The fate of those who tank.

[Ned_Flanders]

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."

I based it upon my memory of the SEN discussion he had on it, and your summary backs me up.

He didn't do anything, and thats the problem. No moves, no adjustments, he just dropped the car into neutral and let it roll. This is why I class it between the two. While it is not playing guys to disadvantage, having 18 guys out there without coaching support (even for 5 minutes) is hardly putting the teams best foot forward.

I don't thinks its a blatant tank, but we are kidding ourselves if we think that Wally took his hands off the wheel for any reason other than potentially giving the Saints the edge they needed to win the game - and hand us the pick we wanted.

 

[Summer Nights]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not coaching to win every single game, you're tanking. There is no in between.

 

[Dumpstar]

He didn't do anything, and thats the problem. No moves, no adjustments, he just dropped the car into neutral and let it roll. This is why I class it between the two. While it is not playing guys to disadvantage, having 18 guys out there without coaching support (even for 5 minutes) is hardly putting the teams best foot forward.

The less coaching Terry Wallace does, the better.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Just to put the Kreuzer Cup in its proper context...

"We'll be going out to win this week, and I dare Carlton to do the same."
- Terry Wallace

"I don't want them to win for the simple fact I want to see them get the draft picks."
- Anthony Koutoufides

"For the long term future of the club we have to get the best possible picks."
- David McKay

"We've got to lose."
- John Elliott

"I don't want Carlton to win because, as a supporter, the benefits of losing are so great."
- Robert Walls

"I think the League owes us a few draft picks so even if we tanked this week, so be it."
- David Rhys-Jones

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/more-sports/kouta-get-draft-pick/story-e6frfglf-1111114281936

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Just to put the Kreuzer Cup in its proper context...

"We'll be going out to win this week, and I dare Carlton to do the same."
- Terry Wallace

"I don't want them to win for the simple fact I want to see them get the draft picks."
- Anthony Koutoufides

"For the long term future of the club we have to get the best possible picks."
- David McKay

"We've got to lose."
- John Elliott

"I don't want Carlton to win because, as a supporter, the benefits of losing are so great."
- Robert Walls

"I think the League owes us a few draft picks so even if we tanked this week, so be it."
- David Rhys-Jones

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/more-sports/kouta-get-draft-pick/story-e6frfglf-1111114281936

What context is that? Wallace was our coach, all the rest had former roles at the Blues.

Proper context would be getting quotes from Blues staff who were in paid positions at the Blues at the time of the game

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I'm new to this thread... am I really seeing Carlton people trying to argue they didnt tank?

New level of internet LOLz.

 

[Ron The Bear]

What context is that? Wallace was our coach, all the rest had former roles at the Blues.

Proper context would be getting quotes from Blues staff who were in paid positions at the Blues at the time of the game

Well we only have Libba's comments in that regard.

There's been attempts in this thread to rewrite history. The comments demonstrate the aura of the time, that everybody was aware well before the fact that Carlton would shun the four points like poison.

Good luck to Carlton, they boldly played the system and benefited.

 

[yibbida]

Just to put the Kreuzer Cup in its proper context...

"We'll be going out to win this week, and I dare Carlton to do the same."
- Terry Wallace

"I don't want them to win for the simple fact I want to see them get the draft picks."
- Anthony Koutoufides

"For the long term future of the club we have to get the best possible picks."
- David McKay

"We've got to lose."
- John Elliott

"I don't want Carlton to win because, as a supporter, the benefits of losing are so great."
- Robert Walls

"I think the League owes us a few draft picks so even if we tanked this week, so be it."
- David Rhys-Jones

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/more-sports/kouta-get-draft-pick/story-e6frfglf-1111114281936

1 quote from a coach, the other from commentators or past players/presidents who had nothing to do with the running of the club.

 

[yibbida]

I'm new to this thread... am I really seeing Carlton people trying to argue they didnt tank?

New level of internet LOLz.

You are right, we did tank. We could have won the premiership every year between 2002 & 2011 but we chose not too....

 

[Summer Nights]

Well we only have Libba's comments in that regard.

There's been attempts in this thread to rewrite history. The comments demonstrate the aura of the time, that everybody was aware well before the fact that Carlton would shun the four points like poison.

Good luck to Carlton, they boldly played the system and benefited.

What's your response to the explanation about Travis Johnstone?

 

[lionel_luthor]

The only season I am certain we tanked was 2007, and in hindsight that was done more so to secure the draft pick needed to trade for Chris Judd.

The other seasons we were unbelievably poor, and at the time I was fuming we won the Gibbs cup against Essendon by losing that game, but rapt we got Gibbs instead of Gumby (there was whispers at the time some on the MC wanted to draft Gumbleton)

We were lucky we used our PP's wisely.

 

[Ron The Bear]

What's your response to the explanation about Travis Johnstone?

Don't have an opinion as I turned the game off halfway through the second quarter once it was apparent what was happening. Sounds plausible enough, once Carlton got six goals down they were content to break even in a tit-for-tat re Johnstone/Scotland.

Tanking is similar to staging, easy to detect but tough to prove to a legal standard.

 

[Final Siren]

He didn't do anything, and thats the problem. No moves, no adjustments, he just dropped the car into neutral and let it roll.

As opposed to what, though? We had all our blokes playing in their best positions. No individual opposition player was carving us up. If you think he deliberately didn't make a move that he should have, then I'd agree that's basically tanking. But otherwise... it's not unusual for a coach to make no "miracle moves in the last few minutes."

 

[Ned_Flanders]

As opposed to what, though? We had all our blokes playing in their best positions. No individual opposition player was carving us up. If you think he deliberately didn't make a move that he should have, then I'd agree that's basically tanking. But otherwise... it's not unusual for a coach to make no "miracle moves in the last few minutes."

The intent was to not interfere and let the players coach themselves. the fact nothing fell apart is not the problem, the problem was if something did the players would have been on their own.

This is why I categorize it as between the two extremes of "tanking", its not as bad as deliberately bad moves, but its worse than playing kids IMO.

 

[Final Siren]

The intent was to not interfere and let the players coach themselves. the fact nothing fell apart is not the problem, the problem was if something did the players would have been on their own.

This is why I categorize it as between the two extremes of "tanking", its not as bad as deliberately bad moves, but its worse than playing kids IMO.

Well, for mine, it's a long bow to draw. You're saying Wallace secretly wanted to lose that game, something he's denied, and even though no big coaching moves were required in the last few minutes, if they had been, then maybe he still wouldn't have made them, so therefore he was semi-tanking.

It's a hypothetical sitting on top of a hypothetical.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

This Thread=Naivety

Players don't tank, clubs do.

Tanking isn't losing all season.

Tanking is losing when the opportunity to gain better picks becomes a reality i.e. late in the season once it is over and there is nothing to play for but pride.

Can't believe how many claim their club hasn't tanked. When players go in for season ending surgeries to get them right for the next season - that is deliberately weakening the team this year to benefit next year i.e. increasing the chance of losing now = tanking.

Hawks, WC, Blues, Tiges, Bombers, Pies, Saints (there are more) have all chosen to tank at one stage or another. Some see shame in that, I just say the clubs manipulated the rules becasue the AFL is stupid, ignorant and can never admit it is wrong.

The only clubs that def have not tanked are Cats, Swans (don't need to as the AFL helps them anyway), North (thank Laids for that) and Crows (very smart recruiting local talent). Everyone else is questionable at best.

 

[angrylion1]

Tanking is similar to staging, easy to detect but tough to prove to a legal standard.

Agree 100%

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Well, for mine, it's a long bow to draw. You're saying Wallace secretly wanted to lose that game, something he's denied, and even though no big coaching moves were required in the last few minutes, if they had been, then maybe he still wouldn't have made them, so therefore he was semi-tanking.

It's a hypothetical sitting on top of a hypothetical.

Its not hypothetical - in the original SEN discussion Wally said he was in two minds about wanting to win the game when he was going to the ground, and that he had no incentive to win.

So the coach doesn't know if he wants to win or lose, and then decides to let the players coach themselves for a period of the game, and you think thats a long bow?

Then the AFL had a chat with him, and just like what happened with Bailey, a clarification came out. Was more concerned that the pressure was in place, and of course he didn't tank, and so on.

AFL cannot let anyone actually admit they tanked because of the implications it has on the gambling side of its business. As such, you will never get a coach blatantly saying "I tanked" because the legal implications are too high. The comments from Wally and Bailey are probably as close at we will get.

 

[Ron The Bear]

You're saying Wallace secretly wanted to lose that game, something he's denied

The competitor in him probably didn't want to lose, but he made comments prior to the game about feeling compromised in relation to the result and the draft. I suspect Wallace is telling the truth - that he just let things play out. Nobody expected us to win that game on merit.

At the time I wanted to win as it would've presented Carlton with a dilemma - Kreuzer or third consecutive spoon. In hindsight, if it made the difference between getting Cotchin or what followed immediately after him in the draft - Masten, Morton, Grant, Myers, Palmer, Henderson - I'm glad things turned out the way they did (wooden spoon sent to me in the mail by a Carlton supporter notwithstanding ).

 

[Franc de Borges]

It's amazing how Carlton couldn't win a game throughout 2007 due to complete shitness, enough in fact to get the coach sacked, yet were supposed to go on some miraculous winning streak for the last 6 games of the season. If we were that good we would have played finals, not finished 15th.

Many of those late season games were quite close too. No doubt by the last game we didn't try to win as there was no point, but before that I highly doubt it.

 

[Big_Luch]

This Thread=Naivety

Players don't tank, clubs do.

Tanking isn't losing all season.

Tanking is losing when the opportunity to gain better picks becomes a reality i.e. late in the season once it is over and there is nothing to play for but pride.

Can't believe how many claim their club hasn't tanked. When players go in for season ending surgeries to get them right for the next season - that is deliberately weakening the team this year to benefit next year i.e. increasing the chance of losing now = tanking.

Hawks, WC, Blues, Tiges, Bombers, Pies, Saints (there are more) have all chosen to tank at one stage or another. Some see shame in that, I just say the clubs manipulated the rules becasue the AFL is stupid, ignorant and can never admit it is wrong.

The only clubs that def have not tanked are Cats, Swans (don't need to as the AFL helps them anyway), North (thank Laids for that) and Crows (very smart recruiting local talent). Everyone else is questionable at best.

shhhhhhhh....you are ruining peoples excuses to bag certain clubs.

 

[Roby]

Its not hypothetical - in the original SEN discussion Wally said he was in two minds about wanting to win the game when he was going to the ground, and that he had no incentive to win.

So the coach doesn't know if he wants to win or lose, and then decides to let the players coach themselves for a period of the game, and you think thats a long bow?

Then the AFL had a chat with him, and just like what happened with Bailey, a clarification came out. Was more concerned that the pressure was in place, and of course he didn't tank, and so on.

AFL cannot let anyone actually admit they tanked because of the implications it has on the gambling side of its business. As such, you will never get a coach blatantly saying "I tanked" because the legal implications are too high. The comments from Wally and Bailey are probably as close at we will get.

Again, if you are not in the finals hunt, is there any incentives to win games if there is no relegation for the teams at the bottom? Isn't developing young players more important than winning games if you are not a premiership contender?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Again, if you are not in the finals hunt, is there any incentives to win games if there is no relegation for the teams at the bottom? Isn't developing young players more important than winning games if you are not a premiership contender?

And that was the problem, priority picks and the draft structure reward tanking when you know your finals are done.

That being said, just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

 

[sTeeL]

Everyone knows there are only two teams to legitimately tank.

Carlton and Melbourne. Suggesting that the Hawks or West Coast did simply because they received a priority pick is ridiculous. None went to the effort of Carlton or Melbourne to actually lose games on purpose.

 

[Roby]

And that was the problem, priority picks and the draft structure reward tanking when you know your finals are done.

That being said, just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

But it should be done, that is my point. Surely it's about trying to win a premiership, if the team essentially will benefit from fielding and moulding younger players at the cost of winning less games than that's what they should do.

Take away the priority draft picks, given this philosophy do you think it would change things?