Collingwood exposed?

[thethinkingcat]

I don't rate the pies all that highly. You either love them that much that you support them or you hate them.
The whole club needs to be reviewed.
Buckley loses his shit too often and is the equivilant of mark mclure. Such a sourpuss. Only is negative there doesn't seem to be any positive stuff that comes out of the club.

 

[MarkT2]

which means it was never going to work. let alone when its someone like malthouse who had been in the game for so long and has his own ego to match buckley and eddies

Except it did work because MM finally went all out for a flag and won one. What has happened since isn't about MM going it is about Leading Teams and culture change that was just not neccesary.

 

[Mateyman]

I don't rate the pies all that highly. You either love them that much that you support them or you hate them.
The whole club needs to be reviewed.
Buckley loses his shit too often and is the equivilant of mark mclure. Such a sourpuss. Only is negative there doesn't seem to be any positive stuff that comes out of the club.

I'm legitimately interested in your opinion on Brad Scott?

 

[momentbymoment]

It really does look like the players are not playing for the coach - we saw this with Neeld and Melbourne.

Eddie is creating a culture of blame at the club.
Why would you do the extra 1% when you can fall back on that ...?

 

[Defacto]

Except it did work because MM finally went all out for a flag and won one. What has happened since isn't about MM going it is about Leading Teams and culture change that was just not neccesary.

what makes you think it worked. whats to say mick would have still won that flag if he had a contract extension

 

[didaksrightfoot]

So obviously none of the rest of your clubs have anything to worry about.

FFS - I wish other fans would stop worrying about Collingwood so much.
We all knew that this would be a difficult season, we have been decimated by injuries, managed to do pretty well for the first third/half of the year, but have been woeful for the last 5 weeks - none of us deny that.

But seriously - unless your club is gonna win the flag this year, PISS OFF.
---

And can people stop bringing up Malthouse.
The man signed a ****ing contract (or at least had a very clear public agreement), and then when push came to shove let his ego get in the way and sabotaged the club along the way. We only won the flag AFTER the succession plan was announced - with few words from the club that that had lit a fire under him which led to signing Jolly and Ball, two roles we had been desperate for for years.
The transition to Bucks would've looked very different if Mick hadn't let his ego get in the way and took on that supervisor role.
Also - Micks has obviously done wonders for Carlton's list.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

what makes you think it worked. whats to say mick would have still won that flag if he had a contract extension

We had years without a strong ruckman, after Fraser was overplayed in that role as a youngster, and a pu-pu line of other ruckmen for many years before we finally went after Jolly.
Also, since Burns retired, we had very much been missing a good inside mid, before finally getting Ball.

It may just be a coincidence that both players were signed after the succession plan, or it may very well be that Mick finally had a sense of urgency to achieve something quickly.

 

[Rise_up_Stiffy]

Pies have a good list with some great youngsters. They will be fine.

 

[Monkey King]

Well if he was still in the window (that Buckley has now supposedly "ruined"), why would he agree to leave?

I think yourself and others are just making up the narrative you want in hindsight, rather than dealing in facts from any informed position.

Nothing hindsight about it. I've been saying it since the day Eddie pushed ahead with the coaching transition. In 2009 it looked like a reasonable plan. By 2011 though, it was clearly an outdated plan conceived for a team in a different position. At that point, Ed and Bucks needed to step back and do the right thing by the club by letting Mick wring all he could from that group of players.

That said, I saw a Sack Buckley thread on the Collingwood board the other day and thought what a stupid idea that would be. You've let the guy come in and take the reigns just as you were purring alone; you let him ring changes to the list and make noises about changing the culture that actually won you a flag; given you've taken such a risky course of action, you've got to at least give the bloke time to realise his vision, otherwise what the hell did you do it for?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

2 years at the most showed in the first half of the year we have a very good young list. Just remember we were a long way off in 2009 and look how that panned out

Made the semis in 2008 and prelim in 2009. That's not a long way off.

This year is very different.

 

[MarkT2]

what makes you think it worked. whats to say mick would have still won that flag if he had a contract extension

10 years of "build from the ground up " via the draft without targetting established players to fill specidfic needs - until his tenure had finality. I've said this since 2010. I was interested to hear Pert say the same thing recently in the Mike Sheehan interview.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

thats funny... before this season started i posted on the main board asking what a pass mark is for the "Rebuilding" pies. top 6 was the unanimous response

Unanimous? Really? Not one person posted anything other than 'top 6'? Do you have a link?

 

[Mateyman]

Made the semis in 2008 and prelim in 2009. That's not a long way off.

This year is very different.

Except that we will likely be only a few places off a semi and could even make one with some luck?

 

[Seedsfan]

Made the semis in 2008 and prelim in 2009. That's not a long way off.

This year is very different.

Not really we had bad spells in both those seasons in 2008 we won 12 games and finished 8th managed to beat Adelaide in a final and that was it, people at the time said we were going backwards because we lost the prelim the year before against Geelong in a close one. They doubted how well the younger guys would be and 2 years latter those younger guys had taken us to a flag

 

[Monkey King]

10 years of "build from the ground up " via the draft without targetting established players to fill specidfic needs - until his tenure had finality. I've said this since 2010. I was interested to hear Pert say the same thing recently in the Mike Sheehan interview.

This is such a fallacy. There is nothing in Mick's post 09' drafting that was any different from the previous 10 years beyond the fact that the trades themselves actually worked out well. The method was par for the course.

But regardless, there was nothing stopping Ed and Bucks from stepping back in 2011 when the team was dominant and letting them have a run at it.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Not really we had bad spells in both those seasons in 2008 we won 12 games and finished 8th managed to beat Adelaide in a final and that was it, people at the time said we were going backwards because we lost the prelim the year before against Geelong in a close one. They doubted how well the younger guys would be and 2 years latter those younger guys had taken us to a flag

Good response. Personally I thought Collingwood looked better at the start of the 2009 season than they do now, but you'd have better insight into your own players. The rest of the season could be defining either way.

 

[Seedsfan]

Good response. Personally I thought Collingwood looked better at the start of the 2009 season than they do now, but you'd have better insight into your own players. The rest of the season could be defining either way.

I think we were at a similar point, we needed to develop another key forward and key defender in 2008 Rocca was on his last legs and we needed to find another key forward to help out Cloke, Reid and Dawes were given a shot and still looked a long way off Anthony came in and did alright before going on to have one good year in 2009. Even in 2009 Dawes and Reid did not look ready, we had picked up Leigh Brown for the 2009 season to cover for the lose of Clement and Wakelin who retired at the end of 2007 and 2008 respectively.

The main reason we went forward in 2010 was because we were able to get a good year out of Reid and Nath Brown in the backline and a good year out of Dawes in the forward line. This let Leigh Brown play the second ruck forward role and improved the way we set up. It also enabled us to get rid of Jack Anthony who was a one trick pony who had been worked out. (I know getting Ball and Jolly helped a great deal) But it was Dawes, Brown and Reid standing up that made the difference, between them on grand final day in 2010 they averaged 36 games of experience each.

Collingwood of today have a good combination of young in Frost and Keeffe who will serve us well in the the future, the back line will look a lot stronger when Brown is back next year to help them out up forward we have Cloke and Reid (when he is fit again) the main thing we need to nail down is a guy to fill the Leigh Brown role (White may look better when he plays as the third tall but I have question marks over his marking and also I don't think he has the same level of determination as Brown did). Aside that all we really need is Witts or Grundy to take the next step this year and become a very good ruck at AFL level a few young mids to stand up like we did in 2010 with Sidebottom, Beams, Wellingham and Blair. This time it will be left to guys Freeman, Adams, Thomas and Kennedy if all that happens in 2 years I have no doubt we can win the flag again.

I would say we are more closely aligned to the 2008 side as we still have a few more things to work out like who will play the second ruck role, will we go for another Leigh Brown, the didn't work with the Q-Stick as he was to old when we got him and White is just a different sort of beast. Or will we try and develop a young guy like potential a Darcy Moore to play that role.

 

[MarkT2]

This is such a fallacy. There is nothing in Mick's post 09' drafting that was any different from the previous 10 years beyond the fact that the trades themselves actually worked out well. The method was par for the course.

That depends on how superficially and simplistic you want to look at list management. It is completely different trading for young 10 players as opposed to players with a few years left who are proven at the top level and fit specifically the skill gap. That is exactly what happened immediately MMs final contract was signed. Trading for Jolly is poles apart from trading for Wood or McKee. Trading for Ball is a world away from taking Simon Buckley. Strategically they are entirely different.

I have said this since post 2009 trading I was interested to see Pert say similar which is the first time that view has come from inside the club.

But regardless, there was nothing stopping Ed and Bucks from stepping back in 2011 when the team was dominant and letting them have a run at it.

That is an entirely different proposition as to the impact of the deal in the first place and doesn't change the impact of the deal itself.

 

[Bollox]

Eddie's performance the last few seasons has been nothing short of disastrous.
Time to go Edmondo.