what I am saying. I am saying that buckley focused on giving an accurate assessment of Grundy's performance and Grundy appeared to responded to the negative part of it.

So yes, the problem is Grundy's ....and Buckley is a commentaor now and can be accurate and need not care about how Grundy receives the message...but I believe that both fell back into the coach-player relationship that they had for 10 years and Grundy said that when he responded with the coach comment.

So Buckley shouldnt have been surprised that Grundy would focus on the negative first part because they would know each other very very very well.

So did Buckley do it to push a button? I doubt it. I think he did it because that is how buckley approaches analysis....

He could have said to Grundy, "You made a big effort in the last quarter". He could have said that....but he didnt because that is not what buckley does.

On the macrae "interview", it wasnt really an interview. It was pre-game. The boys were in the studio and mcrae was on the oval. It was a quick question or two. You could probably see in the recorded game if it shows the previous 10 minutes before the game.

Now I hope I have made myself clear in this post.

I do not question buckley's accuracy of his assessment. I do not question his right as a commentator to say how he saw it, although I noted previously that most fox commentators asked questions that are usually totally positive. I understand buckley's desire to give an assessment of the clash between the two ruckmen. I am also saying that if Grundy took it negatively, then it is his problem. HOWEVER, the interview may have demonstrated that buckley flicked switches in Grundy that caused Grundy to have a loss of enjoyment. It might explain his attitude over the last 3 years. Others may point to the fact that he is suffering under the weight of expectations post contract, and that may be the case.....or it may be another reasons or the major reason or a less important associated reason. I agree that it is worthwhile speculation but I dont talk to Grundy so I wouldnt know.

#Please note - words in capitals indicate emphasis....emphasis. I havent signed any agreement that indicates that I think it means shouting etc.

 

[Piestration]

I think people are giving Grundy way too much credit for his reaction and thoughts during the interview. Grundy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and has never been a great speaker. I sore it as a Cloke moment when tripping over his own tongue and I was waiting for the mirrors and smoke.

 

[Markfs]

I think the competition needs more of those honest discussions. Grundy’s response to the McRae/ Buckley question gives us nothing. I would love to hear his honest feedback and I for one would 100% have his back as would the entirety of the media if it were less than glowing toward Buckley. I think the industry is pretty tired of glib responses to questions that could bring forward discussion and I think Buckley would take it like a champ unlike most flogs in the media (specifically Cornes who has really stunk it up with Collingwood views over the past 6 months).

It is interesting that Lyon, Riewoldt and Brown all commented on the "one game at a time" response by Grundy.

 

[sr36]

i said a number of times that buckley's analysis was probably right... although i personally didnt notice either ruckmen in the first half....

i called it "negative" because the question initially started off with the fact that buckley said that draper beat him in the first 3 quarters. And then he said that Grundy fixed it......BUt THAT IS MY POINT Grundy's reaction was to the first part of the question. He reacted to the negative assessment more than the overall question in total.

That is what I am saying. I am saying that buckley focused on giving an accurate assessment of Grundy's performance and Grundy appeared to responded to the negative part of it.

So yes, the problem is Grundy's ....and Buckley is a commentaor now and can be accurate and need not care about how Grundy receives the message...but I believe that both fell back into the coach-player relationship that they had for 10 years and Grundy said that when he responded with the coach comment.

Problem is Bucks too. It was terrible interviewing. It was essentially a comment from the interviewer rather than a question and a comment that made the interviewee close up.

 

[JB1975]

I think people are giving Grundy way too much credit for his reaction and thoughts during the interview. Grundy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and has never been a great speaker. I sore it as a Cloke moment when tripping over his own tongue and I was waiting for the mirrors and smoke.

Reckon Grundy could spell 'saw'.

 

[Markfs]

I think people are giving Grundy way too much credit for his reaction and thoughts during the interview. Grundy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and has never been a great speaker. I sore it as a Cloke moment when tripping over his own tongue and I was waiting for the mirrors and smoke.

As the main person making this point, I am not giving Grundy any credit. It's not a question of who is right or wrong. If Grundy interpreted it negatively, then that was the effect. I concede that I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed and my assessment may be wrong. So maybe your post should have said that people are giving ME too much credit for my assessment ....and you might be right.

 

[Markfs]

Problem is Bucks too. It was terrible interviewing. It was essentially a comment from the interviewer rather than a question and a comment that made the interviewee close up.

I disagree that it was terrible interviewing. It's how buckley wants to operate. If players close up in response, his next contract might be downgraded.

 

[sr36]

I disagree that it was terrible interviewing. It's how buckley wants to operate. If players close up in response, his next contract might be downgraded.

Why would you get a player in for an interview and tell them what you think happened rather than asking for their perspective of what happened?

 

[Horaceg]

Bucks has a right to be proud of what he achieved as a footballer and coach of about a decade. He can rightly be confident when he presents. He's clearly brighter and more articulate than most of his contemporaries in the media.

At the same time, I know that when he spoke to a mate of mine's daughter in an interaction where she was serving him in Coles, and she didn't know much about who he was and his history, he rightly set her straight that he was sacked from his role as coach when she asked why he left his job. I think he is realistic about who he is, wants to be unbiased as a professional in whatever he turns his hand to, but also wants the players he coached and club he loves to have success.

Well said, I think his future is in the media but it’s a tough gig after being on the other side of it for so long.

I enjoy his views on other Clubs, don’t always agree but he’s someone worth listening to.

 

[gouki88]

Reckon Grundy could spell 'saw'.

Curse you for beating me to pointing out that hilarious irony.

 

[Markfs]

Why would you get a player in for an interview and tell them what you think happened rather than asking for their perspective of what happened?

because his employer wants him to? because focus groups say that viewers like it? because it's innate to buckley?

i ask myself why channel 7 employs jobe watson.... evidently someone out there likes him.

 

[sr36]

because his employer wants him to? because focus groups say that viewers like it? because it's innate to buckley?

i ask myself why channel 7 employs jobe watson.... evidently someone out there likes him.

I think the bolded is it, but it's poor interviewing. I think the producers will have a chat.

 

[Markfs]

I think the bolded is it, but it's poor interviewing. I think the producers will have a chat.

maybe .. but we know grundy. maybe he's a special case. most players will take it as a fair comment. I think grundy respects too much what buckley thinks but he didnt burst out in tears. He just decided to clam up... not good for an interview and probably not good for a coach-player relationship - which was my point in the first place.

 

[Markfs]

And let me say something else. I think there is evidence that a few of the fox boys are intimidated by buckley.... i think he has a bit of a presence

 

[The Royal Sampler]

IIRC correctly, in Buck's book he mentioned when as a captain a young player gave him feedback that when the player was responding to a question that Buck's asked, that Bucks wasn't listening to his response, just waiting for another opportunity to talk.

I feel that Bucks' provides awesome insight and his football knowledge is outstanding, but sometimes we just want to hear a player be happy after a game...

That anecdote really stuck with me when I read it, I notice that trait in a lot of people now.

 

[Markfs]

IIRC correctly, in Buck's book he mentioned when as a captain a young player gave him feedback that when the player was responding to a question that Buck's asked, that Bucks wasn't listening to his response, just waiting for another opportunity to talk.

I feel that Bucks' provides awesome insight and his football knowledge is outstanding, but sometimes we just want to hear a player be happy after a game...

People watch footy analysis for different reasons. Some love the technical stuff. Some just love the players.