p!$$ off MM
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cam 
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| E wrote: | | Cam wrote: | There is no such thing is a mini dynasty unless you are talking about those shrunken little KISS replica LPs.
There is a successful team, and a dynasty. Not even the Brisbane Lions of 2001-2-3 were a dynasty. The Cats maybe 07-09-11 that is sustained greatness. The last true footy dynasty were the Hawks of the 80s-90s... 83 86 88 89 91 and before them the Demons of the 50s... 55-56-57-59-60-64
I mean Hawthorn.. Look at the gaps between flags
1961, 10 years
1971, 5
1976, 2
1978, 5
1983, 3
1986, 2
1988, 1
1989, 2
1991, 17
2008, 5
2013, 1
2014, 1
2015
Before 1959 Collingwood won 13 flags, after 1959 Hawthorn has won 13 flags. Hawthorn is the Collingwood of the television era. As sickening as that is to type. |
if you combine Collingwood from 1900 - 1960 and Hawthorn from 1961-2015 - you get the Yankees! |
and Man U!
_________________
Get back on top. |
|
|
|
 |
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Cam wrote: | | E wrote: | | Cam wrote: | There is no such thing is a mini dynasty unless you are talking about those shrunken little KISS replica LPs.
There is a successful team, and a dynasty. Not even the Brisbane Lions of 2001-2-3 were a dynasty. The Cats maybe 07-09-11 that is sustained greatness. The last true footy dynasty were the Hawks of the 80s-90s... 83 86 88 89 91 and before them the Demons of the 50s... 55-56-57-59-60-64
I mean Hawthorn.. Look at the gaps between flags
1961, 10 years
1971, 5
1976, 2
1978, 5
1983, 3
1986, 2
1988, 1
1989, 2
1991, 17
2008, 5
2013, 1
2014, 1
2015
Before 1959 Collingwood won 13 flags, after 1959 Hawthorn has won 13 flags. Hawthorn is the Collingwood of the television era. As sickening as that is to type. |
if you combine Collingwood from 1900 - 1960 and Hawthorn from 1961-2015 - you get the Yankees! |
and Man U! |
NOW that the piss and poo are on 13 flags, they wont win another one for 32 years, just as we didn't. Ol bad luck 13 number, will get em too. 
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: | | Cam wrote: | | E wrote: | | Cam wrote: | There is no such thing is a mini dynasty unless you are talking about those shrunken little KISS replica LPs.
There is a successful team, and a dynasty. Not even the Brisbane Lions of 2001-2-3 were a dynasty. The Cats maybe 07-09-11 that is sustained greatness. The last true footy dynasty were the Hawks of the 80s-90s... 83 86 88 89 91 and before them the Demons of the 50s... 55-56-57-59-60-64
I mean Hawthorn.. Look at the gaps between flags
1961, 10 years
1971, 5
1976, 2
1978, 5
1983, 3
1986, 2
1988, 1
1989, 2
1991, 17
2008, 5
2013, 1
2014, 1
2015
Before 1959 Collingwood won 13 flags, after 1959 Hawthorn has won 13 flags. Hawthorn is the Collingwood of the television era. As sickening as that is to type. |
if you combine Collingwood from 1900 - 1960 and Hawthorn from 1961-2015 - you get the Yankees! |
and Man U! |
NOW that the piss and poo are on 13 flags, they wont win another one for 32 years, just as we didn't. Ol bad luck 13 number, will get em too. |
A lot of our bad luck has been self inflicted due to either poor management, planning or just damn stupid pride/pig headiness. The Hawks, in more recent years i.e. since the don scott incident, have been far and away been much better in all of those area compared to us - at least on field. There is something in what they say 'You make your own luck'. |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Will we hear from MM this week? |
|
|
|
|
3rd degree 
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: John Wren's tote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | | Will we hear from MM this week? |
Why of course have you tried his new Mini-Dynasty dinner mints ? Proudly made by Red Tulip.
_________________
" Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Beat the doggies too, and the old fart can go and hide under a rock for the duration.
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: | | Beat the doggies too, and the old fart can go and hide under a rock for the duration. |
I disagree. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | Piesnchess wrote: | | Cam wrote: | | E wrote: | | Cam wrote: | There is no such thing is a mini dynasty unless you are talking about those shrunken little KISS replica LPs.
There is a successful team, and a dynasty. Not even the Brisbane Lions of 2001-2-3 were a dynasty. The Cats maybe 07-09-11 that is sustained greatness. The last true footy dynasty were the Hawks of the 80s-90s... 83 86 88 89 91 and before them the Demons of the 50s... 55-56-57-59-60-64
I mean Hawthorn.. Look at the gaps between flags
1961, 10 years
1971, 5
1976, 2
1978, 5
1983, 3
1986, 2
1988, 1
1989, 2
1991, 17
2008, 5
2013, 1
2014, 1
2015
Before 1959 Collingwood won 13 flags, after 1959 Hawthorn has won 13 flags. Hawthorn is the Collingwood of the television era. As sickening as that is to type. |
if you combine Collingwood from 1900 - 1960 and Hawthorn from 1961-2015 - you get the Yankees! |
and Man U! |
NOW that the piss and poo are on 13 flags, they wont win another one for 32 years, just as we didn't. Ol bad luck 13 number, will get em too. |
A lot of our bad luck has been self inflicted due to either poor management, planning or just damn stupid pride/pig headiness. The Hawks, in more recent years i.e. since the don scott incident, have been far and away been much better in all of those area compared to us - at least on field. There is something in what they say 'You make your own luck'. |
Ah, Jack, you and those hawks again, eh ???
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC 
Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: |
A lot of our bad luck has been self inflicted due to either poor management, planning or just damn stupid pride/pig headiness. The Hawks, in more recent years i.e. since the don scott incident, have been far and away been much better in all of those area compared to us - at least on field. There is something in what they say 'You make your own luck'. |
1960, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 2002, 2003, 2011
Yep, I agree, the majority of those years ending the way they did was poor management, planning or just damn stupid pride/pig headiness. How many were under two goals.
Now seriously if that doesn't deserve a rolleyes.
_________________
Go Pies! |
|
|
|
|
duke750
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Buderim QLD
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh, looking for blamed for the grand final losses. Ok
1960: Melbourne were just a better side (so I've been told)
1964: why was David Norman up the ground, dragging Crompton with him? Supposedly, the first thing Norm Smith said to Crompton was "what were you doing in the forward line?"
1966: everybody remembers Ted Potter's sloppy handpass that led to That point, but Wayne Richardson missed a very getable shot earlier. (As an aside, Ian Graham always says he was dark on Tuddy for not kicking it to him in the dying seconds).
1970: Tuddy collecting McKenna didn't help, but both Richardson brothers were spectating and appealing for a free kick after a marking contest in our forward line, and we all know what Jezza did next
1977: hard to fault in such a great game, but Kink should have taken the ball in dying moments from Chris Bond who could barely kick 30mtrs. It was within Kink's range. Tom Hafey overworked the team on the training track before the replay
1979: Russell Olsen being knocked out didn't help, dubious boundary umpiring was the killer
1980: clearly the best side won
1981: Craig Stewart missed an easy set shot at the start of the last qtr
2002: soft free to Lynch. But even after that Licca could never make the distance from his set shot. Someone should have run past or provided a lead (where were you Bucks?)
2003: that one was sad
2011: Malthouse should have moved Reid. Cloke and Dawes missed set shots at crucial times
There, all our GF woes have been exorcised. Of the 10 there were only 3 that we weren't a chance. Oh well they say that it's character building.
In keeping with theme of this thread, I am sure that we could re-remember all of them to blame MM somehow (and not just 2011). If we were really creative we could blame Bucks for them too (and not just 2002), in keeping with other threads.
_________________
Magpies forever.
First Colligwood game: Western Oval 1960 |
|
|
|
|
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | Piesnchess wrote: | | Cam wrote: | | E wrote: | | Cam wrote: | There is no such thing is a mini dynasty unless you are talking about those shrunken little KISS replica LPs.
There is a successful team, and a dynasty. Not even the Brisbane Lions of 2001-2-3 were a dynasty. The Cats maybe 07-09-11 that is sustained greatness. The last true footy dynasty were the Hawks of the 80s-90s... 83 86 88 89 91 and before them the Demons of the 50s... 55-56-57-59-60-64
I mean Hawthorn.. Look at the gaps between flags
1961, 10 years
1971, 5
1976, 2
1978, 5
1983, 3
1986, 2
1988, 1
1989, 2
1991, 17
2008, 5
2013, 1
2014, 1
2015
Before 1959 Collingwood won 13 flags, after 1959 Hawthorn has won 13 flags. Hawthorn is the Collingwood of the television era. As sickening as that is to type. |
if you combine Collingwood from 1900 - 1960 and Hawthorn from 1961-2015 - you get the Yankees! |
and Man U! |
NOW that the piss and poo are on 13 flags, they wont win another one for 32 years, just as we didn't. Ol bad luck 13 number, will get em too. |
A lot of our bad luck has been self inflicted due to either poor management, planning or just damn stupid pride/pig headiness. The Hawks, in more recent years i.e. since the don scott incident, have been far and away been much better in all of those area compared to us - at least on field. There is something in what they say 'You make your own luck'. |
Ah, Jack, you and those hawks again, eh ??? |
have we located the lost dog??
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If anyone's wondering why Malthouse is still bitter about the handover, let's keep in mind that he was effectively sacked that day in 2009. His departure was merely delayed for two seasons. This wasn't a performance-based ultimatum or anything; he was given a time and date. His choice, effectively, was 'leave now' or 'leave in two years and take this highly speculative redundancy package (i.e. the three years as 'director of coaching').
Fair enough, right? Coaches get sacked all the time! But Malthouse thought he was taking the team in the right direction, and history proved him correct. At that point, winning premierships in 2010 and 2011 should have been considered the best case scenario by all and sundry; but, as it was, it would have been something of a disaster for the administration as it would have made a mockery of the arrangement they'd made. In a way, they were lucky we lost the 2011 grand final as it made Malthouse's departure seem more defensible.
Anyway, the past is the past, and Malthouse's performance at Carlton perhaps suggests that he left at the right time. Bitterness isn't an attractive quality in anyone, and he'd probably be doing himself a favour if he got over it (and the same goes for his critics on here). But let's not rewrite history and pretend that he has no reason to feel screwed over or that the handover was something he freely signed up to. For me, he's like any player who pulls on a black and white jumper for twelve years – he was a servant of the club for many years, and a quality one at that. Maybe a bit of respect wouldn't go astray.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | If anyone's wondering why Malthouse is still bitter about the handover, let's keep in mind that he was effectively sacked that day in 2009. His departure was merely delayed for two seasons. This wasn't a performance-based ultimatum or anything; he was given a time and date. His choice, effectively, was 'leave now' or 'leave in two years and take this highly speculative redundancy package (i.e. the three years as 'director of coaching').
Fair enough, right? Coaches get sacked all the time! But Malthouse thought he was taking the team in the right direction, and history proved him correct. At that point, winning premierships in 2010 and 2011 should have been considered the best case scenario by all and sundry; but, as it was, it would have been something of a disaster for the administration as it would have made a mockery of the arrangement they'd made. In a way, they were lucky we lost the 2011 grand final as it made Malthouse's departure seem more defensible.
Anyway, the past is the past, and Malthouse's performance at Carlton perhaps suggests that he left at the right time. Bitterness isn't an attractive quality in anyone, and he'd probably be doing himself a favour if he got over it (and the same goes for his critics on here). But let's not rewrite history and pretend that he has no reason to feel screwed over or that the handover was something he freely signed up to. For me, he's like any player who pulls on a black and white jumper for twelve years – he was a servant of the club for many years, and a quality one at that. Maybe a bit of respect wouldn't go astray. |
Hear hear!! |
|
|
|
|
The Prototype
Paint my face with a good-for-nothin smile.
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Easy way to avoid hearing Mick and whatever "bitterness" he has is to just ignore any soundbytes and reading any articles published with his quotes in them. I think that Mick has earned the right to his opinion, being an ex-premiership coach, and all.
Sometimes it is best to leave the past in the past, but as seen by many in the media now, and even those on forums and social media it can be tough letting go. I think as long as Buckley is a coach anywhere there will always be someone looking to get Mick's views on anything due to the handover and all.
You don't have to agree with Mick, or even like what he has to say, but it's easy to avoid anything he says and does by just not reading, listening, or viewing things where he's on.
Plus I think there will be more from Mick as the show The Recruit comes on air, there will be interviews promoting it and I am sure they will ask about Buckley, Collingwood and even Carlton.
_________________
Ðavâgé
https://www.facebook.com/davehardingphotography
https://www.facebook.com/Davage |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | If anyone's wondering why Malthouse is still bitter about the handover, let's keep in mind that he was effectively sacked that day in 2009. His departure was merely delayed for two seasons. This wasn't a performance-based ultimatum or anything; he was given a time and date. His choice, effectively, was 'leave now' or 'leave in two years and take this highly speculative redundancy package (i.e. the three years as 'director of coaching').
Fair enough, right? Coaches get sacked all the time! But Malthouse thought he was taking the team in the right direction, and history proved him correct. At that point, winning premierships in 2010 and 2011 should have been considered the best case scenario by all and sundry; but, as it was, it would have been something of a disaster for the administration as it would have made a mockery of the arrangement they'd made. In a way, they were lucky we lost the 2011 grand final as it made Malthouse's departure seem more defensible.
Anyway, the past is the past, and Malthouse's performance at Carlton perhaps suggests that he left at the right time. Bitterness isn't an attractive quality in anyone, and he'd probably be doing himself a favour if he got over it (and the same goes for his critics on here). But let's not rewrite history and pretend that he has no reason to feel screwed over or that the handover was something he freely signed up to. For me, he's like any player who pulls on a black and white jumper for twelve years – he was a servant of the club for many years, and a quality one at that. Maybe a bit of respect wouldn't go astray. |
Sensible post David.
However, you have to remember that Mick was lucky he didn't get sacked earlier in his Collingwood coaching career. Apparently at the end of 2005, the board were on the verge of sacking him, but Eddie of all people defended him and begged the board to keep him on as coach and allow him to rebuild the team after poor years in 2004 and 2005.
Malthouse was under no obligation to sign the contract and sacking him in the week of round 17 or round 18 2009 when the coaching handover announcement was made would have been embarrassing considering we were in red-hot form after a poor start to the year where some calls for him to be sacked were made by some supporters.
I never advocated him to be sacked at in 2009 due to his solid coaching career with us, but I certainly pondered over the fact that he was nearly at the club for ten years but hadn't delivered the ultimate success that we had been craving for 20 years and supporters were becoming a little impatient and questioned whether he would be the man to lead us to glory despite his solid and consistent record of sustained success in the finals.
I'm also adamant that we wouldn't have won the flag in 2010 and been a major contender in 2011 if it wasn't for that coaching handover announcement in 2009. It finally forced Mick to seek out the trade market and be proactive in our quest to winning the flag rather than being reactive and cautious which I sensed in the years before that. In the summer of 2009/2010, we recruited Luke Ball and Darren Jolly and the rest as they say is history as we won the flag in 2010 and blitzed the competition in sensational style.
Although at the same time, I do feel that the doubt that was being casted over Mick's future at the latter stage of the 2011 season proved to be a major disruption in our quest to go back-to-back and ultimately it was one of the many reasons why we couldn't produce the goods again along with the obvious factors of injuries and fatigue that started to set in during late August and September when we need to peak.
I wasn't bothered by the fact that Mick walked away at the end of 2011 and didn't stay on in his new role as "director of coach" but his vindictive conduct throughout the latter stages of 2011 and which continually grew after his departure will always leave a bitter taste in my mouth. I always suspected he joined Carlton because he wanted to prove Eddie and the board wrong and wanted 'revenge' so to speak, but of course it handsomely backfired as Carlton were declining and Mick's tactics were beginning to become outdated.
I don't disregard Mick's record with us, because he was outstanding for the most part. When he first arrived, we were a basket case in need of a serious rebuild and Mick was able to restore massive respectability to the club and make it a force again with a lot help behind the scenes as well.
Mick's ultimate self-destruction at Carlton made me believe we dodged a bullet with him after 2011. I think things would have been disastrous behind the scenes had he remained at the club in Nathan's shadow and ultimately a massive fracture within the playing group would have perpetuated itself very quickly with him there. That's not to say that Bucks hasn't had his own issues with some players; and whether he's the right man for the job in the long-term with a young list now remains to be seen but I want him to desperately succeed but I remain skeptical of his coaching prospects at the moment.
I truly believe Eddie wanted things to work with Malthouse and Bucks but in the end it didn't transpire the way he'd envisaged and in the process Malthouse became an isolated and angry figure in a messy episode. The Malthouse/McGuire combination worked well for a decade so it was sad how it ended, but we need to move on from it now and focus on the future, but in the end Mick isn't going to coach and any regrets we have about the past won't shape what we produce in the near future.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
