Malthouse’s Damning Assessment of Another Wasted Year

[Pates 9,537]

I wonder if Mick reaches out to Burgess before making his crack about the players not training hard. Reckon he’d have a few choice words to say, probably along the lines of GAGF.

I mean bringing up Cale Morton FFS ?‍♂️

[Wrecker45 3,378]

.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Wrecker45
Delete Post

[Coq au vin 754]

On 8/9/2020 at 12:11 PM, Macca said:

Draft revisionists are everywhere though MC. 

Endeavouring to put high school age junior footballers in a numbered order of how good they are going to be 5 years down the track is crystal ball gazing at best.  But we're told otherwise.

Of course we've been a disappointment from an overall perspective but we were just dreadfully unlucky with our draft choices.  And if Petracca,  Brayshaw,  Oliver and the like had have been abject failures we'd be banging on about the draft (again)  Petracca & Brayshaw were standout juniors much like Scully & Trengove were.  And Oliver won the Morrish medal which has often been seen as a millstone.

Last year's failures were put down to 'off season surgeries' (by many) and now it's the coach who is in the gun.

I see our failures as an overall problem ... from the Board all the way down to the last player on the list.  And our list is not all that talented either especially when it comes to disposal skills and decision making skills.  A new coach isn't going to fix that in a hurry. 

We need an injection of 6 top players if we're going to be a true contender.  A team generally needs at least 5 or 6 years as a true contender in order to be able to win 1 or maybe 2 flags. 

We could jump up and fluke one but I don't like the odds on that happening.  I'd rather see the club build a great list of players and go from there.

A team doesn’t need 5 o 6 years as a ‘true contender’ to win the premiership. Richmond were about to sack their coach the year before they won the flag because they were so bad.

[Macca 16,173]

29 minutes ago, Coq au vin said:

A team doesn’t need 5 o 6 years as a ‘true contender’ to win the premiership. Richmond were about to sack their coach the year before they won the flag because they were so bad.

If you want your team to win a flag or 2 it's better to have a dynasty type list.  Improves the odds immeasurably. 

Or a team can bob up and win one out of the blue but what are the odds?

From what I've read Smith had a great list of players for more than a decade. 

And I've seen clubs have a great list of players for a 5 year period (or more) and still not win a flag .... Pies from '64 to '73.  Cats from '88 to '95.  Pies from '77 to '81.  Even the Saints from '08 to '11. 

Under Northey we were very good but not great and under Daniher we were quite good but certainly not great. 

Our list is far from great right now and we are not a true contender yet.  Need another 6 top players to have a real chance.  Our forward line is still quite suspect and our disposal levels and decision making is far from first rate.  Our list is decent but not great.

Nice to win last night but the Saints aren't a top side.  They may not even make the finals.

Yes Richmond stayed the course with Hardwick but they improved the areas around Hardwick (notably Balme & Caracella)  And they were a finals type side before becoming a team that can win big.  On the other hand we've played 1 finals series in 13 seasons.

And we can stay the course with Goodwin and take a similar route.  But Goodwin won't win a flag with us unless the list is top quality. 

We are a work in progress

Edited August 29, 2020 by Macca

[Pennant St Dee 11,322]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

If you want your team to win a flag or 2 it's better to have a dynasty type list.  Improves the odds immeasurably. 

Or a team can bob up and win one out of the blue but what are the odds?

From what I've read Smith had a great list of players for more than a decade. 

And I've seen clubs have a great list of players for a 5 year period (or more) and still not win a flag .... Pies from '64 to '73.  Cats from '88 to '95.  Pies from '77 to '81.  Even the Saints from '08 to '11. 

Under Northey we were very good but not great and under Daniher we were quite good but certainly not great. 

Our list is far from great right now and we are not a true contender yet.  Need another 6 top players to have a real chance.  Our forward line is still quite suspect and our disposal levels and decision making is far from first rate.  Our list is decent but not great.

Nice to win last night but the Saints aren't a top side.  They may not even make the finals.

Yes Richmond stayed the course with Hardwick but they improved the areas around Hardwick (notably Balme & Caracella)  And they were a finals type side before becoming a team that can win big.  On the other hand we've played 1 finals series in 13 seasons.

And we can stay the course with Goodwin and take a similar route.  But Goodwin won't win a flag with us unless the list is top quality. 

We are a work in progress

Good assessment 

[whatwhat say what 19,011]

mick continues to stick his foot in his mouth...

[Demon trucker 1,773]

On 8/9/2020 at 3:26 PM, whatwhatsaywhat said:

one of the more fatuous 'articles' mick has ever come up - cliche after cliche, bearing no relevance to the 2020 side...save for extolling the virtues of four players and then comparing may and lever, two markedly different defenders

and the player picked up as a result of "trading dom tyson for josh kelly" (or bryce gibbs 2.0 as he appears to be) was none other than christian salem, who mick rates as one of the best four in the side

either do some actual research and reason-based analysis or stick to cliche and increasingly unreadable irrelevance

It was the break glass in in emergency type article, how many times has it been written? Melbourne don't stand for anything, he praise North Melbourne and then Collingwood which both teams we smashed.

[Pickett2Jackson 3,904]

No wonder Mick went so early...   he knew this weak club would choke as they always do.

I hate that he was right but he was.