The Riddle of the Sphinkley II: a possible answer [2018 in Review]
THREE THOUSAND VIEWERS! Thank you all for the support. It has been a wild adventure trying to follow footy from 8,000 miles away. It wouldn't be possible without your company. I hope you have half of the fun reading Far-West Footy I have writing it!
---
---
Whatever we were trying to do in
2018, it didn't work. That's the "what," but what would be the
"why?" We have gotten rid of some of our assistant coaches, and we need to work
on our squad list; but would our problems stop there? I am not so sure.
Last year, we would kick into F50 and hope for the best. This year, we tried to move the ball better, but our execution never got to the level we all expected it could be. Moreover, correct me if i am wrong, but our mids weren't as good as we thought they should be in winning the ball out of stoppages and contests. We weren't able to see, but glimpses of our gameplan. Why? Is it the players? The coaches? Everybody?
Even if one agrees with our gameplan, we have failed to execute it. Handballing to players under pressure was not part of the gameplan. Kicking the ball to opposing players was not part of the gameplan. Lack of pressure was not part of the gameplan. Losing contests were not part of the gameplan. Still, that was what we saw, week in, week out; and this is on the players.
Our gameplan needs players with great disposal skills. We don't have as many of those as we should. A gameplan must fit the squad list; not, the other way around. That failure is on the coaches. They at least failed on their assumption that our players were able to put the plan in practice. Since this doesn't explain why we have gotten so much worse in constested footy compared to last year,[1] the issue seems to have been both the coaches and the players; which is not comforting at all.
In relation to 2017, our only on-field improvement was that teams hardly have put the game out of reach when we "shut off." I have no idea why we enter into "stand-by" mode, but that was a constant last season, and it has happened again this season. The main difference is that instead of those defensive meltdown of 2017, we had offensive meltdowns; but those are meltdowns nonetheless. Since our record got worse, I am not sure whether the trade-off is worthy.
When it was said we would be focusing on possession, I never thought it would be keeping possession out of defense. Why would we keep the ball closer to their goal? I thought we were adding something to our 2017 forward pressure.
Our plan needs a compact side. Being compact, we would move the ball around in short kicks. In case of the ball being loose or a turnover, we would be close and settled enough to get it back. I get that. But, then, we were supposed to attack in block, moving forward as a unit. If the ball was forward, the whole team should be forward, increasing our forward pressure. This almost never happened.
On the contrary, we got stuck out on the back. We couldn’t keep pressing forward, and too much of game time was played far from our goal. Now, I don't understand, if there was space to move fast forward, why we haven't done that consistently. We almost never counter-attacked. Truth be told, ultimately, our gameplan had no answer to "how are we going to attack?" We had no 2017 forward pressure nor 2014 counter-attack. We had the worst of both worlds! WHY?!
Looking at our season as a whole, our football seems absolutely headless right now: from list management, to team selection, to game-day strategies. I could include leadership and fitness in that list, too. One must look what are we taking from the analytics as well. In the end, our problem seems to be spread everywhere. That's what losing six out of the last seven games does!
This year in isolation was an absolutely self-inflicted disaster. This is awful, and those responsible deserve all criticism and more. On the other hand, if we just stop shooting ourselves on the foot, we will improve greatly. But, how could we do that? First of all, are we able to do that? It is a tough and painful question, but one that must be made.
For argumentation's sake, I will assume that we are able to stop being our worst enemies.[2] However, the question must remain open, so we can answer it next season. If we are able to improve, what can we do? I suspect changes must begin from the top.
I have this hypothesis for a while, that Ken would be cumulatively holding both head-coach (HC) and general-manager (GM) positions. Davies would be head-of-football only formally. He responds to Hinkley; not, the other way around.
For instance, in our 2017 yearbook, the Senior Coach is listed ABOVE the Head-of-Football. If this order is meaningful as it seems to be, our organization is wrong, and Hinkley is, indeed, exercising TWO functions simultaneously. This isn't working and won't work. We need to acknowledge and change that a.s.a.p.
Now, in such a case, it would make more sense — it would be the simplest practical solution for us:
Last year, we would kick into F50 and hope for the best. This year, we tried to move the ball better, but our execution never got to the level we all expected it could be. Moreover, correct me if i am wrong, but our mids weren't as good as we thought they should be in winning the ball out of stoppages and contests. We weren't able to see, but glimpses of our gameplan. Why? Is it the players? The coaches? Everybody?
Even if one agrees with our gameplan, we have failed to execute it. Handballing to players under pressure was not part of the gameplan. Kicking the ball to opposing players was not part of the gameplan. Lack of pressure was not part of the gameplan. Losing contests were not part of the gameplan. Still, that was what we saw, week in, week out; and this is on the players.
Our gameplan needs players with great disposal skills. We don't have as many of those as we should. A gameplan must fit the squad list; not, the other way around. That failure is on the coaches. They at least failed on their assumption that our players were able to put the plan in practice. Since this doesn't explain why we have gotten so much worse in constested footy compared to last year,[1] the issue seems to have been both the coaches and the players; which is not comforting at all.
In relation to 2017, our only on-field improvement was that teams hardly have put the game out of reach when we "shut off." I have no idea why we enter into "stand-by" mode, but that was a constant last season, and it has happened again this season. The main difference is that instead of those defensive meltdown of 2017, we had offensive meltdowns; but those are meltdowns nonetheless. Since our record got worse, I am not sure whether the trade-off is worthy.
When it was said we would be focusing on possession, I never thought it would be keeping possession out of defense. Why would we keep the ball closer to their goal? I thought we were adding something to our 2017 forward pressure.
Our plan needs a compact side. Being compact, we would move the ball around in short kicks. In case of the ball being loose or a turnover, we would be close and settled enough to get it back. I get that. But, then, we were supposed to attack in block, moving forward as a unit. If the ball was forward, the whole team should be forward, increasing our forward pressure. This almost never happened.
On the contrary, we got stuck out on the back. We couldn’t keep pressing forward, and too much of game time was played far from our goal. Now, I don't understand, if there was space to move fast forward, why we haven't done that consistently. We almost never counter-attacked. Truth be told, ultimately, our gameplan had no answer to "how are we going to attack?" We had no 2017 forward pressure nor 2014 counter-attack. We had the worst of both worlds! WHY?!
Looking at our season as a whole, our football seems absolutely headless right now: from list management, to team selection, to game-day strategies. I could include leadership and fitness in that list, too. One must look what are we taking from the analytics as well. In the end, our problem seems to be spread everywhere. That's what losing six out of the last seven games does!
This year in isolation was an absolutely self-inflicted disaster. This is awful, and those responsible deserve all criticism and more. On the other hand, if we just stop shooting ourselves on the foot, we will improve greatly. But, how could we do that? First of all, are we able to do that? It is a tough and painful question, but one that must be made.
For argumentation's sake, I will assume that we are able to stop being our worst enemies.[2] However, the question must remain open, so we can answer it next season. If we are able to improve, what can we do? I suspect changes must begin from the top.
I have this hypothesis for a while, that Ken would be cumulatively holding both head-coach (HC) and general-manager (GM) positions. Davies would be head-of-football only formally. He responds to Hinkley; not, the other way around.
For instance, in our 2017 yearbook, the Senior Coach is listed ABOVE the Head-of-Football. If this order is meaningful as it seems to be, our organization is wrong, and Hinkley is, indeed, exercising TWO functions simultaneously. This isn't working and won't work. We need to acknowledge and change that a.s.a.p.
Now, in such a case, it would make more sense — it would be the simplest practical solution for us:
a) acknowledging that Davies is our List Manager;
b) having Ken only as our full-time GM; and
c) promoting an assistant coach (Voss?) to HC.
b) having Ken only as our full-time GM; and
c) promoting an assistant coach (Voss?) to HC.
As I see it, the head-coach would be the football second-in-command and would respond to the GM. He would deal directly with assistants and players; being in charge of the day-to-day practices with the squad.
In his turn, the general-manager would dictate what every part of a
football department needs to do to make the plan for football successfully work:
from analytics, the intel on how to explore strengths and weaknesses - ours and
opponent's; from the HC, the gameplans and the strategies to be the most
competitive in both AFL and SANFL; from the list manager, the right profiles of
players; from the fitness team, the workload to have the players at their pick
come Finals, but without jeopardizing the Minor Round; etc. He holds the heads,
including the HC, accountable.
Simplifying, considering football only, I believe the best structure for
PAFC would be like this:
President (Club - Outside)
\/
CEO (Club - Inside)
\/
GM (Football)
\/
HC (Squad)
\/
CEO (Club - Inside)
\/
GM (Football)
\/
HC (Squad)
In our particular case, below the HC, I would split into Power and Magpies. The Magpies Coach would be on the same level as the Power Assistent Coach. GM and HC would be responsible to find ways of making both Power and Magpies competitive.
The general-manager wouldn’t be part of the selection team.[3] He would sit with the senior coach, the Power Assistant coach, and the Magpies coach only after selection to talk about the reasonings behind those decisions. The topic of their conversation would always be: “How those teams have maximized our winning odds in that particular Round, considering the season as a whole?”
The GM would have beforehand the same information the coaches had. Hence, he would have an idea what he, GM, would do. Since the HC would most probably decide something different, the meeting would serve for the GM to know what the senior coach and his closest assistants are thinking.
In the Monday mornings, the GM would meet with them again. Along with the teams’ captains (both Power’s and Magpies’), they would discuss what went right and what went wrong in the previous games. Here, it would be the moment where the GM can hold the HC accountable.
Through revision of the games, they would all acknowledge mistakes and areas for improvement. They would leave the meeting with lists of things to do. The GM would be able to know if he needs to talk with other departments: performance, medical, psychological, analytics, etc. – if some are not doing their job properly. The HC would know if some players need to be called up or send down, some tactics aren’t working, or whether there is an area that needs better development, etc.
Currently, that does not happen at Port Adelaide. Since Hinkley is both the GM and the HC, there is no one he can talk about it; and he must address both set of issues all by himself. It is overwhelming and stressful. It unnecessarily increases the chances for screw-ups. It should change. We won’t fire Hinkley. The very least we could do is providing him the proper conditions for him to succeed. I do not think that is currently the case. It shouldn’t be surprise that Hinkley got devoured by the Sphynx.[4]
CARN THE PORT!
---
Notes:
[1] That, by the way, is Hinkley’s "what." I am inclined to say that our issues are bigger than that. Maybe he meant that the causes for all other issues are known, but that one. Unfortunately, I haven't heard or read any interview trying to dissect our gameplan with Hinkley.
[2] I wonder whether Koch, Thomas, Hinkley, and the leadership group have reached their limit. After losing to WC in R21, I wrote this: "We are pretenders. We aren't ready. We won't be ready. We are not championship material; and we are probably clueless on why we are not championship material..." I hope I am wrong. Otherwise, we are heading towards some long three years and beyond.
[3] I must admit that my main complaint against Hinkley would be on his selections. The matchday selections seem to be affected by three issues, at least:
- the amount of actual selectable
players would not be big enough;
- such a short list would be unbalanced;
- there would be too much weight on the top-players.
- such a short list would be unbalanced;
- there would be too much weight on the top-players.
Those are not big issues, though, and easily fixable; I may be wrong about them as well. Still, if I am right, they would be affecting game tactics, players' development, physical performance, and so on.
[4] “The Riddle of the Sphynkley” was my first post that generated debate. It was written after our loss in Round 7 against West Coast in Perth and can be read here: http://farwestfooty.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-riddle-of-sphinkley.html
Comments
Post a Comment