Question:

Do you reckon Mick Malthouse will last till the end of the season as coach of Collingwood?

by | earlier

I have my doubts. I don't think he will see the season out. Eddie will make an announcement sometime mid season.

Who do you think will replace him.

I think Nathan Buckley. Who do you think?

Tags:

Report

Answer The Question I've Same Question Too

Follow Question

12 ANSWERS

Sort By: Date | Rating

I wanted to post this question some time ago, but I thought I better not. To answer your Q.....yes I believe Mick Malthouse will get sacked during the season...if and only if they hang around the bottom 8. If Collingwood stays amoungst the top 5, his job will be safe for another year.

As for who would replace him.....Nathan Buckley would be the man.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
yeah unless he gets sick or something

but i dont think they will get rid of the 2008 premiership coach
Report (0) (0) | earlier
I so hope i don't get thumbs down
Report (0) (0) | earlier
why would they want to replace Malthouse, he has done a good job, and has a good team to work with, Buckley wont be ready for coaching for about 5 years
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Possibly just 1 more year and he is gone
Report (0) (0) | earlier
LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER

CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE CLONE

LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Are you the real Rogue or a poor imitation?
Report (0) (0) | earlier
No. I think he will be given the push. He deserves it.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
This is the clone Rogue.

The real Rogue is a Top Contributor and has been a member for way longer.

Please be aware all!!!

Always check the dates they started.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Geez, ya kidding me ..He missed a grand final by 5pts , which they would have won,.. they had made it ..now you expect him to be sacked ..sorry I don't follow the logic. He coached missing key players, Didak early, Buckley most of season, and Clement, Lonie and Fraser were injury prone.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
I don't think anything can save the old Colliwobbles.

I agree, Mick should get the sack & be replaced by Lou Richards as coach.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
No. Give him the boot before the season starts. Replace him with someone who has had no prior connections with the club.
Report (0) (0) | earlier