On the couch

[cmarkidis]

Same old general waffle on the couch. Open Mike with Kevin Sheedy was far more interesting. In fact every OP has been excellent. You have to admire K Sheedy.

Whilst on the subject of Melbourne FC, how stupid do they (Mr Lyon) look like now for not appointing a proven, experienced and successful coach to show them the way. They haven't recovered from Noem Smith's axeing 5 decades ago - rabble!!

 

[Tigers of Old]

How do you prove tanking ?
The word of one player, an assistant and a sacked coach ( who never really said it was tanking ) ? against the Club/s involved ? a lot of he said / she said stuff.

Of course it can be proven but the blatant rorting of the system reflects more poorly on the AFL than Melbourne so nothing happens.

Its not that I don't believe it happens , but whats the point of penalising Melbourne now if it is proven ? They are arguably irrelevent anyway..

I actually agree it's too late to punish Melbourne.
The rules were in place and they along with other teams (West Coast, Collingwood & Carlton) all manipulated a flawed system.
No point in us taking the moral high ground either, we too utilised it somewhat (remember Terry's conflict?).

Too great a reward for failure encouraged teams to throw results when the season was already over for them and why wouldn't you?
The shame of the old wooden spoon became nothing next to getting a bunch of the best kids in the land!
Best time of the year for a Tigers supporter and all that.

To my mind that is the AFL's problem rather than the clubs but *smile* & co. had their head in the sand on the issue for so long denying it occurred that clubs were quite happy to tank right under their noses. Or maybe they simply don't care.

It's only when some words spilled out about it that they decided to actually do something about it.
Whilst not admitting tanking happens in so many words, by abolishing the priority picks they've gone some way towards admitting it has gone on. That's obvious.
Question is now have they gone far enough? It's still a carrot for teams outside the finals to benefit from finishing lower. Reward for putting the cue in the rack.
They need to go further IMO and find a way to encourage all teams to do their best from round 1 right through to round 23.

 

[BluesBloke]

Melbourne tanking is a load of rubbish. What on Earth is Brock on about?? We all know only Carlton cheats.

 

[SfB_AkA._DeLiCiOuS]

Melbourne tanking is a load of rubbish. What on Earth is Brock on about?? We all know only Carlton cheats.

:hihi

 

[tigers80]

and to continue with it this year.

amazing.

 

[tigersnake]

Macca might have opened a whole can of pandoras.

 

[Jimmy_12]

This is no disrespect whatsoever for Jim, but wouldn't he have known about it too at that stage? Wasn't he the president?

I can see this getting very ugly. Either the AFL conduct a sham investigation (again) and say there's not enough evidence and close the book on the whole thing in which case the AFL and possibly the sport in general lose a lot of integrity (although some may say the AFL never had any to begin with). Or they confirm what everyone already knows and find Melbourne were tanking. Like most people I loved Jimmy Stynes but if that happens the question's gonna be asked...could any club possibly tank without the president knowing?

 

[smasha]

“[Bailey] was saying it was all in the category of development etc. – his players were always trying and [there was] never any intent to lose.”

- Adrian Anderson, August 2011, following comments by former Melbourne coach Dean Bailey.


LOL The AFL trying to hide it under the carpet.

Treating us supporrters like fools.

 

[SAF]

What I love is that Cartank tanked to get Kruz ahead of Cotchin but Cotch is going to be far better (brownlow chance this year already).
Melbtank tanked to get Scully & Trengrove ahead of Martin and we all know who is the stand out player of those 3.

A bit a natural justice in that I reckon.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

If Demetriou wasn't off on a junket I'm sure he'd have stamped down on this, early and hard. It's getting a bit messy for Gillon and AA.

 

[Bill James]

What I love is that Cartank tanked to get Kruz ahead of Cotchin but Cotch is going to be far better (brownlow chance this year already).
Melbtank tanked to get Scully & Trengrove ahead of Martin and we all know who is the stand out player of those 3.

A bit a natural justice in that I reckon.

Yep sweet!

 

[seven]

I'm very interested to see how the AFL handle this. The way I see it they have 2 options: keep denying and sweeping under the carpet the very real unintended consequences of their own policies, or have full-blown inquiry with appropriate Carlton-like sanctions.

If they attempt the former, who would buy it? McLean was bang-on with his 'Blind Freddy' line.

Didn't the AFL say they'll "leave no stone unturned" last time?

 

[Streak]

If Demetriou wasn't off on a junket I'm sure he'd have stamped down on this, early and hard. It's getting a bit messy for Gillon and AA.

Isn't Gillon the heir apparent?

 

[Chiang Mai Tiger]

Nothing will come of it. Nobody in the media (except maybe Caro) has the guts to nail that little rat Anderson to the wall on it.

 

[year of the tiger]

Get the IOC to investigate - they didn't mess around when it came to Badmington -simply just kicked the teams out of the comp no questions asked.

Guarantee no will ever try and tank again at the Olympics.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Isn't Gillon the heir apparent?

He's supposedly been making the big decisions in Dimi's absence.

 

[Rocklea Tiger]

Nothing will come of it. Nobody in the media (except maybe Caro) has the guts to nail that little rat Anderson to the wall on it.

Agree, nothing much will come of it. I really doubt much can. Until evidence is available that an actual match is thrown, not much can be done, surely.

We are led to believe that matches are not thrown and that each match, with the resourses reasonably available, coaches and players attempt to win the match.

Provided the primary purpose is not to lose the game:
It is not unreasonable to keep players out if they have niggles toward an end of a season.
It is not unreasonable to try players in different positions for a game or parts there of.
It is not unreasonable to try a new game strategy.

When a loss is the primary purpose, that is when there is a problem. All people seem to have admitted so far is that all possible efforts were not made to win the game IN THEIR PERSPECTIVE. Their view of the world at that moment may not be how it was. Surely it is the behaviour of winning that has to be considered, not one or more person's perspective.

If it is such a big problem perhaps the AFL needs to have some coaching box surveillance. If in fact Melbourne coaches cheered and were happy that McMahon kicked a winning goal, that would surely be behaviour contradictory to the behaviour of winning and subject to investigation and action. If they acted as they had for much of the season when losing, just because this game was lost does not of itself constitute an attempt to lose, unless it is at odds with the behaviour of winning.

Perhaps tanking (trying to lose) is overstated. As a season progresses it becomes a little bit more like serendipity that perhaps manifests into a more than tolerable outcome, especially when early priority picks are involved. The priority picks have been pushed back which is a good thing.

The draft is also a good thing if we want the opportunity for Clubs like Richmond to have a chance to invigorate. That surely is a given. I suspect the AFL has accepted that Clubs failing within a given season may need to have that opportunity to invigorate, and that some tolerance of modified effort has to be accepted rather than throw out the opportunity to invigorate through earlier draft picks, provided there continues to be a behaviour of winning.

 

[Liverpool]

I think Rocklea that if priority picks weren't on the table and that incentive was not there, then even if Bailey/Melbourne/Carlton had made the same decisions, it would not be questioned.

Its only being questioned because of the reward for these clubs to lose, so people are taking a hard look at every move made.

Fining clubs or individuals now is ridiculous.
Even an investigation is a waste of time and resources.

I wouldn't bother with coaching box surveillance or the like either.

What needs to be looked at is the actual system being used and whether that is the best way.

We want a system where all clubs have an incentive to win.
In many soccer leagues, there is an incentive to win to win trophies but also if you are down the bottom, you need to win to avoid relegation.

We don't have that so maybe the bottom 4 teams come round 12 go into a ballot and that determines the top-4 draft picks for the following draft.
Thoughts?

 

[Rocklea Tiger]

Now with an 18 team comp, the bottom four ballot looks viable, more so that when we had 16 teams. But that might just push the problem along to question the team that may have finished 14th, but somehow lost the last game or two to finish 15th, and by luck in ballot got the first pick in the draft.

My point now (and before) is that there will always be this problem unless you throw out the draft - but it is no necessary for invigorating poor teams and keep the competition viable overtime. Relegation is an interesting concept but may probably add to the decline of the weak Clubs we have now.

No, we just have to monitor thr behaviour of winning and ensure it is there - and live with minor points of perspective that might crop up from time to time.

 

[Streak]

He's supposedly been making the big decisions in Dimi's absence.

Vlad will not be happy then. I reckon he would have thought that the Olympics would take attention away from the AFL idiots show, so he could grab a quick breather.

Pack your bags McClean.