Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[LouisCK]

It's bad because it's cheating and teams gain an unfair advantage over a side who tried to win the whole time even if it cost them come draft day. How do you view Lance Armstrong? As a cheat, winner or victim?

Here is a quote from his interview "I went and looked up the definition of cheat," he added a moment later. "And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field." Just because it is perceived that everyone is doing it, it doesn't make it right and the winners are the ones that are made examples of. The Dee's "won" tanking in 2009 so they have become the target.

The most blatant tank job of all was Freo's effort against Hawthorn, where they lost and gained a huge advantage. But I consider that just smart list management - its as if any tactical advantage gained is cheating now.

Tanking doesn't mean you're not trying to win I reckon, it means you're putting out a team that will try to win, but is unlikely to, with a longer term goal in mind.

 

[yakka man]

The most blatant tank job of all was Freo's effort against Hawthorn, where they lost and gained a huge advantage. But I consider that just smart list management - its as if any tactical advantage gained is cheating now.

Tanking doesn't mean you're not trying to win I reckon, it means you're putting out a team that will try to win, but is unlikely to, with a longer term goal in mind.

First of all there was no priority pick available and our team was going to make the top 8 that year. Secondly we had to travel to Tasmania even though we travel more than any other team in the AFL. The advantage we gained was for a home final not better draft picks. Resting players from a huge trip before finals is normal.

Still don't get why people even think tanking is bad.

Its common practice in a bunch of different leagues, even those with lottery systems for drafting.

Wow, just wow. Trying to lose is against the spirit of competitive sport and is a huge insult to fans who pay to watch good games of Footy. I hope Melbourne get what they deserve but I will feel for the fans.

 

[wowlace]

Tanking is not cool. What Freo did was not cool either and there have been countless dubious tactics employed by other clubs since the inception of the code. Where do you draw the line? Playing on your merits is soooo vague. I don't care anymore in regards to the outcome of this investigation. Life goes on, the earth will keep spinning and footy will play on. It's just disappointing to see and read some of the comments regarding the MFC, not only in this forum but in the media also.

 

[LouisCK]

First of all there was no priority pick available and our team was going to make the top 8 that year. Secondly we had to travel to Tasmania even though we travel more than any other team in the AFL. The advantage we gained was for a home final not better draft picks. Resting players from a huge trip before finals is normal.

So tanking now only applies to teams that maximise their chances to lose in order to gain priority picks?

Someone before used the reasonable definition that it applies whenever an advantage is gained unfairly. Freo certainly gained a huge advantage by having fresh players (indeed every club that rests players who are fit is doing the same thing), and a home final. You say resting players is normal, well at the time, so was tanking for picks.

I'd argue gaining a home final is a bigger advantage than gaining a speculative draft pick.

Wow, just wow. Trying to lose is against the spirit of competitive sport and is a huge insult to fans who pay to watch good games of Footy. I hope Melbourne get what they deserve but I will feel for the fans.

Freo tried to lose against Hawthorn too - should they get penalised in your opinion?

 

[yakka man]

So tanking now only applies to teams that maximise their chances to lose in order to gain priority picks?

Someone before used the reasonable definition that it applies whenever an advantage is gained unfairly. Freo certainly gained a huge advantage by having fresh players (indeed every club that rests players who are fit is doing the same thing), and a home final. You say resting players is normal, well at the time, so was tanking for picks.

I'd argue gaining a home final is a bigger advantage than gaining a speculative draft pick.

Richmond have been a club down on the ladder during a similar time, yet they tried to create a culture of success by playing their best. Mclean, and others no doubt felt bad about tanking but I doubt players feel bad for being rested leading into a finals campaign.

Freo tried to lose against Hawthorn too - should they get penalised in your opinion?

Managing your list for finals is necessary, especially when you are one of the teams that has an outrageous amount of travel. You would know this if your team actually made the finals instead of tanking to gain priority draft picks.

You see one club is managing their list so that they can finish higher up on the ladder after finals and the other is "tanking" to gain an extra priority pick.

 

[Tulip]

Yes, there are many camps, so it would seem logical to avoid using generalisations about Melbourne supporters. Doesn't stop people sprouting generalised crap about us.

You missed a few camps, btw:

1. (this is my camp) I don't give a crap anymore, I just want a verdict delivered, the penalty doled out and then we get on with our future and out of this media/BF shitstorm. Unless the penalty is cruel and unusual, I wouldn't support any court action to appeal it. At some point we just have to get on with life. I'd prefer it were now.

2. We are guilty, the club should be punished.

3. We are guilty, some individuals should be punished.

4. We tanked, but I don't believe it is an offence that should be punished considering the amount of teams that have clearly done it in recent years.

 

[LouisCK]

Richmond have been a club down on the ladder during a similar time, yet they tried to create a culture of success by playing their best. Mclean, and others no doubt felt bad about tanking but I doubt players feel bad for being rested leading into a finals campaign.

Managing your list for finals is necessary, especially when you are one of the teams that has an outrageous amount of travel. You would know this if your team actually made the finals instead of tanking to gain priority draft picks.

You see one club is managing their list so that they can finish higher up on the ladder after finals and the other is "tanking" to gain an extra priority pick.

Managing the list is fine if it unfairly nets you a home final, but not ok when it might (repeat: might) lead to a draft pick?

You're being very inconsistent with your moral outrage.

 

[Tulip]

Melbourne must respond to the AFL's 1000-page tanking investigation by January 29.

How many pages will it be next time?

 

[yakka man]

Managing the list is fine if it unfairly nets you a home final, but not ok when it might (repeat: might) lead to a draft pick?

You're being very inconsistent with your moral outrage.

Are you actually being serious? Coaches have to make sure their list is in the best shape possible going into finals. Has your club been so long removed from finals that you don't understand this? And what do you mean "might" lead to a draft pick? You received pick number 2 as a priority selection because of your tanking. Our highest draft pick currently on our list is number 3.

List management and tanking are two very different things. Your club is guilty of the latter.

 

[Frank Grimes]

List management and tanking are two very different things.

I agree here. In the Fremantle case they may have rested their better players for the finals, but the intent and aim of Fremantle's 'B' side was still to win. To Tank is the intent is to send in a weak side or alter the positions with the intent to lose the game.

Ultimately Fremantle would have liked to win the game, but if they lost then 'meh'. For a team to tank it's a case of "Oh crap we could win the game! Let's put our shortest guy in the Ruck. If anyone asks we are experimenting different positions." ie to play with the intention to lose.

 

[LouisCK]

Are you actually being serious? Coaches have to make sure their list is in the best shape possible going into finals. Has your club been so long removed from finals that you don't understand this? And what do you mean "might" lead to a draft pick? You received pick number 2 as a priority selection because of your tanking. Our highest draft pick currently on our list is number 3.

List management and tanking are two very different things. Your club is guilty of the latter.

We're not talking about simply keeping players fresh, we're talking about tanking a game to get a home final.

Stop ignoring that part of the argument.

 

[LouisCK]

I agree here. In the Fremantle case they may have rested their better players for the finals, but the intent and aim of Fremantle's 'B' side was still to win. To Tank is the intent is to send in a weak side or alter the positions with the intent to lose the game.

Ultimately Fremantle would have liked to win the game, but if they lost then 'meh'. For a team to tank it's a case of "Oh crap we could win the game! Let's put our shortest guy in the Ruck. If anyone asks we are experimenting different positions." ie to play with the intention to lose.

And as I've pointed out, Fremantle intended to lose that game to secure a home final. And they did.

Tanking to gain an advantage in the finals = ok?

Tanking to get a pick (maybe) = not ok?

 

[Bring-Back-Powell]

I think this is the most fair scenario:

If the Afl has found damning evidence ie: internal emails clearly directing losing games of football, then we should be punished . It's our own fault for being so stupid.

BUT.

If the Afl have only got speculative positional moves during a game, and questionable pre game selections, then I think we should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone agree?

 

[Demonic_Inferno]

I think this is the most fair scenario:

If the Afl has found damning evidence ie: internal emails clearly directing losing games of football, then we should be punished . It's our own fault for being so stupid.

BUT.

If the Afl have only got speculative positional moves during a game, and questionable pre game selections, then I think we should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone agree?

If anyone didn't agree to that...they should be executed to remove their genes from the gene pool.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Seem to be quite a few different camps of Melbourne supporters

1. We didn't tank, we managed our list like anyone else.

2. Yeah we clearly tanked but try and prove it. Neener neener!

3. Yeah we tanked, but it's the AFL's fault for providing the incentive, not ours.

4. Yeah we tanked, but so did *insert club here* so the AFL are hypocrites if they come after us.

5. Yeah we tanked, but we were genuinely crap and deserved a priority pick anyway, so it's all good.

6. Yeah we tanked but we've suffered enough over the last 40 years, leave us alone.

7. Yeah we tanked but it won't hold up in court. The Melbourne FC is an institution and a juggernaut that will destroy the AFL in Court.

Hard to remember who you are argueing with at any one time.

I think it depends on what they are responding to at the time. You forgot #8: Ignores tanking entirely and embarks on a debate about semantics, spelling or grammar.

Melbourne must respond to the AFL's 1000-page tanking investigation by January 29.

How many pages will it be next time?

They changed the font. From the sounds of that article about Connelly's conspiracy theory, it seems like The Age has got their hands on at least a part of the brief or have found someone willing to go into quite a bit of detail about it. I guess we'll see more stuff released on every slow news day between now and the 29th.
60 blokes saying they were encouraged by Connelly et al to lose games should stand up in court unless they were tortured into saying that.

 

[LouisCK]

I'd be surprised if the MFC has ever employed 60 blokes at the same time (not counting players).

 

[Old Campaigner]

Who's to say players' statements aren't included in that?

 

[LeverPuller]

I'd be surprised if the MFC has ever employed 60 blokes at the same time (not counting players).

I wouldn't, but then do the blokes in the club shop get interviewed?

 

[Purple Suit]

And as I've pointed out, Fremantle intended to lose that game to secure a home final. And they did.

Tanking to gain an advantage in the finals = ok?

Tanking to get a pick (maybe) = not ok?

Your wrong. Winning that game in Tassie and the next would have still got us a home final either 5th or 6th. We couldn't reach 4th and since when would a team prefer to finish 5th instead of 4th so they get a home final week one?

 

[bombermick]

I think this is the most fair scenario:

If the Afl has found damning evidence ie: internal emails clearly directing losing games of football, then we should be punished . It's our own fault for being so stupid.

BUT.

If the Afl have only got speculative positional moves during a game, and questionable pre game selections, then I think we should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone agree?

There's a third option. A host of reliable witnesses making statements saying it was a directed policy of the club to tank. With a bit of option B thrown in ...

 

[Bring-Back-Powell]

E

There's a third option. A host of reliable witnesses making statements saying it was a directed policy of the club to tank. With a bit of option B thrown in ...

Even then I still think it would be hard to categorically prove withou written evidence.

If the Afl charges us, would you like to see a penalty so harsh that would ultimately see the demise of the Melbourne football club?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Who's to say players' statements aren't included in that?

It clearly indicated 60 statements not 60 people. 12 people x 5 statements each = 60.

 

[yakka man]

We're not talking about simply keeping players fresh, we're talking about tanking a game to get a home final.

Stop ignoring that part of the argument.

We still needed to win the next game against Carlton to secure a home final. The side that went to Tassie still tried to win because we needed to win at least 1 of the last two games to get a home final. The club put all their money on beating Carlton the next week. The opposite of deliberately losing to get a priority pick.

Your club has stained the integrity of the game by not only trying to finish last but to do so in the lowest possible way.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

We still needed to win the next game against Carlton to secure a home final. The side that went to Tassie still tried to win because we needed to win at least 1 of the last two games to get a home final. The club put all their money on beating Carlton the next week. The opposite of deliberately losing to get a priority pick.

Your club has stained the integrity of the game by not only trying to finish last but to do so in the lowest possible way.

So by putting all their money on beating one side they didn't put any on beating the other, meaning they didn't try to win that other game on it's merits? To some, not necessarily me, that could be deemed as tanking.

 

[yakka man]

So by putting all their money on beating one side they didn't put any on beating the other, meaning they didn't try to win that other game on it's merits? To some, not necessarily me, that could be deemed as tanking.

No, list management. I define tanking as going after better draft picks and priority picks. Freo were just trying to be fresh for finals and avoid the major trip to Tassie. You only have to look at our finals campaign this year to see we had to travel to Victoria and then SA the next week with little time in between.

You Melbourne supporters are falling down a hole and trying to take someone else down with you.