Review Elimination Final vs WC - Review

[JimmyBeerCans]

Lol.

West Coast were always going to get flogged after playing extra time against a running side like us the previous week vs getting a week off to freshen up.

Just like the umpires were always going to massively overcorrect with regards to free kicks after the outrage last week.

This isn't AFL Evolution. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

We didn't lose because we didn't play Trengove. We lost because we stupidly and consistently kept bombing the ball into their intercept markers. The only thing playing Trengove would have done was encourage that behaviour as being acceptable when that has never been the plan.

As Hinkley said - we played the side that we needed to, to show the consequences of the bad habits that we fostered all year.

A harsh but necessary lesson for us to get where we are wanting to go.

You could shine a Hinkley turd to a shade of gold how delusional are you? we had a year full of lessons you don't go into a final to be farking students, Trengove plays McGovern doesn't take a billion marks and the ball is on the deck more - a fact backed by stats - get real.

 

[edgie]

We exist to teach players lessons about bad habits by sacrificing home finals against bog average teams when winning was a feasible alternative.

Sent from mTalk

 

[Janus]

We've bombed the ball to their intercept markers the last 4 times we've played West Coast at Adelaide Oval.
In fact we bomb the ball into our forward line in all our games - hard to say it's not Hinkley's plan when we consistently do it!
Didn't Ken say if we get it in there enough s bound to score eventually.

The plan isn't to bomb the ball into our forward line. Why would a side setup the way we are, with Robbie Gray deep forward and Dixon and a resting ruck as our only talls, want to keep executing kicks that you need a tall contested marking forward line to take advantage of? That's just ****ing dumb.

And the fact that we did it all year proves that we never built the trust from half forward to full forward to execute the game style properly. We even swapped Dixon and Trengove at one point to try and encourage our midfield to lower their eyes, but nope.

The reason why the last time Trengove appeared to keep McGovern to a quiet game was because Dixon was the deeper forward and so there weren't as many intercept marking opportunities with Charlie coming in over the top and getting the ball to ground. We still lost though cause Trengove is hopeless as a forward.

Jackson would have won the game, but we were never winning a flag with him. He just doesn't suit our style anymore.

Our plan is to lock the ball into our forward half and generate repeat entries through opposition turnover. In those situations, yes, we bomb it in to create a chaos ball and let guys like Wingard, Gray, Neade et al go to work.

Our plan is not, and has never been, to bomb the ball in from a wing to allow a stacked backline to make an easy aerial intercept against a solitary forward.

The side we needed to play.

 

[Us against the rest]

Our Plan in 2014.

 

[Us against the rest]

Crows plan.

 

[Northalives]

....and away go the narks again... "Hinkley is an idiot, he should be dropping wah wah wah wah and bringing in young fellas wah, wah wah wah...." so Hinkley does and the whingers and whiners are having a go because he did what the instant gratifiers wanted.

Some of you backyarders around here would be better off following soccer teams because the will satisfy your uncontrollable urge for blood the moment a team plays badly by sacking the coach within weeks of his appointment and replacing him with another sacrificial lamb to slaughter when things get a bit rocky again.

Reality seems to elude the instant gratification monkeys.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

....and away go the narks again... "Hinkley is an idiot, he should be dropping wah wah wah wah and bringing in young fellas wah, wah wah wah...." so Hinkley does and the whingers and whiners are having a go because he did what the instant gratifiers wanted.

Some of you backyarders around here would be better off following soccer teams because the will satisfy your uncontrollable urge for blood the moment a team plays badly by sacking the coach within weeks of his appointment and replacing him with another sacrificial lamb to slaughter when things get a bit rocky again.

Reality seems to elude the instant gratification monkeys.

We've pissed away 3 years how does that gratify you?

 

[elee]

We've pissed away 3 years how does that gratify you?

not only that.. the way we lose & win is always the same in the past 3 years
* poor composure
* poor kicking
* always finding a way to CONJURE a lost when the side is leading. always

we have a phrase - once Ken guzzles the coke - you know it's all over

 

[tribey]

We've pissed away 3 years how does that gratify you?

An away semi-final win is the highwater mark for Port in the past 10 seasons.

By this time next year a Port fan could've put the finishing touches on a 4-year Honours Degree in the gap between then and when we last won a final.

#instantgratification

 

[Northalives]

We've pissed away 3 years how does that gratify you?

We haven't pissed away three years! We had 10 players that played in the Preliminary Final against Hawthorn in 2014 that were not part of the team in this finals campaign.

I reiterate, this is not soccer where you can go out and buy a premiership winning team instantly. This is AFL footy where there is this thing called the draft and the whole cockamamy idea of this draft thingy is to make the competition "even". You can't do a Manchester City where one season you are a middle-of-the-table side at best and the next, you win the flag in the best league on earth because you were able to by the best players.

Geelong is the template we must follow, which is by the way, what we used to do and that is always having a core group of finals hardened, winning mentality players and every year, blooding younger players who will eventually become part of that core group of winning, final's hardened players so this "boom and bust" crap is eradicated from our club's psyche. The bullshit "premiership window" malarkey is just gobbledygook peddled by tossers to make themselves look intelligent, smart.

To put in place the structures and the personnel to achieve this aim after your club has been gutted, takes a significant amount of time and a decent amount of patience. We are now in a position to reap the benefits of the pain we all have felt as committed Port Adelaide people and it would be absolutely stupid to dismantle everything, piss everything away to use your words, because some want things to happen at the click of their fingers.

 

[Power Girl]

Let's hope it is not a medical degree with a specialist in psychiatry before our next finals win.

 

[Us against the rest]

....and away go the narks again... "Hinkley is an idiot, he should be dropping wah wah wah wah and bringing in young fellas wah, wah wah wah...." so Hinkley does and the whingers and whiners are having a go because he did what the instant gratifiers wanted.

Some of you backyarders around here would be better off following soccer teams because the will satisfy your uncontrollable urge for blood the moment a team plays badly by sacking the coach within weeks of his appointment and replacing him with another sacrificial lamb to slaughter when things get a bit rocky again.

Reality seems to elude the instant gratification monkeys.

Ken has had 5 years, how many does he need 10.
Pike only needed a couple.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Ken has had 5 years, how many does he need 10.
Pike only needed a couple.

Crows have been almost there for years. Walsh took over a good team and Pyke took over an even better one. We were a ****ing basket case when Ken took over.

 

[Portology]

Lol.

West Coast were always going to get flogged after playing extra time against a running side like us the previous week vs getting a week off to freshen up.

Just like the umpires were always going to massively overcorrect with regards to free kicks after the outrage last week.

This isn't AFL Evolution. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

We didn't lose because we didn't play Trengove. We lost because we stupidly and consistently kept bombing the ball into their intercept markers. The only thing playing Trengove would have done was encourage that behaviour as being acceptable when that has never been the plan.

As Hinkley said - we played the side that we needed to, to show the consequences of the bad habits that we fostered all year.

A harsh but necessary lesson for us to get where we are wanting to go.

If we want to play that disingenuous game, yes, we didn't lose because we played Trengove. We lost because we played a mentally unfit Impey, ahead of Jacko or at least 2-3 others, never mind Jonas.

There is no effing way that final 10 minutes of near win then lose at panic speed doesn't happen without it being a result of our system, not some unintended consequence. We did it all year. Can Hinkley really be saying "Yeah nothing to do with me mate, I tried telling them all year but, in the end, rather than drop a few blokes much earlier I chose to let the players find out for themselves"? Got my doubts about the man but he's not that much of a goose.

There is no effing way Doog's first 15 minutes that helped put totally unnecessary pressure on us for the rest of the evening, that helped drive Charlie to nuke his kicking boots by the end of the night after single handedly dragging us back into it - there's no way all of that happens without us being unable to shuffle a big enough body in the way to help, ie not Westhoff. So completely ****ing unnecessary.

We won't learn a thing from that debacle - in the hard measurable sense of putting it on the board - without changing both personnel and system.

You can stoically focus on the stuff you can change all you like but I'd be amazed if our players aren't furious at the scale of the debacle we made out of opportunity, at Jonas, Impey and at whatever politics drove one selection. It will be utterly destructive to this group if Hinkley denies his role, which is what your implying.

As for last night it was embarrassing and frustrating to see GWS do so much damage, so patiently and slowly, in exactly the opposite to the way we managed and damaged ourselves rather than the opposition. No way of telling if we would have beaten them. Probably not. They barely went into third gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Us against the rest]

Crows have been almost there for years. Walsh took over a good team and Pyke took over an even better one. We were a ******* basket case when Ken took over.

That's true but when you look where we were in 2014 to where we are now??
The Crows have had the instability of 3 coaches, all with different game plans but have still pushed forward. They also lost Clangerfield.

 

[Power Girl]

FFS it is not so much what he has inherited we all agree it was awful but more about what he has done since then.

if I could see some improvements I would say let him run with it but all I have seen was poor skills, a chaotic game plan, bad selections, gold passes to serial underperformers, refusal to take responsibility, not addressing the problems, playing people out of position, stubbornness to the point of plain stupidity sticking with plans and players when it was obvious to everyone it was not working.

Ken has absolutely done some great things and he made us all believe and restored hope. But in the past 3 years he has not developed the team and he has overseen an era where our skills have actually gotten worse. He is too damn slow to respond and change. He either needs a lot more help at Port or he needs to go and weave his good family culture at GC where it is much needed and will be appreciated.

 

[Us against the rest]

Forward structures are part of the game plan and that has been our weakness all year, I blame the coaches.
I believe the game plan can work but you need the right type of players to carry it out. We are not Geelong and do not have the skills required.

 

[Northalives]

Crows have been almost there for years. Walsh took over a good team and Pyke took over an even better one. We were a ******* basket case when Ken took over.

Im sure we would all like to be able to click our fingers and miraculously become a powerhouse on field side overnight but that just doesn't happen and the way the AFL is structured, makes it even a longer process.

I for one, am really looking forward to next year and the years to come because I reckon we are building a powerful squad with a very nice blend of experience, youth and variety of players too be able to set in motion the constant regeneration of the league side, year in and year out to remain a perennial finals and premiership winning club.

 

[Janus]

If we want to play that disingenuous game, yes, we didn't lose because we played Trengove. We lost because we played a mentally unfit Impey, ahead of Jacko or at least 2-3 others, never mind Jonas.

There is no effing way that final 10 minutes of near win then lose at panic speed doesn't happen without it being a result of our system, not some unintended consequence. We did it all year. Can Hinkley really be saying "Yeah nothing to do with me mate, I tried telling them all year but, in the end, rather than drop a few blokes much earlier I chose to let the players find out for themselves"? Got my doubts about the man but he's not that much of a goose.

There is no effing way Doog's first 15 minutes that helped put totally unnecessary pressure on us for the rest of the evening, that helped drive Charlie to nuke his kicking boots by the end of the night after single handedly dragging us back into it - there's no way all of that happens without us being unable to shuffle a big enough body in the way to help, ie not Westhoff. So completely ****ing unnecessary.

We won't learn a thing from that debacle - in the hard measurable sense of putting it on the board - without changing both personnel and system.

You can stoically focus on the stuff you can change all you like but I'd be amazed if our players aren't furious at the scale of the debacle we made out of opportunity, at Jonas, Impey and at whatever politics drove one selection. It will be utterly destructive to this group if Hinkley denies his role, which is what your implying.

As for last night it was embarrassing and frustrating to see GWS do so much damage, so patiently and slowly, in exactly the opposite to the way we managed and damaged ourselves rather than the opposition. No way of telling if we would have beaten them. Probably not. They barely went into third gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adelaide is successful because no matter what, they play there role and execute to their system. They know that if they hit a kick, someone will be there at the end of it to mark it, or at least bring it to ground and create a contest.

We, on the other hand, don't have that belief yet. That's the difference between a top eight and a top four side. Belief in your teammates and belief in the system.

Every time we got under pressure, our players would panic and they would just throw it on the boot to get the ball as far away from the problem as possible.

We had MULTIPLE opportunities to win that game. It was conversion in front of goal and composure under pressure.

 

[elpirate]

Ken has had 5 years, how many does he need 10.
Pike only needed a couple.

Pike hasn't won anything of note yet.

 

[yeswecan1]

Pike hasn't won anything of note yet.

I hope he doesn't this year, but it doesn't look good. Do u think Geelong are a chance. Sydney put in an un Sydney like effort.

 

[Us against the rest]

Pike hasn't won anything of note yet.

Too right but I would prefer to be in his shoes to Ken's atm.

 

[elee]

If we want to play that disingenuous game, yes, we didn't lose because we played Trengove. We lost because we played a mentally unfit Impey, ahead of Jacko or at least 2-3 others, never mind Jonas.

There is no effing way that final 10 minutes of near win then lose at panic speed doesn't happen without it being a result of our system, not some unintended consequence. We did it all year. Can Hinkley really be saying "Yeah nothing to do with me mate, I tried telling them all year but, in the end, rather than drop a few blokes much earlier I chose to let the players find out for themselves"? Got my doubts about the man but he's not that much of a goose.

There is no effing way Doog's first 15 minutes that helped put totally unnecessary pressure on us for the rest of the evening, that helped drive Charlie to nuke his kicking boots by the end of the night after single handedly dragging us back into it - there's no way all of that happens without us being unable to shuffle a big enough body in the way to help, ie not Westhoff. So completely ****ing unnecessary.

We won't learn a thing from that debacle - in the hard measurable sense of putting it on the board - without changing both personnel and system.

You can stoically focus on the stuff you can change all you like but I'd be amazed if our players aren't furious at the scale of the debacle we made out of opportunity, at Jonas, Impey and at whatever politics drove one selection. It will be utterly destructive to this group if Hinkley denies his role, which is what your implying.

As for last night it was embarrassing and frustrating to see GWS do so much damage, so patiently and slowly, in exactly the opposite to the way we managed and damaged ourselves rather than the opposition. No way of telling if we would have beaten them. Probably not. They barely went into third gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your right,, we did it this year AND the year before AND the year before the last year.. aaand

we just know how to conjure a lost when it seems we have won..... consistently