Opinion Sack Hinkley 6 - Kochblocked

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep. It's in his interests to secure a 4 year deal at one of those clubs rather than roll the dice on an 11th year here where you'd think a pretty high finish would be required to gain a contract extension.

The problem is, he's not getting either job until Clarko rejects either or both clubs.
My guess is port have told Hinkley he won't be sacked but he won't be getting another contract so it's in your best interest to look elsewhere.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Janus I don’t want to be mean but you’ve literally taken away the objectively in preparing what is meant to be objective data.

You can’t choose and pick what games/seasons go into the top 4/top 8 wins. You tally them up and you calculate the percentages. That’s it.

Besides, we could just as easily do this the other way to discredit the ones he does have,

ie 2019, when a confident, mature, ultra-professional defeat of ladder-leaders Geelong was followed by a typical dropped bollock to the bottom-4 Dogs at the exact same venue, in the exact same timeslot, 7 days later.
 
You can either beat a top four team or you can’t. Beat a top eight team or you can’t. Unless you play every team home and away, there’s no point counting the teams that are played twice because if you beat them twice, they may no longer be a top eight team, whereas two losses makes you seem worse, especially if you’re playing a top four side.

Raw data is meaningless when the fixture is weighted every year, whether it be through blockbuster games like Anzac Day, Queens Birthday, Showdown/Derby/Q Clash etc., through who plays who at home or away, or through the AFL’s own three tiered system of assigning double up matches.

But if you want I can make it even more detailed by analysing how many top eight sides we’ve played away vs home over the years, then comparing what our ladder position would have been if we 'downhill skied' over the teams outside the eight. Raw data, remember? Bold are top four teams:



This is why 2014 shouldn’t have come as a surprise. All we needed to do was win the games we should and we would be pushing for top four. We somehow, as a bottom four team, get to play Geelong twice.



This was a year we played about to our level. Note that we weren't good enough to beat any top eight team away from home.



Like I said, 2015 wasn’t really about not beating good sides, it was about not taking care of the bad ones. Get double ups against two eventual top four teams - win 1 game (that was pretty much thrown, but you know, raw data :p)



The list from 2014 in decline. Schulz injured, Carlile injured, White injured, Ryder and Monfries out thanks to Essendon's bullshit, Polec back from a navicular but not really...just a waste of a season.



Pretty much 2014 revisited and showed us where we were at. We finished in the eight but still had 9 games against the 7 other top eight teams.



Hence why we traded Polec, Wingard and Pittard.



Funnily enough we were missing Dixon for most of this year too. That’s how important he is to the team. Plus as I said before, the inconsistency of youth. Not sure how we managed to end up with double ups against two top four teams when it was pretty clear that Brisbane was going to be a good team that year after trading for Neale. Oh, wait I know why - because the AFL is rigged to favour Victorian teams



This was a premiership calibre team that was just unlucky. The equivalent of 2008 Hawthorn or 2016 Western Bulldogs.



"But who have they beaten?" ******* everyone we should have, that's who. It was a piss easy fixture though. Similar to 2013, but this time with an actual good team. Bulldogs would have been a top four side, but you know, we beat them in the last round, so they weren't.



This fixture was similar to 2017, but with the injury issues of 2019. If we had our full team available for the year, I believe we would have finished top four again. But as I've said, this might be the recession Port Adelaide had to have. As for the fixture - what a joke. Double ups against Melbourne and Geelong as top four sides + Brisbane, Fremantle, Carlton, Collingwood and St Kilda away. Why? Because it's a tv rights negotiation year, and Port Adelaide doesn't rate in the major markets, that's why.

Top four teams aren't top four teams because they can beat teams in the eight. They are top four teams because they can take care of the teams in the bottom ten and win some games against teams in the eight.
Grand final teams are grand final teams because they CAN beat the top 4.

Making the top 4 is useless if you can't make the GF.
 
If Hinkley was going to be coaching here in 2023 Koch's response would be unequivocal. I'm sure he's sick if answering the question every time he's interviewed and could completely knock all speculation on the head for good in aboit 10 seconds if he wanted.
I believe we already have a new coach ready to go, and now it's just a matter of whether Hinkley gets picked up by another club, or if a severence package needs to be thrashed out. There's a little bit still to play out in that regard, hence why no official announcement to date. That's my read anyway.
Our season finishes on August 20 (just 17 days away), so surely we'll know for certain by the end of the month.
 
You can either beat a top four team or you can’t. Beat a top eight team or you can’t. Unless you play every team home and away, there’s no point counting the teams that are played twice because if you beat them twice, they may no longer be a top eight team, whereas two losses makes you seem worse, especially if you’re playing a top four side.

Raw data is meaningless when the fixture is weighted every year, whether it be through blockbuster games like Anzac Day, Queens Birthday, Showdown/Derby/Q Clash etc., through who plays who at home or away, or through the AFL’s own three tiered system of assigning double up matches.

But if you want I can make it even more detailed by analysing how many top eight sides we’ve played away vs home over the years, then comparing what our ladder position would have been if we 'downhill skied' over the teams outside the eight. Raw data, remember? Bold are top four teams:



This is why 2014 shouldn’t have come as a surprise. All we needed to do was win the games we should and we would be pushing for top four. We somehow, as a bottom four team, get to play Geelong twice.



This was a year we played about to our level. Note that we weren't good enough to beat any top eight team away from home.



Like I said, 2015 wasn’t really about not beating good sides, it was about not taking care of the bad ones. Get double ups against two eventual top four teams - win 1 game (that was pretty much thrown, but you know, raw data :p)



The list from 2014 in decline. Schulz injured, Carlile injured, White injured, Ryder and Monfries out thanks to Essendon's bullshit, Polec back from a navicular but not really...just a waste of a season.



Pretty much 2014 revisited and showed us where we were at. We finished in the eight but still had 9 games against the 7 other top eight teams.



Hence why we traded Polec, Wingard and Pittard.



Funnily enough we were missing Dixon for most of this year too. That’s how important he is to the team. Plus as I said before, the inconsistency of youth. Not sure how we managed to end up with double ups against two top four teams when it was pretty clear that Brisbane was going to be a good team that year after trading for Neale. Oh, wait I know why - because the AFL is rigged to favour Victorian teams :p



This was a premiership calibre team that was just unlucky. The equivalent of 2008 Hawthorn or 2016 Western Bulldogs.



"But who have they beaten?" ******* everyone we should have, that's who. It was a piss easy fixture though. Similar to 2013, but this time with an actual good team. Bulldogs would have been a top four side, but you know, we beat them in the last round, so they weren't.



This fixture was similar to 2017, but with the injury issues of 2019. If we had our full team available for the year, I believe we would have finished top four again. But as I've said, this might be the recession Port Adelaide had to have. As for the fixture - what a joke. Double ups against Melbourne and Geelong as top four sides + Brisbane, Fremantle, Carlton, Collingwood and St Kilda away. Why? Because it's a tv rights negotiation year, and Port Adelaide doesn't rate in the major markets, that's why.

Top four teams aren't top four teams because they can beat teams in the eight. They are top four teams because they can take care of the teams in the bottom ten and win some games against teams in the eight.
images.jpeg-291.jpg
 
Grand final teams are grand final teams because they CAN beat the top 4.

Making the top 4 is useless if you can't make the GF.
Once the brilliant mind of Ken Hinkley invents a way of winning a GF without beating a Top 4 team you'll be laughing out the other side of your face.
 
Janus I don’t want to be mean but you’ve literally taken away the objectively in preparing what is meant to be objective data.

You can’t choose and pick what games/seasons go into the top 4/top 8 wins. You tally them up and you calculate the percentages. That’s it.
I've explained in my other post why this doesn't work.

The fixture isn't objective. It's weighted in strength, with certain sides getting easier fixtures and others harder fixtures based on various factors such as finishing position and locked in marquee matches. And if you look at our 2021 fixture, for example - you'd see that if we lost to the Bulldogs in the last round, that would have counted as yet another two losses to a top four team...but because we won, they get bumped down to 5th, and the stats don't count that win being against a top four opponent.

2014 - Port beats West Coast. West Coast misses out on the eight to Richmond by 1 game. But Port Adelaide lost to Richmond - so does that mean we are more shit?

It's why the only real metric to use for performance is percentage. Percentage tells you how good you really are.

1997 - 91.8%
1998 - 95.6%
1999 - 90.1%
2000 - 84.0%
2001 - 128.9%
2002 - 132.4%
2003 - 127.2%
2004 - 132.4%

2005 - 98.2%
2006 - 88.6%
2007 - 113.5%
2008 - 95.9%
2009 - 88.7%
2010 - 82.4%
2011 - 64.5%
2012 - 78.9%

2013 - 102.4%
2014 - 129.9%
2015 - 106.8%
2016 - 106.0%
2017 - 129.7%
2018 - 107.6%
2019 - 105.4%
2020 - 136.4%
2021 - 126.3%
2022* - 104.7%


But if you believe this board, the 23.8% rise between 2012 and 2013 was all Darren Burgess and Alan Richardson, the 27.5% rise between 2013 and 2014 was all Phil Walsh, and the 31% increase between 2019 and 2020 was all Jarred Schofield.
 
It's why the only real metric to use for performance is percentage. Percentage tells you how good you really are.

1997 - 91.8%
1998 - 95.6%
1999 - 90.1%
2000 - 84.0%
2001 - 128.9%
2002 - 132.4%
2003 - 127.2%
2004 - 132.4%

2005 - 98.2%
2006 - 88.6%
2007 - 113.5%
2008 - 95.9%
2009 - 88.7%
2010 - 82.4%
2011 - 64.5%
2012 - 78.9%

2013 - 102.4%
2014 - 129.9%
2015 - 106.8%
2016 - 106.0%
2017 - 129.7%
2018 - 107.6%
2019 - 105.4%
2020 - 136.4%
2021 - 126.3%
2022* - 104.7%


But if you believe this board, the 23.8% rise between 2012 and 2013 was all Darren Burgess and Alan Richardson, the 27.5% rise between 2013 and 2014 was all Phil Walsh, and the 31% increase between 2019 and 2020 was all Jarred Schofield.

So… the 2003 side which finished 3 games clear top with 18 wins was inferior to the 2017 side which beat up on dogsh¡t and couldn’t beat anyone good.

Gotcha.
 
Koch on radio today ranting about prison bars and sanfl when the club has signed contracts on both,what a joke.

At least he didn't say ken's safe,just that's he's contracted for next year

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I've explained in my other post why this doesn't work.

The fixture isn't objective. It's weighted in strength, with certain sides getting easier fixtures and others harder fixtures based on various factors such as finishing position and locked in marquee matches. And if you look at our 2021 fixture, for example - you'd see that if we lost to the Bulldogs in the last round, that would have counted as yet another two losses to a top four team...but because we won, they get bumped down to 5th, and the stats don't count that win being against a top four opponent.

2014 - Port beats West Coast. West Coast misses out on the eight to Richmond by 1 game. But Port Adelaide lost to Richmond - so does that mean we are more s**t?

It's why the only real metric to use for performance is percentage. Percentage tells you how good you really are.

1997 - 91.8%
1998 - 95.6%
1999 - 90.1%
2000 - 84.0%
2001 - 128.9%
2002 - 132.4%
2003 - 127.2%
2004 - 132.4%

2005 - 98.2%
2006 - 88.6%
2007 - 113.5%
2008 - 95.9%
2009 - 88.7%
2010 - 82.4%
2011 - 64.5%
2012 - 78.9%

2013 - 102.4%
2014 - 129.9%
2015 - 106.8%
2016 - 106.0%
2017 - 129.7%
2018 - 107.6%
2019 - 105.4%
2020 - 136.4%
2021 - 126.3%
2022* - 104.7%


But if you believe this board, the 23.8% rise between 2012 and 2013 was all Darren Burgess and Alan Richardson, the 27.5% rise between 2013 and 2014 was all Phil Walsh, and the 31% increase between 2019 and 2020 was all Jarred Schofield.
this is all good, except you dont mention where we wet the bed in finals
 
Wasn't there a story of Koch and Ken in a hotel room agreeing to stick together for 10 years in the beginning?

the hotel room:

Untitled-design-18.png
 
You can either beat a top four team or you can’t. Beat a top eight team or you can’t. Unless you play every team home and away, there’s no point counting the teams that are played twice because if you beat them twice, they may no longer be a top eight team, whereas two losses makes you seem worse, especially if you’re playing a top four side.

Raw data is meaningless when the fixture is weighted every year, whether it be through blockbuster games like Anzac Day, Queens Birthday, Showdown/Derby/Q Clash etc., through who plays who at home or away, or through the AFL’s own three tiered system of assigning double up matches.

But if you want I can make it even more detailed by analysing how many top eight sides we’ve played away vs home over the years, then comparing what our ladder position would have been if we 'downhill skied' over the teams outside the eight. Raw data, remember? Bold are top four teams:



This is why 2014 shouldn’t have come as a surprise. All we needed to do was win the games we should and we would be pushing for top four. We somehow, as a bottom four team, get to play Geelong twice.



This was a year we played about to our level. Note that we weren't good enough to beat any top eight team away from home.



Like I said, 2015 wasn’t really about not beating good sides, it was about not taking care of the bad ones. Get double ups against two eventual top four teams - win 1 game (that was pretty much thrown, but you know, raw data :p)



The list from 2014 in decline. Schulz injured, Carlile injured, White injured, Ryder and Monfries out thanks to Essendon's bullshit, Polec back from a navicular but not really...just a waste of a season.



Pretty much 2014 revisited and showed us where we were at. We finished in the eight but still had 9 games against the 7 other top eight teams.



Hence why we traded Polec, Wingard and Pittard.



Funnily enough we were missing Dixon for most of this year too. That’s how important he is to the team. Plus as I said before, the inconsistency of youth. Not sure how we managed to end up with double ups against two top four teams when it was pretty clear that Brisbane was going to be a good team that year after trading for Neale. Oh, wait I know why - because the AFL is rigged to favour Victorian teams :p



This was a premiership calibre team that was just unlucky. The equivalent of 2008 Hawthorn or 2016 Western Bulldogs.



"But who have they beaten?" ******* everyone we should have, that's who. It was a piss easy fixture though. Similar to 2013, but this time with an actual good team. Bulldogs would have been a top four side, but you know, we beat them in the last round, so they weren't.



This fixture was similar to 2017, but with the injury issues of 2019. If we had our full team available for the year, I believe we would have finished top four again. But as I've said, this might be the recession Port Adelaide had to have. As for the fixture - what a joke. Double ups against Melbourne and Geelong as top four sides + Brisbane, Fremantle, Carlton, Collingwood and St Kilda away. Why? Because it's a tv rights negotiation year, and Port Adelaide doesn't rate in the major markets, that's why.

Top four teams aren't top four teams because they can beat teams in the eight. They are top four teams because they can take care of the teams in the bottom ten and win some games against teams in the eight.

I've explained in my other post why this doesn't work.

The fixture isn't objective. It's weighted in strength, with certain sides getting easier fixtures and others harder fixtures based on various factors such as finishing position and locked in marquee matches. And if you look at our 2021 fixture, for example - you'd see that if we lost to the Bulldogs in the last round, that would have counted as yet another two losses to a top four team...but because we won, they get bumped down to 5th, and the stats don't count that win being against a top four opponent.

2014 - Port beats West Coast. West Coast misses out on the eight to Richmond by 1 game. But Port Adelaide lost to Richmond - so does that mean we are more s**t?

It's why the only real metric to use for performance is percentage. Percentage tells you how good you really are.

1997 - 91.8%
1998 - 95.6%
1999 - 90.1%
2000 - 84.0%
2001 - 128.9%
2002 - 132.4%
2003 - 127.2%
2004 - 132.4%

2005 - 98.2%
2006 - 88.6%
2007 - 113.5%
2008 - 95.9%
2009 - 88.7%
2010 - 82.4%
2011 - 64.5%
2012 - 78.9%

2013 - 102.4%
2014 - 129.9%
2015 - 106.8%
2016 - 106.0%
2017 - 129.7%
2018 - 107.6%
2019 - 105.4%
2020 - 136.4%
2021 - 126.3%
2022* - 104.7%


But if you believe this board, the 23.8% rise between 2012 and 2013 was all Darren Burgess and Alan Richardson, the 27.5% rise between 2013 and 2014 was all Phil Walsh, and the 31% increase between 2019 and 2020 was all Jarred Schofield.
Didn't want or need a thesis.
 
Cant wait for all those percentage premiership trophies to be put on display in, "THE PRECINCT"

In summary,

“The list was sh¡t, the players were sh¡t… now here’s the definitive metric of how good you are, whereby the 2017 team was superior to the 2003 minor premiers and the plucky 2007 team that could only be stopped by what turned out to be arguably the greatest team of all-time”

🤪
 
'You know what fits my argument. This handpicked collection of data points that backs up my argument concerningly perfectly'

‘And the bits which directly contradict my points, well, they’re the exception that prove the rule’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top