Changes v GWS

Remove this Banner Ad

Way to miss the point...
Everything we do is about the AFL team. Whatever benefits the AFL team should be done, and that includes trying our young players out, especially that we are no chance of an AFL flag!
I don't think I missed the point, I just do not agree with you. We, as a club, need to win something. Soon. I also would rather win the AFL flag but as it is out of reach now I don't mind making an effort to win the SANFL flag. I don't think the next 4 games will be defining for the AFL side.
 
Reads headline - An emphatic statement has been made....

Scrolls down - Lobbe, Clurey, Moore and Young for Arch, Jonas, Krak, Drogo and Gus

Hardly emphatic.... the only even remotely controversial change is Lobbe out

Lets blame the bottom 5 players again eh

An emphatic statement would be dropping Westhoff or Trengove or Ebert
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Darling made sure he was never leaving WA.
Not many draftees would want to leave there home state but it's up to the club to change there minds once drafted. Darling might have made a lot of huff and puff before the draft but I am sure once drafted he would have fitted in just as much as all the interstate lads we have drafted over the years. To me saying he did not want to leave WA and use that excuse for not drafting him is pi$$ weak. Because of not drafting him and putting all our eggs in the Butcher basket we now find ourself with very little in the KP forward bag. Our only real hope to have someone ready next year would be pick up someone like Dixon,we might have to pay overs but as things go in life you will pay for your mistakes eventually.
 
So Lobbe gets dropped (correctly so) pulling Ryder out of the fwd line and presumably Jacko from the backline at times for backup. One less fwd target and down back it impacts our coverage of a Giant forward group. Talls coming in to correct this imbalance....zilch. cool story kern

Presumably Westhoff plays more forward and pinch hits in the ruck?

Maybe?

I guess if you go back to last year we were successful with the one ruck strategy with Sarge as the main key forward
 
Not many draftees would want to leave there home state but it's up to the club to change there minds once drafted. Darling might have made a lot of huff and puff before the draft but I am sure once drafted he would have fitted in just as much as all the interstate lads we have drafted over the years. To me saying he did not want to leave WA and use that excuse for not drafting him is pi$$ weak. Because of not drafting him and putting all our eggs in the Butcher basket we now find ourself with very little in the KP forward bag. Our only real hope to have someone ready next year would be pick up someone like Dixon,we might have to pay overs but as things go in life you will pay for your mistakes eventually.
Darling was highly touted in 2009 but he was too young to enter that draft. By 2010 there had been a few off-field incidents causing him to slide down the draft. I would say the major reason we did not go for him was that we were seduced by Ben Jacobs' TAC cup exploits which included a 45-disposal game.
3 of the players picked up in that draft are no loner with Port, Ben Newton, Ben Jacobs and Cameron Hitchcock. It is a bit galling seeing Ben Jacobs putting in some good games for the Roos.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Reads headline - An emphatic statement has been made....

Scrolls down - Lobbe, Clurey, Moore and Young for Arch, Jonas, Krak, Drogo and Gus

Hardly emphatic.... the only even remotely controversial change is Lobbe out

Lets blame the bottom 5 players again eh

An emphatic statement would be dropping Westhoff or Trengove or Ebert
Yep , really piss poor , shades of bloody Choko.
 
I figured out why Clurey was dropped - Voss moved the wrong magnet on the white board, should've been O'Shea. That would make logical sense to me.

No point in dropping O'Shea and diminishing his trade value is there? He was terrible on the weekend so the club is surely hoping that he increases his value in the final 4 games...
 
If we beat Glenelg we will be 2nd. We have a great chance.
Who gives a shit about some piss poor backyard competition.

I would not care less if we finished out of the finals every year in the SANFL.

The purpose of that competition is to develop our players so that they are ready to play at AFL level. The premiership table in the SANFL is irrelevant.
 
Not many draftees would want to leave there home state but it's up to the club to change there minds once drafted. Darling might have made a lot of huff and puff before the draft but I am sure once drafted he would have fitted in just as much as all the interstate lads we have drafted over the years. To me saying he did not want to leave WA and use that excuse for not drafting him is pi$$ weak. Because of not drafting him and putting all our eggs in the Butcher basket we now find ourself with very little in the KP forward bag. Our only real hope to have someone ready next year would be pick up someone like Dixon,we might have to pay overs but as things go in life you will pay for your mistakes eventually.
Darling only had to write 2 or 3 words on his draft application papers to scare off all the clubs. Remember what sent West Coast off the rails.
 
Who gives a shit about some piss poor backyard competition.

I would not care less if we finished out of the finals every year in the SANFL.

The purpose of that competition is to develop our players so that they are ready to play at AFL level. The premiership table in the SANFL is irrelevant.

I don't see how tanking and missing out on a whole month of football helps develop our players. Just missed opportunities for our youngsters to have breakout games.
 
A gameplan that involves your opposition changing their normal game style just to counter it cannot possibly be considered a failed one. Especially when you consider that the sub rule will be going next year and the rotations on the bench will decrease to 80.

We tried a new gameplan this year. That stagnant, kick the ball to the boundary and reset shit? That was our solution to teams clogging up the corridor. Did it work? Hell no, because our players only want to play on their terms. If they put half as much effort into defending as they do to running towards goal on a fast break, we'd be top two right now. Selecting another midfielder over a rookie KPF is, in my mind, trying to encourage that run to return.

You look at Jake Neade on Davis and think there's a problem because like the players you are wanting to play perfect, traditional football - where the defenders defend, the mids attack and defend and the forwards kick the goals. I look at Neade on Davis and say that if our mids are smart they will put the ball into open space on the fat side of Neade and allow him to use his superior agility over the taller Davis to his advantage.

If we played 2014 football and added Ryder to it, we would win regardless of what the opposition did because in 2014 the players defended as a unit. But in 2015, thanks to continued pressure and the same lack of trust in the gameplan that the majority on here show, we've regressed into some shit kick in hope team. Playing a raw key forward isn't going to fix that. If Harvey is ready, 0 games or 4 games isn't going to be the difference when he debuts.
The W is how you measure game plans success. Our W's say its failed. The fact the opposition adjust their style when they play us counter it doesnt means its a success it means our opposition have worked us out. One could say Blitzkrieg is a successful game plan in war but if someone counters it then you arent going to succeed.

Jake Neade had to beat tall defenders against Hawthorn for half a game in the PF and it didnt work because they are taller, stronger and as fast. If he cant get metres in the clear then he has no chance because they will crunch tackle him. Hes not that good to beat them. Same with Harry Taylor over Sam Gray against Geelong. All Australian KPDs against shrimps or our fringe players are going to win or neutralize the contest 99 out of 100 times. Robbie Gray couldnt beat Harry Taylor the 15 or 20 minutes he had to stand him over a couple of quarters mid season when we didnt play enough talls in our forward line.

You are an evangelist to the game plan. Im not! 2014 was copied in 2015 and it failed because of both personnel and opposition. Maybe the players have come to the conclusion its BS, just like our 2004 team decided the previous 3 years game plan was BS when the opposition brought maximum pressure. Copy 2014 into 2016 and we will fail again. 2014 saw us go 4-7 in the second half of the season which suggested it was unsustainable and doesnt work well when winter sets in. Its not how close you get its the W's that matter.

You have to give it to Ken he has the ability to get our players up mentally for finals. If Freo had kicked straight in the first half of the SF last year we might not have gone on about how great his game plan is. We beat Freo and almost pinched against the Hawks when we played high risk healter skelter footy the opposition wasnt ready for and not fit enough to counter. This year they were ready for it. And they will be ready for the 2014 version in 2016.
 
Sick to death of hearing about the Crows' 'elite standards' Where the hell are ours Port ??

they think that 'elite standards' is a new phenomenom, the 17 other AFL clubs take it as 'read'.
 
really disappointed to see Clurey dropped, it must be very confusing for him..

especially when he sees someone like Cam O'Shea still in the team.
 
An excerpt from Ken's latest presser on the PAFC site.

When they watch Port Adelaide play at their best they recognise when we've played at our best but they haven't recognised the change in ball movement at times.


"We have three styles of ball movement that we work with all the time – we don't just live in the one world.


"I'm really strong in the belief of what we do and I'm not going to change from that … I don't care if people think I have to change or the team has to change – the team will get it right."


- See more at: http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2015-08-13/hinkley-has-faith-in-ruck-duo#sthash.9r2ch7pt.dpuf
 
One could say Blitzkrieg is a successful game plan in war but if someone counters it then you arent going to succeed.

You can look at similarities just in sport, and blitz in NFL is a great tactic, but you can't do it all the time, and the opposition can't be ready for it when it comes.
It is a useful gameplan in bursts.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Changes v GWS

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top