TANK HEAVEN

[Demonland 71,802]

It's the week of the bye and our sometime resident expert on all things trivial, Randy M.M. Savage, blew into the country yesterday and delivered an outline of his master's thesis at one of our tertiary institutions. Just to prove what a waste of time most academic studies are, we bring you his work ...

TANK HEAVEN by Randy M.M. Savage

An idiots guide to tanking

Tanking in Australian football does not exist on an official level having been deemed a nonsense on several occasions by AFL el supremo Andrew Vlad Demetriou who believes that it goes against the grain of the sport, that it's un-Australian and as welcome here as swine flu.

The reality however, is that the dreaded pig disease is not only here but exists in profusion in this country and so, many believe is tanking.

Indeed, it has been claimed that several exponents of the art of tanking have been carrying it out underground for some time. Brett Ratten and his Carlton side of 2007 are cited as the most obvious example but the Doggies, who dropped a couple of handy players from their team for their last game in 2004 allegedly because they were retiring anyway, are said to have gotten away with it as well. There have also been several other less well documented instances in recent years.

If the practice does exist (and the academic world remains keenly divided on the issue) then, at the very least, it must legal because nobody at official level has declared it to be illegal. The great ancient philosophers would of course argue that if something didn't exist in the first place, then it could never be declared illegal anyway. Therefore, the entire topic is valid for open discussion and this paper has been prepared to provide guidelines for an understanding of the tanking phenomenon and the measurement of its effect in practical terms.

Tanking in team sports occurs when a team intentionally loses a game to obtain a perceived future competitive advantage. In the context of the AFL, a club is best understood to be engaging in tanking when it seeks to gain a priority draft selection available for clubs which finish the season with no more than 16 premiership points. If a club achieves this for two years in a row (as Carlton did in 2006-7) the priority pick comes at the beginning of the first round of the draft. If it's a one off occurrence, it comes at the start of round two.

The significance of the Carlton tank of 2007 is that it achieved what is known as the "grand slam" of tanking – the spectacular feat of winning four games in the first half of the season and then losing all 11 in the second half to gain a first round priority pick. The Blues therefore established a benchmark for tanking and the beauty of their effort was that they did so without Vlad even raising one of his abundant eyebrows – an achievement which effectively took the heat off any club or coach that decided to practice the art of tanking. In effect, it now had the AFL's unofficial imprimatur.

Tanking has developed a greater importance in 2009 because of changes to the AFL draft rules in advance of the introduction of two new clubs from the Gold Coast and West Sydney regions which will give them the pick of the new players to be recruited in the coming few years.

I have established a guide to measuring the tank and I set out below the table entitled "Tankometer^TM 2009, Mark I".

The Tankometer^TM commences operation officially at the halfway mark of the AFL season and currently, there are five clubs left in the race for priority draft picks although, only West Coast and Melbourne are eligible for selections at the beginning of the first round. This is an important factor in understanding the contextual realities inherent in the operation of the Tankometer^TM 2009, Mark I.

North Melbourne is included in the Tankometer^TM at this stage because, with only 4 wins to date and the Shinboner spirit rapidly ebbing away, it remains a mathematical possibility of finishing with the requisite number of premiership points to merit a priority draft selection at the end of the year. The Kangaroos would have to lose all games to emulate the Blues of 2007 and even if they do, it will only be regarded as a "slam" and not a "grand slam" because the reward will be an early second round priority pick (although there's also a remote possibility that they could somehow also manage to snaffle a wooden spoon and possible first pick in what would truly be an unlikely and miraculous scenario for the Roos).

Both Western Australian teams are included and that of course gives added significance to the Derby in Round 17 when one of the teams will come perilously close to tanking extinction (although a win to either side in the interim would change that equation). With an extra first round pick at stake, I expect the wily Eagle coach John Worsfold to have the edge over Mark Harvey but the game will definitely be one of the significant games on the Tankometer^TM table.

Melbourne and Richmond are the poorest performed teams in the competition and a strong technical argument could be mounted to suggest that they could not possibly be accused of tanking because they're simply not good enough to win five games anyway. Only time will tell on that score.

So here is Tankometer^TM 2009, Mark I with games between Tankometer^TM teams being marked in red. The first of these is the Round 12 game between Richmond and West Coast at Etihad Stadium. The game might at least give debutant Tiger coach Jade Rawlings good cause to believe that "it's better to be dead than red!"

TANKOMETER^TM 2009, MARK I

NORTH MELBOURNE (16) ADELAIDE (AAMI) WESTERN BULLDOGS (MCG) SYDNEY SWANS (SCG) HAWTHORN (AURORA) RICHMOND (MCG) BRISBANE (GABBA) CARLTON (ETIHAD) MELBOURNE (ETIHAD) WEST COAST (SUBIACO) ST KILDA (ETIHAD) PORT ADELAIDE (AAMI)

WEST COAST (12) RICHMOND (ETIHAD) HAWTHORN (SUBIACO) MELBOURNE (MCG) ST KILDA (SUBIACO) PORT ADELAIDE (AAMI) FREMANTLE (SUBIACO) ESSENDON (SUBIACO) WESTERN BULLDOGS (ETIHAD) NORTH MELBOURNE (SUBIACO) ADELAIDE (AAMI) RICHMOND (SUBIACO)

FREMANTLE (12) GEELONG (SUBIACO) COLLINGWOOD (MCG) CARLTON (SUBIACO) ADELAIDE (AAMI) BRISBANE (SUBIACO) WEST COAST (SUBIACO) WESTERN BULLDOGS (ETIHAD) PORT ADELAIDE (SUBIACO) MELBOURNE (MCG) ESSENDON (SUBIACO) GEELONG (SKILLED)

RICHMOND (8) WEST COAST (ETIHAD) ST KILDA (ETIHAD) ADELAIDE (CARRARA) CARLTON (MCG) NORTH MELBOURNE (MCG) ESSENDON (MCG) MELBOURNE (MCG) SYDNEY SWANS (MCG) COLLINGWOOD (MCG) HAWTHORN (MCG) WEST COAST (SUBIACO)

MELBOURNE (4) ESSENDON (ETIHAD) BRISBANE (GABBA) WEST COAST (MCG) PORT ADELAIDE (MCG) GEELONG (SKILLED) SYDNEY (MANUKA) RICHMOND (MCG) NORTH MELBOURNE (ETIHAD) FREMANTLE (MCG) CARLTON (ETIHAD) ST. KILDA (MCG)

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of DEMONLAND. In fact, we believe that the club will win every remaining game and play a major role in the 2009 final series.

[Spirit of the Demon 249]

The Dockers' fixture looks a bit shabby. Reckon they might struggle to win 5.

[rusty_kingswood 0]

What a magnificent read. Well done.

I wonder if something will ever be changed with the current draft situation once free agency comes in 2012(??)

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

That's a brilliant article, Randy. It sums the whole situation up so succinctly.

The AFL should never have let this situation arise. The Round 22 WCE v. Rich game could eclipse rnd. 22 ,2007 as the silliest game in AFL/VFL history.(actually the 2007 game wasn't as silly as it should have been, due to our naivete.)

We might have two teams thoroughly (and logically),committed to losing ,playing each other. And it's the AFL's fault. This possibility was predicted by posters on this site early in 2007(and probably before).

It's our last chance to reap the rewards of an ill-conceived system. Let's not be naive again!

[Tony Tea 2,806]

Last year on Footy Classified, just after he was appointed president, Jim Stynes said something that has nagged at me ever since. When asked about the notorious 2007, Round 22 match, Jimmy said something like: "We weren't allowed to lose."

Does that ring any bells, or send up any flares, for anyone?

[H_T 3,043]

Richmond has defeated West Coast and are now equal with West Coast on 12 points. 2 games and percentage clear of last years wooden spooners, Melbourne.

West Coast played awful in the first quarter, quite extarordinary really. <_<

[e25 5]

Last year on Footy Classified, just after he was appointed president, Jim Stynes said something that has nagged at me ever since. When asked about the notorious 2007, Round 22 match, Jimmy said something like: "We weren't allowed to lose."

Does that ring any bells, or send up any flares, for anyone?

No idea what you're talking about, but an exact quote would be nice rather than a half-memory.

Even the quote you have stated could be interpreted in a couple of different ways without some context.

Did he actually say 'allowed'?

Define 'allowed' in this context?

Who was it that did not allow us? The MFC board? Carlton? Mark Riley? ..?

Too many question marks.

[Toad33 57]

That's a brilliant article, Randy. It sums the whole situation up so succinctly.

The AFL should never have let this situation arise. The Round 22 WCE v. Rich game could eclipse rnd. 22 ,2007 as the silliest game in AFL/VFL history.(actually the 2007 game wasn't as silly as it should have been, due to our naivete.)

We might have two teams thoroughly (and logically),committed to losing ,playing each other. And it's the AFL's fault. This possibility was predicted by posters on this site early in 2007(and probably before).

It's our last chance to reap the rewards of an ill-conceived system. Let's not be naive again!

From here on in this season I will no longer refer to MFC losing games in dubiuos fashion as tanking, nor should any other Melbourne supporter.

We should instead refer to it as 'working to aquire compensation for an AFL sanctioned football landscape designed to make MFC success, and respect, all but impossible'.

It wouldn't take Einstein long to work out the uneven playing field we are trying to compete on; just look at the fixture.

So, manipulating the draft is the ONLY aspect of football left that the MFC can do freely without the AFL or other clubs having any say in.......at the moment.

Go Dees - Building for the Future.

P.S. By the way Randy you forgot to mention Colli$%$^ sending senior players off to surgery early a couple of years ago. As expected Eddie made sure no one raised an eyebrow.

[SidVicious 130]

Melbourne v West Coast at the MCG in a few week's time should sort out a few issues. The Eagles don't win away from home and last year they didn't even put up a pretence of trying. If they repeat the performance this year we'll know the reason why!

[Sir Why You Little 37,010]

Magnificently Crafted Read. Well Done & Thank you.

So well Written that the Clowns inside the AFL would not understand the irony in your words. I hope this piece is kept somewhere sacred for Future Reference

[Guest hangon007]

Last year on Footy Classified, just after he was appointed president, Jim Stynes said something that has nagged at me ever since. When asked about the notorious 2007, Round 22 match, Jimmy said something like: "We weren't allowed to lose."

Does that ring any bells, or send up any flares, for anyone?

Yeah ... why would you think it would be any other way. Its 2009 "Money talks" ... if you think its any other way your living in another era.

We all have a master and when the master controls the "air you breath "the "food on your table" ... deal with it or die.

[old55 23,493]

We're disadvantaged in every way - fixture, facilities, FD staff budget, salary cap (Judd/Visy) - the list goes on. To win a flag we need EVERYTHING to go right. The one area we can steal an advantage is thru the priority pick - we must secure it - we wont win a flag in my lifetime if we don't. New teams, free agency and all sorts of other horrors unimagined are going to push us further away as time goes on. As things currently sit the ability to get the PP is entirely in our hands.

WC could not be tanking harder, Worsfold has stitched up a 3 year contract extension and stated on radio a couple of weeks ago that he is looking to turn his list around in 4-5 years after their last flag. You can bet your house on WC having a PP this year. We have to finish below them.

Looking at the Tankometer this is how I think it should pan out:

North 28pts wins: Richmond, MFC, WC (the wild card with North is what happens with Laidley's contract renewal)

West Coast 16pts wins: Richmond

Richmond 16pts wins: MFC

Freo 16pts wins: WC

MFC 12pts wins: WC, Freo

MFC and WC will go into round 22 with 3 wins but MFC's % will be inferior guaranteeing bottom position. Richmond will already have 4 wins and will have a greater incentive to lose than WC.

[Axis of Bob 11,773]

The Roos aren't looking flash at the moment, however their single most important player is about to return after the break - Brent Harvey. He is very important to them being able to break lines and kick goals. They have sucked since he went down, but they should return to being a mediocre team with his inclusion. Mediocre should be good enough for them to beat West Coast, Richmond and us.

[old55 23,493]

The Roos aren't looking flash at the moment, however their single most important player is about to return after the break - Brent Harvey. He is very important to them being able to break lines and kick goals. They have sucked since he went down, but they should return to being a mediocre team with his inclusion. Mediocre should be good enough for them to beat West Coast, Richmond and us.

Things can change quickly!

Dunno how to read the Laidley sacking - they may be joining the tankathon before it's too late

The AFL says it doesn't happen

Clubs pretend it doesn't

But we know it does

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

We're disadvantaged in every way - fixture, facilities, FD staff budget, salary cap (Judd/Visy) - the list goes on. To win a flag we need EVERYTHING to go right. The one area we can steal an advantage is thru the priority pick - we must secure it - we wont win a flag in my lifetime if we don't. New teams, free agency and all sorts of other horrors unimagined are going to push us further away as time goes on. As things currently sit the ability to get the PP is entirely in our hands.

WC could not be tanking harder, Worsfold has stitched up a 3 year contract extension and stated on radio a couple of weeks ago that he is looking to turn his list around in 4-5 years after their last flag. You can bet your house on WC having a PP this year. We have to finish below them.

Absolutely. I was not aware Woosher is in for 3 more years. There is no way they will miss on a PP.

Heads should roll if we dont secure the first PP as well.

We are already so far behind the 8 ball as you point that we must take advantage of the rules where we can.

[Its Miller time 6]

I thought west coast would have to win at least 2 more with 3 winnable home games but apparantly Priddis was wrapped with there game agianst the Tigers, as they never gave up. I wouldn't count on them winning any more or there percentage being better than ours come seasons end.

[Guest]

Port just got more beatable! http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...35-2722,00.html

Melbourne, West Coast and Freo all play them in the next 8 weeks.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

You don't think Melbourne can beat Port at the G? I think they can, and will.

But I think you should rub the Demons off the tanking list. Yes, it's an argument that we won't be good enough to win any of these games, but we have any easy run home you think that we would win 3 games AT LEAST.