Tanking

[coryne]

Why are people even arguing with trolls from teams who have also tanked at various stages ??? It's like tweedle dumb telling tweedle dee to grow a brain .............

Carlton were crap in 2005 and 2006, and tanked in 2007 to get Kreuzer and Judd .......... Melbourne did it for Scully/Trengove. The Eagles did it to get NicNat .......... Collingwood did it for Daisy and Pendlebury ......... Richmond did it for .............

 

[bobsyouruncle]

Tanking is commonly accepted in the nfl/nba. It is seen as smart business.

I would have to disagree some what there. In the NBA the none playoff finishing teams are put into a lottery system where the lowest finishing team gets more "balls" in the lottery. Therefore, they have a higher chance of getting the first pick, but NOT guaranteed. Think the worst team get 10 balls out of 60 or something like that. The 60 balls then go in to a lottery and the results are fairly random(true randomness can not be impelemented by humans).

So to "tank" to finish bottom would not guarantee you LeBron James. I'm not saying that tanking doesn't exist in the NBA, I'm saying the reward for tanking isn't as clearly defined like the AFL.

To me the AFL has got the system wrong. People seem to have a problem with teams because they worked a good deal with in the system whether by chance or by intent. I personally see the system as flawed and it encourages teams at the bottom to not "work" as hard since they will be rewarded for finishing lower.

 

[TNBT]

I agree with the general view here that tanking is common in pro sports. It has been around for a long time in American sports, and is starting to become more common in the AFL. As for whether we tanked or not, I really don't know. Yes we lost a lot of games and got three consecutive #1 picks, but does that mean we tanked? You could say that that is evidence of tanking, but at the same time, we really did have a pretty sh*tty team, so who knows? Maybe we were trying to win but we just sucked that much?

 

[TNBT]

I would have to disagree some what there. In the NBA the none playoff finishing teams are put into a lottery system where the lowest finishing team gets more "balls" in the lottery. Therefore, they have a higher chance of getting the first pick, but NOT guaranteed. Think the worst team get 10 balls out of 60 or something like that. The 60 balls then go in to a lottery and the results are fairly random(true randomness can not be impelemented by humans).

So to "tank" to finish bottom would not guarantee you LeBron James. I'm not saying that tanking doesn't exist in the NBA, I'm saying the reward for tanking isn't as clearly defined like the AFL.

To me the AFL has got the system wrong. People seem to have a problem with teams because they worked a good deal with in the system whether by chance or by intent. I personally see the system as flawed and it encourages teams at the bottom to not "work" as hard since they will be rewarded for finishing lower.

I have been a massive hardcore fan odf basketball (as well as the Blues) since I was born, so I have seen quite a bit happen in the NBA in my 26 years. I have always and will always be a Bulls fan, and there is no greater evidence that tanking does not guarantee you the top pick than the draft a few years ago, where the Bulls had the lowest chance of getting the #1 pick in the lottery (1.9% if I remember correctly), and yet through luck we managed to get it and drafted Derrick Rose, who looks like becoming the best PG in the league.

With that in mind, maybe the AFL needs to start looking at a lottery system as well? Give the worst teams a better chance than those that finished higher on the ladder, but make it a lottery system where anything can happen.

 

[DarkTint]

I would have to disagree some what there. In the NBA the none playoff finishing teams are put into a lottery system where the lowest finishing team gets more "balls" in the lottery. Therefore, they have a higher chance of getting the first pick, but NOT guaranteed. Think the worst team get 10 balls out of 60 or something like that. The 60 balls then go in to a lottery and the results are fairly random(true randomness can not be impelemented by humans).

So to "tank" to finish bottom would not guarantee you LeBron James. I'm not saying that tanking doesn't exist in the NBA, I'm saying the reward for tanking isn't as clearly defined like the AFL.

To me the AFL has got the system wrong. People seem to have a problem with teams because they worked a good deal with in the system whether by chance or by intent. I personally see the system as flawed and it encourages teams at the bottom to not "work" as hard since they will be rewarded for finishing lower.

Good points but teams still tank. You get a % of balls in the lottery depending on how bad your record is at the end of the regular season. Hence more incentive to lose games to gain more balls. (I'm pretty sure there's like 1000 balls) It doesn't have to be the #1 pick either. A team with the 10th worst record could end up with the 3rd overall pick etc. Also only the first 3 draft picks are decided by the lottery. The rest work in reverse order from there. My main point was that no-one causes a big scene because a team 'tanked'.

Also to TNBT I love Derrick Rose but he has a long ways to go to being anything close to the best pg in the league. He has no defensive game at this point in his career.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't believe a lottery will help the AFL long term. In the NBA there are many virtual guarantees among early draftees because of the population and number of ball players. In the AFL the top 2-3 are considered guarantees for the most part but it can thin out quite a lot and is really an inexact science at times.

You get a really bad wooden spoon side getting a pick around 4-5 for example and a better side above them getting a guaranteed star, and the gap between them will more than likely widen. The AFL has manufactured the competition to be even and run in cycles, because anything less will cost them TV rights money.

Just do away with priority picks and give bottom sides 1 pick.

Ironically Carlton only have 1 first round priority pick to show for its 3 wooden spoons, due to rule changes and salary cap penalties.

 

[gbatman]

i don't care i hope we did tank, either way we were bad enough to lose said tanked match.

 

[bobsyouruncle]

Good points but teams still tank. You get a % of balls in the lottery depending on how bad your record is at the end of the regular season. Hence more incentive to lose games to gain more balls. It doesn't have to be the #1 pick either. A team with the 10th worst record could end up with the 3rd overall pick etc. My main point was that no-one causes a big scene because a team 'tanked'.

Also to TNBT I love Derrick Rose but he has a long ways to go to being anything close to the best pg in the league. He has no defensive game at this point in his career.

I agree. I did say that tanking probably does happen, but not so clearly defined as in the AFL. I'm just a firm believer that the AFL is a profit driven machine that implements these systems to maximise membership/profit. Another good example is the season fixture, which is beyond a joke. What other large sport determines the season draw by how many people are going turn up at the grounds? People should stop pointing their fingers at clubs and petition the AFL into making a better system, one which is more fair and random.

 

[TNBT]

Also to TNBT I love Derrick Rose but he has a long ways to go to being anything close to the best pg in the league. He has no defensive game at this point in his career.

I agree that he isn't there at the moment. Guys like Chris Paul and Deron Williams are the class of the league at the moment, but I don't think Rose is that far behind, and he is only going to get better. I think in another few years, he has every chance at being at the top of the list. His main competition, in my opinion, is going to be Russell Westbrook.

As for Rose's flaws, I agree that he isn't a perfect player. His defensive game isn't great, but it isn't as terrible as it was in his rookie year. His jumper has been his other main weakness, but he has improved that greatly since he started in the NBA.

 

[DarkTint]

 

[DarkTint]

I agree that he isn't there at the moment. Guys like Chris Paul and Deron Williams are the class of the league at the moment, but I don't think Rose is that far behind, and he is only going to get better. I think in another few years, he has every chance at being at the top of the list. His main competition, in my opinion, is going to be Russell Westbrook.

As for Rose's flaws, I agree that he isn't a perfect player. His defensive game isn't great, but it isn't as terrible as it was in his rookie year. His jumper has been his other main weakness, but he has improved that greatly since he started in the NBA.

Atm - CP3, D-Will, Nash, Rondo, Rose, Westbrook.

Rose frustrates me when I watch him because he gives 100% every second on court but his defensive awareness is just non existant. A guy with his gifts should be top 3-5 for steals in the nba. I don't think he's in the top 50(no research).

 

[DarkTint]

 

[Malifice]

Is there a side that hasnt gone into 'list management' mode?

Jeses, dont forget just how crap we were as well.

Its not like we had to work that hard at losing.

 

[TNBT]

Atm - CP3, D-Will, Nash, Rondo, Rose, Westbrook.

Rose frustrates me when I watch him because he gives 100% every second on court but his defensive awareness is just non existant. A guy with his gifts should be top 3-5 for steals in the nba. I don't think he's in the top 50(no research).

I agree to an extent. Paul and Williams are the cream of the crop at the moment. I feel like Nash is pretty much at the end of his peak, and will only go downhill from here. I rate Rondo (forgot about him in my first post) and Westbrook as being on Rose's level, and I think they will be the top three at their position in a few years.

Rose isn't great on the defensive end, as you said, but he continues to improve. He is getting better at every aspect of his game, and he works as hard as anyone. He is arguably the best combination of power, speed and athleticism at the position, and when he reaches his peak, I don't see anyone really beating him.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Isn't this the guy who is a self claimed debating world champ?

You present no argument for your OP other than 'I think we tanked because I do'.

The closest thing you have made to a valid point is a mention of 'list management'.

How we view that in itself is subjective - if teams on the bottom send players in for surgery during the year, or if they play less experienced players, it's a form of 'list management' with the purpose of tanking.

Yet a finals team does it, and no mention. Consider this year: Bower being held back, McLean being sent to the sidelines despite suggestions he could have played out the year, don't even know what happened to Houlihan, inexperienced guys playing out the year such as Davies & Ellard while Walker and Thornton were kept in the reserves. Judd sitting on the bench during crucial times in the match. Questionable coaching moves (or lack thereof) during crucial stages of important games.

Had we conducted ourselves in the exact same manner, yet been down bottom, it would of course be indisputable evidence of tanking.

 

[Blue since 72]

Isn't this the guy who is a self claimed debating world champ?

You present no argument for your OP other than 'I think we tanked because I do'.

The closest thing you have made to a valid point is a mention of 'list management'.

How we view that in itself is subjective - if teams on the bottom send players in for surgery during the year, or if they play less experienced players, it's a form of 'list management' with the purpose of tanking.

Yet a finals team does it, and no mention. Consider this year: Bower being held back, McLean being sent to the sidelines despite suggestions he could have played out the year, don't even know what happened to Houlihan, inexperienced guys playing out the year such as Davies & Ellard while Walker and Thornton were kept in the reserves. Judd sitting on the bench during crucial times in the match. Questionable coaching moves (or lack thereof) during crucial stages of important games.

Had we conducted ourselves in the exact same manner, yet been down bottom, it would of course be indisputable evidence of tanking.

Er go, tanking is 'officially' bullshit but otherwise alive and well in the AFL and has been for ages.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Er go, tanking is 'officially' bullshit but otherwise alive and well in the AFL and has been for ages.

Not exactly. There are two definitions for tanking.

1. Managing your list based on future needs, and dependent on current placements. i.e nothing to play for so give player more time for best possible recovery from injury. Try out fringe players or rookies to make a decision on their future.

2. Cheating, deliberately trying to throw games in order to get better draft picks.

Everyone agrees that team do number 1, but as soon as it is retold, the implications become number 2.

'We tanked' as in 'we managed our list' is converted to 'we cheated' in the minds of our detractors.

Really not sure of the merits of trying to earn admissions of tanking from Carlton supporters on this board, when we all know that a minority opinion that does not favour us, becomes a representative opinion on the rest of BigFooty. Then to top it off, it removes our credibility in commenting on any topic anywhere.

Not really sure why we do it to ourselves and our fellow supporters.

 

[mediumsizered]

To tank a game I would have thought either the players or coaches (or both) would have to not put in their best during the game. Is any one prepared to single out a Carlton player/s or coach/es who were not trying during the Round 22, 2007 match?

There is a significant difference between list management & tanking. Remember back to the 2006 season when North Melbourne booked a number of senior players in for early surgery when it became apparent they would not be playing finals, an option which also allowed their Match Committee to have a look at some of their younger players under AFL match conditions?. The following season (2007), North finished Top 4. Were North tanking at the end of 2006, or was that list management?

Back in the days prior to the National Draft & priority picks, teams who were out of finals contention would give some of the younger players on their list game time in the seniors to see how they would go at that level. That was considered to be normal behaviour for clubs who were looking to the future, with no immediate September action to look forward to. Just because draft/priority picks are on the line this shouldn't turn list management into tanking.

Tanking is a ridiculous term, mostly used by immature trolls/journalists to take a pot shot at an opposition club. It should not be seen as an acceptable part of the game's terminology.

 

[thylacine60]

To tank a game I would have thought either the players or coaches (or both) would have to not put in their best during the game. Is any one prepared to single out a Carlton player/s or coach/es who were not trying during the Round 22, 2007 match?

Didn't Travis Johnstone get 400 touches that day, yet was left to do as he pleased by Ratts? That count?

 

[The Toad]

To tank a game I would have thought either the players or coaches (or both) would have to not put in their best during the game. Is any one prepared to single out a Carlton player/s or coach/es who were not trying during the Round 22, 2007 match?
.

Sorry MS, but I reckon you'd be the only Blues supporter who think's we didn't tank.

 

[krayfesh]

Didn't Travis Johnstone get 400 touches that day, yet was left to do as he pleased by Ratts? That count?

They didn't tag Scotland, did they?

Genius ploy from both coaches

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Sorry MS, but I reckon you'd be the only Blues supporter who think's we didn't tank.

Not the only one.

I leave open the possibility that we could have tanked, but refute the evidence put forward.

Most wanted it so bad they were analysing every play as though it was deliberate, despite the fact that we were not so crash hot the whole year.

Travis Johnstone got 42 possessions across half back. Heath Scotland got 41 possessions across half back. Scotland's efficiency was higher IIRC.

By this example, we must think that every team that allowed Joel Bowden free reign to gather stats, must have been tanking.

Johnstone really did not hurt us in that game aside from mopping up ordinary delivery.

 

[sosos]

Really not sure of the merits of trying to earn admissions of tanking from Carlton supporters on this board, when we all know that a minority opinion that does not favour us, becomes a representative opinion on the rest of BigFooty. Then to top it off, it removes our credibility in commenting on any topic anywhere.

Not really sure why we do it to ourselves and our fellow supporters.

I agree with ODN. You are only feeding trolls by agreeing with their agenda.

I will never agree or admit that Carlton tanked.

The duplicity of opposition supporters denigrating Carlton as the only ones who tanked whilst hypocritically defending their own teams putrid reputations is diabolical.

Purportedly, Carlton are the ONLY team who cheated the salary cap, tanked, and had dodgy administrations.

I am sick of reading the main board where post after post by pathetic excuses for humanity malign this great club unimpeded by mods(apologies to the CFC ones who are awesome)

All I remember is how sad and sorry our skills, our effort, our coaching, our admin, our luck were for so long. I cannot believe that anyone could say we were actually good enough to choose whether we won or lost. FFS, those teams were terrible! It is the heights of incredulity to think Carlton could just flick a switch and perform.

 

[agro]

The hypocracy of these bogans is incredible - on the one hand they accuse Carlton of cheating, by buying premierships and recruiting players by the chequebook.

The minute we utilize the AFL Draft System to its advantage we are also accused of cheating.

If these hypocrits dont like the AFL Draft System - I am all for going back to the "Form Four" System.

Lets see how these perennial pathetic clubs go with that.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Sorry MS, but I reckon you'd be the only Blues supporter who think's we didn't tank.

Yet not you, or 'every other blues supporter' could put a coherent argument forth with clear evidence that proves this viewpoint.

People confuse tanking with what was the optimum result for our club. No one will dispute that losing that day was a great result for us, yet actively seeking a loss is too difficult a task to achieve without it being found out.

We know the players were not told to lose. We know assistant coaches were not part of a conspiracy to lose. Effectively we are left with one man, Ratten, who is charged with the task of somehow covertly obtaining a loss, while leaving no compelling evidence of it.

Unless he completely puts every player in foreign positions (which he didn't), what changes can he truly implement that will undermine our chances of winning so much so that it guarantees a loss?

I'm not expecting an answer from you, or anyone.

Honestly, if Ratten were that brilliant of a coach and tactician, that he could pull this of on his own accord, he would have at least led us to one finals win by now.