The fate of those who tank.

[mediumsizered]

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.

What lengths were they? Please do enlighten us.

When the hordes were bagging Carlton week in, week out during 2006 & 2007, calling the club a rabble, worse than Fitzroy, never going to play finals again etc etc, how could they not have known that Carlton weren't that bad after all, they were just tanking.

I think I might go & have a conversation with the tea towel hanging in my kitchen. I will get more sense out of it than from some here on BF.

 

[Snoozer]

As long as the draft structure remains the way it is, there will always be the incentive to tank. The lower the finish the better the pick.

Needs to be a lottery. 18 teams, 18 balls in a barrel... random draw. From second round onwards, then picks are awarded on reverse ladder position.

The law of large numbers states that, over time, the mean number of draft choice will even out. Sure, some teams may get 1, 2 or even 3 ordinary first round picks in a row, but over the career span of these players, say 15 years, the mean number will even out. The current view from the AFL is too short term. If a team suffers for 6-7 years, so be it... St Kilda, Footscray and plenty of others have suffered longer under the current regime.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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?

Anything that encourages a team to not win on the day, or their supporters to cheer against their own side goes against everything Aussie Rules is about IMO.

As long as we have a draft, there will always be an incentive to tank, but it will be nowhere near as strong as it was with the priority picks. Big diff tanking for picks 1&3 over 2 than just 1 over 2.

 

[EastcoastDocker]

As long as the draft structure remains the way it is, there will always be the incentive to tank. The lower the finish the better the pick.

Needs to be a lottery. 18 teams, 18 balls in a barrel... random draw. From second round onwards, then picks are awarded on reverse ladder position.

The law of large numbers states that, over time, the mean number of draft choice will even out. Sure, some teams may get 1, 2 or even 3 ordinary first round picks in a row, but over the career span of these players, say 15 years, the mean number will even out. The current view from the AFL is too short term. If a team suffers for 6-7 years, so be it... St Kilda, Footscray and plenty of others have suffered longer under the current regime.

Clubs need to be able to sell an idea. A club like melbourne wouldnt survive been crap AND not having high draft picks to brighten the future for supporters.

NBA style lottery is the best IMO

 

[Neitz]

If anyone things tanking creates success in the long run. Think again. After 5 long years of being a terrible team, and tanking. Melbourne's best player is the 42nd pick of last years rookie draft. I think that says enough.

 

[Forward Press]

If anyone things tanking creates success in the long run. Think again. After 5 long years of being a terrible team, and tanking. Melbourne's best player is the 42nd pick of last years rookie draft. I think that says enough.

A mere exception to the rule.

Collingwood? Hawthorn? West Coast? Carlton?

 

[Neitz]

A mere exception to the rule.

Collingwood? Hawthorn? West Coast? Carlton?

I guess so. I think I'm just an emotionally worn out Melbourne supporter

 

[Ants]

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.

Yes, the first half of our season was much better than yours. Although you did beat us during that period. The second half of our season was rubbish and we were off the rails - as I said, ignoring the game against you we won one of eight games to finish the year. Pretty pitiful. Of course, also evidence that you can be crap and not tanking. So categorically saying you were worse than us doesn't feel quite as obvious in that light, especially as you were beating us at half time and had far more shots on goal that day.

As to the dodgy moves - honestly I can't remember. I do remember my mate saying "look at that move", "look at that move" and laughing - but maybe he was exagerating or I'm remembering wrong.

On the whole wooden spoons and previous seasons, I'd point out the only difference between us the previous year was percentage.

I don't know if you tanked or fell in a heap. I don't really think you can know either. What I do know is that and the Kruezer cup make two interesting games, add in an interim coach getting the gig after losing six straight matches - well you may just be unlucky and didn't tank but its always going to be a touch sell to argue it didn't as you don't have categoric proof, and it does look suspicious.


That said, I'm not particularly fussed if you did. As I've said earlier, I am certain Essendon made sure they didn't win more than 4.5 games near the end of 2006. Frankly, I think an extra pick #20 for our 5 odd crap years isn't unfair. Pity all we got for it was Hislop.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Suggesting that the Hawks or West Coast did simply because they received a priority pick is ridiculous.

You mean because you support... oh

 

[a_fighting_fury]

If anyone things tanking creates success in the long run. Think again. After 5 long years of being a terrible team, and tanking. Melbourne's best player is the 42nd pick of last years rookie draft. I think that says enough.

YES

A mere exception to the rule. NO

Collingwood? Hawthorn? West Coast? Carlton?

Geelong created a dynasty without tanking or having a number 1 pick in their premiership team. (I think Selwood was highest at pick 7.)

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Collingwood and Hawthorn never actually "tanked". And they sure as hell didn't win their premierships or become premiership contenders due to their single PP.

It was just one dismal year. Almost every club has had them. It's called a wooden spoon.

It's when you see a prolonged era of dismal years, an embracing of "losing culture" if you will, that you begin to connect the dots...

Those are the teams I was talking about.

So a team who is really bad for one season then bounces straight back up the ladder didn't tank but a team who is genuinely rubbish for consecutive seasons is losing on purpose? Flawed logic.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yes, the first half of our season was much better than yours. Although you did beat us during that period. The second half of our season was rubbish and we were off the rails - as I said, ignoring the game against you we won one of eight games to finish the year. Pretty pitiful. Of course, also evidence that you can be crap and not tanking. So categorically saying you were worse than us doesn't feel quite as obvious in that light, especially as you were beating us at half time and had far more shots on goal that day.

It's a game of semantics as to who was poor in the second half of the season. I wasn't looking to compare us to Essendon originally and you made the point that Essendon were worse than us, not the other way around.

But on that, Essendon had a great first two thirds of a season and a terrible last third. Carlton had an average first half and a terrible last half. You weren't in the running for a priority pick though so ours is seen as deliberate and yours is seen as poor form. See how that works? We were worse than Essendon in the first half of the season but expected to be better than them in the second lest we be accused of throwing games.

As to the dodgy moves - honestly I can't remember. I do remember my mate saying "look at that move", "look at that move" and laughing - but maybe he was exagerating or I'm remembering wrong.

There were no positional moves. He might have been laughing at players caught out of position through lack of awareness or lack of fitness. He might have been laughing at a mid sized defender standing a ruckman or something. That happened to us quite frequently for years. Teague at 185cm or whatever he was, standing on a resting ruckman because we had no tall defenders. Laidler at 189cm still does it today. We didn't raise eyebrows by playing anybody in a foreign position for periods of time though. We may have tried a few things during this period like we do any year. Last year Jamison got a brief run up forward. We converted Thornton into a forward with success. Nothing outlandish happened in the game you speak of though.

Remember the spotlight of tanking was on us for the last several games. The only onfield things raised as evidence of tanking, was Fevola coming off for 2 minutes late in the Collingwood match and Travis Johnstone being left alone as the loose man in defence. Other than that it was a couple of young players getting games late in the season, a couple of players going for surgery before the end of the season and Libba's 'vibe'.

What I do know is that and the Kruezer cup make two interesting games, add in an interim coach getting the gig after losing six straight matches - well you may just be unlucky and didn't tank but its always going to be a touch sell to argue it didn't as you don't have categoric proof, and it does look suspicious.

When people look at those last 6 games and don't see a 'W', they assume that Ratten couldn't be appointed unless he was following instructions to lose. What they never look at is the immensely improved spirit we played with, from the very first game he took over. We copped one belting in those last 6 games, against North in Round 21, after we lost a couple of more senior players to injury. The rest of the time we found more to be hopeful about than we had for much of the season. We were outgunned all over the park but bringing in some younger players revitalised us in a lot of ways.

It's not that I am saying that we didn't tank, that we couldn't have tanked, that we would have won if we could have. I merely saying that the things people point to as categorical proof of tanking are not as clear cut as they think. People get frustrated if we don't embrace their 'evidence' and think we are in denial I get equally frustrated at the lack of objectivity and weighing up of evidence from their side.

I'm happy to put the whole tanking argument into the 'who knows' basket, but it's the other side of the argument who raise things like they are in the know that cause me to come out and add balance to the argument, like I am firmly in the 'did not tank' camp.

 

[sTeeL]

You mean because you support... oh

No. Because your clearly too stupid to understand basic maths

In 2009, we were set to qualify for a 1st round PP. Having won only 4 matches in 2008, and sitting on 4 wins with like 8 rounds to go of which 6 were most likely a guarenteed loss and 2 50/50's. Instead of rolling over like a Melbourne or a Carlton, West Coast defeated 4 teams of those hence losing us 2 top 3 picks.

Following on from that, had we taken the Melbourne approach, we would have also netted another top of 1st round draft pick in 2010 since we only won 4 games again. So instead of getting 2 x 1st round PP + 1 x 2nd round(The Melbourne/Carlton method of intentionally losing games), we only recieved 2xPP in second round.

Bit of a difference? We also didnt intentional move players outside of positions when it looks like by some random luck we might win. Your a joke of a club. You deserve every piece of shit flung your way. I have zero respect for the Melbourne Demons. And I celebrate every time I hear your team getting destroyed by any team. Your situation is the complete product of being a soul-less club. Your pea-heart no1 2008 draft pick is still a will he/wont he prospect. Your 2009 no1 has already left for greener pastures. And the majority of your other top20 picks are just average. Its almost embarrassing that an established club is being linked as easybeats in the same vein as GWS/GCS.

So get your facts straight. 2 teams have done their utmost to get consecutive draft picks. 2 teams have had people at their club come out and admit they tanked. Melbourne and Carlton.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

^^

So much wrong with that post that I won't even bother quoting it. Clearly someone that will ignore anything else presented and run his own opinions on a loop.

Who from Carlton came out and admitted tanking?

 

[Monkey King]

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

Good to see someone is thinking at least.

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

And recanted comments just aren't enough to make the mud stick are they Ron? So let's run with a whole lot of comments made by people not associated with the club at the time and just infer otherwise. Cheap work mate!

There's been attempts in this thread to rewrite history.

Yep! And you're leading the charge!

 

[Monkey King]

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

He doesn't have one. It's much easier to make a raft of unsupported claims and then just pretend that they're a true representation; and anyone disagreeing is simply trying to re-write history. I've yet to see anyone post anything here that is above the level of suspicion and conjecture. And plenty of what's written barely even makes sense when you have a bit of knowledge.

 

[Forward Press]

Geelong created a dynasty without tanking or having a number 1 pick in their premiership team. (I think Selwood was highest at pick 7.)

You might be a bit blinkered because you support Richmond, but I listed clubs that have succeeded with a bit of time 'bottoming out' and picking up priority picks (in the Eagles' case though, the priority picks were end of first rounders unlike the first three). I obviously omitted Geelong because they have never received a priority pick.

The only two exceptions really are Richmond and Melbourne. I also forgot to list St Kilda and the Bulldogs as two clubs that experienced success after 'bottoming out' and picking up a priority pick or two.

 

[sTeeL]

^^

So much wrong with that post that I won't even bother quoting it. Clearly someone that will ignore anything else presented and run his own opinions on a loop.

Who from Carlton came out and admitted tanking?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/afl-to-interview-liberatore/story-e6frf7jo-1111115795058

Say what you will. Your own assistant coach came out.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/afl-to-interview-liberatore/story-e6frf7jo-1111115795058

Say what you will. Your own assistant coach came out.

Polly want a cracker? Squaawwk.

He came out and said there was a vibe that winning wasn't important. He made it clear that he was not privy to anybody saying anything to confirm that. He then recanted 4 days later. How many times does this evidence need to come up before people stop parroting it?

You hear tanking but do not take into account his actual words, or his subsequent backing down.

I feel like we tanked does not equal 'I admit we tanked'. Sheesh.

 

[sTeeL]

Explain it away any way you want.

We all know that your team would have benefited from not winning another game
Your assistant coach admits that the way your team was being setup was assisting an attempt at a loss.
He would have been under extreme duress from both the AFL and Club to withdraw his comments because the implications that a team deliberately went out to lose would have ramifications for supporter base, possible law problems when it comes to betting etc. Your naive if you think this is not so.

And yes his actual words were not 'We were told to tank'. Nobody would ever accept that. Same as Bailey. He was told 'to do what was in the best interest of the future of the club'. Apparently that meant playing players in odd positions, and sending out players for surgery early than neccessary.

Your so cool with your little catch-phrases arent you. Stick your head in the sand as always. Maybe sticking your fingers in your ears saying 'lalalala' will make it easier.

 

[Macca19]

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.

hmmm. Werent they something like 8 goals up against Richmond during the third quarter of a Round 22 match and lost by 4 points? If they won, they wouldnt have recieved the PP. Might be coincidence, but if we are going to throw Carlton under the bus then Hawthorn should rightly be scrutinised as well.

 

[Ron The Bear]

And recanted comments just aren't enough to make the mud stick are they Ron? So let's run with a whole lot of comments made by people not associated with the club at the time and just infer otherwise. Cheap work mate!

Well don't ask me, ask your own respected posters!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Explain it away any way you want.

Yup, the facts are explaining it away.

We all know that your team would have benefited from not winning another game

That's all you know.

Your assistant coach admits that the way your team was being setup was assisting an attempt at a loss.

No, he said that some players got games that did not deserve a game - newsflash, we were a shit side, many players got games that did not deserve a game.

He said that he would have put someone on Johnstone. That's opinion, not an admission we were assisting a loss.

He said that some players had surgery early. Happens every year and sometimes injured players find it tough to actually play ... you know?

He would have been under extreme duress from both the AFL and Club to withdraw his comments because the implications that a team deliberately went out to lose would have ramifications for supporter base, possible law problems when it comes to betting etc.

Ah the conspiracy theory. The heavies leaned on him. Why would he care if it looks bad for the club? They sacked him. He would be happy to upset them. No, they did consider legal action and he dropped it quick smart. Why? He had zero evidence. Besides that he never went any further than saying 'I think they tanked'. Nothing he said suggested 'They did tank'. He just had a perception based on a few examples that were explained away so easily.

Your naive if you think this is not so.

So if I don't concede that he recanted because he was leaned on, rather than because his theory was flimsy, I am naive? Right. He even pre-empted the AFL approach and recanted in advance. He was told the AFL might want to speak to him, and he said that if they want to talk to him and ask if Carlton tanked, he would say, no I don't think they did. He then went into details of list management, and said that all teams do that.

And yes his actual words were not 'We were told to tank'. Nobody would ever accept that. Same as Bailey. He was told 'to do what was in the best interest of the future of the club'. Apparently that meant playing players in odd positions, and sending out players for surgery early than neccessary.

We didn't play anybody in odd positions and there is no evidence that players who went for surgery didn't need to. Fevola played on for longer than he should have and his preseason was extremely interrupted as a result.

Your so cool with your little catch-phrases arent you. Stick your head in the sand as always. Maybe sticking your fingers in your ears saying 'lalalala' will make it easier.

What's your motivation? You want to turn speculation into fact for the purposes of having cheap shots at teams. Says more about you than it does about me.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well don't ask me, ask your own respected posters!

Wait a second. Thrawn wasn't saying we tanked, or that the club wanted to tank. He was saying he would never want to tank and he was upset about Carlton supporters who wanted us to.

In fact, when he posted this 2 years later .....

To me, tanking is deliberately going out there to lose to gain an advantage that may or may not pay off in the end.

Tanking is a myth. It is a bullshit excuse in order to justify mediocrity. You're either good enough to win games or you are not... unless you are suggesting that the players intentionally go out onto the field to drop games? I don't believe that for a second. People can point out positional moves such as playing players out of position, putting new kids in unfamiliar roles, etc all they want but I do not see that as tanking. I see that as experimentation to see what might work and what might be used for next year - doing this and trying to win are not mutually exclusive. It's called list management and all clubs do it, especially if they're struggling. If you've been shit for the entire year and aren't going to make finals, you might as well experiment around, try some new kids... what will you lose? Wins? Surely not if you've been smashed from pillar to post with your best side anyway.

If people really want to make reference to that Melbourne game, this is what I'll say to you.

People just like looking at things that aren't even there, for the sake of argument. Switch the roles around, and they'll be quite happy to admit they're not "tanking" and they're just "too shit". Hmm, how convenient. Given our reputation as salary cap cheats, I am not surprised at the tanking crap flung at us but I say to them: come on, show some consistency at least!

... he actually referenced the post that you have as evidence of how he doesn't believe we tanked.

Supporters wanting to lose and the club actually setting out to lose are two completely different things.

I agreed with Thrawn. I could not fathom the possibility of a third straight wooden spoon and wanted to win to avoid it. I recognised the benefit of losing the game but aside from consoling myself with the fact we got the PP and avoided the spoon, I had no joy from losing that game to Melbourne.

 

[Tulip]

So, just to be clear:

Old Dark Navy's: Are you explicitly denying Carlton ever tanked?