Collingwood vs Geelong AFL Grand Final 2011. Slattery Images
Related coverage
The debate around tanking in the AFL is about to flare up again. Yesterday, it emerged that the competition is set to review its controversial priority pick system ahead of the first uncompromised draft in three years.
The past three national drafts have disrupted the usual flow of players to the clubs who supposedly need them the most, because of the introduction of Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney.
In 2012, it’ll be back to normal – any team who wins four game or less in a full season of AFL are handed an extra selection at the end of the first round.
If you’ve stunk it up for longer than one year, the prize is greater.
A team who wins four or less games for two consecutive seasons get a pick before the first round – that usually means the worst team gets to pick the best draftee in the land.
Obviously, there is an inherent incentive for poor clubs to do even worse than they normally would – that’s tanking, the art of throwing games to ensure a better draft pick.
Many footy fans have been suspicious over the years, wondering if tanking has taken place in the AFL. There’s no definitive proof, but Melbourne and Carlton have been accused of it in recent years.
Remember Dean Bailey’s quasi-confession at the end of last season? He said, “I had no hesitation at all in the first two years in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks. I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club and I did it.”
That comment sent shockwaves through the AFL, culminating in yesterday’s announcement of the pending review of the priority pick.
Already, with the structure of the draft, the team who finishes 18th will be given pick number one. That rewards failure. The priority pick is a cherry on top.
It’s a broken system, so it’s good to hear the AFL is going to take a good hard look at it. But really, do they need a review?
Isn’t the answer pretty damn obvious? Andrew Demetriou only needs to look to the United States for a solution.
The AFL is already fixated with American sport, in particular the NFL, which is a corporate role model for the league and the clubs within it.
There’s no doubt eyes were glued to the LCD screens down at AFL House yesterday morning, and executives were probably taking notes on how to make their Grand Final more like the Super Bowl.
If they just shifted their attention to the NBA and the NHL, they’ll find a solution for tanking staring them straight in the face.
Those two competitions have draft lotteries, which means the last-placed team is not guaranteed to get the first pick.
With weighted lotteries, they still get the best chance out of everyone – the system is designed in such a way that the worst teams will most likely get the earliest selections.
But by making it a chance, not a certainty, tanking becomes a riskier option.
It’d be one hell of a gamble for a coach to start ‘ensuring their club was well placed for draft picks’ knowing full well that, with a lottery in place, it could backfire badly.
Of course, it’s cruel if a successful team gets a better pick than another side who needs it far more, but sport is cruel. We’re used to that.
It’s also cruel to the integrity of the AFL every time a coach sits in the stands with winning not number one on his priority list.
It’s pleasing to discover that the AFL’s head is no longer submerged in sand over the issue of tanking, but it’s in their best interest to produce a fix sooner rather than later.
So review away, then, Mr Demetriou.
But the bureaucracy might not be necessary. A draft lottery is a simple, proven deterrent for match fixing, and the quicker it’s introduced the better off we’d all be.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, tanking afl
February 7th 2012 @ 3:51am
AndyMack said | February 7th 2012 @ 3:51am | Report comment
I think the system needs to change as well. A safeguard built into the system so that maybe the bottom 4 teams will get the first 4 picks (although not in that order) would be handy. Would hate to see the team finishing 9th and just out of the finals on % to get the #1 pick next year.
Its a sensible approach to the problem, just hope the AFL are considering this seriously.
February 7th 2012 @ 4:35pm
langou said | February 7th 2012 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
so your forth or fifth last last going into round 22, what are you going to do?
February 7th 2012 @ 5:51am
Timmuh said | February 7th 2012 @ 5:51am | Report comment
Just do away with the draft, and tighten rules around (and policing of) the salary cap; including cracking down on third party deals – including media ones that particular clubs are in a position to exploit. Clubs which have bad lists can pay rookies more, by sacking spuds and freeing up places. There´s no incentive for ´tanking´, and the better clubs can try to lure players with the recent success and lure of a premiership chance. A failure part of a cycle should not be assured, a well run club should be able to remain competitive.
It works for that other code they play along the north-eastern coastline, they actually have a closer competition than the AFL is. (Some of that may be due to the difference in sports, but they do have very big failures of policing their cap.)
February 7th 2012 @ 7:26am
Redb said | February 7th 2012 @ 7:26am | Report comment
A lottery sounds like a good idea. Last 4 positions go in a hat each year for the priority pick.
February 7th 2012 @ 8:00am
Lucan said | February 7th 2012 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Needs to be 9 through 18 for the lottery. Otherwise there’s the incentive for the team sitting 13th or 14th to tank their way into the bottom 4 to get into the draw.
Just do it weighted like the NBA as Vince has suggested. Only once in the NBA has a team with the lowest probability in the lottery snared the first pick. The prime pick still usually goes to the team most in need of it, just doesn’t guarantee it to them.
February 7th 2012 @ 8:11am
The Cattery said | February 7th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Getting rid of the priority pick and having a lottery seem like good ideas. For teams ranked 18 to 9, for argument’s sake, the bottom team would get 10 balls in the hat, while the team finishing 9th would get 1, putting the odds in favour of the bottom team, but not guranteeing anything.
But two provisos:
1. Teams like Geelong and Sydney have shown you don’t have to bottom out to do well; and
2. at the moment there is as great a disparity between the top teams and bottom teams as I can remember, meaning there remains an argument that those weaker teams still need access to priority picks.
February 7th 2012 @ 10:26am
Tony said | February 7th 2012 @ 10:26am | Report comment
A lottery has been suggested countless times as a solution for tanking, but it always comes back to the same stumbling block – if there is a four team lottery the team which is fifth last near the end of the season might tank to get into the lottery. Take 2007. Essendon were fifth last with 40 points, the Bulldogs fourth last with 38. Essendon could have easily tanked to finish below the Dogs, then, if they “won” the lottery, had first pick ahead of Richmond who finished with 18 points. Fair?
And even just taking the bottom four it is conceivable that fourth bottom side could have a much better record than bottom side, but still get the top pick.
February 7th 2012 @ 11:02am
The Cattery said | February 7th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Tony
that’s true, but the best lottery system I have heard is where positions 9 to 18 take part, but you get a greater weighting for finishing bottom (10 balls), compared to 9th (1 ball) – and you draw lots to determine picks 1 to 10 (but as soon as one of your balls is drawn, you don’t get any further picks). So the bottom teams get the greater advantage of having a better chance of getting a high pick – but that on its own is not enough to bother tanking – you aren’t going to tank to finish last so that you earn 10 balls in the draw rather than 9 balls.
Also, you’d rather make finals than finish 9th to enter the lottery with one solitary ball (out of a total of 55 balls).
February 7th 2012 @ 11:07am
Greg Mac said | February 7th 2012 @ 11:07am | Report comment
I think the draft lottery for sides 9-18 is the solution, but as a couple of people have said, there is still potential for sides to either ‘tank’ to qualify for the lottery, or too much likelihood of a 9th place side still getting the number 1 pick.
doesn’t get a chance in the lottery, but those sides with a really poor season will still be more likely to be rewarded. This still removes any motivation for tanking as a side will hardly tank just to increase there draft lottery chances by such a small margin and similarly, a side on 9 wins is unlikely to tank just to stay in the lottery when they’re still in with a chance to make the finals…
I kind of like the idea of a teams chances in the lottery being directly linked to their number of wins rather than their ladder position. Each team starts with 10 “balls in the hat” as Cattery puts it… for every win, you lose a ball. This means a side finishing 9th with 10 wins( but still challenging for the
February 7th 2012 @ 11:40am
The Cattery said | February 7th 2012 @ 11:40am | Report comment
That’s not a bad approach either.
We should not lose sight of the reason why the draft exists, to give poor performing teams a chance to rebuild and remain competitive – so the teams down the bottom really do need to have access to good picks.
February 7th 2012 @ 12:26pm
Greg Mac said | February 7th 2012 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
I think that’s exactly it… I think by basing things on wins rather than ladder position you’re providing greater support for the sides that really need it. A side that doesn’t win a game for an entire season is in much more need of the 1st draft pick than a side finishing 2nd last with 6-7 wins…
February 7th 2012 @ 3:22pm
TomC said | February 7th 2012 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Personally I’d like to see all teams that miss the finals treated equally, but it sounds like I’m very much in the minority there.
I don’t see why teams should be rewarded for bottoming out and finishing last over teams that plug away finishing 9-12 each season. It doesn’t seem like teams that finish bottom four necessarily need a lot of help to get back in the finals in subsequent years: look at WCE and Essendon in 2010, the Bulldogs in 2007 , the Magpies in 2005 or the Lions in 98.
February 7th 2012 @ 4:59pm
langou said | February 7th 2012 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
The solution is so easy, just get rid of prioirity picks. The difference between getting the number one pick compared to the number two pick is minimal(you only have to look at previous drafts to see that), however the difference between getting picks one and two instead of one and nineteen is huge! Look at the teams that have been accused of tanking. None of them have done it to get one spot lower in the draft, it has always been about getting a priority pick, every single time.
In saying that, I think Melbourne have shown the danger in tanking. What if they had of spent two years being as competitive as possible, developing a winning mentality and developing players in their most suitable position, would they be better of worse off than now?
February 7th 2012 @ 5:48pm
Lachlan said | February 7th 2012 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
I’d like the AFL to seriously consider fixing the issue of tanking, i don’t believe it exists but, others do and the AFL need to remove the concept completely.