I think its spot on.
As much as others fantasise about us playing 'Malthouse style, kick around the boundary" footy, its obvious we're now playing to our strengths. As we have in previous seasons.
Yet even last week someone was saying its obvious we go around the boundary now.
We look to hit the corridor off half back as much as possible instead of the boundary style game Mick tried to implement during the NAB cup and first couple of games. Its common sense. we dont have the tall marking targets so its smart to move the ball around the masses instead of through it.
The AFL stats indicate plenty of scores are coming off turnovers so its stupidity to kick the ball to contests when you have the option of retaining possession. The fast, play on style also assists our small forward line by not allowing opposition clubs to get numbers back.
Full credit to Malthouse. He admits he tried to retrofit a game plan and it didnt work. I admire the fact he hasnt been bloody minded and has been adaptable.
And that was my concern. I said from day 1 we couldnt sustain a boundary based game style and its been obvious since the second half against Richmond that we've realigned our game style to something more relevant to our personnel.

It makes a farce of the predictions of some here though. 'MM only plays one ruckman", "MM will play a defensive, round the boundary game", no shootouts etc. The reality is, MM has proved he can be adaptable and flexible and Collingwoods gamestyle wasnt necessarily his "brand" but more the style that suited the personnel.
It also demonstrates the fact Ratten wasnt off the mark with our game style. Yes, he had plenty of areas to improve but how we played the game gave us the best chance of success.

....I just heard Waite on Gameday and he stated that there is less emphasis on clearances and more emphasis on creating turnovers.

So, are you now saying that it is not important that we are not in the top teams for contested footy as we were under Ratten? You were pretty adamant that this was our problem at the start of the year. I just heard Waite on Gameday and he stated that there is less emphasis on clearances and more emphasis on creating turnovers.

That makes a lot of sense with the personnel we have.

Hammer would have kicked 5 or 6 against that opposition we had yesterday
Weakest team in the comp and Casboult returns 1.3
Hammer is the better player

That makes a lot of sense with the personnel we have.

So, are you now saying that it is not important that we are not in the top teams for contested footy as we were under Ratten? You were pretty adamant that this was our problem at the start of the year. I just heard Waite on Gameday and he stated that there is less emphasis on clearances and more emphasis on creating turnovers.

Yep... proves what most have been saying about our list this year.

We've assembled a playing group that's incapable of adhering to major change in game styles... an indictment on previous recruiting/development/coaching as the game changes from year to year and we need to follow suit and/or counteract opposition tactics.

So MM is now forced to play a tweaked version of Ratten's game plan and further emphasizes the need for a mini rebuild in years to come.

Next four games will be telling...

Yep... proves what most have been saying about our list this year.

We've assembled a playing group that's incapable of adhering to major change in game styles... an indictment on previous recruiting/development/coaching as the game changes from year to year and we need to follow suit and/or counteract opposition tactics.

So MM is now forced to play a tweaked version of Ratten's game plan and further emphasizes the need for a mini rebuild in years to come.

Next four games will be telling...

Pretty sure Ratts game plan was focused on winning contested footy which is not the focus now. He even hired Paul Williams as a specialist coach for stoppages/clearances. This is not a tweak of his plan.

Yep... proves what most have been saying about our list this year.

We've assembled a playing group that's incapable of adhering to major change in game styles... an indictment on previous recruiting/development/coaching as the game changes from year to year and we need to follow suit and/or counteract opposition tactics.

So MM is now forced to play a tweaked version of Ratten's game plan and further emphasizes the need for a mini rebuild in years to come.

Next four games will be telling...

Pretty sure Ratts game plan was focused on winning contested footy which is not the focus now. He even hired Paul Williams as a specialist coach for stoppages/clearances. This is not a tweak of his plan.

Thats nonsense.
Every team plays a game style suited to their personnel. Except for Melbourne and look how thats turned out.

Attempting to build a team suited to Malthouses Collingwood game style would be stupidity. The game evolves too much to stand still let alone planning to go backwards. Mick is smart enough to realise we need to complement what we have.
I'm sorry if that doesnt suit the bash Ratten, bash recruiters, bash previous coaching group philosophy as a whole.

MM drastically (I believe) changed Collingwood's game plan in an attempt to counter Geelong's dominance... it won them a flag... he can't seem to manage this with our group... why?

Maybe it's a blessing that we can't mimic da pois but one things for sure, I'm more confident that Mick will mould this team into a contender that I was with previous 'administrations'.