Bailey won progressively more games in the seasons after he "tanked". Clubs have won flags after "tanking".

So ... that's a furphy.

The whole thing is a fluff up by a group of insiders who don't want Schwab's contract renewed.

This is all fall-out post-186.

Discuss.

Edited August 4, 201213 yr by Range Rover

Great article in today's Age by Tim Lane. He says the selling of home games is a form of tanking even though it is based on a need for money. Says the AFL allows this to happen and together with their draft incentives has created this. Refers to teams resting players for finals as also tanking. Therefore every club has tanked if these are the definitions.

RR, I agree with you. Get good players and win some games and your culture can change quickly to a winning one.

If you talk tanking - Freo round 21 2010 cannot be forgotten.

Out: Matthew Pavlich (soreness), Adam McPhee (soreness), Roger Hayden (soreness), David Mundy (soreness), Stephen Hill (soreness), Anthony Morabito (soreness), Nathan Fyfe (soreness)

Sandilands was also left out. All came in the next week as Freo topped Carlton to guarantee a home final.

Freo lose by 116 points and, two weeks later, beat the same team in an elimination final.

Bailey won progressively more games in the seasons after he "tanked". Clubs have won flags after "tanking".

So ... that's a furphy.

The whole thing is a fluff up by a group of insiders who don't want Schwab's contract renewed.

This is all fall-out post-186.

Discuss.

It's all about ascendency; we are allowing clubs to get the wood on us and we will find it difficult to get back on top. Clubs like Norf Moron and Hawthorn regard us as their [censored] and it's going to be a long haul to turn that around.

Bailey won progressively more games in the seasons after he "tanked". Clubs have won flags after "tanking".

So ... that's a furphy.

The whole thing is a fluff up by a group of insiders who don't want Schwab's contract renewed.

This is all fall-out post-186.

Discuss.

It doesn't necessarily create a losing culture. What has created the crappy culture at our club has been tanking coupled with the delisting of senior players who might have been able to show the kids that the club drafted how to prepare for games and how to compete. Also, I can't say where it came from in the case of the MFC but the mindset that was taken during the so called 'experimental' stage was poisonous. As I have written before, there was a sense of entitlement that the club felt that all it needed to do was get high draft picks and everything else would follow.

I think the list when it was put together was pretty good. It was initially flaky however and was only prepared to win on it's own terms. Without proper work put into it, it is now useless.

"You show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi

Tim Lane is pretty much on the money there. The stadium deals clubs are forced too endure keep them poor.

Whilst Vlad goes on holiday during the season...

The club did the right thing three years ago and I agree with the basic premise that tanking doesn't create a "losing culture", but Schwab et al have to go so we can move on.

Edited August 5, 201213 yr by Fat Tony

We had a sh!te culture before we lost that game after the siren and we have a sh!te one now.

And I hope people are just talking about THAT Richmond game.

Because I know that many on here think that moving on White, Yze, et al, and getting so many draft picks was tanking.

If it was we wouldn't have McDonald (late pick), arguably Jurrah (PS draft), McKenzie (rookie upgrade - someone has got to make way).

And if we had, at the start of 08, not given chances to kids we wouldn't have seen Garland again - his first couple of games were hapless (to be polite).

So, in conclusion, if playing Warnock forward and Johnson back in one game destroys your culture then your culture isn't that strong to begin with now is it?

The senior players that were upset that kids were getting games ahead of experienced players should be told - that isn't tanking, that is simply a matter of not wasting games on players we know aren't up to it.

If you talk tanking - Freo round 21 2010 cannot be forgotten.

Out: Matthew Pavlich (soreness), Adam McPhee (soreness), Roger Hayden (soreness), David Mundy (soreness), Stephen Hill (soreness), Anthony Morabito (soreness), Nathan Fyfe (soreness)

Sandilands was also left out. All came in the next week as Freo topped Carlton to guarantee a home final.

Freo lose by 116 points and, two weeks later, beat the same team in an elimination final.

I've used this example many times and I even heard Greg Denham say that this wasn't tanking because they (the punters) knew who was and wasn't playing going into the game. He must have Velcro straps on his shoes because there is no way known he has the mental capacity to tie his shoe laces every day.

Tanking does not create a losing culture, but I'm open to the fact that it might reinforce it. As a club (supporters included) it seems there is this overwhelming guilt about having done what needed to be done. You don't see any of this at Hawthorn, Carlton, Collingwood etc they just get on with the job.

However I think the main contributing factor to a losing culture is not having enough good players and not having the off-field resources to develop the team.

We had a sh!te culture before we lost that game after the siren and we have a sh!te one now.

And I hope people are just talking about THAT Richmond game.

Because I know that many on here think that moving on White, Yze, et al, and getting so many draft picks was tanking.

If it was we wouldn't have McDonald (late pick), arguably Jurrah (PS draft), McKenzie (rookie upgrade - someone has got to make way).

And if we had, at the start of 08, not given chances to kids we wouldn't have seen Garland again - his first couple of games were hapless (to be polite).

So, in conclusion, if playing Warnock forward and Johnson back in one game destroys your culture then your culture isn't that strong to begin with now is it?

The senior players that were upset that kids were getting games ahead of experienced players should be told - that isn't tanking, that is simply a matter of not wasting games on players we know aren't up to it.

Agree mostly.

Our senior players had years of underperformance. We were always losing unlosable games or 7 in a row after being in finals contention, that sort of thing. Daniher wanted a ruthless culture because we were soft. Very little changed over the years and our leaders were never there when it counted except for maybe Neitz and to a lesser extent Junior. I say Junior because even though I liked him he wasn't that damaging as a player.

Some like Bruce never stood up when it counted, and accumulated a lot of meaningless possessions while selling his teamates into trouble. Guys like Yze and White in their later years were the same. Got a lot of games they didn't deserve.

If you talk tanking - Freo round 21 2010 cannot be forgotten.

Out: Matthew Pavlich (soreness), Adam McPhee (soreness), Roger Hayden (soreness), David Mundy (soreness), Stephen Hill (soreness), Anthony Morabito (soreness), Nathan Fyfe (soreness)

Sandilands was also left out. All came in the next week as Freo topped Carlton to guarantee a home final.

Freo lose by 116 points and, two weeks later, beat the same team in an elimination final.

And Sydney's NAB Cup games during Roos' tenure. These weren't games for 4 points but there was still gambling involved and what he did in at least one situation was far worse than "experimenting" as he actively told his players towards the end of a game to deliberately lose (can't remember what year it was but a player had the ball close to the interchange and he was telling them to either slow down so the siren could go before the Swans could score and hit the lead or to kick sideways/backwards).

Agree mostly.

Our senior players had years of underperformance. We were always losing unlosable games or 7 in a row after being in finals contention, that sort of thing.

Has been happening for as long as I've been watching, this was also a hallmark of the Northey years.

I've used this example many times and I even heard Greg Denham say that this wasn't tanking because they (the punters) knew who was and wasn't playing going into the game. He must have Velcro straps on his shoes because there is no way known he has the mental capacity to tie his shoe laces every day.

They don't consider it tanking because there is no 'prize' at the end of it. Only rested players. What shiite.

When will the morons in the media realise that we have been a terrible team that needs and deserves PPicks. We were robbed of one in the Kruezer cup - the following year we would have got Watts and NicNat 0 I don't see anyone in the media talking about that. I personally have no doubts that influenced our decisions the following year,

As well as the fact we won the Richmond game in regular time!! We are so hopeless we can't even lose properly!!!!!!

And Sydney's NAB Cup games during Roos' tenure. These weren't games for 4 points but there was still gambling involved and what he did in at least one situation was far worse than "experimenting" as he actively told his players towards the end of a game to deliberately lose (can't remember what year it was but a player had the ball close to the interchange and he was telling them to either slow down so the siren could go before the Swans could score and hit the lead or to kick sideways/backwards).

Too true. Where is Dimwit on that???

Bailey won progressively more games in the seasons after he "tanked". Clubs have won flags after "tanking".

So ... that's a furphy.

The whole thing is a fluff up by a group of insiders who don't want Schwab's contract renewed.

This is all fall-out post-186.

Discuss.

You are probably right about maximising draft picks not be the overall cause of a bad culture.

Not sure about your conspiracy theory but a good culture comes from the top down, our culture is not good so the buck stops with the CEO as the constant through the last 5 years. Time for some new blood at the top.

We simply adopted a naive strategy over far too long a period of time. And we had an ordinary club culture and no really good senior leaders at the club (Junior aside, who Bailey naively moved on).

All of that = consistently finishing in the bottom each year.

But as to this current tanking debate - Brock McLean was essentially moved on by the club. The fat head seems not to realise that. Nor, it seems, do some journalists. Everyone at the club does though.

Quite bizarre that even the most ordinary journos haven't worked this out, particularly given that we got pick 11 for a player who then spent the most of his time in the VFL. Says it all really.

Tanking may not cause a losing culture, but it sure as hell doesn't help it. Culture is determined by your leadership group. Clubs with poor senior groups may be in a position to tank and clubs with strong leadership groups won't need to and nor would they allow it.

Geelong still has great culture even though Ablett left. Geelong still has great culture even though Costa is no longer President. Geelong still has great culture even though Bomber Thompson is no longer coach. Geelong still has great culture even though premiership captain Tom Harley retired. Geelong still has great culture even though premiership captain Cameron Ling retired. Why ? They still have a fantastic leadership group driving and enforcing their culture. They're instructing younger players what is expected, so they in turn can one day lead the way.

The day it dawns on supporters that a club's culture stems from their leadership group is the day they'll have a better understanding of the game and their club. Our leadership group is the youngest of 18 teams. Our culture rests with the improvement of Trengove, Jones, Grimes, hopefully Viney, and possibly others that may not yet be at the club. The responsibility is for them to become great leaders and better players to ensure the type of culture that drives a club and can be left as a legacy for others to follow.

Tanking may not cause a losing culture, but it sure as hell doesn't help it. Culture is determined by your leadership group. Clubs with poor senior groups may be in a position to tank and clubs with strong leadership groups won't need to and nor would they allow it.

Geelong still has great culture even though Ablett left. Geelong still has great culture even though Costa is no longer President. Geelong still has great culture even though Bomber Thompson is no longer coach. Geelong still has great culture even though premiership captain Tom Harley retired. Geelong still has great culture even though premiership captain Cameron Ling retired. Why ? They still have a fantastic leadership group driving and enforcing their culture. They're instructing younger players what is expected, so they in turn can one day lead the way.

The day it dawns on supporters that a club's culture stems from their leadership group is the day they'll have a better understanding of the game and their club. Our leadership group is the youngest of 18 teams. Our culture rests with the improvement of Trengove, Jones, Grimes, hopefully Viney, and possibly others that may not yet be at the club. The responsibility is for them to become great leaders and better players to ensure the type of culture that drives a club and can be left as a legacy for others to follow.

Will CS be remembered for the school Blazer and not much else?

IMO it was our poor culture that lead us to the position of needing to tank - not tanking leading to a poor culture.

I hate listening to people tell me we suck because we tanked and it created a losing culture.

We were terrible anyway. We could easily have lost those games even if we'd tried. We already had a side going down, we already were good at losing, and I resent wholeheartedly any attempt to say that the reason we suck now is because we instilled a losing culture which we can't shake. No. The reason we suck now is because Neeld is attempting to make our team play a brand of football that is competitive and might win us matches, but can't do that with a list given to him by Bailey which was as crap as it was.

People who know us know this. People who don't, who generally don't give a crap about us, who consider us irrelevant, just jump to straightforward conclusions.

It doesn't necessarily create a losing culture. What has created the crappy culture at our club has been tanking coupled with the delisting of senior players who might have been able to show the kids that the club drafted how to prepare for games and how to compete. Also, I can't say where it came from in the case of the MFC but the mindset that was taken during the so called 'experimental' stage was poisonous. As I have written before, there was a sense of entitlement that the club felt that all it needed to do was get high draft picks and everything else would follow.

I think the list when it was put together was pretty good. It was initially flaky however and was only prepared to win on it's own terms. Without proper work put into it, it is now useless.

Agree whole heartedly on both points.

If you know/think the coach and admin are happy or even would prefer to lose, why go the extra mile and do all the things required. 95% at training will do. Half hearted recovery sessions. A few extra late nights and drinks? No worries. The coaches will get the desried result. That is why we are where we are at and will require a massive effort from Neeld, Misson and Craig to lift our standards.

And I'd love to know where our Messiah complex comes from. So many supporters and apparently admin/coaches always looking to the superstar NOT on our list thats going to come in and save the day. Giving the kids significant numbers like 4 and 31 before they've even played a game is part of this. The endless threads on this forum about the 17 year old kid thats going to carry us to a flag. WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A FLAG!!! The are damn hard to get and require persistent hard work and even then are not gauranteed.

Some and only some clubs can "tank" and not have it damage the culture like it has ours.

Schwab likely to have his contract renewed.

http://www.theage.co...0805-23nfg.html

"As a general rule we do not comment on contracts until they are done, however in this case I'd like to say - as I have said many times this year - the board has been extremely impressed with the professional way Cameron has handled many extremely difficult and unique issues this year," McLardy told guests at the Demons' official luncheon. "Cameron is a highly experienced CEO and the board has complete faith in his ability to deliver the key elements of our future club plans.

"The morale in our football department, and indeed with our entire Melbourne footy club staff, remains high under Cam's leadership in really trying circumstances. An announcement on his tenure can be expected in the next couple of weeks."

Edited August 5, 201213 yr by Range Rover