Opinion Mick Malthouse

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Worsfold or Voss

Lordy, I'm not sure about either of these two

Meh, they're all just future ex-coaches at this stage.

 

[Stamos]

So why are we still struggling to understand a game plan and still failing under pressure?

Confidence is an amazing thing.

Sick of hearing that the game plan is the issue, when it's clear that that the players aren't playing to instruction.
To me, from the outside, we look woefully unfit. That may, or may not be the problem, but that's how it looks. We lack run.

Also, what's this crap about Mick over-rating the list?
Many posters with good mail at the time said he thought we weren't up to it, but had his hands tied for that first pre-season due to previous contracts. He started his list turn-over in a big way as soon as he could.

That's not to say Mick is perfect, or that he should even keep his job. Maybe he can't get his message across to the players. I'm stumped by some of his selection decisions, and in particular his use of the sub. But if you're going to can Mick, at least make your criticisms legitimate. Don't just make up rubbish.


edit: not aimed at you ODN, just posters in general

 

[Doro]

Yep, a combination of confidence and the probability that at least 14 or 15 clubs have done a much better job at managing and developing their playing lists in the last 5 years. It's caught up with us unfortunately.

 

[Coona Blues]

Maybe the plan is easy to coach against, hence it falls apart

Simple....to the point.....YES

We can all offer our theories, be they personnel, psychological or structure.

The past 10-15 years has seen so much innovation, counter measures, adaptation, analysis.
MM still believes his old tried and true cuts the mustard. It does not.
A head coach does not have to categorically be a master analyst, tactician or innovator, but
rest assured, he must have these types on his team. There is a need to dissect and understand
the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. To both counter and learn from their innovation.

A club also needs medicos who understand the limits of the human body, not to be too hard or
too soft on the training track. To attain a competitive level without "cooking" their charges. To understand
some injuries can be "played through" and some can't. Some players can play with niggles, while some
lose intensity and confidence.

Our players are watching the boys they grew up with thriving in proactive environments, while they
languish trying to survive with antiquated, uncompetitive structures and development. Their motivation
and confidence is shot, yet they are expected to put up their collective hands and accept responsibility,
while the individuals paid good money to manage their professional careers point fingers at everyone
but themselves.

If Malthouse accepted the movements the game has taken, and enlisted the aid of superior tacticians,
medicos, analysts etc as other clubs do, he would have a future. They are a threat, as Buckley was, as
Alan Richardson was before being summarily dismissed while contracted after MM's appointment. Richo
played a pivotal role at Port Adelaide, before taking a senior position at a resource gutted St Kilda, and
is looking like doing an excellent job developing the kids, and making them competitive.

Our coaching and support staff consist of dinosaurs and plodders. I hope SOS has a good mind and broad
shoulders. McKay has allowed the MM wagon to roll along unhindered, so SOS has to be the man. Find us
a thinker, an educator, a communicator. (Think I am talking myself in to Bolton).

Don't necessarily want a Darren Burgess conditioner, as I think he is determined to see how far he can push
his charges, but we need miles in the legs and developed bodies doing battle. Too many players have been
underdone for too long.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Confidence is an amazing thing.

Sick of hearing that the game plan is the issue, when it's clear that that the players aren't playing to instruction.
To me, from the outside, we look woefully unfit. That may, or may not be the problem, but that's how it looks. We lack run.

Also, what's this crap about Mick over-rating the list?
Many posters with good mail at the time said he thought we weren't up to it, but had his hands tied for that first pre-season due to previous contracts. He started his list turn-over in a big way as soon as he could.

That's not to say Mick is perfect, or that he should even keep his job. Maybe he can't get his message across to the players. I'm stumped by some of his selection decisions, and in particular his use of the sub. But if you're going to can Mick, at least make your criticisms legitimate. Don't just make up rubbish.


edit: not aimed at you ODN, just posters in general

All good. Some of those weren't my opinions so I know it isn't all aimed at me.

However this is the classic catch 22 analysis.

If the players aren't following instructions and we are in the 3rd year of Mick's tenure, then why are we playing them still?

Would you normally implement a game plan and take 3 years to realise the players aren't up to it?

It seems to me that Mick having to take responsibility for a) the game plan or b) the fact that after 3 years player still won't follow the game plan, is inevitable.

 

[Cipher]

That's a nice sermon but the fact remains that it doesn't take 3 years to recognise that some players can't play under pressure and do something about it. If our leaders are letting us down under pressure, why are they still our leaders? We have turned over half our list, sunk all the way to the bottom of the ladder and the half of the list we have left and many of the ones we brought in to replace the departed half show no signs of standing up under pressure. So did we get rid of the wrong half and did we recruit the wrong players to replace them? I don't think so.

I certainly dismiss it is a 'fact' that within 3 years a player should either be able to play under pressure or have been delisted.

Mick has presided largely over just two off-seasons, it takes more than that to address the issue.

I disagree that the guys we have brought in to replace the departed are showing no signs of standing up. By in large we're bringing in youth, and they will need a few years before they can deliver on a consistent basis. Since Mick has been coach we've added the likes of Menzel, Docherty, Cripps, Graham, Boekhorst, Jaksch, Whiley, Smith, Sheehan, Byrne, Viojo-Rainbow. They may not all make it, but we'll be well on the right track if the next 3 years produces something similar.

As for the likes of Thomas, Everitt, Wood, Jones, Tutt, Everitt, Dick - you can't simply gut your playing list without getting some mature bodies in. Teams hardly have access to the cream of the crop when needing to recruit mature players, some may work out, most may not, but all fill a role while that group of young players develop.

So why are we still struggling to understand a game plan and still failing under pressure?

So long as our leaders are made up of players that were developed in an unaccountable brand of football, the team will fail under pressure.

You can't buy in enough leaders, so right now we don't have any other choice - they need to be developed in house.

Give Mick another 3 - 5 years and I have confidence he and our young players will deliver in spades.

 

[Ellas Ellas]

I don't know. Ratts was building every year except his last. Was his so called front runner team over performing, because the current side is bottoming out 3 years after Ratten was sacked and we stripped away the game plan, and most of the exciting elements of that team. If it was so obvious, why has it taken 3 years for Mick and the club to recognise it?

I see Cripps, Docherty and a few possibles being part of this side that is closer to a premiership that Ratten's side was. Is that a poor return after 3 years of change? I see rumours of players wanting out because they want success so they don't see the upside of this team.

I'm starting to miss those front running days that used to frustrate me every now and then.

Oh to be frontunners again! Those were the days. At least it was entertaining and our coach forever had a positive outlook, not once ever blaming his players or injuries for any losses, right down to the press conference for his sacking.

 

[JustaBattler]

That's a nice sermon but the fact remains .....we still struggling to understand a game plan and still failing under pressure?

Warning old front rower and rugby coach rant coming:

Murphy sometimes takes backwards steps and too often over acts to draw a free...Gibbs is an expert at half steps and corralling with arms out wide - preferring to make some kind of tackle after the opponent gets the ball - Judd never hardly ever uses his explosive off the mark speed to chase and tackle,Jamison doesn't smash Goddard when Goddard is throwing punches a Buckley on the ground..Henderson talks but doesn't hurt...Rowe has lost his mongrel...Curnow is a super 'clean' tagger..Carrazzo hasn't hurt anyone in a tackle in years...

the leaders at the Club can't or won't impose themselves physically or look after each other under provocation...there is no esprit de corps, none nada zip...
each player is playing for himself and the younger guns soon learn that that (for some reason) is the way things are..

Menzel was ferocious at the ball and at the man when he started for us, Buckley still has it, Tuohey has lost it- he has really become quite soft...

the standout equaliser type at Carlton today is without a doubt White - he has true leadership qualities as does Cripps - Cripps - Cripps wants to play against the best and beat them ...Bell has quietened down...Everitt for al his martial arts is no enforcer...Thomas fell over for Pendelbury in his first game against Collingwood...very funny 'Daisy' - and what message did that send out - the game is a joke...Walker has g it - I love Waker, Waite had it..and Yarran is developing it..in a different team he will o doubt go at blokes a lot harder and smarter..Warnock is the softest Ruckman I've ever seen play for anyone ..Kreuzer knows how to hurt blokes - ask Jolly.

People namby pamby around what leadership as far as contact sports goes is...firstly it is about being able to match it physically with anyone from the opposition side - and beat them whilst also helping your team mate..

Murphy and Gibbs can be fine players and Judd was a champion - but Carlton hasn't had a Captain ad certainly hasn't a true 'leadership' group for far too long - the whole Cub culture slowly decays when deprived of this prerequisite. Most opposition teams think that Carlton is soft for a reason.

That is what is wrong with culture and why it is a long haul from here..and maybe the unspoken stuff that malthouse looks for and can't find enough of..

I'm not surprised one iota that players like White developed under Malthouse or that Armfield's efforts are not highly respected by Malthouse - same as Ellard same as the young Clem Smith - Malthouse loves the hard at it players - and when he doesn't see it - he turns away. Malthouse can't afford the luxury of telling Gibbs ( for example) to go in hard and hurt a few blokes - or else...so he probably over compensates with younger player discipline..

maybe all Nick Graham has to do is show some mongrel along with everything else- Cripps has already earned respect from opposition...next to him -Clem Smith without a doubt has what a good side is looking for..

Malthouse just hasn't been able to tease the mongrel out of the more senior Carlton players...and that is his failure.

For mine - senior players are guilty of letting the club down or perhaps just lacking leadership pre-requisites, AND Malthouse is to blame for not finding a way to develop at the very least some true sprit de corps rea team morale - after three years. What I can't forgive malthouse for - is not getting our leaders up to the next level..and that is why we are where we are..

I'll never forget Ratten sending out a message to Marc Murphy one minute before Murphy was collected by Dangerfield " Marc go in hard "
that was Ratten telling Murph how to lift his team mates...Forget the injury Murph copped - that was an accident - and a part of the cost of being a professional footballer.

When Hodge took out Murphy though - or went flying through a contest collecting Henderson elbow to jaw and just missing Walker...it should have been on right there and then in both cases Hodge should never have been allowed to take out our Captain - and everyone just stand around hands on hips...

Malthouse has had three years to change the culture amongst senior players - three years..he has failed so far...picking Jones up was a very big mistake and Boekhurst better star hardening up sooner rather than later..Byrne and Shehan don't need to be told - they are genuine guns.

end rant/

 

[Stamos]

All good. Some of those weren't my opinions so I know it isn't all aimed at me.

However this is the classic catch 22 analysis.

If the players aren't following instructions and we are in the 3rd year of Mick's tenure, then why are we playing them still?

Would you normally implement a game plan and take 3 years to realise the players aren't up to it?

It seems to me that Mick having to take responsibility for a) the game plan or b) the fact that after 3 years player still won't follow the game plan, is inevitable.

Part of it is probably how much we've turned over the list in the last 18 months. You turn over that many players, there's going to be some pain.
And even just the number of players who've already played this year.

It's easier to adhere to the game plan when you've got Waite presenting (which is not to say we should have kept him).

However, I am extremely disappointed with how we are currently travelling. I think we have woefully under-performed so far this year.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I certainly dismiss it is a 'fact' that within 3 years a player should either be able to play under pressure or have been delisted.

I didn't say that though did I? I said recognise they won't stand up under pressure and do something about it. That may be sending them back to the VFL or it could be a trade.

Mick has presided largely over just two off-seasons, it takes more than that to address the issue.

This is his third season and we won't have a chance to do anything further about it until he has been here a full 3 years. Forget the semantics about not being able to do anything in his first pre-season. You can still evaluate a team and its strengths and weaknesses from afar.

I disagree that the guys we have brought in to replace the departed are showing no signs of standing up. By in large we're bringing in youth, and they will need a few years before they can deliver on a consistent basis. Since Mick has been coach we've added the likes of Menzel, Docherty, Cripps, Graham, Boekhorst, Jaksch, Whiley, Smith, Sheehan, Byrne, Viojo-Rainbow. They may not all make it, but we'll be well on the right track if the next 3 years produces something similar.

Of course but I am talking about the ones that are part of our best 22 and giving a yelp every game. The others are still potential.

As for the likes of Thomas, Everitt, Wood, Jones, Tutt, Everitt, Dick - you can't simply gut you're playing list without getting some mature bodies in. Teams hardly have access to the cream of the crop when needing to recruit mature players, some may work out, most may not, but all fill a role while that group of young players develop.

Yes and I can see sense in most of our trades. My point is that if our list was the problem when Mick came in, turning over the list should have started to change that, at least in terms of adhering to a game plan and effort.

So long as our leaders are made up of players that were developed in an unaccountable brand of football, the team will fail under pressure.

You can't buy in enough leaders, so right now we don't have any other choice - they need to be developed in house.

If our leaders are the problem, then they shouldn't be leaders. Fine to carry them for their talent but leaders set the example. You can point to a dearth of leaders but any leader is better than one that sets a poor example.

Give Mick another 3 - 5 years and I have confidence he and our young players will deliver in spades.

6-8 years in total, based on faith. You'd at least understand why you're not going to get everybody on the same page.

 

[Cipher]

6-8 years in total, based on faith. You'd at least understand why you're not going to get everybody on the same page.

Mick has a 30+ year coaching record for which to judge him on, we have a little more than just faith.

Thompson had been given 7 years before delivering one, Roos and Clarkson had delivered one in 9 years. It takes time.

On the other end of the scale, Eade has been given 17 years, Lyon given 11 years and Hardwick and Scott 7 years despite not yet delivering one.

Faith is Port backing Hinkley. I'm more than happy for Mick to have 6-8 years in total with us.

 

[BM123]

All good. Some of those weren't my opinions so I know it isn't all aimed at me.

However this is the classic catch 22 analysis.

If the players aren't following instructions and we are in the 3rd year of Mick's tenure, then why are we playing them still?

Would you normally implement a game plan and take 3 years to realise the players aren't up to it?

It seems to me that Mick having to take responsibility for a) the game plan or b) the fact that after 3 years player still won't follow the game plan, is inevitable.

Port took a year to really get Hinkley's plan going.

Same with Freo who were awful to watch in 2012. In 2013 they clicked.

It's been three years and we have regressed badly. Slow kicks down the line and low risk footy is the only thing we ever seem to do at times.

 

[blueboy25]

Port took a year to really get Hinkley's plan going.

Same with Freo who were awful to watch in 2012. In 2013 they clicked.

It's been three years and we have regressed badly. Slow kicks down the line and low risk footy is the only thing we ever seem to do at times.

Port and Freo had the cattle, we don't at this stage

 

[BM123]

Port and Freo had the cattle, we don't at this stage

Port and Freo looked terrible before their respective coaches came.

We know the gameplan. It's just crap.

 

[chunkylover53]

Port and Freo had the cattle, we don't at this stage

This is a myth.

No one rated Ports list. They were listless, with no leaders and broke. In comes the coach and turns everything around and everyone says 'oh but we knew Port had the talent'. They genuinely ****ing sucked.

 

[blueboy25]

Port and Freo looked terrible before their respective coaches came.

We know the gameplan. It's just crap.

So how many Ross Lyon picks are currently playing for the dockers, the majority of their players were already there.

 

[BM123]

So how many Ross Lyon picks are currently playing for the dockers, the majority of their players were already there.

Quite a few of their players were seen to be lazy or just spuds until Lyon came to Freo.

 

[GT619]

Well then we're in agreement is that was a short-sighted, arrogant and misguided move by the club to say Ratts.

Mind you, I still believe some players that year were happy to see Ratts gone, I recall Hampson chucking a wobbly over being benched/subbed out against the Suns on the Gold Coast.

We absolutely have to go through due diligence on our next coach, assemble a expert footy panel to interview and evaluate our next coach, IE Gerard Healy and others of that ilk.

I don't mind ol Woosha as our next coach, problem is, I honestly heard Mathieson wanted Worsfold to replace Mick as coach in the middle of last season, and if we hired him, it shows we are still in the thrall of the pokies king ..

Why worsfold

 

[crizis]

This is a myth.

No one rated Ports list. They were listless, with no leaders and broke. In comes the coach and turns everything around and everyone says 'oh but we knew Port had the talent'. They genuinely ******* sucked.

Have to disagree there, remember distinctly that questions were asked about why the "star" draftees werent coming on or why they werent getting on the park or why they kept getting injured. Im talking wingard, harlett and co.

 

[chunkylover53]

Have to disagree there, remember distinctly that questions were asked about why the "star" draftees werent coming on or why they werent getting on the park or why they kept getting injured. Im talking wingard, harlett and co.

What star draftees?

Butcher? He's still no good.

All I remember was everyone saying they're draft picks have turned out to be bust.

They had no good kids coming through, a handful of aging players and their only leader in Boak was underperforming and about to walk. They were considered a terrible list.

 

[rp84]

Please no hasbeen coaches

 

[OldSaintsBro]

Warning old front rower and rugby coach rant coming:

Murphy sometimes takes backwards steps and too often over acts to draw a free...Gibbs is an expert at half steps and corralling with arms out wide - preferring to make some kind of tackle after the opponent gets the ball - Judd never hardly ever uses his explosive off the mark speed to chase and tackle,Jamison doesn't smash Goddard when Goddard is throwing punches a Buckley on the ground..Henderson talks but doesn't hurt...Rowe has lost his mongrel...Curnow is a super 'clean' tagger..Carrazzo hasn't hurt anyone in a tackle in years...

the leaders at the Club can't or won't impose themselves physically or look after each other under provocation...there is no esprit de corps, none nada zip...
each player is playing for himself and the younger guns soon learn that that (for some reason) is the way things are..

Menzel was ferocious at the ball and at the man when he started for us, Buckley still has it, Tuohey has lost it- he has really become quite soft...

the standout equaliser type at Carlton today is without a doubt White - he has true leadership qualities as does Cripps - Cripps - Cripps wants to play against the best and beat them ...Bell has quietened down...Everitt for al his martial arts is no enforcer...Thomas fell over for Pendelbury in his first game against Collingwood...very funny 'Daisy' - and what message did that send out - the game is a joke...Walker has g it - I love Waker, Waite had it..and Yarran is developing it..in a different team he will o doubt go at blokes a lot harder and smarter..Warnock is the softest Ruckman I've ever seen play for anyone ..Kreuzer knows how to hurt blokes - ask Jolly.

People namby pamby around what leadership as far as contact sports goes is...firstly it is about being able to match it physically with anyone from the opposition side - and beat them whilst also helping your team mate..

Murphy and Gibbs can be fine players and Judd was a champion - but Carlton hasn't had a Captain ad certainly hasn't a true 'leadership' group for far too long - the whole Cub culture slowly decays when deprived of this prerequisite. Most opposition teams think that Carlton is soft for a reason.

That is what is wrong with culture and why it is a long haul from here..and maybe the unspoken stuff that malthouse looks for and can't find enough of..

I'm not surprised one iota that players like White developed under Malthouse or that Armfield's efforts are not highly respected by Malthouse - same as Ellard same as the young Clem Smith - Malthouse loves the hard at it players - and when he doesn't see it - he turns away. Malthouse can't afford the luxury of telling Gibbs ( for example) to go in hard and hurt a few blokes - or else...so he probably over compensates with younger player discipline..

maybe all Nick Graham has to do is show some mongrel along with everything else- Cripps has already earned respect from opposition...next to him -Clem Smith without a doubt has what a good side is looking for..

Malthouse just hasn't been able to tease the mongrel out of the more senior Carlton players...and that is his failure.

For mine - senior players are guilty of letting the club down or perhaps just lacking leadership pre-requisites, AND Malthouse is to blame for not finding a way to develop at the very least some true sprit de corps rea team morale - after three years. What I can't forgive malthouse for - is not getting our leaders up to the next level..and that is why we are where we are..

I'll never forget Ratten sending out a message to Marc Murphy one minute before Murphy was collected by Dangerfield " Marc go in hard "
that was Ratten telling Murph how to lift his team mates...Forget the injury Murph copped - that was an accident - and a part of the cost of being a professional footballer.

When Hodge took out Murphy though - or went flying through a contest collecting Henderson elbow to jaw and just missing Walker...it should have been on right there and then in both cases Hodge should never have been allowed to take out our Captain - and everyone just stand around hands on hips...

Malthouse has had three years to change the culture amongst senior players - three years..he has failed so far...picking Jones up was a very big mistake and Boekhurst better star hardening up sooner rather than later..Byrne and Shehan don't need to be told - they are genuine guns.

end rant/

POTY. Nail on the head. On the button. Too true. Spot on.

No game plan will work in aussie rules football without on field leadership. On field leadership is what the game demands to be a good team. Good on field leadership can not exist in a rugged game like ar football without the leaders being physical themselves.

Great post JAB. You can see it and I can see it so surely there must be plenty of others? Or maybe we a just wrong?

 

[Peacock]

Freo's list would have only been rated middle of the pack when Lyon took over, he then was able to toughen them up and get them playing a level of footy Harvey never would have been able to - this is what Mick promised the board he was going to do for us.

and Port were an absolute basket case, IRC about 3-4 potential coaches said they didn't even want to be interviewed (which is unheard of in the AFL) because it was a club with no money and an awful playing list. Hinkley was basically their last choice.

Also flicking around the radio in the car tonight I surprisingly heard Mick being interviewed on SEN (I think it was for the full hour, missed the first 20 mins).
As he has in the past, he continued to go on about how there's no point trying to play a game plan like Hawthorn or the top teams do. He was also saying that it took 4/5 years at Collingwood playing a certain way before 2010 premiership.
So my question is... how long do we play with the stone age game plan before we switch to a modern game plan that allows us to be competitive? 4 years? then when the talent is good enough we re-learn a brand new game plan? so then another 5 years??
Had he taken the Port job instead of Hinkely, he'd have them playing this stone age game plan and saying 'ohhh well, we don't have the talent'.
He is seriously deluded.

Given his core beliefs as outlined above, if he stays on as coach, how much longer do we have to put up with this crap game plan for? 2 years? 3 years? maybe he won't deem the talent good enough by then.. so 4 years 5 years???
Just end this nonsense now and move on.

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Woosha emerging as front runner for Carlton job.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/af...as-carlton-coach/story-fniv64qq-1227356309990

dunno how i feel about this. I would rather go untried than woosha in my opinion.

Meh. Another few months and we'll accept anyone.

 

[DaVillaBlues]

What star draftees?

Butcher? He's still no good.

All I remember was everyone saying they're draft picks have turned out to be bust.

They had no good kids coming through, a handful of aging players and their only leader in Boak was underperforming and about to walk. They were considered a terrible list.

Robbie Gray, Hamish Hartlett, Broadbent, Chad Wingard, Jackson Trengove, Alipate Carlisle, Matthew Lobbe, were all on Port's list before Ken Hinkley arrived. Saying Port had no good kids coming through before Hinkley arrived is not strictly true mate. They lucked out picking up Ollie Wines in Hinkley's first draft as Port Coach