Bring back Malthouse
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Redlight
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Jez07 wrote: | Mick only unravelled in the 2nd half because he knew his time was almost done. Once he appeared on TFS, the year was done.
I attended the North game prior to TFS appearance. Wet day at the G', it was as good as I've ever seen the club play and it was a wet day.
The side had gears that no other teams had that year. Without the distraction of the succession plan forcing his hand that year, the side would have saluted with his penis in the air. |
Except Geelong.
Mick was the distraction in 2011. However, we do agree that it was his, wholly voluntary, shit-stirring, look-at-me, I've decided to renege on an agreement that I entered into willingly, self-promoting BS on the footy show that started the slide.
On the flip side, I'm of the opinion that without the succession plan there wouldn't have been a flag in 2010. |
|
|
|
 |
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| courtza wrote: | | Jez07 wrote: | In 2011, or even at the end of 2010, the club should have said to Mick you have an extra year on top of 2011. Once the side showed signs of bottoming out, he would then be replaced by Buckley.
At the same time, Buckley could have gone to another club as an assistant and learnt more and in a different envrionment.
Good management is being agile and having the ability to think on your feet. Once the side won the flag, there should have been a re-adjustment by the club with the succession plan. |
Yep, couldnt agree more. |
Agreed. Even now it looks as if it'll end being one of the biggest blunders of sporting history. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Redlight wrote: | | Jez07 wrote: | Mick only unravelled in the 2nd half because he knew his time was almost done. Once he appeared on TFS, the year was done.
I attended the North game prior to TFS appearance. Wet day at the G', it was as good as I've ever seen the club play and it was a wet day.
The side had gears that no other teams had that year. Without the distraction of the succession plan forcing his hand that year, the side would have saluted with his penis in the air. |
Except Geelong.
Mick was the distraction in 2011. However, we do agree that it was his, wholly voluntary, shit-stirring, look-at-me, I've decided to renege on an agreement that I entered into willingly, self-promoting BS on the footy show that started the slide.
On the flip side, I'm of the opinion that without the succession plan there wouldn't have been a flag in 2010. |
But do you also agree that maybe... just maybe.. that Eddie's stubbornness towards seeing the succession plan through on schedule cost us the 2011 GF. I do however agree though that it had a heavy influence in 2010. |
|
|
|
|
Redlight
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | Redlight wrote: | | Jez07 wrote: | Mick only unravelled in the 2nd half because he knew his time was almost done. Once he appeared on TFS, the year was done.
I attended the North game prior to TFS appearance. Wet day at the G', it was as good as I've ever seen the club play and it was a wet day.
The side had gears that no other teams had that year. Without the distraction of the succession plan forcing his hand that year, the side would have saluted with his penis in the air. |
Except Geelong.
Mick was the distraction in 2011. However, we do agree that it was his, wholly voluntary, shit-stirring, look-at-me, I've decided to renege on an agreement that I entered into willingly, self-promoting BS on the footy show that started the slide.
On the flip side, I'm of the opinion that without the succession plan there wouldn't have been a flag in 2010. |
But do you also agree that maybe... just maybe.. that Eddie's stubbornness towards seeing the succession plan through on schedule cost us the 2011 GF. I do however agree though that it had a heavy influence in 2010. |
In the sense that Mick acted very unprofessionally? Maybe, but that had nothing to do with the idea of the succession plan itself. Paul Roos did the same thing at Sydney, and is in the act of doing it again at Melbourne.
That kind of transition is vastly superior to the traditional knifing and should have been a massive coup for Collingwood. Except Mick decided to break his word and sook it up instead.
People seem to forget that Mick signed that agreement willingly. His manager at the time went on the record to say that Mick was perfectly happy with the deal and had every intention of keeping his commitment. I think his manager was being honest and forthright and expected, as the club probably did, everything to go as planned.
What no-one could have predicted was MM baulking at the 11th hour, in what I think was a very dishonourable way. He's been like a spurned lover ever since. |
|
|
|
|
Jez07
Joined: 02 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It was good in theory but it was never going to work. Mick's ego was never going to go quietly.
Again, good management is about reading the wind and a predicting a potential wind shift.
Eddie oversaw the greatest self inflicted wound in the history of this football club. We still haven't recovered and might not for years. |
|
|
|
|
Cam 
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Or he did something that won us a flag in 2010.
_________________
Get back on top. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Of course Mick was unprofessional in the end - he had a wobbly... but his circumstances were very different from Roos - who wanted to go. I believe that you are taking it a little personally, when you shouldn't - Mick loved the Pies, his boys, the team as much as anyone and it's understandable that when things started clicking with the team, tactics, etc and we were winning flags all of a sudden and absolutely smashing teams... he might want to try and see that through. Eddie should have been a bit more flexible and made hay while the sun shined, but no he didn't and now were are reaping the fruits of Eddie's stubbornness to not lose Bucks to Nth and also gift his hero and mate Bucks a fairy tale flag or two.
I agree with much you say above but not to the same degree nor with a closed one sided mind - we have to take everything into account, and accept our mistakes and the humanity of the parties involved.
At the moment I believe the club, or should we say Eddie is being insanely stubborn and if he hasn't seen the writing on the wall by now then he is doing more harm than good. |
|
|
|
|
Jez07
Joined: 02 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Eddie will sacrifice Nathan once the media and supporters and members come at him for the failed succession plan. There is nothing surer.
I had a listen to him today and you could hear him trembling even talking about it. |
|
|
|
|
Redlight
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jez07 wrote: | Eddie will sacrifice Nathan once the media and supporters and members come at him for the failed succession plan. There is nothing surer.
I had a listen to him today and you could hear him trembling even talking about it. |
Boy, you really hate Eddie and Bucks don't you?
Oh, and Hine and Pert and the assistant coaches and a bunch of other people.
As a change of pace, who do you think is doing a good job at the Pies? In your infallible and omnipresent opinion that is? |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar 
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jez07 wrote: | Eddie will sacrifice Nathan once the media and supporters and members come at him for the failed succession plan. There is nothing surer.
I had a listen to him today and you could hear him trembling even talking about it. |
Maybe Josh and Alexander disagree and he is having a hard time working out how to convince them.
Harden Up Pres ! |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Can we bring back Lee Mathews? |
|
|
|
|
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Cam wrote: | | What's interesting is that in 2005 we finished 2nd last after 5 years of MM's coaching, which was after two years of horrendous injuries. He too, had dropped us from 2nd.. to 13th in one year.. and 15th in two. So we finished 2nd last two years after finishing 2nd.. worse than Bucks! But then we bounced back, even though we didn't change the coach... |
Damn, why didn't you mention this before Cam? 
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
Streak 
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In 2009, the dogs were out for MM. The media were on him, and our own - our fellow black-and-white-bleeders, took the bait. The coach was done, and we had to toss him.
At the time, and on this board, I said we should re-sign him for 10 years. Replace uncertainty with stability. Back ourselves in.
The club elected to go for a little-bit-of-both approach and implement the succession plan.
In 2010, I said the succession plan should be abandoned. Bucks should serve an apprenticeship outside the club, and it was ludicrous to retire a coach at the top of his game. Besides, Bucks suddenly found himself with the hardest job in football: taking over a team at the top. Expectations so high, he couldn't possibly fulfill them.
I don't say any of this to pat myself on the back - I wish I were wrong, and I still might be - I only say it to establish that I agreed with those of you who were against the succession plan.
And now the dogs are out for Bucks. Stability has fled. I'm sure a minority of the players who are disloyal to the coach are fuelled by some of it, and they have the excuse they need to phone it in. The distraction is in effect, and the scapegoat is the man in the coach's box.
I plead now for what I pled then: unify. Stop the sniping, whining, blaming. We elect club representatives to make decisions on our behalf and we support them based on the totality of their decisions, not on the odd three or four we happen to find objectionable.
And our representatives have, on the whole, done right by us. We've had some great years, and we have more in store. What will derail a bright future is what always derails a bright future: the wrecking crew mentality; we didn't like this trade, or this coaching appointment, so TEAR IT ALL DOWN.
It's not our role. We can disagree among ourselves, we can debate the merits of this or that decision. But to the world, our role is to present a united front. We support our club, our coach, our players, and our President, period. When they win. When they lose. And since when do Collingwood supporters fold after an extended bad run? Who are we, Melbourne?
Buckley is a decent coach. He may even be a great one, given time. He won't be, if we burn the house down around him. At least, he won't be, here.
Stay the course. Give Bucks until 2017. Unite. If every one of us adopted this mentality, the muck-raking in the press would stop, because the press can't exploit ill-feeling that isn't there. Players would get the message and adapt. And that, alone, would do more to improve our club's situation than a change of coach ever could - and it's a change only we, as supporters, can effect.
We're supporters, FFS. Let's not forget to be supportive. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I disagree, sack Bucks now. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Streak wrote: | In 2009, the dogs were out for MM. The media were on him, and our own - our fellow black-and-white-bleeders, took the bait. The coach was done, and we had to toss him.
At the time, and on this board, I said we should re-sign him for 10 years. Replace uncertainty with stability. Back ourselves in.
The club elected to go for a little-bit-of-both approach and implement the succession plan.
In 2010, I said the succession plan should be abandoned. Bucks should serve an apprenticeship outside the club, and it was ludicrous to retire a coach at the top of his game. Besides, Bucks suddenly found himself with the hardest job in football: taking over a team at the top. Expectations so high, he couldn't possibly fulfill them.
I don't say any of this to pat myself on the back - I wish I were wrong, and I still might be - I only say it to establish that I agreed with those of you who were against the succession plan.
And now the dogs are out for Bucks. Stability has fled. I'm sure a minority of the players who are disloyal to the coach are fuelled by some of it, and they have the excuse they need to phone it in. The distraction is in effect, and the scapegoat is the man in the coach's box.
I plead now for what I pled then: unify. Stop the sniping, whining, blaming. We elect club representatives to make decisions on our behalf and we support them based on the totality of their decisions, not on the odd three or four we happen to find objectionable.
And our representatives have, on the whole, done right by us. We've had some great years, and we have more in store. What will derail a bright future is what always derails a bright future: the wrecking crew mentality; we didn't like this trade, or this coaching appointment, so TEAR IT ALL DOWN.
It's not our role. We can disagree among ourselves, we can debate the merits of this or that decision. But to the world, our role is to present a united front. We support our club, our coach, our players, and our President, period. When they win. When they lose. And since when do Collingwood supporters fold after an extended bad run? Who are we, Melbourne?
Buckley is a decent coach. He may even be a great one, given time. He won't be, if we burn the house down around him. At least, he won't be, here.
Stay the course. Give Bucks until 2017. Unite. If every one of us adopted this mentality, the muck-raking in the press would stop, because the press can't exploit ill-feeling that isn't there. Players would get the message and adapt. And that, alone, would do more to improve our club's situation than a change of coach ever could - and it's a change only we, as supporters, can effect.
We're supporters, FFS. Let's not forget to be supportive. |
You just advanced the conversation. A great post, which sums it up well. We are getting beaten because we are young, we do not have enough hard bodies or experience, and it is going to take time. We are Collingwood, and we have had much greater heartbreaks than this. Bucks will probably get us there, but whoever takes over, this team is going to take time.
I watched th Melbourne game again last night. I was wrong in an earlier post : Grundy will make it. Aish will make it. You mark my words. Nothing happens overnight where young and skinny players are concerned, but ability grows when it is given exoerience and toughness, and Nathan Buckley needs the time to make a team in his image.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Fri May 13, 2016 8:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
