Roast WHAT I WANT TO SEE FROM A WELL COACHED PORT SIDE THAT KEN HINKLEY HAS FAILED TO SHOW US

[Janus]

Okay, now I'm at a computer and not on my phone...allow me to retort.

Better Use Of Players Down The Length Of The Ground

At one point the Hinkley plan was to get the ball to half forward and force a stoppage, so our players could move up and take control of the front 3/4 of the field instead of the back 3/4. We’d then use forward pressure to try and keep the ball in the front part.

Heavily reliance on forward pressure works great against teams that rattle easily, but it wore our guys out when we did it every single game all game, and ultimately the composed teams would always cut through it when it mattered. When you are great at breaking down weak and rattleable teams, but struggle against well coached sides, your ceiling is definitively mid-table. You need something better.

Seemed to work pretty well for Richmond, because that was Hardwick's plan in 2017/2018. But we'll just ignore them, shall we? Yeah, it wears out players if they are stupid and don't stick to their zones. Every time I've seen us capitulate with regards to forward pressure, it's because one player has decided that they would be of better service ball watching at the contest hoping to get on the easy outlet pass than actually getting into a position where they could both be the outlet and cover their opponent defensively. Then of course it's going to look like a bunch of players running around with no reward, because they are doing the work of 6 guys with only 5.

What's wrong with staying behind the stoppage and then moving the ball quickly? Nothing at all. That's how Adelaide 2017 did it, and it worked pretty well for them. Why do our players constantly skirt packs on the side, doing the equivalent of stealing a base, when there is no player sitting behind to cover defensively if shock horror, the ball goes to the opposition instead? Some things no one can answer.

Composed players would ignore the frantic approach of a Neade or similar, and continue what they were doing with little hindrance, because most of the pressure placed on them was mental but not actual. That’s great play (and coaching) by those opponents to draw the man and still get good disposal away, and we’ll get to that in the next section.

No, it's a breakdown in the system if a player like Neade has to run around like a blue bottle fly. There's been times when we've put on decent forward pressure this year, and sure, the players might get good disposal away in the beginning, but you're neglecting the fact that dealing with a constant barrage of pressure, even if it's mental, will have an affect later on during the game. If pressure acts weren't relevant, coaches wouldn't have asked Champion Data to come up with a stat to record them.

Since we recruited Charlie Dixon, our plan shifted a bit and then largely became about getting the ball past the halfway mark and hoofing it forward, out wide usually, maybe to Charlie or to Sam Gray or to space, and hope that that would give us time to move our whole team up to the front 3/4 instead of the back 3/4. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn’t. We didn’t really solve our problem with this change though, because our forwards were still being run ragged to do all the work.

Again, this is the Richmond 2017/18 model. Gain territory and lock the ball in with a whole bunch of small, fast forwards.

Neither method has brought success, and the failures of the second method in particular were visible when Bassett was in charge of our defence and for some reason we allowed our defence the luxury of always having extra men back there, robbing us even more of structure and options down the field.

It never brought success when you've got guys like Wingard in the forward line who wouldn't have a clue about how to put on forward pressure and was moping around like a sad sack hoping to sulk his way into the midfield.

What we don’t do anywhere near often enough is demand that our defenders carry the ball forward UP TO THE POINT OF CONTEST, with the team moving ahead of them. Classic Port Adelaide teams of years past did this, you could watch them moving up the field in waves. Instead we get to a point, hoof and hope, often while the nearest opponent is a fair way away from the man carrying the ball. More on this failure of defenders later.

Modern teams are generally front half pressure teams. The point of contest is much further up the field than in the past. The more pertinent question isn't why the defenders don't carry the ball up to the point of contest, but why they feel the need to kick down the line when a simple switch of the play to the opposite side of the ground would be a far better tactic, and would enable the ball to go around the contest entirely. It's a complete failure to expose weaknesses in the opposition lines.

This requires defenders who will push up the ground in support and give the ability to switch, and midfielders/forwards who are willing to work hard to get onto the end of the play as it moves across the field.

Another inefficient use of manpower, that precedes Hinkley and continues to this day, is when players take a mark, and handball backwards to a running player, who kicks from further behind than the man on the mark would’ve if he’d taken his time. What is the value of this. Handpassing to a running player should be reserved for when the running player is running past the mark and can exploit a zone collapse, not just because its easy.

And in this scenario, when the marking player has handballed off, they need to be looking at how they’ll next get involved in the play. Too often all they do is drop behind the play, instead of pushing/blocking forward to allow more space for the new ball carrier, or running forward to provide an option in case the new carrier runs into trouble. They just stop, and maybe go back to their direct opponent. I hate this so much.

Still happening under Hinkley. Saw Ryder do it just last week. Baffling.

I'd rather our players block for the player that they have given the ball in that situation. If they are giving off to a player running from behind, it's the typical quarterback handing off to the running back routine. It comes from a lack of team care - too many of our players would rather push forward to try and get on the end of a possession chain than actually ensure that the player they passed the ball to has a clear run.

Make The Opposition Work Harder Than You

Josh Carr was my favorite player for a lot of reasons, but one thing I enjoyed about him was when he had the ball in the defensive half (not after a mark, just holding it), and he’d Just. Stop. And wait until he could see he’d made an opponent run towards him to contest. Then because he had a cool head, he’d be disposing of the ball just before the opponent could tackle or smother, forcing them to waste their tank (and sometimes stretching the zone too)

This worked back in the early naughties. I wonder if he'd be able to do the same thing against the forward pressure of a Collingwood or a Richmond? I doubt it very, very much.

Jarrad Schofield wasn’t always my favorite player, but I always enjoyed how reliable his baulking was, where he’d make a defender commit to stopping him, trick them into committing further to an action, and chance his own. Fans could see it coming, and maybe defenders could too, but they had to respect that Jarrad could go either way. They’d put in effort that Jarrad was ready for, and he’d usually coolly slot the ball to a leading forward or maybe jag a goal. Nice.

That comes from being able to kick with both feet and not having a preferred side. Modern players aren't taught to kick with both feet. Riley Bonner should be able to do this but he doesn't for whatever reason.

In both cases, they could do this because a) they had been coached to dispose just in time, and b) their teammates nearby presented options for them. Not just behind them or 30m sideways, but upfield.

Nah, they could do this because the speed of the game was slower, which gave them more time to think, and their teammates weren't covered by 12 players flooding back into a zone. A completely different era, and irrelevant to today's football.

This also ties into the previous point, of not being shitscared of the proximity of another player because you have something resembling composure. Making the opposition work harder than you requires bravery, confidence, and things that actual motivational coaches can instil into their players.

Guess Hinkley’s not a motivational coach, or ran out of motivation after 2014.

It requires one other thing. Experience. All the motivation in the world isn't a substitute for actually performing the action yourself and seeing it work forst hand.

Coordination downfield, only possible by having players consistently downfield to coordinate

Our forwards, few as they are allowed to be, don’t make coordinated leads to provide multiple options, because instead our coaches’ system largely has them responding to randomball delivery into the forward line, or running down to the wing to take marks because our inefficient and unambitious ball movement means there’s too many players left behind the play, and someone has to present.

When someone is running down the wing, a good team has a couple of options for the player with the ball to take. Ours is Charlie Dixon (now Frampton), or Bung It On The Boot, or both. We don’t have multiple options leading towards the ball (the easiest marks for any forward to take), because to do that you need to have more forwards further downfield than we usually position them.

Generally our delivery into the forward line is random because teams will drop 2 players behind the ball against us. Against Adelaide we often had 6 forwards on 8 defenders. We'll drop a forward to the wing in an effort to pull some of those defenders out of position, but the more disciplined sides will always keep a +2 in defence.

What this requires is the ability to move the ball faster down the field, which is why I've always said that our ball movement against the better teams is the problem. It's too slow, and allows the defenders to peel back from their forward position and get set up back in defence.

Instead we see every game the ball kicked ahead of or on top of players running up from midfield. Great as a trick now and then, all teams do that sometimes, but too often its our only route to goal. Its why Sam Gray is in the side, he’s learned to roll with this shitty strategy. And its why he gets regularly shut down against good sides, because it’s a low percentage player, requiring high fitness, and excellent marking skill that usually requires working out the fall of the ball by looking over your shoulder. Park footballers dislike when they regularly have to do that, and AFL players would have similar concerns.

We do this because we are trying to beat the defence back from their forward press position. It's not a requirement to do this all the time, just enough so that the defence can't push up so high and lock the ball into our defensive 50. I say that we don't do it at the right time to make it effective.

These are not easy marks. Its no wonder we can’t consistently take them, nor is it a surprise that a lot of the time the mistargeting of hoof and hope, & degree of difficulty in positioning to mark, require our players to chase an errant ball at ground level that overshot them - or to watch as the opponent’s loose man in defence effortlessly takes another intercept mark, as we’ve seen so so many times.

Most intercept marks against us come from players who are playing in front of our forwards, and are the result of players who instead of lowering their eyes and hitting targets over the back of their zone, decide that hoofing the ball as far as they can once they finally break free of the opposition forward press is the way to go. This goes back to my point of not doing it at the right time. The right time is at defensive midfield - that's when you can go for territory and hope the forwards can get on the end of the kick - and that's only if there aren't other options available. Go through the progression tree - if there's no corridor option, there's no short option and no one is providing running support due to the zone clogging up space - that must mean the option is to go long because there's only 18 on 18.

We seem to do it at attacking midfield, and it's incredibly dumb. I swear it's because our players want to increase their stats.

Having forwards allowed to watch midfield play develop and intelligently lead towards the ball (or at a useful contrary angle to the ball, if you have *gasp* more than one leading forward) isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity. It conserves fitness and mental focus. The best teams in any year have forwards doing this, and they can do this because their coaches can structure a forward line.

Ours can’t.

How can a forward lead toward the ball if the defender is playing in front of them? The answer is that they can't. Teams don't allow us leading forwards because they know players like Westhoff, Ryder and Gray prefer the ball coming to them like that. The only time we can expect to see lead up movement is when the ball moves quicker out of defence or a forward half turnover that is moved quickly.

Hmmm...that should be enough for now. I'll look at the rest later.

 

[philthy05]

It’s ironic that bonner has that ability and willingness to take on defenders and run and carry before disposing but lacks the rest of the stuff.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

I get the idea Janus will be pointing out Richmond 2017 in a decades time, the same way some people regularly pointed at Adelaide Crows 1997/1998 as the reason why key forwards were gone, for the next decade.

 

[TeeKray]

I agree with everything you’ve said.

Okay, now I'm at a computer and not on my phone...allow me to retort.



Seemed to work pretty well for Richmond, because that was Hardwick's plan in 2017/2018. But we'll just ignore them, shall we? Yeah, it wears out players if they are stupid and don't stick to their zones. Every time I've seen us capitulate with regards to forward pressure, it's because one player has decided that they would be of better service ball watching at the contest hoping to get on the easy outlet pass than actually getting into a position where they could both be the outlet and cover their opponent defensively. Then of course it's going to look like a bunch of players running around with no reward, because they are doing the work of 6 guys with only 5.

What's wrong with staying behind the stoppage and then moving the ball quickly? Nothing at all. That's how Adelaide 2017 did it, and it worked pretty well for them. Why do our players constantly skirt packs on the side, doing the equivalent of stealing a base, when there is no player sitting behind to cover defensively if shock horror, the ball goes to the opposition instead? Some things no one can answer.



No, it's a breakdown in the system if a player like Neade has to run around like a blue bottle fly. There's been times when we've put on decent forward pressure this year, and sure, the players might get good disposal away in the beginning, but you're neglecting the fact that dealing with a constant barrage of pressure, even if it's mental, will have an affect later on during the game. If pressure acts weren't relevant, coaches wouldn't have asked Champion Data to come up with a stat to record them.



Again, this is the Richmond 2017/18 model. Gain territory and lock the ball in with a whole bunch of small, fast forwards.



It never brought success when you've got guys like Wingard in the forward line who wouldn't have a clue about how to put on forward pressure and was moping around like a sad sack hoping to sulk his way into the midfield.



Modern teams are generally front half pressure teams. The point of contest is much further up the field than in the past. The more pertinent question isn't why the defenders don't carry the ball up to the point of contest, but why they feel the need to kick down the line when a simple switch of the play to the opposite side of the ground would be a far better tactic, and would enable the ball to go around the contest entirely. It's a complete failure to expose weaknesses in the opposition lines.

This requires defenders who will push up the ground in support and give the ability to switch, and midfielders/forwards who are willing to work hard to get onto the end of the play as it moves across the field.



I'd rather our players block for the player that they have given the ball in that situation. If they are giving off to a player running from behind, it's the typical quarterback handing off to the running back routine. It comes from a lack of team care - too many of our players would rather push forward to try and get on the end of a possession chain than actually ensure that the player they passed the ball to has a clear run.



This worked back in the early naughties. I wonder if he'd be able to do the same thing against the forward pressure of a Collingwood or a Richmond? I doubt it very, very much.



That comes from being able to kick with both feet and not having a preferred side. Modern players aren't taught to kick with both feet. Riley Bonner should be able to do this but he doesn't for whatever reason.



Nah, they could do this because the speed of the game was slower, which gave them more time to think, and their teammates weren't covered by 12 players flooding back into a zone. A completely different era, and irrelevant to today's football.



It requires one other thing. Experience. All the motivation in the world isn't a substitute for actually performing the action yourself and seeing it work forst hand.



Generally our delivery into the forward line is random because teams will drop 2 players behind the ball against us. Against Adelaide we often had 6 forwards on 8 defenders. We'll drop a forward to the wing in an effort to pull some of those defenders out of position, but the more disciplined sides will always keep a +2 in defence.

What this requires is the ability to move the ball faster down the field, which is why I've always said that our ball movement against the better teams is the problem. It's too slow, and allows the defenders to peel back from their forward position and get set up back in defence.



We do this because we are trying to beat the defence back from their forward press position. It's not a requirement to do this all the time, just enough so that the defence can't push up so high and lock the ball into our defensive 50. I say that we don't do it at the right time to make it effective.



Most intercept marks against us come from players who are playing in front of our forwards, and are the result of players who instead of lowering their eyes and hitting targets over the back of their zone, decide that hoofing the ball as far as they can once they finally break free of the opposition forward press is the way to go. This goes back to my point of not doing it at the right time. The right time is at defensive midfield - that's when you can go for territory and hope the forwards can get on the end of the kick - and that's only if there aren't other options available. Go through the progression tree - if there's no corridor option, there's no short option and no one is providing running support due to the zone clogging up space - that must mean the option is to go long because there's only 18 on 18.

We seem to do it at attacking midfield, and it's incredibly dumb. I swear it's because our players want to increase their stats.



How can a forward lead toward the ball if the defender is playing in front of them? The answer is that they can't. Teams don't allow us leading forwards because they know players like Westhoff, Ryder and Gray prefer the ball coming to them like that. The only time we can expect to see lead up movement is when the ball moves quicker out of defence or a forward half turnover that is moved quickly.

Hmmm...that should be enough for now. I'll look at the rest later.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[edgie]

I get the idea Janus will be pointing out Richmond 2017 in a decades time, the same way some people regularly pointed at Adelaide Crows 1997/1998 as the reason why key forwards were gone, for the next decade.

Yes.

Jack Riewoldt was superfluous to their needs.

 

[Janus]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

I can agree with the premise. I don't agree with the conclusions.

 

[Janus]

I get the idea Janus will be pointing out Richmond 2017 in a decades time, the same way some people regularly pointed at Adelaide Crows 1997/1998 as the reason why key forwards were gone, for the next decade.

It wasn't just 2017 though.

2018, they beat everyone except for Collingwood in a prelim final who jumped them the same way they jumped us - by using superior midfield strength and clearance work to ensure that Richmond could never get a foothold on which to get their pressure game working. And that's what happens in finals - one team can get themselves up for the fight and really put another team to the sword if they are switched on enough.

But in the regular season...in the regular season, that's where you find out whether or not a team's style is sustainable or not, because they have to do it for 22 games. And where did Richmond finish in 2018? 2 games clear of everyone else at 18-4 with a percentage of 136.1%, with their losses being Adelaide at AO, West Coast in Perth, Port Adelaide in Adelaide and GWS in Canberra.

Only a damned fool would look at that and think 'Aw, it's like the Crows' - a team that never finished on top of the ladder once in either premiership year. You make it sound like Richmond was just dumb luck. Dumb luck doesn't win you 18 games, and it doesn't get you a percentage of 136%.

But the main point is that forward pressure works if it's done right. That's why every team does it. You're stuck in this twilight zone where you think that teams are going to just let us move out of defence and push up the ground, and all it's about is what we do. Defenders only disposing of the ball at the point of contest? Collingwood, Adelaide and Hawthorn all put our defenders under maximum pressure by pushing their own defences up the ground and locking the ball into their forward line, which is why our defenders have to either kick blindly out of defence or use handball to get free and move the ball to the other side of the ground quickly so they can escape.

That's why I say it doesn't matter who coaches Port Adelaide. It's going to look exactly the same, because the problem isn't a coaching instruction, it's the ability to execute skills and not panic when under pressure. And that comes from experience.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

Only a damned fool would look at that and think 'Aw, it's like the Crows' - a team that never finished on top of the ladder once in either premiership year.

Richmond didn't finish top of the ladder in their 2017 premiership year either. Why do you do these things, Janus? How many times do I have to spend less than a minute to check your stats and find the hole before you stop making up selective bullshit?

You make it sound like Richmond was just dumb luck. Dumb luck doesn't win you 18 games, and it doesn't get you a percentage of 136%.

In 2018 they got those stats, sure. Why didn't they make the GF? Dumb luck?

I don't even give a s**t about Richmond's stats, but you're awfully reliant on them.

But the main point is that forward pressure works if it's done right. That's why every team does it.

Yep, every team tries to do it when they can set it up. Quite often it doesn't work, because not every team is 100% on the ball. A large part of being on the ball is in coaches being able to relate their gameplan to players. Its not happening at Port on anything like a consistent basis.

You're stuck in this twilight zone where you think that teams are going to just let us move out of defence and push up the ground, and all it's about is what we do. Defenders only disposing of the ball at the point of contest? Collingwood, Adelaide and Hawthorn all put our defenders under maximum pressure by pushing their own defences up the ground and locking the ball into their forward line, which is why our defenders have to either kick blindly out of defence or use handball to get free and move the ball to the other side of the ground quickly so they can escape.

A better way to break a forward press is to force it to expand. Sitting back and bombing over the top every time doesn't do that, because the length of a long kick from a safe spot is factored into the press's design.

Its almost exactly the same dilemma that is faced in the NFL every play, where the offense can't exclusively either air it out or run the ball because your opposition is weakest when they are forced to respect both methods. Intelligent handball through defence, taking the ball towards the contest and disposing in time, fits exactly with what I'm talking about. Force your opponents to make choices, to commit to options you don't have to take. There is no intelligence in how Hinkley-coached sides counter forward press.

That's why I say it doesn't matter who coaches Port Adelaide. It's going to look exactly the same, because the problem isn't a coaching instruction, it's the ability to execute skills and not panic when under pressure. And that comes from experience.

Any significant experience gained under Ken Hinkley's system is valueless, we've seen that - the best we'll get from his tenure is getting kids up to speed with AFL, and ready to learn from a better coach.

This isn't a decision about next year or the year after, a large part of it is about getting in a new coach to teach a better way, so that when we have the experience, maybe this time it comes with a bit of composure, with some system, with some intelligent midfield cohesion. A lot of the pieces are ready to develop for a coach that won't waste them like Hinkley has.

 

[Macca19]

This is like Tyson v Holyfield

 

[G3TWOTYAD3S3RV]

Meh just stick to basics & stop making a game plan rocket science. We’re overcoached plain & simple. Release the shackles


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Janus]

Richmond didn't finish top of the ladder in their 2017 premiership year either. Why do you do these things, Janus? How many times do I have to spend less than a minute to check your stats and find the hole before you stop making up selective ********?

We didn't win the premiership from 2001-2003. Did that make us a bad team? You're the one waxing lyrical about Schofield and Carr.

You're the one being selective, not me...just admit they were a good side. A poor side would be 2016 Western Bulldogs, who won the flag and then faded away into nothing.

In 2018 they got those stats, sure. Why didn't they make the GF? Dumb luck?

Every team has a weakness. Richmond's weakness was their inability to score if they couldn't get their territory game going.

I don't even give a **** about Richmond's stats, but you're awfully reliant on them.

I could use anybody's stats. Maybe you'll listen to Nathan Buckley and what he said about Stephenson last year:

"The consistent thing with Jaidyn has been his work rate and his willingness to pressure.

"He's got speed which is not a commodity that we've got in abundance on our list, comparatively.

"A lot of his pressure is chasing pressure because he closes the distance so quickly.

"When you've got a player like that around, not unlike a Cyril Rioli or Paul Puopolo for Hawthorn, you never know when they're going to get you.

"I think Stevo puts that sort of pressure on."

Yep, every team tries to do it when they can set it up. Quite often it doesn't work, because not every team is 100% on the ball. A large part of being on the ball is in coaches being able to relate their gameplan to players. Its not happening at Port on anything like a consistent basis.

That's why you'll have ups and downs over the season. No one is consistent in their pressure.

A better way to break a forward press is to force it to expand. Sitting back and bombing over the top every time doesn't do that, because the length of a long kick from a safe spot is factored into the press's design.

That's why I say it's better to switch the ball first to the weak side of the ground and then go over the top - or move the ball quickly out from a kick-in before the forwards have had time to set up.

You see Collingwood doing this all the time - their mids will sprint to the other side of the ground when a switch is happening because they know that their teammates aren't going to * around in the backlines looking holding the ball up unnecessarily and if they slide across fast enough they will get on the end of the switch in play.

Its almost exactly the same dilemma that is faced in the NFL every play, where the offense can't exclusively either air it out or run the ball because your opposition is weakest when they are forced to respect both methods. Intelligent handball through defence, taking the ball towards the contest and disposing in time, fits exactly with what I'm talking about. Force your opponents to make choices, to commit to options you don't have to take. There is no intelligence in how Hinkley-coached sides counter forward press.

You're asking the equivalent of a rookie quarterback to go down through the progression tree and pick out the right route based on someone telling them that's how they need to do it. There are occasions where the defenders should be able to say 'Look, I know U.V and W aren't going to be available based on what the opposition is playing, so I'll cross them off real quick and spend my time looking at X, Y and Z.'

However, even if a coach tells them that's what they need to do, they've still got to gain the experience in executing those plays. There were a few plays against Hawthorn where we were probably out on the other side with a switch but someone messed up.

Any significant experience gained under Ken Hinkley's system is valueless, we've seen that - the best we'll get from his tenure is getting kids up to speed with AFL, and ready to learn from a better coach.

Have we?

[/quote]This isn't a decision about next year or the year after, a large part of it is about getting in a new coach to teach a better way, so that when we have the experience, maybe this time it comes with a bit of composure, with some system, with some intelligent midfield cohesion. A lot of the pieces are ready to develop for a coach that won't waste them like Hinkley has.[/QUOTE]

I think they are developing just fine. Yes, they make mistakes, but I'm liking what I see from a lot of our players.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

We didn't win the premiership from 2001-2003. Did that make us a bad team? You're the one waxing lyrical about Schofield and Carr.

You're the one being selective, not me...just admit they were a good side. A poor side would be 2016 Western Bulldogs, who won the flag and then faded away into nothing.

When did I say Richmond were a bad team?

Every team has a weakness. Richmond's weakness was their inability to score if they couldn't get their territory game going.

A weakness that you seem to acknowledge has been exposed since their premiership year. If you want to talk about being in a twilight zone, maybe acknowledging that overdependence on forward press is a flaw will get you out.

Forward press under Hinkley is a vice. We don’t have anything else. We need more than Hinkley has.

I think they are developing just fine. Yes, they make mistakes, but I'm liking what I see from a lot of our players.

They have been developing fine. The ceiling for our youngish defenders under Hinkley has arrived. Need a better system for them to progress (in addition to non-****ed selection policies etc)

 

[Janus]

When did I say Richmond were a bad team?

A weakness that you seem to acknowledge has been exposed since their premiership year. If you want to talk about being in a twilight zone, maybe acknowledging that overdependence on forward press is a flaw will get you out.

Forward press under Hinkley is a vice. We don’t have anything else. We need more than Hinkley has.

They have been developing fine. The ceiling for our youngish defenders under Hinkley has arrived. Need a better system for them to progress (in addition to non-****** selection policies etc)

I don't think we rely solely on a forward press though. It's why I'm waiting for Hartlett and Burton to get back. A guy like Lienert is notorious for holding up the play, for example - watch him, he does it quite often. When people say that Hartlett was playing midfield in the SANFL - he really wasn't. He was playing the sort of role the Broadbent and Byrne-Jones play when they act as the +1 at a stoppage.

It's why I want to see Garner becoming more than just a lockdown defender. The more defenders cum midfielders we have, the better it will be.

 

[*PAF]

This is like Tyson v Holyfield

Need more Butterbean.

 

[manureid]

This is the fastest I have ever scrolled a thread.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Really great summary. Terrific post.

The mentality of the players is part of that, but a huge part of a positive player mentality comes not just from a coach's motivation, but from how that coach's systems work when they try to implement them. They mostly don't work.

I think just in addition to that, it's that any team will ultimately take on the personality of it's leader. Whether that's a footy team or any job or any team doing anything.

We always look better when we're confident and taking the game on, but we sit back because Ken Hinkley is of the belief that there are a lot of good football teams at this level and it's a hard league. It's why draftees and players we trade in start of looking super exciting before settling in to the Port Adelaide safety first way.

Every single great sports person or team have an enormous, unwavering self belief. They know they're better than their opposition. They know they're going to win the 50/50s so they charge into them with supreme confidence.

The difference between 2013/14 and everything since is that the slingshot gameplan got found out a bit by teams who were superdefensive against it, +2 or +3 in their back half, we didn't have any answers tactically, and the players began to lose a bit of faith in it. At the same time, Hinkley had an epiphany that football isn't everything and his intensity dropped, and our entire club's intensity dropped with him.

Remember when Ken used to say about Jasper that he'd take the mistakes as long as Jasper kept taking the game on? Well Jasper did, but we didn't support that style of play by committing players forward to take advantage of his run and carry, and his confidence disappeared, and he became the fumbly ball of stress he is now. The entire team has fallen victim to the same problem. Keep our defensive shape and move the ball cautiously because we might turn it over, oops because nobody ran at the defence they set up and we did turn it over. Rinse and repeat for 3 years.

The players sit back partially because they're coached to, but mainly because they're scared of good teams hurting them on the rebound. It's why we can reliably beat s**t teams but go to water against anyone with a reputation.

 

[PowerBaz]

Leading forwards taking a mark.

 

[*PAF]

Leading forwards taking a mark.

One thing at a time.
Now choose one, leading forward or taking a mark?

 

[Papa G]

This is like Tyson v Holyfield

Reminded me not of this

 

[No21sTightManPerm]

That's why I say it doesn't matter who coaches Port Adelaide. It's going to look exactly the same, because the problem isn't a coaching instruction, it's the ability to execute skills and not panic when under pressure. And that comes from experience.

Nah, that comes from a coach who hasn’t been able to or hasn’t had a clear or correct message to get through to his players in 4.5 years of mediocrity. You don’t get that long to get the right message across in what we keep getting told is the toughest premier grade competition in world sport that our humble club should just be happy the AFL has deigned to allow us to play in.

He seemed to get through to a young list in 13/14, got defensive, clouded the message and has substantially tweaked the game plan every off-season since. No wonder the players seem lost. I can’t think of too many coaches who get to say at the end of every season that they got things wrong and have learnt from their mistakes, only to serve up the same s**t for nearly 5 years. This recently coming with a substantial annual refresh of his assistants and playing list. Everyone else can’t be the problem.

We don’t have one of the dumbest lists in the comp. Our spiritual captain and our midfielder co-captain are two of our biggest ball burners and hit-and-hope hackers, presumably because there’s no method or trust in what’s going on around them. What we have is a coach who either can’t get through or has failed in his overseeing role in ensuring that every line plays in a way that compliments all others.

We’re spinning wheels and it’s incredibly draining. I have a lot of love for him, I’m incredibly grateful for 13/14, but it’s time to go.

 

[Macca19]

This is a very good thread with some top class analysis. My thoughts:

SUMMARY (or TL;DR)

Under Ken Hinkley:

- We don’t have a reliable plan for bringing the ball from end to end, other than randomness & Robbie Gray

I do miss the glory years with Schulz as our main focal point. Not only was he a master at leading out towards the ball, he was a master at doubling back then switching direction on a dime to create space. Its why our forward line worked so well with him up there and why the slingshot was (to an extent) successful. Certainly in the early Hinkley years we had a set way of moving the ball down field. Every player knew what was expected. Ever since we moved away from the slingshot in 2016 we've gone back to haphazard ball movement, getting it inside 50 almost by accident, no predictable way of moving the ball down field. Now some might say that its good that we aren't predictable in our ball movement, but it also means that our team don't really know whats going to happen from one play to the next.

I think what Roos said on On The Couch is correct, in that our players are too muddled on what they are expected to do.

- We overwork our midfield, and particularly our forward players, when good teams work out how to reduce the load through team play.

I think a lot of this has to do with our poor skill level for the entirety of the Hinkley era. We just haven't been able to bring in consistently highly skilled players for a decade really. The more you turn the ball over the more work you are doing.

I agree that we have overworked our forward players over the years. I think this is less of an issue this year as our forward setup has changed quite a bit. But certainly from 14-18 our forwards were doing a shitload of running, and even more pointless running.

- We don’t play intelligent football at clearances, and can’t manage outside players because of it

I feel like this is less of an issue this year since Polec left, who was awful at calling for the ball in terrible positions and receiving the ball too early because of it. I think with how Duursma and Amon have set up this year, we are being a bit smarter with when and how we get the ball to our outside players.

- We don’t give our forwards prime opportunities to secure positionally useful marks and kick goals

This is bad and has remained bad under the Dixon era. Our forward setups have been so fundamentally flawed over the last 3-4 years its a surprise when we actually kick a winning score.

Dixon is both a very good and very poor contested mark. Half of the problem is the fact that we have deployed Goodwin ball for large parts of the last couple of seasons. The other half is that he calls for the ball when he shouldnt. He's very quick on the lead but rarely leads inside 50, he relies on having the ball put on his head and trying to outmuscle his opponent(s).

I do feel like this is definitely a coaching issue though. We've seen it with Marshall this year, his inability to lead. We saw it with Frampton over the last two games, his inability to lead. It has to be coaching.

To go with that, we just play dumb football. Everyone knows we bomb it in, but how often do we have a crumber at the feet of the KPF? Pretty rarely. We either have Sam Gray as the long target, formerly Jake Neade as the long target, or they are in no mans land, too far away from impacting the drop of the ball deep. This is why I can't wait for Woodcock to get a go as I feel he should be able to impact in that manner.

 

[Janus]

This is a very good thread with some top class analysis. My thoughts:



I do miss the glory years with Schulz as our main focal point. Not only was he a master at leading out towards the ball, he was a master at doubling back then switching direction on a dime to create space. Its why our forward line worked so well with him up there and why the slingshot was (to an extent) successful. Certainly in the early Hinkley years we had a set way of moving the ball down field. Every player knew what was expected. Ever since we moved away from the slingshot in 2016 we've gone back to haphazard ball movement, getting it inside 50 almost by accident, no predictable way of moving the ball down field. Now some might say that its good that we aren't predictable in our ball movement, but it also means that our team don't really know whats going to happen from one play to the next.

I think what Roos said on On The Couch is correct, in that our players are too muddled on what they are expected to do.



I think a lot of this has to do with our poor skill level for the entirety of the Hinkley era. We just haven't been able to bring in consistently highly skilled players for a decade really. The more you turn the ball over the more work you are doing.

I agree that we have overworked our forward players over the years. I think this is less of an issue this year as our forward setup has changed quite a bit. But certainly from 14-18 our forwards were doing a shitload of running, and even more pointless running.



I feel like this is less of an issue this year since Polec left, who was awful at calling for the ball in terrible positions and receiving the ball too early because of it. I think with how Duursma and Amon have set up this year, we are being a bit smarter with when and how we get the ball to our outside players.



This is bad and has remained bad under the Dixon era. Our forward setups have been so fundamentally flawed over the last 3-4 years its a surprise when we actually kick a winning score.

Dixon is both a very good and very poor contested mark. Half of the problem is the fact that we have deployed Goodwin ball for large parts of the last couple of seasons. The other half is that he calls for the ball when he shouldnt. He's very quick on the lead but rarely leads inside 50, he relies on having the ball put on his head and trying to outmuscle his opponent(s).

I do feel like this is definitely a coaching issue though. We've seen it with Marshall this year, his inability to lead. We saw it with Frampton over the last two games, his inability to lead. It has to be coaching.

To go with that, we just play dumb football. Everyone knows we bomb it in, but how often do we have a crumber at the feet of the KPF? Pretty rarely. We either have Sam Gray as the long target, formerly Jake Neade as the long target, or they are in no mans land, too far away from impacting the drop of the ball deep. This is why I can't wait for Woodcock to get a go as I feel he should be able to impact in that manner.

I’ll point to the start of the season where I said I had a dream that Woodcock was playing in the GF alongside Rozee and kicked 5 goals.

We definitely need an opportunist forward. I’d rather Woodcock in the side than Farrell, simply because I believe Farrell is a creative player who needs space whereas Woodcock is quite happy in the muck.

 

[Macca19]

I’ll point to the start of the season where I said I had a dream that Woodcock was playing in the GF alongside Rozee and kicked 5 goals.

We definitely need an opportunist forward. I’d rather Woodcock in the side than Farrell, simply because I believe Farrell is a creative player who needs space whereas Woodcock is quite happy in the muck.

I think all three of Rozee, Farrell and Woodcock need to be playing together next year. Farrell is a lot cleaner than Sam Gray and can do a similar role. Woodcock needs to be a genuine crumber with Rozee the wild card.

 

[Janus]

I think all three of Rozee, Farrell and Woodcock need to be playing together next year. Farrell is a lot cleaner than Sam Gray and can do a similar role. Woodcock needs to be a genuine crumber with Rozee the wild card.

I think Farrell needs to get himself into the game more when the ball isn’t coming his way - I’d much rather his talent on the team than Gray, but the one thing Gray has over him at the moment is his ability to hunt the contest which Farrell doesn’t really do...he just seems to go through the motions.

I’d like a forward line of Frampton, Marshall, Rozee, Woodcock, Farrell and Butters in the future - I reckon that could work well. Maybe even throw in Cox to play that Monfries role in coming years.

 

[FishingRick04]

Cox has surpassed Woodcock hasn’t he?