I dont think anyone is suggesting Malthouse is not a good coach with multiple flags to his name and credit belongs where it is due, quite the contrary.BAM! (shhhh) wrote:Not to disagree, as the Saints certainly made their contribution to the style that the Magpies play today, but this is a big oversimplification - how much credit do we really deserve for Malthouse gameplan?Moods wrote:+1 - been saying the exact same thing for ages. Malthouse portrays himself as some tactical genius by talking about military attacks and history books. Due to my wife being a fanatical pies fan I see nearly as many pies games live as I do saints games. Malthouse was a fanatical old school, man on man type coach up until last year. RL changed the way footy was played in 2009, and should have been lauded as the genius. 09 was our year and we fluffed it. 2010, we were inferior to the pies and he somehow manufactured a way to make us competitive against them when no-one else could in that drawn GF. Even then he pulled Malthouse's pants down I reckon tactically.Teflon wrote:I read tonight in the train rag MX: Collingwood and Malthouse double page spread all about how their belief in their "system" and players who perform "roles" is now their focus to maintaining what Blake Caracella called "The Box" in reference to their game plan. Malthouse goes on to say that the days of players being picked over other players purely on ability are over - according to him, Collingwood adopted "team" over individuals. For example, Malthouse went on to say Medhurst as a player against Blair was more experienced, hard bodied with a few more tricks ....BUT Blair was selected each week and along with Mcaffer, Wellingham etc because they "bought into the system"....sound familiar?????? aka they play their roles in the team.
I got the feel while reading this that not only has our game plan but our 2009 language (we talked systems not so long ago..) been well and truly ripped off and no one has publicly really ackowledged this. Sure, Malthouse tells all "his game plan" was years in the making....reality is they adopted the fwd press in earnest only in 2010 (I suspect after studying us ad nauseum...Buckley was already a Lyon fan..).
Point is, no Saints player found it "not fun" when we won 19 straight,no fan did and the media marvelled. Any talk of "stifling players" and it not being fun is horseshyte. Winners are grinners - thats all there is and you do what you can to achieve that.
I'm not bagging Malthouse b/c I reckon he is a great coach, and credit to him for being able to be man enough to change his philosophy. Anyone who has played footy will tell you it's great fun playing well and getting a kick - but the most fun comes from winning.
I will be extremely disappointed if the saints let Lyon go in the next 5 years. Whatever happens, I am convinced that our poor recent showings has nothing to do with the coach or the nonsense about an unenjoyable game plan.
In 2009, we'd typically play a 17-18 man 3qtr press. That structure's fingerprints are all over the magpies forward press which often ends at the halfway mark... but there's plenty else going on...
Collingwood's rebound game was under development for years prior - they led the league in scores from turnovers in 2009 as well as 2010. The difference in 2010 was it wasn't their only avenue. Similarly, the allong the wing style of play wasn't ripped from us, Collingwood were getting criticised for it at the same time we were being lauded for the same thing.
The full team zones were successful for Hawthorn in 2008, how much do we owe to that structural adaptation?
Floodbusting handball's were used by West Coast to attack the Sydney crowds - how much do Geelong owe to West Coast? How much did the Hawthorn cluster owe to Sydney's onball floods? What did Sydney owe to Port Adelaide and the 6 man forward zone on kick ins? What did Port Adelaide owe to the West Coast Eagles loose man tactics under a certain Mick Malthouse?
Hawthorn won a flag on a single innovation. St Kilda almost did the same. One of the things that excites me right now about AFL is watching teams attempting to innovate (Richmond and their bomb the middle to run the corridor is certainly exciting).
Isaac Newton once said to Robert Hooke that if he had seen further than most men it was by standing on the shoulders of giants. Credit where due, Lyon deserves praise, Malthouse is a premiership coach (again).
I also note with interest that the Collingwood game plan MINUS the fwd press (aka the boundary riding approach that Buckley denigrated and being the rebound kings etc) was up until 2010 roundly unsuccesful. They were certainly struggling to contain us and in finals had been found wanting.
In short something changed drastically for the pies.....after looking at us in 09 it aint hard to see the fwd press is what the Pies introduced and that, along with some smart recruiting and development of kids, is probably the single biggest factor in their turn around to dominance.
There is no shame in saying Malthouse absolutely looked at what we did in 09, borrowed enormously from it (as a good coach would) then added that missing ingredient to his previous philosophy and created the Pies version. Facts are - how much did Lyon contribute.....Id argue a fair bit.
Ofcourse all games plans are evolutionary, the shift for Pies and the leaning off us has been mentioned by Buckley, just as Lyon has recognised the Hawks rolling zone as a precursor to Saints Footy...and so on...thats evolution.
Is it really an over simplification to say the Pies current game plans' single most potent element (not its boundary line hugging or even previous rebounding skill) is its fwd press addition? and that this was enormously ripped off from St Kilda's dominant 09?. I dont think it is.
I wont quote Newton, ...but I will say sometimes things are.....just as they appear. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......fair chance its a duck......I can hear Mick quacking with mirth now.....