Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[bombermick]

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 don't want the death of the club, but if there is 10 years of pain as a result then so be it. You seem to no longer believe you tanked the Tigers game. Is it punishment that has changed your mind?

 

[bombermick]

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

A comparison with Richmond is laughable. If we have a game of tennis, I am not tanking if I don't try as hard as you and I lose. I am tanking if I deliberately hit balls out, in the comical fashion we saw in badminton at the last Olympics.

 

[Forward Press]

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

So do you think the Saints were 'tanking' or 'cheating' by resting Riewoldt, Goddard, Montagna, Dal Santo, Fisher, Gilbert and others in that game vs Hawthorn in 2009 in Tasmania? But wait - they actually won.

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.

This. I don't even know why I bother sometimes.

 

[telsor]

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

Really? Where is this quote?

 

[Demonheart]

Really? Where is this quote?

It's only been posted on BF about a thousand time but let me remind you.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...re-trent-cotchin/story-e6frg6n6-1225752963181

Here's an article where you ex captain says he was disappointed by the comments

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...llaces-tank-talk/story-e6frg6n6-1225753194332

Wallace even admitted that they (the FD) had discussed what they were going to do prior and their decision was to do nothing, that's the very definition of not coaching a game to his merits.

 

[telsor]

It's only been posted on BF about a thousand time but let me remind you.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...re-trent-cotchin/story-e6frg6n6-1225752963181

Here's an article where you ex captain says he was disappointed by the comments

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...llaces-tank-talk/story-e6frg6n6-1225753194332

Wallace even admitted that they (the FD) had discussed what they were going to do prior and their decision was to do nothing, that's the very definition of not coaching a game to his merits.

So, he didn't admit to not coaching on his merits, as you claimed.

That you want something to mean what you want it to doesn't make it so.

 

[RandB]

So, he didn't admit to not coaching on his merits, as you claimed.

He admitted that he didn't coach full stop. Through his inactions he engineered a loss.

"I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes."

Unless you are suggesting Wallace approached every game like this throughout the year then it can only be concluded that he deviated from his normal coaching practice of optimising the teams chances of winning.

He tanked and no spin will change that.

 

[Demonheart]

So, he didn't admit to not coaching on his merits, as you claimed.

That you want something to mean what you want it to doesn't make it so.

Yes, he admitted to doing nothing. He admitted that they discussed the implications of losing, which was getting Cotchin and they agreed not to do anything.

If what you are saying is true then why was you ex-captain so disappointed by it?

 

[Purple Suit]

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

The advantage we gained the following week was legal and open to every team in the league to do if they choose. All sides rest players and this is not tanking. Trying to engineer a loss by not coaching to the best of your ability is tanking as you are gaining better draft picks if you lose.

Sure, plenty of teams have not tried that hard in individual games towards the ends of seasons, Carlton probably tried that for longer but were consistent with their poor tactics. Melbourne have been the most blatant and varied in the approaches to games and tactics in 2009. This was also after years of tanking publicity so the spot light was well and truly on them but they still forged ahead. I think the changing tactics between games highlights what they did as things changed around when they won but reverted to "experimentation" the following weeks when they were going ok in games.

Is it fair they are the only ones who get busted? Probably not. Is it the AFL partly to blame, absolutely. Should this be swept under the carpet, no. Sweeping it under the carpet for 10 years is what got us all in this mess in the first place, examples need to be made and policies changed so it doesn't occur in the future. I don't think the AFL has done enough yet to completely stamp it out.

 

[telsor]

Yes, he admitted to doing nothing. He admitted that they discussed the implications of losing, which was getting Cotchin and they agreed not to do anything.

If what you are saying is true then why was you ex-captain so disappointed by it?

So, you lied in saying he admitted to not coaching on his merits.

He might have said a lot of things, but he never said that.

 

[LBJ6]

So, you lied in saying he admitted to not coaching on his merits.

He might have said a lot of things, but he never said that.

I love how you opposition supporters in this thread cry foul about Melbourne supporters not being able to accept clear evidence - and then you come up with this.

Wallace admitted he did nothing to win the game. That is not coaching on your merits.

How can you possibly deny that?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Terry Wallace not actively coaching sounds like a winning strategy to me, not a losing one.

 

[telsor]

I love how you opposition supporters in this thread cry foul about Melbourne supporters not being able to accept clear evidence - and then you come up with this.

Wallace admitted he did nothing to win the game. That is not coaching on your merits.

How can you possibly deny that?

Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing...Holding Melbourne supporters up to their own standards to expose your hypocricy in this thread.

So, show me the clear, undeniable, evidence that the accusation is true in every sense.

 

[RandB]

Terry Wallace not actively coaching sounds like a winning strategy to me, not a losing one.

All jokes aside, what some Richmond supporters are trying to sell us is that it is alright to take your foot off the accelerator in the final straight as long as you don't put it on the brake pedal and if you happen to be pipped at the post by another car then it is just circumstantial - nothing to see here - we were just doing "nothing".

It's farcical.

 

[Frank Grimes]

I afraid that the incentive is still there for teams to tank. While the draft awards teams finishing lower on the ladder the incentive will always be there.

Which is why if Melbourne getting off lightly the AFL is effectively giving all the clubs the green light to deliberately lose games. Clubs in the past thought that it's a rule which is never enforced and the AFL is not serious about it, to the point where Melbourne appear to have been sloppy covering it up. I think the AFL can see the tanking culture eradicated by making Melbourne as an example.

It will be interesting what happens here. If Melbourne gets off then it will means that it's open season for teams to deliberately lose matches when finals are out of reach. If Melbourne is punished heavily then it will make clubs nervous about deliberately losing games.

I made the above post earlier in the thread. In which many posters (including Melbourne posters) said that I'm wrong and no team tanks just to move one or two spots in the draft order.

I just want to know, do Melbourne supporters think Wallace tanked for pick 2 (in which proves my assertion that there is still incentive for teams to tank) or do think that Wallace didn't tank? It can't be both ways.

 

[Demonheart]

So, you lied in saying he admitted to not coaching on his merits.

He might have said a lot of things, but he never said that.

What he admitted to doing is the very definition of not coaching to his merits.

 

[Demonheart]

I made the above post earlier in the thread. In which many posters (including Melbourne posters) said that I'm wrong and no team tanks just to move one or two spots in the draft order.

I just want to know, do Melbourne supporters think Wallace tanked for pick 2 (in which proves my assertion that there is still incentive for teams to tank) or do think that Wallace didn't tank? It can't be both ways.

I think that Wallace was exactly the same thing as what Melbourne and many other teams have done both before and since.

Do you believe it was tanking?

 

[Demonheart]

Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing...Holding Melbourne supporters up to their own standards to expose your hypocricy in this thread.

So, show me the clear, undeniable, evidence that the accusation is true in every sense.

The reality is that melbourne supporters are holding the Richmond supporters up to their own standards, and I agree the hypocisy of this thread is hilarious,

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing...Holding Melbourne supporters up to their own standards to expose your hypocricy in this thread.

So, show me the clear, undeniable, evidence that the accusation is true in every sense.

How noble of you.

 

[Frank Grimes]

I think that Wallace was exactly the same thing as what Melbourne and many other teams have done both before and since.

Do you believe it was tanking?

So you agree with me that there is still incentive for teams to tank despite the removal of the PP. Good to know. I'm interested to know to position of other supporters.

I Wallace had the intention to lose the game by jst letting the players play then yes it is tanking. Though I'm unclear if the quote "I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes." is evidence. It can be interpreted in several ways. For example was he saying wasn't tanking by saying he didn't make "miracle moves" in order to lose the game and the media spun it to mean something else? That wouldn't be the first or last time the media do something like that.

I'm open to either possibility if he tanked or not (and for the record wouldn't have a problem if Richmond is investigated). But by his own admission he felt compromised and that indicates there is still incentive for teams to tank.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

So you agree with me that there is still incentive for teams to tank despite the removal of the PP. Good to know.

Where did he say that? All I see DH saying is that he believes Wallace did what other teams did before him and after him. No mention of the PP or there being incentive for clubs to tank now.

 

[Frank Grimes]

Where did he say that? All I see DH saying is that he believes Wallace did what other teams did before him and after him. No mention of the PP or there being incentive for clubs to tank now.

By saying that Wallace tanked for the 2nd pick will mean that the incentive to gain one or two spots in the draft is enough for coaches to be tempted to tank.

So the incentive for teams to tank is still there today.

 

[LBJ6]

By saying that Wallace tanked for the 2nd pick will mean that the incentive to gain one or two spots in the draft is enough for coaches to be tempted to tank.

I don't think what Richmond did was 'tanking', but I do believe that what they did definitely breached rule 19 (A5): A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of that match, for any reason whatsoever.

 

[Achilles Heel]

What he admitted to doing is the very definition of not coaching to his merits.

And. What does placing the club to be well positioned for draft picks mean, you say I don't answer hypothetical questions answer this one?

 

[Demonheart]

And. What does placing the club to be well positioned for draft picks mean, you say I don't answer hypothetical questions answer this one?

I presume you mean to clarify Bailey's comments. I'll let the man himself explaing that one, he said that he was referring to trading away players for picks with Travis Johnstone being once example. The pick we got for TJ gave us Grimes, our current captain.

Any other questions kid?