Malthouse gooorn

[AndrewP6]

From afl.com.au

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/124505/default.aspx

[ledge]

St Kilda here he comes

[LostDoggy]

Good riddance

[GVGjr]

Good riddance

C'mon Chops, he's had a terrific career. Surely we can extend a bit of courtesy

[cinder]

If he does walk into the Saints then all his respect goes out the window like Bomber Thompson last year

[azabob]

If he does walk into the Saints then all his respect goes out the window like Bomber Thompson last year

Disagree, totally different situation. If he does go to St.Kilda it means he still has the passion to coach.

[GVGjr]

If he does walk into the Saints then all his respect goes out the window like Bomber Thompson last year

I sort of get this point of view but given he won't be the senior coach at Collingwood if a deal can be struck between the Pies and Saints surely we cut him some slack with the Thompson comparison?

[cinder]

More so based on what he has been saying about never coaching again and wanting to spend time with family. Similar to Bomber saying he was 'burnt out' end of last year

[LostDoggy]

C'mon Chops, he's had a terrific career. Surely we can extend a bit of courtesy

Great coach. Arrogant pig and ex filth coach.

[ledge]

Great coach. Arrogant pig and ex filth coach.

Also ex Bulldog coach who bought us some sort of success.

[AndrewP6]

Interesting to hear him in the presser. Spends a couple of minutes detailing the problems they had getting players together because of injury! I thought it was a bit rich, given they only lost 2 games all season before today. To be fair, he did also note that there was a group of players who didn't play well.

[ledge]

Yeah and Geelong too Menzel, Johnson and Pods during game, please dont tell me the magpie army will use that as an excuse, Geelong were one player down early and Collingwood had a fit, ready to go sub so in effect they were two players up on the cats.

[AndrewP6]

Yeah and Geelong too Menzel, Johnson and Pods during game, please dont tell me the magpie army will use that as an excuse, Geelong were one player down early and Collingwood had a fit, ready to go sub so in effect they were two players up on the cats.

But in Mick's world, it has been difficult to get the same group together with any continuity. :confused:

Funny, it didn't really affect them until today.

[The Coon Dog]

Good luck to Mick, I don't mind him.

[ledge]

Good luck to Mick, I don't mind him.

I think he has had enough good luck with WC and the Pies, where was it with us?

[Remi Moses]

Great coach. Arrogant pig and ex filth coach.

Contrary to what some toddle on about Malthouse is a first class coach and did a very good job at our footy club!

[bornadog]

Also ex Bulldog coach who bought us some sort of success.

Lost us 1985 prelim with bad coaching and walked out when the merger was announced. Plus we had the players in 1986 to 1988 to make more finals but he couldn't get us up. Forced a brownlow medallist out of the club because he couldn't handle him.

[GVGjr]

Forced a brownlow medallist out of the club because he couldn't handle him.

Kicked a Brownlow medalist out because he wouldn't do as he was told and had little concept of playing team football.

[The Underdog]

Look forward to watching him comment on the footy next year. Seems like a good dude.

[chef]

Kicked a Brownlow medalist out because he wouldn't do as he was told and had little concept of playing team football.

Which is exactly what Mick was about.

[Desipura]

Lost us 1985 prelim with bad coaching and walked out when the merger was announced. Plus we had the players in 1986 to 1988 to make more finals but he couldn't get us up. Forced a brownlow medallist out of the club because he couldn't handle him.

You are dellusional if you believe that. Mick was never into individuals doing their own thing, it is about the team and has proven it by his success.
Again we stick up for the player instead of looking at the bigger picture and what is required to be a successful side.

[GVGjr]

Which is exactly what Mick was about.

I thought Hardie was a sensational player for us and he was certainly one that put bums on seats but Bornadogs view on Hardie being given the flick just doesn't acknowledge the reasons why and assigns 100% of the blame at Malthouse.
I don't believe that to be correct in any way.

Mick should have handled it a lot better but in my opinion the reasons why people ignore Hardies role within that decision is just a convenient memory lapse.

In the years to come when we reflect on Eade's time with us do we blame him for keeping Akermanis too long and the distractions that decision cost us in the 2010 season or do we take in the bigger picture that he actually did an outstanding job but we just game up a bit short? To me it's too easy to major in the minors.

Mick did his best with us and like a few others, we came up short when it counted. I can't hold a grudge with him for that.

[ledge]

I think Micks only down fall is he is a robotic coach, he assigns you a job within the team and no matter who you are or think you are is irrelevant.
This is what team is about but you must have the players with the right mind set to do the job he wants you to do as an individual.

Brad Hardie wasnt a natural tagger it just wasnt in his blood, in those days as a footballer you didnt tag so much you ran and got the ball if you could, Brad backed himself it was his football nature.

Mick was in his junior years as a coach, he learnt from this and recruited players with the mind set to do the job he wanted at the Eagles and Collingwood, a great coach who cut his teeth with us
I dont blame Brad or Mick it was a learning curve, I must admit the jumper tantrum wasnt good though.

[bornadog]

Kicked a Brownlow medalist out because he wouldn't do as he was told and had little concept of playing team football.


Which is exactly what Mick was about.


You are dellusional if you believe that. Mick was never into individuals doing their own thing, it is about the team and has proven it by his success.
Again we stick up for the player instead of looking at the bigger picture and what is required to be a successful side.


I thought Hardie was a sensational player for us and he was certainly one that put bums on seats but Bornadogs view on Hardie being given the flick just doesn't acknowledge the reasons why and assigns 100% of the blame at Malthouse.
I don't believe that to be correct in any way.

Mick should have handled it a lot better but in my opinion the reasons why people ignore Hardies role within that decision is just a convenient memory lapse.

In the years to come when we reflect on Eade's time with us do we blame him for keeping Akermanis too long and the distractions that decision cost us in the 2010 season or do we take in the bigger picture that he actually did an outstanding job but we just game up a bit short? To me it's too easy to major in the minors.

Mick did his best with us and like a few others, we came up short when it counted. I can't hold a grudge with him for that.

Never said it was 100% coach' s fault.

There will always be a player that has disciplinary issues or doesn't follow instructions, but the good coaches will be able to handle these situations and bring these players back into the fold. I am not saying I know the full story but to lose such a good player as Hardie something tells me there is a major problem.

A good case in point is Barry Hall. Roos didnot not know how to handle him and in fact didn't even speak to him one on one and in the end sent him a text to say he is finished. Ask yourself, why was Hall so good for us in the last two years. In my opinion, every sitaution can be handled, maybe not 100% of the time but things can be worked out.

Mick in the 80's came across as a grumpy person who took no shit and the best way to resolve the problem is to get rid of the person.

Me, well, I was not impressed with him when he was with the Dogs. Ok, he was a first year coach, and I can cut some slack, but I am still mad that we didn't play more finals and even a GF during that period (1984 to 1989) as we certainly had the players.

[bornadog]

In the years to come when we reflect on Eade's time with us do we blame him for keeping Akermanis too long and the distractions that decision cost us in the 2010 season or do we take in the bigger picture that he actually did an outstanding job but we just game up a bit short? To me it's too easy to major in the minors.
.

I think Aker was kept one year too long. I wasn't happy that we gave him that extra year and that is not me speaking in hindsight.

[bornadog]

I think Micks only down fall is he is a robotic coach, he assigns you a job within the team and no matter who you are or think you are is irrelevant.
This is what team is about but you must have the players with the right mind set to do the job he wants you to do as an individual.

Brad Hardie wasnt a natural tagger it just wasnt in his blood, in those days as a footballer you didnt tag so much you ran and got the ball if you could, Brad backed himself it was his football nature.

Mick was in his junior years as a coach, he learnt from this and recruited players with the mind set to do the job he wanted at the Eagles and Collingwood, a great coach who cut his teeth with us
I dont blame Brad or Mick it was a learning curve, I must admit the jumper tantrum wasnt good though.

The jumper tantrum was discussing and Hardie crossed the line.

Mick watched Hardie all year take on players and run up the ground to create goals, which those days was unheard of. Yet in the prelim he put Hardie on Matthews in the last quarter and the rest is history.

[GVGjr]

I think Aker was kept one year too long. I wasn't happy that we gave him that extra year and that is not me speaking in hindsight.

But we obviously don't hold Eade responsible for Akermanis as you have with the Hardie/Malthouse example.
It's time to let it go Bornadog

[Desipura]

The jumper tantrum was discussing and Hardie crossed the line.

Mick watched Hardie all year take on players and run up the ground to create goals, which those days was unheard of. Yet in the prelim he put Hardie on Matthews in the last quarter and the rest is history.

As exciting as he was to watch, Hardie had no defensive side to his game. Even in the 80's this was unheard of.
If he was an onballer or forward, it would not have been as noticeable.

[Greystache]

I think Aker was kept one year too long. I wasn't happy that we gave him that extra year and that is not me speaking in hindsight.

Giving Eagleton another year was even more ridiculous. Keeping him on because we were in a premiership window and having an extra mature body is fine, but Eagleton never played a good game against a top team in his career.

[Desipura]

Laidley is a chance to become an Assistant with us.

[Remi Moses]

You have to be kidding ^^ . We played against two behemoth's of the VFL in Essendon and Hawthorn with no money and no salary cap. Hardie played on his own terms and hence in a team environment that's a death knell! Malthouse squeezed every little bit out of an average group after 85. After that season Carlton picked up the best talent in the country and we simply couldn't compete.Yeah Mick was a tough, grumpy old bastard ( young then) but a coach runs the show not the players ( hardie)ran his own show and hence he was out the door and rightly so!

[bornadog]

You have to be kidding ^^ . We played against two behemoth's of the VFL in Essendon and Hawthorn with no money and no salary cap. Hardie played on his own terms and hence in a team environment that's a death knell! Malthouse squeezed every little bit out of an average group after 85. After that season Carlton picked up the best talent in the country and we simply couldn't compete.Yeah Mick was a tough, grumpy old bastard ( young then) but a coach runs the show not the players ( hardie)ran his own show and hence he was out the door and rightly so!

We had Essendon's measure in 1985 and beat Hawthorn during the year. We fluffed the first final against Hawthorn, but had our chance in the prelim, but unfortunately bad coaching let us down.

[immortalmike]

I was either too young when Mick was at Footscray or not alive so I won't comment on that time. But the Malthouse I saw was a good coach gifted with even better support structures. West Coast and Collingwood are the richest teams in the AFL and at the time Mick coached them the Eagles were basically the W.A. state side. Basically he underachieved at both clubs. Don't forget that iat the start of 2010 he had coached for the longest period of time without a premiership. His penchant for good ordinary role players was strange (check out the Pies team of 02-03) as was his love for very specific players (he kept Buckley and Clement a year too long, and Rocca 2-3 years too long). He left us like a rat leaving a sinking ship, and did the same with West Coast with a year left on his contract. That is why I felt that his hand wringing about the succession plan was a bit rich.

So taken all together he was a very good coach who coached some very good but also very cashed-up teams to only 3 premierships in 21 years (not including 5 years of mediocrity with us), his teams seemed to have some trouble winning when it mattered most and his coaching decisions were sometimes baffling (i.e., Hardie on Matthews, playing Davis in big games, choosing J Brown to be the one they roughed up in the GF, playing injured players too often), but he got much better with most of this as he aged (especially his man management) but he was still prone to an emotional outburst (Milne "rapist" comment) and playing players underdone or injured (Maxwell, Didak, Reid in the grand final).

[Remi Moses]

We had Essendon's measure in 1985 and beat Hawthorn during the year. We fluffed the first final against Hawthorn, but had our chance in the prelim, but unfortunately bad coaching let us down.

Mate get some therapy urgently!
We had Essendon's measure? We got them early at home and copped a hiding at their shithole. ( we were getting mudered when it mattered)Got taken apart in the prelim by one of the greatest players of all time ( Matthews) and a great team! They had Dermie , Bombres had Vander Haar we had Peart ( no disrespect). Coaching had SFA to do with it we weren't good enough

[bornadog]

Mate get some therapy urgently!
We had Essendon's measure? We got them early at home and copped a hiding at their shithole. ( we were getting mudered when it mattered)Got taken apart in the prelim by one of the greatest players of all time ( Matthews) and a great team! They had Dermie , Bombres had Vander Haar we had Peart ( no disrespect). Coaching had SFA to do with it we weren't good enough

Therapy, really:mad:

We beat Essendon by 41 points at home and they beat us by 4 goals at Windy Hill, hardly murder. It was a well known fact at the time Essendon preferred to play Hawthorn in the Granny than us. Matthews may have been one of the greatest but he was on his last legs, didn't get a kick till the last quarter and we had the wrong bloke on him.

The scores at 3/4 time were 10.7 to 10.8 anyone's game. We also had our stars in that team, Dougie at his peak, Beasley had 100 goals up, Kennedy at Fullback no slouch, Purser (rated a few years ago, by Malthouse as the best Ruckman he has coached), Wallis, Royal, and so on. Make no mistake that was a top team. Yes maybe we weren't good enough, but all I know is Hardie on Matthews was a big mistake.

[bornadog]

I was either too young when Mick was at Footscray or not alive so I won't comment on that time. But the Malthouse I saw was a good coach gifted with even better support structures. West Coast and Collingwood are the richest teams in the AFL and at the time Mick coached them the Eagles were basically the W.A. state side. Basically he underachieved at both clubs. Don't forget that iat the start of 2010 he had coached for the longest period of time without a premiership. His penchant for good ordinary role players was strange (check out the Pies team of 02-03) as was his love for very specific players (he kept Buckley and Clement a year too long, and Rocca 2-3 years too long). He left us like a rat leaving a sinking ship, and did the same with West Coast with a year left on his contract. That is why I felt that his hand wringing about the succession plan was a bit rich.

So taken all together he was a very good coach who coached some very good but also very cashed-up teams to only 3 premierships in 21 years (not including 5 years of mediocrity with us), his teams seemed to have some trouble winning when it mattered most and his coaching decisions were sometimes baffling (i.e., Hardie on Matthews, playing Davis in big games, choosing J Brown to be the one they roughed up in the GF, playing injured players too often), but he got much better with most of this as he aged (especially his man management) but he was still prone to an emotional outburst (Milne "rapist" comment) and playing players underdone or injured (Maxwell, Didak, Reid in the grand final).

Good post said it better than I could.

[Remi Moses]

Really, have a look what Hawthorn did after and before 85!
Football was more conventional then back pocket on FP. Hardie went walk about unwilling to do the right thing. Yeah I agree Matthews was on his last legs but that's a hallmark of a champion , to get up of the canvas. As for the Windy Hill game Dogs were being thrashed at three quarter time, good comeback but when the game was there to be one we were getting done! My legacy of Mick is taking a Fitzroy reserves player and making him into a Victorian CHB. One Peter Foster

[Sedat]

The scores at 3/4 time were 10.7 to 10.8 anyone's game. We also had our stars in that team, Dougie at his peak, Beasley had 100 goals up, Kennedy at Fullback no slouch, Purser (rated a few years ago, by Malthouse as the best Ruckman he has coached), Wallis, Royal, and so on. Make no mistake that was a top team. Yes maybe we weren't good enough, but all I know is Hardie on Matthews was a big mistake.
Hardie was the reason Matthews was benched in the first place - he smashed Lethal early, so surely Malthouse was well within his right to give Hardie first crack on Matthews when he came back on at the start of the final qtr. It didn't work out for us but I can't blame Malthouse at all for this match-up.

[Remi Moses]

Hardie was the reason Matthews was benched in the first place - he smashed Lethal early, so surely Malthouse was well within his right to give Hardie first crack on Matthews when he came back on at the start of the final qtr. It didn't work out for us but I can't blame Malthouse at all for this match-up.

Matthews was a champion and like all champions he picked himself up.
If only he had the Cheque Book the cheats had.
Malthouse I don't think is as good as Sheedy or Jeans, but he's a bloody good coach!

[Topdog]

But in Mick's world, it has been difficult to get the same group together with any continuity. :confused:

Funny, it didn't really affect them until today.

I'm glad the Pies lost but it has affected them for the past 6-7 weeks. They were terrible against Hawthorn for 3 qtrs and pretty much stumbled across the finishing line.

[1eyedog]

We had Essendon's measure in 1985 and beat Hawthorn during the year. We fluffed the first final against Hawthorn, but had our chance in the prelim, but unfortunately bad coaching let us down.

Wasn't that the game that Fossie didn't play? Fossie had torn Dermie a new arsehole the previous few times he had played on him. Derm dominated in that game.

[bornadog]

Wasn't that the game that Fossie didn't play? Fossie had torn Dermie a new arsehole the previous few times he had played on him. Derm dominated in that game.

I don't reemeber much about that game. All I know is we got thrashed and towards the end of the game a seagul pooped on my head:o, that was the last straw and I left.

[ledge]

Was that the year some prick tripped Fossie and broke his leg?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Was that the year some prick tripped Fossie and broke his leg?

Paul Dear, that was 92.

Billy Brownless wouldn't have kicked 9 on Fossie.