North looking at resting players

[KingDingAling 3,752]

In country footy teams rest players, sometimes 3/4's of a side, it is a natural part of football. People in the AFL that are kicking up a stink, I have no time for at all, not even a little bit, it just footy politics and the business side of the AFL - I hate the business side of the AFL. I like what North Melbourne have done, I think it is unfortunate that Brayshaw even has to speak diplomatically about the issue, I wouldn't. Maybe that is why he is where he is. I would simply say "we play to win and I make no apologies for playing to win".

[daisycutter 29,600]

so is it you that's going to be appointed to make an assessment and declaration of what constitutes 'obvious'

perhaps you can personally conduct fitness tests after thursday night selections, to verify that all omissions are in fact genuinely unfit to play

and then you can just dish out whatever penalty feels right at the time

makes perfect sense mate, well done

ps if stuie likes your post you are in trouble and its time to reassess

look curry, you are ok with the wholesale "resting" of players. i get that much

i'm not, i think it's a farce and the afl are deficient in their duties as custodians of the game

let's leave it that, we disagree

[ex52k2 238]

The answer is really very simple. If either North or the Dockers went into this weeks game NEEDING to win would they pick the same team? If your answer was YES then no problem, if your answer was NO then their tanking.

To solve the problem of needing to rest players as they are wimps, simple the AFL introduce a rule that no player can play more than 20 games a year, so they must have a sleepy bye byes.

If I was Scott at North I would instruct my NQR players this week to lay into Richmond. TO cause them pain, knees into Maric, get in their faces to try and get a positive response. Remember North don't need the NQRs the next week. Richmond need Maric and co.

[Lucifers Hero 39,504]

The biggest beneficiary of North losing is Richmond!

The ladder is (and unlikely to change):

Richmond 121.4 56 Bulldogs 116.8 56 Adelaide 119.1 54 Nth Melbourne 109.1 52

North would need to win by a humongous amount of goals to get over Richmond's % which is unlikely so they will end up 8th either way. But if they (WB and Crows) win the ladder would be:

Bulldogs 116.8 60 Adelaide 119.1 58 Richmond 121.4 56 Nth Melbourne 109.1 56

So the impact of North resting players and losing are:

- Adelaide are denied a home final

- Richmond get a home final and do not travel.

- North play WB.

That explains why Hardwick looked like a 'cheshire cat' when interviewed yesterday.

Maybe North fancy their chances in a final vs Rich more than they do WB.

That is the real benefit to North.

I don't know who the AFL are kidding.

While North won't improve their ladder position, resting players and losing definitely impacts the finals draw.

For that reason their request should have been denied!!

Edited September 3, 2015 by Lucifer's Hero

[solly21 91]

This Is A Joke. We got Charged for Tanking . They didn'tuse the word Tanking though. They said we didn't do everything we could to win the games. They cleared us of match day but they said our preperation we didn't do everything we could do to Win the game this is no different. The only thing different is they are in the finals and were on the bottom. You watch if we ever become a good team again and we do this we will be charged I bet my life on it. The AFL are a Disgrace.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

look curry, you are ok with the wholesale "resting" of players. i get that much

i'm not, i think it's a farce and the afl are deficient in their duties as custodians of the game

let's leave it that, we disagree

I never said I was OK with it

I said the AFL has no choice but to let them do it

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

What a load of bull! Tanking is deliberately throwing a match. That's NOT what's happening here. Rather, >>> these clubs have won enough games during the season to put themselves in the enviable position of being able to rest some of their key players<<<

Vagg you are conveniently ignoring the fact that by doing so, Norf effectively have ALSO ensured they lose this match which gives them the best chance they have of playing thier first final in Melb.

The luxury of resting a core group of players may well have been earned by their wins throughout the year but that doesn't mean they aren't tanking this match. If they needed the win to ensure they didnt go interstate I can assure you there would be no "resting of players" happening this round for Norf.

The AFL has effectively said it is ok to Tank before a finals match to potentially gain an advantage in the finals...but not ok if you're doing so to gain a potential 1st round (or other) pick.

I agree with WYL. The AFL commission should be forced to resign en mass.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Rusty Nails

[stuie 7,374]

I never said I was OK with it

I said the AFL has no choice but to let them do it

The fact you've been on this thread arguing for it constantly for the last couple of days says otherwise....

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

The fact you've been on this thread arguing for it constantly for the last couple of days says otherwise....

The fact you can't read means I have no interest in discussing anything with you ever again

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

It's not tanking. Tanking is the players/coaches deliberately trying to lose a match.

A club has 38 players on its list and is entitled to choose the 22 it wants to play on any given week as long as those players play to win once selected. Who is the AFL to say which players a club should or shouldn't play?

There's more than one way to skin a cat Dr.

This is just a more acceptable way of making sure you lose the match or tank. Call it whatever you like the "Club" in this instance has decided to throw the match using the selection table to ensure they do so.

Every club does rest and has the option to rest a few older/less than 90% NQR older vets etc just before a finals series but to deliberately rest so many is ensuring a particular result on match day, regardless of how much the coach/players might be routing for the win with effectively a 2nds team

Edited September 3, 2015 by Rusty Nails

[Chris 2,892]

You rest players during the season, but you’re trying to win that season. You delist good hardworking players who are too old to win you a premiership; but that’s okay, you’re trying to win the Premiership five years from now. Etcetera.

And what if you still win despite your efforts to lose? Is that not tanking? Obviously your results-based metric doesn’t account for that. It’s all one big grey area. Your definition is no better (or, admittedly, worse) than mine.

Our only trouble is that someone’s definition should be used, and that definition should have a clear reasoning behind it. Unfortunately this still has not yet happened. But that’s the AFL for you.

The AFL don't want a definition because then they would have to hold people to it.

[stuie 7,374]

The fact you can't read means I have no interest in discussing anything with you ever again

That's literally not a fact. Geez and you try to have a got at other people's comprehension....

Clearly it's more because I don't agree with you and you get all foot stompy about that.

[pitmaster 3,512]

I know Crows supporters are barely human but how must they feel?

They have two teams they can overtake to get a home final, now one of them is a virtual certainty to win and the other is playing Brisbane.

So there goes their home final.

Now all the AFL needs to do is schedule them at Etihad against the 'Dogs.

That would send them into orbit.

I'd like to see that!

I should add that the AFL is amateurish and a disgrace letting this happen. The Freo case is different because no finals finangling is involved.

Edited September 3, 2015 by pitmaster

[Pipefitter 2,149]

Must fill the players with confidence when your coach thinks you're no chance interstate so he'd rather throw this weeks match.

[daisycutter 29,600]

I should add that the AFL is amateurish and a disgrace letting this happen. The Freo case is different because no finals finangling is involved.

i think the freo decision is a disgrace too, even though it is not as obvious as north doesn't make it ok

the afl is also a disgrace. we need a new custodian of the our game

[Bossdog 2,002]

Well....I hope that it backfires against Freo and Nth.

North to get smashed in the first week of the finals

Freo to go out in straight sets

Now that would say a lot about "List Management"

[sue 9,096]

Although I have no sympathy for it, those who point out that it would be a nightmare to develop and enforce detailed rules to stop tanking of the sort North is engaging in, are correct.

However that doesn't mean the AFL should respond positively to a request to rest players. The AFL's response should have been "here are the rules - make sure you obey them or you may end up like Melbourne did". (When there was no rule to obey.)

Edit to add: I meant "here are the current rules" which are suitably vague, not the sort of rules referred to in the first para.

Edited September 4, 2015 by sue

[Demon trucker 1,800]

Can't feel sorry for the crows, with what happened in 1998 even though we came fourth they came 5th, we smashed them in first final, they get a second chance and then win the next week, they get to play the second place team in the preliminary final and we face the top ranked side in north, how the he'll that worked out was a disgrace, maybe they ranked that knowing who they would face in the third week. Anyway what if north win.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I know Crows supporters are barely human but how must they feel?

They have two teams they can overtake to get a home final, now one of them is a virtual certainty to win and the other is playing Brisbane.

So there goes their home final.

Now all the AFL needs to do is schedule them at Etihad against the 'Dogs.

That would send them into orbit.

I'd like to see that!

I should add that the AFL is amateurish and a disgrace letting this happen. The Freo case is different because no finals finangling is involved.

Remember when they were forced to play us at the MCG instead of at home, in a semi final simply because the MCG demanded hosting rights? That was harsh!

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=1651

We came from 40 points down at quarter time to be up by 22 at 3QT.. and still lost it

So Melbourne

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

To quote Leigh Matthews, who is one for the few footy commentators, whose view I respect;

There is no doubt both Fremantle and North Melbourne are disrespecting their Round 23 fixtures,” an emphatic Matthews said on 3AW on Thursday night.

“But we think ‘well, you’re entitled to do that because that gives you the best chance of playing your best the following week for the start of the finals series.

“What I’m amazed at is the AFL, in a sense, ticked it off as opposed to saying ‘well, you can do it but we frown on it.’

“

We don’t like the practice, and if this practice becomes normal, which it will, it will become more normal in the future then we are completely disrespecting Round 23.

“The league has to find a way I think, for clubs to be more respectful of each fixture because clearly, when Round 23 comes along next year, the broadcasters who pay the same amount of money for just about every game, and fans who pre-pay their tickets are getting a second-rate product in a lot of the games this weekend.

Says it all in my opinion

[sue 9,096]

To quote Leigh Matthews, who is one for the few footy commentators, whose view I respect;

Says it all in my opinion

Pretty much all. But there are all sorts of minor benefits as well. For example, Freo could field a team of young players to give them some experience and to help evaluate them. More useful than an extra practice match at the start of the next season probably. If a near bottom team did that they'd be accused of tanking even though they are probably in more need of that than the top team.

To make my earlier post clearer: If the AFL refuses to grant rests for 9 players and just says 'follow the current vague rules and we will react if we think you breached them', then the club might still get away with resting a few players but would not dare to rest half the bloody team. They would risk penalties the next year which could be made sufficiently draconian.

[nrc73 77]

When the new TV rights deals was signed, the AFL were all too eager to state that they still maintained control over the fixture. The finals are the show case for the game. September is what most of hang out to watch all year. The AFL ought to be protecting that by allowing a weeks' break between home & away and finals - another reason to have a 17 round season.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

When the new TV rights deals was signed, the AFL were all too eager to state that they still maintained control over the fixture. The finals are the show case for the game. September is what most of hang out to watch all year. The AFL ought to be protecting that by allowing a weeks' break between home & away and finals - another reason to have a 17 round season.

Greed is good it seems nrc when it comes to the AFL. With the exception of maybe 8th position, thd top 7 is usually decided by about then so the extra 5/6 rounds are just a waste other than the extra coin the AFL extracts from Fox etc.

The quality of the finals would possibly be better if the series commenced at that point as well. Less chance of injury to some of the greats/better players/champions. Length of the season is always a sticking point with coaches as well as to why they find it necessary to rest/protect some of the older vets in past seasons. Resting "a few vets" has now turned into the club resting half the team, with the AFL's blessing.

This comp stumbles over one steaming cow pad to another as each season progresses and, other than the fans voting with their feet/remotes, there seems to be no accountability possie in sight to reign in the "Outlaw AFL"

[daisycutter 29,600]

To quote Leigh Matthews, who is one for the few footy commentators, whose view I respect;

Says it all in my opinion

imagine if in round 23 you went to buy a four'n'twenty pie and they had halved the meat content

"sorry mate, but we're giving half the cows a rest this week"

afl are short changing not only the paying public but all stake holders in the game

someone should take it up with the accc......not kidding

Edited September 4, 2015 by daisycutter

[pineapple dee 2,892]

North are not tanking, neither did we. We just brought the game into disrepute. And we all know one thing the AFL will never allow is the game being brought into disrepute. God fobid that that should happen !!!!