sue

I did. There were over a dozen references to someone called Jack though - did rather stand out.

Nor does endlessly going about one player

There will always be regrets for what happened in those other 21 games - missed goals, silly turnovers, games lost that should have been won etc etc. But it is one thing to regret that "we could have played better and not be on the edge of the 8 (or 4)" and an entirely different thing to being collateral damage of tanking. The team that displaced you could also have done better in the other 21 games - the point is that it didn't have to because its opponents in round 22 were tanking. I reckon you would be the only fan who would find that 'equally upsetting'.

And now there is North's miserable whinging coach saying people should apologise because 'they came out hard'. Doubtless the 9 second-raters did for obvious reasons and a few guys who know no other way, but who does Scott think he is kidding. Basically if you play a B grade team, chances are they will lose no matter hard how they go at it. Self righteous creep.

That is stupid and worse than mere negativity. There will be a turnover - we don't need an embarrassing loss.

I don't disagree with anything you said there (except I don't really care about CC particularly and there was a case of "a" game - K-Cup.) But none of that diminishes my disrespect for the AFL (to put it mildly) which is now compounded by the Freo/North decisions.

Whether or not the suggestions in the OP are a tad silly, tongue in cheek or a reasonable grumble, the difference you point to is irrelevant to that. One is an attempt to improve winning chances in the short term, the other in the long term. The former makes sense for a top team, the latter for a bottom team. Both should be discouraged by the AFL. We were pilloried for talking about doing something (which we were doing along with several other teams). Perhaps we should have asked the AFL for permission in advance. And no, I won't get over it. I will be [censored] off with the AFL for the rest of my life. Sorry for that un-Christian attitude. And I'm happy to live with the risk to my mental hygiene by doing so.

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.

On my computer it is black.

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.

Then why did they ask the AFL? Could a near-bottom club make up a team largely of their players who hadn't ye thad a game or were injured?

Precisely. Imagine if Collingwood was kept out of the finals on percentage by some 'non-tanking' fiddle by a team trying to rearrange where they play or against whom. The line of torches and pitchforks heading towards AFL headquarters would be a sight to behold.

The Freo situation is different than North because Freo would get a home final whether they win, lose by any amount, or draw. Therefore it is not in itself a precedent for also allowing North to rest. However it is still unfair to other teams. For example, it gives Freo a chance to play a number of untested players thereby giving them information about those players' future prospects. If a club near the bottom did that they'd be accused of tanking. I do not buy the 'they have earned the right to do it' line that is being pushed by some in the media.

Why do you think it is OK to 'be happy to lose' in pursuit of the ultimate goal a few weeks away but not for the penultimate goal of improving the list to get closer to the ultimate goal next year. Basically you are saying short term tanking is OK, long term tanking is not. The AFL should approve of neither of them. I'd be pretty [censored] off if I was an Adelaide supporter.

So North has AFL permission to rest players this week which increases their chance of a final in Melbourne rather than Adelaide. I'd love the AFL to explain how tanking for that short term gain is more honourable than tanking to get a better draft pick. Is the mistake in the latter case to play your normal team out of position rather than rest them?

I agree. It is the club's job. But on this forum, those calling for his head on a platter really have to either suggest replacements or prove that Toumpas will never make it and so absolutely anyone new on the list is a better gamble. I haven't seen any likely replacements suggested and there is no objective proof of the latter which would cause me to doubt whatever decision the club finally makes.

Surely we need a mixture of 'ready to go' players and 'developing' ones. If you think we need more of the former, then if you call for Toumpas to be axed you need to establish what players youthink we can get by trading/sacking Toumpas. If you can't find any, then surely he stays on the 'developing' list.

Just when I cancelled my bulk popcorn order....

I'm surprised at those condemning the decision. As a spectator it may appear premature, but do any of us know enough non-public detail to condemn it? None of us know what the medical prospects are or what other plans the club may have. Despite our recent history, I'm still more inclined to trust the judgment of the pros over us armchair players.

But have you factored in the positive effect on team morale that giving someone a farewell game might be? (I mean in the match, but more generally too.)

Just as well flip a coin: Heads - he may improve given time etc Tails - the low pick you would be able to get for him will turn out to be better. The trouble with Tails is that it assumes another club rates him as a Heads. But maybe they are better at predicting player success than us. So maybe just as well stick to Heads.

I might have laughed if it was a direct quote. But was it? Or just a journalist groping for a sexy way to say the bleeding obvious.

Sure. I might do the same (when I'm appointed coach). But the issue we have been debating is not whether it is good policy, but whether Melb started playing competitively or if Freo had merely stopped competing. Of course the truth could be somewhere in between. I dare say Freo would have been more frenetic if we were up a few goals going into the last quarter and they might lose a home final depending on the next week's results if they didn't win.

Nor could Hawthorn's. They already had a hefty percentage.

Catch up? Why didn't they stop 'catching up' after being 3 goals down at Q1. Wouldn't they be satisfied to be 6 goals up at half-time? But according to you they must have foolishly risked injury etc to win by 72 pts. Have a look at the score differential in our match compared to that one: http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2015/22/fre-v-melb http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2015/22/haw-v-bl Ours is horizontal after the start of Q2, the Hawks increase the gap between the teams for most of the time after Q1. If you say Freo took the foot of the pedal, you have to ask why the Hawks did not based on the entire game. I can't see how you can put it down to Q1.