Tanking in AFL, coaches speak out.

[Xman]

Yes well said pookus.

As for you Xman. I agree, why the hell would they do that? Stupidity I guess. A blight on the game and on Australian sport in general. The AFL need to do more.

Oh and Xman, thanks for deleting that awful monologue of TLPG's. Rubbish like that deserves to be binned.

they ditched the priority pick. i honestly dont think a team would make their players lose to get pick 1 instead of 2. history shows it just isnt worth it. The benefits of winning would far outway the gamble of a single earlier pick.

[TLPG]

Ive known Brock and his family all my life and you will never meet a more honest upfront bunch of knockabouts anywhere.The slurs on him are wrong and he should be congratulated for having the balls to say what everyone already knew.

He's wrong. He wasn't prepared for the experimentation, and he deserves every bit of the criticism he is copping. Honest? Yeah - honest in their lack of understanding!

[pookus]

Ive known Brock and his family all my life and you will never meet a more honest upfront bunch of knockabouts anywhere.The slurs on him are wrong and he should be congratulated for having the balls to say what everyone already knew.

He's wrong. He wasn't prepared for the experimentation, and he deserves every bit of the criticism he is copping. Honest? Yeah - honest in their lack of understanding!

Look at the facts,it is common knowledge.Wallace,mooney,mathews and many other greats have conceded it happened and if you think the McCleans dont know footy then you obviously dont no much about the game in Victoria.The family are legend in suburban footy.They have forgotten more than youll ever know. I ask you this if it was beneficial to win those games would they have "experimented".If the answer is no then they have tanked.Simply they didnt do everything in their power to win. They should be absolutely trashed for bringing our game in to disrepute.

[Xman]

Ive known Brock and his family all my life and you will never meet a more honest upfront bunch of knockabouts anywhere.The slurs on him are wrong and he should be congratulated for having the balls to say what everyone already knew.

He's wrong. He wasn't prepared for the experimentation, and he deserves every bit of the criticism he is copping. Honest? Yeah - honest in their lack of understanding!

Look at the facts,it is common knowledge.Wallace,mooney,mathews and many other greats have conceded it happened and if you think the McCleans dont know footy then you obviously dont no much about the game in Victoria.The family are legend in suburban footy.They have forgotten more than youll ever know. I ask you this if it was beneficial to win those games would they have "experimented".If the answer is no then they have tanked.Simply they didnt do everything in their power to win. They should be absolutely trashed for bringing our game in to disrepute.

I've used this example before. If the Australian cricket team plays developing players in test matches against minor cricketing countries like bangladesh is this tanking? These are games of less significance and the selection of a team that is not their best suggests winning is not their primary objective.

Remember when they bit the bullet and just played youth like Steve Waugh and Warne to accelerate their development? There would definately have been better mature players available that Waugh and Warne, when they started. Cricket Australia were prepared to compromise on winning to accelerate the development of the team.

How is this any different to what Melbourne did?

[King-Eliagh]

How is it different?

Cricket is a different sport. Its not played in a 'league' like the AFL. Australia at that point were far and above mostother teams in the world, especially Bangladesh. They knew they could win. And who did they 'experiment with? Warne and Waugh? You are a funny fukker Xman. You've just named two of the greatest ever players of all time.

Melbourne on the other hand were at the bottom of their league. Experimenting in that position is woeful as it means there is buckleys chance of winning. And who'dmelbourne 'experiment with Xman? Sportsmen of the ilk of Warne and Waugh?

Xman your blindness to reality never fails to shock me. Keep up the dumber than dumb posts, they're real entertainment

[Xman]

How is it different?

Cricket is a different sport. Its not played in a 'league' like the AFL. Australia at that point were far and above mostother teams in the world, especially Bangladesh. They knew they could win. And who did they 'experiment with? Warne and Waugh? You are a funny fukker Xman. You've just named two of the greatest ever players of all time.

Melbourne on the other hand were at the bottom of their league. Experimenting in that position is woeful as it means there is buckleys chance of winning. And who'dmelbourne 'experiment with Xman? Sportsmen of the ilk of Warne and Waugh?

Xman your blindness to reality never fails to shock me. Keep up the dumber than dumb posts, they're real entertainment

wow, dunce!

Shane Warne debuted in 1992 against India at the SCG. Australia were hopeless atnthis stage. He'd only played a handfull of games at statge level. He was a total gamble and got smashed for 1 wicket from 150. He took 1 for 228 for the series. He then went to Sri Lanka and again played poorly and was dropped. Why was he played? He had limited experience and certainly was not the best bowler in Australia. In this era the West Indies were by far the best test team.

Hmm, we must have tanked!

Steve Waugh debuted after only 10 games for NSW in 1985/86. Australia was a basket case test team in this era and were roundly beaten by almost everyone. Waugh averaged only 12 with the bat in his first few series. So no other Australian players could average more than 12 runs?

Hmmm, more tanking.

[pookus]

I don't think the selection of young players is the issue.The issue is on how they are used. I am not suggesting the players try to lose but the conduct of the coaching group is dubious at best. To use your example it would be like picking warne and waugh then opening the batting with warne and bowling waugh with the new ball. Don't think they would've had the same impact.There are plenty of examples during this period where the coaching was either negligent or they weren't trying to win. Bailey himself said be was asked to do things and he did. The insinuation being it was against what he wanted to do . Whoever was responsible I hope the AFL flogs them. They got this one wrong but I think with the example of Melbourne looming large and removing the priority pick it should improve.

[eelofwest]

How is it different?

Cricket is a different sport. Its not played in a 'league' like the AFL. Australia at that point were far and above mostother teams in the world, especially Bangladesh. They knew they could win. And who did they 'experiment with? Warne and Waugh? You are a funny fukker Xman. You've just named two of the greatest ever players of all time.

Melbourne on the other hand were at the bottom of their league. Experimenting in that position is woeful as it means there is buckleys chance of winning. And who'dmelbourne 'experiment with Xman? Sportsmen of the ilk of Warne and Waugh?

Xman your blindness to reality never fails to shock me. Keep up the dumber than dumb posts, they're real entertainment

Congrats to GWS. Today is the first time in AFL history that a team purposely throw a game.

Extraordinary that this is happening while the AFL investigates the MFC.

The AFL are officially a joke.

Congrats AFL HQ...

[TLPG]

Look at the facts,it is common knowledge.Wallace,mooney,mathews and many other greats have conceded it happened and if you think the McCleans dont know footy then you obviously dont no much about the game in Victoria.The family are legend in suburban footy.They have forgotten more than youll ever know. I ask you this if it was beneficial to win those games would they have "experimented".If the answer is no then they have tanked.Simply they didnt do everything in their power to win. They should be absolutely trashed for bringing our game in to disrepute.

1. I know more about grass roots footy that even the McCleans thanks to my project, my various ports of call visiting clubs and my umpiring. So don't give me that "suburban legend" stuff.
2. The answer is "Yes". The benefit for experimentation is to find something that works because obvious previously in the season what they had tried did not work. The aim being to try to find the right combination to win. In the case of Melbourne it didn't work - and that is always the risk that experimenting carries. Clubs who will miss the finals will take that risk to try and find out what can work and if they need to get rid of people.

So McClean didn't know. He didn't want to know. As far as he was concerned, Melbourne shouldn't have been experimenting. They should have been plugging away with what he thinks was the Demon's strongest points - which by that time clearly were NOT WINNING THEM GAMES! Are you suggesting that a club should plug away with what doesn't work?? Come on, Pookus, stop defending McClean! He's got it all wrong and not only should he admit that, so should you and everyone else who thinks tanking occurred.

And just on the other names - they were addressing if anything the potential for tanking, not any actual tanking. And that's the primary reason why the AFL changed the rule regarding priority picks.

Eel, West Sydney have not thrown a game in their life!

[King-Eliagh]

How is it different?

Cricket is a different sport. Its not played in a 'league' like the AFL. Australia at that point were far and above mostother teams in the world, especially Bangladesh. They knew they could win. And who did they 'experiment with? Warne and Waugh? You are a funny fukker Xman. You've just named two of the greatest ever players of all time.

Melbourne on the other hand were at the bottom of their league. Experimenting in that position is woeful as it means there is buckleys chance of winning. And who'dmelbourne 'experiment with Xman? Sportsmen of the ilk of Warne and Waugh?

Xman your blindness to reality never fails to shock me. Keep up the dumber than dumb posts, they're real entertainment

wow, dunce!

Shane Warne debuted in 1992 against India at the SCG. Australia were hopeless atnthis stage. He'd only played a handfull of games at statge level. He was a total gamble and got smashed for 1 wicket from 150. He took 1 for 228 for the series. He then went to Sri Lanka and again played poorly and was dropped. Why was he played? He had limited experience and certainly was not the best bowler in Australia. In this era the West Indies were by far the best test team.

Hmm, we must have tanked!

Steve Waugh debuted after only 10 games for NSW in 1985/86. Australia was a basket case test team in this era and were roundly beaten by almost everyone. Waugh averaged only 12 with the bat in his first few series. So no other Australian players could average more than 12 runs?

Hmmm, more tanking.

You're seriously clutching at the straws again. Australia a basketcase test side in the mid 80s and early 90s? Yeah, whatever.

And to the rest of your dribble. Shane Warnes debut was against india when Australia were 2 nil up in the series (yeah Aus were shite then, 2 nil; up against kapil devs team ). They drew, not lost, the test match in which Warne played his first. Tell me did melbourne demons obtain draws in their games where they 'experimented'? And Steve Waugh debuted against India also. They drew this 2nd test match in a series which was locked at 0-0 after the first match.

Xman your silly comparison between Australian Cricket and the tanking which occurs in the AFL simply doesnt cut the mustard. Its a desperate attempt to save face and you are simply making yourself look every bit the dumb clown. Pull out while you can dear moderator, pull out while you can.


...I still cant believe you dreamt up the aussie cricket team was shite in the early 90s and mid 80s Some of the best series ever against the rampaging windies and the kapil dev led Indians back then mate. Pull your head in

Oh and lets not forget, Warney and Waugh became two of the greatest cricketers ever to play. I think the selectors had an idea of their potential and weren't engaging in 'experimenting/tanking'.

[Xman]

How is it different?

Cricket is a different sport. Its not played in a 'league' like the AFL. Australia at that point were far and above mostother teams in the world, especially Bangladesh. They knew they could win. And who did they 'experiment with? Warne and Waugh? You are a funny fukker Xman. You've just named two of the greatest ever players of all time.

Melbourne on the other hand were at the bottom of their league. Experimenting in that position is woeful as it means there is buckleys chance of winning. And who'dmelbourne 'experiment with Xman? Sportsmen of the ilk of Warne and Waugh?

Xman your blindness to reality never fails to shock me. Keep up the dumber than dumb posts, they're real entertainment

wow, dunce!

Shane Warne debuted in 1992 against India at the SCG. Australia were hopeless atnthis stage. He'd only played a handfull of games at statge level. He was a total gamble and got smashed for 1 wicket from 150. He took 1 for 228 for the series. He then went to Sri Lanka and again played poorly and was dropped. Why was he played? He had limited experience and certainly was not the best bowler in Australia. In this era the West Indies were by far the best test team.

Hmm, we must have tanked!

Steve Waugh debuted after only 10 games for NSW in 1985/86. Australia was a basket case test team in this era and were roundly beaten by almost everyone. Waugh averaged only 12 with the bat in his first few series. So no other Australian players could average more than 12 runs?

Hmmm, more tanking.

You're seriously clutching at the straws again. Australia a basketcase test side in the mid 80s and early 90s? Yeah, whatever.

And to the rest of your dribble. Shane Warnes debut was against india when Australia were 2 nil up in the series (yeah Aus were shite then, 2 nil; up against kapil devs team ). They drew, not lost, the test match in which Warne played his first. Tell me did melbourne demons obtain draws in their games where they 'experimented'? And Steve Waugh debuted against India also. They drew this 2nd test match in a series which was locked at 0-0 after the first match.

Xman your silly comparison between Australian Cricket and the tanking which occurs in the AFL simply doesnt cut the mustard. Its a desperate attempt to save face and you are simply making yourself look every bit the dumb clown. Pull out while you can dear moderator, pull out while you can.


...I still cant believe you dreamt up the aussie cricket team was shite in the early 90s and mid 80s Some of the best series ever against the rampaging windies and the kapil dev led Indians back then mate. Pull your head in

Oh and lets not forget, Warney and Waugh became two of the greatest cricketers ever to play. I think the selectors had an idea of their potential and weren't engaging in 'experimenting/tanking'.

in the eighties they won 25 tests and lost 29. They were a below average team no doubt about it.

What did they do? They played youth like Warne and Waugh well and ttruly before they were ready. They risked short term loss to develop a team for long term success.

This is exactly what most struggling teams do in most sports.

Open your eyes KE

[King-Eliagh]

Warney and Waugh well and truly before they were ready I think the selectors had a better idea on this than you Xman. And look what happened, two of the worlds greatest ever players! And seriously, Australia weren't stuggling in 92, they were almost unbeatable you clown. And in the mid 80's they were still very strong. I'd say ranked in the top 3 or 4 easily and they consistently challenged the world number one side during this era.

Comparing them to the Melbourne demons and their tanking ways is woeful Xman. Clutching at straws and looking the clown.

[Xman]

Warney and Waugh well and truly before they were ready I think the selectors had a better idea on this than you Xman. And look what happened, two of the worlds greatest ever players! And seriously, Australia weren't stuggling in 92, they were almost unbeatable you clown. And in the mid 80's they were still very strong. I'd say ranked in the top 3 or 4 easily and they consistently challenged the world number one side during this era.

Comparing them to the Melbourne demons and their tanking ways is woeful Xman. Clutching at straws and looking the clown.

thats the point bozo

they played Steve Waugh very early despite limited first class experience to accelerate his development. He didnt get picked because of his stellar performances for NSW. His first few Australian test series he managed a batting average of just 12 runs! They persisted with him because they knew he had talent and playing him against the best opposition was the best way to develop him quickly. There were definately better players than Waugh in Australia, but his selection was for future development in spite of short term failure.

Warne's first two years were a failure. He was selected after few if any performances above district league. He had great potential but was green and needed development. They did that by playing him before he was ready despite the chance his inclusion would weaken the tream and risk a test loss.

You see, short term sacrifice for long term success.

Oh and 29 test losses and 25 wins in the 80's had Australia as one of the poorer teams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... #The_1980s

Australian cricket during the 1980s was comparatively unsuccessful, particularly following the retirement of players such as Marsh and Lillee. Queenslander Allan Border, rated as one of the finest middle-order players in history, took over as captain and attempted a re-building process. For quite some time, the common wisdom was that Australia's score in an innings would be "Border plus 100". Border achieved the feat of scoring more than 150 runs in both innings of a Test during a tour of Pakistan during this decade.

They only won 9 series and 3 were against Sri Lanka who were awful. They lost 10 series.

[King-Eliagh]

His [Warneys] first two years were a failure

Ahhh..."In 1993, Warne was selected for Australia's Ashes tour of England. He was the leading wicket taker for the six-Test series, with 34.[6] His first ball of the series was written into the history books as the "Ball of the Century", bowling the experienced English batsman Mike Gatting with a ball that turned from well outside leg stump to clip the off bail.[7] He took 71 Test wickets in 1993, then a record for a spin bowler in a calendar year"

Xman seriously stop making up shite to back up your dodgy argument. It just makes you look like a douche. Its hard to watch. And Australia were still competitive during the 80s not a basketcase like you suggest.

Its a ridiculous point you make here Xman and you denigrate Australian cricket. As pookus said, Australia weren't placing Warne in the opening batting position...

[Xman]

His [Warneys] first two years were a failure

Ahhh..."In 1993, Warne was selected for Australia's Ashes tour of England. He was the leading wicket taker for the six-Test series, with 34.[6] His first ball of the series was written into the history books as the "Ball of the Century", bowling the experienced English batsman Mike Gatting with a ball that turned from well outside leg stump to clip the off bail.[7] He took 71 Test wickets in 1993, then a record for a spin bowler in a calendar year"

Xman seriously stop making up shite to back up your dodgy argument. It just makes you look like a douche. Its hard to watch. And Australia were still competitive during the 80s not a basketcase like you suggest.

Its a ridiculous point you make here Xman and you denigrate Australian cricket. As pookus said, Australia weren't placing Warne in the opening batting position...

he debuted in the 1991/92 summer

he became a good player in 1993 because he was given a chance on potential, and allowed time to mature under the pressures of test cricket. This is despite the chance his inexperience would result in poor or inconsistent performances that could have resulted in Australia losing a test.

Ooooh , look, tanking!!!