Malthouse V Buckley

[BlueTouchPaper]

Happened to stumble upon a retrospective thread looking at the two grand final appearances early last decade - the lion's share, IRC, were suggesting MM was fatally tactically outclassed on several occasions throughout those years, and in particular the second of the two grand finals. If I/you happen to find that thread it's actually a bit of a shock - even though the posts were two or three years after the fact.

You might've already seen it judging by your join date!

Personally, I think MM's tactical nous got you to those grand finals in the first place.

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

Disagreement yes, division no. We are not sheep at Collingwood, we are entitled to have different opinions.

just as long as they agree with you and aren't

simplistic and backward looking

Nice try though. Keep punching. You'll get a scoring hit sooner or later.

I think you've misread my intentions. If you want to have a Malthouse V Buckley discussion where all comments are supportive of the shambolic process your president has implemented, perhaps you should retire to the Collingwood board.

 

[doppleganger]

First with Toovey, Timmy continualy states hes a very good blanketing defender. I just have never seen and wondered if anyone else had.

I dont rate Toovey that highly, but have to admit that over the course of the season he did improve and was easily part of our best 22 when the finals came around. MM saw something in him and gave him a chance, Toovey didn't let him down.

Second Maxwell who cares if he was pick one or off the rookie list point is he playing and your captain. His effort cannot be critisised but his mistakes and unacountability are a liability. That AA was a joke as no Collingwood supporter can say he was in the top 18 players last year. He had no better year than Jason Blake and hes sixth defender most weeks a St kIlda.

The point with Maxwell is that after being appointed captain he flourished and had a brilliant season, he lapped up the added responsibility. MM must take some credit for this.....Maxwell went from average player who many pies fans questioned not only as captain, but his place in the 22, to an AA player!!
Maxwell didn't let MM down.

As for the Malthouse tactics or lack of them post. Surely if a player takes 17 marks in a final the next time youd try somthing differant. But not Malthouse there was Riewoldt one out with Presti with meters of space in front of him. What was it 10 minutes to go in the last that Captain unacountable found his way onto him. For an AA defender why wasnt he given the job from the start? Or is manning up to much to ask of Maxwell?

?? You said Reiwoldt has towelled up N.Brown, Presti and Maxwell......ie MM has tried 3 blokes on him....Harry O has also played on Riewoldt in the last couple of years.

Problem wasn't out backline....it was the fact that we couldn't get control of the football....the saints had 439 disposals to the pies 275 in the final.....when you dont get your hands on the pill how can you expect your defenders to beat the best forward in the game??

As the saints fan mentioned, MM in ability to switch from a few specific tactics can hurt him.....ie S.Fisher running free so we get a loose man in our backline, clearly Fisher was controlling the ball and the game.

As I said, you dont know MMs faults.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I think you've misread my intentions. If you want to have a Malthouse V Buckley discussion where all comments are supportive of the shambolic process your president has implemented, perhaps you should retire to the Collingwood board.

There's no evidence the club itself is divided on this. No point trying to stir the pot and create something that isnt there.

Obviously some supporters disagree on the timing of when Malthouse should leave - it must be pointed out that I havent seen one yet that has said Malthouse should stay indefinitely and Buckley shouldnt be at Collingwood - but whats a couple of years between friends? All this will be forgotten when we win a flag some time in the next year or three. If its under Malthouse's reign then his tenure is justified. If its under Buckley's rule within a year or so of taking over then the Malthouse/Buckley handover has worked a treat.

If we dont win a flag in the next five years with our gun players at the peak of their careers then its time for Eddie to go and the experiment failed.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

BTW, I dont think my ideas are backward and simplistic,

Just to clarify I said backward looking, not backward. Totally different meaning there...

As you can see I havent taken my bat and ball anywhere. But we're not going to agree on this so theres no point in extending the discussion - especially about Presti which I believe you are way off the mark on.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I think Malthouse playing Leigh Brown ahead of Chris Dawes/Ben Reid is ridiculous, but it's not the stuff that costs us games.

Playing L Brown ahead of Wood was probably the bigger issue.

 

[loki04]

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.

Who says they are worse?

There is more chance of winning a flag with a new coach, then a coach who has failed to do so in 16 years.

Sticking with the same flawed game plan and selections is what costs us year after year, we have had plenty of talent on the list over the years and it's a cop out to suggest we have been coached above our means.

If anything our wide slow keepings off game plan makes our players dour and defensive.
Thomas has lost his flair, Pendles has lost his instinctive attacking game (look at 2007 when he was streaming through the center and delivering long lace out passes to the forwards regularly) now sweeps the defensive 50 and go sideways to retain possesion in fear of turning it over ect ect.


Can not wait for Buckley to take over personally, I lost faith in Malthouse in 08 and think that is when he should of been moved on.

 

[FuManchu]

Just to clarify I said backward looking, not backward. Totally different meaning there...

As you can see I havent taken my bat and ball anywhere. But we're not going to agree on this so theres no point in extending the discussion - especially about Presti which I believe you are way off the mark on.

OK backward looking ............. but how can it be backward looking if I am looking at the NEXT realistic window of opportunity of which Presti wont be part of? Assuming this is most probably his last year. By definition, I would have thought it was indeed forward looking, maybe a little harsh on a great servant of the club, but this is business these days and harsh decisions are made often.

 

[FuManchu]

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.

There are no guarantees if you switch coaches, but 10 years of the same failing by one coach guarantees the same type results if you stick with him. If you are happy in coming 4th, then stay with malthouse, because he wont take this list further, but you will get your cherished finals appearances.

If you want to roll the dice and see if someone else can improve on that, then you have to take the risk and see what someone else can do. Every coaching change is a gamble, sticking with the same coach who produces the same results isnt a gamble, but it aint winning flags either. After 10 years I'd rather roll the dice again.

what is the old saying? : nothing changes if you change nothing!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

OK backward looking ............. but how can it be backward looking if I am looking at the NEXT realistic window of opportunity of which Presti wont be part of? Assuming this is most probably his last year. By definition, I would have thought it was indeed forward looking, maybe a little harsh on a great servant of the club, but this is business these days and harsh decisions are made often.

I was just making sure you didnt think I was calling you or your opinions "backwards".....

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

You'll get a scoring hit sooner or later.

Looks like Mighty Mick landed one of his own.

Nathan Buckley isn't ready: Mick Malthouse


COLLINGWOOD coach Mick Malthouse has warned Nathan Buckley is not yet ready to coach as he prepares for two years of speculation about the club's succession plan.

http://<a href="http://www.heraldsu...ck-malthouse/story-e6frf9jf-1225827298139</a>

 

[loki04]

Looks like Mighty Mick landed one of his own.



http://<a href="http://www.heraldsu...ck-malthouse/story-e6frf9jf-1225827298139</a>

Buckley has already said he wasn't quite ready when he accepted the deal.

I'm not Micks biggest fan (think he has flaws that stop the team winning a flag), but the 2 years then take over deal is a good base for Buckley to gain the extra experience he needs.
Hopefully in that time MM can pinch one, if he selects the best 22 andf not his favorites we will go close.

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

Regardless of what Buckley thinks, I question Malthouse's decision to say what he said.

If everyone's happy about the 'arrangement', and Malthouse wasn't feeling insecure, he wouldn't have felt the need to say publicly that Buckley isn't ready to coach.

The cracks are beginning to show.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Looks like Mighty Mick landed one of his own.

Buckley said exactly the same thing himself and thats why he's doing a two year stint as an understudy and why Malthouse is gracious enough to groom Buckley for the role without the distractions of media speculation.

Whats your point exactly?

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

Buckley said exactly the same thing himself and thats why he's doing a two year stint as an understudy and why Malthouse is gracious enough to groom Buckley for the role without the distractions of media speculation.

Well that's working well (not).

Whats your point exactly?

It's self-evident.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Theres no media speculation. I have not seen one article alluding to Malthouse not seeing out his two years or Buckley knifing him early.You can speculate if you like but you're not the media.

Malthouse said Buckley wasnt quite ready to be a senior coach. Buckley said he was not quite ready to be a senior coach. Buckley is not senior coach. Its all very consistent. Your point is not self evident.

North thought he was ready, btw. For what its worth.

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

Theres no media speculation.

Who do you think I quoted? My next door neighbour?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Of course he's not ready. If he was ready he'd be coaching North Melbourne already. The club decided he wasnt ready back in July. Its not my fault if some bored journo is seven months off the pace.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The full context has ZERO media speculation

COLLINGWOOD coach Mick Malthouse has warned Nathan Buckley is not yet ready to coach as he prepares for two years of speculation about the club's succession plan.
Malthouse, 56, is comfortable with the arrangement, assuring supporters he will coach no differently than at any time in his career.
But he says Buckley will need all of the next two years to prepare himself to become the club's next senior coach.
"If I wasn't happy with (the contract), I wouldn't have signed it," Malthouse said.
"In the coaching field you treat every day as a bonus. I am not about to get caught up in worrying about the end of 2011 when 2010 hasn't started.
"Nathan has got a lot to learn and that's why he would be the first to admit the role he is going to play in the next two seasons is important to him and for his growth.
"Coaching the (Victorian Country) under-16s, that's a mile off coaching anything else and he admits that. He has a great appetite to learn."
Malthouse is aware a poor start would put external pressure on his position but is not unnerved .
"Do you think last year was an easy year? Let's not get caught up. I was 2-3 last year," he said.
"I was 3-5 in 2002 and we played off (in a Grand Final), and I was going to be sacked on the Monday and I heard that from inside the club, so I hardly think I will be worrying in 2010. Football changes in an instant."

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

The article is media speculation.

Malthouse's decision to comment in the way he did was fuelled by something.

As you have already said, the arrangement is that Malthouse will be replaced by Buckley in two years. That's signed, sealed and delivered. Malthouse is senior coach. Buckley is assistant coach. Buckley will be senior coach in two years. Those things are already in place.

So why the need for Malthouse to reinforce the fact that Buckley's not ready to replace him? Bringing the reader to ask that question is the reason why the reporter wrote the article in the first place. And Malthouse gave them the necessary ammo shrouded in impressions of holding the party line? Why?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

One thing I have learned as a Collingwood supporter is to never take anything Malthouse says in the media to seriously or try to over analyse. He has always been his own man and a bit off the wall in his comments.

I dont really care why he has decided to repeat his comments from last July but I assume it was in response to a question about how Buckley was travelling. He is clearly not much further developed than when he joined the club because its only the preseason. There hasnt been a game played yet.

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

I said from the outset that this was a shambolic arrangement that would not end well.

I hope for Buckley's sake that I'm wrong and you're right, because a coach-apparent who has two years of speculation and hype to endure before he's even appointed probably doesn't deserve to be in the difficult position he's been put into.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I said from the outset that this was a shambolic arrangement that would not end well.

Luckily nobody gives a rats arse what you think. I'd rather listen to the opinions of experts like Paul Roos who gave this process glowing praise.

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

Luckily nobody gives a rats arse what you think. I'd rather listen to the opinions of experts like Paul Roos who gave this process glowing praise.

Sure you would, but you're insecure enough to be here in this thread discussing it with me anyway.

If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be posting.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I'll debate with anybody. My standards are low.

You have no grounds to say its a shambolic arrangement except that its not been done before and you hope it fails. Innovation often makes people uncomfortable.