The Pros and Cons of Tanking (Merged)

[Tiger74]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

Question, remains how do you tank? The players arent going to tank in ANY team. We've played the youngsters and WON. So what's plan B of the tank guide?

I suggest the following:

1) Take Graham and Simmonds out of the ruck, and replace them with Vickery (who has no experience and is too young) and Patto (who is a part parts ruck at best)

2) Take out Foley and Tuck from our midfield, they are the two we rely on for clearances, so we should be stuffed without them

3) Play with only one recognized tall forward (Jack)

4) Play King, McMahon, Brown who are either too undisciplined, too soft or no longer up to the pace of the modern game, and would be a liability on the field

I reckon that would be guarantee us a defeat :spin

 

[lukeanddad]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

... replace a dual All-Australian Bowden with Hislop

and play White ahead of Coghlan...

That should do it

 

[meltiger]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

;D


These threads, and the angst over the last 24 hours from the *smile*witted choo choo brigade that have been infesting every second thread with their pro-loser desires has made beating my most hated team even the more sweeter than usual.


Suck it up cowardly pro-losers ... The tank concept is over, Richmond are going to continue to try to win games of footy ;D

 

[Legends of 2017]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

I suggest the following:

1) Take Graham and Simmonds out of the ruck, and replace them with Vickery (who has no experience and is too young) and Patto (who is a part parts ruck at best)

2) Take out Foley and Tuck from our midfield, they are the two we rely on for clearances, so we should be stuffed without them

3) Play with only one recognized tall forward (Jack)

4) Play King, McMahon, Brown who are either too undisciplined, too soft or no longer up to the pace of the modern game, and would be a liability on the field

I reckon that would be guarantee us a defeat :spin

;D

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

One simple question. I don't want your boring theories about winning culture and all that crap either. Would you rather beat Essendon, Melbourne and West Coast in 3 meaningless games or take Cotchin in the draft??? That is what we have given up this year. Had we played our cards right, Scully was ours.

How about asking fair dinkum questions to start with?

I'm beginning to wonder whether some people adopt the 'tanking is the road to success' attitude not because they they dislike mediocrity, but they prefer to believe in some quick-fix, 'early draft picks guarantee flags' fairy-tale.

Yesterday we saw some concrete advances towards becoming a better team (Jack and Lids both took the next step). That is cause for celebration, and makes any true Tiger smile. Yet astonishingly, some would rather we lose!

That is, rather than see real, observable development, some would prefer that the players didn't win, didn't advance, and got humiliated, because they think that all this can be circumvented simply through drafting someone 1 or 2 or 3 or 7 or whatever places earlier in the draft.

I'm all for high draft picks, but never when it thwarts development.

 

[meltiger]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

but they prefer to believe in some quick-fix, 'early draft picks guarantee flags' fairy-tale.

That's EXACTLY why they do it.


& yet not one can name a single club who has legitimately won a premiership off the back of tanking (As opposed to being shithouse or good trading - ala Hawthorn's '04 draft)

 

[TOT70]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

How about asking fair dinkum questions to start with?

I'm beginning to wonder whether some people adopt the 'tanking is the road to success' attitude not because they they dislike mediocrity, but they prefer to believe in some quick-fix, 'early draft picks guarantee flags' fairy-tale.

Yesterday we saw some concrete advances towards becoming a better team (Jack and Lids both took the next step). That is cause for celebration, and makes any true Tiger smile. Yet astonishingly, some would rather we lose!

That is, rather than see real, observable development, some would prefer that the players didn't win, didn't advance, and got humiliated, because they think that all this can be circumvented simply through drafting someone 1 or 2 or 3 or 7 or whatever places earlier in the draft.

I'm all for high draft picks, but never when it thwarts development.

Excellent post.

Reivoldt, Deledio, Tambling, Edwards, Thursfield, McGuane, Post, Morton, Vickery, Cotchin, Jackson and Nahas are all taking huge steps forwards.

But, hey, let's all whinge about missing draft picks and not developing players properly instead. It is much more edifying.

 

[jamo]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

I am a convert.

Winning is everything....

Adopt a winning attitude and the players will develop with confidence.

We put a spanner in Essendon's finals campaign..................Meaningless win.................., I don't think so, suck it bombers suck it hard.

I hope we win every game for the rest of the season and finish 9th, as long as we win.

 

[Mr Brightside]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

Havent read entire thread , however the way I look at is if we had have one yesterday with Richo kicking a bag or Simmonds dominating an undermanned ruck out fit or any other senior player having a match winning performance, I would have been disapointed to have moved so high up the ladder ;D, however with the "kids" winning the match Im very happy and thought Blades tactics were first rate..... :clap

 

[Red Sea Tiger]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

Quote: WINNING is EVERYTHING ! Source: Ben Cousins (and others for sure)

Losers NEVER Win !

To genuinely believe that players lower in draft rankings aren't able to be better footballers than those above them is naive. The development of players potential and the support that goes with it is more important than their position in the draft.

Having a screaming attitude willing to win is what I'd love to continue to see, much more of, at our club. Stuff everything less than that.

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

One simple question. I don't want your boring theories about winning culture and all that crap either. Would you rather beat Essendon, Melbourne and West Coast in 3 meaningless games or take Cotchin in the draft??? That is what we have given up this year. Had we played our cards right, Scully was ours.

:cutelaugh
When you are playing kids like Post, Vickery, Cotchin, etc...then any victory they have is NOT "meaningless".

If you were at the ground and saw how elated they were when the final siren went.....after the game as they were walking to the crowd to hand out a footy each to the kids....and then singing the song after the match.....then I dare you to ask them whether they think it was "meaningless".

And keep in mind....people go on about Carlton and their tanking for draft picks.
Funnily enough...even with Murphy, Gibbs, Kreuzer, and Judd.....you only need to shut down their 38th draft pick from 1998 to beat them as Collingwood showed the other night (and unfortunately, we couldn't do a couple of weeks ago)

 

[lamb22]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

We have a priority pick. Its called Shane Tuck. We have a possible second or third rounder called Nathan Brown.

Lets develop the list and trade and recruit well.

The picks will take care of themselves.

 

[AstuteTiger]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

The point is if we lost the remainder of our games we would have finished last, and i have no doubt that West Coast would have lost to Melbourne giving them 5 wins and meaning they miss out on the priority selection before round 1, gifting us Pick 1 in 2009 draft and T.Scully. So for a couple of cheap thrills and wins at end of the year, we have given up another T.Cotchin. Once you can understand that, you will understand how stupid this club can get.

Forget about the 3 picks in top 20, which would also have been a bonus, but we basically had T.Scully in our hands and have given him up!!!

Look i would luv to get scully but deep down its a very long shot but u seem to make it sound like its all so easy....im pretty sure WC dont play melb again, they actually play north in RD 20 at Subi, hope the WC beat North so they dont get a "1st round PP" but i dont know if that'll happen WC are tanking badly, sheez hearing worsfold say we threw everything in that last 20 secs to win the game against freo, well of course u did johnny, i doubt u would score 2 goals in 20 secs, please give me a break.
On the proviso that north beat WC which is more likely than not, it will come down to RD 22 V Richmond this is when u would seriously look at not beating the coasters as a win by WC would see them forfeit a PP....stuff em up i say....

On freo they play Port in RD 19 at Subi and then play melb in RD 20 at the G, perhaps 1 win their for freo and they too give up their PP at the start of the 2nd round.....look melbourne more than likely will win 1 more either against us or Freo and that'll be it, do u think Melbourne will give up their oppurtunity to pic up scully, i think not....It was always a long shot on scully but i was bloody hoping for some sort of miracle we'd get him but deep down it was a long shot....trengove, morabito, butcher etc are more in line for players we might get, lets say if we win another 2 or 3 then those players will also be out of sight.

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

We have a priority pick. Its called Shane Tuck. We have a possible second or third rounder called Nathan Brown.
Lets develop the list and trade and recruit well.
The picks will take care of themselves.

I would keep N.Brown for one more season to be honest.

It was only his first game back in the seniors after many weeks out and he didn't get a lot of the ball or kick many goals.
But the way I look at it is that he showed some poise a couple of times in the last quarter and while its great to play the kids, you do need to have SOME experience in the team.

I would prefer Simmo, Bowden, Coughlan go...and I agree with you about Tuck and developing our list and let the draft picks take care of themselves.

 

[WesternTiger]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

Question, remains how do you tank? The players arent going to tank in ANY team. We've played the youngsters and WON. So what's plan B of the tank guide?

That's my question as well GO. I am a pro-tanker but it was always going to be an up-hill battle considering the draw. As WC are tanking hard can someone tell me how we are going to lose to them in RD22?

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

That's my question as well GO. I am a pro-tanker but it was always going to be an up-hill battle considering the draw. As WC are tanking hard can someone tell me how we are going to lose to them in RD22?

The fact is Melbourne and West Coast have ALOT more to gain by tanking. Two top of the draft picks. Melbourne replaced, what was it, 9 players from the previous week. As good as we are at losing, we cant compete with that. How much confidence did yesterday's win give the youngsters (of which our team consists of many)? In hindsight, we should have replaced the older players a lot sooner this year. Would that mean we'd be in a worse position on the ladder right now? Id probably suggest not. Let's argue the merits of 'tanking' no problems with that but you cant argue the merits of a team of youngsters giving their all and winning against the odds, against the better judgement of most tipsters out there. Simply put, I take confidence I knowing that our youngsters can compete honestly and well. Our performances since Rawlings has taken over, whilst inconsistent, have other than the Saints match (and they've embarrassed everyone this year) been highly competitive.

So why get excited? Havent we been here before? I'd suggest no. I cant remember the last time we've played such a young team and competed so well. In the past its always been reliance on the old stagers. It is different this time. We need to draft well again this year and we will find ourselves as an improving side with youngsters maturing (during the bastardising of the draft for the new times) as opposed to other clubs aging and unable to replace their older players with the cream of the draft.

 

[AngryAnt]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

Great post by Mr Pumblechook.

To Maverick - when you say the "build a winning culture" strategy failed under Wallace, you'd have to say a lot of that is down to Wallace. There is strategy and then there is the execution - two different things.

Funnily enough, same comes to draft picks - picking the best players - and then developing them.

 

[dimmauchump]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

How about asking fair dinkum questions to start with?

I'm beginning to wonder whether some people adopt the 'tanking is the road to success' attitude not because they they dislike mediocrity, but they prefer to believe in some quick-fix, 'early draft picks guarantee flags' fairy-tale.

Yesterday we saw some concrete advances towards becoming a better team (Jack and Lids both took the next step). That is cause for celebration, and makes any true Tiger smile. Yet astonishingly, some would rather we lose!

That is, rather than see real, observable development, some would prefer that the players didn't win, didn't advance, and got humiliated, because they think that all this can be circumvented simply through drafting someone 1 or 2 or 3 or 7 or whatever places earlier in the draft.

I'm all for high draft picks, but never when it thwarts development.

Weren't we saying the same thing last year about Connors when we notched a couple of late wins?? We beat the eventual premiers as well, and a lot of good that done. My point is that i would rather these wins come when they actually mean something, ala road to the finals. I'd rather be competitive and lose the close ones if it ensured another Cotchin. What people fail to see is that YES, we did beat Essendon yesterday, but in reality they had 3 injured players on the ground and we still almost lost it. These wins bring about false hope and show up certain players that really aren't as good as they show. Next people will start telling me that King should be given an extension on his contract.

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

Weren't we saying the same thing last year about Connors when we notched a couple of late wins?? We beat the eventual premiers as well, and a lot of good that done. My point is that i would rather these wins come when they actually mean something, ala road to the finals. I'd rather be competitive and lose the close ones if it ensured another Cotchin. What people fail to see is that YES, we did beat Essendon yesterday, but in reality they had 3 injured players on the ground and we still almost lost it. These wins bring about false hope and show up certain players that really aren't as good as they show. Next people will start telling me that King should be given an extension on his contract.

you still haven't said what more they could have done to tank outside of instructing the players to deliberately lose. We had a side on the day that Essendon should have killed, but our players wanted it more than theirs.

 

[tiges]

Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response

Question, remains how do you tank? The players arent going to tank in ANY team. We've played the youngsters and WON. So what's plan B of the tank guide?

I agree with you , players play to win no matter what.