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

Is Matthew Nicks the right coach for Adelaide?

  • Firmly yes (I love what I'm seeing)

  • Leaning yes

  • Can't decide either way

  • Leaning no (but don't sack him yet)

  • Firmly no (he should be sacked)


Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

I called it at the time when the club announced Curtin will be playing in the showdown, There was an unusual quietness from Nicks. He has usually been the first to do the PR campaign around a debutant. To me this was extremely noticeable and spoke volumes.

I do not think Nicks ever wanted to select Curtin, he purely did it because like usual he is afraid of his job and the media noise around Curtin and he felt he had no choice .

Nicks set him up for failure by using him in deep defence which was always what he wants from tall players as he doesn't like them around the ground. Curtin is a tall running player and barely ever played deep defence ever. So the persistance to have him deep defence in the Sanfl told volumes. He just saw a tall player, thought deep defence and didn't give a flying crap about anything else.

I also believe Nicks had every intention of subbing Curtin off in both games. By playing him in deep defence against bigger bodies was deliberate to have him fail and to have players like Smith and Nankervis as sub was a give away. I have no doubt this was all about exposing Curtin as not ready so he can banish him to the Sanfl.

I usually put 0 weight in conspiracies, but I can get behind most of this.

He seemed way too eager to sub curtin on both occasions with no real need to.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I usually put 0 weight in conspiracies, but I can get behind most of this.

He seemed way too eager to sub curtin on both occasions with no real need to.

The decision to have 2 defenders as subs in both games when his long time MO was running mids is the give away.
 
The decision to have 2 defenders as subs in both games when his long time MO was running mids is the give away.

They're not 'subs', Mr SuperCoach believes the term is derogatory, so he calls them 'impact players'. Like Smith with his one possession from 26% TOG, impact.
 
I usually put 0 weight in conspiracies, but I can get behind most of this.

He seemed way too eager to sub curtin on both occasions with no real need to.
I'm on board with most conspiracy theories, but ESPECIALLY this one
 
I called it at the time when the club announced Curtin will be playing in the showdown, There was an unusual quietness from Nicks. He has usually been the first to do the PR campaign around a debutant. To me this was extremely noticeable and spoke volumes.

I do not think Nicks ever wanted to select Curtin, he purely did it because like usual he is afraid of his job and the media noise around Curtin and he felt he had no choice .

Nicks set him up for failure by using him in deep defence which was always what he wants from tall players as he doesn't like them around the ground. Curtin is a tall running player and barely ever played deep defence ever. So the persistance to have him deep defence in the Sanfl told volumes. He just saw a tall player, thought deep defence and didn't give a flying crap about anything else.

I also believe Nicks had every intention of subbing Curtin off in both games. By playing him in deep defence against bigger bodies was deliberate to have him fail and to have players like Smith and Nankervis as sub was a give away. I have no doubt this was all about exposing Curtin as not ready so he can banish him to the Sanfl.
Gave him credit about his composure this week though so.......
 
I usually put 0 weight in conspiracies, but I can get behind most of this.

He seemed way too eager to sub curtin on both occasions with no real need to.
5 of the first 6 BRIS goals were kicked by Curtin's direct opponent .....Nicks simply couldn't continue with Curtin tonight

Move him elsewhere, and you impact the team balance
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dear Matthew,

I'm passionate about our team and a proud South Australian. It is my birth home and has never left my heart. My team has become an embodiment of this love. But I'm worried Matthew. Worried for my team and club. Worried for the players under your coaching authority. Worried for my fellow supporters who, like me, now openly question your actions.

Did you notice the ongoing poor form tonight of many of your team? Did you see the eyes facing downwards with shoulders slunk forward? Did you notice the confidence of many of your brightest stars?

I hope you spend some time tonight thinking about players like Josh Rachelle, who has become a shell of the player he looked earlier. How Mitch Hinge has lost his dare and how Chayce has become a player not worthy of selection at most other clubs. There are many players who look defeated and I'm asking you WHY. I hope you ask yourself how the family of Dan Curtin feel about the Crows and yourself tonight. Actually, how is Dan tonight Matthew? Eyes down shoulders slunk? I hope you can put your cowardly self righteousness aside and compassionately look into his head tonight as he contemplates the public humiliation of being removed from the arena at half time. I hope you have a plan of encouragement for him. He'll need it.

I hope you can find the courage to reflect honestly with yourself about your own performance. Your supporters are becoming sparse and time is against you now. Do you hear the drums beating Matthew? They grow ever louder. Doing nothing and playing safe is now below the expectation and is widely seen as lacking fortitude. With just a few more poor coaching performances, a tipping point will be reached from where no coach returns.

I hope you reflect on the mediocrity within yourself, your fellow coaches, your players tonight, your wider squad and find the courage to say "no more!!" to that insipid and uninspiring cohort, many of us outside the locker room can recognise easily. It can start with you Matthew, as coach. It's your job to weed out those who offer so little hope for the future of this mighty club. It's your job to plan and execute strategy and produce a team capable of premierships. It's YOUR job!!! I hope you can understand that many now only see you as a timid man who is coaching to the minimum requirement to to retain your job. We did not want this to be our realisation once, but it is what it is.

Matthew, I hope you can seek counsel and improve the club and team. I hope you can be brave enough to ask questions and seek help. I hope you can be humble enough to contemplate and accept advice widely. I hope you can help restore the confidence in our young group. I hope you can recruit proper assistance in the coaching team. I hope you can coach without the result of each game being more important than the strategy required to win a premiership. I hope you can select a team this week based on that strategy and not on the previous blurred concept of selecting players who have not been deserving of their spot. With a proper long term objective, these decisions become easier. I hope you don't become so short sighted you become blind to reality. This takes bravery and to this end, I question you now. Actually, thousands do.

You have built a team which valued team first. It valued effort for a team mate. It valued pure guy wrenching effort. Our direction was good but sadly, we are losing our way. What changed Matthew? It's your job to know.

And everyone who understands "the pride of South Australia" want to know too.
 
Curtin was just handing goals to his direct opponent, who has played exactly the same number of AFL games as he has, by getting caught out of position constantly. He is not ready for AFL football yet and definitely not ready to play in defence. Leaving him on would have only embarassed and demoralised him even more and probably cost even more on the scoreboard.

Their mistake was already made when they picked him in that role, knowing they would likely need to sub him early (hence Nank as the sub) not when they made the sub itself.
 
Curtin was just handing goals to his direct opponent, who has played exactly the same number of AFL games as he has, by getting caught out of position constantly. He is not ready for AFL football yet and definitely not ready to play in defence. Leaving him on would have only embarassed and demoralised him even more and probably cost even more on the scoreboard.

Their mistake was already made when they picked him in that role, knowing they would likely need to sub him early (hence Nank as the sub) not when they made the sub itself.
I would have moved him to the wing or on ball. Can't be worse than laird.
 
Curtin was just handing goals to his direct opponent, who has played exactly the same number of AFL games as he has, by getting caught out of position constantly. He is not ready for AFL football yet and definitely not ready to play in defence. Leaving him on would have only embarassed and demoralised him even more and probably cost even more on the scoreboard.

Their mistake was already made when they picked him in that role, knowing they would likely need to sub him early (hence Nank as the sub) not when they made the sub itself.

Should have been moved away from goal and given him a chance to redeem. How many times have we seen McHenry do the same if not worse?
 
I would have moved him to the wing or on ball. Can't be worse than laird.
Should have been moved away from goal and given him a chance to redeem. How many times have we seen McHenry do the same if not worse?
He was cooked, well behind the pace of the game, and would have been just as much of a liability.

How they thought that selecting him before he was ready, then subbing him early two weeks in a row to really make sure his morale was destroyed was a better idea than letting him build his tank and confidence in the SANFL, I have no idea. At least pick him as the sub if you're not going to play him for a full game and then maybe he could get some midfield minutes to build his confidence.

He's clearly a big-body midfielder, not a KPD, which is something we are crying out for, but he's not ready for that role yet.
 
Curtin was just handing goals to his direct opponent, who has played exactly the same number of AFL games as he has, by getting caught out of position constantly. He is not ready for AFL football yet and definitely not ready to play in defence. Leaving him on would have only embarassed and demoralised him even more and probably cost even more on the scoreboard.

Their mistake was already made when they picked him in that role, knowing they would likely need to sub him early (hence Nank as the sub) not when they made the sub itself.
Who do you think was his direct opponent? Morris or Ah Chee?
 
Back
Top