| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
john b
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Location: melbourne(north)
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Malthouse said it and knew it in his Grand final speech. “They’re my boys ed”
I think we missed another possible premiership because of it.
But I disagree about Eddie, there is no one better than him to run the club.
Let’s hope the on field stuff turns around. |
|
|
|
 |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | Guys. I think we're losing sight of the bigger picture here. Eddie and Bucks don't run out onto the field and didn't affect the result last night. Blame the 22 who played last night. ... Redlight is right. This is all revionism of the worst kind to find fall guys to explain away our fall from the top ... |
If the 22 are simply inherently not talented enough as a collection (a scenario not confirmed beyond all doubt, but for which there's at least some circumstantial evidence), we can hardly blame them for not having the combination of genes and childhood that would enable them to be talented enough. They didn't, say, blackmail the club into recruiting them and then selecting them.
I realize the OP is about the succession plan. I agree there is a bigger picture than that. But for me that bigger picture is the lack of professionalism in so many aspects of the club's running. The succession plan is simply one possible example of that. Ultimately, this unprofessionalism stems from the Board, including its president. (The CEO too, I guess, but that position of course has already taken the hit.) |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^^ whatsinaname
Now it’s all clear to me.
Buckley’s game plan was to have the skipper and others miss those simple shots on goal. He demanded Cox drop all those marks. He planned for particular players to miss unmarked targets from 30 metres away.
He insisted whatever you do, dont take first options on a wet night.
And he even insisted that some of our most experienced players take one for the team and allow two debutants to be amongst our better players for the night.
Yes, he is the coach of our footy team and the buck stops with him as the leader but he isn’t out on the ground. At some point, players need to be responsible for their own actions and decision making.
A good team is the sum of all parts and there were just way to many individual weak links in the chain last night.
We are going to learn a lot more about these guys in the next week or two.
It shouldn’t ALWAYS have to just be about Buckley.
For the record, like most supporters, Buckley is losing my support but there is a reason why the term “ coach killers “ was introduced into sport. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
People need to stop making excuses... just like the Steve Smith incident, you could not make this stuff up.
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
masoncox
masoncox
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | People need to stop making excuses... just like the Steve Smith incident, you could not make this stuff up. |
I cannot believe the Smith tampering of the ball.
Beyond belief. Same as extending the contract for bux. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The succession was mostly popular at the time - the main alternative around here was to sack Malthouse outright.
Been and done many years ago now.
Bucks is the coach now, I'll support him until that changes. Criticism is fair enough, but some of it is just too ridiculous.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Brenny
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Location: Westpac Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Worst part for me, Richmond have overtaken us and it looks as if Carlton and Essendon may, too. Hardwick and Bucks came in at roughly the same time too.
Speaking with an Essendon supporter last night, she was saying the year when Essendon had to play rookies during the suspension period actually worked well for them. They had to play players with no experience and now they have the experience they are fitting in well.
All I want to see is some sort of progress and some improvement and last night all I saw was more of the same. Hawthorn were not that good! That’s the worst part about it.
Sydney showed how it can be turned around and quickly. Fingers crossed.
Right now I’m inside listening to the V10 Cosworth engine circle Albert Park and that’s the only thing bringing a smile to my face in the last 24hrs.
_________________
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeey, we want some Bayley! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Essendon went past us last year.
The Blues aren't close yet. For their supposedly "attacking football" they only kicked 12 goals or more three times last year and can't remember the last time they scored 100.
A big year for Bolton. The Blues have to produce something this year.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Location: The Gutter
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If the Blues have to produce something in Bolton's 4th season, then Collingwood and Bucks are well overdue.
_________________
Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
BEAMER09
Joined: 10 Apr 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | Guys. I think we're losing sight of the bigger picture here. Eddie and Bucks don't run out onto the field and didn't affect the result last night. Blame the 22 who played last night. That was an abysmal performance against a team who I don't think will make the eight this year. We should be focusing our attention on next week's game against GWS who are my tip to win the flag this year. What's done in the past is done and dusted as far as I'm concerned and the only point about raising it again for the one millionth time is to learn from your mistakes to get better going forward. Redlight is right. This is all revionism of the worst kind to find fall guys to explain away our fall from the top so we can pat ourselves on the back and say we knew all along the succession plan wouldn't work out and aren't we clever now. |
22 players are Bucks hand picked boys and still he hasn't developed one - not one young player in 7 years (exception Grundy).
And Bucks is Ed's pick.
Pretty clear I would think.
In fact, very clear....
_________________
COLLINGW09D |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Cam wrote: | | No, i never said it was due to the succession plan. I said the succession plan had failed. I didn't list any of the myriad of reasons why. Just that it had. Am I wrong? It could have worked, but it didn't and hasn't. |
For all intents and purposes, the succession plan has been a failure.
When the plan was agreed upon and signed on the dotted line in 2009, I don't think the club envisaged that Buckley would be overseeing a consistent but subtle decline over a six-year period, and that after six seasons in charge as coach, he would have only played finals football twice in that time with remnants from Malthouse's team and miss the finals for four conservative years and possibly five consecutive years if we miss it again this year.
It is true that Malthouse did not adhere to his end of the deal by staying on as 'director of coach' for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons and this didn't help Buckley's development as a coach.
I think the biggest mistake made with the benefit of hindsight was that Buckley was thrown into a job that he wasn't ready for. He had barely undergone a proper coaching apprenticeship like most coaches do, so he was essentially learning on the job from the beginning. It's inevitable that has he's attained more experience, he's becoming better equipped with what the role has entailed, but unfortunately I don't think that will be enough for him to survive beyond this two year period.
What also hasn't helped Buckley is he started coaching the club when it was still one of the best sides in the competitions, which isn't something most coaches experience. I guess the only other coach(s) that comes to mind in this regard is Chris Scott and John Longmire. Therefore, in addition to the pressure that comes with coaching a big club like ours, Buckley started at the top when the pressure was insurmountable and it was inevitable we'd see some sort of drop off as the list declined and aged, but I don't think the way it happened was the way most expected.
Buckley is not to be solely blamed for the club's decline in recent years, but he's played a pivotal role in our decline unfortunately.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Two year period?
If we fail to make finals again then surely this time the President is out of excuses to keep him.
As it is Ed got lucky with the Richmond result, it saved the bacon of Buckley and Ed ever the salesman had something to sell.
We've been sold Richmond example and if it fails to deliver positive results then it's time to purchase a new coach.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
MagpieBat
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Location: Brooding in a cave... somewhere... maybe...
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Dear Leader wrote: | | "The only time that you sack a coach is if you've lost the players completely or there is something untoward that needs to be addressed". |
August 24th, 2017.
The players love him, which is what happens when you recruit players who worship you for what you accomplished as a player. And if four years of not playing in the finals was not enough to be considered "something untoward", then five years isn't likely to be either.
There is also the small matter of the contract until the end of 2019.
No, we're stuck with him.
_________________
I am vengeance. I am the night. I am MagpieBat. |
|
|
|
|
MagpieBat
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Location: Brooding in a cave... somewhere... maybe...
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Also, that is a very interesting thread title...
_________________
I am vengeance. I am the night. I am MagpieBat. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MagpieBat wrote: | | The Dear Leader wrote: | | "The only time that you sack a coach is if you've lost the players completely or there is something untoward that needs to be addressed". |
...
The players love him, which is what happens when you recruit players who worship you for what you accomplished as a player. ...
There is also the small matter of the contract until the end of 2019.
No, we're stuck with him. |
Yes, that statement was also unsettling. Let's play a game. Complete the sentence: "The only time that you sack a coach is if ..."
At the time, I guessed it would be something like: "... if you can find a replacement who will achieve better long-term results." There is some sense to this (incorrectly guessed) completion. It might still lead to the status quo. You might claim that the available coaches are demonstrably past their prime or completely unproven. It might even be true. Instead, the real statement Eddie made makes no sense and stacked the deck in favour of one result before the hand was dealt.
And yes, in the event of a coach sacking, the contract would have to be paid out (as was done for Leigh Matthews --- isn't history a joy?), and now it would count under the soft cap for football-department spending (cue more joyful scenes as we pay the 75% AFL tax for going over the soft cap because of such a payout).
But no such problems exist for the position of president. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
