Nothing wrong with the article at all. 100% spot on.

As for the Gaz man, that piece on FC showed why he shouldn't have been football boss in 2011. Jimmy needed a chop out but he wasn't the man to do it. Remember that Cuddles was never sacked from the club full stop. He got moved into a community liaison role and continued to collect a pay check. Schwab got a three year extension and used his first two acts as CEO to hire Mark Neeld and get EnergyWatch on board. Bailey got to sit out the front of a presser like a shag on a rock without the president or the CEO by his side in his own suit with sponsorship and club backdrops removed from the wall.

Gaz has made a contribution to the club on the playing front and I respect that. However (a lot of people did can Happell over this article on here), this article does sum up the other legacy he (and sad to say it, Jimmy although he had a lot of desirable qualities in a president) left at the club.

Hollywood Boulevard

It was one of the weakest moment in our club's history when Jim and Don left Bailey on his own and waited until he was in the bathroom before they went home.

An absolutely disgraceful show of sportsmanship from the boys club.

At least PJ had the class to sit next to Neeld and explain the decision.

And yes, you can have views like this and still love Jim Stynes for what he did for the club.

Jimmy did many a great thing for the club but he was still part of the problem unfortunately. The boys club came back in and ruined this club.

For several years (2007 to 2009) we were involved in a 'race to the bottom'. In 2009 we got 'lucky' and got the pp for Scully/Trengove. 3 years of 'loosing mentality'. New players came into a toxic environment with little development to build confidence/skills/belief.

2010 relatively uneventful but the stoush between the late Dean Bailey and the orchestrators of the 'race to the bottom' was just warming up with players caught in the middle. New players came into a toxic environment with little development to build confidence/skills/belief.

Fast Forwrad to June 2011 and the infamous 186. Players lose their beloved coach and feel incredibly guilty (for going directly to the President) and incredibly responsibile (for the 186). New players came into a toxic environment with little development to build confidence/skills/belief

Then in 2012 arrives MN. Losses started to pile up. The thrashings were happening on and off the field. New players came into a toxic environment with little development to build confidence/skills/belief. .

So while not many of the 2007-2009 players are still at the club the perpretators of the 'race to the bottom' strategy were there, right up to mid 2013. MN was still there 1 year ago.

The resultant cumulative and lingering affect of 7 years of 'losing' be it orchestrated or incompetence has left players with deep, deep scars without confidence/skills belief. It is this to which Roos was referring: The 'tanking' years were just the foundation stone for the 'we can't win' mentality.

Surely DL's (and Garry L) can see the affect 7 continuous years of rubbish has on players. It will take a while to fix it but we have turned the corner...at least the thrahings have stopped.

you haave just nailed it LH.

There are not many more than half a dozen players on our list who were regulars in the so-called tanking year of 2009. What's the excuse for the other 36?

There is no excuse. But the problem does exist.

We are still a mentally weak club when games are there to be won. I believe the Tanking years and the Neeld years still linger.

The player skill level on Game Day illustrate this.

No confidence.

Saw her get worked up about the topic on Footy Classified.

In recent times I've been gradually gaining more respect for Wilson, but then every once in a while she still vomits on the walls with this kind of cheap and pointless sniping based on a personal obsession.

Melbourne tanked. Melbourne also, both before and after that, have had the most sustained run of abject failure of any modern club, including even the demoralised, binge drinking, amateur-hour sideshow that was Carlton in the early 2000s.

Also tanking in that time were,

Carlton (2007, et al)- screwed up their drafting, possibly even worse than we did (amazing!), just don't have the cattle, but also still look occasionally dangerous.

Hawthorn (2005) - made top choices with their top picks. Also benefited from lucrative over-value trades. Plus, they already had multiple stars on their list when they tanked... hmm.

Collingwood (2005) - The draft picks from their tank year (an amazing sudden drop in form followed by an amazing rise in form... it's.. amazing)

West Coast (2009) - less well known, is that West Coast attempted a Priority Pick tank in 2009. Prior to the infamous Melbourne-Richmond game, West Coast had clearly tossed in games against both those opponents, which, tragically, was what made the Richmond-Melbourne game so 'important to lose'. Unluckily for West Coast, they came up against a Knights-coached Essendon just hitting their traditional late season implosion. In an amazing turnaround, the Eagles were so inspired by breaking through to five wins that they then won three of their four remaining games, with the only loss being against Neil Craig's Crowbots as they made a late-season attack on the top-four.

But we all know all of this. Why doesn't Wilson? doesn't she even know about footywire.com/afl ?

And yes, I am annoyed by Roos' bringing it up. It's a cop-out, an excuse for failure... unless... unless he is quietly making war on a few leftover rotten eggs within the club. That would be interesting.

What doesn't seem to be mentioned is that Carlton made the finals three years in a row from 2009 to 2011, only two years after their tank in 2007.

In one of those years they were less than a kick away from a preliminary final.

So tanking killed our club but helped propel Carlton to within a kick of a prelim?

No, the difference was Carlton picked up Judd and had previously drafted some talented players in Murphy, Gibbs, etc, whereas we completely stuffed up our draft selections.

Had we nailed those early picks we would currently have a fairly strong team. That's simply what it comes down to.

It is also hardly mentioned that in 2010 we were a team on the rise, posting 8.5 wins and producing some great efforts against the top teams. I didn't see any effects of tanking in that team. To me, it was more what happened in 2011 (the split in the footy department) that started our cultural demise and culminated in 186, the knee-jerk and poorly handled sacking of Bailey, the reinstatement of Schwab and the hiring of Neeld. From the outside, as a passionate supporter, this appeared to me to create that 'toxic' culture in the club - not what happened in 2009. Funny then how we recovered from 2009 in 2010 but have not won more than four games in a season since 2011.

It just frustrates me when only half the story is covered, eg. Caro failing to mention how Carlton nearly made a prelim on the back of tanking.

I think Roos' view that our current predicament is due to tanking is far too simplistic and narrow - if he wants to bring up the past then he should mention the real reasons why we are where we are. For such a fantastic coach and media performer it was a really poor comment.

Great and thoughtful analysis as ever Goodoil and you've detailed the impact of the expansion teams on us.

But my point was that by the time the expansion teams came in we'd had a pretty good go at early picks. Morton, Grimes, Maric, Watts, Strauss, Blease, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Tapscott were all top 20 picks in the three years prior to the expansion clubs coming in. We traded pick 12 for Clark and used the other on Cook. We now appeared to have made a questionable call on Toumpas when Wines and others in the top 10 are flourishing.

You are clearly right that we'd probably be better off if the expansion teams hadn't come in but so would everyone else. And we mucked up not one but the vast majority of our 10 top 20 picks in 3 years. If we had got those closer to right then we wouldn't be talking about our current situation.

But I agree with much of what you've said. Scully/Trengove was a shocking year and the Watts year wasn't much better. We've been desperately unlucky this year with Hogan and Clark.

Your point on FA is very good.

Scoop I agree with just about everything you've said. I think Roos has FU with his tanking comments - he's given the topic oxygen again and he's off the mark IMO. His post game presser was terrible as I've already stated.

I wonder how much is frustration, how much is protecting brand Roos and whether there is a hidden agenda. It's interesting that he talks about 7 years as that corresponds to Gardner's exit pretty much putting a line through Jack's theory.

If Roos had said after Sunday's loss "we have improved this year but this was an awful loss with terrible skills. It's not representitive of where we are but every now and again a young team learning a new game plan will have days like this." all the focus and bad publicity around our performance and past ineptitude would never have come up.

I hope he's acknowledged that to Jackson and the players.

he's given the topic oxygen again and he's off the mark IMO.

That's exactly right - it is unnecessary to bring it up again and especially so when it's not the cause of our current issues.

It is interesting regarding his motivation for the comments - I suspect frustration had a fair bit to do with it. Roos was clearly appalled by the skill level on Sunday and I'm sure he well and truly knows there are too many on the list who are not up to it. But the problem is he can't publicly say the truth (i.e. that we've recruited too many ordinary players and that's why we've been struggling for the last seven years). So he is probably just trying to find another reason that protects the players from criticism, which is commendable. The problem is though that in mentioning tanking it unnecessarily brings the topic back to life and makes it sound like we're looking for excuses.

Great and thoughtful analysis as ever Goodoil and you've detailed the impact of the expansion teams on us.

But my point was that by the time the expansion teams came in we'd had a pretty good go at early picks. Morton, Grimes, Maric, Watts, Strauss, Blease, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Tapscott were all top 20 picks in the three years prior to the expansion clubs coming in. We traded pick 12 for Clark and used the other on Cook. We now appeared to have made a questionable call on Toumpas when Wines and others in the top 10 are flourishing.

You are clearly right that we'd probably be better off if the expansion teams hadn't come in but so would everyone else. And we mucked up not one but the vast majority of our 10 top 20 picks in 3 years. If we had got those closer to right then we wouldn't be talking about our current situation.

But I agree with much of what you've said. Scully/Trengove was a shocking year and the Watts year wasn't much better. We've been desperately unlucky this year with Hogan and Clark.

Your point on FA is very good.

Scoop I agree with just about everything you've said. I think Roos has FU with his tanking comments - he's given the topic oxygen again and he's off the mark IMO. His post game presser was terrible as I've already stated.

I wonder how much is frustration, how much is protecting brand Roos and whether there is a hidden agenda. It's interesting that he talks about 7 years as that corresponds to Gardner's exit pretty much putting a line through Jack's theory.

If Roos had said after Sunday's loss "we have improved this year but this was an awful loss with terrible skills. It's not representitive of where we are but every now and again a young team learning a new game plan will have days like this." all the focus and bad publicity around our performance and past ineptitude would never have come up.

I hope he's acknowledged that to Jackson and the players.

Without wanting to get further involved in this discussion here and only for the sake of accuracy, Paul's board actually exited almost exactly 6 years ago. This is nothing specific about Paul or his board but the rot really started setting in at least two years before that and by 2007 when we lost a swag of games early, it was his board that finally sacked Neale Daniher so rather than "putting a line through" my theory you've actually confirmed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this time frame also co-incide with Barry Prendergast's first draft for the club (and wasn't that a disaster?).

Without wanting to get further involved in this discussion here and only for the sake of accuracy, Paul's board actually exited almost exactly 6 years ago. This is nothing specific about Paul or his board but the rot really started setting in at least two years before that and by 2007 when we lost a swag of games early, it was his board that finally sacked Neale Daniher so rather than "putting a line through" my theory you've actually confirmed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this time frame also co-incide with Barry Prendergast's first draft for the club (and wasn't that a disaster?).

I thought you'd bite.

Yep, CAC stuffed up 2007 and then Prendergast 2008 - 2011. Viney was 2012 and Taylor 2013. I think that's right anyway. I knew Barry and thought he was a clever footy person but he was a disaster although as Goodoil points out he was not dealt the easiest of hands.

There's no doubt the Gardner Board dropped the ball after a good start and Stynes/McLardy did the same after clearing the debt. Stynes/McLardy never got the footy dept right. The reality is we've had poor CEO's from about John Anderson on and I must say I'm surprised Schwab didn't do better after his time at Freo.

I think history is starting to show the late Dean Bailey in a much better light and had he had good funding and a unified club and an experienced head recruiter he may have been an excellent head coach. All he probably needed was Peter Jackson employed on the same day he was.

Onward and upward. I'm just hoping this stumble by Roos is a one off and not a sign of battle fatigue.

Disappointed in Paul Roos comments post match. Bewildering that he would make such comments after improvement in 2014 and in doing so, re-ignite the topic of tanking. He has been in control long enough (with just a few games left of the season), and made ground in improvement long enough, not to dig up the past. It's a cop out.

Despite how awful the Dees were on Sunday - and it was horrendous - no-one goes out to play AFL footy and doesn't try - it is just that they are not good enough.

Tanking is done by List Managers, Team selectors, Coaches on the day etc. - the players still try.

They smashed the Sydney Swans by 70 something points after the "tanking year". So nothing affected the players that day.

I thought you'd bite.

Yep, CAC stuffed up 2007 and then Prendergast 2008 - 2011. Viney was 2012 and Taylor 2013. I think that's right anyway. I knew Barry and thought he was a clever footy person but he was a disaster although as Goodoil points out he was not dealt the easiest of hands.

There's no doubt the Gardner Board dropped the ball after a good start and Stynes/McLardy did the same after clearing the debt. Stynes/McLardy never got the footy dept right. The reality is we've had poor CEO's from about John Anderson on and I must say I'm surprised Schwab didn't do better after his time at Freo.

I think history is starting to show the late Dean Bailey in a much better light and had he had good funding and a unified club and an experienced head recruiter he may have been an excellent head coach. All he probably needed was Peter Jackson employed on the same day he was.

Onward and upward. I'm just hoping this stumble by Roos is a one off and not a sign of battle fatigue.

You think that was a bite?

Heaven help the nearest victim if I ever really sharpen the fangs

Agreed with the sentiment about it being a stumble by Roos.

Our problems have been with our poor drafting, development, and our failure to trade for talent. We also were too quick to dispense with our experienced players and we banked on youth far too much. We had other issues of course but in terms of list management, we've been shocking.

However, despite all that, I believe our last off season was definitely a step in the right direction. Roosy is coming to terms with the state of our list and I believe his reference to tanking has to be strategic. Otherwise, it's out of character when we consider how measured he normally is.

In other words, there has to be more to this than meets the eye.

I don't for a moment buy into a theory that he is protecting brand Roos. Totally unfounded and unfair. Roos has nothing to prove in taking on the enormous task of rebuilding this club.

The guy has barely warmed the seat. It's a bit early to be jumping all over his words in post match pressers, to put it mildly.

Let's save the labels of monumental FUs for those that actually ARE. This was some raw honesty in a press conference that some people (who incidentally aren't in the inner sanctum) saw differently.

No-one is beyond criticism, but we need to back this man in 100%. This is the last roll of the dice for the MFC imo.

I don't for a moment buy into a theory that he is protecting brand Roos. Totally unfounded and unfair. Roos has nothing to prove in taking on the enormous task of rebuilding this club.

The guy has barely warmed the seat. It's a bit early to be jumping all over his words in post match pressers, to put it mildly.

Let's save the labels of monumental FUs for those that actually ARE. This was some raw honesty in a press conference that some people (who incidentally aren't in the inner sanctum) saw differently.

No-one is beyond criticism, but we need to back this man in 100%. This is the last roll of the dice for the MFC imo.

I don't think people are critical of his honesty, but rather that he got it wrong, very wrong.

That’s all water under the bridge now but the fact is that while I still have faith in Paul Roos we’re not showing anywhere near the progress most of us had hoped for on the field.

I think there is a difference between what we hoped and what we expected Jack. I thought we would win 6 and hoped for 8 and that was before Clark, Hogan and Trengove missed the whole year. I thought we would get smacked by all the mature sides and would drop off end of year as young bodies tired. I don't think we have been too far off. The frustration and angst I believe from most has been how close we have come in so many more games and how much better it could have looked.

I don't think people are critical of his honesty, but rather that he got it wrong, very wrong.

He's not the Messiah !!!! He's a very naughty boy ....now plss off !!!

It is ridiculous to blame our recruiting for the position we're in. There is the odd howler made at recruiting time but for the most part, there's been a fairly substantial consensus.

I'd be looking at Daniher's insistence on getting as many years out of his senior players and extending his own tenure which led to a mass exodus.

Secondly, our development has been poor. Colin Sylvia is one of the most sublimely talented footballers to play the game and yet his output has been very poor. I tend to lean towards the idea that he would have had a much greater career in a better system.

It is ridiculous to blame our recruiting for the position we're in. There is the odd howler made at recruiting time but for the most part, there's been a fairly substantial consensus.

Given its the players that decide the game ( effectively ) then Id say we have a history of getting the wrong ones...thats called recruiting

I'd be looking at Daniher's insistence on getting as many years out of his senior players and extending his own tenure which led to a mass exodus.

An irrelevance really Sydney ( as an example ) do just this, i.e keep experience on the park. hasnt hurt them much

Secondly, our development has been poor. Colin Sylvia is one of the most sublimely talented footballers to play the game and yet his output has been very poor. I tend to lean towards the idea that he would have had a much greater career in a better system.

Sylvia is a lazy player. Recent times at Freo have borne this out

It is ridiculous to blame our recruiting for the position we're in. There is the odd howler made at recruiting time but for the most part, there's been a fairly substantial consensus.

I'd be looking at Daniher's insistence on getting as many years out of his senior players and extending his own tenure which led to a mass exodus.

Secondly, our development has been poor. Colin Sylvia is one of the most sublimely talented footballers to play the game and yet his output has been very poor. I tend to lean towards the idea that he would have had a much greater career in a better system.

Sylvia's problem is the vacuum between his ears. I would think Freo have egg on their face. Talent will only get you so far.

You can spin it anyway you like Jack but it wasn't the Gardner Board that allowed Schwab to build his empire with $1.8 million in admin salaries that Jackson has been able to shed - annually. Imagine what even part of that money could have achieved over his period of management. It wasn't the Gardner Board that was so flush with money that they lent Schwab money for his own use from MFC coffers whilst underfunding the footy department. It wasn't on Gardner's Board that we squandered so many draft picks and completely failed to rebuild where so many others had.

The reality is we were in a poor place when Stynes replaced Gardner and with all the opportunity in the world and more money than Gardner ever had we are just a rabble after 7 years. Stynes, Schwab, Connolly and McLardy missed a golden opportunity to build our club and in fact it's a moot point that they achieved anything positive at all. Along with Richmond we are the only club to fail to rebuild given the opportunity we had.

Synes can blame Gardner, Gardner can blame Szondy, Szondy can blame Gutnick and so it goes on. The further back it goes the less relevant it becomes. I think you are one of the very very few that believe any significant part of our current situation sits with an administration which was replaced 7 years ago.

It was the Gardner board that told us everything was going fine and we were making profits. And oops we are $5m in debt. How did that happen?

Hmmm

Surely our players are being scarred just by playing in losing teams for so long - nothing to do with any "tanking" that may or may not have occurred, and there is NO evidence anywhere that our players were ever instructed to go out and try to lose (tanking is not defined anyway).

But not knowing how to win is a deep psychological issue in our players, and has nothing to do with not having desire to do so.

A big, huge, challenge for Roos and his team, and the on field leadership.

The "ghosts of 2009" were out in force this day, Roosy.

I was there that day.

Quote from commentary. " The Dees are gunna be something"

What the fu ck happened?

it seems a silly topic to bring up right before we apply for a priority pick, get the tanking stuff fresh in everyones mind and then ask for another pick.

I think its an intentional raising of the tanking word. we'll play a solid 4 games from here, beat GWS, nearly upset WC then ask for a PP on basis we DIDN'T Tank, but we're still in dire need and fit all the criterial the AFL have...