The all NEW Mick Malthouse thread

CK95 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:43 am

I'm a late arvo man.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 17953

Well, unless you get some laxatives, there's no flags for you!

CK95 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:48 am

^^^^^

2013 membership slogan right there.

Bookie · **Posted:** Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:50 am

Paul Roos is not available :forget, so choice was Ratten or another. If not Malthouse and there seems some who don't like Mick, then who would you choose?
I think we have taken the best available but curious why the anti Malthouse sentiment and who people would have chosen. Agree a formal review process would work better but basically they have dismissed the untried coach option so it's only Roos and MM as quality candidates and one has excluded himself from the process. E.g Calling in Rocket during the Pies albeit short finals campaign doesn't add much.

Scotty12000 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:53 am

Blue Vain wrote:

Well, unless you get some laxatives, there's no BOG's for you!

EFA

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 17953

Bookie wrote:

Paul Roos is not available :forget, so choice was Ratten or another. If not Malthouse and there seems some who don't like Mick, then who would you choose?
I think we have taken the best available but curious why the anti Malthouse sentiment and who people would have chosen.

How do you know he's the best available? Our idea of a comprehensive process was to kiss his bum and offer him a million dollars.
Its not about not liking Mick, its about not liking being weak, desperate, reactive fools.

Again.

There's no logic to their decision making. The board seem to believe that because an untried coach in Ratten wasn't successful, all assistant coaches without senior experience are crap.
Maybe their ineffective, pathetic and uninformed process of awarding the job was the problem? And guess what, they just used the same process again!

@#$%&! wits!

ThePsychologist · **Joined:** Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am **Posts:** 7893

Blue Vain wrote:

Bookie wrote:

Paul Roos is not available :forget, so choice was Ratten or another. If not Malthouse and there seems some who don't like Mick, then who would you choose?
I think we have taken the best available but curious why the anti Malthouse sentiment and who people would have chosen.

How do you know he's the best available? Our idea of a comprehensive process was to kiss his bum and offer him a million dollars.
Its not about not liking Mick, its about not liking being weak, desperate, reactive fools.

Again.

There's no logic to their decision making. The board seem to believe that because an untried coach in Ratten wasn't successful, all assistant coaches without senior experience are crap.
Maybe their ineffective, pathetic and uninformed process of awarding the job was the problem? And guess what, they just used the same process again!

!@#$%& wits!

How do you know that?

Maybe the process is the same as what has happened w Ross Lyon to Freo. The club identified what they believe they need. Met with the person they believe can need to do it. Coach agreed with what needs to be done, where they sit and in the end took the job.

To say there is NO process is ignorant of what may well be happening.

Bluey44 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:41 am

Blue Vain wrote:

Bookie wrote:

Paul Roos is not available :forget, so choice was Ratten or another. If not Malthouse and there seems some who don't like Mick, then who would you choose?
I think we have taken the best available but curious why the anti Malthouse sentiment and who people would have chosen.

How do you know he's the best available? Our idea of a comprehensive process was to kiss his bum and offer him a million dollars.
Its not about not liking Mick, its about not liking being weak, desperate, reactive fools.

Again.

There's no logic to their decision making. The board seem to believe that because an untried coach in Ratten wasn't successful, all assistant coaches without senior experience are crap.
Maybe their ineffective, pathetic and uninformed process of awarding the job was the problem? And guess what, they just used the same process again!

!@#$%& wits!

To be fair,

I think they also asked Tami Roos if she wanted to coach us.
Rejection isn't pleasant ! :eek:

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 17953

ThePsychologist wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

Bookie wrote:

Paul Roos is not available :forget, so choice was Ratten or another. If not Malthouse and there seems some who don't like Mick, then who would you choose?
I think we have taken the best available but curious why the anti Malthouse sentiment and who people would have chosen.

How do you know he's the best available? Our idea of a comprehensive process was to kiss his bum and offer him a million dollars.
Its not about not liking Mick, its about not liking being weak, desperate, reactive fools.

Again.

There's no logic to their decision making. The board seem to believe that because an untried coach in Ratten wasn't successful, all assistant coaches without senior experience are crap.
Maybe their ineffective, pathetic and uninformed process of awarding the job was the problem? And guess what, they just used the same process again!

!@#$%& wits!

How do you know that?

Maybe the process is the same as what has happened w Ross Lyon to Freo. The club identified what they believe they need. Met with the person they believe can need to do it. Coach agreed with what needs to be done, where they sit and in the end took the job.

To say there is NO process is ignorant of what may well be happening.

You've just proved my point Einstein. :lol:

ThePsychologist · **Joined:** Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am **Posts:** 7893

Blue Vain wrote:

ThePsychologist wrote:

Blue Vain wrote:

How do you know he's the best available? Our idea of a comprehensive process was to kiss his bum and offer him a million dollars.
Its not about not liking Mick, its about not liking being weak, desperate, reactive fools.

Again.

There's no logic to their decision making. The board seem to believe that because an untried coach in Ratten wasn't successful, all assistant coaches without senior experience are crap.
Maybe their ineffective, pathetic and uninformed process of awarding the job was the problem? And guess what, they just used the same process again!

!@#$%& wits!

How do you know that?

Maybe the process is the same as what has happened w Ross Lyon to Freo. The club identified what they believe they need. Met with the person they believe can need to do it. Coach agreed with what needs to be done, where they sit and in the end took the job.

To say there is NO process is ignorant of what may well be happening.

You've just proved my point Einstein. :lol:

As I said ignorant of what may well be happening.

Rexy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am **Posts:** 28227

Blue Vain wrote:

Bookie wrote:

Paul Roos is not available :forget, so choice was Ratten or another. If not Malthouse and there seems some who don't like Mick, then who would you choose?
I think we have taken the best available but curious why the anti Malthouse sentiment and who people would have chosen.

How do you know he's the best available? Our idea of a comprehensive process was to kiss his bum and offer him a million dollars.
Its not about not liking Mick, its about not liking being weak, desperate, reactive fools.

Again.

There's no logic to their decision making. The board seem to believe that because an untried coach in Ratten wasn't successful, all assistant coaches without senior experience are crap.
Maybe their ineffective, pathetic and uninformed process of awarding the job was the problem? And guess what, they just used the same process again!

!@#$%& wits!

You'd think that after the Pagan & Ratten mistaken appointments which have cost the club time and money, that the decision making process this time would be more thorough.
It's very much a case of :banghead:

RickJ · **Posted:** Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:23 am

Headhunting a high profile superior candidate is standard practice in corporate life. Many upper echelon candidates would not necessarily apply for a job if they had to line up to be interviewed along with 10 others. That is not to say that due diligence should not be conducted, or that the candidate should not have to undergo some pretty serious questioning. But for high profile candidates like MM where their record speaks for itself, being subjected to a publicly transparent process of interview might be seen as humiliating, especially if they aren't given the job at the end of that process.

I'm happy with the MM appointment. I don't know what went on as part of that process, I wouldn't expect to know, and for someone of his stature I'm happy not to know.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 17953

RickJ wrote:

But for high profile candidates like MM where their record speaks for itself, being subjected to a publicly transparent process of interview might be seen as humiliating, especially if they aren't given the job at the end of that process.

I dunno. I'd suggest our first priority should be to get the best person.
That means putting together a list of quality candidates and getting an "informed" panel of people to conduct the process.
Saving MM from the humiliation of possibly missing out would be a bit further down the list of priorities.

Rexy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am **Posts:** 28227

RickJ wrote:

Headhunting a high profile superior candidate is standard practice in corporate life. Many upper echelon candidates would not necessarily apply for a job if they had to line up to be interviewed along with 10 others. That is not to say that due diligence should not be conducted, or that the candidate should not have to undergo some pretty serious questioning. But for high profile candidates like MM where their record speaks for itself, being subjected to a publicly transparent process of interview might be seen as humiliating, especially if they aren't given the job at the end of that process.

I'm happy with the MM appointment. I don't know what went on as part of that process, I wouldn't expect to know, and for someone of his stature I'm happy not to know.

Forgive me RickJ but Sticks and Gleesons track record of headhunting senior coaches leaves a lot to be desired.

Hornet · **Joined:** Sat May 21, 2005 5:15 pm **Posts:** 7275

Blue Vain wrote:

RickJ wrote:

But for high profile candidates like MM where their record speaks for itself, being subjected to a publicly transparent process of interview might be seen as humiliating, especially if they aren't given the job at the end of that process.

I dunno. I'd suggest our first priority should be to get the best person.
That means putting together a list of quality candidates and getting an "informed" panel of people to conduct the process.
Saving MM from the humiliation of possibly missing out would be a bit further down the list of priorities.

You're both correct...

camel · **Posted:** Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:16 pm

Winding the clock back a bit, if not Pagan who? Honestly, whoever took on the role after Britts was going to be a sacrificial lamb. I wasn't a huge wrap for Pagan, but at least he offered hope.

Maybe we'd have been better off to have just drafted kids and hoped for the best, instead of trying retreads etc, but you'll recall our access to the draft wasn't real flash when Pagan took over.

I'm not defending Pagan at all, but a bit of perspective is needed when judging his tenure.

Blueboy_Dan · **Joined:** Sun May 08, 2005 1:09 am **Posts:** 5245

Blue Vain wrote:

Blueboy_Dan wrote:

To all those who:

a) Feel sorry for Ratten
b) Don't like how the club knifed its coach
c) Think that Malthouse or another well credential coach cant fix our list

Think back 12 months ago to the whole Mark Harvey & Ross Lyon saga and what was said at the time about how Harvey was knifed and how much of basketcase the Dockers were.....Well look at them now.

I cannot believe how many people say they dont want Malthouse and that we should have kept Ratten.

Nobody thought the Dockers were a basket case. Everyone understood they were heavily impacted by injuries and 2012 was always a year of expected improvement.
And sorry, just because Lyon has success (If he does) guarantees Jack Shit at Carlton. You're drawing parallels to suit your argument which are totally irrelevant. (Unless we swap Lyon for Mathouse)
How can the deeds of an individual on the other side of the country possibly impact the performance of Carlton?

Ross Lyon's deeds dont affect us, but it is a fine example of what a change in regime can do.

I think it is perfectly releveant: Underperforming club with a mediocre coach knifes said coach in the back, replaces him with a better coach and the team goes on to win 14 games (which any other season would almost get you in the top 4) and comes to Melbourne and destroys the reigning premiers in a final. Who would have thought in a million years Freo could come and beat a quality side in Melbourne, let alone in an elimination final? Freo have not recruited that well this season, heck they got Zac Dawson FFS, yet they are more disciplined, hard at it and have a structure.

Of course its no guarantee that Malthouse will achieve the same at Carlton, he could be worse, or he could be better, we dont know. The point is that a change in coach can make a HUGE difference to a list. Freo's list is not much different to their last season under Harvey, yet because they have a coach who actually has an idea, they are getting the best out of themselves.

Im a firm believer that our list is not that bad, we just need a coach with a proper structure and who has the ability to get the best out of players. Malthouse fits that bill, Ratten does not.

Freo's season to date demonstrates how much a change in coach can acheive with relatively little change to a playing list. I believe the same could happen at Carlton under Malthouse.

Siegfried · **Joined:** Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:30 pm **Posts:** 2862

There's no doubt in my mind that the three finals so far show the importance of a good coach, a solid, contested game plan, strong leadership and culture. Even Collingwood and Adelaide had a fair dinkum crack for 4 quarters, played hard, contested, finals footy. Ross Lyon is taking Freo's game plan to the level it needs to be, and their leaders are standing up.

IMHO, we have had an average coach, with a pretty game plan that doesn't stand up to the big matches against the best teams and poor leadership.

ThePsychologist · **Joined:** Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am **Posts:** 7893

Siegfried wrote:

There's no doubt in my mind that the three finals so far show the importance of a good coach, a solid, contested game plan, strong leadership and culture. Even Collingwood and Adelaide had a fair dinkum crack for 4 quarters, played hard, contested, finals footy. Ross Lyon is taking Freo's game plan to the level it needs to be, and their leaders are standing up.

IMHO, we have had an average coach, with a pretty game plan that doesn't stand up to the big matches against the best teams and poor leadership.

About sums it up. :clap:

teagueyubeauty · **Joined:** Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:28 am **Posts:** 6450

Bookie wrote:

Paul Roos is not available :forget, so choice was Ratten or another. If not Malthouse and there seems some who don't like Mick, then who would you choose?
I think we have taken the best available but curious why the anti Malthouse sentiment and who people would have chosen. Agree a formal review process would work better but basically they have dismissed the untried coach option so it's only Roos and MM as quality candidates and one has excluded himself from the process. E.g Calling in Rocket during the Pies albeit short finals campaign doesn't add much.

lol, doesnt stop the whiners rewriting history in regards to Sauce Jacobs....

There will be Roos threads as sure as night is day, one of the "facts" that will come out of it will be Roos only needed another 500k to change his mind....call me Nostradamus.

The all NEW Mick Malthouse thread

Who is online