Agreed. There's no way we'll lose to either Freo or Richmond, then there's the Kangaroos, who we'll probably beat and we're a show against Sydney. It'll be interesting to see how we play against the Swannies, because we'll give it our all this week and it's highly unlikely we'll win, whereas if things stay the same as the last two weeks against Sydney, we'll probably beat them, because they're hopeless.

That said, the Eagles have put themselves in an extremely difficult position (thanks to a 10 minute burst from Nik Nat against the Hawks) and one which I don't think they can get out of, considering the teams they have to play. If Cox plays (and add Kerr to that), the Eagles will definitely win at least one more. Freo will probably beat the Eagles in the derby though, but the Eagles will probably pick up another somewhere along the line. At this stage, it looks like there won't be a priority pick. Furthermore, I'd expect Freo, the Eagles and us to all win at least 5 games. We all play each other, there has to be losers.

I can see Freo as our only real and probable win. There will be too many Toiges playing for their very existance to lets us beat them. And the Roos.. somewhere pride etc must kick in. They will want to taste as much blood as they can these remaining months. The caretakers have to show off their wares etc. we can yet squeze the PP..but possible we will forfeit pick 2 to 3

I posted this in another thread, but I am really interested in people's views, and I don't know which thread people will be reading...

I think this is where a lot of posters are butting heads: I only believe we should tank to this extent. Basically what you describe in point 2. Players don't know how to tank and should never be asked to compromise themselves.

Skills32 on D'ology is against tanking but I have gleaned that he is not against 'point 2' at all. Therefore, he is not against tanking at all.

For those who are still iffy on the subject - these are the tactics that the coaching staff will/should use to develop players, give opportunities, and plan for 2010.

- Sylvia might not be straight back in for the Tigers game, he may play a few penance games for Casey.

- Tom McNamara, Kyle Cheney, Jack Watts, Rohan Bail, Jordie McKenzie, Austin Wonaeamirri and Jake Spencer may get one or two games they don't deserve on form as a spur for the future (ala Jack Grimes' 1 game at the end of 2008).

- Valenti, Newton, Dunn, Batram, Johnson, Miller, and Buckley might see extended runs so that Bailey and the development coaches can make a judgement on their futures.

- Perrenially injured players - McLean, Moloney, Rivers, and Jamar - may be wrapped in cotton wool with an eye to 2010.

- Grimes may play RR, Petterd a wing, Bate a FF, Jurrah a HFF, Jetta a HBF, Morton a CHF, or Bennell a FP to develop different aspects of their game, and increase their base knowledge in various positions.

That is my idea of 'tanking,' I call it that because it is not trying to win a game and I think calling it 'list management,' like some people do, is being disengenuous.

Would those that oppose tanking, oppose the above measures in this losing year?

I hope the footy dept does these management things to achieve the best draftees possible.

To me 'tanking is when players participate onfield deliberately missing targets & shots @ goal, etc. Thats tanking.

List management is a subtle form designed off field that tries to quietly achieve a desired but maybe unpallateable outcome.

Probably no different than supermarkets trying to decieve shoppers with varying marketing strategies.

I hope the footy dept does these management things to achieve the best draftees possible.

To me 'tanking is when players participate onfield deliberately missing targets & shots @ goal, etc. Thats tanking.

List management is a subtle form designed off field that tries to quietly achieve a desired but maybe unpallateable outcome.

Probably no different than supermarkets trying to decieve shoppers with varying marketing strategies.

Players don't tank.

Whitnall missing [censored] easy goals in 2007 wasn't him tanking, he was that crap. Matthew Lappin retiring with a round to go, and TJ not being tagged was tanking.

Tanking is what I described, we are 6 losses away, and we should keep to the script.

Play the kids, protect the injured, and develop the kids.

actually...many schools of thought exist about Whitnall, but I hear you. A clever coach will place players in a way so as to maintain the challenge for them whilst removing the risk should they succeeed

This may be a naive question from someone that's only joined the board, but.....

Why do we have to have all these threads along this similar theme? I'm really reconsidering my participation on the board, because frankly I'm bored stupid by all this "we can't win games because we want draft picks" attitude being shoved down my throat.

For someone who's been a Melbourne supporter all my life, not to mention a member for 26 consecutive years since I was twelve years old, I'm really starting to understand why there are some Melbourne supporters at the games that annoy the crap out of me - they must be the ones posting their negative rubbish here.

I'll tell you what I'll be doing if Melbourne wins - cheer like mad and be proud of the red and the blue, like I've done all my life.

Exactly, I don't post that often either but the hijacking of the whole sight by the tanking brigade is becoming ridiculous. Another thread, started by Rojik of Antartic just wanted to celebrate the win against Port Scum, but we got the moaners and wingers in the guise of tacticians telling us how aweful the win was.

I have no problem with evaluating the pros and cons of tanking but could we keep it to dedicated threads. otherwise we could counter hijack the tanking brigade with a Pollyanna onslaught.

theres wins...and theres WINS some know the difference.. some dont. Battles v Wars ..call it what you will but in this game there is only really one day you want to win...its in September..everything else is somewhat irrelevant !!

With all due respect...

I'm not getting straight answers from 'non-tankers,' please tell me if you agree with the following management ideas in this losing year:

- Sylvia might not be straight back in for the Tigers game, he may play a few penance games for Casey.

- Tom McNamara, Kyle Cheney, Jack Watts, Rohan Bail, Jordie McKenzie, Austin Wonaeamirri and Jake Spencer may get one or two games they don't deserve on form as a spur for the future (ala Jack Grimes' 1 game at the end of 2008).

- Valenti, Newton, Dunn, Batram, Johnson, Miller, and Buckley might see extended runs so that Bailey and the development coaches can make a judgement on their futures.

- Perrenially injured players - McLean, Moloney, Rivers, and Jamar - may be wrapped in cotton wool with an eye to 2010.

- Grimes may play RR, Petterd a wing, Bate a FF, Jurrah a HFF, Jetta a HBF, Morton a CHF, or Bennell a FP to develop different aspects of their game, and increase their base knowledge in various positions.

Is this not the way to go? Strategically done, it will mean 6 more losses.

Please tell me why these actions are wrong?

reality is...theres only two games that inverse chess skills are required. We probably wont get across the line in the others anyway, but a decent effort is required..

reality is...theres only two games that inverse chess skills are required. We probably wont get across the line in the others anyway, but a decent effort is required..

You're talking about Richmond and NM.

Go young, and experiment, and you still win...

You blame the gods, your luck, and get on with it.

You also blame Port Power and their 'leaders'...

For those who are still iffy on the subject - these are the tactics that the coaching staff will/should use to develop players, give opportunities, and plan for 2010.

- Tom McNamara, Kyle Cheney, Jack Watts, Rohan Bail, Jordie McKenzie, Austin Wonaeamirri and Jake Spencer may get one or two games they don't deserve on form as a spur for the future (ala Jack Grimes' 1 game at the end of 2008).

- Valenti, Newton, Dunn, Batram, Johnson, Miller, and Buckley might see extended runs so that Bailey and the development coaches can make a judgement on their futures.

- Perrenially injured players - McLean, Moloney, Rivers, and Jamar - may be wrapped in cotton wool with an eye to 2010.

- Grimes may play RR, Petterd a wing, Bate a FF, Jurrah a HFF, Jetta a HBF, Morton a CHF, or Bennell a FP to develop different aspects of their game, and increase their base knowledge in various positions.

I agree that this is the most likely scenario. To address your point; I think it is a sort of tanking, but it's not entirely disingenuous to call it "list management" as well because it does, in fact, benefit the list in a very tangible sense (and not only because it helps shore up Scully and the PP). I know I'm stating the obvious a bit, and I'm probably repeating alot of what you already said, but:

- If we play the seven fringe players you mentioned for the last 7 games, there is a chance that one or two of them might show something, just like Warnock came out of nowhere last year to become a good defender. It's a longshot, but if just one of those players turns out to be capable of contributing in a premiership side, then that helps us more than, say, a win over Richmond.

- Players like Jurrah and Grimes will genuinely learn something from playing in different positions early in their career, and will hopefully be smarter, better-rounded players for it.

- Players like McLean, Sylvia and Moloney have had obvious injury woes, as you pointed out. Likewise, the 28+ year olds we plan to keep on our list need to be used judiciously in the hopes that they might still be around when we're hitting our straps. Theres nothing to gain by playing these guys at this point.

- By giving games to guys like Wonna and McKenzie, even if they struggle, we give them a taste of senior football and the message that patience and hard work will be rewarded.

Even if we did not stand to get the number one draft pick and a PP, I'd be in favor of managing the list with a view to 2010; the above benefits alone are worth more than a couple of wins this late in the year. The fact that we do stand to get the 1st and 3rd picks, obviously makes it a no-brainer.

Even if we did not stand to get the number one draft pick and a PP, I'd be in favor of managing the list with a view to 2010; the above benefits alone are worth more than a couple of wins this late in the year. The fact that we do stand to get the 1st and 3rd picks, obviously makes it a no-brainer.

I agree with you, of course.

I want those that disagree with this 'tanking' or 'disengenuous list management' or 'excessive list management' or whatever, to tell me why they don't want Bailey and CC to do the things we mentioned.

Why is it so abhorrent?

Please enlighten me.

Anyone...

BangkokDemon?

Kat?

MelbournePassion?

Donny williams no 25?

[censored]?

Pipefitter?

Rojik of the Arctic?

Jackie moon?

Akum?

S T?

Why are the above mentioned actions so abhorrent?

I can see Freo as our only real and probable win. There will be too many Toiges playing for their very existance to lets us beat them. And the Roos.. somewhere pride etc must kick in. They will want to taste as much blood as they can these remaining months. The caretakers have to show off their wares etc. we can yet squeze the PP..but possible we will forfeit pick 2 to 3

It totally depends on what the instructions are to the caretakers. If the instructions are get their club a high pick, then naturally the caretakers are going to tank. There are quite a few of our guys playing for their careers as well. I'm not necessarily one for going along with Herald Sun articles, but there was one today discussing the fact that there's no doubt 5 or 6 clubs will think about tanking over the last few rounds.

BangkokDemon?

Kat?

MelbournePassion?

Donny williams no 25?

[censored]?

Pipefitter?

Rojik of the Arctic?

Jackie moon?

Akum?

S T?

Why are the above mentioned actions so abhorrent?

Hey, hey! I'm a member of a gang

I can't speak for everybody but sure Bailey has all of these options available. He might do none, some or all of them. So what? That is between him and the club that pays his wage. His coaching career probably won't hinge on doing what I want but it sure as hell does on what the club wants. So what the club wants him to do he will do and we will all have to live with it.

But that is all beside the point. My point on this whole stupid debate that we have no control over is that I like seeing my team win. They win I'm happy, they lose I'm sad. The other camp has a different point of view. Fine with me. Enjoy every loss and dream your little dreamy dreams about Scully and co. JUST STOP RAMMING IT DOWN MY THROAT! I am sick of having to defend myself because I want the MFC to win games and I'm sick of logging in to share the joy of a good game only have all the pro-tankers all jump on me telling me that I am wrong, or naive, or I am somehow less of a supporter for enjoying it. It really sucks the oxygen out out the room when that happens. Can't you just accept that other people have different points of view and let it go at that?

Then why continue to fuel the debate with replies?

Hey, hey! I'm a member of a gang

I can't speak for everybody but sure Bailey has all of these options available. He might do none, some or all of them. So what? That is between him and the club that pays his wage. His coaching career probably won't hinge on doing what I want but it sure as hell does on what the club wants. So what the club wants him to do he will do and we will all have to live with it.

But that is all beside the point. My point on this whole stupid debate that we have no control over is that I like seeing my team win. They win I'm happy, they lose I'm sad. The other camp has a different point of view. Fine with me. Enjoy every loss and dream your little dreamy dreams about Scully and co. JUST STOP RAMMING IT DOWN MY THROAT! I am sick of having to defend myself because I want the MFC to win games and I'm sick of logging in to share the joy of a good game only have all the pro-tankers all jump on me telling me that I am wrong, or naive, or I am somehow less of a supporter for enjoying it. It really sucks the oxygen out out the room when that happens. Can't you just accept that other people have different points of view and let it go at that?

I would like to think that I am one of the more restrained posters on here, and I always try to back up opinion with argument.

With that said - I'm still waiting for someone to articulate why the above mentioned player development, giving of opportunities, and protection of players is so wrong.

We have ended careers early in the past couple of years with an eye to the future, we have played people before they were ready, we have giving opportunities to an enormous percentage of our list.

Was this 'tanking' for draft picks? Or building for the future?

If we continue in the next 7 weeks with the policy of the 'Bailey era,' is that 'tanking'? And is it abhorrent?

With all due respect...

I'm not getting straight answers from 'non-tankers,' please tell me if you agree with the following management ideas in this losing year:

- Sylvia might not be straight back in for the Tigers game, he may play a few penance games for Casey.Very hard to justify to fans--after some useless football he's played a bit better

- Tom McNamara, Kyle Cheney, Jack Watts, Rohan Bail, Jordie McKenzie, Austin Wonaeamirri and Jake Spencer may get one or two games they don't deserve on form as a spur for the future (ala Jack Grimes' 1 game at the end of 2008).

Several of the above are injured are they not?

- Valenti, Newton, Dunn, Batram, Johnson, Miller, and Buckley might see extended runs so that Bailey and the development coaches can make a judgement on their futures.

Several of this lot really can play, will play with all their might and resolve, and we won't lose much

- Perrenially injured players - McLean, Moloney, Rivers, and Jamar - may be wrapped in cotton wool with an eye to 2010.

How?Just announce we are tanking?Rivers needs as much football as possible, for his future. Jamar's just resumed

- Grimes may play RR, Petterd a wing, Bate a FF, Jurrah a HFF, Jetta a HBF, Morton a CHF, or Bennell a FP to develop different aspects of their game, and increase their base knowledge in various positions.

I agree these are sensible moves, indeed Bailey hinted at them in his interview on On the Couch, but I doubt we'd suffer much. For weeks I've been keen to see Bennell as a forward, would now like to see Jetta play on-ball a little. Morton is about the only player for whom a reasonable case could be advanced for a lengthy break--he does look buggered. But if you listen to him he'd be cut by it and it would increase the risk he'd want to move on. Our best 2008 recruit? Want to get him off-side?

Is this not the way to go? Strategically done, it will mean 6 more losses.

Please tell me why these actions are wrong?

Well, my view is that we could do much of what you propose and we'll still win a couple of matches and perhaps 3 or 4!

Please tell me why these actions are wrong?

Well, my view is that we could do much of what you propose and we'll still win a couple of matches and perhaps 3 or 4!

That isn't an answer.

If you condone them, and they bring us to 4 and 18 at the end of the year, is that 'tanking'?

Is it wrong? If it is, tell me why.

Should DB and CC use these techniques?

- Players like Jurrah and Grimes will genuinely learn something from playing in different positions early in their career, and will hopefully be smarter, better-rounded players for it.

- Players like McLean, Sylvia and Moloney have had obvious injury woes, as you pointed out. Likewise, the 28+ year olds we plan to keep on our list need to be used judiciously in the hopes that they might still be around when we're hitting our straps. Theres nothing to gain by playing these guys at this point.

Youngsters should get games full stop. Playing different positions is fine.

Personally I think players like Mclean, Sylvia, Moloney and Rivers should play out the year cause these players have rarely played out a season. IMO It'll be good for them and they'll gain confidence in their body that they can last the full season. Playing different positions is fine.

The only player I would send in for minor surgery is Davey.

Bruce and Green don't need to play it out either but as long as they don't play loose men down back in the last 7 weeks, meh.