Thoughts regarding Nathan Buckley?

[dumesny1]

Any truth to a rumour I have heard that players including Alan Didak, will be looking to leave Collingwood next year due to their dislike of Nathan Buckley.

Person that passed this on to me claims it started from Alan Didaks parents.

 

[dubber]

Any truth to a rumour I have heard that players including Alan Didak, will be looking to leave Collingwood next year due to their dislike of Nathan Buckley.

Person that passed this on to me claims it started from Alan Didaks parents.

I am not sure about the rumour but Buckely is a hard task master and inadvertently we may lose some players/staff as they are just not going to like it or cut it with the new coach. That's life.

But ask yourself this question : Who would want to leave Collingwood in the next few years while we dominate on and off-filed?
People will leave for either a massive opportunity elsewhere or they will be cut from the list to make way for new faces.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Any truth to a rumour I have heard that players including Alan Didak, will be looking to leave Collingwood next year due to their dislike of Nathan Buckley.

Person that passed this on to me claims it started from Alan Didaks parents.

Funny, I've been made aware of the opposite. Dids and Bucks get along famously.

 

[Krueger]

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

There sure is. Better leave it to the regular posters who are never wrong to comment on the clubs future.

 

[Pie eyed]

There sure is. Better leave it to the regular posters who are never wrong to comment on the clubs future.

My post was not aimed at a particular poster or opinion.
Don't be so quick to claim victim status.

 

[Ant85]

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.

The most logical two lines written in this thread thus far.

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.

Ok this myth that Mick Malthouse only decided to start coaching properly after he was given an end date to his tenure shows a serious lack of football understanding.

Our current list that won us a flag last year first started getting compiled at the end of 2003. We lost our second flag (also, 2 grand finals in his first 4 years, forget that stat did you?), MM knew we were never going to win a flag with that list, so we bottomed out in 2004-2005 and secured who? Pendles, Daisy, Cloke i.e. our current core.

In 12 years of Mick Malthouse, we have made the finals 8 times, top 4 5 times, 3 grand final appearances and one flag. Ask Carlton or Essendon fans about their last decade, and you're trying to tell me MM wasn't coaching good enough before the 2009 deal? Come on!

That you are so quick to dismiss the work and achievements Malthouse has made at our club is actually pretty insulting to the man.

Do you remember us under Tony Shaw in the late 1990s? Do you know how bad we were when MM came to the club?

MM resurrected Collingwood. Give some credit where it's due.

I have no doubts about the standard of MM's coaching, and his record is proof of that.

 

[dubber]

The most logical two lines written in this thread thus far.

I am genuinely offended

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Ok this myth that Mick Malthouse only decided to start coaching properly after he was given an end date to his tenure shows a serious lack of football understanding.

Our current list that won us a flag last year first started getting compiled at the end of 2003. We lost our second flag (also, 2 grand finals in his first 4 years, forget that stat did you?), MM knew we were never going to win a flag with that list, so we bottomed out in 2004-2005 and secured who? Pendles, Daisy, Cloke i.e. our current core.

In 12 years of Mick Malthouse, we have made the finals 8 times, top 4 5 times, 3 grand final appearances and one flag. Ask Carlton or Essendon fans about their last decade, and you're trying to tell me MM wasn't coaching good enough before the 2009 deal? Come on!

That you are so quick to dismiss the work and achievements Malthouse has made at our club is actually pretty insulting to the man.

Do you remember us under Tony Shaw in the late 1990s? Do you know how bad we were when MM came to the club?

MM resurrected Collingwood. Give some credit where it's due.

I have no doubts about the standard of MM's coaching, and his record is proof of that.

You're getting Mick confused with Derek Hine.

Our recruiting changed drastically when Hine took over, and many players who many deemed spuds dring the Judkins years, were DEVELOPED into good players once we had set up a great development structure (something Mick DID put in place, hence why he'd make such a great DoC).

Fact is, we tripped over and FELL into the 02 Grand Final (4th with 13 wins? Come the fcuk on), and in 03, STILL could have won had Mick not decided to play spuds like Kinnear and in one single game, ruin Jason Clokes career. Speaking of ruining careers, Sav Rocca? Heath Scotland? Mark McGough? All players I thought should have stayed at the club, who Mick got rid of for whatever reason he deemed necessary, yet persisted with spuds throughout his entire tenure.

Has played, and continues to play favourites with players despite saying he doesn't, but then half admits he does (guy flip flops a LOT).

I'm sorry, I think Mick is a great developer of people, and is great at setting up a clubs structure, hence why he'd make a perfect DoC. I still don't give him the credit others do as an actual coach. Don't forget, Collingwood in 02 and 03 aren't too dissimialr from St.Kilda 09/10.

Excellent top end that drops off a cliff at about player 10. You combine that with no real credible competition, and you have 02/03.

10 years of coaching, and never ONCE did Mick land a big fish, constant reports of Mick being a problem to deal with during trade week. All of a sudden, he's given a coaching deadline and we land 2 big fish (exactly the two types of players we'd been missing for a decade) in one draft? Please.

No flag in 10 years, then the same year Buckley returns to the club, takes over the forward line, and we suddenly start playing a forward press, something we've shown not even a hint of playing before?

Now Buckley is the opposition coach, and we shut down opposition strengths better than ever before despite a reduced list this year thanks to injuries we never had last year? Come now.

I'm not saying Mick is a terrible coach, I just don't put him up on the pedastool others do, never have and never will. We won that flag for a whole HOST of reason, Mick being just one part of that.

I mean, the Leon Davis move, you honestly think that was Mick's? Not Watters? The same Mick that made genius moves like:

- Jason Cloke to CHF
- Chris Tarrant to NOWHERE. For years people had said Try Taz on the wing, try him in the backline, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Mick just left him to rot in the forward line, it took Harvey to try something different.
- Ben Reid to CHB ONLY after they had basically no other option, and didn't want to de-list a Top 10 pick so quickly
- Almost every new player comes in in the backline despite it not being their position 'to teach them the game'. Not ALL players need to learn the game back there.

Honestly, there was more to that flag than just Mick, and except for Mick, everything else that went into that flag will STILL be there under Bucks.

 

[TheLip]

You're getting Mick confused with Derek Hine.

Our recruiting changed drastically when Hine took over, and many players who many deemed spuds dring the Judkins years, were DEVELOPED into good players once we had set up a great development structure (something Mick DID put in place, hence why he'd make such a great DoC).

Fact is, we tripped over and FELL into the 02 Grand Final (4th with 13 wins? Come the fcuk on), and in 03, STILL could have won had Mick not decided to play spuds like Kinnear and in one single game, ruin Jason Clokes career. Speaking of ruining careers, Sav Rocca? Heath Scotland? Mark McGough? All players I thought should have stayed at the club, who Mick got rid of for whatever reason he deemed necessary, yet persisted with spuds throughout his entire tenure.

Has played, and continues to play favourites with players despite saying he doesn't, but then half admits he does (guy flip flops a LOT).

I'm sorry, I think Mick is a great developer of people, and is great at setting up a clubs structure, hence why he'd make a perfect DoC. I still don't give him the credit others do as an actual coach. Don't forget, Collingwood in 02 and 03 aren't too dissimialr from St.Kilda 09/10.

Excellent top end that drops off a cliff at about player 10. You combine that with no real credible competition, and you have 02/03.

10 years of coaching, and never ONCE did Mick land a big fish, constant reports of Mick being a problem to deal with during trade week. All of a sudden, he's given a coaching deadline and we land 2 big fish (exactly the two types of players we'd been missing for a decade) in one draft? Please.

No flag in 10 years, then the same year Buckley returns to the club, takes over the forward line, and we suddenly start playing a forward press, something we've shown not even a hint of playing before?

Now Buckley is the opposition coach, and we shut down opposition strengths better than ever before despite a reduced list this year thanks to injuries we never had last year? Come now.

I'm not saying Mick is a terrible coach, I just don't put him up on the pedastool others do, never have and never will. We won that flag for a whole HOST of reason, Mick being just one part of that.

I mean, the Leon Davis move, you honestly think that was Mick's? Not Watters? The same Mick that made genius moves like:

- Jason Cloke to CHF
- Chris Tarrant to NOWHERE. For years people had said Try Taz on the wing, try him in the backline, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Mick just left him to rot in the forward line, it took Harvey to try something different.
- Ben Reid to CHB ONLY after they had basically no other option, and didn't want to de-list a Top 10 pick so quickly
- Almost every new player comes in in the backline despite it not being their position 'to teach them the game'. Not ALL players need to learn the game back there.

Honestly, there was more to that flag than just Mick, and except for Mick, everything else that went into that flag will STILL be there under Bucks.

Great Post and pretty much exactly the way I see it.

As a club we owe Mick a debt of gratitude and nothing more. The change was made and Mick offered long tenure as a recognition of his years of work. All this when most other clubs would have given him his marching orders. It is almost unheard of to offer a coach the kind of tenure that Mick has had and continues to enjoy and the integrity of the Collingwood FC stands out as a result like a shining beacon in the dark when compared to other clubs. No, standing by the plan that was put into place is not the biggest risk, rescinding it and in the process destroying the very integrity of the club is.

 

[jonbe54]

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.

People tend to react badly when they are accused without grounds sunshine, as you sew so shall you reap.

I know what is right alright and its NOT taking the snide self-satisfied "I'm OK jack so f@ck you" attitude that you revel in.

If you don't like 'side by side' perhaps you would be more comfortable with 'no passengers' or 'they know we're coming' you certainly have the smarmy double dealing attitude down pat.

 

[lozza63]

Shpesh Ed - what a broadside against Mick, must admit you've totally floored me mate! How you must have wanted to get rid of Mick at the end of '09 then?

anyway what's your take on Bucks and his strengths/weaknesses?

Mattys - thanks for your post too - i'm starting to warm up a bit to the transition i suppose.

TheLip - if you see it exactly the same as Shpesh - how do we owe Mick much gratitude? I mean the way i comprehend Ed's post Mick was more or less a liability all this time - only sorted once Hine/Bucks/Watters came in?

Must admit thought i'd written the last on this topic till Shpesh's post - wow!

 

[Zahki]

Honestly, there was more to that flag than just Mick, and except for Mick, everything else that went into that flag will STILL be there under Bucks.

Except that playing group respect Mick absolutely and he has a great rapport with them. I can say that there are quite a few of them who are not too enthused about playing under Buckley because even though they may be friendly with him, he is a hard ass, he is a perfectionist and he doesn't have a great deal of time for those he thinks aren't doing enough.

Lets face it, you'll be the first one crying on here if we drop to 4th and bow out in a prelim next year. There's no guarantee that Buckley will manage to get the players onside to dowhat he wants them to, we have a great setup at the moment that has delivered a flag and 2 minor premierships, why you're so eager to go and mess it up like a kid playing in the mud has me baffled.

This plan has just as much a chance of failing as it does succeeding. Because Mick is the best coach in the buisiness and has been since he stepped in the door at Collingwood no matter how much of a personal vendetta you have against him Ed. Period.

I'm tired of hearing you slag off at Mick all the time when we all know you'll be slagging off Buckley just as much as soon as we don't perform as expected.

 

[TheLip]

TheLip - if you see it exactly the same as Shpesh - how do we owe Mick much gratitude? I mean the way i comprehend Ed's post Mick was more or less a liability all this time - only sorted once Hine/Bucks/Watters came in?

First of all, if you read my post you will see that I prefaced it with the words "pretty much". What's more I think you misread what he is trying to say. I don't read him to mean that Mick has been useless, only that it very definitely has not been Mick alone that has turned the club around. I certainly agree that some of his coaching has had me scratching my head at times. In the end, I'm as sold on the transition now as I was when the deal was done albeit that I'm disappointed that it appears as though Mick may renegge.

 

[Markfs]

Finally, someone with good solid reasons why we should all fear Buckley taking over from Malthouse. Now lets break it down and address the issue....

I can say that there are quite a few of them who are not too enthused about playing under Buckley

because

even though they may be friendly with him,

1.... he is a hard ass,
2.....he is a perfectionist and
3.....he doesn't have a great deal of time for those he thinks aren't doing enough.

.

so there are quite a few who aren't enthused because of the stated reasons. I presume the others are either enthused or dont care.

He is a hard ass? I looked for a definition online and it was someone who enforces the rules. I suppose you could ask the ex-Melb Buckley how flexible Mick is with his team rules....but I would suggest that Mick is a hard ass too.

He is a perfectionist? Someone who is displeased by anything less than perfect.....hmmmmm.....does this mean that Mick is pleased by mistakes? I dont think Mick says to players that they can forget about a particularly bad game, like a few coaches did this year.

He doesnt have a great deal of time for players that aren't doing enough? Well I think we're all talking about the celebrated "difference of opinions" between Tarrant and Bucks. So Bucks was wrong "not to have a great deal of time" for Tarrant at the time? Well ask Tarrant now.... I think he will tell you who was right and it wasn't Tarrant.

I think Buckley has changed a lot in the last decade. Now if we have evidence of some recent events where Buckley has demonstrated these bad attitudes, I would love to hear about them.


p.s. about the "gratitude to Mick" thing. Two years ago, the team wasnt going that well. It looked like Bucks would go to North. Eddie made a deal to give Mick 3 more tries at the Grand Final...on the basis that he deserved a chance to get the kids to the premiership. Dont tell me, he wasnt cut some slack at the time.

 

[jonbe54]

First of all, if you read my post you will see that I prefaced it with the words "pretty much". What's more I think you misread what he is trying to say. I don't read him to mean that Mick has been useless, only that it very definitely has not been Mick alone that has turned the club around. I certainly agree that some of his coaching has had me scratching my head at times. In the end, I'm as sold on the transition now as I was when the deal was done albeit that I'm disappointed that it appears as though Mick may renegge.

The Mick fanboys are certainly vehement in the 'defence' of him - too bad nobody told them he has never been under attack.

 

[lozza63]

The Mick fanboys are certainly vehement in the 'defence' of him - too bad nobody told them he has never been under attack.

I enjoy people's insights - some surprise me - at times.

Opinions/attitudes on this are interesting. Perhaps if i'd been around here a couple of years more - not as surprising.

Being a Mick Fanboy somehow feels dirty the way you phrased it Johnbe.

I'm sure that all our concerns shall quickly evaporate though over the course of next 3 years - then one can use this discourse to remind the doubting thomas' of their misplaced concerns.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Shpesh Ed - what a broadside against Mick, must admit you've totally floored me mate! How you must have wanted to get rid of Mick at the end of '09 then?

anyway what's your take on Bucks and his strengths/weaknesses?

Mattys - thanks for your post too - i'm starting to warm up a bit to the transition i suppose.

TheLip - if you see it exactly the same as Shpesh - how do we owe Mick much gratitude? I mean the way i comprehend Ed's post Mick was more or less a liability all this time - only sorted once Hine/Bucks/Watters came in?

Must admit thought i'd written the last on this topic till Shpesh's post - wow!

You have no idea. I have quite a ollcetion of cards sitting here from many arguments over Mick dating back many years.

I don't think he's a TERRIBLE coach, again, I just don't put him on the pedastool others do.

Buckley's strengths? As a coach? Perfectionist, demanding, by the book, student of the game, logical thinker.

Weaknesses? Not sure as yet. Maybe we can put perfectionist here too? I'm not as yet aware of his people skills either, but I doubt you'll see Nathan calling opposition players rapists and lying about it, or publicy ridiculing players either, so I can only assume his people skills are good.

My wife knows him personally and thinks he's one of the best guys she's ever met. Loves him to death. Take that as you will.

Except that playing group respect Mick absolutely and he has a great rapport with them. I can say that there are quite a few of them who are not too enthused about playing under Buckley because even though they may be friendly with him, he is a hard ass, he is a perfectionist and he doesn't have a great deal of time for those he thinks aren't doing enough.

Lets face it, you'll be the first one crying on here if we drop to 4th and bow out in a prelim next year. There's no guarantee that Buckley will manage to get the players onside to dowhat he wants them to, we have a great setup at the moment that has delivered a flag and 2 minor premierships, why you're so eager to go and mess it up like a kid playing in the mud has me baffled.

This plan has just as much a chance of failing as it does succeeding. Because Mick is the best coach in the buisiness and has been since he stepped in the door at Collingwood no matter how much of a personal vendetta you have against him Ed. Period.

I'm tired of hearing you slag off at Mick all the time when we all know you'll be slagging off Buckley just as much as soon as we don't perform as expected.

Soooooooooooooooooooo in all that, you're saying you want Collingwood to become St.Kilda?

Because do you know the reason St.Kilda got rid of Malcolm Blight? The reason you listed above. The players had a cry because Malcolm worked them too hard. But instead of getting rid of the bitch players, they got rid of one of the best coaches EVER, and are now doomed to a lifetime of mediocrity as a result.

Buckley won't put up with mediocrity, and that's what I want as a coach. If the players find it hard under Bucks because they're 'working too hard' then they shouldn't be playing for Collingwood.

In all honesty, given what they go through during pre-season, I kinda doubt they'll be worrying about working too hard.

I mean, do some of you listen to yourselves?

Buckley has already spent the last 2 years with these players in a coaching role. If these players were THAT worried about him taking over, we wouldn't have player re-signing for next year would we?

Believe me, there's no issues with Bucks and the players.

Crying if we don't win the flag next year? Doubt it. Hard to be upset after winning 2 flags in a row, when it's been 20 years since you've seen one. Yeah, we're all getting pretty used to winning, but we're not going ot be up forever, and if we drop off in 2012, I have a feeling Buckley won't be the issue.

Pretty much ALL staff and players will continue on in 2012, and more than likely 2013. Unless Buckley is just the worst coach EVER (and I see no evidenc eto suggest that), there's no reason to believe that we have no chance for more success during his tenure. Especially given he'll have the list at peak age.

 

[Krueger]

The Mick fanboys are certainly vehement in the 'defence' of him - too bad nobody told them he has never been under attack.

What is your position exactly CHAMP? Your not against Malthouse yet you denegrate his name and achievements. Or will you go with anything the administration puts forward?

 

[Zahki]

Crying if we don't win the flag next year? Doubt it.

Haha, yeah, sure. If we have 5 losses or so by mid season next year I fully expect you to start the 'Sack Bucks' campaign personally. You're notoriously wishy washy, going from blind, naive optimism one moment to chicken little at the tinest signs of any cracks, you seriously expect people to believe you'll stick by Buckley no matter what when you can't wait for any opportunity to sink the boot into Malthouse?

Note I think Buckley will be a good coach, I'm mostly playing devils advocate here, I just don't understand why you think getting rid of a 2 time premiership coach is a good thing for an untried understudy when of your own admission the ONLY thing that matters are premierships. Flags. And Malthouse has delivered, yet you use some pretty dodgy logic (It's a 'forward' press and Buckley was the forward coach that must mean he brought it in!" to try and convince yourself that Buckley was the mastermind behind our success not Mick and thus we lose nothing.

Is there ANY reason to remove a coach that all 16 other clubs are clawing at trying to get him over to them? A coach who is universally regarded at being at the top of his game, best coach by a mile and has delivered success (hopefully) two years running? Any at all? Or is it just that because you idolise Nathan Buckley and despise Malthouse his results don't matter in this instance?

Your Buckley man love is blinding you to all the potential downsides, it's unfortunate that man love will completely vanish at the first sign we're not meeting expectations.

edit: I'll say it in plainer terms. Collingwood is about to complete the most dominant H&A season in VFL/AFL history, with Mick Malthouse at the helm. The man who has just delivered the best H&A season, EVER, in the history of football is the man you're saying it'll be perfectly fine to replace with a person who has never coached at the highest level. Smells of someone not looking at things objectively to me.

 

[scruffydog]

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.

I almost burst out laughing at this, which would be bad because I'm at work.

Surely you're trolling.

You're suggesting that Mick has never wanted to win the flag, and only decided to win it last year to spite us?

Surely the biggest joke claim of the year, nay, decade!

 

[Krueger]

Is there ANY reason to remove a coach that all 16 other clubs are clawing at trying to get him over to them? A coach who is universally regarded at being at the top of his game, best coach by a mile and has delivered success (hopefully) two years running? Any at all? Or is it just that because you idolise Nathan Buckley and despise Malthouse his results don't matter in this instance?

Your Buckley man love is blinding you to all the potential downsides, it's unfortunate that man love will completely vanish at the first sign we're not meeting expectations.

edit: I'll say it in plainer terms. Collingwood is about to complete the most dominant H&A season in VFL/AFL history, with Mick Malthouse at the helm. The man who has just delivered the best H&A season, EVER, in the history of football is the man you're saying it'll be perfectly fine to replace with a person who has never coached at the highest level. Smells of someone not looking at things objectively to me.

Omg another bloke who can actually see the plain facts minus the Buckley love and all the bogus excuses why it is time for a change. Mick will hopefully will take us to our 4th Grand Final in 12 years!! Anybody who doubts him are missing a few brains cells.

 

[Swooop]

I almost burst out laughing at this, which would be bad because I'm at work.

Surely you're trolling.

You're suggesting that Mick has never wanted to win the flag, and only decided to win it last year to spite us?

In fairnes to Ed, I don't think that's exactly what he meant...and he's not a troll as you know, he's a very passionate Pies supporter as we all are here

Think he was more suggesting the 'two year sentence' may have sharpened MM's focus and perhaps slightly took the emphasis from team building /developing the talent, to more a 'grab the players we need to get this job done' focus.

You can't argue with success, and I'm not. But down the track when Jolly, Ball, Leroy, Taz and Krak have retired and there's not the five third or fourth year players running around, is when this strategy may bite us a little.

But I'll trust in Hine et al, and the coaching panel to choose well and train well with the other younger players that we do have, so as we are not disadvantaged by picking 'oldies' to any significant degree at all.

And who knows if we'd have the 2010 flag without this transition plan, so it can afford to go south to a large degree before it will ever have been a bad idea in my book.

 

[Quicky]

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

Nonsense! Some strong opinions perhaps. It's been a well debated thread IMHO. The calls of abuse are straw grasping. I think it has been one of the better debates on here in awhile tbph. Thoroughly enjoyed both sides thoughts!

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Haha, yeah, sure. If we have 5 losses or so by mid season next year I fully expect you to start the 'Sack Bucks' campaign personally. You're notoriously wishy washy, going from blind, naive optimism one moment to chicken little at the tinest signs of any cracks, you seriously expect people to believe you'll stick by Buckley no matter what when you can't wait for any opportunity to sink the boot into Malthouse?

Note I think Buckley will be a good coach, I'm mostly playing devils advocate here, I just don't understand why you think getting rid of a 2 time premiership coach is a good thing for an untried understudy when of your own admission the ONLY thing that matters are premierships. Flags. And Malthouse has delivered, yet you use some pretty dodgy logic (It's a 'forward' press and Buckley was the forward coach that must mean he brought it in!" to try and convince yourself that Buckley was the mastermind behind our success not Mick and thus we lose nothing.

Is there ANY reason to remove a coach that all 16 other clubs are clawing at trying to get him over to them? A coach who is universally regarded at being at the top of his game, best coach by a mile and has delivered success (hopefully) two years running? Any at all? Or is it just that because you idolise Nathan Buckley and despise Malthouse his results don't matter in this instance?

Your Buckley man love is blinding you to all the potential downsides, it's unfortunate that man love will completely vanish at the first sign we're not meeting expectations.

edit: I'll say it in plainer terms. Collingwood is about to complete the most dominant H&A season in VFL/AFL history, with Mick Malthouse at the helm. The man who has just delivered the best H&A season, EVER, in the history of football is the man you're saying it'll be perfectly fine to replace with a person who has never coached at the highest level. Smells of someone not looking at things objectively to me.

Wrong. My man love won't allow me to bag Buckley. Same way it never allowed me to turn on Leon Davis when everyone else did.

I'm as loyal as loyal can be, rest assured. Consider me the pitbull terrier of Collingwood supporters. Once I latch on, only death will detach me. Hell, check my posts, I still want Jack Anthony back, yeah THAT'S how loyal I am.

I just don't like the idea, that a coach who failed to take us all the way despite an unlimited budget and total control over the football departement, is now suddenly irreplaceable because the stars aligned for him only after being forced to narrow his focus?

Sorry, don't buy it. I still see the same coach who persists with duds, doesn't have game plan B if things are going wrong (see the Geelong games in Round 8) and refuses to consistently play players who deserve games like Goldsack.

You say I'm blinded by man love? YOU'RE all blinded by a premiership. He's still the same coach many of us (possibly including you) wanted to get rid of 2 years ago, he just has a much better team at his command now, that's all.

It's not fair on Eddie, and it's not fair on Bucks that many of you have allowed a premiership to cause you to flip flop on a plan that was put in place for the long term benefit of the club.

You ojnly need to look to Sheedy and Matthews, 2 other all time greats. Look at what their clubs became after they had done their dash and didn't give a shit anymore. Essendon are only JUST recorvering, as are Brisbane.

Do you HONESTLY believe that Eddie didn't think there was a chance we'd win a flag or two after this plan was put in place? He was COUNTING on it. But he was enough of a forward thinker to put this plan in place and make sure he put the club in a position where it doesn't dip down like so many other premiership sides before it. Recent history shows evidence of older coaches turning to absolute SHIT once they've had their run of flag winning. Again, look at Sheedy and Matthews. Mick himself had contemplated quitting a couple of years ago, so obviously Eddie saw the signs on the wall, and instead of giving Mick the boot right there and then, he decided to give Mick 2 more years, hoping having an exact use by date might refreshen him knowing there is a definitive end in sight, and in the meantime, gives his FUTURE coach, the best possible learning experience available.

Those of you in the Malthouse camp are sooooooooooooo quick to say we are blinded by the idea of Buckley returning as coach, but whose to say you guys aren't blinded by the idea that Mick Malthouse is the ONLY reason we won the flag last year?

Hell, we haven't even won THIS years flag yet. What happens if we don't? Then will you change your minds again?

I almost burst out laughing at this, which would be bad because I'm at work.

Surely you're trolling.

You're suggesting that Mick has never wanted to win the flag, and only decided to win it last year to spite us?

Surely the biggest joke claim of the year, nay, decade!

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. smh.

 

[jonbe54]

What is your position exactly CHAMP? Your not against Malthouse yet you denegrate his name and achievements. Or will you go with anything the administration puts forward?

Now stating the facts of Micks career so far at Collingwood is denigrating the man?? You fanboys are far too sensitive, get over yourself CHAMP - Mick can coach for ever and a day for all I care AND at Collingwood so long as ALL parties are agreed.

Asking for integrity from the club is blindly backing the administration as well?? You seem to have a bit of a political agenda here CHAMP, I have only one agenda - I want my team to be honest, clear and above board in all its dealings, you come across as a 'ends justify the means' type. What you types never seem to get is that it always comes back and bites you in the @rse sooner or later and you always seem to slide away from blame by claiming 'I only wanted what I thought was best for. . . .'