11 minutes ago, old55 said:

Buckley would be mad to go to Tasmania. No inaugral coach of a relocated or expansion team has had a winning record and only one took a team to a final and they lost that. Inaugral coach is marketing cannon fodder.

Buckley will be 70 by the time Tassie is competitive.

For someone who has never won a flag, I’m sure his patience for success is not that high.

McClure has spoken so that means we won’t get Bucks and Oliver stays and Trac goes.

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

McClure has spoken so that means we won’t get Bucks and Oliver stays and Trac goes.

How the hell would SM know what bucks would do if he ends up being our coach. FFS to many people are reporting on footy and trying to stay relevant.

5 minutes ago, Demonland said:

McClure has spoken so that means we won’t get Bucks and Oliver stays and Trac goes.

If one of tracc or claz goes I hope it's tracc.

One we can actually get something for tracc.

Two I honestly think Clarry is more suited to the way footy is being played atm.

Sure teams no longer need multiple midfield in and under extractors- but they still need at least one and clarry still excels in that regard

Three, quick hands are more important than ever to get the ball released and to the outside and clarry is getting back to his best in that regard.

Claz could be our libba (or our clarry circa 2017 - 2023).

Four, claz has more upside as he appears to be slowly getting fitter, trimmer and quicker whereas tracc looks closer to his optimal fitness.

Five I reckon a new voice, and opportunity to reset, might be just what claz needs to get back to his best.

Edited Tuesday at 12:223 days by binman

Haven’t checked in a week or so; any list update on potential coaches? Favorite still Bucks?

well it might be right or it might be wrong But it made me smile. Not the cup I would want him to lift. But a cup none the less. Go Dee’s

26 minutes ago, Norm Smith's Curse said:

10 hours ago, Howard_Grimes said:

The nuffs that are against Buckley cause he didn't deliver them a flag are unbearable.

I’m against Buckley because I think others including Daly are a better choice. He’s the safe, predictable, club in strife choice. I want us to be able to recognise the next great coach not the last ok coach. C’mon Big Fella, I expect better from a man of your statue.

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

I want us to be able to recognise the next great coach not the last ok coach

An OK coach will be fine.

8 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I’m against Buckley because I think others including Daly are a better choice. He’s the safe, predictable, club in strife choice. I want us to be able to recognise the next great coach not the last ok coach. C’mon Big Fella, I expect better from a man of your statue.

I respect the big fella big fella.

But Buckley is the one.

On 19/08/2025 at 17:53, DemonOX said:

How the hell would SM know what bucks would do if he ends up being our coach. FFS to many people are reporting on footy and trying to stay relevant.

You'd be surprised

2 minutes ago, Chook in Perth said:

You'd be surprised

Gday Chook... where are your thoughts going regarding all of this ?

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

Gday Chook... where are your thoughts going regarding all of this ?

All roads lead to 54 Fellmongers Rd, Breakwater VIC 3219.

Currently. Bit would have to go wrong.

Edited Wednesday at 11:362 days by Chook in Perth

8 minutes ago, Chook in Perth said:

All roads lead to 54 Fellmongers Rd, Breakwater VIC 3219.

Currently. Bit would have to go wrong.

I see what you did there

49 minutes ago, Chook in Perth said:

All roads lead to 54 Fellmongers Rd, Breakwater VIC 3219.

Currently. Bit would have to go wrong.

Very good.

1 hour ago, Chook in Perth said:

You'd be surprised

59 minutes ago, Chook in Perth said:

All roads lead to 54 Fellmongers Rd, Breakwater VIC 3219.

Currently. Bit would have to go wrong.

My heart skips a beat every time I see @Chook in Perth pop up.

On 19/08/2025 at 13:32, Ted Lasso said:

I’m really struggling to get my head around the urgency to sack goody being such that we would pay him 1.2 million a year to hire a coach with a worse record (bucks) or an untried assistant.

change for the sake of change is generally a sign of poor governance and if there is a clear and urgent reason this needed to happen now the club hasn’t really communicated it.

I’d get it for John Longmire. If we’re sacking goody to get access to horse before Carlton or anyone else could, but if bucks rules himself out it’ll basically be an untried assistant

Because the club went backwards every year since 2021, has only won finals in two seasons since 2006, had/has massive cultural issues widely reported on, refused to make positional changes, structural changes or changes to our ball movement such that watching us play was/is like banging your head against the wall, because we had lost members in their droves etc

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

refused to make positional changes, structural changes or changes to our ball movement such that watching us play was/is like banging your head against the wall

#Goodwin myths

Edited Wednesday at 21:472 days by binman

17 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because the club went backwards every year since 2021, has only won finals in two seasons since 2006, had/has massive cultural issues widely reported on, refused to make positional changes, structural changes or changes to our ball movement such that watching us play was/is like banging your head against the wall, because we had lost members in their droves etc

In a nutshell Dr, perfect situational analysis in my view. Many on here are still in the delusion phase

10 hours ago, Chook in Perth said:

You'd be surprised

I can't recall but was he the one that was a step ahead of everyone when Bucks was coaching Collingwood and they decided to move on Treloar and Stephenson?

46 minutes ago, binman said:

#Goodwin myths

So every time we go long down the line around the boundary, that's shaking things up? Every time we go with the same merry go round of ins/outs? Every time we have the same players with 80%+ CBAs? Every time we go with the same forward setup be that personnel or structure?

It's a myth Goodwin tried to drastically overhaul our setups/structures and ball movement. Yeah he may have tinkered but it was too little, too late.

Nevermind I forgot to add the lack of development of our younger players, none of whom have really come on since the flag year despite debuting with some core strengths to build around.

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So every time we go long down the line around the boundary, that's shaking things up? Every time we go with the same merry go round of ins/outs? Every time we have the same players with 80%+ CBAs? Every time we go with the same forward setup be that personnel or structure?

It's a myth Goodwin tried to drastically overhaul our setups/structures and ball movement. Yeah he may have tinkered but it was too little, too late.

Nevermind I forgot to add the lack of development of our younger players, none of whom have really come on since the flag year despite debuting with some core strengths to build around.

#Goodwin myths

47 minutes ago, binman said:

#Goodwin myths

I'm not trying to follow you around and get in a [censored]-for-tat.

But.

I think the difference in thought from posters like Gonzo, others and myself and you and the pro Goody camp probably come down to gamestyle.

And whilst I agree he made significant change to our ball movement strategy (which all coaches have to do at some stage given the evolution of the game), would it be fair to say that in areas like selection, positional change, gameday tactical moves, he did not change much?

I think one of the biggest pieces of evidence that Goodwin didn't change in some of those areas I mentioned is our forward 50 entry. Now genuine change to that particular metric would have needed to come from more than just a change from ball movement from our backhalf. It would have required positional and personnel changes across the midfield and half-forward. And as we know, that never happened.

He did not change in those areas enough. Not nearly aggressive or proactive enough at changing the look of our forward-line or midfield.

And the consistent selection of underperfoming senior players over the years was further evidence of his reluctance to change.

Gameday tactical change. Something we also rarely/if ever saw. And his record against tactically sound coaches is evidence of that. Whether it was sticking to his guns when opposition coaches knew to play a plus one behind the ball whilst Goody would keep the plus one around the ball, refusing to run with opposition players who ultimately had far too much influence on the game or dying moments of close games where his positional moves were too late. There's plenty there.

And again, if posters put a share of the blame on the players for some of those points. I'd like to hit back and say that ultimately, Goody is still the one to decide whether or not those players should be getting games or not. ESPECIALLY the *connection' issue. If they're not getting it done, move them. He didn't. And here we are.

We were banging our heads against the wall for years with the same issues. And that lies at the feet of Goodwin.

Not enough change occurred, that was clear as day.

Edited Wednesday at 23:552 days by Howard_Grimes

36 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

I'm not trying to follow you around and get in a [censored]-for-tat.

But.

I think the difference in thought from posters like Gonzo, others and myself and you and the pro Goody camp probably come down to gamestyle.

And whilst I agree he made significant change to our ball movement (which all coaches have to do at some stage given the evolution of the game), would it be fair to say that in areas like selection, positional change, gameday tactical moves, he did not change much?

This is fair IMV.

36 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

I think one of the biggest pieces of evidence that Goodwin didn't change in some of those areas I mentioned is our forward 50 entry. Now genuine change to that particular metric would have needed to come from more than just a change from ball movement from our backhalf. It would have required positional and personnel changes across the midfield and half-forward. And as we know, that never happened.

That's not true though. He put Kozzy through there. They tried Chandler, Langford and Lindsay through there at various stages, but the latter two are better served on the outside until they build their tanks. Langford has looked tired for weeks and Lindsay hit the wall off a reduced first pre season.

He did rely heavily on Oliver, Viney and even Trac this year, which I found disappointing, but to say it never happened is not true.

36 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

He did not change in those areas enough. Not nearly aggressive or proactive enough at changing the look of our forward-line or midfield.

This is fair.

36 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

Gameday tactical change. Something we also rarely/if ever saw. And his record against tactically sound coaches is evidence of that. Whether it was sticking to his guns when opposition coaches knew to play a plus one behind the ball whilst Goody would keep the plus one around the ball, refusing to run with opposition players who ultimately had far too much influence on the game or dying moments of close games where his positional moves were too late. There's plenty there.

I'm sorry but this is completely wrong. For years we played plus one behind the ball, not at the source...

We haven't played +1 at the source since pre 666 rule change. And this year we often played even numbers...

36 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

We were banging our heads against the wall for years with the same issues. And that lies at the feet of Goodwin.

Not enough change occurred, that was clear as day.

This is fair.