Opinion Mick Malthouse

[DaVillaBlues]

Mick won one grand final in 12 seasons at Collingwood. A monkey could've coached the eagles to its two premierships with the quality it had oozing from the list. He is given far too much credence. This is a business, not a charity. If he can't deliver then move on.

What ill-informed rot .. Collingwood were a rabble for many years before Mick took over .. Fairly close to winning 2 flags with the Pies (they were very unlucky in 2002, that Rocca point was absolutely 100 % a goal)

We ain't in premiership contention for a good while yet, I am sorry to say, replacing Mick now would be pointless, and only serve to reinforce that we are still a panic-driven club, ruthlessly chewing coaches up and spitting them out after a couple of lean years (especially when you factor in the injuries, which isn't Mick's fault)

Mick isn't going to win a premiership at Carlton, but he is building the foundations for our next coach (hopefully a young-ish with great credentials like Leigh Tudor or Stuart Dew) to have a crack.

As it stands now, I reckon 8 wins this season would be a decent return, we are now paying the piper for years of awful recruiting and trading and player development Port aside, in recent times, sacking a coach does not guarantee dramatic improvement the following year..

Its all about getting 50 plus games into the likes of Menzel, Cripps, Buckley, Graham, BB etc, wins are immaterial to me, young player development and nurturing is the key (something Mick excels at)

 

[RAPPA]

What ill-informed rot .. Collingwood were a rabble for many years before Mick took over .. Fairly close to winning 2 flags with the Pies (they were very unlucky in 2002, that Rocca point was absolutely 100 % a goal)

We ain't in premiership contention for a good while yet, I am sorry to say, replacing Mick now would be pointless, and only serve to reinforce that we are still a panic-driven club, ruthlessly chewing coaches up and spitting them out after a couple of lean years (especially when you factor in the injuries, which isn't Mick's fault)

Mick isn't going to win a premiership at Carlton, but he is building the foundations for our next coach (hopefully a young-ish with great credentials like Leigh Tudor or Stuart Dew) to have a crack.

As it stands now, I reckon 8 wins this season would be a decent return, we are now paying the piper for years of awful recruiting and trading and player development Port aside, in recent times, sacking a coach does not guarantee dramatic improvement the following year..

Its all about getting 50 plus games into the likes of Menzel, Cripps, Buckley, Graham, BB etc, wins are immaterial to me, young player development and nurturing is the key (something Mick excels at)

Collingwood suffered two very lean years prior to Malthouse assuming the role. In his first year they finished 15th, then the commenced their roll.

By the time they started their move, they had the necessary experience injected into their youth.

Replacing Ratten was ill-conceived. He had much less to work with than Malthouse and produced better results.

Mick was not brought in to build foundations - that is a cop-out concession and even he himself would not have anticipated spending a coaching duration with no foreseeable success.

Any coach can get games into young players...And Mick himself has the reputation of essentially blacklisting players he does not take a liking to.

Carlton is a reactive club which pushes the eject button the minute there's trouble. Ratten's exodus was a mistake but nothing can be done now. But to justify MM's tenure on the basis that he is laying the foundations for the next coach is a crock of the proverbial poo.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

A revolving door for the coaches doesn't seem to work. For once I would love Carlton to just see something through.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Collingwood suffered two very lean years prior to Malthouse assuming the role. In his first year they finished 15th, then the commenced their roll.

By the time they started their move, they had the necessary experience injected into their youth.

Replacing Ratten was ill-conceived. He had much less to work with than Malthouse and produced better results.

Mick was not brought in to build foundations - that is a cop-out concession and even he himself would not have anticipated spending a coaching duration with no foreseeable success.

Any coach can get games into young players...And Mick himself has the reputation of essentially blacklisting players he does not take a liking to.

Carlton is a reactive club which pushes the eject button the minute there's trouble. Ratten's exodus was a mistake but nothing can be done now. But to justify MM's tenure on the basis that he is laying the foundations for the next coach is a crock of the proverbial poo.

He had less to work with because that's the situation he created!
I'm a long time Ratts fan and Mick detractor, but come on. You're right, Mick wasn't in to build foundations, but upon his arrival at the club he realised that we had to go back to basics. You can't tell me that if Ratts continued as coach we could have won a premiership (or even finished top 4) with Bootsma, Lucas, McLean, McCarthy, Mitchell, etc.

 

[ShanDog]

RAPPA I agree with a lot of what you are saying which is why I can't understand why anyone would want Malthouse to go anytime in the next 4-5 years. We can't keep looking for instant success and I think the club seems to know this now.

We may have brought in Mick for the wrong reasons (coach that team further into finals than Ratten did previously) but we shouldn't the pull the trigger and boot him for even more wrong reasons. Let the new coach mould a new team. If that doesn't bear fruit, then it's time to go again.

If we kicked Mick out, the only way I see us making that situation work is to do it at the season's end and sign the next coach up for a 10-year deal. The amount we would have to pay that person out would make it impossible to fire them within the first 5 years....

Hey, we can all dream....

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Collingwood suffered two very lean years prior to Malthouse assuming the role. In his first year they finished 15th, then the commenced their roll.

By the time they started their move, they had the necessary experience injected into their youth.

Replacing Ratten was ill-conceived. He had much less to work with than Malthouse and produced better results.

Mick was not brought in to build foundations - that is a cop-out concession and even he himself would not have anticipated spending a coaching duration with no foreseeable success.

Any coach can get games into young players...And Mick himself has the reputation of essentially blacklisting players he does not take a liking to.

Carlton is a reactive club which pushes the eject button the minute there's trouble. Ratten's exodus was a mistake but nothing can be done now. But to justify MM's tenure on the basis that he is laying the foundations for the next coach is a crock of the proverbial poo.

Ratten had 5 years. Finished 11, 7, 8, 5 10. Four finals; one win, three losses. Not a glowing success. That he had less to work with (and who was responsible) is debatable.

 

[I AM CARLTON]

Hypothetically if we could get Alastair Clarkson at the end of the season should we go for it?

 

[BluStreak]

If we change coaches at the end of this year, would we not then go through another process of list management to get players that the new coach wants?

Would it not be better to identify a coach and get them in as an assistant. I mean it worked for Collingwood. (ops wrong thread)

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Hypothetically if we could get Alastair Clarkson at the end of the season should we go for it?

Hypothetically we shouldn't. In reality tho...

 

[Windhover]

These are exactly the sort of skewed opinions one comes up with if you're unable look at things objectively. At least when Primus had the gig, Port still took care with their recruiting. To illustrate this point, Wingard, Ebert, Broadbent, Hartlett, Lobbe, O'Shea, Pittard, Neade, Trengove, Jonas and Mitchell had all had between 2 & 4 years in the system and were ready to step up when Hinkley arrived on the scene.

Okay, let's look objectively at your statement. Mitchell was a rookie (zero games), Neade was a new recruit, Wingard had completed 1 year, Pittard had played 14 games - 1 in 2012, O'Shea had played 22 games and 4 in 2012, Lobbe was a 24 year old ruckman who had played 22 games and 9 in 2012 and Jonas had come off the rookie list having played 13 games and 9 in 2012. So of the 11 players you named you were undoubtedly wrong about 3 of them (Mitchell, Wingard and Neade) and 4 of them had shown little to nothing in the previous season to suggest any significant step-up. Hinkley was just lucky I guess.

But you go on . . .

When you add that lot to established players such as Westhoff, Boak, Gray, Schulz, Carlile, Stewart and Cornes then you've fair bit to work with.

I will grant you Boak showed real class but Gray was known as a goal-kicking forward who had missed most of 2012 with injury, Carlile was and remains a competent KPD without being a star, Schulz and Westhoff had shown no star quality, I think Stewart is a filler (and more importantly so does Hinkley - 4 games last year and 12 the year before) and Cornes aged 30 looked like he was lucky to still be on the list,
So when you say Hinkley had "a fair bit to work with" IMO it would be fairer to say Hinkley had "a fair bit of work" to do. And he did it.

To be fair to you, you refer to more recent additions Hinkley has been blessed with (but neglect to recall the departures of Troy Chaplin and Danyle Pearce) as follows:-

Lets sprinkle a few additions such as Wines, Hombsch, White, Polec, Monfries, Ryder, Impey & Colquhoun, then yeah, I think that they've done pretty well assembling a more than reasonable sort of list over the last 5 or 6 years. Port also gained a united board under David Koch around the same time Hinkley was appointed. In many ways, the building blocks were mostly already there (in a recruiting sense) before Hinkley arrived, but it took him & Koch to pull the club together as a whole.

. . . . and repeat your nonsense of Port having developed "a more than reasonable list over 5 or 6 years" and finally concede (what was my point in the first place) that almost immediately with the arrival of Hinkley and Koch Ports on-field and off-field performances have been fantastic. Compare and contrast with MM.

If you don't like MM, just say so...but don't try to justify as to why he should be moved on by claiming Hinkley was the lone Messiah at Port when quite clearly he wasn't and it certainly took much longer than the last 2 years to assemble their current playing list.

I have nothing against MM. He has been a great coach, just not (so far at least) with us, and of course I wish him well. Nor did I even suggest that MM should be moved on because Hinkley was "the lone Messiah" at Port. I simply made the point, which I repeat, that since it only took Hinkley 2 years to take Port from basket case to Premiership contenders I find it passing strange that MM, a supposedly great coach still in his prime, not only cannot take us that far in 2 years starting with a much better list, you would say:
"Mick's on the right track with developing a list to be more than competitive against all the other teams, but I would think that he'd need at least another 3 years before we're not only making top 8, but not just making up the numbers"

. . . and yet it seems in this his third year we are no closer to being that competitive team.

 

[DaVillaBlues]

Windy, you're seriously barking up the wrong bush if you think Hinkley could perform a miracle turnaround of our list like he did at Port ? Where is our Robbie Gray
type (stars now thriving at Port)

Port were always going to come good, its just that Matthew Primus was not cut out for coaching.

You're not telling us that Mick inherited a much better list then Hinkley ? Seriously. Port nailed most of their last 5 national drafts before Hinkley took over, we didn't under Ratts (that and poor player development as well)

You need to have a major reevaluation of our list, there is a big reason why we're 4th in betting for the spoon this season, and its nothing really to do with Mick

 

[gbatman]

We're a long way off from being Port Adelaide. Firstly we don't have a Wingad on our list coming though (close but not at the same level as he is) and we absolutely do not have a young player like Wines coming through. They got where they got by picking some good rejects from other clubs like Schultz ( have we picked a forward of his quality yet?) and drafting some very talented elite young footballers. We've got some young guys who look like they can play, they have some young guys that look like they can win brownlows and make All Australian on numerous occasions, huge difference in quality to the young kids they have and we have.

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Okay, let's look objectively at your statement. Mitchell was a rookie (zero games), Neade was a new recruit, Wingard had completed 1 year, Pittard had played 14 games - 1 in 2012, O'Shea had played 22 games and 4 in 2012, Lobbe was a 24 year old ruckman who had played 22 games and 9 in 2012 and Jonas had come off the rookie list having played 13 games and 9 in 2012. So of the 11 players you named you were undoubtedly wrong about 3 of them (Mitchell, Wingard and Neade) and 4 of them had shown little to nothing in the previous season to suggest any significant step-up. Hinkley was just lucky I guess.

I have nothing against MM. He has been a great coach, just not (so far at least) with us, and of course I wish him well. Nor did I even suggest that MM should be moved on because Hinkley was "the lone Messiah" at Port. I simply made the point, which I repeat, that since it only took Hinkley 2 years to take Port from basket case to Premiership contenders I find it passing strange that MM, a supposedly great coach still in his prime, not only cannot take us that far in 2 years starting with a much better list...

Wingard showed plenty in his first season.
As for Malthouse starting with a much better list...not sure if you are deliberately underrating Port's list or exaggerating Carlton's. Either way you are wrong.

 

[SBYM]

Myself, and others, are in here arguing that MM has gone about things the right way, setting us on the path to future success, regardless of whether or not he is coach when said success arrives. Of course, there are those that disagree.

So...convince me...

I'm saying he has done the correct things. If you disagree, tell me what he has done wrong, or at the very least, what he should have done differently.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Myself, and others, are in here arguing that MM has gone about things the right way, setting us on the path to future success, regardless of whether or not he is coach when said success arrives. Of course, there are those that disagree.

So...convince me...

I'm saying he has done the correct things. If you disagree, tell me what he has done wrong, or at the very least, what he should have done differently.

He's kept the A-Graders, flicked the B's (no dickheads policy)...............imported his type players.

Lets see how it all gels.

The worry is that it won't be this year, and given our history, he may be on his bike before it bears fruit.

Just sayin'

 

[SBYM]

Hell yes....that's how I see it too.

 

[ShanDog]

I have nothing against MM. He has been a great coach, just not (so far at least) with us, and of course I wish him well. Nor did I even suggest that MM should be moved on because Hinkley was "the lone Messiah" at Port. I simply made the point, which I repeat, that since it only took Hinkley 2 years to take Port from basket case to Premiership contenders I find it passing strange that MM, a supposedly great coach still in his prime, not only cannot take us that far in 2 years starting with a much better list, you would say:
"Mick's on the right track with developing a list to be more than competitive against all the other teams, but I would think that he'd need at least another 3 years before we're not only making top 8, but not just making up the numbers"

. . . and yet it seems in this his third year we are no closer to being that competitive team.

This is where your whole argument falls over. We didn't have a better list. They are comparable, but to say ours was better is paying lip service to the Port players.

I don't see the discussion of what has happened being useful anyway. The discussion now should be about what SBYM has said - is Malthouse the right coach to have for this period of 'building' a new team. Realistically, we can't even assess the results of this for a few years. Even still, to look at it without being holistic (club administration, recruiting department results, et al) is wrong. The success of the club is never about one person.

 

[Coona Blues]

We have the talent, or at least potential to "do a Port Adelaide". Line up the lists. Order taken from Champion Data ratings of Port and throwing up a similar player from our list. We have some clear "losing" match ups, some winners, some rough matches and some "suck it and see". We are not far away. The game plan, health an motivation of the list provide significant variables. I am in the camp that rates our list much more talented than the nay sayers want to believe. No expectation = no disappointment

Westhoff Henderson
Boak Gibbs
Gray Walker
Wingard Menzel
Ryder > Casboult
Schulz > Jones
Carlile Jamison
Ebert Murphy
White < Yarran
Broadbent < Simpson
Hartlett Judd
Lobbe Kreuzer
O'Shea White
Pittard Docherty
Polec < Thomas
Neade Buckley
Monfries Carrazzo
Trengove > Rowe
Stewart < Everitt
Jonas Tuohy
Wines Cripps
Hombsch Jaksch
Mitchell Boekhorst
Cornes Curnow
Young < Bell
Moore Sheehan
Butcher < Watson
Impey Smith/DVR
Colquhoun Whiley
Redden Warnock/Wood
Clurey Giles/Fields

Not matched Graham, Tutt, Ellard, Armfield, Dick, Holman, Foster, Johnson, Byrne, Walsh, Gowers, Russel, some potential upside there too.

Clearly can be stated Wingard > Menzel, Wines > Cripps (similarly Judd > Hartlett)
we are talking the ability of our list to take a leap like Port 2 years ago.
We have the cattle

 

[Gavstar]

Hypothetically if we could get Alastair Clarkson at the end of the season should we go for it?

Your version of getting him and mine differ, I'm still firmly in the Rhys Jones, Johnston and Gleeson camp when it comes to getting him.

 

[Jock]

Ratten had 5 years. Finished 11, 7, 8, 5 10. Four finals; one win, three losses. Not a glowing success. That he had less to work with (and who was responsible) is debatable.

Joseph would have played 200 games by now, O'Keefe would be into his 8th season as a rookie and Armfield would be in the leadership group if Ratten was still coaching. We are living and still cleaning up the Ratten - Hughes experience.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Joseph would have played 200 games by now, O'Keefe would be into his 8th season as a rookie and Armfield would be in the leadership group if Ratten was still coaching. We are living and still cleaning up the Ratten - Hughes experience.

The Ratten era sure aint Altamont.

Best coach/results in the last 15 years.

 

[lachie charm]

Mick on 5AA.

Good to hear things are positive about Nanette

 

[BM123]

Mick won one grand final in 12 seasons at Collingwood. A monkey could've coached the eagles to its two premierships with the quality it had oozing from the list. He is given far too much credence. This is a business, not a charity. If he can't deliver then move on.

Home finals for the Eagles were held at the MCG.

 

[The Smoking Gun]

OK Windhover, I'm happy to concede and put your methodology into operation.

Hinkley was just lucky I guess.

Now how many more coaches do we need to sack before we appoint the "lucky one"???

 

[Windhover]

Windy, you're seriously barking up the wrong bush if you think Hinkley could perform a miracle turnaround of our list like he did at Port ? Where is our Robbie Gray
type (stars now thriving at Port)

Whether Hinkley might have done better with our list than MM is one of those irrelevant imponderables I spend no time thinking about. My argument (not the simplistic rubbish you and others pretend I assert) is that 2 years is more than ample time to assess MM's worth as coach and the idea that we should happily (ignorantly) wait at least a further 3 years to discover, hey, ole Windy was right, MM is a has been, is an attitude I find extraordinary.
You ask where is our Robbie Gray. Hinkley might have asked the same when he came to Port. Gray had played 2 games the year before because of injury and prior to that had been a useful forward. Now he is a gun midfielder. I don't know but maybe Menzel or Cripps could do something similar. Or if only Bell had shown any improvement on his first season in 2012 through good coaching and on-field deployment, who knows?

Port were always going to come good, its just that Matthew Primus was not cut out for coaching.

I agree with you as to the second part and disagree with you as to the first part. No doubt there have been worse coaches than Primus and Port have been truly blessed to have Hinkley. He has got the team playing to an identifiable game plan from game 1, a game plan that most reckon at least gives Port a chance of going all the way in Hinkley's third year. Heaven help Port if Hinkley had instructed them to play with the MM game plan. It doesn't bear thinking about.

You're not telling us that Mick inherited a much better list then Hinkley ? Seriously. Port nailed most of their last 5 national drafts before Hinkley took over, we didn't under Ratts (that and poor player development as well)

Your claim that Port "nailed" most of their national drafts between 2007-11 does not survive investigation. To help you I list below:

2007
Port - Lobbe, Marlon Motlop, Redden, Davenport and M (not Justin) Westhoff - 4 duds and a slowly maturing ruckman
Carlton - Kreuzer, Browne, Armfield (and we traded some picks for a dud called Judd)

2008
Port - Hartlett, Trengove - 2 great picks (I believe we were very interested in Hartlett).
Carlton - Yarran, Robinson - I strongly disapproved of the selection of Yaz at the time but am very, very happy we have him and Robbo, for all his faults, was still a good pick.

2009
Port - Butcher (8), Moore (9), Pittard - Butcher is yet to prove himself but they are all fair picks. They might have nailed the draft if they had picked even one of Fyfe, Carlisle, Talia, Lewis Jetta or Mitch Duncan.
Carlton - Lucas (not our best draft)

2010
Port - Ben Jacobs, Ben Newtown, Aaron Young and O'Shea (53) - O'Shea can play and Young is still on their list.
Carlton - Watson (again, not our best draft)

2011
Port - Wingard, Ah Chee, Blee - One star, 2 duds.
Carlton - Bootsma, Rowe and Buckley - 1 dud, 2 good gets.

Conclusion
In the 5 years you nominated Port picked up 4 good players (Wingard, Hartlett, Trengove and O'Shea). 2 competent players (Moore, Pittard) and Butcher and Young have not proved they cannot play. In the same period we picked up 2 good players (Kreuzer, Yarran), 4 competent players (Rowe, Buckley, Armfield and Robbo) and of course traded picks and players for Judd. To describe Port as having "nailed" their drafting in that period is laughable. Even we did little worse and, except in 2007, Port had first dibs!

You need to have a major reevaluation of our list, there is a big reason why we're 4th in betting for the spoon this season, and its nothing really to do with Mick

Let's suppose you are right that MM inherited a crap list. The important thing is that a new coach coming to a club should not be given the luxury of mucking around with the crap list for a year before doing anything. I expect a new coach coming to Carlton to know that the list is no good (for their ideas about the game) and start implementing changes to the list from the get-go. MM did not do that. MM assessed the list as pretty good when he arrived at Carlton (and I happen to agree with him on that one).

Therefore, either you are right (and MM and I are wrong) and the list was crap at the end of 2012 - in which case a good coach would have started drastic surgery immediately (and not, a year later, recruited a broken down favourite on a big contract to play out the back end of his career in a team needing rebuild not top-up).

Or, alternatively, you are wrong and MM and I were right to assess the list at the end of 2012 as having plenty of maturing upside with little short-term downside and capable of competing for the flag in coming seasons. In which case the results under MM have been deplorable.

As you can see on either analysis MM cannot escape serious criticism.