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

Remove this Banner Ad

Janus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Janus said:
Westhoff is just a good a ruck as that hack Nankervis. He just took ******* Aaron Sandilands to school.

Any one who wants to say different I will skull fu** with my hunting knife.
Click to expand...
Edit: full disclosure, this was said when Nankervis was only a one time premiership ruck so perhaps lost the hack rating at premiership 2 or 3.
 
raptalia said:
Considering that Melbourne have half a dozen players 195cm or taller I would have given Hayes a crack at it. Looks like we may have to do it this week anyway. Unless of course if Lycett is unavailable and Ken decides to use Marshall in ruck and bring in Finlayson. It should not happen but anything is possible with Ken.

At one ruck contest I saw Max Gawn push Todd Marshall in the chest with two hands. Todd went reeling backward and Gawn tapped the ball down unopposed. It highlighted the difference between 108kg 208cm Max Gawn and 90kg 199cm Todd Marshall. I wonder if anyone else saw that non contest?
Click to expand...

Yeah that one stuck with me due to Marshalls dear in headlights look afterwards like wtf am I doing being the ruck
 
Long live PAFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Drew did well on Petracca. Our undersized defence defended well. That's about it.

The gameplan we came with was not designed to win the game, at least with the personnel selected. It was simply impossible. Allowing Melbourne ample time to set up in defence with their already tall player advantage by playing keepings off backward of centre guaranteed we would not score. Especially at Adelaide Oval. It was pathetic, ridiculous, defeatist and an embarrassment.

Our gameplan should be designed around Adelaide Oval. It is long and narrow. There is no time to waste to allow the defence to set up and clog up what little space there is. It's why we have been pathetic at Adelaide Oval for years. This took that to the next level.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

StrappingTape said:
No we didn't and you know this due to your satanic level abuse you're giving the players and staff all the time.
Click to expand...
IT'S AN HONORARY POSITION YOU FOOL
 
Long live PAFC said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have been here for five years. I lost count of how many times I have read posts like this!

Announcing Bill Murray GIF
 
As bad as anything I have ever seen in the AFL. And I sat through the Primus years at Footy Park. A directionless, goalless first half. We have no system and no idea.

The futility of our ins and outs remind me of the The Power From Port forum where dozens of paragraphs discussed the merits of Logan v Thomas, Hitchcock vs Banner.

FFS 34 year old Boak is one of our few shining lights. We don't deserve him. Actually, Hinkley doesn't deserve him.

For those at the club reading this, it is time for action.
 
PortWTF said:
Drew did well on Petracca. Our undersized defence defended well. That's about it.

The gameplan we came with was not designed to win the game, at least with the personnel selected. It was simply impossible. Allowing Melbourne ample time to set up in defence with their already tall player advantage by playing keepings off backward of centre guaranteed we would not score. Especially at Adelaide Oval. It was pathetic, ridiculous, defeatist and an embarrassment.

Our gameplan should be designed around Adelaide Oval. It is long and narrow. There is no time to waste to allow the defence to set up and clog up what little space there is. It's why we have been pathetic at Adelaide Oval for years. This took that to the next level.
Click to expand...
The idea was right but the execution and personnel meant we weren’t in it.


Melbourne are bigger, faster, well drilled, fitter and more skilled. They have confidence and are the reigning premiers. Head to head, do you pick any of our first 18 over theirs? They are better contested players, win clearances, have good zones and better talls. The only way to win is to widen and stretch their zone, avoid stoppages and not bomb down the line. We chased the only option, we just hamstrung ourselves by not having targets to kick to.

Also our gameplan should be based around winning at the G and adaptable to Adelaide oval. No point winning at home if we can’t transfer that to finals
 
malcheski said:
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
Click to expand...

I've always said that the system is the solution.

Our current system relies on Dixon being the target man up forward that brings the small forwards into the game.

Hinkley said it in his press conference - the players (meaning the forwards) are having to learn how to play a completely different style with Dixon missing. The last time they had to do that was in 2019 - but that was when we had Westhoff and Ryder playing up forward who had the experience (both over 200 games at the time) that Marshall and Georgiades (who don't have 100 games between them) don't have.

The good thing about this season is that we can see just what our forward structure is going to be like without Dixon and whether either of Marshall or Georgiades can lead the line. If they can, cool, we'll end up playing finals most likely when all our players return because they will have learned not to rely on Dixon so much.

If they can't, cool, we'll end up with a pick that will get us Lemmey who would be the perfect Dixon replacement.
 
Pappagallo said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's actually hilarious when you think about it. At the start of each quarter, after each goal and at many other points during the game you are at the very most about 80 metres from goal - in other words, two good kicks. For much of the game we are significantly closer than that. Each team has 18 players on the field and the field is absolutely freaking massive. All of these players are full time professionals. How is it even possible that you could play 82 minutes of football and NOT kick a goal? It's actually hilarious when you think about it logically.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Janus said:
I've always said that the system is the solution.

Our current system relies on Dixon being the target man up forward that brings the small forwards into the game.

Hinkley said it in his press conference - the players (meaning the forwards) are having to learn how to play a completely different style with Dixon missing. The last time they had to do that was in 2019 - but that was when we had Westhoff and Ryder playing up forward who had the experience (both over 200 games at the time) that Marshall and Georgiades (who don't have 100 games between them) don't have.

The good thing about this season is that we can see just what our forward structure is going to be like without Dixon and whether either of Marshall or Georgiades can lead the line. If they can, cool, we'll end up playing finals most likely when all our players return because they will have learned not to rely on Dixon so much.

If they can't, cool, we'll end up with a pick that will get us Lemmey who would be the perfect Dixon replacement.
Click to expand...
The thing is you still need a bail out kick.

The structure should be Marshall and Georgiadis leading up with Hayes/Lycett in the square.

We aren't testing or learning s**t
 
Janus said:
I've always said that the system is the solution.

Our current system relies on Dixon being the target man up forward that brings the small forwards into the game.

Hinkley said it in his press conference - the players (meaning the forwards) are having to learn how to play a completely different style with Dixon missing. The last time they had to do that was in 2019 - but that was when we had Westhoff and Ryder playing up forward who had the experience (both over 200 games at the time) that Marshall and Georgiades (who don't have 100 games between them) don't have.

The good thing about this season is that we can see just what our forward structure is going to be like without Dixon and whether either of Marshall or Georgiades can lead the line. If they can, cool, we'll end up playing finals most likely when all our players return because they will have learned not to rely on Dixon so much.

If they can't, cool, we'll end up with a pick that will get us Lemmey who would be the perfect Dixon replacement.
Click to expand...
This system isn't the solution. It's fatally flawed and breaks down under scrutiny from the best sides with everyone on our list available.

I'll give you the proof, wait for it, it's ground breaking, and you won't believe it when you read it. The 2021 Preliminary Final at home, with Dixon, Gray, Aliir, Fantasia and everyone fit and available. We lost that game with a week off, a full list, at home and not in a hub by wait for it it was a close game by 71 bloody points, the game being over 20 minutes into the first quarter for godsake.

So don't sit there saying the system is the solution, it isn't. The aim of the game is to win Premierships, nothing more. This system will not win a Premiership. If you watch the games this year, the game has evolved past the forward press that Hinkley loves. Want proof of that, I have that to. Wait for it..... Hawthorn belted us by 64 points at home in round 2 by cutting through our entire system.

Give it up for godsake, you aren't the smartest person in the room cause you defend the "system". The system is flawed, and fatally so that when the key players are out, it is essentially toothless. So the system you laud doesn't actually exist, we are relying on individuals out performing it or rising above it like Dixon to become a AA CHF, Aliir at CHB, Robbie Gray for the past decade and so on and so forth. This same system couldn't maximize probably the most talented player we've had on our list in Wingard so it's a failure. That failure sits squarely on Hinkley.
 
Everyones commented on Mitch's running into goal shenanigans as the biggest wtf moment but I thought Clurey standing under a high ball on centre wing, expecting it to go out on the full so he didn't bother attacking it, only for it to bounce 5m in the field of play and trickle out whilst he watched was even worse. What. Are. You. Doing. Tom?

And he played pretty well otherwise.

So did Drew. Bonner was decent. Houston was good again. Bergman...welcome back son! Pep was decent too.

I'd just love to know who made the decision that Sam Mayes would become a full forward for us.
 
Janus said:
I've always said that the system is the solution.

Our current system relies on Dixon being the target man up forward that brings the small forwards into the game.

Hinkley said it in his press conference - the players (meaning the forwards) are having to learn how to play a completely different style with Dixon missing. The last time they had to do that was in 2019 - but that was when we had Westhoff and Ryder playing up forward who had the experience (both over 200 games at the time) that Marshall and Georgiades (who don't have 100 games between them) don't have.

The good thing about this season is that we can see just what our forward structure is going to be like without Dixon and whether either of Marshall or Georgiades can lead the line. If they can, cool, we'll end up playing finals most likely when all our players return because they will have learned not to rely on Dixon so much.

If they can't, cool, we'll end up with a pick that will get us Lemmey who would be the perfect Dixon replacement.
Click to expand...
P.s. getting a Charlie replacement so we can keep playing the same losing structure. Oh goodie!
 
Janus said:
I've always said that the system is the solution.

Our current system relies on Dixon being the target man up forward that brings the small forwards into the game.

Hinkley said it in his press conference - the players (meaning the forwards) are having to learn how to play a completely different style with Dixon missing. The last time they had to do that was in 2019 - but that was when we had Westhoff and Ryder playing up forward who had the experience (both over 200 games at the time) that Marshall and Georgiades (who don't have 100 games between them) don't have.

The good thing about this season is that we can see just what our forward structure is going to be like without Dixon and whether either of Marshall or Georgiades can lead the line. If they can, cool, we'll end up playing finals most likely when all our players return because they will have learned not to rely on Dixon so much.

If they can't, cool, we'll end up with a pick that will get us Lemmey who would be the perfect Dixon replacement.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the purpose of system over personnel such that one soldier out one soldier in? Ie your system works so it doesn’t matter the players who are in or out it’ll still work? So Aliir or Dixon can come out and they’ll be replaced by an appropriate replacement that will play the same role?

I agree with you that eventually, with enough outs, the system breaks but have we given the system a chance if we aren’t replacing like for like?

Mayes is either playing Dixon’s role or Marshall’s role so Todd can cover Charlie. In what world is Mayes either of those players? Likewise Bergmann, who played well, replacing McKenzie who plays as a tall back….
 
Terrible system going forward , we looked clueless.
Was dissapointed in Mayes and Mcentee , Mitch was ok and Marshall was ok but both mostly up the ground more leaving Mates as the key forward like wtf . The effort was reasonable and I really liked Bergman’s game , most others were half decent but just no method . Gawn was brilliant but we handled most of the team ok . Our defenders just broke even though while their defenders dominated our forwards .
Special mention to Clurey , Drew , .Bergman , Jonas and Marshall for leadership .
As far as next week goes we surely need to come up with a better plan going forward
 
Well, well, well - we tried to do something different - and it was shithouse.

Reminded me of Rd 1 2000, first game at Docklands when for the first time we tried to play a heavy possession brand of footy and we stuffed up completely and lost by 94 pts to Essendon. Look how that season turned out.

So rather than bomb it to Charlie, we reverted to possession sideways footy and our forwards didn't lead to the ball or gave up because when they did, they were ignored.

We went sideways like we did in 2011 and 2012, partly to avoid Lever and May, and then Gawn and Jackson drifted back and across and blocked any chance of quick ball movement I50. That's what the stats confirmed;

Marks: us 135 v them 76
Marks I50: us 3 v them 11
Contest marks: us 6 v them 16
Uncontested possessions: us 280 v them 206
Total disposals: us 408 v them 354

But they still ended up getting lots of intercept marks and turnovers inside our F50 because a) our delivery was still shithouse, b) they had taller and physically stronger players than us and c) they have better football brains.

But look at our first 2 entries inside 50.

From centre bounce down, Boak HB to Wines, Wines HB to DBJ, plenty of time and space and then a really poor wobbly miss kick, I yell out bloody hell DBJ, Georgiades is forced to dive to try and catch the ball, it spills out as he hits the ground, Melbourne clean up and then 30 seconds later Fritsch using his body takes an uncontested mark at the top of the goal square. Takes 20 seconds and goals.

Centre bound after Fritsch's goal, Lycett gets a blocking free. DBJ calls for the HB on the incorrect side for a right footer and too close to Gawn, so has to really stretch himself, bounces after only 4 steps then tries to straighten up to get onto his right side to kick on his right foot, is over balanced and kicks a flat low ball towards the Georgides lead but is easily intercepted by Hunt as its a poor kick and falls 15m short of where it should of gone. Another bloody hell DBJ from me, and listening to Timmy G on a 20 second delay he says something like that is a really poor kick by Darcy Byrne-Jones AGAIN! He then spends the next 45 seconds or so getting stuck into his kicking.

Summed up our night. Unforced errors, poor choices, feed into Melbourne's strength from the start.

Thought the backlines played pretty well, over all, given how much pressure they were under. Their stats were padded out by so many sideways kicks and chips, but defensively they generally did well.

I reckon in the second half we gave up and went back to the Dixon non Dixons play - bombing it to Dixon, when only the non Dixons were out there, out of sheer frustration and Melbourne started to rack up the intercept marks.

I am gonna use Ockham's razor theory in summing up our players.

1. Jonas - led well
2. SPP - minimal impact
3. Burton - metres
4. Marshall - trier
5. Houston - ineffective
6. Motlop - junktime goals
10. Boak - trier
14. Bergman - well played
15. Amon - spacey
16. Wines - knocked out
17. Clurey - welcome back
18. Butters - overrated, sideways
19. Georgiades - looked confused
20. Rozee - uninspiring
26. Bonner - pleasantly improving
28. Drew - blanketed Petrecca
29. Lycett - banged up
32. Mayes - not a KPF
33. DBJ - poor kick
34. Jones - tried
41. McEntee - non-entity
43. Dumont - forgettable debut
44. Mead - poor
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RossFC
MVP Votes R4 vs Essendon
2
Replies
26
Views
845
RussellEbertHandball
RussellEbertHandball
TeeKray
Universal Love Hinkleyball - A Short History
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
4K
GoPorts
GoPorts
RossFC
MVP Votes R3 vs Melbourne
Replies
12
Views
458
Macca_1870
Macca_1870
RossFC
MVP Votes R4 vs Sydney
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Peninsula Boy
Peninsula Boy
Marmozet
Review Round 3, 2024 vs Melbourne
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
674
Views
20K
EskimoPAFC
EskimoPAFC
Manhattan Bronx
  • Locked
Game Day Round 3 - Port vs Melbourne
52 53 54 55 56
Replies
1K
Views
21K
Duckimus Prime
Duckimus Prime
Alberton_Magpie
Port Adelaide players who played every game in a season (1997 - 2022)
Replies
2
Views
377
Duck Farmer
Duck Farmer

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top