bertiebeatle wrote:Booney wrote:morell wrote:We wouldn't know, because half the players that have played well in the magpies still don't get a call up. There are plenty of people that do go to Magpies games that very much agree with my viewpoint - you also don't need to go to Mars to know it's red.Booney wrote:By your own admission you don't watch the Magpies, perhaps do yourself and those who read your posts on here a favor. Get out there and watch a match and then tell me who deserves to come up into the AFL ranks, if not, your opinion isn't an educated one IMO. It's one built on half a picture and that's not sufficient enough to make judgement calls on. Not in my view.
It's been proven countless times how form in one doesn't always correlate to form in the other. There have been numerous times where Hinkley could have brought in player x or player y after a solid week or two and he chose to back the status quo. Some players have the skill set to dominate at SANFL level but have no upside to improve at AFL level. Some players are the exact opposite, they will lift and play at whatever level they're playing at.
Howard should have been played.
Eddy should have been played.
Neade should never of been played.
Frampton should have been played.
Pittard should have never been bought back in.
Houston should never have been dropped (x2).
Austin should never of been played.
These examples continue on for days.
There have been structural, selection, cultural and mental issues at Port all season. Many posters have tried to explain this to you and others but have routinely been told that all is well. It's not. Change is needed - Hinkley, Nicks and Voss out to start.
"Howard should have been played" - Where would you have played him?
I am sorry Morrell, but you and all the other comments i have read online are just way off. Everyone was over the moon when Monfries was selected on Friday, now everyone is slamming Hinkley for picking him. Yesterday, another tall would have made no difference what so ever. It was a wet day, we didn't need another tall. The reason why Dixon was outnumbered was more because we couldn't win the ball around the ground and had to just bang it forward to with hold some pressure. Pittard was just about best on last week, yet he should never have come back in??
The reason Young and these other guys keep getting re-cycled and are in and out of the team is they go back to the Maggies and dominate. What is Hinkley meant to do? Pick a kid that is getting 15-20 touches over someone collecting 30 just because he is a kid? We are sitting in the 8, we have to be picking 22 blokes that are performing. Impey will have to drop out this week and young will as well. But if they go back to the maggies and collect 30 touches for the next couple of weeks and dominate, how do you not pick them over someone else? I still go with the fact that we don't need another tall. Yesterday i thought we went into the game with the right balance with Trengove going back and having a smaller forward line due to the conditions. Our forward line couldn't make an impact as our midfield was terrible and we just got absolutely hammered in the middle. Felt sorry for Charlie yesterday as i thought he played well when he had the chance. Don't know what happened in the last quarter as i left and didn't pay too much attention after quarter time so happy to be proven wrong about our structure yesterday but from what i watched, that wasn't the issue
On the game plan, AFC's 7 recognised defenders had 36 marks between them. On a wet slippery night, not a whole lot of those were switch across the ground type marks. So you could basically say, that structurally 20+ times you broke down on at least creating a contest FWD of centre and gaining field position. That’s not even allowing for the drop marks but ability to clear from defence due to numbers. Hinkley didn’t appear to change anything to try and get that contest or field position.
