Autopsy Review 2022 R4, v. Melbourne (The most sackable game in AFL history?)

[malcheski]

Dixon
Aliir
Gray
Fantasia
Duursma
McKenzie

and after halftime

Wines

That's about a third of your best 22.

Then you replace them with:

McEntee
Mayes
Mead
Motlop
Dumont
Jones
Clurey

The guys in bold shouldn't be anywhere near the best 22 of a top four team - remember that Motlop was the medical sub for the game against Brisbane. Jones should be cut the same sort of slack that Bergman was last year. With Dumont, Clurey and Bergman having played this round, we are now down to the following untested 'depth' (after Sinn, Finlayson and Frederick have already played):

Farrell
Hayes
Lord
Visentini
Schofield
Pasini
Jackson
Burgoyne

Could have been worse. I liked the look of Clurey on his first game back. Ditto Bergman. At least we started to spread the ball laterally in the second half and open up angles. We just never do it at the right tempo - it's either too slow and defenders get back into position, or there's a rush of blood and we miss targets.

One step close to Lemmey.

Cotchin
Grigg
Martin
Houli
Rance
Riewoldt

Remember when Richmond trekked over and took our lunch money missing this lot in 2019? I mean of course injuries to key players mean all teams score 1 goal for 3 quarters right?

 

[Doctor Feel]

Did we win?

 

[Garibaldi Red]

Did we win?

We sh1t it….

Err No.

 

[Janus]

We should really stop talking about Dixon, Gray & Fantasia they are two over 30's & a bloke that gets injured making toast.

Not sure why people think Dixon's age is going to affect his ability to play football? What part of his game is predicated by the aerobic fitness and ability to get separation from an opponent on the lead? His game is about hitting a contest and using his strength to take marks - two attributes that don't disappear with age. He's more Tom Hawkins than Taylor Walker. At 35 he'll be providing more to the team than Ladhams ever would.

Cotchin
Grigg
Martin
Houli
Rance
Riewoldt

Remember when Richmond trekked over and took our lunch money missing this lot in 2019? I mean of course injuries to key players mean all teams score 1 goal for 3 quarters right?

Nathan Broad - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
David Astbury - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Dylan Grimes - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Nick Vlastuin - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Shane Edwards - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Brandon Ellis - 2017, 2019 premiership player
Liam Baker - 2019, 2020 premiership player
Kamdyn McIntosh - 2017, 2020 premiership player
Daniel Rioli - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Jason Castagna - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Jack Graham - 2017, 2020 premiership player
Dion Prestia - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Tom Lynch - 2019, 2020 premiership player
Toby Nankervis - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Josh Caddy - 2017, 2019 premiership player
Kane Lambert - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Noah Balta - 2020 premiership player
Shai Bolton - 2019, 2020 premiership player

What a bunch of ******* scrubs.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Cotchin
Grigg
Martin
Houli
Rance
Riewoldt

Remember when Richmond trekked over and took our lunch money missing this lot in 2019? I mean of course injuries to key players mean all teams score 1 goal for 3 quarters right?

But who did Richmond bring in ?

That's only a fair question

 

[malcheski]

Not sure why people think Dixon's age is going to affect his ability to play football? What part of his game is predicated by the aerobic fitness and ability to get separation from an opponent on the lead? His game is about hitting a contest and using his strength to take marks - two attributes that don't disappear with age. He's more Tom Hawkins than Taylor Walker. At 35 he'll be providing more to the team than Ladhams ever would.



View attachment 1366371

Nathan Broad - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
David Astbury - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Dylan Grimes - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Nick Vlastuin - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Shane Edwards - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Brandon Ellis - 2017, 2019 premiership player
Liam Baker - 2019, 2020 premiership player
Kamdyn McIntosh - 2017, 2020 premiership player
Daniel Rioli - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Jason Castagna - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Jack Graham - 2017, 2020 premiership player
Dion Prestia - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Tom Lynch - 2019, 2020 premiership player
Toby Nankervis - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Josh Caddy - 2017, 2019 premiership player
Kane Lambert - 2017, 2019, 2020 premiership player
Noah Balta - 2020 premiership player
Shai Bolton - 2019, 2020 premiership player

What a bunch of ******* scrubs.

Crediting them all with 2 extra premierships from the time of the game is a bit rich no?

At the time of the game your Bakers, Boltons, Balta's etc were kids fresh from the draft, not unlike the team we just trotted out but way to go you for moving those goalposts.

 

[Janus]

Crediting them all with 2 extra premierships from the time of the game is a bit rich no?

At the time of the game your Bakers, Boltons, Balta's etc were kids fresh from the draft, not unlike the team we just trotted out but way to go you for moving those goalposts.

Um, no. It shows you the talent and drive that those players had that they were selected in future premiership sides. Those players knew the Richmond system and were able to slot in and replicate it because even though Reiwoldt was missing, Lynch was still a decent forward target.

Oh, and we were missing Dixon that game, too.

 

[malcheski]

Um, no. It shows you the talent and drive that those players had that they were selected in future premiership sides. Those players knew the Richmond system and were able to slot in and replicate it because even though Reiwoldt was missing, Lynch was still a decent forward target.

Oh, and we were missing Dixon that game, too.

So your argument now is that its the system that holds up, not personnel? Which is it? We lost because we had players out and Richmond win because of the system?

You cant have it both ways here

 

[Papa G]

Would Hayes/Lord/Visentini offered more at full forward than a 6 foot 1 Sam Mayes?

Completely forgot about Finlayson too. He's not injured is he? I know his first 2 games were terrible but for height/structure and a ruck chop out WTF wasn't he playing?

 

[Pappagallo]

Crediting them all with 2 extra premierships from the time of the game is a bit rich no?

At the time of the game your Bakers, Boltons, Balta's etc were kids fresh from the draft, not unlike the team we just trotted out but way to go you for moving those goalposts.

Also would half of them even get within 500 metres of a flag without the star power of Martin et al? Of course not. We lost to a very average side that day.

 

[bow and arrow]

Maybe he can tell us what's the point of being in the competition when we set out to do this!

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[bomberclifford]

Completely forgot about Finlayson too. He's not injured is he? I know his first 2 games were terrible but for height/structure and a ruck chop out WTF wasn't he playing?

Yeah that one seems odd. Swap out McEntee for Finlayson and the game may have played out a lot differently. I mean it couldn't have been any worse, could it?

 

[pastmyprimus]

135 marks to Port, 76 to Melbourne.

Tells you a lot about the difference in game plans. Port’s is based on slow buildups with short chip kicks, that gain little or no ground. Eventually leads to a long kick to a contest which we lose most of the time. It’s painful to watch.

Melbourne’s is about quick and slick ball movement.

It’s like Hinkley’s missed the memo on how the modern game is played.

 

[GremioPower]

I got into some verbal argy bargy with a bloke tonight after the first quarter where I not so quietly mentioned that it was another Hinkley special 0 goal quarter...

"One of those negative supporters"
"If you haven't coached shut up"

I just don't get it. What do they need to see before they realise something is wrong. A 0 goal quarter wasn't enough. A 0 goal half wasn't enough

Do they want a 0 goal game?

What is it going to take? Seriously.

Next time, just say: “Yes. I was actually this bad. And I got fired. I have never coached again.”

 

[Long live PAFC]

Sigh.

Ok will try for some objectivity.
Lets be realistic, that Melbourne side matches well against any of the great premiership sides of the last 2 decades. At full strength, port struggle to beat them. A 32 point loss with the outs we had, you take that for sure. But the game itself, was deplorable and an embarrassment. It’s humiliating.

Some notes.

1) defence - gees it was stoic and they played well. Kept us in it and were the reason for it not being more. Was it the personnel or maybe we should give Chad some credit? Jonas lead by example, Clurey looked good, our halfbacks worked their butts off.

2) the game plan - we actually had a plan and I suspect others may try to copy it. We just lacked the skills and players to execute. But holding possession and spreading the Melbourne zone horizontally and vertically, it looked good and the deep v switch worked well. We managed to get to the centre and out of our fifty fairly well.

3) Intensity - we brought it fairly solidly for the first quarter and looked like we came to play. The midfield were holding their own. We have important players out but through that first quarter, there was a glimmer of hope ‘maybe we could steal this one’.

4) Issues -

• no clear path forward. So we moved it out of defence well, held possession and have overlap run and then… the system for forward entry was absent. What was the plan? Lever and May sat in the hole and often it was Todd, Scott or Mitch getting a mark at 80m and delivering inside fifty to an outsized, outskilled forward line.
• ruck. Gawn is the best ruck in the league and Lycett is not in the top 15. No only is there Gawn but there is Jackson also. They are taller, fitter, have better jumps and are more skilled. So what was our ruck plan? Give Melbourne first use so their superior midfield can burn us? Hope that Marshall will be able to win the tap and if he does deliver it to our no tall forward because, Todd, our one tall is rucking instead of being a KPF? And what if Lycett got injured?
• personnel: we had two 197-199 players in Marshall and Lycett. Mitch and Clurey are 192 ish. Jonas and Burton about 190. Did we seriously think that a tall less backline and tall less forward line could compete with Melbourne?

I think we actually had a good game plan that our backs executed well but we seriously let ourselves down in forward set ups and key player selections. These were predictable issues. I’m not suggesting I’m better than Hinkley but surely these issues were raised in meetings and could/should have been fixed. Is it unreasonable to say Hayes and Finlayson should have played? Would it have limited our ability to enact our gameplan?

Anyway I like the effort of Boak, SPP, Clurey, Jonas, Burton, Mead, Mitch and Marshall.

 

[chiwigi]

Sigh.

Ok will try for some objectivity.
Lets be realistic, that Melbourne side matches well against any of the great premiership sides of the last 2 decades. At full strength, port struggle to beat them. A 32 point loss with the outs we had, you take that for sure. But the game itself, was deplorable and an embarrassment. It’s humiliating.

Some notes.

1) defence - gees it was stoic and they played well. Kept us in it and were the reason for it not being more. Was it the personnel or maybe we should give Chad some credit? Jonas lead by example, Clurey looked good, our halfbacks worked their butts off.

2) the game plan - we actually had a plan and I suspect others may try to copy it. We just lacked the skills and players to execute. But holding possession and spreading the Melbourne zone horizontally and vertically, it looked good and the deep v switch worked well. We managed to get to the centre and out of our fifty fairly well.

3) Intensity - we brought it fairly solidly for the first quarter and looked like we came to play. The midfield were holding their own. We have important players out but through that first quarter, there was a glimmer of hope ‘maybe we could steal this one’.

4) Issues -

• no clear path forward. So we moved it out of defence well, held possession and have overlap run and then… the system for forward entry was absent. What was the plan? Lever and May sat in the hole and often it was Todd, Scott or Mitch getting a mark at 80m and delivering inside fifty to an outsized, outskilled forward line.
• ruck. Gawn is the best ruck in the league and Lycett is not in the top 15. No only is there Gawn but there is Jackson also. They are taller, fitter, have better jumps and are more skilled. So what was our ruck plan? Give Melbourne first use so their superior midfield can burn us? Hope that Marshall will be able to win the tap and if he does deliver it to our no tall forward because, Todd, our one tall is rucking instead of being a KPF? And what if Lycett got injured?
• personnel: we had two 197-199 players in Marshall and Lycett. Mitch and Clurey are 192 ish. Jonas and Burton about 190. Did we seriously think that a tall less backline and tall less forward line could compete with Melbourne?

I think we actually had a good game plan that our backs executed well but we seriously let ourselves down in forward set ups and key player selections. These were predictable issues. I’m not suggesting I’m better than Hinkley but surely these issues were raised in meetings and could/should have been fixed. Is it unreasonable to say Hayes and Finlayson should have played? Would it have limited our ability to enact our gameplan?

Anyway I like the effort of Boak, SPP, Clurey, Jonas, Burton, Mead, Mitch and Marshall.

No, you have tried for positivity.
Objectively it was one of the worst first half performances of any Port side ever.

 

[johnnysix]

So your argument now is that its the system that holds up, not personnel? Which is it? We lost because we had players out and Richmond win because of the system?

You cant have it both ways here

This actually sums it up perfectly. Yes they won because of the system. Yes we lost because we had players out.... because the pure talent and effort of the players is what you rely on 100% when you don't have any system.

 

[Miss December]

Healy lapped it up

Sigh.

Ok will try for some objectivity.
Lets be realistic, that Melbourne side matches well against any of the great premiership sides of the last 2 decades. At full strength, port struggle to beat them. A 32 point loss with the outs we had, you take that for sure. But the game itself, was deplorable and an embarrassment. It’s humiliating.

Some notes.

1) defence - gees it was stoic and they played well. Kept us in it and were the reason for it not being more. Was it the personnel or maybe we should give Chad some credit? Jonas lead by example, Clurey looked good, our halfbacks worked their butts off.

2) the game plan - we actually had a plan and I suspect others may try to copy it. We just lacked the skills and players to execute. But holding possession and spreading the Melbourne zone horizontally and vertically, it looked good and the deep v switch worked well. We managed to get to the centre and out of our fifty fairly well.

3) Intensity - we brought it fairly solidly for the first quarter and looked like we came to play. The midfield were holding their own. We have important players out but through that first quarter, there was a glimmer of hope ‘maybe we could steal this one’.

4) Issues -

• no clear path forward. So we moved it out of defence well, held possession and have overlap run and then… the system for forward entry was absent. What was the plan? Lever and May sat in the hole and often it was Todd, Scott or Mitch getting a mark at 80m and delivering inside fifty to an outsized, outskilled forward line.
• ruck. Gawn is the best ruck in the league and Lycett is not in the top 15. No only is there Gawn but there is Jackson also. They are taller, fitter, have better jumps and are more skilled. So what was our ruck plan? Give Melbourne first use so their superior midfield can burn us? Hope that Marshall will be able to win the tap and if he does deliver it to our no tall forward because, Todd, our one tall is rucking instead of being a KPF? And what if Lycett got injured?
• personnel: we had two 197-199 players in Marshall and Lycett. Mitch and Clurey are 192 ish. Jonas and Burton about 190. Did we seriously think that a tall less backline and tall less forward line could compete with Melbourne?

I think we actually had a good game plan that our backs executed well but we seriously let ourselves down in forward set ups and key player selections. These were predictable issues. I’m not suggesting I’m better than Hinkley but surely these issues were raised in meetings and could/should have been fixed. Is it unreasonable to say Hayes and Finlayson should have played? Would it have limited our ability to enact our gameplan?

Anyway I like the effort of Boak, SPP, Clurey, Jonas, Burton, Mead, Mitch and Marshall.

So.... Sack Ken today?

 

[DaTBird187]

Did I hear correctly that Ollie was subbed out with nausea?

I bet there were 27,000 other people who'd have liked that option last night.

 

[GremioPower]

The title of this thread is wrong. It's not even in Ken's top 3 most sackable games out of his last 5 games.

That’s why it’s a question!

 

[malcheski]

This actually sums it up perfectly. Yes they won because of the system. Yes we lost because we had players out.... because the pure talent and effort of the players is what you rely on 100% when you don't have any system.

This is exactly the criticism that we are arguing about. If Hinkley had formulated some semblance of system in the last 10 years, regardless of personnel we would have a visible and somewhat reliable game plan. An identity if you will. His abject failure is he hasnt come within a country mile of this in his tenure and has instead relied on the pure individual talents of your Wingards, Grays, Boaks etc.

 

[Pappagallo]

No, you have tried for positivity.
Objectively it was one of the worst first half performances of any Port side ever.

Considering that the object of the game is to kick the leather spheroid thingy between the big metal poles it was objectively the worst one.

 

[afl2004]

 

[Long live PAFC]

No, you have tried for positivity.
Objectively it was one of the worst first half performances of any Port side ever.

I’m not sure I was that positive even. I did say it was humiliating and deplorable.

 

[chiwigi]

I’m not sure I was that positive even. I did say it was humiliating and deplorable.

They are positives for that s**t .