Go Ds

Well we did have scoring problems - rushing it inside 50, not finding good positions and only managing behinds. Maybe it would've helped if we had got Lade months ago. 😁

There's a trade period in mid October, yes? Even then other eliminated clubs would already be using right now gaining whatever advantage they can formulating every detail of next year's battle plan earlier. Of course a coach change is the biggest way of well.... changing. But the sooner the better.

Not the ABC GPO Box number 9994 , which I'm not mistaken was adopted cos Don Bradman's average is 99.94?

They talk about momentum in matches. I think it's similar with team progress. It may well have been a few players or coaching staff started cutting corners slightly post-flag and this turned into more people cruising and/or developing larger , lazier habits. It didn't want the coach change but at least we will have fresh pairs of eyes finding where the flaws are or finding the tiny low-hanging-fruit wins which end up leapfrogging us way up the ladder. I'd certainly prefer a glass-half-full expectation for next year.

Or just show them how well your share portfolio is going or a photo of your ski chalet.

Hey! Its not a hill I want to die on. I couldn't stand my friend's ex 'despite' her being a woman and 'despite' her being non-Anglo. (Everyone now despises her!) She claimed I disliked her because of race rather being neurotic, pushy, callous and intolerant; it's not fair to claim people hate Caro just cos she's a woman, either. I'm also sure some people sometimes are just sexist. I've seen enough, especially on Facebook. Honestly I don't watch much AFLW - the low scoring is hard to enjoy. But look at the comments section for many articles about it and the sexism jumps off the screen.

Perhaps. I'm not joining protests or anything. Most of the time it's just a quick observation that I'm not dwelling on. Of course it's opinion but so many times I'll hear/ read commentators that are just as , or more annoying, then the woman ones and there's way less whining. Anyway I'm not fazed. If you were on my Christmas card list you still would be.

Why wouldn't it be stressful? Surely there would be goals in each of the early years; at least 2 wins in year one, a percentage higher than 50 that year, the first year players not being cooked a lot earlier than other teams, accumulated strength and fitness and skills improvement over the years , not losing the guns after 2 or 3 years...... I'm sure it won't be anything goes. (Oh and most coaches are highly competitive and also theyd know a lot of the early stuff will sow the seeds for what follows.) Also Buckley would love his current arrangement. I'm sure he's paid quite handsomely for every hour he's seen/heard on Foxtel. If those few hundred hours aren't enough I'm sure he could have speaker engagements and do some stuff with football clubs too. I can't help but think it's all very cushy, and it wouldn't surprise me if Garry Lyon decided long ago that while he misses out on the glory and millions more he'd rather enjoy an easier life away from coaching. Obviously others will be more ambitious.

I don't know what it is. He was okay when he shared a segment on 360 with Whatley, Robbo and a fellow player such as Jordan Lewis. But as much as try to not get annoyed with people on the telly I agree he's just not the right fit on OTC

I'd almost agree. But for years experts told him what to eat, how to get fitter, get stronger, had him using or wearing the best technology/equipment etc, improve his strokes and skills, and, yes, even mentally tough. Then suddenly he decided to stop following the experts and start following BS on social media which even had him missing an Australian Open. That sounds kinda weak-minded.

I've just heard enough criticism of Caro, Underwood, Daisy Pearce, Laura Kane etc to take their criticism with a grain of salt. Things are rarely black or white - someone can be racist without setting houses on fire and someone can be sexist without assaulting women. Some of the criticism levelled at these women is just ridiculous (even if this time it may not be. I don't know. Surely Buckley isn't just obeying the advice of footy commentators so whatever.)

We really don't know whether right now if those teams are better prospects. Besides they are so many ways we could possibly improve next year (even without choosing Buckley) and then surpass your mentioned teams. The other thing is those other teams may not end up losing their coach(es) for a few years and by then Longmire, Simpson ( and maybe Goodwin, Beveridge, Hinkley and an assistant coach whose stocks have risen even further since then) all push ahead of Buckley for best next coach. A bird in the hand .....

Bucks' best chance of success at Tasmania is if he inherits an 'almost' team like Gold Coast with lots of unrealised potential like Hardwicke did. So, yeah, he'll probably be in his 60s by then. Even if that appealed in having that chance in ,say, 2033 a potential 12 years not coaching ( and potentially a few current coaches becoming legends in the meantime now comparing so much more favourably to a now outoftheloop Buckley.) It's still unlikely. But his best chance of success with Tasmania would be by having a successful stint with Melbourne, as one example, and then moving across next decade.

That just sounds like poor communication given the potential wins both for club and coach. I guess if the 5th and 6th preference asked an honest question and board admitted their unlikelihood that'd be fine. But I hope the board tell - stress that - to the likely contenders it's not just Buckley (and the actual 2nd in line doesn't pull out thinking he was 6th). This is an arena you hope neither side makes silly mistakes in.

Misuse of stats has been discussed a bit recently on here. I think on On The Couch last night someone said 20 of the last 21 premiership coaches were coaching their first team. That proves first-timers can succeed but how many more are there compared to the 'second hand' ones? There are a lot of coaches that after 3 or 4 years every club has decided could never win a flag and he's moved on. Then very occasionally premiership coaches are tried at a new club. Only eleven are in this category this century. Honestly that's a pretty small sample especially given I could easily give four a mulligan: Sheedy with a brand new GWS club, Blight whose heart was never in it in his few months at St Kilda, Bomber Thompson forced to coach and Essendon team with a dozen plus suspended players alongside Hird and our Roosy probably doing as much as he could in three years with our completely rock bottom team. I'm quite happy to see exact stats for the first-timers, second-timers and "flag-elsewhere" coaches. All I know is all are viable. And while statistically Buckey is probably our best option just if another candidate genuinely wows the board I'm very happy to believe he's the right choice.

And maybe he'd love to have to move 100s of KMS - Tasmania is beautiful and some potential coaches will consider the move a neutral or good point. But others would rather not move away to a smaller city,away from most friends and family and a colder climate.

Misuse of stats has been discussed a bit recently on here. I think on On The Couch last night someone said 20 of the last 21 premiership coaches were coaching their first team. That proves first-timers can succeed but how many more are there compared to the 'second hand' ones? There are a lot of coaches that after 3 or 4 years every club has decided could never win a flag and he's moved on. Then very occasionally premiership coaches are tried at a new club. Only eleven are in this category this century. Honestly that's a pretty small sample especially given I could easily give four a mulligan: Sheedy with a brand new GWS club, Blight whose heart was never in it in his few months at St Kilda, Bomber Thompson forced to coach and Essendon team with a dozen plus drugs penalty suspension and our Roos probably doing as much as he could in three years with our completely rock bottom team. I'm quite happy to see exact stats for the first-timers, second-timers and "flag-elsewhere" coaches. All I know is all are viable. And while statistically Buckey is probably our best option just if another candidate genuinely wows the board I'm very happy to believe he's the right choice.

Yep, a lot of vague stats remind me of "a little knowledge is dangerous". In general more marks or more inside 50s leads to more wins. But we've all seen in recent times how counterproductive rushing kicks inside 50 have been. It would be fascinating if - if - someone had been at our every game for the last five years and they recorded our set-up at every kick in. It may well be (alongside what you said about Gawn) that less of our players are finding space outside the arc leaving the full back only someone still close to the opposition goal as the last resort to resume play. Of course it could be poor tactical positioning or too many slow or less fit players but, yeah, if we improve next year, we'll probably have more success with the kickouts.

Correlation often means the two things are connected via another factor . The more glasses of water you have drunk in your life would correlate with dying but that because as you get older you've had more water and the increased chance of dying is because of aging and not the water (even though are connected to the time factor.) I suspect there is some problem with the kick outs. Of course that doesn't mean all kicks should be be long - a player in space 40m away would often be better. Anyway Im guessing the new coach will add this to the list of possible changes.

Yep, I'm having visions of soccer balls ... plus theres your name :)

Wow! It looks like a strong correlation between distance of kick outs and our drop-off in the last few years!

Who said just delistings? You could well be right re six. But what about trades? Did players like Sam Frost, Jack Watts and going back Woewodin snr want to be traded? Weren't Hawthorn 's Hodge , Mitchell and Lewis involuntarily retired? Just because often players stuck in the reserves realise they're gonna be delisted at season's doesn't mean our 'best' 22 are completely safe. We might get a new coach who really wants to shake things up; even moving on one now fading premiership players would be a statement.

While most things are not line ball how would we ever know? Given what's at stake is potentially a six figure sum and maybe a year or two extra in their dream job playing footy giving up a few hours on a Saturday might be an incredibly rational sacrifice.

I'm not sure I'd call it aspersions. It would just be highly recommended players go. The general public at times will do extra to bebetter at their job. Of course they can overdo it or their work doesn't reward them. But especially given hardly any of our players will ever earn comparable money after retiring it just makes sense to basically just turn up.

I strongly disagree here. We're not even into September and it's 4 weeks to the GF. While the team might have known they were unlikely to even reach top 4 I bet they wanted to scrape into the 8, finally win a post-premiership final and forego the resultant extra 3 weeks of holidays in this scenario. Here's Melbourne with the players on notice, team dynamics probably under scrutiny and a new coach with which theyve accumulated none of the brownie points as a buffer. The reserves help showcase the current game plan and give the senior players a chance to watch future players live, including what they do behind the play. Plus it helps form further team bonds and solidarity. While some players would have valid excuses someone who missed today to play golf or watch Netflix might regret that if the new coach decides he doesn't him/them. If I were a player manager I would have told my charge to just go, sit beside his favourite teammates and maybe listen to music for 3 hours. That may prolong their career.