Where is Luke BALL at ?

WinnersOnly · Mon 16 Feb 2009 6:52pm

Where is Luke BALL at - we hear that he has had an uninterupted pre-season and is over his OP and hamstring issues.

I expected to see him back to his 2005 running/kicking capacities however he is still running up and down on the spot and still cant kick over a jam tin ala Stephen POWELL.

His in and under stuff is still second to none but his finishing efficiency was again terrible. I wonder if he will ever get back to full fitness and fulfill his potential.

Being such a professional intelligent young man I can only imagine how he must feel - because as a supporter I feel we have been yet again robbed of a brilliant young footballer meeting his true potential by INJURIES...

Saint Bev · Post: # 701481Post **Saint Bev** » Mon 16 Feb 2009 6:54pm

Played a full game Sat night, pulled up well the next day. Spoke to him at our function, he said he was fine and rareing to go and looked it.

Solar · Post: # 701482Post **Solar** » Mon 16 Feb 2009 6:57pm

Saint Bev wrote:Played a full game Sat night, pulled up well the next day. Spoke to him at our function, he said he was fine and rareing to go and looked it.

bev did he talk about his confidence in his kicking? He did talk about it last year where he said his groin was not effecting his kick but he still didn't have the confidence to kick through it.....

Saint Bev · Post: # 701496Post **Saint Bev** » Mon 16 Feb 2009 7:19pm

No, he just said everything felt good, the best he has felt in years.

Moccha · Post: # 701504Post **Moccha** » Mon 16 Feb 2009 7:37pm

I thought some of his kicking had a lot more penetration than usual. I think it would be a confidence thing

the_D_train · Mon 16 Feb 2009 8:32pm

i agree with Moccha his first kick was a nice long one to inside the 50 from memory.

his kicks also looked like they had a lot more penetration.

Saints Premiers 2008 · Mon 16 Feb 2009 10:15pm

he will come good...he isn't anywhere...

he is probably at home now chilling out ...

Teflon · Post: # 701877Post **Teflon** » Tue 17 Feb 2009 11:57pm

Im a huge Luke Ball fan but IF we are gonna get anywhere near a flag he HAS to get back to something like 2005 and soon.

We sorely missed him in the finals - hes ultra important to the team and yet still nowhere near what he could be.

On the plus side - I thought before his hammy kamakaze act last year he was on that road.

Legendary · Post: # 701879Post **Legendary** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 12:32am

HE WAS AT HIS BEST LAST YEAR ... people just have ridiculously short memories because he didn't play the last 5 games.

He averaged almost the same kicks, marks, handpasses, tackles, clearances etc in 2008 as he did in 2005 when he was AA and B&F.

He kicked more goals, was in our best players more often and gut ran into space more in 2008.

He improved a great deal on the previous year.

Now he's had another preseason, more fitness and a better base ... we will see even more improvement.

His kicking in the NAB game was as good as I've seen ... plenty of penetration.

rodgerfox · Post: # 701891Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 8:55am

Luke Ball was never a very good kick.

Certainly never a penetrating kick.

MC Gusto · Post: # 701905Post **MC Gusto** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 10:02am

rodgerfox wrote:Luke Ball was never a very good kick.

Certainly never a penetrating kick.

WRONG

Con Gorozidis · Wed 18 Feb 2009 11:05am

Luke Ball is a good player. But nothing special. One of those blokes that had a very mature strong body very young - so dominated schoolboy/jr footy. But as an adult hes abck to the pack a little. This is why recruiters need to be very careful about being seduced by young talent. Ball will get by using his courage, work ethic and footy nous - but not his athleticism.

Having said that - Joel Selwood does ok in the senior game.. Young Daniel Rich looks like the next young guy of that mould to do similar.

Id still rather have guys like Buddy and Stephen Hill on my list though... Guys who develop a little older but are geniune freaks.

Sobraz · Post: # 701928Post **Sobraz** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 11:40am

Luke was (is??) a genuine freak....

At school level it wasnt his maturity that got him ahead of the field, it was his ability... He could do it all, both in the air and on the turf... He was much much quicker... It seems injuries have slowed him for good...

I was happy with choosing him ahead of Judd... Without getting into the whole draft debate, Ball was warrented at no.2 and has the ability equal to both Hodge and Judd.... His just had a horrible run at it....

It seems his injuires have taken away alot of his natural advantage, so he'll be a hard/working, gutsy mid... But he may not get back to where he was...

I have him in our 6-10 bracket for best at the club...

IMO he's behind Roo, BJ, Chips, Lenny, Max, and probably behind Joey and Dal... Puts him about 8th..

WinnersOnly · Wed 18 Feb 2009 12:28pm

Sobraz wrote:Luke was (is??) a genuine freak....

At school level it wasnt his maturity that got him ahead of the field, it was his ability... He could do it all, both in the air and on the turf... He was much much quicker... It seems injuries have slowed him for good...

This is what I believed as well ! He is still a long way short of what he could of been - at full potential (fitness) he would have been the JUDD factor that took us that extra step....

Batnoe · Post: # 701936Post **Batnoe** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 12:38pm

He got Best and Fairest in 05 i think? maybe 06 and that is when his body was ok

At his best he is the most important player along with Goddard, Roo and S Fisher

If he is getting 7 or 8 tackles and getting 25 hard possessions we will win the game. He is a star, i think the people that think he is back in the pack dont watch much footy, he is a genunie star and we lack hardness when he isnt there. A must have!!

Animal Enclosure · Wed 18 Feb 2009 12:40pm

Rubbish Con. Luke was quite slight when he was drafted & built his current physique over a number of years.

He was nowhere near as well built as Selwood or Rich.

What he did have was fantastic footy nouse & superb skills. That is why he dominated under age footy.

His consistent probs with his groin has hurt his athletism & his kicking but that will come back once he is fully fit and confident in his body.

saintbob · Post: # 701940Post **saintbob** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 12:53pm

Legendary wrote:HE WAS AT HIS BEST LAST YEAR ... people just have ridiculously short memories because he didn't play the last 5 games.

He averaged almost the same kicks, marks, handpasses, tackles, clearances etc in 2008 as he did in 2005 when he was AA and B&F.

He kicked more goals, was in our best players more often and gut ran into space more in 2008.

He improved a great deal on the previous year.

Now he's had another preseason, more fitness and a better base ... we will see even more improvement.

His kicking in the NAB game was as good as I've seen ... plenty of penetration.

Totally agree, Ledge!!!!

Luke Ball and the rest of the onballers had the same problem on Saturday night.
That was, when they took possession of the ball anywhere from the middle back and they looked up there wasn't a target anywhere to be seen especially in the first half.
Hence alll they could do was chip it sideways and backwards, except at centre bounces when our forwards where actually in position and then there was no one taking a decent catch.
This was a direct result of the bloody horrible game plan put in place by SOS, well at least I hope it was SOS as I'd hate to think that RL was to blame.
Because I'd hate to have sit through that crap again this season!!!

MC Gusto · Post: # 701941Post **MC Gusto** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 12:54pm

Animal Enclosure wrote:Rubbish Con. Luke was quite slight when he was drafted & built his current physique over a number of years.

He was nowhere near as well built as Selwood or Rich.

What he did have was fantastic footy nouse & superb skills. That is why he dominated under age footy.

His consistent probs with his groin has hurt his athletism & his kicking but that will come back once he is fully fit and confident in his body.

spot on

a natural sporting freak was captain of the 1st eleven as well

SainterK · Post: # 701944Post **SainterK** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 1:04pm

It's not to late for Luke Ball to reach his "potential" surely?

He is only 24, and by all reports has benefited from a solid preseason. I hope he surprises a few on here....

savatage · Post: # 701947Post **savatage** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 1:21pm

Luke Ball would be the first to admit that he's not what he was in terms of pace & kicking skills.

As a junior he was very slight - he has built himself up over the years...personally I think he's too big - but that's just my theory....no doubt his history of groin problems has eroded away his kicking penetration & pace.

Teflon · Post: # 702099Post **Teflon** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 9:52pm

Legendary wrote:HE WAS AT HIS BEST LAST YEAR ... people just have ridiculously short memories because he didn't play the last 5 games.

He averaged almost the same kicks, marks, handpasses, tackles, clearances etc in 2008 as he did in 2005 when he was AA and B&F.

He kicked more goals, was in our best players more often and gut ran into space more in 2008.

He improved a great deal on the previous year.

Now he's had another preseason, more fitness and a better base ... we will see even more improvement.

His kicking in the NAB game was as good as I've seen ... plenty of penetration.

I appreciate stats and all can teel some things but they aint the whole truth.

Id take Luke Ball circa 2005 thanks cause his IMPACT IMHO was far greater.

Im certainly praying he gets back to that cause if he does our cause gets a huge boost.

Solar · Post: # 702131Post **Solar** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 10:47pm

anyone who thinks a second year ball was not a long powerful kick, go watch the footage.... he used to roost them from outside 50..

Teflon · Post: # 702134Post **Teflon** » Wed 18 Feb 2009 10:49pm

Solar wrote:anyone who thinks a second year ball was not a long powerful kick, go watch the footage.... he used to roost them from outside 50..

yep agree.

groupie1 · Post: # 702449Post **groupie1** » Fri 20 Feb 2009 9:48am

Might there be an argument to play L Ball at half back - swap roles with Gram, play the L Hodge role?

I think he looks bigger this year.

what do people think?
L Hodge is not fast (like L Ball). He's courageous, tough, although does have better disposal.

plugger66 · Post: # 702479Post **plugger66** » Fri 20 Feb 2009 11:58am

groupie1 wrote:Might there be an argument to play L Ball at half back - swap roles with Gram, play the L Hodge role?

I think he looks bigger this year.

what do people think?
L Hodge is not fast (like L Ball). He's courageous, tough, although does have better disposal.

I dont think they are similar at all. Hodge is a brilliant kick and very good overhead where as Ball is an in and under player who is an ordinary kick and isnt great overhead. I think we need to use him in his best position which is on the ball with occasional rest up forward.