Winners are grinners but so are losers

[Ghost Dog]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/strugglers-tanking-is-part-and-parcel-20110804-1idmx.html

The AFL knows this much: that the draft is the lynchpin of a competitive competition, but also that clubs will try all rules to their limits, and it was always thus. So it affects to know nothing.

In 2005, a senior Collingwood figure reportedly was displeased with the plans for the Carlton game. Mollifying him, others said that it might mean a loss to Carlton that day, but wins for the next 10 years. Since, Collingwood leads Carlton 9-3.

But the Blues also got a priority pick that year, and the next two, and are well on their way. And Hawthorn - Jeff Kennett's holier-than-thou denunciation of Melbourne yesterday notwithstanding - had priority picks in 2004 and 2005, and in 2008 won a premiership.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/strugglers-tanking-is-part-and-parcel-20110804-1idmx.html#ixzz1U6UreAhg

[LostDoggy]

What the hell is Greg arguing? First he says that Collingwood and Hawthorn won their premierships based on tanking, then he says that it's no big deal because it's not cheating.

It's not technically cheating, but he's deluded if he thinks only people who gamble on the game are outraged that teams deliberately lose. I don't think the 90% or so of fans who hate tanking are all gambling -- I don't, and I am.

For another thing, tanking also dilutes the equality of the draw, which is already incredibly compromised as it is. It's essentially free points to the opposition, and when you consider how close the race for the top 8 or top 4 have been, tanking affects the outcomes of seasons, much less the whole competition. What a dumb*!*!*!*! of an article.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The stupid thing about priority picks is that it doesn't help the clubs when they need the help.

Giving the bottom club another 18yo isn't going to make them more competitive.

The benefit comes 5 years later when they have already started their recovery.

[Ghost Dog]

There's an air of conceit in the article, that's for sure.
Agree with SS; the rise of Hawthorn, Carlton and Collingwood didn't just come down to one or two players. But it sure helped.

[Twodogs]

Giving the bottom club another 18yo isn't going to make them more competitive.



Not always. Joel Selwood and Cyril Rioli were gun players in premiership teams within a couple of years of being top ten picks. I know that neither were priority picks but they were both products of their teams bottoming out.

[1eyedog]

The stupid thing about priority picks is that it doesn't help the clubs when they need the help.

Giving the bottom club another 18yo isn't going to make them more competitive.

The benefit comes 5 years later when they have already started their recovery.

The only other option I can see here is a mid-year draft or trading period or dare I say it in front of you, free agency.

How else are you going to turn things around in the short term?

[Sockeye Salmon]

The only other option I can see here is a mid-year draft or trading period or dare I say it in front of you, free agency.

How else are you going to turn things around in the short term?

Here's an idea. By finishing near the bottom they get earlier draft picks, then if they select wisely, get decent coaching systems in place and the whole club works hard to achieve what's best for the club...

Oh, and make it harder for richer (newer?) clubs to steal their best young players.

[1eyedog]

Here's an idea. By finishing near the bottom they get earlier draft picks, then if they select wisely, get decent coaching systems in place and the whole club works hard to achieve what's best for the club...

Oh, and make it harder for richer (newer?) clubs to steal their best young players.

Well I'm sorry SS but that sounds way too much like a rational response to me.

[Topdog]

It's not technically cheating, but he's deluded if he thinks only people who gamble on the game are outraged that teams deliberately lose. I don't think the 90% or so of fans who hate tanking are all gambling -- I don't, and I am.

People that gamble don't bet on these dud sides to win a game when they have nothing to play for.

[always right]

Bizarre article. Can't believe he trotted out the same tired old line that players don't go out to deliberately lose. Has anybody ever argued this?