"Tanking"

[mauriesy 7,189]

Well ... I did get the idea from Che Guevara!

Or maybe you got it from me?

I claim IP.

[Whispering_Jack 29,338]

Or maybe you got it from me?

I claim IP.

Well done.

You take the IP and I'll take royalties

[daisycutter 29,431]

{3}

jack are going to throw yourself on the mercy of the court

[Whispering_Jack 29,338]

{3}

jack are going to throw yourself on the mercy of the court

I had no idea but when I know what they're going to charge me with I'll plead guilty (but with no intent).

[Guest José Mourinho]

Sorry, but I don't like the idea.

It would condemn a team like Port Adelaide to an extended period of absolute failure, and likely the collapse of the club, with the supporters knowing how hard it would be to return to the top.

St Kilda have just had a period of extended relative success, playing in consecutive GFs, yet failed to get the elusive win.

I don't think they are more deserving of an early pick.

I'm in favour of using the cumulative record of clubs from the last 3 or 4 years to determine draft order, or failing that, a lottery.

For a lottery, the odds would have to be heavily favoured towards keeping the current order intact, but the element of risk would deter any further tanking.

The order to revert to reverse ladder order once the 2nd round begins.

[Whispering_Jack 29,338]

Sorry, but I don't like the idea.

Well that's ok but if you don't like the idea, blame Maurie. It's his idea, after all.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I've been giving this some thought and I've come up with this one.

To eliminate tanking, I would change the system for the next ten years to give preference in order to the length of time since a particular club won its last premiership. For the newbies that haven't won a flag at all, I would use as the benchmark, the year they entered the competition (GWS and GCS have had ample concessions and Freo gets a good spot anyway). This would have given us this order for the 2012 draft:

1 Western Bulldogs

2 Melbourne

3 St. Kilda

4 Richmond

5 Fremantle

6 Carlton

7 Adelaide

8 North Melbourne

9 Essendon

10 Brisbane Lions

11 Port Adelaide

12 West Coast Eagles

13 Hawthorn

14 Collingwood

15 GCS

16 Geelong

17 GWS

18 Sydney Swans

The incentive to tank has been eliminated and the Doggies keep getting #1 every year until they win a premiership (I might consider putting them between Carlton and Adelaide however, because that's when Footscray became the Western Bulldogs and this would lift Melbourne to # 1).

The idea is to give the clubs that have gone through hard times, the opportunity to rise without tempting them to list manage or, god forbid, break any AFL laws.

Thoughts?

I lke it Jack, but make it so noone can get a No1 pick within 3 Yrs of each 1st pick.

if you get a 1st pick then the next longest period club takes the head of the que. & so on.

After the 1st Rnd, revert back to a pure example of what you've displayed.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Or maybe you got it from me?

I claim IP.

nice work

[Guest José Mourinho]

I lke it Jack, but make it so noone can get a No1 pick within 3 Yrs of each 1st pick.

if you get a 1st pick then the next longest period club takes the head of the que. & so on.

After the 1st Rnd, revert back to a pure example of what you've displayed.

But where in the queue do you then put the team that had last year's number 1 pick?

And if you don't have a mechanism like that, you have 1 team getting 4 x number 1 picks, then another team get 3 x number 1 picks, after 4 years of number 2 picks...

It'll actually end up creating "super teams" moreso than the GC and GWS draft concessions.

It's simply not a good system in my view.

[dee-luded 2,959]

But where in the queue do you then put the team that had last year's number 1 pick?

And if you don't have a mechanism like that, you have 1 team getting 4 x number 1 picks, then another team get 3 x number 1 picks, after 4 years of number 2 picks...

It'll actually end up creating "super teams" moreso than the GC and GWS draft concessions.

It's simply not a good system in my view.

I thought that would be obvious, next in line. (But make it 4Yrs or 5Yrs)

2013 Draft...

1 Western Bulldogs

2 Melbourne

3 St. Kilda

4 Richmond

5 Fremantle

--------------------------

2014 Draft...

1 Melbourne

2 Western Bulldogs

3 St. Kilda

4 Richmond

5 Fremantle

--------------------------

2015 Draft...

1 St. Kilda

2 Western Bulldogs

3 Melbourne

4 Richmond

5 Fremantle

--------------------------

2016 Draft

1 Richmond

2 Western Bulldogs

3 Melbourne

4 St. Kilda

5 Fremantle

--------------------------

2017 Draft...

1 Fremantle

2 Western Bulldogs

3 Melbourne

4 St. Kilda

5 Richmond

* Following rounds, could revert to the pure form, of longest premiership drought = 1st Pick etc... excepting Father/Son picks which should only be allowed to be taken from 2nd Rnd onwards, with the bid system...

[Guest José Mourinho]

Not obvious, and not a good system.

[dee-luded 2,959]

.

It'll actually end up creating "super teams" moreso than the GC and GWS draft concessions.

It's simply not a good system in my view.

After 5 Yrs it will start to sort itself out.

It would take most of those clubs at least 5 yrs to grow the club into a potential Premiership outfit...

And it wouldn't be a superteam, as it would be difficult to maintain the desire to be top. as with most top clubs.

and EVEN more difficult to be an elite team, in a more EVEN competition.

Edited January 28, 2013 by dee-luded

[daisycutter 29,431]

I had no idea but when I know what they're going to charge me with I'll plead guilty (but with no intent).

sorry, wrong thread (australia day hangover)

[biggestred 4,850]

i prefer the idea of a composite ladder over the last say 5 years.

no one would want to be [censored] for 5 years just to get a draft pick.

if a team was amazing for 3 years and then fell in a hole - they still dont deserve good picks just because they were crap for 2 years.

[Slartibartfast 16,945]

Or maybe you got it from me?

I claim IP.

I wouldn't if I were you. I'd try and palm it off onto WJ who I can only assume made the suggestion tongue in cheek.

[stuie 7,374]

Another absolutely nothing "article" from our buddy Jon Pierik... It follows his usual formula, one paragraph of seemingly made up "information" with absolutely nothing to back it up, then he simply pads out the rest of the page with a recap of the "tanking timeline"...

Lawyers keep powder dry on tanking.

[pitmaster 3,474]

Yeah well, I feel for the guy a bit. He's had to file something because it's deadline day but there's nothing new to say.

That's really the good news.

It still comes down to the ridiculous 'vault meeting', (thanks for that amateurish misrepresentation CW), a game in which Melbourne finished in front at the final siren, and whether Cameron Schwab looked happy enough after we thumped Port Adelaide fcs. I want to know if he was crook in the guts. Was the fish off at the president's lunch that day?

Unless there is something the investigators have not leaked - and that seems unlikely - then this should be able to be blown out of the water.

Edited January 28, 2013 by pitmaster

[nutbean 8,838]

This comment in the article relating to Dean Bailey, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly

"Each of the parties has different legal representation. At least two are set to claim the five-month AFL investigation, compiled in an 800-page dossier, has no hard evidence, but one party still believes there will be at least one casualty when the issue is settled."

I agree - I am tipping that at the end of this investigation Dean Bailey will no longer be at our club. ( call it a hunch)

[mauriesy 7,189]

I wouldn't if I were you. I'd try and palm it off onto WJ who I can only assume made the suggestion tongue in cheek.

I just want to go down in history as the inventor of the Duckworth-Maurie draft system.

[daisycutter 29,431]

I just want to go down in history as the inventor of the Duckworth-Maurie draft system.

or the #uckingworthless-Maurie draft system

just kidding maurie

[Pates 9,626]

Another absolutely nothing "article" from our buddy Jon Pierik... It follows his usual formula, one paragraph of seemingly made up "information" with absolutely nothing to back it up, then he simply pads out the rest of the page with a recap of the "tanking timeline"...

Lawyers keep powder dry on tanking.

Very in depth article that one. I suppose we should be used to it, practically every article has used recycled manure to extend the word count to make it seem more intelligent.

[Deeoldfart 7,999]

This comment in the article relating to Dean Bailey, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly

"Each of the parties has different legal representation. At least two are set to claim the five-month AFL investigation, compiled in an 800-page dossier, has no hard evidence, but one party still believes there will be at least one casualty when the issue is settled."

I agree - I am tipping that at the end of this investigation Dean Bailey will no longer be at our club. ( call it a hunch)

Ha, ha ......... and of course there was also the sudden and 'mysterious' resignation of former AFL football operations manager, Adrian Anderson. The casualties mount in AFL Tanking fiasco ..

[jnrmac 19,931]

ANyone heard Wellman's name mentioned in all of this? He was at the club with a year to run on his contract and the club let him go without a fight. Just wonderin whether he had an axe to grind....

[45HG 1,539]

ANyone heard Wellman's name mentioned in all of this? He was at the club with a year to run on his contract and the club let him go without a fight. Just wonderin whether he had an axe to grind....

I can only hope that he is implicated and forced to return to Melbourne to continue his coaching role.

[rpfc 28,079]

ANyone heard Wellman's name mentioned in all of this? He was at the club with a year to run on his contract and the club let him go without a fight. Just wonderin whether he had an axe to grind....

I thought we just let him go because he was keen to go back to the Bombers under Golden Boy.