Opinion I've lost my faith in Ken Hinkley

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boxx

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Posts
3,411
Likes
7,069
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
Yet, IF our forwards kick even remotely straight tonight - we win... go figure!

Add in 3 goals from absolute made if free kicks in the goal square and a 50m penalty for Hartlett actually stopping exactly on the spot where Sniper marked it for a goal.

Saying this, an Austin to help cover Trengove down back may have been the difference.

But IMO, going small and speedy was absolutely the correct call tonight - as soon as Patten was selected to return, Austin needed to come in.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PJ Power

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
18,233
Likes
19,044
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It appears Ken doesn't learn from his mistakes... Wash, Rinse repeat with him.

Ryder back next week will help, but we need another tall to cover for Hombsch. How frigging hard is it? I guess none of us here know anything about how AFL is played.
He'll play Trengove behind the ball next week, so the only in will be Ryder - hopefully for a small at least.

If we were fair dinkum, Broadbent, Sam Gray, White and Westhoff would be dropped. We'd bring in Ryder, Austin, Atley and Eddy.

Austin would help out in defence.
Eddy and Trengove forward.

Alas, we're not fair dinkum.
 

PowerBaz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Posts
7,039
Likes
7,175
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
So we think that Austin would have done better on Patton do we?

Clurey wasn't the problem. It came down to the complete and utter loss of shape in our front half which allowed easy ******* ball off of half back and across to the other wing. How easy did they transition in that last? But yeah, Eddy would have really helped with that.

We did fine for three quarters, but as soon as our players started to tire after playing in a Showdown the week before and couldn't get across, GWS exploited the space and Patton started to get the one on ones with Clurey that they were looking for.

Austin wouldn't have made the difference. Eddy wouldn't have made the difference. What would have made the difference is a) playing Ryder to give us easy ball out of centre clearances (every mid was down today) b) playing Hombsch on Patton (a far better defender than Clurey) c) not playing GWS when they are still full of run at the start of the season d) not playing GWS after a Showdown e) not playing GWS away.



See ya later.
Great comments. Ryder should be pretty embarrassed right now. Goalkicking kilked us too, we kick 4 of the multitude of set shots and we probs my win.

I often wonder wether this squad is scared of success, we find ways to fail too often.
 

PJ Power

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
18,233
Likes
19,044
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Yet, IF our forwards kick even remotely straight tonight - we win... go figure!

Add in 3 goals from absolute made if free kicks in the goal square and a 50m penalty for Hartlett actually stopping exactly on the spot where Sniper marked it for a goal.

Saying this, an Austin to help cover Trengove down back may have been the difference.

But IMO, going small and speedy was absolutely the correct call tonight - as soon as Patten was selected to return, Austin needed to come in.
You've got to pick small, pacy players who have form to warrant it.

The same logic for not playing Austin, Eddy or Frampton based on form applied to Matt White, and if we're serious to Sam Gray and Impey also.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
53,171
Likes
67,440
Location
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks
So we think that Austin would have done better on Patton do we?

Clurey wasn't the problem. It came down to the complete and utter loss of shape in our front half which allowed easy ******* ball off of half back and across to the other wing. How easy did they transition in that last? But yeah, Eddy would have really helped with that.

We did fine for three quarters, but as soon as our players started to tire after playing in a Showdown the week before and couldn't get across, GWS exploited the space and Patton started to get the one on ones with Clurey that they were looking for.

Austin wouldn't have made the difference. Eddy wouldn't have made the difference. What would have made the difference is a) playing Ryder to give us easy ball out of centre clearances (every mid was down today) b) playing Hombsch on Patton (a far better defender than Clurey) c) not playing GWS when they are still full of run at the start of the season d) not playing GWS after a Showdown e) not playing GWS away.



See ya later.
Patton had 4 goals by 3 quarter time he was a problem before the rush. So was Lobb. Cameron did his best work on the wing in the first half. We knew we had no Ryder. We knew we had no Hombsch. We knew we were playing guys that weren't fit enough yet we still picked them. But what the hell we will play them anyway. We were always going to struggle to keep up given no Ryder. White contributed to us being so stuffed at 3/4 time because blokes had to cover him because he did bugger all in the first half and couldnt run out a whole game.
 

Boxx

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Posts
3,411
Likes
7,069
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
You've got to pick small, pacy players who have form to warrant it.

The same logic for not playing Austin, Eddy or Frampton based on form applied to Matt White, and if we're serious to Sam Gray and Impey also.
I don't disagree...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,041
Likes
45,795
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
Patton had 4 goals by 3 quarter time he was a problem before the rush. So was Lobb. Cameron did his best work on the wing in the first half. We knew we had no Ryder. We knew we had no Hombsch. We knew we were playing guys that weren't fit enough yet we still picked them. But what the hell we will play them anyway. We were always going to struggle to keep up given no Ryder. White contributed to us being so stuffed at 3/4 time because blokes had to cover him because he did bugger all in the first half and couldnt run out a whole game.
Yeah, one of those goals was that bullshit free wasn't it? And the other three were just because he was tall AND good.

White had 63% TOG. If he did bugger all, why did he have the third highest amount of tackles with 5? Yeah, he couldn't run it out, but I'd rather he get time in a game like that which is tough than against a Carlton or a Brisbane where we really should be putting them to the sword. Eddy would NOT have helped in the last - it's the one spot in the side where White and Monfries being injured actually means we are thin on numbers because they both play that high half forward role.

Powell-Pepper had similar stats to White from 66% TOG and no one is saying he was the reason we lost.

I'm glad we played the way we wanted to play rather than the way that would have 'limited the damage' - because for three quarters, we were right in it and should have been in front if we had finished off our good work. But when you keep ******* up kicks for goal, it means you have to work harder than you would have normally had to in the forward line to defend kick-ins instead of getting a rest when the ball resets back in the centre.

Once GWS piled on a couple of quick goals, our forwards checked out of the game, and it all went to shit.

We've played probably the best and second best sides in the comp (you can decide which is which) in the past two weeks. No other side has to do this. Now, at 2-2, we've got the opportunity to gather some momentum.
 

Schulzenfest

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Posts
49,098
Likes
112,506
Location
SA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Toronto Raptors
You're using White having 63% TOG as an excuse for his performance after spending the week justifying Eddy being dropped because his low TOG was costing us rotations. At least be consistent with your bullshit.

And funny you should mention missing our shots.

Goalkicking with two KPF's: 51.32, at 61.4%
Goalkicking with one KPF: 11.15, at 42.3%

It's not a coincidence. It's the difference between a structured forward line and a smallball forward line. Better structure = easier shots = more goals per scoring shot.
 

PowerBaz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Posts
7,039
Likes
7,175
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I
Funny you should mention missing our shots.

Goalkicking with two KPF's: 51.32, at 61.4%
Goalkicking with one KPF: 11.15, at 42.3%

It's not a coincidence. It's the difference between a structured forward line and a smallball forward line. Better structure = easier shots = more goals per scoring shot.
Is that with Eddy?
 

Rexie J

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
2,815
Likes
3,036
Location
YP
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
So we think that Austin would have done better on Patton do we?

Clurey wasn't the problem. It came down to the complete and utter loss of shape in our front half which allowed easy ******* ball off of half back and across to the other wing. How easy did they transition in that last? But yeah, Eddy would have really helped with that.

We did fine for three quarters, but as soon as our players started to tire after playing in a Showdown the week before and couldn't get across, GWS exploited the space and Patton started to get the one on ones with Clurey that they were looking for.

Austin wouldn't have made the difference. Eddy wouldn't have made the difference. What would have made the difference is a) playing Ryder to give us easy ball out of centre clearances (every mid was down today) b) playing Hombsch on Patton (a far better defender than Clurey) c) not playing GWS when they are still full of run at the start of the season d) not playing GWS after a Showdown e) not playing GWS away.



See ya later.


Glad you are satisfied with the abject mediocrity from a squad that has the most resources ever provided in the PAFC's history. Burgess is touted by the club as 'world's best, yet you say the players began to tire in the last quarter, so who's the fitness genius for GWS - obviously superior to Burgess. Port were down down two key players, that is all and Hinkley keeps on saying 'we are not one player away from from being a good side'.

All the waffle in the world does not excuse another lamentable effort.
 

Boxx

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Posts
3,411
Likes
7,069
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
Goalkicking with two KPF's: 51.32, at 61.4%
Goalkicking with one KPF: 11.15, at 42.3%

It's not a coincidence. It's the difference between a structured forward line and a smallball forward line. Better structure = easier shots = more goals per scoring shot.
At least 7 of our points were from VERY gettable if not easy set shots from regulation set shot positions, I'm not arguing against bringing in Eddy as I also think he offers plenty to or forward set up - especially if we are planning on using Dixon in the ruck for extended periods.

Our inability to put scoreboard pressure on missing simple set shot has gone a hell of a long way to costing us both games that we have lost!
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,041
Likes
45,795
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
You're using White having 63% TOG as an excuse for his performance after spending the week justifying Eddy being dropped because his low TOG was costing us rotations. At least be consistent with your bullshit.

And funny you should mention missing our shots.

Goalkicking with two KPF's: 51.32, at 61.4%
Goalkicking with one KPF: 11.15, at 42.3%

It's not a coincidence. It's the difference between a structured forward line and a smallball forward line. Better structure = easier shots = more goals per scoring shot.
Eddy had 51% TOG for a player that can ONLY play key forward. White pushed back into defence at times to affect the play, and will get better for the run. Eddy was getting progressively worse every week.

Which of the set shots that we missed do you think 'Gee, if we had a key forward this would be an easier shot?' We had enough scoring shots to win, and our forward entries were looking great for three quarters. Our problem wasn't our forward line, it wasn't our defence - it was our midfield having to do twice the work, just like they did in 2016.

GWS had to send 6 midfielders to attend 10 or more stoppages during the game. We had only 4. They wore us down because we didn't have a ruck who could put the ball where we wanted it to be (and Frampton/Lobbe wouldn't have helped) so it became a scrap, just like in 2016.
 
Joined
May 27, 2004
Posts
21,887
Likes
32,958
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Moderator #4,796
So we think that Austin would have done better on Patton do we?

Clurey wasn't the problem. It came down to the complete and utter loss of shape in our front half which allowed easy ******* ball off of half back and across to the other wing. How easy did they transition in that last? But yeah, Eddy would have really helped with that.

We did fine for three quarters, but as soon as our players started to tire after playing in a Showdown the week before and couldn't get across, GWS exploited the space and Patton started to get the one on ones with Clurey that they were looking for.

Austin wouldn't have made the difference. Eddy wouldn't have made the difference. What would have made the difference is a) playing Ryder to give us easy ball out of centre clearances (every mid was down today) b) playing Hombsch on Patton (a far better defender than Clurey) c) not playing GWS when they are still full of run at the start of the season d) not playing GWS after a Showdown e) not playing GWS away.
It's not a question of whether Austin would have done a better job on Patton or not. The issue is that we went into the game fully aware that we're sacrificing height in defence without playing smalls that can run out the game. As it is, Austin had more preparation than White and would not have been as underdone.
 

woffy

All Australian
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Posts
687
Likes
721
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
He'll play Trengove behind the ball next week, so the only in will be Ryder - hopefully for a small at least.

If we were fair dinkum, Broadbent, Sam Gray, White and Westhoff would be dropped. We'd bring in Ryder, Austin, Atley and Eddy.

Austin would help out in defence.
Eddy and Trengove forward.

Alas, we're not fair dinkum.
Can't like this post enough - this is exactly what SHOULD happen!!!
 

afl2004

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Posts
2,860
Likes
4,312
Location
reynella
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chelsea FC , Boston Red Sox/celtics
Not justvken. knicks either has no clue or is too weak to speak up about our forward line issues. Think bassett would be a better coach for our club tbh
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,041
Likes
45,795
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
Glad you are satisfied with the abject mediocrity from a squad that has the most resources ever provided in the PAFC's history. Burgess is touted by the club as 'world's best, yet you say the players began to tire in the last quarter, so who's the fitness genius for GWS - obviously superior to Burgess. Port were down down two key players, that is all and Hinkley keeps on saying 'we are not one player away from from being a good side'.

All the waffle in the world does not excuse another lamentable effort.
GWS didn't have to play against Adelaide the week before. Look at what they are doing to Essendon - do you think our performance against them just 'happened', like how GWS was shit for 3 quarters 'just happened'? We made them look shit. But you've got to be realistic about what players can and can't do. You can't back up a marathon with another marathon and expect to finish first.

I reckon Hinkley said to the boys 'Try to win, but if they go ahead by three goals, just shut down and save your legs for Carlton'. The last thing we need is to lose a game against those ****s by pursuing an 'honorable loss' in a game that we had no chance of winning.

We fight the fights we can win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom