Almost guaranteed now a top 8 pick

[Stripes]

Mighty Tigers:
Despite what you say, I still believe that for the most part, the only thing our young list is missing is experience. On Saturday we were carved up by a battle-hardened side with years of pre-season's in their legs and their muscles,five solid years of (losing ) finals experience, and a game plan that they've been adhering to for so long it's second nature to them.
Not only did we field a side of kids, many in their 1st or 2nd year, and showing distinct signs of tiring late in the year, but we were decimated by injury and suspension (Cotchin, Jackson, Foley, Griffiths, White, Thursfield, Moore), and bizarrely tried on the day to play to some zone structure, instead of man on man.This led to soft, downhill-skiing clowns like Didak and Davis, who always go missing in September, being gifted a lot of gimmee goals.

True we had a lot of key outs but the Pies were missing Shaw and Cloke and have Fraser and Medhurst in the ressies. They have depth to cover their outs and pick and choose. We obviously don't yet and IMO it's not just a wait and see with our list issue. It's also true the Pies had far more experience but what about the week before against North when we were dreadful as well. We still lack class even potential class across the park on our list. We are still scanning through our list to find out who is up to it or not. Only Jack, Lids, Cotch and Martin are potential A-graders on our list at the moment (all early picks which isn't a coincidence). Sure you need to develop and get consistent contributions from the whole 22 and beyond on your list to become a good side but classier youngsters are easier to develop and it's class that wins flags. It's why the Pies go missing in September because they lack classy players where and when it counts most in finals. That class is found these days at the top end of the draft.

If, as you say, we stock up on more kids with high draft picks, by this stage next year they too will be running out of puff and being brushed aside by more experienced teams. It's just an unfortunate part of being inexperienced. To say that our list still needs major work is an insult to the huge raft of kids that we've drafted in the last 2 years. To use an agricultural metaphor, no farmer tries to harvest his crop as soon as he's planted the seeds. Let's see how these kids are with 4 or 5 pre-season's under their belts.

The bit in bold is the whole point to rebuilding. You need to bottom out properly over a couple of years,  take your medicine as a club and use the draft system to your maximum advantage. By winning just 2.5 more games in the past two seasons we have cost ourselves another top 20 pick last year and another top 6 pick this year. Imagine if we could have added two young guns inside the top 6 of this year's draft to our existing promising cubs. Or last year instead of searching in whoop-whoop for a Roberts with a late rookie pick, we pick up a top 20 kid who is committed to and capable of a successful AFL career. It's what Melbourne did last year and the year before that. It's what Hawthorn, St Kilda, Collingwood and the Bulldogs did during the past decade. They played the system for all its worth. Other clubs will improve as well and their youth will improve. We haven't yet seen most of Melbourne's kids from the past 2 drafts yet. When you get an opportunity to gain an advantage over the other clubs you should jump at it.

As for  my argument re:Collingwood and Geelong. Okay, as I've acknowledged, I forgot the Pies got a couple of high picks in 2004/5. But we still have w-a-y more top 10 draft picks running around than them or Geelong. Boththose clubs just recruited smatere with middle to low-end draft picks, which proves that it can be done, without celebrating losing.  

Our top 10 picks who played last weekend: Lids, Jack and Martin. That's just 3. We were missing Cotch while Vickery and Tambling were dropped to the ressies. That's just six all up. If you count Jack as a first rounder then it's seven. We haven't had the luxury of quality Father-Sons walking in by the cheap like the Cats and Pies did. We are only half-way there in the rebuild of our list and at least 3 years minimum away from playing finals IMO. Playing the system for all its worth would accelerate our ascension into a top side.


Geelong: Mackie (7), Selwood (7), Corey (8 ), Bartel (8 ), Varcoe (15), Kelly (17), Taylor (17), Ablett (F/S), Scarlett (F/S), Hawkins (F/S), traded two first rounders for Ottens.
Steven King who played in their 2007 flag was a compensation pick back in the mid-90s.
Tenace (7) was a flop.

Collingwood: Fraser (1), Thomas (2), Didak (3), Pendlebury (5), Reid (8 ), Presti (10), Brown (10), Jolly (14), Wood (14), Shaw (F/S), Cloke (F/S).

So they both aren't first rounders poor. As has been mentioned what both clubs have done better than us is use their 2nd and 3rd round picks. Finishing low on the ladder gives you higher 2nd and 3rd rounders especially in these compromised draft. It's all about giving our recruiters a greater draft pool to select from to find the best possible young players available.

Remember in this draft you need to finish bottom 3 just to finish up with pick 8 which in a normal draft belonged to the club that finished ninth. Finishing 9th-11th this year and you end up with a lousy first pick in the mid-late teens plus very late 2nd and 3rd round picks. It would be recruiting suicide for us.

The other thing to remember is recruiting methods, statistics and scouting are more rigorous and sophisticated nowdays compared to even 5-10 years ago so there are fewer mistakes with selections being made at the top end of the draft. The top 7 kids of the 2009 draft are playing seniors in their debut year and all look the goods. It's no coincidence. This year 100 kids will attend the upcoming draft camp with all its kicking etc tests. The guesswork in drafting at the top end has ever so slowly being minimised. Richmond should use that increasing certainty to add more class and quality to our list.

Right back at you MT! Great post  Make's perfect sense to me. I think many people find it difficult to get past the simple fact that you you are trying to rebuid winning isn't always the best thing for your future. 

[Smokey]

I think many people find it difficult to get past the simple fact that you are trying to rebuild winning isn't always the best thing for your future. 

Neither is losing.

[RollsRoyce]

No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON ( and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????
Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the flick of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.     

[tony_montana]

No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON ( and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????
Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the flick of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.     

Melbourne begs to differ 

[Smokey]

No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON ( and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????
Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the flick of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.     

Melbourne begs to differ 

When Melbourne becomes successful and wins a flag by doing it then I might be persuaded to change my mind.  Until then, I will go with what I know - that tanking has never won a team a flag in the history of the AFL.

[tiger till i die]

how dose collingwood do it? how often do they tank?

[Ramps]

how dose collingwood do it? how often do they tank?

they tanked to get Pendlebury and Thomas, they are topping up there list in search of a flag, If they fail in the next 2 years Buckley will have a hell of a time replacing players who will be coming to an end.

[tiger till i die]

how dose collingwood do it? how often do they tank?

they tanked to get Pendlebury and Thomas, they are topping up there list in search of a flag, If they fail in the next 2 years Buckley will have a hell of a time replacing players who will be coming to an end.

collingwood will jsut throw money at out of contract players ... yes? i wonder if tthey have aproached Reiwoldt

[wayne]

collingwood will jsut throw money at out of contract players ... yes? i wonder if tthey have aproached Reiwoldt

They haven't had much luck doing that.

[mightytiges]

No, you can't make strawberry jam from manure. But then to dismiss kids like Nason, Astbury, Webberley and Griffiths as manure just because they weren't absolute premium draft picks is pretty insulting to their ability and worth.
And the fact that we secured such promising players with the benefit of smart recruiting with mid to late-range draft picks only proves my point.
Compare this to the way the previous administration frittered away early draft picks on the likes of Tambling (4) Meyer(12) Pattison(16) Polo(20) JON ( and Hughes. That list re-building 2004 draft was really worth finishing on the bottom for AGAIN-wasn't it????

In 2004 we did the right thing gaining all those picks. We just had poor resources and the wrong people to pick properly and not waste them. It would've been far worse if say we won a few games late in the season and finished with a first pick say around 8. Then we would've missed out competely (at least we got Lids) given our poor recruiting as we did the following year  . In 2005 we didn't bottom out fully after 2004. We finished 12th IIRC while Hawthorn, Collingwood and Carlton all finished bottom 3 and all scored pre-first round priority picks  . So rather than picking up say Murphy and Ryder who we wanted to slip to pick 8 we went with JON   and then because we went 'small' with our first pick we went with an inferior tall in Cleve at pick 24 chasing a KPP. So many things wrong with our reasoning in the 2005 draft it just shows we never had a clue.

Btw I wasn't insulting the players we picked up in last year's draft as we still could have chosen those same players plus another with a top 20 priority pick we missed out on for winning 1.5 games than we should've. Cameron should've told Jade to keep our wins to no more than four  . This year we miss out another priority pick and if we had kept our wins to just 4 last and this year we would gain an extra pick at 6. It's these bonus early picks combined with a resourced recruiting dept. and strong player development that accelerates the rebuilding process.

Look, we're just going round and round in ever-decreasing circles on this one. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

No probs. Yep we'll agree to disagree on this.

But one last point is that players aren't machines. You can't just de-program them, and re-program them at the flick of a switch. And I think it would be virtually impossible to re-build a team's self-confidence and belief after you've encouraged them to lay low for 2-3 years,taking one beating after another, while we slowly put together the kind of elite list you think is worthy of challenging the big boys.     

True the players aren't machines but you don't ask the players to tank. The tanking is done via team selections, match-ups, trying players in different positions and combinations. As for player confidence I remember us flogging Geelong at the Dome in 2000 by 77 points. It didn't do Ling, Corey, Enright, Mooney, Milburn and Scarlett any harm in the long run. Nor did Hawthorn losing 12 games out of 13 in the middle of 2006 stop them from playing finals the following year and then win a flag the year after that.

[Obelix]

I know it's been done to death but I'm still spewing that we gave up pick 19 for mcmahon three years ago. It's one thing to go through a bit of pain to get picks - I can deal with that in the short term. But for heaven's sake, when you get these picks make 'em count.

I don't think we've tanked a great deal. I'm pretty sure we could easily have repeated our 2004 effort a couple of times and really loaded up like the Dees. Believe it or not, Wallace was actually trying to win you know.

If we end up with pick 4, I'm not going to complain. We still have a fair way to go to build the sort of quality into our list that wins flags. I won't call it tanking to start throwing the likes of O'Reilly, Gourdis etc into the fray right - I'd rather call it a "purposeful rebuild" and period of player development.

[Smokey]

I thought an article of Leigh Matthews from the AFL site this week is quite relevant to this discussion, especially when have been discussing the possibility of turning "manure into strawberry jam" and the critical need to tank for high draft picks to build a decent side.  Here is what he has to say:

The sum of parts

By Leigh Matthews 7:11 AM Wed 28 July, 2010
TO BE blunt, I’ve always believed in the old saying that it’s impossible to make strawberry jam out of horse manure.

Given Collingwood have half a team of rookies and lowly ranked draft choices that have been instrumental in the Magpies' surge to the top of the AFL ladder, the effectiveness of Mick Malthouse’s coaching and development operation is reversing that well-proven theory.

And I use this analogy in the nicest possible way because the outstanding Collingwood form has some unique features.

Firstly, there is a big group of Collingwood players whose performances this season have been very good despite them not being established, proven senior players.

Looking through the side that dismantled Richmond last Saturday, I found 11 players who wouldn’t exactly cause shockwaves if they were left out of the side in the weeks ahead.

There’s Dayne Beams, Jarryd Blair, Leigh Brown, Chris Dawes, Tyson Goldsack, Ben Johnson, Tarkyn Lockyer, Brent Macaffer, Steele Sidebottom, Alan Toovey and Sharrod Wellingham.

These are players who would still be a bit nervous ahead of selection every Thursday night. That’s not to say some of these players haven’t been playing well.

Only last Saturday Brown received a vote in the 3AW Player of the Year award, as he’d done the week before. Clearly, he’s had two terrific games.

Beams has averaged 21 possessions and kicked 17 goals in 16 games, and Sidebottom 18 possessions a game for 16 goals in 16 games.

Johnson and Wellingham have averaged 21 possessions from 15 games, while Dawes, with 21 goals in 11 games, sits second on the club goalkicking list, equal with Travis Cloke and behind only Didak (29).

But what I’m saying is that these players are not necessarily permanent fixtures in the senior side and might not survive a few down weeks and still hold their spot.

I’ve always believed that while playing for your position each week may be a good motivation, it can also be quite nerve-wracking and not exactly conducive to maximising performance levels.

At Collingwood, though, this ‘living on the edge’ process seems to be working a treat.

But back to my first paragraph..

The thing that hits me the most about the Collingwood team at the moment is the unusually high number of players who have come into the AFL system with a relatively modest draft ranking.

Sure, they’ve got the normal handful of high draft selections. And by ‘high’ I mean 1-20. There’s Dale Thomas (pick No.2), Alan Didak (3), Scott Pendlebury (5), Ben Reid (, Simon Prestigiacomo (10) and Sidebottom (11). Plus Luke Ball, who was originally taken at No.3.

Their list also includes two comparatively cheap father/son signings in Heath Shaw and Cloke, and what you might term a high-price recruit in Darren Jolly, who cost the Magpies selections No.14 and 46 in last year’s national draft.

Otherwise, it is a line-up dominated by players from humble football beginnings.

I must say I’ve always been a bit cynical when I hear clubs talking of a five-year plan. To me a month is a long time in footy, and next year is an absolute eternity away.

The process of recruiting raw talent and developing it to maximum potential is the obvious first step in any club operation.

Enormous credit must go to the Collingwood coaching and development system which has churned out a big group of players who were low-ranked horse-manure draft and rookie choices, but are producing strawberry jam performances.

With Shaw and Cloke missing from the top side last weekend, there were no less than 15 players who were drafted at 25-plus, including an extraordinary seven players who started out as rookies.

The ex-rookies are a talented list in their own right - captain Nick Maxwell, Harry O’Brien, Wellingham, Lockyer, Macaffer, Toovey and Blair.

To have seven players in the top team who started their careers as obscure rookies is quite remarkable.

Of the others, there was Dawes, taken at selection No.28, Beams (29), Leon Davis (34), Dane Swan (58), Johnson (62), Goldsack (63) and Brown (73), plus Ball, whose price tag to the Pies was selection No.30 in last year’s national draft.

As hard as it might seem to be underrated playing for the heavily publicised Magpies, there are a lot of relative young unknowns playing well above their reputation. And, oddly, there are some more high profile types not in the side. Like Jack Anthony, Nathan Brown, Brad Dick, Josh Fraser, Paul Medhurst, Shane O’Bree and Cameron Wood.

Interestingly, too, only one Collingwood player - midfielder Swan - is a certain All-Australian.

Didak might be classified as a ‘likely’ All-Australian choice, with O’Brien a possibility, but otherwise they have no genuine Team of the Year contenders.

No doubt this year Jolly, as a strong power ruckman, and Ball, as another in-close ball-winner, have been valuable additions to the Collingwood side.

The biggest improver in its own ranks is full-back Reid. Drafted at No.8 in 2006 as a highly-rated key forward, he had played only eight games in three years prior to this year. Last year he played two senior games while spending most of his time learning to play key defence in the VFL.

Obviously he did so with very good effect in what is further proof of a development process that requires young players to be given time, patience and training at a lower level to gain the necessary confidence and skill-set to be successful at the top level.

Leaving aside first-year players in terms of those who can be measured from season to season, Reid might just be the competition’s most improved, progressing from out of the team into a very competent key defender.

Collingwood started the season as one of the five clubs that I thought could win the premiership and their chances have only grown after 17 rounds. And they have got to the top with a champion team more so than a team of champions.

Therein lies that nagging doubt because to win the flag they will have to find a way to beat the mighty Geelong, who have the proven double: they are both a champion team and a team of champions.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99099/default.aspx

We will continue to consign ourselves to the scrapheap of football failures if we embrace the direction of deliberately taking steps to lose games of football just to gain that critical, all-conquering, almighty, higher number at the draft table.  The salvation and future of our team and our club lies in our attitude, our culture, our skillset, our professionalism, our sense of team - or if I combine it under one heading - 'our development'.  Tanking?  Smart list management?  Good coaching?  Call it whatever you want but cheats, rorters, bludgers and egotists all get found out eventually and all fail in the pressure cooker environment of team sports like AFL football (in life actually but that's for another day).  And there is no evidence to suggest or prove that taking the 'easy' shortcut works or has ever succeeded.  If you think that tanking is the way forward then go follow your Melbourne, your Carlton and enjoy all the success you have with them.  Just don't embarrass yourself by trying to look me in the eye when I'm celebrating my team's victory won through the virtues of hard work, courage, honesty and team - you already know what I think of you and your cheating ways and I won't bother meeting your gaze.

[Danog]

Port winning today gives us some lee-way.  Can win a game and still finish 15th.

[Penelope]

I thought an article of Leigh Matthews from the AFL site this week is quite relevant to this discussion, especially when have been discussing the possibility of turning "manure into strawberry jam" and the critical need to tank for high draft picks to build a decent side.  Here is what he has to say:

The sum of parts

By Leigh Matthews 7:11 AM Wed 28 July, 2010
TO BE blunt, I’ve always believed in the old saying that it’s impossible to make strawberry jam out of horse manure.

Given Collingwood have half a team of rookies and lowly ranked draft choices that have been instrumental in the Magpies' surge to the top of the AFL ladder, the effectiveness of Mick Malthouse’s coaching and development operation is reversing that well-proven theory.

And I use this analogy in the nicest possible way because the outstanding Collingwood form has some unique features.

Firstly, there is a big group of Collingwood players whose performances this season have been very good despite them not being established, proven senior players.

Looking through the side that dismantled Richmond last Saturday, I found 11 players who wouldn’t exactly cause shockwaves if they were left out of the side in the weeks ahead.

There’s Dayne Beams, Jarryd Blair, Leigh Brown, Chris Dawes, Tyson Goldsack, Ben Johnson, Tarkyn Lockyer, Brent Macaffer, Steele Sidebottom, Alan Toovey and Sharrod Wellingham.

These are players who would still be a bit nervous ahead of selection every Thursday night. That’s not to say some of these players haven’t been playing well.

Only last Saturday Brown received a vote in the 3AW Player of the Year award, as he’d done the week before. Clearly, he’s had two terrific games.

Beams has averaged 21 possessions and kicked 17 goals in 16 games, and Sidebottom 18 possessions a game for 16 goals in 16 games.

Johnson and Wellingham have averaged 21 possessions from 15 games, while Dawes, with 21 goals in 11 games, sits second on the club goalkicking list, equal with Travis Cloke and behind only Didak (29).

But what I’m saying is that these players are not necessarily permanent fixtures in the senior side and might not survive a few down weeks and still hold their spot.

I’ve always believed that while playing for your position each week may be a good motivation, it can also be quite nerve-wracking and not exactly conducive to maximising performance levels.

At Collingwood, though, this ‘living on the edge’ process seems to be working a treat.

But back to my first paragraph..

The thing that hits me the most about the Collingwood team at the moment is the unusually high number of players who have come into the AFL system with a relatively modest draft ranking.

Sure, they’ve got the normal handful of high draft selections. And by ‘high’ I mean 1-20. There’s Dale Thomas (pick No.2), Alan Didak (3), Scott Pendlebury (5), Ben Reid (, Simon Prestigiacomo (10) and Sidebottom (11). Plus Luke Ball, who was originally taken at No.3.

Their list also includes two comparatively cheap father/son signings in Heath Shaw and Cloke, and what you might term a high-price recruit in Darren Jolly, who cost the Magpies selections No.14 and 46 in last year’s national draft.

Otherwise, it is a line-up dominated by players from humble football beginnings.

I must say I’ve always been a bit cynical when I hear clubs talking of a five-year plan. To me a month is a long time in footy, and next year is an absolute eternity away.

The process of recruiting raw talent and developing it to maximum potential is the obvious first step in any club operation.

Enormous credit must go to the Collingwood coaching and development system which has churned out a big group of players who were low-ranked horse-manure draft and rookie choices, but are producing strawberry jam performances.

With Shaw and Cloke missing from the top side last weekend, there were no less than 15 players who were drafted at 25-plus, including an extraordinary seven players who started out as rookies.

The ex-rookies are a talented list in their own right - captain Nick Maxwell, Harry O’Brien, Wellingham, Lockyer, Macaffer, Toovey and Blair.

To have seven players in the top team who started their careers as obscure rookies is quite remarkable.

Of the others, there was Dawes, taken at selection No.28, Beams (29), Leon Davis (34), Dane Swan (58), Johnson (62), Goldsack (63) and Brown (73), plus Ball, whose price tag to the Pies was selection No.30 in last year’s national draft.

As hard as it might seem to be underrated playing for the heavily publicised Magpies, there are a lot of relative young unknowns playing well above their reputation. And, oddly, there are some more high profile types not in the side. Like Jack Anthony, Nathan Brown, Brad Dick, Josh Fraser, Paul Medhurst, Shane O’Bree and Cameron Wood.

Interestingly, too, only one Collingwood player - midfielder Swan - is a certain All-Australian.

Didak might be classified as a ‘likely’ All-Australian choice, with O’Brien a possibility, but otherwise they have no genuine Team of the Year contenders.

No doubt this year Jolly, as a strong power ruckman, and Ball, as another in-close ball-winner, have been valuable additions to the Collingwood side.

The biggest improver in its own ranks is full-back Reid. Drafted at No.8 in 2006 as a highly-rated key forward, he had played only eight games in three years prior to this year. Last year he played two senior games while spending most of his time learning to play key defence in the VFL.

Obviously he did so with very good effect in what is further proof of a development process that requires young players to be given time, patience and training at a lower level to gain the necessary confidence and skill-set to be successful at the top level.

Leaving aside first-year players in terms of those who can be measured from season to season, Reid might just be the competition’s most improved, progressing from out of the team into a very competent key defender.

Collingwood started the season as one of the five clubs that I thought could win the premiership and their chances have only grown after 17 rounds. And they have got to the top with a champion team more so than a team of champions.

Therein lies that nagging doubt because to win the flag they will have to find a way to beat the mighty Geelong, who have the proven double: they are both a champion team and a team of champions.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/99099/default.aspx

We will continue to consign ourselves to the scrapheap of football failures if we embrace the direction of deliberately taking steps to lose games of football just to gain that critical, all-conquering, almighty, higher number at the draft table.  The salvation and future of our team and our club lies in our attitude, our culture, our skillset, our professionalism, our sense of team - or if I combine it under one heading - 'our development'.  Tanking?  Smart list management?  Good coaching?  Call it whatever you want but cheats, rorters, bludgers and egotists all get found out eventually and all fail in the pressure cooker environment of team sports like AFL football (in life actually but that's for another day).  And there is no evidence to suggest or prove that taking the 'easy' shortcut works or has ever succeeded.  If you think that tanking is the way forward then go follow your Melbourne, your Carlton and enjoy all the success you have with them.  Just don't embarrass yourself by trying to look me in the eye when I'm celebrating my team's victory won through the virtues of hard work, courage, honesty and team - you already know what I think of you and your cheating ways and I won't bother meeting your gaze.

good find and well said smokey

[mightytiges]

As much as the Pies are winning easy at the minute against ordinary sides I'll wait until September is finished before I'm convinced about them. We've seen all this before and then they cave when it counts.

Port winning today gives us some lee-way.  Can win a game and still finish 15th.

We can still finish 14th. We would need Brisbane to beat Melbourne tonight to be able to win a game and finish 15th still. The Lions are 11 points down late in the final quarter.