The fate of those who tank.

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So, just to be clear:

Old Dark Navy's: Are you explicitly denying Carlton ever tanked?

Would you actually take on board the answer anyway? Here is what I posted just a page ago.

It's not that I am saying that we didn't tank, that we couldn't have tanked, that we would have won if we could have. I merely saying that the things people point to as categorical proof of tanking are not as clear cut as they think. People get frustrated if we don't embrace their 'evidence' and think we are in denial I get equally frustrated at the lack of objectivity and weighing up of evidence from their side.

I'm happy to put the whole tanking argument into the 'who knows' basket, but it's the other side of the argument who raise things like they are in the know that cause me to come out and add balance to the argument, like I am firmly in the 'did not tank' camp.

Short and sweet version .... I do not know, and I could not possibly know ... and not one poster who argues we did could know.

All I can do is look at what is put forward as proof, in an effort to denigrate us, and put it into some perspective. Perspective is pretty light on the other way. People want things to just be accepted as fact, so they can use it in a negative way. That's just bullshit. Nobody is rolling over for haters.

 

[Monkey King]

Well don't ask me, ask your own respected posters!

ODN has already dealt with Thrawn's post, but I'd just like to say that you haven't done anything to discredit the posts against you or support your claims, which is what the other poster was pointing out to you. You're normally one of the better contributors in the threads I read, but you're barely even making an effort here; with this post a shining example.

 

[Monkey King]

Say what you will. Your own assistant coach came out.

Libba said this ...

"If they say to me, 'Do you think Carlton tanked?', I would say, 'I don't think they did'." Liberatore told SEN ... "If there's anything suspicious or sinister it's certainly not from my behalf." - Link


So yeah ... say what you will

 

[CyberKev]

Some marvelous historical revisionism on offer here...

How odd that my memory of 2004 vividly recalls opposition fan and media pundit alike banging-on from week-to-week about how thoroughly shite the Hawthorn list was, but now - 8 years on - it turns out that I'm retrospectively mistaken, as the list was chokkas with rolled gold experienced talent that would unquestionably have thrust us back up the ladder in 2005.

Nathan Thompson? Hmmm. Its not as if he asked us to be traded, after all, and that Williams slipped into his position and actually increased output (albeit not significantly) in the position.

Lekkas, Holland, Barker??? Well given that all three were still on the list, they can't be the departed guns being spoken of in hushed tones.

Mark Graham? Maybe. The old bloke really carved up in the games he played for Richmond in 2005, for sure.

Kris Barlow, Rayden Tallis, Luke McCabe? Certainly. Its not as if clubs should delist aged players of this unabashed quality before they at least reach the aged of 35.

And what was the club thinking sending: Crawford, Everitt, Hay, Croad, Campbell, Beaumont, Nixon, Dixon, Smith, Vandenburg, Jacobs and Clarke away to replace them all with 18 year olds? Oh, hang on...

Sheesh.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Hawthorn finished 9th in 2003, a spot above us that year. Your top 5 goal kickers were Thompson 38, Lekkas 37, Rawlings 34, Dixon 21 and Everrit 17.

Let Rawlings go to the PSD in the Veale deal. Traded out Harford and some other players as well.

Dropped to 15th in 2004 (4 wins) and traded away your full forward and major goal kicker in Nathan Thompson that year, did not give contracts to some other senior players.

2005 finished 14th (5 wins) traded away Hay and Lonie. Lekkas retired. Your full forward now being the HFF Mark Williams. Franklin and Roughead play their first season.

You don't need to make wholesale changes to impact the side, as we have seen just subtle on-field changes is enough to throw games, but taking out the major goal scorers makes it fairly easy to produce a team that isn't going to perform and the club continued to auction off senior players at the right price, going further with trading away Everitt in 2006 after he because the AA ruckman in 2005.

Hawthorn broke no rules and they didn't get rid of anyone that would have been around long enough to rebuild, but the course of action was deliberate and they fielded a much weaker team intentionally than they could possibly have all in the hope that they would strike gold during the rebuild. They were just very lucky they scored Franklin during that period. They also picked up a lot of good younger players so didn't just rely on priority picks, but he was the jewel in the crown, I doubt the Hawks would have got close to the flag in 2008 without him.

This is a ridiculous post based on poor memory. In 2003, we won 9 of the last 12 games to go from bottom 4 to famously being the first side to miss the finals with 12 wins. We lost to minor premier and bogey side Port by less than a goal to ruin our chances of playing finals.

We were in hot form and were very bullish about our chances in the off season, with coach Peter Schwab infamously saying we were expecting a premiership in 2004. Several media pundits installed Hawthron as one of the favourites for top 4 and some predicting a premiership! We were not trading away players to lose when we were on the cusp of making finals and believed we had a genuine shot at top 4 and a flag (no matter how silly it seemed 10 rounds in).

I'ts that off the mark I'll have to address each of the trades seperately.

Let Rawlings go to the PSD in the Veale deal. Traded out Harford and some other players as well.

Yes, it's true Rawlings left - but he left to play with his brother and Hawthorn were very pissed off about it after he finally had come good after years of showing the faith with him. In fact, Hawthorn were so furious they refused to trade with North and forced him into the PSD (after trying numerous times to get him to stay and offering much more money than he deserved), getting Danny Jacobs in return as an immediate replacement. Certainly not a case of trading experience for kids.

We also got rid of Harford who had played 5 games that season (during injuries to other players), averaged 12 possessions as an onballer and was not best 22. He managed 9 more career games in one of the worst side's ever fielded (Pagan's rejects in 2004).

Dropped to 15th in 2004 (4 wins)

As stated earlier, this drop was far from inentional. In fact, our president (Ian Dicker) was puiblically crying after giving the coach the sack late in the season with a year to run on his contract (dicker had never broken a contract before). It had to be done though - the coach declared his intent on a premiership and was sitting dead last.

and traded away your full forward and major goal kicker in Nathan Thompson that year

Nathan Thompson came out in the media as the first player to publically admit to suffering depression and wanted a fresh start. Hawthorn did not want to trade him but did so anyway, given the circumstances. Nathan's condition had nothing to do with us wanting to intentionally weaken our side.

and did not give contracts to some other senior players

We won 4 games FFS! as many as GC last year but with a (very) senior side. Do you think perhaps some players were not performing well enough to get a new contract extension!

2005 finished 14th (5 wins) traded away Hay and Lonie.

Jon Hay had a very dodgy knee and was struggling with bipolar. North offered 2 high picks for him and we understandably took it. He was terrible at North and played a total of 8 games for the rest of his career.
Lonie was typical of Hawthorn's issues as he was famous for being one of the softest players going around (he averaged less than 3 contested possessions over his entire career - worse in his last year at Hawthorn). He played 34 more games in his entire career. Off loading these two improved our side rather than weakening it and again, has nothing to do with tanking.

Lekkas retired

Lekkas retired after suffering a stroke, whcih involved a legal feud with Hawthorn as they 'pressured' him to play on. Insulting to suggest that Lekkas' medical condition had anything to do with tanking.

Your full forward now being the HFF Mark Williams.

Williams was actually a very, very good full forward. After 11 rounds there, he had kicked 48 goals, was leading the Coleman and there was an article every week asking how he could be stopped. He got injured later in the year but still kicked over 60 goals and had a higher goal average than anyone in the league bar Fraser Gehrig. Despite the injury, he still managed to kick 5+ goals on 7 occassions, in a side that was completely rubbish and won only 4 games.

In his second season there, his knee issues persisted but he still managed a 60 goal season. He capped off a great year by kicking 8 on Matthew Scarlett. Incidentally, Hawthorn were bottom 4 all year and in line for picks before winning the last 5 games and finishing 11th. Does that sound like tanking?

You don't need to make wholesale changes to impact the side, as we have seen just subtle on-field changes is enough to throw games, but taking out the major goal scorers makes it fairly easy to produce a team that isn't going to perform and the club continued to auction off senior players at the right price, going further with trading away Everitt in 2006 after he because the AA ruckman in 2005.

I've addressed most of this rubbish already but in regard to Peter Everitt - he left because he wanted to play finals (just like he did the Saints). We did not want him to leave and reluctantly traded him to the team of his choice. Again, nothing at all to do with tanking.

 

[Summer Nights]

Polly want a cracker? Squaawwk.

He came out and said there was a vibe that winning wasn't important. He made it clear that he was not privy to anybody saying anything to confirm that. He then recanted 4 days later. How many times does this evidence need to come up before people stop parroting it?

You hear tanking but do not take into account his actual words, or his subsequent backing down.

I feel like we tanked does not equal 'I admit we tanked'. Sheesh.

Here's an excerpt of the interview. I've highlighted some bits I think need to be touched on.


Hutschison: Do you think they were trying to win?
Liberatore: The players were trying to win.

H: I understand that, but do you think the coaches and the club wanted...?
L: It wasn't the be-all and end-all. So you and the people home, look at that as it's not the be-all and end-all. It's not important if we win.

H: You're a smart man. Is that tanking?
L: Personally, I would say "yes".

H: How did that make you feel?
L: Um... not great. I look at myself as a pretty honest sort of a person. I don't think it's what this game is all about.

H: Did you try to pick a team to win a game of footy, those last six weeks?
L: Personally, I would say no, but another coach might say yes because we're looking at developing young players. But, if there's a situation where there's a guy who can wait until the end of the year to have an operation on his ankle, or his knee or whatever, (where) it's something minor, but he can play, and the decisions made that "let's put him out to pasture straight away", well I say they're doing the wrong thing.

H: Was it a bit farcical there towards the end? Did you feel really uncomfortable?"
L: Yeah, I felt really uncomfortable. And even in the coaches box, the last game especially... you're sitting down there and... um... having a void feeling... not knowing... putting suggestions, expressing yourself: "Maybe we should try this" or putting your point across to the coach, but nothing's really being done about it. Or, he might use it, but, it wasn't... there wasn't a lot of interaction in the last couple of games compared to the first few games.

H: Do you think that the coaches tried to win that last game or tried to lose it?
L: In all honesty, I think both coaches would have tried to lose it.

H: Did you guys try and lose it? In all honesty, I mean it's all said and done now, and we understand the reasons why...
L: I can only talk from myself. I would not try to lose it. Maybe others in there tried to lose it.

H: Do you think Brett tried to lose it?
L: Hmmm... maybe.

H: Did you go to Brett with your concerns? Did you say to him "mate, this is a bit fishy"
L: No. I didn't feel it was my place to do that, because he may have been instructed by other people to do that.

H: That was just your suspicion at your time?
L: Well yeah, it doesn't sit well. And you know, the more I think about it, the more I think he was probably told this is probably what you should be doing "I don't know if we really need to win a game a footy here. But, let's do our best but not win." I dunno (embarrassed laugh)

H: Were there kids played in those last few rounds with the intent of helping the team not win?
L: Undoubtedly, they didn't deserve a game. They wouldn't have deserved a game in any other round. They would only struggle to get a game. So that question would be, no they didn't deserve a game and it doesn't help the side win.

H: Were kids picked deliberately because they weren't good enough to play at the time?
L: I think so.

H: How do you feel about being part of a coaching group, that for whatever reason, good intent or otherwise, tried to conspire to lose games of footy, because of the rules?
L: Not great. I actually, the last couple of weeks, and this may have coincided with Denis moving on as well, because I always thought Denis always wanted to win. No matter what, he wanted to win. I could tell by his demeaner in the coaches box. Undoubtedly the last three or four games, there wasn't as much thought put into match committee.

H: Would you joke about it? Was it something you joked about at match committee?
L: Yeah.

H: "(e.g) How can we try and get beaten this week?"?
L: Um, we wouldn't use those words. But, you know, another assistant coach could say "tanks very much" or something along those lines in a jocular way to say "hey, it doesn't really mean that much, does it?"

H: Was there a directive from anyone at Carlton to lose?
L: I never heard it, but I could feel it, if that makes sense. I could, within a room, nobody ever said "we're not gonna win today", but the feeling amongst the group, it's a bit of a laugh if we threw a name up, there wasn't a... it was a little bit of a joke.

H: How many of the best 22 average were left out in those last few weeks who could have played?
L: Carlton weren't a strong side. Apart from injuries, there were a few who I know for a fact that the footy manager turned around and said "Any player who has any sort of niggling, let's put him away"

H: What happened with Brett Thornton?
L: My understanding is that he was going to play and then was told that he had to have an operation done on his ankle. I think he was a little bit dumbfounded about that as well.

H: Did he need to have an operation?
L: I don't think so.


Facts (as presented by Liberatore)
I've not highlighted anything based on Liberatore's perception of what was going on, but there are some facts he puts forward that lend towards some tanking going on:

1. The level of interaction changed noticably between the first few games of Ratten's stint and the last few of the season. Suggestions weren't being taken on board in the same way.
2. There were young players played who were not good enough to play in the side for a team trying to win. Perhaps they were there for future years (development), however they weren't picked to win the game.
3.The coaches would joke about tanking.
4. The last three or four games, there wasn't as much thought put into match committee.
5. The footy manager specifically told all players, even those with minor injuries who could have played (and helped Carlton win) to prepare for the next season.

Questions
Why did Ratten suddenly stop listenting to his assistant coaches. Why did he stop moving players or trying new things if they weren't tanking?

Why did Carlton play so many youngsters for development when they had games to win. Sure, there is always a balance between winning and building a team, but why did season 2008 come before 2007 when 2007 wasn't even finished? Why play players who were not up to standard at the time, not even on the fringe in the eyes of the coaches?

Why were the coaching team joking about tanking when discussing dodgy selections or moves? Why was the preparation, planning and thought in the match committee so poor in the last few games compared to the first few (after Pagan)? Why was it okay not to put in the required planning to win the games?

Why did the footy manager make the unusual move of telling all players with minor niggles that they had to start recovery for the next season, even though some were fine to play? Why was Brett Thornton shocked when he was told he needed surgery?

If you are not preparing to the normal standard for a team to win a game of footy, with the prize of a PP in mind, is that tanking?


Backdown
Carlton threatened legal action, and soon after Liberatore recanted his statement. His withdrawal did not explain any of the content of his initial accusations at all, but simply that he didn't feel they tanked.
Carlton says legal action is an option

Interview
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/afl-footy-show-tony-liberatore-interview/xd31une

 

[MaddAdam]

Y David Teague even won a best and fairest in our team that had players such as Trent Sporn, Corey McKernan, Daniel Harford, Jimmy Plunkett et al., that is not a tanking list we were justlegimately shit from 2002-2005.

You mean dual premiership player Corey McKernan who should have had a Rising Star award and a Brownlow?

 

[chelseacarlton]

Honest ol Libba ey?
Always went for the ball that bloke,truuuuuly he did!!
Pfft!!
He never understood the workings of a truly proud successful football club!.

 

[sTeeL]

Thank you Mumbo Jumbo. I couldn't be bothered with the effort to go find that but its clear as day right there.

 

[yibbida]

Here's an excerpt of the interview. I've highlighted some bits I think need to be touched on.


Hutschison: Do you think they were trying to win?
Liberatore: The players were trying to win.

H: I understand that, but do you think the coaches and the club wanted...?
L: It wasn't the be-all and end-all. So you and the people home, look at that as it's not the be-all and end-all. It's not important if we win.

H: You're a smart man. Is that tanking?
L: Personally, I would say "yes".

H: How did that make you feel?
L: Um... not great. I look at myself as a pretty honest sort of a person. I don't think it's what this game is all about.

H: Did you try to pick a team to win a game of footy, those last six weeks?
L: Personally, I would say no, but another coach might say yes because we're looking at developing young players. But, if there's a situation where there's a guy who can wait until the end of the year to have an operation on his ankle, or his knee or whatever, (where) it's something minor, but he can play, and the decisions made that "let's put him out to pasture straight away", well I say they're doing the wrong thing.

H: Was it a bit farcical there towards the end? Did you feel really uncomfortable?"
L: Yeah, I felt really uncomfortable. And even in the coaches box, the last game especially... you're sitting down there and... um... having a void feeling... not knowing... putting suggestions, expressing yourself: "Maybe we should try this" or putting your point across to the coach, but nothing's really being done about it. Or, he might use it, but, it wasn't... there wasn't a lot of interaction in the last couple of games compared to the first few games.

H: Do you think that the coaches tried to win that last game or tried to lose it?
L: In all honesty, I think both coaches would have tried to lose it.

H: Did you guys try and lose it? In all honesty, I mean it's all said and done now, and we understand the reasons why...
L: I can only talk from myself. I would not try to lose it. Maybe others in there tried to lose it.

H: Do you think Brett tried to lose it?
L: Hmmm... maybe.

H: Did you go to Brett with your concerns? Did you say to him "mate, this is a bit fishy"
L: No. I didn't feel it was my place to do that, because he may have been instructed by other people to do that.

H: That was just your suspicion at your time?
L: Well yeah, it doesn't sit well. And you know, the more I think about it, the more I think he was probably told this is probably what you should be doing "I don't know if we really need to win a game a footy here. But, let's do our best but not win." I dunno (embarrassed laugh)

H: Were there kids played in those last few rounds with the intent of helping the team not win?
L: Undoubtedly, they didn't deserve a game. They wouldn't have deserved a game in any other round. They would only struggle to get a game. So that question would be, no they didn't deserve a game and it doesn't help the side win.

H: Were kids picked deliberately because they weren't good enough to play at the time?
L: I think so.

H: How do you feel about being part of a coaching group, that for whatever reason, good intent or otherwise, tried to conspire to lose games of footy, because of the rules?
L: Not great. I actually, the last couple of weeks, and this may have coincided with Denis moving on as well, because I always thought Denis always wanted to win. No matter what, he wanted to win. I could tell by his demeaner in the coaches box. Undoubtedly the last three or four games, there wasn't as much thought put into match committee.

H: Would you joke about it? Was it something you joked about at match committee?
L: Yeah.

H: "(e.g) How can we try and get beaten this week?"?
L: Um, we wouldn't use those words. But, you know, another assistant coach could say "tanks very much" or something along those lines in a jocular way to say "hey, it doesn't really mean that much, does it?"

H: Was there a directive from anyone at Carlton to lose?
L: I never heard it, but I could feel it, if that makes sense. I could, within a room, nobody ever said "we're not gonna win today", but the feeling amongst the group, it's a bit of a laugh if we threw a name up, there wasn't a... it was a little bit of a joke.

H: How many of the best 22 average were left out in those last few weeks who could have played?
L: Carlton weren't a strong side. Apart from injuries, there were a few who I know for a fact that the footy manager turned around and said "Any player who has any sort of niggling, let's put him away"

H: What happened with Brett Thornton?
L: My understanding is that he was going to play and then was told that he had to have an operation done on his ankle. I think he was a little bit dumbfounded about that as well.

H: Did he need to have an operation?
L: I don't think so.


Facts (as presented by Liberatore)
I've not highlighted anything based on Liberatore's perception of what was going on, but there are some facts he puts forward that lend towards some tanking going on:

1. The level of interaction changed noticably between the first few games of Ratten's stint and the last few of the season. Suggestions weren't being taken on board in the same way.
2. There were young players played who were not good enough to play in the side for a team trying to win. Perhaps they were there for future years (development), however they weren't picked to win the game.
3.The coaches would joke about tanking.
4. The last three or four games, there wasn't as much thought put into match committee.
5. The footy manager specifically told all players, even those with minor injuries who could have played (and helped Carlton win) to prepare for the next season.

Questions
Why did Ratten suddenly stop listenting to his assistant coaches. Why did he stop moving players or trying new things if they weren't tanking?

Why did Carlton play so many youngsters for development when they had games to win. Sure, there is always a balance between winning and building a team, but why did season 2008 come before 2007 when 2007 wasn't even finished? Why play players who were not up to standard at the time, not even on the fringe in the eyes of the coaches?

Why were the coaching team joking about tanking when discussing dodgy selections or moves? Why was the preparation, planning and thought in the match committee so poor in the last few games compared to the first few (after Pagan)? Why was it okay not to put in the required planning to win the games?

Why did the footy manager make the unusual move of telling all players with minor niggles that they had to start recovery for the next season, even though some were fine to play? Why was Brett Thornton shocked when he was told he needed surgery?

If you are not preparing to the normal standard for a team to win a game of footy, with the prize of a PP in mind, is that tanking?


Backdown
Carlton threatened legal action, and soon after Liberatore recanted his statement. His withdrawal did not explain any of the content of his initial accusations at all, but simply that he didn't feel they tanked.
Carlton says legal action is an option

Interview
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/afl-footy-show-tony-liberatore-interview/xd31une

1 - Has Libba coached anywhere else since leaving Carlton? Maybe Ratts knew he was a dud coach and didn't want him there the following year.

2 - How do you get experience into younger players without playing them?

3 - Case closed then. We need to lock a lot of comedians up for some of the things they say...

4 - Have a look at the injury list at the time. How much thought went into Freo's match committee near the end of last year?

5 - Most clubs do that. Some of the teams that played finals last year told players to get right for this year.

 

[sTeeL]

You honestly believe your team didn't go out on purpose to lose after what you just read there from your assistant coach?

Another thing is your all willing to accept West Coast tanked because we recieved 2 x 2nd round PP over 3 years. Yet, when you see shit like the above when it comes to your own team tanking for a 1st round PP then your all crying as if we tanked?

 

[Monkey King]

Some marvelous historical revisionism on offer here...

How odd that my memory of 2004 vividly recalls opposition fan and media pundit alike banging-on from week-to-week about how thoroughly shite the Hawthorn list was, but now - 8 years on - it turns out that I'm retrospectively mistaken, as the list was chokkas with rolled gold experienced talent that would unquestionably have thrust us back up the ladder in 2005.

This is it. Back in the day, Carlton were regarded as worse than Fitzroy and loaded with spuds the likes of Merrington, Bannister, Harford, Johnson, Bentick, Deluca, Teague, Saddington, McLaren, McGrath, Sporn, Chambers, Blackwell, Kenna, Bryan, J Smith, Wiggins, Norman, Clarke, Morrell, Hulme, Prendergast, McCormick, Bowyer and Davies.

Now today, all this is revised into Carlton having had the cattle to beat other teams, but losing to them on purpose; and a legendary coach having sullied his rep and trashed his future earnings all for some altruistic benefit to the Blues.

Dreaming!

 

[Summer Nights]

1 - Has Libba coached anywhere else since leaving Carlton? Maybe Ratts knew he was a dud coach and didn't want him there the following year.

2 - How do you get experience into younger players without playing them?

3 - Case closed then. We need to lock a lot of comedians up for some of the things they say...

4 - Have a look at the injury list at the time. How much thought went into Freo's match committee near the end of last year?

5 - Most clubs do that. Some of the teams that played finals last year told players to get right for this year.

1. The preparation was not there. Put that into context with the whole change in the way games were coached and it's signficant.

2. By playing them in the VFL and promoting them when they're close to good enough.

3. It was in the context of joking about promoting players who weren't good enough to play, implying that it didn't matter if they lost.

4. There is no suggestion that Freo stopped preparing for games. It is a fact, as presented by Liberatore, that Carlton weren't putting much thought into it. They weren't doing everything they could to win.

5. Are you serious? Thornton was surprised that he was told to get surgery. They had planned to play him and then all of a sudden they drop senior players and tell them they need to prepare for the next season. If Thornton understood the rationale, then why was he 'dumbfounded'?

 

[ziad]

they tanked.

close this tomb of denial now.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Here's an excerpt of the interview. I've highlighted some bits I think need to be touched on.


Hutschison: Do you think they were trying to win?
Liberatore: The players were trying to win.

H: I understand that, but do you think the coaches and the club wanted...?
L: It wasn't the be-all and end-all. So you and the people home, look at that as it's not the be-all and end-all. It's not important if we win.

H: You're a smart man. Is that tanking?
L: Personally, I would say "yes".

H: How did that make you feel?
L: Um... not great. I look at myself as a pretty honest sort of a person. I don't think it's what this game is all about.

H: Did you try to pick a team to win a game of footy, those last six weeks?
L: Personally, I would say no, but another coach might say yes because we're looking at developing young players. But, if there's a situation where there's a guy who can wait until the end of the year to have an operation on his ankle, or his knee or whatever, (where) it's something minor, but he can play, and the decisions made that "let's put him out to pasture straight away", well I say they're doing the wrong thing.

H: Was it a bit farcical there towards the end? Did you feel really uncomfortable?"
L: Yeah, I felt really uncomfortable. And even in the coaches box, the last game especially... you're sitting down there and... um... having a void feeling... not knowing... putting suggestions, expressing yourself: "Maybe we should try this" or putting your point across to the coach, but nothing's really being done about it. Or, he might use it, but, it wasn't... there wasn't a lot of interaction in the last couple of games compared to the first few games.

H: Do you think that the coaches tried to win that last game or tried to lose it?
L: In all honesty, I think both coaches would have tried to lose it.

H: Did you guys try and lose it? In all honesty, I mean it's all said and done now, and we understand the reasons why...
L: I can only talk from myself. I would not try to lose it. Maybe others in there tried to lose it.

H: Do you think Brett tried to lose it?
L: Hmmm... maybe.

H: Did you go to Brett with your concerns? Did you say to him "mate, this is a bit fishy"
L: No. I didn't feel it was my place to do that, because he may have been instructed by other people to do that.

H: That was just your suspicion at your time?
L: Well yeah, it doesn't sit well. And you know, the more I think about it, the more I think he was probably told this is probably what you should be doing "I don't know if we really need to win a game a footy here. But, let's do our best but not win." I dunno (embarrassed laugh)

H: Were there kids played in those last few rounds with the intent of helping the team not win?
L: Undoubtedly, they didn't deserve a game. They wouldn't have deserved a game in any other round. They would only struggle to get a game. So that question would be, no they didn't deserve a game and it doesn't help the side win.

H: Were kids picked deliberately because they weren't good enough to play at the time?
L: I think so.

H: How do you feel about being part of a coaching group, that for whatever reason, good intent or otherwise, tried to conspire to lose games of footy, because of the rules?
L: Not great. I actually, the last couple of weeks, and this may have coincided with Denis moving on as well, because I always thought Denis always wanted to win. No matter what, he wanted to win. I could tell by his demeaner in the coaches box. Undoubtedly the last three or four games, there wasn't as much thought put into match committee.

H: Would you joke about it? Was it something you joked about at match committee?
L: Yeah.

H: "(e.g) How can we try and get beaten this week?"?
L: Um, we wouldn't use those words. But, you know, another assistant coach could say "tanks very much" or something along those lines in a jocular way to say "hey, it doesn't really mean that much, does it?"

H: Was there a directive from anyone at Carlton to lose?
L: I never heard it, but I could feel it, if that makes sense. I could, within a room, nobody ever said "we're not gonna win today", but the feeling amongst the group, it's a bit of a laugh if we threw a name up, there wasn't a... it was a little bit of a joke.

H: How many of the best 22 average were left out in those last few weeks who could have played?
L: Carlton weren't a strong side. Apart from injuries, there were a few who I know for a fact that the footy manager turned around and said "Any player who has any sort of niggling, let's put him away"

H: What happened with Brett Thornton?
L: My understanding is that he was going to play and then was told that he had to have an operation done on his ankle. I think he was a little bit dumbfounded about that as well.

H: Did he need to have an operation?
L: I don't think so.


Facts (as presented by Liberatore)
I've not highlighted anything based on Liberatore's perception of what was going on, but there are some facts he puts forward that lend towards some tanking going on:

1. The level of interaction changed noticably between the first few games of Ratten's stint and the last few of the season. Suggestions weren't being taken on board in the same way.
2. There were young players played who were not good enough to play in the side for a team trying to win. Perhaps they were there for future years (development), however they weren't picked to win the game.
3.The coaches would joke about tanking.
4. The last three or four games, there wasn't as much thought put into match committee.
5. The footy manager specifically told all players, even those with minor injuries who could have played (and helped Carlton win) to prepare for the next season.

Questions
Why did Ratten suddenly stop listenting to his assistant coaches. Why did he stop moving players or trying new things if they weren't tanking?

Why did Carlton play so many youngsters for development when they had games to win. Sure, there is always a balance between winning and building a team, but why did season 2008 come before 2007 when 2007 wasn't even finished? Why play players who were not up to standard at the time, not even on the fringe in the eyes of the coaches?

Why were the coaching team joking about tanking when discussing dodgy selections or moves? Why was the preparation, planning and thought in the match committee so poor in the last few games compared to the first few (after Pagan)? Why was it okay not to put in the required planning to win the games?

Why did the footy manager make the unusual move of telling all players with minor niggles that they had to start recovery for the next season, even though some were fine to play? Why was Brett Thornton shocked when he was told he needed surgery?

If you are not preparing to the normal standard for a team to win a game of footy, with the prize of a PP in mind, is that tanking?


Backdown
Carlton threatened legal action, and soon after Liberatore recanted his statement. His withdrawal did not explain any of the content of his initial accusations at all, but simply that he didn't feel they tanked.
Carlton says legal action is an option

Interview
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/afl-footy-show-tony-liberatore-interview/xd31une

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...atore-on-tanking/story-e6frf9jf-1111115798118

That was Carlton's response to Libba's interview. Yes, they were told to play young players and most of those young players were in the mix to play first up the next season and 3 of them are still at the club and going strong.

Here:
http://www.injuryupdate.com.au/forum/showthread.php?5188-Blues-send-Thornton-for-surgery&

Other players were spoken about but did not get a game. Ratten explained Thornton's surgery at the time.

Thornton being surprised about it, is very much Libba's interpretation. If he had a problem for weeks and a history with that injury, you'd imagine he wouldn't be too surprised. Aside from that, he was carrying an injury and our season was shot. You are talking managing our list for the future, not throwing games. As Ratten said in the tanking response, it was lucky Thornton went for surgery a little earlier as his preseason was affected enough.

Fairly easy to explain not taking notice of Libba's observations. A caretaker coach had come in, Libba was a Pagan fan and Ratts didn't rate him and was about to show him the door. Those last few weeks were always going to make Libba feel on the outer.

You are also adding pieces together. Joking about tanking when raising dodgy selections or moves wasn't said. He said that an assistant at committee said 'tanks very much' or something like that. He was quite non-specific and low on context. Media attention as to tanking was around at the time, maybe they were just sarcastically referring to it?

You ask why we played so many young players when we had games to win. You based your own line of questioning around some struggling remarks Libba made without doing your own research.

2007 debutants:

Bryce Gibbs - Round 1
Joe Anderson - Round 4
Ross Young - Round 6
Adam Hartlett - Round 9
Shaun Grigg - Round 14
Michael Jamison - Round 18
Shaun Hampson - Round 21
Mark Austin - Round 22

*Ryan Jackson played a game in 2008, played again in Round 5, was in and out and got more games towards the end of the year.

So 4 debutants in the first half of the year, 4 in the second half of the year, 3 under Ratten. All 4 of those second half debutants are still on an AFL list somewhere 5 years down the track.

Of the 3 on that debutant list who are not playing AFL, Anderson did not play beyond round 10 in that season. Young played 6 games under Pagan and none under Ratten. Hartlett played 4 under Pagan and one under Ratten that season.

Seems to me that Ratten is looking pretty astute right now.

Libba is absolutely full of shit and a cursory glance at our list and our options should have told you that ... if you cared to look.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

they tanked.

close this tomb of denial now.

Go find yourself a creche board where your insightful contributions will be appreciated.

 

[Scotland]

Y David Teague even won a best and fairest in our team that had players such as Trent Sporn, Corey McKernan, Daniel Harford, Jimmy Plunkett et al., that is not a tanking list we were justlegimately shit from 2002-2005.

And 2006/7?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

1. The preparation was not there. Put that into context with the whole change in the way games were coached and it's signficant.

Maybe Libba was just not privy to it? Maybe the fact that they were told to get some games into young players as their focus was more important that game tactics so there was a shift in the focus. Remember Pagan was trying to win games and we turned into an embarassment. Ratten was told to develop team unity and get games into youngsters. Of course it felt different to Libba. That's not to say we weren't trying to win but we had other focuses as well.

2. By playing them in the VFL and promoting them when they're close to good enough.

Please tell me why Jamison, Austin and Hampson did not deserve a game in the seniors as they were the only ones that came in.

3. It was in the context of joking about promoting players who weren't good enough to play, implying that it didn't matter if they lost.

It simply didn't happen so any perceived joking was just Libba padding out his argument.

4. There is no suggestion that Freo stopped preparing for games. It is a fact, as presented by Liberatore, that Carlton weren't putting much thought into it. They weren't doing everything they could to win.

It's an opinion as presented by Libba. So loose with your use of the word 'fact'. If Libba was a senior coach or even as an assistant coach was privy to instructions or conversations whereby they tried to affect the result, that information might be fact. Libba had a perception based on some circumstantial information and a feeling.

5. Are you serious? Thornton was surprised that he was told to get surgery. They had planned to play him and then all of a sudden they drop senior players and tell them they need to prepare for the next season. If Thornton understood the rationale, then why was he 'dumbfounded'?

Please post me a link where Thornton said he was dumbfounded and that he was right to keep playing or that the injury was bogus or anything like that. If I can find it, I can show you advice from medical staff detailing Thornton's surgery and when he had it. It is out there somewhere.

You have taken Libba's speculation and used that as your ONLY evidence. Weak as.

 

[MaddAdam]

T
The only clubs that def have not tanked are Cats, Swans (don't need to as the AFL helps them anyway), North (thank Laids for that) and Crows (very smart recruiting local talent). Everyone else is questionable at best.

North chucked a mini tank at the end of 2006. Sent Grant and other senior players off for surgery once the season was done and dusted for us by about Round 17 and got pick 3 (our highest ever pick) as a result.

The difference is we went into that season with high hopes, we'd made the finals in 05. But Laidley has a vision in the pre season or something and decided the game was heading one way and got all the players to bulk up and we did training with the Storm. Problem was that year was when real gut runners (Cousins) and quick movement out of the backline and stuff were what was winning games.

We were crap and once is was mathemetaically impossible for us to make the final, we chucked in the towel. That's not tanking, that's prudent list management.

Real tanking is a period of seasons - two minimum - of being deliberately crap, or maximising your existing crapness (the easiest way to do this is trade out experienced players a la Hawthorn and Melbourne and thus play talented kids alongside role player filler you know you can cut as the rebuild develops) in order to rebuild a side that pivots around guns you selected with the high draft picks gained from your period of crapness.

Carlton are interesting - they were cast to the bottom by a variety of factors: natural attrition post a period of success in the 90s, then the draft picks punishment, then going bankrupt made them unattractive to trade in players. Of their three number 1 picks, only Kreuzer could be considered the result of a real tank.

Richmond are just crap. Collingwood and West Coast just did extended versions of North is 2006 ... saw a season was off the rails early acted accordingly.

For a real tank, you have to approach a season from the get go with the aim being to finish low and get picks.

 

[Summer Nights]

Maybe Libba was just not privy to it? Maybe the fact that they were told to get some games into young players as their focus was more important that game tactics so there was a shift in the focus. Remember Pagan was trying to win games and we turned into an embarassment. Ratten was told to develop team unity and get games into youngsters. Of course it felt different to Libba. That's not to say we weren't trying to win but we had other focuses as well.

1. Why would he not be privy to it? He was at the match committee. He has stated they weren't preparing to the same degree, they were joking around and it came across like that didn't really care if they lost. You are failing, repeatedly, to explain that. He was there, he was in the coaches box. He would know. You are just clutching at straws.

Please tell me why Jamison, Austin and Hampson did not deserve a game in the seniors as they were the only ones that came in.

2. Libba implied that the coaches didn't think the youngsters were up to it - far from it. He was talking about the last part of the season, not the very last game.

It simply didn't happen so any perceived joking was just Libba padding out his argument.

3. LOL. Now you're just making things up. How would you know it didn't happen? Carlton did not even specifically reply to this comment, to my knowledge. As far as I know, it stands as undisputed fact that the match committee stopped caring.

It's an opinion as presented by Libba. So loose with your use of the word 'fact'. If Libba was a senior coach or even as an assistant coach was privy to instructions or conversations whereby they tried to affect the result, that information might be fact. Libba had a perception based on some circumstantial information and a feeling.

4. No, Libba stated it was a fact that the match committee wasn't preparing as much. All I am saying is that it's not Libba's opinion, it's his observation of what actually occurred, and it is damning.

Please post me a link where Thornton said he was dumbfounded and that he was right to keep playing or that the injury was bogus or anything like that. If I can find it, I can show you advice from medical staff detailing Thornton's surgery and when he had it. It is out there somewhere.

5. The evidence is not proof, it is simply the assistant coach saying what he knew to be true at the time. Thornton was supposed to play, which is why (according to Liberatore) Brett was a little bit dumbfounded that it suddenly changed.

You have taken Libba's speculation and used that as your ONLY evidence. Weak as.

You have simply denounced it all with "I don't believe him", when it's damning coming from the assistant coach. Even weaker, mate.

If Libba had've heard Ratten say it was tanking, you still wouldn't believe it because according to you, it's not a fact unless it's an admission from Ratten or the board themselves. What Liberatore did objectively observe was a significant change between round 16 and round 22 in the preparation and urgency to win. If you're not trying to win games of football looking ahead to the next year whilst it's still round 18, you might as well not turn up.

Carlton* tanked. The evidence is there. Case closed.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

1. Why would he not be privy to it? He was at the match committee. He has stated they weren't preparing to the same degree, they were joking around and it came across like that didn't really care if they lost. You are failing, repeatedly, to explain that. He was there, he was in the coaches box. He would know. You are just clutching at straws.

He actually said there wasn't as much thought put into match committee in the last few weeks. The follow up question was leading directly asking if they joked about it and all Libba offered was this:

But, you know, another assistant coach could say "tanks very much" or something along those lines in a jocular way to say "hey, it doesn't really mean that much, does it?"

So an assistant said something along the lines of ..... in a jocular way? Libba then goes and puts his own interpretation on that vague recollection as to what he might have meant. That's compelling shit right there.

As for being in the coaches box, he referred to the last game only and said:

And even in the coaches box, the last game especially... you're sitting down there and... um... having a void feeling... not knowing... putting suggestions, expressing yourself: "Maybe we should try this" or putting your point across to the coach, but nothing's really being done about it. Or, he might use it, but, it wasn't... there wasn't a lot of interaction in the last couple of games compared to the first few games.

Could this be any more vague? Had a void feeling .... last game of the season from hell perhaps? Putting forward suggestions but nothing was being done ... but wait, he might use the suggestion .... but it wasn't the same level of interaction at the end of the season as it was at the start. Do you get anything different from that? Do losing teams end the season as gung ho as the they start it? What would you expect? We were actively deciding who was going to be on our list and who wasn't. Actively deciding on who our coaching staff were going to be going forward. Actively deciding on a new game plan. It's all about process, it's all about development and the result is secondary at that point of a season. That still doesn't mean you engineer the result.

2. Libba implied that the coaches didn't think the youngsters were up to it - far from it. He was talking about the last part of the season, not the very last game.

I told you the young players that came in that year. Why don't you run with it and tell me which young players were not up to it in the last part of the season as opposed to the first part of the season.

3. LOL. Now you're just making things up. How would you know it didn't happen? Carlton did not even specifically reply to this comment, to my knowledge. As far as I know, it stands as undisputed fact that the match committee stopped caring.

I responded to the bit about joking when an undeserving player's name came up. What didn't happen is the promoting of players that weren't good enough to play. You can hardly joke about something that never happened. Are you seriously suggesting that Ratten, Crosisca, Bradley and co laughed when raising the prospects of Hampson, Jamison and Austin? I have made no secret of the fact that Ratten was encouraged to try out young players. Even to this day, I think we will try a player here or there where there may be a better option at the time. It's managing the list and developing the players. The fact is he only tried out a few.

4. No, Libba stated it was a fact that the match committee wasn't preparing as much. All I am saying is that it's not Libba's opinion, it's his observation of what actually occurred, and it is damning.

He said there wasn't as much thought put into match committee. The other coaches might hold a different opinion. It is a fact that Libba believes this. It may or may not be a fact that this occurred. Considering they were looking ahead to the following year and had a mandate to unify the team and try out some youngsters, and given they were out of finals running, do you think their focus might change a little at the end of the season?

5. The evidence is not proof, it is simply the assistant coach saying what he knew to be true at the time. Thornton was supposed to play, which is why (according to Liberatore) Brett was a little bit dumbfounded that it suddenly changed.

He didn't know anything to be true. His statement:

My understanding is that he was going to play and then was told that he had to have an operation done on his ankle. I think he was a little bit dumbfounded about that as well.

Did he need to have an operation?

I don't think so.

His understanding = not first hand. I think he was dumbfounded = speculation.

Doesn't think he needed to have an operation. But he did have one and it affected his preseason. Were we really giving operations out to players when they didn't need it? Have that surgeon's licence taken off him stat!

You have simply denounced it all with "I don't believe him", when it's damning coming from the assistant coach. Even weaker, mate.

If Libba had've heard Ratten say it was tanking, you still wouldn't believe it because according to you, it's not a fact unless it's an admission from Ratten or the board themselves.

No, I denounce it based on:

1. The language he used and his manner of speaking was unsure, vague and non-specific, despite having been prepped for this interview.

2. The guy may have been disgruntled at losing his job by Ratten's hand. In fact he admitted he was unhappy about it.

3. He recanted without being spoken to by the AFL and instead went with the list management observations rather than an effort to lose.

What Liberatore did objectively observe was a significant change between round 16 and round 22 in the preparation and urgency to win. If you're not trying to win games of football looking ahead to the next year whilst it's still round 18, you might as well not turn up.

I'm sure the guys who secured themselves another contract as a result of getting a run wish they didn't turn up. By the way, you do an awful lot of paraphrasing of Libba's thoughts to add weight to your argument.

Carlton* tanked. The evidence is there. Case closed.

It's circumstantial and just as much reason to argue it as support it. Fortunately you don't have the power to close the case, as much as you'd like to.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't expect you to admit your club stooped, but don't go expecting me to change my mind either.

Heaven forbid. Your arguments have actually helped our side I think.

 

[SugarHealey]

In light of todays result in Perth.

A few clubs are regarded as partaking in the tactic of tanking over the last 15 years.

How many of them have won premierships, how many have achieved long term success and how many of them have supporters not bothered by this thread?

Now how many of them continue to be crap with no short term likelyhood of not being so, no matter how long ago they apparantly chose that winning wasn't everything.

I rekon that one club is doing ok but hasn't done anything substantial, nor has achieved anything long term and at first sign of faltering will be remimded on such boards as this, other than that the cloud forever holds.

anyone disagree?

Rubbish.
Only those teams trying to rebuild they're complete lists are having problems with too many exposed juniors.

The Hawks & Pies did alright after a meander down to the depths for a quick feed & then back up for Air, swimming amongst the Flags.

 

[toeknee2]

In light of todays result in Perth.

A few clubs are regarded as partaking in the tactic of tanking over the last 15 years.

How many of them have won premierships, how many have achieved long term success and how many of them have supporters not bothered by this thread?

Now how many of them continue to be crap with no short term likelyhood of not being so, no matter how long ago they apparantly chose that winning wasn't everything.

I rekon that one club is doing ok but hasn't done anything substantial, nor has achieved anything long term and at first sign of faltering will be remimded on such boards as this, other than that the cloud forever holds.

anyone disagree?

You obviously have it in for the clubs who had teams picked by match commitees who were more interested in a priority pick than the result.
Our team was accused of this and I think it did happen. The players always gave there all and the supporters cheered for a win but the team selectors were influenced. But why not?
Ask yourself, what would you want your MC to do if your team was languishing at the bottom with a mega crap list?

That right.

Our team is mainly made up of players who have come through from distant picks and the rookie system. A hand full of high picks complements them well but the core was built from scratch. I am very proud of my boys, especially the rookies like Betts, Jamison and Garlett. Then theres guys like Duigan, Carrazzo and co. Yes I'm very proud of our list.

 

[Summer Nights]

...

You can look at it any way you like. You obviously hadn't even watched the interview before I posted it. You claimed that Liberatore gave no facts, yet he did, so that's your first mistake.

You're basically picking every point apart and playing semantics. You can't see the forest for the the trees.

I'm not going to address every nitpick because you're just trying to draw the argument out in an attempt to dilute what is blatantly obvious. Carlton* were not trying to win in the last few games, and particularly in the last game. Even if they were list managing, they were not actively trying to win with the players they picked. There can be only one explanation for this.

There is no proof, but evidence that an insider could see that Carlton* tanked.

You'll keep believing what you want to believe, such as "Libba recanted", and he "might be" disgruntled, which is laughable that you actually accept that. Confirmation bias, much?

By the way, I've seen enough to make an informed decision in my own view, so from that perspective, the case is closed. I even accept the explanation regarding Johnstone running unattended, but it is clear to blind Freddy that the Blues* cheated for picks regardless, and that this playing group is tainted needlessly due to this.

All the best.