On the Couch - Brock talks about 'tanking'

[Range Rover 1,935]

FMD, why do you feed this idiot?

But you did agree with it:

http://demonland.com...175#entry253045

http://demonland.com...rd/#entry250849

WYL how can you even show your face again on this thread after this post? Gee whiz.

[old dee 23,872]

WYL how can you even show your face again on this thread after this post? Gee whiz.

RR we can all change our minds on subjects.

I have done it and I am sure you have.

People who refuse to acknowledge a alternative view worry me more than people who change their mind.

[Range Rover 1,935]

RR we can all change our minds on subjects.

I have done it and I am sure you have.

People who refuse to acknowledge a alternative view worry me more than people who change their mind.

A view which punishes the club and its supporters?

That's not an alternative view. It's just mindlessness bordering on sadomasochism.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Range Rover

[Sir Why You Little 37,129]

A view which punishes the club and its supporters?

That's not an alternative view. It's just mindlessness bordering on sadomasochism.

If the club made a decision to Tank then it is punishing itself not me.

I can happily show my face anywhere RR.

its about time certain people within the club did the same.

[old dee 23,872]

A view which punishes the club and its supporters?

That's not an alternative view. It's just mindlessness bordering on sadomasochism.

In the end It is only a view RR

This is not the policy forming venue for the MFC

I see lots of things written on here that are out there.

May have written a couple myself over time.

It is forum for an exchange of ideas.

Lets not get too serious about our own self importance

[pantaloons 2,019]

What a few days. Madness. At least it puts out in the open the people who should be stripped of journalist accreditation and/or the right to have children. This is an absolute fool's issue. I tear my hair out wondering how people make this into such a black and white issue. Well, perhaps it was in 2005 when a certain team lost their last 9 games to finish on 5 wins and qualify for a priority pick to snare Thomas and pendlebury.

This is not last night's badminton where players blatantly lost on purpose. This centres on a club that has been incredibly poor on-field for six years and seeks to make an example of one or two games in 2009 where the club conducted itself consistently with how it has done so over the whole six years. Experimentation with playing positions, dropping players for disciplinary reasons - these have been happening consistently for Melbourne during the rebuild.

There is no possible way that the AFL could find Melbourne guilty of any ongoing short of hiring someone to torture the players, coaches and officials from 2009 into falsely spewing out a confession, probably after being locked in a room watching every Melbourne game from 2007-2012 with their eyelids taped open.

Seriously, what do people think is going to happen if Melbourne is punished? That no team is ever allowed to send a good player off for season-ending surgery with a broken hand if they're going to miss the finals? That Adelaide will be stripped of the 1997 premiership for farcically playing Shane Ellen in the forward line on grand final day? That we cannot delist Matthew Bate because EA Sports' AFL game gives him a higher overall value than Lucas Cook? Can we please have some common sense around this. Clubs need to have the ability to best prepare for the future, and at times this will involve experimentation of various sorts. Until the day comes when someone runs the length of the field in the wrong direction to boot the winning point for the opposition, we are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Edited August 2, 2012 by pantaloons

[Range Rover 1,935]

If the club made a decision to Tank then it is punishing itself not me.

I can happily show my face anywhere RR.

its about time certain people within the club did the same.

And when the club folds due to sanctions?

Will you still be riding high on your moral horse then, proclaiming your purity?

[Sir Why You Little 37,129]

And when the club folds due to sanctions?

Will you still be riding high on your moral horse then, proclaiming your purity?

No. I will be mighty pizzed off at the people who took the club down. Just like you RR. that's exactly why i want this issue fully investigated now. Edited August 2, 2012 by why you little

[Johnny Karate 559]

No. I will be mighty pizzed off at the people who took the club down. Just like you RR. that's exactly why i want this issue fully investigated now.

People with these views mystify me. It's like they want to see the club die so they can scream "I WAS RIGHT" from the rooftops while thousands of others will be devastated at losing the club.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Its a screaming non event. Everyone enjoy WYL's melodrama in the meantime.

True there is not really any defining criteria they could mark it against , but if you get more peanuts that like claiming some sort of moral high ground like McLean did than we could be entering some pain.

Rubbish. If it cant be defined then it cant be proved. DC is right on the qualifications and in fact he has only hit the tip of the iceberg.

And McLean....moral high ground......FMD!

[Sir Why You Little 37,129]

People with these views mystify me. It's like they want to see the club die so they can scream "I WAS RIGHT" from the rooftops while thousands of others will be devastated at losing the club.

I don't want to see the club die. I want it to be run as a competive elite Football Club, not a club always looking for excuses to take the easy option.

[Range Rover 1,935]

In the end It is only a view RR

This is not the policy forming venue for the MFC

I see lots of things written on here that are out there.

May have written a couple myself over time.

It is forum for an exchange of ideas.

Lets not get too serious about our own self importance

There is 'out there' OldDee and then there's 'so be it if the club dies'. Not even the same ballpark.

[old dee 23,872]

There is 'out there' OldDee and then there's 'so be it if the club dies'. Not even the same ballpark.

Ok we are not going to see eye to eye on this one RR.

Have a good afternoon Mate

[rjay 25,088]

That's fine. You or anyone else are quite within your rights to form a ticket and challenge him.

But this knifing by media that could potentially ruin the club and punish our supporters? No way, Jose.

To quote George Bush Snr (or the Dude, if you prefer) ... "This agression will not stand, man".

Rpfc is indeed right. This dumb, ill-thought through putsch will only galvanize those in power and bring ignominy on to those who planned it.

It's not about running a ticket, I've also been through that on a previous post.

I think we have the wrong man for the job and I have given my reasons, a lot of others feel the same. We need to make a break and move forward. We only did half the job in sacking the football department, the job's not finished.

As far as the whole tanking thing is concerned it is a non issue, yes we made some odd player moves and it felt like we weren't in it to win it but we also just weren't very good. We're still not very good.

The club should have come out like McGuire did and said the issue was investigated by the AFL last year and found there is nothing to answer. Move on, not we welcome an enquiry by the AFL what rot.

[Johnny Karate 559]

I don't want to see the club die. I want it to be run as a competive elite Football Club, not a club always looking for excuses to take the easy option.

In what way was tanking the easy option? It was the logical choice but never the easy option. Competitive, elite football clubs make ruthless decisions to improve their position. MFC did this with tanking.

The club will die if you & others have your way & it admits the conspiracy to tank. How can you not see that?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Jimmi C

[Range Rover 1,935]

It's not about running a ticket, I've also been through that on a previous post.

I think we have the wrong man for the job and I have given my reasons, a lot of others feel the same. We need to make a break and move forward. We only did half the job in sacking the football department, the job's not finished.

As far as the whole tanking thing is concerned it is a non issue, yes we made some odd player moves and it felt like we weren't in it to win it but we also just weren't very good. We're still not very good.

The club should have come out like McGuire did and said the issue was investigated by the AFL last year and found there is nothing to answer. Move on, not we welcome an enquiry by the AFL what rot.

So, how do you propose to oust him?

[Ouch! 2,266]

The club should have come out like McGuire did and said the issue was investigated by the AFL last year and found there is nothing to answer. Move on, not we welcome an enquiry by the AFL what rot.

Its a lot easier for McGuire to say that when it's not his club, if they were investigating the Pies, McGuire would be obligated to respond in a very similar way.

[Ouch! 2,266]

So, how do you propose to oust him?

Firebrands, Pitchforks, and a lot of ARRRGGGH-ing!!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

In what way was tanking the easy option? It was the logical choice but never the easy option. Competitive, elite football clubs make ruthless decisions to improve their position. MFC did this with tanking.

The club will die if you & others have your way & it admits the conspiracy to tank. How can you not see that?

It's no use, if you've got a goldfish go and have a chat with it ,you'd get more sense.

[rjay 25,088]

Its a lot easier for McGuire to say that when it's not his club, if they were investigating the Pies, McGuire would be obligated to respond in a very similar way.

He was actually talking about his club and rumblings that they did the same thing.

[rjay 25,088]

So, how do you propose to oust him?

The same way that Bailey was, I would hope the board do their due diligence when his contract is up.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Spot on this is IMO the major cause of our problems right now.

That and a small problem created by our inabaility to recruit kids that are better than average.

it isnt.

The reasoning you are pining for senior players rather than the junior players is due to debacle of our recruiting since the turn of the millenium (specifically 2000 to 2007). The absence of quality players drafted in that time is the reason why we look so threadbare and youth exposed on the ground. Its not an easy problem to fix. And you dont do it by using the draft to backfill on mid aged NQR players.

There is an issue about the quality of the kids not the fact that we recruit youth.

Go and dig some of Ben Hurs posts on this topic. Its instructive and it could be the beginning of a new eye opening moment for you.

[Guest fitness]

What a few days. Madness. At least it puts out in the open the people who should be stripped of journalist accreditation and/or the right to have children. This is an absolute fool's issue. I tear my hair out wondering how people make this into such a black and white issue. Well, perhaps it was in 2005 when a certain team lost their last 9 games to finish on 5 wins and qualify for a priority pick to snare Thomas and pendlebury.

This is not last night's badminton where players blatantly lost on purpose. This centres on a club that has been incredibly poor on-field for six years and seeks to make an example of one or two games in 2009 where the club conducted itself consistently with how it has done so over the whole six years. Experimentation with playing positions, dropping players for disciplinary reasons - these have been happening consistently for Melbourne during the rebuild.

There is no possible way that the AFL could find Melbourne guilty of any ongoing short of hiring someone to torture the players, coaches and officials from 2009 into falsely spewing out a confession, probably after being locked in a room watching every Melbourne game from 2007-2012 with their eyelids taped open.

Seriously, what do people think is going to happen if Melbourne is punished? That no team is ever allowed to send a good player off for season-ending surgery with a broken hand if they're going to miss the finals? That Adelaide will be stripped of the 1997 premiership for farcically playing Shane Ellen in the forward line on grand final day? That we cannot delist Matthew Bate because EA Sports' AFL game gives him a higher overall value than Lucas Cook? Can we please have some common sense around this. Clubs need to have the ability to best prepare for the future, and at times this will involve experimentation of various sorts. Until the day comes when someone runs the length of the field in the wrong direction to boot the winning point for the opposition, we are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Well said. I find the whole thing laughable and am struggling to comprehend what new information has come out this week aside from a) Brock revealing this culture as a reason for him leaving; and B) the AFL lowering their colours by feeling the need to respond to a few strong words from journalists. This is the biggest non-story of all time.

I will leave you with a philosophical question to ponder. Is it 'tanking' if the club is doing what it thinks is right (and within the rules) to set itself up to win... but to win later instead of now?

(Going a step further, I'd actually also argue that the Badminton players had every right to play however they wanted to play, so as to maximise their chances of ultimately winning a gold medal. Obviously it wasn't not in the spirit of Olympic competition but surely the administrators are to blame for setting up the tournament in such a format. Let's use basketball as an example - If the Boomers had already qualified through to the quarter-finals and in their final pool game knew that a win would result in them facing the USA in the quarters, but a loss would mean not having to face them until the final, wouldn't they prefer to lose that last pool game for the good of their longer-term medal prospects??)

[Range Rover 1,935]

I will leave you with a philosophical question to ponder. Is it 'tanking' if the club is doing what it thinks is right (and within the rules) to set itself up to win... but to win later instead of now?

No, it's a strategic decision to lose a battle in order to win the war.

That's not tanking. It's just basic competence.

[Guest fitness]

No, it's a strategic decision to lose a battle in order to win the war.

That's not tanking. It's just basic competence.

Couldn't agree more.