Opinion I've lost my faith in Ken Hinkley

[DazalenkoUBewty]

*Confused*

Ryder is/was a huge out...

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And what if the data presented is more accurate than our subjective view?

It would help if they showed us how they apply the data to get the rankings to know if they have BS attached to the weighting of some stats.

 

[NEGAN]

I think it's dream team stats I still think they hold up when annylising a players impact. I know it gets turned down as rubbish but I don't mind it.

Super coach is rubbish though.

 

[manureid]

Key Forward - Look nonchalant, miss easy set shot, kicks impossible floating inside out goal from boundary line +1000 points.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Lol what an atrocious last couple of pages. Dazalenko posts like Janus if Janus had a lobotomy.

 

[Pedro59]

You mean unfairly scrutinized.

Wasn't it you who posted the nuclear explosion as to your thoughts on the GWS game? We stick with them for three quarters, minus our primary ruck mind you, and all anyone can do is complain about bullshit like saying 'if we had played some SANFL level key forward or a young kid down back' we would have won. Not giving any credence to the fact that a) Port Adelaide has been the best side for one on one defence this season b) Port Adelaide is second in centre clearance scores c) first in forward half clearance scores.

We don't need any help forward or back. We need help through the midfield to stop easy transition that cost us the game against Adelaide and against GWS.

But hey, people think they know better.

Janus
This easy transition yhrough the midfield started after the crows mixed it up to create a loose man just behind the stoppages and ball ups.
All of a sudden we were getting slayed in clearances
What did they do to create this and how could we have stopped it?

 

[Schulzenfest]

Our system doesn't rely on fixed positions, but fixed roles. Bassett said it himself - it doesn't matter if you're tall, it matters if you're good.

So why are we picking blokes who are neither?

When Eddy was dropped after Round 1, I didn't melt. I didn't like it, but he was our worst player that day, we still had Ryder and Hombsch in the side, and nobody else deserved to be dropped. But dropping him after Round 3 when he was at least as good as Amon and Gray, and replacing him with a guy with the match fitness of 2015 Jarrad Redden after we'd already lost Ryder and Hombsch and replaced them with flankers? I melted, I melted hard, and I'd melt again.

While ideally I would like us to stick to a taller structure every week, I'm not going to complain about in form smalls getting picked ahead of out of form talls. All I ask is that we stop excusing prolonged poor form from smalls with low ceilings like Amon and Sam Gray while dropping inexperienced talls at the expense of our structure at the first sign of one bad game. That should in no way be too much to ask, but under Ken Hinkley it very much has been.

 

[Grandaddy J]

I'd hope those ratings are way off the mark because if White was genuinely our fourth best player on the weekend with 11 touches and no scoreboard impact then we're a f****** awful team.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Lol what an atrocious last couple of pages. Dazalenko posts like Janus if Janus had a lobotomy.

I'll agree that it has been pretty atrocious. And don't be smart arse...

 

[Janus]

So why are we picking blokes who are neither?

When Eddy was dropped after Round 1, I didn't melt. I didn't like it, but he was our worst player that day, we still had Ryder and Hombsch in the side, and nobody else deserved to be dropped. But dropping him after Round 3 when he was at least as good as Amon and Gray, and replacing him with a guy with the match fitness of 2015 Jarrad Redden after we'd already lost Ryder and Hombsch and replaced them with flankers? I melted, I melted hard, and I'd melt again.

While ideally I would like us to stick to a taller structure every week, I'm not going to complain about in form smalls getting picked ahead of out of form talls. All I ask is that we stop excusing prolonged poor form from smalls with low ceilings like Amon and Sam Gray while dropping inexperienced talls at the expense of our structure at the first sign of one bad game. That should in no way be too much to ask, but under Ken Hinkley it very much has been.

Because our best side has White and Monfries in it, that's why. They add the necessary forward craft and experience to take pressure off of Dixon that we were missing in 2016. Opposition teams are wary of them - they aren't wary of guys like Amon and Sam Gray. And it's easier for someone to understand why they were dropped when they can see the effort and work that a player like White does first hand. In his first game back, White had 5 tackles and 5 contested possessions in only 63% TOG. Sam Gray was on the ground for 78% and he could only manage 1 tackle and 3 more contested possessions.

We are trying to build a premiership side where everyone knows the effort and role that is expected of them. That means that if Eddy has to go, he has to go. It's not about favoring smalls over talls, it's about favoring who is playing their role over who isn't. The only reason guys like Gray and Amon are in the side is because White and Monfries were injured - because that they are playing THAT role in the side. And while they have had mixed fortunes, they have contributed enough to survive the cut. When Austin is ready, he'll take his place in the back line. When Eddy can provide more than Young/Monfries can, he'll take one of their roles.

What people are asking is for us to completely throw out what we've been working on for the past five years and go back to a traditional structure that won't deliver us a premiership because of our list profile that was created by Williams and Primus (no decent developed key forwards - had to trade one in - no decent developed key backs). The Dogs won the flag last year because they were prepared to do something different. If we don't do the same, it will be one of Adelaide or GWS - playing traditional football with traditional roles that we just don't have the players to compete with - that wins the flag this year.

Janus
This easy transition yhrough the midfield started after the crows mixed it up to create a loose man just behind the stoppages and ball ups.
All of a sudden we were getting slayed in clearances
What did they do to create this and how could we have stopped it?

If I had to guess (I can't be arsed actually looking at that game because it annoyed me how we let it slip), they probably instructed their wingers to stand behind the contest and get ready to switch the ball quickly to the other side of the ground because we usually set Westhoff a kick in front of our defence to create that dump kick out stoppages.

How could we have stopped it? Play White and Monfries at high forward instead of Amon and Sam Gray.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Because our best side has White and Monfries in it, that's why. They add the necessary forward craft and experience to take pressure off of Dixon that we were missing in 2016. Opposition teams are wary of them - they aren't wary of guys like Amon and Sam Gray. And it's easier for someone to understand why they were dropped when they can see the effort and work that a player like White does first hand. In his first game back, White had 5 tackles and 5 contested possessions in only 63% TOG. Sam Gray was on the ground for 78% and he could only manage 1 tackle and 3 more contested possessions.

We are trying to build a premiership side where everyone knows the effort and role that is expected of them. That means that if Eddy has to go, he has to go. It's not about favoring smalls over talls, it's about favoring who is playing their role over who isn't. The only reason guys like Gray and Amon are in the side is because White and Monfries were injured - because that they are playing THAT role in the side. And while they have had mixed fortunes, they have contributed enough to survive the cut. When Austin is ready, he'll take his place in the back line. When Eddy can provide more than Young/Monfries can, he'll take one of their roles.

What people are asking is for us to completely throw out what we've been working on for the past five years and go back to a traditional structure that won't deliver us a premiership because of our list profile that was created by Williams and Primus (no decent developed key forwards - had to trade one in - no decent developed key backs). The Dogs won the flag last year because they were prepared to do something different. If we don't do the same, it will be one of Adelaide or GWS - playing traditional football with traditional roles that we just don't have the players to compete with - that wins the flag this year.



If I had to guess (I can't be arsed actually looking at that game because it annoyed me how we let it slip), they probably instructed their wingers to stand behind the contest and get ready to switch the ball quickly to the other side of the ground because we usually set Westhoff a kick in front of our defence to create that dump kick out stoppages.

How could we have stopped it? Play White and Monfries at high forward instead of Amon and Sam Gray.

If this were true we would have dropped Amon or Gray to bring in White but we didn't.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Janus]

If this were true we would have dropped Amon or Gray to bring in White but we didn't.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Eddy was crap against Adelaide. When the only reason people offer for his inclusion is 'he takes pressure off of Dixon' or 'you need to play talls to win' without looking at the body of work they bring to the table - rubbishing players who might not be ideal but are at least providing something approaching AFL standard defensively - then you have to wonder what the agenda is.

We trained ALL preseason with Dixon and Trengove up forward. ALL PRESEASON. And people are like 'Derp, Hinkley wants to play smalls instead of talls!' Bullshit he does. He's playing the players he knows can do the job, regardless of their height. I can't believe people are seriously worried about Levi ******* Casboult in Carlton's forward line and saying we have to play Trengove down back.

Are you kidding me?! If we didn't worry about Jeremy Cameron, Jonathon Patton and Rory Lobb, why would we care about Levi Casboult?!

Now that Pittard is back to shore up intercept marking capability, Trengove should play forward all day every day, switching with Ryder, and we drop Westhoff down back if required. Which it won't be.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

If this were true we would have dropped Amon or Gray to bring in White but we didn't.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Why quote me if you are just going to ignore the statement? You seem to be very selective with what you respond to when challenged.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Duck Farmer]

If we s**t the bed against Carlton at home on a national free-to-air Friday night stage, messages on a million Oak milk cartons won't be enough to find my faith.

 

[Janus]

Why quote me if you are just going to ignore the statement? You seem to be very selective with what you respond to when challenged.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I'm sorry, I thought I was addressing your statement. Let me try it a different way.

We either dropped Eddy for White or Pittard, did we not? You said we would have dropped Gray or Amon when I said it's not about height, it's about who can play the role.

While Amon and Sam Gray are not as good as White and Monfries, we played them with White because we wanted to hold the ball in our forward line better. That was part of Eddy's role in the side - to stop the ball coming out of our forward line easily to give our midfield/defence time to transition from the spread of attack into the condensation of defence.

Does that answer it better?

 

[NEGAN]

Eddy was crap against Adelaide. When the only reason people offer for his inclusion is 'he takes pressure off of Dixon' or 'you need to play talls to win' without looking at the body of work they bring to the table - rubbishing players who might not be ideal but are at least providing something approaching AFL standard defensively - then you have to wonder what the agenda is.

We trained ALL preseason with Dixon and Trengove up forward. ALL PRESEASON. And people are like 'Derp, Hinkley wants to play smalls instead of talls!' Bullshit he does. He's playing the players he knows can do the job, regardless of their height. I can't believe people are seriously worried about Levi ******* Casboult in Carlton's forward line and saying we have to play Trengove down back.

Are you kidding me?! If we didn't worry about Jeremy Cameron, Jonathon Patton and Rory Lobb, why would we care about Levi Casboult?!

Now that Pittard is back to shore up intercept marking capability, Trengove should play forward all day every day, switching with Ryder, and we drop Westhoff down back if required. Which it won't be.

Good post, I really want to believe you Janus but youre so 50/50.

 

[woffy]

Because our best side has White and Monfries in it, that's why.......

2014 White & Monfries are in our best side. Both have NO form since 2015, and neither was great that year.
Both players should (White Should have) be belting the door down playing for the maggies before they get an AFL gig.

Eddy was crap against Adelaide. .......We trained ALL preseason with Dixon and Trengove up forward. ALL PRESEASON.....

We also trained with Eddy up forward ALL pre-season, yet went into the GWS game with only 1 KPF, as Trengove rucked. And how much time did White spend in the Forward 50?

.......That was part of Eddy's role in the side - to stop the ball coming out of our forward line easily to give our midfield/defence time to transition from the spread of attack into the condensation of defence...

Surely ALL players have a role to apply defensive pressure, or is that only specifically Eddy?
Can't recall Lever (pretty sure he was on Eddy) streaming through the midfield or being their link bringing the ball out of defence - don't try and make Eddy look worse than he was to satisfy your argument; Sometimes you make some good points Janus, but Geez, once you've made your mind up, facts are an inconvenience.

All we want from Ken is consistency with Our system of play, structure and selections, and we just don't get that!

 

[rogerjames]

And what if the data presented is more accurate than our subjective view?

Impossible

 

[El_Scorcho]

It's really easy to keep the ball in your forward line when you mark it.

In defence, turnovers happen because you pressure the ball carrier and encourage him to kick to places that suit you. It's why we took shot after shot from tight angles in 2015 and 2016. The corridor was owned by opposition talls.

GWS were able to go long and high to the hot spot over and over again because they knew they'd at least halve the contest and then their smalls could mop up. Half the time we'd be outnumbered on the ground because we had to send multiple players up to the contest to stop Patton/Lobb from taking an easy mark.

Great team defence forces the opposition to get rushed kicks away to poor positions. That in itself doesn't cause turnovers. Turnovers happen because a defender executes. He beats his opponent. He takes an intercept mark. He makes a smother. He sharks the spill of the ball.

We didn't worry about Lobb and Patton, we didn't select players who could make plays against them in aerial contests, and they had the advantage over us on every forward entry.

 

[edgie]

I thought Monfries was unfairly maligned in 15, did his best in rapidly declining circumstances and forward structure.

 

[rogerjames]

It's really easy to keep the ball in your forward line when you mark it.

In defence, turnovers happen because you pressure the ball carrier and encourage him to kick to places that suit you. It's why we took shot after shot from tight angles in 2015 and 2016. The corridor was owned by opposition talls.

GWS were able to go long and high to the hot spot over and over again because they knew they'd at least halve the contest and then their smalls could mop up. Half the time we'd be outnumbered on the ground because we had to send multiple players up to the contest to stop Patton/Lobb from taking an easy mark.

Great team defence forces the opposition to get rushed kicks away to poor positions. That in itself doesn't cause turnovers. Turnovers happen because a defender executes. He beats his opponent. He takes an intercept mark. He makes a smother. He sharks the spill of the ball.

We didn't worry about Lobb and Patton, we didn't select players who could make plays against them in aerial contests, and they had the advantage over us on every forward entry.

And how stupid is that, its doing my head in

 

[Janus]

It's really easy to keep the ball in your forward line when you mark it.

In defence, turnovers happen because you pressure the ball carrier and encourage him to kick to places that suit you. It's why we took shot after shot from tight angles in 2015 and 2016. The corridor was owned by opposition talls.

GWS were able to go long and high to the hot spot over and over again because they knew they'd at least halve the contest and then their smalls could mop up. Half the time we'd be outnumbered on the ground because we had to send multiple players up to the contest to stop Patton/Lobb from taking an easy mark.

Great team defence forces the opposition to get rushed kicks away to poor positions. That in itself doesn't cause turnovers. Turnovers happen because a defender executes. He beats his opponent. He takes an intercept mark. He makes a smother. He sharks the spill of the ball.

We didn't worry about Lobb and Patton, we didn't select players who could make plays against them in aerial contests, and they had the advantage over us on every forward entry.

I just have two questions.

1. Do you honestly think playing Austin would have been the difference between winning and losing when they got on top by taking Shaw out of the backline and placing him up forward, meaning it became one on ones everywhere since we didn't have the extra defender anymore...especially when Austin's weakness in his game is his inability to deal with aerial contests?

2. If we were playing Hombsch instead of Clurey on Patton, do you think Hombsch would have done better or worse one on one?

 

[MrPlow]

I just have two questions.

1. Do you honestly think playing Austin would have been the difference between winning and losing when they got on top by taking Shaw out of the backline and placing him up forward, meaning it became one on ones everywhere since we didn't have the extra defender anymore...especially when Austin's weakness in his game is his inability to deal with aerial contests?

2. If we were playing Hombsch instead of Clurey on Patton, do you think Hombsch would have done better or worse one on one?

In relation to 2, I highly doubt Hombsch would have had 6 kicked on him

 

[El_Scorcho]

I just have two questions.

1. Do you honestly think playing Austin would have been the difference between winning and losing

It certainly would have made us more flexible and able to deal with their tall forwards. Their tall forwards killed us. If we'd been better able to deal with their deep forward entries we'd have cut off their easiest avenue to goal and might have been well in front at 3/4 time.

when they got on top by taking Shaw out of the backline and placing him up forward, meaning it became one on ones everywhere since we didn't have the extra defender anymore...

Why didn't we just send another player back? Where was our extra player? Why weren't we able to negate that or use the extra player to our advantage?

They got on top because we tired as the game went on, the game opened up and suddenly we couldn't match their spread from stoppages and couldn't fill space effectively enough in defence, which meant we started getting beaten at every contest in the back half. Game over.

especially when Austin's weakness in his game is his inability to deal with aerial contests?

I don't agree with this at all. Equal 2nd in the league in average 1%ers last year says that this isn't correct. He's certainly better at aerial contests than the handful of low performing small high forwards we picked ahead of him.

2. If we were playing Hombsch instead of Clurey on Patton, do you think Hombsch would have done better or worse one on one?

Better. Most importantly though it would have reduced the chance of having situations like Polec on Lobb.

 

[Janus]

It certainly would have made us more flexible and able to deal with their tall forwards. Their tall forwards killed us. If we'd been better able to deal with their deep forward entries we'd have cut off their easiest avenue to goal and might have been well in front at 3/4 time.



Why didn't we just send another player back? Where was our extra player? Why weren't we able to negate that or use the extra player to our advantage?

They got on top because we tired as the game went on, the game opened up and suddenly we couldn't match their spread from stoppages and couldn't fill space effectively enough in defence, which meant we started getting beaten at every contest in the back half. Game over.

Didn't you just answer your own question about why we didn't send an extra player back? We were tired and couldn't match their spread so sending a player back wasn't going to help. This is where the loss of Ryder doubly hurt us - if Paddy was playing we could have afforded to send Trengove back and countered...but he was needed elsewhere. We did well for three quarters when Cameron thought he could just beat us without exploiting that fact...but then he realised that he was leaving a lot to chance by doing that.

I don't agree with this at all. Equal 2nd in the league in average 1%ers last year says that this isn't correct. He's certainly better at aerial contests than the handful of low performing small high forwards we picked ahead of him.

It's the same argument with Eddy. The question you should be asking isn't "Is Austin better in aerial contests?" but "Does Austin negate his opponent well enough to sacrifice the extra rebound/counter attack that playing other players provides?"

We were playing pure counter attack against GWS. It was shaping up to be a 1-0 snatch and grab until Cameron said "Enough of this s**t" and did what any good strategist does by targeting our weak point.

Better. Most importantly though it would have reduced the chance of having situations like Polec on Lobb.

You're always going to get mismatches when players swap to cover when you're playing holistic defence. I was actually impressed Polec was even there - must have learned from the Stringer incident