What should be the penalty for tanking?

[Monkey King]

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

How the hell do you equate an assistant coach's "vibe" to a senior coach's confession? Bizarre!

Fevola actually said there was no systematic tanking. McLean said he talked to the coach who confirmed the player's perceptions that the team was tanking for picks so the player quit the club.

 

[Monkey King]

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.

You did not account for the double tap in your ultimate conclusion that you'd be tanking for nothing more than an extra 42 games. The double tap would mean that you're potentially tanking for an extra 190 games of elite quality. Also, a 40% increase on ROI is significant - you just need to accept that reality. Nothing is ever guaranteed in life, but the higher the pick the better chance you have of succeeding. Or do you disagree with that?

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.

I don't know how this relates to what you quoted. You talked about dud top 10 picks and I was asking how your data translates over to the top 2 picks. I suspect it starts to look pretty favourable to the idea that those picks leave you in a position of advantage, unlike the picture you're trying to paint. Or are you telling me there is no advantage in having picks 1 & 2 over say pick 4?

Nonetheless, I suggest you stop being so literal. If I were to say Carlton have been shit all season, I don't think there would be too many dissenters. But Carlton were actually pretty competitive for the first 7 rounds. Same thing with my statement regarding Melbourne. I don't mean they tanked from round one, but it certainly does seem from the statements being made that there was a systematic approach being taken over a reasonable period of time, which is different to what most clubs have been accused of.

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.

Bold is total rubbish! I suggest you go back and read what it was I did say. You're all at sea here.

As for the rest, I never changed any point. I simply responded to your post, which really didn't make much distinction between the lack of merit in general tanking as opposed to tanking systematically. Perhaps you can highlight for me which of your points related specifically to systematic tanking?

 

[Bluelegs]

How the hell do you equate an assistant coach's "vibe" to a senior coach's confession? Bizarre!

Fevola actually said there was no systematic tanking. McLean said he talked to the coach who confirmed the player's perceptions that the team was tanking for picks so the player quit the club.

My point is your evidence for it is still extremely sketchy, you have the admission of disgruntled coach just after he was sacked who proved he wasn't even a good coach anyway, kind of covering his own arse by telling the media the first two seasons weren't his fault. Then you have an ex-player who admitted to 'experimenting' at the end of the season which he perceived to be tanking, and the coach understanding why he left, said player probably wouldn't have remained at the club much longer anyway as the club was going for a youth policy at the time. If you want to prove that Melbourne was systematically tanking for an entire season you're going to need more evidence than that. You're going to need to show how we tanked in every game including the games that we won.

 

[Monkey King]

If you want to prove that Melbourne was systematically tanking for an entire season you're going to need more evidence than that. You're going to need to show how we tanked in every game including the games that we won.

All you've done is talk smack about the guys who held senior positions at your club. Saying Bailey wasn't a good coach might discredit his confession in your eyes, but that's only because your standards are set according to the story you want told. The same with your re-jigging of Brock's perspective. Do you actually believe this shit?

I would however, like to direct you to read what I actually wrote and what it was responding to. I haven't claimed to have proven anything, so you should go sort that out first.

And FWIW I don't need to show or prove anything mate. You can't disprove it anymore than I can prove it, but if your coach came out and said that's what he did, then that's all that's that's reasonable needed. The rest is just you trying to bury your head in the sand.

 

[Bluelegs]

All you've done is talk smack about the guys who held senior positions at your club. Saying Bailey wasn't a good coach might discredit his confession in your eyes, but that's only because your standards are set according to the story you want told. The same with your re-jigging of Brock's perspective. Do you actually believe this shit?

I would however, like to direct you to read what I actually wrote and what it was responding to. I haven't claimed to have proven anything, so you should go sort that out first.

And FWIW I don't need to show or prove anything mate. You can't disprove it anymore than I can prove it, but if your coach came out and said that's what he did, then that's all that's that's reasonable needed. The rest is just you trying to bury your head in the sand.

Piss off, you're the one making the claim you're the one that has to prove it. I could claim that there is an invisible teacup floating over the mcg, you can't disprove that, can you? Of the claims given by Brock Mclean and Dean Bailey, one is perception and the other is subjective, both statements were fairly vague. Other Melbourne officials have denied the allegations, so it's essentially one word against the other, if you're going to claim that Melbourne were systematically tanking you're going to need more than that.

 

[HOLKY]

The fact of the matter is that tanking is hard to prove. That's a flaw of the draft system, a good idea would be after the season to have the bottom team play 2nd last, winner gets #1 pick. That system would still have teams tank to get to bottom 2...

 

[Monkey King]

Piss off, you're the one making the claim you're the one that has to prove it.

Piss off right back at ya! Go and read my original comment and what it was responding to. I don't have to prove nearly as much as you think I do for that comment, in its proper context, to be accurate.

Of the claims given by Brock Mclean and Dean Bailey, one is perception and the other is subjective, both statements were fairly vague.

Yes. If I say I tanked, that is subjective. For some reason you've confused that for being an inferior perspective, but as we can see from a court of law, subjective evidence like this would send you straight to sentencing, while more objective evidence would require a trial and judgement to move forward. Meanwhile, Brock's observations were confirmed by Bailey as being on the money.

Now I get that you want to pretend these comments count for naught, but that doesn't mean we all have to join you with our heads in the sand. I see no reason not to take these people at face value.