Malthouse V Buckley

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So, the forward line functioned perfectly in all 3 finals games? Not too mention the footscray game Rd22?

No, it was poor. Its a much bigger issue than our backline. But the bones of a forward line are there.

But Cloke had a bad preseason and while had an ok season, wasnt playing with confidence, and Jack Anthony was basically buggered by the end of a massive year for such a young player. Davis and Didak were played out of position in the midfield and will spend more time forward now that we've bolstered our midfield stocks. Macaffer is another young talent. Leigh Brown was handy and would have been even more handy had he not been played in the ruck instead of Wood. Medhurst - reigning AA small forward - was injured, and Rusling was on the recovery trail. Nathan Brown was injured. Fraser was also injured as well as required in ruck when fit. We'll have a lot more ammunition next year. It wont be a super forward line but it will be better.

And the midfield delivery was lacking too. The forward line was hardly helped by that.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

and a forward.



Collingwood really need Cloke to stand up, even more than that they need him to elevate himself to the A grade category.

Fair call, I just addressed that.

Next year we'll have Cloke without a busted jaw and death of his assailant hanging over his head in the preseason, Anthony capable of seeing out a full year - 50 goals in his first full season is an oustanding achievement - , Fraser without as many ruck duties, Medhurst without a foot injury, Didak and Davis available to play nearer goals, Rusling fit and having basically been in preseason training since July, and a bit more experience for Macaffer and N Brown and others. Unfortunately Dick is out for the first few months of the year.

It will remain an achilles heel for a year or so but with talent like Beams and Sidebottom coming through, I'm confident the weaknesses can be covered by a more efficient midfield.

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

Its a contrived farce more than anything

Eddie claims Malthouse is at the peak of his powers then proceeds to put in place a plan to get rid of him in 2 years. Coaches in their prime dont lose their supposed abilities in 2 years. But Eddie knows malthouse has nothing more to offer than 4th place with the list he put together and the game plan he implements. He is just too scared to make unpopular decision internally because the mass of fools are content with finals finishes. So he creates this contrived situation. The morons lap it up, thinking they have the best of both worlds. It's funny how Voss didnt need a transition, but apparently Buckley needs babysitting.

Those same fools who are seduced year after year by finishing top 8, fail to see the real gap between us and the very top. It's as big a gap as between 4th and 16th. Its a huge chasm that malthouse does not have the ability to bridge.

Mcguire's biggest failing as president is his inability to make a hard internal decision to cut a coach that has failed to deliver after 10 years of the same results. He wants to be seen as pushing external agendas, media fluff in the form of 'us v them' issues, because that appeals to the mindless constituency that relish those 'us v them' situations. But he cannot for the life of him, make a hard decision which might make him unpopular within the club. Thats his biggest failing as president.

Malthouse at any other club other than say melbourne, would have been dispensed with because most clubs would have benchmarked him against the very top coaches and realised that he has set up the club to only reach so far onfield, through his flawed recruiting, list management and game plan. As I said, he found his 'chump' in Eddie and has reaped $800 000 a year as a result.

And this year will be like groundhog day, top 6 to 8 finish, lots of false hope, a forward line incapable of delivering, a back line possibly going backwards a little, a midfield possibly improving, but not enough to counteract the other two deficiencies. And at years end, the same fools will idolise malthouse for taking a deficient list so far again. IT'S HIS LIST YOU FOOLS, the reason its deficient his all because of malthouse!

That is one of the most sensational pieces of critical self reflection that I have ever read from a footy fan.

Hats off to you sir. Most are far too emotionally conflicted to identify the issues like you have so clearly articulated.

Thank you.

 

[MarkT2]

The way I see it the real question isn't whether years 10+ are past use by but how a coach can even make it near to a decade without a flag and particularly when the weaknesses that have been exposed in important finals losses have not been addressed. I have thought Malthouse should have been pushed for about 5 years now. He has had less "success" than Hafey at Collingwood in twice the time, albeit under a different player talent control system.

The answer to my “real” question is the president. Salvation can only come with a flag. Time is running out but it has not yet run out.

Thankfully after a decade specific weaknesses are finally being specifically addressed in trade week. I don't know if a finite end to the Malthouse tenure has brought about urgency but it is 5 years after the fact in any event. All will be forgiven if a flag arrives in the next 2 years but frankly I'd have bitten the bullet and appointed Buckley for 2010. The whole apprenticeship theory is a timing issue. It won't make Buckley a better coach it will just give him a better start at a later time and shorten the learning curve. He won’t be a better coach in 2012 for having worked under Malthouse for two years as compared to having been the coach himself for 2010 and 2011.

As for the list, the gaping ruck hole has been plugged. The 2010 midfield will be improved on 2009 due to Beams, Sidebottom, Wellingham and McCarthy being a year advanced, the introduction of Ball and the use of a ruckman's service.

Rocca has been badly missed in recent years and hasn't been replaced. Cloke does need to stand up. He doesn't need to be an A grader thought. History shows it helps but it isn't the 70's any more. Tredrea was passed it in 2004, Geelong don't have a quality key forward and since 2004 only 1 premiership side could make an argument for having a forward in the top 3 or 4 (Franklin). Reiwoltd with a good midfield and back half couldn't win a flag for St. Kilda and J. Brown has made little impact in deciding premierships. Not that he has been poor but he has hardly been a decisive factor in the 3 wins and hasn’t taken Brisbane far since. Nor has Fevola had any impact on September.

Collingwood's backline will remain very effective and without a weak link albeit reliant on the fitness of Presti and to a lesser extent N. Brown.

All in all Malthouse has no excuse for not landing a flag in the next 2 years and if he doesn't the board will be shown to have erred over a long period.

 

[FuManchu]

Jolly and Ball will go some way into getting closer to the sides who regularly beat us. And theres not many of them.

Jolly is a huge bonus. Ball's impact remains to be seen, rated only 14th on St Kildas list by Lyon, which consequently put his nose out of joint, Ball has been described as a 25yo in a 50 yo's body, he is undoubtably injury prone, no pace, no depth to his kicking. He is however a good inside player with a great work ethic. But you cannot have him and O'bree in the same midfield, otherwise we are deathly slow. We need mids who break the lines with pace, go forward and damage on the scoreboard. Can you guarantee Ball will be that player? Because thats what we need.

We've beaten competitive Geelong and StKilda enough times in the recent past so theres no reason to suggest they are unbeatable.

The most 2 or 3 recent encounters tell all and sundry they have worked us out and seriously worked us out. It also tells all and sundry that Malthouse has no answer to them. Its no good being 4th in line doing 20mph when the front two carriages are doing 60.

Hawthorn are a different story but the addition of some muscle of Ball and Jolly into the midfield will make Collingwood more accountable in the clinches. We still need to get 30-40 games into our young talent but theres no way you can rush that. You just have to get games into the kids and risk losing games by embarrassing margins on occasion.

Maybe thats part of the problem, Malthouse is so intent on hanging onto the finals, that he hasnt been prepared to go back a little to go forward a lot. Keeping players like Rocca on the list when in reality he was never going to be the Rocca of 2006 and prior, only reflects Malthouse's inability to list manage and his conservative 'safety first' philosophy. I'd rather spend a year developing players knowing we would miss the finals and hopefully give a better grounding for the future. But Malthouse clings and scrapes his way into finals, playing some whose best is well past them and not only do we fail, we miss out on the chance of better drafting that a slip down the ladder might reward us with. And as we all saw, the rise and fall of the ladder works as with Hawthorn. But by being in the finals 4 years running, we have been at the poorer end of first round draft picks and that will impact into the future.

I'm not too hung up over game plans and flexibility. When you lose you look bad and when you win you look good. Malthouse has actually moved with the times, contrary to public belief. Buckley will add his own touch when he is ready to take over in two years.

Other than high rotations off the bench what has malthouse done to keep ahead of other teams? What trend has he set that other teams have had great difficulty countering. I could nominate some dubioulsy larger players at West Coast, but I wonder if they would pass todays scrutiny. In reality, he is reactive at best, if at all. He is steadfast in not moving away from plan A and he gets found out by the very best every year. He has plenty room for improvement, but that requires a will to change. He wont.

 

[loki04]

So 15 coaches should be sacked every year?

And, just so you know, tall kids take longer to develop than short ones. Keep that in mind when you acclaim (with surprising relish for an alleged Pies supported) another recruiting failure. You know ..... like ... errr...Pendlebury.

If they haven't won a flag in the 10 year period (15 for MM) then yes they should, the thing is 7 other teams coaches did win a flag in the decade gone.


Fu is 100% on the money with 90% of what he is saying though I think our list is in better shape then he thinks, but MM has inherent flaws in his selection policies and game plan.

Ah well 2 years till Buckley then another year for him to retrain and prune the list.

 

[loki04]

If Geelong had kicked as badly for goal in the 07 PF and they did in 08 GF, then maybe that stat would be flipped on its head. Theres plenty of luck required to win flags as well as all the other stuff. All the coach can do is build the list and train the players. Whatever happens, happens, but pinching a flag before your time like Hawthorn did is a rarity seen once evry 20 years or so.

We have played about eleven finals in four years and missed a GF by a small margin - and all the while our list has got younger and younger. Thats a lot of good experience for a developing list.

Lol i think you need to re-watch the 07 PF because Geelong were inaccurate and it's the reason we were able to get so close. They missed a stack of gettable goals and should of won by 5 Goals not points, I hate how so many of us pies supporters cling to that PF loss! yes a PF loss, not a GF loss , a Preliminary Final loss!

I'm optimistic about the up coming season but I do really doubt MM's ability to field a) our best 22 and b) have the team playing a brand of footy that will win when it counts.

 

[FuManchu]

Lol i think you need to re-watch the 07 PF because Geelong were inaccurate and it's the reason we were able to get so close. They missed a stack of gettable goals and should of won by 5 Goals not points, I hate how so many of us pies supporters cling to that PF loss! yes a PF loss, not a GF loss , a Preliminary Final loss!

I'm optimistic about the up coming season but I do really doubt MM's ability to field a) our best 22 and b) have the team playing a brand of footy that will win when it counts.

Thats the funny thing about that 2007 prelim. Nothing is guaranteed that we would have gone on and won against Port, considering they knocked us off earlier in the year on our own dung heap. Different team, different dynamics and mindsets.

Secondly, confidence is a wonderful thing and Port would have been a lot more confident playing us than Geelong. So, no we werent 5 points away from a flag in 2007, we were 1 week away at best, and we might as well have been a lifetime away becuase like many other times, we fell short at either the last hurdle or the second last hurdle. And falling short is still falling short. You dont get honorary flags for falling just short, but if you listen to so many Collingwood supporters, they have pencilled this 2007 near victory as some sort of defacto flag. Its a joke and only serves to delude themselves to the reality. The 'what if' brigade relish indulging themselves on all the 'what ifs' I deal in the 'what is'

As for our list, it is developing, but we have a coach that stifles rather than allows too much freedom as evidenced by a very dour looking Dale Thomas as opposed to the free spirit he was just 3 years ago. That's what Malthouse does to you. So could the list could be a lot better if only allowed to express themselves rather than adhere to this suffocating 'defensive' 'hold onto the ball at all costs' and 'hug the boundary line' game plan he has? So could it match the geelongs and st kildas and Hawthorns of this world if allowed some leeway? We wont know under malthouse, becuase he wont stand for it. And as a consequnce, we wont have enough to overtake these teams on last years form.

 

[NOCHANCE]

Maxwell's AA, H Shaw and O'Brien are guns, Toovey is turning into a very good blanket stopper on the small forwards, Presti has been outstanding for ten years and put out his best season ever in 2009, and L Brown is the stop-gap while Reid and Brown come on board. Its a solid defence and crosses all generations.

Can someone tell us who exactly Toovey has blanketed? Toovey is the sort of player as a oppisition supporter you want to see with the ball. As for Maxwell yes he is couragous but he make sfar to many eras for a top backmen and his decision making is woeful at best.

 

[NOCHANCE]

The biggest piece of evidence to Malthouses old school coaching is by looking at Riewoldts stats in the last two finals against Collingwood. In 2008 he took 17 marks on Brown then backed it up with 6 goals and 15 marks on Presti and at a later stage Maxwell. The whole game you sat there waiting for a change in tactic or positional change but nothing until the game was gone.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

and a forward.

Finals Goals 2009

Johnson, Ben	3
Lockyer, Tarkyn	2
OBrien, Harry	2
Anthony, John	2
Rocca, Anthony	2
Brown, Leigh	2
Thomas, Dale	2
Dick, Brad	2
Macaffer, Brent	2
Medhurst, Paul	1
Wellingham, Sharrod	1
Swan, Dane	1
Cloke, Travis	1
Davis, Leon	1
Didak, Alan	1

Collingwood really need Cloke to stand up, even more than that they need him to elevate himself to the A grade category.

LOL @ the fact that our top nine goal scorers were respectively; a half back flanker , a 30yo utility, a back pocket, full forward, third tall forward, tall utility playing ruck more than forward, two half forward flankers and a six game utility.

 

[doppleganger]

Can someone tell us who exactly Toovey has blanketed? Toovey is the sort of player as a oppisition supporter you want to see with the ball. As for Maxwell yes he is couragous but he make sfar to many eras for a top backmen and his decision making is woeful at best.

What are you on about here??

Toovey is a kid who most pies supporters dont rate.....MM clearly sees something in Toovey and he played him. Toovey improved greatly in 2009, by the finals he had cemented his spot and he was a good contributor in the finals.

Maxwell is an AA backman, is captain of the club and he came off the rookie list.......not sure how Maxwell flourishing after MM gave him the captaincy is supposed to be a slight on MM???

The biggest piece of evidence to Malthouses old school coaching is by looking at Riewoldts stats in the last two finals against Collingwood. In 2008 he took 17 marks on Brown then backed it up with 6 goals and 15 marks on Presti and at a later stage Maxwell. The whole game you sat there waiting for a change in tactic or positional change but nothing until the game was gone.

Deary me....again you make poor points against MM.

Reiwoldt is a champion, he dominates the majority of games he plays.....MM tried 3 different blokes on him according to you, feck sometimes champion players simply are too good.

You dont make any decent points against MM.

Fu and MarkT raise the best points against MM, so perhaps leave the debate to people who know what they are talking about!!

 

[willoblue]

Why not give Fig Jam the job now.
You could do away with the assistant coach who has to read the names on the magnetic board & explain any big words for Malthouse.

 

[Crow-mo]

how a coach can even make it near to a decade without a flag and particularly when the weaknesses that have been exposed in important finals losses have not been addressed. I have thought Malthouse should have been pushed for about 5 years now.

about 5 years now, so after 2004 you thought he should have been out?

really? one season out from back to back to GF's you thought he should have been pushed?

gosh.

 

[Crow-mo]

Secondly, confidence is a wonderful thing and Port would have been a lot more confident playing us than Geelong.

stop talking shit.

Port were happily talking about how they didn't lose grand finals, and Williams told the media he had marked out where the premiership photo was going.

their over confidence cost them.

 

[FuManchu]

stop talking shit.

Port were happily talking about how they didn't lose grand finals, and Williams told the media he had marked out where the premiership photo was going.

their over confidence cost them.

Oh yeah, williams is going to come out during GF week and say we dont want to play geelong!!!

Forget talking about shit, how about using your brain.

 

[Crow-mo]

Oh yeah, williams is going to come out during GF week and say we dont want to play geelong!!!

Forget talking about shit, how about using your brain.

yeah, like, that's so convincing. um, I mean yeah, I see what your saying and all. ZOMG you win

 

[FuManchu]

yeah, like, that's so convincing. um, I mean yeah, I see what your saying and all. ZOMG you win

That was patently obvious

 

[Zahki]

If the key to success is simply switching coaches we wouldn't have a number of teams that have gone decades without winning a premiership. Winning premierships is hard, and there is no guarantee of success no matter who you get to coach. Switching to someone worse just because you're getting antsy is not the best thing for the club.

 

[Falchoon]

The biggest piece of evidence to Malthouses old school coaching is by looking at Riewoldts stats in the last two finals against Collingwood.

The biggest piece of evidence is Sam Fisher, Fisher slaughtered the Pies coming out of defence virtually unhindered in both finals. Malthouse will not play without his own loose man no matter how much he is getting slaughtered at the other end.

I'd love to see some GPS stats on how much sprinting his midfielders do to the bench as well.

I have a theory with Riewoldt though, IMHO, Presti for the first 20 minutes per quarter, Maxwell for the last 10 minutes per quarter, no defender can go with him for 30 minutes a quarter.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I have a theory with Riewoldt though, IMHO, Presti for the first 20 minutes per quarter, Maxwell for the last 10 minutes per quarter, no defender can go with him for 30 minutes a quarter.

It makes it even harder when you go into the game with one ruckman with only one good knee, making it impossible for him to drop back and fill the hole and give the CHB and FB some support. The error Malthouse made wasnt on game day, it was on selection night.

Having made the selection error on leaving Wood out of the side and with Pendlebury down for the count limiting out midfield efficiency, there was very little Malthouse could have done to stop Riewoldt. He's a star.

 

[FuManchu]

It makes it even harder when you go into the game with one ruckman with only one good knee, making it impossible for him to drop back and fill the hole and give the CHB and FB some support. The error Malthouse made wasnt on game day, it was on selection night.

Having made the selection error on leaving Wood out of the side and with Pendlebury down for the count limiting out midfield efficiency, there was very little Malthouse could have done to stop Riewoldt. He's a star.

But isnt that the issue with malthouse? Such short sightedness in not picking Wood when the top 3 sides have a effective 2 man rucking team (L Brown is not part of that equation and fraser should only ever be part 2 of any 2 man ruck team) and given St kilda have some very very good talls, we were always going to be caught short literally. His stubborn refusal for so many years to ignore the ruck by sticking with fraser when it was obvious fraser wasnt going to be a good ruck and we had hacks come and go to try and fill the breach. And whats worse, he picks a slug in Rocca who showed no form in a lesser comp, was injury prone for 2 seasons, had very little fitness base, and yet he gets a gig!!! As you intimated, we lost that St kilda game on the selection table, let alone on match day.

Malthouse has some very strange views on list compilation and it has cost us over the past decade, the ruck situation and the slow midfield he persisted with for so long.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

But isnt that the issue with malthouse?.

It was his biggest error last year. Nobody is perfect, he rolled the dice and lost. The one-ruck policy was working for a while because it gave the team an extra midfielder to add to the rotations in lieu of a proper second ruck - L Brown having a dual role of kp and ruck. In fact other clubs started to experiment with it as well.

But at the business end of the season against monsters like Gardiner and King and Ottens and Blake it fell apart.

Hence the chase for Jolly in trade week.

The selection of Rocca was correct. Clearly the form/fitness of Cloke, Anthony and Medhurst was down and Rocca was worthy of one last fling ahead of N Brown and Dawes and of course Rusling. And he played ok, too.

 

[FuManchu]

It was his biggest error last year. Nobody is perfect, he rolled the dice and lost. The one-ruck policy was working for a while because it gave the team an extra midfielder to add to the rotations in lieu of a proper second ruck - L Brown having a dual role of kp and ruck. In fact other clubs started to experiment with it as well.

But at the business end of the season against monsters like Gardiner and King and Ottens and Blake it fell apart.

Hence the chase for Jolly in trade week.

The selection of Rocca was correct. Clearly the form/fitness of Cloke, Anthony and Medhurst was down and Rocca was worthy of one last fling ahead of N Brown and Dawes and of course Rusling. And he played ok, too.

I wouldnt say he played OK, he had plenty of time to rest between exertions, he got run off quite easily, but comparitively speaking he was a champ compared to the rest of the forward line. but that wouldnt be hard.

Shouldnt have Malthouse blooded Dawes and N Brown (Rusling wasnt even an option) up forward during the year more than he did? His not dropping cloke when it was obvious he was well down on form, only meant at the business end of the year that we were stuck with that structure, where we couldn't put anyone else there and had to stick with a poorly perfroming CHF. And yet he was willing to experiment come finals with Rocca. For a conservative coach he all of a sudden made some crazy decisions first week of the finals. It was like he had conceded and maybe some randomness or a stroke of luck was what he was hoping for. We were never going to beat St Kilda and in the end the margin flattered us, it should have 9 or so goals.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Keeping players like Rocca on the list when in reality he was never going to be the Rocca of 2006 and prior, only reflects Malthouse's inability to list manage and his conservative 'safety first' philosophy.

Question for you and answer it honestly.

Obviously if you were in charge you'd have delisted Rocca at the start of 2009 - if not before, for the reasons you stated above - he only played 31 games in the previous two seasons. And with hindsight you'd be right, albeit that we had a very young list anyway and could afford to carry one veteran.

But using the same theory would you have also delisted Simon Prestigiacomo? After all he only played 16 games in the previous two years, thats half the games Rocca managed for a player of the same age with similar if not more deficiencies in his game.