- Banned
- #301
Considering the way Carlton have performed under Malthouse it's hardly a "given" that he should have been retained as coach at Collingwood. The Malthouse of approx 15 years ago had Collingwood move from wooden-spooners to grand finalists in the space of three seasons, Carlton haven't performed any better under Malthouse than they did under Ratten and you could argue they've gone backwards under his tutelage (the raw results certainly suggest that). I don't disagree with your second point, I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy of some people who claimed that the proposed role for Malthouse at Collingwood from 2012-14 was largely pointless that then will inevitably point out that the loss of Eade (from the so-called "pointless" position) will be huge for Collingwood. You can't have it both ways, either Malthouse was offered a meaningful/important position at Collingwood from 2012-14 and the loss of Eade will hurt (to some extent) or the position Malthouse was offered was pointless and the Eade could almost be made redundant at Collingwood for that reason and it wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, I expect trolls to take the position of Malthouse was offered a crap job from 2012-14 but the loss of Eade will hurt Collingwood, a position that doesn't exist.
Its not the fact that Malthouse had a meaningful role and left its the fact the job went to Buckley.