Opinion Matthew Nicks: Adelaide's Coach (Part 3) - The Biggest Loser

[FR0GGY]

What will team selection look like next week?

Will he bring in experience or get games into kids?

Who is looking like leaving? Probably need to play them.

 

[Cap]

Its very concerning we are going to go in this draft with Nicks at the helm.

I get we've done work and he doesn't have the final say, but he still has input.

Don't get me wrong, its not just Nicks, its Roo, Oligivy and Reid that makes it more concerning.

 

[Doctor B]

If we lose next week we will have an 8 win season from 22 rounds five years in

In five years he has won over 40% in one season

He's coached 104 games for 37 wins

He's two losses away from having more L's than any other Crows coach

Neil Craig lost 68 games at the Crows over 157 total games
Nicks has lost 66 games over 104 games

36% is his career win rate

 

[Southerntakeover]

One in every three games is a win, what more could you want?

 

[FR0GGY]

One in every three games is a win, what more could you want?

And 30% of those wins are against the 2 worst teams of the last 5 years.

 

[Geoffa32]

If Nicks was a publicly owned asset, Olsen would have sold him off by now....

 

[cleanhands]

If Nicks was a publicly owned asset, Olsen would have sold him off by now....

I’m more than happy to give him away

 

[arrowman]

Nostradamus.

We have a picture of GROTTO on the wall at home.

John Collier, Priestess of Delphi, 1891

Medium: oil on canvas / Collection area: British paintings / Accession number: 0.108

www.agsa.sa.gov.au

 

[Doctor B]

If Nicks was a publicly owned asset, Olsen would have sold him off by now....

I'd trust Bill Cosby to get my wife a drink more than I'd trust Nicks capability to get us into a grand final

 

[nerRADIAN]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

 

[1990crow]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

Nonsense.

 

[GROTTO]

I'd trust Bill Cosby to get my wife a drink more than I'd trust Nicks capability to get us into a grand final

FYI. Its pronounced Pill Cosby.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

Only real metric is where you finish and maybe potential to vastly improve. After 5 years in charge there is nothing to suggest we will improve vastly or even just improve. We looked flat in our preseason and that continued into the main season.
That metric is what PA uses and that's why Ken is always under the hammer despite reasonable results.

 

[Geoffa32]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

Hi Nicksy....

 

[crows dude]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

Makes us the 12th best side by that metric

 

[ABAB]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

Maybe judge him by the obvious shit mistakes he has made in the last few years?????

 

[Doctor B]

I'd argue ladder position is not a low quality metric in coaching professional sport.
Coaches live and die by their W/L record

AFC after last nights game

1816 P/F 1802 P/A 100.8%

We're off to the SCG next week to play the #1 team

We will be a bottom 4 team with sub 100% this time next week

 

[George Kramer]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

You mean ignore the fact we lost a lot of games

 

[MsTopG]

Surely the club reads the comments on here or if the don't they bloody well should if they gave a shit about the club and its supporters. Olsen if you are reading this please resign. Then on the way out clean out the board, Roo, Kelly, Ogilvie, Nicks, Reid, Silvers, the assistants. Many thanks.

 

[kirky]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

You know what, I’m judging him by one result this year - losing to the bottom side (who has one two games for the year) at home. Just unforgivable.

 

[GreyCrow]

Surely the club reads the comments on here or if the don't they bloody well should if they gave a shit about the club and its supporters. Olsen if you are reading this please resign. Then on the way out clean out the board, Roo, Kelly, Ogilvie, Nicks, Reid, Silvers, the assistants. Many thanks.

This is just noise - we are on the right track dont you know

 

[John Who]

I’m curious to hear some thoughts on how Crows are 3W and 1L against Port in the last 2 seasons. Using wins and losses as the barometer of good coaching, does this make Nicks a better coach than Ken? Particularly when Ken has a group with more experience and credentials?
If Port ends up being first or second this year, why are some so sure Nicks can’t get similar results?

 

[GreyCrow]

I’m curious to hear some thoughts on how Crows are 3W and 1L against Port in the last 2 seasons. Using wins and losses as the barometer of good coaching, does this make Nicks a better coach than Ken? Particularly when Ken has a group with more experience and credentials?
If Port ends up being first or second this year, why are some so sure Nicks can’t get similar results?

Notice the difference in build up this week?

Usually Port treat this as their GF and perform to expectation

This week we put the target on our backs and Port performed

Though it was still touch and go until the last 15 minutes

 

[El Doederino]

I’m curious to hear some thoughts on how Crows are 3W and 1L against Port in the last 2 seasons. Using wins and losses as the barometer of good coaching, does this make Nicks a better coach than Ken? Particularly when Ken has a group with more experience and credentials?
If Port ends up being first or second this year, why are some so sure Nicks can’t get similar results?

Nicks can’t get similar results because if he could, he’d get similar results.

 

[Samcro24]

I wouldnt be judging Nicks based on ladder position, which is a low quality metric. It’s susceptible to wild fluctuations. It also doesn’t take into account unequal fixtures, with some teams having a lot of hard double ups.

Percentage is the better metric. If you have a percentage over 100% you’re usually not a bottom 4 team. While disappointing, it's not a major regression on last year when you compare the harder fixture this year to last. It should be a reality check, however.

May as well judge him on the shininess of his head