Yet Nick Maxwell's comments suggest the desire for another flag (with Bucks waiting to succeed him) drove him at the Pies - why would it be any different with the Blues?
Opinion Mick Malthouse
- Thread starter Stamos
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
He said that once the succession plan to Bucks came into play Mick changed his approach and made harder decisions, knowing his window to achieving another flag was limited.
There are a tonne of players playing this year that are overpaid. Travis Cloke on this years form is being overpaid, would have him in Carlton's team anytime. Taylor Walker another, Dane Swan, Jeremy Cameron, Tippett, Darling etc. etc.
Assess the Daisy trade after next season, your assessment may then have a semblance of balance.
Some are able to & others are too bloody stubborn.
From your inapt attachment you do not seem to be following the debate. I am not bemoaning the loss of Laidler. I am not bagging Duigan, Scotty or Daisy.
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.
One of the ways to assess a coach is to ask: Is the coach maximising the talents of the players at his disposal and minimising their deficits?
Laidler is a very clear example of a player Longmire has been able to use to the advantage of a team that is challenging for the Premiership. MM, for all his brilliance as an AFL coach, could not even find a place for Laidler in our much more pedestrian team. On any view Laidler is a MM coaching failure.
I am not bagging Daisy to say he is not worth $700,000 a season. Even if he returns to the form he showed at Collingwood some years ago that might justify that sum (and of course I hope he does), he was a risk when we bought him, so far that risk is being realised and being a favourite son of MM, he must wear the mistake.
So long as MM is coach of Carlton I therefore see no reason "to build a bridge". I am concerned about the future, not the past. A more apt picture would be a clarion call to the blue army to tell MM what we think of his continuing on as coach of Carlton. There is plenty of room, get on board.
So let me see if I can get this right: you don't think Mick Malthouse can coach?
- Apr 16, 2008
- 9,689
- 26,520
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I just feel that sometimes things don't always go you way. He may have thought he could get the best out of all 3, but in the end it wasn't to be.
None of the mentioned were best 22 (Nearly 10%), so it's not like Mick couldn't retain the "best of our team". He may have hoped that he could get 1 more year out of them and they must have had their say in it also for them to be retained.
With the amount of signings this year of out of contract players, I think the "good" players have bought in and want to get better.
So with all MM's imperfections, who would be your choice of coach?
- Apr 16, 2008
- 9,689
- 26,520
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Sorry to post these two images
But I think these pics prove the guy can coach!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Au contraire, I have been following the debate quite closely. That I choose to dismiss opinion dressed up as fact is more to the point.
It is apparent you have an agenda and particular bias which prevents you from getting over some inane desire to denigrate our senior coach.
Wiser heads will wait before questioning MM's coaching abilities; if by this time next year the team has not progressed, I'll be happy to say that MM has failed at Carlton.
Until then, perhaps you should brush up your engineering skills and move on to another topic.
- Sep 26, 2012
- 17,214
- 14,403
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Mick's media lesson No.1: how not to upset the teacher
For the life of me I can't figure out why an unbiased journo would write a nice article.
For the life of me I can't figure out why an unbiased journo would write a nice article.
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.
- Sep 5, 2013
- 6,485
- 10,979
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Western Bulldogs
What? How did you reach that conclusion?
- Apr 16, 2008
- 9,689
- 26,520
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I actually cannot believe you mentioned Voss as a replacement for Mick and you feel he would be better suited to taking us to a premiership.
I'm not saying Mick will get us to a premiership, but he is a leader of young men. The good ones play for him and learn from him. The bad ones that are content with where they are at will run away.
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.
No. I accept MM will not take us to a premiership. For all I know, Voss might. What do you have against Voss as a coach (not as a recruiter).
Once you have reached the conclusion MM will not lead us to a premiership (as I have and you at least concede this is an open question) it does not matter what other abilities he might have, and he does have many. He should not be the coach of Carlton.
- Apr 16, 2008
- 9,689
- 26,520
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Voss is Voss. He made the calls on letting Hendo go and replacing him with Fev. It destroyed their club for many a year and their culture. He wasn't their recruiter, but he forced the club to do it. Baddest of bad moves imo.
Of course Mick can be the coach. Roos won't be taking Melbourne to a premiership in 2015 or 2016, yet he is there to get the club right.
Do you think Melbourne should just say, oh well, no premiership under Roos, better bring in another untried or a Voss. Hell no!
So you have nothing against Voss as a coach, disregarding his "recruiting"?
I understand your argument.
I would say that the difference between Carlton and Melbourne is that Melbourne has been a basket case for years. Having Roos as coach IMO has significantly improved Melbourne on-field, the players understand what the coach wants them to do and, when they get a bit more fire-power in the forward line and greater depth in their midfield you can actually see how they might structure up to become a competitive side. Furthermore although Roos has made it plain he will not coach after 2016 he is happy to assist in succession plans. This worked for Sydney who have already won one flag post-Roos.
On the other hand the idea of a "succession plan" with MM would be a sorry joke (look at the Pies) if it were not completely disregarded as a possibility. Secondly, even with the stagnation in our performances under MM in 2013 and 2014, I remain of the opinion that we have a list that with little tweaking, a bit of luck and a decent coach could win the flag next year. That is one of the reasons I think MM needs to go as soon as possible.
- Apr 16, 2008
- 9,689
- 26,520
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I can tell you don't like Mick. Point taken.
The real difference between Melbourne and Carlton is 2 wins. If Ratts was still coaching we most likely would be below Melbourne.
Did you not see the players Mick got rid of last year? All of those Ratts wanted and gave decent deals to.
I also cannot disregarding Voss' "recruiting" as you put it. It's all part of coaching. He was atrocious at that side of coaching position and it shouldn't be dismissed. It crucified the club.
Anyways, let's agree to disagree
Wrong. I don't like MM as coach of Carlton. Otherwise I actually quite enjoy his truculent media-baiting performances and I certainly found him an interesting and informative analyst in 2012.
If you wanted to be more superficial and less relevant you would have included the percentage difference.
No. (i.e. I did "see").
Yep, let's make it all about Ratts. (I can see the Doormat inviting you to build a bridge if you are not careful).
Well no argument from me on that point obviously but I rather admired the improvement in the Lions list after that debacle and thought Voss's coaching from there on seemed pretty sensible. I do not pretend to be an expert however.
Sure, but I prefer to know why.
- Apr 16, 2008
- 9,689
- 26,520
- AFL Club
- Carlton
In all honesty, because I just don't have time for it.
We discussed, you and I are on differing sides, no need to continue
Chism
Franks & Beans
- Sep 7, 2008
- 38,324
- 38,092
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Cowboys/Pacers HotSpurs/Dodgers
Keep the personal attacks out of it.
Discuss the topics without baiting each other or do not post at all.
Discuss the topics without baiting each other or do not post at all.
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.
- Status
