Sugarcane wrote:
kingkerna wrote:
Let's talk reality, we have gone backwards under mickey mouse. Not only that, players have gone backwards in development under him.
Only a couple have improved, this was worse than the gold coast loss last year, I'm suspending my AFL membership next season and expect our membership numbers to fall until he's gone. You can blame the board, president and the boot studder but malthouse makes the on field decisions and they have been shit from day 1
Look I don't know this for sure (but then neither do you), but for arguments sakes - and let me play devils advocate here - lets assume the reality is the list was felt to have hit their ceiling with fifth and Mick (and the club) thinks the list is too soft and too front runnig and so needs to develop a more defensive edge to go forward, and that's why we are playing Simpson down back and are playing more defensive in many other ways (young mids used as taggers, more defensive game plan) BUT the players, not all but a significant amount, are struggling with this change.
Where does that leave us? Abandon the plan or overhaul the list to find cattle that will toe the line?
I'm not in the inner sanctum so I don't know what's going on but I suspect it's something along these lines
OK, how about I play devils advocate as well.
We have a board that appointed a coach 5 years ago based upon the fact he was a Carlton person. No process other than appoint our mate.
5 years later we have a board under pressure who appoint a big name coach to take the pressure off themselves. No process again. (Remind you of Carlton circa 2002?) Synbad talks about Rattens coaching philosophy being about "give it to the champ". Well., the board's just done the same thing. Handballed the club to Malthouse and hoped like hell he will drag them out of the shit.
Unfortunately, Mick isnt in it for the right reasons. His motivation was to prove Collingwood wrong. He didnt give a rats arse about coaching us.
Even he knows his heart isnt in it.
The funny part is, Collingwood werent wrong. Buckley has given opportunities to many more kids than Mick was doing (Which apparently Mick was good at)
Collingwood took control from Mick because they could see the autocratic role is insufficient in successful clubs. They could see that progressive and successful clubs like Sydney and Geelong are moving away from our archaic recently introduced structure. (Give total control of an AFL club to 1 person!)
And what's worse, Collingwood talked us into giving him the exact same role they'd sacked him from 12 months earlier.
You argument is laughable. Bring in a 60 year old man to try to implement an outdated game style and when the players cant make it a success, you get rid of all the players.
Your constant remarks about the players being weak and soft doesnt hold water. This team has been one of the best contested ball sides in the AFL for years.
Thats not an assumption like your rantings, its fact.
If the change in coaching has made that fall away, perhaps its the change in coaching that should take responsibility.
BV how do you know that MM's is not in it for the right reason? Or he does not give a Ratts arse? Good play on words don't you think?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
