Bucks has pulled out of the North coaching race.
It does feel a bit like the industry is quickly shifting perceptions and risk appetite again on second time coaches and even the more successful ‘elder statesmen’ of the league.
We seemingly didn’t seriously entertain Longmire as head coach nor did Fark Carlton. Tassie wasn’t interested in Horse or Buckley either.
Clarkson was once again found out as being completely washed - no different to when the Hawks chose to dump him.
Voss was dumped 2nd time round after doing the oft-suggested ‘apprenticeship’ at port after his first failure.
The favourite son in Hird couldn’t get across the line at Essendon despite a groundswell of support from fans and media.
Hinkley is a bit of an anomaly here but the Tassie scenario is also a bit of an unusual one.
The Buckley case is particularly interesting because he clearly has a strategy of trying to manipulate the narrative so that he is ‘opting out’ or the opportunity ‘wasn’t right for him’ instead of allowing the media to publicly observe that he has not been preferred at any of the clubs that have been looking for coaches - despite trying to claim Geelong IP as part of his pitch.
How amusing that after all the very public criticism, it turns out that Essendon might actually be the club that actually knows what it’s doing re: coaching selection and footy department structure.
I was thinking Chris Scott to Brisbane and Buckley to Geelong.
Yet Sam MacClure says he (Bucks) pulled out 
. Trying to make it Buckley save face.
So Simpson, Longmire and Buckley all not up to the modern game plan? Or North is a sinking ship no one wants to go to.
1 Like
I think Buckley treats coaching very similar to Hird.
It has to be the right fit for him. So for any interview, he’s as much interviewing the club as they are of him.
He’ll only go to a club that fits with his philosophy and if it doesn’t he’ll be perfectly fine to be assistant coach and have a media role.
Hird is a slightly different beast though. He solely wants the Essendon coaching job. And that’s it. He has no interest going anywhere else (he doesn’t seem to wasn’t to work with / under any other coach) and he feels Essendon is the only fit for him. He’ll keep going for the opportunity, but until then, he’ll stay in his media role and his Port Melbourne role.
I’m intrigued that Giansiracusa is in the final two spots for the North role. I thought it would take longer than a year to clear himself of the Essington stench.
I think Jaymie Graham would be the popular choice and probably the ‘safer’ choice.
"I’ve decided to withdraw from the process for the Norf Melbourne head coaching position, as my presence may scare away other high quality applicants and to give the process clear air. (Stir Fried Ewok, Bomberblitz, Oct 4, 2026)
3 Likes
Feels like he’s playing musical chairs and may well be left standing.
The smart money would be on Graham. But if Sonia hood is making the decision. You can pretty much guarantee it will be Gia.
1 Like
Very much so.
I don’t think there is a team that matches ‘his way’. He got it at Collingwood because he’s a legend there. But elsewhere, he’s just another aspiring coach just with specific requirements.
I don’t think there’s any team that fits for Buckley apart from Collingwood. And I’d say the same for Hird (not a Collingwood fit, but an Essendon one).
2 Likes
I think that would be his preferred narrative.
Similar to Hird though - I’m not sure there is any club that really sees him as their senior coach.
The emerging trend with these failed coaches seems very much to be about chasing the IP from successful clubs so they can better sell themselves for the next go-round but I think clubs are starting to lean more toward first time coaches that have been produced organically by those successful environments.
1 Like
I understand Bucks is a failed coach because he didn’t win a flag, but in an alternate reality where rioli pushes Maynard into the crowd, even an incompetent umpire would’ve paid that free.
That would/could make Bucks a premiership coach but I’d still take JG or Gia ahead of him. He feels like yesterday’s coach.
It is amazing where the sport is at regarding coaches. It’s basically a “one and done” industry. In soccer, basketball, etc, It’s commonplace that coaches/managers go from club to club. Experience and being a coach/manager before, even if they got sacked previously, is not seen as a negative.
Really now the only time you’d see a coach with previous experience is if you poached someone currently in a job, and it would have to be someone with a recent history of success. It might be too bad so sad for Bucks. Beaten by Ken for the Tassie job and maybe will miss the boat completely for another crack at it…
It would be fascinating to see what the AFL landscape might actually look like if they didn’t control the media and the 24 hour AFL news cycle.
Which is a strange attitude to have - surely it’s not an age thing?
Not sure it’s age (although North are clearly angling for the young, untried coach) so much as if you’ve had previous experience you are seen as yesterday’s man. Also someone who has coached before, you probably know their faults and that counts against them. Whereas a Graham or a Gia are a clean slate.
IMO I wouldn’t be prejudiced against a coach with prior experience in a senior coaching role. But you have to make sure they still have the fire and passion burning deep inside them, and whatever shortcomings they might have you address that with a good coaching panel around them.
2 Likes
The job is a poisoned chalice from here.
You go forward it’s off the back of clarkos work but more likely you dip down on wins and your in trouble one year in.
My guess…
It has as much to do with money and department spend than anything else.
Is it better to have an absolute gun coach and try and get assistants and development coaches using the rest of the cap when you have a young developing list starved of success or is it better to have a good spread of spend across the coaches? I’d say there’s more of a reliance on the other coaches with a development team so it makes sense to spend money there.
I think an experienced coach works better with a team that has already gone through the development phase and can’t quite get over the hump. There’s usually one or two players on the list that help fill the assistant coach/development coach gaps that may be present too. For that reason, I think you can spend more on a head coach at the expense of assistants and development coaches. I suspect we’ll see teams try their ‘last gasp chance’ at a premiership tilt with an experienced coach over the next five years as Tasmania are commanding the draft. It makes sense to have ‘one big swing’ before bottom out after Tassie have owned the draft. Worst case, you can probably pick off their better players who want to leave. Sort of like what GWS did by continually trading in early picks for players who wanted to leave.
Some teams that I think will try the ‘last chance with a gun coach’ approach in the short term would be the Bulldogs and Adelaide. Then Freo and Sydney are candidates if they don’t break through with a premiership.
3 Likes
