Thoughts regarding Nathan Buckley?

[jonbe54]

What nonsense. Scenarios completely different and if you don't see that...well....

Ah I see - somebody gives you a taste of the same medicine you want others to take and you denigrate them eh?

 

[Parallel Andy]

Ah I see - somebody gives you a taste of the same medicine you want others to take and you denigrate them eh?

No. You have chosen two completely different scenarios and treated them as one. I treated a throw away comment with another throw away comment.

 

[wmvaux]

you simply cant write of a team that has made 3 GF's in 4 years,and won 2.especially one that knows that this is their last main crack at it and has numerous retirees pending,Milburn/Mooney this season.Ling/Scarlett/Ottens possibly next season

Geelong are past their peak, we are still to get there. There is no doubt Geelong is still a very good team, but really if everything is even come finals time, the game goes up a notch and these players at Geelong who are towards the end of their career after a long season will find it hard to match us. Chapman has gone backwards this year, still a good player, but getting caught more, Ottens hardly has any run left in him, Milburn should of gone 2 years ago, Ling will get found out again like last year when the speed and pressure is on.

The big question is will they go to the old timers to try and get them over the line or will they go with youth? I'd be going with youth, but lets wait and see.

 

[dubber]

No...you want to believe that people are 'being pulled into media confabulation'. People have minds of their own you know, you are treating people's opinions with disdain.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the media driven frenzy regarding Malthouse's future etc. It has everything to do with what is best for the Collingwood Football Club. Sure Nathan may get us a premiership next year and maybe the year after, but he may just blow it. Mick won't. Simple as that.

Pull your head out of the sand and actually see what is going on around you.

May I ask what gives you such uniqueness to know what's best for collingwood football club? I am also interested to know if you were against the arrangment in 2009 or have you changed your mind since?
I won't argue that Buckley will be the best coach in 2012. That's not my point, I'm merely suggesting that Mick has the integrity to abide by the contract he, under no pressure from Nathan, signed in 2009.

 

[Pie eyed]

No...you want to believe that people are 'being pulled into media confabulation'. People have minds of their own you know, you are treating people's opinions with disdain.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the media driven frenzy regarding Malthouse's future etc. It has everything to do with what is best for the Collingwood Football Club. Sure Nathan may get us a premiership next year and maybe the year after, but he may just blow it. Mick won't. Simple as that.

Pull your head out of the sand and actually see what is going on around you.

I don't agree at all with your summation.
I think everyone is concerned with what's best for the club only the opinion on what this is varies.

It's obvious to me what's going on around me.

Just for the record Mick may blow it...even in 2011.
There are no guarantees.

That said I don't think he will blow it this year any more than I think Mick or Buck's can guarantee us a flag next year.

I think Mick and Buck's are the absolute best option though.

Having an opinion on which individual is best for the club is not parroting rubbish printed in tabloid media with little or no supporting evidence.

 

[Krueger]

Sometimes though two differing views can both be very valid views.

What your view ( and Kreuger and Parallel Andy) is espousing involves a Club completely going back on it's word...not to mention a multimillion dollar signed 5 year contract.

If you're happy with this principle, where's your endpoint?

Re Geelong...they appear to have been completely reinvigorated this year with their new coach.

Collingwood are at the top of their game, imagine if we were to similarly get reinvigorated next year.

Teams do go stale...that's the main reason teams don't win three in a row -and it would be a terrible shame if that happened to us.

Bring on the new coach I say.

I have said previously the ball will be in Nathans court at the end of the season as I know the club will not go back on its word out of sheer principle and respect for Bucks.

If he thinks he will do a better job than Mick then he will be coach. However if he sees what some here and many on the outside see in that it will be better for THE CLUB to continue with Mick Malthouse then he should be man enough to defer for another year.

We are far from stale. We only really hit our straps in the middle of last year and became genuine flag contenders. Geelong have been up there for years and had a coach who didnt want to be there anymore. Thompson lost the passion, Mick still has it and is coaching better than ever. The players play for him as much as they do for the club.

Bucks MAY end up being a great coach, I just dont see the need to risk what we can achieve with the way things are at the moment.

 

[wmvaux]

I have said previously the ball will be in Nathans court at the end of the season as I know the club will not go back on its word out of sheer principle and respect for Bucks.

If he thinks he will do a better job than Mick then he will be coach. However if he sees what some here and many on the outside see in that it will be better for THE CLUB to continue with Mick Malthouse then he should be man enough to defer for another year.

We are far from stale. We only really hit our straps in the middle of last year and became genuine flag contenders. Geelong have been up there for years and had a coach who didnt want to be there anymore. Thompson lost the passion, Mick still has it and is coaching better than ever. The players play for him as much as they do for the club.

Bucks MAY end up being a great coach, I just dont see the need to risk what we can achieve with the way things are at the moment.

So you think keeping Malthouse until the team starts going down the ladder is the best thing? Why put Buckley in the main position when the team is going backwards, surely having Buckley take over the team while it's primed is a far better option. Every new coach says it's different when they actually step in to the position, so even if he was to make some mistakes, the quality of the team can actually make those mistakes smaller than what they actually are.

There is no doubt Malthouse is a better coach than Buckley will be next year, but if everything goes to the plan, Buckley will have a tonne of support, surely that's the best way to bring him in. It will be a learning curve for him for a number of years, but having a strong team to coach is a real advantage. You just have to look back at Hawthorn when Alan Joyce took over Hawthorn in 1988, they had played in the last 5 Grand Finals, Joyce took over from Jeans and they won the Premiership and the Grand Final win was by a record margin. Jeans came back in 1989/1990 to coach and then Joyce took over again in 1991 for another Premiership.

So far with Malthouse and Buckley we have won 1 and are in line for number 2, there is no reason why we can't continue that with Buckley and Malthouse, let the media tell us why it won't work, as long as they are working for the same goal, it doesn't matter what the media talk about.

The reason why we are having a successful period now is due to the fact we have the best list in the comp... it's not that we have the second or third best list and Malthouse is a better coach than everyone else. Was Mark Thompson the best coach when Geelong had the best list in 2007-2009?... NO! If the coach was the difference we would of been in the Grand Final in 2007. Is Chris Scott the second best coach going around now?...NO!

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Mick won't. Simple as that.

Pull your head out of the sand and actually see what is going on around you.

Bullshit.

Be interested to know what your thoughts were on Malthouse pre-2010.

2 schools of thought:

1) Some would believe we would have won last year's flag regardless of the succession plan being in place.

2) MOST believe we would never have won last year's flag if it wasn't for the succession plan, which gave Mick the kick up the ass he needed to get the job done.

Evidence suggests number 2 is correct, which would then mean what I've quoted from you is bullshit.

So maybe you should take your own advice.

If Mick needed incentive to win a flag after 11 years, then keeping him on simply takes away that incentive, and allows him to rest on his laurels, made worse by the fact that he'll be sitting on at least one flag.

This arrangement could not be better for the club, and only the most narrow minded person would see it any other way.

Is Nathan the right person? Only time will tell, but Mick boughing out gracefully before he grows stale is a perfect way to do it in my opinion. Team then gets a refresh BEFORE it becomes overdue.

 

[TheLip]

I find this whole discussion a bit comical really. I know there is a school of thought amongst some Collingwood fans as well as a host of outsiders whose opinions mean nought to me that the club would be better off keeping Mick as the coach. Unfortunately I can't see how. Those same people only 2 years ago were baying for Mick's blood after so many failed campaigns. Do they really believe that Mick has suddenly become some kind of coaching genius just because all the stars have aligned at the right moment? Any balanced appraisal of the club will tell you that there is way more to Collingwood's success over the last 2 years than just the coach. There is also significant anecdotal evidence as some have pointed out here that the succession plan is directly responsible at least in some degree for that success.

Talk of tearing up Bucks' contract or rescinding the succession plan is in my mind sheer lunacy given the success it has potentially already brought. What mental midget would even suggest such a thing? As I've said elsewhere, the historical revisionists will have you believe that the success would have come regardless of the plan while all the evidence actually points to the reverse being true.

Mick, we thank you for being a part of the success our club has worked so hard for and we acknowledge your input to that but mate, Bucks will be coach next year and you can either stay and remain a part of what you helped to build or jump off. The Collingwood Football Club will move on if you decide to leave and I believe it would have a right to feel dudded but I doubt, despite Eddies words to the contrary that the club would actually stand in your way.

 

[Kirby]

^^ Great post mate!

 

[ipswichpies]

Seeing this thread is about N Buckley I must say he has conducted himself in a proper manner and deserves to have his contract honoured next year as signed and agreed with by all parties 2 years ago.

I also think it is a leap into the great unknown with Buckley,but I must say that, considering the performance,s of both this this year I am happier to be going with Buckley.

The reason for this is because MM,s performance on the footy show has allowed this to fester and to be honest I think it has driven it,that I think must be addmitted by all wether or not you agree with the changeover or not.

I like all Supporter,s here I love the Pies and just wish the whole thing would disappear until the season is over it is hard enough to win as it is without all this shit in the background,this is exactly what many in the media and opposing supporters want.

 

[TheLip]

^^ Great post mate!

Thanks mate. I'm just a bit over the kind of people who jump on the media bandwagon regardless of how illogical it is. IMO you don't fix what aint broke and in contrast to Micks coaching record 2 years ago, the succession plan aint broke!

 

[daics cousin]

First of all we must all stop and think about why this deal was put into place.

To help Mick out at the time and not to lose Buckley to another club,
Mick could have been the forgotten man now.....Cos after 10 years at the club and no flag..........Any other club could have easily said see ya mick at that time.......Look at Rodney Eade,and a few others as examples.

No this deal has actually got us a flag ! and a big possiblity we could go back to back..............What a great deal ?

Look even the bombers have copied our blue print and as soon as they heard about opur succesion plan they got hird in and got Bomber Thompson as the director of coaching.


The only people that think this a bad deal is all media outlets,other clubs and their supporters........Why cos they are all jealous and simply cannot handle us winning another flag,they need to keep trying to destabalise us,don;t let them don't be fooled by their games!

If anything this deal that Malthouse signed has helped him get another flag possibly two.

Buckley has been all class and has done his job as an assistant very well.We all talk about Mick this Mick that,but don't forget one important thing BUCKLEY HAS BEEN A BIG FACTOR IN DEVELOPING THIS GROUP,HE HAS BEEN THERE FROM THE START SAME AS MALTHOUSE,Buckley just hasn't got the experience Malthouse has,But Buckley has got a better footy brain than Malthouse,one day Buckley will revolutionaise the game.

I say come on Mick lets go back to back,thank you and goodbye,enjoy the rest of your life cos if you go out with class you will be remembered as a legend.

 

[Krueger]

So you think keeping Malthouse until the team starts going down the ladder is the best thing? Why put Buckley in the main position when the team is going backwards, surely having Buckley take over the team while it's primed is a far better option. Every new coach says it's different when they actually step in to the position, so even if he was to make some mistakes, the quality of the team can actually make those mistakes smaller than what they actually are.

There is no doubt Malthouse is a better coach than Buckley will be next year, but if everything goes to the plan, Buckley will have a tonne of support, surely that's the best way to bring him in. It will be a learning curve for him for a number of years, but having a strong team to coach is a real advantage.

You know is is the best bloke for the job is.

Mate we are on the way up not down and you dont make big changes when you are on the way up! The notion of being on the way down or peaked is utter crap. I dont care who Nathan Buckley was/is, there is no room for mistakes, if he is not the best option then why the hell change a winning formula? Yeh lets just give Nathan a few years to get the hang of it all, our premiership window is going to last a lot longer than that - NOT!

 

[wmvaux]

You know is is the best bloke for the job is.

Mate we are on the way up not down and you dont make big changes when you are on the way up! The notion of being on the way down or peaked is utter crap. I dont care who Nathan Buckley was/is, there is no room for mistakes, if he is not the best option then why the hell change a winning formula? Yeh lets just give Nathan a few years to get the hang of it all, our premiership window is going to last a lot longer than that - NOT!

Because it's the best thing for the club. Forget the next couple of years under Malthouse, how long do you think he has? You'd rather sacrifice the future for now??? Why, Buckley will have just as much chance of winning the Premierships as Malthouse in the next 3 years. The deal is done, imagine what would happen if Collingwood was to reneg on the deal and keep Malthouse, Buckley would be gone and who would we get then? Lets give Bucks 3 Flags and then see him rebuild the team.

Why are you panicking about Buckley as coach? As I previously pointed out it's the team list that counts not the coach.

When does Malthouse go according to your thoughts? When he fails to win the next flag? or once the team drops down the ladder?

 

[jonbe54]

Because it's the best thing for the club. Forget the next couple of years under Malthouse, how long do you think he has? You'd rather sacrifice the future for now??? Why, Buckley will have just as much chance of winning the Premierships as Malthouse in the next 3 years. The deal is done, imagine what would happen if Collingwood was to reneg on the deal and keep Malthouse, Buckley would be gone and who would we get then? Lets give Bucks 3 Flags and then see him rebuild the team.

Why are you panicking about Buckley as coach? As I previously pointed out it's the team list that counts not the coach.

When does Malthouse go according to your thoughts? When he fails to win the next flag? or once the team drops down the ladder?

Mate not too worry some people take the media lure hook line and sinker, they'll be sprouting another tale as soon as the press turns its attention aside.

 

[TheLip]

You know is is the best bloke for the job is.

Mate we are on the way up not down and you dont make big changes when you are on the way up! The notion of being on the way down or peaked is utter crap. I dont care who Nathan Buckley was/is, there is no room for mistakes, if he is not the best option then why the hell change a winning formula? Yeh lets just give Nathan a few years to get the hang of it all, our premiership window is going to last a lot longer than that - NOT!

WTF? More of the media inspired revisionism!

The changes were made two years ago when it could not be said that we were on the way up ffs! The result of those changes is a premiership in the bag and potentially another one or more on the way. Have the media managed to blind you totally to the obvious?

There is nothing to say that Bucks will be better or worse than Mick. What is abundantly clear is that the succession plan cannot be said to have failed as the immediate result is a premiership. You can argue all kinds of reasons why that might not be so but the simple fact is that the plan was put into place following Mick's long failed tenure and we then won a premiership. Any assertion that we would have won that premiership without the plan flies in the face of the facts.

 

[Krueger]

Mate not too worry some people take the media lure hook line and sinker, they'll be sprouting another tale as soon as the press turns its attention aside.

And some are so infatuated with Buckley they will do and say anything to support him and cannot see that his appointment might not be the best thing for the club. If you are so pig headed and dont want to admit that under current circumstance it might be a mistake then I give up.

Most 3rd parties think it is stupid to move Malthouse on, why is it some in here dont see what others can? Its called blind allegiance. The argument of 'a deal is a deal' is better than the utter crap one of 'we need to reinvigorate the list'. The latter is just a joke

 

[mattyspies]

Do you guys think buckley's a chance of recruiting fev? I mean on talent alone he'd have to. It would mean anvil, cloke and dawed would have to perform and we would have kpp depth. And are vfl team would also make the finals. To be honest I think he has also matured a bit in his year off.

 

[TheLip]

And some are so infatuated with Buckley they will do and say anything to support him and cannot see that his appointment might not be the best thing for the club. If you are so pig headed and dont want to admit that under current circumstance it might be a mistake then I give up.

Most 3rd parties think it is stupid to move Malthouse on, why is it some in here dont see what others can? Its called blind allegiance. The argument of 'a deal is a deal' is better than the utter crap one of 'we need to reinvigorate the list'. The latter is just a joke

It may well prove to be the case that Buckley's appointment is not ultimately in the best interests of the club but it is no more likely to be the case than that if they retained Mick as coach it would not be in the interests of the club. 10 Years it took Mick to realise the potential that the list had and only when he was moved on did the success come. You surely can't be saying that the decision was a poor one in light of that result! I would lay you London to a brick that breaking the deal that was done now would have side effects that would resonate for years and would most certainly not be in the best interest of the club.

The fact that "3rd parties" outside the club whose mission in life is to derail the Collingwood football club suggest that the decision is a bad one is hardly surprising but frankly, nobody with any common sense at Collingwood is listening. Why would they when the logic being used to support their claims defies the facts?

 

[jonbe54]

And some are so infatuated with Buckley they will do and say anything to support him and cannot see that his appointment might not be the best thing for the club. If you are so pig headed and dont want to admit that under current circumstance it might be a mistake then I give up.

Most 3rd parties think it is stupid to move Malthouse on, why is it some in here dont see what others can? Its called blind allegiance. The argument of 'a deal is a deal' is better than the utter crap one of 'we need to reinvigorate the list'. The latter is just a joke

Listen numnum I've never pushed Buckley so don't put words in my mouth. Most 3rd parties wouldn't know if a bus was up them until the passengers got off.

 

[Pie eyed]

Do you guys think buckley's a chance of recruiting fev? I mean on talent alone he'd have to. It would mean anvil, cloke and dawed would have to perform and we would have kpp depth. And are vfl team would also make the finals. To be honest I think he has also matured a bit in his year off.

You're suggesting we recruit Fev to get more out of Cloke, Dawes and Anvil?

and the last sentence flies in the face of the evidence prsented his entire career.

Other than that...sure get him to derail the VFL side.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

And some are so infatuated with Buckley they will do and say anything to support him and cannot see that his appointment might not be the best thing for the club. If you are so pig headed and dont want to admit that under current circumstance it might be a mistake then I give up.

Most 3rd parties think it is stupid to move Malthouse on, why is it some in here dont see what others can? Its called blind allegiance. The argument of 'a deal is a deal' is better than the utter crap one of 'we need to reinvigorate the list'. The latter is just a joke

So those that want Buckley for perfectly legitimate and logical reasons are deluded and crazy, and are biased, but those that want Malthouse only because he got results ONLY after being forced to act are 'normal'?

Yeah ok man, we're the deluded ones.

 

[Ant85]

So those that want Buckley for perfectly legitimate and logical reasons are deluded and crazy, and are biased, but those that want Malthouse only because he got results ONLY after being forced to act are 'normal'?

Yeah ok man, we're the deluded ones.

Your first response in this thread was telling the OP to piss off.

That's not exactly engaging the debate, is it?

This is all about mitigating risk, and this comes into any decision any organisation makes.

At present we have two options:

Mick Malthouse - known coach of 28 years, won 3 flags, current team sits on top of the ladder, highly respected

Nathan Buckley - assistant coach for 3 years, good reputation in industry

Who is the lesser risk out of the two options?

You're all free to support Nathan Buckley, but at least concede that it's a higher risk to take him onboard than it is to retain Malthouse.

For many of us, no it doesn't make sense. We prefer the option that has less risk, and that is to keep Malthouse.

 

[TheLip]

Your first response in this thread was telling the OP to piss off.

That's not exactly engaging the debate, is it?

This is all about mitigating risk, and this comes into any decision any organisation makes.

At present we have two options:

Mick Malthouse - known coach of 28 years, won 3 flags, current team sits on top of the ladder, highly respected

Nathan Buckley - assistant coach for 3 years, good reputation in industry

Who is the lesser risk out of the two options?

You're all free to support Nathan Buckley, but at least concede that it's a higher risk to take him onboard than it is to retain Malthouse.

For many of us, no it doesn't make sense. We prefer the option that has less risk, and that is to keep Malthouse.

Sorry, I can accept that some people like Mick or prefer Mick or think he might present less risk but the truth is nobody really knows the answer to that. What we do know is that since having his coaching tenure foreshortened we have had some success just as we have when Bucks came on board as an assistant and just as we have with the plan in place.

What we also know is that if Collingwood were to do an about face now it would go down as one of the worst acts of bastardry in living memory. Imagine the fall-out if they did it and then Mick failed to produce while Bucks went on to win a premiership at another club. Doesn't bear thinking about now does it?