Port Adelaide 2017

[amber_fluid]

Thanks but I think I'm busy.........

Takes some time out from trolling the Port fans. We'll be here when you get back.

That's nice too know...... it's like you almost care.

[Lightning McQueen]

I think Joshs previous 3 years have been better than Dixons

Yep, I'd have to agree with you there.

[Booney]

Thanks but I think I'm busy.........

Takes some time out from trolling the Port fans. We'll be here when you get back.

Even in his prime, Gibbo is a much different proposition one on one rather than having a mate come 3rd man up.

Might have quoted the wrong comment there mate.

Anywho, Gibson was the third man up. It was Lake, Frawley, Stratton and Spangher holding them down.

[morell]

But in all seriousness.

To appreciate Sir Charles, you have to watch a lot of Port.

His role is to play high up the ground as a target across half forward, and then push deep to be the goal kicking target, repeatedly, all game. His work ethic really is exceptional. When deep it's Port's game plan to use his size and strength to draw multiple defenders to the contest, ideally creating time and space for where Port have a purported strength - our talented medium-small forwards. I am not a fan of this game plan, I think it's dumb, but its what he's being asked to do.

Compared to Adelaide, he's playing the role of Lynch AND Walker AND Jenkins. Without the great supply the Adelaide midfield provide the aforementioned.

So people being critical of Dixon for not kicking enough goals are misguided. That's not his primary function. Its great when he does, of course, but you ought not to judge him on that. IMO his best game in a Port guernsey he didn't touch the scoreboard - but we won by 10 goals.

He's a team player, and in the role he plays is incredibly effective.

Lay into Boak, Hartlett, Lobbe, Pittard, Young, Amon, AhChee, Gray all you like... but leave Sir Charles alone, he is a boss.

[MW]

Thanks but I think I'm busy.........

Takes some time out from trolling the Port fans. We'll be here when you get back.

Even in his prime, Gibbo is a much different proposition one on one rather than having a mate come 3rd man up.

Might have quoted the wrong comment there mate.

Anywho, Gibson was the third man up. It was Lake, Frawley, Stratton and Spangher holding them down.

whoops sorry.
I thought Gibbo was on him one on one? oh well, either way he got towelled

[MW]

But in all seriousness.

To appreciate Sir Charles, you have to watch a lot of Port.

His role is to play high up the ground as a target across half forward, and then push deep to be the goal kicking target, repeatedly, all game. His work ethic really is exceptional. When deep it's Port's game plan to use his size and strength to draw multiple defenders to the contest, ideally creating time and space for where Port have a purported strength - our talented medium-small forwards. I am not a fan of this game plan, I think it's dumb, but its what he's being asked to do.

Compared to Adelaide, he's playing the role of Lynch AND Walker AND Jenkins. Without the great supply the Adelaide midfield provide the aforementioned.

So people being critical of Dixon for not kicking enough goals are misguided. That's not his primary function. Its great when he does, of course, but you ought not to judge him on that. IMO his best game in a Port guernsey he didn't touch the scoreboard - but we won by 10 goals.

He's a team player, and in the role he plays is incredibly effective.

Lay into Boak, Hartlett, Lobbe, Pittard, Young, Amon, AhChee, Gray all you like... but leave Sir Charles alone, he is a boss.

If you're happy for Charlie to have zero goals, who is your marking key forwards?

[morell]

But in all seriousness.

To appreciate Sir Charles, you have to watch a lot of Port.

His role is to play high up the ground as a target across half forward, and then push deep to be the goal kicking target, repeatedly, all game. His work ethic really is exceptional. When deep it's Port's game plan to use his size and strength to draw multiple defenders to the contest, ideally creating time and space for where Port have a purported strength - our talented medium-small forwards. I am not a fan of this game plan, I think it's dumb, but its what he's being asked to do.

Compared to Adelaide, he's playing the role of Lynch AND Walker AND Jenkins. Without the great supply the Adelaide midfield provide the aforementioned.

So people being critical of Dixon for not kicking enough goals are misguided. That's not his primary function. Its great when he does, of course, but you ought not to judge him on that. IMO his best game in a Port guernsey he didn't touch the scoreboard - but we won by 10 goals.

He's a team player, and in the role he plays is incredibly effective.

Lay into Boak, Hartlett, Lobbe, Pittard, Young, Amon, AhChee, Gray all you like... but leave Sir Charles alone, he is a boss.

If you're happy for Charlie to have zero goals, who is your marking key forwards?

Exactly. You shouldn't get me started!!

Hinkley's resistance to pick a side with a reasonable tall forward structure is a major bone of contention for mine. Drives me mental seeing Jarman Impey and previously Jake Neade play as a forward target.

Then we have Westhoff (who is another very good mark) playing on the ******* wing! Then one of our better key defenders and relief ruckman in Trengove is pretending to be a forward! Meanwhile Jonas, Clurey and Hombsch are undersized.

Hinkley is trying to follow the Beveridge model of "22 soldiers" and pays no consideration to structure. It's all over the shop.

[Lightning McQueen]

Exactly. You shouldn't get me started!!

Hinkley's resistance to pick a side with a reasonable tall forward structure is a major bone of contention for mine. Drives me mental seeing Jarman Impey and previously Jake Neade play as a forward target.

Then we have Westhoff (who is another very good mark) playing on the ******* wing! Then one of our better key defenders and relief ruckman in Trengove is pretending to be a forward.

Hinkley is trying to follow the Beveridge model of "22 soldiers" and pays no consideration to structure.

I think he's modelling Blight.

I like the idea of Westhoff playing the wing, apart from in between the ears there is no reason why he can't help out defense and then take a big grab 20 out up forward, converting it might be another thing though.

He has the ability to play the Matty Richardson role towards the end of his career, it's frustrating that he can't execute it though, he's had some awesome purple patches over time

[morell]

I don't mind it either, its an opportunity where we could exploit the opposition, but only *if* up forward we have more than just Dixon in the tall category.

If we're going to play Westy on the wing, we have to pick another key forward. And I mean forward, not tall dude.

Dougal Howard looms large, but Brett Eddy would've played every game this year for mine.

[amber_fluid]

I don't mind it either, its an opportunity where we could exploit the opposition, but only *if* up forward we have more than just Dixon in the tall category.

If we're going to play Westy on the wing, we have to pick another key forward.

Dougal Howard looms large.

Dougal Howard, using a word of yours...... will get monstered!

Needs to bulk up and isn't up to AFL yet.
Sure he played well for the maggies and kicked a bag, but c'mon man it was only against the bottom placed SANFL team.

Big difference.

[morell]

He doesn't have to be ... Charlie Dixon . He just needs to provide a target, pluck a couple of grabs and maybe kick 1-2.

He was playing that role in the AFL before his knee injury.

The output he would provide would be dwarfed by the improvement in structure and overall team output.

But I do kind of agree, Eddy should be in the team still. **** it, I would pick both of them

[Lightning McQueen]

He doesn't have to be ... Charlie Dixon . He just needs to provide a target, pluck a couple of grabs and maybe kick 1-2.

He was playing that role in the AFL before his knee injury.

The output he would provide would be dwarfed by the improvement in structure and overall team output.

#bringbackbutcher

[morell]

If he could kick he would've been perfect for the second tall forward role*.

* if it existed in a Hinkley coached side

[amber_fluid]

I have said it before but Ken Hinkley is Ports biggest problem.

[morell]

On field leadership is #1, mental fragility #2, foot skills #3 ... but Hinkley's resistance to a semblance of structure is in the final.

I am a fan of Hinkley, I think he's a good coach, an excellent communicator, motivator and leader of young men. But he needs a really high level strategic assistant coach. I am hoping Bassett will fill that role in time.

[Booney]

If he could kick he would've been perfect for the second tall forward role*.

* if it existed in a Hinkley coached side

Disagree, when has he had two key forwards ( proper key forwards ) to work with?

2016 when Dixon arrived, Schulz went down with knee, back and ankle problems, so never really got to use them together.

Prior to that Hinkley had Schulz with either Westhoff or Butcher. So I'd say his game plan is tailored to what he has at his disposal and that will evolve as the list develops, namely Howard or Frampton.

Eddy - Doesn't work hard enough in the press to keep the ball in, he's good insurance, but that's it.

[Booney]

On field leadership is #1, mental fragility #2, foot skills #3 ... but Hinkley's resistance to a semblance of structure is in the final.

I am a fan of Hinkley, I think he's a good coach, an excellent communicator, motivator and leader of young men. But he needs a really high level strategic assistant coach. I am hoping Bassett will fill that role in time.

Someone like a Walsh or Richardson?

Seriously hurt us when we lost those two men in consecutive seasons.

[bennymacca]

If he could kick he would've been perfect for the second tall forward role*.

* if it existed in a Hinkley coached side

Disagree, when has he had two key forwards ( proper key forwards ) to work with?

2016 when Dixon arrived, Schulz went down with knee, back and ankle problems, so never really got to use them together.

Prior to that Hinkley had Schulz with either Westhoff or Butcher. So I'd say his game plan is tailored to what he has at his disposal and that will evolve as the list develops, namely Howard or Frampton.

Eddy - Doesn't work hard enough in the press to keep the ball in, he's good insurance, but that's it.

this is his 5th year in charge. is that enough to develop a second forward? I think it most definitely is.

The fact that none of your drafted tall forwards are getting games would be pretty concerning

[amber_fluid]

On field leadership is #1, mental fragility #2, foot skills #3 ... but Hinkley's resistance to a semblance of structure is in the final.

I am a fan of Hinkley, I think he's a good coach, an excellent communicator, motivator and leader of young men. But he needs a really high level strategic assistant coach. I am hoping Bassett will fill that role in time.

Someone like a Walsh or Richardson?

Seriously hurt us when we lost those two men in consecutive seasons.

It certainly did hurt but Ken and the club have to move on.
Good bloke and a good communicator but isn't strategic enough when things don't go their way and doesn't make the hard calls when needed.

[morell]

If he could kick he would've been perfect for the second tall forward role*.

* if it existed in a Hinkley coached side

Disagree, when has he had two key forwards ( proper key forwards ) to work with?

2016 when Dixon arrived, Schulz went down with knee, back and ankle problems, so never really got to use them together.

Prior to that Hinkley had Schulz with either Westhoff or Butcher. So I'd say his game plan is tailored to what he has at his disposal and that will evolve as the list develops, namely Howard or Frampton.

Eddy - Doesn't work hard enough in the press to keep the ball in, he's good insurance, but that's it.

Sure, he doesn't have Lance Franklin or Jeremy Cameron to pluck, but you can't argue that the player playing instead of one of those types would have made the team a better side.

Game after game of nothing from so many small forwards. Game after game where even a Butcher would've been able to give us something, but because they weren't the perfect footballer for that role they never got selected.

We've had enough key position players to structure something up. It would never have been ideal, but it would have been more efficient than what we put on the park.

The best example was Trengove getting hurt in 2013. He replaced him with flankers and mids. 5 game loss streak ensued. He just doesn't respect the importance of key position players. I swear he'd pick 22 midfielders if he could.

Another great example will be this week. We'll be playing Brisbane, perfect opportunity for Howard to come in against similarly experienced opponents. Get some touch. Develop him. But I'll put a fair bit on that Young will come in. We'll win by 10 goals and everyone will be plastering over the cracks again.

Until we get 2 genuine key position forwards in the side we won't be winning the flag.

Fortunately... and wait for it...

We now have full control over what our Reserves are doing, so can develop them when, how and if we like. Which is good.