News Age interview with Matt Rendell

[sr36]

sr36, this is a great piece and let me respond on a cupla of your insightful comments:

(i) We can always learn from history particularly when the bloke responsible for the succession plan clusterfu** is still at the helm.

(ii) The old Director of Coaching role. It's the third time I've fallen for that one this month. A desperate and futile attempt by McGuire to have his cake and eat it too. Of course there was no formal role. It was a desperate and arguably covert attempt to keep Malthouse at bay whilst bringing the new boy into the fold. Quite clever actually. Naturally when Malthouse rightly queried the specs of the role in 2011, McGuire was found wanting. It was nothing more than a generous superannuation payout. Tokenism. And the key issue that most people conveniently forget is that Buckley would have been extremely uncomfortable having Malthouse oversee his coaching methods. Think about it. A recent premiership coach who had strong connections with the playing group overseeing the new kid on the block who had no coaching pedigree and had tenuous relationships with a number of the players. Untenable! And Malthouse is accused of being the villain here by not honoring the contract. By walking away from a soft role that probably paid in the vicinity of $600,000 - $800,000 pa. Take a guess who at Collingwood would have been jumping out of his skin when Malthouse walked away from the Director of Coaching role?

In terms of Bucks, I do blame him for some coaching decisions made aftre he took over, but I disagree in apportioning any blame to him regarding the succession plan. His greatness comes from hard work, continual improvment, talent and just as importantly confidence and ambition. He had every right to want and accept the head coach job. It was up to Eddie and the board to appoint the best coaching panel most likely to bring success. I personally don't think that was Bucks calling the shots without anyon oveerseeing, but that's what the board chose and good luck to Bucks. He's grown into the job and I think he'll end up being very successful.

 

[Capital Magpie]

sr36, this is a great piece and let me respond on a cupla of your insightful comments:

(i) We can always learn from history particularly when the bloke responsible for the succession plan clusterfu** is still at the helm.

(ii) The old Director of Coaching role. It's the third time I've fallen for that one this month. A desperate and futile attempt by McGuire to have his cake and eat it too. Of course there was no formal role. It was a desperate and arguably covert attempt to keep Malthouse at bay whilst bringing the new boy into the fold. Quite clever actually. Naturally when Malthouse rightly queried the specs of the role in 2011, McGuire was found wanting. It was nothing more than a generous superannuation payout. Tokenism. And the key issue that most people conveniently forget is that Buckley would have been extremely uncomfortable having Malthouse oversee his coaching methods. Think about it. A recent premiership coach who had strong connections with the playing group overseeing the new kid on the block who had no coaching pedigree and had tenuous relationships with a number of the players. Untenable! And Malthouse is accused of being the villain here by not honoring the contract. By walking away from a soft role that probably paid in the vicinity of $600,000 - $800,000 pa. Take a guess who at Collingwood would have been jumping out of his skin when Malthouse walked away from the Director of Coaching role?

So you're saying we should have not devised the succession plan, which would have meant that Buckley would have been lost to the Kangaroos, and we would have carried on with Mick at the helm in 2012? Unpalatable. Most likely Mick would have continued to have lost the plot anyway (as evidenced by his lack of moves in the 2011 GF), and we would have been looking for a new coach in 2012 or 2013, and wouldn't have been able to prise Buckley away from North. Unpalatable.
in any case, it's in the past and we can't change it, so why are we discussing it now?

 

[jackcass]

sr36, this is a great piece and let me respond on a cupla of your insightful comments:

(i) We can always learn from history particularly when the bloke responsible for the succession plan clusterfu** is still at the helm.

(ii) The old Director of Coaching role. It's the third time I've fallen for that one this month. A desperate and futile attempt by McGuire to have his cake and eat it too. Of course there was no formal role. It was a desperate and arguably covert attempt to keep Malthouse at bay whilst bringing the new boy into the fold. Quite clever actually. Naturally when Malthouse rightly queried the specs of the role in 2011, McGuire was found wanting. It was nothing more than a generous superannuation payout. Tokenism. And the key issue that most people conveniently forget is that Buckley would have been extremely uncomfortable having Malthouse oversee his coaching methods. Think about it. A recent premiership coach who had strong connections with the playing group overseeing the new kid on the block who had no coaching pedigree and had tenuous relationships with a number of the players. Untenable! And Malthouse is accused of being the villain here by not honoring the contract. By walking away from a soft role that probably paid in the vicinity of $600,000 - $800,000 pa. Take a guess who at Collingwood would have been jumping out of his skin when Malthouse walked away from the Director of Coaching role?

That's some of the most creative re-writing of history I've seen in some time. Well done.

 

[Help My Club]

I thought Rodney Eade assumed the Director of Coaching role when Mick refused it. Lasted a couple of years before going to the Suns. Then the role sort of disappeared. So it was a legitimate role, at least in conception, before being discarded by the club.

Actually, I’ve just checked the ever reliable Wikipedia, which has a slightly different take:

‘On 3 October 2011, Eade was appointed by Collingwood to the position of Football and Coaching Strategist, replacing outgoing coach Mick Malthouse, who had originally planned to step into that role after the 2011 season.‘

Vicky

It was a bogus role, plain and simple particularly given the relationship between Buckley and Malthouse. It would never have worked and I have no doubt Buckley was relieved when Malthouse declined it. As for Eade stepping in, he had no history with the players nor Buckley and hence was not a threat and subsequently, was a safe appointment. All parties won (i) McGuire, I mean the club salvaged its credibility (ii) Buckley did not have the spectre of Malthouse resting on his shoulder (iii) Eade earned the easiest coin ever.

 

[sr36]

So you're saying we should have not devised the succession plan, which would have meant that Buckley would have been lost to the Kangaroos, and we would have carried on with Mick at the helm in 2012? Unpalatable. Most likely Mick would have continued to have lost the plot anyway (as evidenced by his lack of moves in the 2011 GF), and we would have been looking for a new coach in 2012 or 2013, and wouldn't have been able to prise Buckley away from North. Unpalatable.
in any case, it's in the past and we can't change it, so why are we discussing it now?

The issue is that we didn't really devise a succession plan, becasue nobody knew what MMs role was going to be. Our supposed plan wasn't really a plan at all. I don't think any other club will follow our lead in terms of 'succession planning' because regardless of which side of the fence you sit - we ballsed it up and did our club some damage.

 

[Help My Club]

That's some of the most creative re-writing of history I've seen in some time. Well done.

Thank you. So you like my literary skills?

 

[Help My Club]

So you're saying we should have not devised the succession plan, which would have meant that Buckley would have been lost to the Kangaroos, and we would have carried on with Mick at the helm in 2012? Unpalatable. Most likely Mick would have continued to have lost the plot anyway (as evidenced by his lack of moves in the 2011 GF), and we would have been looking for a new coach in 2012 or 2013, and wouldn't have been able to prise Buckley away from North. Unpalatable.
in any case, it's in the past and we can't change it, so why are we discussing it now?

Why this manic desire/panic not to lose an untried senior coach to North? Anything to do with his past history as a champion of the club, by chance?

Further, imagine if Buckley had cut his teeth at North? Do you honestly think Big Ed wouldn't have got his way and got Buckley back to the Pies after an apprenticeship at North's expense? Palatable.

 

[jackcass]

I'm not suggesting Bucks was responsible. I'm suggesting that coaching at the club was responsible, because I consider fitness drills to be a part of coaching.

Hmmm, maybe the "Bucks stops with Bucks" comment is the manifestation of your confusion about all this, or maybe its that your initial comment was in response to a post about Bucks learning on the job which has me confused.

Either way, IMHO fitness program design and delivery has no more to do with "coaching" than the can be claimed for the medicos, the dietitian, the boot studder / property steward, the guy taking stats, or the guy doling out GPS trackers etc etc. They're support programs which ensure players are prepared for coaching.

 

[Maggie5]

All parties won (i) McGuire, I mean the club salvaged its credibility (ii) Buckley did not have the spectre of Malthouse resting on his shoulder (iii) Eade earned the easiest coin ever.

Not all parties won. Malthouse didn't get the opportunity to be more destructive.
Good riddance!

 

[Capital Magpie]

Why this manic desire/panic not to lose an untried senior coach to North? Anything to do with his past history as a champion of the club, by chance?

Further, imagine if Buckley had cut his teeth at North? Do you honestly think Big Ed wouldn't have got his way and got Buckley back to the Pies after an apprenticeship at North's expense? Palatable.

I wouldn't categorise it as a "manic desire", more a reasonable intention. No, the club hated the idea of losing a champion player and potentially a great coach to a rival mob, so we devised the succession plan as a compromise.

And you can't say that it was a failure, given the succession plan was announced in 2009 and guess what? It spurred Mick on to landing us a flag the following year, recruiting Jolly and ball in the process. It's likely if we hadn't devised the succession plan, Mick would have been content to continue on without a rocket up him, hence no flag in 2010; now that would have been unpalatable!

But again, I'm not sure how this discussion advances things, as the subject is done and dusted and we can't revisit history.

 

[Capital Magpie]

The issue is that we didn't really devise a succession plan, becasue nobody knew what MMs role was going to be. Our supposed plan wasn't really a plan at all. I don't think any other club will follow our lead in terms of 'succession planning' because regardless of which side of the fence you sit - we ballsed it up and did our club some damage.

Didn't the Swans introduce a succession plan involving John Longmire shortly after we did? I think Melbourne might have had one at that time with whoever their coach/coach in waiting was at the time?

 

[sr36]

Didn't the Swans introduce a succession plan involving John Longmire shortly after we did? I think Melbourne might have had one at that time with whoever their coach/coach in waiting was at the time?

You're right. But they were straight after and before the result was known. Sydney and Longmire's success should mean that they aren't written off, but ballsing it up like we did should be careefully avoided.

 

[jackcass]

The issue is that we didn't really devise a succession plan, becasue nobody knew what MMs role was going to be. Our supposed plan wasn't really a plan at all. I don't think any other club will follow our lead in terms of 'succession planning' because regardless of which side of the fence you sit - we ballsed it up and did our club some damage.

We'll never know whether the plan had clear designs underpinning it and MM's expectations changed over time with greater team success, or if it was some loose concepts, or if it was just a media conference with little substance behind it. I don't think it really matters either way. The scuttlebutt at the time suggested Eddie initiated the succession plan to keep MM in the coaching role with the board apparently keen for change at the top.

That MM failed to adequately groom Bucks through that period is however IMHO indisputable. That his growing petulance likely cost us greater glory in 2011 is highly probable. That he sowed massive discontent among the player group undermining greater short term success on his way out is again highly probable. That he failed to honour his commitment is indisputable. So to me, the lions share of the blame for the failed implementation of the succession sits squarely with MM irrespective of how thorough the plan was at inception.

Might be why we'll never see another succession plan with the departing head coach retaining an ongoing role within the club post change over but I think that'll more likely be very much personality driven.

 

[jackcass]

Didn't the Swans introduce a succession plan involving John Longmire shortly after we did? I think Melbourne might have had one at that time with whoever their coach/coach in waiting was at the time?

Yep, Paul Roos has implemented 2. Now the Bombers are following that model. The major difference between all of those and ours is that we intended to keep MM on after he'd handed over the reins.

 

[Help My Club]

Not all parties won. Malthouse didn't get the opportunity to be more destructive.
Good riddance!

Think it through for one moment. If Malthouse was intent on being more destructive, he had every opportunity to do so by staying at the club in the Director of Coaching role. But he didn't. He walked away from what would have been a very lucrative role. Seems a little incongruous don't you think?

 

[Maggie5]

Think it through for one moment. If Malthouse was intent on being more destructive, he had every opportunity to do so by staying at the club in the Director of Coaching role. But he didn't. He walked away from what would have been a very lucrative role. Seems a little incongruous don't you think?

No need to think about it nor clean it up like you are attempting.
Good riddance!!!!!

 

[Help My Club]

You're right. But they were straight after and before the result was known. Sydney and Longmire's success should mean that they aren't written off, but ballsing it up like we did should be careefully avoided.

The Sydney succession plan worked because all parties were aligned.

 

[sr36]

We'll never know whether the plan had clear designs underpinning it and MM's expectations changed over time with greater team success, or if it was some loose concepts, or if it was just a media conference with little substance behind it. I don't think it really matters either way. The scuttlebutt at the time suggested Eddie initiated the succession plan to keep MM in the coaching role with the board apparently keen for change at the top.

That MM failed to adequately groom Bucks through that period is however IMHO indisputable. That his growing petulance likely cost us greater glory in 2011 is highly probable. That he sowed massive discontent among the player group undermining greater short term success on his way out is again highly probable. That he failed to honour his commitment is indisputable. So to me, the lions share of the blame for the failed implementation of the succession sits squarely with MM irrespective of how thorough the plan was at inception.

Might be why we'll never see another succession plan with the departing head coach retaining an ongoing role within the club post change over but I think that'll more likely be very much personality driven.

The bolded is the only bit that I'd dispute. He committed to being the "Director of coaching." We'll never know if he believed that meant that he was going to direct the coaches - like the name implies or whether it was going to be a non-directing role - like it was supposedly pitched when the details were belatedly handed over.

 

[Help My Club]

No need to think about it nor clean it up like you are attempting.
Good riddance!!!!!

True to form. Typical Big Footy response to a reasonable question that is not aligned to a person's preconceived position. Very predictable.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Cheers Pal. I think you and I can cut through the emotive crap and see it for what it is. Mind you at this rate, notwithstanding your high standing, you run the risk of being classed as a 'Buckley hater' in time. A heinous crime in these parts.

I think for those pro Bucklinites who accuse you of creative writing and fiction and s**t like that.. there's absolutely none of that coming from their end.. of course not..

I'm with you re.. the club made a complete mess of it..

 

[Maggie5]

True to form. Typical Big Footy response to a reasonable question that is not aligned to a person's preconceived position. Very predictable.

I actually am not surprised you are back on your favourite topic and as far as I am concerned it has been done to death.

Barely related to the thread title but that doesn't bother you in the least.

You are also very much true to form.

 

[Help My Club]

The bolded is the only bit that I'd dispute. He committed to being the "Director of coaching." We'll never know if he believed that meant that he was going to direct the coaches - like the name implies or whether it was going to be a non-directing role - like it was supposedly pitched when the details were belatedly handed over.

This is key. Otherwise why would a man "without integrity" walk away from such a lucrative role? Surely a man "without integrity" would reflect on the role and come to the conclusion - the gig is not what I thought it would be but to hell with it, I'll take the money.

 

[Help My Club]

I actually am not surprised you are back on your favourite topic and as far as I am concerned it has been done to death.

Barely related to the thread title but that doesn't bother you in the least.

You are also very much true to form.

Yes Mr Moderator.

 

[Maggie5]

Yes Mr Moderator.

Ms.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Seriously.. Longmire was an assistant coach at Sydney from 2002.. until he succeeded Roos role in 2011.. that's almost 10 yrs as an assistant.. he started of as an assistant.. made a great impression in that time.. offered senior coaching jobs elsewhere St Kilda or North Melbourne or some s**t like that..

He basically did the hard yards.. earnt his stripes.. before being asked to commit to a succession planning role.. wasn't gifted it on a silver platter after coaching AIS lads.