Thanks Luke....

[Shaggy]

Thanks for the loyalty, oh wait nm. Seems Luke looks out for number 1, and not the team...He will make a great captain at the Dees

LB was in our best when it counted.

He's left pissed off after captaincy has been taken away and his wage and game time has been halved.

I admire him for his 7 years as one of the most courageous Saints footballers I have seen.

[SainterK]

Thanks for the loyalty, oh wait nm. Seems Luke looks out for number 1, and not the team...He will make a great captain at the Dees

LB was in our best when it counted.

He's left pissed off after captaincy has been taken away and his wage and game time has been halved.

I admire him for his 7 years as one of the most courageous Saints footballers I have seen.

I am curious, please define "when it counted"

[Shaggy]

Thanks for the loyalty, oh wait nm. Seems Luke looks out for number 1, and not the team...He will make a great captain at the Dees

LB was in our best when it counted.

He's left pissed off after captaincy has been taken away and his wage and game time has been halved.

I admire him for his 7 years as one of the most courageous Saints footballers I have seen.

I am curious, please define "when it counted"

Grand final. 22 possessions and 7 tackles in something like 50% game time is unbelieveable IMO.

[SainterK]

Thanks for the loyalty, oh wait nm. Seems Luke looks out for number 1, and not the team...He will make a great captain at the Dees

LB was in our best when it counted.

He's left pissed off after captaincy has been taken away and his wage and game time has been halved.

I admire him for his 7 years as one of the most courageous Saints footballers I have seen.

I am curious, please define "when it counted"

Grand final. 22 possessions and 7 tackles in something like 50% game time is unbelieveable IMO.

See, I define "when it counted" as when the players were challenged to improve and better themselves so that they could take the next step in 2010...

[Shaggy]

Thanks for the loyalty, oh wait nm. Seems Luke looks out for number 1, and not the team...He will make a great captain at the Dees

LB was in our best when it counted.

He's left pissed off after captaincy has been taken away and his wage and game time has been halved.

I admire him for his 7 years as one of the most courageous Saints footballers I have seen.

I am curious, please define "when it counted"

Grand final. 22 possessions and 7 tackles in something like 50% game time is unbelieveable IMO.

See, I define "when it counted" as when the players were challenged to improve and better themselves so that they could take the next step in 2010...

Are you serious the grand final is not the biggest challenge?

Understand it or not ... it is ... the VCE of football ... lol.

[Moccha]

Courage doesn't make you a good footballer

[Shaggy]

Courage doesn't make you a good footballer

We all know he had courage.

So who else in a GF can deliver 22 possessions in a half plus 7 tackles.

It has to be a record for an individual based on TOG of GF.

[SainterK]

Thanks for the loyalty, oh wait nm. Seems Luke looks out for number 1, and not the team...He will make a great captain at the Dees

LB was in our best when it counted.

He's left pissed off after captaincy has been taken away and his wage and game time has been halved.

I admire him for his 7 years as one of the most courageous Saints footballers I have seen.

I am curious, please define "when it counted"

Grand final. 22 possessions and 7 tackles in something like 50% game time is unbelieveable IMO.

See, I define "when it counted" as when the players were challenged to improve and better themselves so that they could take the next step in 2010...

Are you serious the grand final is not the biggest challenge?

Understand it or not ... it is ... the VCE of football ... lol.

Of course I am serious....

In case you didn't know, we didn't win it....that still needs to be acheived, and where is Luke Ball?

[Shaggy]

Thanks for the loyalty, oh wait nm. Seems Luke looks out for number 1, and not the team...He will make a great captain at the Dees

LB was in our best when it counted.

He's left pissed off after captaincy has been taken away and his wage and game time has been halved.

I admire him for his 7 years as one of the most courageous Saints footballers I have seen.

I am curious, please define "when it counted"

Grand final. 22 possessions and 7 tackles in something like 50% game time is unbelieveable IMO.

See, I define "when it counted" as when the players were challenged to improve and better themselves so that they could take the next step in 2010...

Are you serious the grand final is not the biggest challenge?

Understand it or not ... it is ... the VCE of football ... lol.

Of course I am serious....

In case you didn't know, we didn't win it....that still needs to be acheived, and where is Luke Ball?

I suspect LB feels the same as you and me then because he sat out the last quarter despite being near best a field at the time knowing the club didn't believe in him at the critical time.

[Mr Magic]

Shaggy,
You're making the assumption that Ball was physically capable of playing more than the 50% of game time in the GF.

And you know you cannot just extrapolate his stats for 50% and assume they would double if he played 100%.

I'll point out again that Geelong obviously weren't worried about his stats as they didn't bother trying to shut him down whereas they acted quickly to try and curb the influence of our other midfielders:-
Hayes
Dal
Monty
BJ

The facts are pretty simple in my mind.
The Coaches felt he needed to improve various aspects of his game. They obviously had faith that he could achieve that improvement because he was offered a new 3 year contract (at significantly reduced rates to reflect their opinion of his current worth and our salary cap position).
They sat down and old him what they felt he needed to do to improve, in their eyes.

He chose not to sign the new contract.
He chose not to take them up on the challenge to improve.
He chose to walk out.
St Kilda didn't delist him


What did you want St Kilda to do?

Guarantee him a set amount of game time?
Pay him the money he was on previously?
Allow him special dispensation to not adhere to the team plan?
Allow him, and not the fitness staff, to assess when he was capable of performing at an acceptable level?

I keep reading all this stuff about how badly Ball was treated but nobody actually is prepared to state that the Coaches deliberately didn't play him for any reason other than fitness.

Not even Lyon's staunchest critics are making that allegation.

So why exactly was Ball treated 'badly'?
Because the fitness staff assesed him as not being fit enough to return to the field?
Seriously?

[fugazi]

Alot of pretty nasty comments on here re: Luke Ball. When he was putting his head over the ball and getting KO'd every other week we were pretty proud of him, when he couldn't even stand up after playing with a mismanaged OP condition we were pretty happy with him.
None of us know what went on btw Ross and Luke. Sometimes situations become untenable.
I for one appreciate the guts and endeavour of Luke. Whether he's made the right decision or not, good luck young man...showed more courage than most and represented the Saints well at all times.

[samoht]

Ball is tough and gave 100% and we were proud of that but ..

A lot is being made of Ball's GF... in conditions that suited him.

He played full games this year too where he had barely 10 possessions.

And he struggled to win around 20 possessions at VFL level - with full games.

Any untagged player can get plenty of possessions.

Ball played untagged and in the middle of the ground where the ball crosses back and forth 200 times - he's not exactly in starvation corner such as a forward pocket.

So there's plenty of opportunity for an untagged player to gather possessions - playing where Ball played.

We saw Fisher this year gather 42 running and damaging possessions when he played untagged - that was an enormous game.
The guy is a star and played mostly tagged this year and was shown due respect.

Ball on the other hand stays in one spot - doesn't run, doesn't kick very well and doesn't get respected or tagged.
- but yes he's brave and tough (but how would he go with a tag?).
But no tougher than our star midfielders Dal Santo and Hayes who are always tagged and you do need to be extra tough to cope with a tag.

how many times did i use the word tag ?- must be a record in a single post

[ace]

Thanks for the loyalty, oh wait nm. Seems Luke looks out for number 1, and not the team...He will make a great captain at the Dees

LB was in our best when it counted.

He's left pissed off after captaincy has been taken away and his wage and game time has been halved.

I admire him for his 7 years as one of the most courageous Saints footballers I have seen.

I am curious, please define "when it counted"

Grand final. 22 possessions and 7 tackles in something like 50% game time is unbelieveable IMO.

See, I define "when it counted" as when the players were challenged to improve and better themselves so that they could take the next step in 2010...

Are you serious the grand final is not the biggest challenge?

Understand it or not ... it is ... the VCE of football ... lol.

VCE is not much of a test.
Virtually all who have a good attendance pass.
VCE is simply a gift.
It is easier to get your name on the list, than the National Draft list.

It is what you do in your working life afterwards which determines your contribution.

[joffaboy]

Shaggy,
You're making the assumption that Ball was physically capable of playing more than the 50% of game time in the GF.

And you know you cannot just extrapolate his stats for 50% and assume they would double if he played 100%.

I'll point out again that Geelong obviously weren't worried about his stats as they didn't bother trying to shut him down whereas they acted quickly to try and curb the influence of our other midfielders:-
Hayes
Dal
Monty
BJ

The facts are pretty simple in my mind.
The Coaches felt he needed to improve various aspects of his game. They obviously had faith that he could achieve that improvement because he was offered a new 3 year contract (at significantly reduced rates to reflect their opinion of his current worth and our salary cap position).
They sat down and old him what they felt he needed to do to improve, in their eyes.

He chose not to sign the new contract.
He chose not to take them up on the challenge to improve.
He chose to walk out.
St Kilda didn't delist him


What did you want St Kilda to do?

Guarantee him a set amount of game time?
Pay him the money he was on previously?
Allow him special dispensation to not adhere to the team plan?
Allow him, and not the fitness staff, to assess when he was capable of performing at an acceptable level?

I keep reading all this stuff about how badly Ball was treated but nobody actually is prepared to state that the Coaches deliberately didn't play him for any reason other than fitness.

Not even Lyon's staunchest critics are making that allegation.

So why exactly was Ball treated 'badly'?
Because the fitness staff assesed him as not being fit enough to return to the field?
Seriously?

Any response to this shaggy?

or anyone else who keeps inferring that Ball was not played other than for football/fitness reasons?

If you have the other reasons STATE THEM OR stfu.

This hero worship and supposed "bad treatment" of a player who walked FOR MONEY imho, is really quite poor form and doesn't equate to the known facts that have been stated.

Ball walked because he believes he is worth more than offered. St.Kilda think he was worth less than he wanted.

Thats it - build a bridge.

[sainterjo]

Thanks for teaching me to hate Collingwood properly.

[meher baba]

Shaggy,
You're making the assumption that Ball was physically capable of playing more than the 50% of game time in the GF.

And you know you cannot just extrapolate his stats for 50% and assume they would double if he played 100%.

I'll point out again that Geelong obviously weren't worried about his stats as they didn't bother trying to shut him down whereas they acted quickly to try and curb the influence of our other midfielders:-
Hayes
Dal
Monty
BJ

The facts are pretty simple in my mind.
The Coaches felt he needed to improve various aspects of his game. They obviously had faith that he could achieve that improvement because he was offered a new 3 year contract (at significantly reduced rates to reflect their opinion of his current worth and our salary cap position).
They sat down and old him what they felt he needed to do to improve, in their eyes.

He chose not to sign the new contract.
He chose not to take them up on the challenge to improve.
He chose to walk out.
St Kilda didn't delist him


What did you want St Kilda to do?

Guarantee him a set amount of game time?
Pay him the money he was on previously?
Allow him special dispensation to not adhere to the team plan?
Allow him, and not the fitness staff, to assess when he was capable of performing at an acceptable level?

I keep reading all this stuff about how badly Ball was treated but nobody actually is prepared to state that the Coaches deliberately didn't play him for any reason other than fitness.

Not even Lyon's staunchest critics are making that allegation.

So why exactly was Ball treated 'badly'?
Because the fitness staff assesed him as not being fit enough to return to the field?
Seriously?

Any response to this shaggy?

or anyone else who keeps inferring that Ball was not played other than for football/fitness reasons?

If you have the other reasons STATE THEM OR stfu.

This hero worship and supposed "bad treatment" of a player who walked FOR MONEY imho, is really quite poor form and doesn't equate to the known facts that have been stated.

Ball walked because he believes he is worth more than offered. St.Kilda think he was worth less than he wanted.

Thats it - build a bridge.

I don't believe it was ever just about the money.

Lyon clearly wanted Ball to expand his on-field contribution beyond what he was physically/mentally comfortable in doing: in short, not just chasing the ball around the midfield and into packs, but also running into vacant space and moving the ball forward.

Lyon acknowledged the good things Ball was doing, but wanted more.

Ball did not deliver more. So, eventually, Lyon started leaving him on the bench for extended periods and eventually dropped him.

At around this time, Ball was offered a reduced contract: reduced not only because the club didn't have enough $$, but also because Ball was only delivering, say, 75% of what the coach was wanting him to deliver.

Ball was brought back for the finals. He continued to play the same way. So Lyon continued to leave him on the bench for extended periods: even in the GF.

Players aren't paid to coach. Ball was told what he had to do to be worth something closer to the $500k per season he wanted and he wasn't prepared to do it. In effect, he didn't think that what the coach wanted was right.

The coach is always right, until he gets sacked. I think that, if a purely in-and-under onbqller/midfielder is good enough, then he is a big asset to a club. Lyon doesn't agree with me: a central onbqller/midfielder has to be able to do more than one thing (eg, like Lenny, Joey or even CJ). Lyon presumably wouldn't rate Scotty West and other players of his type particularly highly either.

The coaches of many other clubs do rate such players, so Ball presumably won't have any trouble finding somewhere else to play.

None of this represents an evil conspiracy against Ball. Nor is it simply about the money.

I'm sad about it, because I rate Ball. But I don't coach the team or run the club. And those who do seem to be going ok ATM.

[desertsaint]

meher baba - one of the few decent and fair posts on this issue.

i'm not going to slag off the club or luke ball - it's footy, it's life.

the only criticisms i have made on the issue is that many posters are demonising ball based on their own assumptions. and they argue that they are defending the club against slurs - well i haven't seen many (if any) on here slagging the club, so that excuse doesn't wash with me.

but i (and others) have been occasionally lumped with the 'other' side in this issue simply because i haven't taken their side.
all a bit sad really. bitterness is corrosive.

[Mr Magic]

meher baba - one of the few decent and fair posts on this issue.

i'm not going to slag off the club or luke ball - it's footy, it's life.

the only criticisms i have made on the issue is that many posters are demonising ball based on their own assumptions. and they argue that they are defending the club against slurs - well i haven't seen many (if any) on here slagging the club, so that excuse doesn't wash with me.

but i (and others) have been occasionally lumped with the 'other' side in this issue simply because i haven't taken their side.
all a bit sad really. bitterness is corrosive.

You keep re-raising the issue and misrepresenting my and others position on this.
Please show me a single post of mine that criticizes anything other then the 'statements' made on behalf of Luke Ball by his management/camp/family.

Please provide one and I will unreservedly apologise.

Unfortunately on this particular topic, you and others who I also challenge to provide evidence, tend not to reply and just turn up in a different thread ,making similar untrue accusations.

Why is it impossible for you to accept that people are not being critical of Luke Ball for making whatever decisions he wants to make, but are critical of those surrounding him who have made belittling and derogatory remarks about our Club and Coach?

And many, including myself, are saddened that Ball has decided to leave us.

[Mr Magic]

And MB, whilst your analysis of the situation is probably pretty close to the mark, I think the chronology of events is a little off.
Someone posted Ball's actual game time round by round and it showed that his % didn't actually drop much until after he came back from Sandringham.
By which time he'd had the contract in his hands for well over a month.
He's also been 'towelled up' by Selwood in the R14 game (especially in the last qtr) and had a poor game against WCE in Subiaco.

He was then 'dropped' which I believe was about 'fitness' rather than anything else. Please note that the game he was dropped for was a 'bye for Sandringham so he was not going to play for them that week - something you'd expect if it was a 'form' issue.

[samoht]

...
The coaches of many other clubs do rate such players, so Ball presumably won't have any trouble finding somewhere else to play.

None of this represents an evil conspiracy against Ball. Nor is it simply about the money.

I'm sad about it, because I rate Ball. But I don't coach the team or run the club. And those who do seem to be going ok ATM.

We all rated and respected Ball for his courage and toughness ... but apart from admiring his "heart" did opposition coaches really rate Ball as far as his playing ability was concerned ?

All our top midfielders that opposition coaches rate would have been consistently tagged over the last few years .. but how many times was Ball tagged ?

That speaks volumes - we can't ignore that.

Opposition coaches left Ball untagged - didn't rate him alongside Hayes, Dal Santo etc..

and in a midfield an untagged player can rack up a lot of possessions - and if you don't rate his abilty to hurt you .. you let him rack up as many as he likes.

We need to step back from all this and make a more objective assessment and then we'll see that Lyon wasn't alone in how he rated Ball, opposition coaches agreed with him.

[desertsaint]

You keep re-raising the issue and misrepresenting my and others position on this.
Please show me a single post of mine that criticizes anything other then the 'statements' made on behalf of Luke Ball by his management/camp/family.

Please provide one and I will unreservedly apologise.

Unfortunately on this particular topic, you and others who I also challenge to provide evidence, tend not to reply and just turn up in a different thread ,making similar untrue accusations.

Why is it impossible for you to accept that people are not being critical of Luke Ball for making whatever decisions he wants to make, but are critical of those surrounding him who have made belittling and derogatory remarks about our Club and Coach?

And many, including myself, are saddened that Ball has decided to leave us.

why do you think i direct that post at you? "many others" doesn't necessarily mean mr magic and the rest. your posts do indicate a level of defensiveness/bitterness that seems a little strange, but there are far worse than yours that i was referring to.

let's look at a few quotes shall we?

Real men of character.
Luke shmuke.
he has actually screwed the club by his recent actions...the act of a very angry and disgruntled man.
Ball bled for the money
For showing your true colours...you leach!!!
disgraceful accusations he made about our Club - this is your mr magic - apology accepted!
him chatacterizing our Club in the derogatory way that he did
he's questioned the ethics asd morals of Ross Lyon
Not about money? Awesome.
Thats Arseome!
I keep reading all this stuff about how badly Ball was treated (where?)
Alot of pretty nasty comments on here re: Luke Ball
This hero worship and supposed "bad treatment" of a player who walked FOR MONEY imho
Ball and co have behaved like petulant, grubby, spoilt little sschoolkids.
(the club) do everything but state outright they were dealing with ar$eholes...
FCUK off, Luke!!
keep your romantic garbage to your tiny little mind (to a neutral post)"

and it goes on - this is just from 4 pages of posts

and you mr magic have posted far more on the topic than i, and seem to think your assumption is infallible and misinterpret others as against the club, when in fact they are simply against the demonising of ball in lieu of evidence - and you've done it again. you say you aren't demonising him, you're okay with him wanting money, but you continue to post and argue that he is doing it for the money, which is not what ball or his management have ever said -hence you are saying they are lying, and that luke himself is saying derogatory things about the club without knowing. yet no one on here has ever claimed the club is lying - so who are you defending it against?

i've yet to insult or question the intelligence of any individual poster based on their opinion of luke ball (and to your credit neither have you), but i'll happily argue for a bit of sanity on the issue and hope it ends in a win-win for both the club and ball.

[sainterjo]

i've yet to insult or question the intelligence of any individual poster based on their opinion of luke ball

the few decent and fair posts on this issue.

Wow, we're not stupid after all. It's just that our posts are not decent. Or fair.

[Mr Magic]

Please show me a single post of mine that criticizes anything other then the 'statements' made on behalf of Luke Ball by his management/camp/family.

Please provide one and I will unreservedly apologise.

why do you think i direct that post at you? your posts do indicate a level of defensiveness that seems a little strange.
there are none so blind as those who can't see - let's look at a few quotes shall we?

disgraceful accusations he made about our Club - this is your mr magic - apology accepted!

What am i supposed to be apologising for?
You've posted one of my quotes which is exactly what I claimed it was.
How you've somehow twisted it in your mind to support your view that I'm critical of Luke Ball on anything other than the statements made on his behalf is breathtaking.

and you mr magic have posted far more on the topic than i, and seem to think your assumption is infallible and misinterpret others as against the club, when in fact they are simply against the demonising of ball in lieu of evidence - and you've done it again. you say you aren't demonising him, you're okay with him wanting money, but you continue to post and argue that he is doing it for the money, which is not what ball or his management have ever said -hence you are saying they are lying, and that luke himself is saying derogatory things about the club without knowing. yet no one on here has said the club is lying. -so who are you defending against?

You claim I 'misinterpret others' and 'seem to think my assumption is infallible' in the same paragraph where you ascribe your interpretation of what I'm thinking? And then you post your own interpretation of what I'm posting, that is not what I actually posted.

You don't find that just a tad hypocritical?


And btw, just who died and made you the arbiter of what is/isn't decent or fair?
Does any post that agrees with your opinion automatically become 'decent' and/or 'fair'?
And any opinion that differs with yours automatically become 'not decent' and/or 'unfair'?

Personally I don't have the 'hide' to be able to claim anybody else's opinion on this issue is either fair/unfair, decent or otherwise.
I may not agree with other posters opinions but I certainly am not in the position to characterize them the way you obviously are.

And as for being 'defensive' what have I got to be 'defensive' about?
Posting an opinion on an internet fan forum that you don't agree with?
You've got to be kidding.

Maybe it's time for you to see an optometrist as you certainly don't seem willing to see what is actually being posted?
You seem to be far more blinded than me on this topic, incapable of seeing let alone accepting alternate opinions on this matter.

[SainterK]

Interesting thoughts MB, but I am not convinced that limited game time was some form of punishment, I do think perhaps there was some unwillingness to adapt to a new role they had in mind.

I remember reading this article at the time after we played Collingwood, here is a grab of what Luke said...

Ball had 16 touches against the Magpies but played just 48 per cent game time.

He said he was happy to be part of the heavy rotations if the team needed it.

“If you know that is going to be your role then you can’t use that as an excuse,â€

[sunsaint]

or anyone else who keeps inferring that Ball was not played other than for football/fitness reasons?

If you have the other reasons STATE THEM OR stfu.

This hero worship and supposed "bad treatment" of a player who walked FOR MONEY imho, is really quite poor form and doesn't equate to the known facts that have been stated.

Ball walked because he believes he is worth more than offered. St.Kilda think he was worth less than he wanted.

Thats it - build a bridge.

ooh Joffaboy pick me pick me
there ARE stories from game day...but maybe for another day
when tempers have eased a bit