Is it Bucks or the Players?

[DuckToaster]

Yep, with a young team decimated by injuries in a rebuild after FOUR premierships it really proves how the senior coach is pretty much meaningless

I didn't say the coach was meaningless, I said they were unimportant on game day. Most coaches would agree with that too. The players themselves came out and said once they started playing "the Buckley way" the come back was on. I'm not sure if it was Taylor Adams or Elliot that said that, but it was in the media today. Though it seems my post went completely above you Kappa, but that is not too surprising. How can you excuse Clarkson for their performance based on injuries, and in the same breathe slam Buckley when we haven't had a good run at it since 2011? If Clarkson didn't blow the lead who did? Is it the chicken, or is it the egg?

All the coach can be responsible for is team structure and game plan. On game day, it's up to the players to execute. When we play our game with fast movement through the middle, we look good. This is a good reflection of Buckley, another good reflection is the fact that a lot of our list has gone on record and said he is a good coach. The players have a much better view of Bucks than any of us so I'm willing to back them in. We're very inconsistent though, a lot like a young list. The problem we have is that we're not that young anymore. I believe this is because we're yet to build a consistent best 22. The players haven't really had a chance to "click" just yet. We've had a bunch of off field issues, been ravaged with injuries, and have drafted pretty poorly the last few years.

Do I think Buckley is the problem? Not really, no. A change of the guard could be a catalyst for change within the playing group though. Whether or not that change is good or bad remains to be seen. Don't you think it's interesting how whenever we're thrown into the fire the players come out and play well? You don't bust your guts like that if you want your coach sacked. It's way easier to pack up shop and get belted by 100+.

Do I think it's the players fault? Again, not really no. We've made some very average recruiting decisions and we're doing the best we can to get the most out of the group of players we have. Some of our players have huge upside, others are a little more limited with their output. We have the foundations of a good list though. If we can somehow can get our hands on a couple of key position players over the next off seasons we will be well placed for a finals birth. I just hope we get it done before Pendlebury gets too old.

 

[TW Sherrin]

if Brisbane don't let us waltz up the middle handballing what is plan B?

 

[Kappa]

if Brisbane don't let us waltz up the middle handballing what is plan B?

Bomb it long. Just like it always is.

 

[CFC2010]

I didn't say the coach was meaningless, I said they were unimportant on game day. Most coaches would agree with that too. The players themselves came out and said once they started playing "the Buckley way" the come back was on. I'm not sure if it was Taylor Adams or Elliot that said that, but it was in the media today. Though it seems my post went completely above you Kappa, but that is not too surprising. How can you excuse Clarkson for their performance based on injuries, and in the same breathe slam Buckley when we haven't had a good run at it since 2011? If Clarkson didn't blow the lead who did? Is it the chicken, or is it the egg?

All the coach can be responsible for is team structure and game plan. On game day, it's up to the players to execute. When we play our game with fast movement through the middle, we look good. This is a good reflection of Buckley, another good reflection is the fact that a lot of our list has gone on record and said he is a good coach. The players have a much better view of Bucks than any of us so I'm willing to back them in. We're very inconsistent though, a lot like a young list. The problem we have is that we're not that young anymore. I believe this is because we're yet to build a consistent best 22. The players haven't really had a chance to "click" just yet. We've had a bunch of off field issues, been ravaged with injuries, and have drafted pretty poorly the last few years.

Do I think Buckley is the problem? Not really, no. A change of the guard could be a catalyst for change within the playing group though. Whether or not that change is good or bad remains to be seen. Don't you think it's interesting how whenever we're thrown into the fire the players come out and play well? You don't bust your guts like that if you want your coach sacked. It's way easier to pack up shop and get belted by 100+.

Do I think it's the players fault? Again, not really no. We've made some very average recruiting decisions and we're doing the best we can to get the most out of the group of players we have. Some of our players have huge upside, others are a little more limited with their output. We have the foundations of a good list though. If we can somehow can get our hands on a couple of key position players over the next off seasons we will be well placed for a finals birth. I just hope we get it done before Pendlebury gets too old.

Go have a read of the quote I have posted in the Phillips thread........you tell me whether you think Bucks rev up didn't work?

That's right it was Clarkson choking!

 

[DuckToaster]

Go have a read of the quote I have posted in the Phillips thread........you tell me whether you think Bucks rev up didn't work?

That's right it was Clarkson choking!

You seem to have misconstrued the point of my initial post entirely.

 

[CFC2010]

You seem to have misconstrued the point of my initial post entirely.

Do you think Bucks giving the players a serve at quarter time had ANY influence in our win?

 

[Alexander323bc]

Except Fergies treatment didnt work for all, his time came to an end (and Man U are a long way from ever being the same again) and its very debatable whether that would work now for the majority of players/teams.

Not saying Fergie couldn't be just as succesful if building a team now - but i reckon you would see a very different Sir Alex Ferguson in 2017 than you did in say 1997.

Fergie was able to win sooo many titles because his core team grew up playing together in the Man U academy. He topped up with some superstars but the core had played together from the age of 6 or something like that. You can't yell at players all the time but you can certainly demand more from them when you have street cred. You can't do that when you are a novice, i.e. Brendan McCartney at the doggies.

 

[peter moore]

I said Bucks for the reason that I think he takes a soft line with the players on occasion, needs to feed more emotion into it and get them to take more emotionally involved and a bit more mongrel. The same thing applies to Penders and other playing group leaders. When performance is down across the team, the Coach needs to motivate and not accept the ordinary, it's the Coach's job to get the best out of his talent, training, educating and motivating. Sometimes a good rev up and/or dressing down works.

I vote Bucks he is altermatly responsible.
Agree in general about Bucks and our leadership group needing to have more mongrel and being more emotionally invested. In theory Bucks has a point, professional players should not need motivating, but in sport it just does not work like that.
Last weeks result says to me our list is ok and has talent, we just need to extract that out of them.
Watching Pendles, Sidy etc sometimes it looks like they are just going through the motions, relying on their talent. But in sport sometimes the fine line between winning and loosing and getting an edge on your opponent is being totally switched on, determined, motivated and in many cases more aggressive than them.
Observing the best coach of the past decade (Clarkson) and last years premiership coach (Beveridge) you can see how motivated and motivating they are.

 

[soreplums]

Who's the coach responsible for the part where our players need to move the ball from the backline after a mark/free kick?

That movement and decision making was horrible in the first quarterbsaturday night

 

[DuckToaster]

Do you think Bucks giving the players a serve at quarter time had ANY influence in our win?

I'm not sure, I wasn't there in the huddle. All i know is Jamie Elliot said today that he didn't remember anything Bucks said, he just knew they were copping a spray. Where as it seemed to have an effect on Phillips so go figure. The point of my initial post was to point out the absurdity of blaming the coach for players not executing. Obviously Clarkson didn't blow the lead, he wasn't out their playing. I just cannot stand the hypocrisy of posters saying "it's Bucks fault" when we lose, and heralding the players when we win. The two go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. It's a complex problem and not one that can be interpreted as a single binary digit, be it a 1 or a 0. People forget a lot of Hawthorn people were calling for Clarkos head after his 2nd season as head coach.

 

[Horaceg]

I vote Bucks he is altermatly responsible.
Agree in general about Bucks and our leadership group needing to have more mongrel and being more emotionally invested. In theory Bucks has a point, professional players should not need motivating, but in sport it just does not work like that.
Last weeks result says to me our list is ok and has talent, we just need to extract that out of them.
Watching Pendles, Sidy etc sometimes it looks like they are just going through the motions, relying on their talent. But in sport sometimes the fine line between winning and loosing and getting an edge on your opponent is being totally switched on, determined, motivated and in many cases more aggressive than them.
Observing the best coach of the past decade (Clarkson) and last years premiership coach (Beveridge) you can see how motivated and motivating they are.

Agree it's an emotional game and to get the best out of it emotional investment is key, it drives so many behaviours that help develop winning culture.

 

[CFC2010]

I'm not sure, I wasn't there in the huddle. All i know is Jamie Elliot said today that he didn't remember anything Bucks said, he just knew they were copping a spray. Where as it seemed to have an effect on Phillips so go figure. The point of my initial post was to point out the absurdity of blaming the coach for players not executing. Obviously Clarkson didn't blow the lead, he wasn't out their playing. I just cannot stand the hypocrisy of posters saying "it's Bucks fault" when we lose, and heralding the players when we win. The two go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. It's a complex problem and not one that can be interpreted as a single binary digit, be it a 1 or a 0.

Come on DuckToaster I was at that game..... if you don't think Bucks was the catalyst for that fight back and win then I don't know anything about football.........do you have the Elliott quote interested to hear it.

Bucks was very honest after the game and in the rooms.

 

[Horaceg]

I'm not sure, I wasn't there in the huddle. All i know is Jamie Elliot said today that he didn't remember anything Bucks said, he just knew they were copping a spray. Where as it seemed to have an effect on Phillips so go figure. The point of my initial post was to point out the absurdity of blaming the coach for players not executing. Obviously Clarkson didn't blow the lead, he wasn't out their playing. I just cannot stand the hypocrisy of posters saying "it's Bucks fault" when we lose, and heralding the players when we win. The two go hand in hand.

Jamie Elliott seems to me to be self motivated, his motivation and drive comes from within, others need to have it ignited. Penders is very self motivated but is a more insular character but others like Maynard almost goes too far on the aggression to get things going. It's different for all, sometimes singling someone out has the total reverse effect and sometimes it's just what is needed. MM to his credit coached players on their individual personalities but within the team environment. Bucks needs to understand when the carrot is needed and when the stick takes precedence and how he dishes it out. I did enjoy him getting stuck into a very ordinary display in the first half, I actually thought at the time we may just take something out of the second half.

 

[Markfs]

i wish people wouldnt quote gerard whateley in this forum.... i think his views are incompatible with what we're trying to do here..

 

[CFC2010]

i wish people wouldnt quote gerard whateley in this forum.... i think his views are incompatible with what we're trying to do here..

Get rid of the board??

 

[DuckToaster]

Come on DuckToaster I was at that game..... if you don't think Bucks was the catalyst for that fight back and win then I don't know anything about football.........do you have the Elliott quote interested to hear it.

Bucks was very honest after the game and in the rooms.

https://audioboom.com/posts/5941692-radio-jamie-elliott-on-triple-m
"Can you tell us about the 1/4 time spray?"
"It was just a good old fashioned spray, I don't remember what it was about I was just standing there copping it"

If the answer was simply yelling at players why couldn't Clarkson do the same at the 3/4 huddle? Aside from moving the odd player around to mess with match ups coaches can't really do a lot on game day other than kick and scream like the rest of us. Do I think the players deserved the spray? Definitely. Do I think Collingwood would be different with Clarko in charge? No, not without dramatic list changes.

 

[Markfs]

Get rid of the board??

of course not... i just dont like whateley's use of logic

 

[Maggie5]

Apparently on bigfooty the coach isn't that important in terms of success.........so I am going the players.

Even though I voted Bucks

Can you post where anyone has said that the coach is not that important?

With regard to our current situation, I think that the players are putting too much pressure on themselves even though Buckley has supposedly told them to go out and play.
Maybe the regard they have for him and all the comments continually in the media is also contributing?
Who really knows.
I for one (and L Mathews) believe that the coaches job is all before a game with only on field adjustments and perhaps one on one with players during a game.

 

[CFC2010]

https://audioboom.com/posts/5941692-radio-jamie-elliott-on-triple-m
"Can you tell us about the 1/4 time spray?"
"It was just a good old fashioned spray, I don't remember what it was about I was just standing there copping it"

If the answer was simply yelling at players why couldn't Clarkson do the same at the 3/4 huddle? Aside from moving the odd player around to mess with match ups coaches can't really do a lot on game day other than kick and scream like the rest of us. Do I think the players deserved the spray? Definitely. Do I think Collingwood would be different with Clarko in charge? No, not without dramatic list changes.

Without our Coaches spray Saturday night we lose its that simple...........Clarko would make a massive difference to our current team I have no doubt about that (e.g Bevo @ the Dogs).......some serious underselling of a coaches influence and Clarkos ability.

 

[BEEG]

Both

Players don't play for Bucks.

 

[CFC2010]

Can you post where anyone has said that the coach is not that important?

In the thread that I don't post in anymore someone has posted a "story" that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese about Clarkson and the Hawks.

Example number two = Saintly Viewed

 

[Maggie5]

Yep, with a young team decimated by injuries in a rebuild after FOUR premierships it really proves how the senior coach is pretty much meaningless

Young team? Think you need to have a look at the team list.
Only four and team had a hell of a lot of experience out there. More than we have had when we had to cover injuries.
Can't recall you using that excuse when we had all our injuries.

 

[Maggie5]

In the thread that I don't post in anymore someone has posted a "story" that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese about Clarkson and the Hawks.

Example number two = Saintly Viewed

Now you have to make me search!
Have never seen the words, "a coach is not that important".

 

[Kappa]

Young team? Think you need to have a look at the team list.
Only four and team had a hell of a lot of experience out there. More than we have had when we had to cover injuries.
Can't recall you using that excuse when we had all our injuries.

The reason the Hawks are struggling is they have no depth thanks to an era of 4 Premierships.

I don't think that excuse really applies to us.

 

[Maggie5]

I'm not sure, I wasn't there in the huddle. All i know is Jamie Elliot said today that he didn't remember anything Bucks said, he just knew they were copping a spray. Where as it seemed to have an effect on Phillips so go figure. The point of my initial post was to point out the absurdity of blaming the coach for players not executing. Obviously Clarkson didn't blow the lead, he wasn't out their playing. I just cannot stand the hypocrisy of posters saying "it's Bucks fault" when we lose, and heralding the players when we win. The two go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. It's a complex problem and not one that can be interpreted as a single binary digit, be it a 1 or a 0. People forget a lot of Hawthorn people were calling for Clarkos head after his 2nd season as head coach.

On the Collingwood website it links to a media article where Blair is quoted that Buckley did give them a serve.