Mega Thread The 2017 'Buckley's Chances' Thread

[The Magnificent Seven]

Fantasy land and skewing stats doesn't help us to look in the mirror and get genuinely better.

Genuinely not trying to skew stats here, and of course context helps to inform those stats.

100% Bucks inherited a premiership side (one which he helped to build as an assistant and a player let's not forget). But he also inherited a culture built around the benevolent father figure rather than a professional self-motivated type. So he really was coaching MM's team for a year or two.

What can't be denied is that when the current team (2015-17) is switched on to 100%, we can beat anyone. When the switch is only 60-70% turned, we play a horrible brand of turnover football that leaves us exposed and makes us look slow and skill-poor.

That's where Bucks has taken us. Pendles himself was speaking about it on his Podcast - if we wanted to, Pies could play a round-the-boundary stodgy brand or a possession-heavy-kick-around and we may make ourselves 5-10% better. But it's also awful to watch and to play. The dare and dash - when we set up correctly - has opened up so many teams. Where we've come undone is the delivery into our forward line and our leading patterns (if indeed our forwards have even run back to position).

Basically, the Pies have run themselves ragged. So why is that? Poor plan? Doesn't sound like it from players point of view. It's more likely that they're still not running to the right spots to make best use of our set plays or to conserve energy and have better kicking precision/efficiency.

We still also have a backline that is carried by Dunne/Howe with Goldsack playing a Maxy-style role. Maynard is emerging but his on/off disposal skills have killed us repeatedly, Ramsay has been too cavalier with his run/carry and we've only just got Langers back to full strength. Shaz is nowhere near his A game.

Not blaming the players - just saying we're learning a game style that physically and mentally the players are working towards and just can't execute 100% of the time. When they can do it 80-90% of the time, we have a finals side. And I don't think it's that far away TBH.

I also still hate this year, it's been dreadful to endure.

 

[westozpie]

Genuinely not trying to skew stats here, and of course context helps to inform those stats.

100% Bucks inherited a premiership side (one which he helped to build as an assistant and a player let's not forget). But he also inherited a culture built around the benevolent father figure rather than a professional self-motivated type. So he really was coaching MM's team for a year or two.

What can't be denied is that when the current team (2015-17) is switched on to 100%, we can beat anyone. When the switch is only 60-70% turned, we play a horrible brand of turnover football that leaves us exposed and makes us look slow and skill-poor.

That's where Bucks has taken us. Pendles himself was speaking about it on his Podcast - if we wanted to, Pies could play a round-the-boundary stodgy brand or a possession-heavy-kick-around and we may make ourselves 5-10% better. But it's also awful to watch and to play. The dare and dash - when we set up correctly - has opened up so many teams. Where we've come undone is the delivery into our forward line and our leading patterns (if indeed our forwards have even run back to position).

Basically, the Pies have run themselves ragged. So why is that? Poor plan? Doesn't sound like it from players point of view. It's more likely that they're still not running to the right spots to make best use of our set plays or to conserve energy and have better kicking precision/efficiency.

We still also have a backline that is carried by Dunne/Howe with Goldsack playing a Maxy-style role. Maynard is emerging but his on/off disposal skills have killed us repeatedly, Ramsay has been too cavalier with his run/carry and we've only just got Langers back to full strength. Shaz is nowhere near his A game.

Not blaming the players - just saying we're learning a game style that physically and mentally the players are working towards and just can't execute 100% of the time. When they can do it 80-90% of the time, we have a finals side. And I don't think it's that far away TBH.

I also still hate this year, it's been dreadful to endure.

Correct, totally agree that with not too much tweaking we can be a very good side

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

That's what concerns me most about the Treloar and Adams support. They are Buckley men and that's perfectly fine, but are they Buckley men as Daisy and Heater were MM men?..

I don't expect the incoming coach to get much out of 2018, but if we handle Buckley's departure poorly I think we'll yet again be our own worst enemy!

Your concern is legitimate and the 'coach's man' issue is influenced by the behaviour of the coach. Did MM inadvertently encourage loyalty to the coach first and everything else second? Whether on inadvertent or on purpose, what we may have had was certain players absolute loyalty to the coach and hence the resulting behaviour when he was gone. The team and the club came second and fortunately for them, their premiership player status shields them from the same criticism Buckley has endured. That is not to say that Buckley didn't have a hand in it.

Advocates of Buckley's FIGJAM persona will say that your concerns are well founded, other will say that he is a club man and those players are committed to their club and their teammates so there is no need for concern. I don't know but if they are Buckley men and don't embrace the new coach etc, then see ya later. If Buckley has actively encouraged that fierce loyalty to him at the expense of the club, then I hope the door does hit him on the way out, hard.

 

[westozpie]

I

Your concern is legitimate and the 'coach's man' issue is influenced by the behaviour of the coach. Did MM inadvertently encourage loyalty to the coach first and everything else second? Whether on inadvertent or on purpose, what we may have had was certain players absolute loyalty to the coach and hence the resulting behaviour when he was gone. The team and the club came second and fortunately for them, their premiership player status shields them from the same criticism Buckley has endured. That is not to say that Buckley didn't have a hand in it.

Advocates of Buckley's FIGJAM persona will say that your concerns are well founded, other will say that he is a club man and those players are committed to their club and their teammates so there is no need for concern. I don't know but if they are Buckley men and don't embrace the new coach etc, then see ya later. If Buckley has actively encouraged that fierce loyalty to him at the expense of the club, then I hope the door does hit him on the way out, hard.

think that Treloar and Adams wanted to come to Collingwood because of their already held admiration of Bucks, so tend to think that it's not something Buckley would have pushed and encouraged, think it was already there

 

[Scodog10]

Your concern is legitimate and the 'coach's man' issue is influenced by the behaviour of the coach. Did MM inadvertently encourage loyalty to the coach first and everything else second? Whether on inadvertent or on purpose, what we may have had was certain players absolute loyalty to the coach and hence the resulting behaviour when he was gone. The team and the club came second and fortunately for them, their premiership player status shields them from the same criticism Buckley has endured. That is not to say that Buckley didn't have a hand in it.

Advocates of Buckley's FIGJAM persona will say that your concerns are well founded, other will say that he is a club man and those players are committed to their club and their teammates so there is no need for concern. I don't know but if they are Buckley men and don't embrace the new coach etc, then see ya later. If Buckley has actively encouraged that fierce loyalty to him at the expense of the club, then I hope the door does hit him on the way out, hard.

Personal take.

That was part of what made MM so special because they saw him as a father figure and would go to war for him. I think he loved that they were MM men and not clubmen. Overall it worked for him!

Buckley on the other hand appears, at least on the outside, to have won those players over for more culturally sound reasons. Those players will go to war for him not because they see him as a father figure, but because they see him as a peer.

Ultimately the MM way is more likely to garner success, IMO, but we saw the consequences of cutting the head off the snake. I think it will be different when Buckley leaves, but like you there can be no doubt that if individuals remain loyal to him and not the club post move then they go with him.

 

[ThePheonix]

Personal take.
Buckley on the other hand appears, at least on the outside, to have won those players over for more culturally sound reasons. Those players will go to war for him not because they see him as a father figure, but because they see him as a peer.

Ultimately the MM way is more likely to garner success, IMO, but we saw the consequences of cutting the head off the snake. I think it will be different when Buckley leaves, but like you there can be no doubt that if individuals remain loyal to him and not the club post move then they go with him.

I think so too, IMO it's because we are not machines, no matter how hard we try to be. MM seemed to be great into tapping and arousing the motivating factor of football players, and that is found in our human side.

 

[MagpieBat]

Not as senior coach but anyone interested in Hodge as an assistant coach at Collingwood?

As a development coach (with a stint on the rookie list if he's up for it), then working his way up to line assistant, yes.

 

[bucksisbest]

Genuinely not trying to skew stats here, and of course context helps to inform those stats.

100% Bucks inherited a premiership side (one which he helped to build as an assistant and a player let's not forget). But he also inherited a culture built around the benevolent father figure rather than a professional self-motivated type. So he really was coaching MM's team for a year or two.

What can't be denied is that when the current team (2015-17) is switched on to 100%, we can beat anyone. When the switch is only 60-70% turned, we play a horrible brand of turnover football that leaves us exposed and makes us look slow and skill-poor.

That's where Bucks has taken us. Pendles himself was speaking about it on his Podcast - if we wanted to, Pies could play a round-the-boundary stodgy brand or a possession-heavy-kick-around and we may make ourselves 5-10% better. But it's also awful to watch and to play. The dare and dash - when we set up correctly - has opened up so many teams. Where we've come undone is the delivery into our forward line and our leading patterns (if indeed our forwards have even run back to position).

Basically, the Pies have run themselves ragged. So why is that? Poor plan? Doesn't sound like it from players point of view. It's more likely that they're still not running to the right spots to make best use of our set plays or to conserve energy and have better kicking precision/efficiency.

We still also have a backline that is carried by Dunne/Howe with Goldsack playing a Maxy-style role. Maynard is emerging but his on/off disposal skills have killed us repeatedly, Ramsay has been too cavalier with his run/carry and we've only just got Langers back to full strength. Shaz is nowhere near his A game.

Not blaming the players - just saying we're learning a game style that physically and mentally the players are working towards and just can't execute 100% of the time. When they can do it 80-90% of the time, we have a finals side. And I don't think it's that far away TBH.

I also still hate this year, it's been dreadful to endure.

They're either not learning well or the strategy is poor. You shouldn't rely on having to be switched on 100% throughout a season to have a chance of being successful, it's unrealistic.

At the end of the day we're 5-10 and it is no coincidence that there is a widespread inevitability about what is going to happen.

 

[10571z]

Not as senior coach but anyone interested in Hodge as an assistant coach at Collingwood?

100% need to get some "c*#^" back in the club and teach the choir boys.

I cant believe these suggestions about keeping Buckley in other roles! Laughable. If he goes he goes.

 

[Jafo]

I would. However I have heard from people who know him and his family that he plans to build his media profile.

I'm sure Ling, the Duck, Cam Mooney (With Bevvo) etc have kept media commitments in between coaching.

 

[MagpieBat]

I'm sure Ling, the Duck, Cam Mooney (With Bevvo) etc have kept media commitments in between coaching.

They have, but as part-timers, as much out of fiscal necessity for their clubs as interest in staying on Media Street with the ex-players.

We don't do part-time at Collingwood...

 

[BoxMatrix]

100% need to get some "c*#^" back in the club and teach the choir boys.

I cant believe these suggestions about keeping Buckley in other roles! Laughable. If he goes he goes.

Buckley most certainly leave when he's removed as head coach. It would be so ****ing humiliating to be demoted...

 

[jackcass]

They have, but as part-timers, as much out of fiscal necessity for their clubs as interest in staying on Media Street with the ex-players.

We don't do part-time at Collingwood...

It might be something we need to start doing more of though with the FD tax starting to bite. A few weeks of intensive specialist coaching in certain areas across the year could be very beneficial.

 

[Jafo]

That's why our club is lumped in the shithole that it is in. This is diabolical list management.

Think about some of these "ideas" under Buckley's reign including Hine who I can't understand why for the life of me had no balls to stand up and say, "guys this is a bad idea"- as the List Manager.

We chased Hudson.

We wanted Sewell who was being booted from Hawks as he was finished but we wanted him to "go around again".

We tried to do the same with Maric.
Thank god both turned us down and spared us humiliation.

How can they possibly think these types of moves would have any positive result or impact on field?

It just adds to the debacle stable that is Lynch, Russell, Young, Armstrong, Mayne, Crisp, Greenwood etc.

Only one other coach springs to mind in doing an similar thing to this…Crazy Vossy.
And look how that turned out.
Wasn't afforded the same luxury and grace Buckley is being given.

Maybe the idea was to revamp like Hawks did with Lake, Burgoyne, Dew. Sewell I think had something left in the tank (a yr) unlike a baked Wells and an unproofed Mayne.

 

[Jafo]

They have, but as part-timers, as much out of fiscal necessity for their clubs as interest in staying on Media Street with the ex-players.

We don't do part-time at Collingwood...

Wasn't the Duck and Brereton part time with us once upon a time? The Caff now?

 

[MagpieBat]

Wasn't the Duck and Brereton part time with us once upon a time? The Caff now?

Caff, as far as I know, is actually employed on a full time basis as welfare manager(?)

Have we had any part-timers since Carey/Brereton? We seem to have the philosophy that you're either full-time in coaching or you're not with us.

Not that that's necessarily the wrong approach to have (clubs like the Dogs employ part-timers simply because that's all they can afford). But it could mean we miss out on some applicants who could offer something different in an area that we're lacking...

 

[Justlokan]

I think so too, IMO it's because we are not machines, no matter how hard we try to be. MM seemed to be great into tapping and arousing the motivating factor of football players, and that is found in our human side.

To be fair, how is this different to any other successful coach. Clarko, Longmire, Bevo, Lyon as well as others such as Hinkley, Woosha all have a strong bond with their players.

An interesting observation is Pyke who inherited Phil Walsh's culture and has managed to get his team to play well without having a deep emotional bond with them. Bucks strikes me as a similar type which also says he would've been better off coaching at another club rather than one he was emotionally attached to. Much like Pyke

 

[bunter]

They have, but as part-timers, as much out of fiscal necessity for their clubs as interest in staying on Media Street with the ex-players.

We don't do part-time at Collingwood...

we do part time football team?

 

[HFF]

Maybe the idea was to revamp like Hawks did with Lake, Burgoyne, Dew. Sewell I think had something left in the tank (a yr) unlike a baked Wells and an unproofed Mayne.

You cannot put Sewell, Maric or Hudson in the same breath as the names you mentioned.

That's not revamping in the same manner as Hawks.
Burgoyne was an A grader in his mid 20s.

Lake was a top up to an premiership challenging team.

Dew was risky but was icing on the cake for that premiership in 2008.

It's nowhere near on the same wavelength.

 

[soreplums]

You blame the midfield for not spreading from the contest.

It's why we need some speed through the middle and move Sidey and WHE to High HFF to be those options

 

[Jafo]

You cannot put Sewell, Maric or Hudson in the same breath as the names you mentioned.

That's not revamping in the same manner as Hawks.
Burgoyne was an A grader in his mid 20s.

Lake was a top up to an premiership challenging team.

Dew was risky but was icing on the cake for that premiership in 2008.

It's nowhere near on the same wavelength.

Oh I wasn't thinking same ilk. But more a mature aged body with experience and leadership for a year. Like Ball in his final year with us.

 

[mike123]

Maybe the idea was to revamp like Hawks did with Lake, Burgoyne, Dew. Sewell I think had something left in the tank (a yr) unlike a baked Wells and an unproofed Mayne.

It would have been hypocritical to recruit Sewell after telling Ball he's time is up. Wells form in his last year with the Roos and when he managed to get on the park with us was also much better than Sewell's late form and unlike Sewell gives us something we need in footskills.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Jafo]

It would have been hypocritical to recruit Sewell after telling Ball he's time is up. Wells form in his last year with the Roos and when he managed to get on the park with us was also much better than Sewell's late form and unlike Sewell gives us something we need in footskills.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

True and Sewell just another inside mid. As for KPP vs mid Tippett finished? His stocks have plummeted. Would he be worth a look in as a back up ruck/forward if he was similar price to Cloke to Dogs?

 

[Matt_352]

NO WILLS WHAT THE F NATHAN

 

[mike123]

True and Sewell just another inside mid. As for KPP vs mid Tippett finished? His stocks have plummeted. Would he be worth a look in as a back up ruck/forward if he was similar price to Cloke to Dogs?

If Tippet came in a one year deal with a small wage I'd do but I don't think it's likely he'll accept it.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app