Opinion Sack Hinkley 10 - UnTENable

Remove this Banner Ad

Unfortunately it's only my benchmark, but the 2 games I had circled in red early in the season to show we are serious were Collingwood and the crows. They were my non-negotiables and we had our pants pulled down in both of them.
We did, didn't we. For me the common factor here was that it was obvious at QT what was coming, but on neither occasion were there real attempts to change it.

We can be 4 goals up or 4 goals down, you'd still have absolutely no confidence in the outcome.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The podcast is worth listening to (at one point, Cornes accuses one listener of cowardice after the Port fan criticised Hinkley's coaching), but the number of rationalisations, excuses and fallacies in Cornes' arsenal is almost-impressive to witness.

Cornes: He's been twice a kick away from the grand final with a squad that is not comparable to others in the league.

King: After you've been there for ten-to-thirteen years, it''s your squad, mate.

...

Cornes: Last year, they won on 13. They'll be in the mix.

King: They won't be in the mix.

Cornes: (quietly) They'll be in the mix for finals.

King: Oh, for finals? Terrific. We're here to win flags, aren't we?

Cornes: How many can win the flag? 3? So 15 others give up?

King: We're talking about being a contender last year. And, oh what, six, seven games later we're saying, "Oh, succession planning. Oh, we knew this."

Cornes: No, I'm saying they're in the mix and you're saying they're not in the mix. There are only three teams in the mix for the flag. So do the Saints give up? Do Essendon give up? Do Freo give up? Do Adelaide give up?

King: That's not rational, that discussion. That's not a rational discussion. You can't seriously be saying that? They're all building towards a flag. Under Ken, they are stagnating before your very eyes.

Cornes: I would rather coach Port Adelaide than any of the other teams.

King: You just told me the list was no good?

Cornes: ... that's why I give Ken credit because he's done a pretty good job with not a lot of weapons!

King: Sheesh, they've got some pretty good weapons, to be honest.

Cornes: Who?

King: They've got a pretty handy midfield.

Cornes: They've got a good-enough midfield.

Two weeks ago, Cornes was comparing Rozee, Butters and JHF to Judd, Cousins and Kerr.

Now they're "good-enough".
 


Its Happening Ron Paul GIF


*No I don't really think so but a man can dream

I will believe it when i see it.
 
As much as King putting the heat on Ken is a good thing, his persistent attacks on JHF are puerile. A middle aged man obsessed with denigrating a young guy making his way in the football world is creepy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

There is no way that his job is under threat from playing Rozee. Barich saying that is a part of the footy hype cycle.

The board review will go something like this.

Koch - "Well it wasn't great, BUT, look at the crowd numbers this year!!! I'd say 2024 is already a roaring success! Who wants to get pizza???"
 
There's a little more heat on Ken than usual. It's the first time his gameplan has been clearly called out, rather than primarily blaming the players. But it still feels fairly gentle really.

Doubt it makes any difference.
 
There's a little more heat on Ken than usual. It's the first time his gameplan has been clearly called out, rather than primarily blaming the players. But it still feels fairly gentle really.

Doubt it makes any difference.

It's the day after. This will all blow over in a few days and he knows it.
 
Port dominated Adelaide everywhere except scoring accuracy.
Exactly. It's not really about this game, it's that nothing has changed.

We have around 8 years as a sample size that this high press and bomb long in hope gameplan makes it extremely difficult to score goals, despite the repeat entries, and eventually gives the opposition an easy direct path to goal. Rinse and repeat.

If they're going for a gameplan to win most key stats, while still losing, playing a terrible brand of footy to watch and never really being in the contest, they've perfected it.
 
Exactly. It's not really about this game, it's that nothing has changed.

We have around 8 years as a sample size that this high press and bomb long in hope gameplan makes it extremely difficult to score goals, despite the repeat entries, and eventually gives the opposition an easy direct path to goal. Rinse and repeat.

If they're going for a gameplan to win most key stats, while still losing, playing a terrible brand of footy to watch and never really being in the contest, they've perfected it.
The Insude-50 count is Hinkley's "What do i care? He gets on base".
 
  1. Chad is a no hoper and wouldnt get a job anywhere else but a footy club. He is a water boy or runner. That's it.
  2. Richo has been there for 20 years and does not know what good looks like
  3. Daniel Norton is the same - just a pure fan boy.
  4. We have Hartlett and Lobbe as coaches FFS. Hammer is the poster boy of going missing when it mattered.
My point is the whole place stinks with no hopers who have had very little experience outside their own bubble.

Look at what the best do. They change it up, surround themselves with those that will challenge them or provide an alternative view, give others the power to influence areas in which they have strength (e.g., Chris Scott, McRae). The opposite happens at Port. Someone has a differing view or challenges the Ken status quo and they are gone (Schoey, Monty). Ken is so insecure, weak and lacking in talent, but because he plays the media well he has supporters. He is at cranbroune studying dogs in off season while Mcrae is at Harvard learning about leadership, Mitchell spends a week at Spurs with Postecoglu. For all his shortcomings he and the club do nothing to develop him. Its embarassing.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top