Whether or not Collingwood win this year’s premiership, the club’s controversial coaching succession plan is bound to deny Mick Malthouse of something he deserves. Should the Pies win the Grand Final, he’ll be denied the opportunity to attempt the history-making feat of winning three consecutive flags.
Should the Pies lose the Grand Final, he’ll be denied the opportunity to gain redemption for not topping off such a dominant season with a flag, à la Mark Thompson and Geelong in 2009.
It’s a sad situation, honestly.
We are talking about a man in his 28th consecutive year as a senior coach, with three premierships to his name, who is showing no signs of losing touch with the modern game. A man who tactically took the game to a new level last year. A man who should command enormous respect.
A man who right now is leading a team with the highest percentage of any team in 100 years.
Malthouse is more than worthy of being a senior AFL coach in 2012, that is simply unquestionable. And when you hear some of Malthouse’s public comments, which have included questioning whether he’ll have a meaningful role at Collinwood next year, it’s easy to feel like the Pies are showing enormous disrespect.
However, there is one small fact that’s getting lost in this ongoing discussion – the fact Malthouse actually agreed to this arrangement and signed the contract.
If Malthouse was so unhappy handing the reigns over to Nathan Buckley, why did he agree to a handover? If Malthouse was so unhappy staying at Collingwood in a non-senior coach role, why did he agree to be director of coaching? If Malthouse really didn’t like the prospect of stepping aside after winning two premierships, why did he agree to a deal that allowed such a scenario?
Mick’s appearance on The Footy Show last week no doubt generated a lot of sympathy towards him and the situation he finds himself in. But the question has to be asked: does he really have a right to go on a highly-watched TV program and publicly question a process he himself signed off on?
And further, does he really have a right to send senior officials at the club into damage control, as was the case after his Footy Show appearance?
President Eddie McGuire and chief executive Gary Pert were both forced to come out publicly and attempt to reassure the footy public that things were running far more smoothly than what Malthouse had depicted. It was hard not to feel sorry for these two men given the obvious gap between what the coach was saying and the club.
Malthouse is a great coach. He has three premierships to his name and sits comfortably in the top echelon of the current crop of senior coaches. For all this he deserves respect.
But he agreed to the succession plan. He even signed a contract stating as much. If he truly had a problem with it, he should’ve never let it get to that point.
It’s too late for him to play the sympathy card now.