Jump to content

Featured Replies

 

Yeah, it is genuinely comical when experts suggest this stuff. No-one even realises they are doing it. 

We were found not guilty of tanking but fined $500,000 for reasons no-one can remember and the public perception ever since has been that we got done for tanking.

Perhaps something that the administration at the time would like to discuss at another time..

Edited by layzie

We tanked.  I know others clubs did/do the same, but haven't been called out on it like we were.  Cheers Brock!

I remember one game in particular v St Kilda when Jurrah was kicking goals and starring up forward while Frawley was keeping Reiwoldt quiet at the other end and we were headed for victory.  Lo and behold, Jurrah was benched, Frawley was moved to the forward line and Reiwoldt subsequently cut loose and was the matchwinner for the Saints.

 
33 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

We tanked.  I know others clubs did/do the same, but haven't been called out on it like we were.  Cheers Brock!

I remember one game in particular v St Kilda when Jurrah was kicking goals and starring up forward while Frawley was keeping Reiwoldt quiet at the other end and we were headed for victory.  Lo and behold, Jurrah was benched, Frawley was moved to the forward line and Reiwoldt subsequently cut loose and was the matchwinner for the Saints.

Yep. Remember that game well. Was beyond puzzled at the time.

There is a difference, though. We didn't telegraph in advance that we might play players in unusual positions. Having stated in advance that they are willing or intending to do so, WCE has "informed the market" (including the betting market) of the possibility.

Let me stress, though, that there are two different definitions of "tanking". One is when a team doesn't try its hardest on the day to win (or, worse, deliberately tries to lose). The other is when the team tries its hardest on the day to win, but it isn't the strongest team that could have been played from the available squad. Using that latter definition, we and the WCE are quite similar.     


Players would never go out on the field and intentionally not try. But when a coach makes moves throughout a game that looks to the common observer like he's trying to deliberately lose, that's tanking.

Teams that are not in finals contention are entitled to experiment with this list, or send players off for surgery prior to season's end. The AFL shouldn't have any issue with that.

In a sport as versatile as AFL footy where positions are extremely interchangeable I find it difficult seeing the difference between any moves that have been made from a 'tanking' team. Yeah we sit here and laugh at how Brock Mclean was put to full forward against Carlton late in 09 and think how bizarre some of these things were but how do you prove it's more bizarre than if North were to throw Horne Francis to FF this week. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now, anyone who does then more power to you. 

 
54 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Last game of the year in 2009.

Did we get a priority  pick for only getting 4 wins that season?

4 hours ago, Salems Lot said:

Back in the day we were accused of tanking for doing this...or am I missing something?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/803160/eagles-to-try-experimental-roles-midfielder-likely-to-face-saints

Westcoke the masters of the tank.

 

Edited by YesitwasaWin4theAges


1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There is a difference, though. We didn't telegraph in advance that we might play players in unusual positions. Having stated in advance that they are willing or intending to do so, WCE has "informed the market" (including the betting market) of the possibility.

Let me stress, though, that there are two different definitions of "tanking". One is when a team doesn't try its hardest on the day to win (or, worse, deliberately tries to lose). The other is when the team tries its hardest on the day to win, but it isn't the strongest team that could have been played from the available squad. Using that latter definition, we and the WCE are quite similar.     

The Eagles ever the opportunitists have orchestrated the big tank in living memory. Westcoke have written a new book on tanking by this years efforts.

Quite simple really dont do a Pre Season and use covid as a legitimate excuse.

Always staggered me that Tony Libratore, who was a Carlton coach at the time, went on one of the TV programs and blatantly admitted tht the Blues had tanked. Not a single further question was ever asked of the Blues and they were never pulled over the coals like us! 

2 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Did we get a priority  pick for only getting 4 wins that season?

Yes (PP for two consecutive years of less than 4 wins).

2008 Sam Blease was a PP

2009 Tom Scully was a PP

1 hour ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Always staggered me that Tony Libratore, who was a Carlton coach at the time, went on one of the TV programs and blatantly admitted tht the Blues had tanked. Not a single further question was ever asked of the Blues and they were never pulled over the coals like us! 

Because Libba back-pedalled when the AFL asked for a please explain. He did it twice from memory.

It was going well until we beat the Power when they were playing for a spot in the 8.

It meant we had to lose one of Richmond or Fremantle which were banked as wins. 


Still funny that it took a kick after the siren for Richmond to beat us when we did everything possible to avoid winning.

That was the last game I went to that year. I was middle deck Olympic stand.

When McMahon kicked the goal it was if we had won the game.

I was one of the fans standing and cheering. 

7 hours ago, layzie said:

Yeah, it is genuinely comical when experts suggest this stuff. No-one even realises they are doing it. 

We were found not guilty of tanking but fined $500,000 for reasons no-one can remember and the public perception ever since has been that we got done for tanking.

Perhaps something that the administration at the time would like to discuss at another time..

because then the essendon drug saga kicked off so they had to fine us so they could move their attention to the next and more important scandal

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Because Libba back-pedalled when the AFL asked for a please explain. He did it twice from memory.

Not sure Libba is a Rhode's Scholar. 

Ask Caroline Wilson her thoughts. 
She certainly lead the charge against the MFC. 

Our situation was no different to Meth Coke, and they have been doing it all year


1 hour ago, tilly18 said:

That was the last game I went to that year. I was middle deck Olympic stand.

When McMahon kicked the goal it was if we had won the game.

I was one of the fans standing and cheering. 

I’ve been led to believe that McMahon was the only player on the Richmond list not to get a game the next season. ?
????Punishment

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Ask Caroline Wilson her thoughts. 
She certainly lead the charge against the MFC. 

Our situation was no different to Meth Coke, and they have been doing it all year

I think our situation is different to West Coast in that we were a FAR worse team than WC is now. They have to try harder to lose, the thing that always frustrated me about the MFC tanking debate was people talk as if that team was going to win multiple games if we played differently, no way, at most it was one game. I was at all those games, we couldn’t have beaten anyone most of the time, we were genuinely horrific. West Coast on the other hand have multiple premiership players and AA players being played out of position or rested and no fine at all. This WC team is capable of shaking things up if they genuinely try for the next five weeks, but they won’t, as they have flagged, they’ll call it ‘experimentation’ but it’s tanking. And it’s far worse than what MFC did, we were a terrible team that had been down for a very long time trying to get extra help, they are a team that’s been up forever trying to stock up on top end talent quick and then all of a sudden fly back up the ladder. Just like the pies did for Daisy and co. 
 

29 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

I think our situation is different to West Coast in that we were a FAR worse team than WC is now. They have to try harder to lose, the thing that always frustrated me about the MFC tanking debate was people talk as if that team was going to win multiple games if we played differently, no way, at most it was one game. I was at all those games, we couldn’t have beaten anyone most of the time, we were genuinely horrific. West Coast on the other hand have multiple premiership players and AA players being played out of position or rested and no fine at all. This WC team is capable of shaking things up if they genuinely try for the next five weeks, but they won’t, as they have flagged, they’ll call it ‘experimentation’ but it’s tanking. And it’s far worse than what MFC did, we were a terrible team that had been down for a very long time trying to get extra help, they are a team that’s been up forever trying to stock up on top end talent quick and then all of a sudden fly back up the ladder. Just like the pies did for Daisy and co. 
 

Agreed. But that wasn’t a front page news story 

 
1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Ask Caroline Wilson her thoughts. 
She certainly lead the charge against the MFC. 

Our situation was no different to Meth Coke, and they have been doing it all year

Yet I'm sure she conveniently ignored Richmond's then coach Terry Wallace stating on record he was worried about losing access to Trent Cotchin and refused to make any coaching moves to help win them the game. 

10 hours ago, Salems Lot said:

Back in the day we were accused of tanking for doing this...or am I missing something?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/803160/eagles-to-try-experimental-roles-midfielder-likely-to-face-saints

Yes, you are missing something.  The media reported that Schwab told the players at 3/4 time in one game that Jim Stynes almost fell out of bed when he heard they were leading.  Either Stynes was trying for his team to lose or a dying man was fraudulently being used to accomplish that; neither a pretty sight.

I.e. the players were being white-anted by the club and being set up to fail..  And we spit the dummy when a player does feel the blind attachment to the Demons that we feel and considers other clubs.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 1 reply
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Haha
    • 141 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Clap
    • 425 replies