There is a difference between trying to lose and winning not being your top priority.

I remember hearing Mark Thompson say that Hawkins was getting games, even though he probably didn't deserve them.

Hawkins debuted in '07...

Were Fremantle tanking when they "rested" almost ten of their best players in round 21, 2010 against Hawthorn?

Winning wasn't their number one priority that day.

Hawkins debuted in '07...

I think this was in about 2008 or 2009 when he wasn't playing too well. The point is that getting games into him, even though he wasn't necessarily their best option at the time.

Ok, so tanking, what is the actual definition that people are subscribing to here?

Bailey admitted as have other coaches from other clubs that at the end of the season if you are not in contention, you rest the players that are playing with niggles to get them right for the following season, everyone does that. You play youngsters to get games into them and you play them in positions to see if they can fill a different role.

Is this tanking? I wouldn't classify this as tanking. As soon as any club is out of finals contention, winning games of football isn't the PRIMARY focus. It it about what I mentioned above. Melbourne isn't the only club that has done it over the journey (I suspect like everything else, it's another thing we just don't do well ... or at least we sucked at hiding it as well as other clubs.

My thinking on tanking is akin to match fixing, and almost instructing your players that we don't want to win this game or pulling players out of the game to prevent them from suceeding on game day? I would have thought that this is the issue that the AFL would be concerned about primarily.... is this wrong?

Ok, so tanking, what is the actual definition that people are subscribing to here?

Bailey admitted as have other coaches from other clubs that at the end of the season if you are not in contention, you rest the players that are playing with niggles to get them right for the following season, everyone does that. You play youngsters to get games into them and you play them in positions to see if they can fill a different role.

Is this tanking? I wouldn't classify this as tanking. As soon as any club is out of finals contention, winning games of football isn't the PRIMARY focus. It it about what I mentioned above. Melbourne isn't the only club that has done it over the journey (I suspect like everything else, it's another thing we just don't do well ... or at least we sucked at hiding it as well as other clubs.

My thinking on tanking is akin to match fixing, and almost instructing your players that we don't want to win this game or pulling players out of the game to prevent them from suceeding on game day? I would have thought that this is the issue that the AFL would be concerned about primarily.... is this wrong?

I agree 100%. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, there is a difference between trying to lose (match fixing) and winning not being your top priority.

I had many arguments with some here at the time, but I still maintain the dumbest thing Bailey did was to sack Junior - particularly in the way he did.

This had absolutely nothing to do with tanking. Rather, it had all to do with poor judgement, just like so many of the other decisions and approaches adopted during that period.

Brock placed the blame very high up the chain. He laid blame on the same people who put the folks in place that we just got rid of last year for the new round of people that are struggling.

Makes you wonder when everyone will start looking at those at the top doesn't it?

Except the previous football dept wasn't put in place by the current board or admin.....

LOL Brock Mclean, you stink mate. Ive seen you at tramp and revolver. I reckon you were speaking more sense at 4am than in that interview!

Except the previous football dept wasn't put in place by the current board or admin.....

shhh.. that doesnt work for the inquisition !!

Its almost laughable all this talk of tanking really. For decades teams would rest players etc once the season was dead to them. Its a perfectly logical thing to do.It WAS the DONE thing. It was normal. Im not sure in whos interest it really is to [censored] a dead horse.

The Age all over it ... http://www.theage.co...0730-23akv.html

Forget Brock McLean. The guy has the IQ of a house brick.

Mike Sheahan slyly lobbed this hand grenade. Why? Clearly he doesn't like a certain power-broker at the club.

heres the link for full interview

Edited July 30, 201213 yr by Dees

Except the previous football dept wasn't put in place by the current board or admin.....

Has nothing to do with it, the current admin were there and running things when the so called tanking happened.

They are responsible for a failed re build and now oversee another re build.

I was starting to get a bit of respect back for Brock for reviving his career.

Nahhhhh....he is just a tool.

Is anyone else saying 'meh'?

This is all about one game, the only we got near in, and we lost that after the final siren went.

Nothing will come of this 'reignited debate.'

And Roos saying we are an irrelevant club??

You mean like Fitzroy, who he played for , and how long has Sydney been around for again?

Can't stand Paul Roos.

I nearly fell off my chair when this hypocrite said he left us because we tanked, and went to...............the originators of the tank. LOL!

Just so i get this right. McLean left for ethical reasons.....and went to Carlton !

Lol....irony

Extraordinary really that Sheahan and Healy, with 60 years combined media experience, could not take that interview to its logical end, the Kreuzer Cup when their "whistleblower" was uniquely placed as a d Melbourne player to comment on Carlton's Round 22 effort against his old side.

That suggests rank incompetence or a set up.

None of this changes anything I said earlier on this thread except it does highlight Healy's long standing antipathy to us and Sheahan's laziness.

I would guess 'administration'. You know, the ones that the players felt were too involved in the football department before 186 last year.

Great post. The players intervened FFS! They met with an ailing Stynes they must have had no other choice. That would be the last thing any player wants to do unless it was really bad down there. Brad Green, Moloney, Davey all leaders and true Dees with all their heart couldn't stand it anymore. They are all now on the fringe. 186 saved Schwabs bacon and set us back a couple of years.

The administration enforced the tank, the administration demanded JUNIOR MAC go! The administration divided the club!!

Schwab - leave now.

Just so i get this right. McLean left for ethical reasons.....and went to Carlton !

Lol....irony

If tanking forced this turncoat to leave then it was justified on that basis alone!

I agree 100%. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, there is a difference between trying to lose (match fixing) and winning not being your top priority.

I think 99% of the time we were simply doing as you say and it was just of a case of winning not being our priority. But I think we are burying our heads in the sand if we look at the Richmond game and can't see that as the game remained in the balance, the coaches box actively tried to go out of their way to lose that game.

Extraordinary really that Sheahan and Healy, with 60 years combined media experience, could not take that interview to its logical end, the Kreuzer Cup when their "whistleblower" was uniquely placed as a d Melbourne player to comment on Carlton's Round 22 effort against his old side.

That suggests rank incompetence or a set up.

None of this changes anything I said earlier on this thread except it does highlight Healy's long standing antipathy to us and Sheahan's laziness.

might juzt be me but therds something beyond the incopetent muck raking here

It smacks of someone's agenda. Silly as it might sound Vladimir will have none of it. Its a dead issue but someone has an axe to grind, or whack someone in the back with.

might juzt be me but therds something beyond the incopetent muck raking here

It smacks of someone's agenda. Silly as it might sound Vladimir will have none of it. Its a dead issue but someone has an axe to grind, or whack someone in the back with.

No doubt. These guys knew what they were doing.

Gerard angling for a job for Sugar? Hmmm.

I think 99% of the time we were simply doing as you say and it was just of a case of winning not being our priority. But I think we are burying our heads in the sand if we look at the Richmond game and can't see that as the game remained in the balance, the coaches box actively tried to go out of their way to lose that game.

My point with the Fremantle example of 2010 is you can't prove it, by resting all their good players you could say it looked like the Dockers were trying to lose.