The fate of those who tank.

[Quinz]

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.

Which players Wonna? Be specific please.

Cox and Naitanui played out the whole season despite both being quite clearly hampered by the end. Glass didn't play after Round 8 and Kerr after Round 4, so they weren't sent to surgery early to assist in losing games. Butler the same after Round 10.

Embley played out the season, Hurn twice came back from injury in the last 8 weeks to finish the season out. Adam Selwood missed two games with a shoulder, came back, and then missed the last two games when he injured it again.

Of our top 10 in the Best and Fairest, only Priddis (3 games R20-22) and Waters (1 game R20) missed any games in that last block of 6. LeCras, Cox, Naitanui, Kennedy, Rosa, Embley, Ebert, SSelwood played in all of them, in their regular positions.

You can believe anything you want, but don't act like it's based on anything concrete.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Kudos to you for that response mate - in the end, what we're talking about here is all about appearances and circumstance.

To elaborate further from the previous post, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think there's anything wrong, for instance, with experimenting with players in different - and unfamiliar - positions towards the end of a season when the club has no chance of playing finals, as Worsfold and Bailey both did.

Worsfold said his club, which recruited impressive forward Jack Darling with its own priority draft pick (No.26 overall) last year, had experimented with players' positions as a development tool.

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=120121

Nor do I have any problem with a club resting players who are carrying various degrees of injury, when they're in that position.

But such actions obviously fit the definition of 'tanking' that's being advanced within this thread, which is the point I was making.

I don't particularly agree with the way this definition is applied anyway - as I said before, I think it's primarily a contrivance that supporters of various clubs use to attack various other clubs.

 

[Quinz]

Look Wonna, I agree it's all about perception, and I know you and me (and almost everyone) gets pissed off when their club's actions are questioned. I just think there is far less to indicate that we lost games compared to, say, Melbourne or Carlton, who are the teams most often dragged into this debate.

List management and player transition will happen regardless of whatever drafting system is in place, I think that's an important point. And ultimately, we don't know a lot about the inner workings of the clubs- it's all guesswork trying to say what coaches and players were doing, and often retrospectively.

 

[CoastersFlag No.5]

Kudos to you for that response mate - in the end, what we're talking about here is all about appearances and circumstance.

To elaborate further from the previous post, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think there's anything wrong, for instance, with experimenting with players in different - and unfamiliar - positions towards the end of a season when the club has no chance of playing finals, as Worsfold and Bailey both did.



Nor do I have any problem with a club resting players who are carrying various degrees of injury, when they're in that position.

But such actions obviously fit the definition of 'tanking' that's being advanced within this thread, which is the point I was making.

I don't particularly agree with the way this definition is applied anyway - as I said before, I think it's primarily a contrivance that supporters of various clubs use to attack various other clubs.

Bingo! Anyway we were genuinely sh#t back then clearly you guys still are tanking or no tanking. Obviously both coaches were experimenting so what do you think is the critical difference between the two clubs?

 

[Monkey King]

No, I think Pagan tried. But Ratten was caretaker coach for the last six, which included some very gettable games--primarily the Melbourne one, of course.

So a two-time premiership coach was trying to win with his team getting their arses whooped by 100+ points, but you expect a rookie coach should have been winning games with the exactly same list

So a coach bordering on legendary at North was trying to win but lost against the Dees by 23 points; yet you expect that just 7 weeks later, a first-time coach with the exact same list was expected to get a win and therefore lost on purpose

Your accusations are high on parrot factor and low on common sense.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So a two-time premiership coach was trying to win with his team getting their arses whooped by 100+ points, but you expect a rookie coach should have been winning games with the exactly same list

So a coach bordering on legendary at North was trying to win but lost against the Dees by 23 points; yet you expect that just 7 weeks later, a first-time coach with the exact same list was expected to get a win and therefore lost on purpose

Your accusations are high on parrot factor and low on common sense.

About right.

If there was no priority pick involved, none of those results would have received comment. The fact that we had incentive turned a slight possibility into a dead set probability in the eyes of most, and injuries, young players, interchanges etc really have nothing to do with it, aside from the fact you have to point to something when making an accusation.

There were less Carlton supporters around at the time, conceding the possibility we were tanking. What happens is they become more flippant over time, use it as Bay 13 fodder or to annoy others and because time has passed and it is the line of least resistance to just run with it, they accept it. Then someone jumps up and claims that most Carlton supporters admit it. Most couldn't give two hoots what occurred 5 years ago or recall the circumstances at the time.

 

[Ron The Bear]

So a two-time premiership coach was trying to win with his team getting their arses whooped by 100+ points, but you expect a rookie coach should have been winning games with the exactly same list

So a coach bordering on legendary at North was trying to win but lost against the Dees by 23 points; yet you expect that just 7 weeks later, a first-time coach with the exact same list was expected to get a win and therefore lost on purpose

Your accusations are high on parrot factor and low on common sense.

By leaving out pertinent details, you can make a seemingly rational argument for just about anything.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

By leaving out pertinent details, you can make a seemingly rational argument for just about anything.

Okay, so now we are comparing this to a conspiracy. Nice work. What pertinent details are being left out here?

 

[Final Siren]

So a two-time premiership coach was trying to win with his team getting their arses whooped by 100+ points, but you expect a rookie coach should have been winning games with the exactly same list

So a coach bordering on legendary at North was trying to win but lost against the Dees by 23 points; yet you expect that just 7 weeks later, a first-time coach with the exact same list was expected to get a win and therefore lost on purpose

Your accusations are high on parrot factor and low on common sense.

Well, your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

First, like the other Carlton bloke was saying a couple of pages back, Pagan lost the players. In fact, let me dig that out:

The performances from Round 12 - Round 16 were nothing to do with tanking & everything to do with the players deciding they no longer wanted to be coached by Pagan. I said to my wife prior to the commencement of the Round 16 game against Brisbane that I knew Carlton would lose by more than 10 goals, because the players had decided they wanted a change of coach. There were certain experienced players playing that day whose performances I will never forget.

So okay, I can believe that, but then once Pagan was gone, they lost all six remaining games for the season, even though they presumably were no longer unhappy with their coach. Note that going 0-6 is even worse than 4-12, so their performance actually went backward somehow, even though the excuse for dropping rounds 12 - 16 had disappeared.

And in the most winnable game of that lot, vs Melbourne (who were lower than you on the ladder), there were odd selections and eyebrow-raising coaching moves, such as not giving an opponent to Travis Johnstone while he racked up 42 disposals.

So, yes, I do think it's reasonable to expect a coach to do better than that, with a side that won 10 games the next year, and has made finals ever since. I think it's a real stretch to believe that adding Judd and subtracting Kennedy makes a difference of 6 wins per season, or that Ratten brought a magical game plan with him that didn't work at all in 2007 but worked like crazy in 2008, which no other team was able to copy.

I also think it's odd to appoint a guy as caretaker for six games, watch him lose them all straight, including an absolute gimme, and decide he deserves the senior gig.

You're welcome to believe otherwise, of course, and I probably would, too, if it were my team, but I do find it amazing that there's all this denial from Carlton people all of a sudden, when it wasn't there before.

 

[Uhumagoo]

just a reminder that in that season of the Kreuzer cup the Tigers won the spoon and were NOT tanking. Explain that?!

Yep, In round 1 the following year, we lost to the wooden spooners, Suggests we were a bottom 2 team because we were actually a bad side.

 

[Final Siren]

in that season of the Kreuzer cup the Tigers won the spoon and were NOT tanking. Explain that?!

It's not suspicious that Carlton lost a lot of games in 2007; it's that it lost them at such convenient times.

2007:

LLLLLLLLLWWLLWLLLLWLLW - Melbourne (14th, 5 wins)
WLWLLLLLLLWWLLLLLLLLLLL - Carlton (15th, 4 wins)
LLLLLLLLLDLWLLLLLLWLWL - Richmond (16th, 3.5 wins)

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well, your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

First, like the other Carlton bloke was saying a couple of pages back, Pagan lost the players. In fact, let me dig that out:

So okay, I can believe that, but then once Pagan was gone, they lost all six remaining games for the season, even though they presumably were no longer unhappy with their coach. Note that going 0-6 is even worse than 4-12, so their performance actually went backward somehow, even though the excuse for dropping rounds 12 - 16 had disappeared.

And in the most winnable game of that lot, vs Melbourne (who were lower than you on the ladder), there were odd selections and eyebrow-raising coaching moves, such as not giving an opponent to Travis Johnstone while he racked up 42 disposals.

So, yes, I do think it's reasonable to expect a coach to do better than that, with a side that won 10 games the next year, and has made finals ever since. I think it's a real stretch to believe that adding Judd and subtracting Kennedy makes a difference of 6 wins per season, or that Ratten brought a magical game plan with him that didn't work at all in 2007 but worked like crazy in 2008, which no other team was able to copy.

I also think it's odd to appoint a guy as caretaker for six games, watch him lose them all straight, including an absolute gimme, and decide he deserves the senior gig.

If you want to be simplistic and look for something in the 'W' column as being the only indicator of whether we went backwards, then that is your issue.

Rd 17 - Lost to St Kilda by 10. Remember the Saints were on a long run of convincing victories against us. We gave a yelp with a new coach. Saints missed the 8 by half a game.

Rd 18 - Lost to Collingwood by 24. Were in it late in the last quarter. They finished 4th that year.

Rd 19 - Lost to Port by 23 at AAMI. Port made the GF that year.

Rd 20 - Lost to Essendon by 10. Bombers finished 2 games out of the 8.

Rd 21 - Lost to North by 82. North finished 3rd.

Rd 22 - The Melbourne game.

We had 6 ten goal plus losses under Pagan in 16 games that year and 1 under Ratten in 6 games. By and large our spirit improved but by the last couple of games, we were stuffed. Any surprise that Fev missed those last couple of games?

There is no suggestion that we were good enough to beat any of those teams we lost to in the last 6 weeks.

You're welcome to believe otherwise, of course, and I probably would, too, if it were my team, but I do find it amazing that there's all this denial from Carlton people all of a sudden, when it wasn't there before.

Of course it was there before. You must have been living in a cave or spending time in a forum where people like to yank each other's chains.

 

[StKildaUSA]

With everyone on here talking about tanking, I would suggest a draft lottery, like they have for the NBA, for the AFL.

 

[Monkey King]

So okay, I can believe that, but then once Pagan was gone, they lost all six remaining games for the season, even though they presumably were no longer unhappy with their coach.

The list had won a spoon before Pagan arrived and two while he was there. Losing the players had nothing to do with how shit the list was; remember the "worse than Fitzroy" article?

I remember when Ratten took over the team played with much greater spirit and went from a 100 point loss to a 10 point loss. We had another 10 point loss along the way and only one blow-out. The "scrutiny" you want to hold my argument is really just inference, imagination and suspicion; and it doesn't match the reality of what actually went down.

Note that going 0-6 is even worse than 4-12, so their performance actually went backward somehow, even though the excuse for dropping rounds 12 - 16 had disappeared.

Pagan also lost 6 in a row that same year with the same list, while fighting for his job. Pagan also lost the gimme game against the Dees that same year with the same list, while fighting for his job. In Pagan's last 6 games with this list, he had two 100 point losses and 2 additional 10 goal losses. Forget season-long win/loss ratios, Ratts generally had the team performing better than Pagan did.

And in the most winnable game of that lot, vs Melbourne (who were lower than you on the ladder), there were odd selections and eyebrow-raising coaching moves, such as not giving an opponent to Travis Johnstone while he racked up 42 disposals.

Winnable game? You mean the one against the team we'd lost to by 20 something points just several weeks beforehand?

Odd selections? You mean Houlihan in for Fisher (knee) and Austin replacing Saddington who was beaten by Edwards the previous week? How are they odd selections?

Eye-raising coaching moves? The Travis Johnstone move has been well and truly addressed in this thread already, so you might to explain yourself in this context rather than blindly referring back to it as though it means something in itself. Beyond that, can you please elaborate on the other eye-raising coaching moves?

I think it's a real stretch to believe that adding Judd and subtracting Kennedy makes a difference of 6 wins per season ...

So now your disbelief of the improvement potential of the team based on a limited perspective is somehow evidence of Carlton losing games on purpose

Judd's arrival most definitely had an impact onfield and offield. Kennedy had played limited games in 2007 for little impact, so subtracting him made little difference to that point. Justin Cordy joined Carlton at the end of 2007 and they redesigned the Carlton gym and training program. New assistant coaches were also brought in at the end of the year, who would have played their part. Lastly, there was the improvement of guys like Murphy, who really stepped up in 2008; Gibbs, who nearly doubled his output in his second year; and Jamison, who didn't play a game under Pagan. As well as the addition of Matty Kreuzer who came in and won a game off his own boot that year while contributing solidly.

You're welcome to believe otherwise, of course, and I probably would, too, if it were my team, but I do find it amazing that there's all this denial from Carlton people all of a sudden, when it wasn't there before.

Denial all of a sudden? There is nothing to deny other than yours and others suspicions, vacuous inferences and imaginary conclusions, and even then, that's more a dispute than a denial. I've never not disputed it either.

 

[Monkey King]

About right.

If there was no priority pick involved, none of those results would have received comment.

I reckon so. The new coach of a basketcase team trying out untried players - some of whom form the core of today's side - is nothing of note. Having guys go head-to-head as loose men down back is nothing of note. Non-finals contending teams having players go in early for surgery to be ready for the preseason is nothing of note. A team losing 6 in a row, after having already done it once that season, is nothing of note. A team losing to another side that it already lost to 8 weeks prior is nothing of note.

What is of note is the priority pick. If you, remove the priority pick from the equation and no one would even blink at this stuff, because it really is every day run of the mill stuff. Provide "motive" though and the conspiracy buffs will be all over it.

 

[Summer Nights]

Eye-raising coaching moves? The Travis Johnstone move has been well and truly addressed in this thread already, so you might to explain yourself in this context rather than blindly referring back to it as though it means something in itself. Beyond that, can you please elaborate on the other eye-raising coaching moves?

What was the explanation for the Travis Johnstone piece? I can't find it.

 

[Thrawn]

Carlton are serial tankers. They tanked 4 years in a row.

Name those 4 years please.

 

[Monkey King]

What was the explanation for the Travis Johnstone piece? I can't find it.

That he and Scotland were both unchecked and basically going to head to head in similar roles as loose men down back. Here is how Ratten explains it ...

Heath Scotland had 41 touches for Carlton playing a similar role to Johnstone and the Blues thought he was more damaging.

And Champion Data stats back up Ratten's claim that Johnstone was sloppy with his work. Of his 42 disposals, 13 were ineffective. Seven of those stuff-ups were clangers by foot.

Player rankings points also support Ratten's defence. Scotland finished with 146 points. Johnstone had 119.

Scotland also received 2 Brownlow votes, Johnstone 3


This was not the first time that two teams let their extra-men go head to head. Carlton thought they were getting the better end of the deal so they let it roll; and the stats back that up completely. No doubt if Melbourne lost, people would have asked why Scotland was allowed to run around unchecked and Johnstone would be completely forgotten about. It's bollocks!

 

[Ants]

If you want to be simplistic and look for something in the 'W' column as being the only indicator of whether we went backwards, then that is your issue.

....Rd 20 - Lost to Essendon by 10. Bombers finished 2 games out of the 8....

We had 6 ten goal plus losses under Pagan in 16 games that year and 1 under Ratten in 6 games. By and large our spirit improved but by the last couple of games, we were stuffed. Any surprise that Fev missed those last couple of games?

There is no suggestion that we were good enough to beat any of those teams we lost to in the last 6 weeks.....

I remember going to that game with a mate who barracked for Geelong. He told me our team was worse, but that we'd win anyway because Carlton was tanking. I disagreed at this and he said "watch it, they'll get up and then blow it".

He was right. That was exactly what happened. With some quite dodgy moves as well in the second half after you had been leading at half time.

And as to the suggestion you weren't better than us at the time - we were totally woeful. Ignoring that win vs. Carlton, we won ONE game out of our last EIGHT of the season. This was after we were injury struck, Sheedy was walking dead, and the wheels had totally fallen off. We had already lost to you once the year, and that was during the period we were flying.

I'm not sure who was better or not, but my friend who was neutral certainly called it before hand and you were much better than us in 2008 and about the same in 2006.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I remember going to that game with a mate who barracked for Geelong. He told me our team was worse, but that we'd win anyway because Carlton was tanking. I disagreed at this and he said "watch it, they'll get up and then blow it".

He was right. That was exactly what happened. With some quite dodgy moves as well in the second half after you had been leading at half time.

And as to the suggestion you weren't better than us at the time - we were totally woeful. Ignoring that win vs. Carlton, we won ONE game out of our last EIGHT of the season. This was after we were injury struck, Sheedy was walking dead, and the wheels had totally fallen off. We had already lost to you once the year, and that was during the period we were flying.

I'm not sure who was better or not, but my friend who was neutral certainly called it before hand and you were much better than us in 2008 and about the same in 2006.

Essendon had won 9 games to our 4 prior to that match. Essendon had won 8 games to our 4 before our losing streak and allegations of tanking began. You talk about injuries yet you still had Hird, Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher. Fevola had a shocker due to his thigh injury and immediately finished his season and had surgery. Don't kid yourself.

As for dodgy moves, there were none. Very easy to say we were better and that we made dodgy moves but some backup would be nice.

Again, we had 4 wins for the season, had come off two wooden spoons in a row the years prior, made modest improvement to 11th the following year on the back of Judd and the improvement in our high draft picks, and people act surprised that a team that low should be able to win at will and have to do something to hamper themselves in order not to win.

 

[Final Siren]

What is of note is the priority pick. If you, remove the priority pick from the equation and no one would even blink at this stuff, because it really is every day run of the mill stuff. Provide "motive" though and the conspiracy buffs will be all over it.

Now this I agree with. People are always going to argue the toss about why this or that coaching move was pulled, or why so-and-so wasn't selected. Some Melbourne supporters can give you chapter and verse on why every bizarre coaching move Bailey pulled late in the Jordy McMahon game was totally legit.

But because there was such a massive incentive for Melbourne to lose that game, and for Carlton to lose the Kreuzer Cup - a bonus before-round-1 pick! - there is natural suspicion. To a lesser but similar degree, there was scrutiny on Richmond in the last round of 2007, because if we lost we would definitely get pick 2 plus an end-of-round priority pick (18), whereas if we won and other results fell a certain way, we'd only get pick 3.

Those with an axe to grind will always leap at the opportunity to accuse another club of cheating; those who refuse to believe their club would do such a thing deny it happened.

So regardless of who did what, I'm very glad we no longer have such huge incentives for teams to lose games.

 

[Yabba]

I always find it funny that some supporters turn their noses up at the idea of tanking.
The only teams that tank are teams that are gonna be bottom 4 teams anyway. In a competition you work to give yourself an advantage and since it's more advantageous to finish last over 14th-15th then why not? When a coach takes over a developing side that means they need to plan for the future and so climbing 1 or 2 spots on the ladder takes a backseat to list development.

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?

I think a losing culture is something that is very hard to change at a footy club. IMO that is why it was so important that Carlton actually got Judd, I dont think that Murphy would be the player he is now with out him. I have had the discussion many times with my friends who are Carlton supporters that I think they would only be a 6-12 side now if they didn't have Judd. What he has done for that club is unbelievable.

Carlton only tanked for Kruezer in the last couple of games in a season, they didn't go out in round one and do it for the season. They were hanging around the bottom of the ladder for a reason. In round 20-22 it became obvioous that they couldn't win or they would lose access to Kruezer. Smart management I think.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Its getting a bit woods for the trees for this discussion, and I think we need to remember 3 things:

1) Players DONT tank. No-one argues this, and every man who takes the field is out there to win. Its clubs and admin who engineer a side and its tactics to not succeed who are tanking.

2) There is tanking, and there is tanking. For simplicity, I put it into three categories (using a traffic light system):

GREEN LIGHT - Not putting your side in the best position to win
This is NOT trying to lose, but making decisions that mean your best 22 are not on the field. Early ops, rest periods, preferencing younger players, and so on. Key point however is with this team, the coaching dept is still committed to using its best efforts on the day to win.

Just about every club has done this IMO to some extent.

YELLOW LIGHT - Not coaching to your best
This is the one the Tanned One made famous against the Saints. In order nudge the team towards a loss, Wally stopped coaching the team, and simply left the players to their own resources. Players would be still playing to pre-match instruction though, and be positioned in the roles they had before the coach had his nap.

For me, this is more murky. While you are not forcing the team to lose, you are coming close to it - its basically not giving your guys an advantage, but not coaching them to deliberate disadvantage either.

Funny enough for Richmond, the team actually rebounded when Wally shut up, maybe that was a sign for us of Wally's coaching ability

RED LIGHT - Coaching to disadvantage the team as much as possible
For me this is where the line is crossed clearly, as the coaching team is giving instructions that will cause deliberate disadvantage to their team. short people in the ruck, giants on small forwards, mismanaging rotations, and so on. The coach is clearly putting his men into roles/positions that he knows will result in defeat - no matter what the guys on the paddock do.

I think this is the form of tanking most hate, because unlike the earlier two levels, this is the only one where the 22 on the day cannot perform at their best.

3) Richmond vs Melbourne
Some Dees fans point out they couldn't have tanked because they nearly won this game. Sadly as someone who watched most of our games that year, I can tell you we were that bad, they were trying their guts out, and it was disgusting to walk out of that game with a win we completely and utterly didn't deserve. Remember thinking before the game we should win it easily (given the Dees position re: picks and the incentive to lose), but by the end of the game it was just embarrassing to be a RFC supporter given the quality of the tigers performance. For me, this game was a big factor in my hate of this whole issue. We deserved to have the shit kicked out of us that day, and it was just wrong to reward us with 4 points. And I'll never forget seeing MCC MFC fans singing our song post game - tribalism is a key part of our sport, and we should never allow a situation to exist where opposition fans cheer for your team (no matter who it is). I know I was in mixed minds about winning the Saints game, and even that made me sick.

To stop being serious for a minute though, this is a tanking thread, so it needs a little Jordy

[YOUTUBE]CM_2w9anWm0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Melbourne, Carlton, Collingwood, West Coast and Hawthorn all tanked.

2 of those sides won flags, 2 are thereabouts, 1 wasted their time.

Eh, it seems the existing side makes a difference. I mean, Pendlebury and Thomas were the results of our tanking, and they are 2 of our best and most important players.

Swan won the Brownlow and we got him with like pick 56 back in 01, and Cloke was a father/son who would have been a Top 5 pick, and many argue he's our most important.

Hard to say. If done properly, it seems, tanking definitely gets results.

 

[Final Siren]

In order nudge the team towards a loss, Wally stopped coaching the team, and simply left the players to their own resources.

Mmm, hold on there, sparky. I hope you're not basing this on that FOX Sports article.

Two years after the game, during a fresh tanking debate, FOX Sports put up a web article entitled, "Wallace tanked for top pick." This had a few errors in it, including the fact that it was actually full of quotes from Wallace denying he tanked, and eventually FOX rewrote the headline to be, "Wallace admits not trying." But you can still see the old headline in the web page title.

Here is Terry Wallace in his own words about the game:

http://www.sen.com.au/audioplayer/Audio/Terry-Wallace-on-Tanking-debate/2790

To summarize: he was asked if he had made suspicious coaching moves in the last quarter, and he responded, "I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes."

And this got written up by FOX (and only FOX) as, "Terry Wallace admits tanking."