-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Pros and Cons of Tanking (Merged)
- Thread starter AstuteTiger
- Start date
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
OK frawleydud. You want a response.
This is a contemptible proposal. I can't be bothered reading the thread. I'm sure others have dealt with it.
You want to corrupt the whole business of teaching young players how to win for a marginally better bit at the draft. Sorry, no way.
I remember the loss to the saints. Now I'm really angry that Wallace gave up.
Winners never quit, and quitters never win. Sorry, but I prefer the former; and don't want to be associated with the latter.
OK frawleydud. You want a response.
This is a contemptible proposal. I can't be bothered reading the thread. I'm sure others have dealt with it.
You want to corrupt the whole business of teaching young players how to win for a marginally better bit at the draft. Sorry, no way.
I remember the loss to the saints. Now I'm really angry that Wallace gave up.
Winners never quit, and quitters never win. Sorry, but I prefer the former; and don't want to be associated with the latter.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
Summed up exactly how I feel. I ahve never played a sport and wanted to lose. Should never be that way.
Griff said:
Summed up exactly how I feel. I ahve never played a sport and wanted to lose. Should never be that way.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
The only result from this thread is that we find out which supporters want to win and who want to lose.
The team wants to win.
Jade wants to win.
The pro tankers on this thread got no say in it 8)
The only result from this thread is that we find out which supporters want to win and who want to lose.
The team wants to win.
Jade wants to win.
The pro tankers on this thread got no say in it 8)
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
I dunno actually cursing the side for beating a traditional opponent like the bummers and affecting their finals chances like some have done is not what I would call a good supporter. Like Baloo I want the kids played and if we lose every game so be it.
maverick said:
I dunno actually cursing the side for beating a traditional opponent like the bummers and affecting their finals chances like some have done is not what I would call a good supporter. Like Baloo I want the kids played and if we lose every game so be it.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
So let me get this right. Because Essendon had only 15 fit players (which is a vast over statement anyway - there was only 1 who couldnt play on), the Tigers should have injured themselves to even it up. Maybe grab a pen and stab oneself in the foot? Climb one of the MCG light poles and jump off? A bonafide tank that would be. And surely would have made you happy.
Once again hardly something to beat ourself about, that our team of youngsters has alot more potential than those of West Coast and Melbourne. Melbourne in particular have so many holes, they'd need 10 years of primary picks to solve their issues. West Coast. it will be a long time before they become a force again. The only other team to experience success out of bottoming is Hawthorn but they already had built a decent nucleus. Saints, their primary picks were almost 10 years ago. Surely you cant attribute their current success predominantly to their year 2000 picks.
frawleyudud said:we can look back at beating a side with 15 fit players on the park and saying that was the game that turned things around for this club after 27 years of mediocrity. Leave those fools West Coast and Melbourne do everything to rebuild their list proper. :
So let me get this right. Because Essendon had only 15 fit players (which is a vast over statement anyway - there was only 1 who couldnt play on), the Tigers should have injured themselves to even it up. Maybe grab a pen and stab oneself in the foot? Climb one of the MCG light poles and jump off? A bonafide tank that would be. And surely would have made you happy.
Once again hardly something to beat ourself about, that our team of youngsters has alot more potential than those of West Coast and Melbourne. Melbourne in particular have so many holes, they'd need 10 years of primary picks to solve their issues. West Coast. it will be a long time before they become a force again. The only other team to experience success out of bottoming is Hawthorn but they already had built a decent nucleus. Saints, their primary picks were almost 10 years ago. Surely you cant attribute their current success predominantly to their year 2000 picks.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
There's usually a standout kid or two in the draft every season but I certainly don't want to keep finishing last to get them. Trent isn't an option, that's piffle, but I'd be rapt for our players to win every game for the rest of the season.
frawleyudud said:
There's usually a standout kid or two in the draft every season but I certainly don't want to keep finishing last to get them. Trent isn't an option, that's piffle, but I'd be rapt for our players to win every game for the rest of the season.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
id prefer to win some games and have some substance to our claims for a brighter future when negotuiating to retain young stars as opposed to finishing stone motherless with some *smile* and bull story that an extra pick will be our salvation...dont be so narrow minded and deluded to think an extra pick is the panacea...Life aint that simple
frawleyudud said:
id prefer to win some games and have some substance to our claims for a brighter future when negotuiating to retain young stars as opposed to finishing stone motherless with some *smile* and bull story that an extra pick will be our salvation...dont be so narrow minded and deluded to think an extra pick is the panacea...Life aint that simple
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
win against stkilda in rnd 22 2007 and kiss cotchin goodbye. its a valid argument and valid.
no its not you said it yourself there is always a standout kid or two. just because you disagree on what process someone is advocating does not make their argument piffle. i see the relevance and im sure most posters would to.rosy23 said:
win against stkilda in rnd 22 2007 and kiss cotchin goodbye. its a valid argument and valid.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
Its really quite simple - Rawlings is coaching to win cause he wants a good win/loss ratio, the players are playing to win cause many of them are playing for their futures, the selectors are selecting teams to see who should stay and who should go. This mix of objectives should lead us to beat weaker sides, possibly upset a finals pretender (like we did on the weekend) and no matter what we do we'll probably still get beaten by the good sides.
At the end of the season it could end up with either of the following scenarios or anywhere in between:
if we end up with pick 1 it's because the current players we have are crap, or Rawlings can't coach (or both) If this is the case then we'd need a swag of No. 1 picks to fix the problems.
If we end up with pick 8 at least it indicates that players who have been selected have shown something to win the majority of our remaining games and maybe Rawlings can coach (or both). If this is the case Pick 8 will not be too bad (as long as we dont get another JON or Pettifer). I would much prefer this scenario cause as Cuz said to the media after the game "winning is not everything, it is the only thing!" Those who underestimate the power of winning have probably never played the game.
Its really quite simple - Rawlings is coaching to win cause he wants a good win/loss ratio, the players are playing to win cause many of them are playing for their futures, the selectors are selecting teams to see who should stay and who should go. This mix of objectives should lead us to beat weaker sides, possibly upset a finals pretender (like we did on the weekend) and no matter what we do we'll probably still get beaten by the good sides.
At the end of the season it could end up with either of the following scenarios or anywhere in between:
if we end up with pick 1 it's because the current players we have are crap, or Rawlings can't coach (or both) If this is the case then we'd need a swag of No. 1 picks to fix the problems.
If we end up with pick 8 at least it indicates that players who have been selected have shown something to win the majority of our remaining games and maybe Rawlings can coach (or both). If this is the case Pick 8 will not be too bad (as long as we dont get another JON or Pettifer). I would much prefer this scenario cause as Cuz said to the media after the game "winning is not everything, it is the only thing!" Those who underestimate the power of winning have probably never played the game.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
just imagine livvers if we had bottomed out 05 06 we could have had both cotchin and kruezer or cotchin and morton twos better than one its all about the process and thank you you have answered my A or B QUESTION ON THE OTHER THREAD.
YOU SEE YOU DO UNDERSTAND.
MOST DRAFTS have stand outs clubs went out of their way to get their hands on cotchin and kruezer why because they were the two most likely to beome elite.Liverpool said:
just imagine livvers if we had bottomed out 05 06 we could have had both cotchin and kruezer or cotchin and morton twos better than one its all about the process and thank you you have answered my A or B QUESTION ON THE OTHER THREAD.
YOU SEE YOU DO UNDERSTAND.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
tanking breeds a negative losing culture. I want to see hope at tiger land. not negativity on the gamble that we might get a good ordinary player
tanking breeds a negative losing culture. I want to see hope at tiger land. not negativity on the gamble that we might get a good ordinary player
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
the cupboards pretty bare people - have a look at coburg. we have no quality kids left in coburg to come in. who do we hve? Putt, Gourdis, Gilligan. That's it and they really haven't shown potential. Over the next 2 years we need to replace duds and geriarics in raines, jon, petifer, johnson, bowden, king, simmonds, cousins, brown, richo, thomson, polak, mcmahon, tuck, coughlan, pattison, hughes, schulz. that's at least 18 -20 players - half the list. We need to be smart about it and try to maximise the amount of picks we have. with gc and ws coming in it's gonna be even harder to replace these players and we'll be forced to keep them on the list and we'll be seeing their deficiencies and mistakes week in week out. smart being the key word something we are not.
the cupboards pretty bare people - have a look at coburg. we have no quality kids left in coburg to come in. who do we hve? Putt, Gourdis, Gilligan. That's it and they really haven't shown potential. Over the next 2 years we need to replace duds and geriarics in raines, jon, petifer, johnson, bowden, king, simmonds, cousins, brown, richo, thomson, polak, mcmahon, tuck, coughlan, pattison, hughes, schulz. that's at least 18 -20 players - half the list. We need to be smart about it and try to maximise the amount of picks we have. with gc and ws coming in it's gonna be even harder to replace these players and we'll be forced to keep them on the list and we'll be seeing their deficiencies and mistakes week in week out. smart being the key word something we are not.
Re: Anti-Tankers i want a response
I understand totally Claw.
But I still disagree with you and your hypotheticals.
If we had bottomed out...if we had done this.
How about if Nathan Brown didn't break his leg when he did? How about if Richo had not torn his hamstring off the bone? How about if Cotchin had been able to get at least a pre-season under his belt? How about if Wallace had played Bling in his rightful position from the beginning? How about if Polak didn't get hit by a tram? How about if Wallace had dropped the likes of Bowden, Tuck, Simmo, etc earlier and played the younger kids more?
Lots of "ifs" in footy Claw...
the claw said:
I understand totally Claw.
But I still disagree with you and your hypotheticals.
If we had bottomed out...if we had done this.
How about if Nathan Brown didn't break his leg when he did? How about if Richo had not torn his hamstring off the bone? How about if Cotchin had been able to get at least a pre-season under his belt? How about if Wallace had played Bling in his rightful position from the beginning? How about if Polak didn't get hit by a tram? How about if Wallace had dropped the likes of Bowden, Tuck, Simmo, etc earlier and played the younger kids more?
Lots of "ifs" in footy Claw...
