Toast Mick Malthouse

[Grumpy Bum]

Gratz to Mick Malthouse, seen off all the whingers and nay sayers to lead us to 2nd position after 11 games.

We are simply in a great position, one that very few so called "experts", and even most of our supporters thought we would never be in.

Yes, September is when it will really count, but all you can judge MM on in 2010 is how the side is going, and how many wins are on the board.

It doesn't really matter how you win during the season, just that you do, because ultimately, rounds 1-22 are just qualifiers for the "real stuff".

We are half way to qualifying in second spot, as another 8-3 run will get us second spot, I guarantee you that.

To those who keep whinging about MM still being coach, GET THE **** OVER IT, he is our coach for the next season and a half, and there is nothing anyone can and will do about it, so how about supporting the team and the coaching staff instead of bitching for no reason.

We are in a great position, now for the second half of the season, I wish MM, Eddie and the club all the best, and so should every Collingwood supporter.

I wish he'd win a flag

If malthouse is so damned good, why has Eddie sacked him 2 years out, when he is supposedly at the peak of his powers? Do you lose your supposed powers in that 2 years?

Seems like Eddie was too gutless to sack a coach he knew didn't quite have the goods, but the multitudes were so hypnotised by finals finishes, he came up with some lame transition period so he didnt have to make an unpopular decision.

Seriously, you don't claim a coach is at the peak of his powers then create a situation to get rid of him 2 years later.

Eddie chickened out of telling us what he really thought of malthouse's ability to take this list further.

 

[Pie eyed]

I wish he'd win a flag

If malthouse is so damned good, why has Eddie sacked him 2 years out, when he is supposedly at the peak of his powers? Do you lose your supposed powers in that 2 years?

Seems like Eddie was too gutless to sack a coach he knew didn't quite have the goods, but the multitudes were so hypnotised by finals finishes, he came up with some lame transition period so he didnt have to make an unpopular decision.

Seriously, you don't claim a coach is at the peak of his powers then create a situation to get rid of him 2 years later.

Eddie chickened out of telling us what he really thought of malthouse's ability to take this list further.

What ever helps you sleep.

 

[mattys123]

I wish he'd win a flag

Seems like Eddie was too gutless to sack a coach he knew didn't quite have the goods, but the multitudes were so hypnotised by finals finishes, he came up with some lame transition period so he didnt have to make an unpopular decision.

So what was Eddie to do?

Sack MM, and appoint Buckley, this is the point most are making in regards t your comments, you have not given us an alternative.

The FACTS are that Eddie desperately wanted Nathan Buckley to become the senior coach of the Collingwood Football Club, but Buckley simply wasn't ready to be a senior coach, hence the Malthouse/Buckley deal was reached.

The deal Eddie put in place enables Nathan Buckley to become senior coach in 2012, when he will have had a good "grounding" in AFL coaching ranks.

During that 2 year period, someone had to fill the gap, and on the open market, there simply wasn't a better option then MM, and thus he was re-installed for the final 2 years, to bring a "peaceful" entry into the senior coaching ranks for Bucks.

Really, give us an alternative, because all you have done for years on here is whinge about MM, without actually giving us a viable alternative that still would have seen Buckley become Collingwood senior coach within the next 2-3 years.

I'm sick of this tireless MM bashing without an actual underlying response or intelligence that suggests a plan that would be any better.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

So what was Eddie to do?

If he firmly believed MM was at the peak of his powers, he wouldnt sack him.

Sack MM, and appoint Buckley, this is the point most are making in regards t your comments, you have not given us an alternative.

You dont tell the world a coach is at the peak of his powers then put in place a contrived plan to get rid of him.

What is Eddie really telling malthouse here?

The FACTS are that Eddie desperately wanted Nathan Buckley to become the senior coach of the Collingwood Football Club, but Buckley simply wasn't ready to be a senior coach, hence the Malthouse/Buckley deal was reached.

Apparently MM is/was the best coach going around, why put in place a plan to get rid of him?

The deal Eddie put in place enables Nathan Buckley to become senior coach in 2012, when he will have had a good "grounding" in AFL coaching ranks.

But isnt MM the best coach going around?

During that 2 year period, someone had to fill the gap, and on the open market, there simply wasn't a better option then MM, and thus he was re-installed for the final 2 years, to bring a "peaceful" entry into the senior coaching ranks for Bucks.

So, MM is going to lose his prowess in that 2 years?

Really, give us an alternative, because all you have done for years on here is whinge about MM, without actually giving us a viable alternative that still would have seen Buckley become Collingwood senior coach within the next 2-3 years.

I wouldn't tell the world the coach is primo, then set about getting rid of him.

I'm sick of this tireless MM bashing without an actual underlying response or intelligence that suggests a plan that would be any better.

That makes you mad? Not winning flags is OK, but heaven forbid anyone criticise the coach that has overseen the past decade of not winning that flag!!!

I think your priorities are a little askew.

But of course, MM is the best coach, but move aside MM, we dont want the best, we want Buckley. I know, Eddie knows, the footballing world knows, Buckley knows, Malthouse definitely knows, he has been sacked, in the most roundabout way possible.

Its a farce.

 

[No SPIN]

I think that was more a case that the mods had to pick one side of the argument and given there is a mindless majority on this forum that blindly follow the party line of dare not criticise or be seen as disloyal, they systematically got rid of anyone that dare criticise. Probably a weak stance to take, seems they are too scared to have a discussion board, preferring a rah rah rah board instead.



I would have thought it was just a logical conclusion. 10 years without a flag yet the most highly paid coach. Benchmark that against any other coach, club or coach's tenure in the AFL and you can only draw one conclusion: he has failed.




Striving for success!! Thats interesting. I am just trying to bring some balance to a one sided forum. It will do no-one any good if everyone came on here and supported everything the club did, when the club hasn't done the one thing its meant to do.

Did you criticise Eddie when he sought the presidency because he obviously thought the previous administration wasnt doing what the club should be doing? Whats the difference between him challenging the status quo and anyone else challenging the status quo. When something isn't working, people need to speak up.



So, your brilliant idea is to stick with the one thing we know wont work. A fool is someone who repeats his mistakes. Maybe you think 4th is all that we should be achieving!!




Once again, you want to stick with the one ingredient we know wont work. I think its you that has no credibility, or courage to mix things up and see if there is anything that will work. Maybe you are content with 4th. That might be the height of your aspirations for this club!! 4th ...... nah, 4th don't cut it for me, 3rd nor 2nd neither.



I couldnt give a fat rats clacker who you want to respect. What I don't want is to keep on finishing in the finals but not progressing. people laughed at Richmond and their 9ths. Whats the difference between that and 4th? besides poorer draft picks.



I suspect you don't want to be seen outside the pack, for fear of ridicule. I guess there are leaders and there are followers in every crowd.

A predictably hysterical response - but no substance, no conviction, no insight.
Just vacuous rhetoric - I ask a simple question, but your response is full of diversion and obfuscation.

Who is the coach that will guarantee CFC a Flag - its as simple question Just as simple as your position that MM can't win a flag.

lets try an answer this time with out the diversion, and obfuscation.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

A predictably hysterical response - but no substance, no conviction, no insight.
Just vacuous rhetoric - I ask a simple question, but your response is full of diversion and obfuscation.

Who is the coach that will guarantee CFC a Flag - its as simple question Just as simple as your position that MM can't win a flag.

lets try an answer this time with out the diversion, and obfuscation.

There are no guarantees, but if we followed your line, Jock Mchale would still be coaching if he was alive.

Why is it every other club in the history of the AFL has shed themselves of coaches before the 10 years, most within 5 years if they fail to land a flag? Even brisbane pretty much gently pushed Matthews within the 10 year period and that was after 3 flags!

I am pretty sure no coach has had 11 consecutive years at any one club without a flag. I would think that no coach has gone 16 consecutive years at AFL/VFL level without winning a flag. Yet malthouse is seemingly excused from this benchmark

Can you remind us all why he is the exception to the rule?

Every other club has the courage to roll the dice looking for that elusive ingredient. Collingwood has determined it will allow 12 years of the same formula. You have to wonder why, given it hasn't achieved.

 

[No SPIN]

There are no guarantees, but if we followed your line, Jock Mchale would still be coaching if he was alive.

Why is it every other club in the history of the AFL has shed themselves of coaches before the 10 years, most within 5 years if they fail to land a flag? Even brisbane pretty much gently pushed matthews with the 10 year period and that was after 3 flags!

I am pretty sure no coach has had 11 consecutive years at any one club without a flag. I would think that no coach has gone 16 years at AFL/VFL level without winning a flag. Yet malthouse is seemingly excused from this benchmark

Can you remind us all why he is the exception to the rule?

Every other club has the courage to roll the dice looking for that elusive ingredient. Collingwood has determined it will allow 12 years of the same formula. You have to wonder why, given it hasn't achieved.

Oh you don't have an answer - until you have credible solution to a better replacement for MM that WILL win a flag for CFC then you have no credibility - its just "change for change sake"!!!!!!
Remember that " change for change sake" - its nauseatingly simple, but succinctly categorises the lack of substance in your position.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Oh you don't have an answer - until you have credible solution to a better replacement for MM that WILL win a flag for CFC then you have no credibility - its just "change for change sake"!!!!!!
Remember that " change for change sake" - its nauseatingly simple, but succinctly categorises the lack of substance in your position.

Cmon, remind us all why Malthouse is the exception to the rule

 

[No SPIN]

Cmon, remind us all why Malthouse is the exception to the rule

Now I know I've got you -
You've given up without an honourable contest, sad but predictbale.

"change for change sake" - the four words that will do it everytime.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Now I know I've got you -
You've given up without an honourable contest, sad but predictbale.

"change for change sake" - the four words that will do it everytime.

No, tell everyone why malthouse is the exception to the rule.

Even Eddie doesnt think he is the man for the job, in a roundabout way

 

[No SPIN]

No, tell everyone why malthouse is the exception to the rule.

He is not an exception to the rule - if you can offer a well reasoned case for a specific individual to replace MM, because he WILL deliver a flag then I'm prepared to listen.

You might believe in "change for change sake", but I don't.

 

[Pie eyed]

Obviously Mick is on shaky ground at the moment.
Otherwise there would not be this groundswell of discontent which, unlike past displays of people power, will end in Malty getting sacked straight after the week off.

The silent, invisible, majority will have spoken at last.

Although Eddie in his cowardice may again be unwilling to sack a coach simply on the behest of a few dozen.

 

[Football God]

Lol 1 week he's on roast the next, he's on Toast.

footballs a funny game. keep going Mick these are all must win games from here on end.

We should be aiming for a Top 2 finish home game at the 'G not a Top 4, could be in Perth if we finish 3rd or 4th for all we know.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

He is not an exception to the rule - if you can offer a well reasoned case for a specific individual to replace MM, because he WILL deliver a flag then I'm prepared to listen.

You might believe in "change for change sake", but I don't.

If a coach hasn't landed a flag within 5 years, they are usually booted. Malthouse is now the longest serving coach for consecutive years at any club that hasn't landed a flag. Why is he the exception to the rule? You refuse to answer that.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Obviously Mick is on shaky ground at the moment.
Otherwise there would not be this groundswell of discontent which, unlike past displays of people power, will end in Malty getting sacked straight after the week off.

The silent, invisible, majority will have spoken at last.

Although Eddie in his cowardice may again be unwilling to sack a coach simply on the behest of a few dozen.

Eddie has already sacked Malthouse after he described him at the peak of his powers, for an untried and unproven coach.

maybe you should question Eddie as to why he wants to get rid of someone he thinks is the best in the business for someone with minimal experience..

 

[Pie eyed]

Eddie has already sacked Malthouse after he described him at the peak of his powers, for an untried and unproven coach.

maybe you should question Eddie as to why he wants to get rid of someone he thinks is the best in the business for someone with minimal experience..

Strange, the bloke in the box looks remarkably like Malthouse. Could Bucks have aged this quickly or is it a mannequin?

Oh I see what you're insinuating? If that is how you need to interpret a contract extension and a following 3 year contract in another position to help you deal with the reality that eventuated after such a long and futile squawk on your behalf prior then I am happy to humour you.

Fact is that Malthouse is the coach, Will be until he hands over to Bucks and will never be "sacked" as the Coach of Collingwood.

Clinging to the delusion he has been sacked is probably a handy way for you to later claim that your personal calls for him to be sacked were vindicated.

 

[Pie eyed]

If a coach hasn't landed a flag within 5 years, they are usually booted. Malthouse is now the longest serving coach for consecutive years at any club that hasn't landed a flag. Why is he the exception to the rule? You refuse to answer that.

This post makes it appear you are arguing with yourself, which while it is humorous may point to some issue with either BF or your quoting method.

Look at the actual post not my quote.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

This post makes it appear you are arguing with yourself, which while it is humorous may point to some issue with either BF or your quoting method.

Look at the actual post not my quote.

There is some issue with the quote thingo

 

[Thommo 42]

No, tell everyone why malthouse is the exception to the rule.

Because he has taken us bloody close several times, tribunals and injuries have intervened in our 3 biggest chances and he's a proven coach who rebuilt the list in just 2 years and has taken us to 5 consecutive finals series and we are still young and improving. The players believe in him and continuity is the key to developing them further.

He has proven that he can win a flag, and everyone hopes he can do it again at Collingwood.

 

[Thommo 42]

If a coach hasn't landed a flag within 5 years, they are usually booted

It took Bomber Thompson 9 years, Rodney Eade hasn't won a flag and has been coaching consistently for 14 years, this will be his 6th year the Dogs and I don't think he is any danger of being sacked, and he hasn't gone as close as Malthouse did within his first 5 years after taking over a wooden spoon club.

Choco took more than 5 years, this is Neil Craig's 7th year in charge and he can probably blame injury for robbing them of flags in 05 and 06 too.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Strange, the bloke in the box looks remarkably like Malthouse. Could Bucks have aged this quickly or is it a mannequin?

Oh I see what you're insinuating? If that is how you need to interpret a contract extension and a following 3 year contract in another position to help you deal with the reality that eventuated after such a long and futile squawk on your behalf prior then I am happy to humour you.

Fact is that Malthouse is the coach, Will be until he hands over to Bucks and will never be "sacked" as the Coach of Collingwood.

Clinging to the delusion he has been sacked is probably a handy way for you to later claim that your personal calls for him to be sacked were vindicated.

The simple fact is: Eddie in one breath describes MM as the best coach in the business, then proceeds to put a plan in place to replace him with a bloke that has never coached at senior level.

What will MM's reaction be if he coaches Collingwood to top 4 both this season and next season, which is more than likely, its probable. Top 4 has been enough to guarantee most other coaches contract extensions. Its been enough to keep MM in a job at Collingwood. But all of a sudden, a coach apparently the best in the business, most probably 6 finals appearances in a row, 4 of those most probably top 4 all of a sudden is out of a job!!!!

That doesnt really make sense. If you use his past performances as justification for extending. All of a sudden performance will be irrelevant. You dont sack coaches you describe as being at the peak of their powers, and MM will have the team at about the same level as he had it when this plan was announced.

Its the epitome of a farce.

But we all know why Eddie has put this plan into place. Firstly it is to save face by not making an immediate decision and potentially unpopular one at that. Also Eddie has also seen that MM cant take this list any higher, that is evident by 4 years in finals but not any higher than 4th.

So, you can delude yourself that this is some succession planning all you want, but the simple fact is, you dont tell the world the coach is the best in the business then plan to get rid of him with an untried coach.

 

[Thommo 42]

It diesn't matter what MM does in the next 2 seasons, Bucks will be coach.

This wasn't done for any reason other than Eddie (and most Collingwood supporters) couldn't bear the thought of Bucks coaching someone else.

 

[Optimax]

It diesn't matter what MM does in the next 2 seasons, Bucks will be coach.

This wasn't done for any reason other than Eddie (and most Collingwood supporters) couldn't bear the thought of Bucks coaching someone else.

and if we had of just given Malthouse a contract there still would have been complaining, and on that if we turfed mick and gave buckley the job the dissenters would still scream blue ****en murder for not doing due dilligence

Eddie just couldnt win

 

[Grumpy Bum]

It diesn't matter what MM does in the next 2 seasons, Bucks will be coach.

This wasn't done for any reason other than Eddie (and most Collingwood supporters) couldn't bear the thought of Bucks coaching someone else.

So, what you are saying is that EM will forgo any previously acceptable performance indicator for the sake of favouring a revered ex player. Dont kid yourselves

So, if we win the next 2 flags, EM would willingly tell the coach to eff off in favour of an untried coach? I'd like to see that happen, because he'd have a hard time explaining that one. No amount of spin would make that acceptable.

Or maybe, just maybe EM knows that MM wont take the list any further than maybe a 2nd at best because he knows 1st is well out of our reach.

Anyone who says that EM is doing this for other reasons other than for the reason he knows that MM has gone as far as he can, or cant bridge the gap between us and 1st is deluded. You dont tell the world you have the best coach then put a plan in place to get rid of him unless you have serious doubts about his ability to do the one thing he is hired to do ........... win a flag.

 

[mattys123]

8-3 at the half way mark of the year.

I can only, and will only judge him on whats in front of us at the moment.

He has improved the side with a good off season at the draft table.
Has continued to prove that he is the best in the business at introducing young talent into the game.
Has steered us through a tough first half draw and has us perfectly placed for an assault on the top 4.

Now I fully realise that this means squat if we dont win the big one but all that we could've asked for at this stage has been delivered.

Now he has the second half of the year to cement our spot at the top end of the ladder and somehow bridge the gap between us and the Cats/Saints.

Just a reminder of the OP, seeing as one particular poster has turned a "Toast" thread into a "Roast" thread, and added Eddie in there with MM.

This thread was a toast to what MM has achieved so far this year, while we have has some injuries and form drops, he has still managed to get us to second on the ladder at the half way mark, and that has to be applauded.

Now please, if you want to bag Eddie and MM, start a roast thread, because this thread clearly has a "positive" nature in regards to MM and the Collingwood Football Club.