Buckleys coaching in the Grand Final

[greatwhiteshark]

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.

 

[WillieNillie]

I find it a little sad we can’t have a discussion on a coaching performance without all this poo flinging.

Yeh im surprised. Im also surprised that having the better coach is seen as a negative thing. Like I should be ashamed that Simmo won us the game and not the players by themselves. Im not ashamed to admit that Simmo outcoaching Buckley was paramount to us winning the game. Sure as hell am not going to sit in the corner and not admit it for some weirdly emotional reason. Way I see it is

Would it be incredibly wrong if I said Collingwood took their chances better then ours? Nope, they well and truly did.

Would it be wrong if I said some of our players shat the beds at key moments and nearly cost us overall? Nope

Would I be wrong if I said that despite said shitting of bed key players stepped up in the final 3 minutes and won it when it matters? Nope

If you could analyse the game in a few words id say Simmo kept us in the contest, players poise in the last 3 minutes won it thereafter.

 

[WillieNillie]

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.

Did he?

At half time, he made key matchup changes across the board. The ones he made (Cox up the ground more) I wouldnt have made at all.

No way Buckley backed the system. He made changes, they just didnt work out as well as he would have hoped.

 

[mike123]

Like I should be ashamed that Simmo won us the game and not the players by themselves.

To be fair though you haven’t backed this up. All you said in the op is that Buckley made mistakes. You haven’t said all the good things Simmo did yet.

 

[WillieNillie]

To be fair though you haven’t backed this up. All you said in the op is that Buckley made mistakes. You haven’t said all the good things Simmo did yet.

Alright. Here goes

1. The tagging of Steele Sidebottom - Simmo mentioned it is odd to tag the outside player but were worried about his run and carry. Correct decision
2. Schofield on De Goey - The media tore his ass to shreds the second they saw that matchup. Worked a treat
3. Vardy playing up forward in the last quarter - His assistant forward coach advised him not too do it. Simmo overruled him and told him he had a good feeling about Vardy up forward. He was massive for us in that last quarter up forward
4. Isolating Kennedy at FF after half time - Move was made at half time to move Darling out of the forward 50 to give Kennedy more space. This worked a treat as well. We didnt lose anything in this move thankfully
5. Tagging Brodie Grundy - First team to do it all year. We took him out of the contest and it was hugely influential.
6. Rioli in the centre - Through him in there alot more then normal and affected the contest a ton of times. Pressure in the final 3 minutes by him was huge.

Can think of a few more but id say they were all good moves. Number 3 being the true changing of the system tactic that worked

 

[LongPause]

When did I say they wouldnt? No need to be such soft turncoats about this guys. Attack the post, not the man.

Come back at me with something other then emotive bullcrap

You seem really cut up over this. Everyone knows that Adam Simpson 'outplayed' buckley on the simple basis of winning the game alone (is that what you want people to think?). Noone is going to argue the point so academically fierce in their spare time, when it it comes off from a very weak foothold in the final margin being what it was.

 

[WillieNillie]

You seem really cut up over this. Everyone knows that Adam Simpson 'outplayed' buckley on the simple basis of winning the game alone (is that what you want people to think?). Noone is going to argue the point so academically fierce in their spare time, when it it comes off from a very weak foothold in the final margin being what it was.

If football is that simple, why even have a coach?

The game probably needs a bit more analysis then the notion of "we won so everyone was better then the opposition in every way"

 

[Shaneprice97]

I call bullshit on that. Seems to be a one rule for one and another for everyone else scenario. Jack Darling was one of the best forwards in the league this year. Do you think people would have talked about that or his dropped mark if we went on to lose the game?

Its a very AFL thing. That when you get to the big dance, the notion of a coach can do no more. Reality is when you get to the big dance, a coach should be doing more then ever.

You’re comparing Darling who overall had a pretty quiet game and final moment fumble which could have defined the result, to a coach that was a kick away from winning a flag. If Buckley coaching performance was as quiet as Darling we probably wouldnt have been within a kick.

I said final three minutes, not the entire game, like i saidBuckley up until that point gave Collingwood every chance to win, and like any sane man would realise, a coach can’t do much in the final minutes of a game.

How much information do you actually think a player is going to take in from a runner in the final moments of a 50/50 game when the pressure is on, like roos mentioned probably nothing, its basic football instinct and the west coast players got it done.

If Buckley was so poor on grand final day, Adam Simpson was also poor for only winning by a kick.

 

[WillieNillie]

You’re comparing Darling who overall had a pretty quiet game and final moment fumble which could have defined the result, to a coach that was a kick away from winning a flag. If Buckley coaching performance was as quiet as Darling we probably wouldnt have been within a kick.

I said final three minutes, not the entire game, like i saidBuckley up until that point gave Collingwood every chance to win, and like any sane man would realise, a coach can’t do much in the final minutes of a game.

How much information do you actually think a player is going to take in from a runner in the final moments of a 50/50 game when the pressure is on, like roos mentioned probably nothing, its basic football instinct and the west coast players got it done.

If Buckley was so poor on grand final day, Adam Simpson was also poor for only winning by a kick.

Our players were poor for not taking their opportunities as well as Collingwoods players did. Thats why it was so close. That was the hiccup we had on the day. The hiccup Collingwood has was the coaches were well and truly beaten on the day

The final 3 minutes requires minimal coaching for sure but I never judged Buckley on that part of the game. Pre game and at half time alot was done by Buckley and I think he got it wrong.

The idea a dropped mark can define a game but player matchups cant is senile to me. To me it seems like people have spent a lot of energy focusing on the micro moments of the game like Rioli and Maynards contest. McGoverns mark, Darlings dropped mark and Sheeds goal that we all forgot a game of actual football happened before that that probably deserves analysing.

 

[Jiggyman]

OP is bang on. It's common for first-time GF coaches to have poor performances.

Just look at Simpson in 2015. He was was blasted by the media for not being hard enough on the day and our tackling being down, totally forgoing 1 on 1 defence for an excessive zone (which was exposed) and refusing to tag.

For the record I think WCE could have extended their lead and won by 3 or 4 goals. Don't believe bad coaching was primarily responsible for either result in 2015 or 2018.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Yeh im surprised. Im also surprised that having the better coach is seen as a negative thing. Like I should be ashamed that Simmo won us the game and not the players by themselves. Im not ashamed to admit that Simmo outcoaching Buckley was paramount to us winning the game. Sure as hell am not going to sit in the corner and not admit it for some weirdly emotional reason. Way I see it is

Would it be incredibly wrong if I said Collingwood took their chances better then ours? Nope, they well and truly did.

Would it be wrong if I said some of our players shat the beds at key moments and nearly cost us overall? Nope

Would I be wrong if I said that despite said shitting of bed key players stepped up in the final 3 minutes and won it when it matters? Nope

If you could analyse the game in a few words id say Simmo kept us in the contest, players poise in the last 3 minutes won it thereafter.

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.

 

[WillieNillie]

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.

Stronly disagree

We would be talking about our 5 missed shots on goal in the last quarter and we would be very correct in doing so.

Even if we had lost the game, we would have won the coaches battle. It would have been our inability to convert that was talked about

 

[mike123]

like i saidBuckley up until that point gave Collingwood every chance to win,

You’ve said this twice but you haven’t really backed this up, what did Buckley do to give us the best chance?

 

[WillieNillie]

You’ve said this twice but you haven’t really backed this up, what did Buckley do to give us the best chance?

And dont mention the season as a whole. I think Buckley coached very well all season, just not on Grand Final day is all

 

[Farang83150]

I find it a little sad we can’t have a discussion on a coaching performance without all this poo flinging.

Agreed, The OPs obviously looked closely at it and got his thoughts down in a sensible manner, he's not being disrespectful to Buckley, it's just his opinion of what he saw.

 

[Shaneprice97]

You’ve said this twice but you haven’t really backed this up, what did Buckley do to give us the best chance?

I said he gave them every chance to win the game, and due to scores being level at 3qt, and scores being extremely close deep into the 4th, does that not give Collingwood every chance to win the game?

I didnt say he gave them the best chance possible, im assuming giving the team the best chance possible is perhaps Mark Thompson in 07.

 

[mike123]

I said he gave them every chance to win the game, and due to scores being level at 3qt, and scores being extremely close deep into the 4th, does that not give Collingwood every chance to win the game?

Yeah and what did Buckley do to keep to the scores close?

 

[WillieNillie]

I said he gave them every chance to win the game, and due to scores being level at 3qt, and scores being extremely close deep into the 4th, does that not give Collingwood every chance to win the game?

I didnt say he gave them the best chance possible, im assuming giving the team the best chance possible is perhaps Mark Thompson in 07.

Buckley isnt some third limb outside the Collingwood bubble. He has as much responsibility to try and win the game as the players at 3QT. You want him to walk down and be like "Well I done my part, its up to you now". Luckily Simmo did that. If he went in with that thought process he wouldnt have made the move that ultimately changed the game. Moving Vardy to deep forward.

Its not about giving the team the best chance of winning. Its about influencing the contest so you do win I would have thought.

We are all so quick to sack the coach when things go bad, praise them for a good job but when it comes to 3QT of a Grand Final, they are irrelevant and a glorified cheerleader it seems. A very odd way of looking at it Id say

 

[10571z]

Lol there was a goal in it.

If Sheed misses that goal people would say how much Adam Simpson was out coached and how well Buckley did without a key defender.

Everything looks bad in Hindsight.

 

[Scotland]

Moving Greenwood off Yeo definitely brought Yeo into the game, but it's not like Buckley did that for the hell of it - Shuey was our best player in the first half and ended up BOG.

Aish was terrible, but he's also a potato. You can criticise Buckley for using him in a role suited to a better player, but it's not Buckley's fault Aish isn't very good.

Cox was OK but is a pretty limited player. He was much better in the prelim because the game suited him better. He's not Josh Kennedy who can take pack marks, win 1 on 1 wrestles and kick goals from 55.

The main move I found questionable was Mihocek on McGovern. It didn't work in the H&A season and it didn't work in the QF. Why go for round 3?

Buckley is on a bit of a hiding to nothing. Without his coaching, that 22 doesn't get near a GF. Most teams don't have two gun tall forwards but I wouldn't fancy our backline minus McGovern, Barrass and Schofield up against our full strength forward line. But Buckley is also a bit from the Malthouse/Worsfold mould and can be pretty rigid in games.

 

[WillieNillie]

Lol there was a goal in it.

If Sheed misses that goal people would say how much Adam Simpson was out coached and how well Buckley did without a key defender.

Everything looks bad in Hindsight.

Anlaysis is hindsight. You want to judge something that hasnt happened?

Ill admit Buckley coached well all year but he didnt on the big day. No need to deny it because its not nice a thing to say etc.

 

[WillieNillie]

Moving Greenwood off Yeo definitely brought Yeo into the game, but it's not like Buckley did that for the hell of it - Shuey was our best player in the first half and ended up BOG.

Aish was terrible, but he's also a potato. You can criticise Buckley for using him in a role suited to a better player, but it's not Buckley's fault Aish isn't very good.

Cox was OK but is a pretty limited player. He was much better in the prelim because the game suited him better. He's not Josh Kennedy who can take pack marks, win 1 on 1 wrestles and kick goals from 55.

The main move I found questionable was Mihocek on McGovern. It didn't work in the H&A season and it didn't work in the QF. Why go for round 3?

Buckley is on a bit of a hiding to nothing. Without his coaching, that 22 doesn't get near a GF. Most teams don't have two gun tall forwards but I wouldn't fancy our backline minus McGovern, Barrass and Schofield up against our full strength forward line. But Buckley is also a bit from the Malthouse/Worsfold mould and can be pretty rigid in games.

Yeo came into the game more then Shuey went out off it with the tag. It was a bad move because he did not force Adams to be accountable. People saying Buckley stuck to the system that won him all these games is talking garbage. He changed the system. Simpson did too. Thing is Simmos changes worked better etc

Aish is terrible and the worst player in the 22 but given the lack of drive from defense it didnt make sense to leave him in that role. I would have shat the bed if for example Bucks moved Pendlebury into defense and plonked him on Venables. Would have been a mich tougher matchup.

Cox wasnt taking pack marks but he was bringing the ball to ground. It was fairly important in helping them keep the ball inside 50 in the first half. They lost that a bit in the third when they were still having the run of the play. We were getting the ball out of there with alot more ease as Collingwood went wide to re adjust to the fact they had no tall to centre it too

 

[Luv_our_club]

Collingwood had a chance to save the game in the last two minutes, when they were in possession. That is the moment that would haunt me.....

I think the OP has done a good job raising some footy questions, even if you don't agree with his critique.

 

[caloschwaby]

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

 

[WillieNillie]

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

Buckley isnt a part of Collingwood? News to me