Dean Greig on Raph and Luke

[saint75]

Ross and St Kilda have remained quiet on this topic. It is the Luke Ball camp that has spread all the rumours. St Kilda, even now, are offering Luke a lifeline. FFS, he had a contract on the table FOR FREAKIN' MONTHS!!!! HE chose not to sign it. Fail to see how this is anyone else's fault but his own.

thankfully Luke is also remaining quiet

at no point has he come out and validated the "innuendo" about the club

He doesn't need to at this point. Connors and his family are doing it for him. I think this is what has disappointed me the most. I would have happily wished him the best if he decided to move on, but unfortunately, all the crap that is being leveled at our club and our coaching staff is really starting to irk me and is making my opinion of Luke Ball sink by the day (something I thought would NEVER happen!).

[Mr Magic]

Ross and St Kilda have remained quiet on this topic. It is the Luke Ball camp that has spread all the rumours. St Kilda, even now, are offering Luke a lifeline. FFS, he had a contract on the table FOR FREAKIN' MONTHS!!!! HE chose not to sign it. Fail to see how this is anyone else's fault but his own.

thankfully Luke is also remaining quiet

at no point has he come out and validated the "innuendo" about the club

You are correct Bratty, but unfortunately those arounf Luke are the ones spreading the 'innuendo'.

And for all those who still think it was the Saints fault for not completing the trad, here is a story from WWOS quoting Geoff Walsh, teh Collingwood List Manager:-

ninemsn AFLWWOS > AFL
> Article
Demons chasing Luke Ball
19:01 AEST Fri Oct 9 2009
St Kilda midfielder Luke Ball has not been granted a desired trade deal with Collingwood.

....

Moments after the trade week deadline passed on Friday afternoon, the Demons were speaking to Ball's manager about a possible move to the wooden spooners.

Ball was one of the big names in trade week talks after he told the Saints he wanted a trade to Collingwood.

But the two clubs could not agree on a deal, making Ball the one big name in trade week whose bid to move clubs was unsuccessful.

.........
Connors would not comment about Ball's options in the wake of the Collingwood deal not going ahead.

Lyon said Ball spoke with Saints officials for about 20 minutes before the trade deadline for an update on negotiations.

The Saints coach added he thought Ball would "obviously" be feeling frustration.

"We painted the picture of the week, what had unfolded, to make sure it was clear in his eyes what discussions had or hadn't taken place," Lyon said.

"He's a respected figure, all year we've wanted to retain Luke.

"What Luke needs to do is go away and assess what he wants to do.

"There are clear, evident options which is come back to St Kilda and train and deliver the actions that get you selected in the senior team or go into the pre-season draft and take your chances."

Lyon said the negotiations with Collingwood did not work out because of the draft picks on offer - 25 and 62.

"We're unlikely to use 62 and in our view 25 wasn't going to get Luke Ball done," he said.

"We didn't think it was an equitable trade so we stood our ground."

Magpies football manager Geoff Walsh said his club was limited in what they could offer after completing the Darren Jolly trade with Sydney.

"We were hamstrung in terms of our picks," Walsh said.

[Beej]

[I do not hate Lyon. I am, however, trying to make sense of a very confusing and frustrating situation (as are we all), and I'm not willing to except a explanation that doesn't sound plausible, simply because it exonerates the club of any blame.

I'm not saying Lyon deliberately didn't play Luke for no other reason than he doesn't like him.

I don't know why that occurred. Lyon claims it wasn't even his mistake.

The point is, it would have looked like more of the same to Luke. FIt and ready to play, tore it up in the first half, got left on the bench in the 2nd half.

So the GF was all about Luke Ball individually? he was sitting on the bench with his stopwatch working out the % of time he got?

FFS Eddy or Geary or Armo got 0% playing time in the GF.

All this BS about poor old Luke

Ball was dropped because his fitness levels would not allow him to recover sufficiently to train and play week in week out. The Lyon gameplan is very intensive and Balls body was not fit enough.

Misson put him on a special fitness program to strengthen him during the season with an aim to having a fully fit Ball for the finals.

He played VFL so he would still be match fit but not under the rigours of AFL intensity.

Luke Ball then played in every final - was selected for the GF - started on the ground in the GF and was on and off the bench.

To take the fact that he wasn't played in the 4th qtr as the reason he is leaving is absolutely laughable.

Ball had made up his mind to leave well before the finals. he had rejected a three year deal on the table since June because he thought he was worth more than he was being offered.

His camp than began the leaking proccess - $500k from Collingwood. then after the GF it was for more opportunities - then it was his family were upset - then it was the position was untenable at the Saints.

it smelled like orchestrated spin and BS.

Fact is Luke Ball thought he was worth more than St.Kilda and now the market believes he is actually worth.

It is nothing more than he wants more money?

If you are right, jb, and you may be (all we can do is speculate), then why would Lyon play a bloke in the biggest game of the year, if he knew that player would not be able to contribute for more than half a game? Why would you offer a three year contract to a footballer who can't play for more than half a game at AFL level?

I struggle to believe that Luke Ball was so spent that he could not contribute at all after half time. Lyon said himself that in hindsight he should've played Ball for a couple more bursts on the field, so obviously Ball was physically capable, it was just that he was no longer required. In essence, we were a man down after the long break.

IMO they see Ball as nothing more than a pinch-hitter. Someone who will be able to relieve the other mids when they need a rest yet in the second half of the GF, thought the side was better off with tiring midfielders on the park than a fresh Luke Ball sitting on the pine waiting for a chance to help out. Ross Lyon said himself that Ball did everything that was required of him on the day yet still didn't have the faith to play him in the second half.

And if that's what they believe then who am I to argue with them. Luke Ball won't be that much of a loss if that's how they feel. All I'm saying is that's exactly why Luke Ball wants to leave.

[Mr Magic]

[I do not hate Lyon. I am, however, trying to make sense of a very confusing and frustrating situation (as are we all), and I'm not willing to except a explanation that doesn't sound plausible, simply because it exonerates the club of any blame.

I'm not saying Lyon deliberately didn't play Luke for no other reason than he doesn't like him.

I don't know why that occurred. Lyon claims it wasn't even his mistake.

The point is, it would have looked like more of the same to Luke. FIt and ready to play, tore it up in the first half, got left on the bench in the 2nd half.

So the GF was all about Luke Ball individually? he was sitting on the bench with his stopwatch working out the % of time he got?

FFS Eddy or Geary or Armo got 0% playing time in the GF.

All this BS about poor old Luke

Ball was dropped because his fitness levels would not allow him to recover sufficiently to train and play week in week out. The Lyon gameplan is very intensive and Balls body was not fit enough.

Misson put him on a special fitness program to strengthen him during the season with an aim to having a fully fit Ball for the finals.

He played VFL so he would still be match fit but not under the rigours of AFL intensity.

Luke Ball then played in every final - was selected for the GF - started on the ground in the GF and was on and off the bench.

To take the fact that he wasn't played in the 4th qtr as the reason he is leaving is absolutely laughable.

Ball had made up his mind to leave well before the finals. he had rejected a three year deal on the table since June because he thought he was worth more than he was being offered.

His camp than began the leaking proccess - $500k from Collingwood. then after the GF it was for more opportunities - then it was his family were upset - then it was the position was untenable at the Saints.

it smelled like orchestrated spin and BS.

Fact is Luke Ball thought he was worth more than St.Kilda and now the market believes he is actually worth.

It is nothing more than he wants more money?

If you are right, jb, and you may be (all we can do is speculate), then why would Lyon play a bloke in the biggest game of the year, if he knew that player would not be able to contribute for more than half a game? Why would you offer a three year contract to a footballer who can't play for more than half a game at AFL level?

I struggle to believe that Luke Ball was so spent that he could not contribute at all after half time. Lyon said himself that in hindsight he should've played Ball for a couple more bursts on the field, so obviously Ball was physically capable, it was just that he was no longer required. In essence, we were a man down after the long break.

IMO they see Ball as nothing more than a pinch-hitter. Someone who will be able to relieve the other mids when they need a rest yet in the second half of the GF, thought the side was better off with tiring midfielders on the park than a fresh Luke Ball sitting on the pine waiting for a chance to help out.

And that's why Luke Ball wants to leave.

Except Luke Ball wasn't relieving anybody when he started on the Ground in the Centre Square at the first bounce of the Grand Final.

You want some more speculation?

Maybe the Club offered him anew 3 year contract because they believe the Fitness staff can resolve his 'problem' over the forthcoming pre-season? Maybe they've come up with a plan that they believe will work for him?
That sounds more plausible to me than a theory that they offered him a contract not to play him.

You see, the problem I have with this 'Ball is leaving because of poor game time' is the premise it comes from.
That the Club deliberately play him less than he is capable of.
I just don't believe that any professional club would do something so amateurish and stupid. That's not to say mistakes can't happen, but to deliberately do it?

[Beej]

[I do not hate Lyon. I am, however, trying to make sense of a very confusing and frustrating situation (as are we all), and I'm not willing to except a explanation that doesn't sound plausible, simply because it exonerates the club of any blame.

I'm not saying Lyon deliberately didn't play Luke for no other reason than he doesn't like him.

I don't know why that occurred. Lyon claims it wasn't even his mistake.

The point is, it would have looked like more of the same to Luke. FIt and ready to play, tore it up in the first half, got left on the bench in the 2nd half.

So the GF was all about Luke Ball individually? he was sitting on the bench with his stopwatch working out the % of time he got?

FFS Eddy or Geary or Armo got 0% playing time in the GF.

All this BS about poor old Luke

Ball was dropped because his fitness levels would not allow him to recover sufficiently to train and play week in week out. The Lyon gameplan is very intensive and Balls body was not fit enough.

Misson put him on a special fitness program to strengthen him during the season with an aim to having a fully fit Ball for the finals.

He played VFL so he would still be match fit but not under the rigours of AFL intensity.

Luke Ball then played in every final - was selected for the GF - started on the ground in the GF and was on and off the bench.

To take the fact that he wasn't played in the 4th qtr as the reason he is leaving is absolutely laughable.

Ball had made up his mind to leave well before the finals. he had rejected a three year deal on the table since June because he thought he was worth more than he was being offered.

His camp than began the leaking proccess - $500k from Collingwood. then after the GF it was for more opportunities - then it was his family were upset - then it was the position was untenable at the Saints.

it smelled like orchestrated spin and BS.

Fact is Luke Ball thought he was worth more than St.Kilda and now the market believes he is actually worth.

It is nothing more than he wants more money?

If you are right, jb, and you may be (all we can do is speculate), then why would Lyon play a bloke in the biggest game of the year, if he knew that player would not be able to contribute for more than half a game? Why would you offer a three year contract to a footballer who can't play for more than half a game at AFL level?

I struggle to believe that Luke Ball was so spent that he could not contribute at all after half time. Lyon said himself that in hindsight he should've played Ball for a couple more bursts on the field, so obviously Ball was physically capable, it was just that he was no longer required. In essence, we were a man down after the long break.

IMO they see Ball as nothing more than a pinch-hitter. Someone who will be able to relieve the other mids when they need a rest yet in the second half of the GF, thought the side was better off with tiring midfielders on the park than a fresh Luke Ball sitting on the pine waiting for a chance to help out.

And that's why Luke Ball wants to leave.

Except Luke Ball wasn't relieving anybody when he started on the Ground in the Centre Square at the first bounce of the Grand Final.

You want some more speculation?

Maybe the Club offered him anew 3 year contract because they believe the Fitness staff can resolve his 'problem' over the forthcoming pre-season? Maybe they've come up with a plan that they believe will work for him?
That sounds more plausible to me than a theory that they offered him a contract not to play him.

You see, the problem I have with this 'Ball is leaving because of poor game time' is the premise it comes from.
That the Club deliberately play him less than he is capable of.
I just don't believe that any professional club would do something so amateurish and stupid. That's not to say mistakes can't happen, but to deliberately do it?

Starting the game in the centre square doesn't necessarily mean they don't see him as any more than a pinch-hitter. The game was always going to be fire and brimstone early doors and Luke Ball was in his element.

Ball's not leaving because of poor game time. It's deeper than that.

Do you believe that Luke Ball was not capable of playing in the second half after a more than reasonable first half?

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm looking for opinions.

[Saint Bev]

Raph is hardly a developing player, he has been with us 6 years.

I agree with Mr Magic. It makes no sense to me that St Kilda would offer him a three year contract is they only saw him in limited role.

[Solar]

Raph is hardly a developing player, he has been with us 6 years.

I agree with Mr Magic. It makes no sense to me that St Kilda would offer him a three year contract is they only saw him in limited role.

missed the first 3 years with back injuries

has only played 57 games, inexprienced perhaps but still young

[Mr Magic]

I posted this in the other thread by mistake

OlB, here's your answer.

I'm not looking for an argument either, only logical debate.

I believe that neither I, you nor anybody else on here knows what Luke Ball's fitness capabilities are when it comes to game time.

I believe that the fitness staff who monitor him do know much more than any of us, and most probably more than even Luke himself does. Maybe he's got an overinflated opinion of his fitness level just like he has about his salary worth? He might think he's going really well when others are watching him not get to contests he should be.

To suggest that there has been a deliberate campaign to deny him game time because:-
the coaches don't rate him
the fitness staff don't rate him
Donald Duck doesn't rate him
is IMO pure nonsense.

That's not to say that mistakes cannot be made.

But given the track record of Dave Misson and his staff, I'm prepared to back their opinion on fitness over anybody else's, including Luke Ball.

Luke Ball's fitness would have been assesed at half time. They would have made the call as to when he could play again.
Fitness rotations are alwayd the call of teh fitness staff - not the coaches.
Rotations due to playing mistakes are always the call of the Coaches - not the fitness staff.

To suggest that he was deliberately left on the pine is, IMO, ridiculous.

[Lennon]

Ross Lyon wanted to win the Premiership as much (if not more) than any of us and to suggest that he deliberately did something to diminish that possibility of winning that premiership to satisfy some personal gneda, then you have rocks in your head.

Which is not a claim I have ever made. I believe I said I don't know why it occurred. Neither do you - though you were quick to pretend that you did.

I simply pointed out that it couldn't have been both a mistake and due to medical reasons. Don't like having your arguments questioned huh? If something makes no sense, I'll say so.

To take the fact that he wasn't played in the 4th qtr as the reason he is leaving is absolutely laughable.

Are you two slow, or something?

I never said that was the reason he was leaving. I said it would have looked like more of the same to Luke Ball. I don't think anyone here can dispute that Ball was becoming more disgruntled each time he was dropped and/or his game time was limited. Not considering it's the reason he's cited for leaving the club. This is a man who no longer believes his contribution is valued at St Kilda, and to be left on the bench in the second half of a grand final after ripping it up in the first would have done nothing to alter that feeling. That's all.

You keep insisting he's really just leaving for money. Got nothing to back that claim up, though, do you? In fact you're questioning Luke Ball's word, aren't you? Slander!

FFS.

[Beej]

I posted this in the other thread by mistake

OlB, here's your answer.

I'm not looking for an argument either, only logical debate.

I believe that neither I, you nor anybody else on here knows what Luke Ball's fitness capabilities are when it comes to game time.

I believe that the fitness staff who monitor him do know much more than any of us, and most probably more than even Luke himself does. Maybe he's got an overinflated opinion of his fitness level just like he has about his salary worth? He might think he's going really well when others are watching him not get to contests he should be.

To suggest that there has been a deliberate campaign to deny him game time because:-
the coaches don't rate him
the fitness staff don't rate him
Donald Duck doesn't rate him
is IMO pure nonsense.

That's not to say that mistakes cannot be made.

But given the track record of Dave Misson and his staff, I'm prepared to back their opinion on fitness over anybody else's, including Luke Ball.

Luke Ball's fitness would have been assesed at half time. They would have made the call as to when he could play again.
Fitness rotations are alwayd the call of teh fitness staff - not the coaches.
Rotations due to playing mistakes are always the call of the Coaches - not the fitness staff.

To suggest that he was deliberately left on the pine is, IMO, ridiculous.

Yeah, the fact that Ball consistently played around 50% of game time this year suggests that it would have to be fitness related.

Thing is, though, normally that 50% of game time was spread throughout a whole game. In the GF, the majority of it was in the first half. Maybe the coaching staff planned this and instructed Luke Ball to leave it all out there for a half footy.

However, Lyon said that, in hindsight, he probably should have played Ball for another two 6-minute bursts on the ground in the second half, but didn't. He didn't say he wished he could, but the fitness staff said he was spent.

Was he told by the fitness staff that Luke Ball wasn't physically capable? Or did he decide not to because he didn't think Ball would be effective on the ground?

If what you believe is right, then the fitness staff told him he wasn't physically capable.

[Mr Magic]

Ross Lyon wanted to win the Premiership as much (if not more) than any of us and to suggest that he deliberately did something to diminish that possibility of winning that premiership to satisfy some personal gneda, then you have rocks in your head.

Which is not a claim I have ever made. I believe I said I don't know why it occurred. Neither do you - though you were quick to pretend that you did.

I simply pointed out that it couldn't have been both a mistake and due to medical reasons. Don't like having your arguments questioned huh? If something makes no sense, I'll say so.

To take the fact that he wasn't played in the 4th qtr as the reason he is leaving is absolutely laughable.

Are you two slow, or something?

I never said that was the reason he was leaving. I said it would have looked like more of the same to Luke Ball. I don't think anyone here can dispute that Ball was becoming more disgruntled each time he was dropped and/or his game time was limited. Not considering it's the reason he's cited for leaving the club. This is a man who no longer believes his contribution is valued at St Kilda, and to be left on the bench in the second half of a grand final after ripping it up in the first would have done nothing to alter that feeling. That's all.
You keep insisting he's really just leaving for money. Got nothing to back that claim up, though, do you? In fact you're questioning Luke Ball's word, aren't you? Slander!

FFS.

You know, I used to think you were a logical poster but on this issue you just don't get it.

None of us, including you, have any real knowledge what went on or is going on.

You choose to support the Ball Camp's version, even though it changed 3 times in 3 days this last week.
That's fine.

But purleeze. To accuse others of making things up and then do eactly that yourself.
Please provide the link that supports your statement that I highlighted.
This is nothing more than your opinion based on what you've heard/read leaked to Greg Denham.
It has absolutely no basis in fact and yet you state it as if it is common accepted knowledge.
You have fallen for the bs being peddled by Connors. Pure and simple.

How do I know it's bs?
Because things don't add up.

Connors (it had to have been either him or Ball) leaked to Denham that Collingwood was interested in Ball
Then he leaked to Denham that Collingwood had offered Ball 500k.
Then he leaked to Denham that St Kilda had offered Ball more than Collingwood so that Ball wouldn't be perceived as a mercenary.

Try to rationalize those 3 leaks logically. Whilst the first 2 make sense the 3rd make no sense. Ball was offered a new contract by St Kilda in June on significantly less money than his current contract (600k). How can a ne w contract highter than 500k but less than 600k be considered 'significantly less' than 600k?

Next leak to Denham:-
Ball wants more game time.
Do you really think that St Kilda would deliberately not play him if he was able to be played in their opinion?

Next leak to Denham:
Ball's position at st Kilda with Lyon is untenable.

So the Coach doesn't rate him but he is offered a new 3 year contract that is not rescinded until after Trade Week is finished - after Ball has told them he wants to go to Collingwood.

None of these leaked atatements make any logical sense to me. Maybe they do to you?

I'll let you in on a secret.
I've heard, with the same degree of knowledge as Dean Greig (3rd hand) that the senior players at the Club are LIVID with Luke Ball for what he did this week.
They feel betrayed by him and it will not be an easy thing to get them to welcome him back.

[LondonSaint]

Sorry, this is a rant... this will surely tick off some Raph lovers on here.. hopefully this is a balanced view rather than pure Raph Bashing

The Good
- reasonable skills with no pressure
- provides a little bit of run and carry
- reads the play ok.. can be used as loose man e..g finals last year..

The Bad
- a top 10 pick from 2003.. Sam Fisher who was picked at 55 in the same draft.. is now a star.. and has been for the last 3 years...
- Been in the system for 6 years.. yes 6..
- lanky, not quick.. goes to ground a lot.. does not win contest..
- prone to brain fade.. poor decision making/skills under pressure
- plays in the backline which makes it more frustrating...

Yes, I'm talking about our own Raph Clarke.. i know it's often not constructive to criticise players.. but because all of the above.. he's extremely frustrating to watch and a favourite when it comes to player bashing..

I actually think it's Lyon and Silvagni's fault here.. based on his attribute..Raph should have never been picked in the 22... let alone in the backline where every mistake costs the team big time..

To a certain extent.. John Beveridge the recruiter also need to take the blame...X Clarke/Raph Clarke... 2 top 10 picks wasted...

Anyway.. I don't believe you should defend a player purely because he plays for St Kilda.. supporters have a right to vent their frustration at players they deemed good/bad.. some fair, others not... In Raph's case.. i'm afraid it is.. some say he played well in last year's final series.... but he played as a loose man in defense... and when our team is dominating..
And in the first 5 min. of the grand final... 2 bad mistakes... cost us a goal... played on Byrns in the last quarter.. got slaughtered... yes, it's not his fault for being picked to play, but the fact that he's no good and is not improving infuriates us all...

[Mr Magic]

I posted this in the other thread by mistake

OlB, here's your answer.

I'm not looking for an argument either, only logical debate.

I believe that neither I, you nor anybody else on here knows what Luke Ball's fitness capabilities are when it comes to game time.

I believe that the fitness staff who monitor him do know much more than any of us, and most probably more than even Luke himself does. Maybe he's got an overinflated opinion of his fitness level just like he has about his salary worth? He might think he's going really well when others are watching him not get to contests he should be.

To suggest that there has been a deliberate campaign to deny him game time because:-
the coaches don't rate him
the fitness staff don't rate him
Donald Duck doesn't rate him
is IMO pure nonsense.

That's not to say that mistakes cannot be made.

But given the track record of Dave Misson and his staff, I'm prepared to back their opinion on fitness over anybody else's, including Luke Ball.

Luke Ball's fitness would have been assesed at half time. They would have made the call as to when he could play again.
Fitness rotations are alwayd the call of teh fitness staff - not the coaches.
Rotations due to playing mistakes are always the call of the Coaches - not the fitness staff.

To suggest that he was deliberately left on the pine is, IMO, ridiculous.

Yeah, the fact that Ball consistently played around 50% of game time this year suggests that it would have to be fitness related.

Thing is, though, normally that 50% of game time was spread throughout a whole game. In the GF, the majority of it was in the first half. Maybe the coaching staff planned this and instructed Luke Ball to leave it all out there for a half footy.

However, Lyon said that, in hindsight, he probably should have played Ball for another two 6-minute bursts on the ground in the second half, but didn't. He didn't say he wished he could, but the fitness staff said he was spent.

Was he told by the fitness staff that Luke Ball wasn't physically capable? Or did he decide not to because he didn't think Ball would be effective on the ground?

If what you believe is right, then the fitness staff told him he wasn't physically capable.

And that's the whole point of this 'game tme' argument.

Ball's camp are now using it as a 'reason' to defect - cportraying it as a deliberate tactic to deny him more game time.
That to me is totally illogical.

And the more I hear it being used as a legitimate reason for Ball leaving, the more I think it is a smokescreen covering up the scandalous behaviour of Connors in all of this.

[Milton66]

Sorry, this is a rant... this will surely tick off some Raph lovers on here.. hopefully this is a balanced view rather than pure Raph Bashing

The Good
- reasonable skills with no pressure
- provides a little bit of run and carry
- reads the play ok.. can be used as loose man e..g finals last year..

The Bad
- a top 10 pick from 2003.. Sam Fisher who was picked at 55 in the same draft.. is now a star.. and has been for the last 3 years...
- Been in the system for 6 years.. yes 6..
- lanky, not quick.. goes to ground a lot.. does not win contest..
- prone to brain fade.. poor decision making/skills under pressure
- plays in the backline which makes it more frustrating...

Yes, I'm talking about our own Raph Clarke.. i know it's often not constructive to criticise players.. but because all of the above.. he's extremely frustrating to watch and a favourite when it comes to player bashing..

I actually think it's Lyon and Silvagni's fault here.. based on his attribute..Raph should have never been picked in the 22... let alone in the backline where every mistake costs the team big time..

To a certain extent.. John Beveridge the recruiter also need to take the blame...X Clarke/Raph Clarke... 2 top 10 picks wasted...

Anyway.. I don't believe you should defend a player purely because he plays for St Kilda.. supporters have a right to vent their frustration at players they deemed good/bad.. some fair, others not... In Raph's case.. i'm afraid it is.. some say he played well in last year's final series.... but he played as a loose man in defense... and when our team is dominating..
And in the first 5 min. of the grand final... 2 bad mistakes... cost us a goal... played on Byrns in the last quarter.. got slaughtered... yes, it's not his fault for being picked to play, but the fact that he's no good and is not improving infuriates us all...

Why does his draft pick have anything to do with it?

How long did it take Goddard to have his "breakout" year?

What's Kosi done in his 8 years???

Raph has only played 57 senior games and has had 2 years of back injuries.

In case you haven't noticed, AFL players take a few pre-seasons before they get full fitness and size.

Let's see how he goes next year.

He's not flash, but gee, give the kid some time.

[HarveysDeciple]

He mentioned 6-8 weeks ago on the show his dislike for Raph Clarke, he is actually one of those people who is probably blinded so much by the dislike that if they watch someone play enough they will turn their good games into bad games after convincing themselves that it is so.

The Ball comment was interesting, as for putting them to air, you can't predict what someone is going to say before they say it, and if it is their own oppinion then that's their own responsibility.

[SainterK]

The fitness and medical staff tell the coaches who can play and for how much time they can play.

Ball was only getting 50% game time becasue the fitness/medical staff determined that was all he could play.

And yet Ross said that not giving him two more bursts was a "mistake".

Whose mistake?

If it was a fitness/medical issue, it could hardly have been called a mistake. If he's not fit to play, he's not fit to play.

Clearly that wasn't the issue.

He played 46% game time in the GF, I am not sure two more stints of 6 minutes would do wonders for the percentage...

[Mr Magic]

The fitness and medical staff tell the coaches who can play and for how much time they can play.

Ball was only getting 50% game time becasue the fitness/medical staff determined that was all he could play.

And yet Ross said that not giving him two more bursts was a "mistake".

Whose mistake?

If it was a fitness/medical issue, it could hardly have been called a mistake. If he's not fit to play, he's not fit to play.

Clearly that wasn't the issue.

He played 46% game time in the GF, I am not sure two more stints of 6 minutes would do wonders for the percentage...

Would have rasie it from 46% to 56%.
Would that have been sufficient game time?

[SainterK]

The fitness and medical staff tell the coaches who can play and for how much time they can play.

Ball was only getting 50% game time becasue the fitness/medical staff determined that was all he could play.

And yet Ross said that not giving him two more bursts was a "mistake".

Whose mistake?

If it was a fitness/medical issue, it could hardly have been called a mistake. If he's not fit to play, he's not fit to play.

Clearly that wasn't the issue.

He played 46% game time in the GF, I am not sure two more stints of 6 minutes would do wonders for the percentage...

Would have rasie it from 46% to 56%.
Would that have been sufficient game time?

That's my point MM, people keep bringing up the further 12 minutes on the ground, but in the grand scheme of things....it wasn't that significant as far as TOG goes.

[Beej]

The fitness and medical staff tell the coaches who can play and for how much time they can play.

Ball was only getting 50% game time becasue the fitness/medical staff determined that was all he could play.

And yet Ross said that not giving him two more bursts was a "mistake".

Whose mistake?

If it was a fitness/medical issue, it could hardly have been called a mistake. If he's not fit to play, he's not fit to play.

Clearly that wasn't the issue.

He played 46% game time in the GF, I am not sure two more stints of 6 minutes would do wonders for the percentage...

Would have rasie it from 46% to 56%.
Would that have been sufficient game time?

That's my point MM, people keep bringing up the further 12 minutes on the ground, but in the grand scheme of things....it wasn't that significant as far as TOG goes.

What I'm trying to ascertain is, why wasn't he used the extra 12 minutes? And, more importantly, was he capable of another 12 minutes?

The popular theory is Ball spent time in the VFL to prepare and condition him for finals football. Well, he averaged around 50% game time during the season, and also around 50% during the finals.

And it still leaves me with the question:

Why did Ross Lyon admit he should have used Ball for the further two 6-minute bursts if this was not possible due to fitness.

That would surely suggest that he could have, but chose not to.

For me, it all leads to Ball not being rated by the coaching staff which is in no way an indictment on them. Regardless of playing time, Ball had a substandard year and was probably not deserving of the three year contract on offer.

[Milton66]

The fitness and medical staff tell the coaches who can play and for how much time they can play.

Ball was only getting 50% game time becasue the fitness/medical staff determined that was all he could play.

And yet Ross said that not giving him two more bursts was a "mistake".

Whose mistake?

If it was a fitness/medical issue, it could hardly have been called a mistake. If he's not fit to play, he's not fit to play.

Clearly that wasn't the issue.

He played 46% game time in the GF, I am not sure two more stints of 6 minutes would do wonders for the percentage...

Would have rasie it from 46% to 56%.
Would that have been sufficient game time?

That's my point MM, people keep bringing up the further 12 minutes on the ground, but in the grand scheme of things....it wasn't that significant as far as TOG goes.

What I'm trying to ascertain is, why wasn't he used the extra 12 minutes? And, more importantly, was he capable of another 12 minutes?

The popular theory is Ball spent time in the VFL to prepare and condition him for finals football. Well, he averaged around 50% game time during the season, and also around 50% during the finals.

And it still leaves me with the question:

Why did Ross Lyon admit he should have used Ball for the further two 6-minute bursts if this was not possible due to fitness.

That would surely suggest that he could have, but chose not to.

For me, it all leads to Ball not being rated by the coaching staff which is in no way an indictment on them. Regardless of playing time, Ball had a substandard year and was probably not deserving of the three year contract on offer.

Oh, FFS... RL was answering a question iin hidnsight. Ireckon with hindsight, there are probably 50+ things he would have done differently on the day.

If you don't rate a player... why select him?

[Beej]

The fitness and medical staff tell the coaches who can play and for how much time they can play.

Ball was only getting 50% game time becasue the fitness/medical staff determined that was all he could play.

And yet Ross said that not giving him two more bursts was a "mistake".

Whose mistake?

If it was a fitness/medical issue, it could hardly have been called a mistake. If he's not fit to play, he's not fit to play.

Clearly that wasn't the issue.

He played 46% game time in the GF, I am not sure two more stints of 6 minutes would do wonders for the percentage...

Would have rasie it from 46% to 56%.
Would that have been sufficient game time?

That's my point MM, people keep bringing up the further 12 minutes on the ground, but in the grand scheme of things....it wasn't that significant as far as TOG goes.

What I'm trying to ascertain is, why wasn't he used the extra 12 minutes? And, more importantly, was he capable of another 12 minutes?

The popular theory is Ball spent time in the VFL to prepare and condition him for finals football. Well, he averaged around 50% game time during the season, and also around 50% during the finals.

And it still leaves me with the question:

Why did Ross Lyon admit he should have used Ball for the further two 6-minute bursts if this was not possible due to fitness.

That would surely suggest that he could have, but chose not to.

For me, it all leads to Ball not being rated by the coaching staff which is in no way an indictment on them. Regardless of playing time, Ball had a substandard year and was probably not deserving of the three year contract on offer.

Oh, FFS... RL was answering a question iin hidnsight. Ireckon with hindsight, there are probably 50+ things he would have done differently on the day.

If you don't rate a player... why select him?

You, amigo, are missing the point.

The point is, could he have played?

According to a few people, he couldn't have due to fitness and nobody knows if that is true or not. I'm struggling to believe they couldn't get another burst out of him which would have, given the first half he played, been a massive boost.

If Ball was capable of another 12 minutes and wasn't played, then obviously Ross Lyon didn't rate him highly enough to play him in those 12 minutes as he thought there were better options.

Would that be a correct assumption?

We effectively went into the second half with 21. Why would you give Luke Ball the time he had in the first half, if you knew he wasn't going to be capable of playing the second half?

Why would you select him at all?

[saint66au]

The point is, could he have played?

According to a few people, he couldn't have due to fitness and nobody knows if that is true or not. I'm struggling to believe they couldn't get another burst out of him which would have, given the first half he played, been a massive boost.

RL sent BJ back out there with a broken collarbone and smashed up nose..so if he genuinely thought Bally could do a job for 12, or however many, minutes..I dont fatigue would have stopped him putting him on the ground

It was a GF

[Milton66]

The point is that it had no impact on the result.

Or, if it did, it would have been microscopic.

Not sure why such a big deal is being made of this to be honest.

[SainterK]

What round was it that they tried playing Ball as a forward, was it against the Bulldogs? It's probably not significant, I just wondered if they were trying him in that role because it was less fatiguing on his body?

[Winmar]

Has anyone got the figures for the number of minutes Ball played in each quarter in the GF?