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

[Kane McGoodwin]

It's times like this I wonder whether you're trolling or not.

The post you responded to clearly says that the Nicks having a 33% winning record after 5 years is why he deserves to be sacked.

Then you try and counter with that does that mean that Adam Yze needs to be sacked too?

Adam Yze is in his first season with a list that he's inherited vs Nicks who's in his 5th year with a list that he's built and developed himself. There's zero basis for comparison between the two.

If Yze was in his 5th season and Richmond were still garbage then yes he would deserve to be sacked.

I'd go one further and say that Yze would be lucky to last three years if he continues to have a Matthew Nicks type record.

It's not the norm to hang on to failing coaches and just hope that things will eventurally "click". Both GC and St Kilda learned the hard way there's nothing at all to be gained from giving a failed coach more time than they deserve.

It's absolutely clear there is a reason behind WW going to into Nicks protection mode.

No one would logically do this without being influenced in some way.

The fact he has refused numerous times to deny he is being paid by AFC.

The fact he refused to answer GC's umpteen requests to give us a resson... any reason to retain Nicks... because he has Nix... & doesn't really believe what he is saying!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

It's times like this I wonder whether you're trolling or not.

The post you responded to clearly says that the Nicks having a 33% winning record after 5 years is why he deserves to be sacked.

Then you try and counter with that does that mean that Adam Yze needs to be sacked too?

Adam Yze is in his first season with a list that he's inherited vs Nicks who's in his 5th year with a list that he's built and developed himself. There's zero basis for comparison between the two.

If Yze was in his 5th season and Richmond were still garbage then yes he would deserve to be sacked.

I'd go one further and say that Yze would be lucky to last three years if he continues to have a Matthew Nicks type record.

It's not the norm to hang on to failing coaches and just hope that things will eventurally "click". Both GC and St Kilda learned the hard way there's nothing at all to be gained from giving a failed coach more time than they deserve.

Obviously not simplistic enough for you .....you have failed to understand the context ....as you have failed, in any way to accurately represent posts I've made recently

Your paraphrasing of what I am supposed to have said, has been deliberately falsified a number of times, to suit your narrative against my position ......try and be better Relapse

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Obviously not simplistic enough for you .....you have failed to understand the context ....as you have failed, in any way to accurately represent posts I've made recently

Your paraphrasing of what I am supposed to have said, has been deliberately falsified a number of times, to suit your narrative against my position ......try and be better Relapse

According to you, you must be the most misunderstood poster.

No we can see straight through you!

 

[Southerntakeover]

Obviously not simplistic enough for you .....you have failed to understand the context ....as you have failed, in any way to accurately represent posts I've made recently

Your paraphrasing of what I am supposed to have said, has been deliberately falsified a number of times, to suit your narrative against my position ......try and be better Relapse

When your argument is so bad that you get upset when people say it back to you.

He accurately described your argument. You took a five year sample size, and tried to argue that it was comparable to one year sample size, and that in fact action that would be unwarranted in response to the one year sample must also be unwarranted in response to the five year sample.

You're not being misrepresented, you're failing to make points that stand up to consideration. There's a difference.

 

[1970crow]

Just think how proud Neil Balme will be when he’s presented his copy of ‘Complete Football by Neil Craig’. “Here you go mate, read it, understand it and memorise it. It’s how we do things around here.”

 

[relapse]

Obviously not simplistic enough for you .....you have failed to understand the context ....as you have failed, in any way to accurately represent posts I've made recently

Your paraphrasing of what I am supposed to have said, has been deliberately falsified a number of times, to suit your narrative against my position ......try and be better Relapse

That's one of the most laughable things I've ever read.

You literally compared a first year coach to a five year coach and then claim that I'm "falsifying things" when I call it out.

Can you also explain how I paraphrased and falsified that post of yours where you said that Dew was sacked due to the list he built at GC.

I simply re-posted your post, even linked it to your original post, they were your own words.

When the basis of your arguments inconsistently flip flop depending on your own personal bias that's when people question the quality of your opinions.

Just on that subject you still haven't explained why Dew was responsible for GC's list while Nicks isn't.

Do better Wayne

 

[Brookster]

I still don't understand the club's logic in signing Nicks to avoid the noise. Surely they could see if Nicks had a season like this and they had signed him up, given he's now been there 5 years, there would be even more pressure and noise?

The noise this stupid decision has created is not just people wanting Nicks out, but people wanting most of the football department and board gone..... Had they not resigned Nicks and we had a bad season, nobody would have been calling for any removals aside from Nicks. The decision just makes less and less sense as the year goes on....

It reeks to me of a board with no original thought. What do you do when your coach is up for re-signing but has stumbled in the first couple of games for the season ? Well you re-sign him of course to show that you have complete faith in the situation. This is standard procedure for struggling footy clubs. It’s what board members know from years of observing. Not at all original or tailored. The players form will immediately improve knowing the coach is believed in. Ooops that didn’t seem to work…………..GMABreak ! !

 

[Doctor B]

I've posted this stat a few times, and I'm posting it again.

Over the past five years, since Nicks has coached us

We've played the following 10 teams

Sydney, Collingwood, Essendon, Brisbane, Fremantle, Geelong, GWS, Melbourne, Richmond, Bulldogs

53 times for 7 wins.

Is this acceptable to the Nicks defenders?
Is this coaching? Development? Recruiting?

 

[adelaidecrows]

Why I am worried

The direction of the club around Nicks is something that is seriously concerning.

Key points.
With the rhetoric around Balme, the club looks set to provide Nicks with all these additional resources. Which on the surface it sounds great. But at the same time it looks almost certain they are going to overhaul the list management department. Which again on the surface sounds like its a must and a great move moving forward.

Where my concern lies
My concern is they are almost certain to be setting us fans and members up to accept a 2nd strategic rebuild by placing undue blame of our performances on the playing list and absolving Nicks of all blame, or the very least create the narrative of 'the poor rookie coach who had no resources and a poor list management team and the poor bloke whose been stuck with inexperienced teenagers for 5 seasons'. The playing group I dont think will take too kindly to being blamed and the clubs unwavering backing of Nicks at the players expense could backfire. Its one thing to turn over the list but its another to not only blame the players but question their talent publicly.

Do we look set to witness a mass exodus of players come the end of the season? The real risk I feel is that have become so headstrong in our support of Nicks we are refusing to examine where he has gone wrong, almost out of arrogance and looking to place blame in all other areas. Ok the list management could be said to be poor, but there is no way in hell anyone could suggest Nicks has got the most out of our list. Not by a long way. We hear from all the experts about how good Nicks is, but no one actually gives a reason. This is astonishing. Its almost like the boys club is going out of their way to protect him. Is it out of loyalty or is it because they are protecting themselves.

Why I think this will all end in tears.
By throwing the weight of the club behind Nicks by providing every possible resource they can muster (which should have been done before, but anyway, no one is calling them out for it, which is another concern to add to this shit pile), is that this could all be for nothing anyway. In 2 years time, Nicks is not going to have a better list than he does now. We have holes all over the squad that will not be magically fixed by going to the draft in that time. We are about to lose Walker from our forward line with no one standing up to take over. We have to hit the trade table hard, but we are only going to get role players, maybe the odd star but it will cost us the ability to fill our squad. So in 2 years, if we haven't played finals, thats 9 seasons out of the finals, 7 under Nicks.

We may fluke a finals appearance next season with no injuries but Nicks has shown he doesn't develop and play the same players relentlessly. So how long term would any rise actually be?

Its one thing to back a performing coach who has runs on the board, like an Adam Simpson, John Longmuir and Chris Scott

Chris Scott

Age

48

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

but its another entirely, to throw this kind of backing behind a coach who has shown very little. If we end up sacking him in 2 seasons, what was this all for?

Why Nicks should be removed.
Nicks should be removed because he simply doesn't have the runs on the board. We can blame list management and lack of resources all we like, but the fact is, if we are overhauling the list management department, the coach should be classed as much to blame as everyone else. Has Nicks truly demonstrated he can be trusted to take us to the promise land. No. Not even close. As much as it can be classed to be unfortunate for Nicks if he is removed, its just an untenable position due to the needs of the club moving forward. We are in a different space from where Nicks is as coach and to what is needed.

 

[n4sir]

I've posted this stat a few times, and I'm posting it again.

Over the past five years, since Nicks has coached us

We've played the following 10 teams

Sydney, Collingwood, Essendon, Brisbane, Fremantle, Geelong, GWS, Melbourne, Richmond, Bulldogs

53 times for 7 wins.

Is this acceptable to the Nicks defenders?
Is this coaching? Development? Recruiting?

Here's another little stat from this season:

Take out the West Coast and North Melbourne blowout anomalies, and the rest of the season we average 10.5 goals a game.

Hands up anyone who enjoys watching this crap?

 

[kirky]

It's times like this I wonder whether you're trolling or not.

The post you responded to clearly says that the Nicks having a 33% winning record after 5 years is why he deserves to be sacked.

Then you try and counter with that does that mean that Adam Yze needs to be sacked too?

Adam Yze is in his first season with a list that he's inherited vs Nicks who's in his 5th year with a list that he's built and developed himself. There's zero basis for comparison between the two.

If Yze was in his 5th season and Richmond were still garbage then yes he would deserve to be sacked.

I'd go one further and say that Yze would be lucky to last three years if he continues to have a Matthew Nicks type record.

It's not the norm to hang on to failing coaches and just hope that things will eventurally "click". Both GC and St Kilda learned the hard way there's nothing at all to be gained from giving a failed coach more time than they deserve.

I’ll bet my left nut that if Richmond is still garbage in 5 years, Yze would have been sacked.

Now North is a totally different club, a minnow in a town of big clubs, no large supporter base, financial issues, one can go on. Clarkson if he doesn’t get results onfield will walk away by his 5 year. He ain’t dumb.

 

[crows dude]

Just think how proud Neil Balme will be when he’s presented his copy of ‘Complete Football by Neil Craig’. “Here you go mate, read it, understand it and memorise it. It’s how we do things around here.”

Could do worse than the Craig play book. We might win some games.

Craig
2005 - 17 Wins
2006 - 16 Wins
2007 - 12 Wins
2008 - 13 Wins
2009 - 14 Wins
2010 - 9 Wins
2011 - 7 Wins

Compared to Nicks
2020 - 3 Wins
2021 - 7 Wins
2022 - 8 Wins
2023 - 11 Wins
2024 - 4 wins so far

 

[GROTTO]

Could do worse than the Craig play book. We might win some games.

Craig
2005 - 17 Wins
2006 - 16 Wins

Our Club should have won a flag in these years. FFS.

 

[GreyCrow]

After coming down off my Neil Balme sugar hit Ive come to recognise that Balme or no Balme Nicks will fail.

Nobody can come up with a list of his achievements - either game plan , strategy or game day coaching. He is bereft of ideas other than trusting the process

If Balme had turned up for Nicks 3rd year I would be less worried but we are year 5 going into 6

Because I dont think he can coach at the highest level its time to move him on and give someone else the benefit of Balmes experience. Fresh eyes and ideas rather than Nicks stubbornly holding on

I am much more comfortable with a Rutten , Caracella or Montgomery under Balme

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I've posted this stat a few times, and I'm posting it again.

Over the past five years, since Nicks has coached us

We've played the following 10 teams

Sydney, Collingwood, Essendon, Brisbane, Fremantle, Geelong, GWS, Melbourne, Richmond, Bulldogs

53 times for 7 wins.

Is this acceptable to the Nicks defenders?
Is this coaching? Development? Recruiting?

We can't win against the better coaches as they outsmart Nicks' game plan & on matchday.

 

[GreyCrow]

Could do worse than the Craig play book. We might win some games.

Craig
2005 - 17 Wins
2006 - 16 Wins
2007 - 12 Wins
2008 - 13 Wins
2009 - 14 Wins
2010 - 9 Wins
2011 - 7 Wins

Gee we used to be ruthless back in the day

After 5 seasons of good numbers we burnt him after 2 bad ones

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Could do worse than the Craig play book. We might win some games.

Craig
2005 - 17 Wins
2006 - 16 Wins
2007 - 12 Wins
2008 - 13 Wins
2009 - 14 Wins
2010 - 9 Wins
2011 - 7 Wins

Compared to Nicks
2020 - 3 Wins
2021 - 7 Wins
2022 - 8 Wins
2023 - 11 Wins
2024 - 4 wins so far

Reward for failure. 2 more years.

 

[CrowBloke]

We've played the following 10 teams:
Sydney, Collingwood, Essendon, Brisbane, Fremantle, Geelong, GWS, Melbourne, Richmond, Bulldogs
53 times for 7 wins.
Is this acceptable to the Nicks defenders?

I dunno what's acceptable to the defenders themselves, or Nicks. I'd say internally, no.
Externally --- ie to us, the supporters --- definitely no. Not to me, anyway.

Is this coaching? Development? Recruiting?

Good Coaching? No.

Development? Well, we could ask who has improved, 2023 ==> 2024.
Michalanney, Soligo, Nankervis, errrr ...
<<daylight>>
Fogarty, Hinge, Hamill, even Sholl, all a little. Dowling looks ok.

Gone backwards:
Tex, Dawson, Keane, Pedlar, Jones (very disappointing after a solid 2023), Keays (Nicks has forgotten that Keays needs to be given a specific role, every week), Rachele, Berry, Schoenberg, Laird, O'Brien.
Curtin is in the Wilderness.

Utterly useless/hopeless:
Murphy, Strachan (Strawny, too scrawny for AFL), McHenry, Smith, Burgess <== delist all.

One more question:
Nicks' Coaching record is 33-63-1, no Finals.
Has any AFL coach of 4+ years had a worse record?
(Only Stuart Dew with 30.17% winning record. The Crows tried to recruit that dud as an Assistant, apparently, as well as Rutten whose record is 38.64% <== jeez, the Crows have an eye for Coaching talent! )

 

[Barneythecrab]

If we are gonna sack the coach, we better move fast, cos one is about to be gone down the road. It’s hard enough getting decent coaches to SA when it’s just 1 coach looking.

 

[baldandbroke]

Watch peak Crows unfold.

We back the boys in.

Nicks (who has a much worse record than Hinkley) gets another year to undermine our development.

Paer finally call it on Hinkley.

Buckley goes to da poWer.

Crows goes nowheres.

 

[Grooster24]

After coming down off my Neil Balme sugar hit Ive come to recognise that Balme or no Balme Nicks will fail.

Nobody can come up with a list of his achievements - either game plan , strategy or game day coaching. He is bereft of ideas other than trusting the process

If Balme had turned up for Nicks 3rd year I would be less worried but we are year 5 going into 6

Because I dont think he can coach at the highest level its time to move him on and give someone else the benefit of Balmes experience. Fresh eyes and ideas rather than Nicks stubbornly holding on

I am much more comfortable with a Rutten , Caracella or Montgomery under Balme

I'm hoping he does come and he provides a touch of reality on Nicks enough for him to be sacked. If not then perhaps Nicks is OK but just needs an experienced head to guide him. End result I'm hoping he'll remove the current apparent echo chamber.

 

[BunjiMac]

I'm genuinely curious and have not done the research so have no idea of the answer.

Has there been a coach that has gotten worse results across a 5 year period AND survived to go on for 6th?

 

[adelaidecrows]

I'm genuinely curious and have not done the research so have no idea of the answer.

Has there been a coach that has gotten worse results across a 5 year period AND survived to go on for 6th?

I would be surprised.

I've seen clubs treat their supporters with utter disdain before and this club has been renowned for it. But the utter smugness and elite entitled asshats running the place are simply taking the piss now.

 

[rabidcrow]

Maybe already posted, my conspiracy theory is that he was already signed and we were holding it for PR purposes. We were going to allow the media to bubble away while we were on our winning track towards finals. Then past half way through the season it would be announced as a huge boost to our finals campaign and all round great news story. Then we panicked after the loss and thought that media discussion might negatively influence our run to finals appearance.

It’s just a conspiracy theory though.

I think you are spot on. He was already signed and it was always going to be announced before the opening round. Given our recent record against GC it was also always probably going to be on the back of a loss


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[adelaidecrows]

I think you are spot on. He was already signed and it was always going to be announced before the opening round. Given our recent record against GC it was also always probably going to be on the back of a loss


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I dont think he was signed until the week before the season started. There would have been leaks to the media well before the season started that Nicks was signed.