We've made a number of list decisions over the last few years that have been described by some as essential in developing a positive culture.
At the moment you would be hard pressed to point to the 'positive' effects of some of these moves.
We seem to have developed a culture that some folk can't wait to get away from and others don't want to come too.
Is it something that takes time to develop or have we "thrown out the baby with the bathwater" in some cases.
The house the Mick built. ????
Lods,
We need time for SOS and Bolton to fix up the mistakes of our past. Players are reluctant to come to the club because they see an unstable group of players that can't win games on a regular basis. Somehow we find a way to push players out that we need at the club and bring in players that don't have the attitude or skills to be proper AFL footballers. We need time to fix these issues as we need to build a squad from scratch. That is mainly the job for SOS as list manager. Bolton needs to devise game plans that work for the playing group and help develop every player on the list.
As we start developing a winning culture in the playing group as a whole, every player will want to come to our club, and none already on the list will want to move. We are not in a great place at the moment, hence things must get better. They simply must. Otherwise Bolton would not have taken on the job to be the coach of our club.
Lods, it's what I've struggled with regarding the Kreuzer debate. I think Cripps oozes the culture we want and towards the end of the season I saw these two as a foundation for the rebuild. I know it's only two players but they have all the attributes we want from our playing list. I get what the club is trying to get from letting Kreuzer walk in terms of value in the draft and I understand he's been injured for a long period, but culturally the players have publicly acknowledged that Kreuzer is a massive presence when he is on field.
Lods, it's what I've struggled with regarding the Kreuzer debate. I think Cripps oozes the culture we want and towards the end of the season I saw these two as a foundation for the rebuild. I know it's only two players but they have all the attributes we want from our playing list. I get what the club is trying to get from letting Kreuzer walk in terms of value in the draft and I understand he's been injured for a long period, but culturally the players have publicly acknowledged that Kreuzer is a massive presence when he is on field.
It's funny isn't it. Kreuzer resembles the type of culture we are trying to build, but are willing to let him go to kickstart a rebuild. Who can we blame for this? Can't blame Mick for that one.
Whether he goes or not, we are very much entertaining the idea and that says as much about our culture as anything else.
Can't help but think it starts with the board and they need to go to give the club a new direction.
It's funny isn't it. Kreuzer resembles the type of culture we are trying to build, but are willing to let him go to kickstart a rebuild. Who can we blame for this? Can't blame Mick for that one.
Whether he goes or not, we are very much entertaining the idea and that says as much about our culture as anything else.
Can't help but think it starts with the board and they need to go to give the club a new direction.
Spot on. Isn't the club being a tad hypocritical when they said this regarding Henderson,
Carlton head of football Andrew McKay said the club only wanted players who were excited to wear the Blues jumper
Onfield culture is on the mend I reckon, dickheads are being weeded out, talent like Cripps needs to be brought in. SOS will sort this out. Its the off field culture that needs the most work and worries me the most. Trigg is trying but I fear he will fall victim to the toxic environment that is the CFC Board. We shall see.
It's funny isn't it. Kreuzer resembles the type of culture we are trying to build, but are willing to let him go to kickstart a rebuild. Who can we blame for this? Can't blame Mick for that one.
Whether he goes or not, we are very much entertaining the idea and that says as much about our culture as anything else.
Can't help but think it starts with the board and they need to go to give the club a new direction.
Absolutely!!
The club should have come out and said that Matty Kreuzer epitomises what Carlton is about and he will be re-signed as a priority.
We've somehow built up a losing culture that you can probably trace back to the Pagan days. We've never been able to heal those mental scars. We seem to have recruited 100% introverts with very little personality/spirit/spine/etc.
We have frustratingly lost our entire forward line for little return but the way MM was looking at it he's consciously cleared out a bunch of players that were never going to win us a premiership.
It hasn't worked the way he envisaged but he didn't have the recruiting department behind him at Carlton that he had at Collingwood and WC.
We butchered our draft picks so while Mick was busy clearing out the mid-tier experienced players at the top end - the back-fill for that was Watson, McCarthy, Mitchell, Lucas, Bootsma, Temay, etc.
We've also got a bunch of players from other clubs that we paid overs to get who aren't world beaters and suck up most of our salary cap. Warnock, Jones, Henderson, Tutt, Everitt, Thomas, etc.
Our core problem going back many years has always been recruiting and list management. We currently do not have recruitment manager. We appointed SOS as list manager but his role seems to have morphed into recruiting also. Seems very odd.
Watson, McCarthy, Mitchell, Lucas, Bootsma, Temay
Oh my. A worse sextet of Carlton spuds you would struggle to name.
Carltons cultural problem is driven by its constitution
When you have board directors that have a guaranteed 12 years of sitting on the board things turn too slowly. ..we have directors like gleeson who are still on the board since pagans days...
The house the Mick built. ????
Fevola, Kennedy snd Jacobs.
Onfield culture is on the mend I reckon, dickheads are being weeded out, talent like Cripps needs to be brought in. SOS will sort this out. Its the off field culture that needs the most work and worries me the most. Trigg is trying but I fear he will fall victim to the toxic environment that is the CFC Board. We shall see.
On field culture is at it's lowest ebb. We get rid of so-called bad boys, nothing's changed, probably got worse, then, because we got rid of them we can't win a game. Sometimes the theory that says "nice guys come last", does ring true. All no good if you can't win games of footy. The only reason we are here
Fevola, Kennedy snd Jacobs.
I worry about you sometimes MBB ::)
Culture is overated....West Coast were as high as kites when they were successful, Malthouse allowed Shaw, Didak and the ratpack to do what they wanted as long as they won games....
Winning games builds culture....having a list of choir boys wont win you a premiership, having a few characters who live on the edge are needed to balance up the introverts as long as your characters are not extreme serial offenders...you dont go recruiting Harley Bennell for example..
Organisational culture is a concept that is easily misused and can mean different things to different folk.
Given its part of my trade, there can be a tendancy to see culture, if it is able to be identified, as the problem and address it head on. I would prefer to see culture as the set of behaviours and preferences that staff, and thus an organisation tend to display, especially under pressure.
Culture is thus more a symptom or a consequence of these behaviours. Addressing such a culture, if it is considered a problem is thus better undertaken by attempting to adjust work practices and behaviours of staff, setting different expectations and so forth.
In short, it is hard, and changing behaviours, especially under pressure is enormously difficult, which is why it often leads to sackings, resignations and new people brought in.
But what will fail is an attempt by senior management to unequivocally state that culture has to change and then expect people to understand what it means for them. It is day to day work practices, style and manner that has to change, and this can only realistically come from the top.
For a professional sporting team, a culture of highly driven individuals has to be enmeshed with a culture of team work. This is tricky, and requires the right mix of personalities. The company leading teams has made plenty of coin flogging their wares to AFL clubs, but as far as i can tell their model is pretty similar to what many in organisational development have been doing for years. It's in essence establishing a set of desirable principles for an organisation, translating these to day to day work practices (this typically falls on middle management and is critical) and holding each other accountable for this. Rinse and repeat.
Good things can grow out of this, but it takes great commitment over time. Carlton have lacked this across many parts of its organisation, and the worse it gets (as demonstrated by results), the more drastic the means to address it, and the greater the risks change entails.
I have been pleasantly surprised by many of the changes made in the past few months at CFC. Whether they yield good results is unknown, but they are trying, which is all they can do.
I worry about you sometimes MBB ::)
It's his defence mechanism albeit a very poor one. He's probably still stinging a little from the weekend as well
I think this concept of club culture teeters precariously. It's the wedge on a bridge's foundation stone holding up the span that takes you from tragedy to success. Remove one tiny little piece and the road to success is gone, Carlton love removing stones.
As Vivian states, building culture comes form the top, and it's dead easy to destroy from the top as well. One mixed message, one sign of blame or a double standard and it's over, the structure will collapse. MM appeared to be a master demolitions expert, but he wasn't alone in this regard.
The real question might be, is there a more durable solution? Is planned obsolescence a better solution?
For example, it will be very interesting to see what happens with the Dawks next weekend, if they have another implosion one might say that Carlton has pulled out one of their stones!
Culture is what you blame when you have no idea what's wrong. It's the equivalent of saying our problem is we don't make enough money.
Are our players not coming to training?
Are they purposely screwing up their recovery?
Are they ignoring their match day requirements?
Or do we think we happen to run the perfect organisation and we have the worst luck in the word in picking guys who can't get with it?
Far easier to say culture, blame those who are where the problem surfaces thann to find the root cause.
Culture is overated....West Coast were as high as kites when they were successful, Malthouse allowed Shaw, Didak and the ratpack to do what they wanted as long as they won games....
Winning games builds culture....having a list of choir boys wont win you a premiership, having a few characters who live on the edge are needed to balance up the introverts as long as your characters are not extreme serial offenders...you dont go recruiting Harley Bennell for example..
Well said!
Well said!
Neither clubs had sustained success.
Ask Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney about culture.
On field culture is at it's lowest ebb. We get rid of so-called bad boys, nothing's changed,
Really? How many of our blokes this year got knocked out 5am on a Sunday, received a broken eye socket in the process and then said they did it sparring with their private boxing coach? Gimme a break will ya!!
Neither clubs had sustained success.
Ask Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney about culture.
I think you will find that the culture isn't that much different at the playing level, but very different at board level.
Hawthorn in particular has a carefully crafted club persona that is almost unrelated to the playing list.
Carltons cultural problem is driven by its constitution
When you have board directors that have a guaranteed 12 years of sitting on the board things turn too slowly. ..we have directors like gleeson who are still on the board since pagans days...
Your mate changed the constitution. A constitution that had stood for 150 years and made us the most successful club in history.
I don't think you can blame the constitution.
Really? How many of our blokes this year got knocked out 5am on a Sunday, received a broken eye socket in the process and then said they did it sparring with their private boxing coach? Gimme a break will ya!!
Wow that was so damaging to the club....not!
Would've killed for a Robbo this year.
Your mate changed the constitution. A constitution that had stood for 150 years and made us the most successful club in history.
I don't think you can blame the constitution.
Come back to me why 12 year terms of directors is ok...
Wow that was so damaging to the club....not!
Would've killed for a Robbo this year.
The tribe spoke after the lost trust. So you wold just set the team rules but then when someone "special" breaks the team rules, you would change them would you ? Come mate, let it go. He forked up time after time then lost trust of the players and they voted him out. Its great that he got the kick in the ass he required, hope he goes onto bigger and better things as a result. Some blokes who a immature need a jolt to make them wake up and smell the roses. Football clubs teach life lessons, sometime they benefit the player rather than the club as in the case of Robbo. That life.
Come back to me why 12 year terms of directors is ok...
Who has challenged Gleesons position?
If nobody wants to challenge, they get automatically reelected.
FYI, your mate changed the constitution so that he has to approve who can actually run to get elected! That lessens the chance that people win actually run, and lessen the chance even more that they will actually replace anyone!
Great rule that is! Not.
Wow that was so damaging to the club....not!
Would've killed for a Robbo this year.
Who is now studying sports journalism, writes A blog for Brisbane FC website, won a best and fairest and showed great leadership to a young group this year.
We don't work with these guys, We cast them off at the first sign of trouble.
Who has challenged Gleesons position?
If nobody wants to challenge, they get automatically reelected.
FYI, your mate changed the constitution so that he has to approve who can actually run to get elected! That lessens the chance that people win actually run, and lessen the chance even more that they will actually replace anyone!
Great rule that is! Not.
The more I think about it the angrier I get. We have been shizenhouzen for how long now (bar the odd good year here and there)? Whats the common denominator? The basket case of a board and its factions and pissing contests! It just gotta forken change for us to move in the direction required for sustained success.
Who has challenged Gleesons position?
If nobody wants to challenge, they get automatically reelected.
FYI, your mate changed the constitution so that he has to approve who can actually run to get elected! That lessens the chance that people win actually run, and lessen the chance even more that they will actually replace anyone!
Great rule that is! Not.
the INC has been discussed. A candidate that
does not receive INC approval can still run for the board by election by the members, as being a non endorsed candidate from my reading
the argument against the INC is just meaningless
interestingly, farouh and germinder have resigned - the board is now 8. it appears that no one from outside has put their name up for INC approval this year
Who is now studying sports journalism, writes A blog for Brisbane FC website, won a best and fairest and showed great leadership to a young group this year.
We don't work with these guys, We cast them off at the first sign of trouble.
Robbo is probably a beneficiary of the anonymity that comes with being an AFL footballer in a Rugby town.
No knuckleheads lining up to see if they can take out a big, tough footballer.
Melbourne Storm players regularly say this is one of the best reasons for playing RL in Melbourne (now there is a team with Culture....)
As always there is an action that prompts a reaction.
He went away and trained his arse off over the summer. They posted pictures on here early this year as a reason why we stuffed up with Robbo.
On the flipside, we know what happened with Robinson when he was with us. Big Day out fist fight. We saw those photos.
Had we kept him, there are no guarantees this season would have been similar for him.
I'd take Robbo getting into a fist fight everyday of the week over Jones pissing in our pockets and still getting a game. There's your culture killers.
the INC has been discussed. A candidate that does not receive INC approval can still run for the board by election by the members, as being a non endorsed candidate from my reading
the argument against the INC is just meaningless
interestingly, farouh and germinder have resigned - the board is now 8. it appears that no one from outside has put their name up for INC approval this year
If it can be so easily bypassed, what was the point of introducing it?
Yep
The INC is meaningless
Yep
The INC is meaningless
It gives the illusion that those without the tick aren't good quality candidates. Most folks don't have the time to learn what missing the endorsement means or doesn't mean.
If it can be so easily bypassed, what was the point of introducing it?
My.take is that it provides a scrutiny process for future directors and a review process for existing directors when they are up for re election
I'd take Robbo getting into a fist fight everyday of the week over Jones pissing in our pockets and still getting a game. There's your culture killers.
I would rather better players than both of them who aren't dickheads.
Recruit loser players and establish a losing culture.
Recruit competitive, win at all cost types and establish a winning culture.
Recruit loser players and establish a losing culture.
Recruit competitive, win at all cost types and establish a winning culture.
Sounds too simple to actually work. ;D
Recruit loser players and establish a losing culture.
Recruit competitive, win at all cost types and establish a winning culture.
Thats all well and good, but if the latter turn out to be DH's who don't to the line, its time to say adios amigos.
Thats all well and good, but if the latter turn out to be DH's who don't to the line, its time to say adios amigos.
I would say players with a history of not putting their body on the line, tackling and taking one for the team are far more damaging to any culture and certainly not towing the line. Culture starts on field, trying to correct it by punishing someone for off field misdemeanors, especially when they provide great culture on field is just dumb.
100% carrots. Every successful side has a few "characters" with questionable off field attitude/demeanour/activities...its what happens on the field that counts. They just need to check the right boxes in regards topreparation and performance.
Just check out the recently successful Geelong, Hawks and Pies sides... they had more than a few "characters".
If we kicked out the players with off field issues and any so called "dickheads" in the 70's and 80's we would be short 3 or 4 flags
Just remember Robinson was sacked for lying, we let him get away with numerous off field incidents.
I would rather better players than both of them who aren't dickheads.
True but when we have to choose, we go with the wrong ones.
I would say players with a history of not putting their body on the line, tackling and taking one for the team are far more damaging to any culture and certainly not towing the line. Culture starts on field, trying to correct it by punishing someone for off field misdemeanors, especially when they provide great culture on field is just dumb.
So by the above definition, Jeffy was let go for all the right reasons as he is a serial ducker who sleeps with the lights on.
Carltons cultural problem is driven by its constitution
When you have board directors that have a guaranteed 12 years of sitting on the board things turn too slowly. ..we have directors like gleeson who are still on the board since pagans days...
this ^
the stench will never go away unless you get rid of the excrement. Andrew Mckay included.
So by the above definition, Jeffy was let go for all the right reasons as he is a serial ducker who sleeps with the lights on.
Under Mick he became this definitely, was far from under the previous regime.
Just remember Robinson was sacked for lying, we let him get away with numerous off field incidents.
Pretty sure those off field incidents involved him getting sucker punched. Hardly his fault. The lying wasn't ideal but he had Mick's Sword of Damocles dangling over his head from Mick's day one. His lying was a product of his insecurities which fall on the head of Falthouse.
Pretty sure those off field incidents involved him getting sucker punched. Hardly his fault. The lying wasn't ideal but he had Mick's Sword of Damocles dangling over his head from Mick's day one. His lying was a product of his insecurities which fall on the head of Falthouse.
Different rules for different players with Mick....culture was all bad at Collingwood with Shaw, Didak, Tarrant, Johnson all offending but it took Buckley to move the ratpack on as
Mick wasnt going to push stars out who could help win him a flag.....
http://www.smh.com.au/national/didak-shaw-out-for-season-20080804-3q6a.html
Mick could have begged for Robbo to stay and it would have made no difference. The decision was made, blaming the coach for all these decisions just highlights how little you know about how football clubs actually work.
Pretty sure those off field incidents involved him getting sucker punched. Hardly his fault. The lying wasn't ideal but he had Mick's Sword of Damocles dangling over his head from Mick's day one. His lying was a product of his insecurities which fall on the head of Falthouse.
One was trying to calm down a drunken buddy(BDO), the other was a sucker punch coming to Garlett's aid.
Robbo was in the gun the moment he punched that ball through the behind post, no matter how hard he tried to make things right!
One was trying to calm down a drunken buddy(BDO), the other was a sucker punch coming to Garlett's aid.
Robbo was in the gun the moment he punched that ball through the behind post, no matter how hard he tried to make things right!
He made up for that straight away, f%^& you write some rubbish.
He made up for that straight away, f%^& you write some rubbish.
It didn't stop MM ripping him a new one when he come to the boundary line, or unloading to the media about him at the post match press conference! After that day he became MM's whipping boy, it was obvious to everybody! ;)
F%^& you are blinded by your MM love! :o
Pretty sure those off field incidents involved him getting sucker punched. Hardly his fault. fall on the head of Falthouse.
Garlett was out injured at the time and was on a strict recovery regime. He was not supposed to be out at 5am Sunday morning blind as a bat.Don't defend the indefendable. And Garlett has been a s0ft c0ck since the day he was born and will die one.
Under Mick he became this definitely, was far from under the previous regime.
So what are you trying to say? Mick taught Jeffy to duck his head??
People also forget that Robbo was offered a contract mid-season yet turned it down and wanted to wait until the end of the year. He tried to back himself in to get a better one (or perhaps look elsewhere, we'll never know). It backfired and nobody is to blame but himself.
Yes, he played some good footy elsewhere. Is that our fault? He made his bed...
I reckon we would have shipped him anyway. At least our silliness hasn't also resulted in us paying part of his wage as well I guess.
So what are you trying to say? Mick taught Jeffy to duck his head??
No, Mick was unable to keep Garlett (among many others') eye on the ball. These guys were flying under Ratts and dropped off ore and more under Mick. Mick was a confidence sucker. Garlett as just one victim of his inability to get players playing at their best.
No, Mick was unable to keep Garlett (among many others') eye on the ball. These guys were flying under Ratts and dropped off ore and more under Mick. Mick was a confidence sucker. Garlett as just one victim of his inability to get players playing at their best.
Garlett and Mick were best mates in his 1st year. Garlett buddied up to him and was his kick to kick partner in the warmups. A role that daisy had at collingwood.
Now since then he sucked the life out of him to the point where he made Jeffy start ducking his head.
Do you believe the stuff you right?
No need, I'm just going by his immense drop in form coinciding with the change of coach and combined with others around him. Then of course the form reversal under the new coach. Maybe he would've gone better under the guidance of the inanimate carbon rod? After all, the coach does fk all. ????
No need, I'm just going by his immense drop in form coinciding with the change of coach and combined with others around him. Then of course the form reversal under the new coach. Maybe he would've gone better under the guidance of the inanimate carbon rod? After all, the coach does fk all. ????
Just like your brain if that's all you have got out of my posts on the matter.
It all leads back to the same thing with you. ????
So Mick is responsible for Robbo punching on at the big day out, Garlett's girlfriend troubles and Yarran's dad killing a bloke?
Mick sucked the life out of the club. What about every other bloke that stopped trying you got an excuse for them as well?
Mick sucked the life out of the club. What about every other bloke that stopped trying you got an excuse for them as well?
You're the one using Mick as an excuse for our player's shortcomings.
So have some players publicly since he left, albeit in a Thryleon kind of way. ????
You're the one using Mick as an excuse for our player's shortcomings.
I can't help but think that it is incredibly naive of you, Kruddler and Thry to use the players as an excuse for Malthouse's shortcomings.
The club finally realised that he was destroying our list and our culture and took action to remove him before it was too late. No matter how you try to spin it, the appointment of Malthouse was a disaster. It will be a real test of our culture, not to mention Bolton's character, to see if we can rebound from the lowest we've been since the worst days of Pagan.
One of the things we will never really be able to prove is what was holding our culture back. If things improve over the next season it will be a combination of new coaches, game plans, training strategies, development of players and all the people at the club, recruiting etc. All of these changes will be helping us move forward, but to point the finger at the previous coach will be a difficult prove. Getting a new coach will be the beginning of the new Carlton, but if that is where it happens is not the be all end all.
I do however feel strongly believe we must improve, develop and move to a better place than the bottom of the ladder. That can never, ever happen again and I suspect it won't. ;)
Brendon says the past is past and we all have to board the future train or be stuck there. Doesn't understand the point of chat rooms, does he?
I can't help but think that it is incredibly naive of you, Kruddler and Thry to use the players as an excuse for Malthouse's shortcomings.
The club finally realised that he was destroying our list and our culture and took action to remove him before it was too late. No matter how you try to spin it, the appointment of Malthouse was a disaster. It will be a real test of our culture, not to mention Bolton's character, to see if we can rebound from the lowest we've been since the worst days of Pagan.
This is silly.
People are misrepresenting points everywhere here to try and win some petty argument about nothing.
We are not being naive, we simply don't have the same viewpoint as you.
In fact no matter what point we make, those who disliked Malthouse have a rebuttal argument and that's because you can see things as you want to see it.
Sometimes we will be right, sometimes we will be wrong and usually whether you agree will be regarding which way you are partial to begin with.
It's all a matter of perspective.
You ask Malthouse what he was trying to do, and you're going to get an answer that you won't believe, because you and others who share your view have already shaped your opinion based upon factors you have already weighed up.
Nothing wrong with it, except when we start slinging mud at each other.
In any case it's done. We are starting again. Culturally we have cut away a part of the club that will change it forever and sometimes you cut good with bad to get where we need to go, so let's hope we can get where we need to go with Bolton.
In any case it's done. We are starting again. Culturally we have cut away a part of the club that will change it forever and sometimes you cut good with bad to get where we need to go, so let's hope we can get where we need to go with Bolton.
Wholeheartedly agree with this Thry.
Wholeheartedly agree with this Thry.
As long as our so called leaders stay we haven't cut away enough.
Murphy, Gibbs and Walker all need to find greener pastures where piss weak efforts are not tolerated and they are in the minority.
Only then will our culture change.
Ironic that Murphy had poor words to say about Robbo when he couldn't tie Robbo's shoelaces when it comes to on field commitment.
I can't help but think that it is incredibly naive of you, Kruddler and Thry to use the players as an excuse for Malthouse's shortcomings.
I can't help but think that it's incredibly low of you to keep using players with personal issues as part of an agenda against a coach you hate.
Ratten being coach doesn't hep Garlett's girlfriend issues, he doesn't stop Yarran's dad from murdering someone and he couldn't stop Robbo going out and getting in trouble either.
Having Cripps win the B&F is another step in the right direction re our culture.
This young lad will be a leader of men and will lift others or demand others follow his lead.
There is light at the end of this tunnel and finally it is just not another train coming.
I can't help but think that it's incredibly low of you to keep using players with personal issues as part of an agenda against a coach you hate.
Ratten being coach doesn't hep Garlett's girlfriend issues, he doesn't stop Yarran's dad from murdering someone and he couldn't stop Robbo going out and getting in trouble either.
All too easy to blame personal issues. Have you got an excuse for the 30 or so other under performing players?? Not that Robbo was under performing. Admit you got it horribly wrong with Mick. Everyone knows it.
This thread is about culture and you blamed Mick for it in your first post.
I'll ask again is Mick responsible for Yarran, Garlett and Robbo's issues?
Sounds like you expect him to be Perry Mason, Doctor Phil and Terry McCann rolled into one.
I think he's responsible for their on field performance yes, just like any other coach. It's becoming quite clear no one at the club was enjoying their football.
As long as our so called leaders stay we haven't cut away enough.
Murphy, Gibbs and Walker all need to find greener pastures where piss weak efforts are not tolerated and they are in the minority.
Only then will our culture change.
Yes and no.
Murphy has become as Judd like as he can. He may not have the same impact on match day as Judd could (few can), but as we saw against Melbourne, we were much better when he was on the field rather than after he went off.
Gibbs may not play at the best of the best players, but he is generally a fairly consistent accumulator and performs his role well each and every week.
Its a telling statistic that Cripps in his acceptance speech last night credited Murphy, Gibbs and Thomas and also talked up young Byrne and Giles as having been a profound support for him during this season.
Give it time. These guys are aging and will be cycled out soon enough because of attrition. Murphy is 28, and the rate he is getting knocked around will be lucky to play past 31 unless he can reinvent himself (small forward looks to be his future with the odd run onball) and Walker is almost done (contracted till end of 16 or 17) and will be a year to year proposition from then on based upon how many players we are turning over. Gibbs is the one who will probably last the longest of this lot.
We already have enough Jones, Tutts and fairly limited types that we need to work through cycling out, and there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Besides, look at the steps Murphy has taken over the last 2 years. He has grown immensely and is no longer the reluctant meek youngster who shy's away from the spotlight, and last night delivered his speech sounding more like a leader than he ever has.
These guys might not be great leaders, but they are the best we have, and if they can have a positive influence on Cripps, then that's enough to justify retaining them IMHO.
Ironic that Murphy had poor words to say about Robbo when he couldn't tie Robbo's shoelaces when it comes to on field commitment.
Yes, how dare Murphy be one of our best players over a numbers of years. And then he committed to the club long term. Don't know how he sleeps at night.
I can't help but think that it's incredibly low of you to keep using players with personal issues as part of an agenda against a coach you hate.
Ratten being coach doesn't hep Garlett's girlfriend issues, he doesn't stop Yarran's dad from murdering someone and he couldn't stop Robbo going out and getting in trouble either.
I rarely if ever refer to specific players when discussing Malthouse's coaching shortcomings . . . and I don't hate him. I just think that the club made a terrible decision in appointing a coach who was clearly on the wane, and we're now reaping the rewards >:(
Anyway, the club belatedly realised that Malthouse was destroying the playing group and got rid of him. That's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned. None of your illogical arguments in support of Malthouse will ever bring him back, or re-write history. He was rubbish and he's gone. Get over it!
Murphy has become as Judd like as he can. He may not have the same impact on match day as Judd could (few can), but as we saw against Melbourne, we were much better when he was on the field rather than after he went off.
......
Besides, look at the steps Murphy has taken over the last 2 years. He has grown immensely and is no longer the reluctant meek youngster who shy's away from the spotlight, and last night delivered his speech sounding more like a leader than he ever has.
Indeed. Murphy has grown into his role. I don't know if he was ready for it when he got it, be he has made considerable improvements in most of the areas you would consider 'leadership'.
We are certainly better with him on the field and when he is not present.
He is certainly working harder and appears less likely to be non contributor than he was earlier.
Can we do better? Probably. We may well have his replacement in Patrick Cripps. But we need more leadership on the park rather than less. And I would give Cripps some time before giving him the burden. He'll be ready sooner than later, but we want that. And we want Cripps to have competition for the job.
In 1995 David Parkin COULD give control over to the team in a number of areas because we had plenty of on field leaders. Many of the players were experienced and comfortable in providing the leadership for the team. We haven't had that for quite a while. A lot of guys don't feel that they belong because they are not champions, others because they are young and inexperienced, others because they are not outgoing, etc. Fair enough. In 1995 we had huge amounts of experience and a lot of self confidence in the ranks. It takes time and relative success to develop that, not to mention a bit of talent and internal expectations. We don't have that now, but we can get it back! It is not an impossibility.
It takes time and grooming. Murphy didn't get much of that, and his style of play probably didn't lend itself to the captaincy at the time. But he has taken it and matured with it. Hopefully Gibbs can do likewise. Now we need to recruit and develop the next generation of leaders, so that, even if we miss the captain through injury, we have the leadership on every line to cover for that and to take us on to success.
Ironic that Murphy had poor words to say about Robbo when he couldn't tie Robbo's shoelaces when it comes to on field commitment.
Feck me that's harsh. Whilst I don't think Murph is the world greatest captain, I would never question his on field commitment. He has suffered a few injuries in the process in fact. IMO youre barking up the wrong tree questioning Murphs commitment. Robbo was fwit and paid the price.
I rarely if ever refer to specific players when discussing Malthouse's coaching shortcomings . . . and I don't hate him. I just think that the club made a terrible decision in appointing a coach who was clearly on the wane, and we're now reaping the rewards >:(
Anyway, the club belatedly realised that Malthouse was destroying the playing group and got rid of him. That's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned. None of your illogical arguments in support of Malthouse will ever bring him back, or re-write history. He was rubbish and he's gone. Get over it!
Clearly on the wane? Do you even watch football?
2006: 7th
2007: 3rd
2008: 6th
2009: 4th
2010: 1st
2011: 2nd
Don't let facts get in the way of your bulls%^& dribble.
Clearly on the wane? Do you even watch football?
2006: 7th
2007: 3rd
2008: 6th
2009: 4th
2010: 1st
2011: 2nd
Don't let facts get in the way of your bulls%^& dribble.
Give it up MBB, you were/are wrong and he's not coming back :)
What was I wrong about?
At the end of the day Malthouse is still a coaching legend and we're still the worst club in the AFL.
What was I wrong about?
At the end of the day Malthouse is still a coaching legend and we're still the worst club in the AFL.
Legends live in the past! ;)
Legend Def:
Any wonderful story coming down from the past, but not verifiable by historical record; a myth; a fable.
Yes, how dare Murphy be one of our best players over a numbers of years. And then he committed to the club long term. Don't know how he sleeps at night.
With the lights on for a large portion of his career.
With the lights on for a large portion of his career.
lol
Haha couldn't resist! :D
Good grief.
Cmon mate, yes he has improved since Mick left especially with his leadership but you seriously trying to tell me he was great for on field culture in the past? Skirting around the back of packs for the cheap handball and turning it over? Or going two games in the wet with laying a tackle? Be fair cmon.
Cmon mate, yes he has improved since Mick left especially with his leadership but you seriously trying to tell me he was great for on field culture in the past? Skirting around the back of packs for the cheap handball and turning it over? Or going two games in the wet with laying a tackle? Be fair cmon.
Whats it with your avater?
Cmon mate, yes he has improved since Mick left especially with his leadership but you seriously trying to tell me he was great for on field culture in the past? Skirting around the back of packs for the cheap handball and turning it over? Or going two games in the wet with laying a tackle? Be fair cmon.
That's a real fair assessment of Murphy... best to not worry about the blokes who can play. Worry about the blokes who can't.
I can't help but think that it is incredibly naive of you, Kruddler and Thry to use the players as an excuse for Malthouse's shortcomings.
The club finally realised that he was destroying our list and our culture and took action to remove him before it was too late. No matter how you try to spin it, the appointment of Malthouse was a disaster. It will be a real test of our culture, not to mention Bolton's character, to see if we can rebound from the lowest we've been since the worst days of Pagan.
Naivity is thinking that Malthouse is the cause of all our problems.
Naivity is thinking that Malthouses sacking will solve all our problems.
Nobody is complaining about the sacking of Mick.
People who 'defend' him are not doing so because they want him back.
People are doing it because he has been blamed for everything from causing Garlett to duck his head, white anting the club and even responsible for global warming!
FFS, give it a rest and look at the club over the past 15 years. It has been a rabble. We have won only 2 finals (1 under mick!) and have largely underperformed on and off the field.
How anyone thinks Mick has done all of this in the 2.5 years he was at the club has half a beach rattling around in their head!
Naivity is thinking that Malthouse is the cause of all our problems.
Naivity is thinking that Malthouses sacking will solve all our problems.
Nobody is complaining about the sacking of Mick.
People who 'defend' him are not doing so because they want him back.
People are doing it because he has been blamed for everything from causing Garlett to duck his head, white anting the club and even responsible for global warming!
FFS, give it a rest and look at the club over the past 15 years. It has been a rabble. We have won only 2 finals (1 under mick!) and have largely underperformed on and off the field.
How anyone thinks Mick has done all of this in the 2.5 years he was at the club has half a beach rattling around in their head!
Why argue in MMs defense then, why not just unload on the players and the club?
If they are all bad they are all bad, don't defend any of them! ;)
Why argue in MMs defense then, why not just unload on the players and the club?
If they are all bad they are all bad, don't defend any of them! ;)
Why argue in his defense? To show people that there are still many large issues at the club.
If i, and everyone go along with the 'yeah, coach is gone everything is fine' way of thinking...then we will overlook some serious problems at the club.
I made an analogy earlier, if you pin a murder on a bloke who turns out to be innocent, the real murderer is still out there.....but nobody is looking because they already have 'the guy'. We need to keep looking!
Why argue in his defense? To show people that there are still many large issues at the club.
If i, and everyone go along with the 'yeah, coach is gone everything is fine' way of thinking...then we will overlook some serious problems at the club.
I made an analogy earlier, if you pin a murder on a bloke who turns out to be innocent, the real murderer is still out there.....but nobody is looking because they already have 'the guy'. We need to keep looking!
Hitler never fired a shot, but we don't have to defend him to talk about the war criminals!
MM did major damage, but the damage he did may not be repaired just by removing him.
Hitler never fired a shot, but we don't have to defend him to talk about the war criminals!
MM did major damage, but the damage he did may not be repaired just by removing him.
Really, MM is hitler now?
MM did major damage. Fine.
Replacing the coach is all that is required according to some. I'm calling BS on that.
Our drafting/development has caused bigger issues at the club over 15 years than Mick has.
Players are leaving the club now. But Mick isn't the coach. Why are they leaving? They are not leaving Mick, they are leaving
the club.Look deeper into our issues than the head coach. It's not that hard.
It's taken Richmond decades to come to terms with that, and only now are they starting to see the benefits.
It's taken Richmond decades to come to terms with that, and only now are they starting to see the benefits.
Yet the media report they are on the cliff edge of sacking Hardwick at the moment, reminds me of Ratten!
MM has gone Kruddler, let it go!
I've got a feeling what we're seeing is players leaving players.
I think the playing group is fragmented.
The reasons for that may very well be coach related.(various coaches playing favourites over time)
But at the end of the day it's the responsibility of the club to ensure these divisions don't exist.
It's why it's a good thing that those that aren't happy are "on their bikes".
Time to start again from scratch with everyone on the same page.
Facilitate the moves for anyone that doesn't want to be there....otherwise you perpetuate the problem.
Don't fight to keep them...it's counter productive.
I've got a feeling what we're seeing is players leaving players.
I think the playing group is fragmented.
The reasons for that may very well be coach related.
But at the end of the day it's the responsibility of the club to ensure these divisions don't exist.
It's why it's a good thing that those that aren't happy are "on their bikes".
Time to start again from scratch with everyone on the same page.
Facilitate the moves for anyone that doesn't want to be there....otherwise you perpetuate the problem.
Don't fight to keep them...it's counter productive.
I think the club started by removing the cause of the cancer, now they are treating the remaining symptoms! ;)
Maybe they have stopped playing/paying favorites.
Yarran was pro-malthouse.
Maybe he is showing his displeasure with the club for his sacking? He started going downhill at the same time.
Maybe Hendo too?
Bell??
All equally as plausible as Bolton will fix everything.
Yarran was pro-malthouse.
Have you an proof? All I've ever heard him credit any form or improvement to is Ratten and Barker. He certainly hasn't enjoyed his footy for the last three years. No more big flashy Yazz grin. That loss of happiness has coincided with one thing.
I remember watching the Carlton vs Collingwood replay from late in 2012 when we knocked them off as massive underdogs. Leigh Matthews comments still resonate to this day. 'Chris Yarran is up and running and all of a sudden Carlton look unstoppable'. That was where he was at under Ratts. I mean FFS has anyone even bothered to look at his highlights reels from that 2010-2012 era? The bloke was lethal. We saw none of that under Mick.
Have you an proof? All I've ever heard him credit any form or improvement to is Ratten and Barker. He certainly hasn't enjoyed his footy for the last three years. No more big flashy Yazz grin. That loss of happiness has coincided with one thing.
I remember watching the Carlton vs Collingwood replay from late in 2012 when we knocked them off as massive underdogs. Leigh Matthews comments still resonate to this day. 'Chris Yarran is up and running and all of a sudden Carlton look unstoppable'. That was where he was at under Ratts. I mean FFS has anyone even bothered to look at his highlights reels from that 2010-2012 era? The bloke was lethal. We saw none of that under Mick.
Mate, i could get you a letter, hand written in Yarrans blood and you would still find a problem with it.
The reason you don't here him, or anyone else, give credit to Malthouse is because YOU don't hear it. You hear the name and you get your knockers in a twist. What did mick do to you anyway? Did he fingerbang your cat??
Mate, i could get you a letter, hand written in Yarrans blood and you would still find a problem with it.
The reason you don't here him, or anyone else, give credit to Malthouse is because YOU don't hear it. You hear the name and you get your knockers in a twist. What did mick do to you anyway? Did he fingerbang your cat??
Why aren't you linking to a report quoting Yarran?
Most of us know what rumors are floating around and why Yarran has problems, and we know why we can't write it here! ;)
Yet you chose to claim Yarran's malaise is due to MMs removal, why are you defending MM again?
Why aren't you linking to a report quoting Yarran?
Most of us know what rumors are floating around and why Yarran has problems, and we know why we can't write it here! ;)
Yet you chose to claim Yarran's malaise is due to MMs removal, why are you defending MM again?
Why are you refusing to acknowledge that truckloads of players are leaving the club? Do you not see that as a problem? I haven't heard you try and blame it on Mick....yet.
It is NOT defending Mick. It is pointing out that the rest of the club is in crisis. They are seperate issues, yet you can't fathom that is even possible!
Why is my claim more outrageous than Mick being responsible for Garlett ducking his head?
Why are you refusing to acknowledge that truckloads of players are leaving the club? Do you not see that as a problem? I haven't heard you try and blame it on Mick....yet.
It is NOT defending Mick. It is pointing out that the rest of the club is in crisis. They are seperate issues, yet you can't fathom that is even possible!
Why is my claim more outrageous than Mick being responsible for Garlett ducking his head?
Having heard Bolton on SEN today, his discussions about conversations with SOS and McKay. I'd say the club has never been more focused and stable! The Rats are leaving the ship!
You appear to be panicking!
Mate, i could get you a letter, hand written in Yarrans blood and you would still find a problem with it.
But do you have it? Or are you just full of crap?
The reason you don't here him, or anyone else, give credit to Malthouse is because YOU don't hear it. You hear the name and you get your knockers in a twist. What did mick do to you anyway? Did he fingerbang your cat??
Haha you have well and truly lost it. All I've heard him give credit to is Ratts and Barker so unless you have some sort of proof stop using at as a basis for your useless beaten argument.
I think that the title of this thread is incorrect... culture is a nebulous term. What does it mean anyway? I reckon we should be more concerned with ATTITUDE not "culture".
If we have enough players with the right attitude we develop the right culture.... it doesn't happen the other way around.
Or if we start winning games of football, culture is never even mentioned.
Or if we start winning games of football, culture is never even mentioned.
x2..this is my point...winning fixes nearly everything....
x2..this is my point...winning fixes nearly everything....
I'd say that winning consistently reflects the fact that you have got your culture right. ;)
I'd say that winning consistently reflects the fact that you have got your culture right. ;)
Or is culture a term that people bring up as an excuse for poor coaching?
Or is culture a term that people bring up as an excuse for poor coaching?
Poor culture would certainly be reflective of appointing the wrong coach in at the wrong time.
Or is culture a term that people bring up as an excuse for poor coaching?
Short memory.
Remember Rattens Objectives?
That was about turning this club around and making Carlton more 'Carlton'. We had a poor culture and we went some way to changing that, but never quite got there.
Culture extends past the coaching and playing group. Its not just about wins, its about respect. Our club has not had it in a long time, quite the opposite.
I'd say that winning consistently reflects the fact that you have got your culture right. ;)
Depends on your idea of the " right culture".....winning can reflect good culture or it can be great bandaid for poor culture...
Depends on your idea of the " right culture".....winning can reflect good culture or it can be great bandaid for poor culture...
I'm struggling with that idea EB. I can only think that you and I are using different definitions of "culture".
Short memory.
Remember Rattens Objectives?
That was about turning this club around and making Carlton more 'Carlton'. We had a poor culture and we went some way to changing that, but never quite got there.
Culture extends past the coaching and playing group. Its not just about wins, its about respect. Our club has not had it in a long time, quite the opposite.
We're often told we need to stop living in the past...that the premiership glory of bygone years is something we need to put behind us and start embracing the future game and it's challenges.
But you wonder whether we've gone too far in that respect.
What normally happens in a football team is there is a gradual transition within the playing group.
Senior players retire or move on at different times...but usually only one or two at a time so as they leave new leaders step in and there is a continuity, because these guys have been mentored by the departing ones.
A young player coming into the Hawks at the moment would have a great feel for success because it recent...but as he grows into the side the memory of that success will stay with him and he can pass it on to the next generation.
We lost a bit of a connect with past success when Pagan took over.
We lost our way.
Older players were forced out...a foreign legion of recruits came on board (sound familiar).
The links with the past were lost.
It's a danger with turning over a list so thoroughly... so quickly.
So where to from here.
Rather than distancing ourselves from the past we should embrace it.
"We are Carlton"... and that's the message we should be instilling in the young group.
We need to make it mean something to be part of the Carlton side....because if this season is any indication to some players it doesn't mean very much other than a pay cheque
Get some of the ex-players involved, visiting and talking about their experiences as part of a successful Carlton side. I'm sure that happens to some extent already but build on it.
Get rid of any player with half-hearted commitment, even if it costs us at the trade table in the short term.
Holding on to these blokes on principle is counter productive.
Challenge the remaining players with task of restoring some real meaning to slogans like "I am Carlton", "We are Carlton"
We lost a bit of a connect with past success when Pagan took over.
We lost our way.
Older players were forced out...a foreign legion of recruits came on board (sound familiar).
The links with the past were lost.
It's a danger with turning over a list so thoroughly... so quickly.
In other words, don't gut the list and replace it with plodders.
I'm struggling with that idea EB. I can only think that you and I are using different definitions of "culture".
Cookie...I guess my best example is West Coast....they were successful winning premierships but had ten players according to Dean Cox who were
on the gear, some involved in other activities etc...Chad Fletcher nearly died on an overseas trip from reasons more than just a bad hotdog........while they were successful it wasnt a problem to management and the coach who turned a blind eye,but when they went down hill all their dirty laundry got exposed and we suddenly had a drug culture problem...
Collingwoods ratpack stuffed up way more than players like Robbo, Fev, Garlett etc but Malthouse wasnt going to lose players like Swan, Shaw, Tarrant etc and stuff up his chances of a flag....ie 2010
Robbo got the flick for lying under Mick but Heath Shaw and Didak did the same and got a club suspension only......
North Melbourne under Pagan and Carey had a woeful player culture and I know that via a ex Nth player from that era but the King being so good and North being so successful covered
those issues....execs like Ron Joseph earned their money back then..
So while you do get clubs who excel in creating good culture and success there are also those who have success but its down to sheer talent masking poor culture....just my opinion...
Collingwoods ratpack stuffed up way more than players like Robbo, Fev, Garlett etc but Malthouse wasnt going to lose players like Swan, Shaw, Tarrant etc and stuff up his chances of a flag....ie 2010
Robbo got the flick for lying under Mick but Heath Shaw and Didak did the same and got a club suspension only......
Robbo was sacked by people higher than Mick, not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out?
Robbo was sacked by people higher than Mick, not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out?
Over and over and over and over again MBB. Its quite tiresome and naive to think Mick negotiated any contracts and alone sacked/recruited players. You can only try.
Over and over and over and over again MBB. Its quite tiresome and naive to think Mick negotiated any contracts and alone sacked/recruited players. You can only try.
Coaches have two stamps they can use on the papers of players, one states Approved and the other Reject!
You really think clubs force players on coaches that the coaches don't want? :o
Coaches have two stamps they can use on the papers of players, one states Approved and the other Reject!
You really think clubs force players on coaches that the coaches don't want? :o
Mick was quoted throughout the year as saying SOS is in charge of the list and he will coach whoever is put in front of him.
What is the point of a list manager if this is not the case?
Why don't all coaches turn up on draft day?
They are consulted and can make recommendations, but will coach whoever they have too.
Mick was quoted throughout the year as saying SOS is in charge of the list and he will coach whoever is put in front of him.
What is the point of a list manager if this is not the case?
Why don't all coaches turn up on draft day?
They are consulted and can make recommendations, but will coach whoever they have too.
List managers primarily assess the options, they don't make the decisions in isolation, they are briefed by the coach about the type of player required to suit the game plan.
MM said a lot of stuff, and often he said the opposite the next week! I don't pick and chose when to believe the stuff he said, I look for actions that back up words, and as far as I am concerned I saw very few actions backing up his rhetoric!
People and players see through that, and it destroys culture!
List managers primarily assess the options, they don't make the decisions in isolation, they are briefed by the coach about the type of player required to suit the game plan.
MM said a lot of stuff, and often he said the opposite the next week! I don't pick and chose when to believe the stuff he said, I look for actions that back up words, and as far as I am concerned I saw very few actions backing up his rhetoric!
People and players see through that, and it destroys culture!
Dismissing a direct quote from the coach that doesn't suit your argument. Not surprising.
Neglecting to comment on the fact that some coaches don't even turn up on draft day, thus proving the same point.
Point is, coach is far from solely responsible for who stays and who goes and who is drafted and who is not.
Mick was quoted throughout the year as saying SOS is in charge of the list and he will coach whoever is put in front of him.
What is the point of a list manager if this is not the case?
Why don't all coaches turn up on draft day?
They are consulted and can make recommendations, but will coach whoever they have too.
MM also stated on many occasions he excluded himself from player contract negotiations.
Coaches have two stamps they can use on the papers of players, one states Approved and the other Reject!
You really think clubs force players on coaches that the coaches don't want? :o
Hey Champ, read my post, I used the word alone which I am saying is the inference in many posts here RE MM. In any case, this will be my last post on the matter. Mick is gone, Waite is gone, Betts is done, Nuff Nuff 1 and 2 are gone, Yarran, Bell and Henderson are going and good riddance. Bolts and SOS will steer the ship to better days with blokes who want to be there and help improve the club.
MM also stated on many occasions he excluded himself from player contract negotiations.
I think Grant Thomas was the only numbnuts to get involved in contract talks with players.
I can't imagine a scenario where the coach just takes whatever is given to him is workable or even desirable. Each club is going to handle it in their own way, however we seem to have a particularly bad approach if you look at results. Hopefully it has evolved and continues to and we'll get some guidance on how it works at Hawthorn from Bolton.
Mick was quoted throughout the year as saying SOS is in charge of the list and he will coach whoever is put in front of him.
Pffft, I wouldn't be listening to anything coming out of that tossa's mouth. The master of shifting blame, there's an ulterior motive to everything he says.
Robbo was sacked by people higher than Mick, not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out?
Swann and Mick .......Shaw, Didak etc...
Swann and Mick .......Robbo, Jeffy etc..
Swann may have pulled the trigger but Mick would have checked the gun so it was the same regime but different rules for different players...thats my point....
Swann and Mick .......Shaw, Didak etc...
Swann and Mick .......Robbo, Jeffy etc..
Swann may have pulled the trigger but Mick would have checked the gun so it was the same regime but different rules for different players...thats my point....
Was there any video footage of Shaw and Didak?
Did it make the papers and the national news at the time?
Similar, but different.
Was there any video footage of Shaw and Didak?
Did it make the papers and the national news at the time?
Similar, but different.
So Similar its the same..... Didak said to the eye witness they swerved to avoid a Possum... :D
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/eddie-must-act-on-didak-and-shaw/story-e6frf7jo-1111117109916
http://www.smh.com.au/national/didak-shaw-out-for-season-20080804-3q6a.html
http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/shaw-would-lie-to-pies-again/1hhl28abnyhpz18e7p758pp9ra
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/bans-for-pie-eyed-crash-liars/story-e6frg12c-1111117110818
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2325127.htm
http://www.news.com.au/news/pies-to-move-on-didak-shaw/story-fna7dq6e-1111117108838
I know there was coverage of it, obviously, but was it mentioned on the nightly news where video footage was shown. I can't recall either of that happening.
Ditto, with Robbo and the BDO brawl.
People find it harder to foget video evidence.
Two coaches who will go into the final year of their contracts in 2016 are Hardwick and Buckley. Neither Richmond nor Collingwood should feel obliged to extend their tenure.
Some will argue that it didn't help Carlton and Malthouse who went into the exact same position earlier this year. But there is a difference. And that is, both Hardwick and Buckley are not as selfish or insecure as Malthouse was, and will put their club's interest ahead of their own.
That's were our culture went!
Here Endeth the Lesson!
Swann and Mick .......Shaw, Didak etc...
Swann and Mick .......Robbo, Jeffy etc..
Swann may have pulled the trigger but Mick would have checked the gun so it was the same regime but different rules for different players...thats my point....
Incorrect, Swann was already gone.
That's were our culture went!
Here Endeth the Lesson!
Exactly.
Incorrect, Swann was already gone.
Yep you are right :-[ but I still say Mick would have rubber stamped the outgoing players and tooka different approach than
when he was at Collingwood..
Yep you are right :-[ but I still say Mick would have rubber stamped the outgoing players and tooka different approach than
when he was at Collingwood..
EB1 we still have a major problem with player development. It's my opinion we still have some rather ordinary coaches who possibly retain their job by potting players. That's also a culture killer!
Yep you are right :-[ but I still say Mick would have rubber stamped the outgoing players and tooka different approach than
when he was at Collingwood..
Why?
Why?
Mick wouldnt move core influential players ie ratpackers on who could help win him a flag......different at Carlton where the stakes were not as high and his bad boys Robbo, Garlett, Waite etc
were moved on...
Mick wouldnt move core influential players ie ratpackers on who could help win him a flag......different at Carlton where the stakes were not as high and his bad boys Robbo, Garlett, Waite etc
were moved on...
OK, so riddle me this.
If those same ratpackers were causing trouble and collingwood were not in a position to challenge for a flag, would they have been moved on?
Mick wouldnt move core influential players ie ratpackers on who could help win him a flag......different at Carlton where the stakes were not as high and his bad boys Robbo, Garlett, Waite etc
were moved on...
Agree, MM stated clearly on several occasions that he was first and foremost concerned with winning games. OK he didn't actually achieve that too much of that with us, but that was his stated primary aim. If that was indeed the case, he would have just taken whatever action was necessary according to the circumstances he saw prevailing at the time, so we can't expect to find consistency - more likely expediency.
I recall an ex player saying mm run carlton like a private school for boys....yes sir no sir three bag full sir...