+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Princes Park (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Robert Heatley Stand (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-14.html)
+--- Thread: The Defence (/thread-5219.html)
Re: The Defence - LP - 06-02-2021
(06-02-2021, 12:11 AM)PaulP date Wrote:Autocrat or not, Malthouse suddenly became hopeless only when and because he came to us, just like all the others.I'd argue that he left a club which had forced a collaborative regime on him, something he did not want, yet a regime that was probably the reason he remained competitive while still there, and we removed him from that environment as was his will, and he hung himself!
In that respect his demise was not sudden at all, but just exposed by the move!
Re: The Defence - Thryleon - 06-02-2021
Probably got more to do with the fact that footy and tactics change. Malthouse delivered the pies a wooden spoon in 99. Its forgotten about because it was the launchpad for a relatively succesful period.
Re: The Defence - PaulP - 06-02-2021
(06-02-2021, 12:14 AM)LP link Wrote:I'd argue that he left a club which had forced a collaborative regime on him, something he did not want, yet a regime that was probably the reason he remained competitive while still there, and we removed him from that environment as was his will, and he hung himself!
In that respect his demise was not sudden at all, but just exposed by the move!
I disagree. 5 coaching failures in 20 years is enough circumstantial evidence for mine to point the finger squarely at the club. If Malthouse was the only failure, then sure, I would agree. They all come highly credentialed, flag winners, from successful environments etc., but we'll sort them out, don't you worry about that. Like Sylvester McMonkey McBean's Star Off machine.
Re: The Defence - LP - 06-02-2021
(06-02-2021, 12:21 AM)PaulP date Wrote:I disagree. 5 coaching failures in 20 years is enough circumstantial evidence for mine to point the finger squarely at the club. If Malthouse was the only failure, then sure, I would agree. They all come highly credentialed, flag winners, from successful environments etc., but we'll sort them out, don't you worry about that. Like Sylvester McMonkey McBean's Star Off machine.I'm not excluding the club, I haven't excluded the club. You're basically arguing Malthouse should be exonerated so the club cannot avoid criticism or responsibility.
I'm arguing the problem was Malthouse and The Club;
Malthouse because the game had game day management practices had past him by, his refusal to change, his refusal to adapt his ways cost him his job.
The Club, because it also lived in the past, appointed a tactically dead autocrat thinking he was a silver bullet. The Club saw a problem in the 2000s, and appointed an 80s solution! It shows just how far out of touch our Board and Executive is or was! They made the same mistake four coaches in a row, and kept blaming the coach when they were really putting the coach's head in a noose!
To this day, some of our game day staff remain, people who have been in residence right through this period of failure, a period through which we demonstrate recidivist losing behaviour, it cannot be a coincidence! It looks to me like somewhere someone in our organisation is a Typhoid Mary, there are not many choices left!
Re: The Defence - PaulP - 06-02-2021
If you go by the stats I showed above for the Pies 2011 season, plus the fact they played off in a GF, plus the results for Collingwood since, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Malthouse was at or near the top of his game when he left the Pies. He didn't fail because he was an autocrat, or the game had passed him by, or because he had a fat cat contract etc. These are simply examples of post hoc rationalism. You see an event without seeing all the moving parts behind the event, and you create a nice neat story to explain it.
Re: The Defence - LP - 06-02-2021
(06-02-2021, 12:44 AM)PaulP date Wrote:If you go by the stats I showed above for the Pies 2011 season, plus the fact they played off in a GF, plus the results for Collingwood since, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Malthouse was at or near the top of his game when he left the Pies. He didn't fail because he was an autocrat, or the game had passed him by, or because he had a fat cat contract etc. These are simply examples of post hoc rationalism. You see an event without seeing all the moving parts behind the event, and you create a nice neat story to explain it.I can assert the same regarding your perspective of the Malthouse final years at the filth, you have basically attributed all their success to Malthouse and ignored the other moving parts behind the scene!
Don't you see that in your argument?
Yet again you've focussed on The Club in isolation in trying to exonerate The Coach, because it seems to me you want to blame The Club and The Club alone.
Nothing stops The Coach having free will, they chose the path they travelled, and nothing stops The Club imposing a collaborative regime. The club should be bigger than the individual, not bow down to them as they did to Malthouse! By the time The Club gather enough courage to deal with it's mistake, the damage was done and another 5 years lost! Yet to this day The Club has escaped scrutiny.
There is something rotten in The Club, and there is something foolish in The Coach, ............ hubris? Does hubris linger on from the Jack Elliott days, in both the way The Club conducts itself, and in the people it chooses?
I see Pagan and Malthouse as very very similar mistakes, The Club thrashing against the winds of change, the dying of the light!
The demise of Ratten and Bolton were also similar, not just victims of The Club but victims of self-inflicted wounds, Ratten has stated as much in recent times.
Re: The Defence - PaulP - 06-02-2021
(06-02-2021, 12:46 AM)LP link Wrote:I can assert the same regarding your perspective of the Malthouse final years at the filth, you have basically attributed all their success to Malthouse and ignored the other moving parts behind the scene!
Don't you see that in your argument?
Yet again you've focussed on The Club in isolation in trying to exonerate The Coach, because it seems to me you want to blame The Club and The Club alone.
Nothing stops The Coach having free will, they chose the path they travelled, and nothing stops The Club imposing a collaborative regime. The club should be bigger than the individual, not bow down to them as they did to Malthouse! By the time The Club gather enough courage to deal with it's mistake, the damage was done and another 5 years lost! Yet to this day The Club has escaped scrutiny.
There is something rotten in The Club, and there is something foolish in The Coach, ............ hubris? Does hubris linger on from the Jack Elliott days, in both the way The Club conducts itself, and in the people it chooses?
I see Pagan and Malthouse as very very similar mistakes, The Club thrashing against the winds of change, the dying of the light!
The demise of Ratten and Bolton were also similar, not just victims of The Club but victims of self-inflicted wounds, Ratten has stated as much in recent times.
There are many things of which I could be accused, but hopefully not double standards and hopefully not hypocrisy. I am perfectly aware that none of us work in the AFL industry, none of us have in the past or ever will. None of us have played AFL or VFL footy, and we have basically no access to any inner sanctum information. We all sit in a pitch black auditorium, and we all pull out something at random, which is not provable or verifiable, but which we hold up as strong opinion regardless. Of course I am aware that I live in the same post hoc rationalist cul-de-sac as you, even if my previous post was off by one personal pronoun.
Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion about the Club v the Coach. There seems little doubt in my mind that the entire process is stuffed, from selection to support to sacking. Two examples :
1. I read somewhere that the club knew after 6 months that Malthouse was the wrong man. Leaving aside a great many issues that arise from this, I mean....... what ? When I first came across that, I read it about 6 times, with increasing incredulity. How the hell does that happen ? We are supposed to be a professional sporting organisation. There is a wealth of information, exposed form, psychological profiling, interviewing the candidate, what his intentions are, what his game plan will be, how he relates to players / executive / board, interviewing past players, assistants, media work etc. In short, you could analyse his life, game plan, method etc. down to the tiniest detail, but apparently not. We give this guy a million bucks, and the keys to the kingdom, then after 6 months we marginalise and undermine him, then we wonder why results go tits up.
2. Bolton. Bring in a rookie coach, give him the mother of all rebuilds, fill the list with kids and spuds, make him a de facto change manager, don’t replace his mentor, bring in a spy and an assistant coach with whom he has little in common, change key members of the executive and declare the rebuild over, then after 3 years of turbulence and insanity, demand results,
This IMO, is chronic, endemic, systemic mismanagement that would leave the Shepparton Bears feeling embarrassed.
The "evidence" if you can call it that, is there for all to see. Teague has been in a holding pattern for most of his time at Carlton. The benchmark he established in the back half of 2019 has not really improved. That's not a reflection on him or the list IMO. To get to the level required simply takes time, time which no one is really willing to accept. Getting rid of MM or Bolts has not accelerated the process at all, and neither will moving on Teague.
Re: The Defence - kruddler - 06-02-2021
That is one version of the facts Paul....a skewed one.
Lots of half-truths in there. Not worth the effort to go over all that old ground again.
Re: The Defence - Gointocarlton - 06-02-2021
(06-02-2021, 02:32 AM)PaulP link Wrote:There are many things of which I could be accused, but hopefully not double standards and hopefully not hypocrisy. I am perfectly aware that none of us work in the AFL industry, none of us have in the past or ever will. None of us have played AFL or VFL footy, and we have basically no access to any inner sanctum information. We all sit in a pitch black auditorium, and we all pull out something at random, which is not provable or verifiable, but which we hold up as strong opinion regardless. Of course I am aware that I live in the same post hoc rationalist cul-de-sac as you, even if my previous post was off by one personal pronoun.Clap Clap Clap (cant find a clapping hands emoji)
Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion about the Club v the Coach. There seems little doubt in my mind that the entire process is stuffed, from selection to support to sacking. Two examples :
1. I read somewhere that the club knew after 6 months that Malthouse was the wrong man. Leaving aside a great many issues that arise from this, I mean....... what ? When I first came across that, I read it about 6 times, with increasing incredulity. How the hell does that happen ? We are supposed to be a professional sporting organisation. There is a wealth of information, exposed form, psychological profiling, interviewing the candidate, what his intentions are, what his game plan will be, how he relates to players / executive / board, interviewing past players, assistants, media work etc. In short, you could analyse his life, game plan, method etc. down to the tiniest detail, but apparently not. We give this guy a million bucks, and the keys to the kingdom, then after 6 months we marginalise and undermine him, then we wonder why results go tits up.
2. Bolton. Bring in a rookie coach, give him the mother of all rebuilds, fill the list with kids and spuds, make him a de facto change manager, don’t replace his mentor, bring in a spy and an assistant coach with whom he has little in common, change key members of the executive and declare the rebuild over, then after 3 years of turbulence and insanity, demand results,
This IMO, is chronic, endemic, systemic mismanagement that would leave the Shepparton Bears feeling embarrassed.
The "evidence" if you can call it that, is there for all to see. Teague has been in a holding pattern for most of his time at Carlton. The benchmark he established in the back half of 2019 has not really improved. That's not a reflection on him or the list IMO. To get to the level required simply takes time, time which no one is really willing to accept. Getting rid of MM or Bolts has not accelerated the process at all, and neither will moving on Teague.
Re: The Defence - PaulP - 06-02-2021
(06-02-2021, 03:30 AM)Gointocarlton link Wrote:Clap Clap Clap (cant find a clapping hands emoji)
Thanks Nando. There's nothing like a Rum Baba and a doppio ristretto in the morning to sharpen the focus.