The problem with tanking ...

[twentydollarnote]

cant remember who it was but someone said he had received offers before us and knocked them back waiting for an offer from the crows, who were hesitant because he'd had some sort of accident and injured himself.

 

[cmndstab]

WIth the scholarship situation I think it's more that a kid can simply refuse to be signed up if he wants. I mean, you couldn't force him to, and he could feasibly argue "oh I know I said no before but I changed my mind".


So the tale goes with Walker, the Crows were interested but pulled out because he'd suffered an injury and weren't sure if it was worth the risk. A number of other clubs (Collingwood, and a few others that I forget) gave him offers so he contacted the club and basically told them that he wanted to be a Crow but that if they didn't sign him within the week he would go for the next offer that came his way. He made such an impression on them with his passion for the Crows that they chose to overlook his injury and give him a chance. It was some pretty dramatic injury if I remember correctly, something like a broken leg or something. Might even explain his lack of pace these days.


His talent was never in question, but I guess you can see why a (then not super tall) 14 year old key forward with a broken leg is never going to be a sure bet, talented or otherwise. Fortunately he was raised correctly, supporting the Crows

 

[Macjoe]

Oh, I love that story. Someone in the Walker family or Broken Hill club deserve a medal, bringing him up properly.

 

[malph]

Anyway I was thinking to myself that this is a team that has learned to roll over when the heat gets turned up a bit. It has always been a characteristic of theirs to a degree, but if you look back to their GF year in 07, they pulled a lot of wins out of the fire and were pretty mentally strong. Now, with virtually the same group of players, they seem to think that it's acceptable to just disintegrate and in each of their games since the Showdown have let the opposition kick a lot of goals in a row with minimal pressure.

You just have to wonder whether subconsciously, a message got through last season that mediocrity is ok, and that the players really don't push themselves that hard to win at all costs, now that it actually matters again.

But then again, they do exist to win premierships. The Creed says so. So make up your own mind...

I agree with most posts here, however what does 'tanking' consist of these days. An earlier post mentioned playing youngsters for the sake of playing them with no accountability for perceived poor form, but what else is there attached to the tanking criteria?

Is taking injured players out early to have operations to increase their longevity in the game tanking?

What about playing a couple of players who the club is not sure where they're at? Is that tanking? Is it only perceived as tanking if you're near the bottom of the ladder? If a club in finals contention did this would it still be viewed as tanking or list management?

'Tanking' assumes that a team knows how to win in the first place.

In the context of Port Adelaide's 2008, I don't understand how picking the same under-performing side, hoping they will magically come good, should be seen as more 'honourable' than trying out new players in the mix. Now look at this year: persisting with the 'first choice' team, whatever it may be, is clearly not cutting it, so will turning to newer players on the list be seen as tantamount to 'tanking'? At the moment the 22 needs to be turned over to improve the performance, not worsen it.

But to last year, a Mark Williams press conference was turned into an entire club pulling the pin on the season: "We are kidding ourselves if we think we're going to be playing finals". The board was pissed off at him, but no matter: anything that happened for the rest of the season was judged against a post-game comment by an angry coach who felt the season was "officially off". Any article that's written about last year and putting injured players in for surgery (God forbid!) is linked to the ubiquitous round 13 "concession". Now, you don't say that at a press conference, but tanking? Crap. Yes, Port Adelaide were so intent on leap-frogging their way up the draft they won their last two games by 13 goals - the latter, away from home against a team in the top-four, when a loss would have seen Port remain behind Fremantle. Apparently, we were so bad we couldn't even tank properly. The most humiliating efforts occurred before round 13, but no, it was still a tank.

The OP is not very well disguised Bay 13 crap delivered in safer confines. There has been no "rude awakening" this year, LOL. We're complaining about the same shit this year that we were complaining about last year. What, did we start lamenting 'gold passes' only three weeks ago as well? Now that Chad once again can't push through his injury any more, if under-performing senior players (finally) get dropped, are we going to start shouting 'tank' again?

Port Adelaide's problems are no small matter, but they have little to do with the last nine rounds of 2008.

 

[Vader]

Tanking is when a club/team fail to do everything in their powers to win a game of football. This can take one of 3 forms:

• Failure to select the best possible team.
• Coaching in such a way as to prevent the team from winning.
• Players deliberately playing poorly in order to lose.

By far the most common of these is the first. Examples of this would include:

• Sending players in for surgery before the end of the season when they would normally continue playing with the injury if finals were a reality.
• Non-selection of older players in favour of younger players "to give them experience", once again this usually happens once all hope of finals has gone.

Examples of the second do exist, but tend to be controversial. Probably the most notable was Roos' efforts to ensure that Sydney lost their first MMC game in 2008 - to the point where he instructed Nick Davis to go forward "but don't kick a goal". Another example would be Essendon's loss to Richmond in R22 2001, promoting Richmond to 4th at Carlton's expense. Essendon turned around a week later and thrashed them severely. There are other examples from recent history, usually featuring Richmond and Carlton.

Examples of the third are very rare in AFL footy. Footy is a team sport and it's hard for 1 of 22 players to make such a difference that his team loses. It's more common in sports where individual efforts are more important - most notably tennis & cricket. I can't recall any examples of this type of tanking in AFL history, though someone is bound to come up with one!

 

[Crow-mo]

There's no luck at all with Dangermouse. They identified his talent and rated him higher than pretty much any other club. Nobody else had him in their top 10 - but we did.

dunno, I reckon there's a huge amount of luck here.

we can identify him all we want, we can rate him as high as we want, we can be as right as right can be. but we still only had pick 10.

there are lot of dependencies there.

Credit where it's due - Rendell & his team have done a great job since taking over from Fantasia.

of course.

 

[Crow-mo]

and seeing as there is very little evidence than tanking exists, or agreement as to what tanking actually is, not sure its a big concern.

 

[twentydollarnote]

Well said Vader, i'd add they can also manage the list by moving on more senior players before their time to deliberately fall down the ladder getting access to those high picks.

 

[twentydollarnote]

Did Hawthorn actually tank, or just not good enough. Carlton tanked. There were games in previous years the Blues should have won but didnt. But Hawthorn were just poor. Same with Geelong. I dont think tanking has assisted either side.

I would hate to go to games knowing our team is not in it to win it. Luckily we dont have to worry about this as our club knows the value of winning games is better than a speculative pick on an 18 year old kid.

Our recruiting is building a team, not individuals. Look across the field and in key roles are kids under 24. As these guys start winning more games it builds a winning culture. When these kids hit their peak they will know how to win games.

Carlton were more rubbish that the hawks, clarkson knew he had his contract basically moved every senior player on that he could or didnt even play older players. They just got luckier than teams like richmond and carlton with their picks.

 

[Mong]

and seeing as there is very little evidence than tanking exists, or agreement as to what tanking actually is, not sure its a big concern.

I agree. I don't think tanking should be a real concern in the sense I think you mean. But my conern is that it is a perceived issue and that hurts the image of the league. And that so many fans appear to believe it happens a lot and worse still, want their team to do it, is not good for the comp in my opinion.

 

[twentydollarnote]

**** how naive to think tanking doesnt exist, all those teams dont remain stuck on 4 and 1/2 wins by pure luck each year.

 

[Mong]

I don't think the Crows are tanking this year, or have tanked in the last couple of years, yet by some of the definitions given in this thread they are because they are playing young players and have delisted perfectly capable players such as Torney and Bode.

And I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I don't really know. I just don't think it exists anywhere near the level that some seem to think it does.

 

[Vader]

I don't think the Crows are tanking this year, or have tanked in the last couple of years, yet by some of the definitions given in this thread they are because they are playing young players and have delisted perfectly capable players such as Torney and Bode.

And I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I don't really know. I just don't think it exists anywhere near the level that some seem to think it does.

We are playing youngsters because they have earned their position in the side, not because we've prematurely retired some of the veterans.

The only player who could possibly debate this point would be Shirley - and he forfeited his hold on a regular position with a poor performance in his only game for the year.

Once players are delisted, they can't be used as an argument for tanking. Torney was played right up to the very end, while Bode missed out because of injury - not non-selection.

Now, if finals were no longer mathematically possible - and we dropped Doughty, Edwards and McLeod, bringing in the unready Armstrong, Sloane and Kite, then we'd be accused of tanking - and rightly so.

 

[Kennyrocks]

If you consider the past two drafts, this being when we've realistically been out of flag contention, didn't we have Dangerfield and Davis in our top 3 draft options in the past two drafts?

So, looking solely at first round picks is it fair to say we would be no better off? Because if we are to believe what we're told (seems to be widely accepted around here) we would've ended up with Dangerfield and Davis whether we had the picks of a bottom 4 club, or the selections we did have. This was based on a combination of our judgments on them, and our needs as a club.

Of course I am neglecting our later picks, but you don't really hear about them as much and its probably fair to assume it evens out somewhat once you hit the mid 20s, with club preference taking more sway over outright talent in terms of who get picked up by who.

FWIW I completely agree with Neil Craig's attitude on this topic. Additionally failing to be competitive, by choice, does more damage to a club than almost anything else and can take a while to recover from because of the attitude shift it imparts, even subtly. I've seen it first hand unfortunately.

 

[twentydollarnote]

vader we've moved on more than just shirely who was in our starting 22, but theres a difference between a club skinning its list of any experienced players knowing they wont be competitive for the upcoming season and slowly turning the list over and still aiming to be successful as we have done.

Kennyrocks someone like hawthorn has shown that attitude can turn around fairly quickly with talented players.

 

[Vader]

vader we've moved on more than just shirely who was in our starting 22, but theres a difference between a club skinning its list of any experienced players knowing they wont be competitive for the upcoming season and slowly turning the list over and still aiming to be successful as we have done.

Kennyrocks someone like hawthorn has shown that attitude can turn around fairly quickly with talented players.

Yes, we've moved them on - but we've done it after the season has ended. They all played to the end of the year (injury permitting), before being delisted. I can't recall ANY senior players (other than Shirley) being dropped in order to give youngsters experience during the season.

 

[Crow-mo]

there is more going on with Shirley than meets the eye. my guess is that Neil Craig and JR didn't agree on him. Craig doesn't deal with the contracts, and JR valued him more highly.

if he didn't want to play him, why give a top7 B&F guy a 2 year contract? or a contract at all?

and just as much, why don't you want to play him?

I imagine the full story will come out one day.

 

[Kennyrocks]

Kennyrocks someone like hawthorn has shown that attitude can turn around fairly quickly with talented players.

Absolutely right, I'm not saying it always happens, but to lose a competitive culture at any sporting club is highly risky.

Speaking personally (and this is about a cricket club so naturally there are no draft picks to be gained or incentives to not remain competitive and finish as high as possible) the repercussions of losing that hard edge can last for a long time, and do serious damage to the club for a long time. So what I'm saying is that while the chances of it happening may not appear high, the consequences can be dire.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What Craig said was basically this: Deliberately failing to field your most competitive side each week where winning is not your priority will provide you with a very poor indication of where exactly your side is at in terms of its development.

If you set out to win and be at your competitive best each week, even if you fail, at least you will understand the areas of improvement that need to be addressed and developed.

When do you do something the areas of improvement that need to be addressed and developed? Do you have to wait until after the season?

Or do you make long-term judgment calls during a season?

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Absolutely. The really good ones will get offers from 2, 3 or more clubs. It's up to them which contract they decide to sign. Then it's up to the club to decide whether or not to take them as rookies or senior listed players once they come of age.

It's similar to the situation with kids who are eligible for multiple clubs under the F/S rule (eg D Jarman's boys). They get to choose which club they will go to, assuming that the club accepts and bids for them in the bidding war before trade week.

Thats a first, a player getting to choose who he plays for. Thanks for that.

 

[RealSlimShady]

Tanking is when a club/team fail to do everything in their powers to win a game of football. This can take one of 3 forms:

• Failure to select the best possible team.
• Coaching in such a way as to prevent the team from winning.
• Players deliberately playing poorly in order to lose.

By far the most common of these is the first. Examples of this would include:

• Sending players in for surgery before the end of the season when they would normally continue playing with the injury if finals were a reality.
• Non-selection of older players in favour of younger players "to give them experience", once again this usually happens once all hope of finals has gone.

Examples of the second do exist, but tend to be controversial. Probably the most notable was Roos' efforts to ensure that Sydney lost their first MMC game in 2008 - to the point where he instructed Nick Davis to go forward "but don't kick a goal". Another example would be Essendon's loss to Richmond in R22 2001, promoting Richmond to 4th at Carlton's expense. Essendon turned around a week later and thrashed them severely. There are other examples from recent history, usually featuring Richmond and Carlton.

Examples of the third are very rare in AFL footy. Footy is a team sport and it's hard for 1 of 22 players to make such a difference that his team loses. It's more common in sports where individual efforts are more important - most notably tennis & cricket. I can't recall any examples of this type of tanking in AFL history, though someone is bound to come up with one!

Nice post man, I actually feel like I learnt something.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

WIth the scholarship situation I think it's more that a kid can simply refuse to be signed up if he wants. I mean, you couldn't force him to, and he could feasibly argue "oh I know I said no before but I changed my mind".


So the tale goes with Walker, the Crows were interested but pulled out because he'd suffered an injury and weren't sure if it was worth the risk. A number of other clubs (Collingwood, and a few others that I forget) gave him offers so he contacted the club and basically told them that he wanted to be a Crow but that if they didn't sign him within the week he would go for the next offer that came his way. He made such an impression on them with his passion for the Crows that they chose to overlook his injury and give him a chance. It was some pretty dramatic injury if I remember correctly, something like a broken leg or something. Might even explain his lack of pace these days.


His talent was never in question, but I guess you can see why a (then not super tall) 14 year old key forward with a broken leg is never going to be a sure bet, talented or otherwise. Fortunately he was raised correctly, supporting the Crows

Cheers good story.