the tank is on.... on the street

[Con Gorozidis]

ok sing along to the tune of "the heat is on"

http://news.realfooty.com.au/sport/west ... -3g91.html



Seriously

Demetriou and Adrian Anderson are the only 2 goons left on the planet that don’t believe in tanking. Call it whatever you like. But teams tank. Why wouldn’t you when you get rewarded for it? If you was worsfold what would you be doing right now? Thinking about next year and getting the best playes possible? Of course.

The irony is Demetriou uses the excuse that "football clubs are competitive" as an argument AGAINST tanking. but clubs ARE highly competitive and will do everything witin the rules to get better. and the rules as they stand mean getting better involves losing. Demetriou and Anderson just dont want to admit they are wrong and lose face.



Its so easy. Early surgeries. Putting a dud player on a gun player. Etc etc etc.

Guys a ballot for bottom 4 (or 6) is the only way to go.

[JeffDunne]

I really couldn't care less if teams don't want to win . . . provided we are playing them.

Before we had a draft, teams would make decisions like this and it's only natural that in a professional era teams won't risk players when they're out of the hunt.

Changing the draft won't have an effect on clubs making these sort of decisions.

[Top4King]

Early surgeries. Putting a dud player on a gun player. Etc etc etc.

Dont forget to add "knocking peoples head's off" Con

[Stephen Theodore]

JeffDunne wrote:
I really couldn't care less if teams don't want to win . . . provided we are playing them.

My thoughts also. Let them tank agaainst us, we need the points and percentage !

Its obvious to most people that Worsfold is thinking about next season when you have a raft of players booking in for season ending operations.

Demetriou and Andersons arrogance is unbelievable, even for them.

[WayneJudson42]

So, what you're saying is that if we lose the next few and cannot make the 8, we still keep pushing, or do we plan for next year?

If you are in a position to know early in the year that you won't make it, or that your list is crap, why not plan ahead?

The pressure comes when u have clubs like Richmond where they should plan, but they also must win to keep the faith and for Suntan to keep his job.

This sytem dictates that you bottom out - rebuild - then have another crack. Rightly or wrongly.

[Top4King]

stop stealing my thunder Wayne

[Con Gorozidis]

So, what you're saying is that if we lose the next few and cannot make the 8, we still keep pushing, or do we plan for next year?

If you are in a position to know early in the year that you won't make it, or that your list is crap, why not plan ahead?

The pressure comes when u have clubs like Richmond where they should plan, but they also must win to keep the faith and for Suntan to keep his job.

This sytem dictates that you bottom out - rebuild - then have another crack. Rightly or wrongly.

yeah. im just saying in the west coast case. the choice is clear. and i think worsfold saw the writing on the wall pretty early on and started making decisions based on next year.

just peeves me off how arrogant demetriou is. has his head firmly in his rear end.

from the siants perspective its irrelevant. ill happily take easy wins over eagles, power, demons and roos.

[WayneJudson42]

Con, silly question... are you the real Con? Or is this your nickname?

[JeffDunne]

The AFL don't deny that people think tanking exists - they deny that teams try and lose.

I agree with them.

[Con Gorozidis]

The AFL don't deny that people think tanking exists - they deny that teams try and lose.

I agree with them.

u are flaming kidding me? talk about semantics and weazle words. firstly the afl rejects tanking outright - look at the quotes from the past. they say talk of tanking is rubbish and "offensive" (they never address the core issue) . so not sure where you got that idea from.

if u dont take my word for it - ask the 16 coaches. leigh matthews believes in tanking. so does terry wallace and are both on record saying it.

the afl claim that "teams try to win every game" and the threat of being sacked is motivation for coaches not to tank.

im sorry i disagree with you and them. splitting between "trying to lose" and "do stuff that enhances your chances of losing" is pathetic use of weazle words.

putting a dud on a gun is one example. if you think that is not tanking but just "not purposely losing" you are playing weazle word games. the fact is the spirit and integrity of the game is not maintained.

[JeffDunne]

im sorry i disagree with you and them.

Why are you sorry?

This is a discussion forum, you posted your opinion and I posted mine.

Not sure why you'd be getting so upset because someone disagreed with you. What were you expecting? A thread where 20 people blow wind up your arse for stating your opinion on one of football's most debated topics?

Anyhow, I ask, what would teams do differently if there wasn't a draft?

Take a look at the team we fielded last week and the players in the twos. Had we lost the previous two games (which could have easily happened), we'd be the team currently being fingered as tanking. When Lyon dropped Dal Santo & Milne people were already making that suggestion.

The reality is teams will always plan for the future when they are clearly n chance of making finals.

Getting rid of the draft won't change that one iota.

[Animal Enclosure]

IMO there is a difference between having a shocking year & starting to plan for the next season (as the Eagles are) and doing what Carlton did to get a priority pick.

While West Coast were bound for a bottom 4 finish a month ago & copped a number of injuries, Carlton contrived to lose a very winnable game to get a second top 3 draft pick.

The draft is fine the way it is except for the priority pick system (which looks like it won't come into play this season).

'Planning' for next year has been going on for as long a the game has existed, get some games into kids before they deserve it & maybe fast track their development.

[WayneJudson42]

I think what pissis people off, is the outright denial by the AFL. Now they are stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue.

If they agree that it exists, they stand to tarnish the game and a byproduct would be a drop in attendances.

Now if they did this, the clubs would be howling and whingeing that the AFL has accused them etc.

Regardless of the draft, it would still happen. Shyt, you'd be crazy not to if your bottom 4 and need to rebuild. Not just for the draft picks, but to begin early development of the list.

The draft simply adds another dimension / incentive to plan early.

I believe that if a team concludes that they need to rebuild, and goes about losing for 2 years just to get the draft picks, then they are ripping off their supporters, members and sponsors.

[evertonfc]

I'd be doing exactly what West Coast were doing if I was in their boots.

They'll start their pre-season in about Round 19 this year, and be weeks ahead of everyone else next year.

With Voss on board, and the sheer bloody truckload of kids they have, they'll come good soon.

[bozza1980]

If there weren't draft concessions, sides would still do what those "tanking" sides are doing now.

There is no point playing the same blokes who couldn't win games in the first dozen games. You give games to young blokes, you get your stars operated on so they are flying come the pre-season.

This is the same if you get picks at the end of the year or no picks at the end of the year.

As for a ballot, all this means is the tanking debate passes from the bottom team to the team one spot above the ballot position.

You only have to look at our clubs operated prior to the draft and priority picks etc, they did the same thing. They gave their kids ago and started planning for next year.

One thing that get's lost in the whole debate about whether a team is tanking or not is that they had to be rubbish to begin with. I remember a couple of years back when Carlton won the spoon they got absolutely flogged in rd5 or 6 or something and the press were reporting how it was possibly the worst ever AFL team and they would be lucky to win another game.

Then come Rd 17-18 and they were still getting flogged however the press were reporting how they were tanking. The same side that would be lucky to win a game, were apparently deliberately losing.

[plugger66]

So what are these sides doing differently to what we did in 2000 and 2001 or when fifnish bottom we are not good enough but when other sides they are delibarately losing.

Yes they get operations on players. If they didnt and I supported them and a player missed the start of next season because he had the operation to late I would be extremely annoyed.

[WayneJudson42]

'00 and 01... we were clueless

[Con Gorozidis]

im sorry i disagree with you and them.

Why are you sorry?

This is a discussion forum, you posted your opinion and I posted mine.

Not sure why you'd be getting so upset because someone disagreed with you. What were you expecting? A thread where 20 people blow wind up your arse for stating your opinion on one of football's most debated topics?

Anyhow, I ask, what would teams do differently if there wasn't a draft?

Take a look at the team we fielded last week and the players in the twos. Had we lost the previous two games (which could have easily happened), we'd be the team currently being fingered as tanking. When Lyon dropped Dal Santo & Milne people were already making that suggestion.

The reality is teams will always plan for the future when they are clearly n chance of making finals.

Getting rid of the draft won't change that one iota.

i love the draft. just reckon it needs a minor tweak.

[JeffDunne]

It would be change for change sake.

Want to make clubs more competitive in the second half of the season - introduce a form of free agency that allows teams to top-up with replacements during the course of a season.

People fear free-agency but the AFL's current list rules do more to create the perception of tanking than anything else.

[Solar]

Its funny but if the draft wasn't there, tanking would not exist.

The draft encourages clubs to move on 4-5 players at a minimum each year. Thus when you do send your senior players in for early surgery and start their preseason early (which is sensible) you are stuck with a group of 18- 20 year olds who have no AFL experience. In the older days of bigger lists 22 year olds would come in and be able to compete, they would have 50+ odd reserve games behind them. These days they cram so many games into 18-19 year olds. They are playing against men so no wonder the results stack up.

[WayneJudson42]

why not draft mid-year?

[Otiman]

It would be change for change sake.

Want to make clubs more competitive in the second half of the season - introduce a form of free agency that allows teams to top-up with replacements during the course of a season.

People fear free-agency but the AFL's current list rules do more to create the perception of tanking than anything else.

Free Agency between clubs? or between AFL and VFL/WAFL/SANFL clubs?

[markp]

While you can bet money on the outcome of a game and the AFL receives a slice, they will not (and cannot) admit that tanking exists.

[saintspremiers]

'00 and 01... we were clueless

no we weren't

we tanked to make sure we got a Priority Pick, that is just being smart!

[JeffDunne]

It would be change for change sake.

Want to make clubs more competitive in the second half of the season - introduce a form of free agency that allows teams to top-up with replacements during the course of a season.

People fear free-agency but the AFL's current list rules do more to create the perception of tanking than anything else.

Free Agency between clubs? or between AFL and VFL/WAFL/SANFL clubs?

If we're talking during the season then anyone not on an AFL list.

The AFL will never allow the trading of players during the season unless they are forced by a court order.