Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

Forward Press

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
26,408
Likes
33,669
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
Actually the evidence is to the contrary. There were amazingly few teams who finished with a win-loss record just above the pp threshhold. There were a lot just below it and quite a lot 2 games or more clear.
Yeah there were a lot that finished on 4 and only 4. When I said 'many other clubs' I didn't imply majority. Sorry for the confusion.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SydCrow

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Posts
8,997
Likes
8,020
Location
East Falafel Town
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
I hate to keep recycling old points, but TheBrownDog always states that it's akin to a welfare cheat blaming the system for having loopholes. It's technically legal but goes against the spirit of the system and why it was set up in the first place.

The AFL did not intend to reward loss - it intended to assist clubs that were genuinely bad with the priority pick system and Melbourne allegedly rorted that system. The thing the AFL must take some responsibility for is that the old priority pick system left itself open to manipulation - but they shouldn't take full responsibility. Many other clubs who had 4 wins close to the end of the year chose to keep winning.
They made the rules, they own the competition. And on the welfare cheat analogy, why do they exist?
 
Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
51,621
Likes
25,820
Location
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yeah there were a lot that finished on 4 and only 4. When I said 'many other clubs' I didn't imply majority. Sorry for the confusion.
Well actually you did imply the majority....even if it was inadvertent. Whet you said was incorrect. There were not many other clubs. Just a handful actually.
 

Forward Press

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
26,408
Likes
33,669
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
Well actually you did imply the majority....even if it was inadvertent. Whet you said was incorrect. There were not many other clubs. Just a handful actually.
It was genuinely inadvertent. Apologies for the poor phrasing.

They made the rules, they own the competition. And on the welfare cheat analogy, why do they exist?
It's the idea of the 'spirit of the law' being separate from the strict legal technicalities. The priority pick system/welfare system was clearly set up to help clubs who were genuinely shit/people who are genuinely unable to support themselves. Some clubs/welfare cheats decided to exploit the system even if the club/welfare cheat did not genuinely need assistance. Should the club/welfare cheat be completely absolved of responsibility?

I do think the AFL should take some ownership of this, though, and they have started to by abolishing the open criteria for a PP, for example.
 

LeverPuller

BigFooty Tanker
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Posts
30,965
Likes
33,911
Location
Q49, Olympic Stand
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Newcastle United Seattle Seahawks
The AFL did not intend to reward loss - it intended to assist clubs that were genuinely bad with the priority pick system
Can I ask - at what point in 2009 were Melbourne not a 'genuinely bad' football side. Cos I tell you, I sat through it, and I saw a LOT of crap.

Just as a general tip for those in the thread - I'd suggest you actually sit down, completely ignoring the whole tanking thing, and just watch that match. I promise, it will be up there in the worst football matches you ever profess to watch. The skill level of both sides is downright laughable.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Posts
2,274
Likes
586
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
When you cheat welfare you are breaking the laws of the land. There is no black and white. You are either breaking the law, or you are not. It's nothing like what is supposed to have happened with the AFL and its priority pick system. There are far more grey areas involved here.

It is a poor comparison.
 

LeverPuller

BigFooty Tanker
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Posts
30,965
Likes
33,911
Location
Q49, Olympic Stand
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Newcastle United Seattle Seahawks
Melbourne doesnt qualify? List too strong?
This is my point...did people actually WATCH us?

Because for goodness sake, I put myself through that garbage. When it happened again this year I nearly packed it in.

The Koo Wee Rup seconds could have done a better job.
 

SydCrow

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Posts
8,997
Likes
8,020
Location
East Falafel Town
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
To help those that genuinely need it.
my point was that welfare "cheats" exist because the system allows them to - what is a genuine attempt to find work?

Punishing the weak for trying to obtain the benefits that you dangle in front of them is hardly consistent with the socialist philosophy of Vladistan.
 

SydCrow

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Posts
8,997
Likes
8,020
Location
East Falafel Town
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
my point was that welfare "cheats" exist because the system allows them to - what is a genuine attempt to find work?

Punishing the weak for trying to obtain the benefits that you dangle in front of them is hardly consistent with the socialist philosophy of Vladistan.
and Vlad, once again, shot his mouth off and someone else has to pay the price

first it was Rendell ("whoever said that should be looking for a new job, say, at Collingwood"), now it is Connelly/Bailey. The fact that Bailey is now an assistant coach at my club (which has just been rogered for another example of the "grey" area (clubs must never "facilitate" third party deals (FFS)) just adds to the joy.

/rant
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
May 3, 2005
Posts
87,771
Likes
81,962
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Moderator #3,912
Melbourne doesnt qualify? List too strong?
If they needed to change the way they played the game in order to fall under the cutoff point, then yes, their list was too strong.

That is what the investigation is trying to find out. Like you, I suspect a lack of evidence will be the result.
 
Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
51,621
Likes
25,820
Location
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
If they needed to change the way they played the game in order to fall under the cutoff point, then yes, their list was too strong.

That is what the investigation is trying to find out. Like you, I suspect a lack of evidence will be the result.
Nope. Long bow to assume that. Their list was weak regardless of their ability to win 2 games, 4 game or 6 games. The magical four is just an arbitrary number the AFL plucked out of their collective backsides.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that Melbourne had anything but a very weak list in they years they won those priority picks.

And yes, lack of evidence will likely see them get away with tanking, just as teams before them have got away with it.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,185
Likes
21,604
AFL Club
West Coast
Their are three possibilities:

1. They tanked and are penalised due to sufficient evidence.

2. They tanked and are not penalised due to insufficient evidence.

3. They didn't tank and are not penalised due to insufficient evidence.

I think everyone just hopes it's not no. 2. Although only those involve will know if it's 2 or 3 if they get off.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Posts
1,486
Likes
1,042
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Our list wasn't weak in 2009.

We had 8 wins the next year and a better percentage than any other team outside the eight. And that was without drastic changes to our list.

What made our list look weak was the fact we deliberately lost games.

One of the things that makes our list weak now is that instead of developing our players, we deliberately lost games.
 
Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
51,621
Likes
25,820
Location
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
Its number 2.

Everybody knows it but its impossible to prove.

It cant be number 3, that just doesnt make sense. Burden of proof is on the accuser....how can there be insufficient evidence that they didnt do anything wrong?
 

Forward Press

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
26,408
Likes
33,669
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
Can I ask - at what point in 2009 were Melbourne not a 'genuinely bad' football side. Cos I tell you, I sat through it, and I saw a LOT of crap.

Just as a general tip for those in the thread - I'd suggest you actually sit down, completely ignoring the whole tanking thing, and just watch that match. I promise, it will be up there in the worst football matches you ever profess to watch. The skill level of both sides is downright laughable.
I think that Melbourne were genuinely bad in 2009. Although I have to admit I did not watch all games, just a few of them including the contentious ones and the ones involving us (including of course the loss at the MCG).

I had some queries over a couple of tactical decisions in the Richmond and St Kilda games, but either way Melbourne were abysmal in 2009. No-one really denies that.

I think the crux of the matter is that Melbourne's football department may have decided to be maximise the chances of being even more abysmal so that the 4.5 win limit was not breached. Maybe they were an abysmal side that was still a 5-6 win side that year if the PP was not a carrot dangled in front of them. I am assuming the investigation is sorting that out.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Posts
1,486
Likes
1,042
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Seriously, looking at the 2010 ladder is terrifying. We finished above Richmond, Essendon, Brisbane, and West Coast.

We had already started our rebuild and had 2 number 1 picks that year. Yet all of those teams will likely be playing finals this year, whilst Melbourne looks as far away from finals as possilbe.
 

bing181

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Posts
1,906
Likes
1,410
Location
Paris
AFL Club
Melbourne
Seriously, looking at the 2010 ladder is terrifying. We finished above Richmond, Essendon, Brisbane, and West Coast.

... Yet all of those teams will likely be playing finals this year, whilst Melbourne looks as far away from finals as possilbe.
Richmond, Essendon, Brisbane and West Coast all playing finals this year? About sums you up.
 

bing181

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Posts
1,906
Likes
1,410
Location
Paris
AFL Club
Melbourne
Our list wasn't weak in 2009.

We had 8 wins the next year and a better percentage than any other team outside the eight. And that was without drastic changes to our list.
You mean the same list with the same coaching staff who took us from 8 hollow wins against easy-beats in 2010 to the worse loss in the club's history in 2011?
 

Forward Press

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
26,408
Likes
33,669
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
You mean the same list with the same coaching staff who took us from 8 hollow wins against easy-beats in 2010 to the worse loss in the club's history in 2011?
I followed Melbourne in 2010 and thought they did pretty okay. Thumped Sydney and drew with Collingwood. Looking at the ladder, you finished 12th but won three games against sides above you on the ladder. I also thought Tom Scully justified his #1 pick in a couple of matches and that your lot were ahead of Richmond, Brisbane and Essendon along with us as Winmar alluded to. I guess things change pretty quickly.
 

Higgs Boson

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Posts
6,947
Likes
4,392
Location
At the Portsea shack
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Their are three possibilities:

1. They tanked and are penalised due to sufficient evidence.

2. They tanked and are not penalised due to insufficient evidence.

3. They didn't tank and are not penalised due to insufficient evidence.

I think everyone just hopes it's not no. 2. Although only those involve will know if it's 2 or 3 if they get off.
I think it's pretty obvious - whatever the state of the evidence - that Melbourne managed its list with an eye on the arbitrary AFL four-wins-and-a-priority-pick policy (was it less than four wins for two years in a row then? I think so).

The real question is: was what Melbourne did against the rules? That's the question that will be answered.
 

Higgs Boson

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Posts
6,947
Likes
4,392
Location
At the Portsea shack
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Seriously, looking at the 2010 ladder is terrifying. We finished above Richmond, Essendon, Brisbane, and West Coast.

We had already started our rebuild and had 2 number 1 picks that year. Yet all of those teams will likely be playing finals this year, whilst Melbourne looks as far away from finals as possilbe.
Seriously, stop trying to be a Melbourne supporter. It's embarrassing for us, and it's embarrassing for you
 

ziad

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 2, 2009
Posts
14,093
Likes
6,575
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Can I ask - at what point in 2009 were Melbourne not a 'genuinely bad' football side. Cos I tell you, I sat through it, and I saw a LOT of crap.

Just as a general tip for those in the thread - I'd suggest you actually sit down, completely ignoring the whole tanking thing, and just watch that match. I promise, it will be up there in the worst football matches you ever profess to watch. The skill level of both sides is downright laughable.
Irrelevant. Probably not that bad but a sick culture throughout the club perhaps. Still irrelevant

Systematic and organised cheating by management and coaches under direction to lose games by intent. Irrelevant how good or bad, it is the intent that sinks the rabble.
 

Powerade 08

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Posts
10,398
Likes
7,410
Location
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Vlad made the rules - can't now punish the minions for following them
There are plenty of rules to protect against this sort of stuff and the AFL exercises them all the time.

Spirit of the game, bringing the game into disrepute, not coaching on merit, draft tampering, etc...

Melbourne have no leg to stand on. It comes down to whether the AFL wants to sweep it under the carpet or make an example of them.
 
Top Bottom