Opinion Sack Hinkley 3 - 2021 is worse than 2020 already

[Doctor Feel]

What's Pep going to do with a 12mil salary cap?

Sack Hickey.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I mean, my entire point was that he was accountable but not culpable. Given I haven't received a single response as to why he is a bad coach I'll stick with my assumption.

Another question. At the beginning of 2021, or even now, does anyone actually think that another coach available in the market would have a better chance of achieving a premiership than Ken?

Mediocre over a long time is the same as bad in sport. You want to feel like you've got a chance to win a premiership, and we've made 2 Prelims in 9 years and for most of that time it feels like we've wasted a good list.

The bad coaching has been pretty obvious over the long term. A propensity to not turn up to big games. A lack of interest in forward structure that cost us badly for the first 7 years of his stint, but has mainly been fixed now. An apparently reliance on high quality assistants and the drop in form when they move on. A history of flagrant selection errors. The regular games where we are beaten badly in the coaches box, can't recover, don't try to recover, and the subsequent admission from Hinkley that he doesn't believe you can do a lot from the box on gameday. The fact that he's been the coach for 9 years and we're not a mentally strong football team.

As for your second point, it's a pointless argument. You don't need to know there is definitely a better coach than Ken in order to sack him, all you need to know is that Ken isn't good enough.

 

[Steve Dore]

.... As for your second point, it's a pointless argument. You don't need to know there is definitely a better coach than Ken in order to sack him, all you need to know is that Ken isn't good enough.

You know Hinkley fanbois have no idea when they roll out the "but a new coach could be worse" argument.

Where would mankind be if no one had ever challenged the status quo because there was the possibility that an alternative may not turn out better?

 

[Long live PAFC]

You know Hinkley fanbois have no idea when they roll out the "but a new coach could be worse" argument.

Where would mankind be if no one had ever challenged the status quo because there was the possibility that an alternative may not turn out better?

I’m with you but I also don’t subscribe to the boot Hinkley for anything else. Many issues are systemic.

It needs to be remove Ken and have a dedicated plan for turnover of admin, coaches and list with new coach sorted. Ie I don’t think Voss, Bass or Schoey are ready/better. And we really need someone that can give this list a bump over the line to a flag, like Scott did at Geelong.

I think Teague, Ratten, Chris Scott would have been great options but all gone. I actually think Don Pyke would be a good option, give him 3 years, for that quick flag snatch.

 

[Steve Dore]

I’m with you but I also don’t subscribe to the boot Hinkley for anything else. Many issues are systemic.

It needs to be remove Ken and have a dedicated plan for turnover of admin, coaches and list with new coach sorted. Ie I don’t think Voss, Bass or Schoey are ready/better. And we really need someone that can give this list a bump over the line to a flag, like Scott did at Geelong.

I think Teague, Ratten, Chris Scott would have been great options but all gone. I actually think Don Pyke would be a good option, give him 3 years, for that quick flag snatch.

The CEO has been in the job five minutes and the list has been 99% turned over in Hinkley's time. Monty and Schoey have been at Ports for only a few seasons.

 

[Long live PAFC]

The CEO has been in the job five minutes and the list has been 99% turned over in Hinkley's time. Monty and Schoey have been at Ports for only a few seasons.

I’m not saying we need a turnover. I’m saying that booting a head coach for 8 years of mediocrity and expecting that to solve your issues is madness.

If Ken doesn’t win the flag this year, then he needs to be moved on with a broad plan around our footy department. Ie should Voss stay? Is bass a good fit? Is TJ, HH, Boak, the right mix for leaders? Etc etc. some of those answers will be yes but the discussions need to happen.

Teague arrived at Carlton as a great forward line coach with plenty of experience. The Carlton list isn’t terrible but zero progress has been made. Have to wonder if the above discussions were had at Carlton or if they just expected Teague to get them over the line.

It’s why I think Pyke would be a good fit. Experienced. Can stir the pot. Has done reviews like that.

Maybe Schoey is the right head coach but with Pyke as mentor, who knows.

 

[PowerBaz]

I’m not saying we need a turnover. I’m saying that booting a head coach for 8 years of mediocrity and expecting that to solve your issues is madness.

If Ken doesn’t win the flag this year, then he needs to be moved on with a broad plan around our footy department. Ie should Voss stay? Is bass a good fit? Is TJ, HH, Boak, the right mix for leaders? Etc etc. some of those answers will be yes but the discussions need to happen.

Teague arrived at Carlton as a great forward line coach with plenty of experience. The Carlton list isn’t terrible but zero progress has been made. Have to wonder if the above discussions were had at Carlton or if they just expected Teague to get them over the line.

It’s why I think Pyke would be a good fit. Experienced. Can stir the pot. Has done reviews like that.

Maybe Schoey is the right head coach but with Pyke as mentor, who knows.

I guess if Pyke came in and took over from Hinkley we wouldn't lose Showdowns...

 

[malcheski]

I guess if Pyke came in and took over from Hinkley we wouldn't lose Showdowns...

Pyke took a list of honest triers with a couple of above average players and turned them into the best side in the league. He would win flags with our list in a canter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tribey]

You don't need to know there is definitely a better coach than Ken in order to sack him, all you need to know is that Ken isn't good enough.

“How do we know Luke Beveridge will be a better coach than Brendan McCartney?”

— SCRAYboi94, probably.

 

[Long live PAFC]

“How do we know Luke Beveridge will be a better coach than Brendan McCartney?”

— SCRAYboi94, probably.

It’s a bit different with Ken. More like the Richardson situation at the Saints. I’m not sure Ken has lost the players or club, just hasn’t and, I don’t think, will win us a flag. McCartney, Pyke, Bolton, Scott, Lyon, Leppitsch, Eade and Sanderson were all done, list and club were done with them.

 

[tribey]

I’m not sure Ken has lost the players or club

Because Trav and Robbie magic always saves his bacon, and non-negotiables are never established.

How he wasn’t sacked at the end of 2019 is anyone’s guess.

 

[Hammer#8]

It’s a bit different with Ken. More like the Richardson situation at the Saints. I’m not sure Ken has lost the players or club, just hasn’t and, I don’t think, will win us a flag. McCartney, Pyke, Bolton, Scott, Lyon, Leppitsch, Eade and Sanderson were all done, list and club were done with them.

The 'coach has lost the players' narrative isn't really applicable anymore. Its more a relic from the 90s/early 2000s when the AFL was less professional.

In some cases it might be true, but it's worded in a less obvious way now.

Players are never going to go out on a limb and say they don't jive with the coach anymore, the player risks being traded, delisted or dropped. It's a financial risk on the player.

Ken's reappointment is based solely on stability and to keep Port married to mediocrity. It's a risk free exercise where the list is talented enough to either finish outside the 8 or a top 4 finish once every 4 years.

The board however is not brave enough to reappoint somebody else because they fear some catastrophic reset to 2008-2012 apparently.

 

[El Zorro]

The board however is not brave enough to reappoint somebody else because they fear some catastrophic reset to 2008-2012 apparently.

This list would make finals as a minimum for the next 5 years, even without a head coach.

 

[Hammer#8]

This weekend Ken hopes to mug the crowd from the box gestering a 0-3 symbol whilst doing the Popeye face.

10 Year Coach ™

 

[Enviable Tradition]

This weekend Ken hopes to mug the crowd from the box gestering a 0-3 symbol whilst doing the Popeye face.

10 Year Coach ™

Remove the racist...

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Mediocre over a long time is the same as bad in sport. You want to feel like you've got a chance to win a premiership, and we've made 2 Prelims in 9 years and for most of that time it feels like we've wasted a good list.

The bad coaching has been pretty obvious over the long term. A propensity to not turn up to big games. A lack of interest in forward structure that cost us badly for the first 7 years of his stint, but has mainly been fixed now. An apparently reliance on high quality assistants and the drop in form when they move on. A history of flagrant selection errors. The regular games where we are beaten badly in the coaches box, can't recover, don't try to recover, and the subsequent admission from Hinkley that he doesn't believe you can do a lot from the box on gameday. The fact that he's been the coach for 9 years and we're not a mentally strong football team.

As for your second point, it's a pointless argument. You don't need to know there is definitely a better coach than Ken in order to sack him, all you need to know is that Ken isn't good enough.

Generally, I think I agree.

To be precise, I don't think it is accurate to say he has been mediocre in the true sense of the word. Since 2013 Port sits 6th in terms of win rate so within the top third. His performance would be better than most coaches in the same time period, and by definition, not mediocre. He is a better than average coach (i.e. good).

However, in a competition where success is measured by premierships, he has clearly been an unsuccessful coach. And unfortunately for him a lack of success for coaches is far more damning than a lack of success for players or other football personnel (rightly or wrongly). For example, I don't think anyone would say that Fyfe or Boak have been unsuccessful, but clearly Hinkley and Lyon would be classified in such way. Which is where my accountability statement came in - he is clearly accountable for our lack of success and should pay the price.

The other aspect to this which I alluded to in my first post is that there is a small margin between success and failure. If Beveridge's Dogs don't get an absolute ride in the 2016 GF then he is seen as a failure. If Sheed doesn't kick a goal out of his arse in 2018 then Simpson is considered a failure(and conversely, Buckley is a premiership coach with many more credits in the bank). If we are more accurate and get some love from the umpires in 2014/2020...well you get the point. I don't think these small margins absolve Hinkley from responsibility but I think they make some of the over the top, targeted and at some points personal criticism of him unwarranted.

For the record, I don't think we should have extended his contract in 2017 or 2020, I think we should have seen his contract through and made a decision at the conclusion of his contract year. I would have sacked him at the end of 2019. There might've been some financial considerations that meant it was in our best interests to sign those contracts and retain him, but certainly from a performance point of view he should not have continued.

On your individual criticisms of Hinkley I think some of them a fair and some furphys.

1. I agree that he hasn't stuck to a conventional forward structure and his selection policy has been poor at times. However I think these criticisms don't really hold up for the past 2-3 years.
2. I vehemently disagree on the assistant coach comment and the "we wasted generational talent/good list" comment. These are commonly held fallacies about Hinkley where everything good that happens is because of other factors and everything bad that happens is because of Hinkley. Our former assistant coaches performed meh after they left and our list is not much better or worse than other AFL lists, in line with an equalised competition. Generally our list has been overrated by our fans.
3. Mental weakness and and a propensity to not show up in big games is as much on the players in addition to Hinkley. Boak, Jonas, Harlett, Dixon etc. are repeat offenders when it comes to this and have been consistent throughout Hinkley's tenure. Clearly Hinkley is also to blame as well.
4. I agree with Ken that it is difficult to make changes in the coaches box when you are getting slaughtered on the field. I can't do it now (but maybe another time), but I would suggest Hinkley's record when we go 4-5 goals in a game aren't any worse than the competition average. Most of the time when we are getting destroyed it's because we are losing the contest and its difficult to rectify that issue in game.

On your last point, its hardly a pointless argument. Clearly in some circumstances it is wise to get rid of a person who is underperforming and take a punt on a newcomer. In our circumstances where we just finished a season where we got narrowly defeated in a prelim final it would be ridiculous to replace hime with a ew coach. Even now, sitting at 5-2 it would be ridiculous.

Newsflash: Whoever will win the premiership will lose games this season. Hopefully it's us. While we are still in contention we may as well support the club and Hinkley until the end. And then you can get your pitchforks out.

And if Hinkley does go, I hope to god we don't bring in another Hinkley disciple like a Schofield or Montgomery.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

What's Pep going to do with a 12mil salary cap?

Better than Klopp does I guess.

 

[sobrave]

This weekend Ken hopes to mug the crowd from the box gestering a 0-3 symbol whilst doing the Popeye face.

10 Year Coach ™

My favourite thing about that little display was that somehow he decided that the counter arbitrarily reset back to 0 for that game.

Wouldn't it be 5-1 you stupid bumpkin?

 

[GoTheMightyCrows]

Hey Ken, they're still celebrating the loss

 

[Macca19]

Generally, I think I agree.

To be precise, I don't think it is accurate to say he has been mediocre in the true sense of the word. Since 2013 Port sits 6th in terms of win rate so within the top third. His performance would be better than most coaches in the same time period, and by definition, not mediocre. He is a better than average coach (i.e. good).

However, in a competition where success is measured by premierships, he has clearly been an unsuccessful coach. And unfortunately for him a lack of success for coaches is far more damning than a lack of success for players or other football personnel (rightly or wrongly). For example, I don't think anyone would say that Fyfe or Boak have been unsuccessful, but clearly Hinkley and Lyon would be classified in such way. Which is where my accountability statement came in - he is clearly accountable for our lack of success and should pay the price.

The other aspect to this which I alluded to in my first post is that there is a small margin between success and failure. If Beveridge's Dogs don't get an absolute ride in the 2016 GF then he is seen as a failure. If Sheed doesn't kick a goal out of his arse in 2018 then Simpson is considered a failure(and conversely, Buckley is a premiership coach with many more credits in the bank). If we are more accurate and get some love from the umpires in 2014/2020...well you get the point. I don't think these small margins absolve Hinkley from responsibility but I think they make some of the over the top, targeted and at some points personal criticism of him unwarranted.

For the record, I don't think we should have extended his contract in 2017 or 2020, I think we should have seen his contract through and made a decision at the conclusion of his contract year. I would have sacked him at the end of 2019. There might've been some financial considerations that meant it was in our best interests to sign those contracts and retain him, but certainly from a performance point of view he should not have continued.

On your individual criticisms of Hinkley I think some of them a fair and some furphys.

1. I agree that he hasn't stuck to a conventional forward structure and his selection policy has been poor at times. However I think these criticisms don't really hold up for the past 2-3 years.
2. I vehemently disagree on the assistant coach comment and the "we wasted generational talent/good list" comment. These are commonly held fallacies about Hinkley where everything good that happens is because of other factors and everything bad that happens is because of Hinkley. Our former assistant coaches performed meh after they left and our list is not much better or worse than other AFL lists, in line with an equalised competition. Generally our list has been overrated by our fans.
3. Mental weakness and and a propensity to not show up in big games is as much on the players in addition to Hinkley. Boak, Jonas, Harlett, Dixon etc. are repeat offenders when it comes to this and have been consistent throughout Hinkley's tenure. Clearly Hinkley is also to blame as well.
4. I agree with Ken that it is difficult to make changes in the coaches box when you are getting slaughtered on the field. I can't do it now (but maybe another time), but I would suggest Hinkley's record when we go 4-5 goals in a game aren't any worse than the competition average. Most of the time when we are getting destroyed it's because we are losing the contest and its difficult to rectify that issue in game.

On your last point, its hardly a pointless argument. Clearly in some circumstances it is wise to get rid of a person who is underperforming and take a punt on a newcomer. In our circumstances where we just finished a season where we got narrowly defeated in a prelim final it would be ridiculous to replace hime with a ew coach. Even now, sitting at 5-2 it would be ridiculous.

Newsflash: Whoever will win the premiership will lose games this season. Hopefully it's us. While we are still in contention we may as well support the club and Hinkley until the end. And then you can get your pitchforks out.

And if Hinkley does go, I hope to god we don't bring in another Hinkley disciple like a Schofield or Montgomery.

Excellent post

 

[PowerLil]

Generally, I think I agree.

To be precise, I don't think it is accurate to say he has been mediocre in the true sense of the word. Since 2013 Port sits 6th in terms of win rate so within the top third. His performance would be better than most coaches in the same time period, and by definition, not mediocre. He is a better than average coach (i.e. good).

However, in a competition where success is measured by premierships, he has clearly been an unsuccessful coach. And unfortunately for him a lack of success for coaches is far more damning than a lack of success for players or other football personnel (rightly or wrongly). For example, I don't think anyone would say that Fyfe or Boak have been unsuccessful, but clearly Hinkley and Lyon would be classified in such way. Which is where my accountability statement came in - he is clearly accountable for our lack of success and should pay the price.

The other aspect to this which I alluded to in my first post is that there is a small margin between success and failure. If Beveridge's Dogs don't get an absolute ride in the 2016 GF then he is seen as a failure. If Sheed doesn't kick a goal out of his arse in 2018 then Simpson is considered a failure(and conversely, Buckley is a premiership coach with many more credits in the bank). If we are more accurate and get some love from the umpires in 2014/2020...well you get the point. I don't think these small margins absolve Hinkley from responsibility but I think they make some of the over the top, targeted and at some points personal criticism of him unwarranted.

For the record, I don't think we should have extended his contract in 2017 or 2020, I think we should have seen his contract through and made a decision at the conclusion of his contract year. I would have sacked him at the end of 2019. There might've been some financial considerations that meant it was in our best interests to sign those contracts and retain him, but certainly from a performance point of view he should not have continued.

On your individual criticisms of Hinkley I think some of them a fair and some furphys.

1. I agree that he hasn't stuck to a conventional forward structure and his selection policy has been poor at times. However I think these criticisms don't really hold up for the past 2-3 years.
2. I vehemently disagree on the assistant coach comment and the "we wasted generational talent/good list" comment. These are commonly held fallacies about Hinkley where everything good that happens is because of other factors and everything bad that happens is because of Hinkley. Our former assistant coaches performed meh after they left and our list is not much better or worse than other AFL lists, in line with an equalised competition. Generally our list has been overrated by our fans.
3. Mental weakness and and a propensity to not show up in big games is as much on the players in addition to Hinkley. Boak, Jonas, Harlett, Dixon etc. are repeat offenders when it comes to this and have been consistent throughout Hinkley's tenure. Clearly Hinkley is also to blame as well.
4. I agree with Ken that it is difficult to make changes in the coaches box when you are getting slaughtered on the field. I can't do it now (but maybe another time), but I would suggest Hinkley's record when we go 4-5 goals in a game aren't any worse than the competition average. Most of the time when we are getting destroyed it's because we are losing the contest and its difficult to rectify that issue in game.

On your last point, its hardly a pointless argument. Clearly in some circumstances it is wise to get rid of a person who is underperforming and take a punt on a newcomer. In our circumstances where we just finished a season where we got narrowly defeated in a prelim final it would be ridiculous to replace hime with a ew coach. Even now, sitting at 5-2 it would be ridiculous.

Newsflash: Whoever will win the premiership will lose games this season. Hopefully it's us. While we are still in contention we may as well support the club and Hinkley until the end. And then you can get your pitchforks out.

And if Hinkley does go, I hope to god we don't bring in another Hinkley disciple like a Schofield or Montgomery.

I agree with most of your post except Schofield and Montgomery are Hinkley disciples. The malaise was clearly evident before their arrival.

 

[Macca19]

The 'coach has lost the players' narrative isn't really applicable anymore. Its more a relic from the 90s/early 2000s when the AFL was less professional.

In some cases it might be true, but it's worded in a less obvious way now.

Players are never going to go out on a limb and say they don't jive with the coach anymore, the player risks being traded, delisted or dropped. It's a financial risk on the player.

It still happens quite a bit in recent years. McCartney, Eade, Watters were all moved on after playing group intervention

 

[Steve Dore]

... if Hinkley does go, I hope to god we don't bring in another Hinkley disciple like a Schofield or Montgomery.

How do you get that Schofield and Montgomery are Hinkley disciples?

They both have coached elsewhere and have only been a Ports since 2019. Strangely their arrival at Ports has coincided with a change in team structure for the better, something that Hinkley couldn't manage in the previous six seasons.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

How do you get that Schofield and Montgomery are Hinkley disciples?

They both have coached elsewhere and have only been a Ports since 2019. Strangely their arrival at Ports has coincided with a change in team structure for the better, something that Hinkley couldn't manage in the previous six seasons.

Everyone who works with Hinkley reveres him. It seems likely that coaches that work under him buy into his ethos and would look to replicate that in a head coaching environment. I think this has been the case so far with Nicks, and arguably was also the case with Richardson and even Walsh.

This is especially true for a person like Schofield who's only real AFL coaching experience is with Hinkley and presumably has been influenced quite heavily by him. There's an argument that Montgomery would be his own man a bit more but I still lean on the side of him being a Hinkleyite.

I lean to your second point being another case of blaming Hinkley for everything that goes badly and heaping praise on other people when things goes well. We were s**t in 2019 with Schofield and Montgomery. Without actually being inside the club and privy to internal discussions and strategies I'll default to saying that the 2020 resurgence was joint effort from all players and staff - including Hinkley.

Whatever your thoughts are around Schofield, Montgomery, Bassett etc., if Hinkley goes out as an unsuccessful coach the last thing I want to see is any remnant of his coaching philosophies remain at the club. Complete reset, or as close to it, is what I would be looking for.

I also think there is quite a bit of historical evidence to suggest that getting an outsider as a new head coach usually ends up being better than getting someone internal when the old head coach is sacked (i.e. not a succession plan). Primus, Shaw, Teague all were s**t (or currently look like s**t in Teague's case).

 

[PowerLil]

Everyone who works with Hinkley reveres him. It seems likely that coaches that work under him buy into his ethos and would look to replicate that in a head coaching environment. I think this has been the case so far with Nicks, and arguably was also the case with Richardson and even Walsh.

This is especially true for a person like Schofield who's only real AFL coaching experience is with Hinkley and presumably has been influenced quite heavily by him. There's an argument that Montgomery would be his own man a bit more but I still lean on the side of him being a Hinkleyite.

I lean to your second point being another case of blaming Hinkley for everything that goes badly and heaping praise on other people when things goes well. We were sh*t in 2019 with Schofield and Montgomery. Without actually being inside the club and privy to internal discussions and strategies I'll default to saying that the 2020 resurgence was joint effort from all players and staff - including Hinkley.

Whatever your thoughts are around Schofield, Montgomery, Bassett etc., if Hinkley goes out as an unsuccessful coach the last thing I want to see is any remnant of his coaching philosophies remain at the club. Complete reset, or as close to it, is what I would be looking for.

I also think there is quite a bit of historical evidence to suggest that getting an outsider as a new head coach usually ends up being better than getting someone internal when the old head coach is sacked (i.e. not a succession plan). Primus, Shaw, Teague all were sh*t (or currently look like sh*t in Teague's case).

Everyone who works with Hinkley reveres him. This is not true.