TalkingCarlton :: View topic - The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton

Melbourne, which would have won a priority pick had it lost, allowed Carlton's Heath Scotland 41 touches.

The game was a free-flowing fun-fest devoid of any serious defensive work.

Both teams had 60-plus forward entries - the first time it had happened in 5 1/2 years.

Riley had asked Johnstone to tag Scotland. Travis was surprised after the game he'd done such a good job.

Now I'm REALLY confused.

According to Demetriou, tanking is a myth. Doesn't exist.

According to certain media hacks, only Carlton tanks.

Yet according to Terry Wallace, he tanked as Richmond coach. By his own admission, didn't bother coaching at all during the Cotchin game.

According to other media hacks, the fact that players would never deliberately go out there to lose, proves that clubs cannot feasibly tank a game.

Yet according to Mick Malthouse, it's perfectly acceptable to 'warehouse' players for the following season, thus choosing to put an inferior team on the field, therefore decreasing your chances of winning in the short term. Collingwood, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn, West Coast have all admitted to this tactic. Is deliberately choosing not to do everything in your power to win games not tanking? Curious...

According to most supporters, every club with a shot at a priority pick in the last decade has tanked. And clubs know that their supporters would most likely lynch them if they won a Round 22 game to put them on 5 wins.

And according to the statistics, a club is 8 times more likely to finish with 4 wins than 5. Odd...

So....

Either no-one tanks, only Carlton tanks, or everyone tanks except for Sydney and Brisbane - the two clubs who have systematically benefitted from draft and salary cap concessions from the AFL.

JohnM wrote:

You forgot to mention St Kilda, Grant Thomas has admitted they played to get the top 2 draft picks and got Rewioldt and Kosi. I wish Scotland would come out and comment on why noone played on him in that Melbourne game. Its funny how they always mention Johnston and at the end of the story there is a small mention of Scotlands 40plus possessions.

saying players sensed Carlton wasn't at full-throttle in their Round 22 clash in 2007.

Author:	chubbyruss [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:28 am ]
Post subject:	The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
Melbourne Demon Russell Robertson weighs into tanking debate http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

Author:	verbs [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
I chuckled quite a bit reading that. Funny stuff.

Author:	bluecedar [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
I so over this shit. Only Carlton tanks. Collingwood was in two grand finals in 2002 & 2003 and then get two picks inside the top 5 in 2005. Can someone question how Collingwood lost against the Kangaroos after leading by 3 goals with around 2.5 minutes of the match... Cmon Mark Robinson or any other journo who is browsing this forum... question that...

Author:	TruBlueBrad [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
Quote: Melbourne, which would have won a priority pick had it lost, allowed Carlton's Heath Scotland 41 touches. The game was a free-flowing fun-fest devoid of any serious defensive work. Both teams had 60-plus forward entries - the first time it had happened in 5 1/2 years. Only Carlton was tanking

Author:	The Duke [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
What a crock of shit. Robbo, you've let yourself down my friend. IIRC, Lance Whitnall was one of the main offenders in missing shots at goal, or not making the distance 1g 4b. At the time Lance was quite keen to get another contract at either Carlton or another club - but it was great of him to sacrifice his future earnings and career so we could get picks 1 and 3 . http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=3086 But Johnston had 42 possessions - who was on him? Who was on Scotland? He had 41 .

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=25579	Page 1 of 2

Author:	verbs [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
Riley had asked Johnstone to tag Scotland. Travis was surprised after the game he'd done such a good job.

Author:	The Duke [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
While we're at it..... James - tell us how/why you lost this game in 2001? http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=1453 Why were you taken from the field half way through the last qtr when the game was still in the balance? Was it because of an on-field error Sheedy was punishing you for, as you said? Or was it because the game was gone and you were rested as Sheedy said. Good idea to get your stories straight before you head to the media . Never mind, the very next week you had your revenge on the poor tiggers http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=1461 It was close, but this time you just fell over the line.

Author:	Big Kahuna Boot [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
..rubbish deflection tactics, a dee's player should know better than mentioning the 'T' word at the moment..

Author:	JohnM [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
Now I'm REALLY confused. According to Demetriou, tanking is a myth. Doesn't exist. According to certain media hacks, only Carlton tanks. Yet according to Terry Wallace, he tanked as Richmond coach. By his own admission, didn't bother coaching at all during the Cotchin game. According to other media hacks, the fact that players would never deliberately go out there to lose, proves that clubs cannot feasibly tank a game. Yet according to Mick Malthouse, it's perfectly acceptable to 'warehouse' players for the following season, thus choosing to put an inferior team on the field, therefore decreasing your chances of winning in the short term. Collingwood, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn, West Coast have all admitted to this tactic. Is deliberately choosing not to do everything in your power to win games not tanking? Curious... According to most supporters, every club with a shot at a priority pick in the last decade has tanked. And clubs know that their supporters would most likely lynch them if they won a Round 22 game to put them on 5 wins. And according to the statistics, a club is 8 times more likely to finish with 4 wins than 5. Odd... So.... Either no-one tanks, only Carlton tanks, or everyone tanks except for Sydney and Brisbane - the two clubs who have systematically benefitted from draft and salary cap concessions from the AFL.

Author:	Knackers [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
verbs wrote: Riley had asked Johnstone to tag Scotland. Travis was surprised after the game he'd done such a good job. Pisser!

Author:	BlueBern [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
How is it that a team who's 2-9 after 11 rounds is shite, but finish on 4-18, you're tanking?

Author:	Blue Blood Believer [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
Good on ya robbo stop re-hashing crap from 2 years ago! Just because your team is so shite and you cant even get a game chump. Time to hang up your boots and get back to folk singing ya fairy! Sick of hearing this crap.

Author:	kezza [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
JohnM wrote: Now I'm REALLY confused. According to Demetriou, tanking is a myth. Doesn't exist. According to certain media hacks, only Carlton tanks. Yet according to Terry Wallace, he tanked as Richmond coach. By his own admission, didn't bother coaching at all during the Cotchin game. According to other media hacks, the fact that players would never deliberately go out there to lose, proves that clubs cannot feasibly tank a game. Yet according to Mick Malthouse, it's perfectly acceptable to 'warehouse' players for the following season, thus choosing to put an inferior team on the field, therefore decreasing your chances of winning in the short term. Collingwood, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn, West Coast have all admitted to this tactic. Is deliberately choosing not to do everything in your power to win games not tanking? Curious... According to most supporters, every club with a shot at a priority pick in the last decade has tanked. And clubs know that their supporters would most likely lynch them if they won a Round 22 game to put them on 5 wins. And according to the statistics, a club is 8 times more likely to finish with 4 wins than 5. Odd... So.... Either no-one tanks, only Carlton tanks, or everyone tanks except for Sydney and Brisbane - the two clubs who have systematically benefitted from draft and salary cap concessions from the AFL. You forgot to mention St Kilda, Grant Thomas has admitted they played to get the top 2 draft picks and got Rewioldt and Kosi. I wish Scotland would come out and comment on why noone played on him in that Melbourne game. Its funny how they always mention Johnston and at the end of the story there is a small mention of Scotlands 40plus possessions.

Author:	Outback Blue [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
YEAH,,,,,,,,,,,,,so we tanked !!!,,,,,,,,,,,,,big flowering deal !!!!!! And with it,,,,, we picked up Kruezer & Judd !!!!,,,,,,so there !!!! We get picked on by the media because of the players we picked up by finishing bottom and with less of 4 wins. Why wouldnt you tank ???,,,Whats the point of finishing on the bottom with more than 4 wins. Might aswell make worth your while and get a priority pick with it. And if Melbourne dont tank for the rest of the season , they got rocks in their heads !!!!!

Author:	Blue Steel [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
Most teams that have received priority picks have done what was necessary to ensure they got them. Call it list management, experimentation or tanking. It's all the same thing. We did (IMO) as I think we could have beaten Melbourne in that game, Collingwood sent half their senior players to surgery or rested them at teh end of 2005, and West Coast is proving a deft hand at this considering they won a flag 3 years ago. Demetriou knows it exists, don't be fooled by the straight bat he plays in public. The bottom line is Priority picks do what they are designed to do: give hope and keep supporters of lower placed clubs interested in the game, hence renewing their membership and fronting up at games. If you took that away then you will see some clubs face massive issues with membership and crowds. This will then be a bigger problem for the AFL in general so priority picks are a low cost solution. Yes the debate rages about whether it's fair etc, but the whole competition, from salary caps (inflated for Syd/Bris) to the draw is compromised. Why should we be suprised at all by this? If we were running the AFL this is what we'd do...(after ensuring we gave the Blues free reign on a couple of drafts!!)

Author:	Blueboy [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
Who cares, everyone knows tanking exists. Even AD, although he wont admit it. There's nothing wrong with it, it is simply a case of the coaching staff not putting there best foot forward. Why the press continue to push this barrow bewilders me. It just gives ex players (yes I'm including Robbo) a chance to say something to raise their profile. Everyone I know says the same thing when they read these articles - no shit sherlock.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	BlueMark [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
kezza wrote: JohnM wrote: Now I'm REALLY confused. According to Demetriou, tanking is a myth. Doesn't exist. According to certain media hacks, only Carlton tanks. Yet according to Terry Wallace, he tanked as Richmond coach. By his own admission, didn't bother coaching at all during the Cotchin game. According to other media hacks, the fact that players would never deliberately go out there to lose, proves that clubs cannot feasibly tank a game. Yet according to Mick Malthouse, it's perfectly acceptable to 'warehouse' players for the following season, thus choosing to put an inferior team on the field, therefore decreasing your chances of winning in the short term. Collingwood, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn, West Coast have all admitted to this tactic. Is deliberately choosing not to do everything in your power to win games not tanking? Curious... According to most supporters, every club with a shot at a priority pick in the last decade has tanked. And clubs know that their supporters would most likely lynch them if they won a Round 22 game to put them on 5 wins. And according to the statistics, a club is 8 times more likely to finish with 4 wins than 5. Odd... So.... Either no-one tanks, only Carlton tanks, or everyone tanks except for Sydney and Brisbane - the two clubs who have systematically benefitted from draft and salary cap concessions from the AFL. You forgot to mention St Kilda, Grant Thomas has admitted they played to get the top 2 draft picks and got Rewioldt and Kosi. I wish Scotland would come out and comment on why noone played on him in that Melbourne game. Its funny how they always mention Johnston and at the end of the story there is a small mention of Scotlands 40plus possessions. Yes, but you are missing the point. ONLY CARLTON TANKS got it? Good.

Author:	Lowey_47 [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
Quote: saying players sensed Carlton wasn't at full-throttle in their Round 22 clash in 2007. Gee, senses and feelings sure are getting a lot of legs in this tanking debate...

Author:	aramari [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
JohnM wrote: Now I'm REALLY confused. According to Demetriou, tanking is a myth. Doesn't exist. According to certain media hacks, only Carlton tanks. Yet according to Terry Wallace, he tanked as Richmond coach. By his own admission, didn't bother coaching at all during the Cotchin game. According to other media hacks, the fact that players would never deliberately go out there to lose, proves that clubs cannot feasibly tank a game. Yet according to Mick Malthouse, it's perfectly acceptable to 'warehouse' players for the following season, thus choosing to put an inferior team on the field, therefore decreasing your chances of winning in the short term. Collingwood, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn, West Coast have all admitted to this tactic. Is deliberately choosing not to do everything in your power to win games not tanking? Curious... According to most supporters, every club with a shot at a priority pick in the last decade has tanked. And clubs know that their supporters would most likely lynch them if they won a Round 22 game to put them on 5 wins. And according to the statistics, a club is 8 times more likely to finish with 4 wins than 5. Odd... So.... Either no-one tanks, only Carlton tanks, or everyone tanks except for Sydney and Brisbane - the two clubs who have systematically benefitted from draft and salary cap concessions from the AFL. Good post - I was going to research that stat - nails the Spews balls to the wall

Author:	The Normal One [ Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The HUN Having Another Bash At Carlton
I'm sure I read in that article something about how James Hird thought we didn't try so hard either. Pretty sure we haven't beaten them since that game either? In fact I'm pretty sure we tanked the other night when they flogged us by whatever the margin was.