Analysis The cultural implications of 'tanking'

[Turbocat]

I've played team sports at a decently high level, and for a long time at various levels. I can't conceive of giving a single game up regardless of the long view, as a player. I just cannot accept, to myself, doing it. I can lay traps tactically with a future payoff, but never give up a win.
So I can see if any of the players on those teams knew or surmised that they were tanking, they would be mind-effed by it. They are at a level of incredible competitiveness with other clubs and teammates. It is a self-inflicted crack of weakness that will wreck a culture.
when a club does it, it is an acknowledgement that the suits are in charge and that cancer will be hard to exorcise.

I think its more subtle than that. Play under ready kids while mature are in the lower grade. Train guys into the ground. Play them in roles that are not their best... so at geelong ... Hawkins at CHB or Brownless on ball or the play like they do after most byes.. Pretty soon other lose interest or form. McLean post Blues said something like that when they playing Fev out of position etc...yet at times its fair to do that. Geelong decided to move on to youth , and players like Arrnott and Mensch were then in struggle street not getting selected. Back a while I can remember Blight playing Brownless at CHB

Mess around with this stuff and you maybe like an actor that puts on weight for a role then finds it impossible to get back to where they were. Some of this stuff is almost intangible..and just as you have expressed ..for the sake of a couple of "picks" that may or may not become good players , the club is wiling to burn current players , playing current players into the ground to get and replace with these picks. I think its like juggling chainsaws ... perhaps you can do it for a very short period of time if the vast majority of the players are expected to still be part of the expected payoff. I think its a bit like Vitamin D and sunlight. Perhaps good in controlled doses and in a selective manor. Some of these clubs have been running around at a nudist retreat for days in the middle of summer...no hat , no sunscreen with redhair and fair skin.

 

[Turbocat]

I'm shocked at the support sos has from blues supporters. They actually think he is doing a good job

He has done an excellent job. He is like the surgeon who says the operation has been a success ..its just that the patient died.

 

[Turbocat]

I thought it was salary cap breaches that put the skids under Carlton,they have never recovered,maybe for a short time there was light but the dumping of Fav snuffed that out.

Are you talking Wells and Goddard? What was that the 2002 draft ..17 years ago? So they didnt get their R1 picks and yep that hurts a bit.. a bit like having R1 picks fail.. and we know what thats like. Maybe you are correct..maybe missing those picks made them fixated on the missing of them ..so much that they felt all would have been right ..if they had more r1's. Trading Fev should have been fine..he was a train wreck.Surely they could have done something since then ?

 

[cynical]

some clubs are just shit and make many poor decisions

don't know what Carlton are doing, they still have the youngest list so they were always going to struggle again this year and probably for the next few, they were my pick for the spoon for this very reason

the trade with the Crows for this years 1st rounder was a joke

they are just a poorly run club

what gets me are these clubs that bottom out and then become impatient as if they have done their time and now they can flick a switch and rise up the ladder, it just doesn't work like that

I'm happy the AFL went with giving clubs extra state league players instead of priority picks but Carlton traded those off for picks and wonder why they are still on the bottom.

If I was running Carlton I'd be saying we have another 3-4 years around the bottom and for supporters to be patient. The coaches job is to improve the team not get wins in the short term.

SOS is ruining them as much as Hird ruined the bombers.

 

[catempire]

Hawthorn and Collingwood tanked and won flags on the back of Roughead/Franklin and Pendlebury/Thomas.

You just don't want to do it for more than a year.

Those players were certainly important but it highlights how much else you have to get right on top of tanking in order to be successful. No way Hawthorn has their success without the 8 players from other clubs they brought in. Nor Collingwood without the talent of Jolly from Sydney and the luck of jagging Dane Swan with a pick 58!

 

[Strange Cat]

...and if you do tank, just don't have S.Silvagni as your list manager. He may have another **** progeny to add to your list.

I still shake my head and laugh reading the Blues board how they don’t see any issues with his drafting at all.

Strange mob

 

[Down at K Park]

I still shake my head and laugh reading the Blues board how they don’t see any issues with his drafting at all.

Strange mob

Just don’t want to admit sos is not the god they think he is. I swear milburn scrambled his brains based on how stupid his recruiting and trading has been.

 

[Mr X]

some clubs are just **** and make many poor decisions

don't know what Carlton are doing, they still have the youngest list so they were always going to struggle again this year and probably for the next few, they were my pick for the spoon for this very reason

the trade with the Crows for this years 1st rounder was a joke

they are just a poorly run club

what gets me are these clubs that bottom out and then become impatient as if they have done their time and now they can flick a switch and rise up the ladder, it just doesn't work like that

I'm happy the AFL went with giving clubs extra state league players instead of priority picks but Carlton traded those off for picks and wonder why they are still on the bottom.

If I was running Carlton I'd be saying we have another 3-4 years around the bottom and for supporters to be patient. The coaches job is to improve the team not get wins in the short term.

SOS is ruining them as much as Hird ruined the bombers.

Have they ever actually been a well run club? Modern times, history and performance would tell you probably not

As soon as the AFL got its act together on formal process, governance and auditing - one way or another they have been stuffed.

Not a coincidence.

 

[Turbocat]

Hawthorn and Collingwood tanked and won flags on the back of Roughead/Franklin and Pendlebury/Thomas.

You just don't want to do it for more than a year.

That something to contribute to it .. its says a lot that about Priority Picks , picking the right player and more a visit than an extended stay at the bottom. I think if you went back WCoast had a year like that in 2001 to get Judd.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It's bad because it compromises the integrity of the competition.

What integrity is that?

 

[scottydeewah]

For every Carlton and Melbourne though there is a Hawthorn and (to a lesser degree St Kilda). Hawthorn tanked and became possibly the greatest team of the modern error (yuck, that is horrible to write). St Kilda never quite got there but boy did they give it a shake after a tank. By tanking these teams got Hodge, Franklin, Roughy, Saint Nick, Goddard, Koschitzke amongst others.

Some recent developments have also changed the AFL considerably when it comes to how you build a team. The expansion clubs, academies, different rookie lists, removal of the veterans exemptions, changes to father-son and the many changes to priority picks (basically removing them) have MASSIVELY changed how clubs have to build. That is before we add free agency, probably the biggest game changer!

Go back to 2000-2010 and it was sooooo hard to get players from anywhere beyond the draft. There is no doubt you still had to draft well, have a solid board, be in a strong financial position, etc. but there just wasn't seen to be as many ways to build a list. I think if you looked at the financial positions of clubs over the last 20 years, it would be a great indicator of success - perhaps someone with more time can do some quick analysis. In particular, I think it would show that the strong clubs bounce up and down the ladder quicker (Adelaide, WC, Port, Geelong, Pies etc).

If anyone here follows the NFL (from which a lot of our player movement is based) there are strikingly similar patterns. The one difference in the NFL it is really hard to win without a QB (we just don't have a comparable position in footy).

There is also an element of luck. My partner is from OS. She loves Danger (who doesn't). On a drive down the GOR we stopped at Moggs Creek, which, according to the 2016 census had a population of 89. The thing is, as I explained to my girlfriend, one of those 89 people just happens to be the best footy player on planet earth, which is bloody handy if you follow the only team within an hour of the place. Getting Danger for a good price (financially and trade picks) meant we could then rebuild around him quickly. No way we get Tuohy or Hendo to come if Danger doesn't (we may not have even gone after them) and having Ablett back meant we could load up again on free agents.

I think there is always an interesting scenario when smaller, less successful teams (in the NFL they call them small market teams) have to attract players. Because they often lack the same level of facilities, marketing opportunities, recent success, etc. the team then needs to pay overs to get them. There is also a marketing component that becomes important for those teams - think C Judd and Carlton or D Shiel and Essendon. Both are trying to become good quickly, so they paid massive overs (in terms of picks, players and dollars) for one player. The media loves these trades, the supporters love these trades, but they very rarely work. Whilst in the AFL we only have 5-6 years of FA data, then NFL has like 20, and it rarely works there either!

 

[scottydeewah]

I'd love to know the age mix on this board. Say, those who can really remember pre-2005. By remember I mean old enough to actually understand what was happening in the league.

We had sooooooo much trouble getting players to down the highway (Jade Rawlings - looool!). Get a competent board and gun CEO, pay down your debts, build a new stadium, have some success and next thing you are a destination club!

 

[Max Milburn]

For every Carlton and Melbourne though there is a Hawthorn and (to a lesser degree St Kilda). Hawthorn tanked and became possibly the greatest team of the modern error (yuck, that is horrible to write). St Kilda never quite got there but boy did they give it a shake after a tank. By tanking these teams got Hodge, Franklin, Roughy, Saint Nick, Goddard, Koschitzke amongst others.

Some recent developments have also changed the AFL considerably when it comes to how you build a team. The expansion clubs, academies, different rookie lists, removal of the veterans exemptions, changes to father-son and the many changes to priority picks (basically removing them) have MASSIVELY changed how clubs have to build. That is before we add free agency, probably the biggest game changer!

Go back to 2000-2010 and it was sooooo hard to get players from anywhere beyond the draft. There is no doubt you still had to draft well, have a solid board, be in a strong financial position, etc. but there just wasn't seen to be as many ways to build a list. I think if you looked at the financial positions of clubs over the last 20 years, it would be a great indicator of success - perhaps someone with more time can do some quick analysis. In particular, I think it would show that the strong clubs bounce up and down the ladder quicker (Adelaide, WC, Port, Geelong, Pies etc).

If anyone here follows the NFL (from which a lot of our player movement is based) there are strikingly similar patterns. The one difference in the NFL it is really hard to win without a QB (we just don't have a comparable position in footy).

There is also an element of luck. My partner is from OS. She loves Danger (who doesn't). On a drive down the GOR we stopped at Moggs Creek, which, according to the 2016 census had a population of 89. The thing is, as I explained to my girlfriend, one of those 89 people just happens to be the best footy player on planet earth, which is bloody handy if you follow the only team within an hour of the place. Getting Danger for a good price (financially and trade picks) meant we could then rebuild around him quickly. No way we get Tuohy or Hendo to come if Danger doesn't (we may not have even gone after them) and having Ablett back meant we could load up again on free agents.

I think there is always an interesting scenario when smaller, less successful teams (in the NFL they call them small market teams) have to attract players. Because they often lack the same level of facilities, marketing opportunities, recent success, etc. the team then needs to pay overs to get them. There is also a marketing component that becomes important for those teams - think C Judd and Carlton or D Shiel and Essendon. Both are trying to become good quickly, so they paid massive overs (in terms of picks, players and dollars) for one player. The media loves these trades, the supporters love these trades, but they very rarely work. Whilst in the AFL we only have 5-6 years of FA data, then NFL has like 20, and it rarely works there either!

Good post.
But did Hawthorn and Saints actually tank?
Or did they just come last.

From the interwebs: The definition of tanking in the sports world is to deliberately try and lose in order to get a better draft pick. It is the dreaded word that no sports fan or player wants to hear their beloved team use.

Being s**t and finishing last, isn't necessarily tanking.

 

[scottydeewah]

Hawthorn did. They cleaned the shop, trading out all of their half decent older players. It sort of all depends on how you look at it. Could call it smart rebuilding. But they made a decision, do we hang on to Barker and Rawlings, etc. and finish 11-11 mid-table. Or do we clear the decks, know that we won't be competitive for 2-3 seasons and rebuild.

It is the same if you are Melbourne right now. They have a list with a lot of pieces. Whilst say a Coniglio or Kelly would be awesome, I wouldn't sell the farm to get them, in particular on the salary cap front. Instead, I would be:

• Ensuring all players are managed for the end of the year. Any player who needs surgery, etc. post season I would be getting them in really early. I wouldn't not play players if they are right, but if you need even a scrape and clean you would be going in late August.
• I would probably give any depth player who was 50-50 to whether they are okay for AFL a 3-5 week run in the ones to clear that up.
• Any player who is on good coin and underperforming I would be looking to trade them out, even losing draft position, to a club that can take them for the 1-2 years that remain on their contract. e.g. pick 24 and said player to gold coast for pick 30.
• Scouring the land for any mature aged players who can play a role.
• Identify 2-3 mid-priced free agents who fill roles. Preferably looking to pick the eyes out of clubs that are closer to the bottom of the ladder or ageing.

There is no doubt that on a week to week basis you would try and win. But I would already have a group of people at the club, who beyond drafting and trading, would already be looking at how to transition the current players into next year.

Celtics in 2006 put Paul Peirce out for surgery like 25 games out. Was ready to go with maybe 10 games left. They left him there. Why play him? You know what you have. 2007 they won the title after getting Rayray and KG. Now, BBALL is a different sport, but they tanked and won.

 

[Catsace]

I'd love to know the age mix on this board. Say, those who can really remember pre-2005. By remember I mean old enough to actually understand what was happening in the league.

We had sooooooo much trouble getting players to down the highway (Jade Rawlings - looool!). Get a competent board and gun CEO, pay down your debts, build a new stadium, have some success and next thing you are a destination club!

I can recall Geelong trying to (but never succeeding in getting) Stephen Michael in the late 70's and start of the 80's....the Addy would usually have an article somewhere saying he had signed a Form 4 or whatever, but alas he never played in the VFL.

Being 51, probably the biggest name recruit i do recall was the late Garry Sidebottom in 1981, but for someone who was a good player and was a high-priced recruit, he only played a handful of games as a Cat and sadly is remembered mostly in his Geelong incarnation as missing the bus on the way to the preliminary Final. Peake came in mid-season '81, arriving by helicopter at KP rather spectacularly. But maybe his elevation to captaincy in 1982 disjoined the side a bit, the Cats had a poor 1982 and '83, although Peake did play with Geelong's best ever recruit, Gary Ablett who came in 1984 along with Greg Williams! If only the Cats had some spare cash to keep Greg, those late 80's and early 90's sides may well have been Premiers.

Geelong did well with a succession of off-cut Kangaroos in the late 80's and early 90's....Tim McGrath, Liam Pickering, Brad Sholl and Leigh Tudor among several, and also Cam Mooney of course in 2000. But the early '00s Cats tried might and main for a key forward, missing with the oft-injured Jason Mooney, Mitchell White, and then having the ignominy of having Ray Hall and Jade Rawlings knock back overtures down the highway. But our fortunes changed forever when Brad Ottens agreed to come to the Cats, although initially as a forward rather than a ruckman. I recall Steven King giving off an errant handball to Shane Crawford in the Hawks game (in Tassie of all places) in Rd 4 2007 where they kicked the winning goal, and then the horrid loss to the Kangas in Rd 5.

Suddenly Rd 6 versus Richmond, Ottens started in the ruck, and immediately a flurry of hitouts to advantage saw Geelong careen away to the huge 157 point win. Ottens was ensconced as the main ruckman, and Geelong's three Flags were won with him being in that role. And with those Flags came the prestige of being a destination club, having Danger want to return to Victoria and play with Geelong was fantastic, and Gary Jr also wanting to come home. I reckon the days a journeyman middling KPF umming and ahhing about coming to the Cats will be well and truly over now.

Just a short aside about tanking though, Geelong has never done that. The Cats were genuinely crap in the early 70's, but did win a handful of games late in the season to turn perhaps a 2-14 start into a 5-17 or 6-16 season. In any case there was no reward for a low finish in that time. In the draft era (1986 onwards) Geelong has only had three sides below it on the table once (9th of 12 in 1986) and has finished no lower than 12th ever. 2003 is the last season of fewer than 8 wins, 1973 the last season of fewer than 7 wins. And any Cat fan my age has seen about 75% of Geelong's highest scores and biggest wins in their history. It's been a pretty good time to be a Cat fan if you can recall the post 1983 era....when Gary Sr stepped into a Geelong guernsey.

 

[JohnZ]

Selecting a Captain who pinches and gutterstomps the helpless. Nuff said