Mick Malthouse and his coaching record

[Crow-mo]

Golden years, well if you mean retirement, then yes, it should be his golden years.

Golden years also entails success, and that he hasnt delivered. No other club would give someone 9 years without winning flags. Matthews had 10 at brisbane was pushed after 3 flags.

9 years to get to the point where the game plan is flawed, the midfield and ruck divisions have never been addressed is negligence.

Sorry, time to go Mick, near enough is not good enough anymore.
How many more years of being therabouts will people tolerate before they start thinking 'mmmmm maybe it hasnt quite worked'??????????

I rest my case.

 

[Crow-mo]

He also left them in a pretty dire state and then proceeded to try and tell his replacement how to do the job. I'm not a huge Ken Judge as a coach fan. However MM should've stuck to figuring out how to get the Pies to win something.

so you don't know anything about the eagles history do you.

 

[FuManchu]

agree - hasn't got a clue - making these young guys think they can beat tough opponents - who does he think he is?

yeah, he made them beat geelong last year in the finals and St Kilda this year in the finals with that game plan of no rucks and a slow pedestrian midfield.

He is good up unto a point and after that he stifles creativity in players that have more in them. His game plan is one dimensional and if the players are not on and ready to tackle until they drop, the team does not win. You tell me the last time he won a GF at Collingwood, because I am waiting 9 years so far and he hasnt delivered. Others want to give him two more, then what? Another two, and then maybe another two, because he coaches the players to a certain level to be good at times and inconsistant at others? And you sit and pray he isnt that far off the mark. Have you forgotten he is always off the mark, every year? In fact the only thing consistant about his coaching is that we have inconsistant teams.

Give me a break, his time is up, his game plan is old hat and easily countered, just by flooding back into our forward line. His refusal to do anything for years with the rucks and midfield is negligence. But you and a multitude of others want to give him two more years because he nearly beat geelong last year and beat them this year.

9 years without success, no other club would stand for half of that. thats the bottom line.

 

[Crow-mo]

You tell me the last time he won a GF at Collingwood, because I am waiting 9 years so far and he hasnt delivered.

you've been waiting a damn sight longer than that, how many in the last 0 years? you guys talk like you SHOULD have done better.

Give me a break, his time is up, his game plan is old hat and easily countered, just by flooding back into our forward line.

easily countered huh? what bizarro world is that in? lost by a kick last year in a prelim, and semi final appearance without a number of key players... why do you think it is that you can see how easily it can be countered, but not opposition coaches?

9 years without success, no other club would stand for half of that. thats the bottom line.

you're delusional, that's the bottom line. premiership = success is schoolboy stuff.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Incredible, reading some of the ignorant garbage posted by some Collingwood supporters here.

In our last two seasons, given the age of some of the players we've had to rely on in important roles due to injury or whatever else, we had no right being better than a "there abouts" team just outside of the 8 at best. Instead we've now got a group of about a dozen 22 an unders with winning finals experience (some of them have three)

Given this, why on earth would you want to turf out an experienced coach, a proven motivator, who commands so much respect from the players? and for whom? maybe we could go for a timmy watson first up? then perhaps follow up with malcom blight for six months?

or maybe we could stick with the stability that has put us in our current position?

 

[Qsaint]

yeah, he made them beat geelong last year in the finals and St Kilda this year in the finals with that game plan of no rucks and a slow pedestrian midfield.

He is good up unto a point and after that he stifles creativity in players that have more in them. His game plan is one dimensional and if the players are not on and ready to tackle until they drop, the team does not win. You tell me the last time he won a GF at Collingwood, because I am waiting 9 years so far and he hasnt delivered. Others want to give him two more, then what? Another two, and then maybe another two, because he coaches the players to a certain level to be good at times and inconsistant at others? And you sit and pray he isnt that far off the mark. Have you forgotten he is always off the mark, every year? In fact the only thing consistant about his coaching is that we have inconsistant teams.

Give me a break, his time is up, his game plan is old hat and easily countered, just by flooding back into our forward line. His refusal to do anything for years with the rucks and midfield is negligence. But you and a multitude of others want to give him two more years because he nearly beat geelong last year and beat them this year.

9 years without success, no other club would stand for half of that. thats the bottom line.

He hasn't got the cattle and never did at Collingwood. His drafting, trading etc is terrible, but he has got your team into the finals when they on paper should never had made it

 

[FuManchu]

you've been waiting a damn sight longer than that, how many in the last 0 years? you guys talk like you SHOULD have done better.

I'm saying if you have a coach for 9 years, you would only keep him on that long if he had won a flag or two or three. Malthouse hasnt. He is only there ultimately for one reason to coach the team to a flag.

easily countered huh? what bizarro world is that in? lost by a kick last year in a prelim, and semi final appearance without a number of key players... why do you think it is that you can see how easily it can be countered, but not opposition coaches?

Ah yes, once again the delusion of matching up well with Geelong. Forget Geelong, what is Malthouse's game plan against a team with a dynamic tall player Like Riewoldt and Franklin? Why did Malthouse leave Brown on Riewoldt the other night for so long? What did Malthouse do to stop the crowded forward line when it is so obvious that St Kilda and even Carlton just push back into it to stifle any marking opportunities? Did he even consider trying to break the lines thru the middle? No, not Malthouse, possesion up the flanks at all costs.

you're delusional, that's the bottom line. premiership = success is schoolboy stuff.

You might think coaches are there to do a whole range of things, but if after 9 years they have failed to get what everyone expects of them: A FLAG, then that is failure. No matter what else they have done, a flag is the bottom line of any lengthy tenure.

 

[FuManchu]

He hasn't got the cattle and never did at Collingwood. His drafting, trading etc is terrible, but he has got your team into the finals when they on paper should never had made it

And getting teams into the finals without actually getting the top prize is nothing. All 16 teams are tere for one reason only, not to make up the numbers, but take the top prize.

Thats a bit like saying St Kilda, with the list they have had for the last 7 years, should only be happy only to make the finals, when in reality, the flag is what you should be after. Secondly, this is his second period at the club where we have made finals and neither period has produced.

He has failed by any measure of what the clubs and supporters expectations are. And trust me, after 9 years that list is solely his responsibility.

 

[Qsaint]

And getting teams into the finals without actually getting the top prize is nothing. All 16 teams are tere for one reason only, not to make up the numbers, but take the top prize.

Thats a bit like saying St Kilda, with the list they have had for the last 7 years, should only be happy only to make the finals, when in reality, the flag is what you should be after. Secondly, this is his second period at the club where we have made finals and neither period has produced.

He has failed by any measure of what the clubs and supporters expectations are. And trust me, after 9 years that list is solely his responsibility.

St Kilda should have won at least 1 or 2 GF under Thomas but didn't. I think if Micky was Coach they may have

But the point I really was trying to make that you need a total rebuild to win a GF, Really its probably Eddies fault for taking recruiting away from Micky.
Your list is very poor compared to St Kilda, Geelong or Hawthorn.

Look at your two best forwards, three or four Midfielders and two backman, they just aren't that good compared to other teams. Mick if managed well is about the best coach in the league

 

[Sausage roll]

yes, and any learned or knowledable football supporter would be well aware that this is a great credit to the standing he has in the game, and how well his achievements are perceived by those within.

when you grow up and learn more about the game, you'll realise he hasn't been coaching that long through luck and charity.

winning a flag( times two as he did) gives you a lot of currency for a long period of time.
He is now entering his 15th year in a row without a flag( afl/vfl record-well done!!) and has had some 8 years to build the collingwood list to win a flag. He has failed.

15 years is a long time to be coaching without a flag and to keep presenting yourslef as the "godfather" of all things football.

 

[tess]

Mick if managed well is about the best coach in the league

But is Mick Malthouse now un-manageable?

 

[UltraMagnus]

so you don't know anything about the eagles history do you.

I know alot about WC history and what he said is pretty spot on.

Be honest, your 14 aren't you ? maybe get Dad to check your posts before you submit

 

[4#Didak#4]

People are a bit harsh on coaching records. You can only deal with the cattle you have and it is hard to assess how much a particular group of players is capable of. Grant Thomas had a great coaching record yet was widely whipped as a coach because most expected more from the St Kilda list than they delivered.

MM inherited a terrible list and had to rebuild it from 1999-2001. Even then it was not a great list yet somehow made back to back GFs in 2002 & 2003 against one of the greatest teams ever. So in 3 years he (& others lets not give him all the credit) turned a terrible list into back to back premierships. When you look at the time it has taken bottom dwellers like Richmond, Carlton, Dogs, Saints even Hawthorn this is a remarkable achievement.

However he is a victim of his own success, in retrospect finishing that high cost the club big time. The system does not reward success. We would have been better off finishing bottom 8 for those 2 years & completing the list rebuilding. 2004-2005 we dropped back & did not harshly deal with the list at that time as expectations were set high based on 2002-03 that the list was OK. At the end of 2005 & 2006 these problems were dealt with & got us back on track. 2002-03 effectively set us back 3-4 years.

2007-08 performances given the list is once again a great effort but I am worried will do the same thing as 2002-03 & stunt our growth. But what are you going to do tell the coach & players not to try their best - just not an option.

Hawthorn is the model to follow. Slow build up over the years accumulating talent with smart recruiting while hanging out in the bottom 8 for 3-4 years then having a crack at it.

Continually being competitive and bouncing back challenging in the 8 sadly is not the recipe for success in the current system. Malthouses biggest strength is his competitive, fighting, never say die attitude and his ability to extract every ounce of ability out of his players - this may also be his biggest downfall and the reason for his average coaching record.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

When MM came out and bagged Ken Judge when he coached the Eagles (he and they were a soft target back then) KJ had a decent reply of "You only won two flags with the list you had."

Not sure if anyone agrees or not but it is worthwhile considering when looking at MM's entire career.

Absolutely. He was identified as having ability at the Bulldogs, then came here and inherited an absolute pearler of a list that to this day I think a net result of 2 flags was a waste. 1990 we probably weren't quite there, but 1991 we peaked way too early, and 1993 was a waste of a good list not even making the GF.

Towards the end of his time with us he coached and recruited more to pad his own win / loss record than look after al ist that every man and his dog could see was about to suffer a whole pile of high profile retirements around the same time, and off he went to Collingwood who from memory had a pretty young list at the time with a couple of high draft picks.

I know coaches (and players) aren't with you forever, but what still rankles about his departure is he literally set us up for a black period and bolted before he had to live through it himself.

 

[swiftdog]

And getting teams into the finals without actually getting the top prize is nothing. All 16 teams are tere for one reason only, not to make up the numbers, but take the top prize.

Thats a bit like saying St Kilda, with the list they have had for the last 7 years, should only be happy only to make the finals, when in reality, the flag is what you should be after. Secondly, this is his second period at the club where we have made finals and neither period has produced.

He has failed by any measure of what the clubs and supporters expectations are. And trust me, after 9 years that list is solely his responsibility.

Really? So no blame is to be put on the spud who scouted these players from 2000 - 2004 AFL drafts:

G.Richards (25)
R.Cole (25)
T.Davidson (25)
M.McGough (24)
T.Walker (24)
B.Nixon (??)
L.Shackleton (??)
D.King (23)
M.Lokan (25)
B.Morrison (??)
Br.Hall (22)
J.Rowe (23)
A.Iacobucci (22)

The only players still around from this period are:
A.Didak - pick 3, 2000
S.Wakelin - pick 49, 2000 (just retired but was a great pickup)
D.Swan - pick 58, 2001
H.Shaw - F/S pick 48, 2003
S.Rusling - pick 23, 2004
T.Cloke - pick 39, 2004

Players at other clubs or where OK for a bit:
J.Cloke - F/S pick 19, 2000 (was OK for a bit)
R.Lonie - pick 34, 2000 (OK for a couple of seasons)
C.Cloke - pick 43, 2002 (at Carlton anyway)

From 5 drafts this means that only 5 + 1(Wakelin) are still around. The players drafted here are the players who are just entering, or just entered the vital 23 - 27 age dermographic of players. 13 of these players were just shit and did not make it with another 2 that were servicable for a few years and another one that is now at Carlton. Blame Mick all you want but I think a 6/22 players that are still around ratio is absolutely piss poor from our past recruiters.

Even more, when you think about it you couldn't go wrong with a pick 3 in the draft (A.Didak), Wakelin was already an established player, and H.Shaw and T.Cloke cam about as father-sons. This effectively leaves only Swan and Rusling (injury-prone??) who were drafted by smart recruting.

Mick's done/doing pretty well considering the large amount of shit he was given to work with.

 

[Mr.X]

Is still a quality coach - a top effort to get the Pies to the semis, espicially after the Didak/Shaw incident nearly derailed their season.

Might need to embrace some more modern concepts, and show a bit more of a willingness to be flexible on match day.

This is where a shrewd match day tactician like Wallace is so important to a club - some of TW's moves have been truly revolutionary, delivering wins many thought were not possible.

Well done to TW for amending his style to suit the times, whilist stamping his individual style on the Tigers from the coaches box

Absoutely hilarious

 

[JohnD]

Mick's done/doing pretty well considering the large amount of shit he was given to work with.

You don't think the recruiting team collaborates with the coach ?

You don't think the coach gets the final say on who comes into the squad and who doesn't ?

Sure, he'd get advice and would take note of recommendations, but if you think Mick Malthouse isn't signing off on the recruiting strategy come draft week, you're dreamin'.

You reckon Leigh Matthews just rocked up after draft week to find out who his new players were ?

I can tell you for a fact that Alistair Clarkson has pulled rank on the recruiting team to get his way. And so he should, he's the coach and the team's fortunes are his responsibility.

 

[Lupton Warchild Pittman]

I can tell you for a fact that Alistair Clarkson has pulled rank on the recruiting team to get his way. And so he should, he's the coach and the team's fortunes are his responsibility.

Why is Clarkson now the guru?

His 1st season Hawthorn finished 14th.
His 2nd season Hawthorn finished 11th.
His 3rd season Hawthorn finished 6th.

By Malthouses's 3rd Year, he had got his side into a GF.

 

[JohnD]

Why is Clarkson now the guru?

His 1st season Hawthorn finished 14th.
His 2nd season Hawthorn finished 11th.
His 3rd season Hawthorn finished 6th.

By Malthouses's 3rd Year, he had got his side into a GF.

Who said Clarkson was the guru ?

I didn't say Clarkson was the guru. All I did was point out that a first time coach without the record or reputation of Malthouse had the final responsibility for his list.

I'm not trying to say that's any different to Malthouse, because if anything Malthouse would have even more veto over his recruiting team. Do you think for one second that Malthouse doesn't wear the pants in any decision about which number to call out of draft day ?

So LWP, stop jumping at shadows pal. I'm saying Mick's in the same boat, pretty much. Of course that makes the kinds of excuses getting pedalled in this thread (about the list not being Mick's brief) complete bullshit ... but you probably knew that already.

 

[Lupton Warchild Pittman]

All I did was point out that a first time coach without the record or reputation of Malthouse had the final responsibility for his list.

Responsibility IMO is shared b/w the coach & the Head Recruiter. It was the case with Mick & Judkins & Clarkson & Buckenara?

I'm not trying to say that's any different to Malthouse, because if anything Malthouse would have even more veto over his recruiting team. Do you think for one second that Malthouse doesn't wear the pants in any decision about which number to call out of draft day ?

As far as 99' & 00' Mick had varying influences over who to take. He had no influence on the 99' Draft, Josh was a lock at Number 1, Neon had been sounded out by Judkins midway through 99' & there are other examples.

Malthouse's biggest decisions over the draft period were to complement the youth (which was largely in Judkins & Balmes control) with recycled players. MM personally sought out Clement, Wakelin & Steinfort. 2 absolute hits (I'd rank Clement with the best trade of the last 10 years) & 1 miss.

I'm backing Clarkson also had a big say in netting Dew & Guerra. His youth plan will be eroded each year if he can hold onto a Top 4 Position.

 

[JohnD]

Yes, you are right that Guerra and Dew are on Hawthorn's list because Clarkson said so.

I point out again, that this was the case despite having coaching 'L' plates and his senior recruiting manager being a Hawthorn legend.

Malthouse came to Collingwood with two flags under his belt and a fanfare befitting a rockstar. Yes, Malthouse has got a recruiting team. They all do. But don't think for one second that Collingwood drafted one single player that Malthouse didn't endorse. He was already the "guru" when he got there. You can't tell me anyone other than McGuire tells Malthouse what to do down Collingwood way.

 

[swiftdog]

You don't think the recruiting team collaborates with the coach ?

You don't think the coach gets the final say on who comes into the squad and who doesn't ?

Sure, he'd get advice and would take note of recommendations, but if you think Mick Malthouse isn't signing off on the recruiting strategy come draft week, you're dreamin'.

You reckon Leigh Matthews just rocked up after draft week to find out who his new players were ?

I can tell you for a fact that Alistair Clarkson has pulled rank on the recruiting team to get his way. And so he should, he's the coach and the team's fortunes are his responsibility.

Obviously Mick has a say in it. But if you look at the quality of players drafted/scouted by Hine (Thomas, Pendlebury, Stanley?, Cook?, Anthony, Reid?, Brown, Dawes?, Dick?, Goldsack, Wellingham-r, Clarke-r, McCarthy, Thoolen?, Barham?, Cox?) as apposed to the players Judkins drafted that I mentioned earlier we have already seen 8 that we know can play (? marked players are still unknown/haven't shown a thing yet, keeping in mind that Reid, Dawes and Thoolen are going to take a while anyway and that Reid, Dawes, Anthony and Dick have all sustained or come through with serious injuries while at the club, hindering their d/ment). There is a clear correlation between quality of players from the Hine and Judkins era. If anymore evidence is needed of this have a look at our sides which have come out to play finals this year.

 

[FuManchu]

Really? So no blame is to be put on the spud who scouted these players from 2000 - 2004 AFL drafts:

G.Richards (25)
R.Cole (25)
T.Davidson (25)
M.McGough (24)
T.Walker (24)
B.Nixon (??)
L.Shackleton (??)
D.King (23)
M.Lokan (25)
B.Morrison (??)
Br.Hall (22)
J.Rowe (23)
A.Iacobucci (22)

They are his handpicked recruiters, Mick gets what he asks for, therefore those spuds are his responsibility and so too are the players picked.

The only players still around from this period are:
A.Didak - pick 3, 2000
S.Wakelin - pick 49, 2000 (just retired but was a great pickup)
D.Swan - pick 58, 2001
H.Shaw - F/S pick 48, 2003
S.Rusling - pick 23, 2004
T.Cloke - pick 39, 2004

Well, in the 9 years he has been there, what you are saying is that out of about 100 picks in those 9 years he should be happy with 6 players?

Players at other clubs or where OK for a bit:
J.Cloke - F/S pick 19, 2000 (was OK for a bit)
R.Lonie - pick 34, 2000 (OK for a couple of seasons)
C.Cloke - pick 43, 2002 (at Carlton anyway)

Irrelevant, you either make it or you dont. they didnt quite make make it at Collingwood.

From 5 drafts this means that only 5 + 1(Wakelin) are still around. The players drafted here are the players who are just entering, or just entered the vital 23 - 27 age dermographic of players. 13 of these players were just shit and did not make it with another 2 that were servicable for a few years and another one that is now at Carlton. Blame Mick all you want but I think a 6/22 players that are still around ratio is absolutely piss poor from our past recruiters.

Once again, the recruiters are Micks team. The buck stops at Mick Malthouse. If he was unhappy with the recruiters, he'd boot them. As far as I know, he sort of dispensed with Judkins after a while. He tells the recruiters what players they should go after. It all rests on him.. Unless you want to go one step further and blame the committee for not kicking Malthouse in the arse for the aforementioned blunders. Which I am quite happy to do so, because I am of the thinking that accountability in the upper echelons at the clubs is next to nil. They are not being objective by any measure when it comes to assessing Malthouse.

Even more, when you think about it you couldn't go wrong with a pick 3 in the draft (A.Didak), Wakelin was already an established player, and H.Shaw and T.Cloke cam about as father-sons. This effectively leaves only Swan and Rusling (injury-prone??) who were drafted by smart recruting.

Once again, Micks team of recruiters, they weren't forced on him, he chose that team and he told that team what personnel he wanted.

Mick's done/doing pretty well considering the large amount of shit he was given to work with.

I repeat, the crap he has got is solely a result of the processes, the team and personnel demands he put in place and therefore must take the blame, unless you want to take it higher.

 

[Nathan Q Brown]

Y You can't tell me anyone other than McGuire tells Malthouse what to do down Collingwood way.

i imagine you can't tell you ANYTHING! so when we get down to it - after god knows how many lines of shit and bandwidth - you are just another nuffy that Eddie owns - why didn't just spit it out like the rest of em and spare us the padding? its awfully dreary.

btw - when Clarkson actually achieves ONE thing then feel free to use him as an example in your essays

 

[swiftdog]

re:FuManchu

Agree that the recruiters are Mick's responsibility. Mick would obviously tell them what types of players to target but it would be up to the recruting team to go out and scout the best possible players at the positions Mick mentioned. The 6 players I mentioned were the players drafted during the Malthouse/Judkins era that were any good. However, since Hine has come to the club we have seen clear on field improvement and draftee talent (as I pointed out a couple of posts before).