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

[Pugsley]

Did our game style and kicking it to contests and Brisbane defenders out making up? Any mention of changing it up?

Also how did he justify making Nank sub?

Nope but Nank had an impact when he came on

 

[GreyCrow]

Nicks will finish the season on 106:

Wow not even going to credit him for making the finals this year

 

[SugarShane]

Wow not even going to credit him for making the finals this year

My bad. Edited to add "home & away" in there

 

[dblstR]

Go back and re-read his post, there's zero inference at all.

He clearly said to try him in HB or on a wing over someone like McHenry, his point about Laird and Crouch was a completely seperate one.

He made a whole heap of different points but they were not connected to each other. The only overarching theme was that Nicks is a mediocre coach.

Correct.

I am a bit under the weather and wrote the post late at night, I could've structured it a bit better. I would never put Curtin in the guts in game 2 lol. Clearly I was referring to moving to HB or even the wing.

Anyway there are going to be mixed opinions everywhere about our coach and gameplan. I sit in row two on the 50 metre line on the eastern stand and witness the exact same thing every week. Shit if I actually want to ball to go near me I'll have to relocate to the western stand.

RE: The bucks comments in this thread. Do I give 2 shits about his time at both sets of the Maggies? Couldn't care less.
Do I think he could do a better job than Nicks with our current group? Yes.
Do I think our recruitment has been dog shit and hasn't set Nicks up for success? Also yes, but that doesn't mean you have to select McHenry every game.

 

[Soggy2112]

We had a horrendous start but I think there may be a glimmer of hope.

In defence of Nicks, I think we’re starting to tactically see how he wants us to play. He has tightened our defence which was a focus, and you can see in how he wants us to move the ball. We are very dangerous on counter attack, and the slingshot style has been working (at least when we get it in the right players hands).

Big test this week for whether it stands up, so I’ll reserve judgement until then but if you’d offer us 3-1-1 against Carlton, Essendon, North, Port and Brisbane I’d have bitten your hand off for it after the Melbourne game.

The issues I still think we need to address are:

• Ball movement is too one dimensional, particularly out of the back 50.
• We don’t score enough from forward half turnover, I don’t know where you find the numbers but from eye test I suspect we’d be rated low.
• We put too much pressure on our defence with this style. We need to have levers to pull to control territory a bit more as a plan B if necessary.

Selection issues are obviously still huge.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Hope we have a banner

Well done Nick's, Adeliade Coach!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We can't judge Nicks until we see him under the pressure of finals

 

[BigBoSS_Riot]

We had a horrendous start but I think there may be a glimmer of hope.

In defence of Nicks, I think we’re starting to tactically see how he wants us to play. He has tightened our defence which was a focus, and you can see in how he wants us to move the ball. We are very dangerous on counter attack, and the slingshot style has been working (at least when we get it in the right players hands).

Big test this week for whether it stands up, so I’ll reserve judgement until then but if you’d offer us 3-1-1 against Carlton, Essendon, North, Port and Brisbane I’d have bitten your hand off for it after the Melbourne game.

The issues I still think we need to address are:

• Ball movement is too one dimensional, particularly out of the back 50.
• We don’t score enough from forward half turnover, I don’t know where you find the numbers but from eye test I suspect we’d be rated low.
• We put too much pressure on our defence with this style. We need to have levers to pull to control territory a bit more as a plan B if necessary.

Selection issues are obviously still huge.

One thing I'd add is that, while it has improved from how awful it was in the first month, our ball movement entering forward 50 is also quite poor. There's still a lot of really poor decision making there at times.

Score sources are found in the Champion Data dungeon. The only time the public finds out about them is when somebody who has access to it mentions them.

 

[George Kramer]

We had a horrendous start but I think there may be a glimmer of hope.

In defence of Nicks, I think we’re starting to tactically see how he wants us to play. He has tightened our defence which was a focus, and you can see in how he wants us to move the ball. We are very dangerous on counter attack, and the slingshot style has been working (at least when we get it in the right players hands).

Big test this week for whether it stands up, so I’ll reserve judgement until then but if you’d offer us 3-1-1 against Carlton, Essendon, North, Port and Brisbane I’d have bitten your hand off for it after the Melbourne game.

The issues I still think we need to address are:

• Ball movement is too one dimensional, particularly out of the back 50.
• We don’t score enough from forward half turnover, I don’t know where you find the numbers but from eye test I suspect we’d be rated low.
• We put too much pressure on our defence with this style. We need to have levers to pull to control territory a bit more as a plan B if necessary.

Selection issues are obviously still huge.

There can be no defence of Nicks. He tightened our defence to the extreme in rounds 1-4 with slow ball movement and he was rigid with our midfield mix.

In rounds 1-4:
We conceded on average 75 points
Scored on average 57 points
Result 0-4

Next 4 rounds excluding North. This started with Carlton where we played a more play on attacking game plan and he changed the midfield mix
Conceded 78
Scored 85
Result 2-1-1

So he sacrificed our attacking game plan for 3 fewer points against a game. Whilst we scored 31 points fewer and couldn’t win a game.

For the record we conceded 81 points a game last year, so he started the year with an improvement of 6 points a game but we couldn’t score.

The bloke has cost us another year with no finals and hasn’t taken any responsibility. He continues to make stupid decisions like making Nank sub.

He’s an assistant trying to be a senior coach but he doesn’t have the football nous for it. He’s a fraud and should be sacked.

 

[King Elvis]

He's useless.

Terrible at selection and structure, and completely inept on game day.

A pre-planned sub is just absolutely moronic, he's done it before, conceded it was stupid, and does it again anyway.

He doesn't even learn from his own mistakes.

 

[hugecannon]

He's useless.

Terrible at selection and structure, and completely inept on game day.

A pre-planned sub is just absolutely moronic, he's done it before, conceded it was stupid, and does it again anyway.

He doesn't even learn from his own mistakes.

This , even if he could at a minimum fix this glaring problem, I’d have a bit more confidence in him, but it’s the same stupid personal and strategic decisions that are just wrong again and again

 

[El Doederino]

He's useless.

Terrible at selection and structure, and completely inept on game day.

A pre-planned sub is just absolutely moronic, he's done it before, conceded it was stupid, and does it again anyway.

He doesn't even learn from his own mistakes.

I remember when he did it with subbing our Soligo who was playing fine, then we went on to lose the game. Anyone remember which game this was?

 

[MsTopG]

We can't judge Nicks until we see him under the pressure of finals

Just the way he wants it. Never to be judged.

 

[MRB37]

We had a horrendous start but I think there may be a glimmer of hope.

In defence of Nicks, I think we’re starting to tactically see how he wants us to play. He has tightened our defence which was a focus, and you can see in how he wants us to move the ball. We are very dangerous on counter attack, and the slingshot style has been working (at least when we get it in the right players hands).

Big test this week for whether it stands up, so I’ll reserve judgement until then but if you’d offer us 3-1-1 against Carlton, Essendon, North, Port and Brisbane I’d have bitten your hand off for it after the Melbourne game.

The issues I still think we need to address are:

• Ball movement is too one dimensional, particularly out of the back 50.
• We don’t score enough from forward half turnover, I don’t know where you find the numbers but from eye test I suspect we’d be rated low.
• We put too much pressure on our defence with this style. We need to have levers to pull to control territory a bit more as a plan B if necessary.

Selection issues are obviously still huge.

I don't think we've tried anything other than long to the western stand the past 3 weeks from a kick in. There's zero switching of the play either, our ball movement in general from our back half is massively predictable and causes the ball to be locked the oppositions forward half a huge amount.

If we can get a mark from that kick in we generally move the ball well from there and can score quick, but the initial movement is repetitive and rarely works cleanly.

 

[MRB37]

I remember when he did it with subbing our Soligo who was playing fine, then we went on to lose the game. Anyone remember which game this was?

Collingwood at home.

 

[Pugsley]

We can't judge Nicks until we see him under the pressure of finals

You can't judge an occurrence that will never occur

 

[Anzacpaul]

Hopefully his contract was dependent on finals this year.

 

[ltdamn]

Hopefully his contract was dependent on finals this year.

The problem with being optimistic about that, is this is an action that it would make sense to take.

Therefore, you can be 100% guaranteed the big-brain geniuses in our football department did not take said action when it was an option.

 

[relapse]

I don't think we've tried anything other than long to the western stand the past 3 weeks from a kick in. There's zero switching of the play either, our ball movement in general from our back half is massively predictable and causes the ball to be locked the oppositions forward half a huge amount.

If we can get a mark from that kick in we generally move the ball well from there and can score quick, but the initial movement is repetitive and rarely works cleanly.

The past 3 weeks?

We've been doing that for as long as I can remember under Nicks.

 

[Bob Neil]

I don't think we've tried anything other than long to the western stand the past 3 weeks from a kick in. There's zero switching of the play either, our ball movement in general from our back half is massively predictable and causes the ball to be locked the oppositions forward half a huge amount.

If we can get a mark from that kick in we generally move the ball well from there and can score quick, but the initial movement is repetitive and rarely works cleanly.

I heard it said recently by a commentator (might have been Gerard Healy) that he thinks kick-ins are one area of the modern game that is sadly lacking in creativity (Exhibit A: Crows). He said it's one of the few times you can set the ground up exactly as you want so there should be more set plays being done to move the ball out of the defensive zone. Can't help but agree and think that we're so predictable and ineffective in this area...our lack of contested marking players is also a major hindrance in this regard.

 

[MRB37]

I heard it said recently by a commentator (might have been Gerard Healy) that he thinks kick-ins are one area of the modern game that is sadly lacking in creativity (Exhibit A: Crows). He said it's one of the few times you can set the ground up exactly as you want so there should be more set plays being done to move the ball out of the defensive zone. Can't help but agree and think that we're so predictable and ineffective in this area...our lack of contested marking players is also a major hindrance in this regard.

I think a part of the problem is a lot of Nicks football philosophies involve overloading at the contest, so he sees this sort of kick in as a way to generate those opportunities.

Basically running on the theory/hope that at worst we turn it into a 50/50 ground ball and can win it from there, but part of the problem is our talls aren't competitive enough to consistently bring the ball to ground (let alone take a contested grab).

 

[WetCrow1991]

We had a horrendous start but I think there may be a glimmer of hope.

In defence of Nicks, I think we’re starting to tactically see how he wants us to play. He has tightened our defence which was a focus, and you can see in how he wants us to move the ball. We are very dangerous on counter attack, and the slingshot style has been working (at least when we get it in the right players hands).

Big test this week for whether it stands up, so I’ll reserve judgement until then but if you’d offer us 3-1-1 against Carlton, Essendon, North, Port and Brisbane I’d have bitten your hand off for it after the Melbourne game.

This is not the positive for Nicks that you think it is. And it is very generous of you to give him time he doesn't deserve. I'll save you the trouble of waiting. Relying on slingshot as the primary mode of scoring will not result in a victory against Collingwood.

The guy has taken are major strength and obliterated it for a style of play that is less attractive to watch and doesn't result in success.

The issues I still think we need to address are:

• Ball movement is too one dimensional, particularly out of the back 50.
• We don’t score enough from forward half turnover, I don’t know where you find the numbers but from eye test I suspect we’d be rated low.
• We put too much pressure on our defence with this style. We need to have levers to pull to control territory a bit more as a plan B if necessary.

Selection issues are obviously still huge.

So the sling shot style works really well, except when it doesn't and that is often. Just a hint for you, but sweating on opposition turn overs and then counter attacking as a primary mode for scoring relies on the opposition turning the ball over, offering little pressure on our ball carriers, and not having spares back, this is before we even get to our own ball movement. It is a flaky and flat track bully style of play that does not tend to work well in high pressure games like finals, unless you're a team with elite ball movement that can cut up the opposition, that is not us.

Cast your mind back to the 2008/2009 when Craig had us employ the slingshot as our primary mode of scoring, we had a better side then and the best we could do is beat up on average teams.

Also none of these things will be fixed by Nicks and his coaching panel because they are strategically and tactically bankrupt.

 

[WetCrow1991]

I think a part of the problem is a lot of Nicks football philosophies involve overloading at the contest, so he sees this sort of kick in as a way to generate those opportunities.

Basically running on the theory/hope that at worst we turn it into a 50/50 ground ball and can win it from there, but part of the problem is our talls aren't competitive enough to consistently bring the ball to ground (let alone take a contested grab).

It is a low risk strategy. Unsurprisingly we have looked our best when we have taken risks with our better ball users. It has been frustrating attending Adelaide oval to see us consistently ignore running players standing on their own in the open side of the ground. The low risk play to a contest is the default move, it is trained into them, and it often results in the ball coming straight back into our defensive 50. Whereas switching the ball and taking a risk has the potential to open up the game and encourages our players to spread.

It is very obvious watching that the lack of spread, running, and us consistently being found flat footed is at least in part due to the style of play not rewarding it.

Why create separation from your opponent when you'll be ignored. Shit, they're probably coached to not create separation on their opponent so they can be close to them to allow contests to form. Never mind we consistently get sucked into the contest anyway and leave opposition spares wide open for when they win the ball. When we win the ball we more often than not have no one open and just handball inside the contest/slam the ball on our foot. This contrast between us and our opposition is a true hallmark of a dumb football team.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Collingwood at home.

Angriest I have ever been at a football game in any capacity.

 

[kirky]

I remember when he did it with subbing our Soligo who was playing fine, then we went on to lose the game. Anyone remember which game this was?

This game was so frustrating - we had kicked 2.10 before Collingwood had kicked its first goal. Should have been 5-6 goals easy and Collingwood would have been dead in the water.

And in the end Sidebottom kicked the winning behind in the last 20 seconds. So frustrating.