Comments on: Removing priority picks won’t end tanking talk

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:43:45 +0000

This is what Malthouse said

Stamp out priority draft picks

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25762803-32103,00.html

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:42:41 +0000

Kane johnson left the crows and went back to Victoria

By: Olrac

Olrac — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:13:32 +0000

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.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:52:56 +0000

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.

By: Michael DiFabrizio

Michael DiFabrizio — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:35:40 +0000

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.

By: Michael DiFabrizio

Michael DiFabrizio — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:23:26 +0000

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.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:13:39 +0000

Correction: put Picks 2/3 above together and Pick 3 should be Richmond getting Cotchin.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:08:04 +0000

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.

By: Michael DiFabrizio

Michael DiFabrizio — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:07:29 +0000

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.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:59:16 +0000

“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.

By: Pippinu

Pippinu — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:20:27 +0000

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.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:17:04 +0000

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. …”

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:12:18 +0000

Removing priority picks may not end tanking talk but its a step in the right direction.

By: Albert Ross

Albert Ross — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:49:50 +0000

Of course you could try introducing a second division (B-AFL?) and have promotion and relegation. That’d stop the buggers sandbagging.

By: Stoffy

Stoffy — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:45:00 +0000

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?