IT'S TIME TO GO THE TANK- IT'S OUR ONLY HOPE! [merged]

[Infamy]

I can't believe that the best idea many people can come up with going forward is to tank - for a club with some admitted culture problems that we are slowly turning around, tanking will only set us back 5 years.

Imagine your at work the first half of the year is down on profits, the bosses blame the managers, the workers turn on them as well and the investors scream for blood then the new caretaker manager gets told "Don't perform too well for the 2nd half of the year so we can attract some young guns to come in next year and in a couple of years when they're ready - they'll take us to the top".......................... Doesn't make any sense outside of footy and doesn't make much sense in footy.

This will give players the impression that they aren't good enough for the Tigers and they're never going to be, the caretaker will have no desire to rally the troops into any kind of decent performance because his time at the top and eventual fate has already been decided. Really inspiring considering we want a big turn around in attitudes next year (if not this year).

If we want to continue changing the bad culture developed by Frawley and others and give supporters something to look forward too, aim at 8th, expect 12th finish 10th. Can be done and should be done.

Firstly welcome to OER hadyn 

The work analogy fails because no boss would give his managerial staff a bonus for coming last in profits and an even bigger bonus for coming last 2 years in a row.

Tell that to AIG

[FooffooValve]

mt,

1) Personnel - I'd be trading either Tuck or Foley, whoever attracts the higher pick. I reckon one of them might get us a top 20 pick.

2) Knowing limitations - agree. But the subtext of what you're saying is "We are mentally soft". Surely a big problem to address? Is playing to lose going to help?

3) Resources - agree.

4) Leadership - yep, pathetic. It's debatable, but I reckon strong leadership in our situation is to ignore the tanking temptations and send the message that previous "losing" practices won't be tolerated. (eg St Kilda with Gram, Geelong with Johnson etc etc — unless you believe that everyone is preparing perfectly, or behaving well - I don't.)

You've identified some of the club's underlying problems - really big problems, yet the tankers would have us believe that an extra 17 year old kid will solve them. I don't subscribe to that POV. Sure, take him if he's there and we have the pick. But we need to try to win, prepare to win and win if the game is there to be taken. Then, if we want another pick, go out and get it. Make a few hard decisions that we've avoided in the past, precisely because we tend to overestimate the ability of our players. IMO both Tuck and Foley are limited players - good, but limited. Trade one for a reasonable pick.

[mightytiges]

1) Personnel - I'd be trading either Tuck or Foley, whoever attracts the higher pick. I reckon one of them might get us a top 20 pick.

Tuck is 4 years older at 27 than Foley even if longevity and durability is in the family genes. Maybe you might get more for him next year off GC17 compared to the existing clubs.

2) Knowing limitations - agree. But the subtext of what you're saying is "We are mentally soft". Surely a big problem to address? Is playing to lose going to help?

Well we are mentally soft because we have too many players on our list who are simply not up to it but that's not what I meant here. I meant we as a club talk well before we can walk. I don't want to hear anymore leading into a new season or a big game that means as much to the opposition as it does to us things such as we're after respect, we're tougher, we're competitive, we're gunna play finals, we're gunna do this, we're gunna do that, etc..... Talk is cheap. After just 2 finals appearance in almost 3 decades we should be the last club that talks the talk until we walk the walk.

Likewise we need to be honest with our assessment of where we are at. It's one thing to set high goals but it's another to get ahead of yourself and lose focus on where you're heading. IMO we as a Club lost our focus from rebuilding and topped up. Selecting just 5 kids in the past two National drafts is not the stuff of a rebuilding club. Compare that to the Eagles who 3 years after winning a flag are going to the well for the 3rd year in a row. There's no debate about the virtues and dishonour of tanking over there. They just get on with it. Worsfold has admitted as much. You've got to use the system at the time and get the best out of it for your club long-term. 2009 is a write-off and an extra win or two now will do nothing to establish a winning culture in the current playing group. If winning 8 out of 11 last year didn't change the culture last then what makes anti-tankers think winning 4 out of the next 11 will. It makes no sense. It's the quality of the playing group that needs changing and improving and winning meaningless games this season works against that due to the draft system in place which rewards tanking.

4) Leadership - yep, pathetic. It's debatable, but I reckon strong leadership in our situation is to ignore the tanking temptations and send the message that previous "losing" practices won't be tolerated. (eg St Kilda with Gram, Geelong with Johnson etc etc — unless you believe that everyone is preparing perfectly, or behaving well - I don't.)

The better the quality the team is the easier it is to lead.

You've identified some of the club's underlying problems - really big problems, yet the tankers would have us believe that an extra 17 year old kid will solve them. I don't subscribe to that POV. Sure, take him if he's there and we have the pick. But we need to try to win, prepare to win and win if the game is there to be taken. Then, if we want another pick, go out and get it. Make a few hard decisions that we've avoided in the past, precisely because we tend to overestimate the ability of our players. IMO both Tuck and Foley are limited players - good, but limited. Trade one for a reasonable pick.

You're misunderstanding the point to say it's only about getting and relying on one extra kid. It's the fact you get 3 picks in the top 20. If you want to trade for another then good make that 4 top 20 picks. The more the better to turn over the list quickly. Changing the personnel as quickly as possible to remove the cause of the poor culture within the playing list while at the same time giving the existing cubs more gametime and adding more talented kids which over time will improve the quality and culture of the overall list.

[mightytiges]

Thanks for the win with cubs Jade. You've got one more up your sleeve  .

[Ramps]

I dont know who or want change you want MT but Id like to see Pattison out and Post in. As for the tank, smart teams like WCE tank and get Natanui ... other clubs dont. If Natanui can continue to learn the game then game over, he'll end up winning brownlows and he'll help the Eagles get there next flag. On another matter, it burns when you see blokes like Callan Ward running around and we got McMahon down at Coburg ... geezus ... Im glad Wallace is gone. What a stuffen stupid thing to do.

[FooffooValve]

You're misunderstanding the point to say it's only about getting and relying on one extra kid. It's the fact you get 3 picks in the top 20.

No, you are misunderstanding the notion of culture. Players don't create a winning club culture, the club does. That means everybody. The culture trickles down to the playing group, not up from it.

Much of what you have said I agree with, but only strengthens the argument to not worry about how many games we win or lose, but concentrate on the process of building a strong club culture.

[TigerTime]

west coast ahve never tanked, they are just crap, worse than us. they lost judd cousins but on tope of that have lost other premiership players and had players like kerr and embley have no consistancy due to inury and form. they have had a poor fwd structure for for a couple of yrs now and its only now they are starting to shape their fed line

tanking does not work, all it does is train the mind that losing is ok and one gets reward for losing

tanking is rubbish and should not even be talked about


as cuz says , winning isnt everything,  ITS THE ONLY THING

[Infamy]

west coast ahve never tanked, they are just crap, worse than us. they lost judd cousins but on tope of that have lost other premiership players and had players like kerr and embley have no consistancy due to inury and form. they have had a poor fwd structure for for a couple of yrs now and its only now they are starting to shape their fed line

tanking does not work, all it does is train the mind that losing is ok and one gets reward for losing

tanking is rubbish and should not even be talked about


as cuz says , winning isnt everything,  ITS THE ONLY THING

The players don't tank, but the match committee does
You only need to look at the number of wins relative to the priority pick each year
When the limit was 5 wins there were no clubs finishing with 6 wins for the year
Now they've dropped it to 4, all of a sudden the worst sides in the comp are never winning more than 4 (with the exception of Melbourne 2 years ago who played off against Carlton who also had 4 wins in Round 22)
It happens too regularly to just be a coincidence... open your eyes

[TigerTime]

open my eyes, which 3

tanking is an excuse, its bs

tanking is a term used to please the fans and make excuses for their pathetic teams

oh we are not that bad , we are just tanking ....................rubbish

[JVT]

Carlscum tanked . . . didnt they put stevens, fevola and another 2 on the bench in last quarter to throw a game?? Not to mention they wanted to lose the 'Kreuzer Cup' game more than Melbourne did!

[Con65]

How much Melbourne be bleeding now that they lost the Kruezer Cup.

If they lost to Carlton then:
a) Carlton dont get Kruezer and dont have a spare pick in top 3 for Judd;
b) Demons get Cotch (assuming we went for Kruz) or vice versa;
c) in 2008 draft, they would have had Watts and Nick Nat....

[big tone]

open my eyes, which 3

tanking is an excuse, its bs

tanking is a term used to please the fans and make excuses for their pathetic teams

oh we are not that bad , we are just tanking ....................rubbish

Yes open your eyes!!!!!
You pick a side that will loose, not tell the players to go out and loose.
Please tell me you are not that STUPID!!!... although i may not believe you.

I think Con65 makes a good point about the Dees, i only hope we don't have a story like that in the future.

[Judge Roughneck]

How much Melbourne be bleeding now that they lost the Kruezer Cup.

If they lost to Carlton then:
a) Carlton dont get Kruezer and dont have a spare pick in top 3 for Judd;
b) Demons get Cotch (assuming we went for Kruz) or vice versa;
c) in 2008 draft, they would have had Watts and Nick Nat....

Carlton are cheats.

[Infamy]

How much Melbourne be bleeding now that they lost the Kruezer Cup.

If they lost to Carlton then:
a) Carlton dont get Kruezer and dont have a spare pick in top 3 for Judd;
b) Demons get Cotch (assuming we went for Kruz) or vice versa;
c) in 2008 draft, they would have had Watts and Nick Nat....

Carlton are cheats.

I was thinking they're another word starting with c and ending in unts.

[Smokey]

Greg Denham writes an article today discussing Michael Voss.

Link here:  http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25643240-23211,00.html?from=public_rss

A few excerpts from the article:

"We, as a club, have to play finals," Voss said.

"Make no bones about it, we have to play in finals to be able to nourish that inner hunger that develops by playing finals matches. That's part of our development because you have to know what the pressure of a final has."

"The one thing we've highlighted this year is that there's still a level of attitude and competitiveness that you've got to have regardless of who you are," he said.

"So I don't concentrate on injuries or who is there or who's not there, because there's actually no excuses why you can't deliver X. It's about competing rather than submitting.

"There's a standard that we should have in our club that we expect everyone to accomplish it, whether you're 18 years of age or 32. The fact is, this is the minimum that we expect."

"We've been coaching for a minimum level which is acceptable," Voss said. "So the youth understands the minimum they must deliver and if they do better than that, great. So performance is not really measured on kicks, marks and handballs, it's on what's your competitive effort, and they are doing that."

I wonder what he thinks of tanking?