Post Match. Pies lose to Hawks - All comments please

[mooretreloar]

The reason Collingwood is where it is now on the ladder is due to several reasons as is obvious to any one except those with tickets on themselves.

Is is a combination of factors including but not limited to:

1. Players skills
2. Coaching plans, strategies & tactics
3. Selection committee including the coach
4. Player availability.

On game day it is a combination of factors including player execution of skills & coaching tactics. The extent to which these factors occur in a game will vary on the day, the time & the scenario

This is common sense.

If a player or players on the opposing team are controlling the game, such as patterns of play not anticipated or not adequately addressed by pre-game planning then the coach needs to accountable & make moves accordingly.

If a coach or coaching team responds too slowly to difficulties encountered then the game can be lost or the advantage at that time point in time can be lost. If coaches are too inflexible to only see one way of doing things then that will reflect on what the team does.

To suggest it's players only is as limited and narrow an analysis as that view self evidently suggests. To not entertain the idea that there is a combination of factors at play (only the degree to which that combination is at play is debatable) & to reduce that to an arbitrary number based on speculation such as 98% & 2% is just as limited as doing accountancy on the back of a sheet of toilet paper.

Nothing to do with tickets on myself. Also, your view is not even close to common sense, it omits multiple factors.

Do you want me to take you through the Gary Rohan supposed "move" again that you suggested was the reason that Sydney beat Essendon two Friday nights ago? As I posted in that thread, there were numerous player decisions, player non-decisions, player skill errors, good play by players, positioning errors by players, etc, that occurred before Rohan even got his chance to be involved in the contest.

[Piesnchess]

Of course, the buck stops with Bucks, like coaches have for over a century, he will cop most of the flak for another bad loss. But, having said that, the fact is, as has been pointed out, our players are VERY well paid, they are pros, this is not the 1970s, when all players had jobs, footy was part time. Our guys are League footballers, the elite, and and start of the last qtr, we were right in that game up to our eyeballs, despite our errors. The Dawks are no longer a really great team, the win was there for the taking, it was Pendles big day, yet our guys damn well coughed it up, went asleep, gave up basically, ran up the white flag, it was so, very, very disappointing to see that. They knew what had to be done, the aren't junior footballers anymore, the win was there, but they didn't give a tinkers cuss. THATS what hurts me, offends me, I don't mind losing if we try hard, have a real go, do our utmost, but that was not the case, and we have coughed up several games likewise, this season. Our guys need to take a good, long hard look at themselves, they were shameful yesterday, Bucks was poor too, but its not just him, our players are professionals, not juniors, they should have done much, much better. End of rant.

[Pies4shaw]

The reason Collingwood is where it is now on the ladder is due to several reasons as is obvious to any one except those with tickets on themselves.

Is is a combination of factors including but not limited to:

1. Players skills
2. Coaching plans, strategies & tactics
3. Selection committee including the coach
4. Player availability.

On game day it is a combination of factors including player execution of skills & coaching tactics. The extent to which these factors occur in a game will vary on the day, the time & the scenario

This is common sense.

If a player or players on the opposing team are controlling the game, such as patterns of play not anticipated or not adequately addressed by pre-game planning then the coach needs to accountable & make moves accordingly.

If a coach or coaching team responds too slowly to difficulties encountered then the game can be lost or the advantage at that time point in time can be lost. If coaches are too inflexible to only see one way of doing things then that will reflect on what the team does.

To suggest it's players only is as limited and narrow an analysis as that view self evidently suggests. To not entertain the idea that there is a combination of factors at play (only the degree to which that combination is at play is debatable) & to reduce that to an arbitrary number based on speculation such as 98% & 2% is just as limited as doing accountancy on the back of a sheet of toilet paper.

That's a fair assessment.

[stoliboy]

In the last quarter Langdon had taken a couple of good marks on the wing not far out from the 50m line.

Langdon handballs to Treleor who then decides to kick backwards, and it results in a turnover.

Can anyone explain to me what Treleor was thinking/planning with that kick?

Treleor is a good kick of the football but her seems to not want to make the hard play sometimes and instead look to hand off to another player I.e. A quick handball. Is he shirking his responsibility as a senior player?

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

In the last quarter Langdon had taken a couple of good marks on the wing not far out from the 50m line.

Langdon handballs to Treleor who then decides to kick backwards, and it results in a turnover.

Can anyone explain to me what Treleor was thinking/planning with that kick?

Treleor is a good kick of the football but her seems to not want to make the hard play sometimes and instead look to hand off to another player I.e. A quick handball. Is he shirking his responsibility as a senior player?

Others here are saying that Treloar is being managed through the season with groin issues. He's likely to feel the effects of his sore groins in the last quarter. His confidence is down anyway at the point of time you bring up in the last quarter because Hawthorn are winning at that stage of the game. Players are after all only human.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

The lack of modern day football knowledge on this site has to be read to be believed.

VFL - we are in 2017, not 1967. The players aren't training two nights a week, whilst also having a real job. In this scenario, the impact of the coach on match day would be significantly more impactful.

AFL footballers are professional sportspeople. Have a think about what this entails.

AFL clubs are fully professional. Every club knows how every other club is going to play and wants to play. Each club has numerous opposition scouts, whose sole job is to analyse the opposition. That is, there aren't very many surprises, if any, on game day. This should be evident to posters that watch AFL closely, predominantly every club is trying to play the same way. I keep reading we went backwards and sideways, did you not watch the game? Hawthorn did exactly the same thing, the only difference was they hit many more targets than we did.

Our game plan and structures, that posters who bag these wouldn't have a clue what either of these are, have held up extremely well in 2017. We have been in a winning position in each and every game, bar last week against Port. This would not be the case if the coaching group were not providing the correct information to the players.

A win or a loss in modern day AFL football comes down to the ability of professional athletes to execute on game day.

Consequently, it is as clear as the nose on your face, if you know anything about AFL and sport, that we are 5-9 because of the poor skill execution and poor decision making of our players. These deficiencies have led to us gifting multiple goals to the opposition at inopportune times, which in such an even competition where the margin between a win and a loss is minuscule, is the reason we are 5-9 and not 9-5. If you want just one example from yesterday of which there were many, Howe kicking in straight to Mitchell in the last quarter. This has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the coach.

The common ground you and I have is that we both feel very sorry for the coach and wish it had somehow turned out better. But in accounting for our poor display against Hawthorn you say the coach doesn't have any accountability for the way the team played. Even the coach himself would disagree with your assessment. The coach chooses the 22 that play each week. He recruits the 44 players who make up the list. He trains them and prepares them to play against the opposition each week. If the team plays poorly he takes responsibility for the way the team performs. There are always extenuating circumstances for the way the team performed which you didn't even bother to bring up. We had two players on the bench in the last quarter which limited our options at either end of the ground. But at the end of the day the coach takes responsibility for the performance of the team and that's the way it's been in the history of the game. I don't know how else you want to spin it? I listened to Buckley's presser. I thought he was very good explaining the loss. I also thought he was optimistic about the list going forward into next year. The bit about players playing their best footy in their late twenties has been misrepresented here. He wasn't excusing the poor performance of the younger players in the side. He was just saying that the younger players would get better with maturity.

[inxs88]

In the last quarter Langdon had taken a couple of good marks on the wing not far out from the 50m line.

Langdon handballs to Treleor who then decides to kick backwards, and it results in a turnover.

Can anyone explain to me what Treleor was thinking/planning with that kick?

Treleor is a good kick of the football but her seems to not want to make the hard play sometimes and instead look to hand off to another player I.e. A quick handball. Is he shirking his responsibility as a senior player?

Correct! Like Sidebottom, he has the "style over substance" gene which hurts.

[mooretreloar]

The lack of modern day football knowledge on this site has to be read to be believed.

VFL - we are in 2017, not 1967. The players aren't training two nights a week, whilst also having a real job. In this scenario, the impact of the coach on match day would be significantly more impactful.

AFL footballers are professional sportspeople. Have a think about what this entails.

AFL clubs are fully professional. Every club knows how every other club is going to play and wants to play. Each club has numerous opposition scouts, whose sole job is to analyse the opposition. That is, there aren't very many surprises, if any, on game day. This should be evident to posters that watch AFL closely, predominantly every club is trying to play the same way. I keep reading we went backwards and sideways, did you not watch the game? Hawthorn did exactly the same thing, the only difference was they hit many more targets than we did.

Our game plan and structures, that posters who bag these wouldn't have a clue what either of these are, have held up extremely well in 2017. We have been in a winning position in each and every game, bar last week against Port. This would not be the case if the coaching group were not providing the correct information to the players.

A win or a loss in modern day AFL football comes down to the ability of professional athletes to execute on game day.

Consequently, it is as clear as the nose on your face, if you know anything about AFL and sport, that we are 5-9 because of the poor skill execution and poor decision making of our players. These deficiencies have led to us gifting multiple goals to the opposition at inopportune times, which in such an even competition where the margin between a win and a loss is minuscule, is the reason we are 5-9 and not 9-5. If you want just one example from yesterday of which there were many, Howe kicking in straight to Mitchell in the last quarter. This has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the coach.

The common ground you and I have is that we both feel very sorry for the coach and wish it had somehow turned out better. But in accounting for our poor display against Hawthorn you say the coach doesn't have any accountability for the way the team played. Even the coach himself would disagree with your assessment. The coach chooses the 22 that play each week. He recruits the 44 players who make up the list. He trains them and prepares them to play against the opposition each week. If the team plays poorly he takes responsibility for the way the team performs. There are always extenuating circumstances for the way the team performed which you didn't even bother to bring up. We had two players on the bench in the last quarter which limited our options at either end of the ground. But at the end of the day the coach takes responsibility for the performance of the team and that's the way it's been in the history of the game. I don't know how else you want to spin it? I listened to Buckley's presser. I thought he was very good explaining the loss. I also thought he was optimistic about the list going forward into next year. The bit about players playing their best footy in their late twenties has been misrepresented here. He wasn't excusing the poor performance of the younger players in the side. He was just saying that the younger players would get better with maturity.

The match committee choose the 22 that play each week. Obviously, the coach has his say.

The recruiting team recruit the playing list. Obviously, the coach has his say.

We are losing games of football in a season were the difference between a win and a loss is minuscule because we are gifting 6 to 8 goals to the opposition each and every week from poor skill errors and dumb decision making. As John Worsfold said in the book extract that I posted "You (being the coach) cannot influence their ability on game day." At the moment the skill level and decision making of some of our players is not at AFL standard, but I guarantee you that the players, Buckley, the other members of the coaching group and the rest of the whole club are working at improving these areas.

Will it be enough to save his job? Very unlikely, as it is easier to sack one person, then it is to sack multiple people and it is far easier to sell hope with a new coach. This is why throughout history a coach has always been the one where the responsibility of failure is apportioned.

There have been many examples in recent times where this blame has been apportioned incorrectly and the decision made to replace the coach has backfired spectacularly on club that has made the call to change the coach. So, if the club makes the call to change the coach, let's hope they pick the right candidate because at the moment we have a playing group that clearly wants Bucks to be their coach and if the club makes the wrong call and the new coach and players clash, we will be in for a number of years of pain.

[dalyc]

The lack of modern day football knowledge on this site has to be read to be believed.

VFL - we are in 2017, not 1967. The players aren't training two nights a week, whilst also having a real job. In this scenario, the impact of the coach on match day would be significantly more impactful.

AFL footballers are professional sportspeople. Have a think about what this entails.

AFL clubs are fully professional. Every club knows how every other club is going to play and wants to play. Each club has numerous opposition scouts, whose sole job is to analyse the opposition. That is, there aren't very many surprises, if any, on game day. This should be evident to posters that watch AFL closely, predominantly every club is trying to play the same way. I keep reading we went backwards and sideways, did you not watch the game? Hawthorn did exactly the same thing, the only difference was they hit many more targets than we did.

Our game plan and structures, that posters who bag these wouldn't have a clue what either of these are, have held up extremely well in 2017. We have been in a winning position in each and every game, bar last week against Port. This would not be the case if the coaching group were not providing the correct information to the players.

A win or a loss in modern day AFL football comes down to the ability of professional athletes to execute on game day.

Consequently, it is as clear as the nose on your face, if you know anything about AFL and sport, that we are 5-9 because of the poor skill execution and poor decision making of our players. These deficiencies have led to us gifting multiple goals to the opposition at inopportune times, which in such an even competition where the margin between a win and a loss is minuscule, is the reason we are 5-9 and not 9-5. If you want just one example from yesterday of which there were many, Howe kicking in straight to Mitchell in the last quarter. This has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the coach.

The common ground you and I have is that we both feel very sorry for the coach and wish it had somehow turned out better. But in accounting for our poor display against Hawthorn you say the coach doesn't have any accountability for the way the team played. Even the coach himself would disagree with your assessment. The coach chooses the 22 that play each week. He recruits the 44 players who make up the list. He trains them and prepares them to play against the opposition each week. If the team plays poorly he takes responsibility for the way the team performs. There are always extenuating circumstances for the way the team performed which you didn't even bother to bring up. We had two players on the bench in the last quarter which limited our options at either end of the ground. But at the end of the day the coach takes responsibility for the performance of the team and that's the way it's been in the history of the game. I don't know how else you want to spin it? I listened to Buckley's presser. I thought he was very good explaining the loss. I also thought he was optimistic about the list going forward into next year. The bit about players playing their best footy in their late twenties has been misrepresented here. He wasn't excusing the poor performance of the younger players in the side. He was just saying that the younger players would get better with maturity.

I don't think Bucks is solely accountable for the list. Hine and his team surely have the major say. Structurally, I think Hine reports to Walsh but not 100%.

Anyway, unlike others I don't think Hine's team have been awful. I've posted before that the legups the Suns and GWS, plus the BS academy picks (before the rules were changed) made drafting very difficult for the remaining clubs. That said, the club pays for performance so the best I could rate the list management is average at best.

[Collingwood Crackerjack]

Of course, the buck stops with Bucks, like coaches have for over a century, he will cop most of the flak for another bad loss. But, having said that, the fact is, as has been pointed out, our players are VERY well paid, they are pros, this is not the 1970s, when all players had jobs, footy was part time. Our guys are League footballers, the elite, and and start of the last qtr, we were right in that game up to our eyeballs, despite our errors. The Dawks are no longer a really great team, the win was there for the taking, it was Pendles big day, yet our guys damn well coughed it up, went asleep, gave up basically, ran up the white flag, it was so, very, very disappointing to see that. They knew what had to be done, the aren't junior footballers anymore, the win was there, but they didn't give a tinkers cuss. THATS what hurts me, offends me, I don't mind losing if we try hard, have a real go, do our utmost, but that was not the case, and we have coughed up several games likewise, this season. Our guys need to take a good, long hard look at themselves, they were shameful yesterday, Bucks was poor too, but its not just him, our players are professionals, not juniors, they should have done much, much better. End of rant.

I actually think that sums up the situation quite well

[Collingwood Crackerjack]

In the last quarter Langdon had taken a couple of good marks on the wing not far out from the 50m line.

Langdon handballs to Treleor who then decides to kick backwards, and it results in a turnover.

Can anyone explain to me what Treleor was thinking/planning with that kick?

Treleor is a good kick of the football but her seems to not want to make the hard play sometimes and instead look to hand off to another player I.e. A quick handball. Is he shirking his responsibility as a senior player?

Whole team looked bereft of confidence all day, that play didn't surprise me at all by that stage, it was our M.O for the whole freaking day

[Collingwood Crackerjack]

The lack of modern day football knowledge on this site has to be read to be believed.

VFL - we are in 2017, not 1967. The players aren't training two nights a week, whilst also having a real job. In this scenario, the impact of the coach on match day would be significantly more impactful.

AFL footballers are professional sportspeople. Have a think about what this entails.

AFL clubs are fully professional. Every club knows how every other club is going to play and wants to play. Each club has numerous opposition scouts, whose sole job is to analyse the opposition. That is, there aren't very many surprises, if any, on game day. This should be evident to posters that watch AFL closely, predominantly every club is trying to play the same way. I keep reading we went backwards and sideways, did you not watch the game? Hawthorn did exactly the same thing, the only difference was they hit many more targets than we did.

Our game plan and structures, that posters who bag these wouldn't have a clue what either of these are, have held up extremely well in 2017. We have been in a winning position in each and every game, bar last week against Port. This would not be the case if the coaching group were not providing the correct information to the players.

A win or a loss in modern day AFL football comes down to the ability of professional athletes to execute on game day.

Consequently, it is as clear as the nose on your face, if you know anything about AFL and sport, that we are 5-9 because of the poor skill execution and poor decision making of our players. These deficiencies have led to us gifting multiple goals to the opposition at inopportune times, which in such an even competition where the margin between a win and a loss is minuscule, is the reason we are 5-9 and not 9-5. If you want just one example from yesterday of which there were many, Howe kicking in straight to Mitchell in the last quarter. This has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the coach.

The common ground you and I have is that we both feel very sorry for the coach and wish it had somehow turned out better. But in accounting for our poor display against Hawthorn you say the coach doesn't have any accountability for the way the team played. Even the coach himself would disagree with your assessment. The coach chooses the 22 that play each week. He recruits the 44 players who make up the list. He trains them and prepares them to play against the opposition each week. If the team plays poorly he takes responsibility for the way the team performs. There are always extenuating circumstances for the way the team performed which you didn't even bother to bring up. We had two players on the bench in the last quarter which limited our options at either end of the ground. But at the end of the day the coach takes responsibility for the performance of the team and that's the way it's been in the history of the game. I don't know how else you want to spin it? I listened to Buckley's presser. I thought he was very good explaining the loss. I also thought he was optimistic about the list going forward into next year. The bit about players playing their best footy in their late twenties has been misrepresented here. He wasn't excusing the poor performance of the younger players in the side. He was just saying that the younger players would get better with maturity.

The match committee choose the 22 that play each week. Obviously, the coach has his say.

The recruiting team recruit the playing list. Obviously, the coach has his say.

We are losing games of football in a season were the difference between a win and a loss is minuscule because we are gifting 6 to 8 goals to the opposition each and every week from poor skill errors and dumb decision making. As John Worsfold said in the book extract that I posted "You (being the coach) cannot influence their ability on game day." At the moment the skill level and decision making of some of our players is not at AFL standard, but I guarantee you that the players, Buckley, the other members of the coaching group and the rest of the whole club are working at improving these areas.

Will it be enough to save his job? Very unlikely, as it is easier to sack one person, then it is to sack multiple people and it is far easier to sell hope with a new coach. This is why throughout history a coach has always been the one where the responsibility of failure is apportioned.

There have been many examples in recent times where this blame has been apportioned incorrectly and the decision made to replace the coach has backfired spectacularly on club that has made the call to change the coach. So, if the club makes the call to change the coach, let's hope they pick the right candidate because at the moment we have a playing group that clearly wants Bucks to be their coach and if the club makes the wrong call and the new coach and players clash, we will be in for a number of years of pain.

Well I will say this MooreTreloar; if the players were as relentless in their running and attack on the man and ball as you are with your pursuit of this argument, we would be Premiers every year!

[watt price tully]

The reason Collingwood is where it is now on the ladder is due to several reasons as is obvious to any one except those with tickets on themselves.

Is is a combination of factors including but not limited to:

1. Players skills
2. Coaching plans, strategies & tactics
3. Selection committee including the coach
4. Player availability.

On game day it is a combination of factors including player execution of skills & coaching tactics. The extent to which these factors occur in a game will vary on the day, the time & the scenario

This is common sense.

If a player or players on the opposing team are controlling the game, such as patterns of play not anticipated or not adequately addressed by pre-game planning then the coach needs to accountable & make moves accordingly.

If a coach or coaching team responds too slowly to difficulties encountered then the game can be lost or the advantage at that time point in time can be lost. If coaches are too inflexible to only see one way of doing things then that will reflect on what the team does.

To suggest it's players only is as limited and narrow an analysis as that view self evidently suggests. To not entertain the idea that there is a combination of factors at play (only the degree to which that combination is at play is debatable) & to reduce that to an arbitrary number based on speculation such as 98% & 2% is just as limited as doing accountancy on the back of a sheet of toilet paper.

Nothing to do with tickets on myself. Also, your view is not even close to common sense, it omits multiple factors.

Do you want me to take you through the Gary Rohan supposed "move" again that you suggested was the reason that Sydney beat Essendon two Friday nights ago? As I posted in that thread, there were numerous player decisions, player non-decisions, player skill errors, good play by players, positioning errors by players, etc, that occurred before Rohan even got his chance to be involved in the contest.

I'll type this slowly so you get the gist:

I am writing that there are multiple factors whilst you post there is only one that is players only that have a role on game day. I stated quite clearly that there is more than just players involved. I have already stated that players have a role, indeed a significant role but not an exclusive role which is your (limited in my view) contention. I'm not saying anything remarkable indeed what I am saying is part of the Mastermind challenge: special subject: the bleedin' obvious.

Gary Rohan still kicked the winning goal & was due to some of the reasons you mentioned. However call me captain obvious, Gary did not shift himself ( I noted that I told my Essendon supporting daughter he ought o have shifted Rohan in the 3rd - indeed he started forward in their most recent match . The coach did. Others mentioned a coach who made a move that didn't work out again reflecting not just the players involvement but the coach that is, there is more than one ingredient that goes into making the team win on game day and during a match.

Unless you've done a path analysis or a form thereof which examines multifactorial variables and places a value on each them (Path analysis is a straightforward extension of multiple regression. Its aim is to provide estimates of the magnitude and significance of hypothesised causal connections between sets of variables) your 98% was in effect as evidence based as astrology or the sport of international goat f*cking - I'll resist temptation....

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

The lack of modern day football knowledge on this site has to be read to be believed.

VFL - we are in 2017, not 1967. The players aren't training two nights a week, whilst also having a real job. In this scenario, the impact of the coach on match day would be significantly more impactful.

AFL footballers are professional sportspeople. Have a think about what this entails.

AFL clubs are fully professional. Every club knows how every other club is going to play and wants to play. Each club has numerous opposition scouts, whose sole job is to analyse the opposition. That is, there aren't very many surprises, if any, on game day. This should be evident to posters that watch AFL closely, predominantly every club is trying to play the same way. I keep reading we went backwards and sideways, did you not watch the game? Hawthorn did exactly the same thing, the only difference was they hit many more targets than we did.

Our game plan and structures, that posters who bag these wouldn't have a clue what either of these are, have held up extremely well in 2017. We have been in a winning position in each and every game, bar last week against Port. This would not be the case if the coaching group were not providing the correct information to the players.

A win or a loss in modern day AFL football comes down to the ability of professional athletes to execute on game day.

Consequently, it is as clear as the nose on your face, if you know anything about AFL and sport, that we are 5-9 because of the poor skill execution and poor decision making of our players. These deficiencies have led to us gifting multiple goals to the opposition at inopportune times, which in such an even competition where the margin between a win and a loss is minuscule, is the reason we are 5-9 and not 9-5. If you want just one example from yesterday of which there were many, Howe kicking in straight to Mitchell in the last quarter. This has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the coach.

The common ground you and I have is that we both feel very sorry for the coach and wish it had somehow turned out better. But in accounting for our poor display against Hawthorn you say the coach doesn't have any accountability for the way the team played. Even the coach himself would disagree with your assessment. The coach chooses the 22 that play each week. He recruits the 44 players who make up the list. He trains them and prepares them to play against the opposition each week. If the team plays poorly he takes responsibility for the way the team performs. There are always extenuating circumstances for the way the team performed which you didn't even bother to bring up. We had two players on the bench in the last quarter which limited our options at either end of the ground. But at the end of the day the coach takes responsibility for the performance of the team and that's the way it's been in the history of the game. I don't know how else you want to spin it? I listened to Buckley's presser. I thought he was very good explaining the loss. I also thought he was optimistic about the list going forward into next year. The bit about players playing their best footy in their late twenties has been misrepresented here. He wasn't excusing the poor performance of the younger players in the side. He was just saying that the younger players would get better with maturity.

The match committee choose the 22 that play each week. Obviously, the coach has his say.

The recruiting team recruit the playing list. Obviously, the coach has his say.

We are losing games of football in a season were the difference between a win and a loss is minuscule because we are gifting 6 to 8 goals to the opposition each and every week from poor skill errors and dumb decision making. As John Worsfold said in the book extract that I posted "You (being the coach) cannot influence their ability on game day." At the moment the skill level and decision making of some of our players is not at AFL standard, but I guarantee you that the players, Buckley, the other members of the coaching group and the rest of the whole club are working at improving these areas.

Will it be enough to save his job? Very unlikely, as it is easier to sack one person, then it is to sack multiple people and it is far easier to sell hope with a new coach. This is why throughout history a coach has always been the one where the responsibility of failure is apportioned.

There have been many examples in recent times where this blame has been apportioned incorrectly and the decision made to replace the coach has backfired spectacularly on club that has made the call to change the coach. So, if the club makes the call to change the coach, let's hope they pick the right candidate because at the moment we have a playing group that clearly wants Bucks to be their coach and if the club makes the wrong call and the new coach and players clash, we will be in for a number of years of pain.

I'm with you. I feel sick inside if and when Buckley gets the chop, but I can't see any other way out for the club. Naturally Buckley will say that mathematically we can still make finals, but realistically it just won't happen. I hope the players realise that they have just brought about the demise of the coaching career of our greatest ever player. Sad days ahead.

[CarringbushCigar]

Unless you've done a path analysis or a form thereof which examines multifactorial variables and places a value on each them (Path analysis is a straightforward extension of multiple regression. Its aim is to provide estimates of the magnitude and significance of hypothesised causal connections between sets of variables) your 98% was in effect as evidence based as astrology or the sport of international goat f*cking - I'll resist temptation....

Beautiful !
Wish you hadn't