Talking Footy

piesman2011 wrote:

TANKING INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:

Instructing the players to deliberately lose matches
Employing unusual tactics in matches, including using players in positions where they do not usually play[2]
Resting star players with minor injuries, who would likely not be rested if the team were contesting finals[3]
Playing younger players who do not yet have much experience at AFL level[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_d ... ck#Tanking


All of the above can be considered tanking. In my opinion all clubs have done the last one "Playing younger players who do not yet have much experience at AFL level[4] " when out of finals contention, which is mostly to see if they can cut it at the top level and develop the young players.
Carlton, Collingwood and Melbourne (maybe others) have all "Rested star players with minor injuries, who would likely not be rested if the team were contesting finals[3]", you could argue that this was to get selections, however you could argue that it was also to develop young players and get a good preseason into the injuried star players. This isn't really an issue because everyone knows that the players are not playing and the beating agencies adjust for this.
Melbourne im my opinion have "Employed unusual tactics in matches, including using players in positions where they do not usually play[2]", they have also rested BOG players on the bench if they have been playing to well (in my opinion). In my opinion this is wrong because the only reason for it is to get early selections for the following year and is pretty much match fixing (but not for financial gain or to rip off beating agencies like they did in the cricket). In my opinion if they can find Melbourne guilty they should loose all frist round draft picks for the next 2 years (or perhaps combine this with loosing the Scully compo).
No clubs have probabaly never "instructed the players to deliberately lose matches". This would destroy the fabric of the club.

Thats my take on Tanking which is a term that has multiple meaning.

While all of these behaviours can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid winning matches, all but the first point can also be justified as a sensible player management and development strategy for a team with no chance of playing finals. This complicates the debate about tanking.

TLPG wrote:

This is where Wikipedia is actually a problem. Those other three interpretations come from media sources, and the media is already well known for making a mountain out of a molehill over this. The thugby fans on this forum are just as bad in that regard. Media sources fit right in with Wikipedia's rules, and that's why those interpretations are mentioned. They shouldn't be, because (as the article rightly points out);

While all of these behaviours can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid winning matches, all but the first point can also be justified as a sensible player management and development strategy for a team with no chance of playing finals. This complicates the debate about tanking.

Bolded and underline is mine, and that's the biggest problem here. Complicating and obfuscating a simple issue that bluntly just does not happen (I mean the first point and not the other three).

So when Eels talks about "Blind Freddy" it's pretty obvious that HE is the blind one, trying to blind everyone else from cold hard fact in the process.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Is Mumbles hero the guy that gets to toss everyone off to see who the grand toilet champion is, aka Eddie Mcguire the guy that bones something or someone at collinton?

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Tank tank tank tank tank, Mumbles fav game is a wank.

King-Eliagh wrote:

TLPG wrote:

This is where Wikipedia is actually a problem. Those other three interpretations come from media sources, and the media is already well known for making a mountain out of a molehill over this. The thugby fans on this forum are just as bad in that regard. Media sources fit right in with Wikipedia's rules, and that's why those interpretations are mentioned. They shouldn't be, because (as the article rightly points out);

While all of these behaviours can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid winning matches, all but the first point can also be justified as a sensible player management and development strategy for a team with no chance of playing finals. This complicates the debate about tanking.

Bolded and underline is mine, and that's the biggest problem here. Complicating and obfuscating a simple issue that bluntly just does not happen (I mean the first point and not the other three).

So when Eels talks about "Blind Freddy" it's pretty obvious that HE is the blind one, trying to blind everyone else from cold hard fact in the process.

Coming from a man who dishonestly falsely amends Wikipedia to suit his argument on an Internet forum sorry tlpg but you and credibility don't hang out no more

TLPG wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

TLPG wrote:

This is where Wikipedia is actually a problem. Those other three interpretations come from media sources, and the media is already well known for making a mountain out of a molehill over this. The thugby fans on this forum are just as bad in that regard. Media sources fit right in with Wikipedia's rules, and that's why those interpretations are mentioned. They shouldn't be, because (as the article rightly points out); Bolded and underline is mine, and that's the biggest problem here. Complicating and obfuscating a simple issue that bluntly just does not happen (I mean the first point and not the other three).

So when Eels talks about "Blind Freddy" it's pretty obvious that HE is the blind one, trying to blind everyone else from cold hard fact in the process.

Coming from a man who dishonestly falsely amends Wikipedia to suit his argument on an Internet forum sorry tlpg but you and credibility don't hang out no more

That is a flagrant lie that will be withdrawn immediately. I haven't edited Wikipedia for years.

King-Eliagh wrote:

TLPG wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Coming from a man who dishonestly falsely amends Wikipedia to suit his argument on an Internet forum sorry tlpg but you and credibility don't hang out no more

That is a flagrant lie that will be withdrawn immediately. I haven't edited Wikipedia for years.

FACT - TLPG edited wikipedia to support his false claim that homebush is western sydney.

We all know you did it TLPG

King-Eliagh wrote:

I'd like TLPG to prove he didnt edit wikipedia when all evidence suggests he did.

Xman hows about you you stick a gumboot where the sun dont shine?