Autopsy After R4 embarrassing loss, is 2019 already over?

[PAFC66]

Heh, this pathetic attitude is being echoed on the other mobs board too

It's a long-term attitude and it's healthy.

 

[Waspy79]

The way I'm seeing the competition at the moment, there's a bunch of teams that look good and a bunch of teams that look dodgy. Those two groups will become more defined in the coming weeks. We're in the dodgy group. The only question is whether we end up being the average sort of dodgy (ie 8-11 wins type team) or the dodgy sort of dodgy (ie 4-6 wins type team). It could easily be the latter and people need to be prepared for that.

Remember that thread about how many more games we would win after we were 11-4? We were a good team at that stage, I think?

 

[Chrizzt]

The way I'm seeing the competition at the moment, there's a bunch of teams that look good and a bunch of teams that look dodgy. Those two groups will become more defined in the coming weeks. We're in the dodgy group. The only question is whether we end up being the average sort of dodgy (ie 8-11 wins type team) or the dodgy sort of dodgy (ie 4-6 wins type team). It could easily be the latter and people need to be prepared for that.

I see 14 wins as being the upper bracket for us. We're attacking well but defending is shaky. Still have Hammer and Broady to come in and shore things up a bit. Plus the team should increase cohesion as the season goes on.

The obvious counterpoint is the kids who've all played good roles so far are likely to tire out a little at season's end.

 

[Janus]

I agree but their draw opens up nicely, we have lost two games we should have potentially won.

Brisbane was always going to be a hard game.

Richmond was only a game that we should have won because of their outs - without them it was always going to be tough (but still achievable). And of course we get the Lynch who was putting on defensive pressure and actually doing what Hardwick wanted him to do, rather than the Lynch who was still finding his feet and running around like a three toed sloth.

2018 version: After 16 rounds, the maximum amount of points a team is on is 48. We are on 44...

It took just 2 rounds for Ken to dump our only KPF for Sam Gray. And here we are losing games in the exact same fashion as in 2018 and 2017. We're not making finals on this trajectory. On the plus side, there is plenty of time to catapult Ken back to QLD and correct course.

When Marshall was dropped after the Carlton game, the players responded because they thought 'Ken isn't ******* around this time.' I didn't like him being omitted but I could understand it because he wasn't really doing anything to justify his spot in the team on merit. We won, but we still wanted to make the team better, and it was a case of no passengers.

What happened when we went in unchanged after the Brisbane loss was that the players saw that the dropping of Marshall wasn't actually about performance at all, but about Ken deviating away from the structure and gamestyle they had worked on all off-season. Again. Because there was no way that Bonner should have gotten another game after his performance. Garner, Lienert or Broadbent should have come in and faith would have been strengthened. The same goes for Motlop, who should have been dropped for Mayes.

He stupidly thought that the reason why the team put in a good performance against Brisbane was because the team structure was better...when the reality was that the team performed well because an under-performing player was dropped, because everyone put in. Well, everyone except guys like Motlop and Bonner.

And then he wonders why those two players stunk it up again the following week? Why the performance of the team was down, and it became a case of 'everyone for himself' abandonment of structures?

If you're not going to hold players to account for their inability to stick to the method, then the method becomes worthless is the eyes of the players who are sticking to it.

He's got one last chance, and it's this week. If he doesn't pick Marshall and drop Bonner for Lienert at the very least, it's time to take the selection process out of Ken's hands and put it into the hands of Montgomery and Schofield. I don't ******* trust Bassett not to continue playing Sam Gray over Marshall.

Everyone is allowed one mistake this year. One. The following have used up theirs:

Thomas (allowing Hinkley to go with co-captains)
Wines (water skiing like a chump and injuring his shoulder)
Hinkley (going in unchanged vs Richmond)
Bonner (performance against Brisbane - got a reprieve against Richmond due to Hinkley's mistake)
Byrne-Jones (performance against Melbourne)
Howard (performance against Brisbane)
Motlop (performance against Brisbane - got a reprieve against Richmond due to Hinkley's mistake)

 

[Chrizzt]

Brisbane was always going to be a hard game.

Richmond was only a game that we should have won because of their outs - without them it was always going to be tough (but still achievable). And of course we get the Lynch who was putting on defensive pressure and actually doing what Hardwick wanted him to do, rather than the Lynch who was still finding his feet and running around like a three toed sloth.



When Marshall was dropped after the Carlton game, the players responded because they thought 'Ken isn't ******* around this time.' I didn't like him being omitted but I could understand it because he wasn't really doing anything to justify his spot in the team on merit. We won, but we still wanted to make the team better, and it was a case of no passengers.

What happened when we went in unchanged after the Brisbane loss was that the players saw that the dropping of Marshall wasn't actually about performance at all, but about Ken deviating away from the structure and gamestyle they had worked on all off-season. Again. Because there was no way that Bonner should have gotten another game after his performance. Garner, Lienert or Broadbent should have come in and faith would have been strengthened. The same goes for Motlop, who should have been dropped for Mayes.

He stupidly thought that the reason why the team put in a good performance against Brisbane was because the team structure was better...when the reality was that the team performed well because an under-performing player was dropped, because everyone put in. Well, everyone except guys like Motlop and Bonner.

And then he wonders why those two players stunk it up again the following week? Why the performance of the team was down, and it became a case of 'everyone for himself' abandonment of structures?

If you're not going to hold players to account for their inability to stick to the method, then the method becomes worthless is the eyes of the players who are sticking to it.

He's got one last chance, and it's this week. If he doesn't pick Marshall and drop Bonner for Lienert at the very least, it's time to take the selection process out of Ken's hands and put it into the hands of Montgomery and Schofield. I don't ******* trust Bassett not to continue playing Sam Gray over Marshall.

Everyone is allowed one mistake this year. One. The following have used up theirs:

Thomas (allowing Hinkley to go with co-captains)
Wines (water skiing like a chump and injuring his shoulder)
Hinkley (going in unchanged vs Richmond)
Bonner (performance against Brisbane - got a reprieve against Richmond due to Hinkley's mistake)
Byrne-Jones (performance against Melbourne)
Howard (performance against Brisbane)
Motlop (performance against Brisbane - got a reprieve against Richmond due to Hinkley's mistake)

You rate Motlop's performance against the Tigers as acceptable?

 

[GremioPower]

You rate Motlop's performance against the Tigers as acceptable?

I understood that Janus sees it (and Bonner's) as a follow-up of the Brisbane game; thus, unacceptable.

 

[Forzaport]

We just lost to a team with probably close to 40% of their salary cap sitting in the stands. Think about that.

With Boak and Rockliff in their current form and our ruck division being the strongest it has been since Brogan and Lade ran around, We should have absolutely dominated the middle and registered a 10 goal win. From the first bounce it was obvious that Richmond wanted it more and out-worked us time and again. We did not press any advantage over their missing players. We did not play a KPF. We dropped Marshall for under-performing but gave our smalls a reprieve.

It's painfully obvious that as a team we are less than the sum of our parts and its showing in the results. Richmond should never have been given even a sniff but as usual, we found a way to * it up and lost in a grinding game where we were just unable to hold onto a lead (half the time we can't even take the lead at all). It's not good enough. It hasn't been good enough for 5 years. And yet here we are with a back breaking contract keeping the senior coach in place and a club leadership that is too inept to do anything about it. Well, we did turf Wingard because "standards" and he's a bit of a dick. That showed 'em.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It's painfully obvious that as a team we are less than the sum of our parts and its showing in the results. Richmond should never have been given even a sniff but as usual, we found a way to **** it up and lost in a grinding game where we were just unable to hold onto a lead (half the time we can't even take the lead at all). It's not good enough. It hasn't been good enough for 5 years. And yet here we are with a back breaking contract keeping the senior coach in place and a club leadership that is too inept to do anything about it. Well, we did turf Wingard because "standards" and he's a bit of a dick. That showed 'em.

I don't agree that Richmond shouldn't have been given a sniff. This is their 3rd year of playing that manic pressure style. You don't need stars to play that way. They have a system and they stick to it and they have players, especially in the 175cm to 183cm range players, who are very good at that style.

They were smart and went and got Lynch, they knew Riewoldt needed help and would probably get an injury some stage so you need a capable back up if you dont have a permanent 2nd KPF. Dixon goes out and who do we have as the #2 KPF??

Look at us, we change our style of play every year, so we aren't drilled to go into automatic mode. Richmond had 2 weeks of shock of no Rance and Riewoldt and have finally adjusted even without Cotchin and Martin.

Their style of play without the champs will hold up against the cellar dwellers and the middle class sides. But the top 4 type sides like Collingwood and GWS will expose them.

I said before the start of the season we are a middle class 10-14 wins type side. I need to see proof we are better than that and can win more than 14 games. No proof so far.

 

[Janus]

I don't agree that Richmond shouldn't have been given a sniff. This is their 3rd year of playing that manic pressure style. You don't need stars to play that way. They have a system and they stick to it and they have players, especially in the 175cm to 183cm range players, who are very good at that style.

They were smart and went and got Lynch, they knew Riewoldt needed help and would probably get an injury some stage so you need a capable back up if you dont have a permanent 2nd KPF. Dixon goes out and who do we have as the #2 KPF??

Look at us, we change our style of play every year, so we aren't drilled to go into automatic mode. Richmond had 2 weeks of shock of no Rance and Riewoldt and have finally adjusted even without Cotchin and Martin.

Their style of play without the champs will hold up against the cellar dwellers and the middle class sides. But the top 4 type sides like Collingwood and GWS will expose them.

I said before the start of the season we are a middle class 10-14 wins type side. I need to see proof we are better than that and can win more than 14 games. No proof so far.

Also, the players that replaced those stars would have been waiting for an opportunity and would know that if they didn't perform they would be the ones to make way for Cotchin, Martin and Houli when they come back. Plus, it wasn't like Richmond didn't get Caddy back that week, and as I said elsewhere, it was against us that Lynch decided to pull his finger out and actually play aggressively.

The commentators made mention of the fact that Lynch's pressure was way up against us, which enabled them to lock the ball into their forward 50.

So basically - the Tigers had taken two weeks to adjust to the fact that they wouldn't have Rance for the year, and to get Lynch up to speed.

I'm still waiting for the proof too.

 

[Tredz]

Also, the players that replaced those stars would have been waiting for an opportunity and would know that if they didn't perform they would be the ones to make way for Cotchin, Martin and Houli when they come back. Plus, it wasn't like Richmond didn't get Caddy back that week, and as I said elsewhere, it was against us that Lynch decided to pull his finger out and actually play aggressively.

The commentators made mention of the fact that Lynch's pressure was way up against us, which enabled them to lock the ball into their forward 50.

So basically - the Tigers had taken two weeks to adjust to the fact that they wouldn't have Rance for the year, and to get Lynch up to speed.

I'm still waiting for the proof too.

How long does it take us to adjust?

 

[Chrizzt]

I don't agree that Richmond shouldn't have been given a sniff. This is their 3rd year of playing that manic pressure style. You don't need stars to play that way. They have a system and they stick to it and they have players, especially in the 175cm to 183cm range players, who are very good at that style.

They were smart and went and got Lynch, they knew Riewoldt needed help and would probably get an injury some stage so you need a capable back up if you dont have a permanent 2nd KPF. Dixon goes out and who do we have as the #2 KPF??

Look at us, we change our style of play every year, so we aren't drilled to go into automatic mode. Richmond had 2 weeks of shock of no Rance and Riewoldt and have finally adjusted even without Cotchin and Martin.

Their style of play without the champs will hold up against the cellar dwellers and the middle class sides. But the top 4 type sides like Collingwood and GWS will expose them.

I said before the start of the season we are a middle class 10-14 wins type side. I need to see proof we are better than that and can win more than 14 games. No proof so far.

Exactly. It's little wonder our performances lack consistency when the gameplan changes every year.

 

[Forzaport]

I don't agree that Richmond shouldn't have been given a sniff. This is their 3rd year of playing that manic pressure style. You don't need stars to play that way. They have a system and they stick to it and they have players, especially in the 175cm to 183cm range players, who are very good at that style.

They were smart and went and got Lynch, they knew Riewoldt needed help and would probably get an injury some stage so you need a capable back up if you dont have a permanent 2nd KPF. Dixon goes out and who do we have as the #2 KPF??

Look at us, we change our style of play every year, so we aren't drilled to go into automatic mode. Richmond had 2 weeks of shock of no Rance and Riewoldt and have finally adjusted even without Cotchin and Martin.

Their style of play without the champs will hold up against the cellar dwellers and the middle class sides. But the top 4 type sides like Collingwood and GWS will expose them.

I said before the start of the season we are a middle class 10-14 wins type side. I need to see proof we are better than that and can win more than 14 games. No proof so far.

If you're viewing us as a 10-14 win side, then sure, Richmond would be highly competitive against us. I am not accepting of such mediocrity. We should be a 14+ win side and we should have banked a comfortable victory on Saturday. Our team performance was below what it should have been given the players we have at our disposal and especially given the players Richmond were missing on the weekend.

We truly are on the path of "we exist because someone has to lose". I'm sure we'll win the odd important game here and there and it will probably be enough to keep members on the Ferris wheel but the continued erosion of the fabric of this club, with the co-captain disgrace that's currently playing out, is destroying us. Death by 1000 cuts. It has to stop.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If you're viewing us as a 10-14 win side, then sure, Richmond would be highly competitive against us. I am not accepting of such mediocrity. We should be a 14+ win side and we should have banked a comfortable victory on Saturday. Our team performance was below what it should have been given the players we have at our disposal and especially given the players Richmond were missing on the weekend.

We truly are on the path of "we exist because someone has to lose". I'm sure we'll win the odd important game here and there and it will probably be enough to keep members on the Ferris wheel but the continued erosion of the fabric of this club, with the co-captain disgrace that's currently playing out, is destroying us. Death by 1000 cuts. It has to stop.

What have we done to suggest we are better than 10-14 wins?

We don't have our #1 KPF playing, we don't win enough ball out of the middle to be a top 4 side and we don't convert well enough. We bomb the ball inside 50, rather than precision kicks and our forwards don't convert well enough under pressure. Our coach goes to the same dry well picking Sam Gray over a KPF and he sticks Hoff there when he has proven the last 10 years he's not a true KPF.

I want us to win 17 games. I started a thread a few years ago 17 + or - 1 is the magic number, ie that gets us top 2 and the best chance to make a GF because we should play a QF and PF at home with 17 wins.

I don't want us to be mediocre but I'm a realist, I want to see it, not hope or wish for it.

This group of players have proved they are highly competitive. What they haven't shown is they can win enough close ones, enough games against top 4 and top 8 sights and when we are big favourites. We have a coach who is Mr 56% win ratio, not 66% or 76%.

That's why I say we are middle class. When we do stuff to prove otherwise, then thats when I will believe it. The facts say we are middle class. To be otherwise, we have to change the future facts not repeat past ones.

 

[Forzaport]

What have we done to suggest we are better than 10-14 wins?

We don't have our #1 KPF playing, we don't win enough ball out of the middle to be a top 4 side and we don't convert well enough. We bomb the ball inside 50, rather than precision kicks and our forwards don't convert well enough under pressure. Our coach goes to the same dry well picking Sam Gray over a KPF and he sticks Hoff there when he has proven the last 10 years he's not a true KPF.

I want us to win 17 games. I started a thread a few years ago 17 + or - 1 is the magic number, ie that gets us top 2 and the best chance to make a GF because we should play a QF and PF at home with 17 wins.

I don't want us to be mediocre but I'm a realist, I want to see it, not hope or wish for it.

This group of players have proved they are highly competitive. What they haven't shown is they can win enough close ones, enough games against top 4 and top 8 sights and when we are big favourites. We have a coach who is Mr 56% win ratio, not 66% ir 76%.

That's why I say we are middle class. When we do stuff to prove otherwise, then thats when I will believe it. The facts say we are middle class. To be otherwise, we have to change the future facts not repeat past ones.

I totally agree RE the facts. Your view is the pragmatic one and this team and coach have not demonstrated the mental fortitude required to be a top 4 team.

There is enough untapped performance in the Port Adelaide engine for us to be a top 2 team. We need a directional shift in mentality and application to force it out into the sunlight. The best way to do it with the current crop is to not be so quick to drop talls (Marshall), so slow to drop smalls (Bonner) and not use Sam Gray as a bloody KPF (!!!). These are painfully simple adjustments that will benefit us over the long term.

 

[TeeKray]

Our list demographics do not suggest premiership. They actually suggest a team that has just come off a successful era and are primed to enter a rebuild phase. Too many of our best players are 30+ and too high a percentage of our list is under 22 and under 50 games. It's going to be a difficult few years.

 

[carnthemaggies]

Many good points above. we've been an average team for a long time and haven't been able be a top 4 side under Ken. Our forward work went backwards when Shulz and monfries left and we no longer had a highly mobile forward line with skilled kicks. We should have been prioritising recruitment of 194-196 size key forwards, and work towards a structured game plan like W coast with Kennedy and Darling. Everything is a compromise with Ken and we don't seem to be able assemble a clear approach towards development and structure. Westhoff and Ryder are not dedicated and skilled forwards - another compromise.
On Saturday Richmond showed the value of a well drilled and structured approach - that result was predictable

 

[Port 2004]

I agree but their draw opens up nicely, we have lost two games we should have potentially won.

The crows are as much a pile of s**t as we are and so is their coach

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Brisbane was always going to be a hard game.

Richmond was only a game that we should have won because of their outs - without them it was always going to be tough (but still achievable). And of course we get the Lynch who was putting on defensive pressure and actually doing what Hardwick wanted him to do, rather than the Lynch who was still finding his feet and running around like a three toed sloth.



When Marshall was dropped after the Carlton game, the players responded because they thought 'Ken isn't ******* around this time.' I didn't like him being omitted but I could understand it because he wasn't really doing anything to justify his spot in the team on merit. We won, but we still wanted to make the team better, and it was a case of no passengers.

What happened when we went in unchanged after the Brisbane loss was that the players saw that the dropping of Marshall wasn't actually about performance at all, but about Ken deviating away from the structure and gamestyle they had worked on all off-season. Again. Because there was no way that Bonner should have gotten another game after his performance. Garner, Lienert or Broadbent should have come in and faith would have been strengthened. The same goes for Motlop, who should have been dropped for Mayes.

He stupidly thought that the reason why the team put in a good performance against Brisbane was because the team structure was better...when the reality was that the team performed well because an under-performing player was dropped, because everyone put in. Well, everyone except guys like Motlop and Bonner.

And then he wonders why those two players stunk it up again the following week? Why the performance of the team was down, and it became a case of 'everyone for himself' abandonment of structures?

If you're not going to hold players to account for their inability to stick to the method, then the method becomes worthless is the eyes of the players who are sticking to it.

He's got one last chance, and it's this week. If he doesn't pick Marshall and drop Bonner for Lienert at the very least, it's time to take the selection process out of Ken's hands and put it into the hands of Montgomery and Schofield. I don't ******* trust Bassett not to continue playing Sam Gray over Marshall.

Everyone is allowed one mistake this year. One. The following have used up theirs:

Thomas (allowing Hinkley to go with co-captains)
Wines (water skiing like a chump and injuring his shoulder)
Hinkley (going in unchanged vs Richmond)
Bonner (performance against Brisbane - got a reprieve against Richmond due to Hinkley's mistake)
Byrne-Jones (performance against Melbourne)
Howard (performance against Brisbane)
Motlop (performance against Brisbane - got a reprieve against Richmond due to Hinkley's mistake)

When was this 'player response' and 'good performance' against Brisbane?

I must have missed it.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[FishingRick04]

We need to trim some plus 30’s then and target some fringe players around that 50 game bracket.

I know I’d get s**t canned but I’d encourage Westhoff and Robbie to chase his last meal ticket, his legs are going. Not because I hate them but we need to make some hard calls to change the list. Not the Pittard calls.

Broady we should hopefully get some games into and hope we could get something if we’re lucky.

Our major issue is going to be we need some KPP which are obviously harder to find that are decent with 50 games and some midfield runners

 

[FishingRick04]

The crows are as much a pile of s**t as we are and so is their coach

Who cares, let’s just worry about us

 

[raptalia]

2019 is on track to be what many of us predicted- a 10-14 finish. We simply do not have enough footy smarts to finish any higher.

 

[Kingfish73]

It was over when we signed Hinkley on new contract. I'll keep going to footy to watch our young talent but just hope he does not destroy their natural football instincts before his inevitable sacking

 

[Chrizzt]

If you're viewing us as a 10-14 win side, then sure, Richmond would be highly competitive against us. I am not accepting of such mediocrity. We should be a 14+ win side and we should have banked a comfortable victory on Saturday. Our team performance was below what it should have been given the players we have at our disposal and especially given the players Richmond were missing on the weekend.

We truly are on the path of "we exist because someone has to lose". I'm sure we'll win the odd important game here and there and it will probably be enough to keep members on the Ferris wheel but the continued erosion of the fabric of this club, with the co-captain disgrace that's currently playing out, is destroying us. Death by 1000 cuts. It has to stop.

6 of the 22 players out there were playing only their 4th game for the club, with 4 of those playing their 4th game of AFL. When nearly a third of your list is still trying to gel with the rest of the playing group, and 4 of them are first year players you know we're going to struggle for consistency across the season as well as across individual games.

 

[FrankDrebin]

6 of the 22 players out there were playing only their 4th game for the club, with 4 of those playing their 4th game of AFL. When nearly a third of your list is still trying to gel with the rest of the playing group, and 4 of them are first year players you know we're going to struggle for consistency across the season as well as across individual games.

Richmond had 5 players playing their 4th game for their club (4 of which were playing their 4th game of AFL), of course they also had their 4 best players not playing (a coleman medallist, x2 brownlow medallists and the best defender in the country). We have zero excuses for dropping that game.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Richmond had 5 players playing their 4th game for their club (4 of which were playing their 4th game of AFL), of course they also had their 4 best players not playing (a coleman medallist, x2 brownlow medallists and the best defender in the country). We have zero excuses for dropping that game.

They also had Million dollar Lynch and multiple Premiership players.
How may of our players have played in a grand final, never mind won one.