JN Q: Hi Gareth, given your answers to Patrick regarding the fact that a change in style was a decision made by Ricki, the board and the owners together, do you think it was a mistake to give the interview to Tony Veitch you refer to above, which implied that the stylistic changes had come from the top and was being imposed mid-season?
I know you're saying this is evolution rather than revolution but at best the message that's been put out to the media on this issue is mixed, and has completely muddied the waters regarding what is acceptable regarding performances. The media cannot all be blamed for this.
Is RH being judged as a coach on his ability to win football matches, or to coach the team in a style that suits your image of the club? And considering he appears to be failing at both right now, what in your mind constitutes success and failure this year and will individuals within the Phoenix be held account
GM A: Thanks for the question Jonathan.
The interview with Tony covered a whole range of things Phoenix and remember it wasn’t live so Tony decided to highlight one aspect of the talk, the issue of style – which is the journo’s prerogative with a recorded interview and the interviewee knows that beforehand. From memory when he asked what we thought of the performance in the last game, were we gutted to lose, I replied of course (you’re always gutted to lose, who on earth get’s off on losing?), but I said I wasn’t sure whether many had picked up that this season we had begun to play a different style etc etc. The inference being that we might expect bumps along that road. Then the media picked it up as though it was some new dawn and off we go. I’m amazed not more football journos had already seen and reported on that – with the injection of Fenton, Totori, Boyd etc, dropping Bertos back and so on. Certainly some had but there aren’t that many around, far fewer than there are gossip columnists prancing around as wannabe sports journos and looking to invent stories if they can’t extract one from facts.
There are no mixed messages – we are on the road to a different style, we’d love to get there making the playoffs along the way of course, the reality will be whatever happens. For the players, their focus week to week is to win, to take whatever instructions the coach has given for that week and just do it. Take last week – neither goal conceded was a result of the playing style, they were simple cock-ups or failed execution by those involved. The first half of that game and the one the week before was fantastic – any serious observer of the game would see that see that our players are bloody good professionals. Such observers should be intrigued by what’s evolving and be fascinated week to week by what the players are doing. Those whose interest goes only so far as instant gratification each match won’t be capable or interested in this process.
Regards one’s views at the end of the season to the position on the league table – of course we want to be as high as we can and success will only be winning the thing. Until we win it it’s all work in progress. If you’re asking me personally would I regard making the playoffs a success – the answer personally is no. It would simply be a measure of how far the work in progress has advanced.
Can’t really see any of this is that hard to get your nut around.
I was also looking at the Yellow Fever Forum this morning and someone asked, "I wonder how the other owners feel about all this discussion?" To answer that question - If anybody knows me they know I have always been transparent and run firms with high transparency, frank discussion and am afraid of no question that the questioner has a right to know. This is not everyone’s style but it’s mine and it’s never been any different in 33 years of public engagement. And having always been like that it should hardly be a surprise except to those who don’t know me. These people are more comfortable reading journos’ made up stories no matter how crap they are. My blog is the avenue for direct discussion on all the issues I get involved in.