Remove this Banner Ad

News Malthouse Vs McGuire

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TradeDraft said:
After Reading this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...nd-final-tickets/story-e6frf9jf-1226327216482


He is one
Click to expand...

For those without a subscription:

FORMER Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse says his players and a poor umpiring decision were to blame for last year's Grand Final defeat rather than his tactics.

Malthouse launched a defence of the game plan that won the 2010 premiership after it was pointed out Geelong had worked out his coaching style.

But Malthouse said Collingwood's coaches had masterminded finals wins over West Coast and Hawthorn before the Grand Final defeat.

He identified Dane Swan's one-possession last quarter, a costly Chris Tarrant error and a boundary umpire incorrectly penalising Darren Jolly's ruck clearance as pivotal Grand Final moments.

Collingwood players claim Malthouse attempted to change tactics with only weeks remaining in the season, but he said that game plan stood up on the big stage.

"Take nothing away from Geelong, they were wonderful," he said.

"Five minutes before halftime we were three goals up. One blatant error where a backline player (Tarrant) didn't take the ball over, and a boundary umpire got it wrong when Jolly punched the ball out. It hit the line, that's not out, and they are within one goal.

"We were eight points down at three-quarter time, not 10 goals down, for those who want to say the game style fell apart."

The free kick against Jolly led to a Jimmy Bartel goal, while Tarrant overran the ball near the boundary and Joel Selwood goaled from a squared Allen Christensen pass.

"We kept their backline (man on man) and that's their vulnerability," Malthouse said. "Sydney proved it five weeks before. Our midfield - I can't help it if Dane Swan got one kick in the last quarter. Dane Swan is a Brownlow medallist.

"Maybe I am patting myself on the back. The game structure was good. If it was no good, I am sorry, we did our best."

Malthouse told 3AW he was amazed the coaching department could help pull off the qualifying final win over West Coast despite injuries and suspensions.

"How Collingwood beat West Coast is one of my most amazing stories," he said.

"They had all the momentum. We went in with no (Dale) Thomas, (Heath) Shaw back after eight weeks, we were short people in the backline (without Ben Reid), we played with great heart and technically we shut them down in some areas.

"The week after we played Hawthorn, who played distinctly differently to West Coast. We were able to frustrate them and then seven minutes before three-quarter time they started to kick long.

"I said to the players at three-quarter time, 'They are doing things that suit us', and we won the game."
Click to expand...
 
danielnajdek said:
WOWEE :eek:

Blaming the players and umpires but not taking any of the responsibility. Thank god his gone. Laughable that he actually thinks we lost the GF on a umpiring decision. Delusional. Even I know we were outplayed by a better team who had figured out our GAMEPLAN!!
Click to expand...

He's going senile i say.
 
danielnajdek said:
WOWEE :eek:

Blaming the players and umpires but not taking any of the responsibility. Thank god his gone. Laughable that he actually thinks we lost the GF on a umpiring decision. Delusional. Even I know we were outplayed by a better team who had figured out our GAMEPLAN!!
Click to expand...

So he does he, and I quote "take nothing away from Geelong they were wonderful"

Regardless none of this would have started if Eddie didn't make a poorly worded and poorly timed comment

He should be worried about what's happening or more important not happening in 2012, then what he believes went wrong in 2011
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Yeah blaming the players and umps is what a senior coach should do Optimax. Yeah okay :rolleyes:

How about he mans up and admits he got figured out instead of shifting all the blame to everyone else. Just trying to make himself look good when everyone knows what the truth is.
 
Micks lost his freaking mind.:eek:

How can he have a go at Swan and Tarrant, especially Tarrant, when he could have moved Taz onto Hawkins late, but never did.

We all know Mick was as much to blame for that loss than any other factor, he is now just trying to protect his legacy.

Not good Mick.:thumbsdown:
 
Because it was as much our players and other circumstances that lost the game as much as any game style, who knew varcoe would kick 3 on Davis? Who knew Reid would get a right calf injury? Who knew swan would get smashed by ling? Add into that geelong is a pretty good side too.

If we were figured out like you say, much like round 24 they'd be 70 points up at half time.

If our game style was as middle class as Eddie reckons we'd have gone out on straight sets long before the GF.

It's nice to blame everything on Malthouse, it's become the in thing the last 6/7 months, but seriously let it go.
 
mattys123 said:
Micks lost his freaking mind.:eek:

How can he have a go at Swan and Tarrant, especially Tarrant, when he could have moved Taz onto Hawkins late, but never did.

We all know Mick was as much to blame for that loss than any other factor, he is now just trying to protect his legacy.

Not good Mick.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

I love Mick and always will but he is in the wrong here. His reason for having Reid on Hawkins was that he is an all Australian and you have to have faith. FFS the bloke could hardly run! That's what lost us the GF in my opinion. You can't blame the umpires for one call, that's something a knucklehead fan would do.
 
Malthouse has every right to analyse the game plan. He is a football commentator and is expected to be insightful, cutting edge and a bit contraversial. He said two interesting things:

"Secondary stoppages were, I believe, fundamental to our structure.

"There's a different forward line structure, marginally, because it doesn't have, probably, the same intent."

He is explaining the change to the corridor approach and its effect on the lack of forward pressure with no press being played. It hardly seeems unfair to use the Toovey or Thomas kick as examples, given the handball options they had available and the chance to get the ball safely out of defence. Both players panicked when they would not have under the old structure. The defence structure has seemed less effective than last year.

Why don't we welcome expert analysis so we can better understand what Buckley is trying to do and change as coach? Eddy invites his own problems with his remarks and Malthouse in his new role is entitled to explain the new game plan. He is not actually saying his plan is better just that players are liable to be caught between two plans of action.

And what is the forward line's 'new intent'?
 
I might add until tonight no screamed feeling best us tactically, instead they whined about positional changes.

Surely if we lost on positional changes our tactics were fine? You can't argue both And if you're changing your call now, then you're an easily led sheep
 
mattys123 said:
Micks lost his freaking mind.:eek:

How can he have a go at Swan and Tarrant, especially Tarrant, when he could have moved Taz onto Hawkins late, but never did.

We all know Mick was as much to blame for that loss than any other factor, he is now just trying to protect his legacy.

Not good Mick.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Just Showing how Pissed off he was last year about leaving the Club so he is going on the Attack Against us:mad:
 
MyManDawes said:
Malthouse has every right to analyse the game plan. He is a football commentator and is expected to be insightful, cutting edge and a bit contraversial. He said two interesting things:

"Secondary stoppages were, I believe, fundamental to our structure.

"There's a different forward line structure, marginally, because it doesn't have, probably, the same intent."

He is explaining the change to the corridor approach and its effect on the lack of forward pressure with no press being played. It hardly seeems unfair to use the Toovey or Thomas kick as examples, given the handball options they had available and the chance to get the ball safely out of defence. Both players panicked when they would not have under the old structure. The defence structure has seemed less effective than last year.

Why don't we welcome expert analysis so we can better understand what Buckley is trying to do and change as coach? Eddy invites his own problems with his remarks and Malthouse in his new role is entitled to explain the new game plan. He is not actually saying his plan is better just that players are liable to be caught between two plans of action.

And what is the forward line's 'new intent'?
Click to expand...

Because he is Attacking the Club
 
daics_35 said:
I love Mick and always will but he is in the wrong here. His reason for having Reid on Hawkins was that he is an all Australian and you have to have faith. FFS the bloke could hardly run! That's what lost us the GF in my opinion. You can't blame the umpires for one call, that's something a knucklehead fan would do.
Click to expand...

Spot on :thumbsu:

He was too stubborn to make a move when everyone could see Reid was on one leg and Tarrant needed to go onto Hawkins. Even more puzzling after Pods went off injured.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

danielnajdek said:
Spot on :thumbsu:

He was too stubborn to make a move when everyone could see Reid was on one leg and Tarrant needed to go onto Hawkins. Even more puzzling after Pods went off injured.
Click to expand...

But I thought our tactics were out thought? Surely with that being the case positional changes won't change anything
 
Optimax said:
Because it was as much our players and other circumstances that lost the game as much as any game style, who knew varcoe would kick 3 on Davis? Who knew Reid would get a right calf injury? Who knew swan would get smashed by ling? Add into that geelong is a pretty good side too.
Click to expand...

Then why have the players come out and said we changed to man on man?

Then why not take Reid off Hawkins and put Tarrant on him??

Why bother playing Leon in a GF at all?

Mick is more then to blame because he was the coach and he could've changed things up but he didn't.
 
My comment above refers only to the information in page 1 of this thread about game plans, not to Mick's reasons why we lost the GF etc.
 
Optimax said:
I might add until tonight no screamed feeling best us tactically, instead they whined about positional changes.

Surely if we lost on positional changes our tactics were fine? You can't argue both And if you're changing your call now, then you're an easily led sheep
Click to expand...

I stated hours after the loss, that we changed our tactics going into the game, (I said we did it as 3/4 time in the prelim and carried it into the GF) and Mick has now confirmed that we went one on one on Grand Final day, something we didn't do all year. (no confirmation of last quarter vs Hawks I know).

But I have always maintained that the gameplan changes were working, but that our team wasn't able to commit to those changes under the extreme pressure of four quarters of high intensity football, but also that the coaching staff faltered in not changing players around positionally once it became apparent problems were arising.

A lot went wrong that day, on and off the field, and for Mick to now come out and solely blame the players (ok, and one umpiring decision) is utter crap.

I'll give Mick the first final win though, that was a coaching miracle, whether it be by motivation or tactics, with the team we had we should have lost.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

mattys123 said:
I stated hours after the loss, that we changed our tactics going into the game, (I said we did it as 3/4 time in the prelim and carried it into the GF) and Mick has now confirmed that we went one on one on Grand Final day, something we didn't do all year. (no confirmation of last quarter vs Hawks I know).

But I have always maintained that the gameplan changes were working, but that our team wasn't able to commit to those changes under the extreme pressure of four quarters of high intensity football, but also that the coaching staff faltered in not changing players around positionally once it became apparent problems were arising.

A lot went wrong that day, on and off the field, and for Mick to now come out and solely blame the players (ok, and one umpiring decision) is utter crap.

I'll give Mick the first final win though, that was a coaching miracle, whether it be by motivation or tactics, with the team we had we should have lost.
Click to expand...

What about the Hawks Game? We Really should of lost then as well
 
TradeDraft said:
What about the Hawks Game? We Really should of lost then as well
Click to expand...
The Hawks choked.:p:eek:

We fought our arses off that night, and I still maintain Mick changed the game plan at 3/4 time and said "let's go one on one" and it worked pretty well, so he carried it onto the GF based on that and the myth that Geelong had lost to Sydney because of that game style weeks earlier.

I doubt we'll ever know the complete truth though, well until someone like Ball, Pendles, Harry retires and writes a warts and all book about it.
 
mattys123 said:
The Hawks choked.:p:eek:

We fought our arses off that night, and I still maintain Mick changed the game plan at 3/4 time and said "let's go one on one" and it worked pretty well, so he carried it onto the GF based on that and the myth that Geelong had lost to Sydney because of that game style weeks earlier.

I doubt we'll ever know the complete truth though, well until someone like Ball, Pendles, Harry retires and writes a warts and all book about it.
Click to expand...

Loved The Fight in the Last in the Prelim and as you Say the Hawks did not put us away and cost them the Game.

Where was that Fight on Friday Night?
 
No surprise to me


Malthouse and McGuire both EGOMANIACS

If Buckley is not successful then the sacking of Malthouse Will go down as the worst decision in Colligwoods history according to Mick

Mick has been the same since his coaching days at Footscray so why you guys are so surprised is quite amusing

He even had a shot at Melbourne as being a no club

If Neeld wasn't the Melbourne coach he would have made no comment

Just a spiteful bastard is Mick

But a proven coach just the same
 
Where is the love Mick?
Honestly, you'd think we fired him unjustly. The facts are he agreed to the handover and then regretted it later. He should be a man and live with his decision.

As much as the decision can be questioned, what can not be questioned is that Mick Malthouse has absolutely contributed to it not succeeding.
Firstly, if he supported Bucks fully, lied and said that he was looking forward to taking a back seat, for the betterment of the club, he could have killed all of these problems before they started. But the man absolutely loves the sound of his own voice. He loves the power he had and the respect that came with it and he couldn't resist stirring the pot and causing a media shitstorm. I mean Mick is a savvy guy, he knew last year by dropping the ribbing comments to Buckley and the handover that he was putting Buckley into an enourmously pressurised position. The funny thing is he is so supportive of the other guys that coached under him, but Buckley gets absolutely NO love. It's horrible to watch.
Get rid of any senior player who is undermining Bucks (if there are any). Nathan Buckley is a Collingwood champion with a great football mind who deserves the best possible shot at being a great coach. Even if it means we lose every player bah Maxwell, Shaw and Pendlebury who all seem to speak genuinely postiviely about Bucks, I wouldn't care.
Clearly the line has been drawn by Malthouse, calling out Tarrant and Swan for their GFs. It's time they realise that Mick is not on our side anymore, in fact I would dare say that Mick Malthouse is almost an enemy of our club with the way he has acted over the past 6 months. I honeslty can't believe how childish a man of his age and wisdom could be. It defies belief. To think, all he needed to do was say, "I'm looking forward to taking a back seat and spending more time with my family" any time the question was asked and all of this crap would be gone. So frustrating.

As for the talk about tactics and GF day, Mick is actually putting forth a contradictory argument. He is saying that our game plan was not found out, despite us changing to man on man, which was a damn big change from Prelim 2010 which was a heavy press.
There may be slight confusion over what tactics he is talking about (boundary or press) but its safe to say that both did not work against Geelong at any stage last year.
It's hard to say but I am beginning to hate this guy. Calling out Swan and Tarrant and an umpiring mistake. Wow. Senility? Fragility? Whatever it is grow up and realise that you couldn't coach Collingwood forever. 12 years is a good run.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Malthouse Vs McGuire

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top