2019: the year of being good in 2020

Remove this Banner Ad

What we need to be really good in 2020:

1. One or two of our draftees (Bergman, Williams, Georgiades and Mead) doing a Rozee/Duursma- suddenly we would have a dynamic forward line and it would release Rozee, Butters, Ebert and Gray to play more midfield.

2. Butters to convert his running prowess into possessions quickly- a few years back, Amon burnt the track in preseason just as Butters has this year but couldn't convert that power into anything meaningful on the field for 3 or 4 more years. If Butters can do that more quickly, it will improve us greatly. He is great with ball in hand. His challenge is to get more of it. If he does, look out.

3. Most of 2019's great improvers to consolidate or improve again. We saw massive improvements last year from Amon, Houston, Byrne-Jones, Ladhams, Drew, Rozee and Duursma. We need Rozee and Duursma to avoid the second year blues. We need the other 5 to at least be as good as they were last year or better. We cannot afford the majority of these players taking a backward step.

4. The 2017 Trade Period to pay dividends. Many here have written off Rockliff, Motlop and Watts. All 3 have not played to their potential at Port yet. Even if 2 of the 3 did in 2020, we would become a far better side. Motlop could kick 40 goals, Rockliff could average 30+ possessions and Watts could make a name for himself across half back like he was doing before he broke his leg. These guys are still in their prime and at their best are stars.

5. Wines and Dixon to play to their pay cheques. Possibly our two highest paid players. Both are capable of dominating games and being match winners. Again, both are still in their prime and if either performed to their capacity in any given week, it is hard to see us getting beaten. Neither has done this recently and it is easy to forget how good these guys really are.

None of this wish list is unrealistic. I suspect that if 3/5 of the above happens in 2020, we play finals. If 4/5 happens we win finals and if 5/5 happens we win the flag.
 
What we need to be really good in 2020:

5. Wines and Dixon to play to their pay cheques. Possibly our two highest paid players. Both are capable of dominating games and being match winners. Again, both are still in their prime and if either performed to their capacity in any given week, it is hard to see us getting beaten. Neither has done this recently and it is easy to forget how good these guys really are.

None of this wish list is unrealistic. I suspect that if 3/5 of the above happens in 2020, we play finals. If 4/5 happens we win finals and if 5/5 happens we win the flag.
If only Dixon was a good as Hinkley thinks he is. Unpopular opinion maybe, but an absolute bust.
 
Kick more goals than the opposition and we will be really good.

Go from being the #1 team for inside 50's, to the #1 team for inside 50's and #1 team for converting I50's to goal.

Stop kicking it to the bloody shithouse when we go inside 50 and then we can be good.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kick more goals than the opposition and we will be really good.

Go from being the #1 team for inside 50's, to the #1 team for inside 50's and #1 team for converting I50's to goal.

Stop kicking it to the bloody shithouse when we go inside 50 and then we can be good.

Number of inside 50s is a poor stat when you're much worse at converting than your opponents. We get more inside 50s because we don't turn them into goals - allowing us to turn the ball over again from just outside the forward 50 and go inside again.

It's a lot harder to lead the inside 50 numbers if you're actually effective up forward. So to achieve being "the #1 team for inside 50's and #1 team for converting I50's to goal." would be absolutely insane, and probably mean we'd be favourites to win the flag if that was the case.
 
Number of inside 50s is a poor stat when you're much worse at converting than your opponents. We get more inside 50s because we don't turn them into goals - allowing us to turn the ball over again from just outside the forward 50 and go inside again.
It's a poor stat because we're quite happy to go inside 50 shallow and/or to the pockets. With the opposition happy to let us go to locations it's easy to clean up from. If we went in intelligently instead of a combination of banging it on the boot and poor forward structure, we'd have a few less inside 50's, but be scoring more goals.

Our forward entries and setups screams of coaches who've taken some stats and completely failed to understand covariance and correlation versus causation. To them 'more inside 50's = more goals' and inside 50's is the target because of it.
 
Number of inside 50s is a poor stat when you're much worse at converting than your opponents. We get more inside 50s because we don't turn them into goals - allowing us to turn the ball over again from just outside the forward 50 and go inside again.

It's a lot harder to lead the inside 50 numbers if you're actually effective up forward. So to achieve being "the #1 team for inside 50's and #1 team for converting I50's to goal." would be absolutely insane, and probably mean we'd be favourites to win the flag if that was the case.
No that is not the main reason why.

We are a territory footy team. That is Hinkley's main strategy, get it in our forward half, get it into our forward line, deep and wide and try and lock it in and don't worry too much how good our inside 50 entries are, just get it in there.

The old Hinkley work harder, not smarter philosophy. Andre has nicely summed up my argument.
 
Last edited:
There's not too many teams that have any level of success without quality key forwards. You can have all the structure and system you like but if the big guys that are paid to take the big marks and kick the big goals can't actually do that then you are on a hiding to nothing.
 
There's not too many teams that have any level of success without quality key forwards. You can have all the structure and system you like but if the big guys that are paid to take the big marks and kick the big goals can't actually do that then you are on a hiding to nothing.
And that comes back to the list managers being willing to take the risk of ‘draft talls early and often’.
 
What we really need is for senior players to step up, not the younger blokes.
Unless mistaken Burton, Duursma and Rozee were top ten.
Should never have happened. Not all 3.
Burton missed a number of games and the other two were rookies.

Not to mention DBJ and Houston. When contracts should go close to reflecting the B&F and a couple of others step up then a team is doing well.

EDIT:
In order
Boak
DBJ
Houston
Rozee
Clurey
Jonas
Rockliff
Burton
Duursma
R. Gray
 
No that is not the main reason why.

We are a territory footy team. That is Hinkley's main strategy, get it in our forward half, get it into our forward line, deep and wide and try and lock it in and don't worry too much how good our inside 50 entries are, just get it in there.

The old Hinkley work harder, not smarter philosophy. Andre has nicely summed up my argument.

Yeah that's what I was saying, we've been prioritising inside 50 quantity over quality. If we improve the quality we will also generate inside 50s due to not creating as many repeat entries. That's not a problem, it just makes the stats misleading because you cant turn each inside 50 into a goal and still generate the same number of chances.
 
There's not too many teams that have any level of success without quality key forwards. You can have all the structure and system you like but if the big guys that are paid to take the big marks and kick the big goals can't actually do that then you are on a hiding to nothing.

Maybe.

Not possible though when most entries are kicked onto the big forward's head when he is surrounded by defenders, or not kicked to his advantage.

Your theory hasn't really been tested, since rarely have the big guys benefited from forward "structure and system". Hopefully this year we will get more patterns and leading and boring stuff like that.


On a similar topic I really like the way Todd Marshall can direct a contested mark ball to one of his team mates.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

There's not too many teams that have any level of success without quality key forwards. You can have all the structure and system you like but if the big guys that are paid to take the big marks and kick the big goals can't actually do that then you are on a hiding to nothing.

There was an attempt at shaping a ‘post-KPF’ narrative around West Coast 2006, what with their all-star midfield of Judd, Cousins, Kerr and Cox.

Never mind Quinten Lynch kicked 65 goals that year, Adam Hunter was regularly swung forward for gamesaving cameos (29 goals despite playing chiefly at CHB) and Brent Staker (23 games/24 goals) and Ash Hansen (14 games/17 goals inc. all 3 finals) were fixtures up front.

Will be tough to pick Sam Gray now he’s contracted to Sydney, but we’ll no doubt have a red-hot crack.
 
If only Dixon was a good as Hinkley thinks he is. Unpopular opinion maybe, but an absolute bust.

I think he can play, he just can't play Hinkleyball. Dixon on a lead is unbeatable and a sight to behold, it just rarely happens. Dixon standing still in the pocket with 3 defenders holding his arms is useless.
 
I think he can play, he just can't play Hinkleyball. Dixon on a lead is unbeatable and a sight to behold, it just rarely happens. Dixon standing still in the pocket with 3 defenders holding his arms is useless.

Is this actually true though? When apart from the 2017 elimination final has this been evident? Even when he does get space, he tends to drop easy marks and if he doesn't drop an easy mark he misses an easy goal.
 
Kick more goals than the opposition and we will be really good.

Go from being the #1 team for inside 50's, to the #1 team for inside 50's and #1 team for converting I50's to goal.

Stop kicking it to the bloody shithouse when we go inside 50 and then we can be good.
You would think 'kick it to a good lead or to one of the talls top of the square with crumbers' would be simple enough to implement. But I'm sure we will still lead to the boundary, kick on top of the smalls heads and have zero tall presence deep in the 50.
 
Will be tough to pick Sam Gray now he’s contracted to Sydney, but we’ll no doubt have a red-hot crack.

Lol. I'd completely forgotten about that!
 
....
We still seem to be unable to grasp the difference between quality and quantity inside 50's.
When the AFL change the rules so that the team with the highest number of repeat inside 50s (ie without scoring) wins Hinkley will be seen as a genius.
 
Is this actually true though? When apart from the 2017 elimination final has this been evident? Even when he does get space, he tends to drop easy marks and if he doesn't drop an easy mark he misses an easy goal.



If you look at any of his highlights packages, he looks best when on the lead. I actually like him leading through CHF more than inside F50. Either way he is better when he is on the move (duh!! as is every forward that ever played the game Ken). We just rarely see it nowadays. It's so stupid. I also think it's hard for him to even lead as he is always outnumbered when he should be starting his lead, and that is because he doesn't have other KPF's to take some of the heat. e.g Kennedy/Darling or Riewolt/Lynch

I also think his confidence is easily shaken, which doesn't suit any player in a Hinkley coached team
 
It’s been a terrific year of looking forward to being good in 2020. I for one, can’t see how anything could possibly go wrong next year. With Ken Hinkley leading a group of exciting, eager-to-learn youngsters, finally this year we have been able to consider that we will be good at a later date.

see you at the footy!

Prophetic thread.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top