Straight Sets Simon

It's amazing to watch players work hard for each other.

In the Casey player review about Morton: "No doubt Cale will be working hard this week on the track with defensive coach Jade Rawlings on his left hand spoils." I'm fairly sure this is in relation to a moment in the first half when Morton decided not to put his body on the line in a weak spoiling effort which resulted in a Frankston goal. I made comment on it at the time when watching the game, makes me sick to think we could have had Rioli or Dangerfield.

Paul Roos is disgusted because his team got flogged by a record margin by Melbourne when he was still coaching.

I understand this Robbie, but we can only pay the salary cap so gathering a "war chest" to attract big name players seems odd. However, like you said there are clearly other reasons for the dinner.

Does this mean we currently don't have enough money to pay the salary cap?

To me, the big question is the motive. All can be considered tanking if the motive is explicitly to lose. But, if the number one priority is not winning, instead say future development then no, that is not tanking. Motives are however very hard to prove either way.

Fair enough.

Should this be made public? It was a private email after all.

Sorry Nash, even though I do waste a lot of time here, must have missed your post.

This.

Yes, but in the game where players were rested they got flogged because winning wasn't their top priority in that game.

I just heard Paul Gardiner say that during some games it looked like Melbourne's effort was questionable. Has he not seen them play this year?

To be honest I agree, during the Bailey years I was sick of tired on the focus on the future, ignoring the present. The idea that with a few draft picks everything would just fall into place. My only gripe is that people (not necessarily yourself) use the playing players out of position as proof. And that all it takes is a dumb bogan in McLean to get sucked in and make an ill-informed comment for everyone to start laying the boot into the club for the 100th time this year.

But what we did (playing some players out of position to try new things) is what every team does. Why is that bad? The point is you can't prove that Melbourne deliberately lost games, unless there is an email or The News of the World suddenly come back to life which clearly states that Melbourne wanted to lose.

So Fremantle tanked when they rested their 10 best players against the Hawks in 2010?

Provide indisputable proof that Melbourne deliberately lost games. Not that winning wasn't a top priority, but that Melbourne actively tried to lose.

Unless the AFL uncover indisputable evidence (not just a former player saying he had a feeling) that Melbourne tried to lose, then simply using the excuse that players were played out of position is not proof at all. More so, if McLean's statements are proven false then I hope the club pursues it's legal options against him for making false accusation.

You really don't like the current Board do you?

My point with the Fremantle example of 2010 is you can't prove it, by resting all their good players you could say it looked like the Dockers were trying to lose.

I agree 100%. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, there is a difference between trying to lose (match fixing) and winning not being your top priority.

I think this was in about 2008 or 2009 when he wasn't playing too well. The point is that getting games into him, even though he wasn't necessarily their best option at the time.

Were Fremantle tanking when they "rested" almost ten of their best players in round 21, 2010 against Hawthorn? Winning wasn't their number one priority that day.

In light of recent events and even when this article was first written I found it strange that the CEO would be talking about the playing list with such detail to reporters.

This one isn't any better.

Interesting article from a few years ago.