From an on field perspective, the 2013 AFL season was one of the most boring on record.
From rounds 13-23 not a single team that made up the final top eight actually fell outside the eight except for Essendon, who would have been there but for some fishy supplements and a whole lot of finger-pointing.
Theoretically the final stages of the regular season should be the most exciting part of the season as teams fight desperately for a playoff berth.
However the last month of footy has too often become a stagnant bore as the top teams rest their marquee talent and the bottom teams lose interest or worse, ‘tank’.
It’s very hard to categorically prove that tanking exists. In essence, to accuse a club of tanking means you are questioning the very will and integrity of that club.
But is this fact, and not a coincidence?
From 1971 to 1980, years before the national draft, 300 matches were played in the last five rounds of the VFL and 59 were decided by 50 points or more.
From 2004-2013, 410 matches have been played in the last five rounds of the AFL and 118 have been decided by 50 points or more.
Teams appear to be waving the white flag before the finish line.
One excellent solution to terminate tanking has been to alter the order of the draft.
Instead of the worst team getting the best picks, the best of the worst teams gets first priority. In other words, the ninth-placed team goes first.
How about something more radical? What about a bonus point system similar to Super Rugby?
Currently in Super Rugby you earn a bonus point for scoring four tries in a game and if you lose finishing inside seven points.
In the 2013 Super 15, six teams changed position in the final round of the competition. This helped sustain interest in the competition and no doubt each team’s bonus points became a crucial factor.
How could an AFL bonus point system work? Here are some ideas.
At this stage a team could score six points from a game, four for the win, one for kicking 100 points and one for winning away.
What about something more drastic?
What if you doubled your points for beating a top eight team?
Teams would be seeded according to their finishing order in the previous season in the first round and then beating teams in the eight from rounds 2-22 affords you the chance to profit big time for wins against stronger teams.
What about an ever bigger bombshell?
Teams that are outside the eight at the start of a round are the only ones that can double their points for a win against a top eight side.
In other words if the ninth-placed team beat the eighth-placed team, the ninth-placed team could score up to ten points on the championship table.
But if the fifth-placed team beats the fourth-placed team, the fifth-placed team can only score a maximum of six points.
This system would give hope to even the very worst teams much longer into the season.
Ultimately teams that win all the time, like Hawthorn in 2013, would not suffer either.
Maybe I have been drinking too much over the summer, but tanking is the biggest disease in the game and any ideas to stop it should be explored.
IanW
Guest
Could it happen ? Yep. Will it happen ? Nope, the AFL isnt stupid. It recognises that having long-term uncompetitive teams is a bad idea - and shitty, small-market clubs (hello Canberra !) tend to get worse as players chase success elsewhere. By the way, regarding association football, have a look at this. http://www.mlssoccer.com/superdraft/2014
Michel
Guest
One great way to get rid of tanking would be to get rid of the draft. Now, I am more of a NRL/soccer fan, so could this happen? The NRL is quite even without one.
Kev
Guest
This whole anti-tanking stance is a strange contradiction when you consider that the AFL have given teams an incentive for finishing lower on the ladder by way of a higher draft pick and yet they don't want teams to play to lose especially when their finals hopes are out of the question. I don't like the idea of changing the number of points that are awarded to sides based on how many points they score or their respective ladder positions as it can have too great an impact on the finishing position of side especially when we are talking about teams who are fighting for a spot in the 8. If you want to get rid of tanking, randomize the entire draft. Ladder position doesn't guarantee you a top draft pick. Perhaps you could have a weighted system like that in the NBA where finishing last ensures your team's name goes into the barrel more times than other teams and so on but even then, it shouldn't be to the point where it gives your side an incentive to finish last.
IanW
Guest
The big thing that stops tanking is what it did to the Melbourne Demons - it stuffed their club culture, caused the exit of many of their better players and destroyed the development of the young players at the club. Note tanking - deliberately selecting a team and running a gameplan designed to lose - is different to playing kids to fast forward their development.
fadida
Guest
Or change the draft rules.....
Pot Stirrer
Guest
Why is called Tanking when the correct term is Match Fixing ? there would be quite a few insiders whove made a nice profit along the line
PaulD
Guest
Tanking is an eyesore on the game, but any solution that involves some wins being worth than others is inherently unfair, and will create more problems than it solves. I think any fix needs to occur in the Draft, rather than in the points table - one of the American codes, can't remember which one, runs a draft lottery, where teams who finish lower get more chances at drawing the high end picks, but it doesn't guarantee it. If they took away the certainty of the picks, that would probably go some way to ensuring tanking was minimised as much as possible. On the flip side, I've got no problem with high placed teams resting players - Fremantle last year is an extreme example, but they were up front about it, announced it well before game day, and they had achieved so well over the previous 20 odd weeks that they got themselves in a position where they could give everyone a break against St Kilda. More power to them.