Listening to Phil Davis on SEN this morning talking about Essendon’s coaching situation, something he said stood out. Before even discussing who the next coach should be, he said he would want a full review of the football club. He would want to understand the external influences and coteries, know what the water cooler conversations looked like and understand exactly what was happening inside the walls before deciding not only who the next coach should be, but what sort of coach the club actually needed.
It was an interesting point because it was not really about coaching at all. It was about systems.
Too often in football we immediately jump to the coach. We look for the person at the top and expect them to be the solution. But history tells us that simply changing coaches without examining everything around them often achieves very little. Essendon spent years changing coaches while deeper issues appeared unresolved. Carlton spent years doing the same thing. Different names came and went, but many of the same conversations remained.
Port Adelaide now finds itself entering a new era with Josh Carr as senior coach and this feels like the ideal time to ask bigger questions. Not because there is a crisis and not because there should be concern about Carr himself. Quite the opposite. If Josh Carr is the man to take this club forward, then the priority should be ensuring every part of the organisation around him gives him the greatest possible chance of succeeding.
Port is now 22 years removed from its last premiership and 19 years from its last Grand Final appearance. That is a long enough period to justify stepping back and asking whether every part of the football club is truly aligned towards the ultimate goal.
This should not be viewed as a criticism of Carr, who is still in the very early stages of his tenure or even the current board and administrative structure. Elite organisations do not wait for things to collapse before reviewing themselves. The best organisations constantly challenge assumptions and search for marginal gains because they understand that sustained success comes from continuous improvement.
The club has traditionally preferred continuity and internal appointments. CEO Matthew Richardson was promoted internally and Josh Carr himself rose through the football system before taking the senior role. Continuity can absolutely be a strength, but it can also create blind spots if familiar ideas and familiar voices become too comfortable over time. Supporters have questioned whether previous reviews have had sufficient scope and whether some areas of the football club have escaped meaningful examination.
A genuine root and branch review should examine everything.
List management would have to be central to that discussion. Over recent years Port has made aggressive moves in the trade market, bringing in players like Ivan Soldo, Esava Ratugolea and Jack Lukosius while sacrificing valuable draft capital. The Dan Houston deal was seen by many supporters as delivering less than expected for an All Australian calibre player once the broader deal was completed.
Each individual move can be defended in isolation, but the broader question is whether the cumulative effect of those decisions has weakened the club’s overall depth and flexibility. Football lists are not judged by their best ten players. They are judged by the quality of players stepping into the side when injuries inevitably arrive.
That also leads into player development. Clubs like Geelong, Sydney and Collingwood continually seem to find contributors outside the first round of the draft. To be fair, Port has not spent long periods collecting elite picks at the bottom of the ladder and has traded away considerable draft capital over the years, but there still appears to be a lack of depth across the list. Once again others seem to have done it better, even without top end picks.
Supporters would also reasonably ask whether enough progress is being made in some of the fundamentals. Has kicking efficiency improved? Has tackling improved? Has goal kicking improved? Questions can also be asked about the ruck department where Matt Lobbe has been involved for a considerable period without Port producing a home-grown ruckman who comfortably sits among the better rucks in the competition.
High performance and sports science should also come under review. Port has struggled with the availability of key players at important stages of seasons. Injuries are part of football and luck always plays a role, but a proper review would examine whether there are broader issues involving conditioning, rehabilitation, player loads and physical development.
There is also the question of body development itself. Watch Geelong and year after year they seem to turn young players into physically strong, mature footballers without losing their endurance and running ability. Port supporters would rightly ask whether the systems currently in place are extracting the maximum from the talent already on the list.
Governance and decision-making structures should also be examined. The club’s board structure provides relatively limited member influence and there are fair questions around succession planning and board renewal given the absence of term limits. Seventeen of the last nineteen AFL premierships have reportedly been won by clubs with member controlled boards and whether that relationship is meaningful or coincidental is at least worthy of discussion. Yes the club has recently announced a Member Advisory Group will be created but even then there is precious little transparency about how it will be run, how those advisors are being chosen and how we can be sure they will actually be listened to.
The football committee also deserves scrutiny. Are the right people making football decisions? Is there enough football experience around the table or has too much influence shifted towards administration and governance? The Ken Hinkley contract situation remains an example where many supporters questioned whether the process itself was right, particularly when the structure of the agreement effectively forced a decision before finals had even played out. There have also been questions raised about the leadership programs enacted by the club in recent seasons, who was chosen to guide them and how independent that process was. Do we have enough genuine football people making footballing decisions based on prioritising the best on field results.
Then there are the questions Phil Davis raised. Who influences decisions around Port Adelaide beyond formal structures? How much influence sits with sponsors? How much weight is attached to relationships with government and major projects around Alberton? Which external voices carry influence and where exactly do members sit in that equation?
These questions are not being asked because Port Adelaide is broken. They are being asked because Josh Carr deserves more than simply being handed the keys and being expected to fix everything himself.
If we have learned anything from clubs that have spent decades searching for answers, it is that changing the coach alone rarely changes the outcome. The most successful clubs create environments where coaches can thrive because every layer beneath them is aligned and functioning properly.
Josh Carr may absolutely be the right man for Port Adelaide.
The question is whether we are doing everything possible to make sure the club around him is right as well.
Leave a Reply