Toast Mick Malthouse

[Grumpy Bum]

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

Eddie is made to look foolish on this because he is getting rid of a coach whose performances he previously thought acceptable, and going forward will most probably be at the same level of acceptability. All for an untried coach.

Its a joke to try and fool anyone that this is anything other than a long drawn out sacking.

he should have just said, 'finals finishes is just not enough. Sorry Micky, you had 10 years to get it right, you kept falling short of the mark, we need to try something new. Your out at the end of 2010'

 

[Swooop]

Few things in life are black and white.

IMHO, MM has strengths and weaknesses as a coach.

I think he is good at discipline and this was probably important in his west coast era and still is, though to a lesser extent.

I think he delivers overly complex messages to the players.

I think overall they seem intimidated of him and likely scared of making a mistake, rather than playing on their instincts. He seems to micro manage, at the expense of individual accountability and responsibility.

I think he excessively fears the top sides and gets our team to play 'scared' defeatist football ie skirting the boundaries, rather than taking them on.

He appears to lack a plan B when it appears we need one.

I think he persists with his favourites for too long.

My fear is these shortcomings may cost us a premiership cup.

I think we are 8-3 more despite MM than because of him. Give the credit to the players.

Just my opinion.

 

[Forgotten Legend]

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.

I agree with you. This thread is about MM's achievements this year, not his failure. Give the man some credit, he's led Collingwood since 2000 and has put our team into the final six out the ten years at Collingwood, a great feat for any coach. He also started the whole 'interchanging' scenario which revolutionized the game greatly.

We do struggle against Geelong and the Saints because of many reasons, but a new thread should be made to talk about it.

 

[No SPIN]

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.

Richmond have had more coaches in the last 20 years than any other team so your 5 year rule - proves nothing.

Read my response carefully and do not misquote me - I have been very specific that MM is not the exception, and should be replaced when a BETTER alternative (ie a coach with greater chance of delivering a flag than MM) is found.

Your problem is that you have no BETTER alternative and therefore fall back on meaningless and irrelevant issues like the 5 year stunt above.

Sharpen your logic sport - as I said yesterday its like shooting fish in a barrel when debating with you.

 

[Robbed '02GF (Rocca goal)]

mick only needs to do one more thing to get a toast from me - stop reverting to our '02/'03 defensive style of game when we play geelong and st kilda. we are at our absolute best when we play offensive, quick, aggressive, POSITIVE pressure footy... like we did against carlton, freo, north, hawthorn, essendon, and for 7 quarters against the dogs.

i can't understand why we get spooked and go into our shells with a defensive game plan against the cats and saints... or how the coaching staff can't see that we're at our best moving the ball on quickly and taking some risks. i realise that those 2 teams will punish sides like no other if they catch them on the hop.... but did we learn nothing from watching carlton blow away both the cats and saints by backing themselves and taking the game on with blistering speed?

that's me 5 cents worth.... be interested to hear if anyone else has the same view. go pies, great start to the year...

 

[The Panther]

I can't understand why we get spooked and go into our shells with a defensive game plan against the Cats

Me neither.

We totally played into Geelongs hands. They forced us wide & knew we would attack through the boundary.

Prior to that we were running forward of the ball & taking risks. Carlton, a team we dispensed with did the opposite, attack the corridor & played a smaller forward line and exposed them massively.

Typical MM coaching. Yes we are a Top 4 side but how much a threat we are to Geelong/St. Kilda remains too big of a question mark to start toasting Mick. There is simply no excuse, we have a very talented list, he has some of the best assistants in the AFL & has carte blanche as far as sports science & facilities go. We should be pushing those two closer.

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

I am only posting this for the benefit of those without an axe to grind and a wedge to pound into our club and it's certainly not for your benefit Grumpy, as nothing will sway you from your single minded hatred.

The Club and Eddie as it's president were faced with a multitude of decisions at the end of 2009.

Malthouse had gotten us, yet again into a final series, top 4 no less, with a side which had been cobbled together and reinvigorated after bottoming out after 2 close, but in the end fruitless GF appearances.

The still developing list which MM and the club has assembled is bristling with potential improvement and appears capable of improving considerably in the coming seasons. Another top 4 finish is realistic and in fact likely.

Malthouse, by any sane measure, has done a fine job with the players and it looks likely that his efforts may bear fruit in the next few seasons.

But he is now the oldest coach in the AFL, has been at the helm for 10 years and on top of this has had some health issues. The media are baying for blood simply to dirty the water.

The first decision before them is "Does the Club look at viable replacements for the current coach"

This is compounded by the sudden availability of a number of incumbent coaches and a swathe of potential new talent ready to offer their services.

I believe that the decision was made to investigate the available options and weigh the pros and cons of each against an extension to MM's contract.

Late in the peice Nathan Buckley made it known he was interested in a Senior Coaching position and several Clubs made it clear they would be more than interested in his services. One in particular virtually offered him the job on the spot.

Of course Nathan Buckley was an obvious option for Collingwood and as such would have been firmly sounded out by Collingwood Football Club.

This left them with two decisions.

Do we replace MM and if so do we replace him with Nathan Buckley or another coach.

This is my take on what transpired and if you actually think about it is the most likely way the decision was made, without concocting some ridiculous conspiracy of face saving on Ed's part.

Firstly the decision was made that Buckley would be the best option from the available coaches and aspiring coaches for our club.

So it would be a decison between Malthouse and Buckley.

There was no logical reason for the non-renewal of Malthouse contract on a performance basis yet still his age and possible future health issues came into consideration.
He openly extolled his wish to continue coaching, which he no doubt would have as numerous clubs were interested, and his continued passion to coach Collingwood in preference to any other side.
Malthouse was judged to be doing a fine job and to deserve another 2 years to get a flag from the list he had built and guided.

This left the possibility, certainty actually, that Nathan Buckley, the man adjudged his best replacement, would be snapped up by most likely North Melbourne.

Buckley, even not taking into consideration his obvious knowledge of the game and the industry wide belief he would make an excellent coach, seems born to be our coach. The risk of losing him to another club for at least 3 years, possibly 5, would have weighed very heavily on the Club, but less than 6 months earlier he publicly stated he did not feel he was ready to be a senior coach and wished to study over-seas and then an apprenticeship before throwing his hat in the ring.

A conundrum.

Do you cut loose a coach who has put 10 passionate years into the club simply because he hits a certain age, who is performing all the functions required, successfully and whose hard work may well come to fruition in the two years he wishes to extend?

Do you do this to ensure you do not lose the opportunity to snare his best replacement?

Do you do this and risk appointing an inexperienced Coach, albeit Nathan Buckley?


No we did not.

In a majestic and lateral master stroke we struck a new form of agreement between incoming and outgoing coaches.

In short we got it all.

What Eddie said to Malthouse at that press conference is you have earned our loyalty, support and another 2 years to reach our shared goals. You deserve that chance and the right to finish with dignity and to continue to be a part of our club after. To give you the opportunity to continue to contribute.


He said to Buckley, You are the man to take up the reigns after Mick and we are willing to come to this extraordinary agreement to ensure this happens. To give you the time to learn.


But after all is said and done what Eddie really meant to say at that press conference is.....


GET ****ED to the doubters, the mewling press and the wedge drivers.

 

[Kirby]

^ well said pie eyed!

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Pie eyed, that's all good and well if you actually believe what you posted, but as romantic as that sentiment sounds, I don't buy it for a second.

Eddie McGuire has never been one to:

a) Make the tough call
b) Admit to his mistakes

He didn't even sack Shaw when he had the opportunity.

When Eddie first signed Mick, it was trumpeted as the second coming. Literally. Mick would take us to flags, amd help to make us the 'Manchester United' of AFL. lol.

Fact is, this was a double edged sword, Eddie's hand was forced by Bucks announcing he wants to coach, but at the same time it was a blessing in disguise.

Eddie, deep down, knows that Mick won't win us a flag, and he now carries the burden of holding on to a coach who couldn't win a flag in 12 seasons, which I doubt sits well with his ego and pride being so great.

Buckley's announcement allowed Eddie to create this 'succession plan' which is basically a facade for a nice way of sacking a coach he doesn't particularly want at the club anymore, but doesn't have the balls to flat out sack and say "Hey, sorry supporters, I held on to this guy for about 3 years too long".

In all honesty, I doubt he wanted to appoint Buckley, an untried coach with barely any Assistant coaching experience so early, but I doubt Eddie could BEAR the thought of Buckley coaching elsewhere and a potential Kevin Sheedy situation occuring (ie. Sheeds left Richmond and went on to caoch Essendon forever).

So this succession plan was a perfect way to both keep Buckley, GIVE him the coaching experience he needs AND get rid of Malthouse.

Anyone that believes otherwise is overly naive.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

I am only posting this for the benefit of those without an axe to grind and a wedge to pound into our club and it's certainly not for your benefit Grumpy, as nothing will sway you from your single minded hatred.

The Club and Eddie as it's president were faced with a multitude of decisions at the end of 2009.

Malthouse had gotten us, yet again into a final series, top 4 no less, with a side which had been cobbled together and reinvigorated after bottoming out after 2 close, but in the end fruitless GF appearances.

The still developing list which MM and the club has assembled is bristling with potential improvement and appears capable of improving considerably in the coming seasons. Another top 4 finish is realistic and in fact likely.

Malthouse, by any sane measure, has done a fine job with the players and it looks likely that his efforts may bear fruit in the next few seasons.

But he is now the oldest coach in the AFL, has been at the helm for 10 years and on top of this has had some health issues. The media are baying for blood simply to dirty the water.

The first decision before them is "Does the Club look at viable replacements for the current coach"

This is compounded by the sudden availability of a number of incumbent coaches and a swathe of potential new talent ready to offer their services.

I believe that the decision was made to investigate the available options and weigh the pros and cons of each against an extension to MM's contract.

Late in the peice Nathan Buckley made it known he was interested in a Senior Coaching position and several Clubs made it clear they would be more than interested in his services. One in particular virtually offered him the job on the spot.

Of course Nathan Buckley was an obvious option for Collingwood and as such would have been firmly sounded out by Collingwood Football Club.

This left them with two decisions.

Do we replace MM and if so do we replace him with Nathan Buckley or another coach.

This is my take on what transpired and if you actually think about it is the most likely way the decision was made, without concocting some ridiculous conspiracy of face saving on Ed's part.

Firstly the decision was made that Buckley would be the best option from the available coaches and aspiring coaches for our club.

So it would be a decison between Malthouse and Buckley.

There was no logical reason for the non-renewal of Malthouse contract on a performance basis yet still his age and possible future health issues came into consideration.
He openly extolled his wish to continue coaching, which he no doubt would have as numerous clubs were interested, and his continued passion to coach Collingwood in preference to any other side.
Malthouse was judged to be doing a fine job and to deserve another 2 years to get a flag from the list he had built and guided.

This left the possibility, certainty actually, that Nathan Buckley, the man adjudged his best replacement, would be snapped up by most likely North Melbourne.

Buckley, even not taking into consideration his obvious knowledge of the game and the industry wide belief he would make an excellent coach, seems born to be our coach. The risk of losing him to another club for at least 3 years, possibly 5, would have weighed very heavily on the Club, but less than 6 months earlier he publicly stated he did not feel he was ready to be a senior coach and wished to study over-seas and then an apprenticeship before throwing his hat in the ring.

A conundrum.

Do you cut loose a coach who has put 10 passionate years into the club simply because he hits a certain age, who is performing all the functions required, successfully and whose hard work may well come to fruition in the two years he wishes to extend?

Do you do this to ensure you do not lose the opportunity to snare his best replacement?

Do you do this and risk appointing an inexperienced Coach, albeit Nathan Buckley?


No we did not.

In a majestic and lateral master stroke we struck a new form of agreement between incoming and outgoing coaches.

In short we got it all.

What Eddie said to Malthouse at that press conference is you have earned our loyalty, support and another 2 years to reach our shared goals. You deserve that chance and the right to finish with dignity and to continue to be a part of our club after. To give you the opportunity to continue to contribute.


He said to Buckley, You are the man to take up the reigns after Mick and we are willing to come to this extraordinary agreement to ensure this happens. To give you the time to learn.


But after all is said and done what Eddie really meant to say at that press conference is.....


GET ****ED to the doubters, the mewling press and the wedge drivers.

Its hardly hatred. If MM takes us to a flag in the next 2 years, I'll be screaming to keep him. It would be sheer folly to get rid of a coach that wins a flag within the space of a year or two.

Understand this very simple concept. MM is there not to keep us eternally in finals. he is there to progress up thru to a flag. he is stuck in a rut of poor drafting, poor drafting options because we are nearer to the top than the bottom and game plan that except for more rotations hasnt changed since 2002.

What Eddie is telling the whole world is that the bloke has gone as far as he can with his list development ideas and game plan and its not going to win a flag in the next 2 years.

And he is supremely confident that the next 2 years of the same will bring the same results. If MM was a chance to win a flag, EM wouldnt dare put a plan like this in place because if there is one thing EM doesnt like, it is to be made foolish and having to tell a recent flag winning coach that an untried coach is a better option, now thats the height of stupidity.

EM knows, MM knows, anyone who dares look beyond the hyperbole knows that this is a sacking, just a very drawn out sacking that has started to show small signs of jealousy on the behalf of MM. He knows he is being shunted aside and is making his little public digs at Buckley. MM is not happy.

 

[Pie eyed]

Pie eyed, that's all good and well if you actually believe what you posted, but as romantic as that sentiment sounds, I don't buy it for a second.

Eddie McGuire has never been one to:

a) Make the tough call
b) Admit to his mistakes

He didn't even sack Shaw when he had the opportunity.

When Eddie first signed Mick, it was trumpeted as the second coming. Literally. Mick would take us to flags, amd help to make us the 'Manchester United' of AFL. lol.

Fact is, this was a double edged sword, Eddie's hand was forced by Bucks announcing he wants to coach, but at the same time it was a blessing in disguise.

Eddie, deep down, knows that Mick won't win us a flag, and he now carries the burden of holding on to a coach who couldn't win a flag in 12 seasons, which I doubt sits well with his ego and pride being so great.

Buckley's announcement allowed Eddie to create this 'succession plan' which is basically a facade for a nice way of sacking a coach he doesn't particularly want at the club anymore, but doesn't have the balls to flat out sack and say "Hey, sorry supporters, I held on to this guy for about 3 years too long".

In all honesty, I doubt he wanted to appoint Buckley, an untried coach with barely any Assistant coaching experience so early, but I doubt Eddie could BEAR the thought of Buckley coaching elsewhere and a potential Kevin Sheedy situation occuring (ie. Sheeds left Richmond and went on to caoch Essendon forever).

So this succession plan was a perfect way to both keep Buckley, GIVE him the coaching experience he needs AND get rid of Malthouse.

Anyone that believes otherwise is overly naive.

I think you just said exactly what I said but in language which reflects your disdain for Eddie and your assessment of Malthouse.

Had Buckley not raised his hand Malthouse would have been appointed as there was no better option available at the time.
I think the decision to re-appoint Malthouse was already made for all intents and purposes and Buckley's entry into the coaching market created exactly the conundrum you and I have both already alliterated.

We only differ in the belief that the decision was gutless or face saving on the part of Eddie.

The real issue of difference is how both of us see Malthouse.
Ignoring all other complications at the end of 2009 I would have re-appointed Malthouse and you would not.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Hypothetically, If the club did not re-appoint Mick Malthouse, who would be the coach other than Buckley?

 

[Pie eyed]

Its hardly hatred. If MM takes us to a flag in the next 2 years, I'll be screaming to keep him. It would be sheer folly to get rid of a coach that wins a flag within the space of a year or two.

Understand this very simple concept. MM is there not to keep us eternally in finals. he is there to progress up thru to a flag. he is stuck in a rut of poor drafting, poor drafting options because we are nearer to the top than the bottom and game plan that except for more rotations hasnt changed since 2002.

What Eddie is telling the whole world is that the bloke has gone as far as he can with his list development ideas and game plan and its not going to win a flag in the next 2 years.

And he is supremely confident that the next 2 years of the same will bring the same results. If MM was a chance to win a flag, EM wouldnt dare put a plan like this in place because if there is one thing EM doesnt like, it is to be made foolish and having to tell a recent flag winning coach that an untried coach is a better option, now thats the height of stupidity.

EM knows, MM knows, anyone who dares look beyond the hyperbole knows that this is a sacking, just a very drawn out sacking that has started to show small signs of jealousy on the behalf of MM. He knows he is being shunted aside and is making his little public digs at Buckley. MM is not happy.

You know full well that I disagree with all the assumptions you make regarding how any of Buckley, McGuire or Malthouse feel about the situation.
The only hyperbole surrounding the current coaching situation is media generated rubbish hinting that some untoward friction exists at all and from a few posters who would only wish it to be true.

As stated it was not posted for your benefit.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I think you just said exactly what I said but in language which reflects your disdain for Eddie and your assessment of Malthouse.

Had Buckley not raised his hand Malthouse would have been appointed as there was no better option available at the time.
I think the decision to re-appoint Malthouse was already made for all intents and purposes and Buckley's entry into the coaching market created exactly the conundrum you and I have both already alliterated.

We only differ in the belief that the decision was gutless or face saving on the part of Eddie.

The real issue of difference is how both of us see Malthouse.
Ignoring all other complications at the end of 2009 I would have re-appointed Malthouse and you would not.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Hypothetically, If the club did not re-appoint Mick Malthouse, who would be the coach other than Buckley?

I wanted Hardwick as our coach 3 years ago. Hardwick would be perfect for us.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

You know full well that I disagree with all the assumptions you make regarding how any of Buckley, McGuire or Malthouse feel about the situation.
The only hyperbole surrounding the current coaching situation is media generated rubbish hinting that some untoward friction exists at all and from a few posters who would only wish it to be true.

As stated it was not posted for your benefit.

There was a thread a while back from a Freo supporter who saw MM speak at a function where he admitted he was opposed to the idea of the succession plan initially.

Maybe some of that dissent still lingers?

 

[Pie eyed]

I wanted Hardwick as our coach 3 years ago. Hardwick would be perfect for us.

Personally, assuming Mick was to go, I'd have had Guy McKenna or even Laidley 3 years ago.
Buckley clearly, if you are chancing any of new untried coaches last year and none of the outgoing incumbents so you can see why I am not in the least unhappy with the end result.

 

[mattys123]

There was a thread a while back from a Freo supporter who saw MM speak at a function where he admitted he was opposed to the idea of the succession plan initially.

Maybe some of that dissent still lingers?

It's no secret MM didn't like the succession plan when it was first tabled to him, he has admitted it in several interviews, including one with the Herald Sun only weeks ago.

I haven't heard a comment out of MM's mouth that has been negative towards Nathan Buckley for several weeks now, making the people who believe there is some problem at Collingwood basically eat their own words.

Yes, this situation is different, and yes, there was time at the start of the relationship where there was some tension and some comments made that showed that tension, but it seems now that both professionals (MM and NB) have settled into a working relationship for 2010 at least.

Our record of 8-3 shows all is well down at the Westpac Centre, our VFL side is flying, we have the best fitness record of any club in the AFL (go have a look at the AFL injury list) and we are second on the ladder.

Have fun with this thread Grumpy and Shepshal, because this is my last post in it, because this was supposed to be a positive thread about MM, and now it has once again turned into a negative one about our coach.

 

[Thommo 42]

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.

just a quick refresher for you.

when Bucks takes over, the deal is that Mick hangs around as Director of Coaching for another 3 years.

I think you missed that part.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

You know full well that I disagree with all the assumptions you make regarding how any of Buckley, McGuire or Malthouse feel about the situation.
The only hyperbole surrounding the current coaching situation is media generated rubbish hinting that some untoward friction exists at all and from a few posters who would only wish it to be true.

As stated it was not posted for your benefit.

You can disagree all you want. The reality of the situation is that no-one in their right mind would sack a recent flag winning coach short of a Jesalenko type situation.

EM wouldn't put in place a plan to move aside MM if he felt that MM hadn't gone as far as he could with this list. He certainly wouldn't put in place a plan to get rid of someone who by the end of his 12 years will most probably have been in the finals 6 years running unless he felt certain MM wasn't going to get a flag.

EM plays his politics hard and will not be made a fool of by any means if he can avoid it. He has rolled the dice here, knowing that if MM wins a flag in the next 2 seasons, he will have to make a harder decision than the contrived piece of crap he put in place last year. He must be pretty certain that MM wont win that flag, he is pretty certain he wont have to make a hard decision thats for sure, something he has not been able to to do internally since he took the presidency. EM loves taking on the world, but heaven forbid he make a decision to upset his constituency like sacking MM.

I hope MM wins a flag in these next 2 years. I don't know which I'd relish more, the glory of the win or watching the backpeddling from the master of avoidance. But I suspect EM has done his sums, he knows this will go off pretty much as planned. MM is moved aside hopefully with the veneer of civility, EM is made to look a hero by bringing home the prodigal son and finally Collingwood move on and try something different. Something they should have done at the end of 2004 or at the very least, at the end of 2008.

All EM is hoping is that doesn't blow his load publicly and rip into Buckley. Even the little displays of petulance towards Buckley, the snide comments so far would sit uneasy with EM. MM''s posturing that he wants to go on coaching and EM's blustering about lawsuits does not bode well for what is really happening behind the scenes where the real angst would be played out.

Buckley stands to be the big winner. if he holds his temper in the face of MM's petulance, then he will have done a good job. But I bet that he doesn't want MM in that bullshit job of overseeing coaching, I bet he wants rid of him as soon as that final siren sounds in 2011. And EM would do well to be rid of MM as soon as possible too. Whether it be media speculation or real angst behind the scenes, the club needs to have one on field general, not some fractured mechanism all set up because EM was to scared to do what every other club has done with coaches that don't win flags and that is cut the relationship outright.

You might not like this, it really doesn't matter, but I bet deep down, you know this EM, MM and Buckley thing is not as EM would have you think it is.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

just a quick refresher for you.

when Bucks takes over, the deal is that Mick hangs around as Director of Coaching for another 3 years.

I think you missed that part.

Read my last post, its not forgotten. I wonder what buckley's feelings on that are?

MM is making noises about continuing elsewhere, althought I dont think in the current era, a coach around 60yo is what clubs are looking for. EM is threatening lawsuits if he moves. MM is belittling the next Collingwood coach by snide comments and public displays of ridicule on game days. Buckley is sitting there biding his time hoping MM has a heart attack!!

 

[Pie eyed]

There was a thread a while back from a Freo supporter who saw MM speak at a function where he admitted he was opposed to the idea of the succession plan initially.

Maybe some of that dissent still lingers?

There was a good interview with MM "on the couch" I think and also another on SEN where he went fairly in depth into his early misgivings regarding the deal, but he also went on to say these were all overcome and he was very happy with the outcome and the agreement.
I don't pretend there would have not been questions and doubts in all corners. All the parties have egos and ambitions, but this is true of every agreement between human beings at every level.

I dispute that there is any friction other than you would normally expect in any interaction between individuals in a normal working relationship.

I can't think of any organisation I have ever worked in or for where everyone walked around deliriously and individuals never disagreed, argued or clashed at some time.
That said Malthouse is a very professional coach, Eddie is a very professional President and Buckley, was a very professional player and now assistant coach.

To say they are any less professional than the best in the footy industry is purely rubbish, so why the angst?


Even the media have largely dropped the line of speculation and really it only raises it's head on forum such as this and then mainly from oppo trolls.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Personally, assuming Mick was to go, I'd have had Guy McKenna or even Laidley 3 years ago.
Buckley clearly, if you are chancing any of new untried coaches last year and none of the outgoing incumbents so you can see why I am not in the least unhappy with the end result.

I wouldn't want either of thos etwo because they would both coach too much like Mick.

Nathan is far more independent, and a smarter footballer.

He's already publicly shown he's not a fan of Mick's gameday coaching style.

The only thing I want Nathan to glean off Mick, is his ability to relate to his players.

Outside of that, I want Bucks to be his own man. Not an MM clone.

 

[Pie eyed]

Read my last post, its not forgotten. I wonder what buckley's feelings on that are?

MM is making noises about continuing elsewhere, althought I dont think in the current era, a coach around 60yo is what clubs are looking for. EM is threatening lawsuits if he moves. MM is belittling the next Collingwood coach by snide comments and public displays of ridicule on game days. Buckley is sitting there biding his time hoping MM has a heart attack!!

You should work for the HUN.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

You should work for the HUN.

It's all there for public consumption, its not as if this stuff isn't happening. And this is just what we are seeing in public, imagine what is being said in the back corridors!!!

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

There was a good interview with MM "on the couch" I think and also another on SEN where he went fairly in depth into his early misgivings regarding the deal, but he also went on to say these were all overcome and he was very happy with the outcome and the agreement.
I don't pretend there would have not been questions and doubts in all corners. All the parties have egos and ambitions, but this is true of every agreement between human beings at every level.

I dispute that there is any friction other than you would normally expect in any interaction between individuals in a normal working relationship.

I can't think of any organisation I have ever worked in or for where everyone walked around deliriously and individuals never disagreed, argued or clashed at some time.
That said Malthouse is a very professional coach, Eddie is a very professional President and Buckley, was a very professional player and now assistant coach.

To say they are any less professional than the best in the footy industry is purely rubbish, so why the angst?


Even the media have largely dropped the line of speculation and really it only raises it's head on forum such as this and then mainly from oppo trolls.

Fair enough, I don't know about the angst part, I personally think things are probably going along as swimmingly as possible behind the scenes.

But I have NO doubt this was simply a nice way of sacking Malthouse.

As I said (and Grumpy seems to obviously agree), Eddie never had the balls to admit mistakes or make hard decisions.

This was the only way possible he could sack Malthouse without ACTUALLY sacking him. It's a win/win for Eddie basically.

Either way, I'm happy, I only have to put up with MM for another season.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Fair enough, I don't know about the angst part, I personally think things are probably going along as swimmingly as possible behind the scenes.

But I have NO doubt this was simply a nice way of sacking Malthouse.

As I said (and Grumpy seems to obviously agree), Eddie never had the balls to admit mistakes or make hard decisions.

This was the only way possible he could sack Malthouse without ACTUALLY sacking him. It's a win/win for Eddie basically.

Either way, I'm happy, I only have to put up with MM for another season.

If MM snags a flag, I am happy to have him for another 3 with a review at the end of that.