Collingwood's decline

[doppleganger]

It's not a failure, the long term view will be the judge of that, but the interim measures have clearly not worked as intended and in totality have removed you from top 4 contender calculations voluntarily.

The assessment would have been is Dawes good enough to keep Collingwood as a top4 team as the veterans begin to slow down.
The decision was that he wasn't good enough, so he was traded.

As for the Dawes example in particular, it took you 2 players to get to White, and as for a direct comparison of White v Dawes goals without context, no thanks, White plays in a team with 33% more goals than the one Dawes plays in and 23% more inside 50's.

Come up with any kind of metric's you wish, Dawes will only be slightly ahead....and that is with Jesse being a big flop, although to be fair, our structure was supposed to be Cloke and Reid with White as the 3rd tall/ruck.

Lynch in 2013 was very comparable to what Dawes gave us in 2012 too by the way.

Point being Dawes is a limited footballer, he isn't good enough to be the main KPF in a good team, isn't good enough in the ruck to play the alternate back-up role...he is at best a nice structural piece, a big bloke who provides a contest...and he was stagnating at Collingwood, to get a pick 20 and an upgrade in later picks for him is pretty good trading IMO.

Wellingham's struggling, there are many 3rd/4th/5th best midfielders who would struggle as a 2nd banana to Priddis. You could also argue Cloke is struggling due to a lack of a secondary forward target, which was the Collingwood masses argument for Dawes back in the day.

Getting pick 17 for Wellingham looks better and better, he looked ok flashing in and out of the Pies strong midfield, but again another bloke who we got rid of when they had good value but weren't really going to help us.

Yes not having Reid and Brown available has hurt out KP structure, oh well sh1t happens.

The decline of Collingwood isn't due to trading out B-graders, it is simply that plenty of players who were stars back in 10-11, are no longer producing at that level or have retired.

 

[Ricmel]

After 2011,

Good article by Rohan today in TheAge. Our team makeup simply isn't experienced enough or balanced enough to be a top team. We chose to take this path though of cutting deep, so next year is a big one for us.

I really don't see next year being the year for the Pies. Are going to run headlong into Gold Coast and GWS over the next few years and can't see Swans or Freo dropping off the pace anytime soon. I think Essendon and Port Adelaide lists are better and Hawks probably are not going to go anywhere soon.

Pies have been brilliant at draft and trade over the last 5 years or so but I think they would have to do something remarkable in the next 6 months to have legitimate top 4 claims next year.

 

[Freomaniac]

Not being a Collingwood supporter, the thing I'll remember about Heath Shaw's careers is his smother on Riewoldt in the GF. I don't think 99.9% of players would have a more important moment in their careers.

He did alright then 'ole Heater.

He is extreme at both ends. A good example is obviously that tackle in the 2010 grand final. A bad example was half time in the 2013 elimination final when he threw the footy at a Port players head.

 

[gutsroy]

I personally thought we'd be somewhere around the 6-9 bracket this year (I'll qualify that by admitting I had Roos and Tigers pushing top 4, Essendon and Cats in our range), then we managed to do pretty well through round 12 and some of us probably prematurely raised our expectations.

We have some (hopefully) good young talent coming through (Kennedy in the sub role frustrates me, needs more exposure, and Broomhead, Scharenberg and Freeman have all had injuries that have held them back, Grundy second year blues), but if you compare our team against top 4 sides in particular, we don't currently stack up across most lines. And that goes for the midfield, too, our midfield is not elite as a whole, can be beaten badly.

The favourite son cum coach idea often fails and Buckley hadn't been out of football long enough to create distance to the playing group.

The handover was entered into with good intentions and may have worked had all parties upheld their end of the bargain, but they didn't, neither did it.

Put all that together and it's not really a surprise we've dipped. Hopefully we can start the climb back up, seems that is what we have set ourselves for.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

He is extreme at both ends. A good example is obviously that tackle in the 2010 grand final. A bad example was half time in the 2013 elimination final when he threw the footy at a Port players head.

Wasn't Brett Ebert's was it? Maybe he just mistook the ball for Ebert's head and thought he'd give it back.

 

[Shane Hird]

It all went down hill when Jolly got the boot.

 

[Gone Critical]

It has been a pretty startling decline. Think last night signaled the end of the possibilty of the 2010-11 team redefining itself and staying near the top. We have looked a bottom half of the ladder side for the last 6 weeks and it is hard to see us improving enough to play finals this year. We have some promising kids but not many that shout out top class. I think we may be looking towards too much replacing like for like.

We are back in the ruck and it will take some astute drafting, trading and development for us to break out of that group again. Just because we have had a few extra picks around the 20 mark doesnt ensure those players will be any good. Bucks will be under enormous pressure in 2015. He will need to improve a side that has gone backwards significantly if he is to hold his place. Deserves next year, hopefully with a good injury run, to see if he has what it takes to make it in this caper.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

This isn't about Essendon but the club is in a back to back premiership position.

With Collingwood, before the games in the last two weeks I have seen him (Buckley) interviewed. Both times he has said we had a good start to the season and then had this problem or that problem.

GETTING DONE BY 70 POINTS AT HOME IS NOT A GOOD START TO THE SEASON. When a coach is prone to those sorts of brain fades, premierships don't loom.

He spoke of the Freo game a few times in subsequent interviews after the Essendon game. Being a little selective? I won't accuse you of having a brain fade though because you probably weren't listening close enough.

 

[etsal1]

Given the path Collingwood undertook at the end of 2012, it was entirely expected & therefore acceptable that they go backwards to go forwards.

What still needs explaining though is why the team that was the YOUNGEST team to win a flag in decades in 2010, needed a rebuild 2 years later?

Rebuilds are for teams who lack talent or are too old (i.e. Carlton). The lack of talent/age of Collingwood's list wasn't an issue when this path was chosen - it's Buckley's inability to coach players who are not obsessive perfectionists like him. Man managing is what makes some of the great coaches so great. Being able to get the best out of all types of players.

It's quite clear Buckley was unable to do this - hence shipping off Shaw, Thomas, Wellingham, Dawes etc.

I'm not referring to moving on Jolly & Didak etc - they were clearly past it physically.

 

[bombersfan4000]

All 3 teams (Brisbane, Collingwood and Essendon) that brought in favourite sons as coaches without a proper apprenticeship have really suffered for their decisions.

aside from hirds, ASADA issues, he would have been doing by far the bast

 

[etsal1]

All 3 teams (Brisbane, Collingwood and Essendon) that brought in favourite sons as coaches without a proper apprenticeship have really suffered for their decisions.

Add Ratten.

 

[SuperSub17]

Given the path Collingwood undertook at the end of 2012, it was entirely expected & therefore acceptable that they go backwards to go forwards.

What still needs explaining though is why the team that was the YOUNGEST team to win a flag in decades in 2010, needed a rebuild 2 years later?

Rebuilds are for teams who lack talent or are too old (i.e. Carlton). The lack of talent/age of Collingwood's list wasn't an issue when this path was chosen - it's Buckley's inability to coach players who are not obsessive perfectionists like him. Man managing is what makes some of the great coaches so great. Being able to get the best out of all types of players.

It's quite clear Buckley was unable to do this - hence shipping off Shaw, Thomas, Wellingham, Dawes etc.

I'm not referring to moving on Jolly & Didak etc - they were clearly past it physically.

Thing is we didn't really ship off those players. Really only Shaw was the one we actively chose to get rid of.

Thomas was offered a stack of money that was well over his value. From a list management point of view that was a smart decision not to pay him 700k. Wellingham asked to be traded home. Ideally we would have kept him but he can't even get a game for WC. We would have liked to keep Dawes as well but he packed up and left once he was told he would have to fight for his spot. We did well to secure first-round draft picks for those two.

The "youngest premiership team" is a bit misleading when you consider who the keys to the side were. Malthouse went and recruited Ball and Jolly at the end of 09 to fill spots where we were falling short - and now Jolly is finished and Ball is just about also. Didak was our leading goal-kicker in 2010 and his form went downhill quickly in 2011 and beyond. This year we're missing other valuable senior players like Reid, Swan and Brown. The implication of a young flag side is that the youngsters would continue to improve - but they weren't the reason why the team was good in the first place.

 

[Seedsfan]

Given the path Collingwood undertook at the end of 2012, it was entirely expected & therefore acceptable that they go backwards to go forwards.

What still needs explaining though is why the team that was the YOUNGEST team to win a flag in decades in 2010, needed a rebuild 2 years later?

Rebuilds are for teams who lack talent or are too old (i.e. Carlton). The lack of talent/age of Collingwood's list wasn't an issue when this path was chosen - it's Buckley's inability to coach players who are not obsessive perfectionists like him. Man managing is what makes some of the great coaches so great. Being able to get the best out of all types of players.

It's quite clear Buckley was unable to do this - hence shipping off Shaw, Thomas, Wellingham, Dawes etc.

I'm not referring to moving on Jolly & Didak etc - they were clearly past it physically.

Because we had a lot of young players and a lot of old players and not meany in between, now we have lost all the older players and some of those younger guys stalled in development and other guys left.

 

[etsal1]

Because we had a lot of young players and a lot of old players and not meany in between, now we have lost all the older players and some of those younger guys stalled in development and other guys left.

Guys left (not all by choice) + others stalled in their development.

How is that a glowing endorsement of Buckley?

 

[etsal1]

History has shown if you win a flag before it's expected, it takes longer to win the next one.

Essendon won the flag in 1993 with a team dubbed the Baby Bombers. If you're a young side and you win a flag, sometimes you get ahead of yourselves or the hunger to win disappears more than normally.

It took Essendon 7 years to win after 93 and it was largely made up of non 1993 players. They completely changed their list with Caracella, Blumfield, Heffernen, Solomon, Wellman & the like coming into the club after their 93 flag.

True. But at the same time, Collingwood could've had a shot at a Geelong like dynasty.

In other words it could've gone either way. Point is - we'll never know because the GF 2010 team was dismantled. Only 6 players yesterday played from the GF team. Back in 2010, if someone told you that only 6 players would be playing, you have to admit that would've seemed a little strange.

 

[etsal1]

Thing is we didn't really ship off those players. Really only Shaw was the one we actively chose to get rid of.

Thomas was offered a stack of money that was well over his value. From a list management point of view that was a smart decision not to pay him 700k. Wellingham asked to be traded home. Ideally we would have kept him but he can't even get a game for WC. We would have liked to keep Dawes as well but he packed up and left once he was told he would have to fight for his spot. We did well to secure first-round draft picks for those two.

The "youngest premiership team" is a bit misleading when you consider who the keys to the side were. Malthouse went and recruited Ball and Jolly at the end of 09 to fill spots where we were falling short - and now Jolly is finished and Ball is just about also. Didak was our leading goal-kicker in 2010 and his form went downhill quickly in 2011 and beyond. This year we're missing other valuable senior players like Reid, Swan and Brown. The implication of a young flag side is that the youngsters would continue to improve - but they weren't the reason why the team was good in the first place.

Thomas was offered 550k by you for 2 years. He's with us on 625k for 4 years. Don't believe the tripe the media try to sell.

Funny how Dawes was told he would have to fight for his spot. Fight with who? The 2 you've brought in since to replace him haven't been a raging success (Lynch & White).

You did do well to secure first rd pick for Dawes & Wellingham. I'm not arguing that. Securing those two picks for a team in a rebuild is fantastic.
The reasons who undertaking a rebuild is the question.

You've been wrecked by injuries this year. No arguments from me on that point. But the rebuild was initiated at the end of 2012. So that's not entirely relevant. You would've gone backwards anyway. Which is fine because as I said originally, you need to go backwards to forwards when you undertook this path.

The youth may not have been the core reason why you were good in 2010 or 2011, but as you said, there is a natural expectation that they would continue to improve. It's just how things work. Whilst you named older players that contributed to your success and have since retired or are about to retire - I just don't see the justification that you required a full on rebuild. Of course maybe some topping up - grab a ruck to replace Jolly and someone to compensate for Didak's decline. Surely you could see your core was young enough to establish a long period of success.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

True. But at the same time, Collingwood could've had a shot at a Geelong like dynasty.

In other words it could've gone either way. Point is - we'll never know because the GF 2010 team was dismantled. Only 6 players yesterday played from the GF team. Back in 2010, if someone told you that only 6 players would be playing, you have to admit that would've seemed a little strange.

From the 2011 side.
Tarant. Retired
Davis. Gone and not picked up by anyone.
Jolly. Gone and not picked up. MM went for Wood.
Johnson. Retired
Didak. Gone and not picked up.
Krakouer. Gone for a variety of reasons following the 2013 season. Recruited for short term. Not picked up.
L. Brown retired.
M. Maxwell. Retired.
Toovey. Injured.
N. Brown. Injured.
D. Swan. Injured
Fasolo. Sub. Injuries and VFL
Wellingham. Traded. Would've thought it strange if anyone told me it was going to happen.
D. Thomas. Wouldn't have been surprised if someone told me he would follow Mick.
H. Shaw. Wow, would never have thought.
So from that list barring injuries, many would have expected it. So probably not that strange.

 

[etsal1]

From the 2011 side.
Tarant. Retired
Davis. Gone and not picked up by anyone.
Jolly. Gone and not picked up. MM went for Wood.
Johnson. Retired
Didak. Gone and not picked up.
Krakouer. Gone for a variety of reasons following the 2013 season. Recruited for short term. Not picked up.
L. Brown retired.
M. Maxwell. Retired.
Toovey. Injured.
N. Brown. Injured.
D. Swan. Injured
Fasolo. Sub. Injuries and VFL
Wellingham. Traded. Would've thought it strange if anyone told me it was going to happen.
D. Thomas. Wouldn't have been surprised if someone told me he would follow Mick.
H. Shaw. Wow, would never have thought.
So from that list barring injuries, many would have expected it. So probably not that strange.

Could you list where each of those players were at the end of 2011 & 2012 when the decision to rebuild was made.

 

[jimmy35]

As I posted on the Pies board, people get old, they move on and you need to replace them with kids as a rule or try the FA route for some experience. Unavoidable really.
The FA thing hasn't worked out as well as they'd have liked to help the kids while they mature but the drafting seems to be promising.

Pretty much a standard fluff article that would appeal to moronic masses or the uneducated footy follower. If the Pies don't make the finals then of course questions should be asked, it's a pretty poor side that can't make a top 8.
Buckley inherited a Malthouse side from 2011 that ended up being pumped in a GF, that has since lost Tarrant, Johnson, Didak, Jolly, Leon, Brown and Kraks to retirement. He's moved on or had move on Wellingham, Heater and Dawesy for various reason to pick up a couple of decent draft picks and a pretty promising inside mid in Adams and looked to have picked up some quality in the draft over the past couple of years as well.
Not matching the FA offer on Thomas would also be classed as a win going on his form this year as well.
That's half that GF side, not including Maxy just gone, Bally meeting up with old Father Time and a pretty crippling injury list as well.

All in all I'd say he's done about a good a job as could be expected for a coach that's rebuilding on the run like he's been forced to do, no doubt he's been found out and out coached and out thought on numerous occasions but that's what you're going to get with a developing coach.
I'm happy enough to see what he's got to offer in the next few years as he gets some of the talent chosen under his watch into the side and hopefully a better run with injuries than the past few years as well.

How long did it take Malthouse to win us a flag again?

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Could you list where each of those players were at the end of 2011 & 2012 when the decision to rebuild was made.

Ok. End of 2012? I out an * next to those I wouldn't have been expecting to play yesterday due to age and drop off due to injuries.
Tarrant retired *
Jolly struggling for continuity due to injuries.*
Davis. Dunno what happened there but stories aplenty about retiring, not retiring, putting a price on his head that wasn't affordable etc. Still nothing from other clubs. *
Johnson. Playing *
Didak. Injured. 2013 nothing special in terms of form. Waxed with a few of his mates in the games he played. *
Krak. ACL but played finals. 2013 write off due to personal issues as we are lead to believe. *
Brown retired. *
Maxwell. Playing.
N. Brown playing after ACL in 2011.
Toovey playing
Swan. Playing.
Fasolo. Playing before foot issues.
Wellingham. Playing.
Thomas. Playing * I think most of us knew he wouldn't stick around.
Shaw. Playing.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

From the 2011 side.
Tarant. Retired
Davis. Gone and not picked up by anyone.
Jolly. Gone and not picked up. MM went for Wood.
Johnson. Retired
Didak. Gone and not picked up.
Krakouer. Gone for a variety of reasons following the 2013 season. Recruited for short term. Not picked up.
L. Brown retired.
M. Maxwell. Retired.
Toovey. Injured.
N. Brown. Injured.
D. Swan. Injured
Fasolo. Sub. Injuries and VFL
Wellingham. Traded. Would've thought it strange if anyone told me it was going to happen.
D. Thomas. Wouldn't have been surprised if someone told me he would follow Mick.
H. Shaw. Wow, would never have thought.
So from that list barring injuries, many would have expected it. So probably not that strange.

I think it's a bit of a myth the so called 'dismantling' of teams. Teams are an ever changing beast, Geelong has seen 9 players depart from its 2011 GF team and a few more from the 2011 H&A season. I can imagine Hawthorn are similar...

 

[expires]

He spoke of the Freo game a few times in subsequent interviews after the Essendon game. Being a little selective? I won't accuse you of having a brain fade though because you probably weren't listening close enough.

Me no see the subsequent interviews. I will believe you. Still left me flabbergasted when he said "a good start to the season" minutes before the Essendon game. Tipping a Collingwood win over Port this week.

 

[bombermick]

As I posted on the Pies board, people get old, they move on and you need to replace them with kids as a rule or try the FA route for some experience. Unavoidable really.
The FA thing hasn't worked out as well as they'd have liked to help the kids while they mature but the drafting seems to be promising.

Rebuilding a contending side instead of going the Hawthorn route does seem strange, but it would be fair to argue that Collingwood's young core was nowhere near as good as that of Geelong or Hawthorn. It's their senior players and great coaching that won them a flag, as much as youth. Still don't understand why they didn't top up though ...

 

[Monkey King]

Given the path Collingwood undertook at the end of 2012, it was entirely expected & therefore acceptable that they go backwards to go forwards.

What still needs explaining though is why the team that was the YOUNGEST team to win a flag in decades in 2010, needed a rebuild 2 years later?

Rebuilds are for teams who lack talent or are too old (i.e. Carlton). The lack of talent/age of Collingwood's list wasn't an issue when this path was chosen - it's Buckley's inability to coach players who are not obsessive perfectionists like him. Man managing is what makes some of the great coaches so great. Being able to get the best out of all types of players.

It's quite clear Buckley was unable to do this - hence shipping off Shaw, Thomas, Wellingham, Dawes etc.

I'm not referring to moving on Jolly & Didak etc - they were clearly past it physically.

Pretty much sums it up I reckon. You can go backwards to go forwards, but the Pies were in a pretty sweet spot, not sure why you'd give up contending for the flag, for a chance to maybe contend down the track. Not knock Buckley himself, but it seems he wasn't the right man at the right time for the list he took over.

 

[PieBeast]

Pretty much sums it up I reckon. You can go backwards to go forwards, but the Pies were in a pretty sweet spot, not sure why you'd give up contending for the flag, for a chance to maybe contend down the track. Not knock Buckley himself, but it seems he wasn't the right man at the right time for the list he took over.

I'll go even further and say that Bucks was the wrong man to take over that list despite supporting the move and wanting to get rid of MM since the end of '08. There's not a single thing that suggests the move has been justified and while I do believe the succession plan might have been the impetus to our flag it has most likely cost us another one. We've cornered ourselves by extending Bucks' contract on the back of sfa earlier in the year and can only remain positive if we're to believe the dream of becoming an onfield powerhouse in couple of years time, which in itself is most likely a furphie given we aren't the only side with promising youth.
And while any rational person can see that Bucks hasn't done too bad of a job considering our sides inexperience no one would have envisaged us being in this predicament 3 years down the track from the takeover. He is the man largely responsible for us going down this path so he has to wear it, no matter what spin the majority of my brethren put on it.