Michelangelo Rucci stated in last week’s The Advertiser that it would take a lot of spin for Port Adelaide to pass off Ken Hinkley’s recent appointment as coach as their first choice. Boy was he right.
What I don’t think he expected, however, was just how farcical the process creating this illusion would become.
Port’s coaching saga started infamously, with the high-profile sacking of Matthew Primus after his lacklustre team was humiliated at the hands of the GWS Giants.
It then took a remarkable 64 days to find a new man for the job, displaying a remarkable lack of thought, something the Power is regrettably building a reputation for.
Since Hinkley’s appointment, however, the plaudits for Hinkley have started pouring in, as well as the press statements from the club trying to convince all and sundry that “we always wanted Ken”.
While Hinkley no doubt deserves all praise heaped on him, having been a successful assistant coach at Geelong and overseeing the development of youngsters at the Gold Coast Suns, no one in their right mind can believe that his appointment was the first and only one on Port’s mind.
Let’s not forget that almost immediately after Primus’ sacking, chief executive Keith Thomas publicly stated the club would pursue an experienced coach with money being no object.
Rodney Eade and Brett Ratten were both, at one point or another, favoured for the job, and both pulled out in rapid succession. The job then became a two-horse race between Leon Cameron and Ken Hinkley; Cameron subsequently joining the GWS in what looks to be the AFL’s next successful succession plan.
But if you believe the hype, this was all ‘due process’ and the Power always had their heart set on Ken. Then why were they seemingly so set back by Cameron’s appointment by GWS?
Why did club board member and premiership full-back Darryl Wakelin admit to the process being embarrassing and bad for the club’s public image?
Why would the Power presumably tell Hinkley, “It’s okay, mate, we want you, but we’re going to wait 64 days for all other candidates to fall away until we’re almost late for trade month.”
Bull dust.
There is no shame in being a fourth choice, as Malcolm Blight so astutely pointed out; so was Chris Scott at Geelong. And there is no doubt Hinkley is a top bloke and a top coach, but seriously, the situation is not ideal.
Since his appointment, several key free agents have moved clubs, the appointment of a new president has occurred, and the trade period has begun, with the Power forced into reshaping its list after losing Danyle Pearce to Fremantle and Troy Chaplin to Richmond.
This occurred without the guidance of a senior coach.
While many may leap to the defense of the Power claiming the pick of Angus Monfries via trade was a coup for the club despite the circumstances, this is a hollow argument considering what else has transpired in the last two weeks in regards to player movement.
Brendan Goddard and Brian Lake, two experienced and intelligent footballers who could conceivably aid the Power’s youngster in their development and give the supporters something to be excited about, were both on the market during this period.
The reality of the Power getting either of these blokes was very low, but how they could use them – and they were nowhere near getting them.
Jonathan Giles, a former Power player, now looks set to leave the Giants, and he’s another big bodied mature player the Power could use – and they’re two weeks behind rival clubs like Adelaide to tempt him.
If you take the argument that the Power are after a complete refit that’s fair, but even in this regard other clubs seem to be miles ahead, with Melbourne and St Kilda grabbing key young talents through the GWS mini draft (again, no Power involvement).
The Bulldogs have been steadily building a long list of high draft picks, and Richmond made the most of the free agency period getting a key defender in Chaplin and a long-kicking half-back in Adelaide’s Chris Knights.
Port looks miles behind the rest of the AFL world in its list building. And if any of this is a result of them waiting a ridiculously long time to get the man they ‘always wanted’, then they’re once again paying the price for their own poor planning.
Either way, the Power has shot itself in the foot. Again.
Gyfox
Guest
+ Rucci!
Kevin Martin
Guest
How do you feel now Damo ...even more stupid?
Rob H
Guest
Agree Anthony. It is a weak piece with 'negative spin' and little substance. If they chose Hinkley in a week he'd be complaining they didnt think about it hard enough.
Anthony
Guest
Terrible article, Damo. You put a negative spin on everything that has happened to Port Adel - but the reality is some things were bound to happen & others were affected by the way things happen anyway. Port Adel will be fine & Hinkley is the man for the job. Their list is pretty good & they have a grand tradition going back to 1870. In many ways the Club is back to the days when Fos Williams came from West Adel & created a new culture on top of a solid tradition. The problems Port have are associated with control over them by their enemies, the SANFL clubs, & the Adelaide culture. I should know - I am one of the many who grew up there, went overseas & now live interstate!
Redb
Roar Guru
Really? Hadnt heard that. Never rated Ratten, an assistant coach gig sounds more his bag.
Dan
Guest
The new anti-poaching rules came in as well so they couldn't just take an assistant (or senior!) coach from another club before the season had completed, like has happened in previous years - Neeld, Sanderson, Bailey, Clarkson. Then the John McCarthy death set Port back another week. When Ratten went for the job he probably wasn't in the right frame of mind and his motivation was more to stick it up Carlton to show that he's a wanted man, than the desire to be a successful coach at Port. He got an inkling, or was told, that he wouldn't get the job, so he publicly withdrew so as to not have any egg on his face. Eade didn't have his heart in it to leave Melbourne and played silly buggers for a few weeks before putting a ridiculous price on his head. The money was no object, but paying a man that didn't really want to go there in the first place would've been a bad choice. He would've made the tough decisions to cut a heap of players, change the coaching staff, bottom out even further and then leave after 2-3 years; probably setting the club back another 5 years. Losing Cameron was a shame but you can't outcompete GWS with the list they will have and the AFL funding. So the Hinkley and Richardson duo was the logical next choice and the right choice.
TC
Guest
This sort of thing happens every now and then, and clubs like Port and the dogs take the best that they can get, and that might mean handing someone their first ever coaching gig. Cameron may have been first choice, but it's not as if he should be viewed as some sort of saviour, never having been a head coach. Hinkley might be every bit as good, and he has something Cameron doesn't have. Back in 1984 the dogs gave Michael Malthouse his first coaching stint, he was around 31 years of age. TC.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I think you've been a little bit harsh in some areas. The word is that Ratten only withdrew because he was told that he wasn't going to get the job anyway while Eade and Cameron were involved deep into the finals series and were waiting until the season was over before really speaking with Port. There's not much that Port could do there. That said it's pretty clear that Cameron was the number one only a week ago so Hinkley obviously wasn't their first choice
Bruce
Guest
It appears that most of the issues related to the selection of a new coach have come from the intense scrutiny the media have given the process. The old adage of " kick them while they are down" appears to be holding true. Ah but why miss the opportunity to create more issues for a club that is struggling. I will bet you anything you like that all the "experts" who spread their wisdom on this will go missing if Hinckley is really successful and there is a resurgence of the club who was last in the grand final just 5 years ago. They will waft off and go kick the next victim instead. How about looking at some positive aspects. Good on you Blighty!!!
Lucan
Ratten "pulled out" after Port told him his presentation was less than satisfactory.
mwm
Roar Pro
I agree with you but really what could Port do?...what if the coach that replaced Matthew Primus for the rest of the season turned out to be really good? This happened with the Swans. Paul Roos was a temporary replacement for the sacked Rodney Eade. Terry Wallace was all but assured the job before Roos gave a spirited performance and won the job off the fan's requests. People seem to forget that story. Melbourne players are very unlikely by nature to leave Melbourne...unless they want to escape the "Footy fishbowl ' life...and they wouldn't get that in Adelaide that's why people choose Sydney or Brisbane. Who cares what choice he was in relation to applicants. He has the job. Let him prove it was the best luck Port could ever have in 3 other candidates dropping out of the race. If we really study it...i mean Rodney Eade?.....the man has had his chance with the Swans and Bulldogs and is probably really comfortable being an assistant with Collingwood. Great facilities and less pressure of a head coach. Brett Ratten apparently gave a very bad presentation and removed his application before they refused. Leon Cameron?......it was probably more calculated as footy culture up here in Sydney isn't as intense as in Adelaide. He would be given more leeway if things went wrong and more time to build his team and experience away from the media glare than would Hinkley at Port. All in all still a good article from a committed fan.
Bill
Guest
Wakelin has not been a board member for over 12 months, Ratten clearly withdrew from the race AFTER it was indicated to him that they were not impressed with his presentation to the board. Eade and Cameron were clearly told by their former clubs to steer clear of senior coaching positions until after their finals involvement ended. Couple this with the anti-Coach policy that the AFL introduced this year and Port Adelaide was a test case for and you'll see they weren't in an ideal position - http://m.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl/coach-poaching-spotlight-on-power/story-e6frepex-1226455318103 - this is an issue that media has refused to acknowledge through the entire process. Outside of Cameron any other "offers" made by Port are hearsay. Clearly Eade was still in the running from the job based on reports by hiss nagger that he was not impressed with the way Port Adelaide told him he was no longer in the running (via text message). Clearly it wasn't an ideal process but don't play it out to more than what it wa through selective reporting of facts. The jury is still out on the wheeling as dealing by Melbourne and St Kilda and to play down the signing of a player of Angus Monfries in comparison to their efforts is point blank ignorance.