*Receives word*

Short message from a poster who has chosen to remain anonymous:

COTCHIN

JB, I'll try to summarise my argument so there's no confusion:

This thread began at Round 4. I don't advocate playing to lose (cause that's what tanking means) at Round 4 of a season. I wouldn't advocate it at Round 11 of a season. That to me is not only cheating the system, but is cheating yourself.

We have a more talented team than what some posters give us credit for. I have faith that with smart list management, recruiting and trading from this point onwards with the talent we currently have and the additional picks we'll receive organically we can be a force. Another pick would be great, but getting it by trying to lose from this early in the year isn't the way to go about it.

Everyone would like another early pick - shit I would LOVE it - but that's not the question here. The topic is whether we should play to lose to get that pick. And I would argue that losing to get that pick at this early stage of the season would be more harmful to the club than good. Losing the final 12 games of the season may have a significant impact on moral of the players and supporters, as well as impact sponsorship, membership, player development, finances, etc. Is that all worth an extra pick? I'm not so sure. We came close to losing our best backman (worth a first round pick) and our 2004 first round pick because of the losing.

I would argue that player development would be accelerated in a winning team, where players are played in their rightful positions and in a team that has a balance of experience and youth. Playing losing football requires a young team, no mid aged/experienced players and playing the guys out of position. How is that going to help development? Confidence is everything in football. Play a pick 50 in a winning team like WC and watch that player grow to be equal of a pick 10. Conversly, a pick 4 or 11 can turn out to be pretty average in a losing team.

The draft has an element of unpredictability, but in general earlier picks are better than later picks. Having said that, I don't think there is much difference in Pick 1 and Pick 2 or 3. I think if you look back over the history of the draft, there's some pretty compelling evidence.

And although high picks are generally better, there is no evidence to suggest you need only high draft picks to be a premiership team. With the right resources into recruiting, scouting and player development, any club can develop a long term winning team through a combination of high and low drafts picks. Other clubs (like WC and Adelaide) have managed to do that, so if we are the great club that we say we are, than we can do the same. Relying on early draft picks to magically turn the club around isn't the only answer. There are a heap of other factors that we need to get right.

If we are near the end of the season and are stuck on 4 wins, then I think it would do more benefit for the club than harm to put an inexperienced (unlikely to win) team on the park. I have said that throughout the entire thread. The difference here is, playing to lose from as early as round 4 in the season may be more harmful to the club than good. Throwing a season of AFL football for a pick is manipulating and cheating the system. Playing a young inexperienced team late in the season where there is no chance of making finals is common practice and desireable as it gives the youngsters more games and sees where they're at in their development which also helps in list management. It rests the older players to inable them to avoid injury and play on in the future (resting Fev when he had a groin injury a few years back comes to mind ). It also enables supporters to get a taste for the future and one or two loss doesn't destroy the club. If we were on 5-7 wins by Round 21 I would still like to see the club play more of the youngsters and give guys like Lappo and Kouta a rest so they can go on next year. To me that is not tanking, it is smart player and list management. If Hartlett has played only a couple of senior games by round 20 I'd be pissed and want to see him in the team if we're out of finals contention even if he wasn't a walk up for our best 22. To be honest, I'd like to see him in the team now.

There's a massive difference between playing to lose early/mid season and playing youngsters late in the year when we're out of finals contention.

It was a good post, but I don't know what you mean by "on to something". It seems nytdog has merely 'softened' somewhat over the last few pages.

Regardless, I still do not believe in the softly, softly approach to rebuilding. We can’t risk having the cycle of disappointment baffle the spectators ad infinitum.

If you read the posts since our win against the dogs, and especially since last night against Port, there seems to be a growing consensus that people are happy with winning and not so displeased about loosing the PP.

In the early days of this poll, the majority were against the idea of Carlton winning this year. And a very vocal minority were attacking NYTdog for having the view that a winning culture can actually promote long term success. If you cast your mind back, the debate got extremely personal against NYTDog who's opinion is now appearing to be more popular.

If you read the posts since our win against the dogs, and especially since last night against Port, there seems to be a growing consensus that people are happy with winning and not so displeased about loosing the PP.

In the early days of this poll, the majority were against the idea of Carlton winning this year. And a very vocal minority were attacking NYTdog for having the view that a winning culture can actually promote long term success. If you cast your mind back, the debate got extremely personal against NYTDog who's opinion is now appearing to be more popular.

It merely shows you the fickle nature of the average human.

My point is that having a "winning culture" is only part of the deal. Cries of "we must win" are pretty pointless if you do not have the substance to back it up.

By the way, is there any pattern as to why you and nytdog have very similar looking avatars?

What a load of revisionist crap.

At the start of this thread most people were against the idea of tanking (it was started after only a few rounds). The poll was only running at about 15% in favour. As the team lost 6 on the trot the numbers changed and it edged up to 40% in favour of tanking. The pro-tankers never have been and never will be in the majority.

Pretending like nytdog was like some sort of messianic struggler combating the evil forces of tanking all on his own is giving new meaning to the word idolatry. Even worse you make out like this debate only started a few months ago, it has been going on for TWO YEARS on this forum.

And I think nytdog can handle things on his own without a sycophant blowing smoke up his arse.

Ployse explain!

GAV, the idea was a sound one mate, 2 more picks would have topped things off nicely, but congratulations on being big enough to come here, concede its not going to happen and moving on

Now, let me clear up one point for the last time. You're the instigator of this THREAD...not this TOPIC