BALL(S)!

[HSVKing]

We wanted Goldsack and pick 30.

They offered Wellingham and pick 60-something.

We refused as we said we wouldn't use the pick.

End of story.

[Beej]

If the media left it alone then maybe we could all move on. But the fact is it serves some parties' agendas to paint Lyon and the club as scapegoats for losing Luke Ball and/or not playing him for long enough in last year's GF and thus costing the Saints a premiership.

Which is utter BALLS.

The fact is Ross Lyon has been far more instrumental in getting us into a premiership playoff in the first place than Luke Ball ever was.

We won't be silent in the face of gutter crawlers in the press and elsewhere trying to rewrite history.

Of course if you could pick either Lyon or Ball to be at the club, we'd obviously choose Ross, but it was never a decision of one or the other, was it? Not sure of the relevance.

Would've been nice, you have to admit, if the bloke who effectively replaced Luke Ball's spot in the salary cap played a few games for us.

And we all know how Andrew Lovett turned out.

What a shambolic trade period.

Hopefully this one is better.

[Beej]

We wanted Goldsack and pick 30.

They offered Wellingham and pick 60-something.

We refused as we said we wouldn't use the pick.

End of story.

Wellingham would've been a fantastic addition in hindsight.

I guess at the time though we had Andrew Lovett lined up so I can see why we didn't go for that.

[Dr Spaceman]

We wanted Goldsack and pick 30.

They offered Wellingham and pick 60-something.

We refused as we said we wouldn't use the pick.

End of story.

Wellingham would've been a fantastic addition in hindsight.

I guess at the time though we had Andrew Lovett lined up so I can see why we didn't go for that.

Wellingham circa September 2010 is different to Wellingham circa September 2009. If the Pies were offering him up it's a fair bet they didn't rate him too highly at the time.

Hindsight is wonderful but really serves no purpose in this discussion.

[SainterK]

Beej, thanks for trying to explain in.

I don't actually have an issue with him leaving if his pay was cut in his new contract, it's not ideal, but it happens. The money he was on before was crazy money though, way over the top.

Why can't he just admit it this was a motivating factor?

I just get annoyed that TOG an opportunity is still floated as a reason...

[InkerSaint]

Of course if you could pick either Lyon or Ball to be at the club, we'd obviously choose Ross, but it was never a decision of one or the other, was it? Not sure of the relevance.

No relevance in the context of this thread, but the wider public discourse gets reduced to Ball versus Lyon. Given what Lyon has otherwise achieved, he deserves to be backed not only on Ball's contract offer but also his TOG in the '09 GF. These may have been the right decisions and no-one will ever be able to prove otherwise.

We judge Ball harshly perhaps, but we're entitled to. Actions define character. He's entitled to chase money and opportunity, and doesn't live or die by our opinion of him.

[Beej]

We wanted Goldsack and pick 30.

They offered Wellingham and pick 60-something.

We refused as we said we wouldn't use the pick.

End of story.

Wellingham would've been a fantastic addition in hindsight.

I guess at the time though we had Andrew Lovett lined up so I can see why we didn't go for that.

Wellingham circa September 2010 is different to Wellingham circa September 2009. If the Pies were offering him up it's a fair bet they didn't rate him too highly at the time.

Hindsight is wonderful but really serves no purpose in this discussion.

I don't think it matters to a club how other clubs rate a player, nor should it. That's why clubs employ their own talent scouts and recruiting staff. What is important is how they themselves rate him.

Too many examples of players who aren't favoured at a club, leave and go on to become very good players.

[SainterK]

Of course if you could pick either Lyon or Ball to be at the club, we'd obviously choose Ross, but it was never a decision of one or the other, was it? Not sure of the relevance.

No relevance in the context of this thread, but the wider public discourse gets reduced to Ball versus Lyon. Given what Lyon has otherwise achieved, he deserves to be backed not only on Ball's contract offer but also his TOG in the '09 GF. These may have been the right decisions and no-one will ever be able to prove otherwise.

We judge Ball harshly perhaps, but we're entitled to. Actions define character. He's entitled to chase money and opportunity, and doesn't live or die by our opinion of him.

To be fair, his first GF this year was ordinary...

If people are allowed to romanticise that he would of been the difference in the last half of the 2009 grand final, there is also the distinct possibility that he may of been ordinary....

We'll just never know.

[Beej]

Beej, thanks for trying to explain in.

I don't actually have an issue with him leaving if his pay was cut in his new contract, it's not ideal, but it happens. The money he was on before was crazy money though, way over the top.

Why can't he just admit it this was a motivating factor?

I just get annoyed that TOG an opportunity is still floated as a reason...

Come on K, opportunity had to be a major reason.

If you consider that he wasn't dropped once this year from a side that finished top and won the flag and compare it to last year where he was being overlooked for Eddy/Armitage/Geary, you can see that he's obviously getting more opportunity now.

He played outstanding footy this year I thought which helps when you have the support of your coach who's not sending you to the VFL every second week to "work on things".

He's obviously more valued at Collingwood than he was for us.

[SainterK]

Beej, thanks for trying to explain in.

I don't actually have an issue with him leaving if his pay was cut in his new contract, it's not ideal, but it happens. The money he was on before was crazy money though, way over the top.

Why can't he just admit it this was a motivating factor?

I just get annoyed that TOG an opportunity is still floated as a reason...

Come on K, opportunity had to be a major reason.

If you consider that he wasn't dropped once this year from a side that finished top and won the flag and compare it to last year where he was being overlooked for Eddy/Armitage/Geary, you can see that he's obviously getting more opportunity now.

He played outstanding footy this year I thought which helps when you have the support of your coach who's not sending you to the VFL every second week to "work on things".

He's obviously more valued at Collingwood than he was for us.

He was being played as a burst player, in the midfield, just not a high TOG...I don't see what the difference is, he plays even less now?

[Jewellzy]

We wanted Goldsack and pick 30.

They offered Wellingham and pick 60-something.

We refused as we said we wouldn't use the pick.

End of story.

The irony of this is just too much.

[Beej]

Beej, thanks for trying to explain in.

I don't actually have an issue with him leaving if his pay was cut in his new contract, it's not ideal, but it happens. The money he was on before was crazy money though, way over the top.

Why can't he just admit it this was a motivating factor?

I just get annoyed that TOG an opportunity is still floated as a reason...

Come on K, opportunity had to be a major reason.

If you consider that he wasn't dropped once this year from a side that finished top and won the flag and compare it to last year where he was being overlooked for Eddy/Armitage/Geary, you can see that he's obviously getting more opportunity now.

He played outstanding footy this year I thought which helps when you have the support of your coach who's not sending you to the VFL every second week to "work on things".

He's obviously more valued at Collingwood than he was for us.

He was being played as a burst player, in the midfield, just not a high TOG...I don't see what the difference is, he plays even less now?

A burst player isn't one who rotates from VFL to AFL.

He played 65% in GF1. Compare that to 46% in last year's GF. That's almost a whole quarter more football in a Grand Final.

So, no, he's not playing less.

[SainterK]

I meant over the season...

Anyways was he dropped because of Ross, or because of the players? It was reported at the time it was because of the trademark, which I was under the impression was player driven?