All of this tanking talk i purely the media twisting the perception of any actions taken by bottom teams in an attempt to sell papers.

And they are exceeding.

Nothing has happened this season that hasn't happened for the last 20-30 years, even more.

If you are a bottom team you tweak, develop and experiment until you find a combination that works and wins games.

If the result of doing that is losing a game today but winning 3 tomorrow, then thats what you do.

exactly. the pp was brought in to help the bottom sides move back up the ladder. the system is working perfectly and has been for some time. our "problem" is that our core group of young players are developing quickly and are more than capable of challenging young players in teams who are also developing, experimenting and rebuilding. i personally see this as a sign the system is working and our young kids have bright futures ahead.

we've got some quality kids on our list who got belted last year by the older, more experienced players. put these kids up against young kids from other clubs and they're ahead. they've had more game time, more responsibilty and debateably more talent to build on. this is why games like those against tigers, eagles, swans and to a lesser extent port are heart in your mouth stuff. and why efforts like the first half against the saints, eagles at subi, the dogs game and 2nd half of the cats game are so exciting.

Will be interesting to hear Andy's response to tanking this week. Completely undeniable that Bailey did everything in his power to ensure we lost today, which is a disgusting situation for any professional sport (especially where gambling is involved).

This administration has put in place a system that rewards teams for losing games, and has created a situation where the vast majority of supporters would prefer it if their team lose.

The AFL's priority is money. They have managed this competition into a position where there are strong teams and weak teams, and where the short term gains from fixture manipulation might create a few extra thousand supporters through the turnstiles but where the small teams suffer through shithouse broadcast arrangements. How is it sustainable for the smaller teams to be financially disadvantaged every year by the fixture and the TV scheduling, only for them to be propped up by the CBF?

They are inventing two new teams that will have no supporters and that will be financed by the rest of the competition for the rest of their existence. This in turn will further dilute the talent pool across the competition.

Instead of focusing on short term financial targets (gate revenue, TV) the league should be focusing on improving the 'product'. The quality of the games. The finances, attendances and ratings will follow.

Sorry for the rambled thoughts, I guess my brain is currently functioning like that of a Richmond supporter.

u no voss should shut his pie hole no one cares about all of our sunday games and when we played brisbane 4 three years at home so we can surive malthouse also tanked with the thommos and there pritoy pick they lost 11 in a row we have one 6 out of our last 56 so all other AFL supporters should fuckoff and mind there own beeswax and make carlton give us kruzz to its all right 4 them 2 tank

u no voss should shut his pie hole no one cares about all of our sunday games and when we played brisbane 4 three years at home so we can surive malthouse also tanked with the thommos and there pritoy pick they lost 11 in a row we have one 6 out of our last 56 so all other AFL supporters should fuckoff and mind there own beeswax and make carlton give us kruzz to its all right 4 them 2 tank

I blew up halfway through reading the second line to this post. All whilst laughing.

Breathe!

Bit of Grammar, couple of full stops and comma's wouldn't go astray, would it topflight?

I think there are good reasons to believe that there is a legal minefield here for Vlad, and that his position on tanking comes from heavy legal advice.

If the AFL punished a club for tanking (or whatever term it would call it), it could never defend itself against the inevitable legal challenge that would follow. The club would be forced to argue that the punishment unfairly and illegally restricts their ability to run their business. The AFL would have to provide evidence that's a lot more solid than "everybody knows it's going on" or "Andy Maher & Patrick Smith agree" or "there's a media feeding frenzy about it". And solid evidence would be just impossible to come by, unless someone in the club was prepared to give evidence (Libba nearly did, didn't he?), because it's all based on perceptions and interpretations of events on & off the field. Not even that horde of sharp-as-a-beach-ball Hun journos could defend it in court.

If the AFL abolishes the PP system before the end of this season, as the media hounds are baying for now, us & Freo would sue the bags off them, because our clubs' businesses into the future have been predicated on the basis of the PP system. If the AFL abolishes it for next year, or the year after, GC17 or WS18 would go them for the same reason. Given that, as others have said, the "big" clubs favoured by journos have done very well in the past out of the PP system, so by what rationale should other clubs be now denied the chance to drink at the same trough? If we were to get punished this year, is it fair that Carltank got away with it?

And if Vlad gave even the slightest hint that he thought that there was tanking going on, again he would risk the AFL getting sued by a club (maybe even MFC), even if he didn't name the club, for stuffing up their business by trashing their reputation and chasing away sponsors etc. etc.

He's caught in an absolute legal bind, and his only option is to deny that tanking's occurring. Their only way out is probably going to be for all the clubs to get together at the end of this season to agree upon changes to be put in place for the draft after the GC & WS drafts (2013?).

FWIW, as someone implied earlier in this thread, the Dees in the last half were forced to play like teams of 20 or 30 years ago, with only 19 or 20 fit men, including 2 absolute passengers in PJ & Newton. He couldn't rest guys like Junior and Jones on the bench, there was no room, so he had to rest them on the field, like 20 years ago when the on-ballers would "rest" in the pockets or flanks - now that's "proof" of tanking because Junior was resting in the BP! PJ & Newton were utterly useless the whole game, so he had to hide them on the field too cos he couldn't interchange them. And how many goals did Riewoldt get while PJ was on him?

And in those days before the draft, clubs with no chance of making the finals would try out any number of ridiculous experiments to find ways of improving their team for next year. A favourite experiment in those years was FF to FB or FB to FF; this wasn't an unusual move at all during a game, if the team was getting nothing at all from their key forwards (Barry Lawrence was one who comes to mind). FCS, Voss did it himself before the game last weekend by putting Merrett to FF, he kicked the first goal and gave them a big physical presence; a brilliant move, but Bailey trying the same thing was "proof" of tanking!

Edited August 4, 200916 yr by Akum

I blew up halfway through reading the second line to this post. All whilst laughing.

Breathe!

Bit of Grammar, couple of full stops and comma's wouldn't go astray, would it topflight?

keep posting HT, you will be up to 10,000 by grandfinal day.

I think there are good reasons to believe that there is a legal minefield here for Vlad, and that his position on tanking comes from heavy legal advice.

...

...

Not to mention the implications for all forms of AFL betting...

You should.

WCE have won 9 games out of 40 with 16 p'ship players on there list and you think they have a winning culture. Brilliant.

Seen better cultures in year old milk.

Well Said RR Wet Coke with 16 Premiership players still, sniffing around for a PP over the last two years. This Club is a Disgrace

Winning Culture indeed, only when it suits them.... They can Rot Like Carlton. I want to BEAT THESE TEAMS IN SEPTEMBER.....INFLICT PAIN....

the afl will address these issues eventually u would think.

far more serious problem i think is the tribunal!

anyone see the decisions they made this week

Can't see how the AFL is a disgrace for wanting to make the competition more even by having priority picks.

This whole tanking debate is just a media beat up of monumental proportions.

Will be interesting to hear Andy's response to tanking this week. Completely undeniable that Bailey did everything in his power to ensure we lost today, which is a disgusting situation for any professional sport (especially where gambling is involved).

That's a pretty strong statement you have there!

Your saying the coach has thrown the game, that DB sat down and thought out a strategy to lose the game and put it into action.

It is a disgusting situation for any professional sport (if its true)

In regards to gambling I would have thought the bookmakers would have factored this in when calculating odds, especially as according to the media and the footy public that tanking happens in AFL.

Anyway it an interesting opinion.

I do agree Vlad and Co. are a disgrace especially in regards to the fixtures fiasco you mentioned.

One positive thing about the two new teams though is it might mean that teams like the Stink hopefully may have to travel interstate a few more time in a season.

AFL Boss backs Dees

Here we have it folks...undeeniable proof that not only does tanking exist but that the AFL all but condones it. Well it must do as thats the way the PP works and its the AFL's idea to have it...so it must be right.

"Completely undeniable that Bailey did everything in his power to ensure we lost today"

That's a pretty strong statement you have there!

Your saying the coach has thrown the game, that DB sat down and thought out a strategy to lose the game and put it into action.

What I should have said was: Completely undeniable that Bailey did not do everything in his power to ensure that we won today. Which is essentially the same thing from an ethical point of view.

This is not me having a go at Bailey, the club has been put into a position where it is preferable for its supporters to cheer for the opposition - this is a situation of the AFL's making and hopefully actions are taken to ensure it never happens again.

Edited August 4, 200916 yr by CarnTheDees

keep posting HT, you will be up to 10,000 by grandfinal day.

Stick to the thread JtR and stop posting tripe.

Back to thread.

When we look back on this game, opposition supporters (incl. media) will refer to it is a game in which Melbourne tanked. The fact of the matter is the players did not tank, the coaches did not tank. As has been reported and stated by the Melbournefc FD many times as far back as before the season, they were aware of where the list was at internally, and that with such a young list alot of experimentation was going to take place. Players in defence moving forward, forwards back, etc. To improve adaptability and look at improving our scoring options. We've seen the likes of Geelong and Hawthorn switch players back and forward to change matchups and unsettle the opposition. This in fact happened on the weekend and as a direct consequence nearly resulted in a much deserved win.

So if for some reason in the future if a Scully or whoever is carving it up for Melbournefc, and a mate or friend or opposition supporter at the footy (or in front of the tv) has a go at you that it was because of Melbourne "tanking" that we got Scully or whoever. You have the right to say back - that in fact we didn't tank that game - afterall we were in front when the siren went.

Tell them, "Blame the AFL or the umpire - (because we didn't tank)", who wasn't quick enough on the whistle on hearing the siren and awarded Jordan McMahon the shot at goal.

For those of you who think we cannot call Carlton tankers anymore because of this game, think again.

Edited August 4, 200916 yr by High Tower

I'm afraid this is the final straw in the tanking debate. Vlad will have to change his stance after this matchup, possibly the most comical in football history, is being publicly flaunted in the media:

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/ca...9350546846.html

When we look back on this game, opposition supporters (incl. media) will refer to it is a game in which Melbourne tanked. The fact of the matter is the players did not tank, the coaches did not tank. As has been reported and stated by the Melbournefc FD many times as far back as before the season, they were aware of where the list was at internally, and that with such a young list alot of experimentation was going to take place. Players in defence moving forward, forwards back, etc. To improve adaptability and look at improving our scoring options.

This is a fair assessment IF the 'experimentation' had been ongoing since our season became effectively over (probably around QB). Sylvia's two games on a HBF, and Martin's one or two at full-forward aside, Bailey has done very little 'experimentation' over the last 2 years. For him to then come out in a critical match (that we must lose) and make the following 'experimentations' all in the one game, and then declare after the match that it was not tanking and merely 'experimenting' is surely taking the [censored].

PJ to full-back (briefly on N. Brown)

Warnock to FF

Frawley to FF/FP

Newton on a wing

Bate in the centre

Miller in the ruck (more than for the one 'miscommunication' too)

Miller in the centre

McDonald to back pocket

Petterd and Dunn to the backline after kicking goals

Valenti to back pocket

Grimes with a lot of time on the bench

No-one going near Cousins after Bennell went off, Cousins was effectively the match winner with his hard running and precise disposal inside 50.

To have that many unusual positional/tactical changes happen in the space of one game (one that we were a chance of winning throughout the whole day) is not 'experimenting', it is blatant tanking. I don't oppose it for a second, but please don't insult me by suggesting that Bailey wasn't trying to manufacture a loss.

It will be interesting to see if the 'experimentation' continues for the rest of the season...

This is a fair assessment IF the 'experimentation' had been ongoing since our season became effectively over (probably around QB). Sylvia's two games on a HBF, and Martin's one or two at full-forward aside, Bailey has done very little 'experimentation' over the last 2 years. For him to then come out in a critical match (that we must lose) and make the following 'experimentations' all in the one game, and then declare after the match that it was not tanking and merely 'experimenting' is surely taking the [censored].

PJ to full-back (briefly on N. Brown) but mainly on Riewoldt, just to punch it & stop the big mark - how many goals did Riewoldt kick on PJ?

Warnock to FF we were getting nothing from our key forwards, this move has been on the cards

Frawley to FF/FP same as Warnock- the two of them gave the Toigs defence something to think about

Newton on a wing had to hide him somewhere, couldn't bench him; we were playing the corridor

Bate in the centre picked up 23 possessions for the game

Miller in the ruck (more than for the one 'miscommunication' too) Martin injured, PJ totally useless, Spencer tired - who else was there?

Miller in the centre no big deal

McDonald to back pocket couldn't rotate him, had to rest him on the field somewhere

Petterd and Dunn to the backline after kicking goals same as McDonald

Valenti to back pocket same as McDonald

Grimes with a lot of time on the bench coming back after back injury; may be out this week with hip injury

No-one going near Cousins after Bennell went off, Cousins was effectively the match winner with his hard running and precise disposal inside 50 Cousins has done this over the years, including this year, to far better players than Bennell & Jetta & whoever else we could have played on him; he's always been one of the best at losing a tag.

To have that many unusual positional/tactical changes happen in the space of one game (one that we were a chance of winning throughout the whole day) is not 'experimenting', it is blatant tanking. I don't oppose it for a second, but please don't insult me by suggesting that Bailey wasn't trying to manufacture a loss.

It will be interesting to see if the 'experimentation' continues for the rest of the season...

I'm not insulting you, but Bailey wasn't trying to manufacture a loss. If he was, he stinks at it.

We had 19 fit players at 3/4 time, then Riv got injured. If the team had fallen right away in the last qtr, nobody could have blamed them, but they showed fantastic character to be in front at the final whistle - character that will stand us in good stead in the years to come.

If he was trying to manufacture a loss, there was a blindingly obvious way to do it - keep Newton & Miller as our key forwards, ruck PJ the whole game, and drive Junior into the ground by keeping him on the ball. That would have guaranteed a loss 100%. It was the moves he pulled out that nearly won us the game.

merely 'experimenting' is surely taking the [censored].

PJ to full-back (briefly on N. Brown)

Warnock to FF

Frawley to FF/FP

Newton on a wing

Bate in the centre

Miller in the ruck (more than for the one 'miscommunication' too)

Miller in the centre

McDonald to back pocket

Petterd and Dunn to the backline after kicking goals

Valenti to back pocket

Grimes with a lot of time on the bench

Pfftt. Every one of those can be easily explained by the MFC.

Frawley and Warnock to forward line. KPP switching ends is hardly ground breaking stuff. Hurley from Bumbres switched ends midmatch, Merrett from the Brissies switched ends, Thornton went forward on friday, I even saw Prestigicoma playing forward.

Newton on wing. Richo was dominate on the wing last year and a few teams have tried to replicate that. Newton wasn't exactly a gun KP.

Bate in the centre. Bate started off rotating through the centre and wing in his first year. His game needs to evolve. Pavlich and Jonathon Brown have had stints in the midfield.

Miller in the ruck was already said to be miscommunication.

Mcdonald was playing a lot of back pocket last year but nothing was written about that.

Petterd and Dunn sent back after kicking goals. How about every team that benches players after kicking a goal. Is every team tanking?

Valenti to back pocket. A lot of youngsters are sent to play defence to improve accountability.

PJ playing FB. He has played FB last year. albeit he sucked at it but he has sucked as ruck this year and sucked as a forward this year. You put him anywhere and you can be accused of tanking.

We can justify every move. I'm fine with what DB is doing.

AFL Boss backs Dees

Here we have it folks...undeeniable proof that not only does tanking exist but that the AFL all but condones it. Well it must do as thats the way the PP works and its the AFL's idea to have it...so it must be right.

First Time i have agreed with Vlad. Glad he spoke to DB, to offer encouragement.

One thing i do know..We have a Mighty Tough coach who knows what direction he wants this club to go. This Team will be so versatile in a few years.

Norm Smith will be Smiling.

Having watched the replay, both Warnock and Frawley were actually pretty good up forward (their output was better than what I would expect from a Juice-PJ combo for example), and Dunn did well on Morton at FB.

Valenti also played well in defense.

All these moves stopped us from winning by 6-8 goals, but they didn't stop us from being in front when the siren went.

We're just lucky that the umpire paid that mark to McMahon because the siren went while the ball was still in mid-air. Thank our lucky stars for that!

This is a fair assessment IF the 'experimentation' had been ongoing since our season became effectively over (probably around QB). Sylvia's two games on a HBF, and Martin's one or two at full-forward aside, Bailey has done very little 'experimentation' over the last 2 years. For him to then come out in a critical match (that we must lose) and make the following 'experimentations' all in the one game, and then declare after the match that it was not tanking and merely 'experimenting' is surely taking the [censored].

PJ to full-back (briefly on N. Brown)

Warnock to FF

Frawley to FF/FP

Newton on a wing

Bate in the centre

Miller in the ruck (more than for the one 'miscommunication' too)

Miller in the centre

McDonald to back pocket

Petterd and Dunn to the backline after kicking goals

Valenti to back pocket

Grimes with a lot of time on the bench

No-one going near Cousins after Bennell went off, Cousins was effectively the match winner with his hard running and precise disposal inside 50.

To have that many unusual positional/tactical changes happen in the space of one game (one that we were a chance of winning throughout the whole day) is not 'experimenting', it is blatant tanking. I don't oppose it for a second, but please don't insult me by suggesting that Bailey wasn't trying to manufacture a loss.

It will be interesting to see if the 'experimentation' continues for the rest of the season...

Well, all that experimentation nearly pulled off a win. Go figure. And if you opened your eyes there has been alot more experimentation go on during the year.....shall I start......no, you can review the season and find out for yourself. Here's a tip, start your review with Cale Morton.

Well, all that experimentation nearly pulled off a win. Go figure. And if you opened your eyes there has been alot more experimentation go on during the year.....shall I start......no, you can review the season and find out for yourself. Here's a tip, start your review with Cale Morton.

Enlighten me HT, if your 'review' get past Cale I will be shocked!

The experimentation nearly pulled off a win because Richmond are rubbish and because our players busted their butts all game.

If you choose to open your eyes and actually read my post, you will see that I am not questioning the validity of each individual move. It is when they are assessed as a whole that it becomes highly dubious.

For those quoting things about Merrett, Presti et al being moved from end to end or Pavlich and Brown having stints in the centre, give me a break. I know this happens, I remember when SOS went forward one day and kicked a bag to get the Blues over the line. But these moves are usually made when the standard positions aren't working and so something different need to be tried in order to WIN THE GAME. DB did the complete opposite: We were well in the game all day (a game in which we were heavy underdogs) so why start experimenting? Surely the existing arrangement was working quite nicely considering that we were never more than 2 goals down (and led at times) against a nearly full strength side that had just come off a good win. So why do we start 'experimenting' when there is a game to be won and we are right in the thick of it? To lose it!

Let me put it this way: In the history of the AFL/VFL has a team that was neck-and-neck in a match, with every chance of winning, ever SIMULTANEOUSLY swapped its:

-CHF into the ruck/centre (never played there before)

-FB to FF (never played there before at AFL level)

-third tall defender to forward pocket (never played there before at AFL level)

-FF onto the wing

-third tall forward into the centre (rarely played there before)

I agree that you can justify each move individually. But as a collective, and considering the closeness of the game, and considering that these moves are almost all completely untried (in a season which has been 'dead' for 2 months, plenty of opportunity to try them previously), it cannot be denied that they were done in order to assist our cause of losing the game. Because there is no precedent for them, and no rhyme, reason or logic to suggest that they would help the team win the match. Just because some of them 'worked' and we very nearly won does not prove that we didn't try to lose.

I don't have a problem with it, I know that it is in the best interests of the club, but do not try to suggest that Bailey and Co. did not tank that match.

I don't have a problem with it, I know that it is in the best interests of the club, but do not try to suggest that Bailey and Co. did not tank that match.

Remember CTD these games are now equivalent to practice games. Our season is over, what can be learnt in the coaches box right now can be invaluable. And we do not no what was said in that Box. Remember that.

Problem is, this team is improving quick than first thought it would. The players will get there reward in time as hopefully we the supporters

& members will.

Support the coach, don't slam him...

Edited August 5, 200916 yr by why you little

Support the coach, don't slam him...

Again, please read my posts. I am not slamming DB for the moves or for experimenting or for tanking. I wholeheartedly support it in principle although it did make Sunday the single weirdest game I've been to.

What I am against is people trying to tell me that what I saw and felt on Sunday was incorrect. I saw a team that was being coached in order to reduce its chances of winning. Everyone at that game could see that was the case. I understand why DB won't publicly admit it and why AD continually refuses that it is possible, but to have people coming on here afterwards and suggesting that wasn't the case is completely absurd.

And our season has been over since QB. Why hasn't this radical experimentation been tried previously? Why only now, in a very winnable game, when the priority pick is on the line....

Edited August 5, 200916 yr by CarnTheDees

Enlighten me HT, if your 'review' get past Cale I will be shocked!

Matthew Whelan. More?

What about the game against Sydney? Similar moves were made. Short memories.