Opinion Mick Malthouse

What is the next move on Mick?

  • Sack him immediately; replacement coach to see out the year.

    Votes: 192 48.9%

  • Let him coach out the year then show him the door.

    Votes: 70 17.8%

  • Sign him now to give coaches and players some direction.

    Votes: 81 20.6%

  • Not sure yet... still too angry to think clearly.

    Votes: 50 12.7%
  • Total voters
    393
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
HARKER said:
I understand that Duigan was told he won't be seeing senior action, wasn't happy and opted out.

Bootsma presented issues well before Malthouse came along.
Malthouse couldn't get him in order any more than Clarkson could with Garlett. Unfortunate but it happens.

Scotland is still involved indirectly as a NB coach for now.

Laidlers situation was unfortunate. Slowed down after knee issues.
Click to expand...

Re the bolded bit, Duigan and Laidler were in the same boat given their very similar attributes.
 
Windhover said:
Well it would be if you explained your dismissal of my opinion (as explained, not "dressed up as fact"). Instead you choose to explore my psychology in the rather tedious way those with nothing original to say usually do so, thus . . .

How about, having followed the debate, you get down and dirty and explain why you disagree with my opinions as explained. Who knows, you might force me to reconsider my opinion.

From the above I infer you at least agree with me that there is no evidence that the team has yet made any significant progress under MM. Why you think giving MM a third year when there has been no sign of progress after 2 years is a puzzle to me. It didn't take Melbourne 2 years to get rid of Neeld.

Surely on the MM thread it would be inappropriate to move on to another topic? Or do you have in mind erudite discussion on this thread of what MM had for breakfast whilst our team slums it on the ladder with no discernible game plan, no discernible improvement and nfi how we are going to change things other than to "improve the list" so that it is good enough for MM to coach it.
Click to expand...

I am using the loss of Laidler as evidence that MM can't coach.
I am using the loss of Duigan as evidence that MM can't coach.
I am using the loss of Scotty as evidence that MM can't coach.
I am using the loss of Bootsma as evidence that MM can't coach.
I am using the recruitment of Daisy as evidence that MM can't coach.

Opinion dressed up as fact.

You compare the situation of a 700 game coach with 3 premierships and 7 grand final appearances that is trying to transition a team to Neeld who had no runs on the board to fall back on after being belted week in week out? Seriously?

Insofar as measuring progress, that is not so clear cut. There are some good signs, and indeed some disappointments. Unlike you I can see both, and based on this, am happy to see MM see out his contract, or at the very least, if there is more pain next year, make it clear at some point during the season we are on the hunt for a new coach.

You bring nothing original to this discussion, rather you use it as a forum to bash MM which is now boring. You've made your opinion clear, more than once. Move on.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Hopefully some of the MM haters finally saw what he can do as a coach last night. Against a more skilfull team, we lost it at the final hurdle. Same against Geelong. The question mark I have was against the clubs "we should beat" like Melbourne & Brisbane. Against Freo and the Cats, lapse of concentration for a second resulted in losses.
You can see the boys are starting to play for each other- I bet Crowley is a tad ginger today. We haven't had that for god knows how long.
Good work MM and great seeing the players come along too.
 
Windhover said:
It is not that MM has imperfections that matters. What matters is the conclusion reached having identified those imperfections. As his friend Neeld correctly observed MM has forgotten plenty about coaching (more than many of us, me for one, have known). IMO MM has forgotten enough for it to be plain he cannot take us to a Premiership. Hence he must go.

On this basis of course we want a coach who knows enough to take us to a premiership. I readily admit to no knowledge who that might be. Anyone the Club appointed would have to be given a chance to prove they could take us all the way. It would not be Neeld, obviously. I like Voss - but strictly on the condition that he had no say in respect of recruitment of players other than to provide the recruiters with a description of the sort of player he wanted.
Click to expand...

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win
 
MM was awesome last night and it's showing in the group how good he actually is.
The squad we sent out by no means should have been within 10 goals of Freo.
Freo maybe off and a few injuries would have hurt them, but a top 4 spot was on line the and we had a plan and it worked for most of the night.
Can't coach "my ass"!!!
 
Blue since 72 said:
Mick is specific about his mix of defenders (check out his players in the back half from his days at the Eagles and the Pies). Pure KP stoppers in Rowe and Jamison and smaller rebound defenders with pace in Yarran, Buckley, Walker etc. Laidler didn't fit what Mick wanted from his defenders. Was an in between size, wasn't blessed with pace and was more a third man up style defender. Mick gave him opportunity to find another position which laidler didn't succeed at so was allowed to effectively look elsewhere before the season ended.
Click to expand...
There is much in what you post. I agree with you that Laidler did not meet MM specifications for a defender and I accept that given his past coaching record MM is entitled to bring his footy philosophy and apply it. Mitchell White was a similar, though taller and more talented example than Laidler of that philosophy. That said, the fact remains that MM did not maximise the talent latent in Laidler (or White, even though he was in the 92 premiership side). To that extent MM has failed to maximise the talent available to him and is a mark against him.

Secondly, the game has probably changed a bit since the early 90s. What was novel then (the MM 18 man defensive unit) is now just part of the scenery for coaches like the Scotts who didn't even start playing AFL until afterwards. I do not want to sound ageist but MM's inflexible insistence on a game plan rooted in the early 90s (as you acknowledge) is the perfect description of a "has been".

Blue since 72 said:
Longmire using Laidler doesn't mean Mick can't coach, it just means Laidler is playing his role in a very good team (Injuries to guys like Rhyce Shaw have probably helped his cause). As you are aware we're not a very good team and in Mick's eye's playing Laidler as a defender wasn't going to make us much better.
Click to expand...
I agree we are not a very good team, for which I blame the coach. I do not agree that we do not have a good list. I think we do.

Blue since 72 said:
Duigan succumbed to an ongoing knee injury however he was also in the same boat as Laidler. There wasn't a spot in Mick's team for a defender of his size, style and speed. How does this equate to Mick can't coach? You can't maximise talents the player doesn't have in the first place.

Scotland succumbed to a career ending injury. Hardly evidence that Mick can't coach.

Bootsma was just a very naughty boy. Not everybody has the physical, and just as importantly, the mental stones to crack the big league.
Click to expand...
You are missing my point in relation to Duigan, Scotland and Bootsma. My point is that none of the 3 players was mentally/physically equipped to play AFL in season 2014. A good coach might err in respect of one player, but a coach who does not "know" (often well before the player does) that the player is not up to the rigours of a full season collects a black mark each time. Such an error in respect of three players is IMO very difficult to excuse. It means nearly 10% of the list are turning up for training, attending coaching sessions, doing weights, thinking "am I really up to it", or, in Bootsma's case, "XXX". A good coach must know what is going on in his players mind, at least to the extent of the player's commitment and belief that he can play the season.

Blue since 72 said:
Daisy is a known quantity and Mick has taken a leap of faith that he will get back to his best. The reason for his pay packet has been discussed ad nauseum (ie the reality is you will pay overs to get a free agent). Once again, given that Daisy has come off a low base and is playing catch up it's too early to suggest he's a failure and too early to add him to a list of reasons why Mick can't coach.
Click to expand...
As you say MM has taken a leap of faith but that is because Daisy is not a known quantity. As for it being too early to assess perhaps you can answer the question I have previously posed: What injury enables an AFL footballer to play every game of a season without being subbed off and yet will subsequently resolve so the AFL footballer will play at a higher level? Alternatively, if Daisy was coming off such a low base at the start of the season that, by the end of the season he had still not "caught up", why has he played every game in the seniors? Surely say 5 weeks solid training and playing in the magoos would have sorted out his limited preseason.
IMO because Daisy is a favourite son of MM, for that very reason it was ill-advised to recruit him (like recruiting C Johnson under Ratts). The fact that he was under an injury cloud and had to be paid overs only adds to it. The fact that he has played every game and not been subbed despite a number of sub-AFL standard games only adds to the problem - a sense of team cohesion, one among equals on a mission.


Blue since 72 said:
I could toss up an equal number of players who have improved under Mick and tbh, suggesting that the above guys leaving the club is evidence Mick can't coach is really bordering on the ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I hope you now understand that pointing out individual players who have improved under MM would not remove the black marks. All it would do is potentially put in white marks, evidence of his undoubted on-going ability to coach.

Blue since 72 said:
When Mick has served his tenure and either been asked to leave or goes of his own accord then we can judge him. Judging him now achieves what exactly? So if he does fail people can satisfy themselves with an "I told you so" moment?
Click to expand...
Give me a break. Even MM would acknowledge that he is to be judged (like all of us) on an on-going basis. AFL clubs do not have the luxury of "setting and forgetting" in respect of players, officials or coaches. Members and supporters of AFL Clubs not only have the right to judge their coach during his tenure, IMO it is absolutely vital to the health of a Club that this scrutiny be engaged.

As to how much time one should give a coach to prove himself at a club, naturally this will vary. I withheld judging MM until halfway through the second quarter of our second game this year against Richmond. I have elsewhere explained the systemic failures of MM's coaching (by no means restricted to my comments above) that led me to pronounce that if we were to win a flag MM must go. Since then I have seen overwhelming evidence to further entrench my opinion and next to nothing to oppose it.

So what does my judging achieve and why do I share it? Answer: Like all of us I want Premierships. Since I do not think we can win one under MM (or even come close) IMO it is pointless to discuss who might be recruited to improve the list. It will not matter. Unless and until MM is gone I have no hope for us. What this means is that I can now watch the footy as I did last night. I can scream at the umpires for not awarding holding the ball decisions against Freo and enjoy watching us play good quality, if wasteful, footy. But, when the game is over and we have lost, again, because the coach of the other side said to his depleted squad "we are going to have to attack, we are not going to win this sitting back and defending" I was able to see and enjoy how a good coach could press the button and get his team to play what ultimately proved to be winning football. And I can dream that one day we will have a coach that can do the same thing. Then I get to watch MM give another of his comedy routines after the match.

The sooner others come to my realisation the more likely MM is to retire early and the sooner I can hope for us to win another premiership.

Blue since 72 said:
He's our club's current coach and is half way through a contract. You don't have to agree with his appointment or how it came about but at the very least you should give him the courtesy of a fair go.
Click to expand...

I agree and think I have given him a fair go (about 18 months actually). MM is now nearly 2/3rds through his contract.

Blue since 72 said:
By the way, his coaching record to date looks far more impressive than a fair portion of the half arsed opinions flying around on here.
Click to expand...
Again I agree with you but would say that MM's coaching record has been far more impressive than all the half arsed opinions flying around here. He is a has been. His coaching record with us on the other hand is deplorable and, however you measure it on this I think we can all agree.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HARKER said:
.................and there goes Laidler.

Omitted and it won't be easy getting back.
Click to expand...
Are we to assume from this comment (on this thread) that you think my argument that MM can't coach (to win a premiership) is somehow diminished by the fact that Laidler has been omitted and maybe won't get back into the team? Why? Remembering particularly that we let him go and kept Duigan, Scotty and Bootsma. How does Laidler being dropped enhance respect for MM's ability to maximise the talent available to him? Or do you think clubs should only keep players who are in the best 22?
 
Windhover, we understand u don't like the man. But don't use a personal and unjust vendetta to blanket the fact that he is a great coach.

Our list management has been disgusting for the past 10 years. That is why we are a poor side, most of it attributes to ratten and his lack of player development and talent identification.

Give malthouse the team ratten had when we made the semi final and see how he goes.

Have patience, Mick is the man to lead this club. It's time for ALL the players to get onboard. We still have lazy and uncommitted players.
 
Butera said:
Windhover, we understand u don't like the man. But don't use a personal and unjust vendetta to blanket the fact that he is a great coach.

Our list management has been disgusting for the past 10 years. That is why we are a poor side, most of it attributes to ratten and his lack of player development and talent identification.

Give malthouse the team ratten had when we made the semi final and see how he goes.

Have patience, Mick is the man to lead this club. It's time for ALL the players to get onboard. We still have lazy and uncommitted players.
Click to expand...

I think u should edit your post. Windhover likes Mick, but just doesn't think he will take us to a premiership.
Run through yesterday's posts to save you a day of banter ;)
PS i like the rest of your post!
 
HARKER said:
.................and there goes Laidler.

Omitted and it won't be easy getting back.
Click to expand...
Was exposed against the Hawks and other teams would have taken note.

Reckon they will make a play for Walker if we are making one for Mitchell.

As far as Mick goes, I am all aboard after last night's showing and I would say the players are too.

Is Windhover 40 Year Blue reincarnated, or just channelling him?
 
Windhover said:
There is much in what you post. I agree with you that Laidler did not meet MM specifications for a defender and I accept that given his past coaching record MM is entitled to bring his footy philosophy and apply it. Mitchell White was a similar, though taller and more talented example than Laidler of that philosophy. That said, the fact remains that MM did not maximise the talent latent in Laidler (or White, even though he was in the 92 premiership side). To that extent MM has failed to maximise the talent available to him and is a mark against him.

Secondly, the game has probably changed a bit since the early 90s. What was novel then (the MM 18 man defensive unit) is now just part of the scenery for coaches like the Scotts who didn't even start playing AFL until afterwards. I do not want to sound ageist but MM's inflexible insistence on a game plan rooted in the early 90s (as you acknowledge) is the perfect description of a "has been".


I agree we are not a very good team, for which I blame the coach. I do not agree that we do not have a good list. I think we do.


You are missing my point in relation to Duigan, Scotland and Bootsma. My point is that none of the 3 players was mentally/physically equipped to play AFL in season 2014. A good coach might err in respect of one player, but a coach who does not "know" (often well before the player does) that the player is not up to the rigours of a full season collects a black mark each time. Such an error in respect of three players is IMO very difficult to excuse. It means nearly 10% of the list are turning up for training, attending coaching sessions, doing weights, thinking "am I really up to it", or, in Bootsma's case, "XXX". A good coach must know what is going on in his players mind, at least to the extent of the player's commitment and belief that he can play the season.


As you say MM has taken a leap of faith but that is because Daisy is not a known quantity. As for it being too early to assess perhaps you can answer the question I have previously posed: What injury enables an AFL footballer to play every game of a season without being subbed off and yet will subsequently resolve so the AFL footballer will play at a higher level? Alternatively, if Daisy was coming off such a low base at the start of the season that, by the end of the season he had still not "caught up", why has he played every game in the seniors? Surely say 5 weeks solid training and playing in the magoos would have sorted out his limited preseason.
IMO because Daisy is a favourite son of MM, for that very reason it was ill-advised to recruit him (like recruiting C Johnson under Ratts). The fact that he was under an injury cloud and had to be paid overs only adds to it. The fact that he has played every game and not been subbed despite a number of sub-AFL standard games only adds to the problem - a sense of team cohesion, one among equals on a mission.



I hope you now understand that pointing out individual players who have improved under MM would not remove the black marks. All it would do is potentially put in white marks, evidence of his undoubted on-going ability to coach.


Give me a break. Even MM would acknowledge that he is to be judged (like all of us) on an on-going basis. AFL clubs do not have the luxury of "setting and forgetting" in respect of players, officials or coaches. Members and supporters of AFL Clubs not only have the right to judge their coach during his tenure, IMO it is absolutely vital to the health of a Club that this scrutiny be engaged.

As to how much time one should give a coach to prove himself at a club, naturally this will vary. I withheld judging MM until halfway through the second quarter of our second game this year against Richmond. I have elsewhere explained the systemic failures of MM's coaching (by no means restricted to my comments above) that led me to pronounce that if we were to win a flag MM must go. Since then I have seen overwhelming evidence to further entrench my opinion and next to nothing to oppose it.

So what does my judging achieve and why do I share it? Answer: Like all of us I want Premierships. Since I do not think we can win one under MM (or even come close) IMO it is pointless to discuss who might be recruited to improve the list. It will not matter. Unless and until MM is gone I have no hope for us. What this means is that I can now watch the footy as I did last night. I can scream at the umpires for not awarding holding the ball decisions against Freo and enjoy watching us play good quality, if wasteful, footy. But, when the game is over and we have lost, again, because the coach of the other side said to his depleted squad "we are going to have to attack, we are not going to win this sitting back and defending" I was able to see and enjoy how a good coach could press the button and get his team to play what ultimately proved to be winning football. And I can dream that one day we will have a coach that can do the same thing. Then I get to watch MM give another of his comedy routines after the match.

The sooner others come to my realisation the more likely MM is to retire early and the sooner I can hope for us to win another premiership.



I agree and think I have given him a fair go (about 18 months actually). MM is now nearly 2/3rds through his contract.


Again I agree with you but would say that MM's coaching record has been far more impressive than all the half arsed opinions flying around here. He is a has been. His coaching record with us on the other hand is deplorable and, however you measure it on this I think we can all agree.
Click to expand...
Well done for taking the time to explain your opinions.

Having said that, I disagree with you. The reason you are wrong is summed up in one sentence that you wrote in the above post:

Windhover said:
I agree we are not a very good team, for which I blame the coach. I do not agree that we do not have a good list. I think we do.
Click to expand...
This is the cornerstone of all your arguments and it is wrong. Not even arguable in my opinion.

We have some very good players, we have some good players, we have a LOT of ordinary players. The fact we can get so close to teams like Geelong, Hawthorn, Fremantle and (for a half) Sydney is a testament to this. The list is simply not good enough. When it is, Malthouse' skills as a coach and ability to coach teams with a strategy that goes deep into finals will be shown.
 
Windhover said:
Are we to assume from this comment (on this thread) that you think my argument that MM can't coach (to win a premiership) is somehow diminished by the fact that Laidler has been omitted and maybe won't get back into the team? Why? Remembering particularly that we let him go and kept Duigan, Scotty and Bootsma. How does Laidler being dropped enhance respect for MM's ability to maximise the talent available to him? Or do you think clubs should only keep players who are in the best 22?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not but I think the squad should consist of personnel that are as close as buying into the system as possible.
Sometimes you may lose talent (as we will this year) but ideally you want 44 players that will bleed for one another.

We didn't have that a couple of years back but we seem to be so much closer to it now. Definitely much closer.
 
I'm assuming Longmire will be on the receiving end of a good rant for dropping Laidler?
 
etsal1 said:
I'm assuming Longmire will be on the receiving end of a good rant for dropping Laidler?
Click to expand...

Don't be like that. :)

Malthouse didn't like our list when he walked in and is intent on shaping it the way he sees fit.
Now that may not be good enough in the end but he hasn't swayed from what he knows to be right........for him.

The only player we lost last year that I genuinely felt sorry for was O'Keeffe and it was injuries that cruelled his career.
That was the case with Laidler to a point also but one doesn't start making demands on his coach. That will rarely work out well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top