Malthouse prevented player revolt in 2011

[drummoyne]

Put together one of the most dominant sides of the 90's. Changed the way football was being played.

Took over a wooden spoon team in the Pies and took them to a Grand Final within 3 years. Rebuilt the team and got your club only their second flag in half a century.

Both signs of a great coach; no matter how much backwards spin you want to put on it.

You Collingwood folk should at least give him his dues, rather than this sour grapes rubbish. No class.

We are not all like that.

Mick was and is still a great coach. I don't like the bitterness shown by some sections of Pies supporters. He is coaching the enemy and will be treated as such but lets not pretend he was anything other than a fantastic coach for the Pies.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Would that have happened without Figjam taking up Eddie's panicked offer?

Really, I'm being a bit harsh on figjam here. Figjam just did what Figjams.

The real villain - which is sad because I like him otherwise - is Eddie. Couldn't bear the thought of golden boy Bucks at another club, so sabotaged a perfectly good arrangement accordingly.

That "perfectly good" arrangement was struck when Malthouse had a 3-5 record with a side that had finished 5th and 4th in the two season's previous. The only time in his coaching career that Buckley has had a worse record was after rounds 1 and 3 this year, where we were 0-1 and 1-2 respectively. Malthouse failed to land us a premiership in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 when our window was amazingly open. At that point in time, he hardly deserved an extension, let alone a two year grace period.

 

[Monkey King]

We are not all like that.

Mick was and is still a great coach. I don't like the bitterness shown by some sections of Pies supporters. He is coaching the enemy and will be treated as such but lets not pretend he was anything other than a fantastic coach for the Pies.

Good on you mate. I'm not saying you guys have to love and revere the bloke, but some posters making shit up, saying he's past it or that was never even a good coach for you guys doesn't reflect well on them I reckon.

 

[augie]

I think time will show those two were on the wrong side of all of this. Bucks being quite happy to usurp Mick while he had the Collingwood team dominating the comp ... talk about not being your own man and taking advantage of someone else's hard work. And then Eddie, who has otherwise been a messiah for your club, letting his fanboi love for Bucks get in the way of good sense and what's best for the club.

What exactly did Buckley do to "usurp" Mick?? He wanted to coach at a senior level. He had an offer to do so at a rival club. The President of the Club he played for and would love to coach offers a way forward which would give the current senior coach 2 more years and then have him stay on as a mentor. At that stage Collingwood were far from dominating the comp. They hadn't won a flag for 19 years and were generally seen to be a class below the better sides.

In the premiership year Buckley quietly goes about his work while Mick undermines him - Nathan Buckley never claimed to be the architect of the forward press but Mick just had to make it clear to the whole world that it had nothing to do with Buckley. No recognition in the premiership acceptance speech. All about Mick's boys.

2011 Buckley quietly goes about his work. Mick carries on like a school kid, effectively saying he was tricked into accepting the succession plan at a time when he was vulnerable.

2012 Buckley takes over a team that plays a game style that experts generally agree has been unravelled. He sets about making changes to it. He has a very ordinary start to the season and the knives are out. Mick chimes in with comments that anyone could see were designed to undermine Buckley. Buckley's response is all class.

So tell me who is in the wrong here again??

Mick Malthouse coached Collingwood to a flag and for that we supporters are forever grateful. It wasn't always an enjoyable experience as he always seemed to have an excuse for every loss, and it was rarely about his shortcomings. But he won a flag. The problem I, and most Pies supporters, have with him is his behaviour after leaving. It shows a complete lack of class and respect. This clouds most Pies supporters feelings about him.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Good on you mate. I'm not saying you guys have to love and revere the bloke, but some posters making shit up, saying he's past it or that was never even a good coach for you guys doesn't reflect well on them I reckon.

He was a good coach. So were Rose Hafey and Matthews. All had their time in the end. The only difference with Malthouse was that the takeover was mapped out carefully and bloodlessly. The sackings of Hafey and Matthews were painful for the club and they decided to find a modern way of transitioning. They should be applauded for their modern thinking. Two clubs have engaged in this handover process, and both have won flags shortly after.

 

[forwardflanker]

Carlton are the most reactionary club in the AFL. Their obsession with the quick fix means that their developments largely revolve around poaching coaching staff, players, administrators and ideas from other clubs. Until that that is addressed they'll permanently be 2-3 years behind the competition benchmarks, just a middle of the road football club like the Norths and St Kilda's of the competition. The 'quick fix' is a cultural disease at that club and goes all the way to board level - until they have a board willing to innovate they will never be a big club. I've been saying this for a while - given the resources at their disposal, Carlton are about the worst run club in the AFL. If I were a Carlton supporter I'd be ashamed at how poorly the club function. It must be so frustrating seeing clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong being in much much healthier positions despite not being big 4 clubs.

edit: and by "innovate" I don't mean handing out more Visy contracts

 

[KrakFiend]

He was a good coach. So were Rose Hafey and Matthews. All had their time in the end. The only difference with Malthouse was that the takeover was mapped out carefully and bloodlessly. The sackings of Hafey and Matthews were painful for the club and they decided to find a modern way of transitioning. They should be applauded for their modern thinking. Two clubs have engaged in this handover process, and both have won flags shortly after.

The main difference is the way this jerk has acted since. He has lost me. Premiership has an asterisk next to it now, the sooner Bucks can bring us one the better

 

[mediumsizered]

Carlton are the most reactionary club in the AFL. Their obsession with the quick fix means that their developments largely revolve around poaching coaching staff, players, administrators and ideas from other clubs. Until that that is addressed they'll permanently be 2-3 years behind the competition benchmarks, just a middle of the road football club like the Norths and St Kilda's of the competition. The 'quick fix' is a cultural disease at that club and goes all the way to board level - until they have a board willing to innovate they will never be a big club. I've been saying this for a while - given the resources at their disposal, Carlton are about the worst run club in the AFL. If I were a Carlton supporter I'd be ashamed at how poorly the club function. It must be so frustrating seeing clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong being in much much healthier positions despite not being big 4 clubs.

edit: and by "innovate" I don't mean handing out more Visy contracts

Where did Malthouse come from prior to Collingwood? How about Matty Lappin? Mark Neeld? Brenton Sanderson? Geoff Walsh? Leigh Brown? Darren Jolly? Andrew Krakouer? Jordan Russell? Clinton Young? Neil Balme? Leigh Matthews?

You're taking the piss, right? Hang on, you're actually serious. I'm sorry.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The main difference is the way this jerk has acted since. He has lost me. Premiership has an asterisk next to it now, the sooner Bucks can bring us one the better

Thats true but I just ignore him. Pretty much what I did when he was coach too. Hes a good coach but in terms of what he says publically, its all just hot air. Always has been.

 

[chunkylover53]

Carlton are the most reactionary club in the AFL. Their obsession with the quick fix means that their developments largely revolve around poaching coaching staff, players, administrators and ideas from other clubs. Until that that is addressed they'll permanently be 2-3 years behind the competition benchmarks, just a middle of the road football club like the Norths and St Kilda's of the competition. The 'quick fix' is a cultural disease at that club and goes all the way to board level - until they have a board willing to innovate they will never be a big club. I've been saying this for a while - given the resources at their disposal, Carlton are about the worst run club in the AFL. If I were a Carlton supporter I'd be ashamed at how poorly the club function. It must be so frustrating seeing clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong being in much much healthier positions despite not being big 4 clubs.

edit: and by "innovate" I don't mean handing out more Visy contracts

Why are you so interested in Carlton? Just wondering. You happen to have an opinion on them on every thread about them on the main board.

 

[partylikeits1990]

Typical waffle from you. Collingwood don't have the best facilities. And Carlton's are now up there with the best in the league. Collingwood had a raft of assistants rotate through the club, hand picked by Mick. What now, 3-4 of them are senior coaches on the back of his mentoring and performance. They weren't the best until they worked under him. Talk about rubbish this and rubbish that ... you're a freaking expert on rubbish opinions

More rubbish from Monkey Boy. If Carlton finish above Richmond on the ladder next year Mick will have done a great job.

 

[Monkey King]

More rubbish from Monkey Boy. If Carlton finish above Richmond on the ladder next year Mick will have done a great job.

Neh ...

 

[Monkey King]

He was a good coach. So were Rose Hafey and Matthews. All had their time in the end. The only difference with Malthouse was that the takeover was mapped out carefully and bloodlessly.

This is true, but another major difference was that Mick had your team absolutely humming and had just come off a flag. Only my opinion, but it was a really foolish time to go through with pulling the plug on him. Someone should have stood back and reassessed in the best interest of the club.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

This is true, but another major difference was that Mick had your team absolutely humming and had just come off a flag. Only my opinion, but it was a really foolish time to go through with pulling the plug on him. Someone should have stood back and reassessed in the best interest of the club.

For as many experts why say that theres just as many who say he could easily been sacked around 2004/5/6.

 

[Monkey King]

For as many experts why say that theres just as many who say he could easily been sacked around 2004/5/6.

Sacked in 2004? The year after he got you into a Grand Final? Come off it! 2005 injury hit, but sure, if you want to be reactionary, I suppose you could say he could have been sacked. Bouncing back up in 2006 while clearly undergoing a rebuild, yeah, whatever. I have no questions that when the agreement was introduced it could have been seen as decent time to move him on, but the eventual timing was inextricable to me and clearly took the team from the most dominant in the comp, a team fine tuned and in rare form, to one that's fallen back to the pack.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Carlton are the most reactionary club in the AFL. Their obsession with the quick fix means that their developments largely revolve around poaching coaching staff, players, administrators and ideas from other clubs. Until that that is addressed they'll permanently be 2-3 years behind the competition benchmarks, just a middle of the road football club like the Norths and St Kilda's of the competition. The 'quick fix' is a cultural disease at that club and goes all the way to board level - until they have a board willing to innovate they will never be a big club. I've been saying this for a while - given the resources at their disposal, Carlton are about the worst run club in the AFL. If I were a Carlton supporter I'd be ashamed at how poorly the club function. It must be so frustrating seeing clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong being in much much healthier positions despite not being big 4 clubs.

edit: and by "innovate" I don't mean handing out more Visy contracts

Didn't you start a thread about how Carlton should have tried to improve their list during the trade period by poaching players?

If I were a Carlton supporter

you'd whine incessantly. Yeah we get it

 

[Monkey King]

What exactly did Buckley do to "usurp" Mick?? He wanted to coach at a senior level. He had an offer to do so at a rival club. The President of the Club he played for and would love to coach offers a way forward which would give the current senior coach 2 more years and then have him stay on as a mentor. At that stage Collingwood were far from dominating the comp. They hadn't won a flag for 19 years and were generally seen to be a class below the better sides.

Again, I'm not talking about the stage the agreement was made. Perhaps you should have just moved Mick on at that point, rather than devising this agreement in the first place. My issue comes when Mick starts to finally get the fruit of his rebuild and has his team in rarefied form, but is forced to hand over the reigns. Don't put it any other way, Mick didn't want to give up the job and would have only signed the agreement on the basis it at least gave him another couple of years to prove himself and get what he could out of the team he built and mentored. In the end, someone should have had better sense to realise the Pies had a real chance for another flag, maybe even two and not to mess with a winning formula.

You all call Mick selfish and only thinking of himself, but hell, Eddie and Buckley, if they love your club so much, should have put their agenda's to the side and let Mick run with the side that was dominating the comp until he fell off the pace again; not cork him in the middle of a great run. Hey you can not agree, I don't mind, and I may yet be proven wrong, I just don't see the outcome as being sensible and I wouldn't blame Mick for feeling he'd been stitched up most inopportunely.

As for giving Bucks recognition in the premiership speech ... WTF? Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he do that for all the assistant coaches? You Collingwood blokes are really getting into figurehead worship here.

So tell me who is in the wrong here again??

Eddie for mine. He should have stepped back and approached Bucks about hanging off while the team was at full tilt. You talk about a lack of class and respect, I think Eddie has been as guilty of this as anyone. But clearly Buckley is the one who's handled himself the best ... yet as I said before, he's the kid with the candy, so it's been easy for him to sit back and go about his business.

 

[Gone Critical]

Again, I'm not talking about the stage the agreement was made. Perhaps you should have just moved Mick on at that point, rather than devising this agreement in the first place. My issue comes when Mick starts to finally get the fruit of his rebuild and has his team in rarefied form, but is forced to hand over the reigns. Don't put it any other way, Mick didn't want to give up the job and would have only signed the agreement on the basis it at least gave him another couple of years to prove himself and get what he could out of the team he built and mentored. In the end, someone should have had better sense to realise the Pies had a real chance for another flag, maybe even two and not to mess with a winning formula.

You all call Mick selfish and only thinking of himself, but hell, Eddie and Buckley, if they love your club so much, should have put their agenda's to the side and let Mick run with the side that was dominating the comp until he fell off the pace again; not cork him in the middle of a great run. Hey you can not agree, I don't mind, and I may yet be proven wrong, I just don't see the outcome as being sensible and I wouldn't blame Mick for feeling he'd been stitched up most inopportunely.

I am glad you have recognised here that the deal was signed at a time when Collingwood was not flying and most pundits were not predicting the success that would come about 15 months later. Eddie was MMs biggest supporter at Collingwood at the time and without that Mick probably wouldn't have got his last contract.

The idea of the club reversing the agreement and giving MM more time is an interesting one and one I thought about a lot at the time. In my opinion if Collingwood had won the flag in 2011 this would have been a real point of contention. Of course it would have also been a great problem to have. As it panned out MM petered out a bit towards the end of 2011 as the team did. I am sure you will argue that this would not have happened if the deal was not in place but that is just speculation. There are plenty on the Collingwood board who believe MM was jarred into extra effort by the agreement hence the 2010 flag. I don't agree with that myself. Again just speculation.

I am and was a MM fan but I am also glad Buckley is now the coach. The best way to transition a coaching position is always speculation. There is no proof involved. Collingwood has tried something new and that's always a risk and leaves you open to criticism from those who support the old way because change is always a bit more threatening. One point MM is strong on is that no organisaation should be too reliant on one person. Be that Buckley the player that MM 1st coached at Collingwood or Malthouse the coach. An organistation should have strong structures in place that allow the orderly transition of any postion in the organisation. It's what he will be trying to set up at Carlton and something your club seems to lack for now.

If Buckleys succeeds at Collingwood, which I think he will, it will show that MM was able to set those structures up at Collingwood successfully. The highlighted area of your post above is one I think MM may disagree with . It's the old view of things that I have heard him argue against. Apart from the view that "that's the way we have always done it" there is no reason to think your idea that waiting for a previously successful coach to fall off the pace before replacing him is the best way to do things. To avoid big peaks and troughs in performance maybe a footy club needs to look at better ways of transitioning their people.

Just because it's the accepted orthodoxy doesn't mean it's the best. A lot of the best changes in all sorts of fields have challenged such views. Often the interested parties try to scream them down rather than considering change.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Sacked in 2004? The year after he got you into a Grand Final? Come off it! 2005 injury hit, but sure, if you want to be reactionary, I suppose you could say he could have been sacked. Bouncing back up in 2006 while clearly undergoing a rebuild, yeah, whatever. I have no questions that when the agreement was introduced it could have been seen as decent time to move him on, but the eventual timing was inextricable to me and clearly took the team from the most dominant in the comp, a team fine tuned and in rare form, to one that's fallen back to the pack.

There were people saying it, thats my point.

 

[Monkey King]

I am glad you have recognised here that the deal was signed at a time when Collingwood was not flying and most pundits were not predicting the success that would come about 15 months later. Eddie was MMs biggest supporter at Collingwood at the time and without that Mick probably wouldn't have got his last contract.

Oh sure. I have to recognise it; that's what happened. And I wouldn't argue that at the time, it probably seemed like a reasonable course of action too. As I've also noted, I don't think even if he got the sack it would have been a big deal ... 9-10 years without a flag is fair cause IMO; although it seemed clear as an outsider that his rebuild was starting to take shape. My issue comes more with messing with a winning formula. You say the club tried something new and bold and Mick would be all for that, but I think not messing spectacularly with a winning formula is a fairly empirical strategy that's been nutted out over the centuries and proven more often than not to be the best way forward. Of course, failure to spot when a winning formula is no longer the winning formula is another issue entirely.

The idea of the club reversing the agreement and giving MM more time is an interesting one and one I thought about a lot at the time. In my opinion if Collingwood had won the flag in 2011 this would have been a real point of contention. Of course it would have also been a great problem to have. As it panned out MM petered out a bit towards the end of 2011 as the team did. I am sure you will argue that this would not have happened if the deal was not in place but that is just speculation. There are plenty on the Collingwood board who believe MM was jarred into extra effort by the agreement hence the 2010 flag. I don't agree with that myself. Again just speculation.

Of course it's just speculation and unless you have a multidimensional travel machine, that's all it's ever going to be, but you I'm not worried about making considered projections based on facts when the unknown looms large. Who knows if you would have won the flag, but what we do know is that you came very close and that Mick's departure disrupted the club. That's cause enough for this to be a real consideration. I can't see Mick being jarred into extra effort from the agreement, as in the real world, nothing significant actually occurred that hadn't already taken place at other points during his tenure; aside from landing a successful trade compared to ones that were not successful.

You couldn't have forced anything on to Buckley, as the agreement was signed, but surely the question should have been asked of him to let Mick have a run while the team were in the type of dominant form that is reasonably rare for a club to enjoy at AFL level these days. Of course the future will reveal more about this decision than the present, but I'm sure you blokes realise the Pies have fallen back to the pack now the agreement has been fulfilled. So you say you're happy with Buckley ... let me ask you a hypothetical; if the Blues took a flag under Mick and Bucks didn't get another one with this group, how would you then rate the transition?

 

[Gone Critical]

You couldn't have forced anything on to Buckley, as the agreement was signed, but surely the question should have been asked of him to let Mick have a run while the team were in the type of dominant form that is reasonably rare for a club to enjoy at AFL level these days. Of course the future will reveal more about this decision than the present, but I'm sure you blokes realise the Pies have fallen back to the pack now the agreement has been fulfilled. So you say you're happy with Buckley ... let me ask you a hypothetical; if the Blues took a flag under Mick and Bucks didn't get another one with this group, how would you then rate the transition?

Couple of points 1st. Collingwood could have forced something onto Buckley, contracts can be terminated or coersion applied to change them. It may not have been a wise way to go but it could have been done. Whether the question was put to Buckley about spending another year as assistant was asked we probably will never know, or at least during the time the decision runs its course. If Collingwood asked Buckley that question I am sure it would have been done behind closed doors and even MM probably would not have been privy to it. If it was asked it appears Bucks said no. Maybe he said yes but only if we won the flag in 2011. Who knows.

I am not sure I agree that Collingwood had a run of form through 2010-11 that is rarely seen in the AFL these days. Geelong 2007-08 is superior to it IMHO. Likewise Geelong 2011 is superior and their form in 2009 is comparable. Sanits of 2009-10 were in the same area. 2009 with 20 wins and no flag had never been seen before. Had they nutted us in 2010 and it came close you would have them as the better team, as it is they had a period of form very similar to Pies 2010-11. In fact this year was the 1st time since 2006 when teams haven't had that sort of dominant run.

Point is those runs are hard to maintain and no one can directly attribute Collingwoods drop off to the MM-Buckley transition. I believe Bucks did a good job this year, at least the equal of MM's performance in 2011. He battled more obstacles and injuries and had his team one game off top after 22 rounds. I agree with you that short of a time machine we are only speculating anyway.

As to your last question clearly if MM gets the Blues a flag and Bucks doesn't it will influence how i view this decision in hindsight. I would see the transition as flawed. On the otherhand if Bucks snares a flag or two ( which i beleive he will) and Carlton dont (which I am uncertain about) then I wil judge the transition as a great success and a bold vindicated decision on Eddies part.

Up to then it's speculation. Whichever way it goes a flag for Carlton or Collingwood in the next 2 seasons or so will be so much sweeter for knowing who is coaching the other mob. For mine Collingwood is the team more likely at the current time and if it occurs the angst I know Carlton would feel would be the sweetest cherry on top of the pie

 

[KrakFiend]

If you were ever to put together an all-flog squad of the century, with the likes of Carey, Tippett, Fev, Akker et al in it, there is no doubt Malthouse would be the coach.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Who listens to Malthouse anyway. They guy makes more outrageous claims than Kim Jong-il ever did.

 

[jasonwilde]

Sacked in 2004? The year after he got you into a Grand Final? Come off it! 2005 injury hit, but sure, if you want to be reactionary, I suppose you could say he could have been sacked. Bouncing back up in 2006 while clearly undergoing a rebuild, yeah, whatever. I have no questions that when the agreement was introduced it could have been seen as decent time to move him on, but the eventual timing was inextricable to me and clearly took the team from the most dominant in the comp, a team fine tuned and in rare form, to one that's fallen back to the pack.

Wasn't Ratten sacked the year after he got you within a kick of the Prelim?

 

[Monkey King]

Couple of points 1st. Collingwood could have forced something onto Buckley, contracts can be terminated or coersion applied to change them. It may not have been a wise way to go but it could have been done. Whether the question was put to Buckley about spending another year as assistant was asked we probably will never know, or at least during the time the decision runs its course. If Collingwood asked Buckley that question I am sure it would have been done behind closed doors and even MM probably would not have been privy to it. If it was asked it appears Bucks said no. Maybe he said yes but only if we won the flag in 2011. Who knows.

Technically they could have, but that would have been extremely poor form from them and damaging to Bucks, so I take that as a couldn't myself. Maybe they asked, at a guess, given Eddie's comments and mannerisms it's fair to assume the question was never asked; certainly never with any strength of purpose.

I am not sure I agree that Collingwood had a run of form through 2010-11 that is rarely seen in the AFL these days ... Point is those runs are hard to maintain and no one can directly attribute Collingwoods drop off to the MM-Buckley transition.

Nope. Read what I said, it's rare for a club. Please tell me in the last 20 years which club has achieved losing less than 2 games for the H&A season more than once? Rare as hen's teeth mate. I'm not saying it can be directly attributed to Bucks, but if we're going to play this game, then it can't be discounted either. The point is unarguable though, Mick had the Pies in a rare vein of form and the winning formula was messed with ... now you're back with the rest of the pack, perhaps even just off the pace of the leaders.

As to your last question clearly if MM gets the Blues a flag and Bucks doesn't it will influence how i view this decision in hindsight. I would see the transition as flawed. On the otherhand if Bucks snares a flag or two ( which i beleive he will) and Carlton dont (which I am uncertain about) then I wil judge the transition as a great success and a bold vindicated decision on Eddies part.

Up to then it's speculation.

Well glad to see at least you can come to terms with a reasonable assessment based on outcome. I'm not confident Bucks can win two flags with the Pies. I just don't see it at all actually, but you can always dream. Not sure Mick will do so at the Blues either, but I can also dream.