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

From the safety in knowing that it's not his club being looked at.

Several clubs have been pointed at, but in the context of this whole thing we are talking about Brock McLean and Melbourne. Again, I argue he would have no other option to welcome the investigation into the allegations if the CFC was the club in the crossfires.

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.

... and in many ways it's no different than when Freo rested 7 or 8 of their best players with "soreness" instead of making them travel down to Launceston to play the Hawks a week or two out from finals, just to ensure that their players were fit for the final series.

They lost in Launceston, but beat the Hawks in the finals back over @ the WACA if I recall correctly....

Is it any different to deliberately conceding a behind to the opposition, so that you might promote a greater positive result later?

As Clint points out, there is a difference between trying to lose (tanking) and not trying to win (developing).

I'll make a further distinction in the trying to lose category

- there's trying to lose so that you can win later with better draft picks

- there's trying to lose for some betting related financial gain

... and in many ways it's no different than when Freo rested 7 or 8 of their best players with "soreness" instead of making them travel down to Launceston to play the Hawks a week or two out from finals, just to ensure that their players were fit for the final series.

They lost in Launceston, but beat the Hawks in the finals back over @ the WACA if I recall correctly....

That's right. The only difference is that Freo's strategic decision is a shorter term one rather than the longer term strategic one Melbourne (and others) took.

There is no inherent difference in the two approaches. Both are done to gain a competitive edge with the greater goal of winning the flag.

Ergo, 'tanking' only exists as an arbitrary and ultimately meaningless label.

Absolutely spot on Old55.

Until there is a clear definition of what constitutes tanking how can anyone be charged with it, or how can the league even hope to counter it.

Hardwicke says, 'Forget the past, let's fix the future....ballot system'

Sounds good to me.

Is it any different to deliberately conceding a behind to the opposition, so that you might promote a greater positive result later?

As Clint points out, there is a difference between trying to lose (tanking) and not trying to win (developing).

I'll make a further distinction in the trying to lose category

- there's trying to lose so that you can win later with better draft picks

- there's trying to lose for some betting related financial gain

It's a very important distinction.

I wonder if you could successfully form a legal defence based on the former ...

Legal eagles?

(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??)

Many times the swimming teams don't field their strongest teams in the heats and semi-finals, so they can rest swimmers for the finals.

Which in many ways is similar to the Swans under Paul Roos and many other clubs in the NAB Cup

http://www.smh.com.a...00210-nsfl.html

http://www.theroar.c...in-the-nab-cup/

Is that tanking?

From a gambling perspective there's a big difference between trying to lose on the day, or trying to lose via the selection table/putting players out for surgery.

From a draft pick perspective it's all the same, whether you don't select your best 22, or play guys out of position, either way it's detrimental to your prospects of winning that week.

Either way, by removing the priority picks it should be largely stamped out so let's just move on!!!

Edited August 2, 201212 yr by Junior

The term 'tanking' is common parlance in tennis for the practice of strategically throwing the remainder of a set in order to conserve energy for the following one. Again, a strategic decision to take a step back in order to take two forward.

Here, the reward for 'tanking' is the extra power one gains to complete the greater task of winning the match.

In AFL football, the reward for 'tanking' is a high draft pick and possibly a priority pick which helps put a club in a better position to win a flag.

From this perspective, the AFL have created a drafting system which has at times forced clubs to approach individual seasons in much the same manner as a tennis player views individual sets in a tennis match.

If they've got a problem with that then it's their system that needs to be put on trial, not the clubs who work within the constraints of it.

Edited August 2, 201212 yr by Range Rover

All it might take is Dean Bailey to tell the AFL that he tanked under instruction. He is as good as said it in his last media conference - something about not being sorry that "he played for picks".

Anyway, I'm sure it won't happen. The AFL would never kick us when we are down.

Oh, wait....

Not sure how they could punish a team for tanking as I dont think it breaks any rules.

They could absolutely punish us, for bringing the game into disrepute. Whether they will is a very different matter....

not sure how they culd punnish a team for tanking as I dont think it breaks any rules

There is always "bringing the game into disrepute".

What can't this question be asked in one of the other threads FFS?

Hardly deserves it's own...

He said that he played to put Melbourne in the best position. Which means experimenting with players in different positions and sending players off for surgery so they would be ready for next season.

Nothing to see here move on.

Again, nothing will happen.

Until there are strict rules on "tanking" we havnt done anything wrong tha twill stand up in any court ect if they try and bend us over. trying players in different positions, sending players needing surgery to get it ect and playing younger players are all within the rules. It may change the rules but we cant get hit retrospectively unless it is proven we didnt "try", we always tried just not with the absolute best team available.

It's a very important distinction.

I wonder if you could successfully form a legal defence based on the former ...

Legal eagles?

I'd be more interested in what the case was for the prosecution. What is the grounds of the offence? How do you define issue and prove it?

Nothing to defend your honour.

They could absolutely punish us, for bringing the game into disrepute. Whether they will is a very different matter....

Rubbish. They cant do that because the things that you alleging brought the game into disrepute did not happen according to the AFL.

All it might take is Dean Bailey to tell the AFL that he tanked under instruction. He is as good as said it in his last media conference - something about not being sorry that "he played for picks".

Anyway, I'm sure it won't happen. The AFL would never kick us when we are down.

Oh, wait....

Wrong wrong wrong.

It will be his word as a bitter ex employee against someone else's word.

He did not say anything. Bailey is far too smart for that.

Apparently Bailey is very happy at Adelaide with a good club, Why would he jeopardise his career? Think Matt Rendell.

Bailey would have the most to lose from doing it and nothing to achieve.

I haven't been on this thread yet, but I see that on page 23 it is at the point it should be:

It is impossible to prove because developing players is a perfectly acceptable reason. The AFL has already said this so Brock saying the same thing makes no difference at all.

That said, the reputations of a few people (Brock and Paul Gardner) have been significantly tainted through this matter.

That said, the reputations of a few people (Brock and Paul Gardner) have been significantly tainted through this matter.

At least with Brock you can understand - he's a none-to-bright footballer who was baited by a pair of parasites. I'm still reeling at Gardner's decision to stick his beak in with a bunch of crap that doesn't even stack up. Frustrating.

i still fail to see how we tanked against richmond.

we had 3 injured players on the bench.

we were two goals up with 2 mins to play.

they won AFTER THE SIREN.

thats what i call a heroic effort from our guys who should have been well out of it.

as for tanking v the saints.........uh they nearly won a flag a month later. tank? more like played out of our skin so we only lost by 47.

Carlton are ater Cloke, we are after Cloke, what better way to taint the opposition and sway the decision your way than to come out with something like this?

i still fail to see how we tanked against richmond.

we had 3 injured players on the bench.

we were two goals up with 2 mins to play.

they won AFTER THE SIREN.

thats what i call a heroic effort from our guys who should have been well out of it.

notsureifserious

Hardwicke says, 'Forget the past, let's fix the future....ballot system'

Sounds good to me.

Because he knows Richmond could also be tarnished if it all comes out.