Geelong Win Hypothetical

[Sir Why You Little 37,241]

For all that is written on this site on the topic, you still cant get it right.

Teams that have won premierships in the past decade have done so when having at least 2 stars or more. If MFC is going to be successful and challenge for a flag it needs to develop stars. It does not have any. We have the opportunity to access the best young talent in the country for the first time in 12 years and who is highly rated and decorated and has evey opportunity ot not only be a star but also to be probably the bext thing to hit our midfield in at least 20 years.

MFC needs to take every opportunity to add further talent to the list of young players we have. Drafting in the future with GC and WS coming means there is not going to be another opportunity to readily accessthe best young talent in the country.

And rpfc is right. MFC has had the rack in the cue since end of 2007. We should not deviate from the further development of our talent pool.

I would have thought Hawthorn, Geelong and St Kilda this year might have provided a worthy test case.

FWIW, I think Carlton are not there with Judd and Kruezer. Outside their top 6 they have too many on their list that are about as good CJ.

Great Post RR, trouble is this year there are too many teams trying to do the same thing. Way out before seasons end, & i don't think we are the 16th ranked side, the 2 W.A. sides will only win one more game between them (the Derby-coz they have too!)

Fascinating weeks ahead.

[Akum 2,660]

For all that is written on this site on the topic, you still cant get it right.

Teams that have won premierships in the past decade have done so when having at least 2 stars or more. If MFC is going to be successful and challenge for a flag it needs to develop stars. It does not have any. We have the opportunity to access the best young talent in the country for the first time in 12 years and who is highly rated and decorated and has evey opportunity ot not only be a star but also to be probably the bext thing to hit our midfield in at least 20 years.

MFC needs to take every opportunity to add further talent to the list of young players we have. Drafting in the future with GC and WS coming means there is not going to be another opportunity to readily accessthe best young talent in the country.

And rpfc is right. MFC has had the rack in the cue since end of 2007. We should not deviate from the further development of our talent pool.

I would have thought Hawthorn, Geelong and St Kilda this year might have provided a worthy test case.

FWIW, I think Carlton are not there with Judd and Kruezer. Outside their top 6 they have too many on their list that are about as good CJ.

Hey cool it. I'm not saying that Scully won't be a star & won't improve our team's performance. Of course he will, and I want him in a Dees jumper just as much. But you and others taking it much further than that, you're arguing that Scully is our only chance of a premiership and anyone who doesn't advocate tanking or list management or whatever you like to call it is in effect depriving MFC of a certain premiership and doesn't "burn for a premiership" as much. Hence the put-downs of everybody who doesn't see things the same way.

All I'm saying is that I don't buy the proposal that the only way to a premiership is to get Scully, and the only way to get Scully is to deliberately sabotage our on-field performance by whatever means (I'll use the word "tank", for shorthand). I don't have the conviction that some do that there is no way we can get a premiership without Scully, and we will probably get Scully anyway without having to "tank" to do it.

Likewise, of course Kreuzer & Judd have improved Carlton, but that's not the argument. The argument goes: "tanking" = Scully = premiership because look what Carlton's "tanking" has done for them! Well, I don't buy that either, because the fact is that no team has yet "tanked" their way to a premiership. And I agree with you about Carlton - I can't see how Judd & Kreuzer could play that much better than they have this year to make the difference between battling-to-stay-in-the-8 and premiership - if they do get a premiership, the upside on top of their current performance will need to come from elsewhere. Which weakens even further the argument that the only way to a premiership is to "tank". Yes, "tanking" may bring you better players, but to hold it up as being the way a premiership is very flimsy when you look more into it.

I'm not denying that some recent premiers (though not all) have had high draft picks in their side - Hawthorn yes, Geelong ... well, no, not as much, and St Kilda haven't yet won a premiership though their high draft picks have undoubtedly brought them closer to it. But the argument isn't about getting high draft picks - it's about getting high draft picks by "tanking" . Nobody is advocating that we don't need high draft picks.

And of course we have to develop our younger players. We're playing for next year as we should be, but you develop young players by trying to get as good a performance out of them as possible. There's a huge difference between playing them to develop the side for next year, and playing them to "tank".

I'm also trying to point out how easily the argument slips between "How can you possibly deny that Scully will improve our performance?" to "If you don't want us to 'tank' to get Scully, you simply don't care about whether we get a premiership". There's a chasm between these two statements.

[Hannabal 4]

Hey cool it. I'm not saying that Scully won't be a star & won't improve our team's performance. Of course he will, and I want him in a Dees jumper just as much. But you and others taking it much further than that, you're arguing that Scully is our only chance of a premiership and anyone who doesn't advocate tanking or list management or whatever you like to call it is in effect depriving MFC of a certain premiership and doesn't "burn for a premiership" as much. Hence the put-downs of everybody who doesn't see things the same way.

All I'm saying is that I don't buy the proposal that the only way to a premiership is to get Scully, and the only way to get Scully is to deliberately sabotage our on-field performance by whatever means (I'll use the word "tank", for shorthand). I don't have the conviction that some do that there is no way we can get a premiership without Scully, and we will probably get Scully anyway without having to "tank" to do it.

Likewise, of course Kreuzer & Judd have improved Carlton, but that's not the argument. The argument goes: "tanking" = Scully = premiership because look what Carlton's "tanking" has done for them! Well, I don't buy that either, because the fact is that no team has yet "tanked" their way to a premiership. And I agree with you about Carlton - I can't see how Judd & Kreuzer could play that much better than they have this year to make the difference between battling-to-stay-in-the-8 and premiership - if they do get a premiership, the upside on top of their current performance will need to come from elsewhere. Which weakens even further the argument that the only way to a premiership is to "tank". Yes, "tanking" may bring you better players, but to hold it up as being the way a premiership is very flimsy when you look more into it.

I'm not denying that some recent premiers (though not all) have had high draft picks in their side - Hawthorn yes, Geelong ... well, no, not as much, and St Kilda haven't yet won a premiership though their high draft picks have undoubtedly brought them closer to it. But the argument isn't about getting high draft picks - it's about getting high draft picks by "tanking" . Nobody is advocating that we don't need high draft picks.

And of course we have to develop our younger players. We're playing for next year as we should be, but you develop young players by trying to get as good a performance out of them as possible. There's a huge difference between playing them to develop the side for next year, and playing them to "tank".

I'm also trying to point out how easily the argument slips between "How can you possibly deny that Scully will improve our performance?" to "If you don't want us to 'tank' to get Scully, you simply don't care about whether we get a premiership". There's a chasm between these two statements.

Nice post and I understand the moral highground.

I'll give you a Geoffrey Robertson hypothetical:

"It's round 19, Akum, and the Dees are 3 and 15. One thinks that the Dees will beat Freo at the MCG in round 20 and you're pretty sure that rounds 21 and 22 will produce losses against Carlton and St. Kilda respectively. This will leave the Dees on 4 wins. With round 19 in mind, do you do anything from the coach's box, or during the week, to ensure that you may lose one more game ? Of course you don't tell the players to do anything other than give 100%, and you ask them to do everything in their power to constitute a win, but would you as coach, or as a supporter, do anything that may effect the result that week ? It may be a decision at the selection table, or a move/rotation during the game."

Here's the crux, Akum. You genuinely believe that this player and an extra top 4 pick will make a huge difference to the club's chances in challenging for a flag in 5-7 years. You have to weigh this up against the possibilty of one more win while at the bottom reaches of the ladder.

Do you try all out for 1 or 2 extra wins, or 'list manage' with an eye to the future ?

What's your decision bearing in mind those exact perameters ?

[old55 23,800]

anyone who doesn't advocate tanking or list management or whatever you like to call it is in effect depriving MFC of a certain premiership

No-one has said Scully = certain premiership and you do your argument a disservice by making this incorrect claim.

I have said that no Scully = no premiership because we are severely disadvantaged and need to take every chance we have.

There's a big difference between these predictions.

We've got almost no chance of winning a flag, if we take every advantage and opportunity offered to us we may just pull off a miracle.

[Left Field 313]

No-one has said Scully = certain premiership and you do your argument a disservice by making this incorrect claim.

I have said that no Scully = no premiership because we are severely disadvantaged and need to take every chance we have.

There's a big difference between these predictions.

We've got almost no chance of winning a flag, if we take every advantage and opportunity offered to us we may just pull off a miracle.

Damned if we don't.

[rpfc 28,843]

No-one has said Scully = certain premiership and you do your argument a disservice by making this incorrect claim.

I have said that no Scully = no premiership because we are severely disadvantaged and need to take every chance we have.

There's a big difference between these predictions.

We've got almost no chance of winning a flag, if we take every advantage and opportunity offered to us we may just pull off a miracle.

Hey, everyone, Scully is a good player. It would be nice to see him play for the Demons.

But this isn't about Scully. it's about getting two players of high skill and potential.

And all we have to do is lose our 54th match since 2007 against St Kilda...

[Ryan Dee 140]

Hey, everyone, Scully is a good player. It would be nice to see him play for the Demons.

But this isn't about Scully. it's about getting two players of high skill and potential.

And all we have to do is lose our 54th match since 2007 against St Kilda...

niceee &.....true.

Pretty scary when you put it into a figure like that. I suppose when Geelong's stats would be the complete opposite we did okay today

[old55 23,800]

But this isn't about Scully. it's about getting two players of high skill and potential.

Yes it is about Scully because if we finish 14th with 5 wins we'll get one player with high skill and potential, if we finish 15th with 4 wins we'll get one player with high skill and potential and Scully. It may also mean the the difference between pick 5 and pick 3 but that's splitting hairs, the difference is NO Scully.

[45HG 1,559]

Rpfc I think I love you.