TalkingCarlton
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Clarification on Tanking
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2229		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Jarusa [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Clarification on Tanking
I think that we have two sides debating one topic where there are several points of view which are muddying the waters of the debate. One person's tanking is another person's developing the team, which is which or are they the same.

The idea of 'tanking' seems to be much like a snowflake each idea is different. What is your idea of tanking?

Is it?

1) Playing as many kids as possible with deliberate match day coaching tactics designed to sabotage games.
2) Playing as many kids as possible but 100% effort from coaching staff and see what happens.
3) Playing a couple of kids at a time, with deliberate match day coaching tactics designed to sabotage games.
4) Playing a couple of kids at a time but 100% effort from coaching staff and see what happens.
5) Playing the kids as a group in the 2's and rotating the more senior players through the senior games to assess who is staying with deliberate match day coaching tactics designed to sabotage games.

Which one are you? Or is there something else you have in mind?




Author:  camel [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
6) Deliberately not preparing a team with a desire to win it.

If that means 2) in your list above Jarusa, which I expect to be a popular selection, I'd suggest that would be pretty close to tanking.

I know you've got to select the kids so they can gain experience, and I'm an advocate of it, but the mindset of the 22 taking the field and theire preparation should be to WIN THE GAME, regardless of their age or experience. Now if the youngest 22 players on our list go out there with a game plan designed to win the game, that's fine, but if they are coached to "not win" never mind to "deliberately lose" then I'd find that pretty distasteful.
Author:  dannyboy [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
anytime you do not pick your best team available, give it your utmost effort to win you are tanking....Unless you are not. Does that help 8)
Author:  BlueMark [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
2 and 4 are not tanking, you are developing youth but still trying to get the best from your team, an acceptable practice once your season is shot, so long as it is stated policy. The rest is tanking.
Author:  Elwood Blues1 [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Playing kids with major effort to win from coaching staff but with draft picks in mind and the idea that a flogging isnt all bad becuase kids get experience...

ie Barry Hall has kicked five on Livo and will probably kick five more...do you move him and put Thornton on him or leave Livo to get the experience..Kouta is now dominating and Fev is kicking goals as well..could be a tight game if we close Hall down....what do we do, we cant make the eight, we have happy sponsors and a good memebrship figures..

I would leave Livo on him for the experience and forget about the result....Livo is better for it ...the draft picks are a secondary prize...


2 and 4 would be my options....
Author:  billc3 [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Pagan is already specifying the tactics and then seeing who can deliver. He will:
1) make his mind up about which kids can do what and so will rotate a few at a time.
2) make his mind up aboput which senior players can do what and wil NOT rotate them until the end of the year.....not the kind of rotation that some may have in mind!

Two 'themes' that keep coming up:

we know where we are at
we won't be hiding 'senior' players in the reserves

If you define that as tanking...then so be it. Don't think anyone at the club will deliberately want to lose....IN FACT I think Pagan is setting the tone about what he expects and will not change from it so that players "get the message" that it's his way or the highway and others will be brought in.
It's a good strategy...he knows he'll be there for the next 4 years and he knows that a few of these young guys will be there too...so hios saying "this is what I want...now and forever".
If he starts saying we'll do this as we don't have the talent...and we'll do that next week etc it will only serve to confuse the youngsters that will still be there in 3 years time.

so JArusa.. I think that's your 4
Author:  ScottSaunders [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quite Simple for me.

I want the best team we can field on the paddock, anything else is playing to lose.

If the kids arent up to it yet, they dont deserve to be in the team and most would get more out of a full game in the Bullants than they would playing in patches for the seniors.

Giving the kids a game - becuase we want to lose is sending out the wrong attitude entirely, and is partly the reason why i cant understand alot of peoples attitudes to wanting to tank games.

The kids and anyone for that matter must be fighting for their spot, to give it to them purely becuase they are kids is crap, same goes for anyone in the seniors that isnt playing well. If someone is in the bullants and playing well then they deserve the spot regardless.
Author:  jbee [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Option 7 - Grant Thomas
Author:  Blues2005 [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
You play your best side every week no matter what the situation is...

However, one qualification to that is that if it's a lineball decision between two players who basically play the same position and do the same role for the side, you pick the younger player. For example say Bentick gets the nod ahead of Johnson if it's a 50/50 situation..
Author:  Bluebernz [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good stuff Jarusa. :D

And the clarification is starting to work already... for example, I would have thought that my views on tanking were different to those of BM's. But going by those defintions our views are exactly the same:

Option 2 and 4are not tanking. THe rest are.
Author:  AGRO [ Mon May 16, 2005 4:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
ThePrez wrote:
Quite Simple for me.

I want the best team we can field on the paddock, anything else is playing to lose.

If the kids arent up to it yet, they dont deserve to be in the team and most would get more out of a full game in the Bullants than they would playing in patches for the seniors.



So when do you play the kids Prez??? :?

Not all the kids you have are "Chris Judds" able to play from Round 1 and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Using your logic you would have played Luke Hodge in his 3rd year in the system.
Author:  mjonc [ Mon May 16, 2005 5:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
So from the list 1 is what i believe tanking to be. Number 2 is what i want to see happen. It is quite obvious already who will be at the club next season, so why play them?
Author:  verbs [ Mon May 16, 2005 5:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
AGRO wrote:
ThePrez wrote:
Quite Simple for me.

I want the best team we can field on the paddock, anything else is playing to lose.

If the kids arent up to it yet, they dont deserve to be in the team and most would get more out of a full game in the Bullants than they would playing in patches for the seniors.



So when do you play the kids Prez??? :?

Not all the kids you have are "Chris Judds" able to play from Round 1 and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Using your logic you would have played Luke Hodge in his 3rd year in the system.


By the same token, I think everyone agrees it was wise not to play Waite at all in our wooden spoon year of 2002.
Author:  ScottSaunders [ Mon May 16, 2005 5:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
AGRO wrote:
ThePrez wrote:
Quite Simple for me.

I want the best team we can field on the paddock, anything else is playing to lose.

If the kids arent up to it yet, they dont deserve to be in the team and most would get more out of a full game in the Bullants than they would playing in patches for the seniors.



So when do you play the kids Prez??? :?

Not all the kids you have are "Chris Judds" able to play from Round 1 and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Using your logic you would have played Luke Hodge in his 3rd year in the system.


when they deserve to play.

im not saying dont play the kids- but only play them when

1. they are ready for it
2. when they deserve it

its serves no one any purpose by playing Russel or Blackwell or anyone else for that matter if they arent ready for it.

Talk up Hawthorn playing their kids, they are playing their kids becuase they have nothing else.
Author:  Deano Supremo [ Mon May 16, 2005 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tanking for mine is a culture thing - every week, no matter what the odds, no matter what stage of the season, no matter where the game is being played, I want all concerned to strive for Carlton victory. If that culture is deliberately not there, then I'd consider that tanking.

It rips me apart to think that a match committee would pick kids over senior players as a ploy to garner high draft picks. I hope I never see it.
Author:  The Vet [ Mon May 16, 2005 6:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
cannot and will not condone playing to lose.

Simply unacceptible.

However, choosing to play the kids to see who is worth it when we have NO chance of making the eight (and I don't think we are there yet) is Ok.

Every carlton team taking the to the Park MUST play to win.
Author:  Blue 2 the BONE [ Mon May 16, 2005 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
ThePrez wrote:
Quite Simple for me.

I want the best team we can field on the paddock, anything else is playing to lose.

If the kids arent up to it yet, they dont deserve to be in the team and most would get more out of a full game in the Bullants than they would playing in patches for the seniors.


Prez - do u really think our all our senior players deserve to be in the team? Really? I´d rather see a young kid have a red hot go than a senior player stand there with his hands on his hips. They´re a precious,protected species that need a kick in the arse.
Author:  sandramd [ Mon May 16, 2005 9:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think we get youth policy play the young bloods and see what happens if they are physically capable and in form. No point in putting young Blackwell in to get his body pounded.

We all know who the senior players are that have a question mark over their head so no need to mention Campo, Whitnall etc :roll:

I want to see the Benticks and O'Hailpins have a real crack at a game rather than the 10 minutes that they have been getting.
Author:  camel [ Mon May 16, 2005 9:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Like Deano said, we should be preparing our team to try and win every week, no matter the odds. If that means a few kids are playing, or a few senior blokes are on the pine I can live with that. So long as the goal and the preparation is always to make a bona fide attempt at winning the game.
Author:  TruBlueBrad [ Mon May 16, 2005 10:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't mind having an eye to the future if it means playing a couple of the youngsters each week, but not when you're doing it to lose. They still have to be showing enough in the 2's to warrant selection.

The MC would have some idea who's not going to be here next year, no point picking them unless you're showcasing them for trade.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/