We will win five games

[Pello 1]

The current priority pick rules have been in place since 2006. Since 2006 the teams that have had wins "just over" the required 4 wins have been:

2006 - Nth Melb (7 wins)

2007 - Melb (5 wins)

2008 - Freo (6 wins)

Prior to 2006 a team needed less than 5 1/2 wins to gain a priority pick before the first round. Teams that have had wins "just over" that required threshold have been:

2005 - Essendon 8 (Collingwood/Hawthorn both had 5 wins that year)

2004 - Collingwood 8 (WB 5, Haw/Rich 4)

2003 - Richmond 7 (Melb 5, Carl 4, WB 3)

2002 - Richmond 7 (StK 5, Carl 3)

2001 - NM & Geel 9 (WCE 5, Stk 4, Freo 2)

2000 - WCE, Port Adel, Coll 7, (Stk 2)

My point here is that Melbourne in 2007 just missed out on the 4 wins and the priority whilst other clubs have cleverly managed their wins. Although you could argue Freo were a little dumb in some of their late season wins last year. That could have been a symptom of where the coach was at anyway.

In the years 2000 - 2005 all the teams had wins well over the required 5 wins and that probably meant that they thought they were a chance to make the finals at some stage.

To me the stats are a strong indicator that all clubs have tanked in one form or another to get priority picks. Aside from Melb in 2007 no club has got wins "just over" the required threshold to miss out on a priority pick. That's more than a coincidence to me.

I would hate to see the MFC deliberately lose a game and yet I wanted them to lose that Carlton game R22 2007. I didn't go to that game simply because, I am ashamed to say, that I wanted Carlton to win and I couldn't bear to watch it.

I agree with others that lets put a team on the park that are hard at it and geniuinely want to win. But lets rest key players, send them to rehab or whatever so we do not win more than 4 games. I want to barrack hard and support the players that are playing and hope they put in a geniuine contest - but like others a competitive loss will be fine!

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

I'll move to either Greenland or Iceland and take up .............. whatever it is they do over there...

We hunt seals and spend a lot of time shivering.

We simply are not good enough at the moment. We have no forward line, our mids are struggling to create space and the experienced players turn the ball over far too many times a game. I wish we were good enough to win 5 but I just don't think we have it in us at the moment.

[JACKATTACK 17]

I watched the West Coast game last week and I saw:

- Tyson Stenglein at full back -- and persisted with, despite getting a genuine spanking by Morton

- Mark LeCras on the ball

- Adam Selwood at full forward

Fair suck of the sav, if that isn't tanking then it's the worst match day coaching you will ever see.

Tanking as such is a pretty easy game, just make sure your match winners are out of the way when the game is up for grabs. It's not about "not trying", it's just making sure your best isn't quite good enough. That means playing players out of position, resting key players at key times, etc. West Coast really have mastered it. We need to be able to do it too. Like others have said, if we win more than 4 this year it'll be a complete waste.

Based on all of that, I predict long periods of bench time for Aaron Davey, particularly through third quarters, for the rest of the year.

My preffered method of tanking would be to train the players too hard during season. On one of the thousand or so footy related talk shows around I heard Tom Harley talk about how mid-week training isn't about ball-busting, spew inducing training. Which got me thinking that training too hard would 1: result in a loss more often than not and 2: fasttrack player's fitness and strength for the season we actually want to win. It is the equivelant of altitude training.

I'm hoping Bailey came up with this idea some time ago (maybe in a powerpoint )and that is why we are losing.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

who cares about west coast though. sure it would be great to have pick 1 and 2. but i would still be over the fricken moon if we got pick 1 and 3, or 2 and 4. lets not get selfish now. 2 picks in the top 5 would be awesome, scully or no scully

Why shouldn't we be selfish about getting our hands on the best talent available in the draft?

We are a poor club with no faciilities, no finances, few supporters, no substantial media exposure with few sponsor.

FFS we have to make ever post a winner.

We are on the bottom of ladder, 2 games and % clear. We are in the box seats to choose the best two talents around.

From all reports Scully is an absolute stand out player in the draft. A gun midfielder that we desperately need. We also need to ensure that the next pick is available to us to make the access the next best talent. We need to control proceedings.

The last time we had two picks in the top 5 was 2003. Sylvia is only starting to show something in his sixth year and McLean is just treading water. How I would love to have had an Adam Cooney and back that with a Sylvia as the next pick. That alone should be enough to highlight the importance.

Getting picks two and four implies that WCE finish below us and also sets us further back on later picks. When we play WCE we should be ensuring that WCE win and hopefully end up with more than 5 wins to lose the PP.

The strategy required to be implemented for the rest of the season by MFC is critical and clearly the importance of it is beyond you.

And for someone who highlights that Newton has "no flaws" and that you are ambivalent to get the best shot at getting a midfield star we so desperate highlights the dunce cap is firmly fixed to your head.

[Dannyz 2,682]

Simple fact: We dont need to tank.

[Roost It 1,434]

Their is a lot of talk about priority picks.

I believe we will win 5 games because we play West Coast, Port Adelaide, Richmond, Fremantle at the MCG and North at Etihad.

Obviously I will be disappointed if we miss out on pick two but look at it realistically. We have had a reasonable run with injuries in that most of our better players are available. After one and half years under Bailey we should be playing better.

How many games does everyone think we will win?

Richmond will beat us, as will North. Port probably will too, so don't worry. Picks 1 and 2/3 are wrapped up

[rpfc 28,261]

I just don't want to be on 5 and 17 at the end of the year.

Go 3 and 8 from here or, god forbid, 5 and 6. Just don't lose the PP by a game.

That would be Frustration Station, Platform 1.

[Grand New Flag 3,227]

Best Method of Tanking:

Put Newton in the team.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I just don't want to be on 5 and 17 at the end of the year.

Go 3 and 8 from here or, god forbid, 5 and 6. Just don't lose the PP by a game.

That would be Frustration Station, Platform 1.

To be safe we want to be no more than 2 and 9 to ensure PP1 = Scully.

[Roost It 1,434]

The best way to do this is stuff around with the team and positions , train the squad hard during the week and lose every game until the final 3 weeks. Then put the best available on the park, all in the right positions, back off on the training and see if we can't win the last 3 games. Send us off into the preseason with a touch of opptimism as well as picks 1 and 2, Boom shanka.

And yes, the club is tanking and no we won't win more than 4, guaranteed, put your house on it.

[deanox 9,897]

Perhaps, but he is into developing the list for the future. Now you may say tomato to my tomatoe but there is such a fine line seperating the two and on many occasions the two overlap

i think you mean tomayto and tomarto...

[dreamin' man 0]

I predict long periods of bench time for Aaron Davey, particularly through third quarters, for the rest of the year.

This is where the list management argument loses me. Davey is such a wonderful player, so good to watch & having a good year but could be deprived of game time while he's in form; deprived of possible wins, Brownlow votes for a strategy that might or might not work. If we "manage" the season aren't we blighting the careers of some blokes who aren't the worst (I'm thinking of Brad Green, too)? Why wouldn't Davey want to go to Essendon where wins are easier to come by?

& I'd rather the kids got wins as reward for effort & so they bond & want to stay at the club. Hate it when players get snappy at each other when the opposition get a goal.

I also think we can't win more than four so no management is required.

[Its Miller time 6]

A winning culture is absolute rubbish. Look at how much Hawthorn's winning culture is helping it this year.

It is all about confidence. Confidence in yourself and your team mates around you. Hawthorn had that confidence last year and took it all the way. We had it in 2000 and fell one game short.

Im sure all the players will have a lot more confidence in the next couple of years with the 2 best rated talents of 2009 around them than they would with winning a few more games this year. Its obvious the winning culture we started to develop late 2007 by beating the bulldogs and carltank isnt helping.

IF we win 5 games this year ill tear up my membership and run to the tigers so i can at least expect stupidity for my trouble.

[stevenDEMON 0]

The best way to do this is stuff around with the team and positions , train the squad hard during the week and lose every game until the final 3 weeks. Then put the best available on the park, all in the right positions, back off on the training and see if we can't win the last 3 games. Send us off into the preseason with a touch of opptimism as well as picks 1 and 2, Boom shanka.

And yes, the club is tanking and no we won't win more than 4, guaranteed, put your house on it.

This would be the best way to go about it. But please tell me how you are so sure we are tanking.

[Arthur Dent 2]

I think people take a very idealistic view of what goes on within the club. To suggest that they are tanking at this point of the season just doesnt make sense. They are simply not good enough to be winning games.

Firstly, Dean Bailey does not have the luxury of tanking. If he wants a career as an AFL coach he needs to win games, and so is busting his gut to do so.

Secondly, with the exception of a couple of jusy a few senior guys, the players are desperately trying to build and consoliate careers. Most guys just want to play well so that they ensure they are in the team ahead of guys competing for the same spots. Most can not afford to play deliberately below their best, and still have AFL careers in 2 years time.

Teams might tank in the last round if they are in a position, but not for half a season or more - it just doesnt add up.

[hillie 41]

2 and a half years of pain...what's another 11 games?

[Roost It 1,434]

This would be the best way to go about it. But please tell me how you are so sure we are tanking.

Sorry, meant to say the club will be tanking if and when it's needed. Currently we're just not playing to win. I know their's a difference I'm just not sure how to put it in words!

[titan_uranus 24,971]

Sorry, meant to say the club will be tanking if and when it's needed. Currently we're just not playing to win. I know their's a difference I'm just not sure how to put it in words!

Yes we are. Currently we suck. But I defy anyone who thinks we went out there on QB with the intention of not playing to win.

It doesn't matter if we choose to tank or not. If we aimed to win the last 11 games we still wouldn't win more than 3 of them. We just aren't very good.

This year's drafting order will depend mainly on whether West Coast gets past the 4.5 win mark, because you can lock in Melbourne to finish 16th with 3 or 4 wins.

[Roost It 1,434]

Yes we are. Currently we suck. But I defy anyone who thinks we went out there on QB with the intention of not playing to win.

It doesn't matter if we choose to tank or not. If we aimed to win the last 11 games we still wouldn't win more than 3 of them. We just aren't very good.

This year's drafting order will depend mainly on whether West Coast gets past the 4.5 win mark, because you can lock in Melbourne to finish 16th with 3 or 4 wins.

Thanks for agreeing with me

[Arthur Dent 2]

If we win 5 matches Bailey should be sacked.

And if we miss out on Scully I reckon I'll just about be over footy.

This post has made my day. He really can't win can he!! Win no games - SACK 'IM, win 5 or more games - SACK 'IM!

[titan_uranus 24,971]

Thanks for agreeing with me

That's not what you said. You said we weren't trying to win (or at least that's how your post reads). I don't agree with that.

[Roost It 1,434]

That's not what you said. You said we weren't trying to win (or at least that's how your post reads). I don't agree with that.

I was only mucking around, no insult intended. My point is that the club as a whole has no intention of winning more than 4 games. We can call it what we want but that is the objective. Effort is still required from everyone but winning is not the focus. We are trying to teach kids and develop[ strategies and skills and fitness for the years ahead. I call it tanking but their are other names for it

[Je Roos Salem 661]

I reckon that we are good enough to win five games- as I have said before we can easily win 4-5 games for the rest of the season. The reality could be that we don't win 5, however. But I think there is some over-reacting going on, about sacking Dean Bailey and the whole footy department. It's not a very big deal in many ways.

[Jarka 767]

i think you mean tomayto and tomarto...

Absolutelee, mi fonetik spelling is atroshis

[donny williams no 25 0]

I was only mucking around, no insult intended. My point is that the club as a whole has no intention of winning more than 4 games. We can call it what we want but that is the objective. Effort is still required from everyone but winning is not the focus. We are trying to teach kids and develop[ strategies and skills and fitness for the years ahead. I call it tanking but their are other names for it

Yes well you and the many others who agree with you, give me the bloody tom [censored]!

The suggestion that players--any players --go onto the field hoping not to win, is repugnant. OF COURSE the players were hoping like hell to beat Collingwood. They will now evenly more desperately hope to beat the Dons. Perpetual losing is habit-forming and destructive, and potentially very good players may not show their true value.

People often refer to the last game of 2007 when Melbourne beat Carlton, and the suggestion that Carlton were keen to lose. Well perhaps the Carlton admin were but don't tell me that Lance Whitnall was tanking. He took about 15 marks and repeatedly just missed shots from 50 metres plus. Then his contract was terminated. Had he kicked 3/4 more goals, Carlton might have won and he would have kept his contract.

Reverting to Melbourne, if you wise guys are correct and many of our fellows are facing delisting, do you think that they are not trying to win? B-s! From every viewpoint we need a win.