Mega Thread The 2017 'Buckley's Chances' Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its not faarking 5 years. Doesnt matter how often pleople like Robbo say 5 years it isnt 5 years and in fact saying 5 years just diminishes any point being made from then on.

It has been an interesting decline to mediocracy but there is no need to add mistruths to a crap situation.
How's it not 5 years?
 
"Buckley is a good coach because we were in winning positions in both games against last year's premiers"
"We've lost Cloke but look at all the players other sides lost"
"2013 wasn't a failure because we finished top 6"

The remaining 10 or so hardcore Buckley worshippers have gone way past scrapping the bottom of the barrel of excuses stage, way past.
 

Log in to remove this ad.


Everything in that article is correct though. I was given the very same info about Cloke (which I posted here a while back) and why he's gone. He and Bucks disagreed on the gameplan and Trav thought it wasn't suited to him.

Look at Darcy now. Looking to be suffering the same way now that he's playing Cloke's role.

If Bucks isn't coaching next year hope he gets a job at Foxtel so he can make slobbo look like a fool

Well he won't get a senior coaching gig every again. His entire resume is an under 16 Premiership and taking the youngest Premiership team in 30 years to bottom 4 over 6 years.
 
Looks like People either Hate or Love Bucks
I think this is not true mate. Everyone loves Buckley the player and the person. We dislike the direction the team has gone in while he is coach. I barrack for Collingwood not Bucks.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
We made a prelim and finished in the top 6 the first two years. How is it 5 years of bad luck / failure.

5 years is used by those with an agenda and Trump like view of the truth.
Not getting you.
How can you just exclude or ignore the first two years?
He took over a side that was runner up and absolutely dominant, two years later it was an absolute shadow of it's former self.
He has had 5 years to build his own list
He has had 5 years to get gameplan and structures right
He has had 5 years to build a team that is skillful and executes well
He has had 5 years to bond the playing group so they consistently put in the effort.
He has had 5 years of bad luck with injury
He has had 5 years of offield dramas
He has had 5 years to change the playing groups "culture"
He has had 5 years to get his assistant coaches, support staff and medical/fitness people right
He has had 5 years to show that he can develop and improve players
He has had 5 years to show how he handles the different personalities at a football club

He's been coach for 5 years, not 3. The main man for 5 years, not 3. People are assessing his performance over 5 years because that is what makes sense... not because they have a "Trump like view of the truth".

Make all the excuses you want. This is the term and criteria that people are assessing his performance on; and rightly so.
 
Not getting you.
How can you just exclude or ignore the first two years?
He took over a side that was runner up and absolutely dominant, two years later it was an absolute shadow of it's former self.
He has had 5 years to build his own list - Please detail your major concerns with the current list
He has had 5 years to get gameplan and structures right - only when you have a settled 22 is this possible, we have looked great in substantial parts of the last 2 games. And if OT goals are your substantial concern here, it was cured last week against Rich. so not a permanent problem.
He has had 5 years to build a team that is skillful and executes well - youth and inexperience under pressure are the issue here - BJ and Sinclair were very poor early. You don't make an AFL list if you have had consistently poor skills so clearly its the pressure.
He has had 5 years to bond the playing group so they consistently put in the effort.- what are EFFORT stats do you use to come to this conclusion. Who has questioned the EFFORT of the team - skills, DE maybe but not effort. And on what basis are you questioning the BONDING?
He has had 5 years of bad luck with injury - correct
He has had 5 years of offield dramas - out of his control see below
He has had 5 years to change the playing groups "culture" - stupidity runs in all clubs, see GEEL, HAWKS Leaders of recent times
He has had 5 years to get his assistant coaches, support staff and medical/fitness people right - agree medical/fitness where a problem early, not now
He has had 5 years to show that he can develop and improve players - Adams, Sinclair, Grundy, Howe, Aish, Varcoe, just a few he's improved, but have to agree we are behind the curve compared to the best.
He has had 5 years to show how he handles the different personalities at a football club - apart form Shaw and maybe Beams, which of these PERSONALITIES were a bad call, ie would make our best 22 today? If you put all these guys back into the team tomorrow, would we be a better team?

He's been coach for 5 years, not 3. The main man for 5 years, not 3. People are assessing his performance over 5 years because that is what makes sense... not because they have a "Trump like view of the truth".

Make all the excuses you want. This is the term and criteria that people are assessing his performance on; and rightly so.

Per above - and I look forward to your response.
 
Yeh lets give him another 4 years after this year LOL :$ Hell lets make him coach for life cos Im sure we might make the 8 in the next 50 years.......
Yep, I will take that, glad you are on board.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not getting you.
How can you just exclude or ignore the first two years?
He took over a side that was runner up and absolutely dominant, two years later it was an absolute shadow of it's former self.
He has had 5 years to build his own list
He has had 5 years to get gameplan and structures right
He has had 5 years to build a team that is skillful and executes well
He has had 5 years to bond the playing group so they consistently put in the effort.
He has had 5 years of bad luck with injury
He has had 5 years of offield dramas
He has had 5 years to change the playing groups "culture"
He has had 5 years to get his assistant coaches, support staff and medical/fitness people right
He has had 5 years to show that he can develop and improve players
He has had 5 years to show how he handles the different personalities at a football club

He's been coach for 5 years, not 3. The main man for 5 years, not 3. People are assessing his performance over 5 years because that is what makes sense... not because they have a "Trump like view of the truth".

Make all the excuses you want. This is the term and criteria that people are assessing his performance on; and rightly so.

He made prelim and finals the first two years I don't agree that is failure? I agree with almost everything people say about his tenure oher than it has been 5 years of crap. It is like saying it has been 5 years of failure even if he won premierships in those first two years. To me a coach that gets a team to top 4 nd top 6 in consecutive years is not failing.

My point is his first two years were a 'success' as we were contenders. Do i believe that it has been a bunch of crap since then....absoulutely including all areas of the footy department, senior coach, assistants, high performance department, list management.. etc.

Edit- and that it is time for change
 
Give it a rest Kelly-Anne.

I expected you wouldn't have the courage to stand by your post.
They were simple questions, but you'd rather hide than answer them.

No conviction - just attack good4footy, then run away when challenged on the specifics.

At least you've reinforced that your're not much better than that small group here with no perspective.

I'm glad we've found the right box for you.

Sadly I expected better, your rebuttals to me over week-end displayed a depth of intellect, that was admirable.
Obviously I was mistaken.
 
Pretty damning stat that we've won 11 of our last 35 matches.

Our last 6 home games have yielded an average attendance of 34k.
We have 67k members.

This is like an Arsene Wenger and Arsenal situation.
Transfer market inactivity or targeting the wrong players, club happy to just try and make the top "8" and if not at least we are profitable- see ventures into Netball, AFLW etc.

Flat lining for a sustained period of time and getting worse.

Fans torn on opinions whether it's Buckley IN or Buckley OUT.

The board's continued silence.

Soon we will see infighting by the fans because some will demand change and others will see it as disrespectful to our most successful/best player.

This is a club divided.
 
He made prelim and finals the first two years I don't agree that is failure? I agree with almost everything people say about his tenure oher than it has been 5 years of crap. It is like saying it has been 5 years of failure even if he won premierships in those first two years. To me a coach that gets a team to top 4 nd top 6 in consecutive years is not failing.

My point is his first two years were a 'success' as we were contenders. Do i believe that it has been a bunch of crap since then....absoulutely including all areas of the footy department, senior coach, assistants, high performance department, list management.. etc.

Edit- and that it is time for change
You have to judge his first two years given where we were at in 2011 and given the team and list he inherited. I don't think 2013 was a success. 2012 was a good performance in my book and it was the only year I look at and think Bucks did well. We had terrible injuries that year. The caveat, and it's a pretty damming caveat, is that Bucks has himself stated, that in 2012 he made minimal changes and continued the Malthouse gameplan and with the same personnel. Then he said that in 2013 he started to stamp his style on the team... and make changes and it's all been downhill since. We weren't contenders in 2013 any more than Richmond were when they made the finals a few years ago.
He's been coach for 5 years so judge him for 5 years. I don't get why you'd think that means I'm altering the truth because I don't rate his performance in the first two years either. Our perspectives on him being successful in the first two years differ, along with the amount of credited he is due for that success, as opposed to his predecessor.
 
I didnt know where to post this but in my opinion we need a clean out.

To me it feels like the club is a business these days over a footy club. We are focusing way to much on the financial side of things and bringing in things like netball and magpie millions just to get a profit. Well how about focusing on the bloody footy and make it feel like a football club again, have some bloody fun.

We are basically a laughing stock at the moment and i hate how it is, i think we desperately need a fresh look with fresh ideas from outside.
 
I didnt know where to post this but in my opinion we need a clean out.

To me it feels like the club is a business these days over a footy club. We are focusing way to much on the financial side of things and bringing in things like netball and magpie millions just to get a profit. Well how about focusing on the bloody footy and make it feel like a football club again, have some bloody fun.

We are basically a laughing stock at the moment and i hate how it is, i think we desperately need a fresh look with fresh ideas from outside.
SOO MUCH THIS
 
You have to judge his first two years given where we were at in 2011 and given the team and list he inherited. I don't think 2013 was a success. 2012 was a good performance in my book and it was the only year I look at and think Bucks did well. We had terrible injuries that year. The caveat, and it's a pretty damming caveat, is that Bucks has himself stated, that in 2012 he made minimal changes and continued the Malthouse gameplan and with the same personnel. Then he said that in 2013 he started to stamp his style on the team... and make changes and it's all been downhill since. We weren't contenders in 2013 any more than Richmond were when they made the finals a few years ago.
He's been coach for 5 years so judge him for 5 years. I don't get why you'd think that means I'm altering the truth because I don't rate his performance in the first two years either. Our perspectives on him being successful in the first two years differ, along with the amount of credited he is due for that success, as opposed to his predecessor.

Not much i disagree with in your post other than how we view the first couple of years (there are many reasons that our views are based on that have been done to death to bother about).

As to my term 'altering the truth', Robbo's '5 years' and certain posters '5 years' are a bit different to yours and what i have referred to in my original post on the matter. I doubt Robbo even remembers the first two years when he says '5 years'. It just rolls off the tongue for him and some others.
 
I expected you wouldn't have the courage to stand by your post.
They were simple questions, but you'd rather hide than answer them.

No conviction - just attack good4footy, then run away when challenged on the specifics.

At least you've reinforced that your're not much better than that small group here with no perspective.

I'm glad we've found the right box for you.

Sadly I expected better, your rebuttals to me over week-end displayed a depth of intellect, that was admirable.
Obviously I was mistaken.
We have danced our dance Kelly_Anne. There is no chemistry sorry. Not interested in wasting my time further.
 
When you have MM jump to the defence of Nathan Buckley (yes you read that correctly) that is indicative of the quality of the Robbo article.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/04/03/cloke-wasn-t-mishandled-by-bucks-malthouse/

“That’s far too harsh and also probably unnecessary really,” Malthouse said on SEN Breakfast.

“I’ve had Nathan as a player and as an assistant coach. He knows the game back to front, there is no question about that.

“I think it is too easy, when someone moves clubs, to pop them (the former coach) that they are not doing the right thing by the player. All I read was that there was a really healthy relationship between Travis and Nathan.

“From the outside looking in, I would say that sometimes a gameplan doesn’t suit a player and if it doesn’t suit a player, then clearly he falls out.

“You look at Treloar, you have a look at Pendlebury and you have a look at a couple of these other younger players, they are really relishing in (Buckley’s) coaching so it is each to their own.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top