Luke Bloody Ball

[Johnny Member]

Lyon stated that there was a million dollar plus contract on the table that Ball walked away from, I don't recall this being contradicted by the Ball camp... I'd call that 'required'... this shyte really does belong on the oppo forum.

Thanks.

Getting tired talking to Dodg about "required".

$1m is "required".

Man, I don't know why you need to get nasty. Calling me s*** like dodgy is totally unneccessary.

[Mr Magic]

Luke Ball is not the first player to turn his back on his existing club and seek greener pasteurs elsewhere.
It's happened many time to all Clubs including St Kilda.
In fact, Luke Ball is not even the best player at St Kilda to have done it - Plugger, Ditterich and Stewart spring to mind.

So what drives the angst towards Luke Ball from many Saints fans.
I truly believe it was the circumstances surrounding his defection - the fact he allowed 'his people' to actively denigrate the Coach and Club.

That is what I believe 'rankles' many.
Other than Hammill vs John Elliott I'm struggling to come up with another example of such public criticism from a player (or his people) towards the incumbent.

Unfortunately my memories of Luke Ball at St Kilda are not solely of his unquestioned courage at extracting the footy - they are now tarnished by his undignified silence during unwarranted (IMO) attacks on our Club by 'his people'.
And that failure to reign in those public attacks lessens his 'good character' in my eyes.
I see nothing creditable to his 'good character' for allowing it to continue. He , and only he, was in the position to have it stop and yet he chose to allow it to continue.
Even after the event he allowed his 'new best friends' to contiunue the 'public bagging'.

[SaintPav]

Interesting. The last few posts reveal, yet again, that the hatred some continue to display towards Ball is closely linked to their undying obsessive hatred of GT. Apparently Ball should have felt so guilty about being paid too much by the club in the past because of GT - even though he wasn't Lenny Hayes and couldn't kick over a jam jar, etc. - that he should have been prepared to instantly accept any offer the club put to him in 2009.

And, although we don't think he was much good, he was a required player to the extent that we required him to play VFL as a backup to Armo, Steven, etc. for 3 years. But, rather than take up an offer to be paid slightly more at the Pies and star in a couple of premiership sides, Ball should have been proud to stay at the Saints as a bit-part player to expurgate GT's past sins in having paid him too much.

So, even though most people (including the legendary man on the Clapham
omnibus) would see Ball's coice of the Pies' offer over ours as rational
and logical, it was actually an act of deep, dark betrayal.

It's a "logic" which - being based on the concept of atonement for original sin - reminds me of old-fashioned Catholic theology. But it is also a bit like Stalinism: first you drive Trotsky out of your country and then denounce
him and his supporters of betraying the revolution.

And here was me thinking it was simply a case of our wanting to free up money to pay Lovett and thereby offering Ball as little as we thought we could get away with because nobody else would want him (and we really only wanted him as a backup). And then getting the shock of our lives
when it turned out that a glamour club was feting him, saw him as a
potential star for them, and was prepared to pay him more (or, at least, about the same $$$, but on terms that were much more favourable to him).

I'm afraid that, rather than seek to atone for GT's past mistakes (the "sins of the father" if you like, B4E) it looks as if Ball made a simple business decision and took the better offer. But I rather like the idea of trying to use guilt and original sin as bargaining tactics in contract negotiations.

It's a shame Ricky Nixon is out of the game. He, for one, might have understood.......

WTF does Ricky Nixon know about atonement and guilt?

[Moccha]

Geez a lot here have issues in their lives if all they have to talk about is Ball. Good luck to him.

[Saints43]

And here was me thinking it was simply a case of our wanting to free up money to pay Lovett and thereby offering Ball as little as we thought we could get away with because nobody else would want him (and we really only wanted him as a backup). And then getting the shock of our lives when it turned out that a glamour club was feting him, saw him as a potential star for them, and was prepared to pay him more (or, at least, about the same $$$, but on terms that were much more favourable to him).

That's exactly the way I saw it.

He was a 'required player'. Required but not essential. The player St Kilda saw as essential was Andrew Lovett and the respective contracts offered reflected that. I also believe that St Kilda thought the contract negotiations would be one way traffic and approached it that way.

[desertsaint]

And here was me thinking it was simply a case of our wanting to free up money to pay Lovett and thereby offering Ball as little as we thought we could get away with because nobody else would want him (and we really only wanted him as a backup). And then getting the shock of our lives when it turned out that a glamour club was feting him, saw him as a potential star for them, and was prepared to pay him more (or, at least, about the same $$$, but on terms that were much more favourable to him).

That's exactly the way I saw it.

He was a 'required player'. Required but not essential. The player St Kilda saw as essential was Andrew Lovett and the respective contracts offered reflected that. I also believe that St Kilda thought the contract negotiations would be one way traffic and approached it that way.

unfortunately some supporters are a bit blinded by partisanship and have yet to move past it. i have yet to hear any public statement on the matter by luke that hasn't shown his class as an individual. good luck to him. we need to move on.

[meher baba]

Interesting. The last few posts reveal, yet again, that the hatred some continue to display towards Ball is closely linked to their undying obsessive hatred of GT. Apparently Ball should have felt so guilty about being paid too much by the club in the past because of GT - even though he wasn't Lenny Hayes and couldn't kick over a jam jar, etc. - that he should have been prepared to instantly accept any offer the club put to him in 2009.

And, although we don't think he was much good, he was a required player to the extent that we required him to play VFL as a backup to Armo, Steven, etc. for 3 years. But, rather than take up an offer to be paid slightly more at the Pies and star in a couple of premiership sides, Ball should have been proud to stay at the Saints as a bit-part player to expurgate GT's past sins in having paid him too much.

So, even though most people (including the legendary man on the Clapham
omnibus) would see Ball's coice of the Pies' offer over ours as rational
and logical, it was actually an act of deep, dark betrayal.

It's a "logic" which - being based on the concept of atonement for original sin - reminds me of old-fashioned Catholic theology. But it is also a bit like Stalinism: first you drive Trotsky out of your country and then denounce
him and his supporters of betraying the revolution.

And here was me thinking it was simply a case of our wanting to free up money to pay Lovett and thereby offering Ball as little as we thought we could get away with because nobody else would want him (and we really only wanted him as a backup). And then getting the shock of our lives
when it turned out that a glamour club was feting him, saw him as a
potential star for them, and was prepared to pay him more (or, at least, about the same $$$, but on terms that were much more favourable to him).

I'm afraid that, rather than seek to atone for GT's past mistakes (the "sins of the father" if you like, B4E) it looks as if Ball made a simple business decision and took the better offer. But I rather like the idea of trying to use guilt and original sin as bargaining tactics in contract negotiations.

It's a shame Ricky Nixon is out of the game. He, for one, might have understood.......

WTF does Ricky Nixon know about atonement and guilt?

Probably more than he's letting on, but you've made a good point!!

[tony74]

Gee I'm really glad I began this post!!! I promise no more. I'll just comment on training news.

I repeat!!!

For the third and final time !!

[dragit]

Gee I'm really glad I began this post!!! I promise no more. I'll just comment on training news.

I repeat!!!

For the third and final time !!

Good luck!

[MCG-Unit]

And here was me thinking it was simply a case of our wanting to free up money to pay Lovett and thereby offering Ball as little as we thought we could get away with because nobody else would want him (and we really only wanted him as a backup). And then getting the shock of our lives when it turned out that a glamour club was feting him, saw him as a potential star for them, and was prepared to pay him more (or, at least, about the same $$$, but on terms that were much more favourable to him).

That's exactly the way I saw it.

He was a 'required player'. Required but not essential. The player St Kilda saw as essential was Andrew Lovett and the respective contracts offered reflected that. I also believe that St Kilda thought the contract negotiations would be one way traffic and approached it that way.

unfortunately some supporters are a bit blinded by partisanship and have yet to move past it. i have yet to hear any public statement on the matter by luke that hasn't shown his class as an individual. good luck to him. we need to move on.

Yep agree with the 3 of you - that's just about how I saw it. Notice who the most volatile ones are in this debate
Some folks reckon they know all the salary structures and rumoured trades involved..........
No way has this has been all one-way traffic - even the coach stated this.

[satchmo]

interesting how after nearly 2 years we still whinge and moan about him

Do people here need some sort of relationship counselling over this

time to move on FFS

Off you go then.

Only if you go first......

You want everyone else but you to move on?

If you can't take your own advice, don't be surprised if no one else does.

[SainterK]

He was a 'required player'. Required but not essential.

I don't understand the difference personally?

Are you saying the club wanted him to leave, because I don't believe that to be the case at all?

Perhaps the salary offered to him in 2009 simply reflected his output then, and perhaps his salary at Collingwood refects his output now....because let's not pretend they were similar.

(sorry tony)

[Sainternist]

There should be a word filter on here for "Luke Ball"

OVER IT

Please, can we just move on?

[satchmo]

There should be a word filter on here for "Luke Ball"

OVER IT

Please, can we just move on?

You have to learn not to click the thread title. Then you are cured.

[gringo]

The guy has shrunken nuts and an expanded wallet and probably a couple of premierships in the cabinet by the end of his career but will always be a sad figure of EPO warped tragedy to me.

[plugger66]

The guy has shrunken nuts and an expanded wallet and probably a couple of premierships in the cabinet by the end of his career but will always be a sad figure of EPO warped tragedy to me.

Fantastic comment.

[SaintPav]

The guy has shrunken nuts and an expanded wallet and probably a couple of premierships in the cabinet by the end of his career but will always be a sad figure of EPO warped tragedy to me.

Fantastic comment.

and like he gives a sh!t what we think anyway.

[St Ick]

My view on Ball hasnt changed for a long time - prior to his departure I felt he was tradeable.

But according to you, the trading of Ball was a one sided affair...a club stuff up ...and Luke ofcourse played no part...he was just a good guy doing whats best for himself - except he detests the mercinary tag now... but ultimately thats what it was.

Sure Luke got offered $1m by Saints and didnt feel loved..... but Luke had another choice.....the choice to commit to the club and work through the deficiencies in his game Lyon (and others) clearly saw....but nup.....for all his "intestinal fortitude" Luke cut and run. You see thats where the Hayes comparison is apt......i dont suspect L Hayes would ever do that.....he strikes me as the kind of guy who if hes challenged...he ups the ante and works harder.

Yes, Luke had a good year in 05 - Hodge/Judd are elite for a reason....they do it each year....

For the record Ive never been a huge L Ball fan. Even at his best my jaws werent dropping while the so called experts were saying hes the next jesus on a footy field. Didnt see that myself. He's no Sellwood for that matter...who does it all.

He is fearless - but plenty are at AFL level, again hence the Hayes comparison...., however, Luke still cant run and kicking is ordinary. He's an ok player IMHO made to look better in a very good side this year who again can cover his limitations. We needed something else from Ball he couldnt deliver. Pies have plenty to run/spread...we didnt...Luke couldnt.

No I dont suppose I ever really expected Luke to make sacrifices after being well paid at the club for so many years.... (one of our highest paid players thanks to Grant) and under-delivering for such a long time while the club kept faith through all his injuries/study etc. Luke did exactly what I expected him to do after witnessing his handling of criticism from the coach....dropped the lip and took off.

Once again, I wouldnt imagine that response from Hayes. You're right, that comparison on so many levels is all wrong.

Perfect summation, my thoughts exactly!

Couldn't agree more and exactly my thoughts on the issue. With that written, and someone else having that opinion, I'm done and satisfied on the whole LB saga - anyone else deluded enough to believe the media dribble story on the situation needs to just refer back to the quote here...

[BigMart]

Teflon

As long as you actually believe what you write and arent trying to convince yourself of anything...

Bottom line is

His career will see him remembered as a great player
A b&f
A premiership or three
200+ games
All australian
Avg
20+ poss a game
5 clearances
5 tackles

Not to shabby a record for a guy Who has "limitations' who cant kick....

[jays]

pies player now

[Saints43]

He was a 'required player'. Required but not essential.

I don't understand the difference personally?

Are you saying the club wanted him to leave, because I don't believe that to be the case at all?

Perhaps the salary offered to him in 2009 simply reflected his output then, and perhaps his salary at Collingwood refects his output now....because let's not pretend they were similar.

(sorry tony)

The two sentences are simple to understand.

'Required' doesn't mean 'highly rated'.

Clearly if a player is required then the club didn't want him to leave. Contract negotiations are the ultimate measure of how much a club wants a player to stay. Ball 350K. Lovett 500K.

I don't understand what you are talking about regarding contact offers in 2009. We offered him a contract. Collingwood offered him a contract. Collingwood couldn't have offered him a contract based on how he's playing today.

Put it this way: When RL came to the club the first three you would put in the square to win a centre bounce to get a clearence would be Harvey, Hayes & Ball.

Now it would be Hayes, Montagna, Dal Santo.

The ability to clear a ball from the centre is surely the foundation of any gameplan.

And our ability to do this has been mismanaged. imo.

(sorry tony)

[SainterK]

He was a 'required player'. Required but not essential.

I don't understand the difference personally?

Are you saying the club wanted him to leave, because I don't believe that to be the case at all?

Perhaps the salary offered to him in 2009 simply reflected his output then, and perhaps his salary at Collingwood refects his output now....because let's not pretend they were similar.

(sorry tony)

The two sentences are simple to understand.

'Required' doesn't mean 'highly rated'.

Clearly if a player is required then the club didn't want him to leave. Contract negotiations are the ultimate measure of how much a club wants a player to stay. Ball 350K. Lovett 500K.

I don't understand what you are talking about regarding contact offers in 2009. We offered him a contract. Collingwood offered him a contract. Collingwood couldn't have offered him a contract based on how he's playing today.

Put it this way: When RL came to the club the first three you would put in the square to win a centre bounce to get a clearence would be Harvey, Hayes & Ball.

Now it would be Hayes, Montagna, Dal Santo.

The ability to clear a ball from the centre is surely the foundation of any gameplan.

And our ability to do this has been mismanaged. imo.

(sorry tony)

I'll try and explain.

Pies had O'Bree, Saints had Lenny.

Who was he of more value to?

Saints offered what was relative compared to the likes of Lenny, keeping in mind Lenny was Batman, and Ball was Robin.

Pies offered what was relative compared to the likes of O'Bree, keeping in mind they had no Batman....

When Ross Lyon came to the club, Luke was captain, having probably his worst year ever, and under massive scrutiny by the media for not living up to his potential. Interestingly, he actually played quite a few games as the Clint Jones role, not always as a traditional mid.

(once again, my apologies tony)

[Saints43]

Pies had O'Bree, Saints had Lenny.

Who was he of more value to?

Saints offered what was relative compared to the likes of Lenny, keeping in mind Lenny was Batman, and Ball was Robin.

Pies offered what was relative compared to the likes of O'Bree, keeping in mind they had no Batman....

When Ross Lyon came to the club, Luke was captain, having probably his worst year ever, and under massive scrutiny by the media for not living up to his potential. Interestingly, he actually played quite a few games as the Clint Jones role, not always as a traditional mid.

(once again, my apologies tony)

Agreed. MM rated LB's ability to impact on his team much more than RL did.

But RL spent the 150K difference between what he was willing to pay Luke Ball & Andrew Lovett on new blokes likes Peake, Pattison & Jesse Smith. And later on Polo to plug the gap.

He didn't have to have LB or AL. He could have had them both but obviously didn't see it as important enough.

The emphasis on 'playing your role in the gameplan' somehow left getting first hands on the ball in it's wake.

MM saw LB as the missing link. RL couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Under RL we have seen Geelong, Hawthorn and Collingwood all go past us and win flags because they have spent their money better and the LB/AL saga has just been a segue on that journey.

(as always, sorry tony)

[Teflon]

So if he's such an average player who can't kick, can't run and is a weak character - why the hell did we offer him over $300k per year!

And if that consitutes "good money" - why the hell didnt he take it??
Answer = He wanted more....

No crime in that but why the "ball revisionists" out to re-write what really took place?

Odd.

[Teflon]

Teflon

As long as you actually believe what you write and arent trying to convince yourself of anything...

Bottom line is

His career will see him remembered as a great player
A b&f
A premiership or three
200+ games
All australian
Avg
20+ poss a game
5 clearances
5 tackles

Not to shabby a record for a guy Who has "limitations' who cant kick....

Worth $600k a year according to the Ball love on here cause hes a "great bloke".

Once again, hes a player who had 1 standout year and who plays a "role" well - plenty in AFL do that. He wont EVER pick a team up by the scruff of its neck on his own and win a Norm Smith in the process......er....thats worth $600k....

Still, if stats of 20 posessions a game float your boat - go for it.

I'd prefer Chris Judds record at career end though..