Don't want, (or need) to start a new thread - still want to post it though

[Saintly Viewed]

If I have a choice between a technocrat and an idealogue, I'll take the technocrat. At least you can see a logical process behind what they are trying to do, you may not agree with some of the assumptions, but there is logic and detail there, instead of three word slogans and appeals to denominators so low I cant even see them anymore.

When it comes to idealogues, people like me are generally either their tool or their victim, frequently both. They can suck it.

And by the by, this is a symptom of why we are in the **** as a country. It seems the only real crime nowdays is to have actual genuine expertise in a field. I want leaders who know more than me, hopefully they can use that to sort this **** out. I dont want someone who couldnt fight their way out of a wet paper bag with the aid of a chainsaw. Government is hard. Its supposed to be. Pretending anyone can do ****, or worse, that people who actually know what they are doing are the enemy, is leading us into an abyss.

That is kind of right.
Various politicians are better versed at their craft and knowledge than we give them credit for.

Not sure if you remember Dr Hewson at his zenith.
There’s are great anecdote by Australia’s greatest ever political historian, Paul Kelly.
It’s in his wonderful book, The March Of Patriots.
Dr Hewson was talking to a young Peter Costello at the time, mentioning a possible death tax or some such.
Peter Costello says to his colleague Ian McLachlan “is it our obligation to tell the Australian people our leader is a maniac?”
McLaughlin: “don’t worry the people will work it out for themselves.”

Been a lot of re-writing of the good doctor.
The left detested him then, now they tolerate him because he does the Mick Malthouse barbs at his former side.

By the way Paul Kelly used to be married to former minister, Ros Kelly.

 

[Maggie5]

Fair enough.

He was the epitome, back in the day, of the superior know it all, looking down his nose at everyone.
Has a different smugness now.

Don’t think he ever fell down the modesty tree.
And didn’t Keating rip him apart, limb by limb.
Though he helped himself by writing the longest suicide note in political history.

Oh well, the cold Dr Hewson.

I’m not a fan

Did you miss the self reflecting part?

Shame that MM doesn't do it.

 

[jathanas]

Was an interesting interview today.
Open, honest, actually very understanding of Mick.

At the time, I enjoyed the interview. But on reflection I made a bad blunder.
Didn’t think about what the media would do with it.
Ofcourse they’d take odd quotes out and create conflict.
That’s what the media does.

And they then wonder why people clam up and say nothing but trite cliches. Get ready for ongoing boring player and coach interviews.

As soon as I read the interview I knew that the media was going to have a field day with it. It's fodder.

Buckley is candid but it's very atypical of him to be this raw about MM, especially given how little he shared with the media during the transition years.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Did you miss the self reflecting part?

Shame that MM doesn't do it.

I must have missed it, yes.
I’m not partial to listening to him these days.

Maybe next time I see him on the box, I’ll give him a listen.

But if he starts to whinge, I’ll switch off again.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

As soon as I read the interview I knew that the media was going to have a field day with it. It's fodder.

Buckley is candid but it's very atypical of him to be this raw about MM, especially given how little he shared with the media during the transition years.

Must admit, I didn’t think of the storm that might change me.
Usually I’m very on to that.

Oh well, get ready for more Mick specials.

 

[Maggie5]

I must have missed it, yes.
I’m not partial to listening to him these days.

Maybe next time I see him on the box, I’ll give him a listen.

But if he starts to whinge, I’ll switch off again.

He actually takes quite a bit of responsibility and acknowledges his mistakes and have never heard him finger point. That I respect in everyone.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

He actually takes quite a bit of responsibility and acknowledges his mistakes and have never heard him finger point. That I respect in everyone.

Maggie if that’s the case, I’d dips my lid to him.
I do respect that, and would counter my views and happily alter etc.

 

[CFC2010]

As soon as I read the interview I knew that the media was going to have a field day with it. It's fodder.

Buckley is candid but it's very atypical of him to be this raw about MM, especially given how little he shared with the media during the transition years.

Buckley's response was not raw IMO.......he knew exactly what he was doing and saying and also that the media would run with it straight away.

Looking forward to reading Bucks second book after he retires as a four time Premiership Coach.

 

[Maggie5]

Buckley's response was not raw IMO.......he knew exactly what he was doing and saying and also that the media would run with it straight away.

Looking forward to reading Bucks second book after he retires as a four time Premiership Coach.

Just found another one:

I wanted to go to Richmond [after finishing at West Coast in 1999], but there was someone at Richmond I couldn't work with.

Colour me surprised!

 

[left at home]

Buckley's response was not raw IMO.......he knew exactly what he was doing and saying and also that the media would run with it straight away.

Looking forward to reading Bucks second book after he retires as a four time Premiership Coach.

That my hope, and it would be nice if so

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Buckley's response was not raw IMO.......he knew exactly what he was doing and saying and also that the media would run with it straight away.

Looking forward to reading Bucks second book after he retires as a four time Premiership Coach.

Yep, Bucks was fairly measured and I'd agree that he deliberately threw out a bit of bait to whet the appetite of the media hounds.
They'll start looking for anyone who has been on the end of a text, phone call or had to sit across from MM while he painted himself as a martyr and highlighted how much Buckley hated him. They'll find one of the other 'bodies on the side of the road' and the feathers will fly.
Buckley would have known that MM would come out and play the victim and the media would respond with "yeah let's see how innocent you are, Mick".

Bucks was wrong about one thing. MM does care about what people think of him, he just doesn't care whether it's good or bad. As long as people are thinking anything of him, he remains relevant. If you're in his inner circle, he'll say and do what he can to make you loyal to him. If you're outside of it, he'll say and do what he can to make you dislike him. In both cases, he is being talked about as a significant figure. Win Win. If someone who was once in the inner circle falls out, they'll be the next target and he'll discredit them by 'rewriting history' and presenting himself as being the victim of their deceitfulness and treachery.

I've worked with a few MM's in my job and in football. Everything is about protecting their own image and legacy.

 

[Nuwanda]

MM 3 premierships over 31 years coaching.
Got me thinking about what premiership strike rate would you accept as a coach?
Kevin Sheedy has 4 premierships over 26 years (I wouldn’t include the GWS stint).
Clarko obviously remarkable with 4 over 14 years (and he took over a basket case).
Ross Lyon 0 from 12 years and he had the benefit of joining St Kilda when they were on their way up and abandoned them when Freo was also on their way up. He is one coach that may just be over-rated.

 

[Countrypie]

If I have a choice between a technocrat and an idealogue, I'll take the technocrat. At least you can see a logical process behind what they are trying to do, you may not agree with some of the assumptions, but there is logic and detail there, instead of three word slogans and appeals to denominators so low I cant even see them anymore.

When it comes to idealogues, people like me are generally either their tool or their victim, frequently both. They can suck it.

And by the by, this is a symptom of why we are in the **** as a country. It seems the only real crime nowdays is to have actual genuine expertise in a field. I want leaders who know more than me, hopefully they can use that to sort this **** out. I dont want someone who couldnt fight their way out of a wet paper bag with the aid of a chainsaw. Government is hard. Its supposed to be. Pretending anyone can do ****, or worse, that people who actually know what they are doing are the enemy, is leading us into an abyss.

think you would very much enjoy two YouTube presentations by the Corbett report - How Big OIl Took Over the World & Why Big Oil Took Over The World. You might change your mind on technocrats. Me? I'd prefer the minimum amount of government possible. I don't need leading. I'm no pony

 

[jathanas]

Posting this here, I do believe the HoF thread for MM should contain tribute posts:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...t-is-wrong-on-the-timing-20190605-p51utv.html

"
It does come as a surprise that Buckley chose the morning after Malthouse was inducted into the Hall of Fame to talk about it.

Buckley speaks so well, is so measured and reasonable that it was remarkable that he badly failed this test of timing. He has been restrained over the years in not biting at provocations, and this was not the moment to bite.

..."

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Posting this here, I do believe the HoF thread for MM should contain tribute posts:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...t-is-wrong-on-the-timing-20190605-p51utv.html

"
It does come as a surprise that Buckley chose the morning after Malthouse was inducted into the Hall of Fame to talk about it.

Buckley speaks so well, is so measured and reasonable that it was remarkable that he badly failed this test of timing. He has been restrained over the years in not biting at provocations, and this was not the moment to bite.

..."

Buckley knows that there will be a heap of MM interviews to come. Some journos will no longer care about getting on the wrong side of MM and will push him on some details of events during the succession plan. Knowing MM, he won't be able to help himself when pressed and will go on the attack in attempt to protect his image as an elder statesman of the game (vomit) and legacy. If that means painting Buckley as the villain, then so be it.
Bucks has been smashed from pillar to post regarding his role in the plan and also the souring of the relationship during the two years. Add that to being average on the field from years from 2013-2017, Shaw, Thomas, Beams leaving, a few others retiring supposedly prematurely, Jolly sniping etc and you almost have the perfect 'it's all on Buckley' narrative.

I think Buck's has had enough of keeping his mouth shut and may be attempting to influence the narrative rather than let MM and his sycophants control it. Malthouse will be regarded as a great of the game regardless of what comes out the morning or months after his induction. Discussions about the coach and the man will take place anyway. We now have more than just a couple of TV and radio stations that can direct the conversation. Whether Gleeson likes it or not, MM's strengths, flaws, moments of brilliance and absolute stuff ups will be discussed without timing being a major consideration.

 

[jathanas]

Buckley knows that there will be a heap of MM interviews to come. Some journos will no longer care about getting on the wrong side of MM and will push him on some details of events during the succession plan. Knowing MM, he won't be able to help himself when pressed and will go on the attack in attempt to protect his image as an elder statesman of the game (vomit) and legacy. If that means painting Buckley as the villain, then so be it.
Bucks has been smashed from pillar to post regarding his role in the plan and also the souring of the relationship during the two years. Add that to being average on the field from years from 2013-2017, Shaw, Thomas, Beams leaving, a few others retiring supposedly prematurely, Jolly sniping etc and you almost have the perfect 'it's all on Buckley' narrative.

I think Buck's has had enough of keeping his mouth shut and may be attempting to influence the narrative rather than let MM and his sycophants control it. Malthouse will be regarded as a great of the game regardless of what comes out the morning or months after his induction. Discussions about the coach and the man will take place anyway. We now have more than just a couple of TV and radio stations that can direct the conversation. Whether Gleeson likes it or not, MM's strengths, flaws, moments of brilliance and absolute stuff ups will be discussed without timing being a major consideration.

I disagree to an extent, I think Bucks said a bit more than he intended to say (at least in hindsight).

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

I disagree to an extent, I think Bucks said a bit more than he intended to say (at least in hindsight).

We'll see what he says in future interviews. I wouldn't be surprised if he digs his heels in.

 

[JB1975]

Buckley knows that there will be a heap of MM interviews to come. Some journos will no longer care about getting on the wrong side of MM and will push him on some details of events during the succession plan. Knowing MM, he won't be able to help himself when pressed and will go on the attack in attempt to protect his image as an elder statesman of the game (vomit) and legacy. If that means painting Buckley as the villain, then so be it.
Bucks has been smashed from pillar to post regarding his role in the plan and also the souring of the relationship during the two years. Add that to being average on the field from years from 2013-2017, Shaw, Thomas, Beams leaving, a few others retiring supposedly prematurely, Jolly sniping etc and you almost have the perfect 'it's all on Buckley' narrative.

I think Buck's has had enough of keeping his mouth shut and may be attempting to influence the narrative rather than let MM and his sycophants control it. Malthouse will be regarded as a great of the game regardless of what comes out the morning or months after his induction. Discussions about the coach and the man will take place anyway. We now have more than just a couple of TV and radio stations that can direct the conversation. Whether Gleeson likes it or not, MM's strengths, flaws, moments of brilliance and absolute stuff ups will be discussed without timing being a major consideration.

There will always be some sort of discussion about the rights and wrongs of the succession, stirred by the media and by Mick's undying bitterness. Buckley can't avoid that, no matter what he does. Still, Buckley's best weapon in combating Mick's venom has been restraint, a dignified almost-silence.

Buckley is the better man, and his dignified almost-silence has --until yesterday-- made him a small target and gave him the moral high ground. But now? He's still the better man by a long way. The thing is, the media hardly give a toss about Malthouse these days: he's yesterday's man, a relic, a relative irrelevance. Buckley on the other hand is a current coach seeking his own glory, someone yet to be torn down, a story still in the making...and so the 're-igniting' of the succession drama will only be used against him.

My opinion is that Bucks is smart enough to have batted away the questions about Mick in a more diplomatic way, and that he should have done so. He's got nothing to gain in a slanging match, and unlike Mick he has a football team to focus on.

 

[jathanas]

There will always be some sort of discussion about the rights and wrongs of the succession, stirred by the media and by Mick's undying bitterness. Buckley can't avoid that, no matter what he does. Still, Buckley's best weapon in combating Mick's venom has been restraint, a dignified almost-silence.

Buckley is the better man, and his dignified almost-silence has --until yesterday-- made him a small target and gave him the moral high ground. But now? He's still the better man by a long way. The thing is, the media hardly give a toss about Malthouse these days: he's yesterday's man, a relic, a relative irrelevance. Buckley on the other hand is a current coach seeking his own glory, someone yet to be torn down, a story still in the making...and so the 're-igniting' of the succession drama will only be used against him.

My opinion is that Bucks is smart enough to have batted away the questions about Mick in a more diplomatic way, and that he should have done so. He's got nothing to gain in a slanging match, and unlike Mick he has a football team to focus on.

Agreed. He lost a bit of the moral high-ground yesterday; it was so atypical. I suspect Mick's rewriting of the past broke through the armour.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

There will always be some sort of discussion about the rights and wrongs of the succession, stirred by the media and by Mick's undying bitterness. Buckley can't avoid that, no matter what he does. Still, Buckley's best weapon in combating Mick's venom has been restraint, a dignified almost-silence.

Buckley is the better man, and his dignified almost-silence has --until yesterday-- made him a small target and gave him the moral high ground. But now? He's still the better man by a long way. The thing is, the media hardly give a toss about Malthouse these days: he's yesterday's man, a relic, a relative irrelevance. Buckley on the other hand is a current coach seeking his own glory, someone yet to be torn down, a story still in the making...and so the 're-igniting' of the succession drama will only be used against him.

My opinion is that Bucks is smart enough to have batted away the questions about Mick in a more diplomatic way, and that he should have done so. He's got nothing to gain in a slanging match, and unlike Mick he has a football team to focus on.

You may be right and the media may use it against him but how is that any different to what's been happening over the past 8 seasons? He has been torn down on a number of occasions but somehow manages to get back up and go again.

Buckley's reference to 'rewriting history' is probably a response to MM outlining what Buckley supposedly didn't want him to do. Once again, the entire blame is placed on Collingwood for MM's decision to leave. MM played the martyr and many fell for it. I've said on quite a few occasions that when Malthouse referred to ED on the dais after the 2010 flag, my immediate thought was that Buckley was on a hiding to nothing. A Collingwood flag is either euphoric or bitterly disappointing, there is little in between. At that moment, the fans and the haters had something in common, they both thought "how can Buckley and Ed do this Malthouse?" I thought "Typical Malthouse" both then and when he decided to announce that he was leaving straight after a GF loss. So set the narrative of poor Mick. Did that influence perception of Buckley's behaviour and coaching ability? Good chance.

In the past, Buckley has managed to focus on his team while dealing with whatever has been thrown at him by the media and disgruntled players. I can't see him being distracted by this. If Buckley is saying that he has had enough of MM's crap and isn't about to allow him to seize this opportunity to perpetuate a one sided account of events, all power to him. He has the right to cast doubt on MM's version of events because it is this version that influenced so much.

 

[jackcass]

This MM v Bucks stuff is pretty much molehill ----> mountain.

Grist for a media circus that needs perpetual movement to seem relevant.

MM no longer at the club and has absolutely zero bearing on our game this Monday.

 

[CFC2010]

You may be right and the media may use it against him but how is that any different to what's been happening over the past 8 seasons? He has been torn down on a number of occasions but somehow manages to get back up and go again.

Buckley's reference to 'rewriting history' is probably a response to MM outlining what Buckley supposedly didn't want him to do. Once again, the entire blame is placed on Collingwood for MM's decision to leave. MM played the martyr and many fell for it. I've said on quite a few occasions that when Malthouse referred to ED on the dais after the 2010 flag, my immediate thought was that Buckley was on a hiding to nothing. A Collingwood flag is either euphoric or bitterly disappointing, there is little in between. At that moment, the fans and the haters had something in common, they both thought "how can Buckley and Ed do this Malthouse?" I thought "Typical Malthouse" both then and when he decided to announce that he was leaving straight after a GF loss. So set the narrative of poor Mick. Did that influence perception of Buckley's behaviour and coaching ability? Good chance.

In the past, Buckley has managed to focus on his team while dealing with whatever has been thrown at him by the media and disgruntled players. I can't see him being distracted by this. If Buckley is saying that he has had enough of MM's crap and isn't about to allow him to seize this opportunity to perpetuate a one sided account of events, all power to him. He has the right to cast doubt on MM's version of events because it is this version that influenced so much.

Absolutely spot on levendi.

What people forget is last year Bucks made a conscious decision to not listen or care about outside influences.......especially the media.

I guess Mick is just "another body on the road" to Bucks now...….he learnt from the best in that regard.

 

[JB1975]

You may be right and the media may use it against him but how is that any different to what's been happening over the past 8 seasons? He has been torn down on a number of occasions but somehow manages to get back up and go again.

Buckley's reference to 'rewriting history' is probably a response to MM outlining what Buckley supposedly didn't want him to do. Once again, the entire blame is placed on Collingwood for MM's decision to leave. MM played the martyr and many fell for it. I've said on quite a few occasions that when Malthouse referred to ED on the dais after the 2010 flag, my immediate thought was that Buckley was on a hiding to nothing. A Collingwood flag is either euphoric or bitterly disappointing, there is little in between. At that moment, the fans and the haters had something in common, they both thought "how can Buckley and Ed do this Malthouse?" I thought "Typical Malthouse" both then and when he decided to announce that he was leaving straight after a GF loss. So set the narrative of poor Mick. Did that influence perception of Buckley's behaviour and coaching ability? Good chance.

In the past, Buckley has managed to focus on his team while dealing with whatever has been thrown at him by the media and disgruntled players. I can't see him being distracted by this. If Buckley is saying that he has had enough of MM's crap and isn't about to allow him to seize this opportunity to perpetuate a one sided account of events, all power to him. He has the right to cast doubt on MM's version of events because it is this version that influenced so much.

I agree with most of what you say, and I certainly don't deny Buckley his right of response. And maybe yesterday's comments won't cost him. I suppose my point is just that he has very little or nothing to gain from them, and instead the media goodwill he's enjoyed over the past months (relative to the hammering he copped for years before that) could evaporate in an instant.

You're right, it won't likely affect the focus of Buckley or the team, but I'd just rather he wouldn't dignify Mick's small-minded snarls with any such reply...And all the while I know that ordinary mortals such as myself would have unloaded with a lot worse long before now.

 

[jathanas]

Absolutely spot on levendi.

What people forget is last year Bucks made a conscious decision to not listen or care about outside influences.......especially the media.

I guess Mick is just "another body on the road" to Bucks now...….he learnt from the best in that regard.

Could this be what we're seeing i.e. that Bucks has evolved to the stage that he has enough confidence in his own shoes that he will call sh*t out without batting an eyelid?

I still wish he remained quiet as it was the most dignified way IMO, but I totally understand why he said what he did.

 

[sirlothie]

You may be right and the media may use it against him but how is that any different to what's been happening over the past 8 seasons? He has been torn down on a number of occasions but somehow manages to get back up and go again.

Buckley's reference to 'rewriting history' is probably a response to MM outlining what Buckley supposedly didn't want him to do. Once again, the entire blame is placed on Collingwood for MM's decision to leave. MM played the martyr and many fell for it. I've said on quite a few occasions that when Malthouse referred to ED on the dais after the 2010 flag, my immediate thought was that Buckley was on a hiding to nothing. A Collingwood flag is either euphoric or bitterly disappointing, there is little in between. At that moment, the fans and the haters had something in common, they both thought "how can Buckley and Ed do this Malthouse?" I thought "Typical Malthouse" both then and when he decided to announce that he was leaving straight after a GF loss. So set the narrative of poor Mick. Did that influence perception of Buckley's behaviour and coaching ability? Good chance.

In the past, Buckley has managed to focus on his team while dealing with whatever has been thrown at him by the media and disgruntled players. I can't see him being distracted by this. If Buckley is saying that he has had enough of MM's crap and isn't about to allow him to seize this opportunity to perpetuate a one sided account of events, all power to him. He has the right to cast doubt on MM's version of events because it is this version that influenced so much.

The difference is clear. Malthouse is a chapter but not a Collingwood man, Buckley is a Collingwood man.