Unofficial Preview Sack Hinkley

[JUSTWORK]

Ouch.....rigging an election??? Big call

Not literally, but no one was a chance of beating Wanganeen. The suggestion is he put Gav there becouse he couldn’t lose.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Hinkley can trot this one out. This year is really his first year.

 

[Killer Power]

I think you'd be surprised.

The only way to force change would be for the membership/supporter base to en masse reject the coach and for it to start affecting revenue streams. We're not at that point yet, but we might not be too far off depending on how the back end of the year pans out.

Perhaps those who have auto-renewal set up (like myself) could cancel that now. If enough do it then it might help send a message that renewal isn't a given if they don't tidy up this mess.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

The comments attached to this tweet suggest a level of discontent at Port. Have a read Port minion who is checking social media

 

[JUSTWORK]

Hinkley can trot this one out. This year is really his first year.

Fair point with 2016 being a right off and 2017 was far from the norm, but for a coach to pulling that out is pretty poor.

You’ve got guys like Lloyd you are questioning his future as they are now underachieving for the second year straight, Hinkley is now into his 5th year of underachieving.

 

[Janus]

What would even be the point. I've never known anyone so impervious to external worldviews that, to refer only to the most recent facepalm, they'd pretend Hawthorn don't play 193cm regular goalkicker Jack Gunston as a key forward - the entire justification of which is based on your own personal (and like everything else probably shifting as the wind blows) definition of what a key forward is.

My view is entirely congruent with what a key forward is and what they are expected to do.

But I'll be your huckleberry Let's say Gunston played as a key forward...so what? Are we saying that playing with a solitary leading key forward is the way to go now? Sounds eerily similar to the time back in 2014-2015 when people were crying out about structure when we were playing Schulz as the only key forward. My point about Clarkson playing a similar system to what Ken has done in the past still stands. Schulz kicked 6 goals in games too, you know.

Everyone in the league is trying to play the same system. And that system is: move the ball quickly out of the back half, try to score with your deep forward, and if you can't do that...lock the ball in the front half, generate repeat entries and try to score with your crumbing players. Some are better at it than others, and it certainly isn't going to work if you've got timid defenders who won't push up the ground.

I can explain my position well, because I have a clear and concise ideology of how I think football should be played. That has never changed. I'm looking for someone to explain theirs, other than the tired 'Not that way!' rhetoric that pervades this thread and others. You want things to change, let's hear it.

Personally, I don't think anyone on this board has a clue on what they want. You all wanted Frampton playing - he's playing, and because he got swamped by defenders like every other key forward in the competition has to deal with, people want an out of form Marshall playing as well. You all wanted Ladhams playing when Lycett was injured, and he did exactly what anyone would have expected of a developing ruck in his first game. And yet...we've got people complaining that we didn't wipe the floor with Hawthorn.

My belief is that you can't play a one size fits all game plan, and it needs to be adaptable to the situation. My belief is that if you dine on the ignorance of thinking that your playing group is miles better than another and can win based on talent alone, you'll lose every time.

 

[Joelg]

The comments attached to this tweet suggest a level of discontent at Port. Have a read Port minion who is checking social media

Jobs for the boys, Kenny is now officially a passenger and a politician who is just collecting a check

 

[finbarr]

I love how Butters' form has died in the ass since the now infamous Hinkley "be more careful, zak" talk.

How to destroy a players self assurance and confidence in snap decision making with one simple trick. Has science gone too far?

It’s like Wingard being told to do more of the team things.
Peak Chad was when he’d take it upon himself to win games off his own boot.

What we ended up with was a Wingard who second guessed, tried to do the “team” thing by looking for someone in a better (haha) position, and who ultimately lost interest in football.

It’s like telling Bethoven to stop trying to be clever and stick to writing variations of ‘Chopsticks’ instead.

 

[tribey]

And yet...we've got people complaining that we didn't wipe the floor with Hawthorn.

It’s not that we didn’t ‘wipe the floor with Hawthorn’, it’s that we looked utterly incompetent and out of depth against Hawthorn.

4-5 Hawthorn.

Missing Tom Mitchell, Ben McEvoy and others. Rushing back underdone players same as us.

Another scoreless quarter. The Hinkley special.

Not exactly all-cylinders Geelong at Kardinia Park, but this is Port Adelaide now. Give the man his zillionth pass.

 

[Butters Made Me Do It]

My view is entirely congruent with what a key forward is and what they are expected to do.

But I'll be your huckleberry Let's say Gunston played as a key forward...so what? Are we saying that playing with a solitary leading key forward is the way to go now? Sounds eerily similar to the time back in 2014-2015 when people were crying out about structure when we were playing Schulz as the only key forward. My point about Clarkson playing a similar system to what Ken has done in the past still stands. Schulz kicked 6 goals in games too, you know.

Everyone in the league is trying to play the same system. And that system is: move the ball quickly out of the back half, try to score with your deep forward, and if you can't do that...lock the ball in the front half, generate repeat entries and try to score with your crumbing players. Some are better at it than others, and it certainly isn't going to work if you've got timid defenders who won't push up the ground.

I can explain my position well, because I have a clear and concise ideology of how I think football should be played. That has never changed. I'm looking for someone to explain theirs, other than the tired 'Not that way!' rhetoric that pervades this thread and others. You want things to change, let's hear it.

Personally, I don't think anyone on this board has a clue on what they want. You all wanted Frampton playing - he's playing, and because he got swamped by defenders like every other key forward in the competition has to deal with, people want an out of form Marshall playing as well. You all wanted Ladhams playing when Lycett was injured, and he did exactly what anyone would have expected of a developing ruck in his first game. And yet...we've got people complaining that we didn't wipe the floor with Hawthorn.

My belief is that you can't play a one size fits all game plan, and it needs to be adaptable to the situation. My belief is that if you dine on the ignorance of thinking that your playing group is miles better than another and can win based on talent alone, you'll lose every time.

In which Janus comes across exactly why we are shat off with Hinkley's regime (and Janus posts), walks right past it, and pretends it actually refers to everyone except him and his imaginary best mate Hinks.

If we just throw in every senior player, regardless of injury setback or poor SANFL form, but purely because of exposed talent there's an extremely good chance we'll never see at the same level again, then we'll be right. Janus, you're the one thats been saying that when we get back our assortment of aging injury prone players we're going to the finals, right? I guess that talent will make up for the fact that we've struggled to take the ball end to end with any consistency since 2014 when we got found out post-Walsh.

Or that we need to pick players on experience instead of form because reasons. That was why we played an indifferent Broadbent ahead of debuting Garner, and then saw Broadbent outperformed the following week by Garner the debutant, only finally seeing a half decent game from Broadbent last week when he improved his contested possession rate and disposal efficiency, both of which you had previous claimed were unimportant (and yet this is the week he got coaches votes).

You blame timid defenders who won't push up the ground, when overpossession and lateral movement in the backline is an extremely common theme of our discontent in this past week, and something we have seen SO MANY TIMES under Hinkley, even with all the supertalent senior players you think will get us a premiership this year are in the side...and then credit yourself for having that genius thought but then conveniently ignore that everyone was complaining about that same thing when you strawman us with `You wanted ladhams but complain we didnt wipe the floor with Hawthorn'. Maybe because LADHAMS and BEAT HAWTHORN weren't the only factors, you doink.

You are inconsistent. You see `this board' as having a 100% unified opinion when we are many people who have some shared common views, because its convenient for you to be the unique genius rally against a clone army by cherrypicking only the tiny bits of arguments (that often different people have made) in opposition to reinforce your own imagined superiority.

Honestly Janus its pathetic.

 

[Janus]

It’s not that we didn’t ‘wipe the floor with Hawthorn’, it’s that we looked utterly incompetent and out of depth against Hawthorn.

4-5 Hawthorn.

Missing Tom Mitchell, Ben McEvoy and others. Rushing back underdone players same as us.

Another scoreless quarter. The Hinkley special.

Not exactly all-cylinders Geelong at Kardinia Park, but this is Port Adelaide now. Give the man his zillionth pass.

Any benefit we had with McEvoy not playing was diminished by the fact that Ladhams had to play for us.

I'm not saying it's acceptable. But comparative strengths, especially when the difference was a three time premiership player in Gunston, aren't the same. That being said, if this team can't figure out how to combat a team that comes at it with the same force of will as it has, then it won't win anything.

 

[JUSTWORK]

It’s like Wingard being told to do more of the team things.
Peak Chad was when he’d take it upon himself to win games off his own boot.

What we ended up with was a Wingard who second guessed, tried to do the “team” thing by looking for someone in a better (haha) position, and who ultimately lost interest in football.

It’s like telling Bethoven to stop trying to be clever and stick to writing variations of ‘Chopsticks’ instead.

It takes a special kind of stupid to ruin that kind of talent.

 

[Us against the rest]

It’s like Wingard being told to do more of the team things.
Peak Chad was when he’d take it upon himself to win games off his own boot.

What we ended up with was a Wingard who second guessed, tried to do the “team” thing by looking for someone in a better (haha) position, and who ultimately lost interest in football.

It’s like telling Bethoven to stop trying to be clever and stick to writing variations of ‘Chopsticks’ instead.

Good post.
I am a big believer in letting players play to the strengths and build around that. Hinkley turns natural forwards into defenders, goal kicking medium forwards into midfielders and we all know what he did with our ruck situation the last few years.
When will this man stop trying to put square pegs into round holes.

 

[TeeKray]

A few players come back we go 8-3 in the 2nd half of the year, finish 5th, win a couple of finals and you still have him sacked? Nonsense.

If we win this week we turn 6-5. We were not far from 8-3 this half (Not crazy that we could have beaten Brisbane or Richmond). But no. Let's sack him now at 5-5.

He might get the flick at some stage this year. But round 10 ?

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

This is the exact problem though.

We're never far away under Ken. Within games and within seasons. It's always 'oh if only he didn't get injured we would've won this game' or 'oh if we didn't lose in the last minute in these two games we'd be 4th on the ladder'. We've been talking like this for 7 years. We always just end up in some mid table mediocre position when all is said and done.

It's like waiting for a train that you can hear but can't see and it never comes. At some point you give up and go find another way to get to where you want to go.

 

[5um0F1]

I would rather almost anything than continuing down this miserable, soul destroying path that Hinkley is dragging us.

As a 40+ year paying supporter, the last 4 years are not ****ing ok at all and anyone suggesting it is should have a good look at themselves and wonder how the Hinkley experience has distorted their perceptions to the point that the current situation is ok.

 

[TeeKray]

Yeah, I'd much rather the safety and security of repeated 10th place finishes than take a risk and try to win a premiership.

Take it to the bank that there are people within the club who think this way. How high up they go is the only question.

 

[Us against the rest]

This is the exact problem though.

We're never far away under Ken. Within games and within seasons. It's always 'oh if only he didn't get injured we would've won this game' or 'oh if we didn't lose in the last minute in these two games we'd be 4th on the ladder'. We've been talking like this for 7 years. We always just end up in some mid table mediocre position when all is said and done.

It's like waiting for a train that you can hear but can't see and it never comes. At some point you give up and go find another way to get to where you want to go.

This is Ken though, most people will give something a reasonable go and if it doesn't work, change it. Ken believes that if we do it for long enough it will work, but not before the team is frustrated and worn out, do our experienced players look frustrated and disinterested, they do to me.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

I would rather almost anything than continuing down this miserable, soul destroying path that Hinkley is dragging us.

As a 40+ year paying supporter, the last 4 years are not ******* ok at all and anyone suggesting it is should have a good look at themselves and wonder how the Hinkley experience has distorted their perceptions to the point that the current situation is ok.

The last 4 and a half seasons have been torture. I’m not quite sure if I have the mental strength to go again if we finish 8th, go one and done and Hinkley stays on “because he made finals”

 

[TeeKray]

This is Ken though, most people will give something a reasonable go and if it doesn't work, change it. Ken believes that if we do it for long enough it will work, but not before the team is frustrated and worn out, do our experienced players look frustrated and disinterested, they do to me.

I don't think it's a matter of changing things. He's made plenty of changes. None work. The reason is that he is actually a good coach. A good coach but not a great coach. You'll never see his teams lose 8 games in a row, get belted more than once or twice a season, finish down the bottom of the table. He's good enough to create a competitive team with any combo of 22 players, he just can't get them to be winners who display championship qualities when push comes to shove. That won't change.

 

[Janus]

In which Janus comes across exactly why we are shat off with Hinkley's regime (and Janus posts), walks right past it, and pretends it actually refers to everyone except him and his imaginary best mate Hinks.

Not the best start.

If we just throw in every senior player, regardless of injury setback or poor SANFL form, but purely because of exposed talent there's an extremely good chance we'll never see at the same level again, then we'll be right. Janus, you're the one thats been saying that when we get back our assortment of aging injury prone players we're going to the finals, right? I guess that talent will make up for the fact that we've struggled to take the ball end to end with any consistency since 2014 when we got found out post-Walsh.

What it will reduce is the excuse our players have for not trusting their teammates to be there when they should be, because they will actually make a contest when it's time to make a contest. Those players are best 22 for a reason, and that reason goes further than talent. It extends to the faith that the players around them have in them, and if you keep introducing new players every week you're never going to build that trust.

People point to Geelong, but I've shown that almost all of Geelong's players all have played almost every game together bar one since R1.

Or that we need to pick players on experience instead of form because reasons. That was why we played an indifferent Broadbent ahead of debuting Garner, and then saw Broadbent outperformed the following week by Garner the debutant, only finally seeing a half decent game from Broadbent last week when he improved his contested possession rate and disposal efficiency, both of which you had previous claimed were unimportant (and yet this is the week he got coaches votes).

A player who hasn't played at the level for two years deserves more than one or two games to find his feet. My claim about disposal efficiency being unimportant was and is solely referring to players who move the ball slowly in order to make sure they don't sacrifice their DE. It's important when the half backs are playing properly, pushing up the ground and attacking. It's not important when they are waxing in defensive 50 playing chip to chip.

You blame timid defenders who won't push up the ground, when overpossession and lateral movement in the backline is an extremely common theme of our discontent in this past week, and something we have seen SO MANY TIMES under Hinkley, even with all the supertalent senior players you think will get us a premiership this year are in the side...and then credit yourself for having that genius thought but then conveniently ignore that everyone was complaining about that same thing when you strawman us with `You wanted ladhams but complain we didnt wipe the floor with Hawthorn'. Maybe because LADHAMS and BEAT HAWTHORN weren't the only factors, you doink.

Broadbent and Byrne-Jones pushed up the ground. Why didn't the other players like Houston and Howard follow them? Why was Hinkley going after the defenders at quarter time if they were playing the way they are supposed to? Why were all the defenders playing behind their men while all the Hawks defenders were playing in front and being pro-active?

Perhaps it was because they weren't moving at all and anchored in fear in the back line. Perhaps it was because Ken selected Jonas expecting his inclusion to actually give the defenders the trust to push up the ground, only to find that they still sat back and just invited Hawthorn's pressure. Even though they did exactly the same thing against Gold Coast in the first half and got caught out a myriad of times, but when they started playing attacking football, they locked the ball in correctly.

You are inconsistent. You see `this board' as having a 100% unified opinion when we are many people who have some shared common views, because its convenient for you to be the unique genius rally against a clone army by cherrypicking only the tiny bits of arguments (that often different people have made) in opposition to reinforce your own imagined superiority.

Honestly Janus its pathetic.

Still haven't explained what you'd do different. All I see is 'sack the coach' and 'play the kids', and criticisms of my posts. I've stated what I think the problem is, and why I don't blame Hinkley for the failings of an inexperienced group of players. Put yourself in Ken's chair and tell me what you'd do to fix it. Then, when it happens/doesn't happen, people can understand it more than 'this coach is rubbish'.

 

[MotlopRules]

Janus ITT:

I can explain my position well, because I have a clear and concise ideology of how I think football should be played. That has never changed.

Also Janus:

**** you you disgusting little bald headed piece of ****. You are an absolute disgrace and are quite obviously sabotaging this season and this gameplan with your ******** selection policy, rewarding players who put in poor effort with games while others who bust their arse and actually play properly waste away in the SANFL.

If I could, I'd cut out your tongue, wrap you up in bandages and then place you in a sarcophagus to be eaten alive by scarab beetles. You deserve a fate worse than death, because you're even softer than the players you continually ******* select.

 

[manureid]

The last 4 and a half seasons have been torture. I’m not quite sure if I have the mental strength to go again if we finish 8th, go one and done and Hinkley stays on “because he made finals”

It is those 'best wins evaaaaa' that we have every now and then that keep him in a job.

 

[Port_Girl_92]

Sacking him at this stage of the year is childish. If you were presented with a list of injuries that we have had at the start of the year around 7-10 would probably be about where we would expect to be. I think given the unexpected progress of our draftees we could have a game or so more but that was also unknown, and to KH's credit he has gotten games into a lot of kids, even at the expense of short term results.

His re-appointment was handled well by him and poorly by the club but that is not his fault.

It seems this forum takes a collective view of ˝pick player x˝ ˝drop player y˝ and calls for his head when it doesn't happen in the week that the collective view says it should. When he makes selections that do work this is ignored because he has been written off already. He have a flag to win and the talk of sacking the coach and ˝playing the kids˝ is defeatist and flies against the ethos that those suggesting it are using as the basis for the sacking.

At the end of the year we make another call. Not ˝is KH good ˝? but how is he relative to the next best option. Pull the trigger then, or at least when the season is completely shot.[/QUOTE

Nah its not childish, particularily after 5 years of the same nonsense. he had a chance this year to show he has changed, but again we see the wrong selection of players and ruining the development of younger potential future key position playes, we see no plan B in games for when he is being outcoached (I take that back he did send Dougs forward for 15 minutes after being absolutely trounced by the pies), he made outlandish claims such as we know what is best for the club and two captains it is (we have 10 rounds of footy which shows this is not the case - both are not leaders - should have been Boak continuing until Hartlett ready to go then he is the sole skip).

The guy has lost his players, hes lost me and he has lost many fans (not Facebook fans but actual die hard fans).


Piss him off and get someone in with some massive Cojones like a Jack Cahill (obviously not him but someone with that attitude).

I want a coach who will come in and say Tom & Ollie you had your chance, your not up to it yet, the new skipper is X and this is the reason why.

Someone who goes up to Jonas and says mate wtf are you wearing red and blue norwood flipping mouthgaurd. you play for port adelaide and we ar enot about that shit here. get rid of it or FCUCK off!!

I want someone who comes in and says Sammy Gray, Steven Motlop, Justin Westhoof, Robbie Gray, either get your shit together or your done (give them two weeks and if no improvement on effort then seeya the fk later).

I want someone who after getting beaten by a mediocre Hawthorn team isn't all smile walking off with Clarko as if to say yea we lost but I still have a contract for 2 years so not sweat off my back.

Someone who in pressers following a loss doesn't just go on that the other team is far superior and we need to work harder, but actually makes examples of some of the ridiculous efforts that occurred and say WE lost the game, not the other team won it.

I want a coach who backs the list as one of the best in the comp and is absolutely FURIOUS with any loss and any sub par efforts.

I want a coach who if he sees a player squib a challenge gets in their face at the break and is visually ruthless with them - and again if no response from said player - seeya the fcuck later!

I want a coach who drinks full blooded red coke none of that zero shit!


Unfortuantely this is not the case and won't be ever. We are stuck with Mr Kenneth Vanilla Campaigner Hinklebottom for at least another two years :-( - Fos would be turning in his grave to see what has become of this great club.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

It is those 'best wins evaaaaa' that we have every now and then that keep him in a job.

We went into Round 1 2019 undermanned and relatively underdone. Away from home against a side that admittedly got flogged in a prelim but were considered at that time (Round 1) almost a moral to go at least one better.

Old Port Adelaide: We expect to win

Ken Hinkley Port Adelaide: Holy **** what just happened?

Ken isn’t Port Adelaide and it’s becoming blatantly clear never was.

 

[snozulu]

I love how Butters' form has died in the ass since the now infamous Hinkley "be more careful, zak" talk.

How to destroy a players self assurance and confidence in snap decision making with one simple trick. Has science gone too far?

That pisses me off so much