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

[Soggy2112]

Our coach can’t even make selection changes.

But I have no doubt we could make swingmen out of guys like Worrell, Elliot Himmelburg, Keane or Nick Murray

Nope. That wasn’t the question.

Original post was saying that Nicks is trying to create a coaching matrix as if that was a bad thing. I said that’s basically what modern footy is. Coaches go in with their plan A, then they have a series of other tactical changes they’ll make depending on scenario. Essentially if x happens, we do y. Effective game day coaching is about knowing when to pull those levers.

I don’t think Nicks can effectively do that, but coaches aren’t on game day pulling creative coaching moves out of nowhere that they haven’t already planned for like you’re suggesting.

 

[CrowBloke]

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

Curtin cost us goals in the first half. At half time the game was yet to be decided (way too many variables/possibilities). It had not been 'lost'.
+

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.

This, absolutely, cost us the game.

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

I wonder who 'decided' we should play the "go defensive" game .
All signs point to Nicks, who is defence-obsessed going back to his Sydney/Roos roots.
When we got ahead in the third, I'll bet he thought something like:
"Oooo, now would be a good time to practice tough, finals-like defence and protect that lead",
forgetting that it meant stopping what got them ahead in the first place.

Poor decision, bad Coaching.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

He saw Chris Scott do it two days before.

Doesn't copy any of the other stuff Chris Scott does, but he did copy that

The difference was that the Cata were being well beaten & Scott had nothing to lose by injecting more pace.

When the game is evenly poised, you don't make a tactical sub to at least 3 quarter time, as you risk being down a rotation if you cop an injury.

 

[Scorpus]

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.

If Walker kicked 10 goals in the first half, then we subbed him out at half time, and we continued to score at the same rate, I think you could make a decent case that Walker's first half wasn't as influential as we might have thought

Whereas if Walker kicked most of our score up to half time, he gets subbed, then our performance drastically falls away, you could say he had a massive impact on the game.

I'm not suggesting Curtin had zero impact; some of his mistakes were costly. But I disagree that his selection specifically cost us the game. We have actual in game evidence of how we performed when Curtin wasn't able to take the field, and the impact relative to Curtin playing wasn't that large.

The facts are we had a guy conceding lots of goals, we subbed him, and we continued to concede scores at about the same rate.

In a draw there are many contributing factors to not winning and given how we performed in the second half of the match I think it's difficult to attribute blame entirely or largely to one player

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I went to the CARL v CROWS game a few weeks ago ….. bored out of my mind & left at half time

Too much like Soccer …. too many uncontested kick/marks ….only highlights were goal reviews / reportable incidents
Watched the replay and was more watchable …. going to COLL game tomorrow …. hope for a better game

But highlights are few and far between now …. and there’s hardly any in-game moves that change the game flow now …. it’s all pre-planned during the week

Well that explains some of your observations... )

 

[CrowBloke]

His right foot is more accurate than his left.

Disagree, with respect, and Keays himself knows it.
It's the single reason why he always wheels around to get onto his L foot to kick. Always, unless he's trapped, and his R-foot kicking out of trouble is awful.

 

[Scorpus]

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.

The thing is though, we did sub him off, and it didn't improve our chances. We have actual evidence from the match that suggests the result was not improved by that decision.

Was Curtin worst on ground up to that point? Probably. Did he have such a significant negative impact it cost us the game? I don't think we can attribute the blame specifically to him, and we can see how we played in the game after removing him to determine how influential he actually was

 

[119others]

I went to the CARL v CROWS game a few weeks ago ….. bored out of my mind & left at half time

Too much like Soccer …. too many uncontested kick/marks ….only highlights were goal reviews / reportable incidents
Watched the replay and was more watchable …. going to COLL game tomorrow …. hope for a better game

But highlights are few and far between now …. and there’s hardly any in-game moves that change the game flow now …. it’s all pre-planned during the week

Wow. Seriously amazed by this WW. Described as one of the games of the season, 15 lead changes, 30 goals scored and a finish all BF crows fans will remember for years to come.

Highlights: Carlton v Adelaide

The Blues and Crows clash in round five

www.afl.com.au

 

[CrowBloke]

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?

No and the reason why Nicks subbed Curtin out was obvious --- it was pre-planned.
Smith kept Nank out as sub although he played well the week prior and was looking good. What Nank did to get demoted to sub is beyond me, except, well, Nicks had to play Smith (who = Leader + experience).
If Curtin played well, sub someone else. If he played badly, Nank comes in, just as long as Smith plays.
It's that kind of pre-planned inflexibity I really dislike about Nicks.

Last week, a decent Coach m-i-g-h-t have gone:
Curtin to sub (still in the side, has a chance to have an impact while fresh)
Nankervis rewarded for a good game, plays.
If Smith stinks it up (he did), reshuffle and bring Curtin in, by which time Curtin would have been raring to go.

End result?
--- Nicks has the perfect reason now to reunite Smith, McHenry and Murphy .
--- Curtin gets no chance to work on his game (no SANFL) while stewing over the kick to his confidence/nuts.

 

[King Elvis]

Who sits there either pregame or at half time and thinks a half time sub is a good move?

The first rule of decision making is to ask ' what could go wrong if I do X '

Arbitrary decisions are rarely good ones.

Insanity to make a decision on the sub BEFORE the game has even started, even crazier to not re-evaluate that decision based upon the state of the game.

 

[SugarShane]

The most frustrating thing is our experienced contingent have achieved nothing. You can understand how the pies are playing the likes of Sidebottom, Mitchell, Howe even if they’re cooked because they’ve earned it. Our senior players have a gross sense of entitlement that probably comes from years of them feeling hard done by.

It's been a problem at our club for generations. And it's a problem that begets itself. The young guys that can't get a game now see Smith out there barely able to move. "He's paid his dues, he's earned it." And Smith is doing it because he saw Sloane do it. And Jacobs do it. And Douglas do it. And Thompson do it.

"Hey, I had to wait my turn until the old guys croaked. So why should I be the one to give up my spot now?"

And the young guys sitting in the SANFL now are looking at Smith thinking "Geez I can't wait until I've earned bulletproof undroppable status."

 

[SugarShane]

Arbitrary decisions are rarely good ones.

Insanity to make a decision on the sub BEFORE the game has even started, even crazier to not re-evaluate that decision based upon the state of the game.

I'm 100% certain the sub was decided on before the game. The way the coaches talk about this rubbish just makes me think they're more obsessed with pulling off 4D chess moves than they are with just straight football nous. The sub is there as a break glass option. You should not have a player as the sub that you're desperate to get on the ground.

Should we just pick our 23rd best player as the sub? Nah, pick a good consistent player, because he's not a sub, he's an IMPACT PLAYA! They honestly think they've discovered this untapped tactic that no other coaches have. That playing a good, lively player for a half of football is better than playing them for a whole game because you notice the impact more. It's just braindead stuff.

 

[GreyCrow]

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.

I mean shallow dig at my sig but not unexpected from you when you get frustrated at nobody kowtowing to your superior football intellect

Ruthless doesnt mean you damage a players psyche - ruthless is dropping Smith , ruthless is pushing Laird back , ruthless is anything but acting in a kneejerk manner

2 things concern me - Nankervis was the sub and just as Smith was the sub the week before it smells like pre-planned moves. While Nankervis has more strings to his bow it seems likely we saw his impact as a defender

Again I highlight your lack of knowledge or feel for the game. You say you would sub off a player who '' cost us the vast majority of goals'' - yet we still led . There were other options that you failed to mention

Talk at half time and give 10 minutes to find his feet. Its not going to blow the game out of you do so

Move him to another position on the field

Sit him on the bench and let him rotate off and on

The real issue is not WHO you sub off but that we CHOSE to make a substitution at half time. '' oh but Chris Scott did'' Let me parent you . If Chris Scott jumped off a cliff would you expect Nicks to do so?

The lack of feel and inflexibility you show says more about you

 

[119others]

I mean shallow dig at my sig but not unexpected from you when you get frustrated at nobody kowtowing to your superior football intellect

seriously WTF are you on about? I have literally no idea what you are saying here.

 

[Faaarrk]

Disagree, with respect, and Keays himself knows it.
It's the single reason why he always wheels around to get onto his L foot to kick. Always, unless he's trapped, and his R-foot kicking out of trouble is awful.

You stated ( repeatedly) he doesn’t have a right for which is incorrect. He uses his opposite foot more than a lot of players in the squad. Any player will try to get on their preferred foot with the exception of Tex, Fog and recently Soligo. Even Rankine hardly uses his left and prefers the outside boot right kick.
I’ve never seen Laird or Smith use their non- preferred foot, none of our defenders except Milera maybe. Rachele, Pedlar, Jones, Dawson, etc. they all wheel around if they can and only use their non-preferred if absolutely have to.
I don’t like Keays as a footballer but give credit where it’s due and him using his non-preferred at times is great.
The first four games this season he kicked on his right and they were all good kicks.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Brodie Smith had 8 turnovers and 1 score involvement in round 1 in a game we lost by 6 points

That's the biggest discrepancy of any player in any match involving us this year

He also conceded a ridiculously stupid 50m penalty that took a difficult shot into the goal square, and one of his turnovers was a kick directly to a Gold Coast player 30m in front under no pressure (goal). Gold Coast kicked 8 total goals to win.

Bloke has played 250 games, but all he needed to do was apologize and he was backed in for the following week

There are clear double standards in the way we select senior players versus inexperienced players

Curtin should have apologised at half time and played on

 

[Greenfinger]

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.

Utterly ridiculous. Why would you sub curtin after worrell was injured . You seem confused

 

[Sanders]

Cmon, you tell us why footy today is the same as 25 years ago

I’m not saying today is better, but it is different

A perfect Wayne post. Over confident and empty

 

[Sanders]

I went to the CARL v CROWS game a few weeks ago ….. bored out of my mind & left at half time

What sort of buffoon does this?
What sort of buffoon admits to this?

Narrator: trick question

 

[Sanders]

Vary serious …. BORING!

When was the last Modra type mark …. the last bruising McKay bump …. the last 60 mtr Robran screw punt ?

I’m talking this game …. however AFL has more boring soccer type chess games these days …. minimal highlights

Tell me the highlights from last weeks game, everyone has been talking about at work ??

This at least explains all the times it’s been obvious WW didn’t watch the game

He didn’t

 

[Crowstar]

Whoever signed off on this tossers extension should get the boot as hard as him.
The sight of the slimey prick just annoys me now.

FucyouNicks.

 

[Sanders]

I mean shallow dig at my sig but not unexpected from you when you get frustrated at nobody kowtowing to your superior football intellect

Sorry what?

He’s a shouty WW type nuffie

 

[George Kramer]

Vary serious …. BORING!

When was the last Modra type mark …. the last bruising McKay bump …. the last 60 mtr Robran screw punt ?

I’m talking this game …. however AFL has more boring soccer type chess games these days …. minimal highlights

Tell me the highlights from last weeks game, everyone has been talking about at work ??

The game has changed and yes it’s very structured, but you’ve chosen the one game where the coaches haven’t treated it like a chess game and allowed the players to play and you’re criticising it?

You must have hated the way Nicks was coaching when he instructed our players not to play on but instead play kick to kick.

But if you hated that Crows Carlton game, why do you even watch the modern game?

 

[ABAB]

Why all the hate? Don't we want to get a good pick this year with the down year we had to have for him to get the sack next year and then make the Finals the following year with the new coach.

 

[Samcro24]

The game has changed and yes it’s very structured, but you’ve chosen the one game where the coaches haven’t treated it like a chess game and allowed the players to play and you’re criticising it?

You must have hated the way Nicks was coaching when he instructed our players not to play on but instead play kick to kick.

But if you hated that Crows Carlton game, why do you even watch the modern game?

SuperCoach points