Toast Eat One Buckley Haters

[Old Spice]

Why not?

Almost two years at the helm and they still can't kick worth shit.
Almost two years at the helm and they still can't tackle properly.
Almost two years at the helm and the forward structure and movement is still garbage.
Almost two years at the helm and Cloke still misses sitters from ten metres dead in front.

Still Sinclair and Blair get a game ahead of Seedsman and Martin.

Still Lynch the ******* gets a game ahead of, well, anyone.

Maxwell still getting a game - if the game has moved on since Malthouse, then why hasn't Maxwell, since the blind rushed kick or pointless long bomb he specialises in is never to the team's advantage anymore.

"Almost two years at the helm and they still can't kick worth shit."

On disposal efficiency, little has changed since 2011, going from 72.9% to 72.3 in 2013. The clangers have gone from 46.6 in 2011 to 43.7. So this is purely a user-end perception. In fact given our massive injury list this year and blooding young players, that's pretty good.

"Almost two years at the helm and they still can't tackle properly."

The tackles have dropped away, going from 71.9 to 66. Mind you, our contested possession has gone up to 157.4 from 142 in 2011, so that goes some way to explain this. You tend to tackle less when you get it more.

"Almost two years at the helm and the forward structure and movement is still garbage."

On forward structure and delivery, our inside 50 marks in 2011 were 13.4 and in 2013 average 14.

"Almost two years at the helm and Cloke still misses sitters from ten metres dead in front."

On Cloke, he had a goal kicking accuracy of 59% in 2011 and averaged 2.8 goals a game. In 2013 he has a 57% accuracy and averages 3 goals a game.

In other words, this is complete garbage.

 

[Old Spice]

By the way, the standard was pretty bloody good in 2011 as you may recall. "Still cant"...what a whingefest.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

We just don't have the right kind of cattle. We tried against Hawthorn but our disposal and tackling skills let us down. Some of our players are probably not as good as we like to think. This will change when we have a full contingent of players available and several first year players, for whom we have high hopes, get more fitness and experience. We are good enough to beat most sides but not Hawthorn. I think Bucks is having more of an impact on players than I credited him with earlier in the season. We will have to be patient and not expect more from this year's team than it can produce.

 

[BionicBeams]

On disposal efficiency, little has changed since 2011, going from 72.9% to 72.3 in 2013. The clangers have gone from 46.6 in 2011 to 43.7. So this is purely a user-end perception. In fact given our massive injury list this year and blooding young players, that's pretty good.

The tackles have dropped away, going from 71.9 to 66. Mind you, our contested possession has gone up to 157.4 from 142 in 2011, so that goes some way to explain this. You tend to tackle less when you get it more.

On forward structure and delivery, our inside 50 marks in 2011 were 13.4 and in 2013 average 14.

On Cloke, he had a goal kicking accuracy of 59% in 2011 and averaged 2.8 goals a game. In 2013 he has a 57% accuracy and averages 3 goals a game.

In other words, this is complete garbage.

I just love it when people use stats. That way you can ignore something right in front of your eyes because the science of mathematics backs you up. Nice to see the old injury excuse rear its head too. It's been too long.

Open your eyes and watch the game yourself. Collingwood are experts in botching an otherwise excellent forward move with the kick that doesn't go within 30 yards of anyone, of dropping the ball at the feet or over the head of a leading forward. To kick the ball - successfully - to a player running into trouble. To deny otherwise is to reveal monumental ignorance and blind devotion. Neither is healthy.

Not much point tackling less because you have it more when you then go and botch the next move forward, is it? Have a stat for that? And I was referring to letting opposition players loose from tackles that should stick. No doubt you have a ready made excuse just like the God Buckley. Young players?

More stats on forward structure. What a waste. How's our percentage? How many times have we kicked over 20 goals against good opposition? But let me guess. It's because Beams and Ball missed so many games, right?

And yet more useless stats on Cloke's kicking accuracy. So Collingwood are 3 points down 27 minutes in the GF. Cloke's kicked 6.0, then misses a sitter 10 metres in front. What's the stat for that? What's the stat for the mental effect those lapses have on the rest of the team?

 

[RuFiO]

Grundy got 91 dream team points.

 

[DThomas]

I just love it when people use stats. That way you can ignore something right in front of your eyes because the science of mathematics backs you up

I like this stat:
Bucks - 2
Mick - 0

Collingwood in 2013 - 13 wins
Carlton in 2013 - 10 wins

Face it. You're wrong, which stats have backed up, yet you don't want to face it. This is why I don't bother debating posts like this and just call them rubbish. They're factually incorrect. Why should I waste my time, when I can just call them out for what they are?

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Collingwood are experts in botching an otherwise excellent forward move with the kick that doesn't go within 30 yards of anyone, of dropping the ball at the feet or over the head of a leading forward.


And I was referring to letting opposition players loose from tackles that should stick.

I don't want to buy into the wider argument, but BB was in my opinion correct in claiming:

(a) That our passes into the forward line can be terribly inaccurate
(b) Too many tackles on Hawks players in clearances failed to stick, allowing the players to easily escape and hurt us big time

Apart from that, you posters are welcome to continue with your discussion about what does or does not constitute personal abuse etc.

 

[jmac70]

I think the most important statistic is that we have used 40 players this year. Usually this is indicative of a team in full re-build in the lower half of the ladder. And yet we are 6th with a good chance to progress to the semi-finals. Whilst we have been somewhat inconsistent and at times our skills have been poor, we appear to be tracking in the right direction. Only the most fervent Bucks hater could dispute that.

 

[DThomas]

I don't want to buy into the wider argument, but BB was in my opinion correct in claiming:

(a) That our passes into the forward line can be terribly inaccurate
(b) Too many tackles on Hawks players in clearances failed to stick, allowing the players to easily escape and hurt us big time

Apart from that, you posters are welcome to continue with your discussion about what does or does not constitute personal abuse etc.

Fair enough points, but how is this relevant to Buckley? It's the players out there on the field, not Bucks. This is the wrong thread for that. Unless BionicBeams believes that Bucks is saying "kick the ball over Cloke's head" or "try to tackle, but don't let it stick".

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Fair enough points, but how is this relevant to Buckley? It's the players out there on the field, not Bucks. This is the wrong thread for that. Unless BionicBeams believes that Bucks is saying "kick the ball over Cloke's head" or "try to tackle, but don't let it stick".

It may be relevant to Buckley in the sense that players' skills are something over which Bucks has only so much control. He can exercise more control over these skills through recruiting the right type of player in the future, as hopefully he also did in the last draft. Nevertheless, I accept your point that skill errors are not what Bucks is coaching the players to do.

 

[BionicBeams]

I like this stat:
Bucks - 2
Mick - 0

Collingwood in 2013 - 13 wins
Carlton in 2013 - 10 wins

Face it. You're wrong, which stats have backed up, yet you don't want to face it. This is why I don't bother debating posts like this and just call them rubbish. They're factually incorrect. Why should I waste my time, when I can just call them out for what they are?

You don't bother debating posts because you lack intelligence and insight.

In what possible world does it matter where Collingwood beat Carlton during the year unless it's the Grand Final? Mentioning how many more wins Collingwood have over Carlton just makes you look like a delusional imbecile. No doubt you would prefer they beat Carlton twice during the year and lose the GF than vice versa because it fits in with your juvenile world view of Collingwood success. Personally, I couldn't care less if Carlton spanked Collingwood by 150 points each time they played during the season, if Collingwood won the Gf.

Fair enough points, but how is this relevant to Buckley? It's the players out there on the field, not Bucks. This is the wrong thread for that. Unless BionicBeams believes that Bucks is saying "kick the ball over Cloke's head" or "try to tackle, but don't let it stick".

Err, maybe because it is the coaches job to identify skills weaknesses in players and improve them? Or do you not know anything about motor skill acquisition?

Of course Buckley doesn't ask them for skill errors. Which means they are either incapable of executing - which is under his control - or they aren't interested in listening to him. One or the other. Which is it?

 

[froggy1976]

It was also pretty gusty on Friday night which may have contributed to the way in which players delivered the ball.

The only thing that Bucks needs to do in my opinion is to find a way to limit the damage when the opposition get a run on. This is what kill us the most. we consistently let teams score 4 or 5 consecutive goals an then expect to will ourselves back. Against good opposition, they just don't let us come back from that.

Buck IMO has coached us pretty well and we can see some great development in the younger boys too.

 

[DThomas]

You don't bother debating posts because you lack intelligence and insight.

No, I'm just sick of wasting my time on negative, one-sided, biased people like yourself that refuse to open their mind to opposing opinions. I debated early in the season, but realised that no matter how much I point out that people like you are wrong, you're never going to change.

It's like talking to a brick wall in this thread. You're the brick wall.

In what possible world does it matter where Collingwood beat Carlton during the year unless it's the Grand Final? Mentioning how many more wins Collingwood have over Carlton just makes you look like a delusional imbecile. No doubt you would prefer they beat Carlton twice during the year and lose the GF than vice versa because it fits in with your juvenile world view of Collingwood success. Personally, I couldn't care less if Carlton spanked Collingwood by 150 points each time they played during the season, if Collingwood won the Gf.

Your whole "Bucks is the devil" routine relies on the fact that Mick isn't coach any more. Who coaches Carlton? Mick does. Who coached us to victory against Carlton, not once, but twice this year? Bucks did.

You attack me and call me an "imbecile", yet you whinge about being attacked, even though you weren't. I think that word actually describes you perfectly, so take a look in the mirror once in a while.

Err, maybe because it is the coaches job to identify skills weaknesses in players and improve them? Or do you not know anything about motor skill acquisition?

Of course Buckley doesn't ask them for skill errors. Which means they are either incapable of executing - which is under his control - or they aren't interested in listening to him. One or the other. Which is it?

Yes, it is the coaches responsibility to identify skill errors, but it's not him that is actually out on the field playing. We've had 40 different players out there on the field this year, with 8 debutantes in their first season. Consistency doesn't come that quickly, especially when we get so many injuries throughout the season that 40 different players have been playing throughout the season, and 8 players who have never played an senior AFL match. Despite all this, we're still 6th on the ladder, and last week we were still an outside chance of making the freaking top 4!

We had a dream run in 2010 with hardly any injuries and we ended up winning the flag. You can claim that injuries aren't a factor, but they clearly are.

Anyway, you blame everything on Bucks, and it makes your posts like completely biased and inaccurate as a result. Enjoy being wrong.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I think it's fairly inappropriate to suggest anymore that we shouldn't have dumped MM given his lack of success so far with Carlton this year. The Age had a very lengthy article last week that was critical of MM and his coaching panel, which also suggested that MM's around the boundary game did not work at Calton because the team lacks the creative mid-fielders that Collingwood enjoyed and that allowed MM's plan to work.

I judged Bucks harshly in a satirical piece some weeks back, but my comments occurred during the first half of our GWS match and were a knee jerk reaction. Now, I just accept the fact that injuries, players' existing skill weaknesses and some recalcitrant senior players (e.g. Heath Shaw) have worked against Buckley's success. The club appears to be recruiting players with good skill sets and a change in fortune will occur once these players become AFL regulars. Besides, the only team we seem to have problems with is Hawthorn so we are not so far behind the best in the competition.

 

[THATSGOLD]

I'll say this, if we had Mick we wouldn't have 5 straight losses to Hawthorn because Mick believed in keeping things tight and not letting the opposition have a shoot off for a win.

 

[Magpie Girl]

And Hawthorn can't beat Geelong!

Every team has it's nemesis

 

[froggy1976]

And Hawthorn can't beat Geelong!

Every team has it's nemesis

There was also a period of time that we couldn't beat Geelong too and Sydney couldn't beat us.

 

[RuFiO]

There was also a period of time that we couldn't beat Geelong too and Sydney couldn't beat us.

Which period?

 

[froggy1976]

Which period?

Stand corrected, was thinking it was 2008-9 without a win against Geelong. Thought the geelong pumping was in 2007.

Edit: you have to agree that apart from 2010, our record against Geelong had been pretty poor against Geelong. Between 2007 and 2001 8-3, hardly a glowing record

 

[Krueger]

I like this stat:
Bucks - 2
Mick - 0

Collingwood in 2013 - 13 wins
Carlton in 2013 - 10 wins

Face it. You're wrong, which stats have backed up, yet you don't want to face it. This is why I don't bother debating posts like this and just call them rubbish. They're factually incorrect. Why should I waste my time, when I can just call them out for what they are?

By that theory we should gloat if we beat GWS if Malthouse was coach. Our list is far better than Carltons and that 13-10 stat doesnt look that impressive.

 

[DThomas]

By that theory we should gloat if we beat GWS if Malthouse was coach. Our list is far better than Carltons and that 13-10 stat doesnt look that impressive.

It's idiotic to compare GWS to Carlton. Nobody would gloat about that. We lost to Carlton twice last year, and now that Mick has taken over, we have beaten them twice. Those are the facts.

Bucks>Mick

 

[froggy1976]

By that theory we should gloat if we beat GWS if Malthouse was coach. Our list is far better than Carltons and that 13-10 stat doesnt look that impressive.

They were also talking about them being top 4 too. So if they made the top 4, everyone would have been saying their list is better than ours

 

[DThomas]

I'll say this, if we had Mick we wouldn't have 5 straight losses to Hawthorn because Mick believed in keeping things tight and not letting the opposition have a shoot off for a win.

Under Mick we had 5 losses out of 7 matches against Hawthorn, from 2007-2011...

 

[THATSGOLD]

Under Mick we had 5 losses out of 7 matches against Hawthorn, from 2007-2011...

Bet the average losing margin wasn't 40 points. Post those loses under Mick.

 

[froggy1976]

Bet the average losing margin wasn't 40 points. Post those loses under Mick.

would have been about that against Geelong between 2007-2011