When you really think about it - this is with respect to the opening post and thread title, the players are playing to win plain and simple despite positional moves. So on field there is no tanking. Tanking is lying down to get railroaded by the opposition. Our players are fighting for wins. Its not beyond the players to win another 2 games. So in effect we can be clear that our players are giving their all in their development and rest assured nothing will take off the gloss of any future success.

We got our desired result

You know what's funny? We pissfart around on here and joke about the desired result. If some of our more jovial supporters came on and started a thread titled "What's your desired result in the Toigs game?"... and someone came on and posted "Lose by a kick after the siren, Warnock playing forward, Miller in the ruck, no bench, Newton on the wing" - I'd have laughed, thought about it for a second about how cool it'd have been, and then resigned myself to a more normal result.

I reckon it's hysterical that the description of the game, the closeness of the score, the weirdness of the result, the fact it was so unexpected. Not even the big fantasists saw that coming. Not in their wildest dreams. If we get through the next 2 weeks and are still in line for Scully, I'll remember that game as one of the most interesting in my experience as a supporter. A real watershed.

I didn;t make myself clear.

I meant I look forward to seeing us put up a fight against Carlton. Not winning, because I think that's beyond us.

I would be Happy to get thumped in these last 4 games. I don't want to get close to anyone, last week was beautiful & indeed surreal! But it was too close.

I have just paid my M.C.C/M.F.C Membership for the year 2010

That's what i am waiting for now...Sure up those Draft Picks & Train Really Hard Demons 2010....

On Fox League Teams tonight, David Parkin said he would be derelict in his duty as a coach not to engineer the best result for the longterm benefit of the club.

He stopped short of saying that he would throw games. But he said he would 'list manage' to make sure it happened.

Edited August 6, 200915 yr by Einstein

Wondering what people's thoughts are with this. If we have success in the future on the back of our prize for chucking games (Scully), do you think it will take some of the edge off it, knowing that the club manipulated the system?

The MFC is a club and a business (reason being why members receive an annual report) which just like any business must act in the best interests of its stakeholders.

Think of it this way, you are the CEO of a large corporation which is due to incur substantial losses in the current financial year as a result of the financial crisis. If you had the oppurtunity to willingly divest assets of the company which are underperforming in order to incur larger tax losses in the current financial year that may then be carried forward to offset against profits in future years would you do it? or would you feel guilty for legally manipulating the tax system in order to pay less tax in the future?

The answer is simple. We the MFC, incur losses now so we may legally reap the rewards in the future.

Sorry to put you all through that, but the point I was trying to make is that it is not entirely uncommon for clubs or business to "tank" it. Just because the Dees are a club we passionately support, does not make tanking immoral. Im glad to be a supporter of the MFC and not, for instance, the Richmond Footy Club, because the Dees are doing everything in their power to succeed. Maybe not tanking, and therefore not strategically for success is immoral.

I don't know if i'm repeating what's been said because it's late and I can't read a lot on a computer screen, but what I saw on Sunday was:

- A team being forced to lose.

- A young team (our future) trying desperately to drag us over the line.

- A coach/selection committee/entire club staff looking to what could be, as opposed to what is.

It depressed me. Don't rob those you've banked on of a win because you've decided someone better is around the corner.

I think what most upset me was the fact that we had to go to such lengths to lose. Richmond are SO bad that the bottom side required them to drop their best players, bench the next best players and then play the role-players out of position to allow those pricks a win? It was humiliating for me as a spectator and it made me sad to see the Tigers supporters scream for the win.

We're mostly unknown as a player group so perhaps they were unaware of the tactics on the day but for the most part, it was embarrassing for both parties. If we have to work so hard to lose perhaps we aren't the worst team, and therefore don't deserve any priorities in terms of draft selection.

Edited August 7, 200915 yr by #16 is the new #1 Trav is God

Don't rob those you've banked on of a win because you've decided someone better is around the corner.

If we have to work so hard to lose perhaps we aren't the worst team, and therefore don't any priorities in terms of draft selection.

There are tonnes of views on this, so I won't bang on here. If you need help with the various threads let me know. Your views and others are covered in depth.

I don't know about you but some ambiguous feeling of honour that we defeated Richmond and North Melbourne late in 2009 is going struggle to sustain me thru another 46 years of watching other teams coaches and captains holding up the premiership cup.

I don't know if i'm repeating what's been said because it's late and I can't read a lot on a computer screen, but what I saw on Sunday was:

- A team being forced to lose.

- A young team (our future) trying desperately to drag us over the line.

- A coach/selection committee/entire club staff looking to what could be, as opposed to what is.

It depressed me. Don't rob those you've banked on of a win because you've decided someone better is around the corner.

The team that 'is' has won 11 games out of the last 62.

And no-one is being forced to lose. We are minimising our chances of winning using the same practices we would be using if the PP was not an issue; at the end of another losing season - injury sensitivity, youth opportunity, and player development - become more important than winning meaningless games.

Befroe this year, I could struggle to name anyone other than Bruce who could play multiple positions on the field. Why shouldn't we experiment.

I think what most upset me was the fact that we had to go to such lengths to lose. Richmond are SO bad that the bottom side required them to drop their best players, bench the next best players and then play the role-players out of position to allow those pricks a win? It was humiliating for me as a spectator and it made me sad to see the Tigers supporters scream for the win.

Why look at Richmond? Yes, they are awful and got to win a game at the expense of us, but this experimentation is exactly what we would be doing no matter who we played in Rd 18, 2009 with a 3 and 14 losing record.

An example of why this is valuable - it gives a chance for Newton, Dunn, Milller, Johnson, and Valenti to attempt other roles at AFL level to extend their stalling careers. Why shouldn't we give them that opportunity, considering the position we are in?

Wondering what people's thoughts are with this. If we have success in the future on the back of our prize for chucking games (Scully), do you think it will take some of the edge off it, knowing that the club manipulated the system?

No.

No.

Thanks for the bump. I might close the poll so this one can go in the time capsule.