Opinion Matthew Nicks: Adelaide's Coach (Part 2) - Full Support of the Board

[FullyBigKPro]

 

[adelaidecrows]

He is a rookie coach, give him a chance.

Jarman Binks Greenfinger Seriously lol? dont recognise sarcasm?

 

[CrowBloke]

If Chris Scott jumped off a cliff would you expect Nicks to do so?

It's taking all my willpower to not say .

 

[Sanders]

But if you hated that Crows Carlton game, why do you even watch the modern game?

Obviously he doesn’t.

I’d say he follows the fantasy scores online but doesn’t actually watch much if any actual game play

 

[adelaidecrows]

People are dramatically underrating how bad Curtin's game was here. It was as bad a half of football as you will see, and we'd certainly have been more likely to win the game with someone else in the team instead of him. I'm happy with his selection and comfortable with the fact that we risk losing games by playing young players with potential, that's part of the game. But there's no need to delude ourselves by acting like Curtin's game is anything like Smith having a bad one where he turns the ball over a few times or whatever. As has been discussed here at length, almost all of Brisbane's first half goals were kicked by Curtin's direct opponent who outmarked or outpositioned him, or in the case of the Hipwood goal by him giving away a free kick against someone else's opponent. Subbing him was possibly an overreaction but it was an attempt to stop the bleeding and we'd likely have won the game if it wasn't for the injury that followed.

Knowing about the injury you wouldn't do it obviously but going down that path you can just as easily say that knowing how Curtin would go you wouldn't pick him. Don't really see the point.

edit: I should add, if you want to argue that selecting Smith against Gold Coast also cost us the game when compared to an alternative option, I think that's probably true. Smith probably should have been dropped for the Freo game based on his start to the season. Irrelevant to the issue with Curtin though.

Here is the thing. I didnt see the match but Curtin got towelled up playing a game in deep defence in the Sanfl against Glenelg I think. This is according to Will Goodings on Five AA. The next week we moved him to the half back flank and he dominated and looked every bit the player we want. Then we select him, only to play him deep defence at AFL level.

Now if this is true, then Nicks should be held to account. Would that be any different to shoving Dawson onto Hawkins. Dawsons a trained defender, and an outstanding midfielder but Hawkins would laugh before kicking 10 goals on him. We asked a guy who is more adept as an interceptive tall running defender / mid to play on key forwards in a tight 1:1 defensive role which he didn't do well in the Sanfl.

So sure, he didnt play well, but did we ever give him a genuine opportunity of succeeding? I think thats a more than fair question to ask. And if we were never going to play him in his prime position then why pick him? was it to appease the media? Every bit of evidence suggests we set him up to fail or to minimise his game. Defence is a very hard position to win as a debutant especially if you are on experience and mature bodies and in areas of the ground you aren't used to.

1. We played him out of position or a position that simply he hasn't played much off in deep defence against quality players.

2. We selected subs who could directly sub for Curtin with a few deck chairs shifted. Where as every previous match we had mids, running players like mchenry, sholl, murphy, berry etc. magically as soon as Curtin was selected, it was Smith and Nankervis. Its a very interesting side step from the usual players he puts in as Sub dont you think?

You make a lot of good points here, but I do think the coach has some clear cut questions to answer about this.

 

[CrowBloke]

You stated ( repeatedly) he doesn’t have a right for which is incorrect.

Yes, I acknowledge that he has a right foot. It's the one on the left, for which is here :

He uses his opposite foot more than a lot of players in the squad.

Yeah, but nah.
As far as I can tell, he avoids it where possible because, well, he kicks badly with his R foot (the one on the left, above).

I don’t like Keays as a footballer but give credit where it’s due and him using his non-preferred at times is great.

You can get help, for which is here:

Optometrist Adelaide City - Eye Test | Optical Superstore

Adelaide City optometrist specialising in bulk billed eye tests, designer label prescription glasses, sunglasses & more. Health funds accepted.

opticalsuperstore.com.au

Btw, I gave him credit for his energy, his gut-running and his 100% efforts.
The fact that you give him credit for (which) his great right-foot kicking, sometimes, is maybe the funniest thing I've read in here, for which thanks .

The first four games this season he kicked on his right and they were all good kicks.

I doubt it.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Wow. Seriously amazed by this WW. Described as one of the games of the season, 15 lead changes, 30 goals scored and a finish all BF crows fans will remember for years to come.

Highlights: Carlton v Adelaide

The Blues and Crows clash in round five

www.afl.com.au

Don't mistake a close game, to a game with a lot of highlights ....I love a close game, I love a scrappy game ....there can be different game forms that get the interest up

But some games, where there's a lot of uncontested marks / kicks .....from side to side ala soccer ....that's boring

Rankine is supplying goal highlights, and is our best chance .....but highlights, are few & far between these days

 

[Faaarrk]

Yes, I acknowledge that he has a right foot. It's the one on the left, for which is here :

View attachment 1991581

Yeah, but nah.
As far as I can tell, he avoids it where possible because, well, he kicks badly with his R foot (the one on the left, above).

You can get help, for which is here:

Optometrist Adelaide City - Eye Test | Optical Superstore

Adelaide City optometrist specialising in bulk billed eye tests, designer label prescription glasses, sunglasses & more. Health funds accepted.

opticalsuperstore.com.au

Btw, I gave him credit for his energy, his gut-running and his 100% efforts.
The fact that you give him credit for (which) his great right-foot kicking, sometimes, is maybe the funniest thing I've read in here, for which thanks .

I doubt it.

Oohhhh personal insults, sure sign you know you’re wrong Plus twisting what I said around. Two from two.
Avoiding the fact of other players not using their non-preferred foot as much but pick on Keays is astounding.
You do realise you can watch all players disposals from previous weeks don’t you?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

This is looking backwards - if someone is worst on ground you still dont sub them out.

This is an interesting take .....so we don't sub out a player that is costing goals and a loss .....god forbid a player gets dejected for conceding goals & getting subbed .....toughen up princess

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Of course, agreed. No one can dispute that. Also no one can dispute we were very unlucky with an injury 5 mins later with the way things played out.

Keep Curtin on and perhaps we lose by 4-5 goals if his first half performance is repeated (ie he gives up 8 goals for the game). Now THAT would really destroy a young guys confidence.

My view is there was a higher % chance of Curtins playing the second half adversely impacting the result than an injury 5 mins later. Coaches acted with rational analysis IMO and made a reasonable judgement call. We all know what happened next though and things are always easy in hindsight.

Of course this is spot on .....fact is, Curtin had a number of opponent changes ....and obviously BRIS were playing thru whoever Curtin's opponent was

Curtin in his 2nd game, would have tired in the 2nd half, and those mistakes would have continued .....his confidence was shot

This is not a take-down of Curtin .....he's going to be a great player ....but it's not the first time a rookie has been pantsed

 

[Sanders]

Of course this is spot on .....fact is, Curtin had a number of opponent changes ....and obviously BRIS were playing thru whoever Curtin's opponent was

That’s what you’ve come up with? All this time, and that’s all you can invent

 

[FullyBigKPro]

Of course this is spot on .....fact is, Curtin had a number of opponent changes ....and obviously BRIS were playing thru whoever Curtin's opponent was

Curtin in his 2nd game, would have tired in the 2nd half, and those mistakes would have continued .....his confidence was shot

This is not a take-down of Curtin .....he's going to be a great player ....but it's not the first time a rookie has been pantsed

Imagine if we played Curtin to his actual skillset and higher up the ground...

 

[adelaidecrows]

This is an interesting take .....so we don't sub out a player that is costing goals and a loss .....god forbid a player gets dejected for conceding goals & getting subbed .....toughen up princess

My interpretations of the argument against subbing Curtin off whether right or wrong is that many, including myself feel Nicks could have moved him out of deep defence to give him a run and to see what he could do in his prime area as a player.

My argument about the sub in general is a tactical sub should be used for only 1 or 2 things, injury or a roll of the dice in the face of getting smashed. Like what Scott did in the Geelong v Port Game. But personally, I dislike the whole sub to begin with. Its completely unnecessary as 19 times out of 20, one down on the bench is unnoticeable. I didn't like Brisbane having a debutant as sub either. That speaks volumes to what a pure joke the sub system is and coaches have every intention to abuse it.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Imagine if we played Curtin to his actual skillset and higher up the ground...

View attachment 1991641

Not a 1-2 game player ....not many play in their ultimate AFL role

Most rooks these days play in DEF ......I've never felt Curtin is a KPD ultimately .....it's a good starting point

 

[WaynesWorld19]

My interpretations of the argument against subbing Curtin off whether right or wrong is that many, including myself feel Nicks could have moved him out of deep defence to give him a run and to see what he could do in his prime area as a player.

And where would that role have been ? ......you can fix one problem, and cause a bigger one via the move

 

[adelaidecrows]

Don't mistake a close game, to a game with a lot of highlights ....I love a close game, I love a scrappy game ....there can be different game forms that get the interest up

But some games, where there's a lot of uncontested marks / kicks .....from side to side ala soccer ....that's boring

Rankine is supplying goal highlights, and is our best chance .....but highlights, are few & far between these days

We were lucky to win that game. I think a few have been sucked into the last 5 minute come back. It wasn't a pretty game.

 

[jackster83]

And where would that role have been ? ......you can fix one problem, and cause a bigger one via the move

If Nankervis had been playing instead of Smith, we would have had an extra player capable of playing on a quick forward.

Terrible choice of sub.

 

[CrowBloke]

Oohhhh personal insults, sure sign you know you’re wrong Plus twisting what I said around. Two from two.

Thank you for the opportunity to double up. This is fun!

I re-read my reply to you. What "personal insults", please?
Did I call you a language mangler? No.
Did I say you are blind? No.
Did I say you're ridiculous? No.

Avoiding the fact of other players not using their non-preferred foot as much but pick on Keays is astounding.

Pick on Keays? Please re-read my original post (the one you objected to).
Wait. I'll save you the trouble, here:
"I like Keays. Always have.
Keays is our Fast-Forward, run-both-ways at full pelt Energiser Bunny.
I don't know what he does at training, or off-field or in the change rooms, but on-field he leads clearly by example. ".
Since you don't know what those words mean, let me explain.
It's high praise. I like Keays, a lot.

You do realise you can watch all players disposals from previous weeks don’t you?

Yes.

 

[King Elvis]

Not a 1-2 game player ....not many play in their ultimate AFL role

Most rooks these days play in DEF ......I've never felt Curtin is a KPD ultimately .....it's a good starting point

It's a good starting point to play a tall mid type as a KPD?

It's bloody idiotic.

Play him on the HBF or as the third tall?

Good starting point, not the crap we did.

It's hard to think we didn't set him up to fail.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

If Nankervis had been playing instead of Smith, we would have had an extra player capable of playing on a quick forward.

Terrible choice of sub.

Curtin wasn't beaten by speed though ....Ah Chee's not quick ....he was beaten by positioning

 

[adelaidecrows]

And where would that role have been ? ......you can fix one problem, and cause a bigger one via the move

I would have thought someone leaking 5 goals in a half through bad defence was probably the biggest problem on the ground you can have.

Did Nankervis come on and play deep defence? nope, not even close. Which meant the deck chairs had to be shuffled. So those same deck chairs could have been shuffled without Nank and they could have put Curtin in Nanks position.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I would have thought someone leaking 5 goals in a half through bad defence was probably the biggest problem on the ground you can have.

Did Nankervis come on and play deep defence? nope, not even close. Which meant the deck chairs had to be shuffled. So those same deck chairs could have been shuffled without Nank and they could have put Curtin in Nanks position.

I'm finally getting agreement on this, after a big push-back the day after ......

If for example, you push Worrell back .....and replace the role with Curtin, we would have lost too much

Given Curtin's height, and inexperience .....our alternate positions were very limited .....IMO he had to be subbed, he has a very long career, and this not only won't impact Curtin's career, he'll in fact learn more from this experience than a normal game

 

[Soggy2112]

Vary serious …. BORING!

When was the last Modra type mark …. the last bruising McKay bump …. the last 60 mtr Robran screw punt ?

I’m talking this game …. however AFL has more boring soccer type chess games these days …. minimal highlights

Tell me the highlights from last weeks game, everyone has been talking about at work ??

Go watch the highlights video, there were plenty. A lot of them things that only the very elite were capable of 30 years ago.

 

[Sanders]

I'm finally getting agreement on this, after a big push-back the day after ......

No, you’re not

 

[adelaidecrows]

It's a good starting point to play a tall mid type as a KPD?

It's bloody idiotic.

Play him on the HBF or as the third tall?

Good starting point, not the crap we did.

It's hard to think we didn't set him up to fail.

Well this has been my argument all along.

Nicks saw him as a tall deep defensive type when he isn't that type. Its like thinking every 200cm player will be a great ruckman or sensational full forward. you need to have an understanding and an ability for the position. Arguably, defence is one of the hardest positions in the AFL to play. Why? because some of the biggest, strongest, smartest and fastest players in the side will be your opponents.

I never saw Curtin play juniors but from everything I understand he has always been used as a tall pinch hitting defender / running creative player to set up the attack. So for Nicks to blindly throw him in deep defence smacks of a selfish need because we lack height in defence which is Nicks and the recruiting teams fault. So he is throwing a tantrum, going against what Hamish and Co brought Curtin here to be and he has outright decided to turn him into a deep defender.

So as others have stated, we traded up to get a player like Curtin, only to try and turn him into a deep defender when there were quality tall defenders below him. Makes no sense. We are acting like we a top 2 team at selection. We aren't even in the top 10 and we wont play finals.