Will AFL teams use injuries as an excuse to tank?

[injuryupdate]

Very interesting one thrown up by Jake Niall in the Age this week, and in my opinion, right on the money.

The lack of a draft 'lottery' in the AFL (like the NBA has) means that once you are out of the finals picture, it is better to lose badly (and finish with less than 5 wins) than moderately. Teams are not renowned for deliberately tanking games (although a few years ago an accusation was made in the Age that Fremantle may have deliberately lost a game to secure the draft choice they used for Paul Hasleby). However, a team can become super-conservative in their treatment of injuries, meaning that they have a bunch of young kids on the park, which effectively means they lose games no matter how hard they actually try.

The only way to remove this incentive is to bring in a lottery element to the draft, so the direct incentive to lose games is diminished. This works well in the NBA in the US.

Jake Niall's full article (where he outlines how Collingwood might now take 8 weeks to bring Buckley back) is at:
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/05/11/1084041405731.html

[Bob]

I'm not exactly sure how each player's wage is calculated, but for Buckley to miss 8 games it's not rocket science to work out that it is going to cost Collingwood mega bucks. Is this a fair comment?

[injuryupdate]

The way AFL contracts are structured, he pretty much will be paid exactly the same whether he plays or is injured. In fact, it may save Collingwood money as I think most clubs are participants in an insurance scheme where they receive compensation if their injury payments are too high in a given year.

The money wouldn't worry Collingwood at all. They are rolling in it. They would pay millions to get the first two draft picks, which is what they will get if they finish last on five wins or less. The discussion point is at what point they consider the Premiership a lost cause and start planning for the 'future' (i.e. trying to get the best recruits for next year).

I should pass on one story that can help retain optimism in the current system. The Swans in 1995 would have received an extra priority draft pick if they lost the last round, against Collingwood, so there was a systemic built-in incentive for them to tank the game. Ron Barassi was coaching and he is the sort of bloke who would never be a party to lying down, especially against Collingwood. The Swans ended up winning the game, which knocked the Magpies out of the finals and gave Brisbane their maiden finals' berth. The momentum that the Swans attained (along with the credibility and respect from the rest of the AFL) from this win surely helped them reach the AFL Grand Final in 1996, far more than a lame loss plus a priority draft pick would have.

[Bob]

draft picks and an insurance scam - what will Eddie think of next!

[injuryupdate]

Read this article on Shane Crawford of Hawthorn:

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/05/13/1084289818347.html

My reading between the lines is that he isn't 100% fit but can still bust his arse trying to get out on the park each week if required. If the team is 6-1, then he doesn't question the decision, he just keeps playing and looking forward to the finals, but the same injury at 1-6 means that he looks seriously at the rest option.

The way the bottom of the table is structured does have an effect on these decisions. In Premier League soccer, you have to keep playing to stop your team getting relegated. In the AFL in the second half of the season, all of the teams at 3-10 or worse are going to be trying their best to not win without trying to throw games, if you can follow that logic.

[Bob]

I wonder if Schwab shares the same opinion! I'm sure he'd rather rest up his number one player for the rest of the year so he can write 'children's books' when his career is finsihed.

Different situation with Malthouse and Buckley.

[injuryupdate]

Article archive:

Any hope that Hawthorn had of resurrecting the nightmare that 2004 has become was extinguished with a huge loss to Adelaide, including the greatest possible loss - skipper Shane Crawford to a fractured forearm. Read more at AFL.com. These injuries take 8-12 weeks to heal, and have a high risk of recurrence, so Hawthorn (who are now certain to miss the finals) will not be rushing Crawford back. He has been playing under some duress with a lumbar disc prolapse, and may now concentrate on season 2005, as will the club (who may be tempted to now see out the season looking for high draft picks). This strategy for AFL teams who are struggling with form and injury is controversial, but discussed further at the Injuryupdate Forum.

It may be stretching the argument even further, but when Hawthorn inevitably get a priority pick and number 1 or 2 draft choice this year, they won't be too upset at all of the suspensions from the brawl against Essendon.