Long term approach rather than chasing wins: Hardwick (RFC)

[Owl]

In carltanks case the price was a Knee reco for their tank pick Kruezer ..... hefty deal

[Ramps]

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)

 

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

[1965]

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)

 

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

 

[Penelope]

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?

[Smokey]

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)

 

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

[yellowandback]

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.

[Penelope]

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.

[yellowandback]

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.

[yellowandback]

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.

[1965]

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)

[yellowandback]

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?

[1965]

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?

so you can't answer my question?

effin hypocrite.

 

[Penelope]

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.

[the claw]

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.

[Penelope]

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 

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