Tanking, is it real or not?
Roar Rookie 
Demons players leave the field dejected after the round one loss to the Brisbane Lions in 2012 (Photo: Michael Willson/AFL Media)
Related coverage
Come on, does tanking exist? If you asked AFL fans, coaches and the media, the consensus would be yes, most certainly.
But if you choose to hear the garbage out of Andrew Demetriou’s mouth you might get a little bit confused.
Because the head of the AFL believes that it doesn’t exist. He even said so in an article in the Herald Sun just yesterday, “We don’t go by that sort of story. We go by evidence.”
Demetriou also went on to say they already have someone to deal in these matters, Brett Clothier, who is an AFL ‘investigator’. Well if he has done any proper investigating, like a friend of mine who just helped out a high court case has, then he would’ve found Melbourne AND Carlton in breach of anti-competitive practises; Tanking.
Tanking reared its ugly head again a few weeks ago when Brock Mclean, a former player for Melbourne for a number of years, came out and publicly suggested that his former club’s priorities during 2009 was to not win games of football.
Many people in footy circles weren’t too surprised really. Tanking has been going on in the game for a while now. Ever since priority picks were given to poor teams in 1993, clubs have tried to exploit it by having one off ‘poor’ years.
The AFL caught onto this, seeing other clubs get high draft picks when the rule was designed for consistently poor clubs a chance to rebuild. So in 2006 they changed it, making the cut off point for wins 4 and a half, compared to 5 and a half before. So if the AFL had to change this rule, why can’t they just admit that tanking has occurred in the past?
Why can’t Demetriou actually say it has occurred, yet now the practises they have put into place help track clubs better? If he did, the public might suddenly take him seriously for once. He has a remarkable track record for presenting a rosy picture of our game, and that’s fine, but it also shows the other side of what the AFL used to be and sometimes still is like.
Betting is another issue the AFL has swept under the carpet. Respect for women has been toyed with, recently with the ‘St Kilda Schoolgirl’. A
ndrew needs to realize that companies make mistakes, and if he admits some of them, we might think better of him, and not as a dictator.
The AFL needs transparency. Right now it’s just showing us one side of the picture. And it’s a shame.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
The Crowd Says (5) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, tanking
August 19th 2012 @ 8:55am
db swannie said | August 19th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
As long as there is a reward for losing ,hen someone will take advantage of it.
Remove the incentve to lose & problem solved.
The only reward for finishing last should be the shame of the wooden spoon .
August 21st 2012 @ 12:16pm
JD said | August 21st 2012 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Demetriou cant admit there is tanking unless specific evidence comes to hand as then he opens up the AFL to legal action from bookies.
It also depends on what is meant by tanking
1. Cant make finals, so a team sends players for operations early so they are ready for start of preseason – this is more prudent list management than tanking.
2. Playing inexperienced players late in season – argument here is that they are getting experience into these players for coming years thus fast tracking development or its trialing them to see if they have what it takes to retain on the list. Again in isolation you can argue this isnt tanking.
3. Playing people in new positions – argument is that this exposes players to different areas thus it could show that they can be more flexible as a player or even argue that it broadens there on field knowledge.
4. Not tagging a player on the opposition side – want players to learn not to be 100% negative, and see how they react in a free flowing game.
5. Lower rotations than normal (by a number) – to me this is the only clear cut evidence without a person in the coaching staff coming out and stating that we were tanking. There should be no legimate defense except if injuries restrict the rotations.
August 21st 2012 @ 6:19pm
nsfwafl18531 said | August 21st 2012 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
@ JD, Tanking in my opinion is not having your best possible team out there at the time, and also ‘trying’ players in different positions. What I especially detest is the way clubs who battle early in the year fall away badly around round 11-12. They lose a few, then drop players injuries occur, and they become non-competitive. That’s why I really like teams like Geelong, Sydney and Collingwood. They are just competitive clubs, need more of them in the AFL
August 22nd 2012 @ 10:43am
JD said | August 22nd 2012 @ 10:43am | Report comment
I understand that is your thoughts, but sometimes a coaching panel is looking at the bigger picture. I dont think it is nessarily tanking, but if it can get you a head start on the following season, help establish who should and should not be on your list, once a club cant make it to the finals, I dont have a problem with that. It also I think helps supporters seeing kids getting a go, have hope for the future.
You mentioned Collingwood – collingwood did in the last decade, put players early for surgery, played a whole lot of young players, in the year they got a priority pick (Dale thomas), so yes, they have done so.
To solve the issue, you have the bottom 4 teams play off for the right to draft picks. The winner getting pick 1, runner up pick 2. This would sytop the bottom 4 from putting players into surgery early and playing kids out of position. This would also advantage teams 9 through to 14 in that they would get a head start on team 15-18 on commencing training.
So in this scenario – you would have 18th vs 17th, with the winner going through to the final, loser plays the winner of 16th v 15th. The winner of that game would then play off in the final. That means, the worst place 18th or 17th would get would be 3rd draft pick, with a guarantee of at least 1st/2nd for one of 17th or 18th placed team.
August 23rd 2012 @ 10:59am
langou said | August 23rd 2012 @ 10:59am | Report comment
“Why can’t Demetriou actually say it has occurred”
There are good reasons why he can’t. Firstly “tanking” is another name for match fixing and the whole integrity of the competition is at stake. The AFL needs to be 100% sure that this has happened before making accusations. If someone is found to have “tanked” there could be serious consequences including jail for those involved. This may seem far fetched but you will find crickets and jockeys in jail for manufacturing results