Malthouse V Buckley

[Crow-mo]

This O, too is an irrelevant (although somewhat accurate) one.

MM had access to the best of everything at Collingwood as evidenced by the clubs huge spending on the various departments, hence its irrelevance.

He definately has control over the draft choices selected however (if he so chooses) - and noone has control over their quality - therefore the buck stops with the coach.

Opposition motivation is another unknown and somewhat irrelevant. Nobody gets motivated to beat the Bulldogs (let's just say) so why don't they have 38 flags. Collingwood certainly would suffer from this though!

Your O is one of an uninformed and short-sighted tragic, IMO

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about, can anyone translate?

 

[Crow-mo]

That is absolute rubbish. The Power made it to a Grand Final and you did not, therefore they were arguably the better side than you. They also finished above you on the ladder(IIRC), therefore showing their consistency over the whole season. There is nothing to suggest any other team would've beaten them by any margin, and there is even less to suggest that if they had played Geelong the following week, Geelong would've won that match.

right, ok you're one of those posters.

 

[Crow-mo]

Nice retort, this doesnt even make sense

that's nice.

 

[FuManchu]

The coaches box simply won't be able to accommodate such massive egos.

They are shifting Cornflakes (sic) box as we speak

 

[collingwill]

Hang on.

Are you suggesting that Malthouse refused to make obvious changes to woeful match ups because it would be tantamount to admitting the coaching genuis was wrong?



These are controversial comments Firey.

are you talking about fisher getting 40 odd touches?, we were 2 men down BTW, there wasnt a lot MM couldve done about it, we still had to win and were down for the entire game, are you suggesting he shouldve put a hard tag on a HB in those circumstances? because if you are you know nothing about football mate.

 

[collingwill]

We'd be devastated if Mick left Collingwood, I mean who else would play 1 unfit ruckman v the Saints. "Here you go Lenny, have another tap out"

I personally enjoy Malthouse's innovative idea of letting Sam Fisher run free, 65 marks in the last 5 encounters, usually followed by a run and accurate delivery might mean it's about time for a change in tactic, the ox is certainly slow.

repeat post, but its worth repeating.

are you talking about fisher getting 40 odd touches in the final?, we were 2 men down BTW, there wasnt a lot MM couldve done about it, we still had to win and were down for the entire game, are you suggesting he shouldve put a hard tag on a HB in those circumstances? because if you are you know nothing about football mate.

the ox isnt slow ha, but when it comes to football you certainly are, you won by 30 odd points after we lost pendlebury in the 1st 5 minutes and rocca just after halftime, id say it was a pretty good effort from MM considering.

 

[NOCHANCE]

Fraser Didak Thomas Pendlebury Reid and N Brown are the only top ten picks on the list. Only one priority pick. And Reid was picked up via a trade so he doesnt count because we had to give away a quality player to get him.

You're talking out of your ass.

Would you like to swap them for Norths top ten picks? It would be line-ball.

How conveniant Timmy you left off Danny Roach who was a priority pick in the Fraser draft. Used pick 5 for him and he played one game. Throw in Richie Cole and Chris Egan both very early picks and the Malthouse recruiting failure grows legs. I wont mention Bo Nixon, Luke Shakleton or Billy Morrison as no one would beleive Malthouse used first round picks for them.

 

[NOCHANCE]

So you still had the chance to take Pav at one. As for not blaming Malthouse for the drafting I suggest you pull your head out of the sand. Malthouse wanted heavier bodies after Brisbane bent you over and Shackleton was it. You speak so highly of Hine but to this date the jury is still out on Thomas Reid and Brown as top ten picks.

We can blame Malthouse and he is responsible for this list as he makes the big calls. He had three chances to totally rebuild this list but refused to maked tough calls and trade hard. Hawthorn and StKIlda did it trading some quality players for draft picks.

 

[NOCHANCE]

Not a single club would have picked Pav over Fraser, he was the under age stand out

Did Joel Selwood go number 1.. you are a ridiculously naive and childlike supporter

And please learn how a club works, the head recruiter makes the ultimate decision on recruits, it's what he is paid for

Your bias blinds you, if you honestly beleive that Malthouse had never seen tapes or actual games of who hes drafting. Joel Selwood didnt go one due to injury concerns not ability. Pav was playing solid senior footy in SA and had massive wrapts on him. Face it Malthouses rein at Collingwood has been littererd with drafting and recruiting failures.

 

[loki04]

Your bias blinds you, if you honestly beleive that Malthouse had never seen tapes or actual games of who hes drafting. Joel Selwood didnt go one due to injury concerns not ability. Pav was playing solid senior footy in SA and had massive wrapts on him. Face it Malthouses rein at Collingwood has been littererd with drafting and recruiting failures.

Even though you are trolling some of what you say is correct some isn't but I've had this exact same argument with him don't waste your breath, he thinks coaches have no say at all in who comes to the club.

Malthouse pushed recently for Toovey and D.Thomas, this is on media record so he does have a say and would see footage (obviously the recruiting department would do 95% of the picks but MM can sway a pick here or there).

He was at the TAC GF when D.Thomas kicked 4 and said that is why HE chose him because he is a big game player.

 

[Pie eyed]

How conveniant Timmy you left off Danny Roach who was a priority pick in the Fraser draft. Used pick 5 for him and he played one game. Throw in Richie Cole and Chris Egan both very early picks and the Malthouse recruiting failure grows legs. I wont mention Bo Nixon, Luke Shakleton or Billy Morrison as no one would beleive Malthouse used first round picks for them.

You have the benefit of hindsight when you make all these claims.

Let's see you accurately foretell the career value of each of the top 10 from last years draft. Then you'll get some credibility. I assume you will be completely accurate even which players don't meet expectations and why.

 

[EB&W Pieman]

Can I just point out that it's actually Malthouse AND Buckley - and that suits me fine.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Even though you are trolling some of what you say is correct some isn't but I've had this exact same argument with him don't waste your breath, he thinks coaches have no say at all in who comes to the club.

It's pretty obvious that the coaches have a decent if not massive amount of input into the recruitment process - especially later down the draft order. You always hear the recruiters say "Malthouse wants tough bodies" / "Ratten only wants great users of the ball" / "Wallace wants silky midfielders first and foremost".

Further to this, its not as if the recruiters really determine the order of the draft. Players' performances and the well-developed AIS/AFL drafting system does that - Watts was #1 without question two years ago (in the best draft since forever) and it wasn't as if they had to find him out of the red sand flats in the NT. The first three picks were pre-determined this year - and the top 12 or so was basically already written in stone. It's just a matter of which players a recruiter values over the others within their talent-pool.

 

[bradrowe#32]

Your bias blinds you, if you honestly beleive that Malthouse had never seen tapes or actual games of who hes drafting. Joel Selwood didnt go one due to injury concerns not ability. Pav was playing solid senior footy in SA and had massive wrapts on him. Face it Malthouses rein at Collingwood has been littererd with drafting and recruiting failures.

Pavlich had a perceived attitude problem. While it hasn't really surfaced in his AFL career, several recruiters were wary of him for this reason.

But carry though, keep re-writing history.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

That's a coach merely telling the head recruiter which holes need to be filled, thats not a coach picking the draftees

It's one and the same, where the recruiter would pick a player at a given number, and the coach overrules it by wanting another type of player.

I do agree though, the exact player in question is determined by the recruiter - but that still has to go through the coach I'd assume.

Why else do they sit there on draft day? You would assume the coach is given videos to study of most likely scenarios, just so they're prepared on the day.

It's hierarchical in nature, and such that it is, the least effort is put in by the coach to select the draftee, but also the most onus is on the coach to get the picks right.

Again all we're doing is speculating, it's probably different from club to club, and different from now to 3 or 4 years ago, thats how specialised (they say) drafting is getting.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

It really isn't

just saying you want a type of player then the head recruiter picking the best player of that type is hardly the coach picking the player

You have misquoted me, if you cannot properly comprehend a sentence, or the post, I suggest you don't bother replying at all.

But it would still often be the coach forcing the recruiter to pick a player that he didn't want to.

Anyhow, I still believe that the buck stops with the coach - He's the one whose job relies on it anyways (see one T. Wallace).

 

[GhostofJimJess]

This O, too is an irrelevant (although somewhat accurate) one.

MM had access to the best of everything at Collingwood as evidenced by the clubs huge spending on the various departments, hence its irrelevance.

Except the best players.

Just a minor thing.

He definately has control over the draft choices selected however (if he so chooses) - and noone has control over their quality - therefore the buck stops with the coach.

As has been mentioned, the coach really only has control over his own personal (and personnel) needs. I would imagine coaching an AFL club would diminish significantly the amount of time any AFL coach would have available to visit junior, suburban and country football matches to explore the playing worth of potential recruits. Most would be lucky to even get to see their affiliate club play.

Opposition motivation is another unknown and somewhat irrelevant. Nobody gets motivated to beat the Bulldogs (let's just say) so why don't they have 38 flags. Collingwood certainly would suffer from this though!

Last I checked, beating the Bulldogs was worth the same four Premiership Points as everyone else.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Very rare, the two jobs are too time consuming and professional these days to have much cross over.. you are stuck in the days of Sheedy's list of under age kids on a floppy disk

Without sarcasm intended, are you a recruiter of any kind? I'm definately not, but that is just how I feel from the goings-on that we as general footy fans are privy to.

I'm not sure that our system has come as far as the AFL media like to tell us it has.

Again, just a feeling.

 

[NOCHANCE]

You have the benefit of hindsight when you make all these claims.

Let's see you accurately foretell the career value of each of the top 10 from last years draft. Then you'll get some credibility. I assume you will be completely accurate even which players don't meet expectations and why.

Not a problem all I need from you is a huge salary that a head recruiters on. All the videos of all the matches that these kids played in. All medical checks, draft camp results and anything else thats available to a head of the recuiting department. Thanks I wait patiently for you to come forward with the above so I can answer your request.

 

[Pie eyed]

Not a problem all I need from you is a huge salary that a head recruiters on. All the videos of all the matches that these kids played in. All medical checks, draft camp results and anything else thats available to a head of the recuiting department. Thanks I wait patiently for you to come forward with the above so I can answer your request.

So the answer is no then.
Thankyou.

 

[Damon_3388]

How conveniant Timmy you left off Danny Roach who was a priority pick in the Fraser draft. Used pick 5 for him and he played one game. Throw in Richie Cole and Chris Egan both very early picks and the Malthouse recruiting failure grows legs. I wont mention Bo Nixon, Luke Shakleton or Billy Morrison as no one would beleive Malthouse used first round picks for them.

Pretty sure him being Pick #7 means he wasn't actually a Priority Pick.

 

[collingwill]

fact is only 5 teams have won flags since 2000, so 11 other teams have failed to win one as well.

 

[loki04]

fact is only 5 teams have won flags since 2000, so 11 other teams have failed to win one as well.

Essendon, Brisbane, Port, Sydney, WC, Geelong and Hawks.


7.

 

[Falchoon]

repeat post, but its worth repeating.

are you talking about fisher getting 40 odd touches in the final?, we were 2 men down BTW, there wasnt a lot MM couldve done about it, we still had to win and were down for the entire game,

Please don't tell me Rocca or Fraser were one of those 2.

I'm talking about Fisher's last 5 games v Collingwood, 30 possessions per game and 15 marks per game.

are you suggesting he shouldve put a hard tag on a HB in those circumstances?

It might be time to man up. Mick doesn't put a hard tag on a HB because he likes to have his own HB spare, generally Maxwell or Shaw. The problem is Fisher out performs them every time and Mick does nothing about it. He's a coach with a defensive attitude, he wants to outnumber the opposition forwards, even the boundary line strategy is there to minimise the effect of turnovers.

Allowing Fisher to be used as the release valve means Goddard doesn't get dragged back and can be more attacking. Malthouse's biggest fault is he's unwilling to change pre-match strategies, even when they are getting carved.

the ox isnt slow ha, but when it comes to football you certainly are, you won by 30 odd points after we lost pendlebury in the 1st 5 minutes and rocca just after halftime, id say it was a pretty good effort from MM considering.

The ox is very slow.

Wow, Rocca got injured? Your one out ruckman didn't look overly fit either. Both were absolutely terrible selections. Pendlebury was struggling with a back pre game and was very unlikely to give his normal output, I will concede his injury was unrelated though.

because if you are you know nothing about football mate.

no worries, I know nothing about football.

 

[NOCHANCE]

So the answer is no then.
Thankyou.

I wasnt aware that was part of my job description. Apparently it wasnt part of Malthouses either. Maybe the clowns you sit with at Collingwood games with a total games tally of zero between you at any level should grade them for us.