Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[CowboyFromHell]

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.

List management? That's what so many are saying we did in the name of not winning games. Might have been a different target and done more often, but it's the same thing, if you do it once or 3 times. You define tanking as going for better picks to suit your arguments and keep Freo clear. Very clever, but not very subtle.

Falling down a hole? Only a select few. Like I've said earlier in the thread I don't necessarily think a team like Freo "tanked" but your arguments to the contrary aren't flash. What many people in this thread believe is that by Melbourne potentially being sanctioned, other clubs would probably (and should) come under scrutiny as well.

 

[Forward Press]

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.

I am absolutely staggered that people are trying to drag Freo into this.

All you need to do is to compare the potential rewards and that should answer the question 'why is what Freo did any different?'

Or maybe compare whether the coach on gameday would be trying their utmost to win or not.

Or maybe compare whether Freo were trying to achieve the lowest possible place on the ladder or not achieve a certain win total, and whether the draft pick they had at the end of the season would've compromised the draft positions of other clubs unfairly.

It's mind-boggling.

 

[Djcjdees]

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?

Irrelevant. Did you take the best side you could to run that game thereby "doing the utmost to win?" No. Therefore, according to everyone it seems, that is tanking

 

[Purple Suit]

Irrelevant. Did you take the best side you could to run that game thereby "doing the utmost to win?" No. Therefore, according to everyone it seems, that is tanking

List Management is not tanking, otherwise there would be 18 clubs tanking. Where do you draw the line, one player rested, two or 10 like Freo? The 22 players that took the ground that day and the coaches tried to win, fact. No one has disputed that and therefore it is not tanking by the definition. I bet you wish you could say that about Melbourne in 2009 right about now...

 

[Djcjdees]

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 ...

Yeah but tanking happens on the field at the end of the day. If there is no game played, then no tanking takes place. All well and good to have an email saying, 'let's lose boys.' And by the way, no one knows what 'evidence' they have. I know most of you just swallow what Caro and all the other bored journos feed you, but to my mind, to go the full Monty on the dees, proving on-field tanking would be required. This would be impossible without players coming out and swearing under oath that they deliberately tried to lose. Can't see that happening. Even if it did, punishments would most likely be upon the individual.

 

[Old Campaigner]

E
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?

I doubt it would be the first case to be successfully prosecuted on the back of witness statements alone. As long as they are similar enough to each other, sufficiently detailed and the witnesses signed a stat dec they should be fine unless the AFL has done something amazingly stupid or corrupt during the investigation to taint them.

And no, which is why I like the fact that the AFL is targeting individuals rather than the club itself. It's bad for the competition to have weakened teams and more importantly for the AFL it makes no economic sense.

 

[Achilles Heel]

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.

Bullshit what freo did was tanking as well but the afl are not investigating this, get back on topic and stop trying to be lily white, you gained an advantage by getting a home final, see lance Armstrong definition of cheat

 

[Achilles Heel]

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

So witness statements are not enough?

Have you ever been in a court room?

 

[Achilles Heel]

E
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?

Here it comes the demise of the club, and I was called an idiot earlier in this thread when I said that it was a reason given by some Melbourne supporters, boo hoo

 

[Demonheart]

So witness statements are not enough?

Have you ever been in a court room?

What happens when the witness statements contradict each other in a court room?

 

[Achilles Heel]

What happens when the witness statements contradict each other in a court room?

What happens when they all are consistent ?

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Bullshit what freo did was tanking as well but the afl are not investigating this, get back on topic and stop trying to be lily white, you gained an advantage by getting a home final, see lance Armstrong definition of cheat

Freo did not gain an advantage by losing to Hawthorn. The players and coaching staff involved in that game from Freo were still trying to win the match. They just rested a lot of players to give themselves a greater chance of winning the following match. Freo would have been ecstatic to win that game in Tassie as it would have secured them a home final. Same thing happens all the time in the EPL, it is not tanking, it is smart list management.

What Melbourne did (allegedly) was actively try to lose a game. Huge difference and anyone that cant see the difference must be walking around with thier head firmly up thier ass, or so biased its not worth even discussing the topic with them.

 

[Old Campaigner]

What happens when the witness statements contradict each other in a court room?

From what I read in that article, the only contradictions were between Connelly statement and the statements made by literally everyone else.

 

[Andy_Mac]

Freo did not gain an advantage by losing to Hawthorn. The players and coaching staff involved in that game from Freo were still trying to win the match. They just rested a lot of players to give themselves a greater chance of winning the following match. Freo would have been ecstatic to win that game in Tassie as it would have secured them a home final. Same thing happens all the time in the EPL, it is not tanking, it is smart list management.

What Melbourne did (allegedly) was actively try to lose a game. Huge difference and anyone that cant see the difference must be walking around with thier head firmly up thier arse, or so biased its not worth even discussing the topic with them.

Like what Walace has already admitted to doing in an attempt to secure Cotchin?

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Like what Walace has already admitted to doing in an attempt to secure Cotchin?

Wallace has never admitted to actively doing anything to try and lose a game. And Wallaces comments have nothing to do with my post anyway.

 

[Bring-Back-Powell]

Freo did not gain an advantage by losing to Hawthorn. The players and coaching staff involved in that game from Freo were still trying to win the match. They just rested a lot of players to give themselves a greater chance of winning the following match. Freo would have been ecstatic to win that game in Tassie as it would have secured them a home final. Same thing happens all the time in the EPL, it is not tanking, it is smart list management.

What Melbourne did (allegedly) was actively try to lose a game. Huge difference and anyone that cant see the difference must be walking around with thier head firmly up thier arse, or so biased its not worth even discussing the topic with them.

Freo did not gain an advantage by losing to Hawthorn. The players and coaching staff involved in that game from Freo were still trying to win the match. They just rested a lot of players to give themselves a greater chance of winning the following match. Freo would have been ecstatic to win that game in Tassie as it would have secured them a home final. Same thing happens all the time in the EPL, it is not tanking, it is smart list management.

What Melbourne did (allegedly) was actively try to lose a game. Huge difference and anyone that cant see the difference must be walking around with thier head firmly up thier arse, or so biased its not worth even discussing the topic with them.

How can we actively have tried to lose a game of footy?
We kicked 2 goals in the last 5 minutes to hit the front against Richmond. And technically we won the game as I reckon McMuffin marked the ball after the siren.

If we actively tried to lose that game of footy, wouldn't you think Melbourne would've shut up shop and done everything they could not to score.

I reckon we could argue this in the courts.

 

[Andy_Mac]

Wallace has never admitted to actively doing anything to try and lose a game. And Wallaces comments have nothing to do with my post anyway.

It is in so much as that it was an omission that he didn't coach to his up most, one of the charges levelled against Bailey.

Each of the supposed evidentiary points relating to Melbourne’s selection and game day tactical moves has many and varied examples of precedent to the contrary.

If Freo rest players as they believe it serves a greater long term good, then so can Melbourne. If West Coast want to play players in different positions for development reasons, then so can Melbourne. If Collingwood want to send players off for surgery early, then so can Melbourne. And the big one. If Wallace puts the que in the rack, by his own admission, then so can Melbourne.

 

[Andy_Mac]

How can we actively have tried to lose a game of footy?
We kicked 2 goals in the last 5 minutes to hit the front against Richmond. And technically we won the game as I reckon McMuffin marked the ball after the siren.

If we actively tried to lose that game of footy, wouldn't you think Melbourne would've shut up shop and done everything they could not to score.

I reckon we could argue this in the courts.

That result also would only been our 4th win

 

[Demonheart]

What happens when they all are consistent ?

In this situation they are not, so let's get back to that.

What happens when the witness statements contradict each other in a court room?

Gee, I wonder why you don't want to answer that question

 

[markm106]

There will certainly be contradictory statements in court if it gets there. I think it has been repeated McLean has backed away from his comments.

 

[Demonheart]

From what I read in that article, the only contradictions were between Connelly statement and the statements made by literally everyone else.

In previous articles they clearly stated that Bailey and others viewed the threat of the Zulu's coming to get them as a joke.

Which opinion do you think that the court will make, that a threat of the Zulu's coming to get them was an order to tank or it was a joke.

Let me put it another way, how many zulu's do you think Melbourne has on it's payroll?

 

[Demonheart]

There will certainly be contradictory statements in court if it gets there. I think it has been repeated McLean has backed away from his comments.

Yeah, so effectively the person who sparked the investigation have denied it took place and the person who ordered it lost his job.

Solid case

 

[Demonheart]

Wallace has never admitted to actively doing anything to try and lose a game. And Wallaces comments have nothing to do with my post anyway.

Wallace has admitted to not coaching to his merits which is something the papers believe Bailey will be charged with.

 

[Demonheart]

Freo did not gain an advantage by losing to Hawthorn. .

Yes they did. By not fielding their best team they were able to give their better players a chance to rest so their had a greater chance to win the following game.

In this thread I have seen people use the selection of the team as evidence as tanking, why should it only be tanking if Melbourne does it?

 

[markm106]

Wallace has admitted to not coaching to his merits which is something the papers believe Bailey will be charged with.

That's it. Some people need to remove their blinkers. Melbourne are not the only team to have tanked.