Nathan Buckley's playing stats

[Robroy22]

Seemed to have a lot of speed, kicking skills, high mark and flair, if I had a small knock *off the small footage available* it seems his handballing and bouncing on the run were the only poor points to his game.

Hi Loki...sorry I'm not too sure about your age but I'm guessing you're aware that back in Greening's day they only used one footy a day (unless one got kicked over the Yarra Falls end and a youngster snaffled it) so his bouncing skills and handball were likely to have been "not up to today's standard" because of the heavy, slippery footy and heavy muddy grounds. I'd also assume you'd notice that he bounced the ball with either hand (try that when you're running on a soggy ground!)
I wish they had more video footage of JG (and others) because he was simply magnificent to watch. He had the arial skills of Fyfe, the speed of WHE, the courage of Gavin Brown and the Kicking skills of Nathan Buckley (probably better on his left though). Added to that his sportsmanship and leadership was akin to a young Bob Rose so he would have been a 300 game superstar had Jimmy O'Dea not ended his career that fateful day at Moorabbin.

 

[Robroy22]

Great call with Flower. What a footballer he was.

I second that. Robbie Flower only had one thing wrong with him....he wasn't wearing Black and White

 

[Knightmare]

Its the Wilt Chamberlain vs the Bill Russell debate. Both had loads of abilty, Wilt probably more, but the ultimate aim of playing team sports is winning a premiership. Wilt absolutely had more skill than Russell, but Russells teams won because he was the better team player.
Buckley is a Wilt, Pendles is a Bill Russell. I am not denigrating Buckley at all, he clearly has all the skills but he had a fatal flaw. Pendles cant run, cannot kick that well, but is the ultimate team player.
Franklin and Ablett left their teams and those teams still won premierships, Buckley left and Collingwood won as well, They are all time champions. but they are not the be all and end all.
Clarkson said after Franklin kicked 100 goals, never do that again. He wanted him as part of the team and look what happened.
I think you are looking at Buckley with rose coloured glasses, yes he was awesome, but he was not perfect. He kicked the ball too hard, he demanded it when others where in better places (and I can understand this with his mindset, he had no trust in others because he had so much more ability, but its not the way to win) and he got players offside with his selfishness (way more so in the early days)

Wilt was the greatest ever. Russell the clear second. And as a Bulls fan it pains me to say that.

Wilt would have won each of the championships Russell won if he was in the position Russell was. He had all the same gifts but could score a lot more - had range and moves no one had seen before on offence consistently and did so at a higher % - unheard of in that era when teams packed the paint and got bodied in front of you preventing a path to the basket. And it's not like Wilt never won, he won two. He was no loser.

Russell was a freak. He was a greater athlete than LeBron or Michael. Had a higher vertical, taller, longer (7'6 wingspan) and was actually quicker than both. He's was almost on Wilt's level athletically, though not physically or in his skills. But his impact like Wilt's was gamechanging beyond that of any others since. He'd block shots (averaged more than 8 per game over his career - less than Wilt's 9 per game) and blocked them directly to teammates. He was like Wilt a master of the full-court pass and teammates knew before Russell got the rebound to bolt up the court in anticipation of one of Russell's quarterback style passes. And of course Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds per game over his career (again short of Wilt's 22.9).

--
I agree with you in so much as Buckley was the Wilt of the AFL, or at least a Wilt lite. Buckley, like Wilt in the NBA was asked by necessity to do more than anyone ever has.

When I think of Pendlebury. I don't agree with your assessment. I don't look at him as "the ultimate team player" and it's laughable to comment "Pendles cannot kick that well." I don't look at him as the ultimate captain either. Pendlebury is more like the Kevin Durant of the AFL if you want a comparison. A tall guy by position with a skillset of someone typically much smaller and something we've never seen before.

If I'm to comment on the best captain I've seen in recent times. Maxwell is that best captain.

I wouldn't agree with you on Buckley being selfish (even in his early days). He got players offside, absolutely, though I put that on the players rather than Buckley. They had an old group coming off a premiership and they felt like "who is this guy?" They didn't embrace Buckley and I put that down to poor leadership and poor attitudes of those players from the mid 90s sides who created such a toxic culture. And Buckley to his credit never accepted mediocrity. He wasn't relatable to all the players because he wouldn't accept teammates not putting in the work. Buckley needed not only more talent but more guys who wanted it and would put in the work which he never had enough of.

Who impacts winning and is the greatest modern Pie? Buckley. No player in the 2000s or beyond for mine has been on his level. Ablett JR, Dangerfield, Dusty last year was sensational though he feels like a single season great. I'm still taking Buckley. Most damaging kick of the lot and someone so great you can play through every trip up the field - even when tagged and the clubs only real threat - because he was that great. Seeing Buckley's 145 Supercoach average in 2003 (may have been even higher in 2000 or 1999 for all I know) really puts into perspective how ridiculously special he was.

In terms of Collingwood winning after Nathan Buckley. Might the development of Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas, Dane Swan and Travis Cloke have had some baring? Veteran leadership is what sees young players develop. Collingwood had plenty of that. They developed at the tail-end of Buckley's tenure when Collingwood also still had James Clement, Anthony Rocca and Scott Burns, and a further spurt occurred with Nick Maxwell, Scott Pendlebury and Luke Ball leading the way in 2010 - with the likes of Lockyer and O'Bree leading the way in the reserves. Buckley is one person, having his leadership and example helps, but being a 22 man game, you can't win with just Buckley and the club never introduced the talent for anything to manifest during his prime years.
The fact Buckley could take those 2002/2003 Pies to Grand Finals is incredible. They were talentless teams if you match them up v 1990/2010/2011. I'm not sure anyone else would have been able to help the Pies to both of those Grand Finals if they traded places with Buckley during those seasons - such was his greatness.

 

[jonbe54]

Wilt was the greatest ever. Russell the clear second. And as a Bulls fan it pains me to say that.

Wilt would have won each of the championships Russell won if he was in the position Russell was. He had all the same gifts but could score a lot more - had range and moves no one had seen before on offence consistently and did so at a higher % - unheard of in that era when teams packed the paint and got bodied in front of you preventing a path to the basket. And it's not like Wilt never won, he won two. He was no loser.

Russell was a freak. He was a greater athlete than LeBron or Michael. Had a higher vertical, taller, longer (7'6 wingspan) and was actually quicker than both. He's was almost on Wilt's level athletically, though not physically or in his skills. But his impact like Wilt's was gamechanging beyond that of any others since. He'd block shots (averaged more than 8 per game over his career - less than Wilt's 9 per game) and blocked them directly to teammates. He was like Wilt a master of the full-court pass and teammates knew before Russell got the rebound to bolt up the court in anticipation of one of Russell's quarterback style passes. And of course Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds per game over his career (again short of Wilt's 22.9).

--
I agree with you in so much as Buckley was the Wilt of the AFL, or at least a Wilt lite. Buckley, like Wilt in the NBA was asked by necessity to do more than anyone ever has.

When I think of Pendlebury. I don't agree with your assessment. I don't look at him as "the ultimate team player" and it's laughable to comment "Pendles cannot kick that well." I don't look at him as the ultimate captain either. Pendlebury is more like the Kevin Durant of the AFL if you want a comparison. A tall guy by position with a skillset of someone typically much smaller and something we've never seen before.

If I'm to comment on the best captain I've seen in recent times. Maxwell is that best captain.

I wouldn't agree with you on Buckley being selfish (even in his early days). He got players offside, absolutely, though I put that on the players rather than Buckley. They had an old group coming off a premiership and they felt like "who is this guy?" They didn't embrace Buckley and I put that down to poor leadership and poor attitudes of those players from the mid 90s sides who created such a toxic culture. And Buckley to his credit never accepted mediocrity. He wasn't relatable to all the players because he wouldn't accept teammates not putting in the work. Buckley needed not only more talent but more guys who wanted it and would put in the work which he never had enough of.

Who impacts winning and is the greatest modern Pie? Buckley. No player in the 2000s or beyond for mine has been on his level. Ablett JR, Dangerfield, Dusty last year was sensational though he feels like a single season great. I'm still taking Buckley. Most damaging kick of the lot and someone so great you can play through every trip up the field - even when tagged and the clubs only real threat - because he was that great. Seeing Buckley's 145 Supercoach average in 2003 (may have been even higher in 2000 or 1999 for all I know) really puts into perspective how ridiculously special he was.

In terms of Collingwood winning after Nathan Buckley. Might the development of Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas, Dane Swan and Travis Cloke have had some baring? Veteran leadership is what sees young players develop. Collingwood had plenty of that. They developed at the tail-end of Buckley's tenure when Collingwood also still had James Clement, Anthony Rocca and Scott Burns, and a further spurt occurred with Nick Maxwell, Scott Pendlebury and Luke Ball leading the way in 2010 - with the likes of Lockyer and O'Bree leading the way in the reserves. Buckley is one person, having his leadership and example helps, but being a 22 man game, you can't win with just Buckley and the club never introduced the talent for anything to manifest during his prime years.
The fact Buckley could take those 2002/2003 Pies to Grand Finals is incredible. They were talentless teams if you match them up v 1990/2010/2011. I'm not sure anyone else would have been able to help the Pies to both of those Grand Finals if they traded places with Buckley during those seasons - such was his greatness.

Well said Knightmare, so nice to read balanced and informed commonsense as opposed to personal biased agenda.

 

[HeathySure]

Wilt was the greatest ever. Russell the clear second. And as a Bulls fan it pains me to say that.

Wilt would have won each of the championships Russell won if he was in the position Russell was. He had all the same gifts but could score a lot more - had range and moves no one had seen before on offence consistently and did so at a higher % - unheard of in that era when teams packed the paint and got bodied in front of you preventing a path to the basket. And it's not like Wilt never won, he won two. He was no loser.

Russell was a freak. He was a greater athlete than LeBron or Michael. Had a higher vertical, taller, longer (7'6 wingspan) and was actually quicker than both. He's was almost on Wilt's level athletically, though not physically or in his skills. But his impact like Wilt's was gamechanging beyond that of any others since. He'd block shots (averaged more than 8 per game over his career - less than Wilt's 9 per game) and blocked them directly to teammates. He was like Wilt a master of the full-court pass and teammates knew before Russell got the rebound to bolt up the court in anticipation of one of Russell's quarterback style passes. And of course Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds per game over his career (again short of Wilt's 22.9).

--
I agree with you in so much as Buckley was the Wilt of the AFL, or at least a Wilt lite. Buckley, like Wilt in the NBA was asked by necessity to do more than anyone ever has.

When I think of Pendlebury. I don't agree with your assessment. I don't look at him as "the ultimate team player" and it's laughable to comment "Pendles cannot kick that well." I don't look at him as the ultimate captain either. Pendlebury is more like the Kevin Durant of the AFL if you want a comparison. A tall guy by position with a skillset of someone typically much smaller and something we've never seen before.

If I'm to comment on the best captain I've seen in recent times. Maxwell is that best captain.

I wouldn't agree with you on Buckley being selfish (even in his early days). He got players offside, absolutely, though I put that on the players rather than Buckley. They had an old group coming off a premiership and they felt like "who is this guy?" They didn't embrace Buckley and I put that down to poor leadership and poor attitudes of those players from the mid 90s sides who created such a toxic culture. And Buckley to his credit never accepted mediocrity. He wasn't relatable to all the players because he wouldn't accept teammates not putting in the work. Buckley needed not only more talent but more guys who wanted it and would put in the work which he never had enough of.

Who impacts winning and is the greatest modern Pie? Buckley. No player in the 2000s or beyond for mine has been on his level. Ablett JR, Dangerfield, Dusty last year was sensational though he feels like a single season great. I'm still taking Buckley. Most damaging kick of the lot and someone so great you can play through every trip up the field - even when tagged and the clubs only real threat - because he was that great. Seeing Buckley's 145 Supercoach average in 2003 (may have been even higher in 2000 or 1999 for all I know) really puts into perspective how ridiculously special he was.

In terms of Collingwood winning after Nathan Buckley. Might the development of Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas, Dane Swan and Travis Cloke have had some baring? Veteran leadership is what sees young players develop. Collingwood had plenty of that. They developed at the tail-end of Buckley's tenure when Collingwood also still had James Clement, Anthony Rocca and Scott Burns, and a further spurt occurred with Nick Maxwell, Scott Pendlebury and Luke Ball leading the way in 2010 - with the likes of Lockyer and O'Bree leading the way in the reserves. Buckley is one person, having his leadership and example helps, but being a 22 man game, you can't win with just Buckley and the club never introduced the talent for anything to manifest during his prime years.
The fact Buckley could take those 2002/2003 Pies to Grand Finals is incredible. They were talentless teams if you match them up v 1990/2010/2011. I'm not sure anyone else would have been able to help the Pies to both of those Grand Finals if they traded places with Buckley during those seasons - such was his greatness.

i would make an argument the coaching got the pies into the grand finals in 2002/3. He didnt play from round 20 to the prelim in 2002 and was good but not great in the prelim. He was awesome in 2003 but we got thrashed in the GF. So he was not the reason we got there in 2002. Its a team game not an individual game. If it was an individual game Buckley wins easily. But its not.
I cant believe the under rating of Pendles by even Pies supporters. He has been the 2nd highest rated player for 5 years and in the top 10 for about 8 years. Thats in the whole competition.

 

[HeathySure]

Well said Knightmare, so nice to read balanced and informed commonsense as opposed to personal biased agenda.

Not agreeing with someone is not being biased. I have an opinion which i will state. you have one too which i respect. Just because it is not the same doesnt mean its biased. It means we have a difference of opinion. I believe the team is everything and that an individual can be great but doesn't lead to success, others disagree. Its life. Relax

 

[loki04]

i would make an argument the coaching got the pies into the grand finals in 2002/3. He didnt play from round 20 to the prelim in 2002 and was good but not great in the prelim. He was awesome in 2003 but we got thrashed in the GF. So he was not the reason we got there in 2002. Its a team game not an individual game. If it was an individual game Buckley wins easily. But its not.
I cant believe the under rating of Pendles by even Pies supporters. He has been the 2nd highest rated player for 5 years and in the top 10 for about 8 years. Thats in the whole competition.

And Buckley from 97 -2003 was often talked as the best player in the game by many (coaches, media, players and fans) and those who didn't rate him 1st usually had him 2nd or 3rd. Pendles is a great player and a champion of the game but he compared to Buckley is not as good.

He was unlucky not to have won 3 Brownlows.

 

[jonbe54]

Not agreeing with someone is not being biased. I have an opinion which i will state. you have one too which i respect. Just because it is not the same doesnt mean its biased. It means we have a difference of opinion. I believe the team is everything and that an individual can be great but doesn't lead to success, others disagree. Its life. Relax

You clearly stated you don't like Buckley's type - that is bias - which is fine, and I just clearly stated that I prefer a balanced viewpoint to one coloured by personal bias.

 

[loki04]

Hi Loki...sorry I'm not too sure about your age but I'm guessing you're aware that back in Greening's day they only used one footy a day (unless one got kicked over the Yarra Falls end and a youngster snaffled it) so his bouncing skills and handball were likely to have been "not up to today's standard" because of the heavy, slippery footy and heavy muddy grounds. I'd also assume you'd notice that he bounced the ball with either hand (try that when you're running on a soggy ground!)
I wish they had more video footage of JG (and others) because he was simply magnificent to watch. He had the arial skills of Fyfe, the speed of WHE, the courage of Gavin Brown and the Kicking skills of Nathan Buckley (probably better on his left though). Added to that his sportsmanship and leadership was akin to a young Bob Rose so he would have been a 300 game superstar had Jimmy O'Dea not ended his career that fateful day at Moorabbin.

Yeah fair enough I wasn't born when he played can only comment on the footage available. It was definitely a tragedy what happened to him and imo it would make for a hollywood movie given he came back and kicked 5 in his first game back? after the coma.
It's a wonder no Aussie script writer and movie producer has looked into it.

 

[Knightmare]

i would make an argument the coaching got the pies into the grand finals in 2002/3. He didnt play from round 20 to the prelim in 2002 and was good but not great in the prelim. He was awesome in 2003 but we got thrashed in the GF. So he was not the reason we got there in 2002. Its a team game not an individual game. If it was an individual game Buckley wins easily. But its not.
I cant believe the under rating of Pendles by even Pies supporters. He has been the 2nd highest rated player for 5 years and in the top 10 for about 8 years. Thats in the whole competition.

I considered your comments to be underrating Pendlebury.

Pendlebury can't kick? Seriously? He's an elite, duel sided kick. One of the best in the competition by foot throughout his career. His work by hand is even better, as is the way he creates time and space in traffic.

I made the comment earlier in response even to one of your comments "we're talking about arguably the second best midfielder from the past 10 seasons on any list in terms of sustained quality of play during that period." That's Pendlebury. Only Ablett has been better over that span. Dangerfield has had a few better years, Fyfe had the one, but Pendlebury has done it for the sustained period though he has declined over the past couple of years.

Perhaps as a leader I don't hold Pendlebury in as high a regard as you do? He is a capable leader, but not one of the most outstanding or most outstanding captains in the competition. Like Buckley, he was certainly very capable. He also builds stronger relationships with more players than Buckley did but he didn't set the standard to the level that Buckley did. I favour Pendlebury of the two as captain because the role is more about bringing everyone with you, rather than Buckley who isn't going to put the time into you if you're not putting in the work. But Pendlebury is no Maxwell - Maxwell was a great captain and that guy you really go to war for and that one who lifts the standard of everyone and takes everyone on the journey with you. He is one of the clubs great captains and certainly in modern times.

As for Collingwood in 2002. Collingwood were a top four side because of Buckley. Without him, that team may not be a top 8 side. Buckley didn't embarrass himself in the Prelim v Adelaide at all. He had what to that point in his career was a career high 10 tackles (in an era where tackling wasn't a thing). Buckley showed an incredible commitment to the defensive side of the game that season and his chasing and pressuring was arguably as good as it was at any point in his season - in what was offensively the weakest of his prime years from 1996-2003.

 

[HeathySure]

You clearly stated you don't like Buckley's type - that is bias - which is fine, and I just clearly stated that I prefer a balanced viewpoint to one coloured by personal bias.

Thats absolute rubbish. I just said if it was an individual game Buckley wins hands down, but its not. I think the same about Pavlich Ablett jr and snr , Lockett who was my favorite non pies player forever, Buddy and many others. I rate players like Simon Black, Luke Ball, Lenny Hayes and similar types higher because they played a game that suited a team.

 

[jonbe54]

Thats absolute rubbish. I just said if it was an individual game Buckley wins hands down, but its not. I think the same about Pavlich Ablett jr and snr , Lockett who was my favorite non pies player forever, Buddy and many others. I rate players like Simon Black, Luke Ball, Lenny Hayes and similar types higher because they played a game that suited a team.

Okay then backpedal away - end of discussion for me.

 

[HeathySure]

I considered your comments to be underrating Pendlebury.

Pendlebury can't kick? Seriously? He's an elite, duel sided kick. One of the best in the competition by foot throughout his career. His work by hand is even better, as is the way he creates time and space in traffic.

I made the comment earlier in response even to one of your comments "we're talking about arguably the second best midfielder from the past 10 seasons on any list in terms of sustained quality of play during that period." That's Pendlebury. Only Ablett has been better over that span. Dangerfield has had a few better years, Fyfe had the one, but Pendlebury has done it for the sustained period though he has declined over the past couple of years.

Perhaps as a leader I don't hold Pendlebury in as high a regard as you do? He is a capable leader, but not one of the most outstanding or most outstanding captains in the competition. Like Buckley, he was certainly very capable. He also builds stronger relationships with more players than Buckley did but he didn't set the standard to the level that Buckley did. I favour Pendlebury of the two as captain because the role is more about bringing everyone with you, rather than Buckley who isn't going to put the time into you if you're not putting in the work. But Pendlebury is no Maxwell - Maxwell was a great captain and that guy you really go to war for and that one who lifts the standard of everyone and takes everyone on the journey with you. He is one of the clubs great captains and certainly in modern times.

As for Collingwood in 2002. Collingwood were a top four side because of Buckley. Without him, that team may not be a top 8 side. Buckley didn't embarrass himself in the Prelim v Adelaide at all. He had what to that point in his career was a career high 10 tackles (in an era where tackling wasn't a thing). Buckley showed an incredible commitment to the defensive side of the game that season and his chasing and pressuring was arguably as good as it was at any point in his season - in what was offensively the weakest of his prime years from 1996-2003.

Sorry i didnt make myself clear. Pendles is an excellent field kick he is just not a good long kick or that good kicking for goal like Buckley was. I just said that flippantly. As for Pendles captaincy, he is under rated but i dont really rate the position of captain that highly. A good captain might be worth 1 goal per game, an excellent one 2 but thats about it.
Fundamentally I think we might see the game totally differently. I always believe that a good coaching system is worth 5 to 6 goals per game. That is huge, most people don't but I think watching Collingwood last year, the Bulldogs 2 years ago and Richmond last year proves me right. A good player might be worth 5 goals in a single game (as Buckley was in the 2002 grand final). but that is very rare. its all about having the right team with as few holes as possible that is well coached.

 

[HeathySure]

Okay then backpedal away - end of discussion for me.

Jon you do not discuss anything, if anyone disagrees with you you bulldoze with insults without actually reading what someone actually says . Take a chill pill dude. You wont have a stroke that way

 

[Leviathan Pie]

Wilt was the greatest ever. Russell the clear second. And as a Bulls fan it pains me to say that.

Wilt would have won each of the championships Russell won if he was in the position Russell was. He had all the same gifts but could score a lot more - had range and moves no one had seen before on offence consistently and did so at a higher % - unheard of in that era when teams packed the paint and got bodied in front of you preventing a path to the basket. And it's not like Wilt never won, he won two. He was no loser.

Russell was a freak. He was a greater athlete than LeBron or Michael. Had a higher vertical, taller, longer (7'6 wingspan) and was actually quicker than both. He's was almost on Wilt's level athletically, though not physically or in his skills. But his impact like Wilt's was gamechanging beyond that of any others since. He'd block shots (averaged more than 8 per game over his career - less than Wilt's 9 per game) and blocked them directly to teammates. He was like Wilt a master of the full-court pass and teammates knew before Russell got the rebound to bolt up the court in anticipation of one of Russell's quarterback style passes. And of course Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds per game over his career (again short of Wilt's 22.9).

--
I agree with you in so much as Buckley was the Wilt of the AFL, or at least a Wilt lite. Buckley, like Wilt in the NBA was asked by necessity to do more than anyone ever has.

When I think of Pendlebury. I don't agree with your assessment. I don't look at him as "the ultimate team player" and it's laughable to comment "Pendles cannot kick that well." I don't look at him as the ultimate captain either. Pendlebury is more like the Kevin Durant of the AFL if you want a comparison. A tall guy by position with a skillset of someone typically much smaller and something we've never seen before.

If I'm to comment on the best captain I've seen in recent times. Maxwell is that best captain.

I wouldn't agree with you on Buckley being selfish (even in his early days). He got players offside, absolutely, though I put that on the players rather than Buckley. They had an old group coming off a premiership and they felt like "who is this guy?" They didn't embrace Buckley and I put that down to poor leadership and poor attitudes of those players from the mid 90s sides who created such a toxic culture. And Buckley to his credit never accepted mediocrity. He wasn't relatable to all the players because he wouldn't accept teammates not putting in the work. Buckley needed not only more talent but more guys who wanted it and would put in the work which he never had enough of.

Who impacts winning and is the greatest modern Pie? Buckley. No player in the 2000s or beyond for mine has been on his level. Ablett JR, Dangerfield, Dusty last year was sensational though he feels like a single season great. I'm still taking Buckley. Most damaging kick of the lot and someone so great you can play through every trip up the field - even when tagged and the clubs only real threat - because he was that great. Seeing Buckley's 145 Supercoach average in 2003 (may have been even higher in 2000 or 1999 for all I know) really puts into perspective how ridiculously special he was.

In terms of Collingwood winning after Nathan Buckley. Might the development of Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas, Dane Swan and Travis Cloke have had some baring? Veteran leadership is what sees young players develop. Collingwood had plenty of that. They developed at the tail-end of Buckley's tenure when Collingwood also still had James Clement, Anthony Rocca and Scott Burns, and a further spurt occurred with Nick Maxwell, Scott Pendlebury and Luke Ball leading the way in 2010 - with the likes of Lockyer and O'Bree leading the way in the reserves. Buckley is one person, having his leadership and example helps, but being a 22 man game, you can't win with just Buckley and the club never introduced the talent for anything to manifest during his prime years.
The fact Buckley could take those 2002/2003 Pies to Grand Finals is incredible. They were talentless teams if you match them up v 1990/2010/2011. I'm not sure anyone else would have been able to help the Pies to both of those Grand Finals if they traded places with Buckley during those seasons - such was his greatness.

Buckley was a better player than Pendlebury, pretty simple really.

And that is no knock on Scott in the slightest - has been a champion of our club, and the competition.

 

[Knightmare]

Sorry i didnt make myself clear. Pendles is an excellent field kick he is just not a good long kick or that good kicking for goal like Buckley was. I just said that flippantly. As for Pendles captaincy, he is under rated but i dont really rate the position of captain that highly. A good captain might be worth 1 goal per game, an excellent one 2 but thats about it.
Fundamentally I think we might see the game totally differently. I always believe that a good coaching system is worth 5 to 6 goals per game. That is huge, most people don't but I think watching Collingwood last year, the Bulldogs 2 years ago and Richmond last year proves me right. A good player might be worth 5 goals in a single game (as Buckley was in the 2002 grand final). but that is very rare. its all about having the right team with as few holes as possible that is well coached.

If your view differs from my own.

Do you place any blame on Pendlebury as captain for the club missing the top eight for the past four seasons? If some, how much? Is it all on Buckley as coach and his assistants? The fitness staff? Not enough list talent?

On Western Bulldogs. They had favourable matchups throughout the finals - playing against teams they were suited to playing that didn't match up on them well. On talent, they should never have been there, particularly with that injury list and finishing 7th. But when there are no great teams and the competition is so even, that kind of random result can occur.

Richmond have long been a team that wins/loses on the basis of the availability of their midfielders. Last year, they were enabled to go all the way because they had a healthy list. This is most prominently shown by Richmond's wins when Deledio played v when he didn't. Following the trade of Deledio, Richmond added to their midfield and ruck department and that gave them the pieces they needed to go all the way.

Good coaching helps. Though there aren't exactly bad coaches in the AFL. They all know how to coach. I see a real evenness in quality of coaching league-wide. Clarkson is the one great coach. Otherwise they've all got their strengths and weaknesses, and similar can be said of the various coaching groups league-wide. Absolutely there is variation in quality from one side to another, but they all know their stuff and perform their jobs capably. The variable most essential to winning I place on the back of veteran leadership. You need numbers of veteran leaders if you want a good team. You could have given Brisbane Clarkson as coach with Longmire, Pyke and Hardwick as assistants last year, and with only Stefan Martin over the age of 28 and they're still a bottom two side. Add Hodge? That's doing something. But even one veteran leader isn't enough, it takes several for substantial change to occur.

 

[Knightmare]

Buckley was a better player than Pendlebury, pretty simple really.

And that is no knock on Scott in the slightest - has been a champion of our club, and the competition.

Agree mate.

 

[donkeyballs]

Wilt was the greatest ever. Russell the clear second. And as a Bulls fan it pains me to say that.

Wilt would have won each of the championships Russell won if he was in the position Russell was. He had all the same gifts but could score a lot more - had range and moves no one had seen before on offence consistently and did so at a higher % - unheard of in that era when teams packed the paint and got bodied in front of you preventing a path to the basket. And it's not like Wilt never won, he won two. He was no loser.

Russell was a freak. He was a greater athlete than LeBron or Michael. Had a higher vertical, taller, longer (7'6 wingspan) and was actually quicker than both. He's was almost on Wilt's level athletically, though not physically or in his skills. But his impact like Wilt's was gamechanging beyond that of any others since. He'd block shots (averaged more than 8 per game over his career - less than Wilt's 9 per game) and blocked them directly to teammates. He was like Wilt a master of the full-court pass and teammates knew before Russell got the rebound to bolt up the court in anticipation of one of Russell's quarterback style passes. And of course Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds per game over his career (again short of Wilt's 22.9).

--
I agree with you in so much as Buckley was the Wilt of the AFL, or at least a Wilt lite. Buckley, like Wilt in the NBA was asked by necessity to do more than anyone ever has.

When I think of Pendlebury. I don't agree with your assessment. I don't look at him as "the ultimate team player" and it's laughable to comment "Pendles cannot kick that well." I don't look at him as the ultimate captain either. Pendlebury is more like the Kevin Durant of the AFL if you want a comparison. A tall guy by position with a skillset of someone typically much smaller and something we've never seen before.

If I'm to comment on the best captain I've seen in recent times. Maxwell is that best captain.

I wouldn't agree with you on Buckley being selfish (even in his early days). He got players offside, absolutely, though I put that on the players rather than Buckley. They had an old group coming off a premiership and they felt like "who is this guy?" They didn't embrace Buckley and I put that down to poor leadership and poor attitudes of those players from the mid 90s sides who created such a toxic culture. And Buckley to his credit never accepted mediocrity. He wasn't relatable to all the players because he wouldn't accept teammates not putting in the work. Buckley needed not only more talent but more guys who wanted it and would put in the work which he never had enough of.

Who impacts winning and is the greatest modern Pie? Buckley. No player in the 2000s or beyond for mine has been on his level. Ablett JR, Dangerfield, Dusty last year was sensational though he feels like a single season great. I'm still taking Buckley. Most damaging kick of the lot and someone so great you can play through every trip up the field - even when tagged and the clubs only real threat - because he was that great. Seeing Buckley's 145 Supercoach average in 2003 (may have been even higher in 2000 or 1999 for all I know) really puts into perspective how ridiculously special he was.

In terms of Collingwood winning after Nathan Buckley. Might the development of Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas, Dane Swan and Travis Cloke have had some baring? Veteran leadership is what sees young players develop. Collingwood had plenty of that. They developed at the tail-end of Buckley's tenure when Collingwood also still had James Clement, Anthony Rocca and Scott Burns, and a further spurt occurred with Nick Maxwell, Scott Pendlebury and Luke Ball leading the way in 2010 - with the likes of Lockyer and O'Bree leading the way in the reserves. Buckley is one person, having his leadership and example helps, but being a 22 man game, you can't win with just Buckley and the club never introduced the talent for anything to manifest during his prime years.
The fact Buckley could take those 2002/2003 Pies to Grand Finals is incredible. They were talentless teams if you match them up v 1990/2010/2011. I'm not sure anyone else would have been able to help the Pies to both of those Grand Finals if they traded places with Buckley during those seasons - such was his greatness.

Re wilt and Russell,they put up way more shots back then generally with less structured offense and defence so little wonder these guys picked up high numbers in blocks and boards. No chance either were more athletic than mj or labron.

Michael is the greatest ever. No contest.

 

[donkeyballs]

sorry, LeBron

 

[HeathySure]

If your view differs from my own.

Do you place any blame on Pendlebury as captain for the club missing the top eight for the past four seasons? If some, how much? Is it all on Buckley as coach and his assistants? The fitness staff? Not enough list talent?

On Western Bulldogs. They had favourable matchups throughout the finals - playing against teams they were suited to playing that didn't match up on them well. On talent, they should never have been there, particularly with that injury list and finishing 7th. But when there are no great teams and the competition is so even, that kind of random result can occur.

Richmond have long been a team that wins/loses on the basis of the availability of their midfielders. Last year, they were enabled to go all the way because they had a healthy list. This is most prominently shown by Richmond's wins when Deledio played v when he didn't. Following the trade of Deledio, Richmond added to their midfield and ruck department and that gave them the pieces they needed to go all the way.

Good coaching helps. Though there aren't exactly bad coaches in the AFL. They all know how to coach. I see a real evenness in quality of coaching league-wide. Clarkson is the one great coach. Otherwise they've all got their strengths and weaknesses, and similar can be said of the various coaching groups league-wide. Absolutely there is variation in quality from one side to another, but they all know their stuff and perform their jobs capably. The variable most essential to winning I place on the back of veteran leadership. You need numbers of veteran leaders if you want a good team. You could have given Brisbane Clarkson as coach with Longmire, Pyke and Hardwick as assistants last year, and with only Stefan Martin over the age of 28 and they're still a bottom two side. Add Hodge? That's doing something. But even one veteran leader isn't enough, it takes several for substantial change to occur.

I dont put any blame at all on Pendles. We made a huge mistake replacing MM and no one will ever change my opinion on that. It caused us to go in a completely different direction to where we were going, we made some very incomprehensible trades, Buckley coached in a reactive rather than a proactive manner and consequently we were a mess. I have never ever blamed the players for anything, you can always make a ordinary team competitive. We always had a good list it was under performing badly.
The bulldogs in 2016 still made the finals despite an injury list worse than ours during the year, their use of handball was the best i have ever seen and they had a game plan where you could replace soldiers with others and still perform in a similar manner.
Go watch Richmond in 2016 and then watch them in 2017, their game has completely changed. Martin and Cotchin used to run around getting cheap handballs out the back and bombing it to no one, last year they played in a completely different way and used our 2010 style to keep the ball in the forward line. Its chalk and cheese.
Same with us this year. Its why i am confident we will make the top 4 and go close. We finally have a game plan where we use our strengths (mids) and can get away with a small forward line. Cox is the major key, He may just be an ordinary player but he has made all the difference this year. WE pretty much play through him,and if he takes a mark well and good but it doesnt matter if he does because our mids swarm around him and bustle the ball forward.
Its no accident we are kicking better this year. players just dont get better, we are kicking from easier positions because we can get the ball to better positions. Our backline is very stable and has no holes, not like last year where goals over the top happened way too many times.
Its coaching!!
s

 

[sr36]

Bucks is responsible for more 50 metre drills on to a teammates chest than anyone else who has ever played the game. But he was a middle of the road kick for goal, except for distance and he shanked his fair share. Leon Davis is the best kick I've ever seen in a Pies jumper. Lindsay Gilbee the best kick in any jumper. Maybe Jarman.

 

[Knightmare]

Re wilt and Russell,they put up way more shots back then generally with less structured offense and defence so little wonder these guys picked up high numbers in blocks and boards. No chance either were more athletic than mj or labron.

Michael is the greatest ever. No contest.

Michael is the greatest perimeter player ever, but not the greatest overall. Not even the greatest athlete.

Wilt is outright the greatest overall and it's not close.

Russell is believed to have a 48" inch vertical. He was an Olympic standard leaper and was ranked top-10 in the world in high jump. He cleared a 7 foot high jump in practice v Charles Dumas and was arguably the first man to achieve that mark. Wilt also had a 48 inch vertical - and was taller and longer again. That beats MJ at 46" and LeBron at 44".

Russell could run the 400m in 49.6 seconds while Wilt could in 48.9.

Wilt would run 200m in 20.9sec while Russell would in 23.7.

People who have MJ in their top two or LeBron in their top five need to take the time to watch some Wilt Chamberlain archive and get educated on eras before the 80s - as they're not sufficiently covered.

It's like if someone was to look at Russell's 4.3 assists per game or Wilt's 4.4 per game over their respective careers and think - ok let's adjust the pace. What people won't realise is that assists were only counted off catch and shot. You could not be in motion for an assist to count. Had assists been counted as they are today. They would both have career averages exceeding 10 assists per game.

They'd both be averaging quadruple doubles if stats were recorded as they are today.

If Wilt played today, people would tell him he can't make a three, and he'd casually in a game make three consecutive hook shots from three because he's that good, and hook shots weren't even his go to. He's a guy who would dunk the ball every-time down the floor if you said he couldn't. He just decided to play as a skilled big - going for finger rolls and fadeaway jumpers and still hitting at a high rate as players were seen as being "hot dogs" if they dunked during that era. It wasn't seen as the thing to do. He'd send a prime Shaq to the floor if Shaq either tried to dunk on him or block any of his shots.
If MJ trash talked him, Wilt wouldn't let him get a shot off. Magic in his prime tried v Wilt who was 43 and retired, Wilt playing alongside 4 college freshmen and dominated Magic, Worthy, Byron Scott and AC Green, blocking just about every shot they put up.

No one other than Russell is/was anywhere near Wilt's level.

And that's no disrespect to MJ who is clearly ahead of anyone else for mine, with Kareem that clear 4th.

 

[HeathySure]

Bucks is responsible for more 50 metre drills on to a teammates chest than anyone else who has ever played the game. But he was a middle of the road kick for goal, except for distance and he shanked his fair share. Leon Davis is the best kick I've ever seen in a Pies jumper. Lindsay Gilbee the best kick in any jumper. Maybe Jarman.

Bucks is also responsible for more balls bouncing off players chests than anyone who has ever played. I hate to say it cos he is very unlikable, but Sicily might be the best kick in the game these days

 

[HeathySure]

Michael is the greatest perimeter player ever, but not the greatest overall. Not even the greatest athlete.

Wilt is outright the greatest overall and it's not close.

Russell is believed to have a 48" inch vertical. He was an Olympic standard leaper and was ranked top-10 in the world in high jump. He cleared a 7 foot high jump in practice v Charles Dumas and was arguably the first man to achieve that mark. Wilt also had a 48 inch vertical - and was taller and longer again. That beats MJ at 46" and LeBron at 44".

Russell could run the 400m in 49.6 seconds while Wilt could in 48.9.

Wilt would run 200m in 20.9sec while Russell would in 23.7.

People who have MJ in their top two or LeBron in their top five need to take the time to watch some Wilt Chamberlain archive and get educated on eras before the 80s - as they're not sufficiently covered.

It's like if someone was to look at Russell's 4.3 assists per game or Wilt's 4.4 per game over their respective careers and think - ok let's adjust the pace. What people won't realise is that assists were only counted off catch and shot. You could not be in motion for an assist to count. Had assists been counted as they are today. They would both have career averages exceeding 10 assists per game.

They'd both be averaging quadruple doubles if stats were recorded as they are today.

If Wilt played today, people would tell him he can't make a three, and he'd casually in a game make three consecutive hook shots from three because he's that good, and hook shots weren't even his go to. He's a guy who would dunk the ball every-time down the floor if you said he couldn't. He just decided to play as a skilled big - going for finger rolls and fadeaway jumpers and still hitting at a high rate as players were seen as being "hot dogs" if they dunked during that era. It wasn't seen as the thing to do. He'd send a prime Shaq to the floor if Shaq either tried to dunk on him or block any of his shots.
If MJ trash talked him, Wilt wouldn't let him get a shot off. Magic in his prime tried v Wilt who was 43 and retired, Wilt playing alongside 4 college freshmen and dominated Magic, Worthy, Byron Scott and AC Green, blocking just about every shot they put up.

No one other than Russell is/was anywhere near Wilt's level.

And that's no disrespect to MJ who is clearly ahead of anyone else for mine, with Kareem that clear 4th.

I will ask you a question, do you value premierships or ability more in a team sport?

 

[loki04]

Bucks is also responsible for more balls bouncing off players chests than anyone who has ever played. I hate to say it cos he is very unlikable, but Sicily might be the best kick in the game these days

What a load of rot.