The fate of those who tank.

[Final Siren]

I've just figured out why all these Carlton supporters are suddenly denying they ever tanked. It's because you think you're a legit shot at the flag this year, isn't it?

In 2007, you were telling us your club was just being smart.

In 2012, you don't want the asterisk.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I've just figured out why all these Carlton supporters are suddenly denying they ever tanked. It's because you think you're a legit shot at the flag this year, isn't it?

In 2007, you were telling us your club was just being smart.

In 2012, you don't want the asterisk.

Go find one post where I said we tanked.

Don't you just love posters who pick and choose the supporters opinions that suit their purpose and hold them up as being reflective of a whole supporter base.

Did we tank? It's possible. Has anybody actually presented anything compelling to suggest we did? Not even close. You guys just keep repeating the same lines over and over.

By the way, there will not be an asterisk in any official record books, only in the minds of haters. Just quietly, I will love the fact that they experience such hatred and anguish, as they probably deserve it.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Question for The Old Dark Navy's

Do you think Melbourne tanked?

I don't think the players did. There were some bizarre positional changes though and that is something Carlton never did. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt but Bailey's comments are pretty hard to explain. Position them for the next season ... absolutely. Position them for draft picks .... very tough to explain away. I'm not going to condemn him for it though. They were doing it tough for sure.

 

[Summer Nights]

There's no asterisk against Murali's name in the "official" records either, but he is widely not accepted as legitimate, nor is he widely respected. Neither will Carlton* be, should they experience success.

 

[EasternTiger]

Carlton tanked with purpose. Melbourne just tanked.

 

[mrpez]

I don't think the players did. There were some bizarre positional changes though and that is something Carlton never did. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt but Bailey's comments are pretty hard to explain. Position them for the next season ... absolutely. Position them for draft picks .... very tough to explain away. I'm not going to condemn him for it though. They were doing it tough for sure.

Fair enough. In my mind, there is no doubt that we tanked. But only for the latter part of that one season.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Melbourne just tanked.

Rather disingenuous comment to say the least.

And Richmond tanked as well, if we accept that definition as applying equally.

I would defend Richmond's position in that regard too, given that the Tigers were certainly in a very difficult situation when they went through that.

In any case, it seems increasingly clear to me that this "tanking" construct is primarily a self-indulgent excuse for certain club's supporters to bash other clubs.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Has anybody actually presented anything compelling to suggest we did? Not even close.

I've posted this before, but anyway.

Avg age, Pagan, 2007: 23.79
Avg age, Ratten, 1st game: 24.13
Avg age, Ratten, R21: 22.55 (Carlton's 11th youngest team of all-time)
Avg age, Ratten, Kreuzer Cup: 22.25 (4th youngest of all time)
(Gold Coast average age 22.36)

Nobody's claimed the players tanked. Carlton just fielded teams which couldn't win.

 

[EasternTiger]

As did Richmond.

But again, it seems increasingly clear to me that this "tanking" construct is just a self-indulgent excuse for certain club's supporters to bash other clubs.

Melbourne supporters cheered a loss and sang along to our theme song after that 09 match. Not sure self indulgence comes into it. Even the neutrals watching would have been disgusted.

 

[borrat]

Carlton didn't tank. Sitting on the bottom because you're shit and tanking are two different things.

they where shit because they cheated the salary cap

and then tanked and stole f/s picks for 3 years in a row

and then the afl let them get away with it because they are one of the biggest clubs

 

[Sniggles]

Sorry but I disagree. While Melbourne was bad, they were not the worse side if they actually tried to win games. I would say Richmond was the worst side that year. Did you even see the Richmond vs Melbourne game? Melbourne were desperately trying to lose that game and we were trying to win. In the end we only won by a goal after the siren to a side who was trying to give the game away. That's how bad Richmond was.

The game you're referring to happened in 2009.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Melbourne supporters cheered a loss and sang along to our theme song after that 09 match. Not sure self indulgence comes into it. Even the neutrals watching would have been disgusted.

Even the Richmond supporters around me were torn as the match drew to a close finish. In the end we agreed it was preferable to win, since that was what we were there to see. In hindsight I've changed my mind. And to have Demetriou later describe supporters who believed tanking was taking place as "delusional"...

They've got it right now, with the qualification for priority picks remaining undisclosed. Clubs knowing they would benefit from a specific level of underperformance ran contrary to sport's ethos. A dark chapter in modern football.

 

[mediumsizered]

they where shit because they cheated the salary cap

and then tanked and stole f/s picks for 3 years in a row

and then the afl let them get away with it because they are one of the biggest clubs

Marc Murphy was a potential F/S pick, but chose to stay in Melbourne. Who were the other 2 F/S picks (Bryce Gibbs was not a F/S pick, if you are including him)?

BTW, we weren't shit because we cheated the salary cap, we were shit because we refused to embrace the draft throughout the '90s & made some very ordinary trades during the same period. With the retirement of the likes of Kernahan, Williams, Madden, Dean, Brown, Silvagni, Ratten, McKay, Bradley etc, we did not have any quality young players coming through to replace them & paid the price for that.

 

[Bluelegs]

Sorry but I disagree. While Melbourne was bad, they were not the worse side if they actually tried to win games. I would say Richmond was the worst side that year. Did you even see the Richmond vs Melbourne game? Melbourne were desperately trying to lose that game and we were trying to win. In the end we only won by a goal after the siren to a side who was trying to give the game away. That's how bad Richmond was.

How bad were we at losing that it took a kick after the siren to determine our loss. If we were trying to lose we would have had a player run over the mark.

 

[Ron The Bear]

How bad were we at losing that it took a kick after the siren to determine our loss. If we were trying to lose we would have had a player run over the mark.

Once again, nobody's claiming the players tanked. Paul Johnson was playing back pocket FFS.

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/09/26/99815_afl.html

 

[Go the Biff]

Once again, nobody's claiming the players tanked. Paul Johnson was playing back pocket FFS.

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/09/26/99815_afl.html

Underrated defender was Johnson !

 

[caitsith01]

I don't buy all the crap about a 'tanking culture' or 'losing culture' either. Sure, players get conditioned to losing but they are competitors at heart and can quickly flip the switch when need be. Players like Murph, Scotland, Carrazzo etc all played in absolute rubbish/spoon winning sides but when you see them take the field today they certainly don't look conditioned to losing anymore do they?

Take it from a Cats fan who has enjoyed the last 5+ years but also been a fan for a long, hard time before that: winning culture is everything.

The Cats have never had a priority pick, and have had precious few picks in the single digits. I know I'd rather have the culture the club has than a few earlier picks.

Oh, and tanking is cheating. It's no better than match fixing in cricket - trying to procure a particular result in order to gain a collateral benefit.

 

[keviewiggle]

you do realise that the eagles tanked and look how theyre going now

What planet are you from?

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

^ Such a sophisticated ad hominem there

And yes, if we accept the definition as applying equally and in an evenhanded way, the Eagles tanked.

 

[FGMPR]

^ Such a sophisticated ad hominem there

And yes, if we accept the definition as applying equally and in an evenhanded way, the Eagles tanked.

uh... how about no? If the Eagles were tanking, we wouldn't have won a bunch of games at the end of 09 that directly went on to cost us a priority pick.

The Demons were blatant in their Bailey's game day tactics and you're tanking was confirmed by Bailey himself. Anyone able to use the smallest amount of logic can see that the evidence for the demons tanking is almost absolute, whilst with the eagles it is minimal at best.

And you think you're weighing of the situation is 'evenhanded'?

 

[keviewiggle]

StKilda tanked and came within a kick of winning a premiership. West Coast also tanked in 2010.

If WCE tanked who ever put the "Tank" together needs replacing.
Worst timing.
It,s about time some of you people from dysfunctional clubs who extend no loyalty or faith in their list take a leaf out of the WCE team building program.
We kept many players for years who most including some of our own supporters thought were spuds. We are now reaping the benefit of this policy.
This is the second time we have rebuilt in this way.
Our coach had the guts to put his own job on the line to peruse this policy.
Most coaches who are in danger of loosing their job pick teams and coach to save their own arises.
Go look elsewhere for your Tankers.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

uh... how about no?

No to the above no.

And I wasn't talking about 2009. Referencing the six losses in a row at the end of 2010, with certain players ending their seasons early, and the consequential drafting of Gaff, Darling, and Lycett. Obviously I'm a long way from being Robinson Crusoe as far as my opinion on that goes.

And I freely admit that the definition, as being used in this thread, certainly applies to us in 2009.

 

[FGMPR]

No to the above no.

And I wasn't talking about 2009. Referencing the six losses in a row at the end of 2010, with certain players ending their seasons early, and the consequential drafting of Gaff, Darling, and Lycett. Obviously I'm a long way from being Robinson Crusoe as far as my opinion on that goes.

And I freely admit that the definition, as being used in this thread, certainly applies to us in 2009.

Darling was pick 26. What kind of club would tank for pick 26 in a compromised draft? Why would the same club who could have easily tanked the previous year to obtain a high draft pick now a year later decide to lose the appropriate amount of games for pick 26?

There's just no logic behind it. Surely you can see this?

 

[keviewiggle]

No to the above no.

And I wasn't talking about 2009. Referencing the six losses in a row at the end of 2010, with certain players ending their seasons early, and the consequential drafting of Gaff, Darling, and Lycett. Obviously I'm a long way from being Robinson Crusoe as far as my opinion on that goes.

And I freely admit that the definition, as being used in this thread, certainly applies to us in 2009.

You just don,t get it do you?
There was no conspiracy here.
They way we played out the 2009 season had a direct impact on what we are experiencing at present.
Just check out the players we played in those last ten games.
I suggest that it will show that you are the dunce.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I've posted this before, but anyway.

Avg age, Pagan, 2007: 23.79
Avg age, Ratten, 1st game: 24.13
Avg age, Ratten, R21: 22.55 (Carlton's 11th youngest team of all-time)
Avg age, Ratten, Kreuzer Cup: 22.25 (4th youngest of all time)
(Gold Coast average age 22.36)

Nobody's claimed the players tanked. Carlton just fielded teams which couldn't win.

Comparing the round 17 side and the round 22 side.

In: Austin Bentick Grigg Hampson Jamison Kennedy Walker Whitnall
Out: Blackwell Fevola Fisher Koutoufides Lappin Saddington Thornton Wiggins

Murphy, Gibbs, Waite, Scotland, Simpson, Carrazzo, Betts amongst those who were in both sides. The big outs between round 17 and round 22 were definitely Kouta, Fev and Lappin. I know Kouta was struggling and eventually went for surgery with 5 games to go. His form before that was patchy having had 10, 14 and 7 possessions in his last 3 games. Lappin played 1 game out of the last 5 and hurt his back. Fev is well documented. Walker and Whitnall were handy inclusions during this time and I'm not sure anybody can fault us for exploring the potential in Kennedy, Jamison and Hampson.

Incidentally, taking out a 34 year old Kouta, 31 year old Lappin, 27 year old Saddington, and a 26 year old Fev and only having one 28 year old coming in, tends to skew those average ages. It's not as though we dropped all of our senior players.