Mick Malthouse and his coaching record

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Dawes and Rusling and Reid and Anthony are either raw, untried or in the case of Reid, starting to look like a white elephant.

We'll know a lot more in 12 months time but along with Brown and Cloke, as well as O'Brien who can play tallish, and the much maligned Maxwell, theres a lot of potential there to fill key position and tall flank roles. More than I've seen in a Collingwood goal to goal line for a long long time.

And Rocca and Presti are pretty handy if they can get on the park.

How our goal to goal line performs will largely determine our success next year and in turn will decide MM's future.

If we develop somebody we can kick to, then the gameplan wont look so out of date as the mids will be able to straighten up and kick to a reliable target.

 

[swiftdog]

Fu, your version of the truth and the majority of Collingwood supporters version of the truth are clearly vastly different. You remind me of one of those goths/emos that complain that like to get all high and mighty about not conforming to society. I can form my own views and outside influences such as the CFC or BF posters don't influence my opinion and conclusions on our future.

Here's the truth: the youngest finals team in 8 years travelled interstate to take on the experienced Adelaide Crows. The young team won. In 3 years time the young team won't be so young anymore...

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Didak not a real onballer - you have to be kidding. He was the leading kickgetter and AA certainty until his misdemeanor.

 

[FuManchu]

Fu, your version of the truth and the majority of Collingwood supporters version of the truth are clearly vastly different.

So, I obviously missed something, the trophy cabinet's full of cups from the last 9 years. What was I thinking???

You remind me of one of those goths/emos that complain that like to get all high and mighty about not conforming to society.

No, I remind myself of someone who looks at 9 years of consistant failures to achieve the ultimate and only goal in AFL football and realise that we havent. 9 years of not doing what you are paid to do is not acceptable in any industry, let alone in AFL coaching. Why then does malthouse get accorded far more leniency than any other coach. I mean to say, even Matthews after 10 years and three flags was basically pushed.

I can form my own views and outside influences such as the CFC or BF posters don't influence my opinion and conclusions on our future.

It's funny how they all tend to co-incicide

Is that sheep I hear in the background, now lets not stray too far in case we are seen as not being part of the flock and we dont want to cop all that nasty vitreol do we????

Here's the truth: the youngest finals team in 8 years travelled interstate to take on the experienced Adelaide Crows. The young team won. In 3 years time the young team won't be so young anymore...

Here's the real truth, in the two games we played against this years premier, we got flogged. That is the benchmark of the comp, that is what we have to beat and we dont have a backline, we dont have a midfield and we definitely dont have the rucks and game plan to beat the benchmark of the comp.

That is the truth.

Forget the crap about travelling to Adelaide and beating an team of geriatrics. The gap between Adelaide and hawthorn is far greater than the gap between Collingwood and Adelaide. We are not that good, Adelaide are not that good. Funnily enough, hawthorn are and this time next year a few more will have surpassed us onfield.

Now you go back to your fantasy, I'll still keep dealing with reality

 

[FuManchu]

Didak not a real onballer - you have to be kidding. He was the leading kickgetter and AA certainty until his misdemeanor.

K, lets look at the reality of Didak, as good a player as he is, put him against Ablet or a Mithchell in the middle, the other two will kill him for inside play, Ablet will probably beat him on pace, we all know Mitchell wont. But I'd put my money on Mitchell getting more clearances from the guts.

Didak is a great player, but he is not a midfielder. Of all those kicks he got, how many were in a chain of chip kicks around the wings and flanks?

How many centre clearances did he make compared to true midfielders.

As I said, he can step up the position capably, but if his best possie is else where, why not develop a better midfielder to release Didak to where he is most effective and dangerous? Same with Davis.

 

[swiftdog]

So basically you are not happy because a team with 10odd players 21 or under in the starting 18 can't beat the premiers of the competition who have the vast majority of their players in their prime. Supposebly our kids are crap as well but they have already proven more than the likes of Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Brisbane, Melbourne, Port Adelaide and West Coast. Please tell me where some of these teams remarkable improvement will come from seeing as we are already ahead of them and it is pretty much a given that our team will improve as well.

 

[Ant85]

FuManchu,

For the record, I like what I'm reading.

I'm not a doom and gloom, but I tipped a 7 - 10th finish for 2009 as soon as our season ended.

We don't have a backline, we don't have a midfield and we don't have a ruck. You're right about that, I don't think many would disagree.

A lot of Magpie supporters are pinning their hopes on the young blokes. It is true, these young blokes haven't proven anything yet, and they could still flop from major success stories to delisted failures.

You're ready to flush the toilet. I'm going to see how 2009 pans out, see how our youngsters go, and then maybe in 2009 I'll be ready to flush the toilet.

And I agree about Mick Malthouse and 9 years of mediocrity and finals dwellers.

 

[FuManchu]

So basically you are not happy because a team with 10odd players 21 or under in the starting 18 can't beat the premiers of the competition who have the vast majority of their players in their prime. Supposebly our kids are crap as well but they have already proven more than the likes of Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Brisbane, Melbourne, Port Adelaide and West Coast. Please tell me where some of these teams remarkable improvement will come from seeing as we are already ahead of them and it is pretty much a given that our team will improve as well.

I take it comprehension is not one of your strong points.

I will spell it out for you.

Malthouse fails on a number of points and has done in his 9 years at Collingwood

List development across the board

Game plan

A lack of a plan B when things go wrong

A stubborn refusal to address certain on field areas for the entirity of his tenure, ie: Rucks and midfield

A continual lack of real success where he being paid top dollar to achieve that success.

An inconsistant team performance, week in week out. ( remember he is only 50/50 in his coaching)

14 years since he has actually won a flag.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You're ready to flush the toilet. I'm going to see how 2009 pans out, see how our youngsters go, and then maybe in 2009 I'll be ready to flush the toilet.

Thats all I was saying, but emo-man jumped on everything I said like I was Mick Malthouse himself.

We are better than at least 8 teams in the competition and on a par with another 5 or 6. Only Geelong and Hawthorn are visibly ahead of us.

Most of the measures are pointing upwards. We are developing a spine, we have recruited what is supposed to be a genuine ruck, and we are building a midfield.Whether Malthouse is still the man will depend entirely upon season 2009.

 

[tess]

Look I would have been happy to see the back of MM, but he will be our coach for at least the 2009. Nothing we do or say here will change that, so be it.

 

[The Donners]

How many coaches are at AFL clubs after 9 seasons without taking their side to a premiership? Malthouse must be in an elite group in this regard.

 

[swiftdog]

I take it comprehension is not one of your strong points.

I will spell it out for you.

Malthouse fails on a number of points and has done in his 9 years at Collingwood

List development across the board

Game plan

A lack of a plan B when things go wrong

A stubborn refusal to address certain on field areas for the entirity of his tenure, ie: Rucks and midfield

A continual lack of real success where he being paid top dollar to achieve that success.

An inconsistant team performance, week in week out. ( remember he is only 50/50 in his coaching)

14 years since he has actually won a flag.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?

I've made my points on most of these already in this thread so I'll just give you a summary:

List Development - Judkins, Mick chooses the type of player but the chief recruiter needs to be the one to make sure he is any good. Just wondering anyone on the list at present that you think shouldn't be? Maybe 1 of Toovey, Cook or Stanley but that is all that I can think of.

Gameplan - Hawthorn gameplan is fantastic no doubt about it. But I think that you are giving too much credit to the coach and gameplan and not to the players implementing it. Hawthron and geelong as well are stocked full of talent. At the moment our young team (meaning starting 22, every list has kids) aren't experienced enough yet to implement a gameplan similiar to that of Geelong and Hawthorn. We could try using the guts and whatnot but more often than not we will lose out.

Lack of plan B - Partly agree with you here. However, for the kids, battling on when the going gets tough may do them good, this could be his intention. Character-building sort of stuff (e.g. keeping Heath Shaw tagged in the backline).

Stubborn refusal to .... - Not true. He tried ruckman in Fanning and Richards, they were shit. Who didn't scout the right ruckman, Mick or Judkins? You can't clog up your list with young ruckman in the hope that a couple of them will become A-graders. We have 4 ruckman on the list at the moment: A B-grader (Fraser), C-grader (Bryan) and two unknowns (Wood and Thoolen).
As for midfield this can come back down to shit recruiting from Judkins. Iacobucci, Rowe, Davies etc. They should all be in their prime now, but they were shit. Judkins not doing HIS job properly. A company will only work if everyone pulls their weight, including recruiters, fitness staff, coaching panel etc.

A continual lack of real success - Agreed. He hasn't achieved anything at Collingwood of great note yet. But things look on the way up.

Inconsistency and no flag in 14 years - yep, the list we have at the moment is primarily winning though.

 

[walhawk]

Blame the recruiters for Collingwood not being a Premiership threat now or in the near future. They just don't have any match winners.

MM has done a brilliant job for a team without star quality.

Who is Collingwood's best player?
I know we won the flag but as a comparison we probably have 6 - 8 players better than Collingwood's best player.

MM has the Pies playing as a true team, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

They would spend a few years down the bottom if MM left.

 

[Selggad]

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...



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.



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

Your initial comment was that WCE were a basket case before Mick arrived. I responded that the same list won Malthouse two flags. Basket case...well they got something right before Mick arrived.

The reason I mentioned Judge was because there were comments about Mick slagging of Judge after Judge's comments that 2 flags was only ok with the list had.

I didn't correct your post, I responded to a statement you made that was poorly articulated and and had no context. Seems like you can't follow your own arguments.

Most of your replies are full of invective. It is a pretty typical response of people who are insecure or just plain stupid. How old am I? Old enough to recognise a complete idiot. How old are you?? Well, in terms of debate, discussion and argument....maybe 5?? I'm surprised you can use a keyboard already

 

[Crow-mo]

Spot the difference

or

50 per cent

is the difference in homo-erotic imagery, and the effect it has on you during your quite time alone?

 

[JohnD]

JohnD is a serial troll - regularly booted off team boards for his ridiculous behaviour. this is typical work.

I count four Collingwood supporters on this thread who agree with me.

Are they trolls too ?

 

[Crow-mo]

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.

more naive nonsense John.

you can keep dealing out make believe, but you no longer have the credibility to get a response to your uniformed, speculative tosh.

ps. I don't intend to get you started on gameplan, I'm gonna wait for you to understand what it means first

 

[Bollox]

Great coach.
Doesnt need to justify anything to anyone.

 

[JohnD]

more naive nonsense John.

you can keep dealing out make believe, but you no longer have the credibility to get a response to your uniformed, speculative tosh.

ps. I don't intend to get you started on gameplan, I'm gonna wait for you to understand what it means first

I thought Fu said most of it eloquently enough a page back. Why don't you go read what clear thinking Collingwood supporters reckon and then decide whether it's naive nonsense.

Leadership didn't get unpacked much though. That's all speculative tosh too I suppose ?

Maybe it's not the coach's job to develop leaders within the group. Maybe Mick's hands are tied on that one 'cos they've got a leadership development department and it's their brief not his.

Just in case it is MM's responsibility, the bottom of the barrel was Burns in 2008. I like him - good honest trier. B grade player. Stop-gap measure because no real leadership contenders had emerged from the pack. In the wash up, his body let him down and he struggled with fitness meaning his capacity to influence games was sorely reduced. Still, he took on the job 'cos he's a loyal servant but lacked the real leadership credentials as evidenced by two of his players bullshitting to his face and standing by watching him put his credibility on the line to defend their dishonesty. You reckon they'd have let Buckley do that ?

Now that Burns has gone, the leadership narrative apparently concerns a choice between Josh Fraser and Nick Maxwell for captain. A sorry sorry indictment if ever there was one. Pie visionaries are advocating hard for Pendlebury (probably the right move a-la North appointing a very young Wayne Carey in the absence of any credible alternative) despite him probably being 2 or 3 years off it.

Suppose you're going to tell me I'm imagining all of that too. Well, feel free to document the many leaders just waiting in the wings for their chance at the helm.

While you're at it, perhaps you'd like to put on record what's so good about the gameplan that Malthouse has 'em implementing. If you're wondering where to start, you could pick up on the points I've already made about this and tell me why their so wrong.

 

[Crow-mo]

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.

wrong as a point of fact.

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.

what is "obvious" to you, may not be obvious to all. not least of all your entire footy club. what's more, what is obvious to you, may not even be correct

what is obvious, is that you have no idea what efforts were made, and who was responsible for them.

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?

I don't need to explain, I could point to his record.

all of this comes down to the same thing when your blind bias against your coach comes in to play, you think you have a right to more success than you have had. when you don't. you are collingwood. this is a golden age for you. and in an equalised league no less.

you want more, which is fair, you expect however things you have basis for in reality.

he's killing you so far

well that's lucky for you, cause you're not doing so well

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

i'm sorry, did you accidentally make last years prelim? were you the bottom team, who collected enough supermarket coupons to even be in the game?

if this is your idea of doing well, heaven help you in the real world.

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

there is your entitlement complex going crazy again. what makes you think you should automatically be better than every team, every year?

Hawthorn are better than you, so what? they were better than everyone else too. does that make Alastair clarkson the ZOMG king of the coaching world? does every other coach need the sack too?

more irrelevant, pointless examples.

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.

firstly, brisbane never had a team that dominates. they set themselves for the finals, not the regular season.

secondly, why do you keep harping on this entitlement idea? that you should have a team that dominates. we dominated in 2005 and 2006, and I can vouch for how little matters come finals time.

you have a team that sets itself for finals, but you're complaining that you don't resemble Adelaide 2005/06?

really, that's what you think?

you also seem to be ignoring how difficult list building is the post equalisation era. Somehow you seem to be blaming him for only getting the most of what he has to work with.

maybe you just deserve Buckley, and the inherent troubles an untried, inexperienced coach brings.

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.

this is typical of the schoolboy, playground type analysis you bring to the table. calling it garbage, just insults garbage. honestly, being rude about that level of thinking seems somehow insufficient.

just a stupid thing to say.

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

by any measure, you mean yours. and you don't seem to be very - how shall we say "representative" of very much.

you're again trying to pretend your subjective, surface level assumptions are somehow fact.

if you told me, it was time to move on, maybe it was time for a breath of fresh air then i could understand.

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.

and yet, he has been employed by the most richest, most powerful, and smartest clubs in the land for best of 2 decades. he must be a hypnotist, with one of the spinning spirals for a watch he flashes whenever he comes across the footy board.

not to mention, your clumsy and desperate attempt to pretend list building is his job. its wrong as a point of fact, and it was wrong as a point of fact at the beginning of this hysterical, incoherent overly-emotive rant. sorry post.

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.

how many flags in the last 50 years?

christ knows where you're club would be, if you had anything to do with it.

The coach assmbles all aspects of the off field team that construct the list.

wrong.

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.

wrong.

you've confused convenient fallacies, with facts. trying to pretend things are a certain way, because it suits your argument, and in fact your argument requires these convenient fictions, doesn't fly. not least of all when it is so blatant and obvious.

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

that you agree with him, is hardly surprising. it however does nothing to endorse either of your views.

So, finishing fourth is the ultimate goal?

dunno, depends on whether you finished 5th or lower

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.

but your team has been an also ran for over half a century, and yet somehow you think you're the new york yankees? its

you contended strongly, within a kick of a likely flag with nothing. its not a flag, but only a idiot would decry it given what you had to work with, and the circumstances surrounding it.

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.

why am I rapt with your 4th place?

because I know something about football, I can appreciate the relative merits of other clubs (port not withstanding ), and I understand both the history of the league and the current landscape.

every single point of which my judgement and knowledge superior to yours, as you seem to fall short of each.

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.

dunno about that, he did pretty well when he had scrubbers at footscray and collingwood, and he did pretty well when he had a high talent unit at WC. seems he's fairly adaptable. no?

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.

exactly, he, like you have no sense of context or proper understanding of the subject matter; thankfully most people realise these are necessary.

 

[Crow-mo]

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.

Except in 1999 you were stone motherless last, and you had no hand at all. the footy world was shocked when he agreed to take you on.

you sought him out, paid him big and convinced him to take the job.

not the other way round.

do you have often have trouble separating fantasy from reality?

 

[FuManchu]

I've made my points on most of these already in this thread so I'll just give you a summary:

List Development - Judkins, Mick chooses the type of player but the chief recruiter needs to be the one to make sure he is any good. Just wondering anyone on the list at present that you think shouldn't be? Maybe 1 of Toovey, Cook or Stanley but that is all that I can think of.

All of the above plus:

O'Bree for sure

Rusling probably now, he may have some talent, but he is injury prone, much like Davidson and as I said before, its no good being the best player to not grace the field.

Reid is one season off being the next Davidson/Rusling if he doesnt get on the paddock

Bryan, has one booming kick in a season and tries to emulate it again and again with no success, and can some one actually show him how to get both feet off the ground at the same time?

Rocca, sorry anthony, but your time has come, more and more injury prone and being available will actually hold back the development of a younger player, like Dawes who needs to get a spot and know it is his.

Presti, the only problem with presti is that we have zilch to replace an injury prone player who cant get on the park as it is. So getting rid of him really is not such a loss anyway.

We should be looking at getting some value for Fraser who is really a big disappointment. He has no mongrel, we need some mongrel in that side.

I like Lockyer but him getting a game next year will hold back some young bloke from getting one. A player that we might get 10 years out of.

As for Judkins, malthouse picked him and persisted with him. The axe falls on malthouse' head for any of Judkins bloopers. Its called responsibility for all on field matters and recruiting ultimately is an on field matter

Gameplan - Hawthorn gameplan is fantastic no doubt about it. But I think that you are giving too much credit to the coach and gameplan and not to the players implementing it. Hawthron and geelong as well are stocked full of talent. At the moment our young team (meaning starting 22, every list has kids) aren't experienced enough yet to implement a gameplan similiar to that of Geelong and Hawthorn. We could try using the guts and whatnot but more often than not we will lose out.

Why are hawthorn stocked full of talent, when they were in the same boat as us in 2004. They recruited better than us, tey obviously coach their players better than us, they obviously have a game plan that runs rings around our game plan.

Surely, identifying that their game plan is far more effective would make you try and implement a similar game plan for the future development of our younger layers. But NO, malthouse has them playing chess, teaching them how to probably hate playing the game, wheras Clarkson is teaching his players that the game can be fun and won by being direct. Its not rocket science, but malthouse has made the game tedious for all concerned.

Lack of plan B - Partly agree with you here. However, for the kids, battling on when the going gets tough may do them good, this could be his intention. Character-building sort of stuff (e.g. keeping Heath Shaw tagged in the backline).

There we have it, character building. the virtue everyone likes to associate Malthouse bringing to the club.

Well, guess what.................. I bet his job description doesnt mention turning boys into men, it probably reads 'winning flags '. This is truly grasping at straws stuff .........' oh but they are valiant in defeat' and 'our boys never gave up, even tho they were flogged shitless'. Thats not character building, ulitmately it is deflating and counter productive. a winning culture is the only culture that he is meant to bring to the club. Until he is hired as moral guardian at the club, how about trying to put a team on the park that goes the kill not the character build.

Stubborn refusal to .... - Not true. He tried ruckman in Fanning and Richards, they were shit. Who didn't scout the right ruckman, Mick or Judkins? You can't clog up your list with young ruckman in the hope that a couple of them will become A-graders. We have 4 ruckman on the list at the moment: A B-grader (Fraser), C-grader (Bryan) and two unknowns (Wood and Thoolen).

Oh my effen Gawd. Understand this, he oversaw all the recruting, they are his responsiblity. The buck stops with him. Someone has to take responsibility for everything that goes wrong and at 850 large, that person is malthouse. And with the ruck stocks so poor, he continually chose to not go and seek an good quality ruck. Even Everrit in 2001 would have been a good get, far better than Fraser as a ruck option. Everitt was shopped around that year, eventually going the next, so he was available. And two things Everrit can do, or culd do, was tap at the centre bounces and he was an extraordinarily good kick for a big bloke

BTW, Fraser is not a B, let alone A grade ruckman. He is poor poor poor as a ruck option. He may actually be better propped up at FF

As for midfield this can come back down to shit recruiting from Judkins. Iacobucci, Rowe, Davies etc. They should all be in their prime now, but they were shit. Judkins not doing HIS job properly. A company will only work if everyone pulls their weight, including recruiters, fitness staff, coaching panel etc.

Malthouse again. he chose Judkins and probably told Judkins to go for the plodders, much like he likes O'Bree ploughing up mud in the midfield. Judkins is Malthouse's responsibility. There is no arguing against that.

A continual lack of real success - Agreed. He hasn't achieved anything at Collingwood of great note yet. But things look on the way up.

And how pray tell? The on field structures and game plan are perilously flawed. Things are not looking up, things are looking veneered over

Inconsistency and no flag in 14 years - yep, the list we have at the moment is primarily winning though.

[/QUOTE]

Still only 50/50 roughly even in the good years. Maybe 55/45 at best. hardly a period of domination. And if after 9 years he is only 50/50 overall, then its time to take a deep hard look at your own position. It is not what they would have expected 9 years back. His tenure has not been a success.

 

[Crow-mo]

Fu, your version of the truth and the majority of Collingwood supporters version of the truth are clearly vastly different.

I wouldn't limit the differention to just other collingwood supporters

Didak not a real onballer - you have to be kidding. He was the leading kickgetter and AA certainty until his misdemeanor.

ah, but only to people who actually watch and know something about the game.

 

[FuManchu]

wrong as a point of fact.




what is "obvious" to you, may not be obvious to all. not least of all your entire footy club. what's more, what is obvious to you, may not even be correct

what is obvious, is that you have no idea what efforts were made, and who was responsible for them.



I don't need to explain, I could point to his record.

all of this comes down to the same thing when your blind bias against your coach comes in to play, you think you have a right to more success than you have had. when you don't. you are collingwood. this is a golden age for you. and in an equalised league no less.

you want more, which is fair, you expect however things you have basis for in reality.





well that's lucky for you, cause you're not doing so well



i'm sorry, did you accidentally make last years prelim? were you the bottom team, who collected enough supermarket coupons to even be in the game?

if this is your idea of doing well, heaven help you in the real world.



there is your entitlement complex going crazy again. what makes you think you should automatically be better than every team, every year?

Hawthorn are better than you, so what? they were better than everyone else too. does that make Alastair clarkson the ZOMG king of the coaching world? does every other coach need the sack too?

more irrelevant, pointless examples.



firstly, brisbane never had a team that dominates. they set themselves for the finals, not the regular season.

secondly, why do you keep harping on this entitlement idea? that you should have a team that dominates. we dominated in 2005 and 2006, and I can vouch for how little matters come finals time.

you have a team that sets itself for finals, but you're complaining that you don't resemble Adelaide 2005/06?

really, that's what you think?

you also seem to be ignoring how difficult list building is the post equalisation era. Somehow you seem to be blaming him for only getting the most of what he has to work with.

maybe you just deserve Buckley, and the inherent troubles an untried, inexperienced coach brings.



this is typical of the schoolboy, playground type analysis you bring to the table. calling it garbage, just insults garbage. honestly, being rude about that level of thinking seems somehow insufficient.

just a stupid thing to say.




by any measure, you mean yours. and you don't seem to be very - how shall we say "representative" of very much.

you're again trying to pretend your subjective, surface level assumptions are somehow fact.

if you told me, it was time to move on, maybe it was time for a breath of fresh air then i could understand.



and yet, he has been employed by the most richest, most powerful, and smartest clubs in the land for best of 2 decades. he must be a hypnotist, with one of the spinning spirals for a watch he flashes whenever he comes across the footy board.

not to mention, your clumsy and desperate attempt to pretend list building is his job. its wrong as a point of fact, and it was wrong as a point of fact at the beginning of this hysterical, incoherent overly-emotive rant. sorry post.



how many flags in the last 50 years?

christ knows where you're club would be, if you had anything to do with it.



wrong.



wrong.

you've confused convenient fallacies, with facts. trying to pretend things are a certain way, because it suits your argument, and in fact your argument requires these convenient fictions, doesn't fly. not least of all when it is so blatant and obvious.




that you agree with him, is hardly surprising. it however does nothing to endorse either of your views.




dunno, depends on whether you finished 5th or lower



but your team has been an also ran for over half a century, and yet somehow you think you're the new york yankees? its

you contended strongly, within a kick of a likely flag with nothing. its not a flag, but only a idiot would decry it given what you had to work with, and the circumstances surrounding it.



why am I rapt with your 4th place?

because I know something about football, I can appreciate the relative merits of other clubs (port not withstanding ), and I understand both the history of the league and the current landscape.

every single point of which my judgement and knowledge superior to yours, as you seem to fall short of each.



dunno about that, he did pretty well when he had scrubbers at footscray and collingwood, and he did pretty well when he had a high talent unit at WC. seems he's fairly adaptable. no?





exactly, he, like you have no sense of context or proper understanding of the subject matter; thankfully most people realise these are necessary.

You havent countered anything, you just dont agree and have gone to some pre med psychology text book to come up with a term that only serves to make you look even more foolish.

Good luck with that, but your lack of insight into football is even more startling than your defense of the indefensible here.

But dont let me stop you, I always like to know that I am streets ahead of others in terms of lateral thinking

keep it up son

 

[Crow-mo]

Your initial comment was that WCE were a basket case before Mick arrived. I responded that the same list won Malthouse two flags. Basket case...well they got something right before Mick arrived.

except you still haven't commented on where they were, and what had happened before he arrived.

is it because you don't know?

The reason I mentioned Judge was because there were comments about Mick slagging of Judge after Judge's comments that 2 flags was only ok with the list had.

judge is a bitter old hack, WC finished 3rd or 4th from bottom when Micky took over. they sacked 2 coaches, and the holding company was bankrupt.

that sure sounds like a basketcase to me.

I didn't correct your post, I responded to a statement you made that was poorly articulated and and had no context. Seems like you can't follow your own arguments.

had no context. that you cannot identify the contect, is that the reason you have not responded to it. I'm pretty sure that a reference to a particular time, and a comment about the overall state at that time is a fairly specific and easy to follow context

do you need a english tutor?

Most of your replies are full of invective. It is a pretty typical response of people who are insecure or just plain stupid. How old am I? Old enough to recognise a complete idiot. How old are you?? Well, in terms of debate, discussion and argument....maybe 5?? I'm surprised you can use a keyboard already

well I'm smarter than you, and I know what the word context means. so make of that what you will.

and you still haven't even tried to counter my assertion with anything other than forward events, which doesn't say much for your knowledge, understanding or cognitive process.

Someone who counters a statement based on a position at a given moment in time, (ignoring the history leading to that moment in time) with comments about future events is either: A) lazy and peculiar in that they didn't take the time to think about what it was they were disagreeing with, or B) just a little a simple. you are also free to make your choice.

hell, I even gave you the contextual markers in Alexander, Todd & Indian Pacific, and still it all went over your head. nice work brainiac.

Ps. I am just pissed off people like you come on, argue away and don't have the feintest clue what they are talking about, and then wonder why they get short shrift. I mean for ****'s sake, Ron Alexander & John Todd were both miles ahead of Kenny Judge, and they didn't get anywhere with that list either. that's why they went, and got the best victorian coach about, to turn around their fortunes.
but anyway, ignoring the actual ignorance of your posts, if you want to argue with what I am saying, how about you do just that - and talk about what they were like when Malthouse took over, instead of some waffle about what happened afterwards.