So. Did we tank the Hawthorn and West Coast games?

[mjp]

Yep. I know the players played as hard as they could. And I know that the coaches would have coached to win throughout each contest. But I still would like to know - did we take a 'big picture' approach into the two fixtures mentioned, take the "We will probably lose no matter what we do" approach and just take the foot off the gas?

The selections for this week seemed quite strange. I understand Boyd needed a rest - but against the 2nd top side in a game that had top 4 implications? And to replace him and Picken with two x first gamers?

Boyd was rested against Hawthorn in Tasmania as well. So was Bontempelli.

I guess on a lot of levels I don't have an issue with what has happened - but just wonder if the side selected today is the side that WOULD have been selected if it was a must win final.

[bornadog]

Maybe Bevo worked out we can't win those games so let's just put some kids in and give them a taste of AFL football.

Bevo did say at a lunch I attended on Friday that he would love to have another crack at Hawthorn. Remember we lost three players during the week and two during that game.

[Raw Toast]

Good question MJP - Beveridge had a bit of a smile on his face at times in the post-match presser which was interesting. I think we definitely took the 6 day break into next week into account, and Andrew Hooper aside, I don't think we'd have brought both Smith and Pearce into a must-win game.

It's going to be interesting to see who comes in next week, Beveridge flagged up to a handful of changes, but hopefully Morris is right to go, or only needs to miss a week.

[LostDoggy]

It's a fine line between tanking and managing a squad.

Bevo spoke through the week of our Melbourne to Perth to Melboune to Brisbane to Melbourne/ 3 game in 13 day schedule immediately prior to finals and the need to manage this.

Given Picken copped a knock hard enough to shatter the knee of the knocker, the only rested player was M.Boyd, hardly qualifies as a tank for mine.

Also, if we were more or less giving this game away, don't think JJ would've been straight back in.

Admittedly, the choice of Smith and Pearce as replacements was a bit eccentric, but that is how Bevo has rolled this year.

[Remi Moses]

Don't think we tanked, but the 6 day break and another interstate trip to Brissie might have come into play.

[SonofScray]

I wouldn't put it past the coaching group at the moment to have looked at the trip and a bit of a cost benefit analysis against a win today versus a rest for some key players. I'm not sure thats tanking or just man management and a bit of caginess in terms of having a look at what they were prepared to throw at us.

Along those lines, I thought it was interesting in the ruck conversation he said we plan for and tend to know where they'll put the ball if they are dominating in the ruck. I wonder if some of the times we've given the opposition a free ride is to gauge what we need to do to deal with it next time?A bit of rope a dope?

Maybe I'm reaching a bit given I am trying to stave off all the "I told you so" comments coming my way from people who said we've beaten no one and have had a soft draw etc. I would have thought today's loss doesn't hurt us so much as a loss next week might? We might have been looking to bring back as fresh a team as possible for North.

[GVGjr]

I think we have been picking sides with an eye firmly focused on longer term development just about every week. On top of that we have pretty much ignored VFL form for most of the season. Today it all caught up with us.

I don't believe we are tanking games but I'd go so far to say I'd need to be convinced we are picking the best sides each week.

[Sedat]

Yep. I know the players played as hard as they could. And I know that the coaches would have coached to win throughout each contest. But I still would like to know - did we take a 'big picture' approach into the two fixtures mentioned, take the "We will probably lose no matter what we do" approach and just take the foot off the gas?

The selections for this week seemed quite strange. I understand Boyd needed a rest - but against the 2nd top side in a game that had top 4 implications? And to replace him and Picken with two x first gamers?

Boyd was rested against Hawthorn in Tasmania as well. So was Bontempelli.

I guess on a lot of levels I don't have an issue with what has happened - but just wonder if the side selected today is the side that WOULD have been selected if it was a must win final.
Without having watched the game (and I'm not about to record the replay), our selections reeked of squad management. If we want to be at our best for the finals, we need to manage the health of the overall squad, and today looked like the price that needed to be paid to ensure we are as strong as possible for the real stuff - the blowout in the last qtr notwithstanding. I'm also expecting to see some more man management in the last round with a trip up to Brisbane. And I'm expecting us to put our absolute best team on the park next week.

[Ghost Dog]

Luke Beveridge's face had tell-tail incongruous signs during the press conference. There is no doubt about that.
Express disappointment - face says not really that disappointed.

[Go_Dogs]

I found myself pondering this last night too. You could certainly mount an argument that we haven't taken our best available side and thus, haven't shown our hand, against some of the better sides this year.

The proof will be in the pudding the next few weeks. We're playing the long game no doubt, but I'd hope any finals 22 we pick is the best available and most suited to our opponent and conditions.

[Greystache]

I thought going into the game we'd selected a team with a view to not compromising our run to the finals. I expected us to give a better account of ourselves but I didn't think winning was a priority for the coaches.

I wouldn't call that tanking because the players and coaches were trying to win on the day, but I'd certainly call it strategic management of the team.

[Mantis]

I thought going into the game we'd selected a team with a view to not compromising our run to the finals. I expected us to give a better account of ourselves but I didn't think winning was a priority for the coaches.

I wouldn't call that tanking because the players and coaches were trying to win on the day, but I'd certainly call it strategic management of the team.

I thought we gave a pretty good account of ourselves until late in the 3rd qtr, but it fell apart late... The Jong miss was telling.

Losing Campbell, Grant & Morris all around 3rd qtr time was a killer and robbed us of experience, ruckling ability and rotations.

[Scraggers]

Next week will be telling for this theory MJP. Playing North with every chance we will me meet them in the first round of the finals regardless of the result of this week's game. Do we play inexperienced kids and not show our cards or do we go the W !!

[Mofra]

Admittedly, the choice of Smith and Pearce as replacements was a bit eccentric, but that is how Bevo has rolled this year.
Bevo's clearly balancing resting some players, getting a good look at the list (we've used 39 players!) and trying to keep structure.

MJP's point is valid - surely our best performed VFL midfielder (Hrovat) would have come in if we had forced changes for a final on a big ground?

[1eyedog]

No doubt MJP astute observation. As others have mentioned taking Smith and Pearce into a must win game was a head scratcher. It's entirely possible also the coaching staff got to 3q time and said righto, we're pretty much in the game playing a bunch of kids. We've got two of our best ball winners having a rest in Melbourne, our two best key position defenders and our best FF option playing VFL. We're happy let's roll it back and start to focus on North. No need to bust our gut to lose by a few goals from here.

[lemmon]

Bevo's clearly balancing resting some players, getting a good look at the list (we've used 39 players!) and trying to keep structure.

MJP's point is valid - surely our best performed VFL midfielder (Hrovat) would have come in if we had forced changes for a final on a big ground?

I don't understand your point here, if Hrovat was next cab off the rank, why wouldn't he have played against the Eagles anyway? Winning may not have been at the forefront but that doesn't make losing the optimal outcome. What do we gain by playing a lesser player over Hrovat if the goal of resting Boyd and Picken was already being achieved? I can't imagine we were that desperate to expose a young Rourke Smith to senior footy that he had to debut at some point this season

[Ozza]

The last (and only other) time we came off a big loss this season, where some players were rested, we played scintillating footy against what had been, a red hot Adelaide.

Hoping the same recipe is put together for Saturday.

[Sedat]

BUMP

If last week wasn't a tank, it was definitely a smart piece of man management.

[GVGjr]

BUMP

If last week wasn't a tank, it was definitely a smart piece of man management.

I get impression that the term 'man management' is going to be used a lot more.

[Twodogs]

We certainly seemed to put the cue in the rack at 3/4 time against West Coast and cast our minds forward to today's game. If we did it was a case of strategic brilliance because we ran out a game against a good team after a trip to WA and a six day break.

[ledge]

I believe he took a young team to WC and rested players for today's game .. We got blown out the water in the last qtr but we also lost three players who didn't come back on .. Even the mighty Bevo couldn't see that happening.
I don't think the last qtr is something we should be concerned about after that happened .. Also happened to
Us against the Hawks.
I think Bevo is holding his cards close to his chest, very good strategist and will make moves during games, something a lot of orher cosched are reluctant to do when a game is in the balance.

[LostDoggy]

The only player who was rested for WCE was Boyd, he's a good player but I hardly think he made the 12 goal+ difference.

[bornadog]

The only player who was rested for WCE was Boyd, he's a good player but I hardly think he made the 12 goal+ difference.

But he picked an inexperienced side with an average of 59 games. Picken was rested believe me, the excuse about is back was for the press.

[LostDoggy]

If picking an inexperienced side is tanking, this has been an awesome year for a tank year. :)

Leaving Boyd out knocks over 10 games per player off the average.

Doesn't seem our style to fabricate Picken's injury. What's the point?

[ledge]

The only player who was rested for WCE was Boyd, he's a good player but I hardly think he made the 12 goal+ difference.

Add picken out and three blokes injured who couldn't come back on.
Don't get me wrong I don't think we would have won but it would have been a hell
Of a lot closer.

[ledge]

If picking an inexperienced side is tanking, this has been an awesome year for a tank year. :)

Leaving Boyd out knocks over 10 games per player off the average.

Doesn't seem our style to fabricate Picken's injury. What's the point?

I believe it's something to do with salary cap and player payments injury v rested.
Not sure how it works but I'm sure I read something about it a couple if years ago.

[LostDoggy]

Add picken out and three blokes injured who couldn't come back on.
Don't get me wrong I don't think we would have won but it would have been a hell
Of a lot closer.

I agree (it was actually 4 injured; Campbell, Grant, Morris, Talia). That's why I don't think it was a tank.

When you lose your ruckman, 2 of your 3 taller defenders and a hard runner, have no bench at all to rotate through, the opposition will eventually win clearances easily and score almost at will.

The way I see it, we didn't lay down, shit just happened.

[Scraggers]

I agree (it was actually 4 injured; Campbell, Grant, Morris, Talia). That's why I don't think it was a tank.

When you lose your ruckman, 2 of your 3 taller defenders and a hard runner, have no bench at all to rotate through, the opposition will eventually win clearances easily and score almost at will.

The way I see it, we didn't lay down, shit just happened.

Having sat at the game through to the final siren, we definitely put the cue in the rack towards the end of the third quarter. We stopped chasing hard, we stopped hunting in numbers. The score and injuries had a lot to do with that, but we definitely started preparing for today's game.

[LostDoggy]

Having sat at the game through to the final siren, we definitely put the cue in the rack towards the end of the third quarter. We stopped chasing hard, we stopped hunting in numbers. The score and injuries had a lot to do with that, but we definitely started preparing for today's game.

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but if our players were actually instructed to stop chasing as a planned policy, or told to stop trying, I would be shocked. It seems more credible to me that, with no rotations and a smashed midfield, we were simply exhausted and overwhelmed.

[Scraggers]

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but if our players were actually instructed to stop chasing as a planned policy, or told to stop trying, I would be shocked. It seems more credible to me that, with no rotations and a smashed midfield, we were simply exhausted and overwhelmed.

Maybe it's a little from Column A and a little from Column B

[MrMahatma]

Won't seem so smart if we miss top 4 by a couple % points, will it?

[Rocco Jones]

Won't seem so smart if we miss top 4 by a couple % points, will it?

Simple way of looking at it. If we went full on vs Eagles, would we have been able to smash North late in the game? We also smashed an inform Adelaide team post Hawks game.

Also, look at the form of Matthew Boyd. He looked gone at the start of the year. We have to factor in the man management.

[LostDoggy]

I think we man manage every game constantly throughout the season. I don't think the Hawthorn or WCE games were exceptional and I don't think we conceded (tanked) them.

Every game is a balance between best 22, team development and managing players through a season.

I think it's hubris for us to mistake that for tanking (which means intentionally losing) any game where we are well beaten.

[Rocco Jones]

I think we man manage every game constantly throughout the season. I don't think the Hawthorn or WCE games were exceptional and I don't think we conceded (tanked) them.

Every game is a balance between best 22, team development and managing players through a season.

I think it's hubris for us to mistake that for tanking (which means intentionally losing) any game where we are well beaten.

I totally agree. That Hawks game, Bonts was actually injured too. We also rested Bob against Port.

I guess I am saying the man management has served us very well rather than specific weeks.

[LostDoggy]

I totally agree. That Hawks game, Bonts was actually injured too. We also rested Bob against Port.

I guess I am saying the man management has served us very well rather than specific weeks.

Yup. 100%.

The wonder of this year is that, given our youth, we have been stretched too thin so rarely. Testament to the quality of our list and the skill of our coaching/conditioning staff and match committee.