PDA

View Full Version : Wallace aggressive till the end - Mick says it backfired


1980GFVideo
20 Feb 2005, 11:55
Malthouse on attack over Tiger tactics
By Melissa Ryan
February 19, 2005

Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse last night praised the fighting spirit of his Magpies and aimed a swipe at Richmond counterpart Terry Wallace, saying Wallace's all-out attacking style was easily exploited in the last quarter as the Magpies snatched victory in the opening round of the Wizard Cup.

Richmond was 25 points up eight minutes into the final term, but Malthouse said the pressing attack of Richmond - rather than trying to adopt a more defensive attitude to ensure victory - played into the Magpies' hands. Collingwood kicked five of the next six goals and won by seven points.

"The comeback was terrific, just the never-say-die attitude is so vital in a club's test of its hunger . . ." Malthouse said.

"I think the game plan that Richmond have under their coach - and this is not a criticism, I think this is probably an asset that I certainly haven't got - I reckon when you're 25 points in front or thereabouts, I tend to think, 'Blow the siren, I'd take it'. Whereas Terry, traditionally and historically, has gone 25 (points), 'Let's go to 50', and that is breaking the back of the opposition and quite often that does take place.

"How many games are won by an extra couple of goals and you think that's really cheap goals? What it is, is just rubbing the opposition to the ground. But doing that sometimes opens up the floodgates and if you persevere long enough and things get turned around . . . then sometimes you can latch on to a couple of goals, which give you the confidence to get back or win the game."

Malthouse was pleased with star forwards Anthony Rocca and Chris Tarrant. Rocca is coming back from ankle surgery, while Tarrant has had an interrupted pre-season. "(Tarrant) taking 10 marks, he's going to be a very, very dangerous player to stop," Malthouse said.

The Pies will head to Darwin for the second week of the Wizard Cup, and with hot, humid conditions likely, Malthouse said he would be "careful" with the team to be selected.

Wallace said the Tigers had tried to save the game in the last term "and it hurt us".

"When you get that far in front you should win a game of footy and we tried to save it . . . and you learn very, very quickly that you can't save footy games," he said.

Wallace was happy with the Tigers' ability to attack and run. "We spoke about playing a bit more creative and attacking footy. With the exception of the second quarter, I thought we did that pretty well."

Defender Jay Schulz went to hospital for X-rays on his foot.


See Here for full article (http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/02/18/1108709442422.html)

Im happy for Wallace not to shut down shop in those situations. Id prefer us to take the aggressive attitude. We lost the game against Fremantle because we tried to save the game after half time.

I get the feeling Malthouse isnt a fan of Wallace.

mrs_richo
20 Feb 2005, 12:09
I get the feeling half of Malthouse's comments are authorised by Eddie.

tigerT
20 Feb 2005, 13:08
theres history between these too dont u worry ab that :D

some fun times ahead i think, but for the time being i dont wallace will get sucked into a war of words with any coach, hes focused on building a competitive unit ala pagan

Calcium Man
20 Feb 2005, 13:15
Malthouse is a real ********, he now only makes comments to get a reaction going down the sheedy path a bit but with less actual knowledge.

oxx
20 Feb 2005, 13:21
Part of gowing up is realising that some of your childhood heroes are and must have been full of siht.

Last year I began to realise this about Malthouse.

Nothing worse than a sihtman trying on silk.

jezza
20 Feb 2005, 13:35
If some of you actually got beyond thinking "hang on, someone just said something bad about us, I better bag them out" and thought about what he said, you would realise he was right.

oxx
20 Feb 2005, 13:42
If some of you actually got beyond thinking "hang on, someone just said something bad about us, I better bag them out" and thought about what he said, you would realise he was right.
They guy is outspoken and mis-informed in general.

As Harry Hassle-me -off says,Its his BS Philosophical attempts at emotional fung shui that expose him as a ********er.

Weaver
20 Feb 2005, 13:43
Im happy for Wallace not to shut down shop in those situations. Id prefer us to take the aggressive attitude. We lost the game against Fremantle because we tried to save the game after half time.

Wallace tried to shut it down by playing with a lose man in defence. It was the move that cost us the game. While Andy Kellaway and then Mark Graham were double-teaming Rocca (even though Tarrant was their main target), Collingwood had an extra midfielder at the clearances.

If Wallace was going to do that he had to bring the small forwards onto the ball to create numbers, but he left them as a 6-man forward line. Malthouse is right.

missionpossible
20 Feb 2005, 13:45
the comments were made like usual to the reporter so that malthouse didnt get asked why they could dominate a game all against a bottom team and still only win by a kick.

cairo tiger
20 Feb 2005, 15:56
malthouse was outcoached but they come away with it. Wallace will drum it inot them to not do this again until thier brain hurts

hotdogandsauce
20 Feb 2005, 19:10
in a way he was saying that he doesnt have the fortitude to coach like wallace....

running attacking football will leave u exposed, but once we have all the right pawns in place (players) its gonna b hard to stop....

Rodgerramjet
20 Feb 2005, 21:38
If some of you actually got beyond thinking "hang on, someone just said something bad about us, I better bag them out" and thought about what he said, you would realise he was right.
No he's not right, not by a loooonnnggg shot

madtiger2005
20 Feb 2005, 21:42
Why was Wallace double teaming Rocca? When does Rocca ever get double teamed? lol

jezza
20 Feb 2005, 23:01
No he's not right, not by a loooonnnggg shot

Really? Seems pretty accurate to me, we went all out attack and ended up losing the game when we were in a very strong position. What makes you think that wasn't the case?

Punt_Road_Roar
21 Feb 2005, 00:43
you cant please everyone!

I'd rather see our team have a crack at being attacking and entertaining than the defensive crap we have being dished up with over the past few seasons


MEMO TO ALL:


WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO !!!! GIVE THE TEAM A CHANCE OF CHANGING ITS GAMEPLAN FFS, you win some you lose some, a win would have been great but its the preseason competition for crying out loud.

1980GFVideo
21 Feb 2005, 07:55
To make up for the last twenty years I think its important to be an entertaining team aswell as a good team.

We dont want to be the type of side that needs to turn it into a sh*tfight.

What better way of defending a lead than by getting another goal. Im happy to take some losses like this for the rewards.

Besides its so UNFRAWLEY that i loved it.

Should be a new word in dictionary UNFRAWLEY: Posotive football with desire to actually score.

IDGAF
21 Feb 2005, 11:19
Wallace tried to shut it down by playing with a lose man in defence. It was the move that cost us the game. While Andy Kellaway and then Mark Graham were double-teaming Rocca (even though Tarrant was their main target), Collingwood had an extra midfielder at the clearances.

If Wallace was going to do that he had to bring the small forwards onto the ball to create numbers, but he left them as a 6-man forward line. Malthouse is right.So friggin what if Malthouse is right .....

How hard is it to be right after the fact ?

Fact is , i could not give a continental about Malthouses` proses , the man is a tool who has shown the RFC absolutly no respect for over 15 years now and i am sure that TW is not silly enough to sucked into a petty " Me said , She Said BS " war of words with that idiot .

Worry about your own backyard , and ply your own intellect to where you are being paid to ......... heaven knows , with the experienced , hardened outfit they had out on the park the other night , i would be worried about how close we got to them .