As much as the opening salvos of a new AFL season can serve up rogue results which end up being anomalies, they can also amplify with remarkable clarity what were previously only mumbled misgivings.
Such was certainly the case on Saturday night at the MCG following Port Adelaide's 91-point demolition at the hands of Collingwood. There are losses and there are disasters. The Power's obliteration was very much the latter.
But while the margin or the fact Port managed only six goals themselves while conceding a whopping 21 rang the alarm bells on their own, it's the game's latest version of "The Handover" which has made this belting suddenly look even more ominous.
Ken Hinkley's stewardship of Port Adelaide has long been a bumpy ride with the Power's notoriously restless fan base. But a month ago, when came the official announcement of Hinkley's end-of-season departure and Josh Carr's beginning in the senior coaching box, you got the impression all parties were somewhat placated.
The "sack Hinkley" group, which has grown sizeable to say the least, at least knew change was on the way. And those who believe the coach has delivered consistent results and got the best out of his playing group, would have one last chance for vindication.
The potential big problem conveniently ignored, however, is the danger of attempting to please everyone and in doing so pleasing nobody at all. Not to mention, in today's combustible media environment, given the proliferation of TV shows, "content makers" and yes, this column, too, more material with which to work.
There are some obvious questions raised with an arrangement like this, the most obvious that given the inevitable transition, which of Hinkley or Carr is effectively steering the ship, regardless of what official protocol dictates?
Hinkley inadvertently probably didn't help matters on that score after the Collingwood loss when, speaking at the post-match news conference, he said: "It's hard to say anything positive around the way we played, other than that we're in transition. We're in a space of playing a slightly different game style. And clearly, we've got a lot to learn."
I'm not sure why no journalist present followed up that comment up by asking Hinkley why there was a slightly different game plan, and whether that was his or Carr's initiative, but they should have, because while it might be very early days in implementing it, the first test drive was a disaster. Who claims responsibility?
The other obvious potential pitfall with a handover arrangement is the crutch it offers players for poor performance. If a Port Adelaide player feels under-appreciated by Hinkley, is he going to even sub-consciously be doing everything humanly possible to show the coach his assessment is wrong when, sooner than later, he'll have a new coach to impress anyway?
And while yes, of course full-time professional sportsmen should be more professional than that in their attitude to the workplace, what is the message their own administration has sent them via this "try to please everyone" arrangement?
This is a team, remember, which last year was only one victory away from a Grand Final spot. Ostensibly, that has to give it very realistic premiership hopes in 2025. But if the Port Adelaide front office genuinely believed that to be the case, why would it do anything at all to disturb the equilibrium of the football department?
Remember the ill-fated Collingwood handover from Mick Malthouse to Nathan Buckley at the end of 2011? One which many Magpies fervently believe cost the club a second flag in a row, and one which even Buckley himself sought to put on hold given how close the Pies were at the pointy end of the season?
But at least that arrangement had been drawn up two years previously. This one was signed off in mid-February. The Power's powerbrokers surely can't possibly believe they're going forward this season on-field if they're prepared to take this big a gamble on the eve of a season?
I've been of the view in recent seasons that Port's list wasn't quite as A-grade as many of its supporters believed, and that Hinkley may have in fact maximised results during the home and away season, the Power consistently pulling up short in September simply because they weren't quite as good as the teams above them.
I'm even more convinced of that after last season's exit. And in 2025, the early-season absences of the likes of Zak Butters, Esava Ratugolea, Todd Marshall, and Brandon Zerk-Thatcher (plus the permanent loss of Dan Houston) make life even harder for Port than it might have been in 2024.
It makes the Power's next few weeks even more interesting. Games against Richmond, Essendon and St Kilda, all likely bottom half of the ladder teams, offer a decent opportunity to get things back on track. Alternately, more losses against that calibre of opposition would surely see the demands to get Carr into the top seat now rather than next March rise to an almost deafening level.
We've seen our share of teams over the years attempt to cling on just one year too many for one more crack at the grand prize and go spectacularly belly up. And even they haven't had the added pressure of an officially-sanctioned next coach waiting impatiently in the wings.
Nor have they necessarily had the sort of fanaticism which drives the Port Adelaide supporter base. Which means it's hard not to believe that if the bleeding on the field continues for the Power over the next few weeks, there won't also be more shed off it.
You can read more of Rohan Connolly's work at FOOTYOLOGY.