AFL club Melbourne FC is one of the oldest football clubs of any code in the world and was responsible for establishing the game’s first set of rules.
It hasn’t won a premiership for 48 years and tragically lost its popular President at the beginning of last season.
It’s tempting to say the AFL should just let its tanking investigation slide. But it can’t. Not now.
Tanking is a form of match fixing. It’s doesn’t seem as grubby as the type gamblers undertake but it is still match fixing.
Despite arguments that the system encourages it and that certain teams have no option but to pursue it (“You have to do these things if you are going to survive,” remarked former Demon Russell Robertson in 2009), deliberately losing or reducing the likelihood of winning is clearly against the nature and spirit of competition, not to mention a kick in the teeth to sponsors and genuine supporters.
The AFL has chosen to pursue the matter and must see it to the end, even if there is some valid cynicism over its decision to finally pursue the tanking phenomenon after years of AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou denying it ever existed.
Fox Footy’s On The Couch has gained a reputation for making players say things they wish they hadn’t. In August, Geelong coach Chris Scott, unaware he was still on air, aggressively demanded an apology from the provocative host Gerard Healy.
That semi-comical moment has most likely been forgotten by the relevant parties, but it was a guest’s comments a month earlier that are now haunting the Melbourne Football Club and its former coach Dean Bailey.
For Brock McLean, the programme’s comfy fireside set and Mike Sheahan’s homely demeanour – not to mention the green room drinks, the joy of rediscovering his form, and relief that his AIDS tweet saga had blown over – proved too much.
The former Demon blabbed that Melbourne “definitely” tanked during Bailey’s tenure.
Naturally, he thought nothing would be done because the competition’s CEO had been smugly declaring that tanking didn’t exist, despite strong hints by Bailey himself, former Carlton assistant coach Tony Liberatore, and McLean’s ex-teammate Robertson that it did.
For some reason it was McLean’s comments that changed Andrew Demetriou’s tune.
From being like former UCI president Hein Verbruggen (“Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never.”), the AFL boss morphed into Travis Tygart, producing an 800 page document alleging Bailey, chief executive Cameron Schwab, and former football manager Chris Connolly to be guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and tampering with the national draft.
I’m sure McLean is now regretting his comments and their implications for his former coach, who is facing an additional charge of “not coaching to his utmost”.
It wasn’t surprising to hear that during questioning by the AFL integrity officers, McLean “backtracked” on some of his statements.
As with the Kurt Tippett affair, the AFL has decided to target individuals, but the investigation may have graver implications for the club if, as has been suggested, Bailey, Schwab and Connolly implicate the board – and Jim Stynes.
The lawyers employed by Melbourne to represent Schwab and Connolly and the one acting on Bailey’s behalf have already stated they will challenge the interviewing methods of the investigators and the AFL’s definition of tanking.
No player has publicly claimed they were advised to throw games and the AFL appears to be relying on examples of overt “experimentation ” by Bailey to prove the existence of tanking, and an alleged meeting held by Connolly in which he advised football staff of the importance of losing games.
The AFL may find it extremely difficult to prove tanking took place and any decisions to lay charges seem destined to end up in the Supreme Court.
It’s likely to be a drawn out affair but the AFL, and its CEO in his new guise of avenger, have gone too far to pull out now, or to call an amnesty as suggested by Demetriou’s serial critic Grant Thomas.
It is right that the AFL follow through with the investigation but when this affair is over the AFL is obliged to follow-up on the other allegations and admissions of tanking by other teams in the past.
Ajax
Guest
Dude, go and check the facts, WCE had a number of premiership or senior players missing for between 11-16 weeks due to injury... fact. they lost a number of games by less than a goal.. if the bounce of the ball or umpires call had of been different they would have won another 3-4 games... Its not tanking if blokes are walking around on crutches. Jack Darling was taken at pick 26, some clubs overlooked him TWICE, Gold Coast had NINE chances to draft him.
Martyn50
Roar Rookie
Pity i can't put 5 stars against this comment
langou
Roar Guru
Freo have been tanking for 15 years
Oracle
Guest
Last time I looked, Melbourne were in front of Richmond in the "contentious match", when the siren went, then relied on Jordie McMahon kicking a 50m goal for the Tiges after the siren. Most red-hot match is Carlton in the Kreuzer Cup match. Ratten was described by President Kernahan as having done a good job and was then appointed coach, after losing nine out of nine. If the AFL are half serious, Carlton should be next, then down the track Collingwood, West Coast, St Kilda when Grant Thomas took over. Fremantle in the "Hasleby game" in 1999, and others.
peter
Guest
my mistake in 2004 missed it by less than 1% with 4 wins and took priority picks to help build a strong list which enabled to win the flag in 2008
peter care
Guest
Yes they beat Fremantle at the MCG by 10 Goals. That Fremantle team was always insipid at the MCG. Not even Melbourne could lose to that Fremantle team at the MCG.
db swannie
Guest
A a follower of another code the Tanking saga has really intrigued me. First of all the simple reality is if you get a reward for losing ,then of course teams will seek the "reward'. There should be no reward for last or near last. 2ndly amnesty would be a solution if & its a big IF AD's ego allowed him to admit that Tanking did occur,after denying continually that it didnt. He has painted himself into a corner. Plus he likes to protect "the Image' of the game . An admittance that Tanking occured would not look good. Posters like AL (below) are puzzling.How can you say a team has the right To tank.?. If i knew my club wasgoing out to play to try to lose ,i would never ever go to a game or watch them on TV again..I dont mind watching my club lose if they tried their hardest,but it is a kick in the teeth to a supporter to pay his hard earned & find out his team was not trying...
Brewski
Guest
Not at all suprised by Connolly being involved, i felt he was not a great coach whilst at the Dockers. I find it hard to believe that it can get to this ( tanking ) at coaches meetings, they owe it to their members to try as hard as possible to win every game, and then see where the cards lay at the end of the season, as to there draft picks. Take the priority pick away.
Brendan
Guest
Tanking is going to be hard too prove.Is allowing senior players with injuries they have carried throughout the season to prematurely end the year in rehab and the subsequent replacement with an inexperienced player a form of a club not playing up to its full potential.Obviously securing the priority pick lies at the heart of tanking allegations but proving that coaches and/or officials deliberately contrived to loose games is difficult.Surely the proof of the pointlessness of alleged tanking lies in the performance of the three most recent premiers - Swannies won a flag on recycled rejects and Geelong and Collingwood both can thank the rookie list and astute recruiting for there flags.If Melbourne tanked just as Carlton apparently did it didn't help them at all so where is the benefit from alledgedly throwing games.
tupiza
Guest
Melbourne beat Freo 2 weeks later to record their 4th win for the season and bring them to their limit of wins. If they had beaten the Tiges I am sure they would have found a way to throw the Freo game.
go the Pies
Guest
West Coast in 2010 should be investigated they tanked big style.
tupiza
Guest
Hawthorn haven't won a wooden spoon since 1965.
Cameron
Guest
fantastic and insightful post
langou
Roar Guru
Your right Storm Imagine if they had of given 100% that year, they could have finished with 7-8 wins and built a strong culture of winning. It wouldve given them a chance to see if the vets such as McDonald and Robertson were good enough to continue for a couple of years and wouldve produced tougher youngsters who wouldn't have been giifted cheap games or played out of position Gave it all up, for one draft pick. Geez
Peter Care
Guest
The funny thing is that match against Richmond they use as evidence, Jordan McMahon kicks the ball after the siren for Melbourne to lose the match and gain a priority pick. If McMahon misses, Melbourne win, win 5 games no priority draft pack and no tanking debate or investigation. Now here is the the stange thing about that game. The final siren starts blowing BEFORE Jordan McMahan takes the mark. The umpires did not here the siren until after McMahon takes the mark; he kicks the goal resulting in a Melbourne loss and access to an AFL instigated priority pick. Look and listen closely to the replay. Basically this investigation is occuring because the umpire did not hear the siren ring prior to Jordan McMahon mark. Umpire Incompetence or AFL incompetence ? Melbourne will be punished and it is 100% the fault of the AFL.
Andtew A
Guest
Terrific article. The AFL should investigate all clubs who benefitted from the priority pick system. Melbourne shouldn't be singled out for tanking as it appears likely that other clubs, e.g. Carlton, Hawthorn, Collingwood also tanked to get no. 1 and/or priority picks. The Bryce Gibbs Cup and Kruezer Cups were obvious examples of tanking. There was no way Carlton was going to win any of the final six games when Ratten was appointed and jeopardise securing Judd & Kruezer. Same with Collingwood getting Pendlebury and Thomas in 2005. Too great a reward to miss out on for winning meaningless matches that no-one cares about. Tanks very much AFL.
Stormtrooper4
Guest
I am a melbourne Supporter but hearing this breaks my heart, Melbourne is the best example of the fact that a winning culture is more important than draft picks, Melbourne has gotten some of the best draft picks in past 5-6 years and they have done nothing with it. TO be honest I feel sorry for the talented players who come to the Demons and then get their morale destroyed by it losing culture. I don't go to as many melbourne matches anymore because whats the point if your team seems to always losing and have no hope of any improvement in the near future. I thought Mark Neeld would be able to instill a better culture in melbourne but so far i am not hopeful.
Al
Guest
I think Melbourne had the right to tank in order to ensure a chance at building a successful future. Clubs like Melbourne can't afford to not take the moral high ground when their survival as a club is at stake.
JamesP
Guest
Correct on both counts. The priority pick was a disgrace - there are other ways the AFL can help perennially struggling clubs. Just look at the Swans - they never bottom out and consistently delivered. And Melbourne - they just should have booked players in for early surgery and blooded youngsters. That way - the young kids are trying their hearts out - still getting beaten - but getting invaluable experience.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Totally agree - and the "tanking" issue is not he only way the draft has been tampered with in recent years. Andrew should drag out the files on a lot of clubs and take them all too task over several incidents that I can recall in the last 5 or 6 years. Ultimately, this will be a storm in a tea cup and nothing will be proven.