 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Member 7167 
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: |
I stand by EVERYTHING posted. If you want to get into bed with RR and Collie Dog, go for it.
RR on balance with rare exception has always been a negative poster. |
I know RR and Jack Spain as well as I know any poster on here that I haven't met in person, so I'm entirely comfortable with my relationship with them and their views (which differ significantly from each other's, as well as my own in many respects—the idea of the three of us "getting into bed together" is actually pretty hilarious). As I said, RR was one of the few voices of reason and positivity when 70% or more of this board was calling for Malthouse's head prior to 2010. Jack Spain, on the other hand, tends to vigorously oppose whoever is in charge. There's a pretty clear distinction there, I think. I suspect you're letting your personal dislike of RR and his political views cloud your judgement here. |
I will now remove my tongue from my cheek. I have no personal dislike for RR but I do like to prod him with a big stick.
And yes David. It was meant to be funny. |
|
|
|
 |
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Member 7167 wrote: | | David wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: |
I stand by EVERYTHING posted. If you want to get into bed with RR and Collie Dog, go for it.
RR on balance with rare exception has always been a negative poster. |
I know RR and Jack Spain as well as I know any poster on here that I haven't met in person, so I'm entirely comfortable with my relationship with them and their views (which differ significantly from each other's, as well as my own in many respects—the idea of the three of us "getting into bed together" is actually pretty hilarious). As I said, RR was one of the few voices of reason and positivity when 70% or more of this board was calling for Malthouse's head prior to 2010. Jack Spain, on the other hand, tends to vigorously oppose whoever is in charge. There's a pretty clear distinction there, I think. I suspect you're letting your personal dislike of RR and his political views cloud your judgement here. |
I will now remove my tongue from my cheek. I have no personal dislike for RR but I do like to prod him with a big stick.
And yes David. It was meant to be funny. |
RR would be a good bloke if he wasn't a homophobe.
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
Member 7167
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Defender wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: | | David wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: |
I stand by EVERYTHING posted. If you want to get into bed with RR and Collie Dog, go for it.
RR on balance with rare exception has always been a negative poster. |
I know RR and Jack Spain as well as I know any poster on here that I haven't met in person, so I'm entirely comfortable with my relationship with them and their views (which differ significantly from each other's, as well as my own in many respects—the idea of the three of us "getting into bed together" is actually pretty hilarious). As I said, RR was one of the few voices of reason and positivity when 70% or more of this board was calling for Malthouse's head prior to 2010. Jack Spain, on the other hand, tends to vigorously oppose whoever is in charge. There's a pretty clear distinction there, I think. I suspect you're letting your personal dislike of RR and his political views cloud your judgement here. |
I will now remove my tongue from my cheek. I have no personal dislike for RR but I do like to prod him with a big stick.
And yes David. It was meant to be funny. |
RR would be a good bloke if he wasn't a homophobe. |
Missed out by thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat much. |
|
|
|
|
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Member 7167 wrote: | | Defender wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: | | David wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: |
I stand by EVERYTHING posted. If you want to get into bed with RR and Collie Dog, go for it.
RR on balance with rare exception has always been a negative poster. |
I know RR and Jack Spain as well as I know any poster on here that I haven't met in person, so I'm entirely comfortable with my relationship with them and their views (which differ significantly from each other's, as well as my own in many respects—the idea of the three of us "getting into bed together" is actually pretty hilarious). As I said, RR was one of the few voices of reason and positivity when 70% or more of this board was calling for Malthouse's head prior to 2010. Jack Spain, on the other hand, tends to vigorously oppose whoever is in charge. There's a pretty clear distinction there, I think. I suspect you're letting your personal dislike of RR and his political views cloud your judgement here. |
I will now remove my tongue from my cheek. I have no personal dislike for RR but I do like to prod him with a big stick.
And yes David. It was meant to be funny. |
RR would be a good bloke if he wasn't a homophobe. |
Missed out by thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat much. |
Yes you did.
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Redlight wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | This is the other way to look at it, but not one that washes with me, mostly because I see our 2010 win as the culmination of a consistent build over many years, not as a result of the handover deal. And luck in Grand Finals? It happens. Even the Cats needed some to beat the Saints. We were the best team over the season though and put ourselves in the position to win it, there's no need to downplay anything we did that year just because the Saints could have won.
And I see Mick's success or not at Carlton as irrelevant. Different team, different circumstances. There's no doubt that what he was doing at Collingwood in 2011 was working. It was one of our best seasons ever, and without some key injuries late, we could have won that flag. There's no real reason to suggest we couldn't have been competitive again in 2012. Even under Bucks we came relatively close, and that's taking into account an adjustment period with a new coach and a decent amount of injuries.
We can look at it from all different angles, but the one thing for me that's irrefutable: in 2010 and 2011 we were either the best team or one of the two best teams in the comp. It does not sit well with me that we decided to change coach at that point. Flirting with the unknown just when you've hit on a perfect sweet spot makes no sense at all. Granted, the handover deal was done before then, but that was one of the mistakes of it. We had a good list that was building, and knew a Premiership was possible, this was not a time to handover. Just imagine if we'd won in 2010 and 2011 as we so nearly did? The handover would have looked even sillier.
Post handover, things really could not have gone much worse. We were not able to keep Mick on as DOC. We were not able to manage a smooth transition, as say a Sydney or Geelong did, because the new coach wanted changes. Again, this is not the ideal handover type situation. We then lost key players, seemingly because the new coach wanted changes and set our Premiership clock back even further.
Now I'm happy for Bucks to make changes, whether that's in game plan, culture, players or off-field staff. But that's not how to manage the handover of a team that was at the top. To be any chance of staying at or near the top in the short term, you need a seamless transition, you've been handed a ready made team, the idea is to run with it not against it. Maybe we tried that and failed in 2012 so rethought the situation, I don't know. But the transition, in the immediate term, was a failure. Buckley was not signed on for a rebuild, but near term success. What we all hope is that the medium to longer term transition, where Bucks now has his own team, goes much better. |
I respect your position and your argument but I think your memories of Mick at the time the transition was agreed are a bit rosier than mine. The transition deal wasn't made in 2010 when we were flying, or 2011 for that matter. It was made in 2009, a season that would end with us being bundled out of the finals with spectacular ease by Geelong. A humiliating 73 point thrashing as I recall.
At the end of that year I was glad that we had a transition plan in place. No one thought Mick was 'Super Coach' then.
Mick hadn't won a flag in 10 years, I seem to remember it being said that it was a record stay by a coach at a single club without winning a premiership. The club had given Mick the best available resources, free-reign and a decade to win us a flag. They even engineered a respectful way for both parties to move on that allowed Mick a generous and graceful exit from coaching.
Remember it's a deal he agreed with, one that probably seemed very sweet at the time. I reckon if we'd moved Mick on at the end of 2009 he wouldn't have got a gig at another club. People thought of Sheedy and Malthouse in the much the same way back then, both were perceived to be old fashioned and not suited to the modern game.
After the deal Mick suddenly started moving favourite sons like O'Bree to the seconds and promoting kids. Suddenly we were recruiting seriously for a ruckman. I don't think it unreasonable to think he'd had a fire lit underneath him.
With more great recruiting in 2011 we had a remarkable season. However Mick was at the helm during, not just the depressing loss in the GF, but also during that catastrophic final game where Geelong destroyed us by 96 points.
Mick was the still the Senior Coach then. I think it's odd to blame Eddie or Bucks for how that season played out. Or is Mick only wholly responsible for the successes?
Looking back 2011 was clearly the peak of that group of players and even with that team Malthouse couldn't deliver a flag.
No-one can deny that 2012 and 2013 were cruelled by injuries to our best players and then retirements. There's no reason to believe that MM would've done any better given our horrendous luck, but some evidence that he might've done worse. After all he's the gun super-coach who has actually taken a side backward from where it was when Brett Ratten was coaching it.
That's like some kind of evil coaching miracle. 
I'd also argue that Buckley is duty bound to make changes, and to keep on making them. If he hadn't it's highly likely that we'd be suffering much worse than we are now.
In the 2012/13 seasons I saw plenty of injuries, plenty of effort, plenty of pride and plenty of kids. If Bucks couldn't coach or had 'lost the players' we would've dropped away like a rock. Instead I've seen us in 2014, during a rebuild, play three games. We've been smashed by a grand finalist, bounced back with a gutsy win against a well-regarded Sydney and then lost narrowly in another fighting effort. This isn't an unmotivated team without focus or intensity, it's a team in transition.
Is Buckley a great coach? No one knows. Can he coach? I'd say the evidence is firmly in favour of the 'yes' column at the moment. |
Yes, I well remember that some on this site thought Mick had been around too long in 2009 and that the team was going nowhere. Which is why I get a laugh out of people bringing up "negativity" now as if it's something new on the site. It was much worse in the couple of years before 2010. I was never a part of it though, and felt that the side was clearly and consistently improving.
However, if the club had this view, they should have got rid of him and found the best possible replacement, not put in place a deal that always looked unworkable. Two more years for a bloke who was past it? Doesn't sound very logical.
I don't think I blamed Eddie or Bucks for 2011, did I? The handover crap was an unwelcome distraction during the season, but it's not why we missed out on the flag. That can be fairly attributed to some key injuries late in the year. Even in the GF we seemed to have Geelong's measure till injury and fatigue took their toll. I don't see that there is any blame to be apportioned to anyone for that year, it was a very successful season and certainly ended far from "disaster".
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I fear last night might be an example of what we will get while Bucks remains coach. Insipid sometimes good sometimes great sometimes woeful but always safe football just as Bucks played in his heyday(how many flags did he play in?).
Richmond came back and beat us in the 4th, we kept pace although a step behind as we did against Geelong the week before but they outscored us in that 4th quarter. That should IMO ring alarm bells.
Bucks took Grundy off when he was playing well probably playing it safe so he didn't get injured while leaving a forward on who was making a mockery of the club considering the money he is being paid.
Safe footy might win enough games to make the finals, it wont win Premierships! |
|
|
|
|
Albert Parker
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Rather we had got a bit more percentage out of last night, but gee that is a tough call.
Grundy is about 19 and has played 11 games. Giving him a rest is entirely prudent. Staggering observation to suggest it was a bad idea to rest him when the game was safe in our keeping. Most agree that we don't want to "do a Josh Fraser" again.
Outscored our opponent for 3 quarters, holding them to 3 goals only, yet you are ringing alarm bells when we get outscored 7 goals to 6 in the final term?
_________________
One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
|
Flashman
Joined: 11 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah risk taking works wonders doesn't it.
Like playing injured players like Dawes, Reid and Jolly in the 2011 GF. That paid off hey?
Last I saw Football was a team sport so I doubt Buckley's so called conservatism (conservative enough to win a Norm Smith and be our best in the 2003 GF) can be blamed for the shortcomings of his 21 other teammates and can be held solely responsible for him not achieving premiership success.
Unless of course you're someone who enjoys making dumb and simplistic statements to support an established anti-Buckley agenda of course. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Flashman wrote: | Yeah risk taking works wonders doesn't it.
Like playing injured players like Dawes, Reid and Jolly in the 2011 GF. That paid off hey?
Last I saw Football was a team sport so I doubt Buckley's so called conservatism (conservative enough to win a Norm Smith and be our best in the 2003 GF) can be blamed for the shortcomings of his 21 other teammates and can be held solely responsible for him not achieving premiership success.
Unless of course you're someone who enjoys making dumb and simplistic statements to support an established anti-Buckley agenda of course. |
Totally agree with being prudent about Grundy, if the game is a lock and that's the general consensus in the box, then there can be no harm in it, better to play it safe.
On Bucks, didn't he always 'demand' the football when he was playing from his team mates, I seem to remember us being very very 'Bucks' focussed.
I also seem to remember that when we were 'down' in the post gf years, we'd often play better (win more) when Bucks was out of the team injured... yes yes I know, blasphemy...
Playing poker is a good example of risk taking imo, overall its better to be conservative, but when you gotta go... you gotta go hard - its all about risk vs reward in any given situation.
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | Well, I think you are anti-Buckley. Here's your very first post on this board from 26 September 2013:
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | KK it's coming - I'm a long time Pies supporter, like a lot of us here obviously - I've joined the site 'TODAY' for one reason, and one reason alone - to help start seeing to the removal of this 'farce' with which we now find ourselves in - yes that one, the one being mostly swept under the carpet by people who can't see the woods through the trees - yes its the 'Buckley/Eddie fantasy apocalypse dynasty of mediocrity' and if you don't believe that then tell me one AFL coach presently employed who would have done worse then Buckley did in the last 2 years, or one club that would employ him as their head coach... even at half price - lets not kid ourselves, Buckley is an excellent assistant coach but if he talks one more time about stats... I could get my 10 yr old son to show him up on that DEPARTMENT - he is not employed to be good at stats - he's employed to win games and win flags - nothing more, nothing less - now I understand I am but a grain of sand, or maybe even just a drop of water... but grains of sand and drops of water do add up, and together they gain weight - welcome to the beginning of the end... |
|
Yep anti fail, because we deserve better, and so far, it is still the apocalypse dynasty of mediocrity - I stand by that statement 100% because I'm yet to see otherwise (mind you, I'll give you this - his last press conf was easily his best yet, and I did grow a tiny bit more faith). |
GUESS youd rather have the old fart back from the Scum then ??, Oh yeah, hes doing a "REAL" good job there, real good, NOT .  
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: |
GUESS youd rather have the old fart back from the Scum then ??, Oh yeah, hes doing a "REAL" good job there, real good, NOT . |
Our average ladder position with MM was 7th, not impressive really. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: | | The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | Well, I think you are anti-Buckley. Here's your very first post on this board from 26 September 2013:
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | KK it's coming - I'm a long time Pies supporter, like a lot of us here obviously - I've joined the site 'TODAY' for one reason, and one reason alone - to help start seeing to the removal of this 'farce' with which we now find ourselves in - yes that one, the one being mostly swept under the carpet by people who can't see the woods through the trees - yes its the 'Buckley/Eddie fantasy apocalypse dynasty of mediocrity' and if you don't believe that then tell me one AFL coach presently employed who would have done worse then Buckley did in the last 2 years, or one club that would employ him as their head coach... even at half price - lets not kid ourselves, Buckley is an excellent assistant coach but if he talks one more time about stats... I could get my 10 yr old son to show him up on that DEPARTMENT - he is not employed to be good at stats - he's employed to win games and win flags - nothing more, nothing less - now I understand I am but a grain of sand, or maybe even just a drop of water... but grains of sand and drops of water do add up, and together they gain weight - welcome to the beginning of the end... |
|
Yep anti fail, because we deserve better, and so far, it is still the apocalypse dynasty of mediocrity - I stand by that statement 100% because I'm yet to see otherwise (mind you, I'll give you this - his last press conf was easily his best yet, and I did grow a tiny bit more faith). |
GUESS youd rather have the old fart back from the Scum then ??, Oh yeah, hes doing a "REAL" good job there, real good, NOT . |
No chance, and please note, I purely commented on 21 other players comment - which is true but I think at the time we were very one man focussed often... so its not as simple as saying he's 1 of 22.
Getting MM back would be an even bigger disaster then what we already have (had, we'll see..). Didn't see the game last night so I won't bag his coaching this week (also note I didn't 'specifically' bag him last week either, only a question on trying to get something out of Cloke).
We'll let sleeping dogs lie until they demand a wakeup..
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ YOUR glass half empty is now down to a few miserable drops. !
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| And down to a few miserable drops is ^ YOUR glass half empty. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well it's sure looking better than the Malthouse appointment to the scum.
Loving this come on demons!
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
