The fate of those who tank.

[Blue and Silver]

Here's an excerpt of the interview. I've highlighted some bits I think need to be touched on.


Facts (as presented by Liberatore)
I've not highlighted anything based on Liberatore's perception of what was going on, but there are some facts he puts forward that lend towards some tanking going on:

1. The level of interaction changed noticably between the first few games of Ratten's stint and the last few of the season. Suggestions weren't being taken on board in the same way.
2. There were young players played who were not good enough to play in the side for a team trying to win. Perhaps they were there for future years (development), however they weren't picked to win the game.
3.The coaches would joke about tanking.
4. The last three or four games, there wasn't as much thought put into match committee.
5. The footy manager specifically told all players, even those with minor injuries who could have played (and helped Carlton win) to prepare for the next season.

Questions
Why did Ratten suddenly stop listenting to his assistant coaches. Why did he stop moving players or trying new things if they weren't tanking?

Why did Carlton play so many youngsters for development when they had games to win. Sure, there is always a balance between winning and building a team, but why did season 2008 come before 2007 when 2007 wasn't even finished? Why play players who were not up to standard at the time, not even on the fringe in the eyes of the coaches?

Why were the coaching team joking about tanking when discussing dodgy selections or moves? Why was the preparation, planning and thought in the match committee so poor in the last few games compared to the first few (after Pagan)? Why was it okay not to put in the required planning to win the games?

Why did the footy manager make the unusual move of telling all players with minor niggles that they had to start recovery for the next season, even though some were fine to play? Why was Brett Thornton shocked when he was told he needed surgery?

If you are not preparing to the normal standard for a team to win a game of footy, with the prize of a PP in mind, is that tanking?


Backdown
Carlton threatened legal action, and soon after Liberatore recanted his statement. His withdrawal did not explain any of the content of his initial accusations at all, but simply that he didn't feel they tanked.
Carlton says legal action is an option

Interview
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/afl-footy-show-tony-liberatore-interview/xd31une

1) Two of those coaches would no longer be with the Blues in 2008, Barry Mitchell and Liberatore. It is likely the incoming coach had a very big say in this, and maybe was clamming up because he was aware that they could be coaching elsewhere next year. Indeed Terry Daniher, Gary Dempsey part-time assistatnts, were also dropped as assistants and carried a similiar possibility. Four separate individuals who would likely enter other clubs, why share knowledge strategies if you knew they wouldn't be there next year.

2) That's called player development. All sides do it. Playing the kids, to see what they can do, give them a taste etc. so forth. Putting other players into surgery early when they could play is another case where this is misinterpreted. They are hurt, they won't be at 100% and there is a chance playing could worsen the injury. If it's finals you play them, if it isn't you put them out and get them healthy.

3) I joke about killing my friends sometimes. I never mean it, they know I don't. Joking about something is a horrible cause-effect link.

4) First couple of games Ratten is a new coach. He is intensely trying to get up to speed. Last three, four he is more comfortable, knows his colleagues, has probably started planning for next year (the season is dead to us) and is a little more relaxed. This may be a case of a small sample size comparison from Libba.

5) So what? He's not telling them to take it easy, or not try. He's telling them that these games are dead rubbers and that next season is what matters. Maybe he's even telling them that they are being given opportunities to go out there and prove themselves for an opportunity next season. He's probably telling the older guys to get fit and at work for next season.

It's a matter of perspective mate. You want to see tanking. I'm seeing a club at a turning point, shedding baggage and building for the future. Nothing here suggest a deliberate attempt to lose.

 

[toeknee2]

Yes, a person's footy views are always tainted by what they want to believe.

Unlike them I was at every one of those games and I have nothing but pride of our list.

There are no rules in love and war. When the dark sets in you do what you can to survive. They all would have wanted their clubs to do the same if they were put in the same position. But they may "say" other wise.

 

[mikeythemoocow]

Any club that is no longer in the running for finals should be in list management mode. Players that need ops sent of so they be ready for the pre season. Young players blooded to gauge if they can make it and get experience. Players tried in other roles and new tactics or plans looked at. Winning is great but there is no reason playing old blokes who wont be around for long is more benificial than getting experience into kids who will grow from the experience.
I still look back at when Pagan grabbed a heap of old players and played them in front of any youngsters we had. Worked out great.

 

[Big_Luch]

You can look at it any way you like. You obviously hadn't even watched the interview before I posted it. You claimed that Liberatore gave no facts, yet he did, so that's your first mistake.

You're basically picking every point apart and playing semantics. You can't see the forest for the the trees.

I'm not going to address every nitpick because you're just trying to draw the argument out in an attempt to dilute what is blatantly obvious. Carlton* were not trying to win in the last few games, and particularly in the last game. Even if they were list managing, they were not actively trying to win with the players they picked. There can be only one explanation for this.

There is no proof, but evidence that an insider could see that Carlton* tanked.

You'll keep believing what you want to believe, such as "Libba recanted", and he "might be" disgruntled, which is laughable that you actually accept that. Confirmation bias, much?

By the way, I've seen enough to make an informed decision in my own view, so from that perspective, the case is closed. I even accept the explanation regarding Johnstone running unattended, but it is clear to blind Freddy that the Blues* cheated for picks regardless, and that this playing group is tainted needlessly due to this.

All the best.

In response to the bolded.............it is not cheating it is exploiting the system. Also get off your high horse saying the club is tainted from a few matches 5 years ago........all clubs would and do the same thing in the same situation.

 

[Roby]

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.

Against Aussie Rules?

If you hear most people, they will tell you that it's all about winning the premiership, are you sure it's just about day to day games?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Heaven forbid. Your arguments have actually helped our side I think.

I can't be bothered making a futile attempt at building a bulletproof case. There are vaguely plausible explanations for everything, like Lappin supposedly suffering a season-ending injury when he bent over to pick up a baby's pusher. Everything there is to say about it has already been said.

Regardless of what you, me, or anyone else believes, that Carlton tanked at the end of 2007 has become part of footy folklore. It has been preserved for posterity.

 

[mediumsizered]

You honestly believe your team didn't go out on purpose to lose after what you just read there from your assistant coach?

Another thing is your all willing to accept West Coast tanked because we recieved 2 x 2nd round PP over 3 years. Yet, when you see shit like the above when it comes to your own team tanking for a 1st round PP then your all crying as if we tanked?

What do you think Peter Sumich meant when he stated just before the halfway mark of the 2010 season that the Eagles would be putting the "cue in the rack?"

 

[mediumsizered]

I can't be bothered making a futile attempt at building a bulletproof case. There are vaguely plausible explanations for everything, like Lappin supposedly suffering a season-ending injury when he bent over to pick up a baby's pusher. Everything there is to say about it has already been said.

Regardless of what you, me, or anyone else believes, that Carlton tanked at the end of 2007 has become part of footy folklore. It has been preserved for posterity.

As long as this makes you feel better about your football, that is all that matters. Personally, I enjoy watching Kreuzer & Juddy running around in Carlton jumpers, particularly knowing that a tosser like Kevin Bartlett was adamant that Richmond were in the 'box seat' to get Juddy & that Greg Miller (remember him?) pretended that the Tigers had the ability to get a deal done to get Juddy to Punt Rd.

 

[sTeeL]

What do you think Peter Sumich meant when he stated just before the halfway mark of the 2010 season that the Eagles would be putting the "cue in the rack?"

If you can find that direct quote anywhere, Ill shut my mouth. That is a load a shit. Nothing like that has ever come out of a West Coast player or coach. Why on earth would we tank 2010 after making sure we didnt in 2009. Once again *******. 2 x 2nd round PP are not better than 1 x 2nd and 2x 1st. If we were at any point attempting to tank, we would have just keep losing in 09.

 

[Ron The Bear]

As long as this makes you feel better about your football, that is all that matters.

As I said earlier, it's a dark chapter. Better for you lot to take ownership than to spend the rest of your footy-following days pretending it didn't happen.

 

[Quinz]

If you can find that direct quote anywhere, Ill shut my mouth. That is a load a shit. Nothing like that has ever come out of a West Coast player or coach. Why on earth would we tank 2010 after making sure we didnt in 2009. Once again *******. 2 x 2nd round PP are not better than 1 x 2nd and 2x 1st. If we were at any point attempting to tank, we would have just keep losing in 09.

I asked for that a while back.. Still waiting.

Was looking for it and found this from 2008 though

The body language of some of West Coast's experienced players very much points to the 'cue being put back in the rack' & of course Peter Sumich made comments to that effect several weeks ago.

So Sumich either said it both years, MS is attributing it falsely to 2010 because it's easier to argue, or he keeps hearing Sumich's voice in his head.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You can look at it any way you like. You obviously hadn't even watched the interview before I posted it. You claimed that Liberatore gave no facts, yet he did, so that's your first mistake.

Of course I have seen it. I'd wager I have seen a thousand times more Carlton related content than you have so get off your high horse. He ummed and aahed his way through the interview, talked about his feelings and perceptions and very little else. His only facts (and let's remember facts are not perceptions, they are provable and merely based on one person's view) were that Johnstone was not manned up, that Thornton went for surgery and that some young players got a game.

You're basically picking every point apart and playing semantics. You can't see the forest for the the trees.

Are the points able to be picked apart or are they not. It's okay for you to dismiss the FACT that he recanted and to not even bother addressing the FACT that we debuted as many players in the first half of the season than we did the second half and the FACT that all of those that debuted during the second half of the season during that losing streak are still on an AFL list whereas 3 of 4 from the winning part of the season are not, suggesting those that Ratten debuted were indeed chosen for future development and were not in any way laughable decisions.

I'm not going to address every nitpick because you're just trying to draw the argument out in an attempt to dilute what is blatantly obvious. Carlton* were not trying to win in the last few games, and particularly in the last game. Even if they were list managing, they were not actively trying to win with the players they picked. There can be only one explanation for this.

List managing is not cheating or attempting to lose. It is the prudent thing to do when you have nothing but the future to look forward to. You are the one drawing it out because you want an accuse to sink the boot and nobody will bend over for you.

There is no proof, but evidence that an insider could see that Carlton* tanked.

A recanted perception. "I think they did" followed by "I don't think they did". Nothing definitive.

You'll keep believing what you want to believe, such as "Libba recanted", and he "might be" disgruntled, which is laughable that you actually accept that. Confirmation bias, much?

Libba actually said he was unhappy about being sacked. It's a possibility. Not sure why the fact he recanted is so easily dismissed by you unless you have an agenda.

By the way, I've seen enough to make an informed decision in my own view, so from that perspective, the case is closed. I even accept the explanation regarding Johnstone running unattended, but it is clear to blind Freddy that the Blues* cheated for picks regardless, and that this playing group is tainted needlessly due to this.

You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care. It's people like you who are doing the needless tainting and using the word cheated. You're a fraud buddy.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As I said earlier, it's a dark chapter. Better for you lot to take ownership than to spend the rest of your footy-following days pretending it didn't happen.

Or we can go on dismissing internet know nobodies, who are borderline trolling to get their kicks. Either way.

I'm not usually a gloater, but if we hold up a premiership cup in the next few years, I hope it burns. I look forward to your asterisk threads as proof of this.

 

[sTeeL]

Dont have the cattle despite hardcore tanking. At least Melbourne people admit it. Your clearly in denial despite 3 years straight of number 1 picks.

 

[Ants]

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

Geelong didn't tank, but they did kind of accidentally finish crap for a few years and get a plethora of draft picks partly from trading out senior players in strong draft years (99 & 01). Bizzell, Mansfield, Colbert and Murphy. They certainly didn't do it deliberately (Colbert and Murphy obviously demanded trades) but they did kind of do it by accident. This did mean they finished lower than they otherwise would have, but they also deliberately avoided the deep reaches of the ladder and priority picks.

Of course, they also got a big boost from F/S selections - Scarlett, Nablett, G. Ablett, Blake and Hawkins.

 

[Uncle Ted]

St Kilda got very close to a premiership with their tanking. Virtually got the same draft picks as Carlton over their period. Think they might have to tank again soon

 

[Seeds]

Geelong didn't tank, but they did kind of accidentally finish crap for a few years and get a plethora of draft picks partly from trading out senior players in strong draft years (99 & 01). Bizzell, Mansfield, Colbert and Murphy. They certainly didn't do it deliberately (Colbert and Murphy obviously demanded trades) but they did kind of do it by accident. This did mean they finished lower than they otherwise would have, but they also deliberately avoided the deep reaches of the ladder and priority picks.

Of course, they also got a big boost from F/S selections - Scarlett, Nablett, G. Ablett, Blake and Hawkins.

We haven't been down near the bottom since the eighties. I think we were only a couple of games out of the eight that year too. The best draft pick we've got in the past 15 years is number 6. Over the same time period most teams have had more than half a dozen top 5 draft picks. Our main challengers more. Geelong (along with Adelaide and Sydney) simply does not rebuild. The communist styled draft system has significantly punished teams like us. We have flourished despite the system. Even when the AFL steals our best player and grants us only 7 home games a year compared to the 11+ every other team gets. We still flourish.

PS. I know your having a laugh when you count Blake as a beneficial F/S selection.

 

[Turbocat]

Geelong didn't tank, but they did kind of accidentally finish crap for a few years and get a plethora of draft picks partly from trading out senior players in strong draft years (99 & 01). Bizzell, Mansfield, Colbert and Murphy. They certainly didn't do it deliberately (Colbert and Murphy obviously demanded trades) but they did kind of do it by accident. This did mean they finished lower than they otherwise would have, but they also deliberately avoided the deep reaches of the ladder and priority picks.

Of course, they also got a big boost from F/S selections - Scarlett, Nablett, G. Ablett, Blake and Hawkins.

FS first. The system is there for everyone. Some luck is involved as with most things but as someone from Ess should know there is two sides to FS. The time the training , the fathers relationship to the club... and not all FS workout. Geelong has done well but just like with so many of its late picks some of this is environment and grooming.

Certainly Geelong is not the only club to have won flags with FS. Ess this weeks celebrates 350 games for one the most successful FS's and Collingwood has Cloke and Shaw. Not sure what system was involved with their FS's but does it really matter. Its the system.

The one I will concede is Hawkins/Selwood and it changed the system to the bidding one we have now. I like the bidding system however as with Curren last year it does pressure the FS relationship.

The players you mentioned , concede three no matter their pre-draft rating , however I would say its debatable for two. Blake probably cost more than it gained from him. King might have been kept longer, Mumford might still be here or West would have played more games. Nablett , well , talented yes but the effort and cost ....

As far as accidental tanking? Its oxymoronic. I think there should be another term for blooding kids. Its something other than trying to lose. Is GWS and GC tanking?

 

[Turbocat]

We haven't been down near the bottom since the eighties. I think we were only a couple of games out of the eight that year too. The best draft pick we've got in the past 15 years is number 6. Over the same time period most teams have had more than half a dozen top 5 draft picks. Our main challengers more. Geelong (along with Adelaide and Sydney) simply does not rebuild. The communist styled draft system has significantly punished teams like us. We have flourished despite the system. Even when the AFL steals our best player and grants us only 7 home games a year compared to the 11+ every other team gets. We still flourish.

PS. I know your having a laugh when you count Blake as a beneficial F/S selection.

Seeds , to be fair Ants is a seasoned poster who has made it clear , we didn't tank. But we all can look at things differently.

For instance. The "communist system" has punished us? No , its helped us. If it were a pure Capitalist system we would be a Sunderland or AstinVilla or someone , certainly not ManU. An unleashed Ess, Collingwood, Crows, WC etc would make us decidedly ordinary. Losing current and future stars to others would become the norm as we became a feeder club to the rich. The draft&SC has its issues but the distribution of talent thru it and the spread of talented maintained thru the cap gives clubs a chance to be at the top.

 

[MaddAdam]

As long as this makes you feel better about your football, that is all that matters. Personally, I enjoy watching Kreuzer & Juddy running around in Carlton jumpers, particularly knowing that a tosser like Kevin Bartlett was adamant that Richmond were in the 'box seat' to get Juddy & that Greg Miller (remember him?) pretended that the Tigers had the ability to get a deal done to get Juddy to Punt Rd.

Yep, lucky you guys had a bloke of such personal integrity in Richard Pratt to get Juddy over the line for you.

 

[Monkey King]

Regardless of what you, me, or anyone else believes, that Carlton tanked at the end of 2007 has become part of footy folklore.

For a certain segment of the football public perhaps, but I know it's not as widespread a belief as BF would have you believe. I guess it's similar in some ways to Clinton Casey's dodgy payments to Richmond players and Wallace tanking too. Plenty of footy supporters have that set in stone too. Doesn't mean it's true, but then again, supporters like this usually don't care if it's true or not.

 

[Summer Nights]

Of course I have seen it. I'd wager I have seen a thousand times more Carlton related content than you have so get off your high horse. He ummed and aahed his way through the interview, talked about his feelings and perceptions and very little else. His only facts (and let's remember facts are not perceptions, they are provable and merely based on one person's view) were that Johnstone was not manned up, that Thornton went for surgery and that some young players got a game.

Are the points able to be picked apart or are they not. It's okay for you to dismiss the FACT that he recanted and to not even bother addressing the FACT that we debuted as many players in the first half of the season than we did the second half and the FACT that all of those that debuted during the second half of the season during that losing streak are still on an AFL list whereas 3 of 4 from the winning part of the season are not, suggesting those that Ratten debuted were indeed chosen for future development and were not in any way laughable decisions.

List managing is not cheating or attempting to lose. It is the prudent thing to do when you have nothing but the future to look forward to. You are the one drawing it out because you want an accuse to sink the boot and nobody will bend over for you.



A recanted perception. "I think they did" followed by "I don't think they did". Nothing definitive.



Libba actually said he was unhappy about being sacked. It's a possibility. Not sure why the fact he recanted is so easily dismissed by you unless you have an agenda.



You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care. It's people like you who are doing the needless tainting and using the word cheated. You're a fraud buddy.

Again, derailing the conversation. How much Carlton content you've seen has nothing to do with it. You got the facts wrong about the interview. You'd either not seen it, forgotten or refuse to acknowledge that Libba offers more than just opinions, but what he believes to be facts. I am not saying they are provable. I am saying he offered more than just his opinion and you got this wrong.

If you believe his recant of his opinion, you'll believe anything. I am not trying to convince you, I'm simply responding with my belief of the evidence that Carlton cheated. Libba did not address his own points, he just flipped his overall position after Carlton threatened legal action. Can't believe you're willing to jump all over that. Desperate much?

In regards to the young players that didn't deserve a game, I haven't responded to that because I don't consider your rebuttal to be adequate. The point stands that Liberatore obviously didn't observe in match committee any reason or discussion that certain players were getting a game, as you said, it's possible that it was list management, but then why wasn't that even mentioned in the last 3 to 4 weeks of match committee? Very suspicious. No wonder he thought it was dodgy when they'd joke about tanking.

To this day, there has been no good explanation, from Carlton, the AFL or anyone else, why Carlton were not adequately planning to win games in their match committees.

By the way, calling a poster a fraud for having an informed opinion... Brilliant coming from a mod. I thought you're supposed to play the ball and not the man? Speaks volumes about your emotional bias in all this.

From my perspective you've failed to adequately respond to the facts presented by Liberatore and you've demonstrated not only that you weren't across the content of the interview, but that there are no good explanations for Carlton's behavior at the end of 2007.

For this reason, I think we can all agree that there is a strong argument that Carlton tanked for picks and that therefore the current side is tainted.

Cheers.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I'm not usually a gloater, but if we hold up a premiership cup in the next few years, I hope it burns. I look forward to your asterisk threads as proof of this.

I don't think I've ever started a thread about Carlton.

For a certain segment of the football public perhaps, but I know it's not as widespread a belief as BF would have you believe. I guess it's similar in some ways to Clinton Casey's dodgy payments to Richmond players and Wallace tanking too. Plenty of footy supporters have that set in stone too. Doesn't mean it's true, but then again, supporters like this usually don't care if it's true or not.

Casey's arrangements may or may not have been dodgy but they were rubber-stamped by Demetriou at the time.

The belief is widespread alright. I throw it back at Carlton supporters whenever they get a bit too uppity and all they can do is grin inanely and say "Juddy!". At least they've taken ownership.

 

[Ants]

Yikes. I just point out that although Geelong didn't tank they did (by accident) effectively trade out senior players for picks - which some here have said is part of tanking - and I'm jumped on!

I think Geelong did very well with their drafting, and brilliantly with their development. But I am pointing out although you did that with no tanking and no priority picks, it did include trading out older players for picks and a bit of luck with the F/S selections. Its not meant to be a knock, but just adding that Geelong's path to success wasn't a single clear "we did everything right and didn't do any of this shady stuff", but that like probably every premiership team there was some sacrifice of short term success for longer term. Plus a touch of luck.


And on Blake - sure he wasn't great. But him and Nablett both played their parts in grand final teams and on grand final day. Having those tall players (plus Scarlett & Hawkins) meant more high picks could be focussed elsewhere which was useful. Frankly I think losing Nablett and having Lonergan at CHF cost you the GF in 2008.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Against Aussie Rules?

If you hear most people, they will tell you that it's all about winning the premiership, are you sure it's just about day to day games?

We don't play for draws like cricket and soccer, its about getting a win.

if you think AFL is a better game for encouraging kids to cheer on their team to deliberately lose its a sad perspective to have.