By Michael DiFabrizio
July 25th 2009 @ 1:00am
Related coverage
Removing priority picks won’t end tanking talk
St Kilda's Nick Riewoldt & Justin Koschitzke, Collongwood's Simon Prestigiacomo and Nathan Brown in action during the AFL Round 07 match between the Collingwood Magpies and the St Kilda Saints at the Docklands Stadium. Slattery Images
How many times have we heard that removing priority picks will make all the speculation over tanking disappear? Eddie McGuire, James Brayshaw, Mick Malthouse, Mike Sheahan and Matthew Richardson are just some of the names spruiking that line in recent weeks.
“The only way to get rid of this talk every year is to get rid of that priority pick,” Richardson said.
“We think that priority picks should go the way of the dodo,” McGuire said.
“The priority pick must go,” Sheahan wrote. “The AFL is losing the battle of perceptions.”
What’s scary is that the perception provided by Sheahan and co. – that tanking talk can be ended by this one swift decision – is false. It’s not as easy as they’d have you believe.
One needs to look no further than Terry Wallace’s spilling of the beans in the Herald Sun this week to know the scrutiny that surrounds tanking – or the mere suspicion of tanking – extends beyond just priority picks.
Although stressing that he did not “tank” per se, the former Richmond coach conceded his efforts during the round 22, 2007 clash with St Kilda were minimal. A loss in that game would’ve ensured the Tigers remained in last place, enabling them to draft potential star Trent Cotchin.
“It was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach’s box,” Wallace said. “We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out. I didn’t do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren’t any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes.”
The Tigers lost the match, but won Cotchin.
Whether it was tanking or not – personally I can’t see the difference between intentionally trying to lose and intentionally not trying to win, but that’s another issue – it should be noted that the match in question had no implications with priority picks.
Richmond went in to that game with three wins, meaning an additional pick after the first round was theirs whether they won the game or not. They were also set for eligibility for a pick before the first round the year after should they lose four games or less again.
No, in this instance, it was all about Cotchin. The Tigers had simply seen enough of him to know he was the one they wanted, and figured there was little point in giving him up for the sake of winning a match in the last round of the season.
Media frenzies over tanking will still exist so long as situations like Richmond’s in 2007 are still able to exist. Priority picks or no priority picks.
In fact, with the increased attention the under 18s are getting these days, it will only get worse.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that calls for the introduction of an NBA-style draft lottery is the way to go.
How it works in America’s premier basketball competition is this: The 14 worst-performed teams go into the lottery, with the odds of winning weighted significantly higher for the lower-placed teams.
The “ping pong balls” select who chooses the first three draft picks. The rest of the order is determined by finishing positions.
A number of players and others in the game have been lobbying for it to happen in our league. Matthew Scarlett was a big proponent last year. Jonathon Brown has been one this year.
If you were to apply it to the AFL you could use the bottom eight, the bottom four, or any number in between. You could even keep some form of “priority” system by increasing a side’s weighting after poor seasons.
It can be a tad harsh on the team that finishes last, sure. It can be a tad generous to teams on the cusp of the lottery, too.
But if it’s the goal of the AFL to eliminate tanking talk, or to not put coaches like Wallace into compromised positions, then it may be the only option.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(15)
They (the project owners) could’ve...
Stoffy said | July 25th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Nowadays we cant even tell the difference between tanking and pathetic football. Maybe tanking is just an excuse used by the likes of Melbourne, Carlton and Fremantle to hide the fact that they are displaying some miserable skills?
Albert Ross said | July 25th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Of course you could try introducing a second division (B-AFL?) and have promotion and relegation. That’d stop the buggers sandbagging.
Dave said | July 26th 2009 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
That wouldn’t work. The super league has improved greatly since they removed promotion and relegation.
Also the SANFL is doing well and we don’t want any change to that
I laughed when I saw this report
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/sport/afl/story/0,26547,25821695-5016212,00.html
“…..AFL demands for the SANFL salary cap to be cut, virtually in half.
This is clearly designed by the AFL to limit the drain of recycled AFL talent from Victoria to the richer SANFL. …”
Dave said | July 26th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Removing priority picks may not end tanking talk but its a step in the right direction.
Pippinu said | July 26th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
I think Dave is right – it’s the priority picks that are the real carrot for not wanting to win games – to get, say, first and 3rd pick, or whatever it is, is a massive bonus (especially where there might be three stand out choices, as there often is).
But if all of a sudden, you’re getting one crack at those three choices, then you aren’t going to win the spoon just to have first crack – it’s simply not worth it.
Getting first pick for finishing bottom is enough of a bonus (and getting no. 17, etc.)
We don’t need the priority picks anymore.
Michael DiFabrizio said | July 26th 2009 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
You’re right, the first-round priority pick is too beneficial to the club that gets it and shouldn’t carry on in its current format. I should’ve outlined this in the original article, which was more aimed towards those declaring that all speculation will disappear forever once priority picks are done away with, which isn’t the case.
Dave said | July 27th 2009 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
This is what Malthouse said
Stamp out priority draft picks
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25762803-32103,00.html
Tony said | July 26th 2009 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
“Whether it was tanking or not – personally I can’t see the difference between intentionally trying to lose and intentionally not trying to win, but that’s another issue – it should be noted that the match in question had no implications with priority picks.
Richmond went in to that game with three wins, meaning an additional pick after the first round was theirs whether they won the game or not. They were also set for eligibility for a pick before the first round the year after should they lose four games or less again.”
That’s not right. Richmond were on 3 1/2 wins and would have been on 4 1/2 if they’d beaten St Kilda. That would have meant two things: one) they were no longer eligible for a priority pick after the first round in 2007; and two) they were no longer eligible for a priority pick before the first round in 2008 if the won four or less matches in 2008.
Michael DiFabrizio said | July 26th 2009 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
Right you are, Tony. I’ll put my hand up and say I missed the draw. Still, the extra second round pick was not the reason for the way Wallace handled the game.
Tony said | July 26th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
As it turned out, had Richmond beaten St Kilda they might still have snagged Cotchin. I stress might:
Pick 1: Carlton was committed to Kreuzer with their priority pick.
Pick 2: Carlton traded their second pick for Judd.
Pick 3: West Coast, with whom Carlton traded, might have passed on Cotchin and taken Masten, who the Eagles were big on and who had already been working in the WC front office.
Michael DiFabrizio said | July 26th 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
It’s interesting, in hindsight, because since the Judd trade both WA sides haven’t used their first round pick on anyone from outside WA. There was an article in the paper today saying that both would consider taking Anthony Morabito if they had the no. 1 pick this year, despite the fact he’s the projected third-best player in the draft behind Scully and Trengrove. But of course Richmond couldn’t have predicted such a change in attitude, if one has indeed taken place.
Tony said | July 26th 2009 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
Michael
Commenting as a Melbourne fan I still grind my teeth every time I see Scotty Thompson run around for the Crows. Nathan Bassett, who played a season for the Melbourne rezzies, was keen to get back there, too.
The Wizard Farmer went back to Freo; although in hindsight he should have stayed at Melbourne where he was popular and well away from the troubles that engulfed him back in WA. Of course, Jeff White went the other way.
Also, I’ve heard it direct from a high ranking West Coast official that Melbourne were never going to take Naitanui along the same grounds. Verbatim: “You won’t take him. We’ll have him back in the West within five years.”
As you say, courtesy of Judd’s return to Victoria, recruiters are now putting increased emphasis on local talent. I’d be surprised if Morabito, in particular, ended up away from WA.
Dave said | July 27th 2009 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
Kane johnson left the crows and went back to Victoria
Tony said | July 26th 2009 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
Correction: put Picks 2/3 above together and Pick 3 should be Richmond getting Cotchin.
Olrac said | July 27th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
I really think that even if you have a lottery there is still a motivation for teams to “Tank” because you have more chance of the highest pick than the higer placed teams. The only way to get rid of tanking is to get rid of the draft, but we all know that will never happen.
Personally I have no problem with so called tanking if you cannot honestly challenge for the GF this year you better be planning to in the next few years, so if that means playing the kids sending out players for early surgery then I am all for it. I dont change teams from year to year so a long term view is the right one.