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.
Neeld: "The Mick I know"

My final word on Mick in response to some outrageous comments last week; he is still coaching well and will work tirelessly to rebuild Carlton; he is a person who demands a strong work ethic and a striving for excellence at all times; and he does have some friends!
Click to expand...

Interesting article regarding Mick.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Good article. I like that he calls out Mick's relationship building skills as a key strength, especially considering the comments earlier in the year from some corners that 'all the players hate him'. Looks to me like they have a healthy respect for him if anything.
 
prisoner777 said:
Just my view. He may have won a flag 4 years ago but how many years before that was his last one?
Click to expand...

I'd judge him on his overall performance rather than number of flags. There's a lot of luck involved in winning a flag. Consistently good performances is more telling, and again, his record speaks for itself.

This is also the last comment I'll be making in this thread until something changes that is worthwhile discussing (not directed at you 777). At the moment, it's just going round in circles.

I'm comfortable with my position that Mick is the man for the job and I've made my case clear often enough.

There's been a couple of good articles put up by Harks and Etsal that the doubters should read that quote the people that have experience with Mick. Always accept an article with valid references rather than one by journos stating opinions, or claiming to know something, looking for headlines. If those articles, combined with his track record are not enough to at least alter some of the opinions, then I don't know what is and therefore I can only assume a stubbornness that is not worth continually confronting.
 
MEB_ said:
Good article. I like that he calls out Mick's relationship building skills as a key strength, especially considering the comments earlier in the year from some corners that 'all the players hate him'. Looks to me like they have a healthy respect for him if anything.
Click to expand...

Who? Laidler, Duigan, Mitchell, McCarthy, Hampson, Collins etc

Anyone that really wants to play is embraced by Mick.............but if you don't...........

The young guys like him a lot and so what's wrong with a bit of hard love anyway...............Worked on Yarran.
 
pepalenko said:
Thanks Harks. Alot of people would do well to read it.
Click to expand...

No doubt pep I am one of those people you might think would be rewarded by reading Neeld's comments since my views on MM are not effusive in their praise (largely confined to the now superfluous "Chicken Little" thread - I think we are all Chicken Littles now regarding season 2014).

The first thing I thought was: "Why is the Club sending me a commentary on MM's coaching and why a commentary from a partisan coaching hack like Neeld? My answer was: "I guess I am not the only concerned member who is giving the Club a little bit of feedback about the coach." So it is pleasing to know those of us critical of MM as coach are not alone.

Secondly I read the article, hoping for some interesting analysis of MM's coaching strategy since arriving in 2012 (is it just 2 years ago?) or at least some interesting analysis of MM's coaching tactics in games (like why we stayed man on man instead of going defensive against Geelong when 7 points up). After all, being a hack coach does NOT mean Neeld does not have a much better grasp of these things than me.

Neeld's article is written in 12 paragraphs. Unless you are a Neeld fan, don't bother to read paras 1 and 2.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 set out Neeld's justification for writing the article. He believes it is "disgraceful" for MM to have to face claims:
(a) that he has lost his way;
(b) that he is a bully; and
(c) that he has no friends.

AFAIAC the only interesting criticism is that MM has "lost his way" (as a coach). I do not know why it is "disgraceful" for MM to have to face that claim given the contrast between his previous coaching record and now and Neeld does not explain it. I neither know of any suggestion that MM is a bully and friendless, nor care. A "bully" as perceived by others might in certain circumstances be an ideal coach and I would expect that the demands on a coach would limit friendships anyway. It is said of our species that as individuals we are limited to about 150 significant separate relationships. Given a coach has at least 50 significant relationships to develop at a footy club it does not make for much space outside anyway.

Paragraph 5 usefully reminds critics that they should "do some research" before criticising.

Paragraph 6 seems to be the heart of the Neeld thesis. MM teaches 3 things off the bat: to respect the footy club and its people, listen, and work very very hard. Frankly IMO if people coming to the Club (players or staff) need to be "taught" those 3 things I want to know what sort of idiots are we recruiting as players and officials. Neeld also says, and I quote "He [MM] . . . has probably forgotten more than many of us will ever know abut AFL Football." I absolutely agree with Neeld on this one. IMO MM has demonstrated that he has indeed forgotten much and is no longer the coach who took the Eagles to 2 flags and the Pies to 1. Equally, I am sure that whilst there are many of us who have never known as much as MM has forgotten, there is out there, somewhere, someone who knows much more than MM has forgotten. That is who I want as coach.

In Paragraph 7 Neeld seeks to soften his criticism of MM as an over-the-hill coach (as I interpret his remarks) by stating his greatest strength is his ability to build relationships. I cannot speak for others but I find the MM chats to members each week as nothing more than pap. Not once in my recall has he said anything that might be genuinely informative or interesting. Roos appeared on Footy Classified on Monday night and explained to the Panel why it was a team rule not to kick to the top of the square (he also noted this was contrary to Neeld's team rules). I do not know whether Roos is right or wrong to have such a rule but it was informative in a way MM has never been. If MM had ever wanted to build a relationship with supporters a little bit of honesty and genuine engagement in the process would have been a useful start.

Anyway, I would not necessarily criticise a coach for being beastly to supporters, so long as he was getting the job done on the field. Neeld claims that MM's ability to build relationships is repaid with loyalty (fair point) and that the win against North was proof of the player's loyalty to MM.
Breath. . . . Give me a break. . . . 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 . . . Does Neeld seriously think that the win against North was proof that the players are loyal to MM? If so, what do the losses to essendon, demons and lions say about their "loyalty". A coach who can only inspire the team to play winning football when the players feel sorry for him is not a coach I want at Carlton. I want a coach who demands respect because, when the players follow his game plan the results speak for themselves and when players do not follow the game plan they get dropped. Such a coach can be perceived as a bully or as soft as butter for all I care but a coach cannot be the object of pity - such a coach is definitionally "pitiful". Isn't this what Neeld is really saying?

In Paragraph 7 Neeld gives a hint that he has discussed with MM (at least briefly) the rebuild of Carlton. It seems that MM has taken a long time to "discover" that the Carlton list was not good enough to win a flag with a bit of top-up. The recruitment of Daisy could only be justified on the basis that we did NOT need a rebuild. [My own opinion is that MM's original assessment was right and that when he came we were a genuine top 4 contender. Because I stick with my original opinion necessarily I blame MM as the explanation for our underwhelming performances in '13 and '14.]. Further Neeld claims that MM "strives for excellence" and "refuses to cut corners". IMO recruiting a suspiciously injured player on big money who happens to be a personal friend is a damning counterfactual to those two claimed virtues.

Paragraph 8 & 9 Neeld makes silly excuses for MM's embarrassing performances at press conferences which adds to the humiliation I feel as a member of the Club. Excuses like "the journalists are inexperienced" or they "ask questions prepared by others". If the journalists are inexperienced why can't an experienced coach run rings around them, help them to ask sensible questions and then answer those sensible questions?

Paragraphs 10 is gratuitous advice to "football fans", irrelevant to the MM issue. Paragraph 12 asserts that MM "is still coaching well". What a pity Neeld did not take the opportunity to explain how or why he is of the opinion that MM's coaching career at Carlton resembles anything other than a stinking mess. Insofar as I could glean Neeld's real opinion from the substance of the article it does not actually seem even he has much good to say about MM's coaching at Carlton. Still, at least they are friends, which is nice to know.
 
Windhover said:
No doubt pep I am one of those people you might think would be rewarded by reading Neeld's comments since my views on MM are not effusive in their praise (largely confined to the now superfluous "Chicken Little" thread - I think we are all Chicken Littles now regarding season 2014).
Click to expand...
Actually Windy, I wasn't thinking of you at the time and honestly think that you would not be swayed anyway. Welcome back.
 
pepalenko said:
Actually Windy, I wasn't thinking of you at the time and honestly think that you would not be swayed anyway. Welcome back.
Click to expand...
I did not presume that you were thinking "of me" particularly but just that I was "the sort of people [who] would do well to read it". As for the "welcome back" I have been overseas for 4 of our 6 wins. Even I am wishing I would piss off a bit more.
 
Wasnt being sarcastic WH, and even though i dont agree with your views on Malthouse this place would be boring if everyone saw thingsthe same way.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Windhover said:
No doubt pep I am one of those people you might think would be rewarded by reading Neeld's comments since my views on MM are not effusive in their praise (largely confined to the now superfluous "Chicken Little" thread - I think we are all Chicken Littles now regarding season 2014).

The first thing I thought was: "Why is the Club sending me a commentary on MM's coaching and why a commentary from a partisan coaching hack like Neeld? My answer was: "I guess I am not the only concerned member who is giving the Club a little bit of feedback about the coach." So it is pleasing to know those of us critical of MM as coach are not alone.

Secondly I read the article, hoping for some interesting analysis of MM's coaching strategy since arriving in 2012 (is it just 2 years ago?) or at least some interesting analysis of MM's coaching tactics in games (like why we stayed man on man instead of going defensive against Geelong when 7 points up). After all, being a hack coach does NOT mean Neeld does not have a much better grasp of these things than me.

Neeld's article is written in 12 paragraphs. Unless you are a Neeld fan, don't bother to read paras 1 and 2.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 set out Neeld's justification for writing the article. He believes it is "disgraceful" for MM to have to face claims:
(a) that he has lost his way;
(b) that he is a bully; and
(c) that he has no friends.

AFAIAC the only interesting criticism is that MM has "lost his way" (as a coach). I do not know why it is "disgraceful" for MM to have to face that claim given the contrast between his previous coaching record and now and Neeld does not explain it. I neither know of any suggestion that MM is a bully and friendless, nor care. A "bully" as perceived by others might in certain circumstances be an ideal coach and I would expect that the demands on a coach would limit friendships anyway. It is said of our species that as individuals we are limited to about 150 significant separate relationships. Given a coach has at least 50 significant relationships to develop at a footy club it does not make for much space outside anyway.

Paragraph 5 usefully reminds critics that they should "do some research" before criticising.

Paragraph 6 seems to be the heart of the Neeld thesis. MM teaches 3 things off the bat: to respect the footy club and its people, listen, and work very very hard. Frankly IMO if people coming to the Club (players or staff) need to be "taught" those 3 things I want to know what sort of idiots are we recruiting as players and officials. Neeld also says, and I quote "He [MM] . . . has probably forgotten more than many of us will ever know abut AFL Football." I absolutely agree with Neeld on this one. IMO MM has demonstrated that he has indeed forgotten much and is no longer the coach who took the Eagles to 2 flags and the Pies to 1. Equally, I am sure that whilst there are many of us who have never known as much as MM has forgotten, there is out there, somewhere, someone who knows much more than MM has forgotten. That is who I want as coach.

In Paragraph 7 Neeld seeks to soften his criticism of MM as an over-the-hill coach (as I interpret his remarks) by stating his greatest strength is his ability to build relationships. I cannot speak for others but I find the MM chats to members each week as nothing more than pap. Not once in my recall has he said anything that might be genuinely informative or interesting. Roos appeared on Footy Classified on Monday night and explained to the Panel why it was a team rule not to kick to the top of the square (he also noted this was contrary to Neeld's team rules). I do not know whether Roos is right or wrong to have such a rule but it was informative in a way MM has never been. If MM had ever wanted to build a relationship with supporters a little bit of honesty and genuine engagement in the process would have been a useful start.

Anyway, I would not necessarily criticise a coach for being beastly to supporters, so long as he was getting the job done on the field. Neeld claims that MM's ability to build relationships is repaid with loyalty (fair point) and that the win against North was proof of the player's loyalty to MM.
Breath. . . . Give me a break. . . . 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 . . . Does Neeld seriously think that the win against North was proof that the players are loyal to MM? If so, what do the losses to essendon, demons and lions say about their "loyalty". A coach who can only inspire the team to play winning football when the players feel sorry for him is not a coach I want at Carlton. I want a coach who demands respect because, when the players follow his game plan the results speak for themselves and when players do not follow the game plan they get dropped. Such a coach can be perceived as a bully or as soft as butter for all I care but a coach cannot be the object of pity - such a coach is definitionally "pitiful". Isn't this what Neeld is really saying?

In Paragraph 7 Neeld gives a hint that he has discussed with MM (at least briefly) the rebuild of Carlton. It seems that MM has taken a long time to "discover" that the Carlton list was not good enough to win a flag with a bit of top-up. The recruitment of Daisy could only be justified on the basis that we did NOT need a rebuild. [My own opinion is that MM's original assessment was right and that when he came we were a genuine top 4 contender. Because I stick with my original opinion necessarily I blame MM as the explanation for our underwhelming performances in '13 and '14.]. Further Neeld claims that MM "strives for excellence" and "refuses to cut corners". IMO recruiting a suspiciously injured player on big money who happens to be a personal friend is a damning counterfactual to those two claimed virtues.

Paragraph 8 & 9 Neeld makes silly excuses for MM's embarrassing performances at press conferences which adds to the humiliation I feel as a member of the Club. Excuses like "the journalists are inexperienced" or they "ask questions prepared by others". If the journalists are inexperienced why can't an experienced coach run rings around them, help them to ask sensible questions and then answer those sensible questions?

Paragraphs 10 is gratuitous advice to "football fans", irrelevant to the MM issue. Paragraph 12 asserts that MM "is still coaching well". What a pity Neeld did not take the opportunity to explain how or why he is of the opinion that MM's coaching career at Carlton resembles anything other than a stinking mess. Insofar as I could glean Neeld's real opinion from the substance of the article it does not actually seem even he has much good to say about MM's coaching at Carlton. Still, at least they are friends, which is nice to know.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the synopsis. Actually quicker to read the article
 
fnm_just a man said:
I'd judge him on his overall performance rather than number of flags. There's a lot of luck involved in winning a flag. Consistently good performances is more telling, and again, his record speaks for itself.

This is also the last comment I'll be making in this thread until something changes that is worthwhile discussing (not directed at you 777). At the moment, it's just going round in circles.

I'm comfortable with my position that Mick is the man for the job and I've made my case clear often enough.

There's been a couple of good articles put up by Harks and Etsal that the doubters should read that quote the people that have experience with Mick. Always accept an article with valid references rather than one by journos stating opinions, or claiming to know something, looking for headlines. If those articles, combined with his track record are not enough to at least alter some of the opinions, then I don't know what is and therefore I can only assume a stubbornness that is not worth continually confronting.
Click to expand...
Nicely put! The only issue I have is that judging "valid references" is a subjective thing (like with most posts).
 
Magruder said:
Thank you for the synopsis. Actually quicker to read the article
Click to expand...

Actually Maggie it was not a synopsis nor intended to be. It was intended to be a critical analysis of Neeld's article. The question isn't which was quicker to read but rather was either informative. The message from my analysis was that Neeld's article wasn't worth much, and to the extent it was worth anything it was critical of a now forgetful MM. Did you get more out of it than that? Pep apparently did but also seems shy to tell us quite what he learnt.
 
Windhover said:
Actually Maggie it was not a synopsis nor intended to be. It was intended to be a critical analysis of Neeld's article. The question isn't which was quicker to read but rather was either informative. The message from my analysis was that Neeld's article wasn't worth much, and to the extent it was worth anything it was critical of a now forgetful MM. Did you get more out of it than that? Pep apparently did but also seems shy to tell us quite what he learnt.
Click to expand...

Yeah ok. Just surprised that you figure a puff piece needed a critical analysis.

I respect your view on MM, just disagree, but I contend that most are able to discount pieces like Neeld's without having our hands held. Perhaps I hold too high a view of CFC supporters?
 
Magruder said:
Yeah ok. Just surprised that you figure a puff piece needed a critical analysis.

I respect your view on MM, just disagree, but I contend that most are able to discount pieces like Neeld's without having our hands held. Perhaps I hold too high a view of CFC supporters?
Click to expand...
I am glad you agree with me re Neeld's article. My post was a response to Pep who did think Neeld's piece worth reading. Unlike many I dislike posting my disagreement with another poster without giving an explanation. People who just disagree without reason are just "voting" not "discussing".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top