Everybody, coach included knows how mentally weak our players are.
Would anybody know if they are accessing psychological help to assist them with this.
Reason I'm asking, is that I saw a recent interview where Liverpool player Jordan Henderson spoke about how he and some other Reds players started seeing a sports psych late last year when the Reds were struggling, and the Club hasn't looked back since.
For those not into the World Game, Liverpool has risen from 7th last year, to now being on the cusp of their first Championship in 24 years, with many players in the best form of their careers.
Club definitely has access to these services, not sure if Mick will use it :P
Wasn't this one aspect of David Buttifant's strengths?
Needless to say, we are clearly struggling with something, and from the outside looking in, I would say its all got to do with how the boys receive criticism. Most of it would be constructive, but it can be hard to take if you havent heard it previously.
I think they are struggling with the realisation that they are just not as good as they thought they were. This means that it's just not going to fall into their laps, rather they have got to work their ar$ses off to just be competitive.
They'll either embrace that realisation and do the work or roll over and give up - not clear which atm. :o
I think they all worked pretty hard a few years back, they know what's required.
I think they all worked pretty hard a few years back, they know what's required.
Well at least that's a start. Let's just hope they do it now.
Well MM has talked about freeing them up and letting them attack attack this week. At least he's taken some of the criticism on board and is trying something different.
Well MM has talked about freeing them up and letting them attack attack this week. At least he's taken some of the criticism on board and is trying something different.
He has indeed, can't wait to see how the boys respond now.
Psychological help can mean many different things.
From the outside looking in it would seem that the club is maintaining a 'positive' environment for the players. At this stage you would think that that is about all that is needed.
Time will tell if we need to wheel in sports' psychologists to address any issues. And then you've gotta make sure you get one who really knows what he or she is doing... and there's a can of worms right there.
I think they all worked pretty hard a few years back, they know what's required.
A few years ago they worked hard - running one way. We were called flat track bullies then and that was before this year. They never ran both ways under Ratten, that was the whole bloody problem. Looked like superstars until Hawthorn or any top 4 side put the screws on us and we folded time and time again. There are good reasons why Ratten was never going to take us to a premiership. With that game style and this list. Maybe he got as much as anyone could out of the group. They were Kevin Keegan's Newcastle..don't worry about defence lads, we'll outscore them. History will tell you what happened.
Either way, we know they need to front up on Sunday or you and I, as well as everyone remotely blue will go bloody beserk if we loose badly. Safe to say that heads will roll if we get belted.
See that's just so wrong. Conceded on average 75 points per game in 2011 and the side clearly ran both ways when up and running. Teams that don't work both ways don't win finals by 13 goals and unluckily lose a semi final by less than a kick.
I think parkin and the club had one in '95
worked wonders and was cutting edge
See that's just so wrong. Conceded on average 75 points per game in 2011 and the side clearly ran both ways when up and running. Teams that don't work both ways don't win finals by 13 goals and unluckily lose a semi final by less than a kick.
Did not beat a side in the Top 4 in Ratten's Glory Year of 2011.
See that's just so wrong. Conceded on average 75 points per game in 2011 and the side clearly ran both ways when up and running. Teams that don't work both ways don't win finals by 13 goals and unluckily lose a semi final by less than a kick.
Did not beat a side in the Top 4 in Ratten's Glory Year of 2011.
There you have it. And never looked like it. And still don't. List - ordinary. Not bad, just ordinary.
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
We never looked like a Premiership team. Never. Just a good finalist. Time to move on.
To answer the question of the thread: YES! We need as much help as we can get.
To answer the question of the thread: YES! We need as much help as we can get.
We sure do. I'm up for everything we can try at this stage.
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
Coodabeen Champs? ;) ;D
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
Coodabeens!!!!!!!
Edit: Beaten to it by Cookie.
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
Would've been pummelled by the Cats the following week had we made it anyway. Just weren't up to it, and evidence of that is how quickly we ve fallen away since.
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
Coodabeens!!!!!!!
Edit: Beaten to it by Cookie.
Great minds B4L, Great minds. ;D ;)
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
Would've been pummelled by the Cats the following week had we made it anyway. Just weren't up to it, and evidence of that is how quickly we ve fallen away since.
Highlighted our lack of depth IMO. Something that is now glaringly obvious.
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
Would've been pummelled by the Cats the following week had we made it anyway. Just weren't up to it, and evidence of that is how quickly we ve fallen away since.
Lost to the Cats by less than a kick with the infamous Warnock concussion miss.
Since 2000 the handbaggers lead us 11 wins to six.
This era has included the lowest ebb in our clubs proud history whilst it has been Geelong's greatest era in more than 150 years.
Even Hawthorn who have snatched 2 flags in this era hold a similar percentage to us against the handbaggers with 15 losses and 8 wins.
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
Would've been pummelled by the Cats the following week had we made it anyway. Just weren't up to it, and evidence of that is how quickly we ve fallen away since.
Lost to the Cats by less than a kick with the infamous Warnock concussion miss.
yep... 2011 could have been anything.
Did not beat a side in the Top 4 in Ratten's Glory Year of 2011.
Some people can't seem to grasp that to win the flag you have to be able to beat the best sides.
Did not beat a side in the Top 4 in Ratten's Glory Year of 2011.
Some people can't seem to grasp that to win the flag you have to be able to beat the best sides.
Footscray supporters can, so near and yet so far.
North blew a Grand Final against Adelaide and Geelong got the yips in 2008, 11.23 including point blank misses by Mooney and Ottens, apart from those two I can't think of any team good enough who didn't take home the chocolates.
Carlton has been well off the pace for over a decade, we were even lucky to be playing in the famous PF of '99 thanks to a sweetheart deal with the MCG.
Since 2000 the handbaggers lead us 11 wins to six.
This era has included the lowest ebb in our clubs proud history whilst it has been Geelong's greatest era in more than 150 years.
Even Hawthorn who have snatched 2 flags in this era hold a similar percentage to us against the handbaggers with 15 losses and 8 wins.
Surely you jest.
2000 to the present includes a period when Hawthorn got Hodge at pick 2 and Roughead as a priority pick in separate seasons, they bottomed out.
Unlike Carlton they rebounded, we haven't beaten them for about 7 years.
Never looked like it pffft. Should have played in a prelim, I think if we go back and visit that after game thread everyone was of the same opinion, we were robbed. We played WCE in West Coast with no Kreuzer, Gibbs and Waite. Lost T-Bird in the second quarter. Umpires destroyed us. West Coast were a top four side.
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
Are you saying we went missing for half a game? I think P2C's 2011 fantasy has been mythbusted.
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.
WCE played 8 top 8 teams in 2011, we played 11. We went to their home ground and should have won the final. The umpires destroyed us. You know two can play at this game....let's have a look at what MBB thought about the umpiring and whether we should have won.
I still can't get over some of those free kicks and how costly they were.
Perhaps Razor Ray supports the Eagles as he also paid a dodgy kick their way late against a rampaging Bulldogs a few weeks ago when the battle for the top 4 was still on.
Seems you thought we were robbed to bro.
And let's see how our mate Baggers felt after this game shall we?
Considering what we were up against - 6 day turnaround; interstate; rub of the green; missing key talls; Juddy obviously under an injury cloud... bloody brilliant effort.
The culture; the courage; the character of this club is beyond any question. 10/10.
The fact that we only lost by 3 pts is testament to the character of this group, this club and the strong steps of our coaching group.
And getting this close after losing Thornton and Jamison on one leg... and not having Kruezer, Waite and Gibbs! Please... that's like the Weagles having gone in without Kennedy, Cox and Kerr! And then losing Darling before half time.
Wow seems Baggers DID think we worthy in 2011.......amazing how he could change his opinion so quickly based on an injury riddled season.
LLT said.....
We could have just laid down and let West Coast beat us. I was ready to accept defeat with 5 minutes to go but just how the players refused to die and came so close, with the chance to snatch it in the end.
thrunthru.....
i m really proud of the CFC tonight, yeah sure we can talk about individuals, the bounce of the ball, but i cannot for one second question the endeavour of the players
So, no matter what spin you put on it kruddler I think it's pretty obvious where we were at, and MBB, you thought we were robbed. :))
I did think we were robbed but we still went missing for a large period of the game which some would have you believe has only been a problem under Malthouse , I believe we could have won a flag in 2010 or 2011 had we kept Fevola but we didn't and at the time I said it might cost us a flag.
Did not beat a side in the Top 4 in Ratten's Glory Year of 2011.
Some people can't seem to grasp that to win the flag you have to be able to beat the best sides.
Our average loss to top 4 sides was by less than 3 goals in 2011.
We beat top 4 sides in 2009 and 2010. Effectively the same players.
We beat a top 4 team twice in 2012, hawks belted us but went okay against the other sides.
This idea that we were hopeless against top 4 sides and never had any hope is just not true. It makes the argument the list is beyond help easier though.
But you still thought we should have beaten WCE, you thought the team was good enough, you saw it exactly how I saw it, how everyone saw it.
But you still thought we should have beaten WCE, you thought the team was good enough, you saw it exactly how I saw it, how everyone saw it.
It was a brave performance against the 4th best side in the comp and I posted that I was happy for Ratten to get a new contract. The problem for Ratten was that was our peak year. Like I said if we had a decent forward we could have won the flag but we only had O'Hailpin who had to ruck as well. Cats had Hawkins and Jpod, Pies had Cloke and Dawes, Hawks had Buddyy and Roughead, Eagles Kennedy and Darling.
Brave is underselling it. You know we should have won.....in their backyard.....with players missing and one man down......umpires against us all night. We were the fourth best side, not them.
Have we repeated that performance?
I know we have had some stirring wins but I don't think we have actually had a performance like that semi since.
Have we repeated that performance?
I know we have had some stirring wins but I don't think we have actually had a performance like that semi since.
Round 3 2012 beat the Pies by 10 goals. Then the injuries came.
Have we repeated that performance?
I know we have had some stirring wins but I don't think we have actually had a performance like that semi since.
Round 3 2012 beat the Pies by 10 goals. Then the injuries came.
Good point, team played with some swag that night.
Shame we couldnt bottle up that mentality and bring it back.
What were we doing at that point to get the players up and about?
We did beat them again later in the year but by that stage the swagger was lost and it was a consolation win really - no longer contenders.
IMO the players were playing for their coach and they played a gameplan they were more suited to hence they played with more confidence.
IMO the players were playing for their coach and they played a gameplan they were more suited to hence they played with more confidence.
My main knock on Ratten was that I felt the game plan didn't work when we were missing key players. With that said, not many teams do win when they don't play an experienced KPF and KPD.
But when we looked good we looked very very good.
Now the game plan we have doesn't work even with most of the players... so I am keen to see what happens tomorrow with the players "unshackled"
.
Now the game plan we have doesn't work even with most of the players... so I am keen to see what happens tomorrow with the players "unshackled"
If they play well then it raises more headaches than it solves IMO. Do we just say the last 18 months were a waste or do we say that it only works against middle of the road sides.
Is it the list because it's not suited to Malthouse? Malthouse likes honest bit part players. We have a heap of top ten draft picks... You don't pick guys in the top ten because they are nuggets back pocket players..
You pick offensive guys who have had a free reign through their junior careers and have some good skills.
Ratts used these guys to good affect until the heat was on and teams got physical.
So if Malthouse is the best man for the job, is he going to rebuild based on his old style of gameplan. Obviously the current crop aren't suited to it so does that mena he starts again? Or does he find a balance use what he has got and fill the holes as he sees fit?
If we play well and have a good win when we are "unshackled" it will bring things to a head in a way. That would confirm to MM that the players cannot or will not execute his game plan and much prefer their old ways. He in turn will then need to decide whether he stays or goes based on that. I guess the big question would be, can we win a flag under his coaching using a game plan that he doesn't necessarily believe in? If he thinks not, why would he want to stay, apart from the obvious answer.
In turn, what does CFC do? Go with the game plan that the players can execute, and trust that we can eventually win a premiership with it, or rebuild with players that could better execute MM's game plan and keep him on to oversee it?
Big questions, big decisions. Many more challenging times ahead folks - is the club board, management and admin up to it??
PS. Apologies Shadesy, a bit of an overlap with your post.
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.
Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.
Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.
We cannot forget that.
There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.
Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.
Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.
We cannot forget that.
There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.
Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.
Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.
Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.
We cannot forget that.
There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.
Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.
I don't think you understand what a fact is. You continue to try and debate facts, when by definition a fact is known to be true.
FACT is they scored 15 goals to 6 in the middle of the game. This is known to be true, not made up, not twisted. FACT.
I never said we didn't win 3/4 quarters. You are implying that i have been.
For completions sake.
Q1 - 25-9 (Lead by our kicking the first 4 goals)
Q2 - 21-48 (The team that rarely got a lot of goals scored against it, actually got a lot of goals scored against it)
Q3 - 19-17 (Won the quarter, true, but we kicked 3.1 to their 2.5...they had more play and scoring shots)
Q4 - 33-27 (Won the quarter by a goal, again after they took the foot off the pedal and we kicked the last 3 goals of the game)
So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.
1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.
I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.
Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.
Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.
We cannot forget that.
There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.
Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.
I don't think you understand what a fact is. You continue to try and debate facts, when by definition a fact is known to be true.
FACT is they scored 15 goals to 6 in the middle of the game. This is known to be true, not made up, not twisted. FACT.
I never said we didn't win 3/4 quarters. You are implying that i have been.
For completions sake.
Q1 - 25-9 (Lead by our kicking the first 4 goals)
Q2 - 21-48 (The team that rarely got a lot of goals scored against it, actually got a lot of goals scored against it)
Q3 - 19-17 (Won the quarter, true, but we kicked 3.1 to their 2.5...they had more play and scoring shots)
Q4 - 33-27 (Won the quarter by a goal, again after they took the foot off the pedal and we kicked the last 3 goals of the game)
So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.
1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.
I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....
Well put Kruddler, you won that debate. The "ad nauseum" is a term that has come to my mind a number of times recently.
So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.
1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.
I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....
Those weren't the points I was trying to make. You've tried to deflect from the original debate and attempted to discredit me instead, something else you seem to be doing a lot of. With regards to that, playing a four quarter effort doesn't equate to winning four quarters even the dominant sides get scored against at times. The effort was well and truly there as the quotes represent,
every poster was impressed with the effort.
But all that has got nothing to do with the fact we played better for a larger portion of the game, which is what the original discussion centred around. Everyone said we should have won the game, so you're on your own there. Everyone knows we were rolled by the umps and a large portion of their run on came from that (ie. Davies double goal, Shuey caught bouncing the ball play on called and a goal). The fact we should have won suggests we were in fact the better side, so once again you're wrong. Sort of makes.....
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
look a just a little stupid. Which is the point I was trying to make. Cheers. ;)
@Bratblue
You are a backslapper of epic proportions, kudos to you!
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.
Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.
Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.
We cannot forget that.
There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.
Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.
I don't think you understand what a fact is. You continue to try and debate facts, when by definition a fact is known to be true.
FACT is they scored 15 goals to 6 in the middle of the game. This is known to be true, not made up, not twisted. FACT.
I never said we didn't win 3/4 quarters. You are implying that i have been.
For completions sake.
Q1 - 25-9 (Lead by our kicking the first 4 goals)
Q2 - 21-48 (The team that rarely got a lot of goals scored against it, actually got a lot of goals scored against it)
Q3 - 19-17 (Won the quarter, true, but we kicked 3.1 to their 2.5...they had more play and scoring shots)
Q4 - 33-27 (Won the quarter by a goal, again after they took the foot off the pedal and we kicked the last 3 goals of the game)
So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.
1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.
I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....
That's one game. You can't use that as evidence that we it "flies in the face" of us putting in 4 quarter efforts in in the past. Idon'tremember if we did but this example doesn't refute anything. No teams always put in 4 quarter efforts. UnderMalthoise it's a rare occurrence. Especially in the past 18 games
That's one game. You can't use that as evidence that we it "flies in the face" of us putting in 4 quarter efforts in in the past. Idon'tremember if we did but this example doesn't refute anything. No teams always put in 4 quarter efforts. UnderMalthoise it's a rare occurrence. Especially in the past 18 games
That is not 'one' game. That is 'THE' game that everything before or since is being judged against.
Carrots brings it up as 'proof' that we peaked under Ratten and were close enough to being a top 4 side.
I'm simply showing that some of his major beefs with the club now, existed then and how he contradicts himself in order to show his displeasure for Malthouse and the current situation.
He tells half-truths, and complains when i call him on it.
@Carrots...
I was impressed with the effort we put in that game.
I was also impressed with the effort we put in when we were 0-3 last year. However at the same time you said effort was not good enough, only wins mattered.
None of this changes the fact that we were not a top 4 side then, or now. Doesn't matter how pretty you try and paint that picture, we were not good enough under Ratten. You can cite whatever examples you want to during the game, we still had 15 goals to 6 kicked against us when it mattered, which a top 4 side doesn't do. Umpires are not responsible for that.
Carrots brings it up as 'proof' that we peaked under Ratten and were close enough to being a top 4 side.
I'm simply showing that some of his major beefs with the club now, existed then and how he contradicts himself in order to show his displeasure for Malthouse and the current situation.
He tells half-truths, and complains when i call him on it.
What an absolute load of BS that is,
you said we were never in the game, we got outscored in one quarter and won every other one. Nothing you spin can prove otherwise, everyone agrees we should have won. FFS get your hand off it for once admit that either you were wrong, or you tried manipulate the stats is a sly way to support your argument. And stop trying to deflect to something totally different, it proves exactly what kind of poster you are.
@Bratblue
You are a backslapper of epic proportions, kudos to you!
Thanks Carrots. I guess I've lost respect for your opinions because of your anti MM dogma. I was never against Ratts as a coach and likewise I'm not against MM and am prepared to give him time to make his mark on the team. To me the constant critizism of the coach has worn thin.
Is there a facility on this forum to add people to an ignore list?
No there is not so you're stuck with me. :)
You're still a backslapper. Everyone loves the guy that goes 'yeah, he's right because I agree'. The funniest thing being this debate has nothing to do with Malthouse.
No there is not so you're stuck with me. :)
You're still a backslapper. Everyone loves the guy that goes 'yeah, he's right because I agree'. The funniest thing being this debate has nothing to do with Malthouse.
Say what you will Carrots but you'll get no backslappin from me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless you try much harder. haha
Carrots brings it up as 'proof' that we peaked under Ratten and were close enough to being a top 4 side.
I'm simply showing that some of his major beefs with the club now, existed then and how he contradicts himself in order to show his displeasure for Malthouse and the current situation.
He tells half-truths, and complains when i call him on it.
What an absolute load of BS that is, you said we were never in the game, we got outscored in one quarter and won every other one. Nothing you spin can prove otherwise, everyone agrees we should have won. FFS get your hand off it for once admit that either you were wrong, or you tried manipulate the stats is a sly way to support your argument. And stop trying to deflect to something totally different, it proves exactly what kind of poster you are.
I love how you can speak for EVERYONE.
Someone disagrees with you, so you bring in your mate, EVERYONE and that is that.
Again you bring up manipulating the stats. How? I wave a magic wand and TADA. They are there for all to see, i showed your winning of the 3 quarters too. But yes, manipulating them somehow.
There is no deflection, there is simply correcting some half-truths. You don't like being called on it, and when you do, you lash out as evidenced above. You even have a go at brat blue for agreeing with me. Apparantly he isn't included in your magical EVERYONE mate you keep referencing.
Your own ally in IOT, an ironic name when you think about it, even states that using this 1 game as proof of anything is a stretch...but you do so anyway.
In short, we KNOW your thoughts. Some people disagree with them and are entitled to say as much. You may not like it, or certainly won't agree with it. Doesn't matter how many times you say it, does not make it true and does not change peoples opinion.
Yep but no amount of spin or deflection will change the fact that we won 3 out 4 quarters and should have won the game which makes your original comments (the ones that ignited the debate) absolute BS. That was my point. And I've proven it. If you want to try and bring up other stuff, start a thread, I'll be happy to respond.
Yep but no amount of spin or deflection will change the fact that we won 3 out 4 quarters and should have won the game which makes your original comments (the ones that ignited the debate) absolute BS. That was my point. And I've proven it. If you want to try and bring up other stuff, start a thread, I'll be happy to respond.
Sigh.
If that makes you happy so be it.
I suppose i don't need to point out that winning a number of quarters (unless its 0, or 4) has no definitive bearing on the result of a game.
I suppose i don't need to point out that the whole concept of quarters is essentially just an arbitrary breakdown of time and holds no actual significance.
If we break the game down into say, 9 minute blocks and they win more than us, does that make them a more worthy winner than the were considering the only won 3 out of 4 quarters? The way the game is broken down into time period (in this case quarters) is essentially irrelevent.
To prove how irrelevent that is, i broke the game down into different time periods. Rather than quarters, i broke the quarters down into quarters and came up with 16 time periods. Essentially, 9 minute blocks.
What was the result?
Eagles won 8 (9 minute blocks)
We won 7 (9 minute blocks)
and there was one drawn 9 minute block.
Oh no, but we won 3 out of 4 quarters?!
Proof that quarters won is irrelevant. EQUALLY as irrelevant as 9 minute periods, or any other time period.
Eagles won, we lost.
Why the focus on one game in 2011?
The team who beat us finished stone motherless last the year before and 10th the year before that, and last week they had their pants pulled down by Geelong who are past their best.
Could've, should've, would've, but the bottom line is that we didn't, and haven't.
The least we can do as supporters is give Malthouse a chance, we gave Ratten over five years after all and it got us nowhere.
And here I was all these years thinking that it was the team with the most points at the end of the GAME that won? ???
The least we can do as supporters is give Malthouse a chance, we gave Ratten over five years after all and it got us nowhere.
You don't get five years......That's when you're sacked.
"The coach is Rubbish" threads usually start after about twelve months. ;)
We're on schedule.
winning quarters, losing quarters - are we scoring footy like tennis??
"The coach is Rubbish" threads usually start after about twelve months. ;)
We're on schedule.
I venture to say that there were more than a couple of 'Malthouse is rubbish' posts here when Mick was at Collingwood.
Could've, should've, would've, but the bottom line is that we didn't, and haven't.
Agreed. No matter how close, or far away we may have been, we didn't.
winning quarters, losing quarters - are we scoring footy like tennis??
Nope, the normal way....which is...
And here I was all these years thinking that it was the team with the most points at the end of the GAME that won? ???
It is what matters.
Again, slice it whatever way you want. We didn't win the game. Our best year of late has seen us win 1 finals game, and lose in week 2....thats happened twice. Once with Ratts and once with Mick.
We need to focus on the now and fix things now. Forget about who said what and who thought what and work out what needs to be done, NOW.
Mick is our coach. Give him what he needs to succeed.
If that is a psychologist for the players...possible
If that is a team who didn't have 22 players have surgery in the off-season...more likely
Then do what you need to do to make it happen and work with what we have now, and plan for the future now.
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.
If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.
We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.
In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.
Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.
Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.
Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.
Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.
We cannot forget that.
There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.
Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.
I don't think you understand what a fact is. You continue to try and debate facts, when by definition a fact is known to be true.
FACT is they scored 15 goals to 6 in the middle of the game. This is known to be true, not made up, not twisted. FACT.
I never said we didn't win 3/4 quarters. You are implying that i have been.
For completions sake.
Q1 - 25-9 (Lead by our kicking the first 4 goals)
Q2 - 21-48 (The team that rarely got a lot of goals scored against it, actually got a lot of goals scored against it)
Q3 - 19-17 (Won the quarter, true, but we kicked 3.1 to their 2.5...they had more play and scoring shots)
Q4 - 33-27 (Won the quarter by a goal, again after they took the foot off the pedal and we kicked the last 3 goals of the game)
So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.
1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.
I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....
Well put Kruddler, you won that debate. The "ad nauseum" is a term that has come to my mind a number of times recently.
Actually thought Carrots belted them off the park but each to their own.
Forgets about the multiple charities in front of goal the Eagles got in the 2nd qtr including thee double goal. Not to mention how depleted our side was. All that would be missed because it currently doesn't suit people's arguments. Kruds is the ultimate spin merchant. Expert at making a stat sound anyway he wants to to sound. some of his stats are good, others, when he's trying to spin an argument, I just yawn and go "ho hum".
Too be honest I don't know why some on here bother.. Even when they play well people find ways of putting the club down. Amazing, when you read quotes from the the game at the time how people change their tune to suit their argument when it's convenient. No respect for an opinion there.
Why the focus on one game in 2011?
The team who beat us finished stone motherless last the year before and 10th the year before that, and last week they had their pants pulled down by Geelong who are past their best.
Could've, should've, would've, but the bottom line is that we didn't, and haven't.
The least we can do as supporters is give Malthouse a chance, we gave Ratten over five years after all and it got us nowhere.
Who cares where they finished the year before that was irrelevant to 2011 totally. Meaningless. Why bring it up.
Fact is many have blamed Ratts when essentially nothing has changed other than we've got worse. Ratts achieved every goal he was asked to do until the last year when injuries cruelled him. We got the gun coach and nothing has changed except we've got worse (not that i'm ready to write off MM at all yet, just defend Ratts) so it couldn't have been the coach. right about now there's a few anti-Ratts people who look stupid right now as is often seen of these pages. Ratts is happy, he has a nice cushy job with the premiers now.
You were always quick to write off Ratten but happy to defend a bloke who's done worse.
Mick is our coach. Give him what he needs to succeed.
If that is a psychologist for the players...possible
If that is a team who didn't have 22 players have surgery in the off-season...more likely
Then do what you need to do to make it happen and work with what we have now, and plan for the future now.
Better late than never ;)
Mick is our coach. Give him what he needs to succeed.
Agree but we can't do that... we don't have the resources to have the best funded footy department in the business and people to keep the wolves at bay for him.
We either find someone who can work in those situations (clearly Mick can't) or we find a new administration and a hell of a lot more cash.
You were always quick to write off Ratten but happy to defend a bloke who's done worse.
Point to any post of mine defending Malthouse, feel free.
What I've said is that Malthouse has the runs on the board, he's done it twice at separate clubs and at Collingwood he took them from near bottom.
Whether or not he succeeds at Carlton time will tell but I'm prepared to give him a break.
Malthouse has done worse than Ratten?
He's coached us for one season and won a final, he's showing faith in kids and second stringers and he doesn't play favourites.
I'm not going to be panicked by a few losses.
You were always quick to write off Ratten but happy to defend a bloke who's done worse.
Point to any post of mine defending Malthouse, feel free.
What I've said is that Malthouse has the runs on the board, he's done it twice at separate clubs and at Collingwood he took them from near bottom.
Whether or not he succeeds at Carlton time will tell but I'm prepared to give him a break.
Malthouse has done worse than Ratten?
He's coached us for one season and won a final, he's showing faith in kids and second stringers and he doesn't play favourites.
I'm not going to be panicked by a few losses.
That's a pretty strong defence ;)
One thing that has marked Malthouse's career is the fact that he does play favourites.
Could've, should've, would've, but the bottom line is that we didn't, and haven't.
Agreed. No matter how close, or far away we may have been, we didn't.
winning quarters, losing quarters - are we scoring footy like tennis??
Nope, the normal way....which is...
And here I was all these years thinking that it was the team with the most points at the end of the GAME that won? ???
It is what matters.
Again, slice it whatever way you want. We didn't win the game. Our best year of late has seen us win 1 finals game, and lose in week 2....thats happened twice. Once with Ratts and once with Mick.
We need to focus on the now and fix things now. Forget about who said what and who thought what and work out what needs to be done, NOW.
Mick is our coach. Give him what he needs to succeed.
If that is a psychologist for the players...possible
If that is a team who didn't have 22 players having surgery in the off-season...more likely
Then do what you need to do to make it happen and work with what we have now, and plan for the future now.
Nothing beats distilling circumstances into reality.
The best brains/experience in the footy community endorse MM - good enough for me. As KRUDDNESS writes... give him what he needs. If he's right, we succeed... if he aint, we'll know and he's gone.
Sports psychologist... hope not. Way more d1ckheads and self-important clowns out there (in this field) than cats who really know what they're doing.
Funny how 22 blokes have off-season surgery which seriously hampers their preparation is not a reason for season 2014 failure thus far for the MM critics... yet Ratts' injury list in 2012 is a reason for failure. :o :o This is an imperative comparison which KRUDDNESS introduced - top stuff.
And when the club gets on the front foot and acknowledges unacceptable failure... and the reasons (like not since 1990) negative Nelllies still call for MMs head on a stick.
Too many powders have gone off way too soon this year. A success experienced Senior Coach has informed our Board/club (thank all the gods) of our inadequacies - recruiting has already undergone important changes. More should follow.
(as an aside, I wonder if Ratts also informed the Board of such inadequacies and was ignored due to his 'junior' coach status?).
Powder dry till mid season will help us accurately assess so much more.
I take the attitude (for santity sake ) that we cannot lose. If we get our shizen together and make the 8 (or threaten and finish just outside), great. If we bottom out and fail badly... bye, bye Gibbs and bring on 2 consecutive picks in the top 10. Personally, I hope we get our shizen together. And I believe we will.
Funny how 22 blokes have off-season surgery which seriously hampers their preparation is not a reason for season 2014 failure thus far for the MM critics... yet Ratts' injury list in 2012 is a reason for failure. :o :o This is an imperative comparison which KRUDDNESS introduced - top stuff.
Ratten was sacked and you were leading the charge numbnuts.
Funny how 22 blokes have off-season surgery which seriously hampers their preparation is not a reason for season 2014 failure thus far for the MM critics...
It is of greater comedic value that supporters were given an assessment of the list that contradicts the reality.
@thrunthru and cookie
I never said we won, read the debate from the start and you'll see it was kruddler that wanted to break the game down, not me. I just say we should have won, and that everyone agreed we should have won so to say we weren't competitive and were dominated for the major part of the game is just BS. Big difference.
Funny how 22 blokes have off-season surgery which seriously hampers their preparation is not a reason for season 2014 failure thus far for the MM critics... yet Ratts' injury list in 2012 is a reason for failure. :o :o This is an imperative comparison which KRUDDNESS introduced - top stuff.
Ratten was sacked and you were leading the charge numbnuts.
So which one is it then Baggers? If MM succeeds it as the injuries, if he doesn't it was the players?
Considering what we were up against - 6 day turnaround; interstate; rub of the green; missing key talls; Juddy obviously under an injury cloud... bloody brilliant effort.
The culture; the courage; the character of this club is beyond any question. 10/10.
The fact that we only lost by 3 pts is testament to the character of this group, this club and the strong steps of our coaching group.
And getting this close after losing Thornton and Jamison on one leg... and not having Kruezer, Waite and Gibbs! Please... that's like the Weagles having gone in without Kennedy, Cox and Kerr! And then losing Darling before half time.
Was really looking forward to your response to this Baggers. You say our team is awful but you were full of praise after this game.
Kruds is the ultimate spin merchant. Expert at making a stat sound anyway he wants to to sound. some of his stats are good, others, when he's trying to spin an argument, I just yawn and go "ho hum".
Thank you very much about time someone else noticed what he does.
Funny how 22 blokes have off-season surgery which seriously hampers their preparation is not a reason for season 2014 failure thus far for the MM critics... yet Ratts' injury list in 2012 is a reason for failure. :o :o This is an imperative comparison which KRUDDNESS introduced - top stuff.
This off season misinformation from the club reminds me of Comical Ali. Apart from Judd, Kruezer and Carrazzo I can't recall any major preseason set backs. In fact training in Dec was pretty much full squad, Arazona trip was 34/36? Players. I remember Carrazzo and Kreuzer staying behind only :-\. Then in jan was the "MC Has a dilemma" that they have a full squad to pick from by round 1 :o
They shouldn't be counting manscaping and laser hair removal as surgery, but if it helps with excuses then hey suppose Comical Mick will use it.
Just on Stats
Stats are terribly overrated.
There are too many variables.
The look and feel of the game are much more important.
You only have to go back to last week.
Malthouse said his team was without confidence, but he was "not going to drop the expectations".
He pointed to Carlton's edge in clearances (39-25), contested possessions (135-122) and inside 50s (48-45) as proof his players had "busted their guts".
Does anyone really think we busted a gut.......or dictated the play to the extent the stats would suggest.
Hey wasn't Baggers very critical of Ratts using stats to explain losses? :P
Kruds is the ultimate spin merchant. Expert at making a stat sound anyway he wants to to sound. some of his stats are good, others, when he's trying to spin an argument, I just yawn and go "ho hum".
Thank you very much about time someone else noticed what he does.
Translation: I like the stats he posts which agree with my side of the argument. The ones that contradict it are spin and no good.
@Lods...
Agree to an extent with this. Which was a point i was making in terms of who was the better side in that final. Depending on how you arbitrarily break it down, it points to a different 'better side'. IMO reality was, we were flattered by the scoreline.
We had a 23 point lead, and turned that into a 21 point deficit. Despite having some bad decisions against us, despite coming close in the end, when the game was on the line, we went missing. Others disagree, so be it.
Yep
I was talking about stats in general Kruds.
I don't remember much about the specific game other than we were a couple of key players down and went close. (That's what senility will do :D)
Ask me about the day we kicked 210 against Hawthorn in 1969 .... and I'll tell you all about it though.
(as Bryan Adams said "Those were the best days of our lives")
They were a nice set of stats. .......Except for the kicking... 30 behinds..... an area we haven't improved on.
Mick is our coach. Give him what he needs to succeed.
Agree but we can't do that... we don't have the resources to have the best funded footy department in the business and people to keep the wolves at bay for him.
We either find someone who can work in those situations (clearly Mick can't) or we find a new administration and a hell of a lot more cash.
Why can't we do that? Why can't Mick do that?
Under Swann we have gone from a club in the bottom 4 for footy department spend to a club in the top 5 in footy department spend....and continue to improve in that area.
We have gone through a massive reconstruction of the footy department in the last couple years and are still going through this change. Recruiting department has had a complete overhaul. McKay has headed up the footy department. Fitness guy changed over. Assistant coaches have been turned over, more to come i suspect.
Micks last two coaching gigs were in a bubble.
Free from nasty germs like, questioning from the media and questioning from the stakeholders .
He got everything he wanted at the WCE and Pies on a silver platter and he's now spoilt.
No more working class stuff for Mick, got to be first class all the way otherwise its someone else's fault WHEN it doesn't work.
Micks last two coaching gigs were in a bubble.
Free from nasty germs like, questioning from the media and questioning from the stakeholders .
He got everything he wanted at the WCE and Pies on a silver platter and he's now spoilt.
No more working class stuff for Mick, got to be first class all the way otherwise its someone else's fault WHEN it doesn't work.
Yet another grand statement based on little facts and no evidence.
But BS statement aside...
If we give him everything he needs, do you agree he has what is required to get the job done?
Funny how 22 blokes have off-season surgery which seriously hampers their preparation is not a reason for season 2014 failure thus far for the MM critics... yet Ratts' injury list in 2012 is a reason for failure. :o :o This is an imperative comparison which KRUDDNESS introduced - top stuff.
Ratten was sacked and you were leading the charge numbnuts.
Let's leave my plums out of this. And just so you don't worry, they're in excellent condition - no numbness at all. :)
Translation: I like the stats he posts which agree with my side of the argument. The ones that contradict it are spin and no good.
Strangely enough your stats never do agree with my side of the argument. :P
If we give him everything he needs, do you agree he has what is required to get the job done?
The cyclical nature of the competition will see us improve over the years anyway.
If we (perish the thought) did drop to the bottom we'd probably be back playing finals in four or five years.
If we maintain this middle of the road, topping up, approach we'll probably stay thereabouts with the chance that a Patton or Boyd may make a significant difference.
So it becomes a question of
"How long?"
...and the answer isn't "as long as it takes" .......because he won't get that long
Does he have what it takes?....no-one knows.
They can guess.
But as a Carlton coach he remains unproven.
...and the problems of being a Carlton coach is something that is probably unlike anything he has had to deal with in the past.
I'll ask this one Kruddler.
Do you think we've improved?
Not from the Ratten years.......... but from last year.
If we give him everything he needs, do you agree he has what is required to get the job done?
The cyclical nature of the competition will see us improve over the years anyway.
If we (perish the thought) did drop to the bottom we'd probably be back playing finals in four or five years.
If we maintain this middle of the road, topping up, approach we'll probably stay thereabouts with the chance that a Patton or Boyd may make a significant difference.
So it becomes a question of
"How long?"
...and the answer isn't "as long as it takes" .......because he won't get that long
Does he have what it takes?....no-one knows.
They can guess.
But as a Carlton coach he remains unproven.
...and the problems of being a Carlton coach is something that is probably unlike anything he has had to deal with in the past.
I'll ask this one Kruddler.
Do you think we've improved?
Not from the Ratten years.......... but from last year.
Very true!
Funny how 22 blokes have off-season surgery which seriously hampers their preparation is not a reason for season 2014 failure thus far for the MM critics... yet Ratts' injury list in 2012 is a reason for failure. :o :o This is an imperative comparison which KRUDDNESS introduced - top stuff.
Ratten was sacked and you were leading the charge numbnuts.
So which one is it then Baggers? If MM succeeds it as the injuries, if he doesn't it was the players?
Considering what we were up against - 6 day turnaround; interstate; rub of the green; missing key talls; Juddy obviously under an injury cloud... bloody brilliant effort.
The culture; the courage; the character of this club is beyond any question. 10/10.
The fact that we only lost by 3 pts is testament to the character of this group, this club and the strong steps of our coaching group.
And getting this close after losing Thornton and Jamison on one leg... and not having Kruezer, Waite and Gibbs! Please... that's like the Weagles having gone in without Kennedy, Cox and Kerr! And then losing Darling before half time.
Was really looking forward to your response to this Baggers. You say our team is awful but you were full of praise after this game.
Baggers has been shown up numerous times and he still uses the arguments that were proven wrong. Goes to ground for a few days when shown up, avoids the question and back slaps some poster for there "balanced view" which of course supports MM even though the same view against Ratts was shown to be wrong.
There's some good debate going on but it's easy to pick and choose who has more than blind faith in the messiah who has taken the club backwards in 18 months.
Clear hypocrisy is that Malthouse is now hampered with injuries? No response to how come it was not good for Ratten?
I don't expect so...
Micks last two coaching gigs were in a bubble.
Free from nasty germs like, questioning from the media and questioning from the stakeholders .
He got everything he wanted at the WCE and Pies on a silver platter and he's now spoilt.
No more working class stuff for Mick, got to be first class all the way otherwise its someone else's fault WHEN it doesn't work.
Yet another grand statement based on little facts and no evidence.
But BS statement aside...
If we give him everything he needs, do you agree he has what is required to get the job done?
Given his two previous coaching appointments he needs.
At least one and possibly two TV networks in his corner
A President and club that spends every waking hour covering his arse and catering to his every whim.
A list so choc full of talent it should win 3 or 4 flags as was the case at WCE.
So far we've given him the coaching resources he's asked for and he's royally screwed the pooch there.
Some of the assistants HE has chosen would be collecting the dole if we hadn't given them. Job.
Buttifant ? We used to be a side that could run games out. But now we are cooked by half time.
Daisy ? Tries hard but starting to look like a Mick maguan II .
If we keep giving him what he wants we may as well get him to turn the lights out when he leaves.
Unless you and Baggers have already got that job.
@ cimm1979
To be fair I think it's too early to make a call on Daisy and Buttifant, but the rest I'd agree.
@ cimm1979
To be fair I think it's too early to make a call on Daisy and Buttifant, but the rest I'd agree.
True.
But I am perplexed by Buttifant . I have seen some teams go to the next level in a short period of time.
In particular the Hawks, fresh from losing the 2012 GF came into 2013 slimmer and as fit as hell.
That's one pre-season and a massive improvement. We seem as bad as ever.
Maybe its the 3267 operations we had in the off season, but I'm still concerned.
Something sure is rotten in the state of Denmark (Visy Park)! It's easy to blame Ratts or MM or point the finger at a dozen other potential culprits but, until we know exactly what the real problems are, we may as well whistle Dixie. We all have our own pet theories but no one on here really knows the true and full facts of the situation.
Tomorrow may well give us all a lift, but I, along with many others, have grave concerns for our club. If we don't look like pulling out of this downward spiral by mid season I would like to see a top to bottom review performed by an independent party to identify the problems and recommend actions to fix them.
If we don't see that happen then the board would be derelict in its duty to the club.
If we give him everything he needs, do you agree he has what is required to get the job done?
The cyclical nature of the competition will see us improve over the years anyway.
If we (perish the thought) did drop to the bottom we'd probably be back playing finals in four or five years.
If we maintain this middle of the road, topping up, approach we'll probably stay thereabouts with the chance that a Patton or Boyd may make a significant difference.
So it becomes a question of
"How long?"
...and the answer isn't "as long as it takes" .......because he won't get that long
Does he have what it takes?....no-one knows.
They can guess.
But as a Carlton coach he remains unproven.
...and the problems of being a Carlton coach is something that is probably unlike anything he has had to deal with in the past.
I'll ask this one Kruddler.
Do you think we've improved?
Not from the Ratten years.......... but from last year.
As you so often state, there are too many variables to make an accurate comparison between seasons.
Personally, i think its too early to tell.
The simplistic view is clearly, no.
The realistic view is that we have so many players who've had operations that we MUST be behind the others in terms of preperation. Sticks himself has said this.
What needs to be asked then is are we behind the rest purely because of injuries....and bad luck and/or normal ups and downs experienced the season
OR
Are their other reasons for our bad performances thus far.
Personally, i don't think its as bad as 'sack the coach'.....yet.
We have the worst disposal efficiency in the competition.
We have the worst accuracy on goal in the competition.
We have used more players thus far than anyone in the competition.
All of the above are not coach issues, but rather player issues and availability issues.
Have we improved? I'm not sure we have.
Is it clear that we are worse than last year? I'm not so sure we are.
Kick straighter, we are 2-2, confidence is up, we are playing better as a result. That simple.
Micks last two coaching gigs were in a bubble.
Free from nasty germs like, questioning from the media and questioning from the stakeholders .
He got everything he wanted at the WCE and Pies on a silver platter and he's now spoilt.
No more working class stuff for Mick, got to be first class all the way otherwise its someone else's fault WHEN it doesn't work.
Yet another grand statement based on little facts and no evidence.
But BS statement aside...
If we give him everything he needs, do you agree he has what is required to get the job done?
I don't think it's a BS statement to say that the WCE and Collingwood football clubs had as well a funded footy department as was going around at the time they were successful. And we know the amount of cash in the footy department correlates very highly with finishing position.
No doubt they had people with strong ties to the media as well and tightly held together boards.
How are these BS statements?
Why does your support always fall to Mick and never to those dealing with the same situations? Club's fault they don't support Mick, Laidler's fault the club didn't support him.
Maybe its the 3267 operations we had in the off season, but I'm still concerned.
Funny how Krud never brought up Ratten's close to 30 preseason operations coming into his last year compared to Mick's approximately 8 when doing his bizarre comparison to come up with "equal" injuries last year yet he was the first to throw the preseason injury stat around (which the club has changed around a billion times) now when it suits his defence of Mick.
To make it more comical, he throws in that our semi final against WC in WC with good players missing, where we lost by less than a kick after a 50/50 (at best) in the goal square didn't go our way was actually not that good an account for ourselves but we were really good at the start of last year when we put up some putrid football and were 0-3 then wants us to believe that he has zero bias ;D
Funny how 22 blokes have off-season surgery which seriously hampers their preparation is not a reason for season 2014 failure thus far for the MM critics... yet Ratts' injury list in 2012 is a reason for failure. :o :o This is an imperative comparison which KRUDDNESS introduced - top stuff.
Ratten was sacked and you were leading the charge numbnuts.
So which one is it then Baggers? If MM succeeds it as the injuries, if he doesn't it was the players?
Considering what we were up against - 6 day turnaround; interstate; rub of the green; missing key talls; Juddy obviously under an injury cloud... bloody brilliant effort.
The culture; the courage; the character of this club is beyond any question. 10/10.
The fact that we only lost by 3 pts is testament to the character of this group, this club and the strong steps of our coaching group.
And getting this close after losing Thornton and Jamison on one leg... and not having Kruezer, Waite and Gibbs! Please... that's like the Weagles having gone in without Kennedy, Cox and Kerr! And then losing Darling before half time.
Was really looking forward to your response to this Baggers. You say our team is awful but you were full of praise after this game.
Baggers has been shown up numerous times and he still uses the arguments that were proven wrong. Goes to ground for a few days when shown up, avoids the question and back slaps some poster for there "balanced view" which of course supports MM even though the same view against Ratts was shown to be wrong.
There's some good debate going on but it's easy to pick and choose who has more than blind faith in the messiah who has taken the club backwards in 18 months.
Clear hypocrisy is that Malthouse is now hampered with injuries? No response to how come it was not good for Ratten?
I don't expect so...
Glad you're keeping such a close eye on me. Good for you. The 'goes to ground' assumption is just silly. Some of us work... a lot, and can't be available to explain every comment to your satisfaction.
Nice switcharoo there. Lets try this again... just for you. There are those of you wanting MMs head on stick after 1 year and 4 games. When our slow start is attributed, in part, to a large number of blokes (somewhere between 19 and 22 it would seem) not yet up to match fitness due to post season ops - you don't buy it and still blame him. Yet, when your boy had injuries in 2012 it was perfectly acceptable to cut him some slack. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
So many things are different now to when Ratts was at the helm. Many of the blokes who were at their best under Ratts are now ageing and no longer as dominant. And we've failed to recruit effectively to cover this. MM inherited a few issues and it would appear the club is now addressing and dealing with these. Time to let go the past.
And if it seems I contradict myself, it could be because I am working off new / updated information which can cause a change of mind/heart... life's funny like that. For example, when MM arrived I was really confident we would be top 4... we now had a Premiership coach and what I really thought was a great list. Wrong. Ordinary list. Still a bitter pill to swallow. And I didn't really believe it until I heard former Premiership coaches and ex-players declaring that we had way over-estimated our 2013/2014 list, mainly due to ordinary recruiting which didn't give us the quality replacements we should have been making by now.
Now I'm not going to ground, you funny little fella you. I have to get a lot of work done, if that's okay with you. Except for a day at the footy tomorrow. I'll be parting with my hard-earned to watch the boys v the Dishlickers and hoping for a win.
Nah you definitely go to ground Baggers.
Nah you definitely go to ground Baggers.
Not till he's thrown in a "wow, great post there passer of the orange vegetables"
;D
Micks last two coaching gigs were in a bubble.
Free from nasty germs like, questioning from the media and questioning from the stakeholders .
He got everything he wanted at the WCE and Pies on a silver platter and he's now spoilt.
No more working class stuff for Mick, got to be first class all the way otherwise its someone else's fault WHEN it doesn't work.
Yet another grand statement based on little facts and no evidence.
But BS statement aside...
If we give him everything he needs, do you agree he has what is required to get the job done?
I don't think it's a BS statement to say that the WCE and Collingwood football clubs had as well a funded footy department as was going around at the time they were successful. And we know the amount of cash in the footy department correlates very highly with finishing position.
No doubt they had people with strong ties to the media as well and tightly held together boards.
How are these BS statements?
Why does your support always fall to Mick and never to those dealing with the same situations? Club's fault they don't support Mick, Laidler's fault the club didn't support him.
Maybe its the 3267 operations we had in the off season, but I'm still concerned.
Funny how Krud never brought up Ratten's close to 30 preseason operations coming into his last year compared to Mick's approximately 8 when doing his bizarre comparison to come up with "equal" injuries last year yet he was the first to throw the preseason injury stat around (which the club has changed around a billion times) now when it suits his defence of Mick.
To make it more comical, he throws in that our semi final against WC in WC with good players missing, where we lost by less than a kick after a 50/50 (at best) in the goal square didn't go our way was actually not that good an account for ourselves but we were really good at the start of last year when we put up some putrid football and were 0-3 then wants us to believe that he has zero bias ;D
Its a BS statement because...
1. There is no evidence of Mick being unable to function without money behind him. In fact when he arrived at Collingwood they were not half the club they are now. Of course Mick did well at the dogs before both of them. Even IF Mick has become accustomed to the best going around, it does not automatically hold that he is unable to cope when he does not.
2. My defending, in this case and many others, of Mick is not because i have a man crush on Mick, but because i try to point out fallacies that other people present. Given that everyone is currently anti-mick, any defence i have of him will be positive as a result. If we were undefeated in first, any balance i would bring would be opposed to him. When there was a lot of man-love for Judd, i was one of the first to point out he was a terrible kick. I copped criticism for it and was being anti-judd, no, i was bringing balance to the argument and pointing out something others were not seeing.
As for Ratten...
As described above, i bring balance and point out BS.
Most people grant Ratten a pass (courtesy of PI2Cs constant proclamations on the matter) for Ratten in 2012 due to injuries, thus i do not need to remind everyone of it.
However, people are critical under Mick, so much so that 'injuries are not an excuse'. So i call BS. Why is it an excuse for one coach and not another? If Ratten gets a pass, surely Mick does too. If Mick gets chastised for not performing with injuries, then surely Rattens sacking was the correct decision.
One way or the other, doesn't bother me, just as long as there is consistency.
FYI, Our president has agreed with the number 22 in terms of operations as recent as this week, so not sure where you are getting another number from.
In regards to the West Coast match.
Carrots uses it as the holy grail and definitive proof that we were a better side under Ratten. Is it definitive proof? I don't think so.
I pointed out that...
1. We lost.....which he has previously stated is all that matters.
2. We got heavily scored against...which he has previously stated didn't occur often under Ratten
3. Although everyone was pleased with the result, including the players we didn't have playing, the result flattered us and gave us false hope. Yes, i fell for it too.
In terms of last year when we were 0-3, everyone was claiming the side was pathetic (a bit like now actually). What i did was bring balance to the debate and showed that if it wasn't for 'red time snoozing' on our behalf, we would've actually been 3-0 instead of 0-3. In essence saying we were not as bad as everyone is making out. Look what happened, we got into the second week of the finals. Perhaps like this year?
This year, i talk about the injuries we have and the inaccurate kicking at goal, and around the ground (both of which make us 18th out of 18 BTW) and suggest that if we had of improved the latter area alone, we'd be 2-2.
What it comes down to is this....
Everyone who follows any sporting team as passionate as we do will be on a roller coaster ride. The highs are high and the lows are low. What i attempt to do is even that out somewhat. It is in my nature to do so. i do not find myself getting carried away and calling us monties for the flag, nor do i say we are destined for the bottom of the ladder for the next decade. Because of this, i will highlight and try to disprove anyone who suggests otherwise if i believe they have their head in the clouds, or in the sand.
If you read my posts, with that in mind, you'll get a better understanding of where i'm coming from.
And if it seems I contradict myself, it could be because I am working off new / updated information which can cause a change of mind/heart... life's funny like that. For example, when MM arrived I was really confident we would be top 4... we now had a Premiership coach and what I really thought was a great list. Wrong. Ordinary list. Still a bitter pill to swallow. And I didn't really believe it until I heard former Premiership coaches and ex-players declaring that we had way over-estimated our 2013/2014 list, mainly due to ordinary recruiting which didn't give us the quality replacements we should have been making by now.
Funny, so mick arrives and we are top 4, because you heard it from former premiership coaches? ex players? What made you think we were top 4? Some one said in hindsight we overrated our list?? and you change your mind.
Your call seems to be purely on the fact that Mick was on board, and that Ratts couldn't get the best out the players. Now Mick is struggling with this group it's an ordinary list :-\
I still don't believe Mick should be sack, nope he should earn his hefty pay pack and deliver what he came to do. Top 4!
Most people grant Ratten a pass (courtesy of PI2Cs constant proclamations on the matter) for Ratten in 2012 due to injuries, thus i do not need to remind everyone of it.
However, people are critical under Mick, so much so that 'injuries are not an excuse'. So i call BS. Why is it an excuse for one coach and not another? If Ratten gets a pass, surely Mick does too. If Mick gets chastised for not performing with injuries, then surely Rattens sacking was the correct decision.
One way or the other, doesn't bother me, just as long as there is consistency.
No they didn't.
They crucified him despite the injuries
...and that's the whole point.
Injuries and a poor pre-season are now rolled out as an excuse.
...and to a large extent that may be partly responsible for the position.
I certainly think the poor pre-season has had some, maybe even a significant effect
I wrote as much after last weekend.
I think this is a significant hidden factor here.....and in my mind the only thing that gives me a reason for any pause in the bloodlust.
How important has the impact of the interrupted pre-season been on the playing list?
With so many players down on form there's an extra burden on the fully fit to carry the load.
This will improve as the season progresses......but those without a good pre-season will never play as if they had full pre-season fitness benefits.
Lachie Henderson is a good example....He had an interrupted pre-season in 2011. He spent some time in the seconds and it was only towards the end of the year he started to regain a bit of form. That's likely to happen with a number of our players.
We can't make an injury case for one coach's performance but ignore them in the situation that we currently find ourselves in.
Players might not be missing through injury but their fitness levels have been affected
But the Ratten supporters didn't set the standard that "injuries are not an excuse".
They didn't set that bar.
"Injuries aren't an excuse" is a mythology of the anti-Ratten folk
So if you're one ( and I'm not saying you were Kruds...i don't remember your position on injuries) who said injuries weren't an excuse for 2012..... it's a bit rich to claim them as an excuse now.
.....Hypocritical almost.
Lods, the bit you highlighted should have a word after it, NOW.
I agree people called for his head, most prematurely.
My thoughts on his sacking were much the same as yours, and shadesy from memory. I was with him right up until the Gold Coast game where it pretty much had to happen otherwise the club would've imploded.
The last point is what i was trying to get across.
People, NOW, give Ratten a pass (again courtesy of PI2Cs constant pushes) in 2012 because he was 'crucified by injuries'.
Same people now call for Malthouses head.
Very hypocritical.
It follows that if people, now, think Ratten was hard done by, then why do they continue to call for Malthouses head? it bothers me as much as it appears to bother you.
Whichever way you want to call it, Injuries matter, or they don't, its clear that ones opinion on how Ratts was treated should extend to Malthouse. It appears to almost never be the case by what people have been stating of late.
If we did the wrong thing with Ratts, then it follows that trying to sack Malthouse would also be the wrong thing.
If Ratts deserved to go, then at the end of the year if the team hasn't shown improvement under Malthouse, people can legitimately call for his head.
Then it comes down to 'improvement' and that can be a grey area, but lets wait until the end of the year before we worry about that.
Lods, the bit you highlighted should have a word after it, NOW.
I agree people called for his head, most prematurely.
My thoughts on his sacking were much the same as yours, and shadesy from memory. I was with him right up until the Gold Coast game where it pretty much had to happen otherwise the club would've imploded.
The last point is what i was trying to get across.
People, NOW, give Ratten a pass (again courtesy of PI2Cs constant pushes) in 2012 because he was 'crucified by injuries'.
Same people now call for Malthouses head.
Very hypocritical.
It follows that if people, now, think Ratten was hard done by, then why do they continue to call for Malthouses head? it bothers me as much as it appears to bother you.
Whichever way you want to call it, Injuries matter, or they don't, its clear that ones opinion on how Ratts was treated should extend to Malthouse. It appears to almost never be the case by what people have been stating of late.
If we did the wrong thing with Ratts, then it follows that trying to sack Malthouse would also be the wrong thing.
If Ratts deserved to go, then at the end of the year if the team hasn't shown improvement under Malthouse, people can legitimately call for his head.
Then it comes down to 'improvement' and that can be a grey area, but lets wait until the end of the year before we worry about that.
Let me put this to you Kruds
I think you misunderstand a lot of the criticism of Malthouse.
There is some genuine concern no doubt, and some have been quite strident in their criticism, but even these folk have said "Show me some improvement and I'll shut up"... it's nothing that wouldn't fade with a couple of solid performances.
The target of a lot of the discussion throughout the Malthouse threads isn't actually Mick.
It's directed at arguments that were used to support Ratten were dismissed at the time..... ("injuries are not an excuse") we were told.......but those arguments are now being used to support Malthouse ("injuries are an excuse").
You bring up the injury situation as an inconsistency but can't you see that inconsistency stems from the anti-Ratten faction in the first instance. They were the ones who said injuries aren't an excuse yet some now use them to explain our current position. That's why the attacks are so strong. It's the argument that's being challenged not the coach.
It's being challenged.... not because our injury situation isn't valid....... but because of the flip flop.
It's also directed at a line of thinking that all we needed to do was to replace the coach and we'd be flag bearers. Well that ain't happening soon.
It's directed at those that have a faith in Mick that goes beyond a realistic assessment of his abilities.
He's been a very successful coach but he's never been a Carlton coach.
There are some genuine question marks over his ability to break through the obstacles that have thwarted previous coaches.
Does he still possess the qualities that made him a successful coach in the past?
In short..... look at it not as an attack on Michael Malthouse, but on those arguments and lines of thinking.
We can make a guess on how successful he'll be, but it is a matter of hope.
It's not tangible until the successes are there, or at the very least we see genuine signs of improvement.
At the moment we're not feeling it, and accepting it without comment isn't going to happen on a fan forum....which is why the calls to get in behind him or in our posts are a bit futile.
It probably boils down to something as simple as this.......
Some folk think along the lines of "he's done it before, he'll do it a gain....give him time and see how he goes"
I like to think of it as a case of "show me as you go, that we're on the right track".
I think you'll find Lods, that i am the one who started pushing for this flip flop way of thinking to be invalidated. One way or the other.
My issue is the people who wanted Ratten gone, caused the instability and added the pressure put on him, somewhat unfairly. There were NOT too many people at the time who said Ratts is a good coach, but injuries have cost him. That argument has really only taken hold since Mick came on board, ironically one of the strongest voices opposed to Ratten has become his biggest supporter. Now they appear to have seen the light and realise he was hard done by. If they had their time again, they probably wouldn't go so hard at Ratten. These people appear to be doing the same thing towards Malthouse, showing me they haven't learned from their mistake.
If they want Mick gone because Ratts was sacked for doing the same thing, then it appears people think that 2 wrongs make a right...which i disagree with.
I don't think there as many "show me improvement and i'll shut up" types as you think. I think if there is improvement it will force people to change their mind, but i don't think that's the same thing. I think many people have made up their mind about Malthouse already...and that's something i disagree with.
During Rattens last year, i stood up for him much the same as i am standing up for Malthouse now.
The one difference i see between the 2 coaches, given similar situations is this...
IF the club does appear to need to go through a rebuild of sorts, then we could do a lot worse than have Mick at the helm.
I think your mistaken on a couple of points Kruds.
I wrote this after a win back in August 2012.
The injuries were being mentioned back then I'm sure I wasn't alone in that thinking (but I'll leave it for others to find their posts and support that view.)
I don't believe folk are attacking the excuse of a poor pre-season....what they're actually attacking are those that said it wasn't an excuse in 2012 but is in 2014.
The thing is we don't know if any of these blokes would be a better CARLTON coach.
It's a case where it's not that easy, it actually is "Rocket Science" (maybe we should get Eade )
It's too simplistic to say because a coach has been successful at one club with a select group of players he can take our group, at our club, and go that extra step that Ratten apparently can't.
If Malthouse or Roos had been in the box today would we have played better, differently, or won by more.
The way I look at is we have a bloke who is doing a pretty fair job.
He's improved the group each year (including one where we lost perhaps our most potent forward)
This year is an abberation severly affected by injuries which affect the performances of other players, their confidence and their roles in the side.
In that case he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
If everyone went for the best avaliable.....only one coach would get a job.
But the reality is that the best coach for Geelong might not be the best coach for Adelaide. The best coach for Collingwood might not be the best coach for Carlton.
We have a relatively young enthusiastic coach who gives me the impression he's learnt a lot...... particularly this season.
He could have walked away but he chose to stick it out and today was rewarded with one of the best wins of his coaching career.
Yep..... now's the time to dump him
Nostradamus!! You had it covered even back then lods.
I think your mistaken on a couple of points Kruds.
I wrote this after a win back in August 2012.
The injuries were being mentioned back then I'm sure I wasn't alone in that thinking (but I'll leave it for others to find their posts and support that view.)
I don't believe folk are attacking the excuse of a poor pre-season....what they're actually attacking are those that said it wasn't an excuse in 2012 but is in 2014.
The thing is we don't know if any of these blokes would be a better CARLTON coach.
It's a case where it's not that easy, it actually is "Rocket Science" (maybe we should get Eade )
It's too simplistic to say because a coach has been successful at one club with a select group of players he can take our group, at our club, and go that extra step that Ratten apparently can't.
If Malthouse or Roos had been in the box today would we have played better, differently, or won by more.
The way I look at is we have a bloke who is doing a pretty fair job.
He's improved the group each year (including one where we lost perhaps our most potent forward)
This year is an abberation severly affected by injuries which affect the performances of other players, their confidence and their roles in the side.
In that case he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
If everyone went for the best avaliable.....only one coach would get a job.
But the reality is that the best coach for Geelong might not be the best coach for Adelaide. The best coach for Collingwood might not be the best coach for Carlton.
We have a relatively young enthusiastic coach who gives me the impression he's learnt a lot...... particularly this season.
He could have walked away but he chose to stick it out and today was rewarded with one of the best wins of his coaching career.
Yep..... now's the time to dump him
I don't disagree with your comments there, and i believe i was on a similar path with you during that time.
What i think you are mistaken for is that we were severely in the minority in realising injuries were an issue.
Now, i think the minority is people thinking injuries are an issue this year as well.
What makes matters worse is that people who didn't believe injuries were an issue (at the time) under Ratten have now changed their tune and feel he was hard done by. At the same time, they don't see it as a valid excuse to what we are going through now.
OMG. Do you not read anything he posts? It's opposite way around that's the problem. Those who dismissed the injuries as an excuse for Ratten now use them as an excuse for Malthouse! And the injuries are nowhere near as bad as what Ratts had and almost non-existent this year. FFS it's not rocket science. The type of person you speak of above doesn't exist.
Injuries may be a reason for being unable to win games - they are not an excuse for not trying your absolute best in every game. Our problems then, as now, I think go beyond injuries.
OMG. Do you not read anything he posts? It's opposite way around that's the problem. Those who dismissed the injuries as an excuse for Ratten now use them as an excuse for Malthouse! And the injuries are nowhere near as bad as what Ratts had and almost non-existent this year. FFS it's not rocket science. The type of person you speak of above doesn't exist.
In your view it's the opposite way around.
I disagree.
TBH, its people like you, who call for Rattens sacking, then change your mind afterwards and blame Malthouse for everything since that is the issue IMO.
I didn't hear you sticking up for Ratten too much during the year he was sacked. You started the sacking thread, you changed your mind like a yoyo along the way depending on if we were winning or not, but you got what you were after in the end.
@Cookie,
I agree there is more than one issue at the club and have never suggested otherwise. I have just tried to point out that we are not in as big of a hole as people make out. After a win like tonight, it might be a bit easier to see why.
Injuries may be a reason for being unable to win games - they are not an excuse for not trying your absolute best in every game. Our problems then, as now, I think go beyond injuries.
Nicely identified, there, Hairy Biscuit.
It is an on-going process for us all to negotiate and understand, with cold objectivity, the errors of the recent past which lead to failure, along with what's caused failure last year and this year.
It really is time to move on from the Ratten years as it was time to move on from the Pagan years...
Some were cynical, even critical of the club's 'United' publicity. But sometimes something as simple as a single word can galvanize people (and even organisations) into getting a collective positive spirit. And that kind of focus seems to be exactly what the players needed, ie something with a really positive focus amongst the avalanche of negativity. So well done club and whoever thought of this and whoever seconded it.
But... there was also another extremely important ingredient, maybe even more important ingredient, in my very humble observation, and that was that our boys were 'allowed' to be more attacking/positive. I think TURNIPS alluded to this in an earlier missive.
It is important for MM to learn something from this. To learn to adapt and adjust to his list. This is not a time for pig-headedness or stubbornness. Might not be the best list, but it aint a 17th list. You'll get a lot more out of this list with a healthy balance between positive and negative rather than too much negative. And then gradually recruit to suit your needs, but in the interim…
It is important for MM to learn something from this. To learn to adapt and adjust to his list. This is not a time for pig-headedness or stubbornness. Might not be the best list, but it aint a 17th list. You'll get a lot more out of this list with a healthy balance between positive and negative rather than too much negative. And then gradually recruit to suit your needs, but in the interim…
Well said Baggers!!
OMG. Do you not read anything he posts? It's opposite way around that's the problem. Those who dismissed the injuries as an excuse for Ratten now use them as an excuse for Malthouse! And the injuries are nowhere near as bad as what Ratts had and almost non-existent this year. FFS it's not rocket science. The type of person you speak of above doesn't exist.
In your view it's the opposite way around.
I disagree.
TBH, its people like you, who call for Rattens sacking, then change your mind afterwards and blame Malthouse for everything since that is the issue IMO.
I didn't hear you sticking up for Ratten too much during the year he was sacked. You started the sacking thread, you changed your mind like a yoyo along the way depending on if we were winning or not, but you got what you were after in the end.
Absolutely I stuck up for him in his final year, when all were calling for his head. I started the sack Ratten thread the year before later that terrible effort against the Scum. Everyone called for his head from the Geelong game onward but I stuck up for him right to the end. I commented many a time that we couldn't judge him in a year that we were so decimated by injuries and I still to this day make the same point. It's just an another example of you producing BS to support your argument, par for the course you get backed into a corner and either produce skewed statistics or try to discredit by making stuff up, like saying the above. Seriously, those who know my stance would look at that comment and piss themselves laughing. You are a dolt in every sense of the word. Just for the record, this is what I said around round 21 with regards to Ratts in 2012.
My belief is that you cannot judge him on this year, we've been crippled by injury. Even you yourself commented on what a difference Waite makes for us up front. We gave him (Ratts) two years for a good reason and to ditch him after one given all the circumstances doesn't make sense.
I believe Brett Ratten is the best fit for our club without a doubt. If he's got the cattle out on the park he can make the team hum. You anti-Rattanites that want MM or Roos need to realise, if it aint broke, don't fix it.
Or if you want something from a bit earlier in the year:
We lost 3 players in the first 40 mins against North. We'd lost Simpson from the week before as well. That's four changes for the game. Our fullback was playing injured and got hammered. Do you not understand how difficult it is to maintain any momentum with so many good players dropping out of the team? It's virtually impossible not even the greatest of great coaches could pull it off. I think Ratts has done very well in the second half of the season with what he's had to work with.
Or this comment was almost prophetic:
The stubborn thing to do would be to say 'We are Carlton' and sack Ratten. That went out with the Elliot era never to return. The smart, business savvy thing to do would be to give Ratts his last year of his contract and see how he goes with a full list.
Doesn't sound like I want him gone to me. Sounds like I'm all for him TBH. Not like you to misrepresent th facts again is? Becoming a bit of a habit with you. If course you'll probably pull out some comment from round 4 2011 and say that proves your point about me wanting him gone even though it was 18 months prior because that's what you do.
TBH it's people like you that disagree with and seek to discredit anything said about MM that gives me the shts, Hopkins is clueless as well huh, and you only agree with Fev about the bit where he says it's not MM's fault, Laidler left because he was a sook etc. you are so predictable it's beyond boring. And of course if he does fail you'll feed us some tripe about how you were never for or against and produce some more BS stats in an attempt to discredit anyone who challenges you. You are laughable.
As usual, someone disagrees with your arguments, so you go the poster.
No point continuing to argue with you because the majority of your points i covered in the post previously, you just overlooked them. You do continue to use your best mate 'EVERYONE' to back up your arguments, still yet to find someone going by that name.
As usual, someone disagrees with your arguments, so you go the poster.
You mean like your constant futile attempts to discredit me everyone time I outpoint you? I guess this is just another example.
As usual, someone disagrees with your arguments, so you go the poster.
You mean like your constant futile attempts to discredit me everyone time I outpoint you? I guess this is just another example.
You cannot distinguish between someone attacking YOU, and someone attacking YOUR ARGUMENT. They are different.
Injuries may be a reason for being unable to win games - they are not an excuse for not trying your absolute best in every game. Our problems then, as now, I think go beyond injuries.
Nicely identified, there, Hairy Biscuit.
It is an on-going process for us all to negotiate and understand, with cold objectivity, the errors of the recent past which lead to failure, along with what's caused failure last year and this year.
It really is time to move on from the Ratten years as it was time to move on from the Pagan years...
Some were cynical, even critical of the club's 'United' publicity. But sometimes something as simple as a single word can galvanize people (and even organisations) into getting a collective positive spirit. And that kind of focus seems to be exactly what the players needed, ie something with a really positive focus amongst the avalanche of negativity. So well done club and whoever thought of this and whoever seconded it.
But... there was also another extremely important ingredient, maybe even more important ingredient, in my very humble observation, and that was that our boys were 'allowed' to be more attacking/positive. I think TURNIPS alluded to this in an earlier missive.
It is important for MM to learn something from this. To learn to adapt and adjust to his list. This is not a time for pig-headedness or stubbornness. Might not be the best list, but it aint a 17th list. You'll get a lot more out of this list with a healthy balance between positive and negative rather than too much negative. And then gradually recruit to suit your needs, but in the interim…
Yep the #UNITED approach did seem to have the desired effect.
...and I reckon your last paragraph is pretty spot on.
It's obvious from yesterday that we do have some good players and some less than good players who make up to it for some extent for it with a good attitude....but there are deficiencies that need to be fixed up.
Not wholesale list rebuilds but general culling and additions each year.
About the only thing I'd take issue with is the highlighted part because I think it's contradictory.
The first part is absolutely correct....which is why calls to 'move on' are not.
Like it or not it's part of our recent history and will remain relevant for a little while yet.
We have to remember mistakes, and decisions ( recruiting, developing, processes for appointments) that were made during the Pagan and Ratten years so they're not repeated.
As we've said all along..... if Malthouse can send out a team to play the way they did yesterday on a consistent basis most criticism will dry up (and yesterday was as much about attitude as style of play).
There won't be a need to look back as often because we'll have the model for success.
The important thing now though is consistency.
We'll have down days, but we can't drop back to the level of the last couple of weeks or the good work is undone..
Knockers played a classic game of palming the ball and even punching the ball into space. Was great to watch. When you get the clearance everything falls into place.
First use of the ball so, so critical (or, at least, not allowing the other team first use).
Warnock SHOULD be able to provide that option against most opponents...... he smashed ZMinson yesterday and was even rather effective as a link man around the ground to boot!
wtf, but that match will be huge for his confidence......