Opinion Matthew Nicks: Adelaide's Coach (Part 2) - Full Support of the Board

[119others]

You miss the point entirely. We played a man down and we played a rookie in the last line of defence. Nicks had far better options. Playing a man down for a half of football is on nicks and cost us the game. It’s more than simply Curtis’s performance. It meant our players had less of a rest which is partly why Brisbane got on top of us

FFS, it’s just stupidity to be talking about Worrells injury. Bad luck can happen anytime. If Nicks had subbed Curtin AFTER Worrell got injured then fine sack him. But FFS, do you have a crystal ball as this sort of thing happens regularly.

Facts are Curtin cost us the game and needed to be removed.

 

[Samcro24]

Ahhh, ok. So now it’s becoming a conditional statement as the first one was clearly wrong.

Game was just about gone for them may as well roll the dice

 

[Scorpus]

FFS, it’s just stupidity to be talking about Worrells injury. Bad luck can happen anytime. If Nicks had subbed Curtin AFTER Worrell got injured then fine sack him. But FFS, do you have a crystal ball as this sort of thing happens regularly.

Facts are Curtin cost us the game and needed to be removed.

The earlier you use your substitute, the more likely there will be an injury you cannot use the sub for in the remaining game time

 

[119others]

Game was just about gone for them may as well roll the dice

Ok that’s fine and I don’t disagree. Stanley also wasn’t negatively impacting the game anywhere near as much as Curtin giving up 2/3rds of all goals.

My initial response was to “Rookie error to sub a player unforced at half time ! No other coach ever does that “

 

[Gtowncrow]

Who else is there? Laird and Tex?

Keays?

Crouch...but anyway, by our standards anyone over 25 years of age and /or 100 games needs to take a level of responsibility.

Your thoughts on Keays is interesting. I've hold him in very high regard as a leader. If he had Dawson's left foot, I reckon he'd be captain. Controversial I know.

 

[NSolis]

The issue is relevant though because we won’t know how Curtin goes in his preferred position so long as Smith occupies it. Nicks is already backed in, which makes it all the more infuriating he won’t start taking risks and addressing current flaws with potential solutions that can simultaneously fast track development. Soligo is an example of this paying off - you cannot tell me spending his season on the wing would be as beneficial to his long-term development as how he’s currently played, nor would our current midfield work half as well without him there.

Smith’s spot is currently a flaw in our side. Curtin may very well end up stinking at the role but with where our club is at (and the fact Curtin could have a shocker in the role and we wouldn’t be losing too much from what Smith would offer) it’s a risk worth taking.

My argument is not that we should select Smith over Curtin. I think Smith is probably still best 22 when fit but I don't think his spot needs to be at the expense of Curtin, especially not while Worrell is injured, and I think Smith should be dropped when he plays poorly but Curtin should be backed in (within reason). I'd be happy to have them both in the team (if fit and if Smith is playing well) for the next month and then revisit for the Sydney game or at the bye when we have more defensive options.

I'm responding to the claim that subbing Curtin cost us a win against Brisbane, which I think is wildly wrong and in fact it would be far more accurate to say that selecting Curtin in the first place cost us the game.

The reason Smith's performance against Gold Coast is irrelevant is because it can be true that Smith was our worst player against GC and if we picked someone else in his spot we'd have won, and that the same is true about Brisbane and Curtin. Absolutely true that Smith being a 250 gamer and Curtin being a 2nd gamer means the correct response to these performances is different, but that doesn't change the reality of what happened in these games.

 

[Afcprophet]

Dropping Curtin when there is no SANFL, after subbing him out early both games. Horrible for his confidence and development especially after playing him as a lock down defender. Even playing him in the middle both games in the SANFL would have been better.

Then to bring in Murphy over Schoenberg or any other young player. A team with Sholl, Mchenry, and Murphy. Nicks selections are dumbfounding

 

[119others]

The earlier you use your substitute, the more likely there will be an injury you cannot use the sub for in the remaining game time

Of course, agreed. No one can dispute that. Also no one can dispute we were very unlucky with an injury 5 mins later with the way things played out.

Keep Curtin on and perhaps we lose by 4-5 goals if his first half performance is repeated (ie he gives up 8 goals for the game). Now THAT would really destroy a young guys confidence.

My view is there was a higher % chance of Curtins playing the second half adversely impacting the result than an injury 5 mins later. Coaches acted with rational analysis IMO and made a reasonable judgement call. We all know what happened next though and things are always easy in hindsight.

 

[dogs105]

Crouch...but anyway, by our standards anyone over 25 years of age and /or 100 games needs to take a level of responsibility.

Your thoughts on Keays is interesting. I've hold him in very high regard as a leader. If he had Dawson's left foot, I reckon he'd be captain. Controversial I know.

Forgot Crouch. Thanks.

Sorry, I was just thinking about AA, and who our senior players are.

 

[119others]

Dropping Curtin when there is no SANFL, after subbing him out early both games. Horrible for his confidence and development especially after playing him as a lock down defender. Even playing him in the middle both games in the SANFL would have been better.

Then to bring in Murphy over Schoenberg or any other young player. A team with Sholl, Mchenry, and Murphy. Nicks selections are dumbfounding

What do you mean by lock down defender?

KPD? No. He didn’t play on Daniher or Hipwood.
3rd tall? No. That was Worrell.
Best small? No. CC picked up by MM.
Fringe other forwards in Lions team only playing due to injured stars? Yes, that’s who Curtin got

 

[Scorpus]

Of course, agreed. No one can dispute that. Also no one can dispute we were very unlucky with an injury 5 mins later with the way things played out.

Keep Curtin on and perhaps we lose by 4-5 goals if his first half performance is repeated (ie he gives up 8 goals for the game). Now THAT would really destroy a young guys confidence.

My view is there was a higher % chance of Curtins playing the second half adversely impacting the result than an injury 5 mins later. Coaches acted with rational analysis IMO and made a reasonable judgement call. We all know what happened next though and things are always easy in hindsight.

What's bizarre about this opinion, is that WITH Curtin conceding all those goals in the first half, we actually led at half time.

6.9 (45) to 6.7 (43)

Then after subbing Curtin out - who according to some was directly responsible for our loss - we turned our lead into a draw

7.3 (45) to 7.6 (47) after half time

So if we had this handbrake in the team that was costing us all those goals, why did subbing him out make little difference to the scoreline and specifically, why did we convert a narrow lead into a draw? Why didn't our defense immediately become excellent as the goal-conceder was removed?

Or maybe Curtin specifically wasn't as directly influential on the outcome as has been claimed?

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Your thoughts on Keays is interesting. I've hold him in very high regard as a leader. If he had Dawson's left foot, I reckon he'd be captain. Controversial I know.

If Keays had Dawson's left foot, he'd still be playing for Brisbane.

 

[119others]

What's bizarre about this opinion, is that WITH Curtin conceding all those goals in the first half, we actually led at half time.

6.9 (45) to 6.7 (43)

Then after subbing Curtin out - who according to some was directly responsible for our loss - we turned our lead into a draw

7.3 (45) to 7.6 (47) after half time

So if we had this handbrake in the team that was costing us all those goals, why did subbing him out make little difference to the scoreline and specifically, why did we convert a narrow lead into a draw? Why didn't our defense immediately become excellent as the goal-conceder was removed?

Or maybe Curtin specifically wasn't as directly influential on the outcome as has been claimed?

Ok fair enough that was my opinion and happy to hear yours.

Who would you say was worst on ground at half time last weekend? Who had most negatively impacted their own teams chances of winning? If you think there is more than one stand out then happy for a couple of names,

 

[NSolis]

What's bizarre about this opinion, is that WITH Curtin conceding all those goals in the first half, we actually led at half time.

6.9 (45) to 6.7 (43)

Then after subbing Curtin out - who according to some was directly responsible for our loss - we turned our lead into a draw

7.3 (45) to 7.6 (47) after half time

So if we had this handbrake in the team that was costing us all those goals, why did subbing him out have little difference to the scoreline and specifically, why did we convert a narrow lead into a draw? Why didn't our defense immediately become excellent as the goal-conceder was removed?

Or maybe Curtin specifically wasn't as directly influential on the outcome as has been claimed?

Do you actually believe this or are you just saying this for the hell of it? We led at half time despite the fact that Curtin was successfully exposed by the opposition and conceded a number of goals. That doesn't mean him conceding those goals had no impact. You can't evaluate the impact of a player primarily by looking at the result of the game.

To take the question at face value, the second half was different. Worrell was injured, the rest of the game had different events play out, and you can't compare them as like-for-like. What you can do is look at the plays in which Curtin was involved and how he performed and ask if another player might have done better. This is obviously not an argument against selecting Curtin, it's fine to concede some team performance to expose young players to the game, but it is often a tradeoff and in this case it clearly was.

 

[CrowBloke]

Crouch...but anyway, by our standards anyone over 25 years of age and /or 100 games needs to take a level of responsibility.

Your thoughts on Keays is interesting. I've hold him in very high regard as a leader. If he had Dawson's left foot, I reckon he'd be captain. Controversial I know.

While I've often bemoaned the fact that Keays has no R foot kick and should really work harder on that, I like Keays. Always have.
Keays is our Fast-Forward, run-both-ways at full pelt Energiser Bunny.
I don't know what he does at training, or off-field or in the change rooms, but on-field he leads clearly by example.

His positive energy, elite fitness and 100% effort would lift other players, especially the rookies.
But Captain, I dunno.
Dawson seems to have the necessary ability, gravitas and character.

 

[MRB37]

FFS, it’s just stupidity to be talking about Worrells injury. Bad luck can happen anytime. If Nicks had subbed Curtin AFTER Worrell got injured then fine sack him. But FFS, do you have a crystal ball as this sort of thing happens regularly.

Facts are Curtin cost us the game and needed to be removed.

Getting on top and then giving up a run of 5 goals in a row from 29 minutes in the 3rd quarter to 12 minutes is what cost us the game, not Curtin.

We got up, decided to play the "go defensive" mode to end the quarter, turned it over and gave the Lions back the momentum.

 

[GreyCrow]

Who would you say was worst on ground at half time last weekend? Who had most negatively impacted their own teams chances of winning? If you think there is more than one stand out then happy for a couple of names,

This is looking backwards - if someone is worst on ground you still dont sub them out. Sure consider it but recognise you either move them or let them work it out or bench them for 5 while you think about it

Do we sub out our worst player at half time each week?

 

[Scorpus]

Do you actually believe this or are you just saying this for the hell of it? We led at half time despite the fact that Curtin was successfully exposed by the opposition and conceded a number of goals. That doesn't mean him conceding those goals had no impact. You can't evaluate the impact of a player primarily by looking at the result of the game.

To take the question at face value, the second half was different. Worrell was injured, the rest of the game had different events play out, and you can't compare them as like-for-like. What you can do is look at the plays in which Curtin was involved and how he performed and ask if another player might have done better. This is obviously not an argument against selecting Curtin, it's fine to concede some team performance to expose young players to the game, but it is often a tradeoff and in this case it clearly was.

Why not?

We have two portions of the game we can look at, against the same opponent. The first half with Curtin, and the second half without Curtin. The results in either half suggest that we performed about the same.

We don't know whether those goals would be conceded if another opponent was on the player who kicked them, or how Brisbane would have played the game tactically. I've already said my opinion is that Fagan tactically outclassed Nicks when he exploited an obvious avenue to goal. And yet in the second half, when that avenue wasn't available, Fagan was still able to get his side scoring at about the same rate. Who's to say he doesn't just use his second half tactics in the first half if Curtin wasn't selected?

And I don't buy that in the first half we would have only conceded 1 goal to Brisbane without Curtin. That's basically the thinking here: without Curtin, Brisbane kick way less goals in the first half, and we win. Yet we know, from the same game, that without Curtin they kicked about the same number of goals. So how could the first statement be claimed?

Take Callum Ah Chee for example. He kicked two goals directly on Curtin in the first half, but then in the second half? He also kicked 2 goals. He can't have been on Curtin. Structures change, new defenders move into those roles, and yet overall he still finds a way to score in the second half. So how much can you directly attribute Ah Chee's goals in the first half to Curtin's defending?

 

[Pugsley]

Why not?

We have two portions of the game we can look at, against the same opponent. The first half with Curtin, and the second half without Curtin. The results in either half suggest that we performed about the same.

We don't know whether those goals would be conceded if another opponent was on the player who kicked them, or how Brisbane would have played the game tactically. I've already said my opinion is that Fagan tactically outclassed Nicks when he exploited an obvious avenue to goal. And yet in the second half, when that avenue wasn't available, Fagan was still able to get his side scoring at about the same rate. Who's to say he doesn't just use his second half tactics in the first half if Curtin wasn't selected?

And I don't buy that in the first half we would have only conceded 1 goal to Brisbane without Curtin. That's basically the thinking here: without Curtin, Brisbane kick way less goals in the first half, and we win. Yet we know, from the same game, that without Curtin they kicked about the same number of goals. So how could the first statement be claimed?

Take Callum Ah Chee for example. He kicked two goals directly on Curtin in the first half, but then in the second half? He also kicked 2 goals. He can't have been on Curtin. Structures change, new defenders move into those roles, and yet overall he still finds a way to score in the second half. So how much can you directly attribute Ah Chee's goals in the first half to Curtin's defending?

The ball shouldn't get in the forward if we control the game but that's impossible. It's our disposal that causes this

 

[119others]

Why not?

We have two portions of the game we can look at, against the same opponent. The first half with Curtin, and the second half without Curtin. The results in either half suggest that we performed about the same.

We don't know whether those goals would be conceded if another opponent was on the player who kicked them, or how Brisbane would have played the game tactically. I've already said my opinion is that Fagan tactically outclassed Nicks when he exploited an obvious avenue to goal. And yet in the second half, when that avenue wasn't available, Fagan was still able to get his side scoring at about the same rate. Who's to say he doesn't just use his second half tactics in the first half if Curtin wasn't selected?

And I don't buy that in the first half we would have only conceded 1 goal to Brisbane without Curtin. That's basically the thinking here: without Curtin, Brisbane kick way less goals in the first half, and we win. Yet we know, from the same game, that without Curtin they kicked about the same number of goals. So how could the first statement be claimed?

Take Callum Ah Chee for example. He kicked two goals directly on Curtin in the first half, but then in the second half? He also kicked 2 goals. He can't have been on Curtin. Structures change, new defenders move into those roles, and yet overall he still finds a way to score in the second half. So how much can you directly attribute Ah Chee's goals in the first half to Curtin's defending?

That’s extraordinary simplistic and you know it.

Still happy to hear who was worse on ground from you.

 

[NSolis]

Why not?

We have two portions of the game we can look at, against the same opponent. The first half with Curtin, and the second half without Curtin. The results in either half suggest that we performed about the same.

We don't know whether those goals would be conceded if another opponent was on the player who kicked them, or how Brisbane would have played the game tactically. I've already said my opinion is that Fagan tactically outclassed Nicks when he exploited an obvious avenue to goal. And yet in the second half, when that avenue wasn't available, Fagan was still able to get his side scoring at about the same rate. Who's to say he doesn't just use his second half tactics in the first half if Curtin wasn't selected?

And I don't buy that in the first half we would have only conceded 1 goal to Brisbane without Curtin. That's basically the thinking here: without Curtin, Brisbane kick way less goals in the first half, and we win. Yet we know, from the same game, that without Curtin they kicked about the same number of goals. So how could the first statement be claimed?

Take Callum Ah Chee for example. He kicked two goals directly on Curtin in the first half, but then in the second half? He also kicked 2 goals. He can't have been on Curtin. Structures change, new defenders move into those roles, and yet overall he still finds a way to score in the second half. So how much can you directly attribute Ah Chee's goals in the first half to Curtin's defending?

The 'why not' should be obvious I think. If Walker kicks 10 goals against Collingwood next week but we lose by a kick, does that mean Walker didn't have much of an impact because if he did we would have won? It's quite possible that someone can have a very significant impact on the result but still not enough to decide the result on their own. My view is that Curtin had a very significant impact on the game in the first half compared to what another theoretical player might have had, despite the fact that Adelaide held a narrow lead at half time. The second half being narrowly won by Brisbane does not disprove that.

On the rest, I'm not saying we only would have conceded one goal if we had someone else instead of Curtin. I went through the goals elsewhere and I think some of them were just goals that he happened to concede that might have happened to anyone. Ah Chee's first for example Curtin was outmarked by a smaller opponent but it was a very nice pass from Cameron and that could easily happen to a seasoned defender. The first Morris goal was a very poor effort though and some of the positioning stuff was more just inexperience where other players will usually have a better idea of where to be in those situations (not letting opponent goalside for example). Sometimes players will make those mistakes anyway but not repeatedly in the same quarter.

Anyway, the argument is that Curtin had a very poor first half and subbing him off didn't make Brisbane more likely to win. Attributing a specific score differential to him is impossible but I'm confident it was more than 0.

 

[Pugsley]

That’s extraordinary simplistic and you know it.

Still happy to hear who was worse on ground from you.

McHenry. Game over.

 

[119others]

This is looking backwards - if someone is worst on ground you still dont sub them out. Sure consider it but recognise you either move them or let them work it out or bench them for 5 while you think about it

Do we sub out our worst player at half time each week?

If I was coach and someone was clearly worst on ground - by a MASSIVE margin - costing us the vast majority of all goals we conceded then yes I would sub them out at half time to improve our chances. If he had only played “below average” and made an error or 2 and been marginal then that’s different. Facts are he stunk last weekend as young players can do and was rightfully subbed off, whilst beng a “ruthless club” as so many enjoy demanding.

 

[Faaarrk]

Crouch...but anyway, by our standards anyone over 25 years of age and /or 100 games needs to take a level of responsibility.

Your thoughts on Keays is interesting. I've hold him in very high regard as a leader. If he had Dawson's left foot, I reckon he'd be captain. Controversial I know.

He filled in as captain a few years ago and couldn’t handle the pressure. Gave away too many silly frees.

 

[Faaarrk]

While I've often bemoaned the fact that Keays has no R foot kick and should really work harder on that, I like Keays. Always have.
Keays is our Fast-Forward, run-both-ways at full pelt Energiser Bunny.
I don't know what he does at training, or off-field or in the change rooms, but on-field he leads clearly by example.

His positive energy, elite fitness and 100% effort would lift other players, especially the rookies.
But Captain, I dunno.
Dawson seems to have the necessary ability, gravitas and character.

His right foot is more accurate than his left. It’s actually not too bad since left footers aren’t known for using their opposite foot. Another one is Crouch.