Malthouse and Hardwick: Heads already on the chopping block in 2015

So because the board won't extend a contract before the 3rd and last year of his contract has even started it is because of a lack of support not just being prudent, if they were going to sack him based on the last 2 years performances it would have made more sense to do it before he reshape do the list again. For mine it will come down to the first 7 games, all of them are winnable and it will show if the blues have improved, if they have he will stay if not he will go

Well, as I said, it looks bad. It looks as though the coach is a lame duck, and the board doesn't support them enough to give them a longer contract. It's pretty rare to see a coach's tenure extended by one year in the last year of their existing contract. And fair enough. If you're not sure the coach is going to be around longer than one year then bite the bullet and bring someone else in. Anyway, a one year extension just won't happen. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong if it so turns out. Two years is far more likely than one, although in my opinion less likely again than a new coach coming in.

Hardwick has been the worst performed coach for a while considering the players he has had available. Coaches like Lyon or Hinkley would have had Richmond as strong finals contenders way before now. But Richmond is used to losing.

Based on what TomC? And why isn't it practical to say to a 64 year old, you have now had 3 trade periods to build the list you want, we'll give you a fourth year to see what you can do with it an review from their.

I don't think a 1 year extension is really practical. At this stage, it would appear as though the club and coach aren't really committed to each other.

My point is improvement is more than ladder position and if we don't have a board that can see that we should change the board not the coach.

TomC - As I said to Jakarta Jeff above - I didn't agree with Malthouses appointment in the first place but given what has happened in list management since he arrived why start again in 2016? On teh partnership clicking - if you lok at what happenned over the last 12 months players like Garlett, Robinson & Waite have gone - players who didn't really fit Malthouses style of discipline - and he has replaced them with players, as he said today, that have the right mental approach - a 1 year contract extension would seem the logical path barring a monumentally bad season.

I understand that ladder position doesn't matter to you but it's the issue of whether the board will continue with Malthouse if they don't see enough improvement in their eyes. We don't get the say the board does. They are the ones that have to be convinced on Malthouse so we will have to see how our season progresses and hope he gets the most out of our team.

On Buckley: I suspect there is more internal disagreement about Buckley’s position than is let on publicly. McGuire is a dominant public figure but there are a lot of strong personalities heavily involved with the club that we don’t hear so much about, as there are with most clubs. Since Buckley took over there has been a relentless sense of things getting progressively worse, and today is yet another example. Not everything is the coach’s fault but when things start adding up you wonder what changes can be made. I’d be amazed if there wasn’t significant disquiet on the Collingwood board. The Malthouse/Carlton partnership just doesn’t seem to be clicking. He’s always been great at getting the most out of individuals, which is still more or less true at Carlton, but he doesn’t seem to be the right man for the moment. I expect they’ll mutually agree to part ways at the end of the season, and someone younger and hungrier will come in. As the writer says, if they have an unexpectedly good season that might change. Hardwick is contracted until the end of 2016. They’d need a particularly bad season to sack him. Missing the finals and finishing mid table probably wouldn’t be bad enough. I am a little more worried about Brad Scott, who is also contracted through 2016. The worst situation for a coach is where expectations exceed reality and I think that’s the case for North right now.

Jakarta Jeff - I am no fan of Malthouses and believe that if they had to sack Ratten (I'm not convinced they did) they should have gone after a coach like Hinkley - but having made their decision and embarked on some radical list management over the last 2 years what would be the point in sacking Malthouse and changing direction again?

Carlton will not make the finals and they will look for a new younger coach to build the future. Richmond might make the finals but Hardwick is doing a good job. They will be somewhere between 7-10 and in the fight to the end. He should be given at least one more year but that may be the limit. Collingwood will not make the 8 and will be around the 8-12 area and favourite son or not, both he and Eddie should move over as they botched a great era under Mick when he was on top of it all. Messed up his legacy. Messed up Collingwood. Depending on tomorrow's verdict Essendon will finish somewhere between 5 and 15. Their so-called "premiership window" will disappear in about 2 years so it would be foolish to dump Hird when players support him, but if he has them down the bottom end eg around the 14-15, then the Bombers will probably look for a fresh start. Other coaches seem safe for the present but there again every season there are strange surprises.

Andrew - I wasn't suggesting we rely on others misfortunes - just that it helps. On ladder position - 14th or 15th might not cut it with the general fan or board but to me ladder position is largely irrelevant - we aren't going to win a premiership so what does it matter if we finish 8th or 15th so long as at the end of the year the team has improved and we face 2016 in a better position than we started 2015. Now that said if, as I suspect will happen, we get improvement out of Cripps, Menzel, Casboult, Bell and other youngsters and more games out of Judd, Carrazzo & Everitt and better performances out of fully fit Thomas & Henderson then the ladder position will improve but if by some strange turn of events the blues play better more consistent football with improvements from the young kids and still slide down the ladder I won't be too unhappy.

We can't rely on others misfortunes or our own to dictate where we end up. Agree about more time into youth and consistency but I doubt 14/15th with the general fan or the board for that matter will renew a contract. Improvement must have some reflection on ladder position and not 14 honorable losses. Im not saying finals or bust but doubt 14th or worse is going to cut it. Thats why I said any improvement on last year I'd be happy with.

Also Ant if we look at the bas old days of the mid 2000's we have 2003 - R3 Carlton Won 11 points 2003 Rnd 18 - Essendon 34 points 2004 - R4 - Essendon Won 37 points 2004 R19 - Carlton Won 17 points 2005 R2 - Carlton Won 4 points 2005 R21 - Essendon Won 99 points 2006 R7 - Carlton won 33 points 2006 R16 - Draw 2007 R3 - Carlton Won 3 Points 2007 R20 - Essendon won 10 points So 10 games in the 5 years of the mid 2000's for 5 wins to the blues 4 wins to the bombers and a draw - looks like those days weren't so Bad at all.

Andrew - The things I am looking for this year are consistency,being competitive & getting games into the young blokes - if the end result is 8th or 15th I don't care too much. On everything going right - so far we are travelling better than Richmond (with Newman having heart issues & Astbury getting stung by a stingray) Collingwood (Greenwood breaks his leg, Macaffer is a long term injury & now Thomas and Keeffe test positive for drugs), the Bulldogs (liberatore breaks his leg) & West Coast (Darling & McKEnzie both being injured) - so perhaps everything going right might be as simple as things not going as bad as others?

Ant - this was from the Age today- "If it's guilty? Players can accept their guilt, but it's unlikely that will be the case. The first step will be a directions hearing for lawyers to determine when a sanctions hearing will take place. Lawyers will also begin applications to have any suspensions backdated from what would be a maximum two-year ban. ASADA and the AFL will also put forward what they feel should be appropriate sanctions. These hearings could be done over a couple of days but could drag out if there are technical arguments. This would mean the players remain provisionally suspended and almost certainly will miss at least round one – unless the AFL agrees to lift the suspension. They also have 21 days to appeal to the AFL appeals tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. " If the AFL agrees to lift the suspension the players lose the chance of having suspensions backdated. As for backing the Essendon players listed against Carlton - I think the issue becomes the and Co part - you have to find another 13 players and even Melbourne is better than a team with 13 players delisted from other sides.

I think due to Carltons rebuild, 10th would be the pass for Malthouse. Anything else may put pressure on his position as coach. Virtually everyone has Carlton 12th or worse so if he can push for 10th, the board wont sack him. The board know its no quick fix and have backed Malthouse to fix it. Finals is a slim possibility but everything has to go right to steal 8th. I'd be happy for any improvement on last year as we finished strongly towards the end of last season bar P.A.

No matter the Essendon verdict, the provisional suspension ends. So if found guilty, they can all still play pending all appeals. In any case, I'd back Goddard, Cooney, Zaharakis, Langford, Laverde, Giles, Daniher, Gwilt, Brown and co against Carlton any day. You're hardly better than Melbourne. Sorry to burst your bubble Macca, but Carlton have gone back to the bad old days of the mid-2000's. Where Essendon were average and still managed to belt Carlton.

So we might beat Richmond, we should beat St Kilda, if Essendon get banned (or even just found guilty and stay provisionally banned) that would get us 3 wins with a road trip to play West Coast without Darling or McKenzie (and the blues play well at Subi) and games in Melbourne against Brisbane & GWS plus a game against Collingwood to come - going 5-2 or at least 4-3 over the first 7 isn't unbelievable.

I would be pointing the finger more at the recruiting staff rather than Hardwick for Richmonds troubles - how many years have they had Riewoldt going great guns at full forward but no other tall forward capable of giving him support on top of that they have Maric doing well in the ruck but they don't have a second ruckman - (on top of that they traded a second round pick for Hampson which the blues used to get Sam DOcherty from Brisbane).