PieNSauce
Norm Smith Medallist
You know what? I’m sick to death of the raging argument around Bucks and his ability to coach. Blind Freddy can see that the vultures are circling and to be fair, the signs are not good and haven’t been for some time. Whilst there have been some positives in his tenure to date, and I include the team’s finals finishes in each of his first 2 years as well as having had the team in the 4 after 8 rounds last year, there are fairly ominous signs coming out of our NAB challenge performances that have the faithful holding their collective breath.
If (and it’s still an if for me), the team does not start performing to the expectation of the fans in the first few weeks of the season proper, there can be nothing surer than that the fans will be baying for blood. That fact is unquestionable but what is questionable is just whose blood that needs to be. What makes me sick about the situation that Bucks and the team find themselves in is an almost complete acceptance by the masses of the goings on since 2009 without the hard questions being asked of the board and management. Just who is responsible for what many already see as an utter debacle and why have they not put up their hand(s)? Premature? Maybe, in fact, hopefully so, but there are still answers owed to the members on a number of issues.
Regardless of the various explanations, it seems less than likely that all of the experienced players we have traded or lost would have necessarily left had they had a close bond with the coach and club. Of course that is pure speculation but I very much doubt that even the most die-hard Buckley fan would not have wondered about this albeit probably privately. We have all been assured that this is one leopard that changed its spots some time ago. I am still not convinced either way but it says much that I and many others are happy to question it either privately or in public forums.
Whatever the facts in regard to Buckley’s coaching ability, the simple fact remains that a decision was taken at the end of 2009 which on outward appearance seems to have had some fairly far reaching consequences. No doubt many of us thought at the time that it had the potential to be a masterstroke of foresight and planning but in the aftermath of its abject failure, one can only ask who is responsible and should there be a move to remove Bucks at some point, who needs to go with him?
There is no doubt in my mind that in concept, the succession plan was clever forward planning but it bore merit in my mind only if it was understood that Mick was there to provide close mentoring for Bucks and if it was diligently implemented. This is the concept that I embraced and my understanding of it was that whilst the club felt that Bucks had great potential as a senior coach, it was necessary for his development that he be mentored by a highly experienced and successful coach. For the plan to have any merit in these circumstances, it had to include detailed provisions to ensure that all parties were on board and that their roles were clearly understood. On this point the club failed massively and with potentially dire consequences.
EDIT:
CLARIFICATION
OK, reading back, it has become obvious that it is entirely possible to read a different meaning into the OP than what was intended. In the hope that the thread can be brought back to its intended course, I will attempt to clarify that intent and I apologise for any misunderstanding.
This thread is intended to discuss the failure of the succession plan in implementation only. It is not about whether success eventuated either directly or indirectly as a result of the plan. The central point is the diligence employed in producing and implementing a workable plan for benefit of the Collingwood Football Club.
Why is this of interest to me you may well ask and I will do my best to explain that too.
My reasons for concern relate specifically to the implications for the club as a result of Mick's failure to take up the director of coaching role. My concerns are entirely speculative at this stage but I believe they echo the concerns of many of the members and supporters. To understand, I guess you would need to consider the potential benefits of having retained Mick in the planned role (as I understood it). It was my opinion that Bucks had significant potential as a coach but like many, I had concerns initially that he was untried. I also had some lingering concerns about whether or not his renowned man-management skills had indeed been improved as we were being told. For this reason, I always felt that having Mick there for support would be extremely beneficial for Bucks' education as a senior coach and help to calm the waters for players who had probably not played under any other coach at senior level.
So what is the potential fall-out from Mick leaving? It will always be difficult if not impossible to be categorical about such things but it could well be speculated that without Mick, a number of the players would feel disinclined to buy in to a new strategy or regime. There is anecdotal evidence that this has happened and that as a result, the rebuild has been far more extreme than it might have otherwise needed to be. Less tangibly, there has been far less exposure for Bucks to Mick's experience and as such he has had to draw knowledge from wherever he can and without necessarily the candor that you might have expected from someone of Mick's stature. These are clearly based on opinion and I make no apology for those opinions. You may disagree if you like but I am fairly comfortable for now with my beliefs on these things.
So what's the point? The point is that I am convinced that had due diligence been done, we may well have had far less disruption to the team and I suspect that further success may have been likely to come far sooner than it is now likely to. My feeling is that it is very important for the club to review whatever process led to the failure to implement so that such things are less likely to be repeated. To a lesser extent and far less importantly, I feel that the members and supporters may well be owed at least some semblance of an apology unless it can be shown that all due diligence was done.
Hopefully this goes some way toward redirecting the discussion back to its intended course.
In what parallel universe would you attempt such a plan without having a real understanding of the personalities involved? Did Bucks actually sign up to the notion that Mick would be his mentor or was that just an assumption made by the club without consultation? On the other hand, given that the club dithered for months on the question of a clear role definition for Mick, could it be said that Mick’s position was tenable if Bucks rejected any notion of him having a direct role in coaching? In the end, the biggest question of all is… who failed to do their homework? Who let the members down by announcing a succession without every piece of the puzzle having been firmly cemented in its place?
That’s what I want to know and rest assured, I’m hopping mad. If Bucks goes down then I don’t care if it’s Ed himself, I want the culprit outed and I think the members have a right to know!
If (and it’s still an if for me), the team does not start performing to the expectation of the fans in the first few weeks of the season proper, there can be nothing surer than that the fans will be baying for blood. That fact is unquestionable but what is questionable is just whose blood that needs to be. What makes me sick about the situation that Bucks and the team find themselves in is an almost complete acceptance by the masses of the goings on since 2009 without the hard questions being asked of the board and management. Just who is responsible for what many already see as an utter debacle and why have they not put up their hand(s)? Premature? Maybe, in fact, hopefully so, but there are still answers owed to the members on a number of issues.
Regardless of the various explanations, it seems less than likely that all of the experienced players we have traded or lost would have necessarily left had they had a close bond with the coach and club. Of course that is pure speculation but I very much doubt that even the most die-hard Buckley fan would not have wondered about this albeit probably privately. We have all been assured that this is one leopard that changed its spots some time ago. I am still not convinced either way but it says much that I and many others are happy to question it either privately or in public forums.
Whatever the facts in regard to Buckley’s coaching ability, the simple fact remains that a decision was taken at the end of 2009 which on outward appearance seems to have had some fairly far reaching consequences. No doubt many of us thought at the time that it had the potential to be a masterstroke of foresight and planning but in the aftermath of its abject failure, one can only ask who is responsible and should there be a move to remove Bucks at some point, who needs to go with him?
There is no doubt in my mind that in concept, the succession plan was clever forward planning but it bore merit in my mind only if it was understood that Mick was there to provide close mentoring for Bucks and if it was diligently implemented. This is the concept that I embraced and my understanding of it was that whilst the club felt that Bucks had great potential as a senior coach, it was necessary for his development that he be mentored by a highly experienced and successful coach. For the plan to have any merit in these circumstances, it had to include detailed provisions to ensure that all parties were on board and that their roles were clearly understood. On this point the club failed massively and with potentially dire consequences.
EDIT:
CLARIFICATION
OK, reading back, it has become obvious that it is entirely possible to read a different meaning into the OP than what was intended. In the hope that the thread can be brought back to its intended course, I will attempt to clarify that intent and I apologise for any misunderstanding.
This thread is intended to discuss the failure of the succession plan in implementation only. It is not about whether success eventuated either directly or indirectly as a result of the plan. The central point is the diligence employed in producing and implementing a workable plan for benefit of the Collingwood Football Club.
Why is this of interest to me you may well ask and I will do my best to explain that too.
My reasons for concern relate specifically to the implications for the club as a result of Mick's failure to take up the director of coaching role. My concerns are entirely speculative at this stage but I believe they echo the concerns of many of the members and supporters. To understand, I guess you would need to consider the potential benefits of having retained Mick in the planned role (as I understood it). It was my opinion that Bucks had significant potential as a coach but like many, I had concerns initially that he was untried. I also had some lingering concerns about whether or not his renowned man-management skills had indeed been improved as we were being told. For this reason, I always felt that having Mick there for support would be extremely beneficial for Bucks' education as a senior coach and help to calm the waters for players who had probably not played under any other coach at senior level.
So what is the potential fall-out from Mick leaving? It will always be difficult if not impossible to be categorical about such things but it could well be speculated that without Mick, a number of the players would feel disinclined to buy in to a new strategy or regime. There is anecdotal evidence that this has happened and that as a result, the rebuild has been far more extreme than it might have otherwise needed to be. Less tangibly, there has been far less exposure for Bucks to Mick's experience and as such he has had to draw knowledge from wherever he can and without necessarily the candor that you might have expected from someone of Mick's stature. These are clearly based on opinion and I make no apology for those opinions. You may disagree if you like but I am fairly comfortable for now with my beliefs on these things.
So what's the point? The point is that I am convinced that had due diligence been done, we may well have had far less disruption to the team and I suspect that further success may have been likely to come far sooner than it is now likely to. My feeling is that it is very important for the club to review whatever process led to the failure to implement so that such things are less likely to be repeated. To a lesser extent and far less importantly, I feel that the members and supporters may well be owed at least some semblance of an apology unless it can be shown that all due diligence was done.
Hopefully this goes some way toward redirecting the discussion back to its intended course.
In what parallel universe would you attempt such a plan without having a real understanding of the personalities involved? Did Bucks actually sign up to the notion that Mick would be his mentor or was that just an assumption made by the club without consultation? On the other hand, given that the club dithered for months on the question of a clear role definition for Mick, could it be said that Mick’s position was tenable if Bucks rejected any notion of him having a direct role in coaching? In the end, the biggest question of all is… who failed to do their homework? Who let the members down by announcing a succession without every piece of the puzzle having been firmly cemented in its place?
That’s what I want to know and rest assured, I’m hopping mad. If Bucks goes down then I don’t care if it’s Ed himself, I want the culprit outed and I think the members have a right to know!
Last edited:
