Malthouse V Buckley

[FuManchu]

Some might think it unnecessary, but Malthouse obviously had his reasons.

He knows as well as anyone. You don't communicate to the media, you communicate through the media.

His message was clear.

Who was his intended audience?

His own ego, the board and anyone who has the capacity to think.

 

[moogerfooger]

Some might think it unnecessary, but Malthouse obviously had his reasons.

He knows as well as anyone. You don't communicate to the media, you communicate through the media.

His message was clear.

Who was his intended audience?

Bingo. He's making clear who he thinks is the boss, who has earned his stripes and who hasn't. He wouldn't feel the need to make the point unless he felt his position was under threat in some way.

I find it interesting he keeps making the point "I wouldn't have signed the contract if I didn't like the arrangement". It's not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement, especially if the alternative was no contract from Collingwood at all.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I was with you OP until the names you mentioned Buckley would be scooting out the door.

Although your first paragraph basically read like you just copy and pasted the majority of my posts from last year.

 

[FuManchu]

Bingo. He's making clear who he thinks is the boss, who has earned his stripes and who hasn't. He wouldn't feel the need to make the point unless he felt his position was under threat in some way.

I find it interesting he keeps making the point "I wouldn't have signed the contract if I didn't like the arrangement". It's not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement, especially if the alternative was no contract from Collingwood at all.

$800K plus a year, for a coach out of date, If I was him, I'd sign it without hesitation and hope like hell the fraud squad dont pay me a visit.

 

[Pie eyed]

 

[MarkT2]

You'd have to wonder about that though.

I have no doubt whatsoever. That’s not to say I like it but that’s another matter.

Why else would Malthouse feel the need to publicly denounce Buckley's readiness to coach?

Why would he try and ridicule a reporter for asking whether the players turned up to play. He knew full well what it meant and what the answer was. That’s just Malthouse.

 

[MarkT2]

I can guarantee that Ego no.1 who is never wrong will be guaranteeing Malthouse's tenure. As much as it would pain your good self.

Yes and yes. Pretty much takes the heat out of any media beat up if we lose a few games though.

The Blight sacking at St Kilda was an admittance by the board that they'd made the wrong decision……

Or a continuation of 100 years of behaviour. It continued through GT as well. He was sacked for some combination of not winning a flag and being out of favour with the president. Alves and Sheldon could claim to varying degrees to have been hard done by. Blight may or may or have been a mistake – early call makes it hard to tell. GT may have been a good appointment or an ego choice (his and/or RB’s - there was plenty of evidence of egomania from both).

The Malthouse/Buckley pairing makes good sense, here's how it works, Malthouse coaches as per normal, however when Collingwood get to 4 goals down at any time plan B is enacted. Given that Malthouse never has a plan B, plan B = Buckley taking over - perfect.

As I keep saying, I would just have bitten the bullet. Nevertheless, Buckley will be better equipped when he takes over and in the mean time Malthouse has been pressured into going harder for an immediate flag rather than having the fallback of building the list with an definite timeframe.

I am happier with the current arrangement than what would have been the case had Buckley accepted the North job. North making the offer was good for my sanity. I’d like to have kept Scott but you can’t have everything. Buckley with Scott and Richardson would have been my idea set up for 2010 but talented people need opportunities – ask Luke Ball.

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

Collingwood's last premiership photo.

See, you have changed your jumper

 

[Buddy Goes Bang]

As I keep saying, I would just have bitten the bullet.

Absolutely. It was a no-brainer IMO.

Of course Eddie could not have boned Malthouse and installed Buckley for 2010 without have to admit to his own failures.

This shambolic arrangement is the path of least resistance for McGuire; nothing more, nothing less.

 

[SaddaZ]

Absolutely. It was a no-brainer IMO.

Of course Eddie could not have boned Malthouse and installed Buckley for 2010 without have to admit to his own failures.

This shambolic arrangement is the path of least resistance for McGuire; nothing more, nothing less.

What's so shambolic? What if it works? Whilst i'm sure ego's are there, what about the thought that it might be the strategy that they thought was the one that would best lead to success. Fair to say that Malthouse, Buckley, McGuire and Collingwood are easy targets for their ability to make a headline. Makes it easier for opposition supporters and media alike to dig for the negatives. Season hasn't started yet so maybe you should be making your judgements after a couple of weeks into the season proper. With that water under the bridge, one of us will be smiling

 

[SaddaZ]

There ya go

Gold

 

[FuManchu]

What's so shambolic? What if it works? Whilst i'm sure ego's are there, what about the thought that it might be the strategy that they thought was the one that would best lead to success. Fair to say that Malthouse, Buckley, McGuire and Collingwood are easy targets for their ability to make a headline. Makes it easier for opposition supporters and media alike to dig for the negatives. Season hasn't started yet so maybe you should be making your judgements after a couple of weeks into the season proper. With that water under the bridge, one of us will be smiling

Why sack a coach 2 years out, supposedly in his prime? Is he going to lose these supposed powers in 2 years time? Its a farce of the highest order, Eddie is just too gutless to make a hard and potentially unpopular decision . And giving a coach who hasnt won a flag in 16 years, 2 more years to extend that pathetic record is unprecedented. Can you name a coach that has gone 16 years without a flag and still coaching? Can you name one that has been at a club for 10 or more years without winning a flag? Neale Daniher didnt quite make 10 years at Melbourne and Teddy Whitten had 10 continuous years and then a 2 year break followed by another 4 years, other than that, I cant think of any other club that has allowed a non flag winning coach the leeway to continue proving that he cant win a flag.

Do you think that Collingwood should be using Teddy Whitten and Neale Daniher as benchmarks for giving malthouse another 2 years? Even Matthews who won 3 in a row, got a gentle shove after 10 years. malthouse should pray and thank whatever god he believes in that he met Eddie. You dont get a sucker like that, armed with that much money come along every day.

 

[didak04]

Absolutely. It was a no-brainer IMO.

Of course Eddie could not have boned Malthouse and installed Buckley for 2010 without have to admit to his own failures.

This shambolic arrangement is the path of least resistance for McGuire; nothing more, nothing less.

What it is, is an excellent succession plan that ensures we have two of the great minds in football operating in tandem for the next two seasons.

Sydney have already adopted a similar strategy and it wont be surprising if other clubs follow suit in the future.

Eddie really is a brilliant man

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Neale Daniher didnt quite make 10 years at Melbourne and Teddy Whitten had 10 continuous years and then a 2 year break followed by another 4 years, other than that, I cant think of any other club that has allowed a non flag winning coach the leeway to continue proving that he cant win a flag..

Those clubs hardly had any luck by turning their coaches over more often either.

Perhaps if the Dogs/Demons had strategised a smooth handover like Collingwood is attempting, who knows, there may well be some more silver in the cabinet.

 

[FuManchu]

Those clubs hardly had any luck by turning their coaches over more often either.

Perhaps if the Dogs/Demons had strategised a handover strategy like Collingwood is attempting, who knows, there may well be some more silver in the cabinet.

And by sticking with the same one, we have the same result. I'd rather not die wondering what might be, than opt for 4th continuously. 4th is nothing. its no mans land, you dont win the flag, you get crap drafting and recruiting opportunities. Its a hollow place to be. But some think its an achievement.

How does it go? If you change nothing, nothing changes!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Sorry, I had agreed to disagree.

Couldnt help myself!!

 

[SaddaZ]

Why sack a coach 2 years out, supposedly in his prime? Is he going to lose these supposed powers in 2 years time? Its a farce of the highest order, Eddie is just too gutless to make a hard and potentially unpopular decision . And giving a coach who hasnt won a flag in 16 years, 2 more years to extend that pathetic record is unprecedented. Can you name a coach that has gone 16 years without a flag and still coaching? Can you name one that has been at a club for 10 or more years without winning a flag? Neale Daniher didnt quite make 10 years at Melbourne and Teddy Whitten had 10 continuous years and then a 2 year break followed by another 4 years, other than that, I cant think of any other club that has allowed a non flag winning coach the leeway to continue proving that he cant win a flag.

Do you think that Collingwood should be using Teddy Whitten and Neale Daniher as benchmarks for giving malthouse another 2 years? Even Matthews who won 3 in a row, got a gentle shove after 10 years. malthouse should pray and thank whatever god he believes in that he met Eddie. You dont get a sucker like that, armed with that much money come along every day.

Dont really buy into that. I didn't even say that i was a fan of Malthouse or McGuire. It's clear that you think MM has had his time and that's fair enough. My argument basically was that it's too early to tell if this succession plan thing is working or not. What if this thing works?? What makes you anti MMers so sure that he will fail? I'm just thinking that approaching these things with a closed mind is short sighted. If they fall short, then go nuts at ed then.

 

[NOCHANCE]

It's actually a perfect arrangement, we played 14 players 22yrs and under during the finals last year compared to Saints 1, Cats 3 and Dogs 3.

Malthouse is particularly good at developing youth and our window will be opening up just as Buckley is taking over.

Eddie is a genius!

What does this mean? If all of those 14 were any good why would he have kept all of Lockyer, Ben Johnson, Anthony Corrie, Leigh Brown, Fraser and Obree? All stagnating players who offer nothing more than predictable service. Who cares how many players under 22 were played especially when Collingwood didnt get to with in 5 goals of St Kilda and 12 goals of Geelong. The end result was Collingwood won one final against Adelaide at the MCG by the barest of margins hardly a great endorsement considering it was at the G.

 

[FuManchu]

Dont really buy into that. I didn't even say that i was a fan of Malthouse or McGuire. It's clear that you think MM has had his time and that's fair enough. My argument basically was that it's too early to tell if this succession plan thing is working or not. What if this thing works?? What makes you anti MMers so sure that he will fail? I'm just thinking that approaching these things with a closed mind is short sighted. If they fall short, then go nuts at ed then.

He has failed for the last 10 years, I think thats more than a trend, it's set in concrete. In fact, he has failed to win a flag in 16 years, he is a good coach, but he is not good enough. Thats why I know that this transition will fail, because what is he actually teaching Buckley that Buckley hasnt seen in the 16 years he himself has been at AFL level and the two years he spent in the coaches box whilst injured? All malthouse is doing is prolonging our agony, knowing his philosophies in list building and game plan are flawed and he cannot take this list beyond where it is and has been for the last 4 years. He is stuck in a list rut where we cant get our hands on elite draft picks or recruits and a game plan that whilst good against poorer teams is continuously found wanting at the higher level. Is that what Malthouse is going to impart? Flawed philosophies on the game? I think Buckley and all of us have seen what he has to offer.

Buckley himself said so about the game plan in the commentary box early last year. The succession is a farce in that Eddie on the one hand says Malthouse is at the peak of his powers then puts in place a plan to get rid of him. Its a joke. It's eddie trying to look proactive when in fact all it is is him trying to appease the Malthouse worshippers who think finals justifies everything. Finals are good if you advance year by year, we havent.

All this transition is doing is delaying the onset of a new footballing philosophy, one which may or may not work, but at least it will be something different from the current one which obviously is limited in its effect.

To allow a coach to go this long without success is unprecedented and Eddie will be remembered for his procrastination and cowardice in not making hard inhouse decisions. Money is good Eddie, but flags are what this game is all about.

 

[loki04]

FuManchu owns this thread and is 100% on the money.

 

[Falchoon]

What it is, is an excellent succession plan that ensures we have two of the great minds in football operating in tandem for the next two seasons.

we'll just wait and see on the "in tandem" bit

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

we'll just wait and see on the "in tandem" bit

The length of this thread suggests many are happy to make the call now rather than waiting and seeing.

 

[Gone Critical]

And by sticking with the same one, we have the same result. I'd rather not die wondering what might be, than opt for 4th continuously. 4th is nothing. its no mans land, you dont win the flag, you get crap drafting and recruiting opportunities. Its a hollow place to be. But some think its an achievement.

How does it go? If you change nothing, nothing changes!

Fu you continuously come up with this thought about opting for 4th place. Where does it come from other than your belief that Malthouse is too conservative.

He clearly aims for higher than 4th place, its laughable to believe otherwise. You may not agree with his methods but to continuously muddy your arguments with made up assertions just makes your ideas harder to follow.

 

[MarkT2]

Fu you continuously come up with this thought about opting for 4th place. Where does it come from other than your belief that Malthouse is too conservative.

He clearly aims for higher than 4th place, its laughable to believe otherwise. You may not agree with his methods but to continuously muddy your arguments with made up assertions just makes your ideas harder to follow.

Malthouse would obviously dearly love to win a flag(s) as would every person at the club and that is unquestionably the aim. That is not the point though. I also believe Malthouse aims too low. I base this in a decade of results, the sale of those results and the strategies put in place or not put in place to improve results.

I am glad Buckley is there in the wings. Maybe it is coincidence but all of a sudden (ie for the first time in a decade under Malthouse) we have made a solid attempt to address the main weaknesses that saw us not win the flag. We targeted two areas – ruck and grunt in the midfield – and got the players we targeted.

 

[MarkT2]

Of course Eddie could not have boned Malthouse and installed Buckley for 2010 without have to admit to his own failures.

Disagree. MM would have been out of contract and a favourite son was there to take over. Would have been an easy sell and could/would have been done by telling MM to take, say, the Richmond job.

This shambolic arrangement is the path of least resistance for McGuire; nothing more, nothing less.

Path of least resistance probably. Shambolic I doubt. I highly doubt it will have any impact at all on 2010 results other than possibly having “forced” the recruitment of a ruckman.