Corriewood

[Nardz]

Because i do not want to go through the pain of losing him again. I would be extremely upset if sydney ever traded him, and when he retires/is delisted i do not know if I could cope with the pain. I survived this time, so do not want to put myself through it again. That said I am still angry at Collingwood for treating him the way they did so my support is now with the Gold Coast.

Hi Rhyce,

Commiserations.

 

[PieLebo87]

No, all that showed is that he is good in both the middle and up front. If we had a good midfield, davis could fill the role up forward with aplomb.

All this relates back to Malthouse neglecting the midfield and having to put an accomplished forward line player in Davis there, when there should have been other options developed there years ago. Its called robbing Peter to pay Paul.

You know what? Thats really got me thinking.

I know this is slightly off-topic but that scared me. The fact that we're using forward line players like Didak and Davis as midfielders when we shouldn't have to.

We've been so caught up with, as FM said, a neglected midfield that we're used to playing elite players from other positions in the midfield. Davis, last year, proved he is an elite crumbing forward, and Didak is a proven elite HFF, and we're forced to turn them into midfielders, who, lets not kid ourselves, are about above average to good midfielders, compared to elite forwards.

I'm starting to believe we should concentrate on drafting MIDFIELDERS and allowing them to be full-time midfielders instead of having this rotation policy which is actually altering the perception and qualities of potential stars in their positions.

 

[Kirby]

I think the last 6 weeks of the season showed that Leon is a better than average midfielder. I'd be shocked if he wasn't playing midfield predominantly next year.

 

[Nardz]

you ppl do realise that gary ablett jr. spent a lot of time as a small forward for most of the early stages of his career?

If a small forward has the fitness and smarts to find the ball there's no reason they can't play in the middle as much, if not more than they play down forward. in the end of the day their position on the field is where the team needs them most, and a damaging midfield is always going to take higher priority over damaging crumbing forwards.

 

[well left]

I'm pretty sure Didak was a midfielder at junior level wasn't he? The plan would always have been to start the two of them up forward as they have the skills and then move them into the middle of the ground.

Maybe the both of them have been pigeon-holed as forwards for too long because of their skills and MM's desire to play hard-bodied mids like Buckley, Burns, Licuria, O'Bree, Lockyer etc. Now that these guys are retired or in veteran status it is time to let these guys have their run in the middle.

Like Kirby said, I think Leon proved in the last 6 weeks just how good a midfielder he could be.

 

[PieLebo87]

I think the last 6 weeks of the season showed that Leon is a better than average midfielder. I'd be shocked if he wasn't playing midfield predominantly next year.

I didn't say average, read it again, I said above average to good midfielders, nothing more. His last 6 weeks were at an average of 22.5 possessions a game, 1.1 goals a game and 3.5 tackles a game. Thats about above average to good, as I said. Nowhere near star or elite. Lets not over-do it just because we haven't had midfielders in years, doesn't mean we can exaggerate the quality of Davis and Didak as midfielders.

After last night, I thought to myself, I'd rather they remain predominantly forwards, where they are elite and at their best, with stints in the midfield, and let proper midfielders be midfielders. Collingwood should rectify this problem properly instead of using bandaid solutions which take away from other avenues of the field.

 

[FuManchu]

I didn't say average, read it again, I said above average to good midfielders, nothing more. His last 6 weeks were at an average of 22.5 possessions a game, 1.1 goals a game and 3.5 tackles a game. Thats about above average to good, as I said. Nowhere near star or elite. Lets not over-do it just because we haven't had midfielders in years, doesn't mean we can exaggerate the quality of Davis and Didak as midfielders.

After last night, I thought to myself, I'd rather they remain predominantly forwards, where they are elite and at their best, with stints in the midfield, and let proper midfielders be midfielders. Collingwood should rectify this problem properly instead of using bandaid solutions which take away from other avenues of the field.

Save your breath, there are that many supporters that blindly follow the party line and wont have any criticism of anything that is officially Collingwood. That includes criticising a coach that hasnt won a flag in some 14 years at this level. A period in which the game has changed a number of times. A coach that has neglected for the length of his tenure several vital areas, namely the midfield and the Rucks. A coach whose idea of a team is best characterised by having honest toilers rather than elite players.

Funnily enough, Malthouse would rather a team that mirrored his own playing style of being tough, rather than a team which was exciting and played with flair.

And you would think that after 9 unsuccesful years that people would be willing to say, thanx Mick, you have had a fair go, but you havent done what we hired you to do: thats win a flag. But no, there are some who believe he deserves yet another go, and once that has expired, some will yet again want to give him another go again.

Mick is good up unto a point, but he has failed to develop a team in all areas, he still has plodders in the midfield and have no rucks to speak of. Wood MAY be ok, but seriously after 9 years, surely one obvious ruck talent isnt too much to ask..................is it?

And now, he is robbing peter to pay paul. Playing Didak and Davis in the middle, where they will give a good account of themselves, but is this their best position? Surely, davis and Didak, if they were to be midfileders would have been there 5 years ago. He is plucking players from anywhere to fill gaps he has refused to plug years ago. What he is doing is no different than taking the best tall KPP and putting him in the ruck, because that is the best of a bad lot of options.

Everyone rants and raves about Hine and his recruiting, and that may one day bear fruit, but he is serving a flawed master in malthouse. So therefore as good as his scouting is, I have serious doubts on the total recruiting priority of the club. Are they trying to build a complete on field structure, or just a lot of the same, because that is the best available.

Now, some will come on here and voice gratuitous statements in favour of Mick, saying he deserves to take this list further and the like. But in reality, this list will not progress much further up the ladder than where they are. The on field structure is thin in 3 main areas and our inconsistant past 3 years demonstrates a fragility, which is nothing to do with youth, but thin talent in several vital areas, the key backs, the ruck and the midfield. Not to mention a game plan which actually shows what malthouse thinks of the team. The chip chip chip around the flanks shows that Malthouse has no faith in the team being able to attack flat out thru the middle, it shows that he doesnt feel that any of the forwards can compete one out with the fast ball into the forward line, otherwise he would demand the ball into the forward line as quick as possible.

His coaching is defensive by nature, his game plan is defensive by nature and he want his players only to deliver to a 100% viable option, rather than allowing players to show some flair or take a chance. He coaches as he played and that will only take you so far in todays game.

P.S , we dont need Corrie. We have a team of corries already

 

[Kirby]

I didn't say average, read it again, I said above average to good midfielders, nothing more. His last 6 weeks were at an average of 22.5 possessions a game, 1.1 goals a game and 3.5 tackles a game. Thats about above average to good, as I said. Nowhere near star or elite. Lets not over-do it just because we haven't had midfielders in years, doesn't mean we can exaggerate the quality of Davis and Didak as midfielders.

After last night, I thought to myself, I'd rather they remain predominantly forwards, where they are elite and at their best, with stints in the midfield, and let proper midfielders be midfielders. Collingwood should rectify this problem properly instead of using bandaid solutions which take away from other avenues of the field.

So, your assessment is based upon stats? Do you ignore that his 22.5 stats are more damaging than 30 from someone else? He may not be Judd but his late season form in the middle was so good because he was winning the ball and doing things with it and the side looked a whole lot better for it. I was never convinced before but I became convinced at the end of the season that he can be a genuinely top class midfielder. Yes, it is unusual to make that transition at his age but not every player is the same, he may be an exception.

I agree with Dids though. I'd prefer him to play mostly as a forward with just stints in the middle.

 

[well left]

And now, he is robbing peter to pay paul. Playing Didak and Davis in the middle, where they will give a good account of themselves, but is this their best position? Surely, davis and Didak, if they were to be midfileders would have been there 5 years ago. He is plucking players from anywhere to fill gaps he has refused to plug years ago. What he is doing is no different than taking the best tall KPP and putting him in the ruck, because that is the best of a bad lot of options.

I think you have a point regarding Didak and his best position next year should be HFF with some runs through the middle to give us some depth in rotation. Didak is a lot like Steve Johnson - Johnson had 34 disposals in the GF and yet was not dangerous as all but 6 were in the middle of the ground.

Leon is different though - I think it has only been the last two years where he has got his fitness and endurance levels to a level where he could play midfield. I reckon he is more value to us in the middle too with his pace and skills. He should still rest in a pocket from time to time though.

 

[swiftdog]

Save your breath, there are that many supporters that blindly follow the party line and wont have any criticism of anything that is officially Collingwood. That includes criticising a coach that hasnt won a flag in some 14 years at this level. A period in which the game has changed a number of times. A coach that has neglected for the length of his tenure several vital areas, namely the midfield and the Rucks. A coach whose idea of a team is best characterised by having honest toilers rather than elite players.

There are a couple of Collingwood supporters who clearly have it in for Malthouse as well. It's my view that it's the coaches job to get the players into the position to win the grand final, Mick's done that twice. On the day it's predominantly up to the players to bring home the goods. Also, I'm not saying that I'm happy with just GF appearances. We have gone for rucks and midfielders, remember the likes of Iacobucci, Rowe, Fanning and Richards etc? The only problem was that that they were all shit. Thank's Judkins. Don't be an idiot, Gary Ablett's and Lance Franklin's don't grow on trees. I think your still deluded from the Buckley days, clearly Mick would prefer to have elite players in the team than "good honest toilers", it's just not that easy to find them anymore. Hine is unearthing some great talent though.

Funnily enough, Malthouse would rather a team that mirrored his own playing style of being tough, rather than a team which was exciting and played with flair.

What makes you think that flair wins premiership? If you were to do a match between a team full of hard-nuts and a team full of flairy players the hard team would win 9 times out of 10. You need both types to win a premiership, the last 3 premiers have all had a good mix of both.

And you would think that after 9 unsuccesful years that people would be willing to say, thanx Mick, you have had a fair go, but you havent done what we hired you to do: thats win a flag. But no, there are some who believe he deserves yet another go, and once that has expired, some will yet again want to give him another go again.

If the players had got up in 02 none of this talk would be happening. The fact is that Mick has given us two fantastic chances to win a premiership and the players did not deliver. Furthermore, blind Freddy could see that now we are going forwards, not backwards. No reason to get rid of him yet, end of next year (end of his contract IIRC) may be a different story.

Mick is good up unto a point, but he has failed to develop a team in all areas, he still has plodders in the midfield and have no rucks to speak of. Wood MAY be ok, but seriously after 9 years, surely one obvious ruck talent isnt too much to ask..................is it?

Partly agree with you here. He has tried with Fanning, Richards and Cloke, probably not enough, but they were shit. Is this Mick's fault or Judkins fault? It was Judkins, and now Hine's job, to scout the talent and reccomend players to Mick. Mick has to take some responsibility, but the major responsibility falls on the head of the top recruiter.

And now, he is robbing peter to pay paul. Playing Didak and Davis in the middle, where they will give a good account of themselves, but is this their best position? Surely, davis and Didak, if they were to be midfileders would have been there 5 years ago. He is plucking players from anywhere to fill gaps he has refused to plug years ago. What he is doing is no different than taking the best tall KPP and putting him in the ruck, because that is the best of a bad lot of options.

Football's changing. No longer are there many one position players, especially at Collingwood. Our gameplan revolves around pressure and intensity. You could try chucking Swan and Pendlebury in the middle for as much of hte game as possible, but they would be tired halfway through the first. Therefore, he constantly rotates players through the midfield to decrease the prevalence of tiredness in our midfield players. Didak and Davis have shown themselves to be more than capable in the middle. As I said before, he has tried to plug up our midfield and ruck defincies but that spud Judkins simply chose the wrong ones. Compare the quality of midfielders that Hine has found compared to Judkins, you can see a clear difference between the skill levels of the two sets of players. This would indicate that Judkins was the problem, not Mick.

Everyone rants and raves about Hine and his recruiting, and that may one day bear fruit, but he is serving a flawed master in malthouse. So therefore as good as his scouting is, I have serious doubts on the total recruiting priority of the club. Are they trying to build a complete on field structure, or just a lot of the same, because that is the best available.

Won't be able to answer this until after this years draft. So far, Hine's recruiting has been pretty much all over the ground.

Now, some will come on here and voice gratuitous statements in favour of Mick, saying he deserves to take this list further and the like. But in reality, this list will not progress much further up the ladder than where they are. The on field structure is thin in 3 main areas and our inconsistant past 3 years demonstrates a fragility, which is nothing to do with youth, but thin talent in several vital areas, the key backs, the ruck and the midfield. Not to mention a game plan which actually shows what malthouse thinks of the team. The chip chip chip around the flanks shows that Malthouse has no faith in the team being able to attack flat out thru the middle, it shows that he doesnt feel that any of the forwards can compete one out with the fast ball into the forward line, otherwise he would demand the ball into the forward line as quick as possible.

This list won't get any better? How the hell can a final's winning team with 11 odd players under 21 not get better? Our last 3 years may have been inconsistent but that can be put down to a changing of the guard. No longer do we rely on Buckley, Licuria, Johnson, Holland and Rocca to win us games. When the young ones fire, we win. Take the semi-final for example, IF a 20/21 year old Jack Anthony kicks straight early on we could have one. How many finals team's are relying on 20/21/22 year olds to win them games of footy? How many teams in general rely on players this young to win them games of footy (not discounting the importance of Davis, Didak, Lockyer and co. Still an integral part of the team but even if they play well we still manage to lose some games)? In fact, when you look at it from this point of view we have no right to make the finals, but we still do. Ask yourself, how is this possible? I'll give you a hint, it's a certain man, his initials are MM.

As for the gameplan are you suggesting we go head-to-head through the middle with the likes of Hawthorn and Geelong? Hate to break it to you but our mids aren't as good as Geelongs or Hawthorns yet (you obviously already know this). Trying to take them on is the equivalent of football kamikaze. Hawk's smashed us twice (bloody Buddy), mainly through our poor ball use and an inability. If we attacked through the middle the same thing would have happened, except instead of coughing the ball up on a wing we would have coughed it up in the centre, much much worse. As I said before our gameplan relies on pressure and chipping around the wings is also a good way to preserve the energy levels of the team which in turn allows us to apply more pressure to the ball carrier when we don't have the ball. When the Pendlebury's, Thomas', Wellingham's and the Clarkes reach levels that are comparable to those of the Geelong's and Hawthorn's mids then maybe we will try to attack them, until then I'm quite happy with the way we are going.

His coaching is defensive by nature, his game plan is defensive by nature and he want his players only to deliver to a 100% viable option, rather than allowing players to show some flair or take a chance. He coaches as he played and that will only take you so far in todays game.

P.S , we dont need Corrie. We have a team of corries already

Clarko's cluster isn't what I would call an attacking gamplan, who won the last premiership? Look out for that number 13 guy with wavy long hait that plays for Collingwood, I hear he likes to take a risk or two. Little quiet bloke in the number 1 guernsey is pretty crafty as well. Number 4, Alan Didak, been in the news recently, does some amazing things. This all boils down to what I said before; Clarke, Wellingham and McCarthy etc aren't as good as Ablett, Mitchell and Bartel and trying to take them on one-on-one in every contest isn't going to end well for us.




Damn that was a long post. And all in a thread about Anthony Corrie's new nickname

 

[FuManchu]

There are a couple of Collingwood supporters who clearly have it in for Malthouse as well. It's my view that it's the coaches job to get the players into the position to win the grand final, Mick's done that twice. On the day it's predominantly up to the players to bring home the goods. Also, I'm not saying that I'm happy with just GF appearances. We have gone for rucks and midfielders, remember the likes of Iacobucci, Rowe, Fanning and Richards etc? The only problem was that that they were all shit. Thank's Judkins. Don't be an idiot, Gary Ablett's and Lance Franklin's don't grow on trees. I think your still deluded from the Buckley days, clearly Mick would prefer to have elite players in the team than "good honest toilers", it's just not that easy to find them anymore. Hine is unearthing some great talent though.

After 9 years of no success, its not a matter of having it in for him, its a matter of assessing the fact that he is not up to it and the list he has accumulated and the game plan he plays with, is not going to win a flag. It may get you tantalisingly close, but I have been tantalisingly close a number of times, I want to have a team that dominates an era, not a team that comes close. He has not, in 9 years produced a team that has dominated a season, let alone an era. Sorry, most coaches get 5 years max, he has 9 to produce also rans.

NEXT!

What makes you think that flair wins premiership? If you were to do a match between a team full of hard-nuts and a team full of flairy players the hard team would win 9 times out of 10. You need both types to win a premiership, the last 3 premiers have all had a good mix of both.

The last 3 premiers have had a lot more flair than we have had at any stage. And the one thing you can do with talent is breed some mongrel into them, its almost impossible to instill talent into footballers that are limited. We have had a lot of limited capacity footballers, some still get a gig even today, in the midfield no less.

If the players had got up in 02 none of this talk would be happening. The fact is that Mick has given us two fantastic chances to win a premiership and the players did not deliver. Furthermore, blind Freddy could see that now we are going forwards, not backwards. No reason to get rid of him yet, end of next year (end of his contract IIRC) may be a different story.

Oh my god, another if if if scenario, if only harmes hadnt dived, if only the goal umpire saw Rocca's kick differently, if only Richmond had a bus crash in 1980, if only Nth went to sleep in the last qtr, if only barry breen kicked it out of bounds. I am sick of if.

You control your own destiny, but you are relying on others to give you a hand in determining ours. Forget it. Malthouse was fortunate that circumstances allowed us to come close in 2002. In 2003, when we were playing better football, and by all rights we should have taken that game, we got flogged. No ifs there, we got flogged. Malthouse has not produced a team that is that good it created its own destiny, he has produced teams that rely on circumstances to take us the next step. Sorry, that dont cut it. I want a team that is that good, it doesnt matter what miracles the other side produce.

Partly agree with you here. He has tried with Fanning, Richards and Cloke, probably not enough, but they were shit. Is this Mick's fault or Judkins fault? It was Judkins, and now Hine's job, to scout the talent and reccomend players to Mick. Mick has to take some responsibility, but the major responsibility falls on the head of the top recruiter.

the buck stops with Mick, he picks the recruiters, he deteremines playing needs. If he has shit recruiters , then he is responsible

Football's changing. No longer are there many one position players, especially at Collingwood. Our gameplan revolves around pressure and intensity. You could try chucking Swan and Pendlebury in the middle for as much of hte game as possible, but they would be tired halfway through the first. Therefore, he constantly rotates players through the midfield to decrease the prevalence of tiredness in our midfield players. Didak and Davis have shown themselves to be more than capable in the middle. As I said before, he has tried to plug up our midfield and ruck defincies but that spud Judkins simply chose the wrong ones. Compare the quality of midfielders that Hine has found compared to Judkins, you can see a clear difference between the skill levels of the two sets of players. This would indicate that Judkins was the problem, not Mick.

the only reason we have a game plan that involves hunting is that we are not and have never been good enough to be hunted, as we hunt the Geelongs of this world. Look at how we travelled against hawthorn this year, they are now the benchmark, they are a dynamic side that has been as low as we have in the last 5 years. We are nowhere near them in terms of ability, gameplan and god knows what else it takes to win a flag. For all the recruiting Hine has done, Hawthorns on field structure with a young list is far more dynamic and talented than ours. Why is that?

Won't be able to answer this until after this years draft. So far, Hine's recruiting has been pretty much all over the ground.

Actually, Malthouses gameplan and recruiting needs have been all over the shop for years.

This list won't get any better? How the hell can a final's winning team with 11 odd players under 21 not get better? Our last 3 years may have been inconsistent but that can be put down to a changing of the guard. No longer do we rely on Buckley, Licuria, Johnson, Holland and Rocca to win us games. When the young ones fire, we win. Take the semi-final for example, IF a 20/21 year old Jack Anthony kicks straight early on we could have one. How many finals team's are relying on 20/21/22 year olds to win them games of footy? How many teams in general rely on players this young to win them games of footy (not discounting the importance of Davis, Didak, Lockyer and co. Still an integral part of the team but even if they play well we still manage to lose some games)? In fact, when you look at it from this point of view we have no right to make the finals, but we still do. Ask yourself, how is this possible? I'll give you a hint, it's a certain man, his initials are MM.

We have no KPP backmen if Brown is no good, we really have been toying with various FF's but none really are up to the mark. Anthony will get found out as a KPP, as his frame is too light to be fulltime in that position, he may be a good 3rd option back and forward, but watch next year how he will be taken apart and manhandled.

As for malthouse, his game plan is flawed, its almost like he plays to stay close, rather than to dominate. Its like he doesnt believe that the team can kill an opponent, but rather suffocate them. If the talent you speak of is so damn good, why doesnt he allow them them to go for the jugular in games where we have the ascendancy. Aside from geelong, when was the last time we dismanteld and killed an opponent? Where is the exuberance of youth in that game plan? MM stands for conservative, controlled football, his chip chip chip game will be the undoing of a few very talented footballers.

As for the gameplan are you suggesting we go head-to-head through the middle with the likes of Hawthorn and Geelong? Hate to break it to you but our mids aren't as good as Geelongs or Hawthorns yet (you obviously already know this). Trying to take them on is the equivalent of football kamikaze. Hawk's smashed us twice (bloody Buddy), mainly through our poor ball use and an inability. If we attacked through the middle the same thing would have happened, except instead of coughing the ball up on a wing we would have coughed it up in the centre, much much worse. As I said before our gameplan relies on pressure and chipping around the wings is also a good way to preserve the energy levels of the team which in turn allows us to apply more pressure to the ball carrier when we don't have the ball. When the Pendlebury's, Thomas', Wellingham's and the Clarkes reach levels that are comparable to those of the Geelong's and Hawthorn's mids then maybe we will try to attack them, until then I'm quite happy with the way we are going.

Well they are the teams we have to beat to win the chocolates, if we cant beat them in the engineroom, then we dont really stand a chance. Tell us, how are we going to win a flag against a hawthorn like team? Not using the same gameplan that they pulled apart this year twice, I dare say. Do you think we can beat a Hawthorn with that game plan? After all, we are in the comp to win a flag, not came second yet again, if indeed we get anywhere near second next year. The game plan is flawed, its a disgrace actually. No matter how good our list MAY become, that game plan will not win a flag

Clarko's cluster isn't what I would call an attacking gamplan, who won the last premiership? Look out for that number 13 guy with wavy long hait that plays for Collingwood, I hear he likes to take a risk or two. Little quiet bloke in the number 1 guernsey is pretty crafty as well. Number 4, Alan Didak, been in the news recently, does some amazing things. This all boils down to what I said before; Clarke, Wellingham and McCarthy etc aren't as good as Ablett, Mitchell and Bartel and trying to take them on one-on-one in every contest isn't going to end well for us.

My god, its fantasy world now. Hawthorn had the game plan and the personnel to push Geelong wide, cut off their delivery into a very poor forward structure, the ability to withstand the inevitable geelong challenge, perservere and then storm home. thats a lot of elements happening in one game, that allowed Hawthorn to win, when their front forwards were not all that prevalent. We'd be lucky to have been in the game until 1/4 time. That game had a lot of elements to it. We have one game plan and when that fails, we have nothing.

Damn that was a long post. And all in a thread about Anthony Corrie's new nickname

Corrid, as in horrd

 

[Keele]

After 9 years of no success, its not a matter of having it in for him, its a matter of assessing the fact that he is not up to it

Been over this with you before and you keep repeating yourself as if to say you know how to coach an AFL side better then MM. You also indicate that all those on the committee are far less intelligent regarding football matters than yourself.


If my memory is correct you then told me that your superior knowledge was due to the fact you have a far longer football experience than I. I challenge your age and length of time as a Collingwood supporter on that one

I reckon your wrong on all accounts and you yourself are very narrow minded to think that you alone have all the answers.

Its easy to criticize, which you are entitled to do and have your opinion.

It does not for one moment mean you are correct or that you have a better football brain than those doing their job at Collingwood, which going by your repeated posts and points you try to place yourself far and above those at Collingwood and it's supporters. To think that MM has all the say 100% including draft choices shows that you are not in touch with what really goes on at Collingwood.

 

[FuManchu]

Been over this with you before and you keep repeating yourself as if to say you know how to coach an AFL side better then MM. You also indicate that all those on the committee are far less intelligent regarding football matters than yourself.


If my memory is correct you then told me that your superior knowledge was due to the fact you have a far longer football experience than I. I challenge your age and length of time as a Collingwood supporter on that one

I reckon your wrong on all accounts and you yourself are very narrow minded to think that you alone have all the answers.

Its easy to criticize, which you are entitled to do and have your opinion.

It does not for one moment mean you are correct or that you have a better football brain than those doing their job at Collingwood, which going by your repeated posts and points you try to place yourself far and above those at Collingwood and it's supporters. To think that MM has all the say 100% including draft choices shows that you are not in touch with what really goes on at Collingwood.

So as voters, we are now not allowed to asses politicians every election cycle because they are better at understanding the economy?

Its the same argument, as a supporter, I have seen a bloke in the chair 9 years, I have seen his flawed game plan and I have seen an onfield structure that continually lacks in several key areas. You dont need to be an expert to see these deficiencies.

So as a voter, I say his time is up, much like the majority had the chance last year to vote out someone who had a better understanding of the economy and other associated things.

Unless you dont believe in our right to have an opinion.

And I have the weight of evidence on my side. 9 years of failure. What evidence do you have to say he should dtay in the chair, another year of 'if' or 'what if'?

 

[Keele]

And I have the weight of evidence on my side. 9 years of failure. What evidence do you have to say he should dtay in the chair, another year of 'if' or 'what if'?

My weight of evidence is the fact that up to now MM has the full support of the club, the commitee and its players.... take a look at the youtube Copeland night. I was there mate and I can tell you MM is a very popular person amongst the players

As a supporter that is more than enough confidence and evidence to show you that MM is the correct person for the job. When they the board and members responsible vote and elect a new coach or MM retires then MM will be replaced ...and by most likley the same governing body making the decision to keep him now... not you alone

Your view is that of a very very minor amount of Collingwood supporters

If you look through my post you will see I stated everyone has the right to an opinion... go along to the next AGM and vote against MM, Eddie, Hine Pert, Walsh and co. Why not ask for time to speak and tell them all what you tell us here...

Its obvious and plain that you are sour on MM for not bringing home the bacon and you keep coming up with all your own ideas making them seem far superior and better... and that you have all the answers as well as having far more knowledge in the game of football than the man who has the job, along the way you attack the club and do your best to belittle anyone not in favour of your theory.

If you were that good you would not be here on BF but coaching an AFL side or at least a VFL side....

Would you like to tell us all your experiences and success in this department (coaching football senior level) if you have any? I am sure we would be all ears and so would MM Eddie and co.

 

[Nardz]

how did this turn into a MM fanclub vs MM haters debate?

 

[shawthing09]

Have wake up Rhyce's posts been removed so as not to taint the stalking case Rhyce has filed against him. I mean there are all sorts on these kind of forums but that guy takes the cake. I am still kinda wondering if that was a massive piss take or not.

 

[Kirby]

Have wake up Rhyce's posts been removed so as not to taint the stalking case Rhyce has filed against him. I mean there are all sorts on these kind of forums but that guy takes the cake. I am still kinda wondering if that was a massive piss take or not.

Piss take for sure mate. Well, i really hope it was!

 

[PieLebo87]

So, your assessment is based upon stats? Do you ignore that his 22.5 stats are more damaging than 30 from someone else? He may not be Judd but his late season form in the middle was so good because he was winning the ball and doing things with it and the side looked a whole lot better for it. I was never convinced before but I became convinced at the end of the season that he can be a genuinely top class midfielder. Yes, it is unusual to make that transition at his age but not every player is the same, he may be an exception.

I agree with Dids though. I'd prefer him to play mostly as a forward with just stints in the middle.

Yeah I am, Kirb. Because no matter how damaging 22 possessions per game are for Davis, its nowhere near enough from a #1, or #2 midfielder in an AFL side. Thats just the last 6 weeks as well, and I know he was injuried earlier, but if he can do that for a season, then he is being an adaquate 3rd or 4th midfielder.

Davis really impressed me at the end, and I don't doubt his ability, but a top class midfielder collects a lazy 27-28 possession average a season and makes sure 80-90% are hitting targets. If Davis can do that in '09 then we can safely assume we've got ourselves a top class midfielder. But until then, as FuM said, its simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

We've got Swan, who can do that, but needs to improve his disposal considerably, and personally, I don't ever see Swan becoming a top AFL elite midfielder at Collingwood, but I'd be more then impressed having him as a 2nd stringer to a Pendlebury and a quality midfield pick up in the draft who absolutely dominate games.

Sadly, Didak should not be anything more than a part-time who pinch-hits when a Swan or Pendlebury need a rest, because he is absolutely one of the best HFFers in the AFL, and we need to utilise him there. Same goes for Medhurst, who should be kept in the forward line, and if necessary, due to form or match-ups, moved to float across half back.

 

[FuManchu]

My weight of evidence is the fact that up to now MM has the full support of the club, the commitee and its players.... take a look at the youtube Copeland night. I was there mate and I can tell you MM is a very popular person amongst the players

hardly weight of evidence, thats just circumstances allowing him to remain in the job without proper due diligence. Any other CEO of any other organisation would have been flushed out after 9 years of not delivering what they are ultimately hired to do. But at Collingwood, there is this mentality that nothing should be questioned, that Eddie ( and I do believe he is doing a good job) is beyond reproach in all his decisions. Well, sorry Eddie, you got 'boned' after 18 months at ch9 for not delivering, apply the same measure to the club.

As a supporter that is more than enough confidence and evidence to show you that MM is the correct person for the job. When they the board and members responsible vote and elect a new coach or MM retires then MM will be replaced ...and by most likley the same governing body making the decision to keep him now... not you alone

you still havent given me any other reason other than he has the support of the board. What on field parameters have you set him to allow you to think he has succeeded at Collingwood?

Your view is that of a very very minor amount of Collingwood supporters

How do you know? Have you polled every supporter, or have you just read the views on a very limited forum of perhaps 20 to maybe 100 supporters, when in fact 100's of thousands exist. neither you or I can truly guage what the collective thinking of the mass of Collingwood supporters really is. Even the AGM will not be a true indication of the collective thinking. It will be attended by maybe a thousand, maybe even double, but that is only a small percentage.

If you look through my post you will see I stated everyone has the right to an opinion... go along to the next AGM and vote against MM, Eddie, Hine Pert, Walsh and co. Why not ask for time to speak and tell them all what you tell us here...

Unlike you, I work in remote WA, I am hardly going to give up $650 a day just to go to melbourne to say something that is not going to be heeded. To be honest, I think next year is his last, Eddie knows it too and they just dont want to pay out 850 large if they dont have to. And I'm sure there are plenty who think the same. But are too scared to voice an opinion in case they get ridiculed by some mindless sycophants like yourself. And if what you are saying is that I am not allowed on this Collingwood football club forum and allowed to criticise the coach who has failed in wat he was hired to do, then what is the purpose of the forum? I dont see it saying that it is the 'Keele Sycophant Club Forum'. It is a discussion forum where you and I are allowed to discuss the club. It is hardly contingent on me then being forced to stop work travel across the country and tell the club the same. I'm pretty sure the powers that be can read and would be having discussion in back rooms themselves voicing varying degrees of dissent themselves at the lack of success themselves. If they are not, then they are not performing due diligence.

Its obvious and plain that you are sour on MM for not bringing home the bacon

der ............. and it is obvious that you are content with MM not having any success at Collingwood

and you keep coming up with all your own ideas making them seem far superior and better

Changing the coach is going to occur at some stage, probably very soon, so why does my thinking it should happen after 9 years seem so bad when it will occur in the next year or so anyway?

... and that you have all the answers

what then is your answer? Allow a bloke who has failed to do what he has been hired to do, to continue to fail?

as well as having far more knowledge in the game of football than the man who has the job

I never said that and my last post said I never knew more than him, but it is plainly obvious that MM does not have the capacity to take this club to the flag. Otherwise he would have gotten us the ultimate prize. he hasnt won a flag in some 14 or so years, in that time some 10 other clubs hve won a flag, since he has been at Collingwood some 7 other clubs have won flags. HE HASNT.

, along the way you attack the club and do your best to belittle anyone not in favour of your theory.

So, recognising that the club is not achieving what it is meant to achieve is attacking the club and belittling it????? I would have thought in this day and age that the club should be big enough to absorb all opinions and not be a nest for sycophants who at the end of the day do not challenge long heldthinking that is plainly going nowhere.

If you were that good you would not be here on BF but coaching an AFL side or at least a VFL side....

As I said before, I am not a politician or an economist, but I am allowed to vote, to express an opinion and partake in the political decision making process in this country. What is the difference when assesing a football club? Why should myself or anyone for that matter then be excluded from voicing an opinion about where the club is plainly falling down? You dont need to be einstein to see the deficiencies on field at Collingwood. The same difficiencies that have never been addressed in 9 years of tenure.

Would you like to tell us all your experiences and success in this department (coaching football senior level) if you have any? I am sure we would be all ears and so would MM Eddie and co.

[/QUOTE]

Tell me your experiences which allow you to vote at elections, tell me your experiences which allow you to have the only valid opinion in this matter then. I'm figuring they are equal to mine. The only difference is that I am dissatisfied with continual failure and you are quite happy for it to continue

 

[Keele]

and it is obvious that you are content with MM not having any success at Collingwood

quite untrue... MM has had a lot of success at the club

with what we have MM has done a great job... hence the faith in him by the club.

The only difference is that I am dissatisfied with continual failure and you are quite happy for it to continue

You seem to repeat yourself that I am happy not to succeed


All clubs and supporters hope for and strive for the best result and in the long run that is to win the flag. Nothing I have said indicates or validates your point in saying I am happy to sit by and not see success... I see success with every win, I see success in recruiting and blooding young players, I follow and support my side, not sit back and be critical of a coach to a point where you have a vendetta against him and lay blame for not winning a flag entirely upon him, you must feel the same way for Bob Rose

You as I have stated indicate that the blame lies entirely with MM I differ and so do the Collingwood football club, we are heading in the right direction.. And to keep this thread in line I am fully behind the decision to get Corrie for a bargian. Will be a great asset to the club.


Nathan Buckley stated on GF day that he played in 2 losing grand final teams that played their best and to their utmost, but were unseccessful and were beaten by a better side on those days... no mention of coach being better or worse.

Maybe MM is to blame now for cousins not coming... get on that wagon while you can.