Scott Watters - Fail

Mark Neeld - Gross Fail

Brad Scott - underperformed thus far

Guy McKenna (he is the best of the lot IMO) - Blight is waiting to weeld the axe

The evidence is growing. The assistants of Mick Malthouse turn out to be dud-like. Where Garry Lyon salivated when Mick suggested that Neeld was 'right to go', I had my doubts.

Mick Malthouse is a megalomaniac; a control-freak; who micro-manages his deputies to the hilt. Neeld, when appointed at Melbourne, was quoted as saying that "Mick's advice was to be on top of everything; even when your assistant has an interview with the broadcaster at 3/4 time".

Any monkey can dance to Mick's tune; but what does it set them up for? Neeld, according to Eade, was Mick's yes-man. Neeld did exactly what Mick wanted him to.

That is why the hand-over to Buckley was never going to work either. Buckley appeared to have some steel about him in an environment of oxidisation.

Roos is the opposite of Mick, which is why the handover worked. He lets his underlings think creatively and back themselves.

Fair comment although I would say one thing about Neeld and that is there were glowing reports not only from Malthouse but also from many other club insiders about his diligence and his creativity in his work from 2008 on the forward press which resulted in a premiership for Collingwood in 2010.

That was fine at a club which had an abundance of star players but not at a club that was lacking all over the field in ability, fitness, discipline and many other attributes essential for team success.Once things didn't work out Neeld lacked the flexibility and the cool headed approach that was necessary to get things right but one thing about Malthouse is that he's canny enough to adapt where circumstances demanded it. Neeld wasn't and nor was Watters and I suspect Buckley's in the same boat.

However, I wouldn't put Brad Scott into that category.

I wouldn't put Brad Scott In that cat either

Maybe the Junkyard Dog is a winner

Anyway don't think he'll be sitting on the boundary with his mouth open like a work experience kid like Greeny had to this year !

I'm not so sure we should take for granted that Roos' arrival will automatically transform a dysfunctional team with its fair share of prima donnas and lazy trainers into a competitive football team. It's true that more than half the list will have changed in two draft periods but is that enough to remove the flakiness out of our list and make us a team?

Amino, I'm not sure I agree.

When managing people in a group, I feel it is very important to inject positivity and confidence into the group.

One generally doesn't do this by running individuals down and micro managing everyone within an inch of their life.

Hiring the right people, and then giving them clean air to perform their respective roles, is the key. It builds trust and typically enables individuals, and therefore the group, to perform at their best.

Clearly Neeld didn't do this, or even recognise the importance of this.

Roos does. And, relevantly, he is also a very experienced, knowledgeable and competent coach.

We'll see a huge turnaround next season IMO. Our list is simply not that bad.

We now have a decent coach. And the makings of a midfield. I'm excited.

We'll see a huge turnaround next season IMO. Our list is simply not that bad.

We now have a decent coach. And the makings of a midfield. I'm excited.

But we dont have a midfield yet. Its still WIP.

We need to rely on clubs doing a St Kilda like implosion if we are to be more than bottom 4 this year.

We are coming from a long way back in the pack.

I'm not so sure we should take for granted that Roos' arrival will automatically transform a dysfunctional team with its fair share of prima donnas and lazy trainers into a competitive football team. It's true that more than half the list will have changed in two draft periods but is that enough to remove the flakiness out of our list and make us a team?

It certainly wont be done in one or two drafts.

I remember when Neeld started, Malthouse advised him to take complete control of everything to avoid being put in a Bailey type situation.

I suspect he gave similar advice to Watters with StKFC and MFC both being weak dysfunctional clubs.

If you've been around as long as Mick, it's probably not that hard to do, but in your first gig as senior coach?

IMO this has as much to do with it as anything else. - Mick could balance the 'my way or the highway' approach with his obligation to get the best out of every player on the list. I don't think Neeld or Watters could or would.

It certainly wont be done in one or two drafts.

It can be if you have a recruiter and list manager that are good at their jobs. Good drafting and trading over two years can make a huge difference.

Lets look at last year and this year so far, before the 2013 draft.

Ins Hogan, Viney, Toumpas, Dawes, Terlich, Clisby, Jones, Vince, Tyson, Cross, Michie, Barry. With pick 9 to come and PSD 2 and a couple of other picks in the ND that is a big turnaround.

Then of course there is good coaching and development and we have to hope that Roos and his men will be better than those before, ( shouldn't be too hard).

I am setting myself up for a fall here, but I believe that with good luck injury wise, a good game plan and buy in from the players, Mitch Clarke playing a whole year with Hogan and Dawes, improvement in some of those named above, a couple more good picks in the drafts coming up and good development, we will make a significant improvement this year.

Then again, we are the MFC.

Scott Watters - Fail

Mark Neeld - Gross Fail

Brad Scott - underperformed thus far

Guy McKenna (he is the best of the lot IMO) - Blight is waiting to weeld the axe

The evidence is growing. The assistants of Mick Malthouse turn out to be dud-like. Where Garry Lyon salivated when Mick suggested that Neeld was 'right to go', I had my doubts.

Mick Malthouse is a megalomaniac; a control-freak; who micro-manages his deputies to the hilt. Neeld, when appointed at Melbourne, was quoted as saying that "Mick's advice was to be on top of everything; even when your assistant has an interview with the broadcaster at 3/4 time".

Any monkey can dance to Mick's tune; but what does it set them up for? Neeld, according to Eade, was Mick's yes-man. Neeld did exactly what Mick wanted him to.

That is why the hand-over to Buckley was never going to work either. Buckley appeared to have some steel about him in an environment of oxidisation.

Roos is the opposite of Mick, which is why the handover worked. He lets his underlings think creatively and back themselves.

I said earlier this year that we should be looking for coaches from the Sydney and Geelong production line - and thankfully PJ was well ahead of those thoughts.

We appointed the very man who built the collectivism that was seen at Sydney. Roos ingrained a collective culture where the players played for each other.

Roos encourages everyone to be leaders, work together, etc.

Malthouse is on the other end, his ego does not allow others to work with Malthouse, they are below Mick, they take their orders and it's Micks way.

In the Mick Malthouse environment, assistants don't have much input or creativity - because Mick has one way and is a prickly [censored].

Mick is a people motivator, he gets the best out of individuals to perform, he knows the game of football intricately, tactics, etc.

But.. He doesn't encourage collectivism and he doesn't have a team ethos wherein the team works as one solid unit - like Sydney.

This is why Nathan Buckley has had so many problems with individuals at Collingwood, it's going to be a hard ship to turn around.

Buckley wants to a collective culture where players work together.

There is no comparison between the Sydney/Geelong production line of assistants Vs the Collingwood line.

Edited November 1, 201311 yr by ThreeOneSix

Even allowing for having a good recruiter and list manager, you need to have a Club which is a draw card for potential players to want to play with.

And MFC is not an employee of choice. A number of people we have chased have sought preferred pastures to MFC.

In this draft we have done the best we possibly could to improve the list and midfield. Will it work? Who knows?

I know you are talking it up but we have come from a long way back and until we have a midfield that is at least competitive then any turnaround will be muted.

Small steps...........

And in regard to the Ops comment....the connection is not the Malthouse factor but the poor and mismanaged recruiting processes that put wingnuts like Neeld and Watters in the arguably the most critical position in a football club.

Even allowing for having a good recruiter and list manager, you need to have a Club which is a draw card for potential players to want to play with.

And MFC is not an employee of choice. A number of people we have chased have sought preferred pastures to MFC.

In this draft we have done the best we possibly could to improve the list and midfield. Will it work? Who knows?

I know you are talking it up but we have come from a long way back and until we have a midfield that is at least competitive then any turnaround will be muted.

Small steps...........

Don't disagree. We are on the nose with AFL players and their Managers and we have to turn that around. Roos is the lynchpin here.

Improvement on and off the field will change perceptions. We need the boys that have joined us to become part of a proper football club and then alllow the word to spread by actions, more so than conversations.

The Port situation is a good example. A basket case one year and a desirable club the next.

Don't disagree. We are on the nose with AFL players and their Managers and we have to turn that around. Roos is the lynchpin here.

Improvement on and off the field will change perceptions. We need the boys that have joined us to become part of a proper football club and then alllow the word to spread by actions, more so than conversations.

The Port situation is a good example. A basket case one year and a desirable club the next.

Yeah I think we've still recruited ok.

Clark, Dawes, Vince, Tyson, Brynes.

I agree we aren't a desired club, but we haven't done too bad considering we've been a rabble.

No doubt we'll recruit more quality if we can produce better results on field.

I said it once and I will say it again. Nothing good has ever come from Collingwood!

I hate that Club, their Supporters, Coaches, Players, Sponsors, President, Training Venue, Forums, Web Site ....

Edited November 1, 201311 yr by TheBigFrog

Malthouse's record as a coach is impressive, and his autocratic style works well for him. But it is not a developmental model. His task was winning games and he did this consistently. The development of the players and the club was the realm of Eddie, Eade, Richardson etc... One of the outcomes of this style is a real void when the Malthouse kind of leader leaves. Just look at Man United in the EPL now Alex Ferguson has left. Collingwood are very fortunate to have Buckley but I think he is going to be in the same Mould as Malthouse.

Neeld and Watters both have the Malthouse style, without the demonstrated winning percentage behind him.

Don't disagree. We are on the nose with AFL players and their Managers and we have to turn that around. Roos is the lynchpin here.

Improvement on and off the field will change perceptions. We need the boys that have joined us to become part of a proper football club and then alllow the word to spread by actions, more so than conversations.

The Port situation is a good example. A basket case one year and a desirable club the next.

But Port had the nucleus of a midfield to start....... we didnt.

And we do need to change perceptions of the Club. Being competitive and winning a few more games might help.

Malthouse's record as a coach is impressive, and his autocratic style works well for him. But it is not a developmental model. His task was winning games and he did this consistently. The development of the players and the club was the realm of Eddie, Eade, Richardson etc... One of the outcomes of this style is a real void when the Malthouse kind of leader leaves. Just look at Man United in the EPL now Alex Ferguson has left. Collingwood are very fortunate to have Buckley but I think he is going to be in the same Mould as Malthouse.

Neeld and Watters both have the Malthouse style, without the demonstrated winning percentage behind him.

No Neeld and Watters just are flawed communicators and people managers.

The same cant be said for Malthouse.

Attempting to execute Malthouse methods without Malthouse abilities and without being backed by Malthouse credibility.

But Port had the nucleus of a midfield to start....... we didnt.

And we do need to change perceptions of the Club. Being competitive and winning a few more games might help.

Yet a year and two years ago Port was also suffering humiliating 100 point defeats. They might have had the nucleus of a midfield to start but with our current recruiting efforts, perhaps we might catch up reasonably quickly in that area. I think we're at least equal to them if not in front in other departments if our team is healthy and hopefully, the change in coaches brings about renewed confidence and a well structured game plan. If things go right for us, we have the capacity to surprise.

But Port had the nucleus of a midfield to start....... we didnt.

And we do need to change perceptions of the Club. Being competitive and winning a few more games might help.

We do have the nuclei of forward & back line though.

I am setting myself up for a fall here,

If you go I'll go to.

Back and forward we are top 8 material, our midfield will improve significantly, we have a competent FD the players will have complete confidence in and a game plan which will suit the players strengths and a coach who will bring the best out of them. We also have a CEO that will bring respect to the club and I think that helps the players generally because they feel good about the place.

I'm bullish and I think we will surprise many next year. We've had a terrible coach for the last 2 years and whilst that is acknowledged I don't think people understand the impact that had on the playing group.

We are much better than many think.

Think Buckley will be a very successful coach - multiple flags. BTW, I note that the OP doesn't suggest that Bucks is a "doomed Malthouse assistant"

I think confidence and resilience has to be rebuilt and I still believe that the majority of our list might be a little punch drunk from the last couple of years.

Roos will help and so will a couple of the new boys who haven't dealt with it but I still think we are going to have some bad form and when it will come half the 22 will go to water, simply on muscle memory.

I don't think the failure of Neeld or Watters has anything to do with Malthouse at all.

I think it just mounts a strong case that both the MFC & The Aints needed an Experienced coach at the helm.

The clubs chose the wrong candidate.

simple.