Goltzenberg wrote:
padre wrote:
Goltzenberg wrote:
Its hilarious seeing the excuses for tricky micky
I find it amusing that people can honestly think he should be extended beyond 3 yrs.
There is a saying if you keep doing what your doing without changing anything, then your going to keep getting the same results.
Its pretty clr that he cannot coach any differently then he has last 35 yrs. He should be a list manager by all the talk of him cleaning up the list. Definitely isnt a game day coach that has any diversity in game plans. Probably why we can never beat the pies under him or anyone of significance.
You have your mind up now- its pretty clear. You are convinced that we will have another shocking year like 2014. Most Malthouse defenders are really just more open minded than you. We see green shoots coming from 2014 that if built upon would result in us landing back in the 8. If that doesnt happen and what you are clearly convinced about eventuates, then there will be many, me included that will be questioning a new contract.
I am intrigued, why do you feel the necessity for "hero predictions" is it just so you can gloat and say I told you so if you are right ?, or is it that you have it in for mick and therefore will do anything to vent?
I don't buy carlton club membership to accept failure.
I would be over the moon if Mick turned the club around and we were successful next year and looking like we are heading in the right direction. However, l don't think that will happen. He simply needs another 5 - 10 years at the club to win a flag. What is the point of extending a guy for another couple years when the next coach is just going to rip his outdated gameplan out the window.
I was onboard with Mick for his first season and probably up to round 10 of last year. Basically around the time when he started blaming the playing list instead of taking any accountability and going back on what he said at the start of his first year and the start of his 2nd season. The more he lost, the more he blamed the list. Not the coaching style, no that is a winning formula in todays footy. Clarko has been successfully winning 3 premierships with the around the boundary line game plan.
He was brought in to take us to the next step. Come in to win a flag or at least get us a shot at a flag. Since he has come to the club, we have lost to a lot of mediocre clubs, losing record, got his mates to the club and got his son a big fat pay cheque that would be lucky to be in our top 5 at the club. As for the positives, he did some good list management and assisted in getting docherty and everitt to the club. He has got Rowe settled in the back line and is playing like he did in his sanfl games and put gibbs in the midfield, where he should of been years ago. Of-field antics are disciplined a lot better at the club and yeah.
Sorry if l missed any positives, but l am struggling to find any with how the club actually performs on field under his coaching. If delisting players is our only positive for mick m, well then.
Like l said, l would be over the moon if he could turn the club around, but l highly doubt it. I thought he was one of the best coaches going around in his time at Collingwood, but the game has simply changed and he has kept coaching the way he has had previous success. After 2 seasons, we know that is not working, but lets keep flogging a dead horse hey
From the wiki of Clarkson (as a comparison )
Hawthorn had
five wins in Clarkson's debut season. Another round of culling saw the delisting of Angelo Lekkas and Nick Holland and the trade of Jonathan Hay and Nathan Lonie. Clarkson brought to the club delisted players Brent Guerra and Stephen Gilham whom he knew from his time at Port Adelaide. In 2006 the side improved as Clarkson showed innovation by restructuring the forwards with a system that became known as "Buddy's box".
The team won its last four games in a row to finish in 11th spot on the ladder. The Hawks
continued to improve in 2007, winning 13 games and finishing fifth on the premiership table. This took them into the finals, where they defeated Adelaide in an elimination final, before being eliminated in a semi-final against North Melbourne.
Comparing the Blues of 2012 to the hawks of 2004 (the last year of schwabs tenure) They hawks had made the finals in 00,01,03 narrow miss in 02, then bottomed out in 04. The wide perception was, that although Schwab had got them into finals virtually every year, they could not get past the "peripheral 8" benchmark of 12 wins. In other words he had taken the hawks as far as he could. I see a parallel with Ratten here
Clarkson gets in does marginally better in his first season than Schwab (5 v 2 wins) then at the end if his first two seasons delisted older players traded some off to other clubs (hampson) , got in some delisted players that he knew of ( Daisy, wood, ) etc . I see a parallel to Mick here
After two years Clarksons hawks were languishing at third last with only 5 wins after round 18. Then they suddenly turn a corner and win the last 4 games to finish a more respectable 11th. I see parallels with our second half effort in 2014 where we turned a corner form wise (although it didnt translate into wins)
In his third year the late form of the previous year is continued and they finish 5th. They win their first final against Adelaide and then lose in the semis.
In his fourth year he wins a flag
What is it about our results, that tell you so definitively that we are on the wrong track? Clarkson didn't have brilliant results after his second year either- although there were green shoots in the last four games.
lets look at our last 8 games
We beat
Saints- expected
North - Top 8 side
Gold Coast- expected
With luck we could have beaten
Fremantle
Geelong
Essendon*
Bad losses to Sydney and Port
if we had had the rub of the green we could have won 6 of our last 8 games We played 6 OF THE TOP 8 TEAMS during this period. Compare this to the 4 wins of the hawks in 2006 they played Carlton, Essendon*, North- the bottom 3 sides and Geelong who finished 10th. Ask yourself who had the better form line? Yet many are not willing to entertain the idea that we can improve? That to me tells me only one thing. They are extremely closed minded and have a set against Mick