Mega Thread The new Bucks mega-thread. It's Official. 2 Year Deal for Bucks.

Status
Not open for further replies.

MarkT2

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 3, 2009
9,922
4,029
Melb
AFL Club
Collingwood
Petulant brats they were in deed my W. A mate. I'm of the opinion you can't have the tail wagging the dog. Would you be ok with the tail being the boss?
There is tail waging the dog and there is what the Dog's did when their players wanted the coach gone. Adelaide and Bulldogs listened to the players and it's a bigger decision to out a coach than to retain one. Swans listened when they appointed Roos after agreeing to take Wallace. The writing was on the wall for the failed handover/succession from the outset but Eddie can't listen to anyone except himself.

The tail shouldn't wag the dog but the dog can't ignore the tail either. All of that is a secondary issue though. First and foremost to replace a premiership and follow-up GF coach is unprecedented and idiotic. History proves it was a dismal failure. Without looking through historical results I doubt we have had a longer period of ladder decline in our entire history.
 
Last edited:
In a sense you're right and I'm guessing that had the succession plan not been in play that most likely would have happened. What should have happened was that Mick should have been sacked at the end of 2009 and an experienced replacement hired with Bucks potentially doing his apprenticeship either under this new coach or elsewhere. Sadly, the lack of due diligence of the club and the lack of integrity of Mick combined to put us where we are now.
I don't think that is correct. Back in 2009 there was not the same sort of feeling against appointing rookie coaches as there is now. Bucks had an offer on the table to coach North is what was reported at the time. I think the 3 options were. Option 1 reappoint MM outright which apparently to board was against. It needs to be remembered the deal was as much about Eddies desire to keep MM at the club as not losing Bucks to elsewhere. Option 2 Sack Mick and appoint Bucks (certain element in the club were pro this). Option 3 Eddies Kirrabilli deal.

I can't see how you could appoint an experienced coach to mentor Bucks on the basis they would hand over to him at a future date. That seems unworkable and not what was reported at thetime. Below is a link to an article with a mix of news from that time

http://websites.sportstg.com/assoc_...&sID=56333&articleID=9603819&news_task=DETAIL
 
There is tail waging the dog and there is what the Dog's did when their players wanted the coach gone. Adelaide and Bulldogs listened to the players and it's a bigger decision to out a coach than to retain one. Swans listened when the appointed Roos after agreeing to take Wallace. The writing was on the wall for the failed handover/succession from the outset but Eddie can;t liusten to anyone except himself.

The tail shouldn't wag the dog but he dog can't ignore the tail either. ll of that is a secondary issue though. First and foremost to replace a premiership and follow GF coach is unprecedented and idiotic. History process it was a dismal failure. Without looking through historical results I doubt we have had a longer period of ladder decline in our entire history.
Yeah you’re probably right but it can’t be changed now. What’s the point of going over it continually?
 

westozpie

All Australian
Sep 30, 2016
897
816
AFL Club
Collingwood
There is tail waging the dog and there is what the Dog's did when their players wanted the coach gone. Adelaide and Bulldogs listened to the players and it's a bigger decision to out a coach than to retain one. Swans listened when the appointed Roos after agreeing to take Wallace. The writing was on the wall for the failed handover/succession from the outset but Eddie can;t liusten to anyone except himself.

The tail shouldn't wag the dog but he dog can't ignore the tail either. ll of that is a secondary issue though. First and foremost to replace a premiership and follow GF coach is unprecedented and idiotic. History process it was a dismal failure. Without looking through historical results I doubt we have had a longer period of ladder decline in our entire history.
Well put, agree history has shown it to be a dogs breakfast, I would say given Ed's undoubted abilities the plan had been OK at the time of.
Maybe Ed was stubborn but tend to think if Mick had been more diplomatic in his comments in the media throughout 2011 and given Bucks offer to delay handover maybe Ed would have agreed but was a case of two bulls going at it at the end.
Yes history isnt going to be kind regards the plan but we all get 100% in hindsight.
My thoughts are Eddie really wanted Mick to stay on at the club and not suffer the ingnamy of being sacked whereas Mick really wanted to stay and build on his legacy with a possible dynasty at Collingwood.
 
Out of contract.

Board was out for blood at the time, the succession plan was Ed’s way of getting Mick a contract extension, securing Buckley and placating the board all at the same time.

I’m not defending his behaviour, just clarifying the circumstances that he signed the contract under. If he’d had the choice between a regular contract extension and the succession plan he’d never have signed the latter. He pretty much had no choice at the time but to sign up if he wanted to continue his coaching career.
I think what you have said here is exactly correct. I can understand Mick felt he should still stay and coach on without committing to the Buckley deal but as you point out that wasn't on offer.

What annoyed me more than anything at the time when he became petulant was that he couldn't see the big picture. Stay on or depart with grace on his reputation would have only grown.

Here was a coach who had at that point been one of the longest serving in history. He had terminated any number of careers of players over the journey, many who despite giving there all lasted only a short time. Probably the toughest part of coaching.

Any number of players he would have told yes you are still good enough to get a game but we are not offering another contract because you are not part of the longer term picture. He had had a great go and received massive support at 3 different clubs. This was his moment when he wasn't part of the long term plans (even though he sort of was, a much softer fall than those who he had sacked) it was the moment he should have realised he needed to show leadership for the players he said he loved, maturity and a bit of grace. That he couldn't at that time, with his history in the game, is a significant failing of his duty to Collingwood and the 2010-11 players.
 

westozpie

All Australian
Sep 30, 2016
897
816
AFL Club
Collingwood
I think what you have said here is exactly correct. I can understand Mick felt he should still stay and coach on without committing to the Buckley deal but as you point out that wasn't on offer.

What annoyed me more than anything at the time when he became petulant was that he couldn't see the big picture. Stay on or depart with grace on his reputation would have only grown.

Here was a coach who had at that point been one of the longest serving in history. He had terminated any number of careers of players over the journey, many who despite giving there all lasted only a short time. Probably the toughest part of coaching.

Any number of players he would have told yes you are still good enough to get a game but we are not offering another contract because you are not part of the longer term picture. He had had a great go and received massive support at 3 different clubs. This was his moment when he wasn't part of the long term plans (even though he sort of was, a much softer fall than those who he had sacked) it was the moment he should have realised he needed to show leadership for the players he said he loved, maturity and a bit of grace. That he couldn't at that time, with his history in the game, is a significant failing of his duty to Collingwood and the 2010-11 players.
Here here, spot on Gone Critical, excellent comment to Apex's excellent summary
 

Help My Club

Club Legend
Jun 29, 2017
1,108
678
AFL Club
Collingwood
I suppose we would have won that game with Mick?

Well putting all emotion aside and coming from a purely logical stance, which coach do you think would have had a better chance of winning that PF:

(i) a novice coach who did not totally have the playing group on side;

(ii) an experienced premiership senior coach who had most of the players on side and who had journeyed to the top of the mountain and also experienced the pain of a GF loss with these players?

Note I have put no names to these coaches.
 

westozpie

All Australian
Sep 30, 2016
897
816
AFL Club
Collingwood
Well putting all emotion aside and coming from a purely logical stance, which coach do you think would have had a better chance of winning that PF:

(i) a novice coach who did not totally have the playing group on side;

(ii) an experienced premiership senior coach who had most of the players on side and who had journeyed to the top of the mountain and also experienced the pain of a GF loss with these players?

Note I have put no names to these coaches.
Don't forget to include in one of those two coaches -

The coach who had coached shockingly in the previous grand final
 
Can you backup this statement with any evidence? Even links to postings on this forum.

In 2009, we finished top 4 and made the prelim final. How is a coach with those achievements in that year considered to be deemed "washed up"
I think there is a fair element of truth to that. The deal was done mid 2009 and you may remember we had a pretty ordinary start to 2009. Were 3:5 after eight rounds by mid May. The deal was completed a couple of months later when we had improved our position but we're still no certainties for the top 4. It was that time leading to the deal that you could believe elements of the board believed wanted Mick gone after 9 season and 2009 looking dodgy at the time. Eddie was reported as the person at the club who most strongly wanted to retain MM in some form.

Even after the deal was done the outside world didn't really regard keeping Mick on as a great idea. We started the 2010 season 7th favourite for the flag. We were considered lucky to have knocked off Adelaide in the 2009 finals and were touched up by the Cats and Saints in the finals. Dogs started the season as favourites. MMs reputation reached its lowest point early in 2010 when the Cats and Saints beat us and Mick had the incident with Milne. He was definitely yesterday's man at that point but things changed rapidly from there.
 
Not usually no, but in this case yes. There was so much potential in that team it seemed an opportunity wasted, very hard to disagree against a team of such dominance, not since Essendon in 2000 have we seen such a force and I'd argue more so than the 95 team of carlton. It was very highly likely that another flag was there for the taking.

Question is, had the plan been changed to 2 years further down the track, would we have another flag - or 2- in the cabinet? I'd be willing to put my house on yes! It's a good bet, to deny it's not a good bet is naive
Interesting also that neither Carlton 95 or Essendon 2000 went back to back. It's tougher than it looks.

Truth is to me we are a touch underdone by not winning BTB but would have been slightly flattered by BTB. Flip side is Geelong are a little flattered by 3 in 5 season but would be sold a little short by 2 in 5.

I would love to read the rewritten history if both the Cats and us had 2 flags from that era. 1 quarter of footy would have made a massive difference to how those 2 teams are perceived.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Interesting also that neither Carlton 95 or Essendon 2000 went back to back. It's tougher than it looks.

Truth is to me we are a touch underdone by not winning BTB but would have been slightly flattered by BTB. Flip side is Geelong are a little flattered by 3 in 5 season but would be sold a little short by 2 in 5.

I would love to read the rewritten history if both the Cats and us had 2 flags from that era. 1 quarter of footy would have made a massive difference to how those 2 teams are perceived.
I'm not convinced, sure we weren't at full strength come the pointy end of the year yet still dominating the comp like Essendon did in 2000. Essendon did come up against a manufactured team constructed with the help of HQ, no one but no one was going to beat that brisbane team, Carlton of 95 probably weren't as dominant as the other 2 teams but still perplexing they didn't figure in the GF the next year. If anything I'd argue our 02 03 team was flattered to be in the big dance where as the 10 11 team was probably deserved to go BTB as much as any team in history
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Tongue in cheek time mate, I come in peace.
Have some amount of accepting another two years and continuing what could easily been a dynasty.
BUT!! could have or would have Uncle Mick changed his mind again along with some of his boys.
As I say joke post not being serious.
That's possible, point is the whole formula wasn't broken it was flying. So why fix something that is not broken? Now I know that is a simplistic view however as there are/were many variables.

Joke or not, I agree MM could have changed his mind, volatile as he was. It's highly likely he could've and probably would've along with the help of the club and playing group create a dynasty
 
Nathan did offer to wait until MM was ready (if this is incorrect please call me out), this is big for two reasons:

Feel like all I am doing is disagreeing with different posters but I would call you out.

My recollection is Bucks, probably in a 2012 interview, said he considered offering to stand aside during 2011 when we were firing but ultimately decided not to. Whether it would of worked is debatable. During the 2011 season various factions seemed to develop, some loyal to MM some to Bucks and Eddie as the 3rd party. At some point I suspect this made MM staying on untenable. I wouldn't blame Mick alone for this, I suspect all factions were pulling in different directions.

Have searched for the article without success. Happy to be called out also if I am wrong.

The attached article gives a pretty good summary of events at the time. All got messy and at some point reversing the agreement would have no longer been an option. All parties guilty.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...160712070?sv=c726132d629b9f226b9e2689f5f488fc
Petulant brats or not you can't make them unpetulant, it's the way they are. IMV IF there was dissension and MM being replaced was the reason for it then the club should've taken up Nathan's offer to take the mantle when MM was ready to step aside (if indeed he did make that offer).

On a similar note to the above I suspect it was more complex than just placating the dissenters. There was some evidence in 2012 that some players, notably Ball and Pendles, thought things had got a bit too loose at the end of 2011 and Mick was letting too much go by. Mick also let itslip that he was disappointed some players, think he mentioned Ball, Pendles and Heretier, had not contacted him since he departed. I suspect some amongst the playing group thought a more disciplined approach via Bucks was a better way to go.

I was always a MM fan and because he failed to do what I think he had a duty to do is where I feel he has most let us down. With the dissenters is another failing. Without any direct evidence I suspect he may have fanned those flames a little to suit his own end. Once he signed the 5 year deal he had a duty to Collingwood and the playing group he professed to love to hose down any dissent immediately. He had to act in the best interests of his players and with his experience should have been proactive in telling the players to get behind the new arrangement he agreed to. He could have done that by staying on at least one season or if that was not possible by strongly telling the players he feels they need to get behind the new coach. He wasn't sacked, he asked to be let go from the agreement and so had a real duty for mine.

The other area he failed was with Daisy. He had a conflict once he publically stated he was a bit of a father figure. It was always clear to me Daisy's long term future would benefit greatly by being a one club player. Collingwood had invested heavily in promoting his image within the club so this benefit was always much greater than the average player. Through his own deeds and via Collingwoods promotion he was developing a valuable persona and image for the future. A father figure should have been giving him good advice not worked to facilitate his departure his position at Carlton not withstanding.
 
I'm not convinced, sure we weren't at full strength come the pointy end of the year yet still dominating the comp like Essendon did in 2000. Essendon did come up against a manufactured team constructed with the help of HQ, no one but no one was going to beat that brisbane team, Carlton of 95 probably weren't as dominant as the other 2 teams but still perplexing they didn't figure in the GF the next year. If anything I'd argue our 02 03 team was flattered to be in the big dance where as the 10 11 team was probably deserved to go BTB as much as any team in history
It's hard to say we were definitely the best in 2011. Both Geelong and Collingwood ended with a 22:3 win loss record and all our 3 losses were against Geelong. They were a formidable opponent. It's too dismissive of their record to simply say we were better.

In 2000 Essendon finished 21:1 H&A, 5 games and 25% clear of 2nd placed Carlton. After finals they were 24:1 win loss for the season with Carlton next best at 17:8. That dominated the rest much much more. They also smashed everyone in the finals. We struggled by WCE, just got the Hawks and then lost the GF clearly

Even in 1995 Carlton were clearly more dominant than their opposition compared to 2011. 20:2 in H&A, 4 games clear. Two smashing wins in finals for a 23:2 season total.

In 2011 two excellent sides were closely matched and the Hawks were far behind and were closing fast. Only 2 games behind us in the H&A. Even the Eagles were only 3 games behind us.

We just didn't have the separation on the rest of the comp like Ess in 2000 and Carl in 1995
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Feel like all I am doing is disagreeing with different posters but I would call you out.

My recollection is Bucks, probably in a 2012 interview, said he considered offering to stand aside during 2011 when we were firing but ultimately decided not to. Whether it would of worked is debatable. During the 2011 season various factions seemed to develop, some loyal to MM some to Bucks and Eddie as the 3rd party. At some point I suspect this made MM staying on untenable. I wouldn't blame Mick alone for this, I suspect all factions were pulling in different directions.

Have searched for the article without success. Happy to be called out also if I am wrong.

The attached article gives a pretty good summary of events at the time. All got messy and at some point reversing the agreement would have no longer been an option. All parties guilty.
Having digested all that, this tells me no matter what we were going to do i:e extend MM coaching contract or replace him with Nathan or sack MM and bring in someone else we were doomed and failure was fait accompli - regardless of the 2011 dominance

Only because it is Collingwood is there any hint this is plausible; such is the s**t luck we've had over the 125 years. However on face value it is perplexing that such a young authoritive list has no other option but to slide

Certainly the club was never going to say so publicly but maybe just maybe the architects thought at the time that any path is/was futile:(
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
On a similar note to the above I suspect it was more complex than just placating the dissenters. There was some evidence in 2012 that some players, notably Ball and Pendles, thought things had got a bit too loose at the end of 2011 and Mick was letting too much go by. Mick also let itslip that he was disappointed some players, think he mentioned Ball, Pendles and Heretier, had not contacted him since he departed. I suspect some amongst the playing group thought a more disciplined approach via Bucks was a better way to go.

I was always a MM fan and because he failed to do what I think he had a duty to do is where I feel he has most let us down. With the dissenters is another failing. Without any direct evidence I suspect he may have fanned those flames a little to suit his own end. Once he signed the 5 year deal he had a duty to Collingwood and the playing group he professed to love to hose down any dissent immediately. He had to act in the best interests of his players and with his experience should have been proactive in telling the players to get behind the new arrangement he agreed to. He could have done that by staying on at least one season or if that was not possible by strongly telling the players he feels they need to get behind the new coach. He wasn't sacked, he asked to be let go from the agreement and so had a real duty for mine.

The other area he failed was with Daisy. He had a conflict once he publically stated he was a bit of a father figure. It was always clear to me Daisy's long term future would benefit greatly by being a one club player. Collingwood had invested heavily in promoting his image within the club so this benefit was always much greater than the average player. Through his own deeds and via Collingwoods promotion he was developing a valuable persona and image for the future. A father figure should have been giving him good advice not worked to facilitate his departure his position at Carlton not withstanding.
Regardless of the complexity, if there is mutiny on the bounty success is just not possible - that cannot be disputed. I can't argue with MM's failings no doubt there however it does take two to tango and his reactionary behaviour has forever tainted his reputation mind you the club has done itself any favours either with the handling of it all.

Less educated supporters from other clubs rightly or wrongly are still to this day are scratching their heads on our succession plan; to them it seems we missed and opportunity for a dynasty and for that they are grateful and in their view CFC totally mishandled said opportunity - that's the reputation we now have
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
It's hard to say we were definitely the best in 2011. Both Geelong and Collingwood ended with a 22:3 win loss record and all our 3 losses were against Geelong. They were a formidable opponent. It's too dismissive of their record to simply say we were better.

In 2000 Essendon finished 21:1 H&A, 5 games and 25% clear of 2nd placed Carlton. After finals they were 24:1 win loss for the season with Carlton next best at 17:8. That dominated the rest much much more. They also smashed everyone in the finals. We struggled by WCE, just got the Hawks and then lost the GF clearly

Even in 1995 Carlton were clearly more dominant than their opposition compared to 2011. 20:2 in H&A, 4 games clear. Two smashing wins in finals for a 23:2 season total.

In 2011 two excellent sides were closely matched and the Hawks were far behind and were closing fast. Only 2 games behind us in the H&A. Even the Eagles were only 3 games behind us.

We just didn't have the separation on the rest of the comp like Ess in 2000 and Carl in 1995
A/ By the same token it's hard to argue we weren't, the numbers say we were
B/ No they weren't they finished 2% above the opposition with 137%, we however finished with 167% 10 more than the opposition and the 2nd highest in history (171% 1929). We were regularly demoralising teams week in week out, rarely did we have close wins
 

westozpie

All Australian
Sep 30, 2016
897
816
AFL Club
Collingwood
A/ By the same token it's hard to argue we weren't, the numbers say we were
B/ No they weren't they finished 2% above the opposition with 137%, we however finished with 167% 10 more than the opposition and the 2nd highest in history (171% 1929). We were regularly demoralising teams week in week out, rarely did we have close wins
Really were a powerful team that seemed to crush teams at will. The only thing I seem to recall we crushed teams in one amazing quarter or half and then cruised through the game, was it against Adelaide we score 9 or 10 goals in one quarter for eg?
Wonder if we got a bit of complacency as a result of how easy we were winning
 
Regardless of the complexity, if there is mutiny on the bounty success is just not possible - that cannot be disputed. I can't argue with MM's failings no doubt there however it does take two to tango and his reactionary behaviour has forever tainted his reputation mind you the club has done itself any favours either with the handling of it all.

Less educated supporters from other clubs rightly or wrongly are still to this day are scratching their heads on our succession plan; to them it seems we missed and opportunity for a dynasty and for that they are grateful and in their view CFC totally mishandled said opportunity - that's the reputation we now have
Agree with that. No easy solution, all parties share the blame to some degree and from the outside we are labelled and that won't change
 
Mar 17, 2014
10,852
12,741
AFL Club
Collingwood
The other area he failed was with Daisy. He had a conflict once he publically stated he was a bit of a father figure. It was always clear to me Daisy's long term future would benefit greatly by being a one club player. Collingwood had invested heavily in promoting his image within the club so this benefit was always much greater than the average player. Through his own deeds and via Collingwoods promotion he was developing a valuable persona and image for the future. A father figure should have been giving him good advice not worked to facilitate his departure his position at Carlton not withstanding.
Collingwood have a history of chopping their favorite sons and i dont think anything would have changed with Daisy, especially after his injuries.
 
A/ By the same token it's hard to argue we weren't, the numbers say we were
B/ No they weren't they finished 2% above the opposition with 137%, we however finished with 167% 10 more than the opposition and the 2nd highest in history (171% 1929). We were regularly demoralising teams week in week out, rarely did we have close wins
If you are going to argue us finishing a game ahead of Geelong and 10% better is more dominant compared than Carlton 1995 who finished 4 games and 6% ahead of 2nd we are arguing different definitions.

Geelong won their 1st 13 games straight in 2011. Apart from round 21 when 2 games separated us we were either on equal wins or 1 win apart for 21 rounds. Equal on games 7 rounds, Geel one ahead 6 rounds, Coll 1 ahead 8 rounds. We were literally neck and neck the whole year and Hawks close also. Showed in the finals also. Carl won their Prelim and GF both by 10 goals and didn't drop a final.

I am not sure other than quoting our good % you could believe that Carlton's opposition was closer to it in 1995 than Geel and also Hawthorn were to us in 2011.
 
May 25, 2006
63,609
44,446
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
The list needed rejuvenation by 2013 regardless of who the coach was. If we'd kept Malthouse I'm sure he would have artfully avoided the 4 knee recos to key players and season restricting ankle injury to Thomas and would have led us to another grand final where he would have coached impeccably as he did in the 2011 GF (and 2003 for that matter).

And we'd still have O'Brien, Wellingham, Shaw Beams and Thomas. But we wouldnt have Varcoe, Grundy, Adams, De Goey, Crisp, or Greenwood.

Malthouse only had a few years left in him anyway so I'd guess by 2014 or 2015 we'd have a new coach by now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back