List Management Light Years Away From The 't' Word

The Age

Saturday August 23, 2008

Nathan Buckley, Collingwood Legend

Tanking is a dirty word for AFL clubs, but it is a valid strategy to take list-management decisions focusing on the long-term future.

THE "T" word should be removed from the football vernacular. It is a fallacy, and a fraud. Football players and the teams they make up do not, cannot play to lose matches. It is simply unfathomable to take the field aiming for anything less than victory.

List management is a totally different concept. Coaches and their football departments make strategic medium-to-long-term decisions consistently, and it is particularly highlighted for clubs when their finals chances are over.

The difference between the "T" word, its very negative connotation, and the valid concept of list management is extreme - and that is why we saw John Worsfold react to that line of questioning last week.

Worsfold said: "It doesn't hurt me, but I think it reflects very, very badly on those people (that condone tanking), but they're quite happy to put their head on the block and say that they would not try in games."

To insinuate that West Coast went out to lose that game of football is a slur on every player that took the field and, indeed, on the club they represent.

The key words to me in Worsfold's statement were the words "in games". Once on the field of battle and "in games", the natural competitive instincts of a footballer take over. Winning is the only thing that matters and pride is a hugely motivating force.

The real question is this: does a club do everything in its power to win games of football in a season that it can no longer play finals in? And the answer is most likely "no".

I say "most likely" because the evidence of such plans cannot be categorically affirmed. Yes, chronically injured players get sent to surgery or rested earlier. Yes, players with niggles aren't expected to carry them. Yes, clubs take this opportunity to expose young players to the elite level. Yes, clubs play tradeable commodities to "boost" their value at season's end. These are all legitimate list management options available to any club.

The fact that winning a game of football in this circumstance removes a draft advantage from their grasp is in many ways incidental.

In 2005 I played in a team that benefited at the draft table by winning five games or less. In that year we lost our last nine games. We, as a club, used all of the list-management strategies above.

Chris Tarrant was sent to the operating theatre. Anthony Rocca was not rushed back. Heath Shaw and Harry O'Brien were blooded and others were given games they might not have otherwise earned.

For all the "T" word talk, we led top-four side North Melbourne in round 19 by 22 points halfway through the last quarter and lost by six points. I missed a shot at goal at the death and walked off the ground spitting chips. Winning was all that mattered.

Throughout the latter part of that year I was fully aware of the negative sentiment that surrounded our situation and much like Worsfold, I hated it.

At season's end we had a priority pick and in that draft the club secured Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury. The fruits of those picks are obvious.

In retrospect, I can see the benefits that have come to the club from the list-management angle. Young players were fast-tracked, key players entered 2006 rested and ready and we got one extra early draft pick. Even if we hadn't secured the latter we still would have benefited from the strategies.

The most damaging aspect of the "T" word is the public's awareness of the benefits of playing losing football and it is perpetuated through the media. In 2005, some Pies supporters were quite unbelievably happy to lose to the old enemy, Carlton, to preserve the priority pick.

When the perceived benefits of losing are greater than that of winning the damage is extreme. In recent years the AFL has taken steps to quash this perception, but some just won't let it go.

For one, a team only qualifies for an extra pick at the head of the draft if it has consecutive poor seasons. This smoothed criteria means that only very poor teams get the help it is designed to provide.

The advantage gained by having just one poor season is only an extra pick at the end of the draft's first round. The benefit will be even further diluted when the GC17 team receives its draft concessions from the 2009 draft.

In other words, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow ain't all it's cracked up to be.

There is also the not-inconsiderable fact that football is a team game and it's not worth selling your club's soul for any single ready-made footballer, let alone an unproven 17 year old.

While it is important to support clubs who languish at the bottom of the ladder, the late season focus on losing football is counter productive for the league.

During the week, David King suggested a valid alternative on 3AW. First, every team has to play each other once up until the completion of round 15. The reverse ladder at that point of the year is the following year's draft order and if teams haven't won more than three games they get an extra pick at the end of the first round.

We still won't escape the same old arguments being trotted out in round 14 and round 15, but at least they will be managed and controlled to that point.

The King model provides an accurate assessment of every team at that point of the year and removes any focus on the "T" word heading towards finals. Clubs are left to manage their lists as they would normally without the negative perception that currently dogs their every move.

It's worth consideration and is less disruptive and attention-demanding than a lottery system or the like.

Balancing the present with the future is something that every football administration is employed to do. It will be a red-letter day for the game when clubs are allowed to do their job well and not be criticised for it.

If you take anything from this article, please acknowledge that the benefit to teams of not winning games of football towards the end of a season is not as great as some of the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.

Separate the fact from the fiction and the difference between the "T" word and list management is like night and day.

? Buckley: life on outside The Age Melbourne Magazine next week

© 2008 The Age

Back to News Index | Back to Home