Opinion Sack Hinkley 4 - Show Him The Door

When to sack Ken?


  • Total voters
    109
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd suggest the sentence 'good enough to be an AFL' literally translates to 'a coach that is good enough to coach an AFL team'. But maybe that's just me.

Otherwise, I guess we're in pretty much agreement. Ken is not a premiership-level coach, we should be pursuing someone who does that have quality.
Welcome to 2017.
 
I think we agree on how competent a coach Ken Hinkley is, but we disagree on whether that qualifies him as 'good'.

This is an elite industry. If you're not a premiership-level coach, then only a loser club would think you're good enough to coach them.

'Good enough to coach an AFL team' =/ a 'good' AFL coach

But let's get over the semantic discussion. I am in full agreement that we should be ruthlessly pursuing the next great coach.

My point today is, the people pretending we have Homer Simpson at the helm do the supporter group no favour in gaining traction with Richo in actually doing anything.
 
Last edited:
Little old club from Alberton.

It's a hard competition.

Someone has to lose.

We are gonna terrorise Lachie Neale. (Under fire Port Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley has conceded his team is reviewing the controversial gang attack tactic that blew up in his face.)

Stability.

They are a very good side.

Ungrateful supporters.

Calling core supporters that want change and were there in the dark years, white noise is disgusting.

Ken Haters.

This is all loser talk mentality.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

I gave a couple of reasons why the Board do not want to get rid of Hinkley. I think 2022 is the key year for Hinkley and anything short of making a Grand Final should be unacceptable. You and I can see Hinkley's shortcomings but the Board may have other ideas. It was not so much that we lost another Prlim Final it was the way we lost it, the players were not switched on and seemed to think they could win on the basis that they had lost narrowly in 2020. That attitude is down to the Coach.

Sorry but no way is a gf loss acceptable next year.

That was fine as a kpi in 2019. Not after a decade at the helm. Flag next year is the minimum to even consider continuing on. Even then questions would need to be asked about how someone can only have 1 flag in 10 years with the players and resources he has had.
 

This is petty. As you can see from this subsequent example, sure he loved a Port loss, but he was on the payroll of a competitor having had no experience of the place at the time:

1147DC5B-CEDD-41C1-9351-17F70D4731D2.jpeg

You’d wouldn’t find any examples of him having a laugh or smiling in the wake of a Port loss after he took the job.

A31E85C0-00D3-4F9D-8819-560B31FB881C.jpeg

Okay. That’s one. And we don’t know the context. Sure we’d just been played off the park by a mediocre rebuilding opponent, but maybe an opponent dropped a zinger in an attempt to be magnanimous.

CBF9D237-66FD-47FA-81C4-CFC4979DB337.jpeg

Okay this is well and truly Hinkley Hater stuff. Who hasn’t chuckled in the immediate aftermath of a 1pt loss at home? And this was two months after the Hawks example, so maybe he had something of a comedic flashback.

At the end of the day, you youngsters just aren’t old enough to remember when Jack and Choco would lose games they should’ve won. They’d march out onto the field and laugh their guts out!

Cut the man some slack. Remember 2012?!
 
Imagine a sponsor that puts in many dollars to a club, asking the club why we keep failing and the clubs response was don't be so ungrateful.

You would think the sponsor would pull their financial support, so beware Port Adelaide the paying members may start doing the same.
 
Last edited:
Whether you agree or not, I swear some people’s daily routine is -
wake up - post fu** off ken on bf
shower - post fu** off ken on bf
breakfast - post fu** off ken on bf

ad infinitum

Joke‘s on you, I posted that after an early lunch.
 
Have reached a stage of complete apathy. In fact, I haven't cared since three-quarter time of the game.
The door is shut for this current playing group as it stands.
This is what the club and the board should fear - not anger or pointed fingers, but rather a complete indifference from the people used to be so invested. They're heading back towards the dark days of 2009-2012 unless changes are made.
 
Yep.

Being "good" is only okay in the short term and/or with a developing squad. After 9 seasons, you need to have shown more than 3 prelim losses to be "good".

And being mediocre is the same as being bad over a long career.
From 2015 to 2019 Ken coaches zero finals win from one finals game with the list he had.

I don't understand the view that that was simply 'good' but nothing more.

It's actually not good. At all. It's a bit less than good. That's a bad return, from bad coaching. Only in the last two seasons has Ken returned to something like good.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

From 2015 to 2019 Ken coaches zero finals win from one finals game with the list he had.

I don't understand the view that that was simply 'good' but nothing more.

It's actually not good. At all. It's a bit less than good. That's a bad return, from bad coaching. Only in the last two seasons has Ken returned to something like good.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
And in that time he earned 4 million dollars +.
 
"Good enough" lol

Why don't we just start handing out participation awards while we're at it?

"Oh. You got belted by a record margin in a non-vic home prelim? Good enough. Have a ribbon."

Worst home defeat since losing to Collingwood by 138 in 2011.

Even the wretched souls of 2012 running on the smell of where the oily rag once sat didn’t get turned over as bad.
 
G Cornes said on radio this morning that Ken's problem is that he wasn't strong enough to stand up to his assistants

No doubt this has come from Graham's contacts inside the club and is reflective of the clubs views.

This combined with Port not replacing the senior assistant makes me think that Ken has convinced the club he needs less feedback not more (due to his lack of fortitude).

This won't end well.

At least if that is the approach there is no one left to blame.
 
G Cornes said on radio this morning that Ken's problem is that he wasn't strong enough to stand up to his assistants

No doubt this has come from Graham's contacts inside the club and is reflective of the clubs views.

This combined with Port not replacing the senior assistant makes me think that Ken has convinced the club he needs less feedback not more (due to his lack of fortitude).

This won't end well.

At least if that is the approach there is no one left to blame.
I think a reduced coaching staff is good for this clown either it snaps him awake and he's more proactive or his shortcomings are even more exposed, there's nowhere to hide next year.
 
G Cornes said on radio this morning that Ken's problem is that he wasn't strong enough to stand up to his assistants

No doubt this has come from Graham's contacts inside the club and is reflective of the clubs views.

This combined with Port not replacing the senior assistant makes me think that Ken has convinced the club he needs less feedback not more (due to his lack of fortitude).

This won't end well.

At least if that is the approach there is no one left to blame.

Yikes... Shifting the blame to the assistants. Isn't that Ken's fault if he can't stand up to them? He's the head coach.
 
I think the misunderstanding is that I just don't subscribe to the Glenelg mentality. Being good enough to be competitive and occasionally a little bit better than competitive isn't being good enough to be an AFL coach to me. Being good enough to be an AFL coach is being good enough to stand on the podium with the premiership cup. I don't accept that there is some middle ground between say Clarkson and Primus where you can be a solid coach but not good enough to win. You're either good enough or you're not.
Thats the difference between being good and great. Not just between good and good.

People have ridiculous expectations around sports. Its like saying the only pass mark is a premiership or a gold medal. A premiership is like a 95% high distinction not a 50.1% pass.

Now if you personally set your personal pass mark at 95% and only 100% is a high distinction then fair enough for your own personal activity. But you set 95% as a pass mark when there are at least 22 moving parts then you are going to fail the majority of times.

Hinkley's not a high distinction coach. He gets credits and the odd the distinction. Thats good for him personally but not good enough if we want a high distinction coach producing high distinction results on a regular basis.
 
Even right now a simple 'Ken is contracted and at this stage we will support him to continue as coach whilst he can continue to take the team to top 4 and finals' is enough to satisfy.

Tl;dr, it isn't feasible to sack him - yet.

But no, all we get is an absolute unironic full support of the club Ken is the right man we've had successful seasons what more do you want.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

I read "unironic" as a different word, without irony :(
 
G Cornes said on radio this morning that Ken's problem is that he wasn't strong enough to stand up to his assistants

No doubt this has come from Graham's contacts inside the club and is reflective of the clubs views.

This combined with Port not replacing the senior assistant makes me think that Ken has convinced the club he needs less feedback not more (due to his lack of fortitude).

This won't end well.

At least if that is the approach there is no one left to blame.

Using Crows ambassadors to disseminate messages from inside our club is a new low for some folks. For shame.

Either that, or some Crows ambassadors have come to understand Ken's value to their overall cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top