Are Collingwood going backwards under Buckley?

[Gone Critical]

The fact there was even an article written about the decision being contentious says plenty.



Yes. He says that medicos were happy there was no major ligament damage. But the most telling of Larkins comments is "there's no doubt he went back on with a sore knee and the question is, did that compromise his next half-hour?''. That can't be ignored. What I like about Larkins comments is when he talks about the knee being tested a second time, in match conditions, under which it failed.

Once it was clear Ball wasn't running freely, a cautious approach wouldn't have allowed him to test something like an ACL under match conditions. A less cautious approach would have. You saying Buckley has no say in that whatsoever, that such things are forced upon him, is just bullshit.

.

No one has ever disputed it was a contentious decision. The doctors may have made a mistake. You are contending a medical mistake was made and this may have caused Ball's injury. It's not Buckleys job to remove players from the field because he feels they are at risk of further injury once he receives a medical opinon it is safe. He can remove Ball for a myriad of other reasons. A player who is hampered is not necessarily at risk of further injury. You just seem unable to comprehend coaches are not trained in these decisions.

Anyway your failure to understand this simple division of responsibilities appears complete so I will leave you to your ignoramce.

 

[Plugger_87]

no

 

[Pie eyed]

no

Brief, succinct, definitive.



No what?
No beer?
No idea?
No means no?

 

[McOrist]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-one-of-the-great-coaches-20130711-2psu5.html

Will wonders never cease? A Carlton man with something positive to say re Nathan Buckley as a coach!

 

[Plugger_87]

Brief, succinct, definitive.



No what?
No beer?
No idea?
No means no?

No they are not going backwards under bucks!! Ok better for you? Cheers

 

[Pie eyed]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-one-of-the-great-coaches-20130711-2psu5.html

Will wonders never cease? A Carlton man with something positive to say re Nathan Buckley as a coach!

I read the headline, then the story and then thought....Walls is having a backdoor dig at Malthouse at Carlton such is his devious nature.

 

[Pie eyed]

No they are not going backwards under bucks!! Ok better for you? Cheers

Sorry, your post just seemed so out of place being so short.

 

[Monkey King]

No one has ever disputed it was a contentious decision. The doctors may have made a mistake. You are contending a medical mistake was made and this may have caused Ball's injury. It's not Buckleys job to remove players from the field because he feels they are at risk of further injury ...

Who's job is it? I mean seriously, once a player takes the field and doesn't appear right, whose job is it to remove him?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Its Buckleys fault.

Now shut the heck up youre boring everybody!

 

[Monkey King]

Never said it was Buckley's fault, simply that this injury did not occur independent from the coach.

It was a point made among many other points and it wasn't me who picked it up and ran with it.

 

[spartan-magpie]

Not as backwards as carlton is under malthouse. No injuries and doing worse than you did with ratten. What's that tell you? Bucks at least has injuries, which he doesn't use as an excuse.

We will know after next year if the pies have gona backwards. It's safe to assume we will have a better run with injuries and full staff of players to choose from. If all gets too much for bucks next year maybe he can get some cutlets, some deboned chickens and put on a feast for us supporters.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Collingwood are not going backwards under Buckley.

 

[Fadge]

Who's job is it? I mean seriously, once a player takes the field and doesn't appear right, whose job is it to remove him?

Was Sanderson negligent in his duties by allowing Dangerfield to remain on the field last night when he clearly wasn't right?

 

[Monkey King]

Was Sanderson negligent in his duties by allowing Dangerfield to remain on the field last night when he clearly wasn't right?

Firstly, I never said Buckley was negligent in his duties, just that he had his input in Ball's injury.

Secondly, a sprained AC joint is not nearly as serious an issue as knee stability. However, if Dangerfield sustained further injury, then yes, Sanderson would have had an input by leaving him out there.

Glad you brought this up, because what highlights everything I've said and contradicts all those who've disagreed with me, was Sanderson's comments after the game ...

"We debated a fair bit in the coach's box" said Sanderson when asked whether he considered substituting Dangerfield out of the contest straight away.... "I didn't want to put Dangerfield in any unnecessary risk so I was constantly on the phone with the doctor to ensure that he couldn't do any further damage."

This shows that indeed it is ultimately the coaches call to leave a player out there. Despite the doctor assuring no chance of further injury, the coaches still debated subbing him off and consulted the doc numerous times to ensure that there was no chance that he could do further damage. In the end, they made their call and it was theirs to make. If it was a proppy knee instead of an AC sprain, they may well have made a different call.

 

[Fadge]

Firstly, I never said Buckley was negligent in his duties, just that he had his input in Ball's injury.

Secondly, a sprained AC joint is not nearly as serious an issue as knee stability. However, if Dangerfield sustained further injury, then yes, Sanderson would have had an input by leaving him out there.

Glad you brought this up, because what highlights everything I've said and contradicts all those who've disagreed with me, was Sanderson's comments after the game ...

This shows that indeed it is ultimately the coaches call to leave a player out there. Despite the doctor assuring no chance of further injury, the coaches still debated subbing him off and consulted the doc numerous times to ensure that there was no chance that he could do further damage. In the end, they made their call and it was theirs to make. If it was a proppy knee instead of an AC sprain, they may well have made a different call.

With that logic, you'd never have any of your players out on the ground. Every player who takes the field is only ever an awkward fall or twist away from doing an ACL.

 

[Monkey King]

With that logic, you'd never have any of your players out on the ground. Every player who takes the field is only ever an awkward fall or twist away from doing an ACL.

Some more than others. A guy who just injured his knee and is running around proppy is obviously a bigger risk than those hundreds of others who've had no knee injury.

Bottom line is it's the coaches call if he leaves a player on the field after being ticked off by the medicos. Nothing forces a coach to do so. As Sanderson said, they were debating whether to sub him or not and consulted the doctor numerous times in their deliberations to check that it wasn't possible to do further damage with that type of injury. Doubtless if he sustained injury, Sando would've been questioning his own judgement as well as the docs.

 

[LouisCK]

MK is being an Aspy again.

 

[Monkey King]

MK is being an Aspy again.

Here's an adapted Buddhist story for you.

One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very rude and unbalanced young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others," he shouted. "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but an aspy."

Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man "Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?" The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, "It would belong to me, because I bought the gift."

The Buddha smiled and said, "That is correct. And the same it is with your insults."

 

[the distributer]

A few of my fellow Pie fans have a false sense of security IMO, We've beaten Carlton and Adelaide since our pathetic effort against Port, i'll need to see a lot more than that to be convinced.

 

[SuperSub17]

Firstly, I never said Buckley was negligent in his duties, just that he had his input in Ball's injury.

Secondly, a sprained AC joint is not nearly as serious an issue as knee stability. However, if Dangerfield sustained further injury, then yes, Sanderson would have had an input by leaving him out there.

Glad you brought this up, because what highlights everything I've said and contradicts all those who've disagreed with me, was Sanderson's comments after the game ...



This shows that indeed it is ultimately the coaches call to leave a player out there. Despite the doctor assuring no chance of further injury, the coaches still debated subbing him off and consulted the doc numerous times to ensure that there was no chance that he could do further damage. In the end, they made their call and it was theirs to make. If it was a proppy knee instead of an AC sprain, they may well have made a different call.

Wrong again.

It may be up to the coaches to make a strategic call on who to sub out of the game. They would still use the diagnosis of the doctors.

However Reid had already been subbed off, so there was therefore no strategic decision on what to do with Ball. At the time it was rumored to be a PCL, it wasn't until Geoff Walsh came on the radio the day after that it was confirmed to be an ACL. Therefore there was a false diagnosis.

Try again.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

A few of my fellow Pie fans have a false sense of security IMO, We've beaten Carlton and Adelaide since our pathetic effort against Port, i'll need to see a lot more than that to be convinced.

You can only play who you are drawn to play. Only one team in the top eight is yet to play the Giants and Suns....and that would be Collingwood.

Lets not forget Sydney lost to Port the week before we did. And that Carlton and Adeladie started the year as top eight chances.

But yeah, this middle stage of the season is about consolidation. We wont know how we have progressed until we play Essendon Sydney and Hawthorn in the run home..

All good, cups half full not half empty.

 

[Fadge]

Here's an adapted Buddhist story for you.

One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very rude and unbalanced young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others," he shouted. "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but an aspy."

Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man "Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?" The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, "It would belong to me, because I bought the gift."

The Buddha smiled and said, "That is correct. And the same it is with your insults."

That's possibly the most insightful post you've ever shared on BigFooty.

I like it

 

[I am Jack]

Collingwood are not going backwards under Buckley.

The transition was always going to be tough after Mick jumped ship without integrating Nathan.

Now that the players have adapted and probably realized that Buckley's way of doing things is a good deal better than Micks - I expect Collingwood to really make inroads.

Over the past month, Pendles and Swan have clearly bought in.
These blokes realize that Buckley isn't a bad dude, he is trying and he was struggling a bit.

I like Buckley and I think Collingwood will win the flag this year.

 

[Fadge]

I liked his comment when asked about the umpiring last night.

A lesser man would have responded with 'What do you think I'm talking about Richo'?

Instead, he referred to the Jaensch incident and said he had no reason to complain.

All class.

 

[Monkey King]

Wrong again.

It may be up to the coaches to make a strategic call on who to sub out of the game. They would still use the diagnosis of the doctors.

Nope. Sanderson's comments show clear as day that it's up to the coaches if they take a player out of the game in this situation. Whether that is as a sub or not is irrelevant. Do you think no players were pulled from the game before the sub rule came into play? Of course not.

As Sanderson's comments make clear, there was debate among the coaches as to whether Dangerfield should play on or not. It was their call to make. He consulted the doctor a number of times, not for the doctor's decision, but for his opinion on whether this type of injury could sustain further damage. Even when he had the doctors assurance, he still wasn't sure about leaving him on and contacted the doctor again and again. This was his decision making process and the decision was his to make.

Leaving Dangerfield on was ultimately the coach's call. Sanderson had every power to take the player off to avoid what he himself called "any unnecessary risk" and no one would have batted an eyelid if he had done so; quite the opposite of this raucous "he can't override the doctor, you don't understand how modern football works Monkey King" chorus you've all cried out in this thread.