Thoughts regarding Nathan Buckley?

[jonbe54]

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.

Ant of course it is a risk, so is getting out of bed in the morning. For me it goes beyond who is best and it certainly goes beyond personalities, its about INTEGRITY. If we force Buckley to step down in favor of Mick we are worse - MUCH WORSE than Carlton. Because at least Carlton don't PRETEND to be a working man's club, a family club, a fair go club. Because if we force Buckley aside we are sh1tting on every one who believes in SIDE BY SIDE.

Do you want to take the easy path or the path of INTEGRITY?

 

[dubber]

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.

Fair point but there is one flaw in your post.

The organization that is Collingwood with its board of directors, all of whom are respected members of society, made a decision to put in place a succession plan in 2009. We are supportting that succession plan. We are supporting the choice of the club. We are supporting Mick & Buckley in their new roles. We are putting our faith in Ed, Pert and co to have done the due diligence & come up with the best possible outcome for the club.

Do we now renege on the contract and have Mick coach us for another 2 years? Do we lose Buckley in the process?
Is that not risky? Is that not destabilizing the club?

 

[ipswichpies]

Ant of course it is a risk, so is getting out of bed in the morning. For me it goes beyond who is best and it certainly goes beyond personalities, its about INTEGRITY. If we force Buckley to step down in favor of Mick we are worse - MUCH WORSE than Carlton. Because at least Carlton don't PRETEND to be a working man's club, a family club, a fair go club. Because if we force Buckley aside we are sh1tting on every one who believes in SIDE BY SIDE.

Do you want to take the easy path or the path of INTEGRITY?

This is a Great post and encapsulates exactly what this debate is all about,just have a think about some of the points raised.

Agree with all issues raised here .

 

[Pie eyed]

First the big story was "It could never eventuate"
Then when it did that "It could never work." insert the words "friction, ego and incompatible" here.
Then after the flag it turned to "Malthouse wants out of the contract"
Then Malthouse "should be allowed to coach elsewhere" as it was unfair to him.
Then it was "Malthouse to stand out for 12 months and coach (insert any side here)"
Now it's "Buckley should do the right thing and stand aside".

All of these mindless pleas by the media amount to one thing....They, like a huge percentage of footy fans, clubs and general riff-raff are absolutely gut wretchingly, terrified that if the Club has got it right we can rewrite the history books.

If we are going to take any risk at all let it be the one most likely to deliver absolutely for the longest possible period.

Mick and Bucks.

 

[wmvaux]

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

I don't care if it's Buckley or someone else, but the deal was done and everyone in football believes Buckley is the next best thing because he's done the apprenticeship and all the other work to get the job. He's also been under 4 Premiership coaches to draw experiences from.

I can understand the thinking about not wanting to let things change and keep going along with Mick, but a deal was done and if people can't keep a deal, then you don't want them at the club. Do we really want to piss 1, 2 or 3 people off by changing the deal now? I don't think so.

I don't care what 3rd parties think about it, they also think Malthouse can just go to another club and win Premierships... it ain't gonna happen.

Malthouse got an extension when he could of easily got the arse, if he finishes with 2 Premierships with Collingwood he should feel satisfied.

I trust the club that they are doing the right thing, they wouldn't put Buckley in charge if they thought he was going to stop the team from going forward.

 

[Ant85]

Ant of course it is a risk, so is getting out of bed in the morning. For me it goes beyond who is best and it certainly goes beyond personalities, its about INTEGRITY. If we force Buckley to step down in favor of Mick we are worse - MUCH WORSE than Carlton. Because at least Carlton don't PRETEND to be a working man's club, a family club, a fair go club. Because if we force Buckley aside we are sh1tting on every one who believes in SIDE BY SIDE.

Do you want to take the easy path or the path of INTEGRITY?

I got a few responses, but I'll reply to this as I appears it sums up everyone's argument.

Your concern is about integrity, my concern is about getting the best possible result for our club, which is a premiership.

Teams of total domination come - on our record - once a century. Our last dominating team was in the 1920s and 1930s.

If you're willing to concede that moving ahead with Bucks is a higher risk than retaining Mick Malthouse, given the evidence we have, then you're effectively putting at higher risk our chance to make history.

People won't remember what happened to Bucks in 50 years time, they'll remember our back-to-back or threepeat premierships.

What do you want more? I know what I want.

 

[KissmeRobbo]

If you're willing to concede that moving ahead with Bucks is a higher risk than retaining Mick Malthouse, given the evidence we have, then you're effectively putting at higher risk our chance to make history.

It is a higher risk but offset by the fact Malthouse is pushing 60 and we'd have to do something soon anyway.. and if that's true I'd rather have Buckley than someone else

 

[Didak Wine]

The fact that Eddie is adamant about Nathan taking over tells me the players are happy to play under nathan. I think Ed loves collingwood too much to take a punt like this. If there was a chance of Mick's departure derailing the team, he'd (Eddie) be all over it i reckon.

Pendles said in the paper recently, the club isnt just playing for Mick. These guys are playing for the black and white, they are paid well, have luxurious celebrity status and a chance to make history. That's a much greater lure to perform than the odd malthouse whisper about roman empire war tactics.

And another thing. about 12 years ago, we were near the bottom of the ladder, coached under tony shaw and we went up to brisbane captained by scotty burns and were belted. In the half time address to the players, scotty burns yelled out in frustration "I'm sick and tired of just having a go". That team, as unskilled and down on quality players as it was, played its heart out. That's all you can ask of your team. To play to its maximum ability. Most collingwood teams I can remember have done so. You put on the black and white and it transforms you. Whoever coaches next year has a head start because of that fact alone.

 

[jonbe54]

I got a few responses, but I'll reply to this as I appears it sums up everyone's argument.

Your concern is about integrity, my concern is about getting the best possible result for our club, which is a premiership.

Teams of total domination come - on our record - once a century. Our last dominating team was in the 1920s and 1930s.

If you're willing to concede that moving ahead with Bucks is a higher risk than retaining Mick Malthouse, given the evidence we have, then you're effectively putting at higher risk our chance to make history.

People won't remember what happened to Bucks in 50 years time, they'll remember our back-to-back or threepeat premierships.

What do you want more? I know what I want.

I want my club to stand up and say THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. I want my club to get their success through playing fair and and not junking people for cheap short term gain. I want my club to say no to bowing to the fears of others and to STAND BY THEIR GIVEN WORD.

In short shafting Buckley to suit your agenda MAY get a short term gain, but mothers and fathers of prospective players will think twice before allowing their youngsters to come to Collingwood because THEY WILL NOT TRUST US NOT TO SH1T ON THEIR SONS BECAUSE IT SUITS OUR PURPOSES AT THE TIME. What about our corporate partners and prospective corporate partners? How will they feel being associated with a club that shafted its favorite son for a cheap shot at short term glory?

No thanks Ant you can have your short term glory, I'll ALWAYS back they club when they stand by the deals they have made.

 

[dubber]

I got a few responses, but I'll reply to this as I appears it sums up everyone's argument.

Your concern is about integrity, my concern is about getting the best possible result for our club, which is a premiership.

Teams of total domination come - on our record - once a century. Our last dominating team was in the 1920s and 1930s.

If you're willing to concede that moving ahead with Bucks is a higher risk than retaining Mick Malthouse, given the evidence we have, then you're effectively putting at higher risk our chance to make history.

People won't remember what happened to Bucks in 50 years time, they'll remember our back-to-back or threepeat premierships.

What do you want more? I know what I want.

You know what Allan Jeans said about the Hawthorn team he took to 7 consecutive grand finals?
He said that you could have no coaches present in the box on the day and the team would still win as they were so talented and would coach themselves.

My point is as much as Mick deserves the credit for our win last year, it is a massive team effort. He could not have done it without his assistants, Butters, Hine and of course the players.

We are not a one man band, this was also reiterated by Pert in his interview with Leigh recently.

We have a very talented group of players, most of them still young and yet to hit their prime.
We have excellent training facilities and support staff.
None of the above will change with Bucks taking over next year.
Mick will stay as director of coaching, his job will be to find an edge and implement it for the pies. He will travel overseas and look at other sports and see how they train, rehab and learn tactics.

Bucks will have the same resources at his disposal as Mick.

Yes we are taking on a risk but we have plenty of mitigation in place to continue on our successful journey.

 

[scruffydog]

When the succession plan was announced, all I was thinking was 'gee I hope we win a flag so Mick gets one before he's out' and now all I'm thinking about is how now that we've won one (with the possibility of two straight) this succession plan seems like a mistake.

It wasn't a mistake at the time. It was great at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and if the the plan wasn't in place and they suggested that Bucks take over from Mick next year you'd be thinking 'why?'

I was actually thinking that maybe Bucks should declare that he's going to delay it a year, to do the right thing for the team and yadda yadda... but is that the right choice? What happens next year? What if we actually won it again - would Bucks delay it another year?

He has to stay true to the contract. Besides, Mick isn't out of a job. He's moving to another job which probably pays just as good.

It's a difficult situation but we just have to hope that it works out for the best (and that in the extremely unlikely scenario that Bucks is no good, we manage to get Mick back as head coach )

 

[lozza63]

The OP asked us to share our thoughts about Bucks.

To me it has sunk in that Bucks WILL coach us next year.

He is a very accomplished tactician no doubt - otherwise why would Ed have gone to such lengths to keep him? I concede he must know his stuff, I concede he keeps himself in such good shape - looks like he could still play - right?

He is a Club Legend, bleeds black and white - no doubt - fantastic.

I dont think that Bucks would be unapproachable.

What does concern me is:
1. What are his people skills like?
2. Players could be a little over awed by the Legend of Buckley the player?
3. Could he be too demanding and didactic?

Not too many concerns i suppose - maybe a little "airy fairy", and yet dealing with a team of hundred people - one desperately requires such skills.

I have mentioned these concerns as has Parallel Andy (he must have had a real beef with Bucks early).

He was made Club Captain in 1999 - so i reckon I saw snippets of Bucks "not suffering fools" probs from 2000.

How do you think he would go at calming such lovable larrikins such as Dids, Heater and Swanny?

Who thought up the idea of re-inventing Leon's role as a defender? For all intents and purposes, me included, never did i think that Leon would thrive as he has - i put that down down in the main to Malthouse.

Now i realise both are staying yet will Mick have the ability/role to sort these things out next year? This where things get a little hazy for me.

I suppose Bucks could sort these types out, but it wont be that easy for such an exacting type as Bucks.

Do i have any grounds for these concerns - or am I just a "parrot"?

Please anyone respond, harshly, forthrightly anyway - if they have more insight in this than I do - ok?

Perhaps people are just satisfied that Bucks is all class, nothing less, so nothing to say?

Or perhaps dealing with all "types" of people is not a skill the majority of you guys think is important for a senior coach? It's all just a load of airy fairy - bulldust!

 

[Magpie_Magic]

It just amazes me the prospect of dropping a back to back premiership coach ... if he wins it.

If Bucks bleeds for the club then he'd aside for another couple of seasons.

 

[KissmeRobbo]

It just amazes me the prospect of dropping a back to back premiership coach ... if he wins it.

It's never been done before, it's out of the box, bold and lateral


To the brave go the spoils

 

[jonbe54]

It just amazes me the prospect of dropping a back to back premiership coach ... if he wins it.

If Bucks bleeds for the club then he'd aside for another couple of seasons.

And what happens if Mick leads us to a 4pete? Does Bucks get urged to stand aside for another few years???

Where the f@ck does it end????

 

[alfiiee]

He could have been head coach 2 years ago.. i think he is done waiting..

 

[Parallel Andy]

It just amazes me the prospect of dropping a back to back premiership coach ... if he wins it.

If Bucks bleeds for the club then he'd aside for another couple of seasons.

This...in 'Black and White'

 

[mattys123]

What does concern me is:
1. What are his people skills like?
2. Players could be a little over awed by the Legend of Buckley the player?
3. Could he be too demanding and didactic?

How do you think he would go at calming such lovable larrikins such as Dids, Heater and Swanny?

Do i have any grounds for these concerns - or am I just a "parrot"?

First, you are not a parrot, in fact I find that term offensive for anyone who posts here, we all have opinions, and that's what they are, opinions, so feel free to post your opinion any time, just like anyone here should feel free to.

As for the 3 questions;

1. His "people skills" to me seem just fine, if not more then fine. He showed in the media he actually has a personality outside of that driven, concentrated figure we got to know and love as a player, and he also showed he has a sense of humour. Empathy is the one skill/emotional tool that a good coach has to have, and I believe Bucks will have this in droves. He went through his own ups and downs as a player, and he will understand what the younger (and older) players at the club are going through, and will treat them accordingly.

2. No one will be over awed by the "Buckley legacy", if they aren't over awed by Mick Malthouse or Eddie McGuire being at the club now, then they won't be by Bucks.

3. I think my response to question one answers this. His experiences as a player, and with 4 different senior coaches (Walls, Matthews, Shaw, Malthouse) will give him a great insight and direction as to how to approach both the group, and more importantly individuals. At times he may be demanding, but I don't think he'll be too demanding simply because he would have learned from all his coaches regarding what they did right and wrong regarding their approach to players, especially in negative situations.

I actually think the "larrikins" at the club will be embraced by Bucks, he is a football lover after all, and I think it's that love for the talent these larrikin types have that will make that embrace stronger then most expect.

Does that guarantee he will be a good coach?

HELL NO, but it ensures he has the tools to be a good coach, but we all know some of the greatest players of all time have been terrible coaches, so only time will tell with Nathan Buckley.

 

[Krueger]

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.

Its your blind allegiance thats the problem. You cannot see what might be a bad thing for the club. You would prefer Matthew Knights to take over if some contract was signed 2 years ago.

Yeh people like Leigh Matthews have got it wrong aswell. A guy who has been there done that as Captain and Coach. Pffftt

You would have made a great soldier. Take orders without question and charge straight at machine gun nests in WW1. Brave but stupid.

 

[jonbe54]

Its your blind allegiance thats the problem. You cannot see what might be a bad thing for the club. You would prefer Matthew Knights to take over if some contract was signed 2 years ago.

Yeh people like Leigh Matthews have got it wrong aswell. A guy who has been there done that as Captain and Coach. Pffftt

You would have made a great soldier. Take orders without question and charge straight at machine gun nests in WW1. Brave but stupid.

So because someone has the temerity to have a different opinion to your all so mighty intellect you call them stupid?

That is arrogance my friend, people have the right to differ so calm down and stop being abusive.

Blind allegiance has NOTHING to do with it and if you weren't so intent on bending everything to you own viewpoint you might see that.

You appear to believe that the ends justify the means I could answer in the same vein as you have but I for one will keep my tactics out of the gutter.

Treating people with respect and honoring promises is a LIFE COMMITMENT that us poor fools make because we believe in fair play and honesty.

Your aggressive posturing posts to the contrary seem to indicate that you believe in the law of the jungle.

Well be careful princess because there is always a bigger or meaner animal behind the next tree or the next and sooner or later you'll trip over one with your belligerent behavior.

 

[KissmeRobbo]

Yeh people like Leigh Matthews have got it wrong aswell. A guy who has been there done that as Captain and Coach. Pffftt

If we are going to give Leigh Matthews words any credence at all then surely his assertion that 80% of a premiership is list quality.. with coaches, game plan, sports science etc only 20%

So he's basically saying we can stick a monkey in the coaches box..


No Ratten jokes please.. let's try and be better than that

 

[Krueger]

So because someone has the temerity to have a different opinion to your all so mighty intellect you call them stupid?

That is arrogance my friend, people have the right to differ so calm down and stop being abusive.

I was refering to the act not the individual .

You are entitled to your opinion as am I. You know what is right but cannot let go of the 'SIDE BY SIDE' you which is fair enough. Whatever floats your boat.

BTW perhaps you should read over your own posts and note the name calling before you talk about abuse.

 

[Pie eyed]

Some real paranoia and borderline personality disorders creeping into this thread.

 

[loki04]

The correct decision was made almost 2 years ago.

I have no doubt the finite time on Micks reign spurred him on to a) recruit for weakness and b) play less favourites who let the club down previous.

I also have no doubt Buckley's input helped us turn the corner from bridesmaids to brides.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

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.

I disagree. I feel the risk lies with Mick.

Hear me out.

With Mick, you can't look at '28 years 3 flags'. At COLLINGWOOD is was 10 years NO flag (all time record), and it was only once he was given INCENTIVE to coach for a flag, that he got one, mind you that also coincided with Buckley returning to the club.

So, if Mick needed that sort of incentive to recruit and coach for a flag, then what happens if you take that incentive away? Even if Mick is doing this in a twisted way to 'spite' Eddie for booting him, it's still netted us a flag, and possibly two.

If you then tell Mick he's safe again, and we'll keep him, will he keep up the standard? Maybe he'll sit there and let the side coach itself knowing he's netted a flag or two, and just let it turn to shit until he retires and yells "So loooong suckers' as he runs off into retirement.

Bucks KNOWS he's on a hiding to nothing. He KNOWS he HAS to perform straight away, and is an absolute perfectionist, to a fault. He will either win a flag in his first year coaching or die trying, he's just that sort of person.

We WANT a coach who is going to fight and scrap for every last point to make sure this team pushes itself to the limit. Keeping Mick won't achieve that. Especially now. If he sees the club change it's mind, then he knows he's got us and can do what he likes.

Buckley will be desperate to maintain the rage of the group and of himself to show the world he can coach. That's the coach I want. Every year that passes, Mick will grow more and more non-chalant. That's not who I want taking the club into the future.