GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 20,899
- 43,013
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
This is a reply to an article from Footyology on Ken Hinkley. It's an attempt to show that demanding Port to change its head coach cannot be neither "obscene" nor "ludicrous," as the author argues, considering his own take on the subject. Hinkley has got the club up to where he could have brought us. There's enough evidence to show that he cannot takes us further, but through some series of fortunate events. We should be thankful for his work in Alberton, but it's passed the time to move on.
Introduction
“Any calls for [Hinkley’s] head are obscene and ludicrous,” wrote James Rosewarne, in an article published on July 12th at Footyology. He believes that such calls are the consequence of a “‘what have you done for me lately’ climate” in “an industry obsessed with coaching turmoil and intrigue.” After all, he says, “Hinkley has repeatedly proven his worth at Alberton.”
I am a Port supporter who believes that a change at the club’s head-coach position is imperative. Hence, I think that calling for Hinkley’s head is neither “obscene” nor “ludicrous;” at least, not necessarily so. Rosewarne’s arguments weren’t enough to convince me otherwise. As sincere and well-written as his defense of Hinkley’s tenure may be, his points still seem weaker than those on contrary.
I. Rosewarne's Arguments
Now, what does Rosewarne say to justify his position on the matter? He brings what he calls two “acts,” which would illustrate why Hinkley is the right coach for Port: (a) Act I – (a.1) taking a bottom-dweller side to Finals in his first year and (a.2) to within 3 points of a Grand Final in the following season; and (b) Act II – “helping to overhaul the club’s list and game style and returning the club to genuine premiership contention.”
Those are mostly all facts. Port indeed was a bad football team in 2011 and 2012; it made Finals in both 2013 and 2014; and it was a premiership contender in 2020. I don’t want to take anything away from Hinkley. It wasn’t a mistake hiring him. He deserves the praise for his good services at the club. That’s not up to discussion. The question is whether Hinkley should be coaching Port now; and the answer is “no.”
II. Hinkley's Five Years of Mediocrity
The problem with Hinkley is not what is happening in 2021, but what happened in the five years in-between the two acts mentioned above. And what has happened then? I don’t need to say it, because Rosewarne has said himself. Prior to 2020, Port was “a club who hadn’t won a single final in six years.” Last season was so atypical, the club had been so afar from that 2013-2014 run and for so long, that Port would have been “gate-crashing the grand final.”
Again, it’s Rosewarne who says that “within a single off-season, the Power went from being ranked 14th from a kick-to-handball ratio to suddenly leading the league.” Yet, “within one season,” Port has reverted back to the type, having “gone from that other-worldly inside-50 team to one now actually posting a negative differential.”
Rosewarne wrote that, now, “Hinkley has the opportunity to prove himself as one of the game’s very best.” This is Hinkley’s ninth season as Port’s head coach; the seventh, since he lead Port to the Preliminary Finals back in 2014. He already had plenty of opportunities. He simply couldn’t make anything off of them.
III. From 2020 to 2021: Regression to the Mean
Regarding his work, from 2015 to 2021, there’s been only one outlier: the 2020 season. As a statement on Hinkley’s tenure during this period, “helping to overhaul the club’s list,” as Rosewarne puts it, simply doesn’t make the cut. After all, the overhauled list is the same one that Hinkley had taken “within three points of a Grand Final berth” once, but never again; at least, not until last year.
The 2020 season was special for many different reasons. It was Port’s 150th Anniversary, and there was the pandemic; and, with the pandemic, it came shorter games, a shorter season, hubs, lack of attendance, and so on. Port, indeed, was the club who adjusted the best to the new conditions. The minor premiership was well-deserved. However, this season both the game and the league have been gone back to normal.
“And to this point, the Power have been found wanting.” I wouldn’t be able to have described it better myself. Rosewarne also hits the target when saying that “it is Port’s inability to both improvise and to beat the best which brings out the ‘flat track bully’ brigade.” His mistake is believing that this is something new. “Port has lost all four of its encounters against top-four teams this year.”
If it only had been in 2021, but it hasn’t. The game and the league have gone back to normal, and so did Port.
IV. A Constant: the struggle against the best
From 2016 to 2020, the Power’s record against Top-4 teams is 4 wins and 22 losses. Prior to 2020, Port’s best season against Top-8 teams had been in 2015 (7-6), a year in which the club failed to make Finals (Port went 5-4 against everyone else). Since then, the Power made sure they wouldn’t miss Finals because they lost to bad sides. Now, they miss Finals because they can't beat the good sides, instead.
Considering the period between 2016 and 2020, Port’s overall record against Top-4 sides (i.e., 4-22) is 16th in the league – only better than Essendon’s (3-23) and Gold Coast’s (1-21). However, against teams from 5th to 18th, Port’s record (57-23) is 4th best, only behind Geelong (64-15), West Coast (63-21), and Richmond (54-21-1) – the three most successful AFL clubs from the period. Port doesn’t come close to them on that count.
If it weren’t for the games against the very best, Hinkley’s Port would be a constant contender. Yet, from 2013 to 2020, in order, Port has finished in: 7th; 5th; 9th; 10th; 5th; 10th; 10th; and 1st. No Top-4 finishes, but in 2020; only one Final game between 2015 and 2019, for 0 wins; and the first team ever to miss Finals after an 11-4 start in 2018.
Conclusion
In brief, “Port’s inability to both improvise and to beat the best” is actually Hinkley’s, and he has already had plenty opportunities to prove otherwise, but failed. It is true that Hinkley’s bad isn’t bad. When Port has a bad season, it finishes 10th, at worse, and with 10 wins, at least. There are plenty of AFL clubs that would call such a shortcoming as “success.” Port is not one of them.
This has nothing to do with the club’s SANFL past. It is simply a natural expectation. Once you reach a certain threshold, the expectation becomes to go a step forward; and Port has been stuck in the same position for most of Hinkley’s tenure. That’s the malaise behind the criticism of his work.
It took a completely extraordinary year for the club to go beyond its usual self; and there are people, including Rosewarne, who seems surprised that Port hasn’t maintained itself on that level. The point is that 2020 was an exception.
If Port wants to become a contender, it needs to stop being afraid of losing and take risks. Hinkley is a known quantity (he is risk-averse). We know what we can get from him, and that’s no longer good enough. In order to be among the best, Port still needs many things; among those, a new coach – one able to be more strategic on game days against the best teams, or, in Rosewarne’s words, able “to both improvise and to beat the best.”
Such a change, perhaps, could bring the “kind of spark” we the Port faithful have been “desperately waiting” for more than half a decade already. It would be the best. After all, I certainly do not wish for another pandemic…
---
Originally published in Far-West Footy:
farwestfooty.blogspot.com
---
You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: a response to James Rosewarne
You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: a response to James Rosewarne
Paulo Roberto Tellechea Sanchotene
Introduction
“Any calls for [Hinkley’s] head are obscene and ludicrous,” wrote James Rosewarne, in an article published on July 12th at Footyology. He believes that such calls are the consequence of a “‘what have you done for me lately’ climate” in “an industry obsessed with coaching turmoil and intrigue.” After all, he says, “Hinkley has repeatedly proven his worth at Alberton.”
I am a Port supporter who believes that a change at the club’s head-coach position is imperative. Hence, I think that calling for Hinkley’s head is neither “obscene” nor “ludicrous;” at least, not necessarily so. Rosewarne’s arguments weren’t enough to convince me otherwise. As sincere and well-written as his defense of Hinkley’s tenure may be, his points still seem weaker than those on contrary.
I. Rosewarne's Arguments
Now, what does Rosewarne say to justify his position on the matter? He brings what he calls two “acts,” which would illustrate why Hinkley is the right coach for Port: (a) Act I – (a.1) taking a bottom-dweller side to Finals in his first year and (a.2) to within 3 points of a Grand Final in the following season; and (b) Act II – “helping to overhaul the club’s list and game style and returning the club to genuine premiership contention.”
Those are mostly all facts. Port indeed was a bad football team in 2011 and 2012; it made Finals in both 2013 and 2014; and it was a premiership contender in 2020. I don’t want to take anything away from Hinkley. It wasn’t a mistake hiring him. He deserves the praise for his good services at the club. That’s not up to discussion. The question is whether Hinkley should be coaching Port now; and the answer is “no.”
II. Hinkley's Five Years of Mediocrity
The problem with Hinkley is not what is happening in 2021, but what happened in the five years in-between the two acts mentioned above. And what has happened then? I don’t need to say it, because Rosewarne has said himself. Prior to 2020, Port was “a club who hadn’t won a single final in six years.” Last season was so atypical, the club had been so afar from that 2013-2014 run and for so long, that Port would have been “gate-crashing the grand final.”
Again, it’s Rosewarne who says that “within a single off-season, the Power went from being ranked 14th from a kick-to-handball ratio to suddenly leading the league.” Yet, “within one season,” Port has reverted back to the type, having “gone from that other-worldly inside-50 team to one now actually posting a negative differential.”
Rosewarne wrote that, now, “Hinkley has the opportunity to prove himself as one of the game’s very best.” This is Hinkley’s ninth season as Port’s head coach; the seventh, since he lead Port to the Preliminary Finals back in 2014. He already had plenty of opportunities. He simply couldn’t make anything off of them.
III. From 2020 to 2021: Regression to the Mean
Regarding his work, from 2015 to 2021, there’s been only one outlier: the 2020 season. As a statement on Hinkley’s tenure during this period, “helping to overhaul the club’s list,” as Rosewarne puts it, simply doesn’t make the cut. After all, the overhauled list is the same one that Hinkley had taken “within three points of a Grand Final berth” once, but never again; at least, not until last year.
The 2020 season was special for many different reasons. It was Port’s 150th Anniversary, and there was the pandemic; and, with the pandemic, it came shorter games, a shorter season, hubs, lack of attendance, and so on. Port, indeed, was the club who adjusted the best to the new conditions. The minor premiership was well-deserved. However, this season both the game and the league have been gone back to normal.
“And to this point, the Power have been found wanting.” I wouldn’t be able to have described it better myself. Rosewarne also hits the target when saying that “it is Port’s inability to both improvise and to beat the best which brings out the ‘flat track bully’ brigade.” His mistake is believing that this is something new. “Port has lost all four of its encounters against top-four teams this year.”
If it only had been in 2021, but it hasn’t. The game and the league have gone back to normal, and so did Port.
IV. A Constant: the struggle against the best
From 2016 to 2020, the Power’s record against Top-4 teams is 4 wins and 22 losses. Prior to 2020, Port’s best season against Top-8 teams had been in 2015 (7-6), a year in which the club failed to make Finals (Port went 5-4 against everyone else). Since then, the Power made sure they wouldn’t miss Finals because they lost to bad sides. Now, they miss Finals because they can't beat the good sides, instead.
Considering the period between 2016 and 2020, Port’s overall record against Top-4 sides (i.e., 4-22) is 16th in the league – only better than Essendon’s (3-23) and Gold Coast’s (1-21). However, against teams from 5th to 18th, Port’s record (57-23) is 4th best, only behind Geelong (64-15), West Coast (63-21), and Richmond (54-21-1) – the three most successful AFL clubs from the period. Port doesn’t come close to them on that count.
If it weren’t for the games against the very best, Hinkley’s Port would be a constant contender. Yet, from 2013 to 2020, in order, Port has finished in: 7th; 5th; 9th; 10th; 5th; 10th; 10th; and 1st. No Top-4 finishes, but in 2020; only one Final game between 2015 and 2019, for 0 wins; and the first team ever to miss Finals after an 11-4 start in 2018.
Conclusion
In brief, “Port’s inability to both improvise and to beat the best” is actually Hinkley’s, and he has already had plenty opportunities to prove otherwise, but failed. It is true that Hinkley’s bad isn’t bad. When Port has a bad season, it finishes 10th, at worse, and with 10 wins, at least. There are plenty of AFL clubs that would call such a shortcoming as “success.” Port is not one of them.
This has nothing to do with the club’s SANFL past. It is simply a natural expectation. Once you reach a certain threshold, the expectation becomes to go a step forward; and Port has been stuck in the same position for most of Hinkley’s tenure. That’s the malaise behind the criticism of his work.
It took a completely extraordinary year for the club to go beyond its usual self; and there are people, including Rosewarne, who seems surprised that Port hasn’t maintained itself on that level. The point is that 2020 was an exception.
If Port wants to become a contender, it needs to stop being afraid of losing and take risks. Hinkley is a known quantity (he is risk-averse). We know what we can get from him, and that’s no longer good enough. In order to be among the best, Port still needs many things; among those, a new coach – one able to be more strategic on game days against the best teams, or, in Rosewarne’s words, able “to both improvise and to beat the best.”
Such a change, perhaps, could bring the “kind of spark” we the Port faithful have been “desperately waiting” for more than half a decade already. It would be the best. After all, I certainly do not wish for another pandemic…
---
You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: a response to James Rosewarne
This is a reply to an article from Footyology on Ken Hinkley. It's an attempt to show that demanding Port to change its head coach cannot be...
farwestfooty.blogspot.com
