Analysis System, buy in and talent

[jmac70]

Name names, that made a difference.

That made a difference at other clubs or at ours?

 

[Chameleon75]

Name names, that made a difference.

 

[noideaatall]

What talent have we traded out?

I mean the players we have traded out that gave us picks in return. I'm not implying we made the wrong decision on trading anyone in particular out, though that might be argued. So, for example, we traded Wellingham and Dawes and got picks in return. That gives us a wealth to trade in as opposed to a player like Swan that retired. My point is, from my limited perspective, that we seem to have gone into most trade periods with some fairly reasonable level of picks. I'm disappointed we haven't ended up with a topnotch list. I hope that makes sense?

 

[doodles98]

Name names, that made a difference.

Heath Shaw and Beams obviously. Marley Williams is the other one that would make a difference. The rest would be depth or delisted or traded (as they were).

 

[MarkT2]

Name names, that made a difference.

The names are less important than the Impact on the spirit and camaraderie of the playing group. The trades alone don't even sum up the impact. Football clubs win premierships on intangibles as much as playing talent. The succession and then the philosophy that brought in Leading Teams followed by their actual impact is where it really started to fall apart. Beyond that and addressing just names, the moment we traded Shaw we reached the point of no return. Beams is the other significantly talented trade out. Others are no worth debating any more. I'd argue anyone getting a games elsewhere is a loss to us.

 

[Kirby]

Daisy ain't no loss. It just shows how bad the Blues are.

 

[Woods List Clogger]

Balmey moved on because he was sidelined by the Gubby appt. I thought I'd already said that.
What makes you think it was Buckley related?

Balme moving to Richmond has got nothing to do with the fact that where Balme goes the team improves.The two years he returned to Collingwood Buckley kept going backwards.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Heath Shaw and Beams obviously. Marley Williams is the other one that would make a difference. The rest would be depth or delisted or traded (as they were).

Heath was out of control, we got fair/reasonable compensation.

Beams was a loss once again we got fair/reasonable compensation. Though it does seem he left because he didn't like the the accountability leading teams brought, not the daddy factor. Leading teams has been successfully used by many clubs, so it was his choice in the end. Not saying I like or dislike leading teams.

Marley is hardly a loss, without a kick up the clacker his lifestyle may've still continued at our club. Good early season form, let's see how he goes next year. Still butchers the ball. The only thing I was disappointed with was the comp we received.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

The names are less important than the Impact on the spirit and camaraderie of the playing group. The trades alone don't even sum up the impact. Football clubs win premierships on intangibles as much as playing talent. The succession and then the philosophy that brought in Leading Teams followed by their actual impact is where it really started to fall apart. Beyond that and addressing just names, the moment we traded Shaw we reached the point of no return. Beams is the other significantly talented trade out. Others are no worth debating any more. I'd argue anyone getting a games elsewhere is a loss to us.

Sorry not following you here a bit disjointed. The bolded especially.

The post you responded to was just asking for names, not about leading teams or succession plan.

Shaw had lost the plot from all the reports we have from "insiders" & rumours we've seen posted here/had PM'd.

As to the rest see above.

 

[MarkT2]

Sorry not following you here a bit disjointed. The bolded especially.

The post you responded to was just asking for names, not about leading teams or succession plan.

Shaw had lost the plot from all the reports we have from "insiders" & rumours we've seen posted here/had PM'd.

As to the rest see above.

The point being that the specific names alone don't tell the full story but even so the names are material.

Shaw lost the plot so we traded him. That's firstly irrelevant to the question as to his loss and secondly begs the question as to why he lost the plot and how we couldn't deal with it so as to keep a valuable player who not only loved the club but had great qualities other than kicking and marking - and some of them off field notwithstanding his acknowledged difficulties. Gubby at the time stated they wanted him for his leadership capabilities. Ironically Shaw is the exact player we now need.

As for fair compensation - we got unders. Adams is a good ball getter but a poor user and a poor decision maker. There is a large gap between the two. On top of that we paid some of Shaw's salary to get the deal done - according to Gubby at the time.

The Shaw trade had a huge impact on us. That was the moment of irretrievability for Buckley IMO. It was a factor in Beams decision - according to Beams himself. After Shaw Beams is the next clear loss for us. The bolded bit was in reference to other players that have been discussed over time.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

The point being that the specific names alone don't tell the full story but even so the names are material.

Shaw lost the plot so we traded him. That's firstly irrelevant to the question as to his loss and secondly begs the question as to why he lost the plot and how we couldn't deal with it so as to keep a valuable player who not only loved the club but had great qualities other than kicking and marking - and some of them off field notwithstanding his acknowledged difficulties. Gubby at the time stated they wanted him for his leadership capabilities. Ironically Shaw is the exact player we now need.

As for fair compensation - we got unders. Adams is a good ball getter but a poor user and a poor decision maker. There is a large gap between the two. On top of that we paid some of Shaw's salary to get the deal done - according to Gubby at the time.

The Shaw trade had a huge impact on us. That was the moment of irretrievability for Buckley IMO. It was a factor in Beams decision - according to Beams himself. After Shaw Beams is the next clear loss for us. The bolded bit was in reference to other players that have been discussed over time.

Yes & Shaw is done now, have you watched him this year? He's butchering the pill like never before. That's why I say it was fair to reasonable compo.

Adams still has 6 years maybe more in him. He's getting better but yes still butchers the ball too often.

Shaw had to go because he was the tail trying to wag the dog.

 

[jmac70]

The point being that the specific names alone don't tell the full story but even so the names are material.

Shaw lost the plot so we traded him. That's firstly irrelevant to the question as to his loss and secondly begs the question as to why he lost the plot and how we couldn't deal with it so as to keep a valuable player who not only loved the club but had great qualities other than kicking and marking - and some of them off field notwithstanding his acknowledged difficulties. Gubby at the time stated they wanted him for his leadership capabilities. Ironically Shaw is the exact player we now need.

As for fair compensation - we got unders. Adams is a good ball getter but a poor user and a poor decision maker. There is a large gap between the two. On top of that we paid some of Shaw's salary to get the deal done - according to Gubby at the time.

The Shaw trade had a huge impact on us. That was the moment of irretrievability for Buckley IMO. It was a factor in Beams decision - according to Beams himself. After Shaw Beams is the next clear loss for us. The bolded bit was in reference to other players that have been discussed over time.

I agree, it's not the names as such but the consistently high turnover.

 

[noideaatall]

Yes & Shaw is done now, have you watched him this year? He's butchering the pill like never before. That's why I say it was fair to reasonable compo.

Disagree. I think Adams is another one paced mid we seem to find under every rock

Adams still has 6 years maybe more in him. He's getting better but yes still butchers the ball too often.

Will he ever reach the heights Shaw has? A player like Shaw -onfield and behaving - could make a significant difference to our ladder position, Adams is/has not

Shaw had to go because he was the tail trying to wag the dog.

Agreed. Except we ended up with a dog that has no tail. Not a big fan of them myself.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Ive been banging on about this for a while , we like most clubs have levelled . Always bound to happen if you think about it .
Its a bit simplistic to only count on these 3 parameters, sure their important but i feel a few other things have been at play.Any balanced argument will always look at all and weight each parameter.
List.
Re cently purchased our 2002 season review on dvd. Its a total misconception those bleating about the quality of that list.
the following are all WALK UP STARTS .
Buckley , Burns, Clement,presti,pebbles,tarrant,cloke,holland,johno,fraser,betheras, wakelin,nick davis ,o'bree
current comparison
Pendels, sidey ,adams, moore, trelour, crisp ,elliot ,grundy, dunne, howe ,reid, wells, shaz, fasalo
WOW, this exersize sure shows how blessed MALTHOUSE WAS,. Also shows how depleated our stocks are at present . Reasons , two new teams have depleted talent pool, equalisation and tax has levelled out development, loss of taylor and lack of resources has derailed our recruiting. Inability to get value via trades with no one wanting to deal fair with us . Rebuilding of other clubs lists at same time .
All of the above proves we are really LOW ON TALENT
ROOKIE KEY FORWARD, JUNIOR RUCKMAN, NO FULLBACK OR CHB, NO PACE OFF BACKLINE, LACK OF PHYSICAL STRENGTH, no SKILLS BOTH SIDE, NO CRUMBERS
rating 4.5 /10
BUY IN
The above clearly shows our current state and YET we stay in most games , this shows BUY IN , our inconsistencies is another matter which is due to lack of leadership , continuity and maturity.
8/10
SYSTEM
With the VERY LOW talent base we are forced to run the ball and play transition footy, we run and jump on defence to get to the next contest (nunawading Spectres WNBA) to hide our faults. Spectres coach Tom Maher had 8 Australian reps and it took 3 games a week and 2 years to learn that system. No key forwards makes us easy pickings to flood the backline and FASTBREAK OUT . It forces us to flood the midfield .
Seems to me the same usual suspects stuff us up all the time , are gifted games and cost us
Still were in it up to our ears and not gifting games to undeserving players is the go.
When we execute its breathtaking and unbeatable , when we dont we lose ,therfore system isnt the problem CATTLE is
7.5/10
OTHER
LUCK, DRAW ,INJURIES , EXTERNAL NOISE, continuity of list.we were forced to trade as the Swengali ruined us and our young players , we went all in for him for 1 flag and he BETRAYED his legacy.
CHANGE THE ASSISTANTS,keep BUCKS

 

[jmac70]

Ive been banging on about this for a while , we like most clubs have levelled . Always bound to happen if you think about it .
Its a bit simplistic to only count on these 3 parameters, sure their important but i feel a few other things have been at play.Any balanced argument will always look at all and weight each parameter.
List.
Re cently purchased our 2002 season review on dvd. Its a total misconception those bleating about the quality of that list.
the following are all WALK UP STARTS .
Buckley , Burns, Clement,presti,pebbles,tarrant,cloke,holland,johno,fraser,betheras, wakelin,nick davis ,o'bree
current comparison
Pendels, sidey ,adams, moore, trelour, crisp ,elliot ,grundy, dunne, howe ,reid, wells, shaz, fasalo
WOW, this exersize sure shows how blessed MALTHOUSE WAS,. Also shows how depleated our stocks are at present . Reasons , two new teams have depleted talent pool, equalisation and tax has levelled out development, loss of taylor and lack of resources has derailed our recruiting. Inability to get value via trades with no one wanting to deal fair with us . Rebuilding of other clubs lists at same time .
All of the above proves we are really LOW ON TALENT
ROOKIE KEY FORWARD, JUNIOR RUCKMAN, NO FULLBACK OR CHB, NO PACE OFF BACKLINE, LACK OF PHYSICAL STRENGTH, no SKILLS BOTH SIDE, NO CRUMBERS
rating 4.5 /10
BUY IN
The above clearly shows our current state and YET we stay in most games , this shows BUY IN , our inconsistencies is another matter which is due to lack of leadership , continuity and maturity.
8/10
SYSTEM
With the VERY LOW talent base we are forced to run the ball and play transition footy, we run and jump on defence to get to the next contest (nunawading Spectres WNBA) to hide our faults. Spectres coach Tom Maher had 8 Australian reps and it took 3 games a week and 2 years to learn that system. No key forwards makes us easy pickings to flood the backline and FASTBREAK OUT . It forces us to flood the midfield .
Seems to me the same usual suspects stuff us up all the time , are gifted games and cost us
Still were in it up to our ears and not gifting games to undeserving players is the go.
When we execute its breathtaking and unbeatable , when we dont we lose ,therfore system isnt the problem CATTLE is
7.5/10
OTHER
LUCK, DRAW ,INJURIES , EXTERNAL NOISE, continuity of list.we were forced to trade as the Swengali ruined us and our young players , we went all in for him for 1 flag and he BETRAYED his legacy.
CHANGE THE ASSISTANTS,keep BUCKS

I appreciate your analysis but have a question, doesn't Bucks tell his assistants what to do?

 

[Darkyprotector]

I appreciate your analysis but have a question, doesn't Bucks tell his assistants what to do?

JMAC ta but havent you noticed the body language
seen it in 3 games total contempt of the way the assistants operate , turned his back on them as he should have, suggest you watch a few replays very very enlightening.
He certainly dosent have the support.evidence below
B Scott, neeld,waters,laidley, mccrae buckley,caracella, beveridge (6 coaches there)
compare to
harvey,cotch,burns,sanderson ,hart,rocca, lokyer THE CREAM OF THE CROP

YOU CANT TEACH if youre a MUPPET
HIS ASSISTANTS ARE s**t , Hart not even gets a assistant gig( lol, and he bags BUCKS), how many will get a main gig themselfs.
ANSWER : NONE (sanderson exception)
He should get 3 more

 

[jmac70]

JMAC ta but havent you noticed the body language
seen it in 3 games total contempt of the way the assistants operate , turned his back on them as he should have, suggest you watch a few replays very very enlightening.
He certainly dosent have the support.evidence below
B Scott, neeld,waters,laidley, mccrae buckley,caracella, beveridge (6 coaches there)
compare to
harvey,cotch,burns,sanderson ,hart,rocca, lokyer THE CREAM OF THE CROP

YOU CANT TEACH if youre a MUPPET
HIS ASSISTANTS ARE s**t , Hart not even gets a assistant gig( lol, and he bags BUCKS), how many will get a main gig themselfs.
ANSWER : NONE (sanderson exception)
He should get 3 more

I've noticed a change in body language but not convinced it's directed at the assistant coaches. I can certainly see Ed using them as scapegoats though.

 

[jmac70]

PS - Sanderson should be first out the door

 

[noideaatall]

JMAC ta but havent you noticed the body language
seen it in 3 games total contempt of the way the assistants operate , turned his back on them as he should have, suggest you watch a few replays very very enlightening.
...

I haven't seen this but I would be really concerned if this was the case. What I'd expect from the senior leader of a team is at all times to engage and support his assistants to get the best out of them. Or move them on. Communicating disrespect via public body language has the hallmarks of an amateur. Whilst I am not convinced Bucks has the magic something to make him an outstanding coach everything I have read and know about him suggests he is far too professional for this sort of petty behaviour. If it is true sack him now.

 

[Jasper84]

The names are less important than the Impact on the spirit and camaraderie of the playing group. The trades alone don't even sum up the impact. Football clubs win premierships on intangibles as much as playing talent. The succession and then the philosophy that brought in Leading Teams followed by their actual impact is where it really started to fall apart. Beyond that and addressing just names, the moment we traded Shaw we reached the point of no return. Beams is the other significantly talented trade out. Others are no worth debating any more. I'd argue anyone getting a games elsewhere is a loss to us.

Trading Marley was a huge loss to team camaraderie. Wait, "Camaraderie" means people want to punch you in the dick because you're an irresponsible knob who couldn't keep his s**t together despite the club keeping you out of jail, doesn't it?

 

[TW Sherrin]

The Shaw trade had a huge impact on us. That was the moment of irretrievability for Buckley IMO. It was a factor in Beams decision - according to Beams himself. After Shaw Beams is the next clear loss for us. The bolded bit was in reference to other players that have been discussed over time.

Huh? I'm confused. Beams left to be with his ill father. Can Shaw cure cancer?

 

[Anzacday]

Huh? I'm confused. Beams left to be with his ill father. Can Shaw cure cancer?

 

[Gone Critical]

I agree, it's not the names as such but the consistently high turnover.

Is it?

Both Hawthorn flag side of 2008 and Geelong 2009 and 2011 turned their premiership teams over as quickly or more quickly numbers wise than Collingwood 2010.

 

[jmac70]

Is it?

Both Hawthorn flag side of 2008 and Geelong 2009 and 2011 turned their premiership teams over as quickly or more quickly numbers wise than Collingwood 2010.

Have they turned over 45 players in five seasons?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Have they turned over 45 players in five seasons?

Did they need to?

Apart from Shaw and Beams who SHOULDNT have we turned over?

Our 2010/11 list was not build for longevity as much as we thought it was at the time. Topping up with L Brown Jolly Ball Krakouer and Tarrant was the right move at the time but they were never going to last long. On top of that the compulsory turnover from retirements of OBree Lockyer Fraser Prestigiacomo Medhurst Anthony Corrie Buckley Rusling Dick (even though they didnt play i the Grand Final you shouldnt underestimate the loss to the list in replacing them all overnight) , and a few years after that Davis Johnson Maxwell Didak. And dead Wood. Dont forget him.

Then you add on Wellingham Dawes Lumumba Thomas etc who were traded and went downhill, suggesting the trade was the right thing.

Plus long term injuries to some key players, N Brown, Maccaffer, Reid and a few named already above.

That pretty much leaves you with a core list of Pendlebury Swan Cloke Goldsack Sidebottom and Blair!!!!......and two of them are now gone and Pendles is also out at the moment.

Poor Blairy is carrying this team

NB. The 2010 list also included McCarthy Blight Sinclair Cook Reed Rounds Thomas Hunter Keeffe Barham Francis and McNamara. Not a lot for Bucks to inherit there....although Fas was drafted the next year.