- Jul 19, 2010
- 25,610
- 63,356
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Malcolm Blight may have won us two premierships, however lets face facts. He was widely hated by the playing group, we were hardly the best team in the competition either of those premiership years and he traded Modra (the best forward our club has ever had) for a misguided thought process on how the game would be played then walked away because he cant be bothered fixing his mistake. He was sacked by St Kilda for being s**t and well his efforts on the gold coast board probably leave a little to be desired considering where they are. So basically Malcolm, your rant was the stupidest argument ive heard against a review and I am not sure based on your track record you know what makes a strong club at all in the modern game.
An external review was always needed. The one thing always said about the Adelaide Football Club was that it didn't feel like a club. It felt very corporate and it was the first thing Phil Walsh wanted to change. The good thing about an external review is the findings will be presented to the board and the board can implement the best bits. Some people are questioning the people on the review but it doesn't matter. If it can highlight some culture issues, mistakes in our high performance program, our coaching setup as well as the setup of the administration and cultures I can't see it as a bad thing. People are saying this is weak and pathetic by the club, however it actually is a point of strength to admit there are weaknesses and culture problems in an organisation. By inviting people into the inner sanctum to figure it out and taking on board their findings to improve is also a massive strength on character. I actually think the board is showing the reverse of weakness right now and they should be applauded for taking this step. Alot of huge corporations pay millions to consultants to do the exact same thing so why should football clubs be different?
Make no mistake though the real strength test is actually implementing the findings.
The way I interpreted it he was mainly critical about the timing of the review, because the players won’t be there.
The scariest part is wondering whether we’d be having any review at all if it wasn’t for the public pressure finally reaching fever pitch. This is not a club known for its self-awareness.
The rest of your critique of Blight is laughable. You’ve cited his “track record” as your evidence, which is essentially the knockout blow for the opposing argument. It’s like arguing Federer’s a s**t tennis player and pointing to his grand slam record as evidence.
You must surely realize how ridiculous you sound.