Info of Aka's comments on SEN

[LostDoggy]

Apparently he was on SEN tonight and has touched on the Tanking debate. He said that the AFL has its head in the sand if they don't think that Tanking doesn't go on he know for a fact that it does go on.

I didn't catch it but they said they will discuss it on News and Views on Fox Sport news @ 9pm est.

Look I dare say they are just pumping it up more than it really is but for those interested it will be on shortly.

[Mofra]

Once again, people stand ready to shout Aker down simply for being honest. Clubs tank, everybody knows it. St Kilda have an article in the Hun today with a big picture of Ben McEvoy talking about how it is time to "play the kids". Surely that isn't simply to "revitalise the on field team".

[lion in the midst]

It happens in every sport, I don't understand why some think its big deal.

As soon as a team doesn't make the finals/playoffs its only natural and smart to plan for the next season. That usually means giving less experienced players a go.

[LostDoggy]

I always feel nervous when Aker comes out and makes a comment n somthing like tanking, but I do agree with him, if the AFL actuallt thinks that no team has ever tanked, then they are complete and total idiots.

[Sockeye Salmon]

It happens in every sport, I don't understand why some think its big deal.

As soon as a team doesn't make the finals/playoffs its only natural and smart to plan for the next season. That usually means giving less experienced players a go.

But what other sport actively encourages it to happen?

[Mantis]

But what other sport actively encourages it to happen?

I don't think it's encouraged, it's just rewarded.

[Crizza]

It happens in every sport, I don't understand why some think its big deal.

As soon as a team doesn't make the finals/playoffs its only natural and smart to plan for the next season. That usually means giving less experienced players a go.

Similar thing occurred in the NBA recently, the Miami Heat clearly the worst team in the leauge sent players in for surgery and traded Shaq (for those not aware a very very good basketballer) to Phoenix.

Whilst the NBA draft is different in that you get a larger number of team 'balls' to be entered into the end of season lottery the worse you finish, there is no doubt that teams in the NBA who know that they cannot make finals will not chase wins as much as they could.

Their draft isn't as guaranteed as ours, as the Heat despite being the worst NBA team missed out on the number on the No1 draft pick.

The AFL is not alone in having teams that will under perform to try and maximize draft picks.

[The Pie Man]

I always feel nervous when Aker comes out and makes a comment n somthing like tanking, but I do agree with him, if the AFL actuallt thinks that no team has ever tanked, then they are complete and total idiots.

Do you like the way Eade deflects the heat from an Aker controversy (not that this is a 'controversy') by kinda agreeing with him in completely different phrasing with the media?

Got to admit, when Aker wrote the article on drug cheats last year, Eade on 'On the Couch' wasn't all that convincing about vetoeing every article he writes etc and the club's facilities being a little dated. Left himself open to Sheehan's 'not passing the buck are you Rodney?'

[hujsh]

Similar thing occurred in the NBA recently, the Miami Heat clearly the worst team in the leauge sent players in for surgery and traded Shaq (for those not aware a very very good basketballer) to Phoenix.

Still? He's pretty bloody old. But probably still just as huge.

[Big Will]

Still? He's pretty bloody old. But probably still just as huge.

Shaq is completely past it. Miami did the right thing trading him and he destroyed Phoenix's hopes of a chamionship. Way too slow in an all out, offensive game plan.

[Twodogs]

But what other sport actively encourages it to happen?


It's the rules. Sporting clubs are ambitious beasts always searching for a competitive advantage. Doesnt matter what rules you bring in the more proactive ones will always find a way to use them to their best advantage. I dont really see what the problem is anyway. Everyone is aware of the rules, every club signs of on them at the start of each season and no club operates under a different set of them to any other club.


How would you make it any 'fairer' anyway? The tattslotto draw model is just window dressing and it's bordering on fantasy to suggest that club's wouldnt still prefer to bottom out if they knew that they'd still have a higher probabilty of winning the raffle because they had more chances due to the higher number of tickets they had in the hat.

A system that gives any club a higher chance at first choice will be open to accusations of being manipulated. The important question is whether the accusations are legitimate and not just whinging or ideoligical concerns or change for changes sake.


Frankly the tanking debate has reached ridiculous proportions. I hear callers ringing SEN bemoaning the fact that Richmond or Melbourne are positioning themselves for 2 first round picks-2 things spring immediatly to mind 1/ Under the present rules neither side will qualify for the first round PP this year because both have won too many games and 2/ THE SEASON HAS ONLY JUST GONE PAST THE HALFWAY MARK!!!!! Next thing we know teams will be accussed of tanking during the PreSeason competition. Sometimes if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then it's a bloody duck-the sooner we face up to the fact that Richmond and Melbourne are just plain shit and start dealing in reality the better.

[Scraggers]

Sometimes if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then it's a bloody duck-the sooner we face up to the fact that Richmond and Melbourne are just plain shit and start dealing in reality the better.

I couldn't agree more ... Richmond and Melbourne have not got the depth this year (or for the last couple for that matter) to be serious competitors this year ... therefor they are just plain shit.

But what about the Eagles? Their available line-up is four players short of their Premiership side line-up ... (mind you, one of those is Judd and another Cousins). Surely two players do not make the difference between fourth and fifteenth place on the ladder.

In the last draft the Eagles had four top twenty draft picks, thanks to the Judd trade and other clever trading; now it looks as though they will have another couple of top twenty draft picks.

They are choosing not to play quality players ... aka tanking !! :eek:

[lion in the midst]

I couldn't agree more ... Richmond and Melbourne have not got the depth this year (or for the last couple for that matter) to be serious competitors this year ... therefor they are just plain shit.

But what about the Eagles? Their available line-up is four players short of their Premiership side line-up ... (mind you, one of those is Judd and another Cousins). Surely two players do not make the difference between fourth and fifteenth place on the ladder.

In the last draft the Eagles had four top twenty draft picks, thanks to the Judd trade and other clever trading; now it looks as though they will have another couple of top twenty draft picks.

They are choosing not to play quality players ... aka tanking !! :eek:

They have chosen their best most experienced team this week

[LostDoggy]

How would you make it any 'fairer' anyway? The tattslotto draw model is just window dressing and it's bordering on fantasy to suggest that club's wouldnt still prefer to bottom out if they knew that they'd still have a higher probabilty of winning the raffle because they had more chances due to the higher number of tickets they had in the hat.

A system that gives any club a higher chance at first choice will be open to accusations of being manipulated. The important question is whether the accusations are legitimate and not just whinging or ideoligical concerns or change for changes sake.



But there is no sure reward with the draw model. You can tank all you want but you may only end up with pick 5 or 6. That way you are not DIRECTLY rewarded for tanking -- all you get is a higher chance for pick 1, which is not a great reward for losing an entire season.

The current system GUARANTEES a reward (the BEST reward) for being crap. If you are TRULY crap or a really big cheat (see Carlton bloody white-collar criminals the last two decades and rorted the salary cap on the way to their last premiership), you were GUARANTEED the best TWO rewards.

I know they've changed the PP this year so that it's pick 17 instead of pick 1, but that's probably why teams aren't actively tanking as much this year.

Seriously, if Carlton win anything in the next 5 years from cheating -- bankrolled by absolutely dirty money, cheating the salary cap, breaking trade rules, insider trading, cheating other clubs of a fair chance, deliberately losing and bringing the fabric of the game into disrepute -- I will spew. I will absolutely spew.

And Twodogs, if you think DELIBERATELY sending a team out there to lose is not somehow detrimental to the spirit and fabric of the sport and bringing it into disrepute, we have very different notions of a fair and honest competition.

[The Pie Man]

But there is no sure reward with the draw model. You can tank all you want but you may only end up with pick 5 or 6. That way you are not DIRECTLY rewarded for tanking -- all you get is a higher chance for pick 1, which is not a great reward for losing an entire season.

The current system GUARANTEES a reward (the BEST reward) for being crap. If you are TRULY crap or a really big cheat (see Carlton bloody white-collar criminals the last two decades and rorted the salary cap on the way to their last premiership), you were GUARANTEED the best TWO rewards.

I know they've changed the PP this year so that it's pick 17 instead of pick 1, but that's probably why teams aren't actively tanking as much this year.

Seriously, if Carlton win anything in the next 5 years from cheating -- bankrolled by absolutely dirty money, cheating the salary cap, breaking trade rules, insider trading, cheating other clubs of a fair chance, deliberately losing and bringing the fabric of the game into disrepute -- I will spew. I will absolutely spew.

And Twodogs, if you think DELIBERATELY sending a team out there to lose is not somehow detrimental to the spirit and fabric of the sport and bringing it into disrepute, we have very different notions of a fair and honest competition.

Remind you of anyone? Terry Wallace from Year of the Dogs - well to be exact he said 'I'll spew up' but close enough (and pretty funny)

Everyone seems to be over it, the footy world loves gossip (god knows I do) and this just seems to rear it's overblown head when there's nothing esle to talk about.

We were beneficiaries of the old system with Cooney & Ray, the 3 goal loss to Essendon round 22 2002 respectable enough to deflect any potential heat. I noticed last year that if we won round 22, we could have finished as high as tenth and only have pick 8 or 9, but with the loss (which in no way was tainted, just making a point) we got pick 5 and Jarrad Grant.

[LostDoggy]

Jarrad Grant was going to come to the Dogs in the first round with any pick in the top 10 (in all honesty, on ability he was going to be closer to a pick 13-18 but we didn't have any other picks until 19)All the other clubs had their own agendas and their sights on other players.

[lion in the midst]

Seriously, if Carlton win anything in the next 5 years from cheating -- bankrolled by absolutely dirty money, cheating the salary cap, breaking trade rules, insider trading, cheating other clubs of a fair chance, deliberately losing and bringing the fabric of the game into disrepute -- I will spew. I will absolutely spew.

Me too, I will spew. I will absolutely spew.

But you know, in 2 years they will be better than Hawthorn. Its just not fair.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The only change needed is to scrap priority picks altogether.

The difference in 1 or 2 places in the draft is irrelevant. The difference between picks 1 & 3 v pick 3 (Carlton's situation last year depending on the result of their R22 game v Melbourne) is huge.

Kruezer and Judd v Judd or Masten



Without priority picks it would have been the difference between pick 2 or 3

Cotchin or Masten. No difference.

[The Pie Man]

Me too, I will spew. I will absolutely spew.

But you know, in 2 years they will be better than Hawthorn. Its just not fair.

Not guaranteed - look at St Kilda, the Blues are in a similar position to them in the early naughties, and besides a couple of prelims (they should've made one of those GF's granted) injuries and poor management have cost them a legit shot. Window closed.

They'll have a top list in 2 years, but injuries are massive - look at us, the side is the most settled it's been in quite some time, and we're flying.

[lion in the midst]

Injuries and unforseen anomalies aside, with that amount of talent both bought and with draft concessions that they have running around expect a powerful side in two years.

[lion in the midst]

At least they no longer have their billionaire president

[hujsh]

St.Kilda's tanking

[The Pie Man]

St.Kilda's tanking

teehee

Actually watching tonight (3rd qtr on tv) I'd buy it .... St Kilda are sheeet (and so are Freo)

[Scraggers]

They have chosen their best most experienced team this week

Didn't help them much ... He He He ... 135 points wasn't it? :D

[lion in the midst]

Didn't help them much ... He He He ... 135 points wasn't it? :D

And your point? You can't say they were tanking, like you suggested earlier :confused:

[Scraggers]

And your point? You can't say they were tanking, like you suggested earlier :confused:

No ... they definitely weren't tanking against Geelong ... i just hate the Eagles, and love seeing them humiliated ...

But I do think they are not giving their all this season 100%; concerned more with their ladder position at the end of the season ...

AKA tanking ...

[lion in the midst]

No ... they definitely weren't tanking against Geelong ... i just hate the Eagles, and love seeing them humiliated ...

But I do think they are not giving their all this season 100%; concerned more with their ladder position at the end of the season ...

AKA tanking ...

Yeah its like they have been cruising along in second gear for the majority of the first half of the season. I expect them to intensify and come close to their best as the season approaches the finals.

[Twodogs]

But there is no sure reward with the draw model. You can tank all you want but you may only end up with pick 5 or 6. That way you are not DIRECTLY rewarded for tanking -- all you get is a higher chance for pick 1, which is not a great reward for losing an entire season.


While we can second guess all we want until we get positive proof that a team has tanked we are dealing with perception. I dont see how changing the lure form a sure thing to a probable thing will allay public perception that teams are tanking. If you are going to react to public frear then it's pointless implementing a system that's only going to be open to the same fears. I'm not saying dont change it, I'm saying dont just latch onto the first thing you think of. I dont know what that magic system is but it's not the lottery system.




And Twodogs, if you think DELIBERATELY sending a team out there to lose is not somehow detrimental to the spirit and fabric of the sport and bringing it into disrepute, we have very different notions of a fair and honest competition.

I'd be dissapointed if my club didnt look at fully taking advantage of current competition rules to improve their chances of ultimate success. A couple of wins when you cant make the finals means nothing to me three or four years down the track. Cooney, Griffen, Williams and Ray playing good footy on the MCG in september means everything.


Did we 'earn' those picks for being crap or by looking to the long game? In all honesty it was far more likely incompetence than design, but if it was design I salute those who planned it.

[lion in the midst]

While we can second guess all we want until we get positive proof that a team has tanked we are dealing with perception. I dont see how changing the lure form a sure thing to a probable thing will allay public perception that teams are tanking. If you are going to react to public frear then it's pointless implementing a system that's only going to be open to the same fears. I'm not saying dont change it, I'm saying dont just latch onto the first thing you think of. I dont know what that magic system is but it's not the lottery system.





I'd be dissapointed if my club didnt look at fully taking advantage of current competition rules to improve their chances of ultimate success. A couple of wins when you cant make the finals means nothing to me three or four years down the track. Cooney, Griffen, Williams and Ray playing good footy on the MCG in september means everything.


Did we 'earn' those picks for being crap or by looking to the long game? In all honesty it was far more likely incompetence than design, but if it was design I salute those who planned it.

why do you disagree with the lottery system twodogs?

[Twodogs]

why do you disagree with the lottery system twodogs?


Because the perceived problems it has are virtually the same as the perceived problems with the current system. If you fix something fix it properly.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Did we 'earn' those picks for being crap or by looking to the long game? In all honesty it was far more likely incompetence than design, but if it was design I salute those who planned it.

Peter Rohde was a misunderstood genius!

[LostDoggy]

:) Gold.

[Twodogs]

Peter Rohde was a misunderstood genius!



Just look at the powerhouse Port have become since he got on board.