News Malthouse Vs McGuire

[PieNSauce]

The same could be said for your rationale, PieNSauce.

Wonderful to see how you have carefully dissected the argument and provided insightful explanation for your finding. Oh that I could be so analytical!

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Anyone with a half a brain. Mick's agenda is clear. He is bitter and he takes every opportunity to pot Collingwood. Eddies comments are ill-considered but Mick justifying himself by blaming the players and the umpires is just plain sad.

That is a bit insulting or those of us who don't think that Malthouse has spoken out of turn.

 

[dook]

wow, to me this is just laughable. Let's play devil's advocate.

It was Mick who agreed to the succession plan which included him taking up a role as mentor and director of coaching.

No, it was Mick who agreed to a succession plan provided a TBD role was successfully defined.

It was mick who then decided to renegge on this agreement and in doing so he has sabotaged Bucks.

No again. It was Nathan who would not allow Mick to heave any meaningful role at all. And certainly not as mentor. He didn't want Mick involved in training, match committee, or in the box. It was Mick who graciously said in public that he understood perfectly how uncomfortable it would be for Nathan to have Mick there over his shoulder. So it was the best thing to let Nathan have free reign. Not only did he not sabotage Nathan, he publicly supported him by saying it as understandable why Nathan left him with nothing to do.

It is Mick who has not missed an opportunity to pot the club over supposedly being railroaded into the deal and it is Mick who has taken a swipe at the players, the umpires and Eddie whilst seemingly exhonorating himself of any blame in regard to 2011.

This comes down to opinion. Yours is heavily biased. To me, it is Ed that has unnecessarily said multiple times Mick was finished, done, tired, etc. It was Ed that said the game plan was middle class. Those were seriously stupid things to say. They gained nothing. To expect Mick to not respond is absurd. And, in the radio interview, he was measured and supportive still of Nathan.

Constructive criticism would be welcomed but anyone who can't see Mick's bitterness is just not looking.

You wish to see it and so you do; everywhere you look.

I like both Mick and Ed. But in this time, since Mick has left the club, I look at what Eddie has said and I just shake my head saying WTF.

 

[Scodog10]

Don't sweat it PieNsauce. The same people sticking up for MM would be sinking the boots in if he were still coach, however they'd just be saying that he's had his time he should have handed over to Bucks blah blah blah. He's outside the club now (after he ultimately chose to walk away) so honestly who gives a shit what he thinks!

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Don't sweat it PieNsauce. The same people sticking up for MM would be sinking the boots in if he were still coach, however they'd just be saying that he's had his time he should have handed over to Bucks blah blah blah. He's outside the club now (after he ultimately chose to walk away) so honestly who gives a shit what he thinks!

This is not about sticking up for MM. It is about looking at what he said and deciding:
a. Whether there is any truth to his analysis of Collingwood's current dilemna
b. Whether what he has said has been said purely out of spite for his old club.
It is not about wanting MM back or criticising Buckley's coaching, but rather trying to understand why the team is playing so poorly.

 

[PieNSauce]

Don't sweat it PieNsauce. The same people sticking up for MM would be sinking the boots in if he were still coach, however they'd just be saying that he's had his time he should have handed over to Bucks blah blah blah. He's outside the club now (after he ultimately chose to walk away) so honestly who gives a shit what he thinks!

I'm not sweating it, believe me. The fact is that many of the arguments put up here are based purely on speculation or unsubstantiated media reports. The fact is that when a proposal is put to ypu and you feel pressured, if we're to believe that, you have one chance to have credibility in speaking up. Coming out and potting it so long after the fact just removes any credibility or integrity. I happen not to like the fact that Eddie has chosen to comment. It doesn't do his reputation much good but the fact is the he is an insider, Mick is an outsider. I know who is more likely to be more constructive.

 

[PieNSauce]

That is a bit insulting or those of us who don't think that Malthouse has spoken out of turn.

Do you not think that potting the club about the succession plan so long after the event was speaking out of turn? If Mick had integrity he should have said something at the time. If he is or was such a great coach I fail to see that there was much risk for him in doing so. What he has said more recently I believe the jury is still out on except the idea that he appears to exhonorate himself from all blame and responsibility in regard to 2011.

 

[Scodog10]

This is not about sticking up for MM. It is about looking at what he said and deciding:
a. Whether there is any truth to his analysis of Collingwood's current dilemna
b. Whether what he has said has been said purely out of spite for his old club.
It is not about wanting MM back or criticising Buckley's coaching, but rather trying to understand why the team is playing so poorly.

I wasn't referring to you MMD your path is always about what you think is right not about the individuals involved....

FWIW his analysis has as much weight as Ed's because all his info is now second hand. I don't think it's out of spite, MM is just a nasty person at times so while some me see it as spiteful it's just how he is.

 

[dook]

This is not about sticking up for MM. It is about looking at what he said and deciding:
a. Whether there is any truth to his analysis of Collingwood's current dilemna
b. Whether what he has said has been said purely out of spite for his old club.
It is not about wanting MM back or criticising Buckley's coaching, but rather trying to understand why the team is playing so poorly.

well said and correct.

Mick's gone and it's only about success with the current setup. I like Nathan also (met him several times as well) and I want him to succeed. I don't like Eade; never have and probably never will. But, I also want him to succeed. I want them both to succeed because I want my club to succeed.

 

[PieNSauce]

That is a bit insulting or those of us who don't think that Malthouse has spoken out of turn.

For the record, I did not intend this to be insulting. Apologies for my poor word selection. I just happen to believe, as do most in the media that Mick is bitter and twisted and has already taken a few opportunities to express just that.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I don't think it's out of spite, MM is just a nasty person at times so while some me see it as spiteful it's just how he is.

I would agree with this as I do not see MM as a lovely warm guy when on the defensive. I was really critical of his self-indulgent rant on the footy show last year and agreed with the view that he may have distracted players from the premiership goal by talking so much about himself at the business end of the season.

I don't see his current comments as being damaging to the club in the same way that his remarks were last year. I am interested in his perspective on the clubs on-field problems now that he is no longer coach.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

For the record, I did not intend this to be insulting. Apologies for my poor word selection. I just happen to believe, as do most in the media that Mick is bitter and twisted and has already taken a few opportunities to express just that.

I agree that Mick can be bitter and twisted but don't believe this is the most important thing to take from his most recent remarks. No offence taken.

 

[PieNSauce]

I agree that Mick can be bitter and twisted but don't believe this is the most important thing to take from his most recent remarks.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I actually think Mick's comments about the second-guessing of the game plan are nothing but correct. Any change in a game plan is going to take time for the players to use it as second nature and that was all he said about that. I don't believe he said it was a bad thing and I don't have a problem with his assessments in that way. What I take exception to is the total self-absolution over 2011 as though it was everyones fault but his own.

 

[ThePheonix]

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I actually think Mick's comments about the second-guessing of the game plan are nothing but correct. Any change in a game plan is going to take time for the players to use it as second nature and that was all he said about that. I don't believe he said it was a bad thing and I don't have a problem with his assessments in that way. What I take exception to is the total self-absolution over 2011 as though it was everyones fault but his own.

Yeah.....I think Mick has always been like that though. I vaguely remember MM blaming the players for losing the 2003 GF.

 

[PieNSauce]

Yeah.....I think Mick has always been like that though. I vaguely remember MM blaming the players for losing the 2003 GF.

All the worse when you name names. I don't mind the players getting a generalised bake but when so many people were wondering why the Reid-Hawkins match up wasn't changed you would think a gracious man might acknowledge that he might have tried something else.

 

[mattys123]

While like most here, I wish this would die down and disappear, maybe a public spat that lasts a few days might finally end the tension that exists regarding Micks' departure from the club.

Tonight, Eddie will be "on the couch" in an interview with Mike Sheahen, so this will go on for at least another day it seems.

 

[TradeDraft]

While like most here, I wish this would die down and disappear, maybe a public spat that lasts a few days might finally end the tension that exists regarding Micks' departure from the club.

Tonight, Eddie will be "on the couch" in an interview with Mike Sheahen, so this will go on for at least another day it seems.

So Panel Shows will just be talking about this Then?

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Going back to the 2003 GF, I recall Mick saying about Jason Cloke that he had played better in the GF in 2002, though everyone knew that Jason had been suspended for that GF. I hate him blaming others for his errors too (e.g. J Cloke was hardly equipped to play CHF), but all I am interested in this time is what light he sheds on our current situation. Maybe I have overlooked a hidden agenda on MM's part, but I don't really care about Mick anymore because he is history. We all know that MM had some obvious faults. If he unfairly criticises players or Bucks, that can then be used to motivate the players.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

So Panel Shows will just be talking about this Then?

Gee I hope not Dave!

 

[Shade]

While like most here, I wish this would die down and disappear, maybe a public spat that lasts a few days might finally end the tension that exists regarding Micks' departure from the club.

Tonight, Eddie will be "on the couch" in an interview with Mike Sheahen, so this will go on for at least another day it seems.

This childish petty fight will go on all year long.

Ed should just ignore MM i dont know why its bothering him

 

[speedytiger]

So Panel Shows will just be talking about this Then?

Gotta feel sorry for the Kangaroos. They have their best win in years and no one will even mention it.

On topic, While i never liked the original coaching agreement Mick needs to remember he signed a contract when he'd been coaching for a decade with no flag and was guaranteed 5 years employment on good money.

Obviously Mick's value went up when we won but that's what contracts are for aren't they? If we went crap in '10 Mick would have loved the security that contract gave him

 

[skinnyjim]

It's bullshit that anybody involved could be uncommitted, absolute crap. That's a rubbish excuse because it doesn't lead to any clear solutions. I agree with Malthouse's logical assessment that the players are conflicted between the Malthouse and Buckley game plans. Plus the coaching staff are new and not necessarily winners themselves-why would we want the likes of Hahn etc when they haven't even won premierships? Should have stuck with Mick in my view. I love Eddie but he cocked this right up.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Gotta feel sorry for the Kangaroos. They have their best win in years and no one will even mention it.

On topic, While i never liked the original coaching agreement Mick needs to remember he signed a contract when he'd been coaching for a decade with no flag and was guaranteed 5 years employment on good money.

Obviously Mick's value went up when we won but that's what contracts are for aren't they? If we went crap in '10 Mick would have loved the security that contract gave him

You make a good point. The contract did provide years of security for MM at a time when he had not yet coached the team to a premiership.

 

[HFF]

The only thing I agree with skinnyjam is that our assistants at the moment are a bunch of nobody's.

Ben Hart I have heard is the only guy reputable and with genuine AFL game sense. He is a keeper.

Craig McRae- another who I've heard is also a quality communicator and teacher. Just as well as he is involved in development because everyone else currently stinks.

Rodney Eade- plenty of experience as a senior coach but his record is mediocre. Could never get it done in the big games and his style of play and methodology is questionable to say the least. Not a huge fan but there was nobody else with such experience to mentor Bucks. Personally, Bucks would be better probably going it alone and not relying on Rocket who seems to be spending a shitload of time on TV this year and media.

Robert Harvey is rubbish. Yes he was a great player but have a look at the impact he has had on 2 midfields before ours- Carlton and St Kilda. In his time there, he really did not improve either of them. He was also coaching Haileybury iirc and he got them relegated a division. The guy just can't cut it as a coach.

Matthew Lappin- I'm not a fan. The way he speaks, he is a typical bogan. Seems to lack communication skills to "teach".

Mitch Hahn- first year rookie coach, tough as a player but can it translate to "coaching?" Certainly wouldn't have been on my shortlist, particularly with no experience whatsoever.

Tarkyn Lockyer- VFL coach but clearly given the job purely because he is a "friend" and "one of the boys". Our VFL development and performances since Rowdy left have been underwhelming to say the least.

Anthony Rocca- I love the big guy but I question as to what his specific role is. Seems like he has been given a job as "part of the boys" too. IF anything, he should be assigned the role of dealing exclusively with Dawesy daily, week in-week out teaching him how to take a contested mark, split packs and play with some mongrel.

Dale Tapping- new and a development line coach. I'll give him the same courtesy and time we gave Mark Neeld, although Neeld had coached successful teams in his own right. Tapping has not but as I said, I'll give him time.


We've lost a seriously good and sound support network. Granted we could do nothing about Neeld and Watters as they were offered senior positions but the point still stands, we have lost quality and replaced them with average.

We'd go close to having one of the worst batch of assistants in the league for mine- that could be something the player group may not respond well too either as they simply may not respect them enough to want to learn and work with them.

 

[TradeDraft]

The Media will make this thing worse than it is with there Stories to try and Destroy the Collingwood Football Club and The Idiots lovew it.

How about the Media ****s Off and let us work it out by Themselves