Would you delist Deledio + Cotchin in order to finish 9th in 2004 and 2007?

[Tiger Opinion]

There is no guarantee we will get another Deledio/Cotchin with the Butcher/Scully touted guns in 2009. So is the enhanced likelihood of Scully/Butcher being a better player than Pick 8 worth the tank?

The problem is that if there are only 2 guns in the draft and Melbourne finishes last with less than 4.5 wins, they'll get both of them and we'll end up with pick 3. If it's a shallow talent pool this year then what difference is there between getting pick 3 or pick 8?

On a related matter, can anyone tell me what the history is like with pick 7? Does that cover Lewis, Selwood and Rich? Not bad for picks out of the top three.

 

[Brodders17]

The latest wave of crisis and disappointment to sweep the club forces our hand. The most logical strategy for 2009 is to finish in the bottom two. Our situation means we must 'tank' (a fielding strategy, not a playing strategy), which you will see includes some senior players.

Consider this statement.

"I hate the concept of tanking, therefore, winning is better".

If I hate something, does that make it the wrong option? Because losing feels bad? Should I sacrifice my long-term health in fear of impending pain?

By now, most of you are aware that tanking does not involve voluntarily losing games. In order to lose most of our games this season we must viciously promote a competitive attitude among the players. Tanking is purely a strategic decision to field players with a long-term focus in mind.

By extension, this includes leadership.

Our youngsters' attitudes, development, and most of all - their habits - are what will define our future culture. It is vital that we surround these young men with leaders who inspire greatness. That means Ben Cousins. Yes, to "tank" and to "play the kids" means we must also play the likes of Ben Cousins for the next 2-3 years. If Kane Johnson is legitimately in our best 22 - he should also be retained. Be careful not to misinterpret that sentence. On that, I obviously have serious doubts and expect him to retire this year. Hopefully you understand my philosophy.

If we employ a ruthless youth policy, with no senior players whatsoever, then we run the risk of developing a losing culture among the kids and starting another 7-8 rebuild cycle. This is because losing games in an environment with poor leadership is most likely a death sentence. Carlton had Chris Judd to make their tank possible. St Kilda didn't have a Chris Judd and in turn have taken 9 years to become unstoppable. We have Trent Cotchin in the future, and Ben Cousins right now.

Contrary to popular belief, we have not "wasted" Terry's 5 years. It takes 7-8 years. We are probably 1-2 years behind in our goal due to lack of discipline in following the original plan (or there is a theory that we actually executed the original plan - which was not to win a premiership by 2009 but to revive our fortunes - quite well... but we'll save that for another thread).

Lastly, we simply can not afford to start an entire rebuild from scratch. If we do, at the end of the next 7-8 year cycle we will be left with another string of 30yo's on our list (the Deledio batch of players we have now). This will be in the year 2018 or so and will require another 5 years of rebuilding. It could be 2022+ before we get our list right! Our club's long-term success is dramatically depending on the next 4 years of decision making.


If you still believe we should field a team designed to win as many matches in 2009 as possible, then again I ask you:

Would you delist Deledio + Cotchin in order to finish 9th in 2004 and 2007?

that is one of the longest nothing posts i have ever read.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

I just saw your edit. "Disrespectful?" "Criticise?" I merely posted my opinion, and neither of those comments are appropriate to what I said. :

Who are you to know what I've read or not. I think my post shows above that I have read it, even if I didn't exactly understand it. Did you consider your point mightn't have been all that clear asa possibilty before you made personal judgements?

Let me just clear things up then.

"The more appropriate question is would they delist themselves if they played in a team that deliberately didn't do their best to win"

- This is the main reason I think you didn't read it. I was very careful not to advocate what you are claiming I am.

As requested, I will try and make it more clear by pointing out my stance:


1. "'tank (a fielding strategy, not a playing strategy)"

2. "By now, most of you are aware that tanking does not involve voluntarily losing games."

3. "In order to lose most of our games this season we must viciously promote a competitive attitude among the players."

4. "Tanking is purely a strategic decision to field players with a long-term focus in mind."

I would like to point out that my purpose was to generate debate and I have no problems with you, just the way your post assumed my stance to be what I conciously avoided.

It would be interesting to hear some more opinions that tackle the points I presented in the original post. Most have not be challenged yet.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Since you took the time to question a few lines Rosy, I'll try my best to argue the relevant points.

We've had a couple of wooden spoon in recent years and it doesn't appear to have helped us too much at this stage.

Ahh, but there lies the hot topic.

Wooden spoons = Brett Deledio and Trent Cotchin

And you say they haven't helped us?

If you remove the wooden spoons from our history, you are advocating we remove Brett Deledio and Trent Cotchin from our list.

They go hand in hand.

Is giving kids gametime, while being surrounded by more senior experience and leadership, tanking? I call it normal list development.

Yes, I call it tanking.

Normal list development involves a core group of 24-27 year olds and a small group of kids slowly being introduced after they've had time to develop at the lower levels first.

I also believe strong leadership can counteract the negative effects of a losing streak in the long run.

What is the "logical strategy" in finishing bottom 2? In a business that thrives on success I don't see any logic in continued crappiness. Strategy to me means planned or intentional, and I would hate to be a member of a club that planned to be anything but the best it can.

"Planning to be the best" can involve fielding a young team. As a result, you don't expect to win every games. Therefore, "planning to be the best" doesn't necessarily involve winning every game.

(Do you agree?)




I agree with your statement there is no logic in "continued crapness", but I disagree on how you define that term.

I would define "continued crapness" as finishing 9th every year (which leads to finishing 9th in the future).

We haven't had much "long-term health", in an on-field capacity for decades.

We haven't had success for decades, correct. But what method did we used? We've consistently finished 9th. Therefore, consistently finishing 9th leads to finishing 9th in the future, and does not lead to premierships. That is why I want to change the method. For 25 years we have been thinking short-term, we have been trying to win each week at the cost of development. This mentallity extends to trading and drafting habits.

If a senior player is legitimately in our best 22 they should be played for sure.

Yes, I share your opinion. However, my point was that I do not expect Kane Johnson to be in our best 22 on form again.

I think winning as many games as possible will do that better than wooden spoons would do.

In the year 2015, what will allow us to win more games: the belief we gained from a couple of wins in 2009, or another draft pick like Brett Deledio or Trent Cotchin?

I believe we should field a team designed to win every match every year.

You want a side fielded to win every game, every week, and I want to field a side aimed at winning a premiership in the future.

There is a big difference between the two!

Can you make the distinction?

 

[Rosy]

Since you took the time to question a few lines Rosy, I'll try my best to argue the relevant points.

Ahh, but there lies the hot topic.

Wooden spoons = Brett Deledio and Trent Cotchin

And you say they haven't helped us?

We're 1-7 for the season. No matter how good both players are it's hard to find an argument that the wooden spoons have brought us success. That takes more than a couple of early draft picks. You haven't mentioned our first rd picks that haven't exactly become stars. We could finish bottom every season and get early picks but there's no guarantee they will lead us to success any more than actually winning most of our games would do. There is no option to remove the wooden spoons so I am not advocating removing Lids and Cotch in any way. Silly comment.

I'm not interested in discussing the rest of your comments or answering your questions. I only went into detail because you made personal comment about me not having time and falsely accusing me of not reading your post just because I didn't get the point.

All I'll say in realtion to your comments is that it's hard to win a premiership if you don't win most of the games for the season. Wooden spoons are hardly the best blueprint for success. I wonder how many #1 draft picks play in premierships?

 

[hutstar]

My opinion (and i hope this answers the original question) is that you have to answer a basic question before trying to decipher this complex hypothetical.
What is the bigger issue for the club;
A) the quality of the list (or potential quality, if you want to try and remove list (mis)management from the equation)
or
B) Culture.

If the list is the problem then go and tank. The kids will come good, the club improves.
If the problem is the culture then tanking wont help. We will have better kids but they will end up jittery headcases like Tambling (who could have been awesome at a running club like geelong) or ho-hum worldbeaters like Lids - good, but only comparatively.
My point is, take this list and put them in Sydney or even North Melbourne jumpers and they would (after a time) be much better, regardless of who is on the list.

It is just a line of thinking, but it always strikes me that 3 of the best 5 or 6 players are on the same list. Surely statistically impossible, yet Geelong have 4 of the best 6 players in the comp, Sydney were more even but had forwards and running defenders coming out their ring, Brissy had EVERYBODY, Essendon likewise.

How can this be? Culture. Competition.

So, my answer is that we could have ablett, bartel, Johnston, Brown, Black, Voss, Hird and Lloyd - we would still struggle to make the 8.
Tank, don't tank. Just find someone to get in there and teach the players a lesson in respect and courage.