Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Is Psychological help the answer ? (Read 39992 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #90 –
Quote from: kruddler on
Quote from: cimm1979 on
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.
You can fool some of the people some of the time.......................................

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #91 –
@ cimm1979

To be fair I think it's too early to make a call on Daisy and Buttifant, but the rest I'd agree.



Excuses year 1, blame year 2, contract extention year 3........

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #92 –
Quote from: Goat on
@ 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.
You can fool some of the people some of the time.......................................

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #93 –
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.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #94 –
Quote from: Lods on
Quote from: kruddler on
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.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #95 –
Quote from: kruddler on
Quote from: cimm1979 on
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.

Quote from: cimm1979 on
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

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #96 –
Quote from: shadesy on
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots on
Quote from: ItsOurTime on
Quote from: Baggers on
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?

Quote from: Baggers
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.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #97 –
Nah you definitely go to ground Baggers.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #98 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots on
Nah you definitely go to ground Baggers.

Not till he's thrown in a "wow, great post there passer of the orange vegetables"

 ;D
You can fool some of the people some of the time.......................................
 

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #99 –
Quote from: ItsOurTime on
Quote from: kruddler on
Quote from: cimm1979 on
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.

Quote from: cimm1979 on
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.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #100 –
Quote from: Baggers on

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!
Excuses year 1, blame year 2, contract extention year 3........

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #101 –
Quote from: kruddler on

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.

Quote
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.





Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #102 –
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.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #103 –
Quote from: kruddler on
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".

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #104 –
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.