This argument is redundant and simply immature.
Appointing a coach is not a guarantee to success; the previous 'culture' believed that the appointment of Pagan and paying players in brown paper bags would buy premierships.
The culture has changed rapidly since Dick Prat has been there- there are some very effective and competent 'outsiders' currently sweeping the dirt out of the house.
Ratten has certainly has done the apprentiship and ticks all the right boxes....he is a very very safe option. If anything the sub-committee could be blamed for being too conservative...But the favourite for the job, Michael Voss, would have been a very bold choice . So the panel were not affraid of making hard decisions.
The board and committee did the right thing in offering only 2-years. They will know after 1 year if Ratten is the man for the job- not by wins and losses per se, but by his vision and processes.
So the argument that it is the culture or we will look back and say that he was inexperienced is rubbish. The culture has completely changed within the last 12 months and they can reasses in 12 months if he is not the right man.
I beleive he is the right man to at least develop the kids- a premiership coach- who knows?
Rambo Stallone wrote:
Bearzo wrote:
My biggest fear is that in 5 years Carlton is still struggeling for any decent success and we start blaming Ratts saying he wasn't ready to coach a senior team when the root of the problem is embedded deeper in the club and its culture as Pagan has incinuated.
That's the problem,Ratten might come with some wins and everyone will think he is a super coach and then have lost after lost and still struggle in years and then what happens everybody says he wasn't ready,we did a mistake