One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on July 01, 2010, 12:47:48 PM
-
Hardwick at training today...
The Tigers take on the Sydney Swans this week in what will be the second clash between the two teams this year.
The Swans won by 55 points the first time around in round three and Hardwick said this week’s clash would be a good gauge on how much his side had improved.
“We’ve come a long way, we know the mistakes we’ve made from that. It would just be a good learning process for us as coaches and us as a team to see how far we’ve come against a quality opposition,” he said.
Hardwick said he’d approach the second half of the season with the long term in mind rather than chasing wins.
“It’s probably just to keep developing our players. At some stage we want to put (Jayden) Post back in, we want to get (David) Gourdis into our side and see what those players can deliver for the future.
“From our point of view it’s all about the long-term success we’re after and we want to see what those guys can deliver on an AFL stage.”
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/97254/default.aspx
-
So far he is a man of his word - no deviations, no compromises. :thumbsup
-
So in theory, if we lose our next 8 or 9 games - based on Hardwicks comments, does that constitute tanking?
It could come across that way - especially if we were to lose our next 9 games - but in reality he is developing the overall list, playing some, trying others in non conventional positions to see what they can do.
If we were 7 and 6, he might test and learn less as we would have a realistic chance of finals.
So what do the "anti tankers" think of this approach?
-
Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that?
-
Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that?
So name a club that has deliberately lost and prove it.
-
Whats that got to do with anything?
Tanking is deliberately losing. It is where your first and foremost priority is to lose.
-
Whats that got to do with anything?
Tanking is deliberately losing. It is where your first and foremost priority is to lose.
based on your criteria, tanking doesn't exist unless you can prove otherwise?
-
He said he was going to try to win but also get some games into our kids to see if they can play at the highest level - problem????????????????????
-
So what do the "anti tankers" think of this approach?
I think Hardwick won't make any changes during a game of football in an effort to deliberately lose it. What do you think?
-
So what do the "anti tankers" think of this approach?
I think Hardwick won't make any changes during a game of football in an effort to deliberately lose it. What do you think?
That's it smokey. Also, we don't know what question was asked, but there is no basis in the article for saying that Hardwick doesn't want to 'chase wins'. All he says is:
“It’s probably just to keep developing our players. At some stage we want to put (Jayden) Post back in, we want to get (David) Gourdis into our side and see what those players can deliver for the future.
“From our point of view it’s all about the long-term success we’re after and we want to see what those guys can deliver on an AFL stage.”
It all comes back to a personal view on what helps establish 'long-term' success. The pro-tankers think that getting the best kids in the draft at the expense of being a bit less competitive is the way to go. The anti-tankers think that being as competitive as possible and building a team environment at the cost of getting slightly lower picks is the way to go.
The problem about having a debate about this is that it is a philosophical issue. If you (crudely) said that,
end talent = a*natural talent + b*development + c*environment
Then unless you agree on what a, b and c are relative to each other then you will never be able to say which approach is the way to go. The tankers think a outweighs c by a lot, the anti-tankers think otherwise. In reality of course, there are no such well-defined quantities, rather a sea of vagaries and intangibles. Getting someone to change their mind on this issue is as likely as getting Andrew Bolt to vote Green. It somewhat amuses me that we spend so much time trying to convince each other of the other side of the argument. The people best placed to make a call are those inside footy clubs, who at least have seen enough kids come through the system and knows what it takes to win a premiership. Thankfully, for the first time in a long time I reckon the people at Punt Road know what to do. I'm happy with whatever they decide.
-
Tanking is a crime on sport and those found guilty should be banned from leading any sporting group for the rest of their lives. Dishonesty will always find a way to lose in the end.
-
Dishonesty will always find a way to lose in the end.
The crux of the matter right there. Call it fate, call it karma, call it just desserts, call it what ever you want, at some point you have to pay the ferryman and I think we have been paying far too much for the sins of our ineptitude for far too long to invite this into our realm. When there is zero proof that tanking delivers premierships, why poke the bear with a big stick?
-
So what do the "anti tankers" think of this approach?
I think Hardwick won't make any changes during a game of football in an effort to deliberately lose it. What do you think?
Exactly :thumbsup :thumbsup
If we win, we win, if lose and are competitive then so be it. Let them play and resutls take care (wins or losses) take care of themselves
-
pay the ferryman
who remembers this unforgettable television series lol. I was a kid, this stuff was on tv when Petrocelli was still trying to build his house.
-
pay the ferryman
who remembers this unforgettable television series lol. I was a kid, this stuff was on tv when Petrocelli was still trying to build his house.
What television series?
Must have been before my time (and I'm in my mid fifties)
;D
-
In carltanks case the price was a Knee reco for their tank pick Kruezer ..... hefty deal
-
pay the ferryman
who remembers this unforgettable television series lol. I was a kid, this stuff was on tv when Petrocelli was still trying to build his house.
What television series?
Must have been before my time (and I'm in my mid fifties)
;D
Nup go here
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmovies.msn.com%2Fmovies%2Fmovie%2Fwho-pays-the-ferryman-tv-series%2F&rct=j&q=who+pays+the+ferryman+tv+series&ei=gwktTKSZNpCTkAXC2NiYCw&usg=AFQjCNFEG5BiZWrZLJn_FISn85-wLOtuZg
-
pay the ferryman
who remembers this unforgettable television series lol. I was a kid, this stuff was on tv when Petrocelli was still trying to build his house.
What television series?
Must have been before my time (and I'm in my mid fifties)
;D
Nup go here
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmovies.msn.com%2Fmovies%2Fmovie%2Fwho-pays-the-ferryman-tv-series%2F&rct=j&q=who+pays+the+ferryman+tv+series&ei=gwktTKSZNpCTkAXC2NiYCw&usg=AFQjCNFEG5BiZWrZLJn_FISn85-wLOtuZg
The theme rings a bell...
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Who_Pays_the_Ferryman.html
:thumbsup
-
Whats that got to do with anything?
Tanking is deliberately losing. It is where your first and foremost priority is to lose.
based on your criteria, tanking doesn't exist unless you can prove otherwise?
Are you drunk?
-
pay the ferryman
who remembers this unforgettable television series lol. I was a kid, this stuff was on tv when Petrocelli was still trying to build his house.
What television series?
Must have been before my time (and I'm in my mid fifties)
;D
Actually I have to admit I had no thought of the TV series - I take my line from the song "Don't Pay The Ferryman" by Chris de Burgh!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Pay_the_Ferryman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Pay_the_Ferryman)
-
Whats that got to do with anything?
Tanking is deliberately losing. It is where your first and foremost priority is to lose.
based on your criteria, tanking doesn't exist unless you can prove otherwise?
Are you drunk?
so you can't answer my question?
Tanking is not systematic, at worst it is opportunistic. Unless you follow a narrow definition. Which technically Hardwick is following.
-
I'm trying to work out what the hell your question has got to do with the definition of tanking? How does proof , or lack there of, that a club has or hasn't tanked change the definition of a word?
On two recent occasions I've posted the definition of what tanking actually is. No where in this "conversation" have i made any mention of who has or hasn't tanked as there is no relevance between that and what it actually means.
-
Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that?
Lets go back to the start. It might help.
Who has ever come out and openly stated that they have deliberately lost a game?
Unless you can prove otherwise - no one has confessed to tanking so most of "assumed tanking" occurs due to how we interpret what happens at the selection table and on the field.
So, in order to make your claim, I reckon you need to build a case to prove that point.
And the relevance of this comment is because anyone can come and write your definition of tanking but backing it up with evidence that it actually happens is a different thing altogether and you clearly can't find enough evidence.
So why post anything on the topic? You must think tanking is a non issue.
Richmond are opening playing kids as development and resting other players and a Demon or Carlton supporter has every reason to be as suspicious of our motives as we were of theirs when they were in "development" mode.
What annoys me on this forum is that people want to have a bet each way - on the one hand, they'll comment on a club tanking due to the above criteria but then when Richmond start to do it we are instantly on the path to developing our list.
-
So what do the "anti tankers" think of this approach?
I think Hardwick won't make any changes during a game of football in an effort to deliberately lose it. What do you think?
I think the only circumstance where he could justify it is if 15th plays 16th in round 21 or 22 where the loser gets a big prize - say pick 4 in addition to pick 1.
I would imagine most clubs would only entertain tanking in those circumstances.
However, in our case that is an incredible long shot in the next few years so I would not imagine he will need to make that call with this list.
Tanking is overstated as an issue on this forum and in the media.
-
Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that?
Lets go back to the start. It might help.
Who has ever come out and openly stated that they have deliberately lost a game?
Unless you can prove otherwise - no one has confessed to tanking so most of "assumed tanking" occurs due to how we interpret what happens at the selection table and on the field.
So, in order to make your claim, I reckon you need to build a case to prove that point.
And the relevance of this comment is because anyone can come and write your definition of tanking but backing it up with evidence that it actually happens is a different thing altogether and you clearly can't find enough evidence.
So why post anything on the topic? You must think tanking is a non issue.
Richmond are opening playing kids as development and resting other players and a Demon or Carlton supporter has every reason to be as suspicious of our motives as we were of theirs when they were in "development" mode.
What annoys me on this forum is that people want to have a bet each way - on the one hand, they'll comment on a club tanking due to the above criteria but then when Richmond start to do it we are instantly on the path to developing our list.
Are you really saying that no team has ever deliberately lost a game so they can keep/gain high draft picks?
::)
(and before you carry on you can stick your criteria where ever they might fit)
-
Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that?
Lets go back to the start. It might help.
Who has ever come out and openly stated that they have deliberately lost a game?
Unless you can prove otherwise - no one has confessed to tanking so most of "assumed tanking" occurs due to how we interpret what happens at the selection table and on the field.
So, in order to make your claim, I reckon you need to build a case to prove that point.
And the relevance of this comment is because anyone can come and write your definition of tanking but backing it up with evidence that it actually happens is a different thing altogether and you clearly can't find enough evidence.
So why post anything on the topic? You must think tanking is a non issue.
Richmond are opening playing kids as development and resting other players and a Demon or Carlton supporter has every reason to be as suspicious of our motives as we were of theirs when they were in "development" mode.
What annoys me on this forum is that people want to have a bet each way - on the one hand, they'll comment on a club tanking due to the above criteria but then when Richmond start to do it we are instantly on the path to developing our list.
Are you really saying that no team has ever deliberately lost a game so they can keep/gain high draft picks?
::)
(and before you carry on you can stick your criteria where ever they might fit)
It just so easy isn't it? :sleep
-
Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that?
Lets go back to the start. It might help.
Who has ever come out and openly stated that they have deliberately lost a game?
Unless you can prove otherwise - no one has confessed to tanking so most of "assumed tanking" occurs due to how we interpret what happens at the selection table and on the field.
So, in order to make your claim, I reckon you need to build a case to prove that point.
And the relevance of this comment is because anyone can come and write your definition of tanking but backing it up with evidence that it actually happens is a different thing altogether and you clearly can't find enough evidence.
So why post anything on the topic? You must think tanking is a non issue.
Richmond are opening playing kids as development and resting other players and a Demon or Carlton supporter has every reason to be as suspicious of our motives as we were of theirs when they were in "development" mode.
What annoys me on this forum is that people want to have a bet each way - on the one hand, they'll comment on a club tanking due to the above criteria but then when Richmond start to do it we are instantly on the path to developing our list.
Are you really saying that no team has ever deliberately lost a game so they can keep/gain high draft picks?
::)
(and before you carry on you can stick your criteria where ever they might fit)
It just so easy isn't it? :sleep
so you can't answer my question?
effin hypocrite.
:wallywink
-
Lets go back to the start. It might help.
Yes lets go back to the start.
So in theory, if we lose our next 8 or 9 games - based on Hardwicks comments, does that constitute tanking?
To which i replied,
Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that
In other words No, that is not tanking, because tanking is deliberately losing, which hardwick has not said or even hinted he will do.
It also answers your troll at the end;
So what do the "anti tankers" think of this approach?
Which gives every indication you believe that what he is doing is tanking - which he is not.
From there we seemed to enter the twighlight zone.
-
hmm wallace openly admited not making any moves against stkilda thus ensuring a second rnd draft pick is that tanking.which we promptly wasted by trading away.
i think people confuse tanking with for wont of a better way of saying it experimenting. ie with selections sending players off for early ops resting players giving players an extra week coming back from injury trying players in different positons giving kids big jobs on stars and trying different structures.
is this tanking or experimental development. one thing for certain experimental development does happen. i dont believe tanking does.
-
hmm wallace openly admited not making any moves against stkilda thus ensuring a second rnd draft pick is that tanking.which we promptly wasted by trading away.
i think people confuse tanking with for wont of a better way of saying it experimenting. ie with selections sending players off for early ops resting players giving players an extra week coming back from injury trying players in different positions giving kids big jobs on stars and trying different structures.
is this tanking or experimental development. one thing for certain experimental development does happen. i dont believe tanking does.
Claw, for once i agree whole heartedly with you ;D
Not just legitimate, but sound, smart rebuilding actions that would occur even without the added benefit of getting early draft picks. It was going on long before the draft system came into place