frank dardew wrote:
Good post Siegfried I too see there being a risk with whoever we appoint because we have a flakey playing list who are not mentally strong so one game to the next your not sure what you are going to get .How can you beat Essendon* by 96 points and lose to the GC next week when you are still in finals contention -HOW CAN YOU BEAT COLLINGWOOD TWICE AND PLAY DIABOLICALLY AGAINST PORT
Simple. Cause that's the culture Ratten built.
He explained it himself this week for anyone who cared to listen. He carried blokes. Repeatedly. So rather than let a kid who perhaps wasn't ready and didn't deserve a chance have a sniff (even if that had short term consequences), he let guys who underperformed have a free pass. When there's no consequences for under performance, why would your players need to bother with such trivialities as consistent effort?
frank dardew wrote:
Putting Malthouse in is a calculated risk because in terms of pure talent we have a good list and maybe with his structures game plan and management style this group will flourish and become mentally tough
He has a great recent track record but there still is a pagan like risk
In my view it is less risky than running a sixth year with Ratten where in the 5th year the players dont have enough respect or passion or something else for him to beat the GC or Port Adelaide -
I think we should take the calculated risk at this time
I think it's a good calculated risk
if you think the window is open. I'm seeing a lot of people asserting that it is, but this just reminds me that that whenever I look at other clubs who have been in contention and fallen away, their window typically closed around 2 years before the club concerned actually came to terms with that fact. I'm concerned we're in that position now. To me, too many guys went backwards this year. Judd won't win another browlow. Waite is not more durable. Jamison's early 2011 form is still an outlier. Scotland is not eternal. There are just too many falling away too quickly for mine, and this season showed the limits of what is pushing through in the short term.
If the window is closed, and I accept that that's difficult to accept after such as long time, then we don't want Malthouse. But nor should we retain the bloke who breed an apathetic culture. We want the
next Malthouse. So interview the next bunch of bright young tactical things, and then employ the one whose player management style has the hard edge you're looking for. Then give him a contract that's crystal clear on the scope of his authority and that's long enough and expensive enough to given him certainty of tenure.
Then get the hell out of his way and put all of our other efforts into reforming the club's broader governance problems.
Login
Register
FAQ
