-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Libba backflip on "tank" claims
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #52
There is no other interpretationYour definition is wrong.
See, its simple.
If 100% of the club is not trying to win 100% it must be tanking
You can get caught up in all the interpretations you like but that's the bottom line
Would any of the conditions argued over occur if the team made the finals? Of course not.. tanking
You can't have 25% of the competition not trying for 25% of the year, it's farcical
Bluebear
Brownlow Medallist
There is no other interpretation
If 100% of the club is not trying to win 100% it must be tanking
You can get caught up in all the interpretations you like but that's the bottom line
Would any of the conditions argued over occur if the team made the finals? Of course not.. tanking
I won't repeat this again.
If this is the thres........wait.....I'LL SHOUT......HOW'S THIS.....CAN YOU HEAR ME?
IF THAT IS THE THRESHOLD FOR TANKING THEN UP TO 6-7 SIDES PER YEAR FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS HAVE TANKED, AS TEAMS, WHEN THEIR SEASON IS DONE AND THEY CAN'T MAKE THE FINALS BLOOD KIDS AND REST INJURED STARS WHO............my voice is getting sore..........who would play if they were in finals.
No its either - yes......we tanked and for some reason the MEDIA ar singling us out from the loads of sides that have done it for the last 20 years.......in which case you are arguing the the media is villifying us (how does that sit?
)or
No - we didn't tank, we managed our list as all clubs do in that situation.
Do you get it?
If we are being dragged through the media for "What everyone does when they can't make the finals" then its absolute BS.
- Banned
- #54
List management
Well you make sure you manage your list next time you make the finals, I'm sure there wont be an outcry from your supporters
I'm not saying other clubs don't do it (thank you very much for Daisy and Pendles) but I am saying it's tanking and it compromises the integrity of the system
I don't even have to ask you if you knew of fellow supporters barracking to lose.. we both know it's tanking
Well you make sure you manage your list next time you make the finals, I'm sure there wont be an outcry from your supporters
I'm not saying other clubs don't do it (thank you very much for Daisy and Pendles) but I am saying it's tanking and it compromises the integrity of the system
I don't even have to ask you if you knew of fellow supporters barracking to lose.. we both know it's tanking
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Banned
- #55
Thank us?List management
Well you make sure you manage your list next time you make the finals, I'm sure there wont be an outcry from your supporters
I'm not saying other clubs don't do it (thank you very much for Daisy and Pendles) but I am saying it's tanking and it compromises the integrity of the system
I don't even have to ask you if you knew of fellow supporters barracking to lose.. we both know it's tanking
Hawthorn passed on Pendlebury to draft a midfielder, not Carlton.
Thomas and Pendlebury are a poor man's Murphy and Gibbs.
Thankyou for Stevens because your club was too arrogant to trade for him.
Derek Hine was there when you drafted Egan and Iaccobucci.
Do you follow your recruiter or the Pies?
- Banned
- #56
No no noThank us?
thank you as in thank you ridiculous AFL tanking.. err list management inducing system
As for Hine I'm sure he is happy to stand on his record and doesn't need me to defend him
Bluebear
Brownlow Medallist
List management
Well you make sure you manage your list next time you make the finals, I'm sure there wont be an outcry from your supporters
I'm not saying other clubs don't do it (thank you very much for Daisy and Pendles) but I am saying it's tanking and it compromises the integrity of the system
I don't even have to ask you if you knew of fellow supporters barracking to lose.. we both know it's tanking
Didn't shout loud enough eh?
bluebear said:
I've given you the benefit of the doubt up to this point.
But given the lengths I went to to spell it out........and you still mis-read it.........you're a ****wit mate. Piss off.
There is no other interpretation
If 100% of the club is not trying to win 100% it must be tanking
You can get caught up in all the interpretations you like but that's the bottom line
Would any of the conditions argued over occur if the team made the finals? Of course not.. tanking
You can't have 25% of the competition not trying for 25% of the year, it's farcical
When Geelong lost to Port last year, they were resting Selwood. Nothing was wrong with him, but they were preparing him for the finals. Is that tanking?
- Banned
- #59
No because that was a strategy to win the finals.. not finish lowerWhen Geelong lost to Port last year, they were resting Selwood. Nothing was wrong with him, but they were preparing him for the finals. Is that tanking?
Bluebear
Brownlow Medallist
But it's not 100% for 100% of the time.No because that was a strategy to win the finals.. not finish lower
Your posts are almost as confused and contradictory as a Libba interview.
BTW folks, today he is claiming he was taken out of context when he was interviewed Live on SEN on Saturday morning.
Not sure how a live interview can be taken out of context.........but I'm no Rocket surgeon.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #62
Hang on, was the Cats side weakened on that day or not?No because that was a strategy to win the finals.. not finish lower
- Banned
- #63
That was a strategy to win.. 100%But it's not 100% for 100% of the time.
Don't get caught up in the details, if the philosophy is to finish lower then it must be tanking no matter how it is portrayed
The spirit of football is to win and finish as high as possible, the AFL rules encourage finishing lower therefore compromising the integrity of the competition
I don't really see how any of this can be disputed
Bluebear
Brownlow Medallist
But not to win on that day........but in the finals right?
So not 100% of the time. More backpedalling.......the similarities with Libba just keep mounting.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #65
Playing youngsters does not mean you have a philosophy to finish lower. You are not guaranteed to lose just because you try new players. Are you suggesting that a team can play a few youngsters if they are 14th and can not go lower but if they are 14th and can go lower playing a few youngsters is not allowable?
So teams non in priority pick territory can tinker with their list as long as they can not go lower in order to see who to keep, who to delist, who to give confidence to, but if you are in priority pick territory, playing youngsters for the same reasons might increase your chances of losing and therefore you have to wait until next year to see how those players go?
Yours is a simplistic argument and you would never be able to coach or develop a team or motivate young players with that approach.
Bluebear
Brownlow Medallist
We appear to be alone again.
Hinesight your commitment to the anti-Carlton cause is commendable but you are speaking absolute crap here and you know it.
Since when do struggling clubs need to aspire to finals? For how long have struggling clubs needed to forsake list development to try and win some cheap games at the end of the season - and when does this happen...mainly when the Coach will get sacked otherwise! Since when is short-termism to be replaced by the longer term good of the Club?
You know and I know that the long-term future of the Club is paramount and development of players is the main aim. You can crap on about 16th placed clubs needing a win as much as you like but it is devoid of reality as you speaking with any commonsense here.
you are incorrect, inconsistent with footy history and just shit-stirring for the sake of it.
Since when do struggling clubs need to aspire to finals? For how long have struggling clubs needed to forsake list development to try and win some cheap games at the end of the season - and when does this happen...mainly when the Coach will get sacked otherwise! Since when is short-termism to be replaced by the longer term good of the Club?
You know and I know that the long-term future of the Club is paramount and development of players is the main aim. You can crap on about 16th placed clubs needing a win as much as you like but it is devoid of reality as you speaking with any commonsense here.
you are incorrect, inconsistent with footy history and just shit-stirring for the sake of it.
I defended the club on the main board as there really isn't any evidence that we did tank, but would beating Melbourne in that game have been worth it, if say Judd was the prize for losing?
Bluebear
Brownlow Medallist
Purely hypothetical as Judd wasn't available at the time, but of course the answer is no.
A motive doesn't provide evidence of the crime though.
Richmond have motive to tank this year. If they win more than 4 games does this mean they tried to tank but were too good?
Just because they would benefit doesn't mean it happens.
That's my take.
Hine.........are you there mate? We didn't mean to get rough..........Hine............
I think he's gone. Damn......I had a nice one for him.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Purely hypothetical as Judd wasn't available at the time, but of course the answer is no.
A motive doesn't provide evidence of the crime though.
Richmond have motive to tank this year. If they win more than 4 games does this mean they tried to tank but were too good?
Just because they would benefit doesn't mean it happens.
That's my take.
Indeed it is hypothetical and I argued that motive doesn't prove a crime as well
The hypothetical to me though highlights the problem with the system. Whether or not clubs tank (whatever definition you use
) to me is not the issue...I think the issue is that supporters should never be put in the position of thinking it would be better for their club to loseEven Thrawn who has taken a moral stance on the issue, you would think would concede that getting Judd would help our club build a winning culture and move us forward rather than a win against Melbourne.
This has been an issue for a number of years now for supporters of teams eligible for the priority pick late in the season. Thus the emotive responses in discussions about it, due to the ambivalent feelings most in that situation experience. You weren't conflicted in that last game? I know I was
Be thankful there's some that can be objective when discussing other teams.
TBH, once I saw the replay of the interview I couldn't understand the fuss.
Libba didn't come accross as someone who knew much about a team he coached and it was pretty embarassing. I heard his performance yesterday and if I was the AFL I would cancel the meeting.
I can't believe this bloke put his hand up to be a senior coach.
We should have known then he was delusional.
You can surprise at times
I think alot of you are overarguing this. In junior sport a lot of the time you need to focus not on wins and losses but development, teamplay, structuring and education. Unfortunately for Carlton we've been so shit that these basics have been taken away from us. I couldn't care less if we lost by 100 points if we were actually playing a gameplan that may work. Pagan lost me afew years ago with his gameplan and to me, winning or losing has been separate to finally working with young players to teach them about the modern game.
Tanking is irrelevant to that. I just want players who can work their way out of a situation without bombing a 40 metre kick to noone. Is that caring about tanking? Is that not tanking? Its neither - its about setting up our list and game to be competitive at some stage in future.
Tanking is irrelevant to that. I just want players who can work their way out of a situation without bombing a 40 metre kick to noone. Is that caring about tanking? Is that not tanking? Its neither - its about setting up our list and game to be competitive at some stage in future.
Libba met with the AFL today and was fobbed off to some lowly staff member. Vlad was not even present and is awaiting a report.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23389957-23211,00.html
Vlad was not even present and is awaiting a report. http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23389957-23211,00.html
Bluebear
Brownlow Medallist
It won't matter at the end of the day.Libba met with the AFL today and was fobbed off to some lowly staff member.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23389957-23211,00.html
Those who "know" we tanked.........despite after all this being unable to mount anything resembling an arguement..........actually they argue a lot, but don't actually offer any tangible evidence.....................these nuff nuffs will still say "but of course we both know you tanked".
To which we'll say........zzzzzzz........zzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzz..........still crapping on about it?
It's clear as day that Carlton tanked. No matter what anyone says, you can hardly deny it. It was in the best interests of the club and supporters. If they had of won a few meaningless matches, then they probably wouldn't have Kruezer and the Judd deal would have been much more difficult without that extra pick in the top three. Libba is saying what many people already suspect.
Carlton tanked the last few matches, that and they weren't good enough to win at full strength anyway. They just ensured they wouldn't win by TANKING. You can't deny it.
Carlton tanked the last few matches, that and they weren't good enough to win at full strength anyway. They just ensured they wouldn't win by TANKING. You can't deny it.