"Tanking", as mandated by the rules and the directives of the AFL's CEO, does not include employing unusual tactics in matches, using players in positions where they do not usually play, resting star players with minor injuries, who would likely not be rested if the team were contesting finals or playing younger players who do not yet have much experience at AFL level.

On that basis, we've never tanked according to the AFL rules but we have, like many others, been naughty boys.

I'd like to see the AFL put an end to this farce, not by persecuting one club and one club alone, but rather by drawing up new laws that make it very clear what behaviour is acceptable and what is not.

Needless to say, that would absolve the MFC of all potential charges in the AFL's tanking folly.

As for last year, we might have been naughty boys but we didn't lose the last ten matches of the season like the Bulldogs did in their unsuccessful bid to finish third last and therefore finish up with picks 3 & 4 ahead of 5 & 6. Their performance in losing to an emaciated and injury stricken Carlton was pathetic and I'm surprised that it escaped the attention of pundits like Jay Clark and Jon Pierik.

Maybe if the AFL stop handing out priority picks like roots in a brothel then no club would see the need to tank.

Maybe if the AFL stop handing out priority picks like roots in a brothel then no club would see the need to tank.

can you provide the address of your brothel please?

i might try a little tanking myself if they're handing them out

Edited January 23, 201312 yr by daisycutter

Maybe if the AFL stop handing out priority picks like roots in a brothel then no club would see the need to tank.

They have stopped.

They have stopped.

who? the brothel?

I think we might have tanked last year. I raised it with some other supporters and I was serious.

If we did all power to the Club, we benefited from it and got some terrific young kids in. Maximizing the value of our Scully comp picks made a lot of sense.

No point tanking this year until we know if we've got any picks.

If we tanked we did it in a Collingwood 2005 fashion and not the Melbourne 2009 "how to (obviously) tank 101" mould.

Did Neeld pick his absolutely best team every single week to maximise that week's chances ? Perhaps not. Did Neeld coach to win every quarter of every game played ? Absolutely.

As another poster said, it gets back to your definition.

Should we tank this year - matter of definitions.

Aaron Davey and Frawley are two good examples.

If the season is completely gone,shot and horrible by mid year ( as opposed to us having improved and whilst not winning every game being competitive and in good positions to beat most) and Aaron Davey is going just ok - I have no problem with Neeld marking his card that he wont be around next year so get a kid into play instead.

If the season is shot and we cant buy a goal, Clark and Dawes are out injured - I have no problem with trying Frawley as a one out full forward.

In a season when we are on the rise and "in" most matches, would you drop Davey or play Frawley at full forward - probably not. But when the season is shot we might unearth a kid by playing him earlier in Aarons spot and Frawley might turn out to be our next 100 goal full forward.

Is this tanking ? Is winning every game paramount - absolutely, but by doing the above moves you would have to think that this is not conservative coaching and is higher risk/high reward but probably lessens our chances of winning.

Whilst our team is developing I would still opt for the above - rather than have an average Aaron Davey running around.

Note - I am only using Aaron as an example and would love him to tear it up this year

If we tanked we did it in a Collingwood 2005 fashion and not the Melbourne 2009 "how to (obviously) tank 101" mould.

Well we've had a bit of practice. Most dismiss it out of hand but I'm quite serious. Having decided in March 2012 to exercise our two comp picks and knowing we had serious deficiencies in our list as well as knowing we were committed to Jack Viney it strikes me as very fortuitous that we won, with a better FD and a better list, half the number of games we did the previous year.

TBH I certainly don't think we intended to lose at the beginning of the year but we had a very hard draw in the first half of the season and once it panned out the way it did, well........

And what a lovely way to stick it up the AFL. Want to investigate us for tanking do you? Well watch this........

I won't get into a debate on what tanking is because that is a personal interpretation but I believed we tanked in 2009 and I believed many other clubs did it before us.

Well we've had a bit of practice. Most dismiss it out of hand but I'm quite serious. Having decided in March 2012 to exercise our two comp picks and knowing we had serious deficiencies in our list as well as knowing we were committed to Jack Viney it strikes me as very fortuitous that we won, with a better FD and a better list, half the number of games we did the previous year.

TBH I certainly don't think we intended to lose at the beginning of the year but we had a very hard draw in the first half of the season and once it panned out the way it did, well........

And what a lovely way to stick it up the AFL. Want to investigate us for tanking do you? Well watch this........

I won't get into a debate on what tanking is because that is a personal interpretation but I believed we tanked in 2009 and I believed many other clubs did it before us.

You can't just say 'let's not debate what it is but I believe we did it' as the former drives whether the latter is true.

I believe if 'tanking' is going to be useful from a legislative standpoint then it has to be defined by specific outlawed action. Therefore we look for any specific action that can be solely a desire to lose - that would be telling players to lose, as the rest (experimentation, rotations, surgeries, etc) are not actions solely used to lose.

So if that is the useful definition of tanking from a legal sense - we didn't tank.

We bottomed out like a pro (not hard when you are sh!te) but we didn't tank.

And it also means there is no 'sliding scale' of tanking and that Carlton didn't and no-one has.

(Save for the Swans when Roos told McVeigh not to kick a goal as he didn't want to win an NAB Cup game)

You can't just say 'let's not debate what it is but I believe we did it' as the former drives whether the latter is true.

OK, let me put it another way. The definition of tanking has been discussed, debated, dissected and regurgitated so often that having another discussion about it here is just plain boring.

My premise is that there is a significant chance that we wanted to finish third last in 2012. Called it "Advanced List Management" if you like.

Happy? If not don't read my posts. Simple.

So I am still unclear on all this, please can any one help me by defining Tanking for me.

I just think there is just not enough info out there for people. If this is not the right forum please can some one direct me to a more appropriate one.

Well we've had a bit of practice. Most dismiss it out of hand but I'm quite serious. Having decided in March 2012 to exercise our two comp picks and knowing we had serious deficiencies in our list as well as knowing we were committed to Jack Viney it strikes me as very fortuitous that we won, with a better FD and a better list, half the number of games we did the previous year.

You don't have to be 'blind freddie' to work it out, and perhaps you may see now another aspect as to why we won half as many. But this is probably just poppycock on my behalf, perhaps we were just no good and did go backwards.

As soon as we announced activation of the compo picks and the reasons you mention, it was always going to be a trying year for the punters supporters.....

I mentioned it around activation time, that because of the deficiencies (ie.midfield) it might be in the clubs interests to experiment if the club found it tough and the compo picks would be just as enticing as a priority pick with 3 in the first dozen or so picks.

TBH I certainly don't think we intended to lose at the beginning of the year but we had a very hard draw in the first half of the season and once it panned out the way it did, well........

Indeed.

I won't get into a debate on what tanking is because that is a personal interpretation but I believed we tanked in 2009 and I believed many other clubs did it before us.

Not that long ago, I thought you said you held the view that we didn't tank. Then again, I could be mistaken.

So I am still unclear on all this, please can any one help me by defining Tanking for me.

I just think there is just not enough info out there for people. If this is not the right forum please can some one direct me to a more appropriate one.

good luck with that - heres your rules

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

The likes of CC and CS are being hit with draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute.

The problem is the interpretation - there are no actions defined that tell us what contravenes these rules.

OK, let me put it another way. The definition of tanking has been discussed, debated, dissected and regurgitated so often that having another discussion about it here is just plain boring.

My premise is that there is a significant chance that we wanted to finish third last in 2012. Called it "Advanced List Management" if you like.

Happy? If not don't read my posts. Simple.

(Ignoring the grandstanding)

I would say that it would be welcome if that was the intent because we had such an awful season but I think that the start of the year was so tough that it was always going to be a year filled with new players given a chance, regulars played in different positions, and older players sent to Casey.

So we didn't start with that in mind, but we didn't do our best to win some meaningless games with Fitzpatrick getting games, Garland playing everywhere, and Moloney playing at Casey (for example).

(And my point is that 'tanking' is such a loaded word now that it encapsulates almost everything a developing team does in the eyes of some)

My premise is that there is a significant chance that we wanted to finish third last in 2012. Called it "Advanced List Management" if you like.

It's a devilish concept ...

I'm picturing "no case to answer" and then we shoot up the ladder this year a la West Coast in 2011 with Hogan to come in 2014. Ohh yeah!

Should we tank this year - matter of definitions.

Aaron Davey and Frawley are two good examples.

If the season is completely gone,shot and horrible by mid year ( as opposed to us having improved and whilst not winning every game being competitive and in good positions to beat most) and Aaron Davey is going just ok - I have no problem with Neeld marking his card that he wont be around next year so get a kid into play instead.

If the season is shot and we cant buy a goal, Clark and Dawes are out injured - I have no problem with trying Frawley as a one out full forward.

In a season when we are on the rise and "in" most matches, would you drop Davey or play Frawley at full forward - probably not. But when the season is shot we might unearth a kid by playing him earlier in Aarons spot and Frawley might turn out to be our next 100 goal full forward.

Is this tanking ? Is winning every game paramount - absolutely, but by doing the above moves you would have to think that this is not conservative coaching and is higher risk/high reward but probably lessens our chances of winning.

Whilst our team is developing I would still opt for the above - rather than have an average Aaron Davey running around.

Note - I am only using Aaron as an example and would love him to tear it up this year

I have heard that Frawley is very unhappy with his 4 yr contract, and bitter that he signed it.

I wonder if those who accept the wide definition of tanking think we tanked in 2003 and 2007?

"We didn't tank" - the Emperor's new clothes.

I wonder if those who accept the wide definition of tanking think we tanked in 2003 and 2007?

I wonder if those that run this site are aware of the DAMAGE that tanking has done from the outside of this club, i cant understand why these putrid threads cannot be abandoned until the 29th, its just damaging fans even more, there alot more supporters that follow this FANTASTIC forum that are not members,they dont wont to read this crap eveyday, this has got worse than the Scully thread, IMO this garbage should wait until charges or laid or were found to have no case to answer, IMO its not only damaging the club but its damaging this forum.

I wonder if those who accept the wide definition of tanking think we tanked in 2003 and 2007?

That would be the only 2 years in the history of the PP where a team has won 5 games?? Oh and it was Melbourne both times????

See we never tank. If we did we would have had another 2 PPs.....

I have heard that Frawley is very unhappy with his 4 yr contract, and bitter that he signed it.

Why would you post stuff like this and then.......

I wonder if those that run this site are aware of the DAMAGE that tanking has done from the outside of this club, i cant understand why these putrid threads cannot be abandoned until the 29th, its just damaging fans even more, there alot more supporters that follow this FANTASTIC forum that are not members,they dont wont to read this crap eveyday, this has got worse than the Scully thread, IMO this garbage should wait until charges or laid or were found to have no case to answer, IMO its not only damaging the club but its damaging this forum.

complain about damage being done to the club?

Why would you post stuff like this and then.......

complain about damage being done to the club?

Thats got nothing to do with TANKING, i heard he thought that 4 yrs was way to long, and if he had his time again it would be 2yrs.

Thats got nothing to do with TANKING, i heard he thought that 4 yrs was way to long, and if he had his time again it would be 2yrs.

So he is not very good at Mathematics....There is only one person who can fix the problem if he is unhappy....FRAWLEY HIMSELF.

Looking at some of the responses here, I suspect that they may have missed what I have assumed: that the post was actually tongue in cheek.

Still, until it is outlawed specifically, it may be fun to try for the first time, just to see what it is like. :-)

If Frawley is not happy, why accept a re-appointment to the Leadership team or head of with your teammates to the cricket?