Mick Malthouse and his coaching record

[JohnD]

LOL - this melon copped a ban hours before his team were premiers. It was lifted today and ten minutes after he comes back he tries to troll the cats board and cops another. i think people are finally on to him - not before time

S'pose there's no chance of you answering the question ?

S'pose there's no chance of you admitting you were wrong ?

How did it feel barracking for Geelong on 27 Sep, watching them getting done over, and knowing for certain that you'd get another chance to review your ridiculous comments in this thread ?

Happy to admit now that Clarkson is a superior unit to Malthouse and that Malthouse could learn a few things from the young buck ?

 

[Jimthegreat]

No way, 3 or 4 more seasons of more indirect plodding, you got to be kidding. He has had carte blanche at the club since he arrived. he got us to a GF twice, so he lifted the list up to that level. Since then he has failed to grow a side to any great heights other than inconsistant if at times good football.

Show me any other side that would keep a coach on for 9 years without a skerrick of success. 9 years!!!! Give me a break.

Eddie, wake up and do away with the sweetheart deal you have with him.

Its time to move on, like Hawthorn and Carlton have done. We need a new generation coach with new ideas for an ever evolving game. FFS, we were playing wide 8 years ago, why the hell are we still playing wide 8 years on if he hasn't put together a list that can play up the guts? The game plan and the list are his responsibility.

You side's never been good enough to win a flag yet he's been enough to get you to 2 GF's and nearly another one. He's done a great job given what he's had to work with. Given the 1 flag in 50 years his results compare pretty good.

 

[FuManchu]

You side's never been good enough to win a flag

The side, the list, the recruitment dept, the draft picks, the whole kit and kaboodle are his responsibility. If as you say after 9 years he hasnt had a side good enough to win a flag, then he should be gone. It is his job to put in place all the things needed to put the club in a position to win a flag. He hasnt. There is no other measurement of a coach's effectiveness other than winning a flag. He hasnt done that.

yet he's been enough to get you to 2 GF's and nearly another one

Once again, coming second or being near but not quite there is not how any coach's tenure is considered succesful. You are only there for one reason, most dont even get 5 years unless they land the big one, He hasnt. Further to that, in 2003, which was the club's most consistant year and probably their strongest year of his tenure, he had Brisbane by the short and curlies. he had beaten them in a final and that GF was one that should have been won. Now whatever transpired for it to fall so badly over, still falls on his shoulders. I am sickof hearing 'if if if' when it comes to Collingwood. Forget 'if' and look at 'is' and 'was'. They are the realities and thats all we can go by. And the reality 'is' that he fell short and he takes the ultimate blame

. He's done a great job given what he's had to work with.

he has done well with the list HE put together, the list he asked his recruiters to go out and draft. So if he has a mediocre list, it is of his doing. So, as good a coach as he may be, he obvioulsy hasnt got the credentials anymore to put together a complete list capable of winning a flag. So if that is his achilles heel, then so be it, it still means he lacks in an area which is vital to winning a flag.

Given the 1 flag in 50 years his results compare pretty good.

History is irrelevant, you either win or you dont. He hasnt landed the big one, irregardless of superstition or luck or what you want to call it. You are only measured by flags and after 9 years not winning one as an AFL coach, I think it is telling everyone something. He lacks in some area. I'm guessing it is list development and game plan. Funnily enough, two vital areas. So, it really is time to move on.

 

[Selggad]

funny, because the WCE were a basketcase before Micky arrived.

something easily overlooked if you're 12, or like KJ possessing the intellect of a 12 yr old.

This must be tongue in cheek??

I don't think Malthouse made any significant changes to the list he inherited and won the flag with in 92 and the core for the 94 flag wasn't much different. This has always been the contentious issue with Malthouse - he took over a list that blind freddy would have won a flag with and as Judge rightly pointed out, 2 flags with that list was a minimal expectation for a professional and experienced coach. At Collingwood he has got the best out of his list to get them to the GF twice, but not been able to take then all the way. He is largely responsible for the list so the buck stops with him. I think Malthouse will always be a difficult coach to assess as to his standing in the game, but 2 flags isn't bad...but they were a while ago and at WCE.

I don't care whether he stays at Collingwood or not, but I think his time is up in the game. Pagan, Sheedy, Matthews, even Parkin - all his contemporaries are gone now.

 

[jonoman89]

If you remove Mick, you'll remove Collingwood from the top 8 for two years.

Collingwood is a team of battlers, there are no stand out stars. Mick does a bloody awesome job keeping such an even talent pool competitive.

Would be a very bad move IMO.

 

[swiftdog]

This must be tongue in cheek??

I don't think Malthouse made any significant changes to the list he inherited and won the flag with in 92 and the core for the 94 flag wasn't much different. This has always been the contentious issue with Malthouse - he took over a list that blind freddy would have won a flag with and as Judge rightly pointed out, 2 flags with that list was a minimal expectation for a professional and experienced coach. At Collingwood he has got the best out of his list to get them to the GF twice, but not been able to take then all the way. He is largely responsible for the list so the buck stops with him. I think Malthouse will always be a difficult coach to assess as to his standing in the game, but 2 flags isn't bad...but they were a while ago and at WCE.

I don't care whether he stays at Collingwood or not, but I think his time is up in the game. Pagan, Sheedy, Matthews, even Parkin - all his contemporaries are gone now.

Surely the majority of the responsibility in this department falls on the head of the players, not the coach? Realistically what more could have Mick done in 2002 to ensure a flag? Davis didn't get a touch. Does the responsibility fall on Davis' head for his extremely bad game or does Mick get the blame for selecting a player who wasn't going to get a touch?

2003 was just disgusting. Player's weren't on, couldn't handle the stress and expectation placed on their shoulders. They say Mick's the best at getting the most out of his players, going by this no other coach coaching the Collingwood 2003 grand final team would have went any better. Furthermore, if the players need some sort of extra motivation other than it being a grand final then there is something wrong with them.

 

[tess]

I think a lot of what the Collingwood FC is about these days is impressing off the field. Mick is a great public speaker and presents well at the cocktail parties the club likes to attend or host, these days Collingwood FC seems to be more about Networking.

One attribute a replacement coach would require would be the same level of ability in these situations to impress those that the Club feels it needs to impress.

Think I'm wrong, well where did Eddie have his little chat with Christine Nixon? at a little cocktail party! These engagements are important for some to secure a life after their involvement with Footy.

 

[JohnD]

If you remove Mick, you'll remove Collingwood from the top 8 for two years.

Collingwood is a team of battlers, there are no stand out stars. Mick does a bloody awesome job keeping such an even talent pool competitive.

Would be a very bad move IMO.

That's just highlighted the issue Jonoman89.

Mick's a good match-day coach but:
1. he hasn't got the list required
2. he has paid scant regard to the value of quality ruckmen
3. he hasn't got the gameplan (admitedly, probably as a result of 1.)
4. the list hasn't got the leadership required
5. the list doesn't have the group values in place which translate into the required discipline (admitedly, probably as a result of 4.)

You might say "gee, despite all these problems, Mick still manages to get the list somewhere near it". In fact, plenty of people say that very thing citing it as a reason as to why MM is vital to Collingwood success.

The fact is that developing a list, developing a gameplan, developing leadership from within the group, and instilling the group's values are just as important elements in a successful side as gameday coaching is. In all these areas, he's failed significantly.

 

[Nathan Q Brown]

S'pose there's no chance of you answering the question ?

S'pose there's no chance of you admitting you were wrong ?

How did it feel barracking for Geelong on 27 Sep, watching them getting done over, and knowing for certain that you'd get another chance to review your ridiculous comments in this thread ?

Happy to admit now that Clarkson is a superior unit to Malthouse and that Malthouse could learn a few things from the young buck ?

3 reds in a month for trolling team boards! you're lucking they let you back! better behave, sunshine

 

[Crow-mo]

This must be tongue in cheek??

well lets see if you really address the point I made, or whether you just freestyled off the top of your head without knowing either way?

and guess what...

I don't think Malthouse made any significant changes to the list he inherited and won the flag with in 92 and the core for the 94 flag wasn't much different. This has always been the contentious issue with Malthouse - he took over a list that blind freddy would have won a flag with and as Judge rightly pointed out, 2 flags with that list was a minimal expectation for a professional and experienced coach. At Collingwood he has got the best out of his list to get them to the GF twice, but not been able to take then all the way. He is largely responsible for the list so the buck stops with him. I think Malthouse will always be a difficult coach to assess as to his standing in the game, but 2 flags isn't bad...but they were a while ago and at WCE.

congratulations, a lot of nothing. great, you decided to "correct" my post, with no knowledge whatsoever, and in the end did not even bother to actually respond to what I said.

why didn't you post Banana 67 times instead? about as relevant.

I could ask you to do some research as you clearly don't know, but if you don't know - as you clearly don't, how old are you I wonder?? - then you shouldn't be saying anything!!!!!! or at least, you might start by including Ron Alexander, John Todd & Indian Pacific in your answer, and not that arch arseclown Judge.

I don't care whether he stays at Collingwood or not, but I think his time is up in the game. Pagan, Sheedy, Matthews, even Parkin - all his contemporaries are gone now.

well you've already treated us to a glimpse into your calibre of your observations.

 

[Crow-mo]

That's just highlighted the issue Jonoman89.

Mick's a good match-day coach but:

but indeed,

lets take a look at your analysis.

1. he hasn't got the list required

not his job

2. he has paid scant regard to the value of quality ruckmen

funny that, name me one other coach who has drafted not 1, but 2 ruckman with the no.1 overall draft pick? (Gardiner & Fraser).

not doing too well so far, eh john?

3. he hasn't got the gameplan (admitedly, probably as a result of 1.)

well he has achieved quite a lot on the field, and Geelong for example have never worked out their bunch of scrubbers.

maybe your point is a lot easier to say, that to actually understand whether it's true.

4. the list hasn't got the leadership required

ignoring that this is a nebulous load of nonsense you made up, and can't verify - no doubt one of the reasons for choosing such an airy fairy idea; exactly how do you come to this conclusion?

what's more we return to the fact that list building is the job of footy operations, with input from the coach - not vice versa.

so even if this load of cobblers were true, not sure how you pretend its micky's fault.


[quote
5. the list doesn't have the group values in place which translate into the required discipline (admitedly, probably as a result of 4.)
[/quote]

what bullshit. you've descended into plain fiction and make believe now.
they didn't seem to lack discipline in the 2007 prelim now did they? didn't lack discipline in getting there with a bunch of scrubbers?

how exactly does a team, lacking in overall talent, actually achieve what it has without core values? they all pull together on the field, tackle like buggery, and do all the small things - you're 'theory' would apply to an underachieving high talent group, not an overachieving low talent group.

do you have any idea what you're talking about, or just listing random cliches hoping one or two might be near the mark?

You might say "gee, despite all these problems, Mick still manages to get the list somewhere near it". In fact, plenty of people say that very thing citing it as a reason as to why MM is vital to Collingwood success.

despite all these problems. oh gosh, golly gee, thanks for the comedy.

The fact is that developing a list, developing a gameplan, developing leadership from within the group, and instilling the group's values are just as important elements in a successful side as gameday coaching is. In all these areas, he's failed significantly.

1. your facts are make believe
2. they haven't failed, in some they have excelled.
3. you have failed to make the case that these are even the coaches job anyway.

laughable effort.

 

[JohnD]

S'pose there's no chance of you answering the question ?

S'pose there's no chance of you admitting you were wrong ?

How did it feel barracking for Geelong on 27 Sep, watching them getting done over, and knowing for certain that you'd get another chance to review your ridiculous comments in this thread ?

Happy to admit now that Clarkson is a superior unit to Malthouse and that Malthouse could learn a few things from the young buck ?

3 reds in a month for trolling team boards! you're lucking they let you back! better behave, sunshine

Your maths is as deplorable as your evasion technique.

I see my prediction of no chance you answering a question was spot on the money. 'Spot on' in exactly the same way your useless premiership predictions weren't.

 

[Nathan Q Brown]

but indeed,

lets take a look at your analysis.



not his job



funny that, name me one other coach who has drafted not 1, but 2 ruckman with the no.1 overall draft pick? (Gardiner & Fraser).

not doing too well so far, eh john?



well he has achieved quite a lot on the field, and Geelong for example have never worked out their bunch of scrubbers.

maybe your point is a lot easier to say, that to actually understand whether it's true.




ignoring that this is a nebulous load of nonsense you made up, and can't verify - no doubt one of the reasons for choosing such an airy fairy idea; exactly how do you come to this conclusion?

what's more we return to the fact that list building is the job of footy operations, with input from the coach - not vice versa.

so even if this load of cobblers were true, not sure how you pretend its micky's fault.


[quote
5. the list doesn't have the group values in place which translate into the required discipline (admitedly, probably as a result of 4.)

what bullshit. you've descended into plain fiction and make believe now.
they didn't seem to lack discipline in the 2007 prelim now did they? didn't lack discipline in getting there with a bunch of scrubbers?

how exactly does a team, lacking in overall talent, actually achieve what it has without core values? they all pull together on the field, tackle like buggery, and do all the small things - you're 'theory' would apply to an underachieving high talent group, not an overachieving low talent group.

do you have any idea what you're talking about, or just listing random cliches hoping one or two might be near the mark?




despite all these problems. oh gosh, golly gee, thanks for the comedy.



1. your facts are make believe
2. they haven't failed, in some they have excelled.
3. you have failed to make the case that these are even the coaches job anyway.

laughable effort.[/QUOTE]
JohnD is a serial troll - regularly booted off team boards for his ridiculous behaviour. this is typical work.

 

[morgoth]

Spot the difference

or

50 per cent

 

[JohnD]

You're simply wrong Crow-mo.

These things are iron-clad elements of a successful side.

And 'no', not successful as in 'got somewhere near it'.

Furthermore, if you think that responsibility for Collingwood's average list is not within Malthouse's brief, then you're kidding yourself. We're talking about the league's highest profile and highest paid coach. If he doesn't call the shots in any draft/trade discussions about what is required at Collingwood, then he's simply not performing.

Remember the glitz and glamour as he was "unveiled" ? Think about his profile and pay packet. Now compare that with Clarkson who was signed for about ten cents to a chorus of critisism and derision as he took the helm of a team deep in crisis. Clarkson calls the shots in list development issues where there is not concensus. He did it with Dew, and he did it with Guerra and Gilham. Now if Clarkson has that authority, you can't tell me that Malthouse doesn't.

"Oh, but it's not his job."

If you're right, then it's because he doesn't understand that his job is about delivering success. Maybe he's just in charge of the whiteboards.

Don't get me started on gameplan. If transitioning the ball along the boundary line, deliving to key position short people who've led to the pockets and flanks is a gameplan that'll win silverware then sign him up again 'cos he's a genius. If completely avoiding the corridor when the game's up for grabs is an indicator of success, then it's only a matter of time before the flags win themselves. His obsession with man-on-man football frequently leads to an 8 man forward line, cluttered 50 that you couldn't swing a cat in, yet MM persists 'cos it's his brand these-days. Pity it doesn't get the chocolates.

You can bang on all day about how Collingwood beat Geelong once, but it doesn't make MM a successful coach. With every possible advantage gifted to them by the AFL, Collingwood under MM has achieved nothing yet.

 

[FuManchu]

but indeed,

lets take a look at your analysis.



not his job

But it is his job. He makes recommendations to the recruiters and he gets what he asks for. In no time until 2007, has he spent anything worthwhile for a Ruckman, unless you count the failed ruck drafting of Fraser.

He chooses the recruiters, he dictates selection and drafting policy to those recruiters, they go find and draft what they are told from him.

Bottom line: its all his responsibility.

funny that, name me one other coach who has drafted not 1, but 2 ruckman with the no.1 overall draft pick? (Gardiner & Fraser).

Explain why when it had been obvious for years, 2000 to 2007, did he not seek a ruckman of good standing when it was obvious to all Fraser doesnt cut it as a ruck. And then explain some of the other donkeys he has recruited in the mean time.

Explain why he has persisted with a midfield that has been pedestrian for so many years, with some of the same players still playing there now, who are obviously slow, one sided and very limited capability ( O'Bree). He has neglected these positions until late and you think he should be rewarded for this?

not doing too well so far, eh john?

he's killing you so far

well he has achieved quite a lot on the field, and Geelong for example have never worked out their bunch of scrubbers.

So, once again, because we match up well with one team, he has taken the team to the top???

What about Hawthorn, twice this year they flogged us. they are the new benchmark and we are 10 goals off being near them. Forget geelong, explain what he has to counter a more dynamic team in Hawthorn. Nothing

Explain why he can beat Geelong one week and be beaten by a Freo or an Essendon or a Carlton. He has only been able to produce performances every other week (50%). At no stage in his 9 year tenure has he produced a team that dominates, he hasnt produced an 'era' he just produces good honest battlers, whilst other teams have dropped and risen again in the same time, some twice.

maybe your point is a lot easier to say, that to actually understand whether it's true.

maybe you are just blinded by the fact that just because he get us into the finals 5 out of 9 years, that he is a miracle worker. Well, 9 years tenure at any other team would have been characterised by a number of flags , not just finals series appearances.

By any measure that is applied to AFL coaching, he has failed at Collingwood

That is not to say he isnt a good coach, but he has serious flaws in his philosphy, be it either list development or and this is a no brainer, a shocker of a game plan with no plan B to speak of.

ignoring that this is a nebulous load of nonsense you made up, and can't verify - no doubt one of the reasons for choosing such an airy fairy idea; exactly how do you come to this conclusion?

9 years with no flag is not airy fairy, it is hard cold facts. If you earn 850K and dont bring home the chocolates, then I am sorry to say you have failed.

what's more we return to the fact that list building is the job of footy operations, with input from the coach - not vice versa.

The coach assmbles all aspects of the off field team that construct the list. He bears ALL responsibility for on field matters and list development is an on field matter. He picks the pickers, he tells the pickers what his priorities are, it all falls on him.

so even if this load of cobblers were true, not sure how you pretend its micky's fault.

Your opinion, I agree with him, and I have more at stake regarding Collingwood than either of you

[quote
5. the list doesn't have the group values in place which translate into the required discipline (admitedly, probably as a result of 4.)

what bullshit. you've descended into plain fiction and make believe now.
they didn't seem to lack discipline in the 2007 prelim now did they? didn't lack discipline in getting there with a bunch of scrubbers?

So, finishing fourth is the ultimate goal?

Irregardless of off field discipline, why is finishing 4th in 2007 considered such an achievement? Tell me where else in the history of AFL/ VFL where 4th has been so widely heralded? Its a nothing finish, it means nothing, it is not an achievement, its a place, an also ran.

how exactly does a team, lacking in overall talent, actually achieve what it has without core values? they all pull together on the field, tackle like buggery, and do all the small things - you're 'theory' would apply to an underachieving high talent group, not an overachieving low talent group.

Once again, iregardless of discipline, why are you so rapt in a 4th place finish? the team that finished 4th may have played well to get there, but why hadn't he constructed a list in the 8 years to that stage that could go even further. Surely after 8 years, if you havent gotten the team you wanted then you have got some serious issues.

No one doubts he gets the best out of the team at various stages. But that in itself is an indictment. All it is telling me is that he can only get a team of strugglers to perform above themselves every second week . His team of strugglers, that he put together, that he trained, that he laid out the game plan for.

do you have any idea what you're talking about, or just listing random cliches hoping one or two might be near the mark?

Do you?

despite all these problems. oh gosh, golly gee, thanks for the comedy.



1. your facts are make believe
2. they haven't failed, in some they have excelled.
3. you have failed to make the case that these are even the coaches job anyway.

laughable effort.

Funnily enough, he is not the one that defends a 50/50 coaching record, he is not the one that thinks all supporters should be happy with NOT winning a flag in 9 years, he is not the one that seems content with mediocrity, poor list development and a shocking single dimensional game plan.

 

[Selggad]

You give Collingwood another Buddy Franklin and see how we go then. Franklin is a once in a lifetime player....you can't just pick them up when you think you need one.....sorry it just does not happen.
The drafts are not full of Franklin's and Buckleys no matter what the media would have you believe. Hawthorn got Franklin because they were on the right place on the ladder at the right time....coach had nothing to do with it.

The coach probably did have something to do with it and Franklin was taken at number 5. A few other clubs could have taken him so it wasn't just right place, right time. It was also a smart selection. But what your post implies is...

If you get a once in a life time player you win a flag.

Buckley, was a once in a lifetime player.

Then why didn't you win a flag?

Maybe there is more to it?

 

[Selggad]

Your opinion, I agree with him, and I have more at stake regarding Collingwood than either of you

Got to ask...what does this mean? Employee, chairman of the board, eddie in disguise falling out of love with Mick?

I obviously am a nuftie...I thought we were all good ol' supporters here having a bit of a banter about our clubs. No wonder I live in the sticks.

 

[FuManchu]

Got to ask...what does this mean? Employee, chairman of the board, eddie in disguise falling out of love with Mick?

I obviously am a nuftie...I thought we were all good ol' supporters here having a bit of a banter about our clubs. No wonder I live in the sticks.

It means that as a Collingwood supporter, I am agreeing with the Hawthorn supporter who also believes Malthouse has not achieved what he has been hired to do, at an exorbitant rate, over an Adelaide supporter who thinks that just making the finals is enough.

Thats what it means

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Quite frankly what he's achieved or failed to achieve over the past ten years is irrelevant. His career record compares favorably with anybody of his generation - Three GF's and two flags over a 20 year period. But thats history, and history is bunk, as they say in the classics.

What matters is how the list is currently progressing under his leadership right here and right now, and whether his game-plan remains relevant for modern footy. All indicators are that we're doing ok with solid progression of a young list. On the other hand we still dont have a ruckman and are still short one jet in the midfield.

Jury's out. I'd expect 2009 may be his last season. But if Brown Reid Wellingham McCarthy Dawes Anthony etc etc etc show the same rate of improvement that most of them showed last season, and if Wood Barham Dick and Macaffer join the party, then theres no reason why he cant continue into 2010.

 

[FuManchu]

Quite frankly what he's achieved or failed to achieve over the past ten years is irrelevant. His career record compares favorably with anybody of his generation - Three GF's and two flags over a 20 year period. But thats history, and history is bunk, as they say in the classics.

Actually what he has failed to achieve over the last ten years is exactly the point.

If in 1999 he joined up and said we will not win a flag in the time I am here, then you would not have even entertained the thought of having him.

Forget all this crap about GF's and comparing favourably. There is only ONE measure of a coach, especially if they have been in the job 9 years. And its FLAGS and he hasnt got us any.

What matters is how the list is currently progressing under his leadership right here and right now, and whether his game-plan remains relevant for modern footy. All indicators are that we're doing ok with solid progression of a young list. On the other hand we still dont have a ruckman and are still short one jet in the midfield.

thats your opinion. And you have every right to it. But my opinion is that we are more than one player short in the midfield, the players you mention, there are no guarantees they will be any good. He has yet to give us a star midfielder in 9 years.

We are definitely one to two FPP backmen short, one if Brown is any good, two, if he is no good. He has neglected the backline of late, he must have known there would be a generational upheaval up back when Clement and Wakes and Presti all neared retirement, but he did stuff all about it. Now we have dreamers who think Maxwell and O'brien are Key backs. They are NOT key position players.

And the RUCK!!!. Well ......... where the hell do I start?

And his game plan!! Where the hell did he get that game plan? Does he think that game plan will ever beat the current Hawthorn structure? We saw two sides in St Kilda and carlton expose the plan by flooding our forward line. He doesnt have a plan B when plan A(weful) fails. The game plan has two ingredients. The first being good in that he pressures the opposition, the second being terrible in that he bores us all to death with this chip and hold game around the flanks. All that demonstrates to me is that he has no faith in his forwards one out with a fast ball coming in.

Jury's out. I'd expect 2009 may be his last season.

Most probably and I'd hazard a guess and say that if he hadnt been on such huge dollars next year, this year may have been his last.

But if Brown Reid

jury is still out on these two

Wellingham

I think he is a good player

McCarthy

a maybe

Dawes

Needs to find a settled position quickly otherwise he has the tendency to get lost.

Anthony

Not a KPP. Can play, but his body type will not allow him hi to bulk up enough to be a real KPP. Needs to get more of the ball rather than rely on accuracy with the little he does get. But that is also a product of playing him in a position where the ball does not get to very often. ( possibly something to do with the log jam on the flanks with plodders like O'bree chipping it to the opposition)

etc etc etc show the same rate of improvement that most of them showed last season, and if Wood Barham Dick and Macaffer join the party, then theres no reason why he cant continue into 2010.

Ah yes, I am continually amazed how Collingwood supporters have massive amounts of faith in all players on the list, that have played very few players. Like this Reed from NSW, some think he is the messiah, when all he has done is played schoolboy football and not much else. But according to some he IS the next big thing. Unfortunately, this isnt just confined to one player. If you read some of the ramblings on our site, its like we have a team of absolute guns. It never ceases to amaze me, that when we draft a young fella, some have him in the starting 18 the first game next season, kicking 6 on debut all because some amatuer recruiter saw him kick 7 once in a game on a 60 kg weakling at age 16.

There is blind faith and hope and then there is reality.

We will probably end up 7th to 10 next year. Another slow slide into oblivion.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I said he'll probably go at the end of 2009. I'd hardly call that blind faith.

If, and its a big IF, we make a massive improvement in 2009 (and its not out of the question based on the 2008 form of some of our younger players), then maybe he'll stay another year. I'm not being overly optimistic on that - if I was I'd have also named Pendlebury Thomas OBrien Swan Didak H Shaw Cloke and Rusling as other players who can easily improve on season 2008.

 

[FuManchu]

I said he'll probably go at the end of 2009. I'd hardly call that blind faith.

If, and its a big IF, we make a massive improvement in 2009 (and its not out of the question based on the 2008 form of some of our younger players), then maybe he'll stay another year. I'm not being overly optimistic on that - if I was I'd have also named Pendlebury Thomas OBrien Swan Didak H Shaw Cloke and Rusling as other players who can easily improve on season 2008.

So, some of those players you mentioned have been in the system 4 or so years, and they still have room to improve that much? Isnt that an indictment in itself? And take it from me, to match it with a far more dynamic team like Hawthorn are ............... pfft, give me a break, we are so far off being close to them it is not even funny.

Only one of those you mentioned is a real KPP, in Cloke, so in reality, we have one player up the guts that you are pinning your hopes on. Cloke probably went backwards a little this year. Dawes and Rusling and Reid and Anthony are either raw, untried or in the case of Reid, starting to look like a white elephant. And don't come the line of injury. Because the bottom line is that you can either get on the paddock and perform, or you cant. I am sick of reading that certain players are the greatest player to have never played, or in Reids case, rarely played and rarely kicked straight.

Who is going to assume the mantle of either CHB or FB? Surely not O'Brien, he isnt tall enough, or strong enough. He is a good 3rd option in the backline, where are the 1st and 2nd options?

What about a real FF? Surley not an injury prone Rusling, who is very one dimensional any way and may have been a good foil if Cloke and a younger Rocca were actually doing OK.

What about our ruck situation. Surely not Fraser who is a shocker in the ruck and all he does is provide an annoyance for the opposition ruckman in that he jumps early which may put off the other ruckman. buts thats all he does. Wood, well............ we have to wait and see, but if he is a dud, like many before him have been, then we are once again behind the 8 ball in terms of quality centre clearances.

You mention Pendlebury, who probably is a true on baller, but he really is the only true on baller of quality that MM has recruited in the 9 years there. where are all the others. We probably have recruited over 120 to the club in his 9 years, surely we can get more than one good midfelder in that time.

Thomas is a flanker, a good one at that, so too is Didak. But they are not real on ballers, they can fill the role adequately, but that is not their best possie, same too with Davis, a gun these days, but his best work all things being equal would be up forward. You have to ask yourself, if we had a gun midfielder, would we play these 3 thru the midfield? And the answer would be NO. So in essence, MM's stategy is to rob Peter to pay Paul. Yeah good one Mick

Heath Shaw has a real crux year coming up, he got found out this year with a heavier tag, so he needs to learn to cope with that, because this year he was far less effective. So the jury is still out on him being what we all thought he might have been 2 years ago. He might come through, he has talent, does he have his fathers mongrel?

Now I know you and the blind faithful dont like to hear these realities because you dont want to be seen NOT towing the party line. But these are the realities. There comes a time when the truth needs to be spoken.

I see you failed to mention the game plan. If the Didaks and Thomas' and Pendlebury of this world are so damn good in MM's eyes, why does he persist with the game plan, which does not allow for thse blokes to bust a game apart? Why does he limit talented footballers to a chip and posession game around the flanks?

Does he know something we dont about these players?

Nup, sorry, MM has had his time, actually he has had plenty of time to build something great, he has only built something inconsistant and flawed.

Whoever takes over from him will face a severly depleted on field structure that has been veneered over by some good players holding it together from time to time.

 

[cs61]

He gets the best out of his list IMO.

Good coach, needs some more cattle to work with.

Not that easy to do when you haven't got the picks to work with all the time.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So, some of those players you mentioned have been in the system 4 or so years, and they still have room to improve that much? Isnt that an indictment in itself?

No. 21 or 22 years old is still young in AFL terms. And of those who are older, the improvement comes in other ways - Swan's kicking, Didak staying off the booze, Shaw developing a plan B, etc etc.