Ratten had them inspired and playing some great footy, however we were bagged senseless for not beating a top 4 side.
Has Malthouse Been A Failure?
- Thread starter dymot
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Ratten had them inspired and playing some great footy, however we were bagged senseless for not beating a top 4 side.
There was literally no attempt to get a legitmate #1 firsts ruckman to the club from the period in question 2002 (when it was clear there was an issue) to 2007 when it was clear there was still an issue. After that prelim loss he immediately went & traded for Cam Wood. I think at this point he realised his philosophy on ruckman was off and adjusted. It just took 5 years....hence the stubborness.
I have no problem Cam Wood failed at least he tried to fix it at that point & later he did fix it with Jolly & Brown. But we had waited 5 years and got a dud so his inaction meant another 2-3 years of no ruckmen.
By 2012 I think he found the solution and a balance to his issue with ruckmen. Basically he revolutionised rucks by creating the "Leigh Brown" role that everyone is now so desperate to have. However, he had to concede that you need a proper dominant ruck to succeed - you just need an average mobile one to back them up & kcik a few goals! I for one am glad he figured this out as it was a big part of the 2010 flag. However, if he had of given some ground earlier he may be waving an extra premiership cup around. Still ones better than none.
Some of those guys were not recruited as ruckmen, they were forwards. The others were recruited as support for Josh like Richards & McKee - basically the now extinct second ruckman. The problem was Josh was not a dominant #1 ruck in his own right.
Cam Wood was a legitmate attempt to get a proper ruck on the books, not Mick's fault that he failed.
Lots of excuses, sorry reasons, put forward why Malthouse has achieved diddley squat.
Next year will be interesting or are we now talking full scale, 5 year plan restructures at Carlton?
Next year will be interesting or are we now talking full scale, 5 year plan restructures at Carlton?
Interesting that you agree 100% despite disagreeing with his main point?
Ratten can't help that the draft picks were not great players and nor can Mick. With the same bunch of players Mick hasn't got them any further along in fact Ratten only had one injury riddled off year. So with an apparently dud list of players Ratten did acheive a lot.
I think the Ratten should get some credit in that the club is now conceding its a list problem. They can't argue with a 20 year coach, but they could with a 4 year one. When Mick says listen boys this lot is no good I need more to work with, surely someone at the club will be feeling a bit ill that they strung Ratten up for not acheiving with a list they rated highly. The same (less developed) list he nearly got them to top 4 with in 2011.
I think the only error Ratten made with his list was the lack of a key forward, but that was in part due to the Chris Judd deal.
Time to cut Ratts some slack.
True there were very few genuine rucks recruited in Malthouses time. Take away the "spare parts ruckmen" and the list is even smaller. Which only makes the case against him even more damning.
Agree Wood was the first genuine attempt in his entire time at Collingwood. You would have thought he'd have learned after 2002 and 2003 GF losses but the penny didnt drop until after the 2007 PF. I dont begrudge recruiting Wood but I do begrudge the fact that it was a desperate measure brought on by desperate times and we never should have been in that position in the first place.
That said Wood failing to come on has to partly be the coaches responsibility as well.
Firstly we're talking about the full evolution over 10 years, not just 5 years. When Mick first arrived at the club he had shit all rucks to chose from. Monkhorst was done and delisted and you'd been playing Richardson as a ruckman. He straight off drafted a young ruckman and traded early for another in McKee. You point to the Grand Final in 2002, but Mick had had the list for all of two seasons at that point and rebuilt it enough to lift you right up the ladder and you're complaining about the ruck situation. It's a hindsight argument.
Back in 2002 Josh Fraser was 20yo and looked like becoming a more than a reasonable ruckman, so fair call Malthouse wasn't banging down the doors to load up on rucks. McKee was 24yo and you had another young ruck drafted under Malthouse in Richards. In 2006 he went for Bryan and in 2007 went for Wood, neither of which paid dividends. So roll around 2009 and when Jolly went on the market, away he went again, finally hitting the mark. Again, this is a matter of success, not philosophy or action.
Fraser never looked like a good ruckman. He was always going to be a mobile second ruck, in fact many Pies fans were calling for him to be played as a forward or even a tall winger. Even from an early age it was clear he wasnt going to have the frame for it. It was obvious to everybody except Malthouse. What a waste of what could have been a wonderful career.
Crap. Even back to circa 2003 Collingwood posters were talking this kid up as a ruckman.
It appears Mick overrated the list so it's going to take longer (and more money) than first thought.
There's been a ton of failures when it comes to coaches in AFL but Mick hasn't been one of them. He knows how to build teams.
No. As a player and a ruckman.
Timmy if i was you i'd just give up, you can see he knows more about the Pies and their supporters than we do.
forwardflanker
Cancelled
Steve McKee was pretty decent until they changed the ruck rule. He was at least a par imo. The other fails were serious shockers though.
forwardflanker
Cancelled
Collingwood's recent failure with ruckman is a pretty a good lesson on what not to do. The best bet imo is to either trade for proven mature age rucks or go really speculative i.e. through the rookie draft, vfl. Grundy is an exception given he was considered by many a top 5 selection has a very developed body for someone his age. There is just too much left to chance in drafting young rucks imo
forwardflanker
Cancelled
David King, the best special comments guy in the business, has just written a sensational article almost exactly on point with this thread - that is the realisation that MM has proven to be an abject failure in his first season at Carlton.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/ca...rites-david-king/story-fndv8f7j-1226694482220
Some of my favourite quotes:
"If the NAB Cup next year was an under-24 competition they'd be embarrassed. Consider Collingwood's under-24s which includes Beams, Sidebottom and Elliott while Richmond has Cotchin, Rance and Martin and Essendon boasts Heppell, Daniher and Zaharakis."
"In the past Carlton has bought its way out of these binds. Not now.
Accept and perfect the draft and what stage your list is at, or suffer the long-term pain that comes with denial."
I think the latter quote would resonate particularly with most who have watched Carlton the last decade and a bit. This is a club that has completely failed to keep up with the modern demands of the game and is instead stuck in some mid 1980's dream world where the quick fix still works.
The only thing I dislike about the article is the use of the word "pruning" in order to describe change required in Carlton's list. The list needs much more than that, it needs to be doused in weed killer, set on fire and then have concrete poured all over it before it's have any chance of competing with the best.
Anyway that's only a small gripe for what's a sensational piece of journalism.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/ca...rites-david-king/story-fndv8f7j-1226694482220
Some of my favourite quotes:
"If the NAB Cup next year was an under-24 competition they'd be embarrassed. Consider Collingwood's under-24s which includes Beams, Sidebottom and Elliott while Richmond has Cotchin, Rance and Martin and Essendon boasts Heppell, Daniher and Zaharakis."
"In the past Carlton has bought its way out of these binds. Not now.
Accept and perfect the draft and what stage your list is at, or suffer the long-term pain that comes with denial."
I think the latter quote would resonate particularly with most who have watched Carlton the last decade and a bit. This is a club that has completely failed to keep up with the modern demands of the game and is instead stuck in some mid 1980's dream world where the quick fix still works.
The only thing I dislike about the article is the use of the word "pruning" in order to describe change required in Carlton's list. The list needs much more than that, it needs to be doused in weed killer, set on fire and then have concrete poured all over it before it's have any chance of competing with the best.
Anyway that's only a small gripe for what's a sensational piece of journalism.
Longmire didn't win a premiership the year he took over from Roos, stop being so unrealistic.
It appears you never give up.
Did you really not get my point or are you being difficult? Longmire who took over a group admittedly in better shape than ours still didn't win a premiership in his first year as coach. Grant MM the same luxury is all I'm saying.
forwardflanker
Cancelled
Except that Carlton supporters would have laughed in our faces if anyone had of said that Sydney's list was in better shape than Carlton's at the time Longmire took over. Unfortunately the differences between the clubs in the time since is a pretty strong illustration of the difference between a well run club and one that is poorly run.
I don't understand what you're getting at. It's pretty well established the footy club has been pretty poorly run over the past years. In fact it's been especially exposed now.
I think most Carlton folk would agree, so why do you keep saying the same thing?
- Status
Similar threads
