Nick Bendel
Failing to grab the Tiger by the tail
April 24th 2009 12:35
If this sounds like an obvious reaction to the mess that Richmond finds itself in after losing all of its opening four games, it’s because it is. Yet it’s amazing how often clubs- spooked by negative headlines and deafened by the din of talkback radio- will choose the emotional reaction in such instances over the logical and obvious one.
It doesn’t matter what the tabloids might be screaming, it doesn’t matter how much the fans might be baying, it doesn’t matter how many accusatory fingers might be pointing in the board’s direction. To pay heed to such things is to surrender to emotion. All that matters is the obvious question: is Terry Wallace a good coach?
Footy fans might find it a difficult one to answer. After all, none of the public has an intimate knowledge of his training methods, his man management, his team talks, his match day tactics, or the like. That’s why fans are not best qualified to deal with such matters. The Richmond board, however, does possess an intimate knowledge of Wallace. And presumably, it must have come to a decision some time ago, given that he is now into his fifth season at the helm. So is Terry Wallace a good coach?
Never was this question more relevant than on Tuesday night, when the Tigers’ board met and resolved to stick by him until at least the middle of the season. Although this may seem like a clever compromise, in which the club can be shown to be both backing its man and yet holding him accountable, it is actually a senseless muddle that does neither one thing nor the other. For the board is sending out two unhelpful messages. Firstly, that it harbours doubts about Wallace’s abilities. Secondly, that it’s not going to be judging him on his previous 92 games, but on the upcoming seven. Even worse is the implicit assumption on which these two messages are based- that nobody at Richmond knows whether or not Terry Wallace is a good coach.
If it has been concluded that Wallace is a bad coach, then he should have been sacked the moment this opinion was reached, because to persist with somebody who is not up to the job can only be detrimental to the team’s prospects. If, on the other hand, the powers that be have deemed Wallace to be an effective mentor- and one can only assume that they have, given that he remains in charge- then why have they not backed him to the hilt? A midyear assessment is irrational- after all, if he was held to be a good coach in March, how could he possibly become a bad one by June? Far from clearing the waters, the board meeting has only further muddied them.
To exacerbate Richmond’s pain, all this confusion will inevitably filter through to every single Tiger. The players must now be questioning- if only subconsciously- their coach’s authority. As for the coach, he must be thinking that his future rests not on any long-term plans he may painstakingly enact, but solely on how many points he can pocket in the next seven weeks. If the players stop listening to their coach, and if the coach stops planning for the future, in what way does the club benefit? That is another question that the board needs to ask itself.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the board is following a policy designed primarily to benefit itself. The rotten compromise of Tuesday night seems to be based on a desire to placate the shrill voices emanating from both sides of the debate. To those who have been arguing that Wallace needs to be given more time, the board can present itself as fair and measured. To those who have been arguing that Wallace needs to be sacked, the board can present itself as tough and decisive. Of course, as generally happens when you try to walk both sides of the street, neither party has gotten what it wanted, and so neither has been soothed. Both have damned the board for being weak and uncertain and self-interested- and both are right.
Because, in the end, everything comes back to that one question: is Terry Wallace a good coach? If the answer is no, the only reason he can still have a job is because the board lacked the strength to dismiss him at the end of his third or fourth season. If the answer is yes, the board is being equally weak by failing to confront the vehement criticism with an unequivocal endorsement of its man.
Interestingly, Wallace himself has just exposed- albeit unintentionally- the ineptitude of his masters. “I’m very comfortable with my position”, he declared in a statement that surely fooled nobody. “I couldn’t be getting more support from the board and management,” he further insisted. “A couple of wins would obviously help, and I’ve been in the game long enough to know that can change at any point along the way…but I think everyone around the footy club’s been tremendously supportive.”
Clearly, any policy that destabilises the club cannot be “tremendously supportive”. In attempting to praise his masters, Wallace has inadvertently drawn attention to how unhelpful their conduct has been. Also noteworthy is his observation that two quick wins would improve his stocks. Once again, he has unwittingly made the board look foolish, because how unenlightened must its members be if they place greater emphasis on the coming fortnight than the preceding four years?
Is Terry Wallace a good coach, or isn’t he? If he’s a bum, he needs to be sent packing, and the board needs to explain why it didn’t take such action long ago. If, on the other hand, he’s getting as much from his charges as one could reasonably expect, he needs to be strongly backed, and the board needs to explain why it initially failed to do so. Either way, the board has a lot of explaining to do. As things currently stand, it is the chief source of Richmond’s woes.
| 90 |
| Vote |
