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

[one-eyed]

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

[Stripes]

So far he is a man of his word - no deviations, no compromises. 

[yellowandback]

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?

[Penelope]

Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that?

[yellowandback]

Tanking is deliberately losing.
Did he say he would do that?

So name a club that has deliberately lost and prove it.

[Penelope]

Whats that got to do with anything?
Tanking is deliberately losing. It is where your first and foremost priority is to lose.

[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?

[camboon]

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????????????????????

[Smokey]

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?

[the_boy_jake]

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.

[Rodgerramjet]

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.

[Smokey]

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?

[WilliamPowell]

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 

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

[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.

[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)