Mega Thread The Bucks Megathread.

[Carringbush2010]

But Many posters will always expect and demand that their club is doing everything within its control, to the top of its abilities to maximise it's chances of winning its next flag. When they don't think this is occuring then they become disappointed and frustrated and express that. The alternative is to accept mediocrity

Now we're getting to the crux of the differing sides of opinion, many believe that the club weren't "doing all they could" in the dark years previous to this. The other side of the coin as some would not see this as accepting mediocrity but rather mitigating circumstances out of the clubs control.

Great post, sheds a reality of opposing views.

 

[gappa]

When posters give more thought to what an A grade match winner can do for you in a game of football means.. injuries are no excuse at all.

Maradona won the Serie A with Napoli.. Maradona won the World Cup with Argentina.. did they have a good balance of players.. I don't think so.. just give the ball to De Goey.. that's what wins premierships.. A grade world class talent.

You only need a few of em in your side.. ala.. Richmond.. Ala Collingwood as well.

We are a big chance this yr.. mark my words.

Hand of deGODy?

 

[Pie eyed]

Agree we have different views, in your previous reply you stated some fans want to move on - great move on.

All I'm saying is that some want to question the past and some get their back up - those who dwell in the past have a right to do so.

Not my preferred choice but some do, just allow them without jumping all over their back.

Some are gonna look at this post and immediately conclude I'm one who wants to - I don't I'm just defending the wish of those to do so.

Malthouse coached the Western Bulldogs for 6 years for 7th, 3rd, 8th, 7th,8th and 13th.
These ladder positions were in a competition with only 12 sides for the first 3 and then 14 the remainder.

He coached West Coast for 3rd, 1st, 4th, 6th, 1st, 5th, 4th, 5th, 7th and 5th.
These ladder positions were in a competition with only 14 the first, 15 the next 4 and then 16 the remainder.


He coached Collingwood 15th, 9th, 4th, 2nd, 13th, 15th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 4th, 1st,1st.
At the Pies the competition had 16 teams for the whole period until 2011 when it went up to 18.
Of all those years he has 4 flags to his name.

The areas in red I have deemed rebuilding periods.

Buckley has coached 6 completed seasons for 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 12th and 13th. Likely to finish 4th at least this season.
Again I have hi-lighted the years of rebuild in Red.
The competition has had 18 teams since Buckley has coached.

Buckley ash also coached his entire career under a compromised draft system.

So. How do you compare these two careers in hindsight equally?
You can't.

Malthouse won a flag after he was offered the succession plan, he failed to replicate that feat a year later with a far more dominant side.

Whether Buckley took over or Malthouse stayed on the rebuild was inevitable, with many players at the ends of their careers and/or heading home after the success they deserved and worked for.

The question everyone should ask is why did Malthouse renege on the agreement he signed to assist Buckley?

The only thing of any real importance is would we have been better earlier, with Malthouse and Buckley, had Malthouse not gone back on his word to fail miserably at Carlton and further tarnish his standing?

Simply pointing out how you all thought you knew better 6 years ago is moot, because you had nothing to compare either coahc too. Different peoepl in different era's under different conditions rules and competitive environments.

If Malthouse was Buckley's age now and took over a modern side he would probably fail...his era is gone as has Jocks.

Probably...because we will never know and to stake your hat on a statement like that would be pointless.
For the record I loved Mick, loved his style and his ego.
I am happy with Buckley now and was happy with the entire concept of the succession. It brought instant results in the 2010 flag and only Malthouse ego ruined any chance it had to be a great success.

As the reality is what we have in front of us anyone who wants to harp on about what-ifs are just short on a better more relevant topic.
If Buckley wins a flag, the same argument about your right to still remain sour is valid, but why?
Just so pig headed your can't let it go?

It makes no sense.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Hand of deGODy?

Yep.. like Maradona carried a squad of 20 to win scudetas and world cups.. it will pretty much be left up to the magic X factor special talents of someone like De Goey that will see us win a premiership..

 

[Maggie5]

Malthouse coached the Western Bulldogs for 6 years for 7th, 3rd, 8th, 7th,8th and 13th.
These ladder positions were in a competition with only 12 sides for the first 3 and then 14 the remainder.

He coached West Coast for 3rd, 1st, 4th, 6th, 1st, 5th, 4th, 5th, 7th and 5th.
These ladder positions were in a competition with only 14 the first, 15 the next 4 and then 16 the remainder.


He coached Collingwood 15th, 9th, 4th, 2nd, 13th, 15th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 4th, 1st,1st.
At the Pies the competition had 16 teams for the whole period until 2011 when it went up to 18.
Of all those years he has 4 flags to his name.

The areas in red I have deemed rebuilding periods.

Buckley has coached 6 completed seasons for 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 12th and 13th. Likely to finish 4th at least this season.
Again I have hi-lighted the years of rebuild in Red.
The competition has had 18 teams since Buckley has coached.

Buckley ash also coached his entire career under a compromised draft system.

So. How do you compare these two careers in hindsight equally?
You can't.

Malthouse won a flag after he was offered the succession plan, he failed to replicate that feat a year later with a far more dominant side.

Whether Buckley took over or Malthouse stayed on the rebuild was inevitable, with many players at the ends of their careers and/or heading home after the success they deserved and worked for.

The question everyone should ask is why did Malthouse renege on the agreement he signed to assist Buckley?

The only thing of any real importance is would we have been better earlier, with Malthouse and Buckley, had Malthouse not gone back on his word to fail miserably at Carlton and further tarnish his standing?

Simply pointing out how you all thought you knew better 6 years ago is moot, because you had nothing to compare either coahc too. Different peoepl in different era's under different conditions rules and competitive environments.

If Malthouse was Buckley's age now and took over a modern side he would probably fail...his era is gone as has Jocks.

Probably...because we will never know and to stake your hat on a statement like that would be pointless.
For the record I loved Mick, loved his style and his ego.
I am happy with Buckley now and was happy with the entire concept of the succession. It brought instant results in the 2010 flag and only Malthouse ego ruined any chance it had to be a great success.

As the reality is what we have in front of us anyone who wants to harp on about what-ifs are just short on a better more relevant topic.
If Buckley wins a flag, the same argument about your right to still remain sour is valid, but why?
Just so pig headed your can't let it go?

It makes no sense.

It has been an interesting rebuild - from 2014 list, these are the only players still on the list and not all have contributed this year.

Alex Fasolo
Brodie Grundy
Tyson Goldsack
Scott Pendlebury
Jarryd Blair
Jamie Elliott
Ben Reid
Steele Sidebottom
Josh Thomas
Tim Broomhead
Matthew Scharenberg
Tom Langdon
Adam Oxley

 

[jonbe54]

Given some people have shown no ability whatsoever to offer constructive criticism on the coach or even the club in recent seasons and have simply been guided by nothing more than blind faith it's hilarious that these same people are now pumping out their chest on the back of our return to finals after 5 years like it was always a fait accompli when we were sitting at 5-10 in 2017.

If people are happy to deduce that this season is justification for Buckley's retention last year (I agree) and that he is the right man for the job moving forward (I now do) then I can only imagine people are able to concede also that the past 4 years were an example of a coach who still had much to learn and improve in as did the club as a whole.

Basically you can't have it both ways and decide that only this season provides "factual" evidence to the quality of Buckley's coaching and dismiss the concerns of the past as "opinion" not based in reality.

The real unsung hero as far as I'm concerned is Peter Murphy.

It was Murphy in my opinion who gave voice to the disillusioned Collingwood fan concerned about our continued poor on field performances and the professional standards of some employed by the club.

He had the standing within the community and courage to challenge McGuire and to McGuire's credit (and perhaps self preservation) he placated those concerns by allowing Murphy to conduct a thorough review of the football club.

At the end of his review and in stark contrast to those who continually parrot the club can do no wrong his findings lead to:

1. The removal of CEO Gary Pert and a proper process to find his successor (McGuire apparently just wanted to install Lethlean)
2. The expansion of our assistant coaching panel to support Buckley.
3. New list manager hired. Hine released from the role to concentrate solely on recruitment.
4. High performance manager replaced.
5. Position created for Nick Maxwell.

While it was always a wait and see approach and one we looked to replicate from the Richmond example of 12 months earlier it's fair to say the recommendations from Murphy and yes Walsh to retain Buckley are looking at present to be a spectacular success.

Still let's not pretend now everything was running at it's optimum in the preceding seasons and to me this year only reinforces mine and others frustration over it.

We have seen injuries used as an excuse for our lacklustre results of the past few seasons and yet we currently sit 3rd with an injury list far and away greater than any proceeding season. Injuries yes were a hindrance to not being a genuine premiership chance but top 8 I'm not so convinced.

Plenty of people were happy to lay excuses for the coach and club at the feet of Hine and the state of our list and yet here we are sitting 3rd with a long long injury list and with only 1 new recruit in Stephenson making a meaningful contribution to our ladder position in 2018.

Are people still questioning the ability of Hine now?

Yes young players will improve with experience and if enough collectively do it in one year then you can see real improvement from one season to the next but you lose experience along the way also whether by injury or retirement while others due to age aren't as good as they once were.

So is the improvement we have witnessed this season all down to the natural progression of young players or an individuals own desire to push themselves to greater heights or is it down to coaching, the refinements made to structures over the summer period, improved game day instruction or healthy player relationships.

With our injury list I doubt it all comes down to talent and with the real talent still remaining out on the field it's not all coaching either so I guess it's a little from column A, B, C and D.

For mine your perception of Buckley all comes down to how you've viewed our talent collective in a season in relation to the final result.

While others are free to disagree I'll always maintain our talent level was on par with the Western Bulldogs in 2016 and they were able to achieve what they did with a similar injury profile simply because of the influence of Beveridge and his ability to elevate them above themselves.

For me this is the first time under Buckley I've felt the same way, that we've maximised the potential contained within our list, we've got the right structures out on the field in place that are allowing this individual talent to shine through and this coupled with the overall coaching performance has elevated our position above what you could reasonably expect given the availability of players.

More than happy to grade Buckley an A+ for this season but fair to say it's taken longer than I naively expected when I supported the succession plan.

I'm guilty your honor of wavering about my initial instinct that Buckley had the ability to become a fine coach but just like 2009 as now I'll always voice a strong opinion if I believe it's in the best interests of the club and will do so ahead of any one individual within it.

Without people daring to question, Peter Murphy would have remained silent.

I wonder where that would have got us?

WOWDNR - really swooper? That is a HUGE wall of words mate.

I get that you have been dissatisfied but when are we ever going to look forward?

All this has been done to death time and time again. Both from the positives and the negatives.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Malthouse coached the Western Bulldogs for 6 years for 7th, 3rd, 8th, 7th,8th and 13th.
These ladder positions were in a competition with only 12 sides for the first 3 and then 14 the remainder.

He coached West Coast for 3rd, 1st, 4th, 6th, 1st, 5th, 4th, 5th, 7th and 5th.
These ladder positions were in a competition with only 14 the first, 15 the next 4 and then 16 the remainder.


He coached Collingwood 15th, 9th, 4th, 2nd, 13th, 15th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 4th, 1st,1st.
At the Pies the competition had 16 teams for the whole period until 2011 when it went up to 18.
Of all those years he has 4 flags to his name.

The areas in red I have deemed rebuilding periods.

Buckley has coached 6 completed seasons for 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 12th and 13th. Likely to finish 4th at least this season.
Again I have hi-lighted the years of rebuild in Red.
The competition has had 18 teams since Buckley has coached.

Buckley ash also coached his entire career under a compromised draft system.

So. How do you compare these two careers in hindsight equally?
You can't.

Malthouse won a flag after he was offered the succession plan, he failed to replicate that feat a year later with a far more dominant side.

Whether Buckley took over or Malthouse stayed on the rebuild was inevitable, with many players at the ends of their careers and/or heading home after the success they deserved and worked for.

The question everyone should ask is why did Malthouse renege on the agreement he signed to assist Buckley?

The only thing of any real importance is would we have been better earlier, with Malthouse and Buckley, had Malthouse not gone back on his word to fail miserably at Carlton and further tarnish his standing?

Simply pointing out how you all thought you knew better 6 years ago is moot, because you had nothing to compare either coahc too. Different peoepl in different era's under different conditions rules and competitive environments.

If Malthouse was Buckley's age now and took over a modern side he would probably fail...his era is gone as has Jocks.

Probably...because we will never know and to stake your hat on a statement like that would be pointless.
For the record I loved Mick, loved his style and his ego.
I am happy with Buckley now and was happy with the entire concept of the succession. It brought instant results in the 2010 flag and only Malthouse ego ruined any chance it had to be a great success.

As the reality is what we have in front of us anyone who wants to harp on about what-ifs are just short on a better more relevant topic.
If Buckley wins a flag, the same argument about your right to still remain sour is valid, but why?
Just so pig headed your can't let it go?

It makes no sense.

So you agree that some will have different views than others of varying degrees and post their thoughts on BF.

 

[Pie eyed]

So you agree that some will have different views than others of varying degrees and post their thoughts on BF.

Absolutely.
Always have.
Though merely harping back on how we felt 3 years ago without taking into account where we are now...or where we came from before that is just re-posting old opinions formed in a vacuum.

Of course Buckley was inexperienced, of course he has learned in the role. Any coach would have. Any person would have.

It is not a case of whether we made the right decision, there is no wrong or right.
We made a good decision.

The fact Buckley has been able to grow in the role and change himself to suit what the club and the team need to be better, along with all the players, assistant coaches etc is testimony,the proof, that Buckley was a good choice.

Was he the only good choice? No-one will ever know that.

Malthouse has shown that he could not change, when the opportunity was offered to him rather than the abyss.
He chose the abyss, worse he chose the darkest place in the football universe, over the chance to be part of a new frontier in football coaching....
He chose what he knew.

If you ask Malthouse today he would agree that it was he alone who ended the possibility that anyone could see if the succession plan he agreed to would have been a bad thing, a good thing or a revolutionary thing.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Absolutely.
Always have.
Though merely harping back on how we felt 3 years ago without taking into account where we are now...or where we came from before that is just re-posting old opinions formed in a vacuum.

Be careful having opinions about the past, you may be met with some posters who have a dis jointed nostril as a result.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Be careful having opinions about the past, you may be met with some posters who have a dis jointed nostril as a result.

Opinions are fine, its those who claim things are factual when they are just an opinion, that gets up "dis jointed nostrils"

 

[Carringbush2010]

Opinions are fine, its those who claim things are factual when they are just an opinion, that gets up "dis jointed nostrils"

Yet there's been posters (many!) who have got the saw out ready to modify the shot gun when I've speculated in the past something that is contrary to their view and in all of those posts I have stated it was speculation.

Everyone just needs to cool their jets a bit, (everyone take note) If someone in future claims something as fact that you or someone disagrees then just accept it is only speculation and probably ignore and move on. Resist the temptation to get your back up and reply with a condescending or derogatory post.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

No I don't, you're not reading my posts. I'll dumb it down for you - people are going to post about the past and that includes the succession plan which is relevant to the thread, that won't be avoided people are going to do that so it is not perception it's a reality - they're going to post.

If you want me to go over any reasoning I won't - it's been stated ad nauseum in this and other threads and to be honest I don't want to. I'm just stating that is anyone's right to question the past and explain their "reasoning"

If you can't understand that then don't bother replying.

Agree..

How hard is it to move on to the next post if one isn't to your liking.. head scratcher that one.

What are people defending.. a thread that has no bearing whatsoever on the decisions made by the Collingwood Football Club.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Yet there's been posters (many!) who have got the saw out ready to modify the shot gun when I've speculated in the past something that is contrary to their view and in all of those posts I have stated it was speculation.

Everyone just needs to cool their jets a bit, (everyone take note) If someone in future claims something as fact that you or someone disagrees then just accept it is only speculation and probably ignore and move on. Resist the temptation to get your back up and reply with a condescending or derogatory post.

Nah

 

[noideaatall]

Everyone just needs to cool their jets a bit, (everyone take note) If someone in future claims something as fact that you or someone disagrees then just accept it is only speculation and probably ignore and move on. Resist the temptation to get your back up and reply with a condescending or derogatory post.

Now that is an opinion I agree with, though not always good at resisting... We tried two match day threads, maybe we need two Buckley threads.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Malthouse coached the Western Bulldogs for 6 years for 7th, 3rd, 8th, 7th,8th and 13th.
These ladder positions were in a competition with only 12 sides for the first 3 and then 14 the remainder.

He coached West Coast for 3rd, 1st, 4th, 6th, 1st, 5th, 4th, 5th, 7th and 5th.
These ladder positions were in a competition with only 14 the first, 15 the next 4 and then 16 the remainder.


He coached Collingwood 15th, 9th, 4th, 2nd, 13th, 15th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 4th, 1st,1st.
At the Pies the competition had 16 teams for the whole period until 2011 when it went up to 18.
Of all those years he has 4 flags to his name.

The areas in red I have deemed rebuilding periods.

Buckley has coached 6 completed seasons for 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 12th and 13th. Likely to finish 4th at least this season.
Again I have hi-lighted the years of rebuild in Red.
The competition has had 18 teams since Buckley has coached.

Buckley ash also coached his entire career under a compromised draft system.

So. How do you compare these two careers in hindsight equally?
You can't.

Malthouse won a flag after he was offered the succession plan, he failed to replicate that feat a year later with a far more dominant side.

Whether Buckley took over or Malthouse stayed on the rebuild was inevitable, with many players at the ends of their careers and/or heading home after the success they deserved and worked for.

The question everyone should ask is why did Malthouse renege on the agreement he signed to assist Buckley?

The only thing of any real importance is would we have been better earlier, with Malthouse and Buckley, had Malthouse not gone back on his word to fail miserably at Carlton and further tarnish his standing?

Simply pointing out how you all thought you knew better 6 years ago is moot, because you had nothing to compare either coahc too. Different peoepl in different era's under different conditions rules and competitive environments.

If Malthouse was Buckley's age now and took over a modern side he would probably fail...his era is gone as has Jocks.

Probably...because we will never know and to stake your hat on a statement like that would be pointless.
For the record I loved Mick, loved his style and his ego.
I am happy with Buckley now and was happy with the entire concept of the succession. It brought instant results in the 2010 flag and only Malthouse ego ruined any chance it had to be a great success.

As the reality is what we have in front of us anyone who wants to harp on about what-ifs are just short on a better more relevant topic.
If Buckley wins a flag, the same argument about your right to still remain sour is valid, but why?
Just so pig headed your can't let it go?

It makes no sense.

And that my kind sir is one of the best explanations of the situation I have read
And accurate

Well done

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Now that is an opinion I agree with, though not always good at resisting... We tried two match day threads, maybe we need two Buckley threads.

Those 2 match day threads were f great re..

Made for good banter between the 2 groups I reckon re.

 

[cleomenes]

In football, there is only this year.The "what might have beens" really don't matter. After this year's final series, there will probably endless laments over the absence of our key backs during the finals. What does it matter? They are out this year. We can only celebrate whatever the players we have standing achieve this year, and then make a start on the next.
One thing that has impressed me no end this year has been the refusal of the administration to put unfit players on the field, extending rehab until they were sure (even if there was a follow up failure), and I have particularly liked the lack of game playing at selection. Thus we hear today that Howe will not play. No pretense. Late withdrawals only when something has happened. Integrity.

 

[jmac70]

In football, there is only this year.The "what might have beens" really don't matter. After this year's final series, there will probably endless laments over the absence of our key backs during the finals. What does it matter? They are out this year. We can only celebrate whatever the players we have standing achieve this year, and then make a start on the next.
One thing that has impressed me no end this year has been the refusal of the administration to put unfit players on the field, extending rehab until they were sure (even if there was a follow up failure), and I have particularly liked the lack of game playing at selection. Thus we hear today that Howe will not play. No pretense. Late withdrawals only when something has happened. Integrity.

I mostly agree but think we may have played Moore before he was ready. Hard to say for sure.

 

[jmac70]

Yet there's been posters (many!) who have got the saw out ready to modify the shot gun when I've speculated in the past something that is contrary to their view and in all of those posts I have stated it was speculation.

Everyone just needs to cool their jets a bit, (everyone take note) If someone in future claims something as fact that you or someone disagrees then just accept it is only speculation and probably ignore and move on. Resist the temptation to get your back up and reply with a condescending or derogatory post.

You gave up hope earlier in the year but it’s good to see you back on the bus.

Everyone is welcome on the bus.

 

[Football God]

I don’t know if it’s a replay but I was listening to SEN on the way home from work just before and Bucks will be talking on the show shortly talking about finals etc.

 

[Football God]

Actually he’s on now lol.

 

[left at home]

Actually he’s on now lol.

Anything interesting said

 

[Football God]

Anything interesting said

Is was his regular weekly interview with Whateley.
Here’s a couple things talked about -
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/08/22/buckley-rules-out-howe-for-round-23/
Possibly can find the interview there somewhere.
Also discussed priority picks how it doesn’t help us if we lose players because of the points system for father son and academy players moving out of the top 10 for example. Something along those lines as I was partially listening to it.

 

[jmac70]

I do agree that the mods are way too lenient on the trolls; those who are obviously here just to cause trouble should be removed. Yet I've never been a mod, don't expect to ever be one, but do understand that they don't have a 'fun' job, especially at times like this (Murray story) where it would be pretty hard to handle things. From what I've seen/heard we do have very tolerant mods, despite the 'troll issue' I prefer what we have to the approach that (apparently) is seen on many other boards.

The mods acted swiftly on that troll though.

 

[35Daicos]

The mods acted swiftly on that troll though.

Good to see! This particular one didn't try to be at all subtle, and had no chance of surviving for more than a few hours.