Discussion 2023 General AFL Discussion

[gringo2011]

@Dard Ball Get
You got me
I probably made a mistake in the wording of the sentence. That's what happens when thinking one thing and saying it in other words. Of course, we could say it's about moral rules. But what I'm really concerned about is the health of the people who will be taking an example from this man. My children could be among those people.

You look at that generation of West Coast Eagles and what happened to them and you can see exactly why you can't have leaders off the rails. It's not a moral issue, it's a safety issue and the AFL and club are opening themselves up to serious long term ramifications if they cover it up with knowledge of it.

It's very much the same shit as the Scouts and churches covering over their issues (in a much less horrific way). You can ignore it but it will come back in the future. Any player with a drug issue, alcohol problem or gambling debt could potentially sue.

 

[phantom13]

I completely forgot to mention.

Hinkleys extension... im sure its got the 6 months clause but... really?

Hes 10 years in, his best finish is a prelim? They could finish fourth best case is likely third given their percentage gap.

It looks very much like another Ratts extension thats gone early. Like if Port bombs out in straight sets is Hinkley really the guy for another 2 years?

 

[L_W_P]

I completely forgot to mention.

Hinkleys extension... im sure its got the 6 months clause but... really?

Hes 10 years in, his best finish is a prelim? They could finish fourth best case is likely third given their percentage gap.

It looks very much like another Ratts extension thats gone early. Like if Port bombs out in straight sets is Hinkley really the guy for another 2 years?

Port have been clear that this push is a "New Start" built on Marshall, Butters, Rozee, JHF etc

Hinkley's got 2 years to replicate what he's done in 2023, otherwise Josh Carr formally takes over.

 

[phantom13]

Port have been clear that this push is a "New Start" built on Marshall, Butters, Rozee, JHF etc

Hinkley's got 2 years to replicate what he's done in 2023, otherwise Josh Carr formally takes over.

But retaining the coach who has effectively achieved nothing in 10 years?

I dont really care either way but this continued AFL thing of re signing coaches in season before theyve actually done anything is baffling to me.

 

[L_W_P]

But retaining the coach who has effectively achieved nothing in 10 years?

I dont really care either way but this continued AFL thing of re signing coaches in season before theyve actually done anything is baffling to me.

I think this is the changing landscape of what counts as 'success'.

He's got a 60% winning record and has taken the team to multiple prelim finals.

While we are all chasing the dream of a flag, the old school "Boom Bust" style of dropping down the ladder and rebuilding from scratch is being cast aside. Teams would rather finish top 4-6 for a decade vs a couple of years in the 'window' followed by bottoming out and starting again.

This is why Ross Lyon's been brought back: It's not just about him winning a flag. It's about setting the club up to be in a position like Geelong and Sydney where we are consistently in the top rungs of the ladder, regardless of the final outcome.

 

[phantom13]

I think this is the changing landscape of what counts as 'success'.

He's got a 60% winning record and has taken the team to multiple prelim finals.

While we are all chasing the dream of a flag, the old school "Boom Bust" style of dropping down the ladder and rebuilding from scratch is being cast aside. Teams would rather finish top 4-6 for a decade vs a couple of years in the 'window' followed by bottoming out and starting again.

This is why Ross Lyon's been brought back: It's not just about him winning a flag. It's about setting the club up to be in a position like Geelong and Sydney where we are consistently in the top rungs of the ladder, regardless of the final outcome.

In a sport where there really is only one metric for success that is idiotic.

A bunch of NBA teams that made the playoffs just sacked coaches searching for success. At some point you have to move onto someone who can push from that 2-6 window up to a flag, McClellands and Prelims arent it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

@Dard Ball Get
You got me
I probably made a mistake in the wording of the sentence. That's what happens when thinking one thing and saying it in other words. Of course, we could say it's about moral rules. But what I'm really concerned about is the health of the people who will be taking an example from this man. My children could be among those people.

If your 18yo was going to a footy club, and possibly moving away from home for the first time, you'd probably like to think that they aren't being encouraged by the leaders of that club to take drugs.

 

[gringo2011]

But retaining the coach who has effectively achieved nothing in 10 years?

I dont really care either way but this continued AFL thing of re signing coaches in season before theyve actually done anything is baffling to me.

I think that Port's management realise that they've stayed competitive while rebuilding so aren't as down on him as their fans who are impatient. He's done okay with lists that are never absolutely elite.

 

[phantom13]

I think that Port's management realise that they've stayed competitive while rebuilding so aren't as down on him as their fans who are impatient. He's done okay with lists that are never absolutely elite.

In a cut throat competitive environment after 10 years im not sure that "staying competitive" warrants an extension personally.

 

[pebblesofsand]

I completely forgot to mention.

Hinkleys extension... im sure its got the 6 months clause but... really?

Hes 10 years in, his best finish is a prelim? They could finish fourth best case is likely third given their percentage gap.

It looks very much like another Ratts extension thats gone early. Like if Port bombs out in straight sets is Hinkley really the guy for another 2 years?

Doubt its got a 6 month clause.

That's only for clubs with large debts that are being covered by the AFL.

 

[gringo2011]

In a cut throat competitive environment after 10 years im not sure that "staying competitive" warrants an extension personally.

I remember hearing someone suggesting on SEN that most clubs would rather stay up for 10 years than win a premiership and drop off again when talking about Geelong. At the end being competitive while offering hope from consistent high ladder finishes is a very good financial model. History is littered with examples of clubs who've thought that the coach was the only thing stopping them from a flag only to plummet.

 

[phantom13]

Doubt its got a 6 month clause.

That's only for clubs with large debts that are being covered by the AFL.

I was reading about that the other day, it read to me that it was required for clubs with debt being covered by the AFL, eg, the AFL wouldnt sign off on those contracts without it, but im also sure i read somewhere its pretty standard now for all contracts and would only be removed by specific request.

Id assume its in there, if its not i think its even dumber from PA.

 

[phantom13]

I remember hearing someone suggesting on SEN that most clubs would rather stay up for 10 years than win a premiership and drop off again when talking about Geelong. At the end being competitive while offering hope from consistent high ladder finishes is a very good financial model. History is littered with examples of clubs who've thought that the coach was the only thing stopping them from a flag only to plummet.

I cant think of too many clubs who have been competitive for that long without winning one.

It probably depends on your view of who is ultimately responsible for on field success and what that looks like.

To me the buck stops with the coach and they will ultimately get sacked if they dont achieve it and success is a flag.

To be perfectly clear im not suggesting sack Hinkley now but if Port goes out in straight sets is that really success? If he makes another prelim and loses is that?

If they do either of those things then tank next year will this extension look like the right call? Is Hinkley really gonna be that in demand from GC, Richmond or possibly West Coast that you have to sign him right now?

 

[gringo2011]

I cant think of too many clubs who have been competitive for that long without winning one.

It probably depends on your view of who is ultimately responsible for on field success and what that looks like.

To me the buck stops with the coach and they will ultimately get sacked if they dont achieve it and success is a flag.

To be perfectly clear im not suggesting sack Hinkley now but if Port goes out in straight sets is that really success? If he makes another prelim and loses is that?

If they do either of those things then tank next year will this extension look like the right call? Is Hinkley really gonna be that in demand from GC, Richmond or possibly West Coast that you have to sign him right now?

Geelong would be that model (11 years). Sydney has had a long break too- currently 11 years. Both have been out of finals a couple of times in 20 years.

 

[phantom13]

Geelong would be that model (11 years). Sydney has had a long break too- currently 11 years. Both have been out of finals a couple of times in 20 years.

Both of those teams won a flag with their current coach too (Geelong last year), that gets you some wiggle room IMO (although Longmire should be under some pressure).

 

[gringo2011]

Both of those teams won a flag with their current coach too (Geelong last year), that gets you some wiggle room IMO (although Longmire should be under some pressure).

I reckon as I said, clubs would rather competitive stability than change.

 

[phantom13]

I reckon as I said, clubs would rather competitive stability than change.

I reckon both of them wouldnt be re signing coaches that hadnt won flags after 10 years but to each their own.

 

[StFly]

I cant think of too many clubs who have been competitive for that long without winning one.

It probably depends on your view of who is ultimately responsible for on field success and what that looks like.

To me the buck stops with the coach and they will ultimately get sacked if they dont achieve it and success is a flag.

To be perfectly clear im not suggesting sack Hinkley now but if Port goes out in straight sets is that really success? If he makes another prelim and loses is that?

If they do either of those things then tank next year will this extension look like the right call? Is Hinkley really gonna be that in demand from GC, Richmond or possibly West Coast that you have to sign him right now?

For me that metric is on club and not coaching, as sustained success is as much in the here and now as it is in the background of rehab, development, scouting and the cycle of rejuvenation at clubland. These things are not entirely under coaching purview otherwise say, Malthouse would be a Blues premiership coach as brilliant pedigree, club that wants to stab itself and scuttle everything for personal contained glory.

Port as an entity is history, be it counted or not in wider circles, so they would generally want to be up and about and challenging as a club dynamic, that's probably why they retained him as he can sustain. So long as he talks the good talk they'll back him in to take one extra step from a prelim than an untried that might be better in long run but the short term would be 3-4 steps back.

We, so us as a club, since we come from not very much and sacrifice, there's not that unity that such clubs like Port would have, there's the dream and people dropping if the chase asks for too much sacrifice or you're deemed as not doing enough to even be competitive for that dream. For them it's more an expectation to micromanage solutions for.

 

[phantom13]

For me that metric is on club and not coaching, as sustained success is as much in the here and now as it is in the background of rehab, development, scouting and the cycle of rejuvenation at clubland. These things are not entirely under coaching purview otherwise say, Malthouse would be a Blues premiership coach as brilliant pedigree, club that wants to stab itself and scuttle everything for personal contained glory.

Port as an entity is history, be it counted or not in wider circles, so they would generally want to be up and about and challenging as a club dynamic, that's probably why they retained him as he can sustain. So long as he talks the good talk they'll back him in to take one extra step from a prelim than an untried that might be better in long run but the short term would be 3-4 steps back.

We, so us as a club, since we come from not very much and sacrifice, there's not that unity that such clubs like Port would have, there's the dream and people dropping if the chase asks for too much sacrifice or you're deemed as not doing enough to even be competitive for that dream. For them it's more an expectation to micromanage solutions for.

I get all that but after 10 years at what point do you say "we need more than a prelim". I get its a high bar but do you just keep on hanging on in the "hope" that hes the guy.

There might be something behind the scenes thats happened that has convinced them hes the right man and fair enough but i just dont get signing him in August before hes actually achieved anything. Its their right and others might support it, ill never understand it.

 

[L_W_P]

I guess the alternative is "How much do you risk by sacking him?"

You could say that a Josh Carr

Josh Carr

Age

44

Ht

179cm

Wt

80kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.8

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

7.2

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.3

5star

CL

2.0

4star

No current season stats available

D

12.2

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

0.8

3star

or Blake Caracella

Blake Caracella

Age

47

Ht

186cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.5

4star

K

10.1

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.7

4star

T

1.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

8.8

4star

HB

4.4

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

0.6

3star

could come in and take this team to the next level. They could also come in and tweak things too far and take you backwards.

If you believe that Ken is going to have you in the top 4-6 for the next 3 years then at least you're in with a chance to win a flag and, at worst, you've had a winning season and sold plenty of merch/memberships.

Some clubs have looked at Carlton, Melbourne, St Kilda etc bottoming out and determined that's not the way to go. They want to play finals perpetually, even if they aren't really winning it all. If you can stay up then you stay up, even if you're not a legit contender.

Clubs like North and Hawthorn are going to try the 'traditional' rebuild. They are bottoming out, looking to the AFL for extra help, and hoping to nail their drafting to slingshot back up the ladder.

Only time will tell which one is more 'successful'.

 

[bergholt]

A bunch of NBA teams that made the playoffs just sacked coaches searching for success. At some point you have to move onto someone who can push from that 2-6 window up to a flag, McClellands and Prelims arent it.

The difference between finishing 2-6 and a flag is mostly about luck. Maybe it's guys who unexpectedly all become stars at the same time, maybe it's a good run with injuries at the right time, maybe it's a convenient pandemic, whatever. I think it's a good strategy to keep buying tickets in that lottery if you can, keep finishing in the eight consistently, and hope that all the cards fall your way one season.

 

[StFly]

I get all that but after 10 years at what point do you say "we need more than a prelim". I get its a high bar but do you just keep on hanging on in the "hope" that hes the guy.

There might be something behind the scenes thats happened that has convinced them hes the right man and fair enough but i just dont get signing him in August before hes actually achieved anything. Its their right and others might support it, ill never understand it.

That's the talk the talk bit, as opposed to Ratts if Ken says the right things to swoon the superiors that yes that step can be taken he'll be backed in as the view is in the immediate success step. On our end, essentially, we're still that junkie chasing the next fix so words are meaningless.

 

[L_W_P]

The other thing that staying 'up' does is it creates opportunities at the end of every season.

Port are a chance to go get Grundy and be even better next year. That probably doesn't happen if they were 10th and sacked Hinkley.

The Dogs bring in Liam Jones

19

Liam Jones

Age

33

Ht

199cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.4

2star

K

6.5

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

134.5

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

6.1

3star

HB

1.4

1star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.4

2star

MG

116.3

2star

D

9.4

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

2.0

2star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

and might make a play for Jeremy McGovern

20

Jeremy Mcgovern

Age

32

Ht

197cm

Wt

97kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.7

4star

K

10.1

4star

HB

4.6

3star

M

6.8

5star

T

1.5

3star

MG

238.7

4star

D

12.4

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

3.8

3star

M

6.4

5star

T

2.0

3star

MG

183.4

3star

D

11.0

3star

K

8.8

4star

HB

2.2

2star

M

7.2

5star

T

1.4

4star

. Again, neither of those happen if the Dogs are bottom 4 and 'outside the window'.

If we make finals this year then you can sell that dream to a guy like Parish - Come to us, make us better, and we can finish top 4 in 2024.

Then next year you can do it again with a guy like Lachie Shultz - Come to us, make us better, and we can be top 4 again in 2025 with a real shot at a flag...

Then you can try to roll that on perpetually. You can keep trying to top up like Geelong and Sydney and Brisbane do each year. Then when a Daniher, Lynch, Cameron type FA pops up you can shoot your shot and go all in for a flag and, if it doesn't work, you're still top 4-6 and can keep selling the dream to players to come and play for your stable, professional, winning organization.

 

[Remboy]

The difference between finishing 2-6 and a flag is mostly about luck. Maybe it's guys who unexpectedly all become stars at the same time, maybe it's a good run with injuries at the right time, maybe it's a convenient pandemic, whatever. I think it's a good strategy to keep buying tickets in that lottery if you can, keep finishing in the eight consistently, and hope that all the cards fall your way one season.

I remember Paul Roos saying that the key to winning a flag was being the top four for a number of years in a row and then hoping that in one of those years things fell your way and you get a flag.
Port know Hinkley can get them into the top four and while they are doing that they are a chance.
If the team that finishes second sacks their coach for now winning the flag should the rest of the comp sack their coaches too?

 

[phantom13]

I remember Paul Roos saying that the key to winning a flag was being the top four for a number of years in a row and then hoping that in one of those years things fell your way and you get a flag.
Port know Hinkley can get them into the top four and while they are doing that they are a chance.
If the team that finishes second sacks their coach for now winning the flag should the rest of the comp sack their coaches too?

If they’ve been there for 10 years without winning one they really should consider it.

I think my point is being missed here, I don’t see why you would sign him in August. As it stands he’s achieved absolutely nothing this year and you’re rewarding that.

Wait until the season is done, if they win the flag no brainer.

If they make a granny, same thing really.

Anything short of that, I’d be asking him tell me how he’s going to improve and win a flag.

I’m not advocating for sacking him, I’m pointing out that he’s contracted until seasons end and has been there for 10 years without the ultimate success. I don’t get it