2017 Non Crows AFL Discussion Thread

[Janus]

I agree your backline was pretty good last year.

I personally think Trengove is a useless Key defender. He is slow, cant spoil and skills are poor. I said years ago that he is naturally an undersized Ruckman. He was capable in that role last year but not good enough against anyone bigger or more athletic than him. Which is most Rucks. Austin and Hombsh are a great pairing down back. Both can play big or small to adapt to who they play. They are smart footballers. Trengove is not.

Are you concerned that Ryder back in puts Trengove down back and upsets that mix down back. I would be.

I also cant see Trengove play much up forward. He does not have goal instinct and has no burst speed to create separation.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Trengove would be exceptional as a secondary ruck, because he's got a great leap.

I've said he could play the Chad Cornes version of CHB and really push up and become another midfielder in general play while Austin and Hombsch slot in behind with Hartlett, Pittard, Broadbent and Byrne-Jones. That's how I'd utilize him. He's not conditioned to spoil - he's an intercept mark, and he's quite good at that. And he's by no means slow - when the midfield continually turns the ball over and it comes back down the other side of the ground, not even Usain Bolt is going to be able to get there in time.

He could also play forward because he doesn't need to create separation - the rest of our forward line will do that. Especially seeing as Dixon generally gets double/triple teamed anyway. He just needs to be able to take marks and kick goals if the opportunity presents itself.

This is a fair call.

I don't go to the Port board so I don't know the truth to this or not, but as a gameplan I thought Hinkley stayed the course with the run and gun , Port just didn't have the cattle to execute that. The 2nd part , to me, is excuse making for getting it wrong.

Hinkley has gone on record saying that we got our preseason wrong because we thought the game was going down that path. It's why we started off with Carlile/Trengove/Jonas/Hombsch in the back lines - just way too tall and slow - and why we looked so lethargic against teams that concentrated on explosive speed and power.

Lets put these together. Granted Lobbe spudded it up and far be it from me to say a player should be mollycoddled but his treatment at the start of the year wasn't going to lead to a good outcome. Trengove moving to ruck hurt you more than any move all year. His loss at CHB really did hurt the mixture back there.

Agreed. Though I think if Lobbe had any aspirations of proving anyone wrong, he had the chance right there and he didn't take it. As for Trengove - I agree with this 100%, though I think he, Westhoff and Ryder are going to rotate through forward and defence in 2017.

No, but it seems you were still singing the same tune , ''nothing is wrong, nothing is wrong we will be fine'' most of the year.

Lol, no I wasn't. I continually spoke about how you couldn't judge Hinkley or his gameplan when the players either couldn't or wouldn't execute simple fundamentals of football like hitting targets open in space.

So much salt

Why would I care? We didn't make it. Statistically they were the worst premiers ever. That's a fact.

What is a failure? I see Port in that 8-13 group of teams.

Not playing to our potential is a failure. If we do that and teams are better than us, fine. But if we just go soft and leave too much to too few, like we did in 2015 by choice and in 2016 by injury/suspension, then it's a failure.

 

[Iron]

I've made a lot of statements. You just focus on the ones that I've got wrong because it suits your agenda, and because you think I'm afraid of being wrong when I'd rather have conviction in my beliefs. As I said - who cares? Truth is both relative and subjective. Especially when it comes to sport.

A few things though:

1. It's not my fault Hinkley thought the game was going to slow down and become more one on one. All my predictions were predicated on the fact that we were going to stay with the same gameplan we originally used offensively - quick ball movement in transition - and simply add a better defensive system to it. Instead, we wasted our entire preseason on building endurance to cope with an interchange cap issue that never came and allowed poor teams to exploit our lack of power running.

2. It's not my fault that we had so many injuries and suspensions last year - injuries to key planks of our transition and not to generic half back flankers and inside mids like the Bulldogs had. Oh, and to one of their exceptional key forwards that they obviously base their entire gameplay around since they could put in a kid and still win the flag.

3. It's not my fault that Lobbe is either a spud, was injured, or both, severely hampering our ability to win hitouts against sides without a decent ruck and compete against those that did have one. I said that he needed to get back to his 2014 form if we were to have a chance. He didn't.

4. It's not my fault that our players threw in the towel last season when it was obvious that a decent ruck would have made things easier, and that they just treaded water for the year instead of seeing it as an opportunity.

5. It's not my fault that every single side in the finals fell over allowing the Dogs to win the softest premiership of all time based on how many free kicks they won, allowing them to compensate for their poor general play through transition to attack. How they won so many free kicks when Sydney is also a contested side and gave away so many free kicks for the exact same reason I'll never know.

7. It's not my fault that Adelaide's season was structured in such a way that you got all your hard games out of the way in the front half of the season so that when it came to the back half you could still easily win against the bottom 10 teams while you slowed down.

However, I got the following things right:

* The team that concentrates on pressuring the ball carrier all over the ground with a counter-press will be the one that wins the flag

* Port Adelaide's defensive system was worth sticking with and would get better as the season wore on

* Adelaide's game style was based on efficiency and it was unsustainable

* Adelaide had zero chance of winning the flag because their midfield in both defence and attack is poor

If we fail again in 2017 with all the pieces we were meant to have in 2016 in place...then yeah, I'll put up my hand and say I got it horribly wrong.

You were literally one voice in a chorus of people laughing at Melbourne in that pre season game because they used all the interchanges and you didn't, which would be proven during the season.

It was not.

 

[subaru]

Trengove would be exceptional as a secondary ruck, because he's got a great leap.

I've said he could play the Chad Cornes version of CHB and really push up and become another midfielder in general play while Austin and Hombsch slot in behind with Hartlett, Pittard, Broadbent and Byrne-Jones. That's how I'd utilize him. He's not conditioned to spoil - he's an intercept mark, and he's quite good at that. And he's by no means slow - when the midfield continually turns the ball over and it comes back down the other side of the ground, not even Usain Bolt is going to be able to get there in time.

He could also play forward because he doesn't need to create separation - the rest of our forward line will do that. Especially seeing as Dixon generally gets double/triple teamed anyway. He just needs to be able to take marks and kick goals if the opportunity presents itself.



Hinkley has gone on record saying that we got our preseason wrong because we thought the game was going down that path. It's why we started off with Carlile/Trengove/Jonas/Hombsch in the back lines - just way too tall and slow - and why we looked so lethargic against teams that concentrated on explosive speed and power.



Agreed. Though I think if Lobbe had any aspirations of proving anyone wrong, he had the chance right there and he didn't take it. As for Trengove - I agree with this 100%, though I think he, Westhoff and Ryder are going to rotate through forward and defence in 2017.



Lol, no I wasn't. I continually spoke about how you couldn't judge Hinkley or his gameplan when the players either couldn't or wouldn't execute simple fundamentals of football like hitting targets open in space.



Why would I care? We didn't make it. Statistically they were the worst premiers ever. That's a fact.



Not playing to our potential is a failure. If we do that and teams are better than us, fine. But if we just go soft and leave too much to too few, like we did in 2015 by choice and in 2016 by injury/suspension, then it's a failure.

Not your fault ?
What IS your fault is you opening your mouth at every opportunity making outlandish statements that you simply cannot back up.
THAT is your fault.

Now .... all the things that aren't your fault aside - can you please me tell that, if 2016 was wracked with injuries and playing players out of position - why is it your 2015 season, which would have included both your injured 2016 players, your players (that 3 years on) were faster, and your drug cheats and your best forward in Schulz, was so shit?

 

[dude316]

Janus in this thread:

 

[Crowbots are dead]

I've got a port power mate whose got a close connection with a senior port player who was telling me last night that Hinkley has completely lost the players. Sounds a bit like Sando in that he has favourites etc

 

[subaru]

Janus is this thread:

Gold Dude, Gold !

 

[subaru]

I've got a port power mate whose got a close connection with a senior port player who was telling me last night that Hinkley has completely lost the players. Sounds a bit like Sando in that he has favourites etc

That group was split into the "cool kids" and " not cool kids " 2 years ago.

 

[MRB37]

I've got a port power mate whose got a close connection with a senior port player who was telling me last night that Hinkley has completely lost the players. Sounds a bit like Sando in that he has favourites etc

Fits in with Sando's 2013 "stuff up the pre-season" too.

 

[GreyCrow]

Jumping back on the China Crisis, just listening to 5aa and the question once again was asked why Port didn't sell a home game and Rucci said that due the contract at the Adelaide Oval they couldn't. Maybe this has been answered somewhere but why couldn't they then sell a Showdown? Or am I shaking the wrong end of the stick?

 

[subaru]

Jumping back on the China Crisis, just listening to 5aa and the question once again was asked why Port didn't sell a home game and Rucci said that due the contract at the Adelaide Oval they couldn't. Maybe this has been answered somewhere but why couldn't they then sell a Showdown? Or am I shaking the wrong end of the stick?

We could have bought it off them.
But then their crowd average for the year would PLUMMETT!

 

[Niximus]

Jumping back on the China Crisis, just listening to 5aa and the question once again was asked why Port didn't sell a home game and Rucci said that due the contract at the Adelaide Oval they couldn't. Maybe this has been answered somewhere but why couldn't they then sell a Showdown? Or am I shaking the wrong end of the stick?

The story is that because they are contracted to play 11 games at AO there was no way the China game could possibly be their game.

To believe that you gave to ignore that they had the same deal at AAMI, and were somehow able to play a game at Adelaide Oval when it suited them.

 

[pjcrows]

"Jackson Trengove could play a Chad Cornes role".

The stupidest thing I've read on Big Footy.

 

[MRB37]

Jumping back on the China Crisis, just listening to 5aa and the question once again was asked why Port didn't sell a home game and Rucci said that due the contract at the Adelaide Oval they couldn't. Maybe this has been answered somewhere but why couldn't they then sell a Showdown? Or am I shaking the wrong end of the stick?

Selling a Showdown would still mean AO is sitting empty for a week. SMA won't allow that to happen.

 

[PrideOf]

The story is that because they are contracted to play 11 games at AO there was no way the China game could possibly be their game.

To believe that you gave to ignore that they had the same deal at AAMI, and were somehow able to play a game at Adelaide Oval when it suited them.

Touche.

And they're part of a competition that routinely changes the rules and bends all sorts of contracts when it feels like.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

"Jackson Trengove could play a Chad Cornes role".

The stupidest thing I've read on Big Footy.

It's completely laughable suggestion as Cornes was a gun, but nowhere near the most stupid thing posted on BF.

 

[DD#23]

Selling a Showdown would still mean AO is sitting empty for a week. SMA won't allow that to happen.

lucky we have teams like Gold Coast in the comp where empty stadiums are the norm anyway.

 

[FR0GGY]

I've got a port power mate whose got a close connection with a senior port player who was telling me last night that Hinkley has completely lost the players. Sounds a bit like Sando in that he has favourites etc

Even the players have lost the players or have they found impey?

 

[Archie87]

Selling a Showdown would still mean AO is sitting empty for a week. SMA won't allow that to happen.

Everyone has a price, even the SMA. Contracts can be renegotiated and if the SMA were offered enough and they would have relented. But that option would have actually cost Port money so these so-called self-styled "tough negotiators" at Port suddenly went silent on this particular point.

 

[Janus]

Janus in this thread:

That was funny

 

[Pdub]

Jumping back on the China Crisis, just listening to 5aa and the question once again was asked why Port didn't sell a home game and Rucci said that due the contract at the Adelaide Oval they couldn't. Maybe this has been answered somewhere but why couldn't they then sell a Showdown? Or am I shaking the wrong end of the stick?

They are contracted to play 11 games at AO, but that's not the real reason, they could come to an agreement to break the contract if they tried. The MCG had a contract that said all finals will be played at the MCG, but the AFL got around that. The Gabba had a contract that said all AFL games in QLD are to be played at the Gabba but the AFL managed to make a deal just before the suns joined to allow them to only have to play lions home games there.

The real reason is because they just didn't want to.

 

[Smithy7]

The story is that because they are contracted to play 11 games at AO there was no way the China game could possibly be their game.
To believe that you gave to ignore that they had the same deal at AAMI, and were somehow able to play a game at Adelaide Oval when it suited them.

The deal to play that game at Adelaide Oval was worked out by the AFL the SANFL and the SACA as the writing was already on the wall re Footy Park.

 

[Niximus]

The deal to play that game at Adelaide Oval was worked out by the AFL the SANFL and the SACA as the writing was already on the wall re Footy Park.

That's the point, a deal was done, and a deal could be done to get a Port home game in China if they really wanted it.

 

[fabs33]

Jumping back on the China Crisis, just listening to 5aa and the question once again was asked why Port didn't sell a home game and Rucci said that due the contract at the Adelaide Oval they couldn't. Maybe this has been answered somewhere but why couldn't they then sell a Showdown? Or am I shaking the wrong end of the stick?

Contracts can be renegotiated, amended or even torn up, provided all parties give their consent. Port just had to suitably compensate the SMA, and the SMA would decide what's suitable, but that was never going to happen because as we all know Port's finances aren't great.

This meant they would need to buy an away game from another club, the problem there is they couldn't afford that either. So in the end they had to settle for GC, who only agreed to this because they saw some benefit in it for them due to their own prior dealings with the Chinese.

The fun part was when Port began to pretend they were the home team by telling GC to play in alternative colours. As if GC were ever going to give up on one of their biggest marketing tools to the Chinese people when that objective was the only reason they agreed to participate in this sideshow to begin with. If Port had paid them for the game it would've been a different story, but Port have been relying on others to pay the bills throughout this whole story. Hence why they ran to the AFL to try and get what they wanted.

 

[FR0GGY]

Port obviously thought they would basically get a home game without giving up a home game.

 

[Smithy7]

That's the point, a deal was done, and a deal could be done to get a Port home game in China if they really wanted it.

The deal was done because the AFL lent on the SANFL and if this did not happen the game would not have been played at Adelaide Oval.
Port Adelaide & Adelaide were under contract to play all games at Football Park.
The same now applies to both Clubs at Adelaide Oval.