Resource Beyond the "66 Game" Rebuild

[HereComesJuddy]

We didn't have a good culture and a culture enforced by a good group of leaders which sucks for us through this rebuild. We really could have done with a Luke Hodge or Jordan Lewis. Probably an area we have failed in with this thought we did have our own. The rebuild has had nothing to do with Malthouse who is the greatest excuse and scape goat by fans, former players and former board members this club has ever seen which says a lot for a club who has had a lot of them over the past 20 years. It's an unpopular opinion but Malthouse was good for Carlton. He exposed all the reason why we were failing, he exposed weak individuals, weak cultural areas and he forced the cultural and talent rebuild we have gone through the last 7 years. Yep he cracked a few eggs but that had to happen because if it didn't nothing may have ever been done about it.

IMO the players who went were the ones who were harbouring the poor cultural traits and that was a good thing they were gone despite their footballing talents. IMO throwing Ratten into a coaching position raw like we did saw the negative development of players which could not be undone by the following coaches. Giving players too much authority, not enough discipline, creating disciplinary issues. We knew this was going on under Ratten. These issues could not be undone and that's why a lot of the former regime had to go to change that culture and get this out of the club. Fortunately for us guys like Curnow and Simpson (should have been our captains) stayed on and have been a part of what we are building. Players who were not harbouring the poor cultural traits of the past and had the right attitudes.

Culture has been a massive issue for us, it is the number one reason why Malthouse and most of the other coaches have been short lived failures. Culture determines how you play, how you compete, how selfless you are, how you train and how you prepare. Culture encourages professionalise, sacrifice, discipline and hard competitive football. Things that have been absent at Carlton for 20 years. IMO our culture died way back when the Kernahan, Bradley, Silvagni era ended. After that things went toxic at Carlton. Ratten turned up and changed things a bit but he made far too many mistakes culturally and developmental. He wasn't hard enough on discipline and authority but he was a young rookie coach who was deplorably under resourced and out of his depth so no wonder!

People are the same all their lives, young adults are no different to kids. You bring kids up where there is no discipline, hardly told "no" and let them have too much authority, then you take that away with a change of parenting tact, start trying to do things right, what happens? This kids crack it, hate the parents, rebel and cause a lot of grief for everyone. Tantrum city. Compare that to kids who are brought up like this from day dot with discipline and the right level of parental authority, they have no issues with it. It's comparable to footballers and how the coach develops them...

Malthouse, one of the games most successful coaches, not long off a grand final appearance, clearly still at a minimum a better than average coach, comes to Carlton... A know disciplinarian and strong on authority unlike the previous coach. Had no issues with his former teams/players, had a lot of success with them, seemed to have good professional relationships with the players. Comes to Carlton and everything is different. Why? For the reasons I mentioned above about kids. Players are the same. The culture of the club that had been manifesting for over a decade could not be changed without changing the people/players who harboured it. The damage done to the players because of how they had been brought up (developed) under the previous regime could not be undone. They were too far gone. This is why our players reacted poorly and responded poorly to Malthouse and The Collingwood players responded very well and were very successful under him. Their players were brought up and developed right, ours weren't and they were at a stage where that could not be undone. To change our culture and to develop the next crop properly, those players had to go. If not they would be the rotten apples that would send the whole bunch off and around we would go again.

The difference between Malthouse at Collingwood and Malthouse at Carlton was that he had brought those players up (developed them) at Collingwood where at Carlton they were already mature and brought up (developed) by a different coach who had done a poor job of it. The poor culture that was at the club prior to Ratten's arrival and was something no one could not get rid of. He was a raw rookie coach who didn't know what he was doing, who should not have got the top job in the first place and was poorly under resourced by the football department and board at the time so not all his fault. Malthouse coming to Carlton unearthed a toxic culture at the club and that came out in how some of our players responded. It unearthed what players harboured these undesirable traits from years of poor development and being a part of a poor club culture which was a long way from where a professional AFL club should be. These players lacked the capabilities to change, they were too far gone, so as part of our rebuild they had to go. You don't want the current generation being like that.

This is why Teague had to go, he was making the same development mistakes Ratten had. It's going to take some solid work from Voss and co to undo this and hope there aren't too many tantrums.

People can continue to blame Malthouse and scape goat him all they like, truth is hiring a coach like that exposed a deep cultural and development problem that had existed at the club for over a decade and had already embedder itself deep within most of our playing list. It didn't help that our list was terrible at the time, as another poster pointed out, we had no talented youth, there were only a couple of players under 25 at the time who would go on to become good AFL footballers. Our list was one of the worst in the AFL despite a few good top end talents.

Had we got Alistair Clarkson to Carlton at the time instead of Malthouse, the result would have been exactly the same and he would have been our scapegoat. We would have made excuses for our club and players and blamed Clarkson. Getting in a coach who knew what he was doing and tried to do the right things and undo the damage might have upset a few players and cause a few tantrums but it was the best thing to happen to the club in recent times. It desperately needed to happen. The rebuild and the cultural clean out it brought on had to happen for this club to ever become any serious premiership threat and move forward.

Our clean out has not been just about replacing old with young and poor talent with high talent. It's been about cleaning out that old culture that has seen us repeatedly fail and replacing it with a new one and that has meant that some of the older players with football talent had to go. Part of the reason it's going to take at least 7 years to achieve success from this.

And no SOS did not recycle too many players who were cheap and no good. He picked them because we needed some senior bodies and at those picks they were the best available. He was also managing the total player payments so that our long term players weren't paid too much too early, this is why despite paying some new recruits big money, we don't have salary cap issues now. You want to take a look at Hawthorn, Richmond in particular and have a look at how many cheap O'Shea types they sat on their list while they were building up to their premiership dynasty. Heaps.

It's contradicting to say we played too many kids but we drafted too many mature aged duds. The alternative to drafting mature aged players who could not play was to draft kids who could not play which is a whole lot worse. End of the day those players are not important, they come in, fill a spot and go out and have no bearing on the final outcome. Again it's about focusing on what we have, not our misses and who we have had who couldn't play. They aren't relevant, there are always going to be these types on the list along the way, every club has them. IMO what we have is pretty good and we have done a full rebuild in pretty good time.

Bolton had his ideas and in the end they weren't very good ideas and he's gone because of that.

This is the year where we find out if we have come out the other side of the rebuild with enough talent and a fresh new and strong culture that leads to success.

This! 100% agree with the culture issue also. Great post G

 

[thylacine60]

We didn't have a good culture and a culture enforced by a good group of leaders which sucks for us through this rebuild. We really could have done with a Luke Hodge or Jordan Lewis. Probably an area we have failed in with this thought we did have our own. The rebuild has had nothing to do with Malthouse who is the greatest excuse and scape goat by fans, former players and former board members this club has ever seen which says a lot for a club who has had a lot of them over the past 20 years. It's an unpopular opinion but Malthouse was good for Carlton. He exposed all the reason why we were failing, he exposed weak individuals, weak cultural areas and he forced the cultural and talent rebuild we have gone through the last 7 years. Yep he cracked a few eggs but that had to happen because if it didn't nothing may have ever been done about it.

IMO the players who went were the ones who were harbouring the poor cultural traits and that was a good thing they were gone despite their footballing talents. IMO throwing Ratten into a coaching position raw like we did saw the negative development of players which could not be undone by the following coaches. Giving players too much authority, not enough discipline, creating disciplinary issues. We knew this was going on under Ratten. These issues could not be undone and that's why a lot of the former regime had to go to change that culture and get this out of the club. Fortunately for us guys like Curnow and Simpson (should have been our captains) stayed on and have been a part of what we are building. Players who were not harbouring the poor cultural traits of the past and had the right attitudes.

Culture has been a massive issue for us, it is the number one reason why Malthouse and most of the other coaches have been short lived failures. Culture determines how you play, how you compete, how selfless you are, how you train and how you prepare. Culture encourages professionalise, sacrifice, discipline and hard competitive football. Things that have been absent at Carlton for 20 years. IMO our culture died way back when the Kernahan, Bradley, Silvagni era ended. After that things went toxic at Carlton. Ratten turned up and changed things a bit but he made far too many mistakes culturally and developmental. He wasn't hard enough on discipline and authority but he was a young rookie coach who was deplorably under resourced and out of his depth so no wonder!

People are the same all their lives, young adults are no different to kids. You bring kids up where there is no discipline, hardly told "no" and let them have too much authority, then you take that away with a change of parenting tact, start trying to do things right, what happens? This kids crack it, hate the parents, rebel and cause a lot of grief for everyone. Tantrum city. Compare that to kids who are brought up like this from day dot with discipline and the right level of parental authority, they have no issues with it. It's comparable to footballers and how the coach develops them...

Malthouse, one of the games most successful coaches, not long off a grand final appearance, clearly still at a minimum a better than average coach, comes to Carlton... A know disciplinarian and strong on authority unlike the previous coach. Had no issues with his former teams/players, had a lot of success with them, seemed to have good professional relationships with the players. Comes to Carlton and everything is different. Why? For the reasons I mentioned above about kids. Players are the same. The culture of the club that had been manifesting for over a decade could not be changed without changing the people/players who harboured it. The damage done to the players because of how they had been brought up (developed) under the previous regime could not be undone. They were too far gone. This is why our players reacted poorly and responded poorly to Malthouse and The Collingwood players responded very well and were very successful under him. Their players were brought up and developed right, ours weren't and they were at a stage where that could not be undone. To change our culture and to develop the next crop properly, those players had to go. If not they would be the rotten apples that would send the whole bunch off and around we would go again.

The difference between Malthouse at Collingwood and Malthouse at Carlton was that he had brought those players up (developed them) at Collingwood where at Carlton they were already mature and brought up (developed) by a different coach who had done a poor job of it. The poor culture that was at the club prior to Ratten's arrival and was something no one could not get rid of. He was a raw rookie coach who didn't know what he was doing, who should not have got the top job in the first place and was poorly under resourced by the football department and board at the time so not all his fault. Malthouse coming to Carlton unearthed a toxic culture at the club and that came out in how some of our players responded. It unearthed what players harboured these undesirable traits from years of poor development and being a part of a poor club culture which was a long way from where a professional AFL club should be. These players lacked the capabilities to change, they were too far gone, so as part of our rebuild they had to go. You don't want the current generation being like that.

This is why Teague had to go, he was making the same development mistakes Ratten had. It's going to take some solid work from Voss and co to undo this and hope there aren't too many tantrums.

People can continue to blame Malthouse and scape goat him all they like, truth is hiring a coach like that exposed a deep cultural and development problem that had existed at the club for over a decade and had already embedder itself deep within most of our playing list. It didn't help that our list was terrible at the time, as another poster pointed out, we had no talented youth, there were only a couple of players under 25 at the time who would go on to become good AFL footballers. Our list was one of the worst in the AFL despite a few good top end talents.

Had we got Alistair Clarkson to Carlton at the time instead of Malthouse, the result would have been exactly the same and he would have been our scapegoat. We would have made excuses for our club and players and blamed Clarkson. Getting in a coach who knew what he was doing and tried to do the right things and undo the damage might have upset a few players and cause a few tantrums but it was the best thing to happen to the club in recent times. It desperately needed to happen. The rebuild and the cultural clean out it brought on had to happen for this club to ever become any serious premiership threat and move forward.

Our clean out has not been just about replacing old with young and poor talent with high talent. It's been about cleaning out that old culture that has seen us repeatedly fail and replacing it with a new one and that has meant that some of the older players with football talent had to go. Part of the reason it's going to take at least 7 years to achieve success from this.

And no SOS did not recycle too many players who were cheap and no good. He picked them because we needed some senior bodies and at those picks they were the best available. He was also managing the total player payments so that our long term players weren't paid too much too early, this is why despite paying some new recruits big money, we don't have salary cap issues now. You want to take a look at Hawthorn, Richmond in particular and have a look at how many cheap O'Shea types they sat on their list while they were building up to their premiership dynasty. Heaps.

It's contradicting to say we played too many kids but we drafted too many mature aged duds. The alternative to drafting mature aged players who could not play was to draft kids who could not play which is a whole lot worse. End of the day those players are not important, they come in, fill a spot and go out and have no bearing on the final outcome. Again it's about focusing on what we have, not our misses and who we have had who couldn't play. They aren't relevant, there are always going to be these types on the list along the way, every club has them. IMO what we have is pretty good and we have done a full rebuild in pretty good time.

Bolton had his ideas and in the end they weren't very good ideas and he's gone because of that.

This is the year where we find out if we have come out the other side of the rebuild with enough talent and a fresh new and strong culture that leads to success.

 

[Arr0w]

Hopefully we don't pin culture to winning or losing

Hawks supposedly had great culture during their 3peat/Clarkson era.

Clarkson remained but the quality declined

Did the so called great culture change, still under the Clarkson period?

It's all about the quality of the list

 

[Milshouse]

It still perplexes me why people think retaining Ratten would have resulted in some sort success post 2012. Writing was on the wall list wise a long way out.

It destabilized the group, that eventually unwound the teee amigos and murphs captaincy, aka malthouse

 

[Doro]

It destabilized the group, that eventually unwound the teee amigos and murphs captaincy, aka malthouse

I'm not defending Malthouse. Just questioning the extrapolation that retaining Ratten would have resulted in anything better than the zenith year of 2011. That was the last year of peak Judd and the farewell of elite Murphy. No KPs. Downward spiral was happening anyway, with many areas of the club far from optimal function.

 

[Juddernaut08]

I'm not defending Malthouse. Just questioning the extrapolation that retaining Ratten would have resulted in anything better than the zenith year of 2011. That was the last year of peak Judd and the farewell of elite Murphy. No KPs. Downward spiral was happening anyway, with many areas of the club far from optimal function.

We may not have:
-drafted a short term fix in Blaine Boekhorst
-lost Eddie coming into his prime years
-shipped off our trio of small forwards for peanuts, just as the AFL landscape was moving towards pressure forwards

 

[Doro]

We may not have:
-drafted a short term fix in Blaine Boekhorst
-lost Eddie coming into his prime years
-shipped off our trio of small forwards for peanuts, just as the AFL landscape was moving towards pressure forwards

Boekhorst was a Rogers man crush, who Ratten had recommended for the job. No-one seems to be able to explain what happened with Eddie including the man himself. Garlett was the same on again /off again player at the Dees that he was with Carlton. Yarran was already starting the off field downward spiral by the time Ratten left.

 

[katmanblue]

It destabilized the group, that eventually unwound the teee amigos and murphs captaincy, aka malthouse

Biggest loss was Mitch Robinson.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Boekhorst was a Rogers man crush, who Ratten had recommended for the job. No-one seems to be able to explain what happened with Eddie including the man himself. Garlett was the same on again /off again player at the Dees that he was with Carlton. Yarran was already starting the off field downward spiral by the time Ratten left.

Malthouse wanted a mature ager who could contribute to winning in the short term.
Eddie/Garlett/Yarran/Robinson were all a tight bunch and Malthouse's dismissal of the value of small forwards was instrumental in dispersing them for cents on the dollar.
Keep your head in the sand all you want. It's ok to admit mistakes were made.

 

[gbatman]

Malthouse wanted a mature ager who could contribute to winning in the short term.
Eddie/Garlett/Yarran/Robinson were all a tight bunch and Malthouse's dismissal of the value of small forwards was instrumental in dispersing them for cents on the dollar.
Keep your head in the sand all you want. It's ok to admit mistakes were made.

Malthouse won a premiership with some really top shelf small forwards (Didak, Beams, Sidebottom, Thomas and Davis). What happened at Carlton with the players sooking it up then is the same thing that is happening with the Australian Cricket team right now and Justin Langer.

Easy to blame a coach, and not the players. Just because players complain does not make them right. Might want to have a good think about the players we had at the time and how they were brought up and developed under Ratten. Can't forget the criticism of Carlton at the time and that is the hint of why the players couldn't hack a decent coach. Front running, too much say and control over the coach, conditional, soft, Poor development, lacked discipline, lack of defence etc. Those players were not going to want to change from that, it was too late.

Malthouse came in and was tough on the players, probably brought some harsh realities up, probably took away a lot of their control and tried to change things. Ratten's mistakes with developing those players was a good reason why things went they way they did. A lot of them became uncoachable because of how they were developed. They were grown men when Malthouse came over, some changed, some couldn't hack the change.

The guy had just won a premiership and played off in another with a team who had no issues with him or how he coached. Blaming the coach for Calrton's failing then is putting your head in the sand.

The development and recruiting that had gone on for years prior to Malthouse coming, that was a bomb that was planted under the club. Malthouse might have had a hand setting it off to an extent but he wasn't the reason things went to shit.

Betts took the money and ran, went to another club where he had to become more discipline and better at the pressure side of the game and hence a better player which he wasn't at Carlton. Garlett was a conditional front running player who we made a gameplan around, kicked goals when we went over the top into space quickly, sometimes applied pressure and sometimes didn't, did nothing at Melbourne. Yarran was a train wreck and ruined his own life and career, that's on him. Robinson, getting out of Carlton and away from all of that was the best thing for Robinson, he was forced to go to a new club and environment that demanded disciplined and turned his career around. He got out of a toxic culture and into one that is far more professional and demands higher standards.

 

[Arr0w]

The reason MM wanted Betts, Robinson, Garlett and even Waite was a lack of discipline off field. Strangely, this was a contradiction, as he had the rat pack at the Pies

 

[JustaBattler]

The reason MM wanted Betts, Robinson, Garlett and even Waite was a lack of discipline off field. Strangely, this was a contradiction, as he had the rat pack at the Pies

Of course no one want to refer to the obvious in Malthouse' twisted logic - no doubt in my mind he brought with him a prejudice against aboriginal players - Collingwod's kulcha is now well documented - never liked players of 'certain type' who were not the types to suck up to his old white man hypocrisies and double standards - stay in your box fella....

Disgusting man.

 

[Arr0w]

Of course no one want to refer to the obvious in Malthouse' twisted logic - no doubt in my mind he brought with him a prejudice against aboriginal players - Collingwod's kulcha is now well documented - never liked players of 'certain type' who were not the types to suck up to his old white man hypocrisies and double standards - stay in your box fella....

Disgusting man.

Think it was more a huge favourtism to private school boys, stating it was more beneficial to the rigours of discipline within an AFL environment

 

[JustaBattler]

Think it was more a huge favourtism to private school boys, stating it was more beneficial to the rigours of discipline within an AFL environment

We can dress it up any way we like mate - all the signs were there about how there was one rule for one 'type' and other rules for others. The way he treated Duigan who was nobody's fool was one proof, the way he treated Murphy - another, the way he treated Thomas versus others another...I could go on and on and on...

There is a lot of subconscious prejudice in people's thinking but I draw the line at making up a story about how Malthouse was a good bloke let down by a bunch of ratbag players at Carlton its just la-la land.

 

[gbatman]

The reason MM wanted Betts, Robinson, Garlett and even Waite was a lack of discipline off field. Strangely, this was a contradiction, as he had the rat pack at the Pies

The rat pack at Collingwood, for all their reputation, when it came to football they were consistent, performed in big games and were disciplined. Our lot wasn't when it came to the football part of their lives. Giving away dumb free kicks, not adhering to the game plan, preparing poorly (fitness) and very inconsistent efforts. All those names were up one week and down the next, you didn't know what you were going to get from them week by week.

As a club our effort and professionalism under Ratten was 5 to 10 years behind the better clubs and that's how the players were developed and that's how it stayed with them. Those were the standards that were set when they were young and those are the standards that stuck with them for the rest of their careers. That's what you get when you put an extremely green coach in charge unless they are some sort of coaching freak, Ratten was not ready for that role, was not supported well by who the club employed and hence that's what happened.

I don't think the off field stuff was all that relevant, clubs back then turned a blind eye to it until it became public or started to affect their football. I think ultimately the party boy culture began to cause issues which is why Buckley got into a clean out right away to change the culture there.

 

[BigFrizz36]

The rat pack at Collingwood, for all their reputation, when it came to football they were consistent, performed in big games and were disciplined. Our lot wasn't when it came to the football part of their lives. Giving away dumb free kicks, not adhering to the game plan, preparing poorly (fitness) and very inconsistent efforts. All those names were up one week and down the next, you didn't know what you were going to get from them week by week.

As a club our effort and professionalism under Ratten was 5 to 10 years behind the better clubs and that's how the players were developed and that's how it stayed with them. Those were the standards that were set when they were young and those are the standards that stuck with them for the rest of their careers. That's what you get when you put an extremely green coach in charge unless they are some sort of coaching freak, Ratten was not ready for that role, was not supported well by who the club employed and hence that's what happened.

I don't think the off field stuff was all that relevant, clubs back then turned a blind eye to it until it became public or started to affect their football. I think ultimately the party boy culture began to cause issues which is why Buckley got into a clean out right away to change the culture there.

Very strongly disagree with this, in fact it is almost like a revision of history.

In 2011 (the year before Ratten was sacked mid season) we finished the season 14-7-1 with a percentage of 130.9. We added Alan Richardson, John Barker and Gavin Brown to the coaching panel in 2011 and Chris Judd was captain and Kade Simpson vice captain. We had 3 players kick 48 goals or more. We were a kick away from a prelim without Kreuzer, Wait and Gibbs being able to play in the semi final - any of which would have made a huge difference. We were a huge chance to have beaten Geelong if we made the prelim as they beat us at Marvel by less than a kick when a concussed Robbie Warnock missed a shot late.

We would pretty much kill for a season like that now. 2011 was not an example of a team with poor standards or a team that was poorly coached by an "extremely green" coach. It was actually an example of a team on the precipice of winning the whole thing. We were the bookies favorites to win the flag pre season 2012. Then everything went to s#!t with injuries and the availability of Malthouse etc.

By all means you could argue that 2011 was a flash in the plan and that Ratten was never the man to take us forward but in that period we weren't 5 to 10 years behind the better clubs. We were one of the better clubs.

Culture is a terrible word that is thrown around like confetti. Pretty much all successful teams are described as having good culture and every unsuccessful team has a bad culture. There are a huge range of factors that determine how a team performs year in year out. To me the most important are quality of list, depth of list, having key players available and match fit, list profile in age and experience, coaching, leadership etc. Culture is one of those things but nowhere near the top of the list.

 

[bigblueboy]

Very strongly disagree with this, in fact it is almost like a revision of history.

In 2011 (the year before Ratten was sacked mid season) we finished the season 14-7-1 with a percentage of 130.9. We added Alan Richardson, John Barker and Gavin Brown to the coaching panel in 2011 and Chris Judd was captain and Kade Simpson vice captain. We had 3 players kick 48 goals or more. We were a kick away from a prelim without Kreuzer, Wait and Gibbs being able to play in the semi final - any of which would have made a huge difference. We were a huge chance to have beaten Geelong if we made the prelim as they beat us at Marvel by less than a kick when a concussed Robbie Warnock missed a shot late.

We would pretty much kill for a season like that now. 2011 was not an example of a team with poor standards or a team that was poorly coached by an "extremely green" coach. It was actually an example of a team on the precipice of winning the whole thing. We were the bookies favorites to win the flag pre season 2012. Then everything went to s#!t with injuries and the availability of Malthouse etc.

By all means you could argue that 2011 was a flash in the plan and that Ratten was never the man to take us forward but in that period we weren't 5 to 10 years behind the better clubs. We were one of the better clubs.

Culture is a terrible word that is thrown around like confetti. Pretty much all successful teams are described as having good culture and every unsuccessful team has a bad culture. There are a huge range of factors that determine how a team performs year in year out. To me the most important are quality of list, depth of list, having key players available and match fit, list profile in age and experience, coaching, leadership etc. Culture is one of those things but nowhere near the top of the list.

Culture is important - and it relies upon agreed values and commitment to those values.
In a football context, culture can encompass a small club leadership group or a large national competition. Whatever the context, you cannot have successful outcomes unless you have agreed values and commitment which aims to enhance performance.
For some clubs the agreed values and commitment might begin and end with performance on field - and that might be enough to achieve success.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Culture is important - and it relies upon agreed values and commitment to those values.
In a football context, culture can encompass a small club leadership group or a large national competition. Whatever the context, you cannot have successful outcomes unless you have agreed values and commitment which aims to enhance performance.
For some clubs the agreed values and commitment might begin and end with performance on field - and that might be enough to achieve success.

I think that this issue is that people have different definitions as to what culture is on the sporting field.

The famous Sydney Swans bloods culture wasn't worth a lot in 2019 when they finished 15th or in 2020 when they finished 16th.

Luke Hodge was famous for instilling the Hawks successful culture but was caught drink driving and allegedly wasn't allowed to be captain for quite some time due to having two strikes.

All clubs have agreed values and commitments to these values but only one will win the premiership. I don't for one second believe that attitude and buy in and commitment isn't important but I would argue that it is only a part of the overall picture.

 

[JustaBattler]

Using the word 'culture' is just a device to hide lazy thinking as if there are such things as 'magic pills' which is not to say I don't approve of magic mushrooms but that is another story

I prefer the word kulcha - kind of encapsulates the vibe better.

 

[Metalcrusher]

Using the word 'culture' is just a device to hide lazy thinking as if there are such things as 'magic pills' which is not to say I don't approve of magic mushrooms but that is another story

I prefer the word kulcha - kind of encapsulates the vibe better.

There are careers dedicated to studying the field of culture and what tangibles it has .. if any other than "vibe"

Yet how many times have you seen/read an exec report that blames culture!!! Or lack there of.

Its laughable.

 

[RedFury]

It still perplexes me why people think retaining Ratten would have resulted in some sort success post 2012. Writing was on the wall list wise a long way out.

I think Ratten did get the best possible out of that list and could have bounced back and had marginally better years than Malthouse did, but ultimately it wasn't a premiership winning list. I don't think our list management at the time was professional and knowledgeable enough to build a premiership winning list. To be frank - that didn't really change until SOS came along and built his team.

I distinctly remember during one trade period around that time - might have been the end of 2011, when we did almost no trading and came out and said "we're happy with our list". Nowadays teams that win the premiership are making multiple trades in the off-season and trying to still improve their list. The idea is that if you're standing still, you're going backwards, and rightly so. We were complete amateurs by modern standards - absolutely clueless.

We are in incomparably better shape now imo.

 

[Blueballs38]

Malthouse won a premiership with some really top shelf small forwards (Didak, Beams, Sidebottom, Thomas and Davis). What happened at Carlton with the players sooking it up then is the same thing that is happening with the Australian Cricket team right now and Justin Langer.

Easy to blame a coach, and not the players. Just because players complain does not make them right. Might want to have a good think about the players we had at the time and how they were brought up and developed under Ratten. Can't forget the criticism of Carlton at the time and that is the hint of why the players couldn't hack a decent coach. Front running, too much say and control over the coach, conditional, soft, Poor development, lacked discipline, lack of defence etc. Those players were not going to want to change from that, it was too late.

Malthouse came in and was tough on the players, probably brought some harsh realities up, probably took away a lot of their control and tried to change things. Ratten's mistakes with developing those players was a good reason why things went they way they did. A lot of them became uncoachable because of how they were developed. They were grown men when Malthouse came over, some changed, some couldn't hack the change.

The guy had just won a premiership and played off in another with a team who had no issues with him or how he coached. Blaming the coach for Calrton's failing then is putting your head in the sand.

The development and recruiting that had gone on for years prior to Malthouse coming, that was a bomb that was planted under the club. Malthouse might have had a hand setting it off to an extent but he wasn't the reason things went to sh*t.

Betts took the money and ran, went to another club where he had to become more discipline and better at the pressure side of the game and hence a better player which he wasn't at Carlton. Garlett was a conditional front running player who we made a gameplan around, kicked goals when we went over the top into space quickly, sometimes applied pressure and sometimes didn't, did nothing at Melbourne. Yarran was a train wreck and ruined his own life and career, that's on him. Robinson, getting out of Carlton and away from all of that was the best thing for Robinson, he was forced to go to a new club and environment that demanded disciplined and turned his career around. He got out of a toxic culture and into one that is far more professional and demands higher standards.

For those that disliked this post wake up … absolutely what happened. Thank god we are fixing the toxic culture finally! 20 years in the wilderness is enough! All u have to do is look at the last 15 years to know something was wrong and it wasn5 the coach! Past players have a lot to answer for. Pay check player# some of them.

 

[Arr0w]

For those that disliked this post wake up … absolutely what happened. Thank god we are fixing the toxic culture finally! 20 years in the wilderness is enough! All u have to do is look at the last 15 years to know something was wrong and it wasn5 the coach! Past players have a lot to answer for. Pay check player# some of them.

Would love to know how people outside the inner sanctum know what culture exists within an organization

So the least talented side in the competition will still make finals/win a flag, and the most talented side with the worst culture won't make finals?

Stories of a toxic culture before the start of the Demons 2021 campaign, yet they win a flag.

I could list countless examples that of the so called "winning culture" being a fallacy

 

[Doro]

I think Ratten did get the best possible out of that list and could have bounced back and had marginally better years than Malthouse did, but ultimately it wasn't a premiership winning list. I don't think our list management at the time was professional and knowledgeable enough to build a premiership winning list. To be frank - that didn't really change until SOS came along and built his team.

I distinctly remember during one trade period around that time - might have been the end of 2011, when we did almost no trading and came out and said "we're happy with our list". Nowadays teams that win the premiership are making multiple trades in the off-season and trying to still improve their list. The idea is that if you're standing still, you're going backwards, and rightly so. We were complete amateurs by modern standards - absolutely clueless.

We are in incomparably better shape now imo.

Yes, I remember the period you are talking about. It was a good list, missing several pieces of a great list. List management committee was mostly a fail pre SOS and recruiting was mostly poor. Current list is theoretically well positioned in most areas, time for performance to match the promise.

 

[Gointocarlton]

For those that disliked this post wake up … absolutely what happened. Thank god we are fixing the toxic culture finally! 20 years in the wilderness is enough! All u have to do is look at the last 15 years to know something was wrong and it wasn5 the coach! Past players have a lot to answer for. Pay check player# some of them.

Agree with most of that, all I'll say is lets not confuse the coaches we've had who knew what they were doing and with those who were utterly clueless. MM was, whether he was the right appointment or not, was on a hiding to nothing. 50% of the board wanted him, 50% wanted to keep Ratts. Ratts was giving the bullet too early, could coach but I'm led to believe he was a poor communicator. Even today, he tries to speak like someone he isn't. BB came in, shook up the place and fixed a few things but was too complicated in his messaging. The Teague train was probably the worse appointment IMO, that's what you get for listening to players and fans and not following a process.
The Voss appt has been different to all of them as the board is united, a diligent process was followed and he was endorsed by the BEST sports administrator in the country (who will continue at the helm for Voss's initial tenure at least.