If tanking is not doing your best, then Matthews has just sanctioned it. In today's Sun he tells the Dockers to manipulate the result to ensure their best final position. He says that is what he would do if he was Coach. Yes that's right gamblers and lovers of the sporting contest, he is telling a club not to do its best, to manipulate a result.

doesnt exist lol

And this is why nothign will ever really happen. The AFL will simply attend to it fromnt eh other end so to speak by removing orl limiting the rewards for "list managing".

Though at the end of the day every club is within its rights to seek the best outcome of ITS choice, not necessarily that of the bookies etc.

Funny though, its as though this is only a modern thiing. "Manipulating" thiings has been since the day dot

I read it and thought the same - funnily enough no one cares when its to manipulate position results for the finals. Happens a lot.

problem is - wathcing freo the other week - they will struggle NOT to smash us.

He's actually saying that he is not encouraging them to lose but simply not trying to win by too much. However, I don't see there is too much of a difference because both concepts would, if proven, bring the game into disrepute.

If a respected and successful former coach is promoting this idea then the AFL should have a good look at itself and accept that by sitting back idly over more than a decade and denying there was a problem, they have made it infinitely worse.

They should introduce a lottery system for the draft and announce a clear policy on clubs and coaches allowing games to be played on their merit including what can and cannot be done in terms of team selection.

I've been saying this for years, there is a difference between deliberately trying to lose (tanking) and winning not being your top priority. Matthews has just confirmed this.

If tanking is not doing your best, then Matthews has just sanctioned it. In today's Sun he tells the Dockers to manipulate the result to ensure their best final position. He says that is what he would do if he was Coach. Yes that's right gamblers and lovers of the sporting contest, he is telling a club not to do its best, to manipulate a result.

I don't agree, IMO Tanking is to throw a game, individually for say money, re gambling or such or a debt collector or such. A deliberate loss for instant gain, usually money.

Everyone in life positions themselves one way or another to achieve whatever it may be, even if [censored]'s the crown jewels, or if it's a toasted crumpet.

Managing your outcome to maximise your best possible result isn't against the ethos of the game.

Maybe it just isn't to the liking of people who bet on sport.

I don't agree, IMO Tanking is to throw a game, individually for say money, re gambling or such or a debt collector or such. A deliberate loss for instant gain, usually money.

Everyone in life positions themselves one way or another to achieve whatever it may be, even if [censored]'s the crown jewels, or if it's a toasted crumpet.

Managing your outcome to maximise your best possible result isn't against the ethos of the game.

Maybe it just isn't to the liking of people who bet on sport.

deeluded, you can gamble on a lot of things in a footy match other than winning

I don't think you can argue that manipulating a winning margin (to achieve a good outcome/home final) is not essentially the same as deliberately losing (to achieve a good outcome/planning for next season).

If it's OK by Mathews to manipulate the score to get a home final, surely it would also be OK to lose your last match to get a home final. Depending on the ladder you might want to win by only 1 point. Or even lose by a large enough margin to get your percentage below another team's and thereby ensure a home final. What a farce that would be - instruct your team to kick the wrong way. Organize lots of interchange infringements. :>)

Gamblers - you just need to build this possibility into deciding on your bet on the winning margin, just as you have to do for lowly teams possibly losing to get a good draft pick until the AFL cleans up its act.

I don't think you can argue that manipulating a winning margin (to achieve a good outcome/home final) is not essentially the same as deliberately losing (to achieve a good outcome/planning for next season).

If it's OK by Mathews to manipulate the score to get a home final, surely it would also be OK to lose your last match to get a home final. Depending on the ladder you might want to win by only 1 point. Or even lose by a large enough margin to get your percentage below another team's and thereby ensure a home final. What a farce that would be - instruct your team to kick the wrong way. Organize lots of interchange infringements. :>)

Gamblers - you just need to build this possibility into deciding on your bet on the winning margin, just as you have to do for lowly teams possibly losing to get a good draft pick until the AFL cleans up its act.

I think it's very different to adjust a winning margin to a deliberate loss.

One is a healthy club outcome, & the other is really against the ethos of the games purpose. Even if the game is stacked in the powerful clubs favor.

deeluded, you can gamble on a lot of things in a footy match other than winning

You've lost me, what is it your trying to say?

Gamblers - you just need to build this possibility into deciding on your bet on the winning margin, just as you have to do for lowly teams possibly losing to get a good draft pick until the AFL cleans up its act.

They do, if they are any good.

I don't agree, IMO Tanking is to throw a game, individually for say money, re gambling or such or a debt collector or such. A deliberate loss for instant gain, usually money.

Everyone in life positions themselves one way or another to achieve whatever it may be, even if [censored]'s the crown jewels, or if it's a toasted crumpet.

Managing your outcome to maximise your best possible result isn't against the ethos of the game.

Maybe it just isn't to the liking of people who bet on sport.

Don't forget my opening line " If tanking is not doing your best ".

We have never really had it defined. The AFL inquiry into tanking, is really whether we have brought the game into disrepute.

They do, if they are any good.

Yes gamblers should take experimenting etc into account, so why does the gambling industry whinge about 'tanking' in any cases other than outright bribery to fix a match?

I can understand the 'ethos' of the game being anti-tanking, but not the gambling angle.

That said, I still think there is not much of an 'ethos' difference between winning the next match and winning in the longer term (by getting home finals or getting better draft picks). It's up to the AFL to make rules which don't encourage anything which inhibits teams from trying to win every match by the largest margin they can...... without tiring in Q4 their star player who's needed in the following week (hmmm impossible perhaps).

Don't forget my opening line " If tanking is not doing your best ".

We have never really had it defined. The AFL inquiry into tanking, is really whether we have brought the game into disrepute.

Yep, & I can't see they can bring that against Us, without bringing it against 80% of the rest of the competition, the Eagles & Pies included. Carltank, Dawks.

Only Paul Roos Swans, the Crows & maybe the Cats are the ones that I'm not sure if they've List Managed they're way to a rebuild.

He's actually saying that he is not encouraging them to lose but simply not trying to win by too much. However, I don't see there is too much of a difference because both concepts would, if proven, bring the game into disrepute.

If a respected and successful former coach is promoting this idea then the AFL should have a good look at itself and accept that by sitting back idly over more than a decade and denying there was a problem, they have made it infinitely worse.

They should introduce a lottery system for the draft and announce a clear policy on clubs and coaches allowing games to be played on their merit including what can and cannot be done in terms of team selection.

Maybe let the Commission decide the draft order and any priority picks at the end of each season. They could take int account the performance of clubs over a number of years rather than just one year. For instance when Collingwood finished top one year they finished last the following year. The Commission may then decide not to give them the first draft pick in that year because of good performances in past years.

Edited September 1, 201213 yr by Theo

Leigh Matthews does not exist.

, so why does the gambling industry whinge about 'tanking' in any cases other than outright bribery to fix a match?

Because they need to have a scenario where everyone is trying their best to win.

Oh the Preciousness around here can be as bad as the Culture, or is it part of the same thing?

Yep, & I can't see they can bring that against Us, without bringing it against 80% of the rest of the competition, the Eagles & Pies included. Carltank, Dawks.

Only Paul Roos Swans, the Crows & maybe the Cats are the ones that I'm not sure if they've List Managed they're way to a rebuild.

Agree. However, even Roos told McVeigh in a NAB Cup game to go forward but not to kick a goal. It was overheard by an official. No inquiry there.

A derby elimination final?

Think of the financial benefit of that... AD is, and nothing else.

Personally, I think WCE will [censored] Freo this time around if it transpires.

Wonder what happens if you bet on yourself to win.....

I've been saying this for years, there is a difference between deliberately trying to lose (tanking) and winning not being your top priority. Matthews has just confirmed this.

But in this case surely actually losing would be in their interests.

After reading Matthews article tickets for this game should be sold at half price.

Tanking is Tanking.

so why does the gambling industry whinge about 'tanking' in any cases other than outright bribery to fix a match?

Because they need to have a scenario where everyone is trying their best to win.

I disagree. Smart punters and bookies already take into account all sorts of things which might affect a result (likely weather, possibly injured players selected, final teams etc). Adding in a few more uncertainties just tests gamblers skills further, eg. is side A 'experimenting', are they 'playing for a home final'.

The AFL should arrange the rules for the good of the sport, not for gamblers' special interests.