 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Raw Hammer wrote: | | 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. |
Yeah, gets judged against higher standards as we all had such high hopes for Clinton King.... oh, and some kid named Pavlich might get thrown into the discussion occasionally. |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Why not compare Tony Shaw as well?
Anthony Rocca and Bucks isn't a bad start for the positive.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Collingwood Crackerjack
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Why not compare Tony Shaw as well?
Anthony Rocca and Bucks isn't a bad start for the positive. |
Bucks was poached under Matthews methinks
_________________
"The last thing he expected WAS THE FIRST THING HE GOT!!!!!"
© Collingwood Crackerjack, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname 
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Collingwood Crackerjack wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Why not compare Tony Shaw as well?
Anthony Rocca and Bucks isn't a bad start for the positive. |
Bucks was poached under Matthews methinks |
you be correct |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, whoops.
Never mind, there's still Ant. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Rev wrote: | 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. |
Agree Rev. I was going to do that but was a late at night post and hence I put the word "unfortunate" in brackets next to him. He was tracking pretty well until Notting collected him that night!
_________________
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: | | 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? |
Man! The conflict in Syria needs more analysis than this. It's just a list of all players from opposing clubs and the odd commensurate league that have been attracted to the Pies under both coaches over the last 17 years. One would hope that is a fair sample size to assess the success of these players. Not all are attracted by the coach of the day but as many would agree, any coach worth his salt would have to rubber stamp their recruitment.
_________________
I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: Re: Buckley vs Malthouse: who attracted better talent? | |
|
| inxs88 wrote: | | 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? |
Man! The conflict in Syria needs more analysis than this. It's just a list of all players from opposing clubs and the odd commensurate league that have been attracted to the Pies under both coaches over the last 17 years. One would hope that is a fair sample size to assess the success of these players. Not all are attracted by the coach of the day but as many would agree, any coach worth his salt would have to rubber stamp their recruitment. |
At least we agree on one thing. The list and its implications for Nathan and MM are not worthy of any further analysis.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Wow - I thought this was going to be about some hot chicks and how well Mick did back in his disco days compared to Bux at the Tunnel… thread was quite disappointing really
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
