What else can be made of the AFL’s refusal to concede that its competition has been compromised in the past by clubs not making genuine efforts to secure wins when faced with growing evidence of this rorting of the system?
As the murmur of tanking has grown to a din and then to a roar, the AFL hierarchy has simply jammed its fingers deeper within its ears, unwilling to (publicly) make even the smallest concession when it comes to the T-word.
The AFL’s unwillingness to investigate the issue of tanking is made to look all the more silly when compared to the events of recent weeks.
Three weeks ago, the AFL suspended Collingwood’s Heath Shaw for eight matches after it was found that he had placed a ten-dollar bet on his captain to be the first goalkicker in the Magpies’ round nine match against Adelaide.
At the time the AFL would tell anyone who would listen that it would not allow the integrity of its competition to be compromised, and took a hardline approach to Shaw’s bet, despite the fact that it did not in any way diminish the chance of his side winning, nor did it have any potential to affect the outcome of the match.
One week ago Melbourne’s Dean Bailey was sacked as head coach following a heavy loss to Geelong. At his press conference during the week, Bailey all but acknowledged that in the first two seasons as head coach of the Demons his main aim was to secure high draft picks to rebuild the Demons list, and not to win matches.
If the AFL is serious about ensuring that the integrity of its competition is preserved, then this admission is far more serious than anything Shaw did.
Disappointingly, the extent of the AFL’s investigation into Bailey’s comments was laughingly small.
A phone call through to Bailey was sufficient to reassure the league that he had never coached to lose matches, but this should come as little surprise.
Ask a murderer if he killed a man, and you’ll be sure to hear a denial. Was the AFL truly surprised when Bailey backed away from his comments earlier in the week?
The AFL’s great hypocrisy has been exposed for all to see. It took the hardline approach to Shaw’s indiscretion, but will not pursue the bigger and more damaging issue of tanking.
Maybe AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou can defend the AFL’s inaction on the grounds of semantics. It is correct to say that no AFL team in the past decade has taken to the field with the clear intention of losing a match.
In the strictest sense of the word, no team has ever “tanked” a match in recent memory. But that is not to say that results have not been manipulated in a manner which has undermined the integrity of the competition.
Demetriou is on the record as saying, “We don’t subscribe to the theory that teams deliberately go out to lose or manipulate results.”
However, Bailey has conceded that his efforts were not focused on winning matches, and former Richmond coach Terry Wallace described feeling “compromised” in the coaches box during a match which snared pick two in the 2007 AFL draft.
Wallace commented “I just coached and let [the players] play in exactly the same positions they played in all day.”
Surely these comments amount to manipulation of a result? Is not making every effort to win a match any less of an indictment on the integrity of the competition than intentionally losing?
If the AFL is serious about maintaining the integrity of its competition, it must withdraw its fingers from deep within its ears, and seriously address the dreaded T-word once and for all.
Follow Michael on Twitter @michaelfilosi
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Cattery, I agree that no team wins the premiership because they have had an easy draw (since 2000, no premier has come out of the top 4), but we can still improve the draw. If only because while the top 4 teams get in purely due to their skill, it's not always the case with the bottom 4 'top 8' teams, and the teams that just miss out on the finals. Additionally the draw is just plain ugly (22 games between 17/18 teams), so if only for aesthetic reasons, I think we should improve it.
brendan
Guest
Start up a new team in the Northern states rename yourself Billy Slater pay yourself two mill a year under the promotional allowance and watch the AFL come a knocking.
Swampy
Guest
IKarlos, if the NRL can extract News from their arse all the best to them.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
The Cattery wrote "3. in the NFL, I think they play each other once per season – maybe that’s the best model for all sports?" The NFL doesnt work anything like that. Its complicated, but "easy scheduling" is an issue, and can easily make the difference between a 10-6 that makes the finals and a 9-7 that doesnt (let alone Seattle qualifying for the finals with a losing record last year).
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Plenty of non-AFL fans on the Roar, i.e. 99% of the Roar, think the AFL goes to Government cap in hand to get it to build them stadiums. I'm not aware of that happening anywhere. What's more likely, is that Government wants AFL games played at stadiums it wants to upgrade, because AFL games produce the throughput that can help pay for stadiums, i.e. it's invariably a partnership between government and the AFL, and on top of that, in all cases, other sports benefit., e.g. usually cricket, but also Carrara will be used to host the Commonwealth Games, and the Showgrounds in Sydney are used for, well, the Show. The main conundrum for the perception of tanking in the AFL is that with the gap between top and bottom bigger than ever, bottom teams need priority picks more than ever - how is that reconciled with the supposed need to get rid of tanking? Very difficult to reconcile, and given Melbourne's recent experience (where two years of priority picks are yet to count for a lot), it could well be that weak team lose lots of games - that's why they need the priority picks.
Midfielder
Guest
As a non AFL fan .... a person who's only AFL experience is via media like the Roar .... Meaning I am not great loss because I was never a watcher ... however I am well versed in business and am very aware of the need for certain industries to have a ethical acceptance ... Many art departments or what could be generally termed artie type actives rely on government and big business to keep doing what they do... Like could the Sydney Opera House and all its off shots survive in their current form without government and business help.... could our TAFE & University sector enjoy both government funding and community acceptance without having a high ethical standing and while issues often arise ... i.e.. teacher taking a bribe or teacher seeking sexual favours etc ... how institutions react to those who put their standing at risk is important... Sport is no different to art, and maybe to education ... stadiums need to be built ... fees paid for key matches ... I read somewhere so am unaware of how true this is but I read where the NSW government is paying the NRL a huge fee to play the grand final in Sydney... I see traditional matches payments as a way were the government can support a sport without saying its a grant and get the hockey and running team upset... For sports to get the standing, where governments will support the building and or upgrade of stadiums, pay for matches that have been played for a venue for as long as anyone can remember ... needs over time just like the education sector above to be seen to coming down hard on those who put the ethical standing at risk... otherwise they put at risk and have questions asked about claims that on face value appear overstated... In the circles I move in and some are from Melbourne and carry their AFL team flag when away from home ... there seems to be an increasing belief that the AFL will say anything to push its case .... I think long term this could be a dangerous move by the AFL management as no action or denial of the bleeding obvious has the very real potential to call into question everything the AFL says by the non rusted on hard core...
The Cattery
Roar Guru
We're feeling pain now going to 18 teams, which might last a couple of more years - I think 24 teams is an impossibility.
karlos
Guest
Go for it. Lol
karlos
Guest
Swampy, I think the fact that the NRL investigates things and sorts them out rather than hide them shows far more integrity. NEWS has little integrity and that is one reason why rugby league wants thenm out of our game. They were probably well aware and supportive that Waldron was just continuing his cheating from his days in St Kilda.
Lachlan
Roar Guru
The only way to have a completely even competition is to play each other twice, onne at home and one away. i say keep expanding to 24-odd teams and play each other once. additional teams could be:- 3rd WA Canberra Tasmania Northern Territory North Queensland Newcastle/Central Coast Have a reserve competition, filled with each teams rookies/young players. demand the SANFL, WAFL, VFL, TSL and NEAFL, to be complete state leagues and play games throughout the state. that way everything is evened out.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
I should also add that I'm quite comfortable with the Super rugby format - they have complications to contend with, teams coming from three nations, so first and foremost, you want the teams in that nation playing each other twice for a number of very good reasons - once again, come finals time, you will be sorted out quick smart if you have made it there on false pretences, and I'm ok with that. It's horses for courses, and one shouldn't assume that there is one perfect system.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Ben part of my comparison was to show that a range of top level sports do different things. Also, in the case of the Premier League, when we talk about the equity of the draw, we are talking about one element of equity. The other side of the equity question is that the top 3 or 4 teams have 5 or 6 times the salaries budget of the bottom 3 or 4 teams. Lastly, the AFL has a finals system overlayed on top of the regular season, and the premier is decided after the finals - the very worst thing that can happen with our uneven draw is that someone sneaks into the 8 who doesn't belong there (where they'll get eliminated first match), or someone ends up earning a second chance over and above another team, but once again, if a top team has snuck into the top 4, they are extremely unlikely to go all the way. The premier will NOT be decided on the basis of an uneven draw. On no occasion can I recall anyone at any time every intimating that the premier got there because of the uneven draw. The reality is that the AFL cannot play more than 22 rounds - it's an impossibility for a number of reasons. You then have the option of creating a three conference system, where some evenness can be obtained over a three year period, but in all honesty, that's only giving a perception of evenness, over a three year period, teams can end up up, down and in between, such that it's hardly worth the effort. For mine, the most important principle is that the two teams in each of the non-Vic states play each other twice each season, after that, I really don't care who plays who (or when for that matter).
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Cattery - I understand that some people never even give the uneven draw a second thought, and I'm not saying that the AFL "must" turn footy (as in, the game itself played out on the field) into any other sport. All I am asking is why is it seen as strangely perfectly acceptable every single year when it is known to be, er, somewhat pick-and-mix? Again, as you point out with the EPL - is the fact that there are only a few teams capable of winning the title a reason to avoid an even fixture list? What is more important - fixture integrity or helping every single team to win? To me, it's a competition - hence, to be the best you must beat the best. Assemble a better roster of players. True, the EPL has promotion/relegation, which allows for late-table interest as well. Perhaps that adds weight to the full home-and-away draw...Whereas the AFL is the be-all and end-all and hence it doesn't matter how you string out the matches. But something still tells me it SHOULD matter (at least more than it seems to do at times). The A-League's current three-time system is a bit mystifying (and I'm a big admirer of the world game). I'd rather play twice or four times. The Super Rugby is, er, a bit weird I'll admit. I don't think of the draws as easy" or not as you describe in the AFL - there shouldn't be such a thing as getting an "easy draw". Either it is fair (everyone plays everyone twice, or once, if time doesn't permit) or it is not.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Interestingly, bulldogs, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane all got to play the Suns twice this year, and all won't get within coo-ee of the top 8.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Plenty to compare to: 1. in the MLB, they play a 162 games per annum during the regular season (perhaps all team sports should follow that model? why stick with 22 or 38 rounds, when you can have a 162?) 2. in the Premier League, they play each other twice home and away, but so what? we know only 2 or 3 teams are going to get close to winning the championship 3. in the NFL, I think they play each other once per season - maybe that's the best model for all sports? 4. in the A-League, they play each other 3 times per annum - maybe that's the best model for all sports? 5. in Super rugby, the five teams of each country play each other twice, and then they play 8 of the other 10 teams once, i.e. some teams never get to play each other during the season 6. in the AFL, there are 22 rounds, everyone plays each other at least once, 7 teams will play each other twice, any advantage anyone gets out of that will be tested in a finals format, if you've made the final 8 on an easy draw, you will be soon found out - I can't think of a single team that has won the premiership because they had an easy draw, that being the case - why is the uneven draw an issue? Australian Football has always been about wiinning sufficient games to make the finals - and then competition really starts.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
If dealing in integrity of the competition, Michael, there are a fair few holes really - most of which don't tend to relate directly to the players and their ability to ping the pill between the big sticks... Number one sticking point for me remains the "fix"ture (as Tony put it above). For all the supposed fairness and even-close competition its designed to inspire via drafts, priority picks for lower teams, etc, it's kinda rendered meaningless if Collingwood barely has to play outside Melbourne (especially the MCG) all year (for starters), followed by the the fact that some teams meet twice within the space of two months while others don't meet up again in the regular season until the following year. Seriously, how can a national domestic sporting championship that likes to claim it's the greatest thing in the entire galaxy call that fair? Or does that sort of thing not really matter because there's no other sport to compare it to?
Swampy
Guest
Who's got the least integrity. The AFL or the NRL. Hard to go past the NRL because of NEWS owning NRL and Storm and the inhouse investigation of the player payments. The last time NEWS investigated themselves we ended up with the phone hacking disgrace in UK.
Swampy
Guest
I certainly wouldn't recommend you for a position as head of the AFL because it seems you have integrity.
Jaceman
Guest
Remember 2-3 yeears ago when Roosters vrs Cowboys in last round nothing game (except Kangaroo Fitzgibbon was retiring)when the Rooster led by plenty for a half-time betting plunge for the Cowboys to come back and win handsomely...Same EOY problem in a sense...
Swampy
Guest
Tanking, injury management or player development whatever you want to call it, can't be managed or stopped under the current system. The AFL won't accept that it happens because they know they can't controll it. If they did accept the term tanking, or any practice where the out come leads to a loss, then a whole can of worms is opened up with betting. And woe betide anything that comes between the AFL and their cosy relationship with gambling. Compare their pathetic fuss and over reaction to the Shaw- Maxwell minor rules infringment of the Gambling - AFL interconnect, to the squibbing of match throwing. You can't get around it, the inconsistancies are so obvious they are laughable. If they were to adobt the same aproach to match fixing as Mum's $10 bet then Melbourne, West Coast and any other team that coaches for a loss or even a sub par performance should have their brand name displayed on the front pages of the little paper alongside the word SCANDAL. The AFL needs to get serious with full time umpires, reliant on their income from umpiring as their job of choice. Break their embrace with BetFarce. Pay players an indexed percentage of income. Increase grants to struggling clubs and give them a frairer deal with draft picks untill GCS and GWS are established. Put Andrew out to pasture and repay all bets from the Richmond Melbourne match two years, ago because the knew the match was fixed, and ban them selves for 14 weeks and fine Andrew 2k for being a tool.