bing181

Buckley wasn't sacked. "NATHAN Buckley has stepped down as Collingwood coach, saying it is time for change and it is the right decision."

Indeed, the big question. And as always with big questions, no simple answer. Confidence? Trust? Leadership for me is a big one, especially when the ship looks rudderless : lost ANB, there's still a Gus-shaped hole in the balance of the team, Lever out long-term, not any real leaders coming through amongst the mid-age group, etc. All they can do is work through it.

Yep, sacking Bailey really set us on a path to success. As for where we were at the end of Roos run, what we had in comparison to the Neeld era was not so much a new coach but a list that had turned over so many players it was barely recognisable as the same club.

Yes we did. Balme was replaced by Hutchinson, who continued to lose matches. Craig replaced Neeld and proceeded to lose even more matches than Neeld had been doing, even though you'd hardly think that was possible. As for making a prelim the year after sacking Balme, if that's evidence that sacking coaches leads to making finals the following year, you need to cite ALL the years we've sacked coaches and what happened the following year. It's no accident you had to go back nearly 20 years to find the one outlier, how many prelims did we get to after sacking Bailey and Neeld? It's not just about Melbourne either, these patterns are repeated across multiple teams in multiple competitions. You sack a coach, you generally go backwards - which isn't surprising because the reason you're losing matches isn't so much the coach but the players/list, and when a new coach comes in they're stuck with the same players. Only solution is list change which Paul Roos understood, regardless of his abilities as a coach.

Not incorrect. Have a looked at what happened in the seasons when we sacked Bailey, Neeld etc. And not just Melbourne for that matter. You lose more matches than what you were losing under the sacked coach. As for the rest of your post ... bizarre. Lions sacked Leppitsch in 2016. Fagan (finally!) won a premiership in 2024, 8 years later. As much to do with list turnover as anything. McRae eventually took Collingwood to a flag after Buckley stepped down. Scott took Geelong to 2 flags in nearly 15 years (!) after Thompson stood down. Goodwin won a flag after replacing Roos who stood down. Hardwick replaced Wallace who stood down mid-season. Even then, it took Hardwick 7 years to win a flag. Simpson took over at WCE after Worsfold stepped down. etc. etc. If your claim is that sacking coaches leads to premierships, there's zero evidence of that, the only recent premiership that went to a club that sacked a coach is the Lions (after 8 years ...). Meanwhile, across all this period, the clubs that have sacked coaches haven't won any premierships.

Not only that, but we lost more matches (%) with the stand-in coaches. Sacking a coach sends a club backwards. Fact.

Of course he is.

Sure. Which only goes to show how little it takes to really fall off the pace. Oh for an in-form Ben Brown as a forward focus, and the duo of doom in Lever and May (who was clearly playing injured tonight?) down back, and a Gus Brayshaw holding everyone and everything together. Yet alone a 2021 Clayton Oliver, or a Jack Viney playing in a game style that suits him. Then there's Jackson, who not only held the fort when Max was off but effectively gave us extra midfielder. Them's big losses, and we're paying the price.

A few good signs, probably all we can expect for the moment. Decent performance across the ground, marred by a few costly errors (May and Gawn dropped marks), the younger players struggling a bit, Windsor hasn't been himself since returning, Langford can't handball to save himself, Lindsay getting too easily out-bodied, etc. etc. But tackles, clearances, contested possessions all trending in the right direction. However: This was supposed to be the breakout year for JVR, unfortunately it's close to his worst. Add the injury to Jefferson, Johnson not there yet (if he'll ever be?), and Fullarton improving but ???, and we have a forward line that is a long way off kicking enough goals.

Not sure astonishing is the right word, but damning all the same. The figures for Oliver confirm what the eyes are saying, which apart from anything is sad to see. Regardless of whatever else is going on, lower tackle and contested possession count is rarely going to be a positive.

Corrected ...

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Happy with the changes, Lindsay in is a plus, and backing the players in to get the job done sends a strong internal message on what's expected. The idea that we have fringe and developing players running round in the two's who'd make any more than a marginal, move-the-deckchairs difference is just delusional.

Casey have only played 3 games and Fullarton was leading goal kicker in one.

Linsday back, Rivers into the mids, Petracca forward. Stability is good, it's been a selection merry-go-round up till now which is disastrous in terms of game plan etc.

Played like rubbish for a whole season?

It’s not fitness. On one of the footy shows someone made the comment that across the AFL all clubs do more or less the same thing and all players have more or less the same level of fitness. People are just clutching at straws.

Given you’re the one making the claim and given that very detailed fitness and biometric data exists on every player in the AFL, yes. But thanks for confirming that you have no such data to back up your assertion.

So it’s not about whether it’s useful as part of an overall training program, it’s what it looks like. I.e. it’s all performative and they’re not performing “failing football team” to your liking. Perhaps you could drop past training with some hair shirts?

You have figures to back that up?

If being 0-4 isn't proof that "this side can't play a different style that is competitive with the modern game", then I don't know what is.

... and Sydney Swans:

Not the point. The point is these kinds of practices are common-place across the AFL. Because they work as part of a balanced approach to training and in particular, recovery. It's not soccer vs skills training, it's soccer vs laps of the pool or time on an exercise bike. I posted the Zaharakis one as an illustration of the above and because he covered the when and why well in the context of an AFL team's training program, but there are plenty of other examples. Here for your viewing pleasure, Adelaide AFL players playing soccer. https://www.tiktok.com/@adelaidefc/video/7390734002149248264

I think also that one of the issues here is the loss of leadership and through that, a loss of cohesion and connection, both on-field and off. I've heard on multiple occasions that Gus wasn't so much a leader per se, but the glue that helped hold everything together. Similar for ANB. The absence of Lever isn't helping. You can see players like Chandler trying to step up, with some success, but it will take time.

No, because he's working with the same players with the same strengths and weaknesses. The list needs to be built in terms of game style, a coach can only work with what he has at his disposal. On the other hand, you can remodel the list on the run by bringing players in: the drafting over the last 2 years clearly shows (to me at least) that the club is well aware of the issues and well aware of what's needed. The natural evolution of these younger players will help turn the ship around, though in an ideal world you'd want to bring in experienced players as well - which once again, we've started to do with for example Billings (elite kick, regardless of his various shortcomings), and Sharp (outside run). A Butters would be the icing on the cake (cough), though not sure how realistic that is, perhaps there might be others looking to move.