Eddie hosting TFS

Remove this Banner Ad

good4footy said:
Look not the thread for it but he challenged Buckley, including publically because he missed MM and therefore left the club no option. He had to go.

He played good footy under Buckley as well.

Mick and Cameron would do the exact same thing if he challenged them publically.
Click to expand...

Probably respects Mick and Leon more because they earned their positions
 
Kappa said:
Probably respects Mick and Leon more because they earned their positions
Click to expand...

So you agree with me that your first post was just wrong and not about Bucks but Shaw.

Happy to debate something different if you like but i was responding to your first post.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

mike123 said:
Because he didn't agree with the current regime and didn't think it was in the best interests of Collingwood.
Click to expand...

Even if he did know better, his methods of airing grievances with that regime were not only ineffective but were also disruptive. But no, premiership player and Collingwood royalty means that there is no way that he contributed to his own demise and hence being walked out of the club he loves.
Many clubmen in VFL/AFL managed to work their way through regimes they thought were not working in the best interests of their clubs, Shaw couldn't. Chris Grant could and did.
 
FiloBeddoe said:
Even if he did know better, his methods of airing grievances with that regime were not only ineffective but were also disruptive. But no, premiership player and Collingwood royalty means that there is no way that he contributed to his own demise and hence being walked out of the club he loves.
Many clubmen in VFL/AFL managed to work their way through regimes they thought were not working in the best interests of their clubs, Shaw couldn't. Chris Grant could and did.
Click to expand...

I don't know if my POV is the correct one and probably isn't needed in a thread about Ed and TFS, but, IMO, both parties share the blame. Both are equally at fault because they didn't work through it.

We had an opportunity to float Shaw to show how serious we were and then pull out late because he was contracted and we also had picks 6 & 10 to get the deal done on Adams. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that either party is able to accept responsibility and is too stubborn to acknowledge their error. With time I'm sure that will change because both share a passion for Collingwood that only us as supporters will ever understand because we share it as well.

I will always be inclined to side with Heater because he was right to ask questions of the establishment (without it you end up where we are right now with too many yes men), but it doesn't absolve him of how he went about it even if I know that to be overblown. Ryan Griffin is another that really should have tried to handle his issues with the powers that be better.
 
Scodog10 said:
I don't know if my POV is the correct one and probably isn't needed in a thread about Ed and TFS, but, IMO, both parties share the blame. Both are equally at fault because they didn't work through it.

We had an opportunity to float Shaw to show how serious we were and then pull out late because he was contracted and we also had picks 6 & 10 to get the deal done on Adams. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that either party is able to accept responsibility and is too stubborn to acknowledge their error. With time I'm sure that will change because both share a passion for Collingwood that only us as supporters will ever understand because we share it as well.

I will always be inclined to side with Heater because he was right to ask questions of the establishment (without it you end up where we are right now with too many yes men), but it doesn't absolve him of how he went about it even if I know that to be overblown. Ryan Griffin is another that really should have tried to handle his issues with the powers that be better.
Click to expand...

Spot on. My issue with is with the POV that Shaw couldn't have been at fault. He was right to ask the questions but I'd perhaps question his methods both upfront and in the locker room.

I'll reply to Kappa's post about GWS and Malthouse as it is relevant.
Malthouse was Shaw's first coach at the level. Parameters, rapport and knowledge of the coach's game were built over a long period time. If Shaw was to remain a Collingwood player and make a good fist of an AFL career, it was important that he exercised more control over his reactions and hence behaviour rather than be a victim of his surroundings, as some of us in here like to paint him to be. Yep, there were hiccups along the way but they were different hiccups.

Rightly or wrongly, the regime implemented change and Shaw's ability to adapt was tested. He was an established, premiership player who had made it. This time some of his indiscretions were targeted behaviours towards an individual or a group of individuals. I don't believe MM would have had to deal with that sort of behaviour therefore he was managing a different set of behaviours. I'm not saying it was easier for MM, just different.

In terms of GWS, we're talking about a player in his late 20's who had been booted and realistically was on his last chance. With a good four to six years left in him, he got to GWS who were a flag chance in his footy life time. I believe he chose to adapt rather than the onus being on GWS to manage him. The key term here is 'chose'.

Both he and the club made some poor choices. I hate that he is not in a Collingwood jumper and I blame him and Buckley and co for that. MM managed a different set of behaviours and so is GWS. IMO, it's too complex a situation to make a simple comparison between the three phases of his career and then decide who managed him better.
 
FiloBeddoe said:
Spot on. My issue with is with the POV that Shaw couldn't have been at fault. He was right to ask the questions but I'd perhaps question his methods both upfront and in the locker room.

I'll reply to Kappa's post about GWS and Malthouse as it is relevant.
Malthouse was Shaw's first coach at the level. Parameters, rapport and knowledge of the coach's game were built over a long period time. If Shaw was to remain a Collingwood player and make a good fist of an AFL career, it was important that he exercised more control over his reactions and hence behaviour rather than be a victim of his surroundings, as some of us in here like to paint him to be. Yep, there were hiccups along the way but they were different hiccups.

Rightly or wrongly, the regime implemented change and Shaw's ability to adapt was tested. He was an established, premiership player who had made it. This time some of his indiscretions were targeted behaviours towards an individual or a group of individuals. I don't believe MM would have had to deal with that sort of behaviour therefore he was managing a different set of behaviours. I'm not saying it was easier for MM, just different.

In terms of GWS, we're talking about a player in his late 20's who had been booted and realistically was on his last chance. With a good four to six years left in him, he got to GWS who were a flag chance in his footy life time. I believe he chose to adapt rather than the onus being on GWS to manage him. The key term here is 'chose'.

Both he and the club made some poor choices. I hate that he is not in a Collingwood jumper and I blame him and Buckley and co for that. MM managed a different set of behaviours and so is GWS. IMO, it's too complex a situation to make a simple comparison between the three phases of his career and then decide who managed him better.
Click to expand...

One minor point I'd like to add is that Buckley was Shaw's captain for four years and he spent a further two as an 'assistant' to MM so if there was a person with enough of the background information to access handling the complexity that is Shaw's personality it should have been Buckley. Ah well what's done is done.
 
Nebula1971 said:
Clever man he is and I'm not sure if anyone else read between the lines when chatting with Hardwick, but my guess is, a decision has already been made on Bucks and he has pre framed it by saying something along the lines of this to Hardwick.

"You guys weren't traveling to well last year, but with some clever recruiting, this has had a massive impact on this year and it shows how quickly things can change"

If I was a betting man, expect Bucks to get a new contract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Based on this, it was rather obvious he was going to be re signed.

Personally, I'm glad he was...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top