Luke Ball Interview on The Footy Show - Opinions?

[Saint Bev]

Oooooops thanks Joffa for clearing that up, I thought it seemed a bit extreme.

[meher baba]

Look cut the bloke some slack. He obviously has some self esteem issues. He didnt feel wanted so he left for a fresh start.

As for the comment about treating him like Leigh Fisher, Gwilt, Eddy...do you think the club should treat them differently? That is pathetic, and even if the thought was burried in the back of Luke Balls decision, he would have way too much respect for those blokes to express such an opinion.

I still havn't seen it, but if he said that about those guys, thats an insult to his fellow (ex) team mates. And maybe here is the problem, well in his eyes. Ross treats everyone the same. Zac Dawson said at the cocktail party up here, that he loved that about Ross, everyone gets a fair chance, no favourites, unlike at Hawthorn.

no bev - meher baba posted that. Apparently mb believes there should be a hierarchy like in the Grant Thomas days where some players are treated on a different level to all the others.

Luke Ball never made such a pronouncement.

Of course you treat star players differently to the others. If you don't, they walk. Welcome to the real world JB: believe it or not, this is a market-driven economy, not a workers' collective. People who are more valuable to their employers get paid more and treated better than those who are less valuable.

As I understand it, there had to be a certain amount of bridge-building with Dal after he was dropped for only one game in 2008. Luke was treated far, far worse than Dal was. And he'd been playing well before he was dropped.

Kosi has had runs of very poor games in each of the last few seasons, and he has never been dropped and humiliated in the way Luke was.

Do you seriously think the club would dream of treating Riewoldt the way it treated Ball last year, even if he had a run of poor form that lasted the best part of a season?

The club treated Luke that way because they didn't see him as a star any more. But it turned out that another leading club wanted him. If the club had known that at the time, I doubt they would have treated Ball the way they did.

[SainterK]

I found this article really gave me some perspective, written by Caro back in 2007...

I think it paints a pretty accurate picture about Luke's way of thinking, he seems to be the victim of his own expectations.

I am beginning to realise that perhaps Ross has become the face of reality in all of this, rather than someone consipiring to make life difficult for Ball.

"What I want to do," insisted Lyon, "is try to demystify the facts surrounding Luke Ball. I also want to see my players portrayed to the best of their ability"

http://www.fitnessball.com.au/fitness-b ... -the-ball/

[joffaboy]

Of course you treat star players differently to the others. If you don't, they walk. Welcome to the real world JB: believe it or not, this is a market-driven economy, not a workers' collective. People who are more valuable to their employers get paid more and treated better than those who are less valuable.

I dont know how much you have had to do with team sports or football clubs mb, but from my experience, ALL players were required to do what the coached asked them to do.

If they were incapable of doing so, they would be dropped to reserves. Your suggestion is that the coach should give Luke Ball special treatment because his name was Luke Ball. He should not have been dropped because of his name and not his performance.

And Luke Ball has not be a "star" for many many seasons. A star is someone special and above average. Luke Ball is neither.

As I understand it, there had to be a certain amount of bridge-building with Dal after he was dropped for only one game in 2008. Luke was treated far, far worse than Dal was. And he'd been playing well before he was dropped.

And you can quantify "treatment" of players can you? Maybe Dal did what the coach wanted after he was dropped.

Anyway did this "far worse" treatment of Ball include fropping him for all finals and the Grand Final in 2009? What about not offering him a 3 year contact during the season woth over a million dollars?

You see you deal in supposition and subjectivity. The facts are he WAS selected for every game in the finals series, starting in the centre square on grand Final day. He WAS offered a three year deal mid year worth more than a million dollars.

Both of these occurances would hardly back up your unsubstantiated claim of poor treatment. Really mb, very thin argument.

Kosi has had runs of very poor games in each of the last few seasons, and he has never been dropped and humiliated in the way Luke was.

Again, because he was Luke Ball, he is suposed to get "special treatment".

Humiliated - FFS what subjective emotional claptrap

Apparently Ball is the only player ever dropped.

Oh and Kosi kicked 48 goals last season. And if you are comparing a key forward to a plodding slow midfielder, you really dont know that much about what you are blabbering on about.

Do you seriously think the club would dream of treating Riewoldt the way it treated Ball last year, even if he had a run of poor form that lasted the best part of a season?

So now you are comparing the talents of Ball to Riewoldt? Really are you serious.

First you argue that players are supposed to be treated differently, now all players have the exact same talent in your eyes.


And Ball wasn't suffering poor form - he just is a slow plodder, just a GOP.

Very confused

The club treated Luke that way because they didn't see him as a star any more.

Simple fact is he isn't. In the eyes of our coach he couldn't even do what was required of him. In the eyes of our fitness staff he could only play 50% of the game because he cant run.

Simple facts.

But it turned out that another leading club wanted him. If the club had known that at the time, I doubt they would have treated Ball the way they did.

Of course they knew. But Collingwood have got what we had. A plodding slow midfielder with no kicking penetration and poor effective disposal. Just what Collingwood love.

Really your argumants are lame and emotional rubbish.

Ball was no star and to compare him to Riewoldt is just laughable. he may compare himself to Riewoldt, but nobody in their right mind would do so - of apart from you of course

[saintsRrising]

It all made sense to me: some of you just clearly don't get it.

The guy thought he was part of the leadership group, an important cog in the wheel, etc, etc. He knew his pay was going to have to come down in the next contract - one thing he isn't is stupid - but he wanted the club to meet him half way. And he wanted the ongoing respect.

Instead, he was treated with clear disrespect in the second half of the season: more on a par with the Leigh Fishers, Gwilts and Rob Eddys than with the Riewoldts, Lennys and Sam Fishers and the rest of the leadership group.

.

Are you mad??? Ball 2009 is not in Roo's, Sam's or Lenny's echelon.

Ball was a player in the bottom group of the 22, and in 2010 about to get squeezed further down the pecking order. That is the reality...and so hence he was "treated' like that.

"treated" is actually suggesting something negative when it is not.

Ball wanted to be treated like a top 6 player..but his actions on the field did not justify it. Why should Ball have received preferential treatment?
Why should ball be regarded to be more than he is?

It is always hard to go backwards in life...but that is the reality of the 2008/2009 Ball...and Ball not wanting to face that reality is why we are where we are.


MB using your own words. ...."you just clearly don't get it".

[saintsRrising]

Of course you treat star players differently to the others. .

MB..this thread is about Luke Ball.

Ball has not been a star for years.

By the way Dal is a star...but that did not prevent Lyon shunting him back to the reserves when he was not doing what needed to be done.

Ball was no different to ALL the other St Kilda players. They all had to do what the coach wanted..and then Lyon and the other coaches have to make hard decisions on who is more valuable based on what they deliver and not their name.

[Dr Spaceman]

.....Of course they knew. But Collingwood have got what we had. A plodding slow midfielder with no kicking penetration and poor effective disposal. Just what Collingwood love.......

Agree, that is just what Collingwood love.

However it will be interesting to see what happens when FIGJAM takes over the Pies next year. A young, modern, progressive coach may adopt a totally different style of play similar to ...... the Saints.

Could be Groundhog Day for Lukey

[meher baba]

JB/sRr

I'm not saying that Luke should have had preferential treatment.

I think until about mid-2007, he was one of our top half dozen star players and did get a certain amount of preferential treatment (which doesn't mean not having to do what the coach tells you to do, but it does mean being looked after financially and in a range of other ways that the likes of Leigh Fisher, Gwilt and Eddy have never been looked after).

Since then, his standing has gradually fallen.

I am sure he knew that he was coming back to the pack, but I suspect he didn't realise quite how far his star had fallen until the events of he second half of last season.

Things clearly soured pretty quickly from that point. I suspect that strong words were exchanged between coach and player, and that both were left feeling pretty pissed off. But I also think that Lyon and the club administration assumed that Ball really didn't have anywhere else to go (other than a trade to a bottom club like the Demons or Tigers).

But he did have somewhere to go: a glamour club which was prepared to roll out the red carpet to a certain extent. Perhaps Ball had no right whatsoever to expect to be treated like that by our club or any other serious premiership contender, but it happened.

And I don't believe that our club was expecting this outcome. If they had been, I am sure that they would have handled things quite differently.

Anyway, it's getting boring. As is the failure of some posters on here to respond in a civil manner to any comment with which they disagree.

[saintsRrising]

MB...Ball was overpayed when he was young in the hope that he would blossom into a truly elite player.

He never did despite great early promise.

Hence his recent offer on what he is worth would have been a steep drop.
That is the reality.

That he probably regards himself in some way of being worth more in terms of either playing role or cash may be his view. But his performance did not justify it.

He became a refief player for Lenny and Dal...and not their equal.

That too is what players like Armo, Geary etc are...though Geary and Armo may well grow into more..or not...

[bob__71]

One last thing...How far has pandering to stars got StKilda in the past?

Also how much did previous coaches get from the non star players by calling them crabs and treating them differently.

I think all St Kilda players now play with pride and belonging....not just the in crowd.

[evertonfc]

It all made sense to me: some of you just clearly don't get it.

The guy thought he was part of the leadership group, an important cog in the wheel, etc, etc. He knew his pay was going to have to come down in the next contract - one thing he isn't is stupid - but he wanted the club to meet him half way. And he wanted the ongoing respect.

Instead, he was treated with clear disrespect in the second half of the season: more on a par with the Leigh Fishers, Gwilts and Rob Eddys than with the Riewoldts, Lennys and Sam Fishers and the rest of the leadership group.

I don't think that Ball had previously been given the message that this is where the club rated him nowadays. He didn't expect it, and it hurt. The GF was final confirmation if this.

And then another leading club popped up and offered him a role more like what he believed he previously had at the Saints, possibly for better $$$$ (although that issue wasn't clarified last night). Of course he jumped at it: he would have been a fool not to do so.

I still think it was a stuff-up on our part. We pushed Ball about like we did last year because we thought only the likes of Melbourne and Richmond would want him so that either

a) he wouldn't want to go and would therefore stay on our terms: lower $$$, use as a backup, lots of games at Sandy, or

b) we'd get a good trade for him: a first round pick or a quality player.

That another final 4 club would have a strong interest in Ball came as a total shock to Lyon, Drain, Nettlefold et al. Perhaps they underestimated how good a player he was. I reckon they might have done so.

And they blew the $$$ we freed up in our salary cap on Lovett.

It was a stuff-up. We seem to be strong enough to ride it out. But Ball's dignified, intelligent and (except for the totally one-eyed) convincing performance last night does tend to put a little nagging doubt in my mind.

100% correct.

We made a mistake in how we handled Ball; we tried to rough him up and see how he would handle it.

I'm not sure you should do that to anyone in any organisation after they've bled for you time and again.

He knew his contract was going to get slashed.

He also knew that his stock had fallen - especially in the eyes of Ross Lyon.

If your employer did that same to you, and there was a good opportunity elsewhere, you'd pretty quickly snap it up before your stocks dies completely.

[saintsRrising]

JB/sRr

As is the failure of some posters on here to respond in a civil manner to any comment with which they disagree.

Soory MB but your statement that you are right and everyone else is wrong is hardly the line of one want frank and open discussion...

It all made sense to me: some of you just clearly don't get it.
.

[Solar]

disapointing interview, wanted to know when he was contacted by the pies, why he chose to only deal with collingwood.

Looked in denial IMO but really we shall never know.

Anyone find the plugging of mars a bit over the top for carlton? And a judd bar!?? bugger me!

[joffaboy]

JB/sRr

I'm not saying that Luke should have had preferential treatment.

But thats how it read. You posted he was a star.

I think until about mid-2007, he was one of our top half dozen star players and did get a certain amount of preferential treatment (which doesn't mean not having to do what the coach tells you to do, but it does mean being looked after financially and in a range of other ways that the likes of Leigh Fisher, Gwilt and Eddy have never been looked after).

So you mean he should have gotten preferential treatment financially

That was NEVER part of your argument. It was about his treatment as a player. Suddenly you completely change your argument. Strange.

Since then, his standing has gradually fallen.

As per output

I am sure he knew that he was coming back to the pack, but I suspect he didn't realise quite how far his star had fallen until the events of he second half of last season.

You are sure are you? You know do you? You are just making this stuff up as you go along mb.

Things clearly soured pretty quickly from that point.

Did they? Please link us to your proof that they soured at this point. And what point, before or after the contract worth over 1 million dollars was tabled and refused?

I suspect that strong words were exchanged between coach and player, and that both were left feeling pretty pissed off.

You suspect do you? have you got one shread of fact or again are you just making this up. In all the LB saga it has never been sugessted that there have been strong words.

But here is some, well not facts, but observations. Watching Ball at the Zebra's, he was sooking, thats right, had a sour look on his face at the huddles, would not contribute and would not look at any coach when they were addressing the group.

I could tell from that moment he didn't hae his heart in it.

But I also think that Lyon and the club administration assumed that Ball really didn't have anywhere else to go (other than a trade to a bottom club like the Demons or Tigers).

Care to link us to these facts? Considering at least two other clubs raised interest in him after trade fell through, how can you make that outregeous assumption? Anyway Ball DEMANDED to only be traded to Collingwood and nobody else.

But he did have somewhere to go: a glamour club which was prepared to roll out the red carpet to a certain extent.

You mean Collingwood, whom leaked it to Denham that they would offer Ball $500k a year EIGHT WEEKS BEFORE THE FINALS and while the contract from the Saints was still on the table.

Perhaps Ball had no right whatsoever to expect to be treated like that by our club or any other serious premiership contender, but it happened.

You have built a straw man to draw your conclusions. You believe, you ssume, your suspect - then you conclude - without a shread of evidence.

And I don't believe that our club was expecting this outcome. If they had been, I am sure that they would have handled things quite differently.

Now you dont believe. You have no idea. they could have traded if they wanted to. They tried to get him to stay after the trade fell through.

And how "quite differently" would things have been handled differently? Cave into the demands of a plodding AVERAGE midfielder to be paid $500k a year and effectively take money from better equiped players who deserve it? Dont think so?

trade for a dud pick #30 and a list clogger from Collingwood in the trade? Maybe, but they didn't.

Anyway they would not have done things differently. Ball was worth 300k+ a year, not what he demanded. Ball is a plodder and cant spread, thats what the coach demands - he would be depth, and thats all.

Anyway, it's getting boring. As is the failure of some posters on here to respond in a civil manner to any comment with which they disagree.

It deems to get boring for you when posters point out that your straw man arguments are based on nothing. Only what you believe, you suspect, you assume.

As for your victim mentality, maybe some posters here dont like you attempting to slander the coach on nothing more than heresay, scuttlebutt, and wild fantasies and flights of imagination, instead of concentrating on the facts as known in the public arena.

[SainterK]

It all made sense to me: some of you just clearly don't get it.

The guy thought he was part of the leadership group, an important cog in the wheel, etc, etc. He knew his pay was going to have to come down in the next contract - one thing he isn't is stupid - but he wanted the club to meet him half way. And he wanted the ongoing respect.

Instead, he was treated with clear disrespect in the second half of the season: more on a par with the Leigh Fishers, Gwilts and Rob Eddys than with the Riewoldts, Lennys and Sam Fishers and the rest of the leadership group.

I don't think that Ball had previously been given the message that this is where the club rated him nowadays. He didn't expect it, and it hurt. The GF was final confirmation if this.

And then another leading club popped up and offered him a role more like what he believed he previously had at the Saints, possibly for better $$$$ (although that issue wasn't clarified last night). Of course he jumped at it: he would have been a fool not to do so.

I still think it was a stuff-up on our part. We pushed Ball about like we did last year because we thought only the likes of Melbourne and Richmond would want him so that either

a) he wouldn't want to go and would therefore stay on our terms: lower $$$, use as a backup, lots of games at Sandy, or

b) we'd get a good trade for him: a first round pick or a quality player.

That another final 4 club would have a strong interest in Ball came as a total shock to Lyon, Drain, Nettlefold et al. Perhaps they underestimated how good a player he was. I reckon they might have done so.

And they blew the $$$ we freed up in our salary cap on Lovett.

It was a stuff-up. We seem to be strong enough to ride it out. But Ball's dignified, intelligent and (except for the totally one-eyed) convincing performance last night does tend to put a little nagging doubt in my mind.

100% correct.

We made a mistake in how we handled Ball; we tried to rough him up and see how he would handle it.

I'm not sure you should do that to anyone in any organisation after they've bled for you time and again.

He knew his contract was going to get slashed.

He also knew that his stock had fallen - especially in the eyes of Ross Lyon.

If your employer did that same to you, and there was a good opportunity elsewhere, you'd pretty quickly snap it up before your stocks dies completely.

Just curious Everton, how did the club rough him up?

[borderbarry]

A couple of posters mentioned other players taking pay cuts at the tiem Luke Balls contract was in contention. How much did Roo and Lenny take as a pay cut? I use them as they were Luke's co-captains.

[bozza1980]

It all made sense to me: some of you just clearly don't get it.

The guy thought he was part of the leadership group, an important cog in the wheel, etc, etc. He knew his pay was going to have to come down in the next contract - one thing he isn't is stupid - but he wanted the club to meet him half way. And he wanted the ongoing respect.

Instead, he was treated with clear disrespect in the second half of the season: more on a par with the Leigh Fishers, Gwilts and Rob Eddys than with the Riewoldts, Lennys and Sam Fishers and the rest of the leadership group.

I don't think that Ball had previously been given the message that this is where the club rated him nowadays. He didn't expect it, and it hurt. The GF was final confirmation if this.

And then another leading club popped up and offered him a role more like what he believed he previously had at the Saints, possibly for better $$$$ (although that issue wasn't clarified last night). Of course he jumped at it: he would have been a fool not to do so.

I still think it was a stuff-up on our part. We pushed Ball about like we did last year because we thought only the likes of Melbourne and Richmond would want him so that either

a) he wouldn't want to go and would therefore stay on our terms: lower $$$, use as a backup, lots of games at Sandy, or

b) we'd get a good trade for him: a first round pick or a quality player.

That another final 4 club would have a strong interest in Ball came as a total shock to Lyon, Drain, Nettlefold et al. Perhaps they underestimated how good a player he was. I reckon they might have done so.

And they blew the $$$ we freed up in our salary cap on Lovett.

It was a stuff-up. We seem to be strong enough to ride it out. But Ball's dignified, intelligent and (except for the totally one-eyed) convincing performance last night does tend to put a little nagging doubt in my mind.

Interesting point of view, well put.

I might disagree a little though.

Luke Ball walked as is his right. He left because he felt he would get more opportunities as Collingwood, perfectly reasonable.

I disagree that we treated him shabbily (ofcourse as an outsider, it is at best a guess) he was offered a 3 year deal and was considered in our best 22 to win the club a premiership. This isn't the behaviour of an organisation that does not wish to retain the person.

All this talk of us "not wanting" him seems to be peddalled by his management without any truth. If you believe Mike Sheehan's article he is playing at Collingwood for less than what St Kilda offered.

So basically we showed we didn't want him by offering him a 3 year deal on more money than a club that showed that they desperately needed him??

At the end of the day he has every right to leave the club, as I have every right to leave my current employer, but it isn't the clubs fault that Ball felt more comfortable with greater opportunity at a lesser club.

[Armoooo]

A couple of posters mentioned other players taking pay cuts at the tiem Luke Balls contract was in contention. How much did Roo and Lenny take as a pay cut? I use them as they were Luke's co-captains.

I don't think anybody would be able to give you that answer as to my knowledge the numbers were never revealed.

Also isn't Lenny on the Vets list this year which would have given him a bit more room to move, I'm not sure, but I think he is.

Also I can guarantee you Riewoldt isn't on 1.3+ Million a year with us and that is what he would be at the Gold Coast.

Also I really don't know where people are coming from saying that Luke was well spoken, I know he's a pretty smart bloke but he was 'ummming' and 'ahhhing' his way through the entire video, you could see the wheels slooooooooooooowwwwwwwllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy turning every question he asked to make sure he didn't say anything at all controversial.

[bigred]

Opposition forum..

Who gives a toss about a freakin whining Filth player...

[MCG-Unit]

Anyway, it's getting boring. As is the failure of some posters on here to respond in a civil manner to any comment with which they disagree.

Yep, and that's why I skip over their posts and never open their threads
One ruined a perfectly good thread last nite. Can't disagree/debate without abuse of other posters and past players

Also why many posters have cut back on these boards...

[iwantmeseats]

Im so over the Ball thing. Initially I was upset and very worried at losing such a player. Now, I couldnt give a rats, Im just too damn excited at the depth of talent I have seen on display in the 3 NAB cup games so far. We are in a good place friends.

[meher baba]

In terms of how Ball was "roughed up", as Everton put it so well, there are two key elements IMO

1. The statements made to the press by Lyon after Ball was dropped (something along the lines of "Ball has been told why he was dropped, is disappointed but understands it, and is working on what he has to do to get back").

This was more than was said when Dal and Milne were dropped, and much more than when Gram was dropped (when the club more or less pretended that he hadn't been dropped). I remember posting at the time (and, as usual, being howled down by the likes of JB) that this public humiliation of Ball, a former club co-captain, was not in the best interests of Ball or the club.

2. The mystery surrounding Ball's benching for the second half of the GF: was it planned all along or an unplanned stuff up? If it was planned all along (as fingers and JB are now proclaiming on another thread), then Ball's selection for the game can then be seen as a planned, and monumental, stuff up which may well have cost us a premiership. I personally don't think it was planned to that extent, I think it was more that - once the game was at crisis point - Lyon wasn't prepared to turn to Ball because he didn't think Ball could deliver want he wanted.

Either way, it was anything but a vote of confidence in the player.

It all makes sense to me as a tactic for getting Ball to shape up or ship out. However, as soon as Ball chose the "ship out" option, the club started behaving as if it hadn't really wanted him to go.

[bob__71]

Wow roughed up means something a hell of a lot different these days.

Balls gone a bit soft....thats what heppens when you mollycoddle someone too much.....I blame Grant and the parents.

[plugger66]

Wow roughed up means something a hell of a lot different these days.

Balls gone a bit soft....thats what heppens when you mollycoddle someone too much.....I blame Grant and the parents.

What has GT's parents got to do with Bally.

[bob__71]

Sorry I meant David