Carlton should go after big guns Alastair Clarkson, Paul Roos and Ross Lyon, writes Mark Robinson

Carlton president Mark LoGiudice supported Brendon Bolton until he couldn’t support him any longer. But now that he’s gone, the Blues must go hard after Alastair Clarkson, writes Mark Robinson.

Lists have been compiled — who will be Carlton’s next coach?

Everyone will be on the list.
Heck, there isn’t a list without Alastair Clarkson’s name on it.

He probably wasn’t on the invitation list to Ian Aitken’s 50th birthday party after their tango in London in 1987, but he will be on Carlton’s list.

LIST GAP: WHY BLUES’ GREEN SHOOTS FAILED TO SPROUT

‘INVISIBLE’: DEFIANT LOGIUDICE GOING NOWHERE

WHO’S NEXT? THE CONTENDERS TO REPLACE BOLTON

At the very least the Blues should offer Clarkson the biggest contract in football, at least $2 million a year, and let him knock it back. He might take it. They have to try.

The old Carlton would, deep-pockets Carlton would.

If Clarkson says no, go after Paul Roos.

Roos says it’s unlikely he’ll coach again, but he says it in a manner where you don’t believe him.

It’s never a no with Roosy. It’s always a umm, yeah, well, no, ummm — never categorical. Offer him three years and a succession plan with, say, ­Michael Voss.

If not Clarkson or Roos, then Ross Lyon.

We know he’s mates with Stephen Silvagni, who remains a curious figure after the departure of Brendon Bolton.

Silvagni wasn’t the trigger man, but it needs to be asked whether he gave Bolton enough ammunition to succeed.

Anyway, they are mates and the call should be made. The problem for Carlton is Lyon is seeing the fruits of three years of hard labour at Fremantle.

Carlton have to at least make an attempt to prise Alastair Clarkson out of Hawthorn. Picture: AAP

He said recently he was keen to coach there beyond his current contract.

If the Blues want him, why don’t they offer Lyon five years and see if that will shake him or Fremantle.

He has a year to run on contract with the Dockers. Is one in the hand better than five in the bush?

And then there’s Brad Scott.
Sacked by North Melbourne, some observers believe he will be at Carlton next year. At least one board member is a huge fan.

Of course, it all depends on whether Carlton believes it needs a coach with experience.

It could opt for another current assistant coach. But that wouldn’t fill supporters with confidence.

On yet another traumatic day for Carlton and its senior coaches — far too common this century — Bolton was sacked, Carlton said, because of the win-loss record.

Yes, it was extremely ­mediocre, but if the Blues had beaten Essendon on Sunday, the sacking wouldn’t have happened. In hindsight, the loss was the coach killer.

Bolton was in the dark and fell asleep on Sunday night reeling from another defeat and not believing he’d lose his job. But key people at Carlton knew better.

Chief executive Cain Liddle said he spoke to Bolton last week and told him pressure was mounting.

Clearly, football director Chris Judd has his fingerprints all over this.

Liddle is a commercial CEO more than a football CEO and president Mark LoGiudice puts faith in his ­appointments.

For Bolton to go, he had to lose the support of Judd, who had wavered in his absolute backing for him in recent weeks.

The circumstance changed quickly for the president, too.

He spoke to Judd on Sunday night — one of several Carlton people he spoke to — and Bolton’s fate was sealed.

LoGiudice was always in Bolton’s corner and even at lunchtime last Sunday week, before the loss to St Kilda, the president was fully backing the plan and the coach.

Either someone got in LoGiudice’s ear or he flip-flopped himself. I favour the former.

Brendon Bolton lost the support of president Mark LoGiudice. Picture: Getty Images

So, Bolton leaves with a terrible record, a classy exit and our query whether he was a good coach or not. Arguably, he didn’t get a chance because of the savage list cull, but he was given more chance in terms of games won versus games coached than just about any other coach in history.

What we didn’t learn is why Bolton couldn’t eke out more wins.

Was it the list? Was it the dud recruiting of C and D-graders to fill holes? Was is it his coaching philosophy and strategy, or lack thereof? Or was it his ­inability to cut through with messaging and belief?

All the Blues said was that it was the win-loss. Then again, they’re not going to drive the car back over him after they sacked him. Not in public at least.

The topsy-turvy levels of competitiveness obviously hurt Bolton. He’d been in the gun for three weeks.

The ­injury-hit Blues believed it was a winnable game against the injury-hit Bombers and the ­result was a timid, unskilled ­offering in the wet, which did not excite or inspire.

Calls were made on Sunday night and by 8am on Monday Bolton was gonski.

How many follow Bolton out the door is the obvious question.

LoGiudice supported him until he couldn’t and doesn’t have any plans to ­depart. And he shouldn’t.

He said the strategy would continue, with a new head strategist.

Bolton’s fate was sealed after football director Chris Judd spoke to Mark LoGuidice on Sunday night.

Silvagni is being externally examined, but the feeling within the Blues is he has compiled a talented list of young players.

Clearly, the Blues believed Bolton should have accomplished more with the list he had, so “SOS’’ won’t be going anywhere.

Judd selected Bolton and will be part of the selection committee to choose the new coach. But he wouldn’t want a second failure.

In the end, there was a heap of reasons why Carlton didn’t succeed under Bolton and ­unfortunately Bolton was one of them.

The strategy wasn’t obvious, the improvement in players wasn’t evident and what Carlton actually stood for as a football club wasn’t clear.

What is known is Bolton arrived at Carlton with a toothy smile and excitable disposition, had both of them wiped in a torrid past 18 months, and ­departed with a toothy smile and a genuine appreciation of the opportunity.

There were tears at times and a naturalness we didn’t see enough of in his press conferences and often wondered, from afar, if the players saw enough of behind closed doors.

No doubt he was good to footy, the problem was footy wasn’t good to him.