One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: WA Tiger on May 23, 2009, 10:11:12 PM

Title: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WA Tiger on May 23, 2009, 10:11:12 PM
After watching the game tonight on Fox while listening to this poo I notice Malthouse has managed YET AGAIN to get Collingwood over the line against the Eagles in Perth. He does it all the time.
WELL MALTHOUSE TO THE RFC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: tigersalive on May 23, 2009, 10:43:17 PM
After watching the game tonight on Fox while listening to this poo I notice Malthouse has managed YET AGAIN to get Collingwood over the line against the Eagles in Perth. He does it all the time.
WELL MALTHOUSE TO THE RFC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No just no.

We don't need a gameplan that follows the boundary line.

There is a reason he struggles to win premierships.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Babsky on May 23, 2009, 10:49:20 PM
True.  But at least he gets them to Finals.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: 1980 on May 23, 2009, 11:34:19 PM
After watching the game tonight on Fox while listening to this poo I notice Malthouse has managed YET AGAIN to get Collingwood over the line against the Eagles in Perth. He does it all the time.
WELL MALTHOUSE TO THE RFC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No just no.

We don't need a gameplan that follows the boundary line.

There is a reason he struggles to win premierships.

I'd take his record over the past 10 years over anyone elses.

Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Infamy on May 23, 2009, 11:41:52 PM
After watching the game tonight on Fox while listening to this poo I notice Malthouse has managed YET AGAIN to get Collingwood over the line against the Eagles in Perth. He does it all the time.
WELL MALTHOUSE TO THE RFC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No just no.

We don't need a gameplan that follows the boundary line.

There is a reason he struggles to win premierships.

I'd take his record over the past 10 years over anyone elses.


You mean zero flags?
I'd like to aim higher personally
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: 1980 on May 24, 2009, 12:01:48 AM
After watching the game tonight on Fox while listening to this poo I notice Malthouse has managed YET AGAIN to get Collingwood over the line against the Eagles in Perth. He does it all the time.
WELL MALTHOUSE TO THE RFC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No just no.

We don't need a gameplan that follows the boundary line.

There is a reason he struggles to win premierships.

I'd take his record over the past 10 years over anyone elses.


You mean zero flags?
I'd like to aim higher personally

Compare lists he had with those teams that went higher. Coaches dont manage lists and recruit in modern footy. They coach. Malthouse has gotten more out of an average list than anyone else going around.

And Geelong were ars lucky to beat them in the prelim.

 
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: sabartooth on May 24, 2009, 12:44:55 AM
hardwick is a better long term option
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on May 24, 2009, 12:56:20 AM
hardwick is a better long term option

Hardwick will not come to us. We have a perceived instability and no gonads when making hard calls.

Look at his record as a player at Essendon and Port. One flag at each
His record as an assistant is not too shabby either with a flag at Hawthorn.

Why? Stable boards and clubs who made the right and hard calls initially when the quest for a premiership was sought. Wht would we offer and why would he want to tarnish that record?

Coach that must be recruited must be an older coach. Ie Malthouse or Matthews.
The attractiveness would be to see us as a challenge. The ultimate challenge and their last hurrah as an active coach before they retire. Will be motivated for one last big job, and not like Blighty at the Saints playing golf. We need them as they will bring stability and some on field success as a minimum and they need us as their egos can still say that they can do it. One last reinvention of their character to prove all those scribes and naysayers wrong. That's the best way I can put it.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Ramps on May 24, 2009, 09:31:37 AM
Leigh Matthews is someone that the club could build the "New Richmond" around.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: TigerTime on May 24, 2009, 09:50:41 AM
Leigh Matthews is someone that the club could build the "New Richmond" around.

so sheedy is "too old" but matthews isnt?  ???
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Ramps on May 24, 2009, 09:52:15 AM
the style of communication is different, the way they come across is different, matthews seems more direct and i favor a new coach who will be more direct with the players.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: TigerTime on May 24, 2009, 10:14:11 AM
the style of communication is different, the way they come across is different, matthews seems more direct and i favor a new coach who will be more direct with the players.

YOU OBV DONT KNOW MATTHEWS TOO WELL,  i know an ex player at the lions, he is now an assistant coach there and was part of their powerhouse era. can tell you now, the reason matthews was shafted by j.brown and the group was bec of his lack of communication and rapport with the players.

funny thing is, the playing group at brisbane last yr got rid of matthews and did it quietly. the same thing, led by their captain. however at rfc, it was leaked and huge news


go figure
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: bushranger on May 24, 2009, 10:17:22 AM
We already have a Madhouse without adding to it with a Malthouse.
No thanks but thanks for asking.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Smokey on May 24, 2009, 10:33:27 AM
None of the older coaches (Sheedy, Malthouse, Matthews, Pagan) would be a good fit for us imho.  They were all at their best and saw success at least 5-10 years ago - when they were younger, harder and innovative.  Time has now passed them all by and I don't believe our playing group would respond to them much at all quite frankly.  We need a younger coach that has a very strong work-minded ethos when it comes to preparing and playing.  No consultative approach here but a no frills, no excuses, no prisoners attitude that leaves every single player in absolutely no doubt as to who is boss, what the gameplan is and how it should be played.  Whoever takes us on next year will get a 'bargain basement' buy to the extent that our list is not a train wreck and has plenty of ability - every single game since R1 this year has shown that - but it is in desperate need of strength of character and fear of failure.  If the new coach can bring those 2 simple traits to the job then the results will appear much quicker than outsiders (and many insiders) will dream possible.

So who are my choices (in order)?

Nathan Buckley (who I don't think will come to Richmond but is my stand out choice)
Mark Williams (who I can't stand personally but think he ticks all the boxes of our requirements)
Ken Hinkley
Damien Hardwick


Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: blaisee on May 24, 2009, 10:39:50 AM
for the first time ever, i am jumping on the malthouse bandwagon.

A young coach in the rfc environment would just get crucified, by the media and by the players.

Malthouse hates richmond, which is great, beacuse the richmond we are now is not the richmond he played with.

We need to start over.

A senior experienced coach like malthouse with a proven record of getting players to play above their ability and a penchant for not putting up with any poo from anyone is probably what we need.

Getting him to the rfc is another matter alll together, why would he risk his reputation.

Balme would proabably crucial in this situation, but again, thry both nothing to gain but everything to lose.

Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: bushranger on May 24, 2009, 10:45:39 AM
Not that he has even thrown his hat in ring, my vote would be for James Hird.
He was and is the best captain I have seen (others will disagree with that I know).
He could easily get the respect of the players in a week or two as he is a doer and not a sit behind the play type.
So it is James Hird for me if he placed his hat in for the job.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Infamy on May 24, 2009, 10:53:31 AM
hardwick is a better long term option

Hardwick will not come to us. We have a perceived instability and no gonads when making hard calls.

Look at his record as a player at Essendon and Port. One flag at each
His record as an assistant is not too shabby either with a flag at Hawthorn.

Why? Stable boards and clubs who made the right and hard calls initially when the quest for a premiership was sought. Wht would we offer and why would he want to tarnish that record?
It depends how bad he wants a senior job next year though, there doesn't look like being many around now. Perhaps only Laidley's job is at risk so he'd have a choice of going to a club with 45k members and financial support or a club that gets 15k to a home game and may go under any day now. Port Adelaide is probably the main option for Hardwick at this stage.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Francois Jackson on May 24, 2009, 10:54:45 AM
Not that he has even thrown his hat in ring, my vote would be for James Hird.
He was and is the best captain I have seen (others will disagree with that I know).
He could easily get the respect of the players in a week or two as he is a doer and not a sit behind the play type.
So it is James Hird for me if he placed his hat in for the job.

if he was to apply he would be top of the list. Doubt it is high on his wishlist though

BEST CAPTAIN TO PLAY THE GAME IN THE LAST 20 YEARS.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Ramps on May 24, 2009, 11:01:07 AM
Irrespective of who coaches, if you dont have any socks you cant pull them up. Richmond needs a massive recruiting campaign come years end. It should be a campaign that sees us

1) Tank to get 3 picks inside 20
2) keep all our picks under pick 50 and take younsters from the draft
3) Look at every other list in the comp and see if you can do some player for player trades targetting blokes like Nathan Djekurra, Tim Houlihan, Travis Tuck and anyone else who knows how to kick the footy properly
4) Any non core players should be traded or delisted.
5) Trade atleast 1 name player - Foley should get us something decent.
6) Try and lure a key forward in the PSD. Hawkins remains unsigned as far as I know at Geelong, also they seem to be a bit upset with him at the moment, he hasnt come on as hoped, Lachlan Hansen at North is also availabe from what I believe.
7) Retire all over 30s except for Cousins.
8) Trade blokes like McMahon even if it means you have to pay his salary for 1 year.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: 1980 on May 24, 2009, 02:12:42 PM
the style of communication is different, the way they come across is different, matthews seems more direct and i favor a new coach who will be more direct with the players.

i know an ex player at the lions, he is now an assistant coach there and was part of their powerhouse era. can tell you now, the reason matthews was shafted by j.brown and the group was bec of his lack of communication and rapport with the players.

funny thing is, the playing group at brisbane last yr got rid of matthews and did it quietly. the same thing, led by their captain. however at rfc, it was leaked and huge news


go figure

You are such a jackstar wannabe. You're even plagiarising his words.

Hilarious
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WilliamPowell on May 24, 2009, 09:51:52 PM
A young coach in the rfc environment would just get crucified, by the media and by the players.

You forgot to include the supporters  ;D

Nathan Buckley (who I don't think will come to Richmond but is my stand out choice)
Mark Williams (who I can't stand personally but think he ticks all the boxes of our requirements)
Ken Hinkley
Damien Hardwick

I don't think Buckley would have the COURAGE to take on Richmond - to much to lose and I doubt he could see the gains  ;D

If we go down the path of an younger coach I wonder if we will end up with the Thompson (Bomber) -v- Frawley thing where a Thompson knocked us back because of who and what the RFC is  :-\
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: wayne on May 25, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
We don't need a gameplan that follows the boundary line.

Wasn't Rocket Eade the man that invented flooding and ugly defensive tactics when he was with the Swans.

With the Doggies he's made them one of the most exciting and highest scoring teams in the league.

Who says Malthouse would use the same gameplan he has at Collingwood if he came to Richmond.

Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Infamy on May 25, 2009, 01:50:32 PM
The thing is, Malthouse was successful as a young coach at West Coast

He's now at the highest resourced club in the entire AFL, best recruiters and recruiting network, more assistant and development coaches than you can shake a stick at, a state of the art training centre and soon to have Olympic Park knocked down so they don't have to walk 200m to Goschs Paddock and he still can't get them being successful.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Stripes on May 25, 2009, 02:09:33 PM
Not that he has even thrown his hat in ring, my vote would be for James Hird.
He was and is the best captain I have seen (others will disagree with that I know).
He could easily get the respect of the players in a week or two as he is a doer and not a sit behind the play type.
So it is James Hird for me if he placed his hat in for the job.

I agree here as well. Has an astute football brain, level headed and fierce.

I think the pickings will be slim in terms of coaches who would dare to take the Tigers job. This media circus has done us no favours. I think if we can secure Hardwick we would have done very well because, as WP rightly pointed out, Buckley has neither the courage or passion to take on the Richmond coaches position.

Stripes
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: mat073 on May 25, 2009, 03:27:26 PM
The thing is, Malthouse was successful as a young coach at West Coast

He's now at the highest resourced club in the entire AFL, best recruiters and recruiting network, more assistant and development coaches than you can shake a stick at, a state of the art training centre and soon to have Olympic Park knocked down so they don't have to walk 200m to Goschs Paddock and he still can't get them being successful.

What is the criteria for being successful coach ?

Can it only be messured by Premierships or by sustained competiveness....

Since our last decent year in 2001-Collingwood have had many 02,03,06,07 and 08....No failed rebuilds there just a history of getting the best out of "average lists"

Winning Premierships is bloody hard....just ask Geelong last year where you can have almost the perfect season and not win the ultimate prize.

Right now I look at Collingwoods Malthouse years and Im green with envy.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Francois Jackson on May 25, 2009, 03:46:38 PM
The thing is, Malthouse was successful as a young coach at West Coast

He's now at the highest resourced club in the entire AFL, best recruiters and recruiting network, more assistant and development coaches than you can shake a stick at, a state of the art training centre and soon to have Olympic Park knocked down so they don't have to walk 200m to Goschs Paddock and he still can't get them being successful.

What is the criteria for being successful coach ?

Can it only be messured by Premierships or by sustained competiveness....

Since our last decent year in 2001-Collingwood have had many 02,03,06,07 and 08....No failed rebuilds there just a history of getting the best out of "average lists"

Winning Premierships is bloody hard....just ask Geelong last year where you can have almost the perfect season and not win the ultimate prize.

Right now I look at Collingwoods Malthouse years and Im green with envy.

well said
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Chuck17 on May 25, 2009, 04:38:58 PM
One good thing about Malthouse, he would be use to the supporters baying for blood and all the vitroul associated. 
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: TigerLand on May 25, 2009, 06:14:08 PM
One good thing about Malthouse, he would be use to the supporters baying for blood and all the vitroul associated. 

A quality I think is pretty high on the list for our next coach.

Someone like a Hinkley, McRae, Longmuire may just not be able to deal with the pressures..


As days go on I'm really leaning towards Mick as our next coach leaning very heavily.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: camboon on May 25, 2009, 06:40:57 PM
Malthouse will stay at Collingwood unless Eddie wants Buckley to have the job no matter what. Pity as we need a coach to take no nonsense, wont suffer excuses and gets the best out his team. A coach that couldn't give a rats toss bag about the media or the feral fans.
If we missed out on Malthouse any interest in Sheedy to develop a young list.

Whoever they pick I just hope they put some thought into it and don't pick a coach who wont build a long term position for the club.

PS: Congratulations Melbourne, building a great list with the best young kids in the land without any grief from their supporters or the media. Their supporters must understand that short term pain for long term gain is the only way, oh well to late for us - Just hope we don't ever give up national draft picks again.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Ramps on May 25, 2009, 06:49:00 PM
Just a question for camboon- if you could a late pick say a pick in the mid to late 50s for say Nathan Djekurra at Geelong- would you do the deal?

If you could swap a pick in the 60s for Tim Houlihan at West Coast- would you do the deal?

Trading isnt bad, and it should never be ruled out, but it should onlyhappen with picks after pick 50 and it should be for players who can add to the list.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Infamy on May 25, 2009, 06:52:37 PM
Just a question for camboon- if you could a late pick say a pick in the mid to late 50s for say Nathan Djekurra at Geelong- would you do the deal?

If you could swap a pick in the 60s for Tim Houlihan at West Coast- would you do the deal?

Trading isnt bad, and it should never be ruled out, but it should onlyhappen with picks after pick 50 and it should be for players who can add to the list.
I'd be happy with those deals, moreso the Djekurra one than Houlihan, however neither of their respective clubs would do that deal
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: camboon on May 25, 2009, 08:39:53 PM
I would certainly consider them as they seem reasonable.

Butmy concerns and points about our trading for other clubs players are;

1)Clubs just don't let good players go, they either have baggage or flaws.

2) We have been terrible at trying pick quality discards in the past. One or Two years and then there out!

3) Our rookies show that you can pick up great kids later in the draft -Nahas, Browne etc

4) You can pick up players in the Pre Season that are worth a shot without giving up national draft picks

 In summary I believe we should only trade players for players except for in the Pre Season draft and possibly the Rookie draft but would also suggest that if we pursue any players over 23 we haven't learned anything from our past.

Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: wayne on May 25, 2009, 08:57:47 PM
PS: Congratulations Melbourne, building a great list with the best young kids in the land without any grief from their supporters or the media. Their supporters must understand that short term pain for long term gain is the only way, oh well to late for us - Just hope we don't ever give up national draft picks again.

We gave Terry time and no grief when he started.

Now he's given us nothing, and that's why he's getting grief.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: TigerLand on May 25, 2009, 11:30:54 PM
I would certainly consider them as they seem reasonable.

Butmy concerns and points about our trading for other clubs players are;

1)Clubs just don't let good players go, they either have baggage or flaws.

2) We have been terrible at trying pick quality discards in the past. One or Two years and then there out!

3) Our rookies show that you can pick up great kids later in the draft -Nahas, Browne etc

4) You can pick up players in the Pre Season that are worth a shot without giving up national draft picks

 In summary I believe we should only trade players for players except for in the Pre Season draft and possibly the Rookie draft but would also suggest that if we pursue any players over 23 we haven't learned anything from our past.



There is a higher success rate of players chosen through the Rookie draft and pick 40+ then recycled players that have played under 10 games over a few seasons.

I'd stick with the picks and hope you'd unearth a gem then rely on a player to hit there straps 2nd time round.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: camboon on May 26, 2009, 02:22:04 PM
PS: Congratulations Melbourne, building a great list with the best young kids in the land without any grief from their supporters or the media. Their supporters must understand that short term pain for long term gain is the only way, oh well to late for us - Just hope we don't ever give up national draft picks again.

We gave Terry time and no grief when he started.

Now he's given us nothing, and that's why he's getting grief.
[ I would be suggesting if we had taken the Melbourne / Hawthorn approach when Terry first started we might be playing finals now (five years out) so I believe we are agreeing violently ;D]
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: tiga on May 26, 2009, 11:55:23 PM
I like Malthouse. He is passionate if nothing. He is disciplined, demands nothing but the best from his players and you can see it in his eyes. For him to once again walk back into Punt Road and renew the fire in his belly he once had as a successful premiership player for us, it can only be a good thing.  :thumbsup
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Darth Tiger on May 27, 2009, 04:01:50 AM
I like Malthouse. He is passionate if nothing. He is disciplined, demands nothing but the best from his players and you can see it in his eyes. For him to once again walk back into Punt Road and renew the fire in his belly he once had as a successful premiership player for us, it can only be a good thing.  :thumbsup

Would he have to clear the possum dung from his new office ?

Or perhaps blow the cobwebs off his lace-up premiership jumper ?

Malthouse's defensive gameplan is at least a structure, however does RFC want to play the wings 60+% of the game ?  Is that going to bring premiership success in the 2010's ?
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: wayne on May 27, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
Would he have to clear the possum dung from his new office ?

Wipe tanning lotion from his desk  ;D
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: one-eyed on May 29, 2009, 02:18:54 AM
Eddie at Pieland has set up coach committee to discuss Malthouse's future

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/magpies-move-on-malthouse/2009/05/28/1243456683495.html
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Stripes on May 29, 2009, 11:43:45 AM
Unless the Pies have a horrid next 4 weeks Malthouse will have his contract extended for another year giving Buckley time to work as an assistant coach elsewhere and the club time to see how he performs.

Stripes
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: mightytiges on May 31, 2009, 09:28:24 PM
Malthouse looking safer at Pieland after two straight wins and them back in the Eight. I think you'll be on money Stripes.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Tigermonk on June 01, 2009, 10:46:25 AM
Malthouse looking safer at Pieland after two straight wins and them back in the Eight. I think you'll be on money Stripes.

amazing how they blood youngsters at Collingwood compared to our under developed players, why would Malthouse want to come to a club that is miles behind many other clubs.
Eddie & Mick will makeup
Title: Kevin Bartlett backs Mick Malthouse (Herald-Sun)
Post by: one-eyed on June 03, 2009, 05:28:27 AM
Kevin Bartlett backs Mick Malthouse
Finn Bradshaw | June 02, 2009 04:28pm

KEVIN Bartlett has called for the Tigers to aggressively pursue Mick Malthouse as Terry Wallace's replacement.

The Tigers yesterday announced Wallace would be stepping down after Friday night’s game against the Bulldogs. Richmond will announce a caretaker coach on Saturday, then embark on a search for a long-term successor.

Bartlett, a club legend, today said the Tigers should make Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse – whose contract with the Magpies runs out at the end of this season – their No.1 priority.

"The first thing Richmond should do is check out the coaching status of Mick Malthouse,” Bartlett said on his show on SEN radio. “The Collingwood coach comes out of contract, if he’s gettable, (the Tigers should) go hard."

The Herald Sun reported this morning that Wayne Campbell was the front-runner for the job, but Bartlett – who played 403 games for Richmond before coaching the club for 88 matches – said it needed an experienced, successful coach.

“The word is Richmond could be looking at a young, untried coach, that’s the modern trend,” Bartlett said.

“Malthouse is still hungry, has not lost the passion. (His teams have played in) five grand finals, two premierships, (he is) tough as nails, cagey, and gets the absolute best out of his team.”

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25576066-19771,00.html
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: cub on June 03, 2009, 12:40:23 PM
Sort of warming to the Malhouse idea, very much so actually.
Heard a few "chinese" whispers around the traps also (who knows about that tho)
Much prefer him to Campbell.
If Campbell gets the gig I will volunteer to be the new Jackstart of OER during his reign 
Only joking I will try and support whoever gets it. Maybe (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Chuck17 on June 03, 2009, 03:28:14 PM
Sort of warming to the Malhouse idea, very much so actually.
Heard a few "chinese" whispers around the traps also (who knows about that tho)
Much prefer him to Campbell.
If Campbell gets the gig I will volunteer to be the new Jackstart of OER during his reign 
Only joking I will try and support whoever gets it. Maybe (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)

Do your best to keep that beast hidden CUB (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-monster-002.gif)
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Stripes on June 03, 2009, 03:38:44 PM
Were do I get my cool little icons from guys!  :thatsgold
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Chuck17 on June 03, 2009, 03:41:00 PM
Were do I get my cool little icons from guys!  :thatsgold

Right here Stripes

http://www.freesmileys.org/

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-excited001.gif)

Thanks Cub  :thumbsup (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-dance006.gif)
Title: Tigers of old want Malthouse (Age)
Post by: one-eyed on June 11, 2009, 05:29:30 AM
Tigers of old want Malthouse
Dan Silkstone | June 11, 2009

GET Mick Malthouse.

That's the message yesterday from the legends of Richmond. Mal Brown and Tommy Hafey were star attractions at a function to promote the 50th birthday of the club's past players' association. Their thoughts, though, were on the future.

And football's conventional wisdom has certainly shifted in favour of youth.

Hafey yesterday raised half an eyebrow at this week's appointment of 31-year-old Jade Rawlings as interim coach.

"He's obviously impressed the people who have made that appointment, because I thought there was a few people who could have taken over," he said.

Though he pronounced Rawlings a "good fella", Hafey's preference for 2010 was clear.

"I'd go for Michael Malthouse of all the people likely to be available," he said.

"We need the best available. We've made so many mistakes in recent times. We've got to make certain we get this right."

Brown said the Tigers needed to be daring and go for an appointment that would excite the club's supporters.

"Take some risks," he said. "Richmond has become, over 29 years, the beige football club. It has done nothing colourful, nothing from left field, until they got Ben Cousins."

The Western Australian hard man described Rawlings as "a very fine young man", but added: "At the end of the day, Malthouse has coached Collingwood even better than he coached the Eagles, and if he's available the club have to sit down and work out where they are going."

Again bucking conventional wisdom, Hafey cautioned against a cleanout of senior players at year's end.

"I wouldn't think there would have to be massive changes," he said.

"The coach would need to see everybody, the new coach … before they start making decisions. I think some of them could be very, very useful."

Both wanted to see Matthew Richardson go on for another year.

"He is obviously our best player," Hafey said. "And I think he probably will be next year and the year after."

Brown, especially, was keen to see another year from Cousins, a player who he said "has pulverised opinion".

The Tiger pair's support for Malthouse reinforces the already stated views of another club legend — Kevin Bartlett — that the club should explore the possibility of bringing the dual premiership coach back to Punt Road.

Richmond has already appointed a subcommittee that will vet applicants for the coaching job using industry best practice.

Brown, rather more old-fashioned, suggested a simpler set of criteria.

"Has that coach played in a premiership? And has he coached premierships?" he said.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/tigers-of-old-want-malthouse/2009/06/10/1244313187090.html
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: wayne on June 11, 2009, 08:50:37 AM
For those who think Malthouse is too old, you just have to look at Wayne Bennett in the NRL.

A gun coach with the Broncos who now has St.George Illawarra on top of the table.

A good coach, is a good coach, no matter the age.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: bushranger on June 11, 2009, 09:04:01 AM
Aand Bennet retiered for a short while but was talked back into making a comeback and hasn't looked back.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WA Tiger on June 11, 2009, 09:51:37 AM
And you all mocked me when I started this thread...... ::). But what does a hick from WA know eh pffft!!!! :whistle
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: wayne on June 11, 2009, 10:17:42 AM
Hafey is on SEN now again pushing Malthouse for the Tigers.

Also said footy hasn't changed much, the most important things are long, direct, accurate kicks into the forward line and running and carrying the ball.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WA Tiger on June 11, 2009, 10:31:20 AM
There is no question that Malthouse has still got what it takes, no question at all. When I started this thread I began by mentioning the game against the Eagles and he has continued on from there. He has this uncanny knack to get injury plagued teams up as he has done with Collingwood minus Rocca, Medhurst, Didak and the likes. He brings in a player like idiot at the right time after a knee reco and he wins the rising star award.

He is a no nonsence coach and he really holds players accountable, if they dont play as a team then they are back in the seconds no matter who they are. What impresses me the most is that Collingwood and the eagles and the Bulldogs players played for the team and each other while and when he is at the helm.

I would love to see him back at the club provided the process has been followed of course.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: TigerTime on June 11, 2009, 11:03:30 AM
i dont really care who coaches us

but this is what is important

our next coach must

1/ really wanna coach and love us - love the fricken jumper and what is stands 4
2/ have a clear direction and ability to get the best out of the group
3/ be here for the right reasons unlike terry!!!!
4/ demand command and receive respect

if the next coach has these 4 qualities, no matter who they are, they will succeeed at this club
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: bushranger on June 11, 2009, 11:26:25 AM
i dont really care who coaches us

but this is what is important

our next coach must

1/ really wanna coach and love us - love the fricken jumper and what is stands 4
2/ have a clear direction and ability to get the best out of the group
3/ be here for the right reasons unlike terry!!!!
4/ demand command and receive respect

if the next coach has these 4 qualities, no matter who they are, they will succeeed at this club
I like what you have said.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Tigermonk on June 11, 2009, 11:28:14 AM
And you all mocked me when I started this thread...... ::). But what does a hick from WA know eh pffft!!!! :whistle

 ;D Malthouse willnot be coaching Richmond next year, thats what you know now  ;D  :whistle
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WA Tiger on June 11, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
And you all mocked me when I started this thread...... ::). But what does a hick from WA know eh pffft!!!! :whistle

 ;D Malthouse willnot be coaching Richmond next year, thats what you know now  ;D  :whistle

I did not say he would be coaching I said we need him as coach...stuff me???? Another supposed source we will never know about, why the hell would Collingwood let him go anyway he is too valuable.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: camboon on June 11, 2009, 12:52:04 PM
If Collingwood sign up Malthouse then Buckley will look elsewhere. All very interesting! My preferece would be to have Buckley but would be happy enough with Malthouse.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: wayne on June 11, 2009, 01:04:43 PM
If Collingwood sign up Malthouse then Buckley will look elsewhere. All very interesting! My preferece would be to have Buckley but would be happy enough with Malthouse.

There are some linking Buckley to North Melbourne because of the A'Rocca connection.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: mat073 on June 11, 2009, 01:27:03 PM
I was excited over the prospect of Mick comming to tigerland but with Collingwood surging towards the top 4 its not looking good.

The million dollar question remains.....Does Bucks have the courage to take on the Richmond challenge.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: 1965 on June 11, 2009, 01:34:08 PM
I was excited over the prospect of Mick comming to tigerland but with Collingwood surging towards the top 4 its not looking good.

The million dollar question remains.....Does Bucks have the courage to take on the Richmond challenge.

Depends on whether we can show a little passion during the second half of the year.

I don't think the list is as bad as the darksiders think. We could be in for far more positive time.

 :cheers
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Ramps on June 11, 2009, 05:43:25 PM
A Sheedy Hird combo is not out of the question Ive been told. Its a small chance, but its not out of the question.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: 1965 on June 11, 2009, 05:45:21 PM
A Sheedy Hird combo is not out of the question Ive been told. Its a small chance, but its not out of the question.

I could live with a Hird - Sheedy combo. Hird as senior coach and Sheeds as mentor.

 :thumbsup

Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: tigerfan1961 on June 11, 2009, 06:40:53 PM
If Collingwood sign up Malthouse then Buckley will look elsewhere. All very interesting! My preferece would be to have Buckley but would be happy enough with Malthouse.
I had been thinking the same thing until I heard Damian Hardwick speak on Sport927 this morning. Very very impressive bloke and would do very well wherever he took the reins. Also heard through someone in the know at Essendon that he was the leading candidate going into the last round of their search for a coach- Knighter pipped him only due to superior knowledge of the Bombers list.

Hardwick or Buckley for me, but I now lean towards Hardwick after hearing his interview this morning.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: camboon on June 11, 2009, 08:11:17 PM
If Collingwood sign up Malthouse then Buckley will look elsewhere. All very interesting! My preferece would be to have Buckley but would be happy enough with Malthouse.
I had been thinking the same thing until I heard Damian Hardwick speak on Sport927 this morning. Very very impressive bloke and would do very well wherever he took the reins. Also heard through someone in the know at Essendon that he was the leading candidate going into the last round of their search for a coach- Knighter pipped him only due to superior knowledge of the Bombers list.

Hardwick or Buckley for me, but I now lean towards Hardwick after hearing his interview this morning.

Its great to have Quality options, whoever we get they must not suffer the media , knee jerk fans or except excuses from players who are sub par. They also need to take advantage of the grace period and build for the future the first and second year.

I take my hat off to the Richmond leadership this week (selection table) as its sends the message some of us were hoping and praying for.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: one-eyed on July 09, 2009, 05:52:20 PM
Ch 10 news just showed Browny this morning on tv saying Malthouse would be a great get if he came over to Richmond to coach. We'd welcome him with open arms.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: mightytiges on July 09, 2009, 07:26:31 PM
Ch 10 news just showed Browny this morning on tv saying Malthouse would be a great get if he came over to Richmond to coach. We'd welcome him with open arms.
But Malthouse is most likely to remain at Collingwood after 6 straight wins Browny  ???  :wallywink. We really need to get everyone associated with the club into one room and tell them to shut up  :scream.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: wayne on July 09, 2009, 08:18:36 PM
Magpie plot thickens

COLLINGWOOD has won six games in a row under Michael Malthouse for the first time since 2003 and still his future is clouded.

Imagine the situation had Collingwood lost six in a row.

There would be hourly updates on radio, daily bulletins in the papers, marching in the streets, armed guards at Lexus Centre.

The Magpies, though, are fourth, the coach wants to continue to coach, and, clearly, he is at the top of his game.

What, then, is the hold-up, and is there a risk the club might end up with egg on its face?

Will Malthouse continue to coach Collingwood in his own right next year?

Could he be directed to do the job with Nathan Buckley as his right-hand man and heir apparent?

Or, might he yet end up at Punt Rd, for Richmond’s interest could be more meaningful than many suspect?

It is a highly intriguing situation.

..................

While Malthouse has said publicly he’s not fussed and won’t think about the future until his contract expires later this year, he must be more than a little irritated.

Given the delay, it would be no surprise to find Richmond making discreet inquiries.

If Malthouse were to suspect he had no more than 12 months ahead of him at Collingwood, four years at one of the clubs he represented as a player would have to appeal.

Surely he would appeal to them. He is 55 (56 in August), vastly experienced, still passionate and implements the best rotation system in the competition.

It is a bizarre situation. As it is at the Western Bulldogs, with Rodney Eade still uncontracted for next year.

There has to be movement soon. In both camps.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/mikesheahan/index.php/heraldsun/comments/magpie_plot_thickens/
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: one-eyed on July 12, 2009, 11:53:40 AM
Crawf said with Malthouse not re-signed yet Richmond should go straight to him now and offer him a 3-4 year deal to come to Punt Rd.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Ramps on July 12, 2009, 12:40:10 PM
Crawf said with Malthouse not re-signed yet Richmond should go straight to him now and offer him a 3-4 year deal to come to Punt Rd.

I agree with Crawford IMHO the only coach that would make 99% of the supporters happy is Malthouse. Anybody else and therell be a section of the club that wont support as much as they should and we need everyone behind the new coach.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WA Tiger on July 12, 2009, 08:28:19 PM
Rumor is on BF that Micks management met with Richmond Friday, so would we sign him straight away if we had the chance or put him through the process?? I would just sign him as he won't be bothered with the process IMO.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Infamy on July 12, 2009, 09:52:37 PM
I'm still not 100% convinced on Malthouse, his premierships were 15 YEARS ago
Now he's at the best resourced club in the game for almost a decade and hasn't been able to win anything
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WA Tiger on July 12, 2009, 09:55:29 PM
I'm still not 100% convinced on Malthouse, his premierships were 15 YEARS ago
Now he's at the best resourced club in the game for almost a decade and hasn't been able to win anything

I just love the way he can get that team of his up every week, even when they have a heap of injuries he seems to pull something out of the hat and they win.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Infamy on July 12, 2009, 09:59:15 PM
I'm still not 100% convinced on Malthouse, his premierships were 15 YEARS ago
Now he's at the best resourced club in the game for almost a decade and hasn't been able to win anything

I just love the way he can get that team of his up every week, even when they have a heap of injuries he seems to pull something out of the hat and they win.
He certainly seems able to get them to make up the numbers every year, however they've been treading water for a while now
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Stripes on July 12, 2009, 10:18:43 PM
The problem with Malthouse is that he is too good. He gets the best out of any side he coaches and unfortunately for him that is only the finals with the list he currently has. This of course means that he has never taken a team to the bottom of the ladder for any extended period which is necessary for any club to rebuild a strong enough side to win a flag.

If Malthouse came to Richmond he would have the raw talent to turn into a premiership side and get the absolute best out of all our list.

In saying this though, we shouldn't take him unless he goes through the process (at least some of it) the same as anyone else.

Stripes
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WA Tiger on July 12, 2009, 10:22:39 PM
I think if he is available he won't want to go through the process, he will want the job sealed.
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: one-eyed on July 12, 2009, 10:25:22 PM
From the Collingwood BF board ...

Caroline Wilson has just revealed her "thoughts" on the Collingwood and Richmond coaching positions.

Basically;

* Jack Kennedy (Collingwood Board member) "stormed" out of a board meeting after a disagreement with Gary Pert, Pert wants to cut MM per year pay, Kennedy wants him re signed as soon as possible.

* MM's manager had a meeting with Richmond on Friday, and as Caro said, he wouldnt have done this without MM's blessing.

* Caro reckons MM is definitely Richmond's no.1. target, and will offer a 4 year deal as we will only offer a 2 year deal

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15063191&postcount=498
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: WA Tiger on July 12, 2009, 10:29:24 PM
Hey OE what does that last sentence mean? Are we offering a 4 or 2 year deal????
Title: Re: We Need Malthouse
Post by: Infamy on July 13, 2009, 12:11:48 AM
Its from the Collingwood BF board so "we" means the maggots
Maggots offering 2 years, where as Tigers will dangle a 4 year carrot

Apparently