BigKev wrote:
17th Premiership wrote:
I think Malthouse is great at building a list and moulding them into a team.
I am open to the possibility that he may no longer be a great match day coach and that he is not up with the current coaching best practice. Although, I suspect he is quite capable of morphing (again) - his 2010 Pies pioneered crazy forward pressure and that was only a few years back...
However, one of the main reasons I think we should sign him up for another 2-3yrs is that I have very little confidence in our current leaders to select the best new coach. And the risk of stuffing up another 3-5yrs until we work out whether a new coach is the right coach is too great. MAYBE if they poach an existing coach, whether it be Ross Lyon or one of the Scott brothers. However, we have tried picking the 'best' coach before and, as above, I'm not sure we have the expertise to differentiate between who is 'seen' as the best and who will be the best for us. For examaple, I reckon given the choice b/w Ayers and Clarkson, we'd have chosen Ayers. Given the choice between Hinkley and Eade, we would have picked Eade. We'd pick Neil Craig instead of Luke Beveridge. We would never have picked Phil Walsh.
I could be proven wrong - we have made a lot of changes at the top. I'm just not convinced yet.
So, I'd sign up Malthouse for another 2 years and challenge him to finish what he's started. Then, in 2yrs time, re-evaluate both his performance and we would also have a clearer picture of how the club is being run - do we really have an aligned understanding about where we are headed? Are people on the Board and in the right roles at the club for the right reasons?
That's an interesting post 17th'. When would you re-sign him? (In other words would this years results be a factor in this?).
I would wait until Round 10-ish/mid year. If we get to midseason and we have won 4 games or more AND we can see the team evolving then I'd re-sign him for 2 years.
Notwithstanding what I've said above, if we have not won at least 3 or 4 games by then I'd reconsider, depending on how we are playing; and there are two things I'd look for:
1) Tackling, effort - even a terrible team can tackle ferociously and pressure the opposition
2) Structure/positioning - in the first few games, we puffed ourselves chasing but it was like we'd follow every opposition player if they ran in a circle allowing their teammate to free up.
If we are not tackling and/or still running in circles, it means that either Malthouse is not teaching the correct structures/intensity or the players are not buying into his approach. If it is the former, he has to go. If it is the latter, then is it because he is unable to motivate them or because this is an 'unmotivatable' group...?
And this is where our culture comes into it - if the players just couldn't be bothered or are too stupid to follow instructions. In this case, it won't matter if we had the best coach in the world, we would not improve.
And unfortunately I think this has been a significant part of our problem over the past 10 years.
Look, I don't know who the next batch of coaches are. I would never have predicted Beveridge or Walsh would be senior coaches and doing so well. Maybe there are a bunch of amazing young coaches but, as I've said, I'm not sure I trust our leadership to make the right choice at this stage. And we know Malthouse can build a list and a strong culture - these are our most urgent needs.
Login
Register
FAQ
Just like I was a Pagan hater when I thought he was past it, just like I was a Lance hater when I thought he was lazy and just like I was called a Waitey hater because I thought he was undisciplined.
