Unofficial Preview Sack Hinkley 2: Septic Portaloo

[Ilias M]

Liz Walsh has a long article interviewing Graham Cornes and Bickley about the crows and their problems. Near the end she asked this and it shocked me a bit.


LW: Graham, you are the only coach so far to survive consecutive non-finals appearances in 1991/92:

GC: Expectations escalated after the prelim final (in 1993) and they definitely escalated after two premierships. The expectation is success.

MB: The narrative from the club from here is going to be really important. It has to be: “We need go through regeneration and we have to be really smart with the way we do it and we have to be ruthless”
........

So I checked,
Cornes got the axe in 1994 no finals. [Finals 1 in 4 years]
Shaw coached 2 years 1995-96 no finals then axed. [Finals 0 in 2]
Blight no finals in 1999 then walked but says he wanted to walk at the end of 1998. [ Finals 2 in 3]
Ayres missed finals 2000, then finals 01-02-03, misses finals 04, actually axed when when they were 4-9 and told he wont be given a new contract so he walked out [Finals 3 in 5]
Craig was axed after not making finals in 2010-11 made finals 5 years in a row before that. [Finals 5 in 7]
Sanderson made finals 2012, then missed finals 2013-14. [Finals 1 in 3]

Pyke's not be safe. Finals 2016-17 missed Finals 2018-19. Sack a coach in 3-4 weeks time after the review, and there are still plenty of candidates available.

So we keep Hinkley on despite Finals only 3 in 7 years, and the way KT talks, miss them next year and no worries, we believe so much in you, we will give you another contract.

Brilliant mate! Shared!!

 

[Us against the rest]

You must be of the opinion that I consider the season to be a success. It wasn't.

I do believe very strongly in the concept of words having power and thoughts creating reality, which is why I'm always positive of success.

But let's go through my thought process at the time:

In R1, Watts had just played a fantastic game drifting from a wing and helping our defence. Westhoff had kicked 5 goals with Ryder and Lycett looking like an awesome tandem, our ball movement was fast and crisp, Marshall had played well enough to retain his spot in the side in spite of being down on form, and both Hartlett and Dixon were slated to return through the SANFL in R3, with Wines coming into the AFL side in the same week.

In fact, you can find a post where I said that as long as Dixon was available by the Collingwood game, it would be fine.

In the space of two rounds, all that went to s**t. Watts broke his leg, Marshall's form fell off the planet, Westhoff disappeared, Lycett and Ryder had their ability stolen by the aliens from Space Jam, Hartlett had a setback with his injury, ditto Dixon.

I look at the 2019 season and imagine Watts, Dixon and Hartlett being available for every game - and I mean really available, not 'I've just come back from a serious injury and I need about half a season to find my touch' available - and I reckon we win against Richmond, Fremantle, Adelaide and GWS easily.

But yes, the failure is on Ken. But not for the reasons you think. If the objective was making top four, then:

It was a mistake to bring Wines straight back in against Brisbane.

It was a mistake to leave Bonner in the team for so long in his first stint.

It was a mistake to persist with Lienert when he was way too slow at switching the ball.

It was a mistake to bring in Howard for Watts down back when Westhoff was more of a like for like and the whole reason given for Howard being out of the team was that he needed to learn a new way of defending...he's not going to learn it in two SANFL matches.

It was a mistake not to promote Frampton against Adelaide.

It was a mistake to play Ryder and Westhoff for so long when they were down on form.

It was a mistake to play Ladhams over Lycett against North Melbourne when Ladhams had only rucked against part timers up until that point.

However...if the objective was more long term, and making finals this year was just a nice bonus...then they weren't mistakes at all, because all those things add value to the team in one form or another - either by gaining experience or improving trade value.

One of my biggest gripes with Ken is his selections, as he has the final say.

You make some legitimate points but Hinkley is responsible for the team performance. How many goal less quarters and poor first quarters did we have.

I understand that injuries can play a big part in a teams demise but in key positions a like for like replacement would have been a better option.

ken has also gotten a lot supporters off side by blaming the players and not taking responsibility himself, publicly. We don't care how good the other teams are, we just want to know why we are so poor.

Something that does need to be addressed and fixed is our skill execution, we are terrible and this will stop us getting to the ultimate prize.

 

[King_Tredrea]

Hinkley inherited a list that, with some pretty basic guidance, was clearly ready to bounce back into finals calculations in 2013. Now credit where credit is due, he did a good job in his first 1.5 years at the club (the back half of 2014 was a disaster). But knowing what we know now, how much credit does he really deserve for us playing decent footy for 1.5 seasons?

 

[Us against the rest]

Your vision is too near sighted to understand what I'm talking about. One of the biggest fallacies in life is thinking that time is relative to wisdom/experience. There's no such thing as 'fast tracking' development. It's like saying you're putting a child from primary school into high school to 'fast track their development'.

The only reason a child would get promoted early is if they are gifted - like Rozee, Butters and Duursma. I don't want to wreck a bunch of players like Primus did when he subjected them to situations they weren't ready for...that's how you create players like Pittard.

Pittard was a product of a coach with the bar set too low. (I will put up with all the other stuff as long as you defend) Under a Williams or a Cahill you wouldn't get away with all the other stuff.
Ken does not understand the non negotiables expected from a Port team.

 

[Us against the rest]

no doubt ken has been given enough chances. And i believe we should have made a move.But i didnt realise as i dont take much interest in the crows that in less than 30 years they have had 8 full time coaches as well as 3 caretaker ones. That is alot of change in such a short time thats averaging a new coach every 3 or 4 years. No wonder they are 22 years since a flag. And if they get rid of pyke theres another one added to the list. Days gone by that type of instability was seen as being a club which was underachieving and unprofessional and not united bit like what the crows are now.

Very true. There is something to be said for stability but Ken has become so stable he's concreted in, I'm surprised he doesn't have his own stand.

 

[Us against the rest]

Any way, sack him.

 

[FishingRick04]

I'm starting to think they don't know what they're doing.

Perhaps they are looking at it as a sustainable business model where people will go regardless of whether we win or lose. “It’s an experience”.

 

[Us against the rest]

Perhaps they are looking at it as a sustainable business model where people will go regardless of whether we win or lose. “It’s an experience”.

This is my theory, they wont stop until all us die hards are gone and the happy clappers fill the stands.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Can those responsible people turn the ship around? After 5 years of failure, what are they going to do differently?

Come to the 2020 Members' Convention and find out! Tickets only $150!

 

[Duck Farmer]

Going through Janus’ post history for contradictory statements is like throwing a needle in a haystack and trying to find it.

Finding contradictory comments? It's more like a haystack made of needles.

 

[skanker08]

I forwarded a copy of this article to KT and asked him if he could read it, as I felt this is exactly the feel about things atm.

This was his response.

View attachment 737232

Ha ha KT agrees with this but pretty much drives the the have faith in Hinkley agenda along with the AFL media Muppets, I have no doubt many at the club see the damage he is causing & want him gone but Gil the overlord says no.

 

[sobrave]

200 pages in this thread in the 2 weeks since the norf loss

sack him

 

[skanker08]

It's clear that the current administration sees stability as far more important than success.

Never mind playing finals, how's the stability?

It's the AFL's agenda, based on our financial situation. Administration's hands are tied.

 

[PowerLil]

The 'finals or bust' clause was brought up in the interview yesterday with Hinkley on 5aa and will likely be mentioned in every conversation going forward. The pressure will be insurmountable if we don't start the year well.

 

[Harlott]

Perhaps they are looking at it as a sustainable business model where people will go regardless of whether we win or lose. “It’s an experience”.

It's the journey not the destination

 

[*PAF]

Overachiever.





Nah not true. Sack him.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You just know that in 2029 Ken will be asked to analyse Port by the media because having spent a decade here, maybe more if KT gets his way, seen as the Port expert and he will tell us all what is wrong with Port and it will be the sort of shit he ignored or wasn't good enough to fix during his time here , say it's a worry and the media will lap it up.

 

[Pedro59]

Rucci is incapable of writing anything which isn't laced with some odd agenda no one knows or cares about. Unsurprising he was made redundant when he fails to demonstrate basic journalistic competencies.

Yes I still haven't forgiven him for the putting the boot in day after day.... back in the day.
Notwithstanding he could be a useful coach adjusting tool in the media today

 

[Marmozet]

The 'finals or bust' clause was brought up in the interview yesterday with Hinkley on 5aa and will likely be mentioned in every conversation going forward. The pressure will be insurmountable if we don't start the year well.

Hinkley is weak. There’s no way he survives under the pressure of having to coach for his career next year.

 

[Marmozet]

It’s August and I’m already desperate for us to get it over and done with and go bad enough next year to get rid of him.

It’s been a long 5 years but the next 9-12 months are going to be even more insufferable.

 

[Pedro59]

One of my biggest gripes with Ken is his selections, as he has the final say.

You make some legitimate points but Hinkley is responsible for the team performance. How many goal less quarters and poor first quarters did we have.

I understand that injuries can play a big part in a teams demise but in key positions a like for like replacement would have been a better option.
Something that does need to be address and fixed is our skill execution, we are terrible and this will stop us getting to the ultimate prize.

How many times did an oppo coach move one player around and then they just waltzed through the middle and we did nothing about it

I think the recent Roos game highlighted an inability to make changes.... it was so 119ish ..... even the uproar from a grave danger hit on Brown would have meant and done something

 

[Steve Dore]

Perhaps they are looking at it as a sustainable business model where people will go regardless of whether we win or lose. “It’s an experience”.

Yeah, there'll be nothing but theatre goers left.

As I've posted previously, a theatre goer would no more call for a coach to be sacked then they would call for the director of a play to be sacked.

 

[Magus]

Yeah, there'll be nothing but theatre goers left.

As I've posted previously, a theatre goer would no more call for a coach to be sacked then they would call for the director of a play to be sacked.

It doesn't matter though. Sub 35k crowds are not sustainable under the current model. They either start playing to their potential or suffer the financial consequences.

 

[jack_black16]

It wouldn't get brought up at selection, but if all things are equal and I have the choice of playing Player A who is experienced, in a contract year and I could get value for...or Player B who is also in a contract year but is inexperienced, I'm playing Player A for the following reasons:

1. It improves his value on the trade table, as well as ensures that players don't just play because there is no one else.

2. It lowers the potential contract value of the inexperienced player and allows me to sign him to a new contract for less, which helps me retain and attract other players. In a fixed salary cap league, any downward pressure on TPP is a good thing.

3. The difference in moving a few spots up in a trade could be the difference between getting Jackson Mead for that bunch of crappy fourth round picks we have (that are useless for anything else) and getting the equivalent future picks for Schofield next year...and not. I'm actually expecting us to trade out our 2019 first and second round picks and our 2020 first round pick for this very reason.

4. It teaches the younger player that experience has value at Port Adelaide and they won't be tossed aside at the end of their career, which creates an atmosphere of job security as long as they perform to a certain standard.

I'm still picking Player B...just not as much. I'm selling him the dream of starting next year when Player A retires/gets traded while playing him in a system that is a carbon copy of the AFL system, with the players he will be playing with in the future so they create a bond in the club.

Right so we have been playing list cloggers for the long term plan of increasing their trade value. Hinkley genius knows no bounds.

 

[Janus]

Right so we have been playing list cloggers for the long term plan of increasing their trade value. Hinkley genius knows no bounds.

As well as teaching young players that getting a game at Port Adelaide isn’t simply a matter of attrition.