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.
Andrew Pridham with the drive-by!
How could you, Hughesy!
A few weeks ago, I dubbed Carlton and Geelong as the premiership frontrunners - at a time when they sat, respectively, fourth and first…
An innocuous incident - but any trouble for the Chad?
Safe to say Hodgey was fighting a lone battle with this take!
