Malthouse hits out at cricket leadership

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/malthouse-hits-out-at-cricket-leadership-20110925-1krqz.html

He's living in the past a bit though still referring to the ruling body as the ACB.

Agree about the matey aspect. They alluded to this on the 'Offsiders' when talking about Clarke's endorsement of Rixon suggesting that the last thing we need is another mate as coach.

Bit ironic of Mick though given that he played some of his favourites beyond their use by date.

I reckon the Aus job would suit Feltch a lot more than the Indian job.

In AFL each team has a set number of players on a list ...players are retired "too early" for list management purposes ...Cricket does not have those restrictions.

The hindsight of the Healy/Gilchrist selection is amazing. Healy was never a favorite in WA but there was no outcry over here at his continued selection in the Test team (over an adopted favorite son).

Gilly's start as a Test batsman (80 odd in his first innings and that partnership with NLWL to sink the Pak's in Hobart in his second Test) made Healy's end seem a bit delayed. But maybe Gilly needed to wait that long to find his way as a batsman.

SOme good, some average and some obvious observations in there.

However on this:

Malthouse questions whether Cricket Australia would have reviewed Ricky Ponting's leadership had the former captain reportedly not opted to stand aside after the World Cup.

it is hardly CA who is picking Ricky as captain is it - CA pick the selectors only.

embee wrote:In AFL each team has a set number of players on a list ...players are retired "too early" for list management purposes ...Cricket does not have those restrictions.

The hindsight of the Healy/Gilchrist selection is amazing. Healy was never a favorite in WA but there was no outcry over here at his continued selection in the Test team (over an adopted favorite son).

Gilly's start as a Test batsman (80 odd in his first innings and that partnership with NLWL to sink the Pak's in Hobart in his second Test) made Healy's end seem a bit delayed. But maybe Gilly needed to wait that long to find his way as a batsman.

Interesting though Embee that wicketkeeping is the one position in the team where we perhaps do procrastinate a bit. You could argue that Gilly lost some of his prime years because Healy's career was prolonged and there's been a history around the world of keepers being kept (pardon the pun) despite there being worthy replacements in the wings. It's very tough for the reserve keepers unlike batsmen who have more options available to them.

Also think that Malty's reference to the oft repeated idea of being harder to get out than get in is a bit of a myth now. There was a time when there were very few changes but it's a bit different now. In fact if you have any pretensions to spin a ball and are vaguely in Hilditch's vicinity you've been bloody hard pressed not to get a gig at some stage.

JGK wrote:

it is hardly CA who is picking Ricky as captain is it - CA pick the selectors only.

I think the CA board appoints the national captain, or at least ratifies the selectors' choice.

Healy was very good in the 98-99 Ashes. In hindsight, he probably wishes he'd called it a day after that series along with Tubby Taylor. As it was, his form declined rapidly on the West Indies tour a few months later, he limped through another, virtually washed out series in Sri Lanka and a one off test against Zimbabwe, before asking the selectors for a farewell test at the Gabba against Pakistan, and (rightly, imo) being denied it.

I reckon Ponting could find himself in a similar situation. Not everyone can have a happy ending, and Ponting's desperation to find one could lead to him being axed after the South Africa series.

Personally, IDGAF what Malthouse thinks or says, particularly about cricket.

Dunno how much cricket Mickey M'house played as a young bloke, if any, but if the Western Bulldogs can appoint a Geelong park footballer as their coach (and what was that story last week about NZ Cricket appointing a lawn bowler?) there are worse choices that could be made, esp by CA who have form in the 'bad choice' stakes.

Healy's batting decline was more obvious than his keeping. At the time of the change Gilly wasn't yet anywhere near as good as a keeper but in his first two Tests he played exactly the kind of innings needed, the kind that Healy used to have in him but plainly no longer. The changeover was timed right, which that kind of move rarely is..

embee wrote:In AFL each team has a set number of players on a list ...players are retired "too early" for list management purposes ...Cricket does not have those restrictions.

The hindsight of the Healy/Gilchrist selection is amazing. Healy was never a favorite in WA but there was no outcry over here at his continued selection in the Test team (over an adopted favorite son).

Gilly's start as a Test batsman (80 odd in his first innings and that partnership with NLWL to sink the Pak's in Hobart in his second Test) made Healy's end seem a bit delayed. But maybe Gilly needed to wait that long to find his way as a batsman.

One of the few upsides of exile in Chip Central was seeing Gilly's first knock v the Stanlanders...from memory he was bowled Chucktar - who had gone round the wicket (the first of a few times Gilly knocked over in such a manner)...it was as fine a debut knock as you could expect to see....TGM also bowled peerlessly in that match

Fred Nerk wrote:Dunno how much cricket Mickey M'house played as a young bloke, if any, but if the Western Bulldogs can appoint a Geelong park footballer as their coach (and what was that story last week about NZ Cricket appointing a lawn bowler?) there are worse choices that could be made, esp by CA who have form in the 'bad choice' stakes.

Healy's batting decline was more obvious than his keeping. At the time of the change Gilly wasn't yet anywhere near as good as a keeper but in his first two Tests he played exactly the kind of innings needed, the kind that Healy used to have in him but plainly no longer. The changeover was timed right, which that kind of move rarely is..

Thus appoint a fill-in until Charlesworth finishes ap after London.

I only opened this to find out who the feck Malthouse is. Now I find I still don't know and don't really give a feck.

AFL coach , taips

been a coach since the mid 80's

Currently coaches the team Red supports but he must have some Saffie blood as she doesnt like him even though he's about to coach them in another Grand Final

embee wrote:AFL coach , taips

been a coach since the mid 80's

Currently coaches the team Red supports but he must have some Saffie blood as she doesnt like him even though he's about to coach them in another Grand Final

So what sodding relevance does this have to cricket? Is it a slow news day or somethink?

taipan wrote:I only opened this to find out who the feck Malthouse is. Now I find I still don't know and don't really give a feck.

Well all i can feckin' say is how feckin' sorry I am to have wasted your precious feckin' time.

Argus asked him his opinion as part of the review so Malthouse decided to tell the world what he thought

Fred Nerk wrote:

taipan wrote:I only opened this to find out who the feck Malthouse is. Now I find I still don't know and don't really give a feck.

Well all i can feckin' say is how feckin' sorry I am to have wasted your precious feckin' time.

Good, I am glad to see you fecking Aussies are finally learning your fecking place.

''In the AFL, if a player is performing poorly, someone who is in form replaces him almost immediately. So who is calling the shots in cricket?'' Malthouse said.

Unless, of course, the bloke who is performing poorly is your full-back, and he's making some hitherto-middling-man look like a world beater, in the third quarter of a grand final, which was hanging in the balance up to that point, against a team that had lost their most potent attacking weapon in the first quarter. Then you leave himthere until the game is beyond salvation, right?

Mick, you were calling the shots on Saturday, and you screwed the pooch in a big way. Not that I'm complaining. Collingwood's last fifteen grand finals have yielded 2 wins, 2 draws, and 11 losses, and you've added three of the final category.

It is clear Mick is just like everyone else and hates the feck out of the Scum.

He just happened to be in a position where he could feck them royally

Well played Mick

Ladies and gentlemen, today the role of Red will be played by Woody...

F%%k off Malty. Good riddance!

Charming

Collingwood fans can only hope that the bloke sitting next to Mick on Saturday was being ignored when he was telling him all his coaching masterstrokes which Mick obviously ignored

embee wrote:Charming

Collingwood fans can only hope that the bloke sitting next to Mick on Saturday was being ignored when he was telling him all his coaching masterstrokes which Mick obviously ignored

Hubrisitc Mick likes to listen best to himself.

Did Nathan rearrange Mick's whiteboard last year when Mick was off getting some Hot Chips ?