What is tanking?

[Marlin01]

I wonder if we can have a mature, philosophical discussion, without casting aspersions about specific clubs. In fact, I think for the sake of the thread, all references to specific clubs/teams should be left out.

There seems to be a lot of debate about the definition of tanking. I note a couple of weeks ago, Gerard Whateley (who I quite like) was quick to say what is not tanking, but shied away from defining what is tanking.

Let's start with an obvious example of tanking:

- Players of a given team go out onto the field with the specific intention of losing the game of football. They do this by not running, by deliberately turning the ball over etc.

I don't think anyone would doubt that is tanking. But, I don't think this has ever occurred in the AFL.

A grey area does exist, for example:

- A club does not do everything in their power to ensure they win a specific game, such as:

> rest a champion player to ensure they are ready for next pre-season.

> play a younger player ahead of a more senior player, where the senior player would probably contribute more in the short-term.

> Position a player away from their most productive role.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[DTRAIN87]

Deliberately throwing games in any form to go and gain an advantage.

 

[Hoops]

Good question

Deliberately throwing games in any form to go and gain an advantage.

So when clubs rest key players due to "general soreness" in the hope they are cherry-ripe for the finals, and go on to lose those games is that tanking?

 

[vast]

Why does it need to be defined specifically?

Everyone knows what it is and that clubs have done it.
All that will end up being said is this and that club tanked.

 

[Marlin01]

Why does it need to be defined specifically?

Everyone knows what it is and that clubs have done it.
All that will end up being said is this and that club tanked.

Do they?

I don't. Please enlighten me.

 

[Ron The Bear]

In its purest sense, it is where the primary objective is to lose a specific game. There should be a distinction between this, and cases where winning the game is desirable without being the first priority.

 

[Baldur]

To me the difference is between not trying to win a game & trying to lose a game.

It is not uncommon for a club to be in a position where they cannot win the flag that year & so they send their best players for early operations, test out some younger players etc. That to me is not tanking.

But it is another matter when a club, or more likely the coach of a club, tries to lose a game, by decisions that have nothing to do with the development of the players but merely a better draft pick. That to me is tanking.

 

[Marlin01]

In its purest sense, it is where the primary objective is to lose a specific game. There should be a distinction between this, and cases where winning the game is desirable without being the first priority.

Good point. I think this should be the first aspect of the definition.

Tanking:

1- where the primary objective is/was to to lose a specific game.

 

[flintandtas]

To me the difference is between not trying to win a game & trying to lose a game.

It is not uncommon for a club to be in a position where they cannot win the flag that year & so they send their best players for early operations, test out some younger players etc. That to me is not tanking.

But it is another matter when a club, or more likely the coach of a club, tries to lose a game, by decisions that have nothing to do with the development of the players but merely a better draft pick. That to me is tanking.

I'd say that both those situations are tanking ... difference is one of them is cheating and one is not.

Tanking to me is any tactic that is employed with the intent or reducing the sides chance of winning a game, for the purpose of a long term gain (such as better draft picks). Some of those tactics are acceptable, some are not.

All definitions aside, I guess the real intent of this thread is what tactics are acceptable and what are not?

 

[Marlin01]

To me the difference is between not trying to win a game & trying to lose a game.

It is not uncommon for a club to be in a position where they cannot win the flag that year & so they send their best players for early operations, test out some younger players etc. That to me is not tanking.

But it is another matter when a club, or more likely the coach of a club, tries to lose a game, by decisions that have nothing to do with the development of the players but merely a better draft pick. That to me is tanking.

Correct me, if I've misinterpreted you, but would it be fair to say:

> where players are used in positions to which they are not suited and from which they will gain no developmental benefit.


Tanking:

1- where the primary objective is/was to lose a specific game.

2- where players are used in positions to which they are not suited and from which they will gain no developmental benefit.

I think we are getting somewhere. If you disagree with the definitions please say so.

 

[Marlin01]

I'd say that both those situations are tanking ... difference is one of them is cheating and one is not.

Tanking to me is any tactic that is employed with the intent or reducing the sides chance of winning a game, for the purpose of a long term gain (such as better draft picks). Some of those tactics are acceptable, some are not.

All definitions aside, I guess the real intent of this thread is what tactics are acceptable and what are not?

That's right.

In relation to your highlighted example, would it be considered tanking if a team already assured of a top 2 finish rested players in preparation for the finals? Personally, I don't consider this tanking, as they have earnt the right to this luxury by winning so many games.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Tanking:

1- where the primary objective is/was to lose a specific game.

2- where players are used in positions to which they are not suited and from which they will gain no developmental benefit.

I think we are getting somewhere. If you disagree with the definitions please say so.

I actually think those are one and the same. Perhaps 2) could become 1a).

 

[flintandtas]

That's right.

In relation to your highlighted example, would it be considered tanking if a team already assured of a top 2 finish rested players in preparation for the finals? Personally, I don't consider this tanking, as they have earnt the right to this luxury by winning so many games.

I wouldn't consider it tanking either ... the purpose in resting the players isn't to reduce the chances of winning, but to refresh the players up for the finals, so that's fine by me.

 

[flintandtas]

Just another hypothetical case. Say in the final game of the final round of the season St Kilda was playing Port and the knew if they won by say 50 points or more they would face an elimination final against a bogey team for them (like Essendon), but if they won by less than 50 points, they would have an elimination final against a bunny team for them.

If they went out with the purpose of winning by less than 50 points .... would you consider that tanking?

 

[Marlin01]

I actually think those are one and the same. Perhaps 2) could become 1a).

Good point.

Definition:

Where the primary objective is/was to lose a specific game. The following actions shall be deemed to constitute tanking:

1) where players are used in positions to which they are not suited and from which they will gain no developmental benefit.

Is that better?

 

[Marlin01]

Just another hypothetical case. Say in the final game of the final round of the season St Kilda was playing Port and the knew if they won by say 50 points or more they would face an elimination final against a bogey team for them (like Essendon), but if they won by less than 50 points, they would have an elimination final against a bunny team for them.

If they went out with the purpose of winning by less than 50 points .... would you consider that tanking?

By our current definition, it would not constitute tanking, because their primary objective is still to win. It's not uncommon for teams to rest key players once the result of a game (not the margin) has been decided. I don't consider this to be a threat to the integrity of the competition and doesn't warrant any action.

 

[slimdusty4]

Tanking is not doing everything within reason to attempt to win a game of football. It shouldn't be up for debate if players are rested, but how the team is coached, plays and the match ups. (Per say ruckman on n g brown, Travis jog stone instance) on match day.

Not if Nathan Buckley missed to rest his strings.

Put simply, if you find your club in the game at quarter, half, or three quarter time, and then the matchups that were working are changed, best players are spending excess time on the bench, and you, as a fan, are in the stands stomping on your hat, then your team is tanking...

It's far too easy and reasonable for clubs to rest players when they aren't going to play finals. Scrap that argument.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Is that better?

Agrees with my perception of what tanking is, anyway.

2) Selecting a weaker-than-optimal team with the primary motive being to lose the match.

NB Any of these definitions require that, any possible benefits aside, losing is the number one priority. Probably why the AFL won't touch it...how could you prove what the primary motivation is?

 

[Chewy]

The Round 24 dead rubber between Collingwood and Geelong. Both teams will be tanking. Why doesn't this concern people? Why do they only talk about the shit teams at the bottom of the ladder who probably couldn't win a game if you poisoned their opposition?

Last year, Fremantle tanked against Hawthorn in the Round 21 game at Launceston. I started a thread about it, saying what a disgrace Freo was for not even bothering to turn up to a game. What a let-down it was for the Hawk fans (and Freo fans) who had paid their money (weeks in advance) to see a supposedly good game. People told me to get over it... that "resting" players was all part of the modern game... that footy is a marathon, not a sprint and Freo did the right thing by resting it's players. Personally, I thought they should've been fined for bringing the game into disrepute. I still think what they did was a disgrace. I would be gutted if Hawthorn rested their entire team and threw a match.

Geelong and St Kilda pulled a similar stunt in 2009 after their energy-sapping match of the year in round 14. The Cats rested half their team and lost by 7 goals up in Brisbane. A few weeks later, the Saints rested half their team against an injury-depleted Hawthorn, but were still too good (or the Hawks were terrible)

So, in short, tanking is when a bottom-placed team does exactly the same thing as a top team, but only the bottom teams get singled out because people get their panties in a twist over the draft picks.

 

[Marlin01]

Agrees with my perception of what tanking is, anyway.

2) Selecting a weaker-than-optimal team with the primary motive being to lose the match.

NB Any of these definitions require that, any possible benefits aside, losing is the number one priority. Probably why the AFL won't touch it...how could you prove what the primary motivation is?

Yep, it's bloody hard and that's why the criterion has to be pretty tight.

Using the example we've pencilled in, I think it would reasonable for the AFL to ask a club to explain why they played a small midfielder at FB against a Gorilla FF for example.

 

[camiam]

lol ok i thought tanking was completely something different. i cant see what the problem is here with players needing to rest for finals. then isn't that playing for the future? if anything its smart and a tactic.

 

[Marlin01]

The Round 24 dead rubber between Collingwood and Geelong. Both teams will be tanking. Why doesn't this concern people? Why do they only talk about the shit teams at the bottom of the ladder who probably couldn't win a game if you poisoned their opposition?

Last year, Fremantle tanked against Hawthorn in the Round 21 game at Launceston. I started a thread about it, saying what a disgrace Freo was for not even bothering to turn up to a game. What a let-down it was for the Hawk fans (and Freo fans) who had paid their money (weeks in advance) to see a supposedly good game. People told me to get over it... that "resting" players was all part of the modern game... that footy is a marathon, not a sprint and Freo did the right thing by resting it's players. Personally, I thought they should've been fined for bringing the game into disrepute. I still think what they did was a disgrace. I would be gutted if Hawthorn rested their entire team and threw a match.

Geelong and St Kilda pulled a similar stunt in 2009 after their energy-sapping match of the year in round 14. The Cats rested half their team and lost by 7 goals up in Brisbane. A few weeks later, the Saints rested half their team against an injury-depleted Hawthorn, but were still too good (or the Hawks were terrible)

So, in short, tanking is when a bottom-placed team does exactly the same thing as a top team, but only the bottom teams get singled out because people get their panties in a twist over the draft picks.

That's an excellent point.

Our current definition would not consider that tanking, on the basis that Fremantle's primary objective was to rest players for the finals, rather than to lose the game per se.

Your scenario certainly highlights another grey area, though.

Should the definition exclude teams that have won 5 or more games?

 

[rustyOfOz]

I won't comment on *how* tanking is achieved but I think the motivation behind it is worth considering in your discussion. The term "strategic list management" was used a few times during tanking debates and this seems a fitting euphemism. The aim and purpose of tanking was to ensure premiership points fell below a known defined threshold and thus qualify for priority selections in drafts. With these draft selections assured in advance, careful planning of trading and drafting strategies could be planned well in advance of the seasons final round.

This systematic, planned, purposeful manipulation of draft qualification rules in order to achieve desired list management outcomes is the driving force behind tanking. That it was done in such a blatant manner and was consistently denied as a reality by the AFL is still a source of great annoyance to many.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Fremantle rolled the Hawks a couple of weeks later, comes across as good management IMO.

 

[slimdusty4]

That's an excellent point.

Our current definition would not consider that tanking, on the basis that Fremantle's primary objective was to rest players for the finals, rather than to lose the game per se.

Your scenario certainly highlights another grey area, though.

Should the definition exclude teams that have won 5 or more games?

The Round 24 dead rubber between Collingwood and Geelong. Both teams will be tanking. Why doesn't this concern people? Why do they only talk about the shit teams at the bottom of the ladder who probably couldn't win a game if you poisoned their opposition?

Last year, Fremantle tanked against Hawthorn in the Round 21 game at Launceston. I started a thread about it, saying what a disgrace Freo was for not even bothering to turn up to a game. What a let-down it was for the Hawk fans (and Freo fans) who had paid their money (weeks in advance) to see a supposedly good game. People told me to get over it... that "resting" players was all part of the modern game... that footy is a marathon, not a sprint and Freo did the right thing by resting it's players. Personally, I thought they should've been fined for bringing the game into disrepute. I still think what they did was a disgrace. I would be gutted if Hawthorn rested their entire team and threw a match.

Geelong and St Kilda pulled a similar stunt in 2009 after their energy-sapping match of the year in round 14. The Cats rested half their team and lost by 7 goals up in Brisbane. A few weeks later, the Saints rested half their team against an injury-depleted Hawthorn, but were still too good (or the Hawks were terrible)

So, in short, tanking is when a bottom-placed team does exactly the same thing as a top team, but only the bottom teams get singled out because people get their panties in a twist over the draft picks.

Question: if hawthorn did it, and then won a final two weeks later would you be so upset with it?

And secondly, it's not tanking, unless they made a conscious effort to lose. They rested players and on game day still attempted to win, where as teams on the bottom rest players, in addition to playing players out of position, in order to lose...

There is a difference. Unless your suggesting that the tactics from 2:10-5:30 in round 21 last year, were for mark harvey to lose on purpose.

I believe he rested the players (smartly) and still went to tassie with the attitude that he wanted to win, with the cattle he had.


The same applies for st kilda and geelong in 09. They rested players and still tried to win.

Tanking and resting players should be separated. Tanking is trying to lose, on game day.