|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
Culprit wrote: | Yawn, another crap comparison post. Mods roll all these Malthouse posts into one. They are all the same. |
Thanks mate. A discussion piece to create a chat with specific player information. _________________ I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
|
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
Presti35 wrote: | You forgot the second coming of Chris Tarrant! |
Didn't want to consider him given he was Judkins only real success. _________________ I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
|
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: Re: Buckley vs Malthouse: who attracted better talent? | |
|
E wrote: | inxs88 wrote: | It's always interesting reading the respective barbs on Nick's as to who fans align themselves with. Obviously Mick's record exceeds Bucks however I thought an exercise worth researching and sharing would be who has attracted better talent from opposing clubs or relevant leagues. Obviously Buckley's sample size and time frame is 7 years less but the names make for interesting reading.
The following lists are broken into wins , fails, and jury out still for those whose success rating are still a work in progress as of 28th April 2016.
Nathan Buckley:
Wins:
* Adam Treloar
* Taylor Adams
* Travis Varcoe
* Jack Crisp
Fails:
* Marty Clarke
* Q Stick
* Jessie White
* Clinton Young
* Tony Armstrong
* Patrick Karnezis
* Jordan Russell
Jury Out:
* Jeremy Howe
* Levi Greenwood
* James Aish
Mick Malthouse:
Wins:
* Shane O'Bree
* Shane Wakelin
* Brodie Holland
* James Clement
* Nick Maxwell
* Paul Medhurst
* Darren Jolly
* Luke Ball
* Leigh Brown
* Andrew Krakouer
Fails:
* Andrew Ukovic
* Steven McKee
* Jarrod Molloy
* Carl Steinfort
* Shane Woewodin
* Chad Rintoul
* Scott Cummings
* Chad Morrison
* Andrew Williams
* Blake Caracella (unfortunate)
* Cameron Wood
* Anthony Corrie
* Simon Buckley
Many ways to interpret the above, however an interesting set of names. Obviously there are some A graders recruited and some busts as well. I guess anecdotally, it feels like it took an eternity for Mick to attract a Jolly or a Ball to the club, yet Bucks has been able to secure a big name each year.
Maybe it all comes down to one thing: Bali |
this is a pretty silly exercise. To judge the comparative success or failure of a coach by examining a list of players who joined the club via trade (together with subjective assessments of certain drafted players who should be treated like trades because it suits you) is nonsense.
for a start, some players on your list were always simply list stuffers that cost us NOTHING to acquire and the players were acquired as no more than depth players. How can the fact that the player ended up a list stuffer, possibly constitute a failure?
Then look at the fact that a team that is approaching a premiership is likely to sacrifice good draft picks for mature players so as to stuff the team with players who are ready to contribute now. Buckley hasn't had that team yet and so hasn't gone after the Jolly's or Ball's just yet. Might happen in the coming couple of years however.
In my mind, this is just two arbitrary lists of names that mean nothing about Malthouse or Buckley other than the fact that they casme to the club while these coaches were the coach...... |
You're getting a tad esoteric with your view here. This is an "actual list" of players not a subjective list, whom have come to Collingwood under the respective coaching stewardship of both coaches.
Coaches have more say in trades than they do in drafting, so I think listing both additions of players from other clubs does correlate with each coach. Some cost more than others, some were steak knives however the list is the list. _________________ I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
|
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
The Prototype wrote: | Clarke was pretty much just a sweetener though, as well as a late pick from GWS, it seemed we were more keen on Elliott.
but at least Elliott has worked out, minus his injury at the moment. |
I reckon if you go back you'll find Clarke was the core signing via GWS having access to previous contracted former AFL players and Elliott was the steak knives, albeit an extremely "serrated" set of knives. He had missed out on being selected from the Murray Bushrangers the year before and was more speculative. _________________ I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
inxs88 wrote: | The Prototype wrote: | Clarke was pretty much just a sweetener though, as well as a late pick from GWS, it seemed we were more keen on Elliott.
but at least Elliott has worked out, minus his injury at the moment. |
I reckon if you go back you'll find Clarke was the core signing via GWS having access to previous contracted former AFL players and Elliott was the steak knives, albeit an extremely "serrated" set of knives. He had missed out on being selected from the Murray Bushrangers the year before and was more speculative. |
that was the assumption that a lot of people made at the time because no one had heard of Jamie Elliot. the idea that we would have given up a first round pick for Marty Clarke is preposterous so the idea that anyone would think that Elliot wasn't the central piece of the deal must consider Collingwood to be the most incredibly lucky morons on the face of the planet.
Blow a first round pick on Marty Clarke and get lucky to stumble on one of the best young kids in the country........... _________________ Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
Post subject: Re: Buckley vs Malthouse: who attracted better talent? | |
|
inxs88 wrote: | E wrote: | inxs88 wrote: | It's always interesting reading the respective barbs on Nick's as to who fans align themselves with. Obviously Mick's record exceeds Bucks however I thought an exercise worth researching and sharing would be who has attracted better talent from opposing clubs or relevant leagues. Obviously Buckley's sample size and time frame is 7 years less but the names make for interesting reading.
The following lists are broken into wins , fails, and jury out still for those whose success rating are still a work in progress as of 28th April 2016.
Nathan Buckley:
Wins:
* Adam Treloar
* Taylor Adams
* Travis Varcoe
* Jack Crisp
Fails:
* Marty Clarke
* Q Stick
* Jessie White
* Clinton Young
* Tony Armstrong
* Patrick Karnezis
* Jordan Russell
Jury Out:
* Jeremy Howe
* Levi Greenwood
* James Aish
Mick Malthouse:
Wins:
* Shane O'Bree
* Shane Wakelin
* Brodie Holland
* James Clement
* Nick Maxwell
* Paul Medhurst
* Darren Jolly
* Luke Ball
* Leigh Brown
* Andrew Krakouer
Fails:
* Andrew Ukovic
* Steven McKee
* Jarrod Molloy
* Carl Steinfort
* Shane Woewodin
* Chad Rintoul
* Scott Cummings
* Chad Morrison
* Andrew Williams
* Blake Caracella (unfortunate)
* Cameron Wood
* Anthony Corrie
* Simon Buckley
Many ways to interpret the above, however an interesting set of names. Obviously there are some A graders recruited and some busts as well. I guess anecdotally, it feels like it took an eternity for Mick to attract a Jolly or a Ball to the club, yet Bucks has been able to secure a big name each year.
Maybe it all comes down to one thing: Bali |
this is a pretty silly exercise. To judge the comparative success or failure of a coach by examining a list of players who joined the club via trade (together with subjective assessments of certain drafted players who should be treated like trades because it suits you) is nonsense.
for a start, some players on your list were always simply list stuffers that cost us NOTHING to acquire and the players were acquired as no more than depth players. How can the fact that the player ended up a list stuffer, possibly constitute a failure?
Then look at the fact that a team that is approaching a premiership is likely to sacrifice good draft picks for mature players so as to stuff the team with players who are ready to contribute now. Buckley hasn't had that team yet and so hasn't gone after the Jolly's or Ball's just yet. Might happen in the coming couple of years however.
In my mind, this is just two arbitrary lists of names that mean nothing about Malthouse or Buckley other than the fact that they casme to the club while these coaches were the coach...... |
You're getting a tad esoteric with your view here. This is an "actual list" of players not a subjective list, whom have come to Collingwood under the respective coaching stewardship of both coaches.
Coaches have more say in trades than they do in drafting, so I think listing both additions of players from other clubs does correlate with each coach. Some cost more than others, some were steak knives however the list is the list. |
it is a random list of players. You didn't include the hundreds of other players that came to the club during the period. Is it players that were traded for - nope, because Leigh Brown was drafted with the last pick in his draft class. Why on earth is Nick Maxwell on the list. He was a rookie upgrade? I just don't see the point of the list other than it being just completely random.
Are you suggesting they CHOSE Collingwood (because of the coach!). Give me a break.. Most of the players were on the last chance highway and would have gone to any coach of any club for any reason.
Do you think Jolly and Ball chose us because Mick was coach (or because they knew Bucks would soon be coach), or simply because they wanted a shot at a flag (and in the case of Ball, a chance to stick it up his coach who had lost faith in him). Bally was a draft pick too now that I think about it because the other club involved refused to trade with our club (is that because MM was a jerk, or because we were a flag threat.
Are you getting my point about how little we can deduce from the list? _________________ Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
The Prototype
Paint my face with a good-for-nothin smile.
Joined: 23 Apr 2003 Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
inxs88 wrote: | I reckon if you go back you'll find Clarke was the core signing via GWS having access to previous contracted former AFL players and Elliott was the steak knives, albeit an extremely "serrated" set of knives. He had missed out on being selected from the Murray Bushrangers the year before and was more speculative. |
Collingwood was pretty keen on Elliott as he played a handful of VFL games, so I think it all worked out in the end. I suppose in the end however the deal was structured Collingwood got what they wanted, as did GWS so it don't much matter who the free gift was in the deal.
It was always going to be a gamble getting Clarke back, took a bit of a chance and it didn't work out. But at least Elliott did. If both were busts it would have been interesting. _________________ Ðavâgé
https://www.facebook.com/davehardingphotography
https://www.facebook.com/Davage |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Location: Elwood
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think it's more the list manager who attracts the talent to the football club with a bit of influence from the senior coach. While there was some speculation that Buckley was the deciding factor in the decision of Treloar, Howe and Aish to Collingwood, we don't really know the truth of the matter. In the case of Malthouse because of the Western Australian connection, we can assume that players like Clement, Medhurst, Morrison and Williams joined Collingwood with Malthouse's approval or instigation.
I'm interested to know the players who improved their football under their respective coaches rather than which coach attracted the better players. In the case of Malthouse, his greatest successes were Licuria, Clement, Maxwell and Leigh Brown. In the case of Buckley the jury is out, but players like Elliot, Marley Williams, Langdon, Adams, Frost and Varcoe are better players under Buckley, while a couple went backwards in Dawes and Shaw, while a few have flatlined in Reid and Toovey and others like Cloke have been up and down. |
|
|
|
|
3rd degree
Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Location: John Wren's tote
|
Post subject: | |
|
Dangles wrote: | 'Twas rule changes that did Steve McKee in. He was unlucky. |
True but he should have still played in 03 GF along with Rupe and Freeborn. _________________ " Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
3rd degree
Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Location: John Wren's tote
|
Post subject: Re: Buckley vs Malthouse: who attracted better talent? | |
|
E wrote: | inxs88 wrote: | E wrote: | inxs88 wrote: | It's always interesting reading the respective barbs on Nick's as to who fans align themselves with. Obviously Mick's record exceeds Bucks however I thought an exercise worth researching and sharing would be who has attracted better talent from opposing clubs or relevant leagues. Obviously Buckley's sample size and time frame is 7 years less but the names make for interesting reading.
The following lists are broken into wins , fails, and jury out still for those whose success rating are still a work in progress as of 28th April 2016.
Nathan Buckley:
Wins:
* Adam Treloar
* Taylor Adams
* Travis Varcoe
* Jack Crisp
Fails:
* Marty Clarke
* Q Stick
* Jessie White
* Clinton Young
* Tony Armstrong
* Patrick Karnezis
* Jordan Russell
Jury Out:
* Jeremy Howe
* Levi Greenwood
* James Aish
Mick Malthouse:
Wins:
* Shane O'Bree
* Shane Wakelin
* Brodie Holland
* James Clement
* Nick Maxwell
* Paul Medhurst
* Darren Jolly
* Luke Ball
* Leigh Brown
* Andrew Krakouer
Fails:
* Andrew Ukovic
* Steven McKee
* Jarrod Molloy
* Carl Steinfort
* Shane Woewodin
* Chad Rintoul
* Scott Cummings
* Chad Morrison
* Andrew Williams
* Blake Caracella (unfortunate)
* Cameron Wood
* Anthony Corrie
* Simon Buckley
Many ways to interpret the above, however an interesting set of names. Obviously there are some A graders recruited and some busts as well. I guess anecdotally, it feels like it took an eternity for Mick to attract a Jolly or a Ball to the club, yet Bucks has been able to secure a big name each year.
Maybe it all comes down to one thing: Bali |
this is a pretty silly exercise. To judge the comparative success or failure of a coach by examining a list of players who joined the club via trade (together with subjective assessments of certain drafted players who should be treated like trades because it suits you) is nonsense.
for a start, some players on your list were always simply list stuffers that cost us NOTHING to acquire and the players were acquired as no more than depth players. How can the fact that the player ended up a list stuffer, possibly constitute a failure?
Then look at the fact that a team that is approaching a premiership is likely to sacrifice good draft picks for mature players so as to stuff the team with players who are ready to contribute now. Buckley hasn't had that team yet and so hasn't gone after the Jolly's or Ball's just yet. Might happen in the coming couple of years however.
In my mind, this is just two arbitrary lists of names that mean nothing about Malthouse or Buckley other than the fact that they casme to the club while these coaches were the coach...... |
You're getting a tad esoteric with your view here. This is an "actual list" of players not a subjective list, whom have come to Collingwood under the respective coaching stewardship of both coaches.
Coaches have more say in trades than they do in drafting, so I think listing both additions of players from other clubs does correlate with each coach. Some cost more than others, some were steak knives however the list is the list. |
it is a random list of players. You didn't include the hundreds of other players that came to the club during the period. Is it players that were traded for - nope, because Leigh Brown was drafted with the last pick in his draft class. Why on earth is Nick Maxwell on the list. He was a rookie upgrade? I just don't see the point of the list other than it being just completely random.
Are you suggesting they CHOSE Collingwood (because of the coach!). Give me a break.. Most of the players were on the last chance highway and would have gone to any coach of any club for any reason.
Do you think Jolly and Ball chose us because Mick was coach (or because they knew Bucks would soon be coach), or simply because they wanted a shot at a flag (and in the case of Ball, a chance to stick it up his coach who had lost faith in him). Bally was a draft pick too now that I think about it because the other club involved refused to trade with our club (is that because MM was a jerk, or because we were a flag threat.
Are you getting my point about how little we can deduce from the list? |
To be fair Ukovic was a communist from the Shaw Dynasty from memory . An interesting discussion no less. _________________ " Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Location: Bendigo
|
Post subject: | |
|
inxs88 wrote: | jackcass wrote: | Maxwell doesn't belong in this discussion. |
I know it's your goal in life to peruse the blogs on Nick and provide a contrary comment on anything I post, which is pretty lame Greening try hard! Nick Maxwell trained at several VFL clubs (eg Geelong) plus North Ballarat and was one of Mick's great success stories.
Additionally Buckley re hired Marty Clarke which was a bust. If you read the "fine print" in my introduction, you would have noticed the thread denoted other clubs and "leagues". |
Yeah, that's it.... 🙄
Nick Maxwell was 1st drafted onto an AFL list to Collingwood and therefore does not belong on the list in the context of the discussion. You can make it all about you if it helps you sleep nights but I was just pointing out what is blatantly obvious.
And did I even mention Marty Clarke? |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Location: Bendigo
|
Post subject: Re: Buckley vs Malthouse: who attracted better talent? | |
|
E wrote: | this is a pretty silly exercise. To judge the comparative success or failure of a coach by examining a list of players who joined the club via trade (together with subjective assessments of certain drafted players who should be treated like trades because it suits you) is nonsense.
for a start, some players on your list were always simply list stuffers that cost us NOTHING to acquire and the players were acquired as no more than depth players. How can the fact that the player ended up a list stuffer, possibly constitute a failure?
Then look at the fact that a team that is approaching a premiership is likely to sacrifice good draft picks for mature players so as to stuff the team with players who are ready to contribute now. Buckley hasn't had that team yet and so hasn't gone after the Jolly's or Ball's just yet. Might happen in the coming couple of years however.
In my mind, this is just two arbitrary lists of names that mean nothing about Malthouse or Buckley other than the fact that they casme to the club while these coaches were the coach...... |
Yep! |
|
|
|
|
Jpies
Joined: 09 Apr 2016
|
Post subject: | |
|
inxs88 wrote: |
We gave up pick 14 for Shane. Who went after him in the draft that year that exceeded Woey's career at the Pies??
* Brad Sewell
* Tom Lonergan
* Minson
* Jared Rivers
* Daniel Merrett
* Sean Dempster
* Kade Simpson
* Adam Selwood
* Ryan Crowley
* Nick Malceski
* Craig Bolton
* Brent Moloney
* Michael Firrito
* Joel Patfull
* Jason Porplyzia
All had long and enduring careers vs Shane whom was delisted after 3 seasons by Mick as in his words "couldn't get it done in the big games".. |
Plenty of better players there in the long run. But I'd have to go back to my original point that the players should be judged by the role they were recruited for. We recruited him as opposed to going to the draft as we wanted an experienced player to have another crack at the flag in 2003 (which we did). A first year recruit could have never been expected to consistenly play as well as Shane did (I think he had 12 brownlow votes in '03), even with his obvious flaws. |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Location: The Gutter
|
Post subject: | |
|
McKee is so unfairly judged all the time. He was a damn fine ruckman for his height, a solid goal kicker when he went forward, and had a bit of C in him. The rule change screwed his career. _________________ Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
Rev
Joined: 23 Jun 2012
|
Post subject: | |
|
It's not right to class Caracella as a fail. Players whose careers were ended by freak injury can't be put as the fault or responsibility of coaches.
In the same way you wouldn't credit Pagan, Laidley, Crocker and Scott with coaching brilliance for keeping Brent Harvey on the park all these years.
You ought to have an "unassessable" category. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|