What should be the penalty for tanking?

[IanW]

Because nobody's ever identified any game outside of Round 18 that year which we somehow should've won and didn't?



They're being far too generous.

Well, against Gold Coast, but there is a case that the team that beats Melbourne the best is Melbourne.

Im just quoting the current odds off here

http://www.way2bet.com.au/sportsbet...e-v-Gold-Coast/Head-To-Head/21653/22958/50437

Depending on your bookie, they are quoting GC at between 5-2 and 3-1 - in short, it'd be an upset, but not that much of one.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

you see, clearly you guys werent tanking the entire season!. i was at that game too... sigh

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Depending on your bookie, they are quoting GC at between 5-2 and 3-1 - in short, it'd be an upset, but not that much of one.

Yeah, nah.

This game's just about over already.

 

[IanW]

Yeah, nah.

This game's just about over already.

I think you're right, which should secure something better than a wooden spoon for Melbourne, and therefore remove the issue of Melbourne being accused of tanking this year.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

$3 for GCS not looking like such good value anymore

 

[IanW]

$3 for GCS not looking like such good value anymore

Sure, but I was just quoting the odds as they were at the time.

If you let Melbourne get a roll on, they are an effective high-skill team.

 

[Monkey King]

Thats a ridiculous statement

Wow! Awesome counter point

Anything else? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. I've provided the rationale for making the statement too, so probably if you want to challenge it, you're going to have to address those points.

 

[Monkey King]

Because nobody's ever identified any game outside of Round 18 that year which we somehow should've won and didn't?

As I just explained to you mate, you can still tank a game you're unlikely to win from a tipping aspect. And you can tank a game from the first minute of the first quarter and never be in a position to win a game either. Simply put, there never need be any game ever identified as "should've won" for tanking to be a reality.

My statement was based on what ex-Melbourne leaders have divulged. Bailey has admitted he tanked. Gardner has already said he once left a match because he could see the team was tanking. Then we get to McLean, who has inferred this wasn't something dodgy in the last quarter of a match; this was a systematic approach to games from coaching staff and that when Bailey was approached about it, they were "on the same page" in regards to what was going on.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Wow! Awesome counter point

Anything else? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. I've provided the rationale for making the statement too, so probably if you want to challenge it, you're going to have to address those points.

I was making a counter point i was stating a fact. facts, once established dont need to be proof every time they are used

 

[Boppo]

No penalty at all, take away the incentive. Clubs should be able to do whatever they think best with their dead rubbers including trying new players, varying tactics and resting players. Happens in plenty other sports where there is no relegation. If you want to punt, take things into consideration.

 

[Monkey King]

I was making a counter point i was stating a fact. facts, once established dont need to be proof every time they are used

Err ... "that's a ridiculous statement" is just your opinion mate.

The statement was reasonable. You are wrong.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Bailey has admitted he tanked. Gardner... McLean...

Gardner is talking shit as far as I'm concerned, and I know most other Demons people agree on that. As for McLean, the guy who left us because we tanked, to go to Carlton... he is not serious evidence of anything either.

 

[Monkey King]

Gardner is talking shit as far as I'm concerned, and I know most other Demons people agree on that. As for McLean, the guy who left us because we tanked, to go to Carlton... he is not serious evidence of anything either.

Garner was President. I reckon he knows far, far more about what was going on than you do.

Your McLean comment is pretty meh too. Why is he not evidence?

Because I don't want it to be or "he's full of shit" might be good enough for you mate, but you can't fault people for listening to the guys who were leaders at your club coming out saying this stuff. Dismissing it with such piss-poor reasoning just makes you just look desperate as hell to bury your head in the sand mate.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Err ... "that's a ridiculous statement" is just your opinion mate.

The statement was reasonable. You are wrong.

no, its a fact established by the ridiculous nature of your statement.

if you want to establish your theory as credible (credible - not proven) then you will first have to address the motivation.

1 or 2 extra picks in the first round seems like a pretty strong motivator right? you gain a lot from that right? not all top 10 picks play 100 games let alone make a football club.

from 1995 to 2004 (allows time for players to accumulate games) national draft top 10 picks play on average 127.19 games

The average for top 5 picks was 148.34, the average for 6-10 was 106.04

So there would seem to be a reasonable case for throwing a season to get 2 picks inside the top 5 compared to say 1 inside the top 5 and 1 inside the 6-10 bracket. as this would increase your expected games from the players from ~254 to ~296.

So throwing a season nets you a player who should play an extra 42 games for the club.

Now thats what youre claiming Melbourne would throw a season for. not just a game but a whole season

Averages arent guarantees, maybe you get C Judd, Maybe you get L Franklin, or maybe you get Ryley Dunn or Tim Walsh.

There were 32 players in the top 10 over that period that played less than 100 games, so you have a roughly 1/3 chance of getting a dud.

Now lets look at what it does to your club. Memberships drop, attendance at games drops, tv viewership drops, sponsorship becomes less appealing and so less money comes into the club. the following year you get less friday night games, less saturday night games and so membership attendance sponsorship and viewership drops.

The better players on your list start to request transfers to winning clubs, so you have to use more of your salary cap to keep them, leaving less room for bringing in more talent. talented players at other clubs dont want to transfer to your club becuase they dont want to be part of a losing side.

Your coaching staff have competing priorities, media pressure mounts, members of the coaching staff know that they arent likely to get jobs at other clubs now and also they have more likelihood of getting sacked to deflect media pressure.

So on the one hand you have a 2/3 chance of getting a player that plays an extra 2 seasons and on the other you destroy your club.

that is why it is a ridiculous statement, it is established as fact, move on

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Garner was President.

No, Gardner was President. But he clearly still doesn't seem to have a clue, if those comments of his are anything to go by.

Who's seriously telling us, with a straight face, that we should've been favourites to beat St Kilda when they were top and we were bottom, and somehow if we didn't beat them, that must've been tanking?

That's absurd.

 

[Monkey King]

So throwing a season nets you a player who should play an extra 42 games for the club.

Now thats what youre claiming Melbourne would throw a season for. not just a game but a whole season

Just a couple of key points you seem to have missed with this. Firstly that 42 games represents, at baseline value, roughly a 40% increase in player output. That's actually a very significant increase on ROI. Further to that is the fact that not all games are equal - 106 games from Gary Ablett is not equal to 106 games from Jordan Russell. And lastly, there is the double tap ... the priority pick. An additional free shot at the best young talent on offer is an incentive you seem to have skipped over.

Now would a coach tank for that? Sure! Just ask Dean Bailey.

Averages arent guarantees, maybe you get C Judd, Maybe you get L Franklin, or maybe you get Ryley Dunn or Tim Walsh.

There were 32 players in the top 10 over that period that played less than 100 games, so you have a roughly 1/3 chance of getting a dud.

How many of that 32 were top 5, or top 2 picks? No one was tanking for a top 10 draft pick mate. They were tanking for the very top picks and maybe an extra priority pick to boot. Do you see a progressive reduction in the chance of getting a dud from top 10 picks to a top 2 pick for instance? Or doubling your chances with a PP?

Your thinking here is chock full of holes.

Now lets look at what it does to your club. Memberships drop, attendance at games drops, tv viewership drops, sponsorship becomes less appealing and so less money comes into the club. the following year you get less friday night games, less saturday night games and so membership attendance sponsorship and viewership drops.

The better players on your list start to request transfers to winning clubs, so you have to use more of your salary cap to keep them, leaving less room for bringing in more talent. talented players at other clubs dont want to transfer to your club becuase they dont want to be part of a losing side.

Your coaching staff have competing priorities, media pressure mounts, members of the coaching staff know that they arent likely to get jobs at other clubs now and also they have more likelihood of getting sacked to deflect media pressure.

LOL. Ironically, you've actually half described Melbourne here.

And mostly this is just the effect of losing games and being shit in general. Even if you're not dead last this is going to be an issue, so tanking from that point to ensure you slide one or two spots lower and reap the benefits isn't really going to make much of a difference in this regard.

So on the one hand you have a 2/3 chance of getting a player that plays an extra 2 seasons and on the other you destroy your club.

that is why it is a ridiculous statement, it is established as fact, move on

As I've already shown, you've had a lot of half thoughts and ill-conceived assumptions. All this has done is lead you to devise a narrow conclusion where the only possible result of tanking is that you "destroy your club". Which of course leads us to this "it would be ridiculous to destroy your club therefore it is ridiculous to suggest anyone tanked" concept you've boiled up.

So there you have it. Your established fact is actually the voice inside your head? Holy **** dude! LOL

 

[Monkey King]

No, Gardiner was President. But he clearly still doesn't seem to have a clue, if those comments of his are anything to go by.

So you dismiss what he says, because he says what he says? LOL. Unfortunately, you disagreeing with a person doesn't automatically relieve them of credibility. The guy was your President and has a knowledge of the club's inner workings that you don't. What he says can not just be dismissed because you don't like it.

Who's seriously telling us, with a straight face, that we should've been favourites to beat St Kilda when they were top and we were bottom, and somehow if we didn't beat them, that must've been tanking?

That's absurd.

You don't have to be favourites to tank. You don't have to in winning positions to tank.

You're beating your head against a wall with this.

 

[Hobbes]

Make it so that the year from which the draft is calculated is not a calendar year. Calculate the draft from rounds 15-23 of the previous year and rounds 1-14 of the current year. Or don't count the end-of-year results at all, so there's no possible incentive to lose games at the end of the year...Any tanking losses would have to be done earlier in the year, when your finals chances might well be alive.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The guy was your President and has a knowledge of the club's inner workings

These comments from him didn't include any reference to 'inner workings' at all, but were just a weird Dennis Denuto-style postulation about "the vibe". Also, it was disappointing that someone who was actively involved in our club over a substantial period of time would disrespect the club in such a manner.

Was, that is - he's clearly not been actively involved in the club for years now. No "insider" there.

And I reiterate, nobody would seriously suggest that if the bottom team find themselves unable to beat the team at the top of the ladder, somehow there must be some sort of hidden explanation. That'd just be cooky conspiracy talk.

You don't have to be in winning positions to tank.

Seriously?

So you don't think tanking has anything to do with a team staying below a certain number of wins to secure particular draft picks? If tanking isn't about a team losing a match they would otherwise have won, what on Earth is it about?

 

[Bluelegs]

It may seem ironical, but you can still tank a game you were little chance of winning. Take this round for example, if you're busting your balls and trying desperately to win, upsets can happen.

As for my comment, I said "Melbourne it seems are the only club who systematically tanked over an entire season". And given the comments from Brock, Paul Gardner and Bailey, I'm not sure why you're challenging the validity of the statement. Any reason?

Paul gardner is a flog who wasn't involved with the club at the time, no different from any spectator. Bailey had just been sacked and was disgruntled, he made a vague statement in regards to tanking, he also wasn't a very good coach. Brock talked about the end of the 09 season not the entire season.

 

[Bluelegs]

Wow! Awesome counter point

Anything else?It's a perfectly reasonable statement. I've provided the rationale for making the statement too, so probably if you want to challenge it, you're going to have to address those points.

If you're backing up your argument that we systematically tanked for an entire season is a quote from a player and a coach then how is that any better evidence than Fevola and Liberatore admitting carlton tanked? How did Melbourne systematically tank and carlton didn't

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Just a couple of key points you seem to have missed with this. Firstly that 42 games represents, at baseline value, roughly a 40% increase in player output. That's actually a very significant increase on ROI. Further to that is the fact that not all games are equal - 106 games from Gary Ablett is not equal to 106 games from Jordan Russell. And lastly, there is the double tap ... the priority pick. An additional free shot at the best young talent on offer is an incentive you seem to have skipped over.

Now would a coach tank for that? Sure! Just ask Dean Bailey.

40% increase in 1 players output. out of 22 you can have on gameday and 40+ you can have on your list.

And wheres the guarantee theyre played at your club take G Ablett Jr for example.

Not all games are equal and not all brownlow medalists are top 5 draft picks.

as for your double tap i actually accounted for that, read my previous post.

How many of that 32 were top 5, or top 2 picks? No one was tanking for a top 10 draft pick mate. They were tanking for the very top picks and maybe an extra priority pick to boot. Do you see a progressive reduction in the chance of getting a dud from top 10 picks to a top 2 pick for instance? Or doubling your chances with a PP?

Your thinking here is chock full of holes.

11. your point is melbourne threw a whole season, not that they already were going to lose the season and tried to lose a couple more but the whole season which was and is a ridiculous statement.

LOL. Ironically, you've actually half described Melbourne here.

and you think melbourne would put themselves in this position on purpose? for what? Judd was pick 3. Franklin and Pendlebury were pick 5.

And mostly this is just the effect of losing games and being shit in general. Even if you're not dead last this is going to be an issue, so tanking from that point to ensure you slide one or two spots lower and reap the benefits isn't really going to make much of a difference in this regard.

contradicting your original statement proving that it was and is ridiculous.

As I've already shown, you've had a lot of half thoughts and ill-conceived assumptions. All this has done is lead you to devise a narrow conclusion where the only possible result of tanking is that you "destroy your club". Which of course leads us to this "it would be ridiculous to destroy your club therefore it is ridiculous to suggest anyone tanked" concept you've boiled up.

So there you have it. Your established fact is actually the voice inside your head? Holy **** dude! LOL

you've changed your point, i never claimed no-one tanked any game ever, you came out with melbourne threw a whole season for a priority pick, some of your points are valid if i was arguing that tanking never happened but it isnt true. you claim to have proved that melbourne threw a whole season, but when confronted with FACTS to the contrary you back away.

its ok if you cant admit that you were wrong, just move on

 

[AM]

Sure, but I was just quoting the odds as they were at the time.

If you let Melbourne get a roll on, they are an effective high-skill team.

Really! I must have missed something.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

How did Melbourne systematically tank and carlton didn't

Exactly.

In fact, of course, there's no more basis for such a claim about us then there is about any of the other 7 teams who are now known to have tanked - or at the very least, under legitimate suspicion. Especially Carlton.

In fact, you could say there's more basis for such a case against Carlton regarding "systematic" tanking.

Sorry MK, but well, for example, there's Exhibit A: this ad produced by the Carlton Football Club not so long ago, targeted at disgruntled members...

PS- Obviously it's pretty brutal to be posting this material at this particular moment, but if we're talking about systematic tanking and the intent of any given club in that regard, this evidence can't go without a mention.

 

[Monkey King]

Seriously?

So you don't think tanking has anything to do with a team staying below a certain number of wins to secure particular draft picks? If tanking isn't about a team losing a match they would otherwise have won, what on Earth is it about?

Eh? But I never said any of those things. By not sticking to the context of my comments, you've really gone and tied yourself up in a semantic mess. Here, let me walk you through it ...

We'll start by straightening out the comments of mine that you bastardized above - whether you are favourites or not (ie others perceptions of your chances) has no bearing on whether the coach went out to tank; whether you were in a winning position throughout the game or not has no bearing on whether the coach went out to tank. Right! So that's what I've said. Nothing about "a certain number of wins" or any such crap.

Now, next, as you've noted, the coach need only have one objective in his mind - staying below a certain number of wins to secure particular draft picks. So for tanking to happen, all the coach needs to do is have the intention of not trying to win from the outset or any point during the game. The external circumstances you keep harping on about - favouritism and actual position to win - are simply not the requisite to having tanked that you imagine.