Roast WHAT I WANT TO SEE FROM A WELL COACHED PORT SIDE THAT KEN HINKLEY HAS FAILED TO SHOW US

[LP7_]

When we came out round one we were so ‘run and gun’, it was so good to see. Haven’t seen it since.

 

[Macca19]

Cox has surpassed Woodcock hasn’t he?

Not in my eyes. Different players as well

 

[Far Kern]

Last week Hawthorn denied us the corridor and forced us to hoof it long. With us already having spread, they took the intercept and set up their game with space.

Sydney did the same thing to us at the start of 2015.

Why is it that after all of this time we can’t carry the ball to the point of the contest and only ever go long over the defense, or hold the ball with control and pull that contest to us? Why can’t we both expand and contract the ground as needed?

Because Ken must go.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

This is a very good thread with some top class analysis. My thoughts:



I do miss the glory years with Schulz as our main focal point. Not only was he a master at leading out towards the ball, he was a master at doubling back then switching direction on a dime to create space. Its why our forward line worked so well with him up there and why the slingshot was (to an extent) successful. Certainly in the early Hinkley years we had a set way of moving the ball down field. Every player knew what was expected. Ever since we moved away from the slingshot in 2016 we've gone back to haphazard ball movement, getting it inside 50 almost by accident, no predictable way of moving the ball down field. Now some might say that its good that we aren't predictable in our ball movement, but it also means that our team don't really know whats going to happen from one play to the next.

I think what Roos said on On The Couch is correct, in that our players are too muddled on what they are expected to do.



I think a lot of this has to do with our poor skill level for the entirety of the Hinkley era. We just haven't been able to bring in consistently highly skilled players for a decade really. The more you turn the ball over the more work you are doing.

I agree that we have overworked our forward players over the years. I think this is less of an issue this year as our forward setup has changed quite a bit. But certainly from 14-18 our forwards were doing a shitload of running, and even more pointless running.



I feel like this is less of an issue this year since Polec left, who was awful at calling for the ball in terrible positions and receiving the ball too early because of it. I think with how Duursma and Amon have set up this year, we are being a bit smarter with when and how we get the ball to our outside players.



This is bad and has remained bad under the Dixon era. Our forward setups have been so fundamentally flawed over the last 3-4 years its a surprise when we actually kick a winning score.

Dixon is both a very good and very poor contested mark. Half of the problem is the fact that we have deployed Goodwin ball for large parts of the last couple of seasons. The other half is that he calls for the ball when he shouldnt. He's very quick on the lead but rarely leads inside 50, he relies on having the ball put on his head and trying to outmuscle his opponent(s).

I do feel like this is definitely a coaching issue though. We've seen it with Marshall this year, his inability to lead. We saw it with Frampton over the last two games, his inability to lead. It has to be coaching.

To go with that, we just play dumb football. Everyone knows we bomb it in, but how often do we have a crumber at the feet of the KPF? Pretty rarely. We either have Sam Gray as the long target, formerly Jake Neade as the long target, or they are in no mans land, too far away from impacting the drop of the ball deep. This is why I can't wait for Woodcock to get a go as I feel he should be able to impact in that manner.

You make too much sense Macca.

I dream of the day we can hear something as sensible as this from our head coach.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Far Kern]

This post is limited to actual tactical **** on field, and criticisms of our coaches pertaining to that. I haven’t forgotten the regular failures of our selection committee as another key part of our Hinkley-led coaching unit failing, but that’s not what this is about. I can do one of those if people want, but I’m nominating tribey for that, because his grudge holding is far more detailed and specific than mine.


Better Use Of Players Down The Length Of The Ground

At one point the Hinkley plan was to get the ball to half forward and force a stoppage, so our players could move up and take control of the front 3/4 of the field instead of the back 3/4. We’d then use forward pressure to try and keep the ball in the front part.

Heavily reliance on forward pressure works great against teams that rattle easily, but it wore our guys out when we did it every single game all game, and ultimately the composed teams would always cut through it when it mattered. When you are great at breaking down weak and rattleable teams, but struggle against well coached sides, your ceiling is definitively mid-table. You need something better.

Composed players would ignore the frantic approach of a Neade or similar, and continue what they were doing with little hindrance, because most of the pressure placed on them was mental but not actual. That’s great play (and coaching) by those opponents to draw the man and still get good disposal away, and we’ll get to that in the next section.

Since we recruited Charlie Dixon, our plan shifted a bit and then largely became about getting the ball past the halfway mark and hoofing it forward, out wide usually, maybe to Charlie or to Sam Gray or to space, and hope that that would give us time to move our whole team up to the front 3/4 instead of the back 3/4. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn’t. We didn’t really solve our problem with this change though, because our forwards were still being run ragged to do all the work.

Neither method has brought success, and the failures of the second method in particular were visible when Bassett was in charge of our defence and for some reason we allowed our defence the luxury of always having extra men back there, robbing us even more of structure and options down the field.

What we don’t do anywhere near often enough is demand that our defenders carry the ball forward UP TO THE POINT OF CONTEST, with the team moving ahead of them. Classic Port Adelaide teams of years past did this, you could watch them moving up the field in waves. Instead we get to a point, hoof and hope, often while the nearest opponent is a fair way away from the man carrying the ball. More on this failure of defenders later.

Another inefficient use of manpower, that precedes Hinkley and continues to this day, is when players take a mark, and handball backwards to a running player, who kicks from further behind than the man on the mark would’ve if he’d taken his time. What is the value of this. Handpassing to a running player should be reserved for when the running player is running past the mark and can exploit a zone collapse, not just because its easy.

And in this scenario, when the marking player has handballed off, they need to be looking at how they’ll next get involved in the play. Too often all they do is drop behind the play, instead of pushing/blocking forward to allow more space for the new ball carrier, or running forward to provide an option in case the new carrier runs into trouble. They just stop, and maybe go back to their direct opponent. I hate this so much.

Still happening under Hinkley. Saw Ryder do it just last week. Baffling.


Make The Opposition Work Harder Than You

Josh Carr was my favorite player for a lot of reasons, but one thing I enjoyed about him was when he had the ball in the defensive half (not after a mark, just holding it), and he’d Just. Stop. And wait until he could see he’d made an opponent run towards him to contest. Then because he had a cool head, he’d be disposing of the ball just before the opponent could tackle or smother, forcing them to waste their tank (and sometimes stretching the zone too)

Jarrad Schofield wasn’t always my favorite player, but I always enjoyed how reliable his baulking was, where he’d make a defender commit to stopping him, trick them into committing further to an action, and chance his own. Fans could see it coming, and maybe defenders could too, but they had to respect that Jarrad could go either way. They’d put in effort that Jarrad was ready for, and he’d usually coolly slot the ball to a leading forward or maybe jag a goal. Nice.

In both cases, they could do this because a) they had been coached to dispose just in time, and b) their teammates nearby presented options for them. Not just behind them or 30m sideways, but upfield.

This also ties into the previous point, of not being shitscared of the proximity of another player because you have something resembling composure. Making the opposition work harder than you requires bravery, confidence, and things that actual motivational coaches can instil into their players.

Guess Hinkley’s not a motivational coach, or ran out of motivation after 2014


Coordination downfield, only possible by having players consistently downfield to coordinate

Our forwards, few as they are allowed to be, don’t make coordinated leads to provide multiple options, because instead our coaches’ system largely has them responding to randomball delivery into the forward line, or running down to the wing to take marks because our inefficient and unambitious ball movement means there’s too many players left behind the play, and someone has to present.

When someone is running down the wing, a good team has a couple of options for the player with the ball to take. Ours is Charlie Dixon (now Frampton), or Bung It On The Boot, or both. We don’t have multiple options leading towards the ball (the easiest marks for any forward to take), because to do that you need to have more forwards further downfield than we usually position them.

Instead we see every game the ball kicked ahead of or on top of players running up from midfield. Great as a trick now and then, all teams do that sometimes, but too often its our only route to goal. Its why Sam Gray is in the side, he’s learned to roll with this shitty strategy. And its why he gets regularly shut down against good sides, because it’s a low percentage player, requiring high fitness, and excellent marking skill that usually requires working out the fall of the ball by looking over your shoulder. Park footballers dislike when they regularly have to do that, and AFL players would have similar concerns.

These are not easy marks. Its no wonder we can’t consistently take them, nor is it a surprise that a lot of the time the mistargeting of hoof and hope, & degree of difficulty in positioning to mark, require our players to chase an errant ball at ground level that overshot them - or to watch as the opponent’s loose man in defence effortlessly takes another intercept mark, as we’ve seen so so many times.

Having forwards allowed to watch midfield play develop and intelligently lead towards the ball (or at a useful contrary angle to the ball, if you have *gasp* more than one leading forward) isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity. It conserves fitness and mental focus. The best teams in any year have forwards doing this, and they can do this because their coaches can structure a forward line.

Ours can’t.


If you genuinely have to kick to a contest, kick to a big bloke

Unlike a sport like soccer, there is a clear advantage to height in AFL, mostly granted by the height standard with a punt kick, and by the high value of the security given to a successful mark.

We give away height in the forward line too often, and rarely have players with blistering speed enough to lead to an uncontested mark (or at least not to one that doesn’t require them diminishing the real meterage gained…unless they’re running forward towards goal, which as previous mentioned, is the hard way to do it).

And even when we do bung it to a Dixon or Frampton, sadly Robbie Gray is our only guy who crumbs intelligently on a regular basis, still. But when delivery in the forward line is so often hack kicks, players have to choose between positioning to crumb, or positioning to run onto the ball. It’d be great if there was predictability in how the ball was coming in, or if our forwards (again) had the ability to see play unfold instead of relying on half glances over their shoulders when they can. Oh well.

Aidyn Johnson ahead of Frampton though, great thinking boss man. And countless others, as I have delegated tribey or someone else to provide.


Defenders must take the game on, by showing composure when attacking, not just when the opposition has taken the ball upfield

Our defenders don’t run with the ball to the point of contest; they give off early so they can reset for what they presumably believe will be ****ups earlier up the field. When Jasper Pittard was good, he was the guy who would not just take the ball forward, but also take on the contest before disposing, effectively removing an opponent from the play. Smart play, and responsible for damaging disposal at times.

He used to do this, and it was why he had fan defenders even when his attempts exploded in his face (though quite often that happened because no one upfield was moving). In 2017 he did not try to do this any more. Bye Jas.

Instead we kept all the guys that give off the ball too early, disposing downfield just because they can either move the ball diagonally forward around 15m (10m actually forward) or hoof it long, and fall back, meaning we run out of ball carriers and forward options by the time we get just ahead of the centre square, meaning if/when we secure a mark in the area, we have to wait for runners from midfield to now stream forward, expending more energy and letting opposition defenders do what they do best – reset.

This is a defensive coach failure, and the failure of the person responsible for coordinating the different lines to act in concern. Gotta presume that’s Hinkley.


Outside mids are not a dirty word; why don’t ours make an impact?

We win hitouts. We win clearances. Yet our ball use and delivery forward is shocking. It feels like we’re a team of Simon Goodwins, concerned only with winning the ball, hoofing it, and not caring what happens next.

Jared Polec was far from a perfect player, but it’d be hard to argue that we used him well around our midfield. What happened to Hitout -> Extractor -> Outsider -> Forward? Other teams manage it. For a team with the density of draft picks and trades we’ve dedicated to ruck and midfield we should have the resources for it. Why doesn’t it happen with any reliability, not even against poor teams?

Again, Robbie Gray being the supergenius has been our only real ace in the hole. It’s a shame our only reliable option is someone who should’ve won a Brownlow by now, and who will retire in the next three years.

We’ve had a few options for outside players over the years, but the focus of our inside mids on playing hot potato, and not on the thing the best sides have done over the years (I always think of mid-2000s West Coast here) - creating space for other mids to clear intelligently, not just desperately.

Six years, no improvement, just increasingly more focus on hot potato ballhandling and rushed kicks into the forward 50. Coaching fail. Going backwards if anything.


SUMMARY (or TL;DR)

Under Ken Hinkley:

- We don’t have a reliable plan for bringing the ball from end to end, other than randomness & Robbie Gray
- We overwork our midfield, and particularly our forward players, when good teams work out how to reduce the load through team play.
- We don’t play intelligent football at clearances, and can’t manage outside players because of it
- We don’t give our forwards prime opportunities to secure positionally useful marks and kick goals
- Defenders are allowed to coast behind unambitious counterattacks
- Robbie Gray has played some ******* stellar football to drag us to midtable and he’s gone soon
- All our players (after a couple years in Hinkley system, draftees degrade) lack the composure to play smarter, not harder. YES THIS INCLUDES SENIOR PLAYERS.

And as very briefly mentioned at the start, there are other morale, form, and development ****ups by our Hinkley led Selection Panel and Player Trade Out Team that affect our onfield too.


SACK. HIM.

Really good post. Thanks.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I want to see us play decent 1 on 1 contest footy so that when oppo goes and puts +2 defenders behind the ball, we play man on man for 10-15 minutes and shake it up.

If we line 8 forwards up near the goal square ( no not at the centre bounce but when their 2 mids drift into the back line) then 6 of those 8 defenders are not going to zone off 25-35m from players and protect space. There is going to be plenty of space for forwards to run into.

But we aren't good enough to win enough 1 on 1's in the midfield so we wont try it.

 

[Janey]

You make too much sense Macca.

I dream of the day we can hear something as sensible as this from our head coach.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

How much would we have to pay Macca and Butters to take over from Ken? I reckon we could get both for Ken's salary and they'd do a better job. And we could raffle off an observer's seat in the coaches box each game. The fish and chips and tea would be included. We'd make a fortune.

 

[AwwThatsApples]

How much would we have to pay Macca and Butters to take over from Ken? I reckon we could get both for Ken's salary and they'd do a better job. And we could raffle off an observer's seat in the coaches box each game. The fish and chips and tea would be included. We'd make a fortune.

I'd rather Russell or Janus be the senior coach, they'd make far better leaders of the group.
Butters and Macca would be better as assistants to get down to the ground with the players more and sharpen our gameplan.

 

[Janey]

I'd rather Russell or Janus be the senior coach, they'd make far better leaders of the group.
Butters and Macca would be better as assistants to get down to the ground with the players more and sharpen our gameplan.

Maybe we could just have co-co-coaches

 

[chickentendies]

This is a very good thread with some top class analysis. My thoughts:



I do miss the glory years with Schulz as our main focal point. Not only was he a master at leading out towards the ball, he was a master at doubling back then switching direction on a dime to create space. Its why our forward line worked so well with him up there and why the slingshot was (to an extent) successful. Certainly in the early Hinkley years we had a set way of moving the ball down field. Every player knew what was expected. Ever since we moved away from the slingshot in 2016 we've gone back to haphazard ball movement, getting it inside 50 almost by accident, no predictable way of moving the ball down field. Now some might say that its good that we aren't predictable in our ball movement, but it also means that our team don't really know whats going to happen from one play to the next.

I think what Roos said on On The Couch is correct, in that our players are too muddled on what they are expected to do.

We've had a few players who on leaving, have mentioned a confusing game plan. I'd say its 100% correct.

 

[tribey]

Ess at Docklands 1-3

Ess anywhere.

1-2 record at Adelaide Oval. With the sole win being when they came over here with their WADA players missing.

Imagine being consistently outcoached by John Worsfold, who managed to lose to Carlton last year.

 

[ozph1870]

Ess anywhere.

1-2 record at Adelaide Oval. With the sole win being when they came over here with their WADA players missing.

Imagine being consistently outcoached by John Worsfold, who managed to lose to Carlton last year.

We match up horribly against them. They move the ball with pace while our team of plodders are a half an hour behind.

 

[Contested Marx]

Gee Butters Made Me Do It thanks a lot for liking a post in the Hinkley extension thread from 2½ years ago like I needed to relive that

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

Gee Butters Made Me Do It thanks a lot for liking a post in the Hinkley extension thread from 2½ years ago like I needed to relive that

My search for my own comments on Hinkley's contract extension has led to me sending many people such gifts

edit: looks like its my fault ken hinkley got extended, i was only doing the podcast at the time. sorry everyone.

 

[GremioPower]

See? You can do it. I agree with everything you’ve said. It all starts from the mentality of the players, and that is a reflection of the coach.

Just got two questions. Why could the defenders push up the ground against West Coast in Perth if Ken can’t motivate them? And why were there still people calling for players to be dropped replaced after that game?

For mine, that game showed me how we wanted to play.

We f*ck*d up last season badly. What we have seen and experienced, and the way everything unfolded, has hurt my morale big time. It was BIBLICAL! It was like all the almighty rath of the football gods had been pressed upon us.

Put that on top of 2017 (the Showdown humiliation and the EF loss), and there should be no surprise why our souls are shattered. Still, almost no accountability...

 

[HotSausage69]

I just want to see something different than going in with the same selection decisions every week and getting the same results year after year.

 

[Magus]

Our records under Hinkley against Adelaide, Geelong, Essendon, GWS and West Coast are disgusting.

Come to think of it, what teams would we have a positive record against? St. Kilda obviously. Carlton would be another (still with a couple of embarrassing losses in there) and Gold Coast.

 

[Janus]

We f*ck*d up last season badly. What we have seen and experienced, and the way everything unfolded, has hurt my morale big time. It was BIBLICAL! It was like all the almighty rath of the football gods had been pressed upon us.

Put that on top of 2017 (the Showdown humiliation and the EF loss), and there should be no surprise why our souls are shattered. Still, almost no accountability...

Biblical huh?

““Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

...The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.”

The look that Christ gave Peter at that moment wasn’t one of anger, or an I-told-you-so, or even one of pity or regret.

It was “I understand.”

It takes a lot of courage to stay true to what you believe in the face of adversity. Most on here have beliefs that are rooted in tradition, because it was that tradition that has won this club so many flags in the past.

That’s why I understand the bitterness and disappointment.

Me? I know that this side can win the flag. We’ve let slip games we could have and should have won, but we’ve done so while playing 7 debutants (Rozee, Butters, Garner, Duursma, Drew, Ladhams) and 3 players under 5 games (Frampton, Atley, Farrell).

If you go through the points made in this thread, every single one was addressed against St Kilda. Now, you can say “It was only St Kilda”, and that’s true...but it shows us how the team wants to play. It was the same with West Coast and Melbourne. Even in the Brisbane and Collingwood games we saw flashes of it for three quarters.

The problem is that better opponents are always going to challenge that preferred method with their own. It’s a contest of will. Who is going to blink first. Like a game of chicken.

The Hermeticist understands that all things are a contest of will - also known as faith - and that the All is mind, the universe is mental.

This board (as a generality, there are obviously a few exceptions) has faith that Hinkley can’t coach this side to a flag, because it focuses on the negative. I have faith that he can, because I focus on the positive.

But I understand why people are negative, and I don’t hold it against them at all.

 

[Us against the rest]

Oh I get now, so we are the best down hill skiers in the AFL.

 

[1954]

This is like Tyson v Holyfield

I'm thinking more Bruno v Witherspoon, when Frank looked sensational with his perfect physique, whilst Tim had a muffin top and appeared badly out of shape, until he landed one big punch and it was all over.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

I'm thinking more Bruno v Witherspoon, when Frank looked sensational with his perfect physique, whilst Tim had a muffin top and appeared badly out of shape, until he landed one big punch and it was all over.

I think its more like a professional boxer gets challenged by a raving drunk guy in the street and decides to ignore them

 

[GremioPower]

"the universe is mental." (Janus)

I concur. Mental, indeed.

In Brazil, it is common for a fan base to chant "I BE-LIEVE! I BE-LIEVE!" when the team is facing adversity and needs a come back. Let me tell you, many times all this belief is not enough.

We can all focus and teach our brains to believe something, but that alone conquers nothing. One still needs to act upon the world, and the world might have a belief of its own. The universe can totally disagree with us. It is mental...

Seriously though, we have shown time and time again that we lack precisely the mental fortitude to win. The leadership is not good. We could win it all, obviously, like we did in 2004, after choking and choking and choking.

The question is: are we learning from our failures? The thread works even after St. Kilda. They have fought their hearts out against us in China. They couldn't kick for goals, while we finally did it. However, they were getting into their F50 and scoring more constantly than most of our opponents. Can we sustain our goal-kicking, while improving our pressing game?

We have seen us playing great football immediately followed by dumb footy. Our team has zero credibility. The benefit of doubt is against them. They need to provide the evidence that they can be more then what they have been. They must acknowledge and accept that such a skepticism is DESERVED and FAIR.

Then, from THAT, we can start moving on.

 

[Magus]

This board (as a generality, there are obviously a few exceptions) has faith that Hinkley can’t coach this side to a flag, because it focuses on the negative. I have faith that he can, because I focus on the positive.

But I understand why people are negative, and I don’t hold it against them at all.

Nah. It's not about having faith that Hinkley can't coach for the sake of it. This position is entirely evidence based. Your position seems to be one of having faith that he can coach but without any evidence to back it up (or selective evidence.)

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

We haven't had the team or the leadership to win a premiership in recent times, but the next few years are looking very good for us imo.
We had strong leadership through the early 2000's and a team full of guns...could've easily pinched a couple more premierships through that period.
I reckon we're pretty close to having that kind of team again...we're just a touch young atm.

 

[Janus]

Nah. It's not about having faith that Hinkley can't coach for the sake of it. This position is entirely evidence based. Your position seems to be one of having faith that he can coach but without any evidence to back it up (or selective evidence.)

All the "evidence" is either circumstantial or just opinions. For every piece of evidence that someone claims to have, it's really just emotional rhetoric, based on how they feel about certain players or coaches.

It's like the Ryder/Ladhams debate. There is literally no evidence to suggest that Ladhams is a better forward or ruck than Ryder, because Ryder isn't playing in the SANFL and never has. Could Ladhams be a better ruck/forward? Sure - but the way people talk about him on here is like he's a top ten draft pick and not the rookie listed player we selected him as.

Same with Frampton - I said that Dixon would show you what an AFL key forward does, and even in his first game back from injury after 10 months, he does what Frampton can do on his best day in the SANFL. He even missed two goals he said himself he should have kicked. Imagine what he'd do if he was fully fit.

The real facts are that certain people have an agenda with the list, which is basically for Hinkley to do what Primus did in 2011/12 and blood kids so that when he's gone at the end of his contract, the next coach won't have to develop them. And even if he did that, he wouldn't get any credit from these people for developing those players - players that he's had since 2013. Howard, Houston, Byrne-Jones, Lienert - they are all products of the development of Ken Hinkley.

What they fail to understand is that s**t policy of throwing kids in regardless is exactly the reason why players like O'Shea, Moore, Pittard, Young, Butcher etc failed to do anything of substance in the AFL. If you're gifting games to kids regardless and not making them earn it on merit (merit being actually doing what is asked by the coaches, not racking up stats to try and impress that way), then there is no reward for actually playing properly.

As long as the players know why they were dropped, and are clear in the method, they can work on their game. That's how a player becomes better. Not some arbitrary 'everyone gets a gold star' bullshit. If Frampton wasn't dropped against St Kilda, it would have been a mistake after his game against Hawthorn - which some people have tried to dress up as being a kid developing but was, in fact, just a poor performance from a kid who fell into bad habits against Gold Coast in the second half.

The same thing happened with Marshall. Started off okay, fell into a slump against Carlton where he wasn't even seen near the ball, got dropped, came back for the West Coast game and played an excellent team oriented game, then fell into a slump again where he couldn't even be bothered contesting for the ball against Adelaide, and got dropped. Again, falling into bad habits of fading in and out of games which he needs to break the cycle of lest he become another Westhoff.

This board doesn't have the patience required to develop a list, because most of the people on here grew up with Port Adelaide winning premierships every second year. All I've ever said is I'd wait until we get our full list of players back (minus Watts) before I make a judgement on whether Ken Hinkley can or can't coach. Because this year is the first year since 2014 that I've seen the playing list commit 100% to what they are trying to do...and more importantly, have the talent and experience that is necessary to turn it into a reality.