He was discussed and then it was narrowed down to Pagan only IIRC. Have to feel for Pagan and what he did not know what was to happen!

_________________
Essendon-Only team to have ever been found guilty of salary cap breaches in a premiership year!

I wonder what's going to happen when we get malthouse

_________________
#DonTheStash

Not sure how you come to that Sedat. McGuire was voted in as President in October 1998. In 1999, Collingwood won the wooden spoon, and was millions in debt. Even McGuire at the time doubted himself, and whether he had bitten off more than he could chew. Malthouse was appointed coach after the 1999 season. Don't think 1 year and a wooden spoon classifies as the recovery being well and truly started.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

Coaches dont take "extremely poor" lists to grand finals.
Perhaps the list was underperforming or you underestimate the strength of the list when Malthouse took over.
Ask Barrassi (Melbourne) Pagan (Carlton) about their impact with a poor list.

To suggest Malthouse rebuilt an extremely poor list in 2 years and took them to a grand final is fanciful. You're massively overstating the role and importance of a senior coach.
He's not the saviour.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

While I agree with coaches being over rated.

The Pies had finished 14th and 16th when he took over. 15th in his first year. I am not sure how you can't rate that an extremely poor list when he took over.

2 years later in the GF.

_________________
Have I run too far to get home?

It must sound a bit rich that a Dogs supporter is dissing the record of a 3 time premiership coach

I'm not suggesting Malthouse is a poor coach - far from it, he is a very adept tactician and motivator. But the concessions that West Coast got when they entered the competition make GWS and GC look like the Bears. MM had an amazingly talented list ready to explode on his hands when he got to Perth - arguably the 2 flags in 10 years there was 1 under par, and he left their list in a rubbish state when he walked out on them halfway through a contract (to be frank, his coaching performance from 1995 to 1999 there was sub-par with the talent he still had at his disposal). As for Collingwood, he was exceptional in his first few years there - the 2002 team is his finest single year achievement IMO (his 1985 effort with us wasn't too shabby either). But 1 premiership (which was almost fluffed on GF day) over the course of 12 years, which for the most part was at the best resourced club in the competition with the highest footy dept spend was also under par IMO.

He will more than likely do good things at Carlton because there is the shell of a very talented team that has much top-end talent. And he is clearly a better coach than Brett Ratten. But I would certainly be making enquiries to all of Roos, Eade, Thompson and Williams, who are all far superior to Ratts and would all be more than capable of harnessing Carlton's on-field talent to a sustainable tilt at a premiership in the next 3-4 years. I'm really quite non-plussed by the obsessive fascination that Carlton (and the media) has with MM alone.

_________________
"You've got no fear of The Underdog, that's why you will not survive"
- Spoon, 2007
- Western Bulldogs, 2016

I'd rate it an underperforming list. Players dont suddenly become grand final quality because of a coach over 24 months.
Coaches cant turn players from shit into talented players unless the talent was there already.

If people believe our list is underperforming and Malthouse will improve the output. fine. If they believe Malthouse took a team of hacks to a GF, they're dreaming.
Its simple. Coaches dont make successful teams. Good players do.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

I think your belief actually strengthens the Malthouse case.

It is fair to say we are under performing, and he has a proven record of getting the best out of teams.

Good players / Good coaches debate is impossible to prove so best to let it rest.

_________________
Have I run too far to get home?

I'm not necessarily over the moon about the prospect of Malthouse but, the point about leaving their list in a poor state is just not true. There were 7 2006 premiership players on the list he left behind.

Gardner, Phil Matera, Morrison and Gehrig were still at the peak of their powers.

McKenna, Lewis, Kemp, Peter Matera, McIntosh and Jackovich were still playing and proved to be a great example for many of the other players who went on to form most of that 2006 premiership side.

7 years after he left they won a flag and played in numerous finals series before that. Hardly a list left in tatters.

I'm not anti Malthouse. I'm anti piss poor process.
If Malthouse is so good, I'm sure he'll be happy to pit himself against all the likely candidates.

But instead we want to just give him the job. Why, because it relieves the board of responsibility and it gives some of them an opportunity to play king maker. Our board is making the same ill informed, embarrassing decisions we made 10 years ago.
Pathetic.

Its groundhog day except this time when they ask me to help bail them out financially, I'll laugh at them.
Fool me once.....

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Just for the sake of discussion what would they ask Malthouse they don't already know?

Explain your coaching philosophy?

Do you like your teams to hug the boundary?

What's your opinion of key CHFs?

Have you ever won a grand final?

Most clubs have good players on their lists and don't underestimate the power of a sudden influx of talented and enthusiastic recruits to a side. My opinion is that MM won't be able to make the breakthrough unless he comes with a handful of very shrewd recruiting and drafting decisions.

The idea that Malthouse will be the saviour if we simply do the same or even worse than we've already been doing is flawed.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

It's called an interview.

It allows you to select the best possible candidate, not just validate the one in front of you.

It's what professional organisations do. A few people at the Hawks wanted them to rush a decision so they wouldn't miss out on Wallace... we all know how this story unfolded.

One became a premiership coach, the other offers list management insights for a media organisation aptly called Croc.

OK, it's the extreme example, but sometimes organisations need to hold their nerve and grow up.

Harmsey, true but there is a process called headhunting and Brisbane did ok with it and recently what about Freo? So have many professional organizations benefitted by such a process.

It is a process, just not a transparent one.

Yes, If I was a board member with no idea about footy, they'd probably be the ideal questions.
If he went through a proper interview process, I'd ask-

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Carlton List?
You were successful with the defensive press but later in 2011, you were being exposed with it. What are the current trends of the game and what methodology would you employ with the Carlton list?
You had one of the strongest AFL assembled lists at West Coast which is recognised by most AFL commentators. After winning a flag in 1994, it took you another 17 years to win a flag, Why?
What team have you locked in to bring with you?
In the 2011 GF, all recognised AFL experts concede you erred dramatically by not moving Reid off Hawkins. Did this cost Collingwood the GF and if so, why didnt you make a move?
You preached solidarity and a team first mentality at Collingwood and you then made it all about you with interviews on the footy show and other media. Why?
You have been non commital about coaching again. How do we know you wont change your mind 10 games into the season?
You've said your wife and family dont want you to coach again. How will this impact upon your ability to do the job?

Hows that for starters?

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Ah, you'd be the 'difficult' board member who's always making things harder than they need to be. Look, Swanny's had a good chat to Mick and Bear's good with it all, so thanks for your input but I think we know what we're doing here. Crownie?

Fair questions, particularly the first two

Unfair questions, but amusing. I can just imagine Mick glaring, standing and staring, moustache twitching, and probably taking a swing at Adrian Gleeson if he asked them. A real test of the effectiveness of Micks progress with anger management..

I'd also like to ask. "Can you win us a flag in the next three years and at the same time put the pieces in place for a run of sustained success over the next 10 years. How do you propose to do it".

Crucial that the club has an idea about what he has in mind. In great detail.

And compare this with what others might say in response to the same questions. (Not that others will get a chance to be formally interviewed)

I'm more interested in what he asks the panel (if there's a panel) to be honest. That always tells me more about an applicant than how they answer my questions. I'm after someone who's thought about the organisation and tells me in what areas we would benefit most by employing them.

Pafloyul

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.