Saints players LIVID with Luke Ball

[Thinline]

i really doubt all of this conjecture . players themselves just dont get into judging others on all the contract stuff. most of them try to stay out of it all - hence the use of managers.

LB just wasnt feeling the love from the coach and in the end just wanted to be playing 80 minutes of senior footy each week. end of story.

the other players would not be hold a grudge against him for a minute. theyll just get on with their own lives and careers and some of them will remain lifelong friends of LB regardless of what he does next.

i reckon we should all do the same.

Nice to see some sense for once in this place.

Have you learnt anything?

Thanks to the above post, I've learnt that not all footy fans and SS posters aren't complete and utter simpletons who are completely unable to maintain rationale in the face of any adversity. By 'adversity', I mean the slightest bump in the road when it comes to supporting the Saints.

Most become blubbering emotive wrecks and lose all logic and sense completely.

And 5988 times you've VOLUNTARILY joined the ranks of those you so despise.

Pffft.

[joffaboy]

Thanks to the above post, I've learnt that not all footy fans and SS posters aren't complete and utter simpletons who are completely unable to maintain rationale in the face of any adversity. By 'adversity', I mean the slightest bump in the road when it comes to supporting the Saints.

Most become blubbering emotive wrecks and lose all logic and sense completely.

A bit abusive and condescending because others have different opinions to this poster.

Highly suprising

[joffaboy]

i really doubt all of this conjecture . players themselves just dont get into judging others on all the contract stuff. most of them try to stay out of it all - hence the use of managers.

LB just wasnt feeling the love from the coach and in the end just wanted to be playing 80 minutes of senior footy each week. end of story.

the other players would not be hold a grudge against him for a minute. theyll just get on with their own lives and careers and some of them will remain lifelong friends of LB regardless of what he does next.

i reckon we should all do the same.

Nice to see some sense for once in this place.

Have you learnt anything?

Thanks to the above post, I've learnt that not all footy fans and SS posters aren't complete and utter simpletons who are completely unable to maintain rationale in the face of any adversity. By 'adversity', I mean the slightest bump in the road when it comes to supporting the Saints.

Most become blubbering emotive wrecks and lose all logic and sense completely.

And 5988 times you've VOLUNTARILY joined the ranks of those you so despise.

Pffft.

yeah - it would seem so.

[markp]

LB just wasnt feeling the love from the coach and in the end just wanted to be playing 80 minutes of senior footy each week. end of story.

Yup, in a multi-million dollar professional game... all the players care about is love and % of game time they spend on the ground.

The guy would play for nothing if we only loved him more and he got to flog his body under packs for just 10 more minutes each week.

Heaven forbid that our hero Luke Ball is interested in money.

[Mr Magic]

LB just wasnt feeling the love from the coach and in the end just wanted to be playing 80 minutes of senior footy each week. end of story.

Yup, in a multi-million dollar professional game... all the players care about is love and % of game time they spend on the ground.

The guy would play for nothing if we only loved him more and he got to flog his body under packs for just 10 more minutes each week.

Heaven forbid that our hero Luke Ball is interested in money.

And his manager would be telling him to take less but enjoy more minutes on the ground?
So he could earn less commission.

What staggers me is this conception believed by some that the Coach(es) deliberately played Luke Ball 50% of game time all season because they 'didn't value him' or they'didn't love him enough'.

Staggering to think that they cannot accept that maybe Luke Ball wasn't able to play more 'game time' because his physical capabilities wouldn't allow it.

They must actually think that other players are kept on the ground to their own detriment just so Luke Ball wouldn't play any more minutes.

That the Coaches deliberately jeopardize other players welfare just so that they could be vindictive to Luke Ball.

And that the Club offered him a new 3 year contract in June (apparently worth $1,000,000) because they were so vindictive, they wanted to stop him getting 'game time' any where else and were prepared to waste 4.5% of their Salary Cap to do it.

Because that's what you get when you follow the logic behind these 'game-time' and 'untenable' arguments.

It does not stack up under any circumstances.

Why doesn't Luke Ball/Connors/Ball's camp just come out and tell teh truth?

'I've got a better deal at Collingwood'.

Nobody in their right mind would believe that he wants to leave St Kilda to play at Collingwood for less money.

Does he have written into his contract at Collingwood the actual mimimum minutes 'game time' he is entitled to?
What about the way coaches and/or officials are allowed to talk to him?
And how about selection criteria as to where he plays on teh ground?
Anything else that was so troubling at St Kilda.

What a crock of shyte.

The above is all just my opinion.

[Thinline]

Agree Mr Magic. Can't anyone acknowledge that LB's role in the side was to impact clearances in ferocious bursts? Perhops this was simply the best way of using a bloke with good in close skills but limited run. Perhaps he simply didn't like the role he was given.

[Eastern]

Just to muddy the waters even further;

Luke Ball has headed off to the USA on a planned holiday. Now I know that the USA is a large country but many of the St Kilda players headed off to the USA on holiday about a week ago.

Could Luke be going to the same part of the USA as his ex/team-mates?

If his ex/team-mates are livid with him, could this wreck the holiday for many/all of them if he turns up?

Could this holiday be the catylist to repair fractured relationships?

There is ONLY one thing that I know to be FACT in this whole saga;

THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT MORE QUESTIONS THAN THERE ARE ANSWERS !!

[vacuous space]

Can't anyone acknowledge that LB's role in the side was to impact clearances in ferocious bursts? Perhops this was simply the best way of using a bloke with good in close skills but limited run. Perhaps he simply didn't like the role he was given.

I think you're spot on. Ball's a clearance machine and one of the best contested ball players in the comp. I think RL wants him to do more than that. Lenny, Dal, Joey, BJ and even Clinton Jones bring more to the table than that. Gram, Ray and now Lovett play roles that Ball just can't. If Ball wants to be a more valuable part of our midfield, there are some things that needs to improve. If we're trying to improve our ball movement, it doesn't help to have a stationary player who can't kick.

OTOH, if he goes to Collingwood, he can just replace Shane O'Bree (and Scotty Burns to an extent) and just win clearances and contested ball. Whether it's money, gametime or simply being lazy, I think going to Collingwood is the easy option for Ball. He's basically saying that he doesn't think he can do what RL wants him to do and the he doesn't think he'll ever be an important player in the St Kilda midfield again. He may be right.

[Milton66]

LB just wasnt feeling the love from the coach and in the end just wanted to be playing 80 minutes of senior footy each week. end of story.

Yup, in a multi-million dollar professional game... all the players care about is love and % of game time they spend on the ground.

The guy would play for nothing if we only loved him more and he got to flog his body under packs for just 10 more minutes each week.

Heaven forbid that our hero Luke Ball is interested in money.

Perhaps that's why Rodger empathises with Luke Ball...

Theyboth feel unloved by the club.

[Milton66]

i really doubt all of this conjecture . players themselves just dont get into judging others on all the contract stuff. most of them try to stay out of it all - hence the use of managers.

LB just wasnt feeling the love from the coach and in the end just wanted to be playing 80 minutes of senior footy each week. end of story.

the other players would not be hold a grudge against him for a minute. theyll just get on with their own lives and careers and some of them will remain lifelong friends of LB regardless of what he does next.

i reckon we should all do the same.

Nice to see some sense for once in this place.

Have you learnt anything?

Thanks to the above post, I've learnt that not all footy fans and SS posters aren't complete and utter simpletons who are completely unable to maintain rationale in the face of any adversity. By 'adversity', I mean the slightest bump in the road when it comes to supporting the Saints.

Most become blubbering emotive wrecks and lose all logic and sense completely.

WOW... that's deep.

So are you here to impart wisdom?

After all, why would such an intelligent being such as yourself waste precious time arguing with simpletons?


Now, given that you are yet to produce any facts supporting your arguments... Or did I miss something throughout this entire rational debate?

[Stillwaiting]

LB just wasnt feeling the love from the coach and in the end just wanted to be playing 80 minutes of senior footy each week. end of story.

Yup, in a multi-million dollar professional game... all the players care about is love and % of game time they spend on the ground.

The guy would play for nothing if we only loved him more and he got to flog his body under packs for just 10 more minutes each week.

Heaven forbid that our hero Luke Ball is interested in money.

And his manager would be telling him to take less but enjoy more minutes on the ground?
So he could earn less commission.

What staggers me is this conception believed by some that the Coach(es) deliberately played Luke Ball 50% of game time all season because they 'didn't value him' or they'didn't love him enough'.

Staggering to think that they cannot accept that maybe Luke Ball wasn't able to play more 'game time' because his physical capabilities wouldn't allow it.

They must actually think that other players are kept on the ground to their own detriment just so Luke Ball wouldn't play any more minutes.

That the Coaches deliberately jeopardize other players welfare just so that they could be vindictive to Luke Ball.

And that the Club offered him a new 3 year contract in June (apparently worth $1,000,000) because they were so vindictive, they wanted to stop him getting 'game time' any where else and were prepared to waste 4.5% of their Salary Cap to do it.

Because that's what you get when you follow the logic behind these 'game-time' and 'untenable' arguments.

It does not stack up under any circumstances.

Why doesn't Luke Ball/Connors/Ball's camp just come out and tell teh truth?

'I've got a better deal at Collingwood'.

Nobody in their right mind would believe that he wants to leave St Kilda to play at Collingwood for less money.

Does he have written into his contract at Collingwood the actual mimimum minutes 'game time' he is entitled to?
What about the way coaches and/or officials are allowed to talk to him?
And how about selection criteria as to where he plays on teh ground?
Anything else that was so troubling at St Kilda.

What a crock of shyte.

The above is all just my opinion.

Agree 100% Mr Magic, very good post

[SainterK]

i really doubt all of this conjecture . players themselves just dont get into judging others on all the contract stuff. most of them try to stay out of it all - hence the use of managers.

LB just wasnt feeling the love from the coach and in the end just wanted to be playing 80 minutes of senior footy each week. end of story.

the other players would not be hold a grudge against him for a minute. theyll just get on with their own lives and careers and some of them will remain lifelong friends of LB regardless of what he does next.

i reckon we should all do the same.

Nice to see some sense for once in this place.

Have you learnt anything?

Thanks to the above post, I've learnt that not all footy fans and SS posters aren't complete and utter simpletons who are completely unable to maintain rationale in the face of any adversity. By 'adversity', I mean the slightest bump in the road when it comes to supporting the Saints.

Most become blubbering emotive wrecks and lose all logic and sense completely.

Do you often display arrogance by insulting those who you deem inferior?

Your post doesn't promote discussion, it's not constructive, I assume that you just want people to react emotively?

[Milton66]

Look out... Velvet's come out to play.

[rodgerfox]

What staggers me is this conception believed by some that the Coach(es) deliberately played Luke Ball 50% of game time all season because they 'didn't value him' or they'didn't love him enough'.

Staggering to think that they cannot accept that maybe Luke Ball wasn't able to play more 'game time' because his physical capabilities wouldn't allow it.

They must actually think that other players are kept on the ground to their own detriment just so Luke Ball wouldn't play any more minutes.

That the Coaches deliberately jeopardize other players welfare just so that they could be vindictive to Luke Ball.

Are you saying that people think that the coaches don't like Luke Ball as a person so they purposely made him sit out games and purposely gave him limited game time?

Surely no-one is saying that.

[rodgerfox]

Perhaps that's why Rodger empathises with Luke Ball...

Theyboth feel unloved by the club.

Huh?

Unloved??

Sorry, you've lost me.

[rodgerfox]

After all, why would such an intelligent being such as yourself waste precious time arguing with simpletons?

Who said I'm intelligent?

[Mr Magic]

What staggers me is this conception believed by some that the Coach(es) deliberately played Luke Ball 50% of game time all season because they 'didn't value him' or they'didn't love him enough'.

Staggering to think that they cannot accept that maybe Luke Ball wasn't able to play more 'game time' because his physical capabilities wouldn't allow it.

They must actually think that other players are kept on the ground to their own detriment just so Luke Ball wouldn't play any more minutes.

That the Coaches deliberately jeopardize other players welfare just so that they could be vindictive to Luke Ball.

Are you saying that people think that the coaches don't like Luke Ball as a person so they purposely made him sit out games and purposely gave him limited game time?

Surely no-one is saying that.

Rodger, even though I know that you're only here to cause trouble, I'll humour you a little so that you can later claim moral outrage etc.

The point I was making, which I'm sure you actually do understand, is that if you believe the 'more game time' reason for Ball wanting to leave, then it can only be in their minds a deliberate action from the Coaches.

Surely nobody would accept that the short playing was an accident and then leave because of that 'accidental stuff-up'?

No, to use that as a reason to leave they must believe that it was a deliberate tactic. There's no other logical explanation.

Given that, I make the point that I cannot believe that any coach(es) would deliberately leave a fit player on the bench for half a game, week after week.

You may feel differently?

[Beej]

What staggers me is this conception believed by some that the Coach(es) deliberately played Luke Ball 50% of game time all season because they 'didn't value him' or they'didn't love him enough'.

Staggering to think that they cannot accept that maybe Luke Ball wasn't able to play more 'game time' because his physical capabilities wouldn't allow it.

They must actually think that other players are kept on the ground to their own detriment just so Luke Ball wouldn't play any more minutes.

That the Coaches deliberately jeopardize other players welfare just so that they could be vindictive to Luke Ball.

Are you saying that people think that the coaches don't like Luke Ball as a person so they purposely made him sit out games and purposely gave him limited game time?

Surely no-one is saying that.

That's what it seems like he's been saying all along.

Surely no-one is saying that the coaches had a personal vendetta against Luke Ball.

"Hey Leigh, Ross here, you wanna know how we can really shaft Bally? Lets play him in the GF, and give him half a game again!! Muhahaha!"

[rodgerfox]

The point I was making, which I'm sure you actually do understand, is that if you believe the 'more game time' reason for Ball wanting to leave, then it can only be in their minds a deliberate action from the Coaches.

Surely nobody would accept that the short playing was an accident and then leave because of that 'accidental stuff-up'?

No, to use that as a reason to leave they must believe that it was a deliberate tactic. There's no other logical explanation.

Given that, I make the point that I cannot believe that any coach(es) would deliberately leave a fit player on the bench for half a game, week after week.

You may feel differently?

I do feel differently.

I think the coaches didn't play Luke Ball enough. On GF day it was definately a mistake - one which Lyon has conceded. Although oddly, sort of blamed something or someone else for it.

What I don't get, is that people are apparently saying (I haven't seen it, but you've mentioned it a few times) that people think it's because of a vendetta against Ball.

That's just ridiculous.

It would be for, in the coaches minds, good reasons. But in Ball's mind, the reasons either aren't good, or he just doesn't like not being on the ground.

Without knowing the reasons, my opinion is that we were crazy in our use of Luke Ball all year - and in particular throughout the finals.

But again, that is without knowing the reasons.

[Beej]

It would be for, in the coaches minds, good reasons. But in Ball's mind, the reasons either aren't good, or he just doesn't like not being on the ground.

Those reasons could be one of three:

1.They feel he's, physically, not up to it,

2.They feel they have better options (more effective footballers) at their disposal than Luke Ball,

3.Or both.

And on a side note: the day a footballer is happy to warm the bench for 50% of a game is the day he should think about retiring. No footballer likes to sit on the bench.

[Mr Magic]

The point I was making, which I'm sure you actually do understand, is that if you believe the 'more game time' reason for Ball wanting to leave, then it can only be in their minds a deliberate action from the Coaches.

Surely nobody would accept that the short playing was an accident and then leave because of that 'accidental stuff-up'?

No, to use that as a reason to leave they must believe that it was a deliberate tactic. There's no other logical explanation.

Given that, I make the point that I cannot believe that any coach(es) would deliberately leave a fit player on the bench for half a game, week after week.

You may feel differently?

....
What I don't get, is that people are apparently saying (I haven't seen it, but you've mentioned it a few times) that people think it's because of a vendetta against Ball.

That's just ridiculous.
...

Congratulations Rodger,
You're now agreeing with me.

Notwithstanding that you're just angling the discussion so that you can get to your favourite topic of 'having a go at Ross Lyon', the facts are that the 'more game time' excuse just doesn't make sense, unless you believe that he was deliberately not played more even if he was physically fit.

If they had said that they didn't agree with the fitness people's assesment of his physical assesment, then I could accept the reason (may not agree with it, but I could understand it).
But that is not what they are saying.

ANd what makes it even more non-sensical is these reports now surfacing that 'Ball didn't want to go' and that the Club 'told him to go'.

The longer this goes on with the only comments being made from teh Ball side of the argument, the more farcical it becomes.
IMO Ball's character is being turned into a 'sad comic strip character' rather than the intelligent young man that he apparently is.

I feel desperately sorry for him that he apperas (in my mind) to be manipulated by strong characters surrounding him giving him bad advice (again IMO).

[rodgerfox]

It would be for, in the coaches minds, good reasons. But in Ball's mind, the reasons either aren't good, or he just doesn't like not being on the ground.

Those reasons could be one of three:

1.They feel he's, physically, not up to it,

2.They feel they have better options (more effective footballers) at their disposal than Luke Ball,

3.Or both.

And on a side note: the day a footballer is happy to warm the bench for 50% of a game is the day he should think about retiring. No footballer likes to sit on the bench.

Clearly.

The concept of him wanting out, simply because they aren't playing him, isn't as outrageous as some seem to think.

Once a player realises he isn't rated, and isn't going to get to play a key role, they most often either retire, or move on.

[rodgerfox]

Congratulations Rodger,
You're now agreeing with me.

Notwithstanding that you're just angling the discussion so that you can get to your favourite topic of 'having a go at Ross Lyon', the facts are that the 'more game time' excuse just doesn't make sense, unless you believe that he was deliberately not played more even if he was physically fit.

If they had said that they didn't agree with the fitness people's assesment of his physical assesment, then I could accept the reason (may not agree with it, but I could understand it).
But that is not what they are saying.

ANd what makes it even more non-sensical is these reports now surfacing that 'Ball didn't want to go' and that the Club 'told him to go'.

The longer this goes on with the only comments being made from teh Ball side of the argument, the more farcical it becomes.
IMO Ball's character is being turned into a 'sad comic strip character' rather than the intelligent young man that he apparently is.

I feel desperately sorry for him that he apperas (in my mind) to be manipulated by strong characters surrounding him giving him bad advice (again IMO).

I'm not sure I do agree with you.

I think it is purely game time. It makes perfect sense to me.

I haven't read papers, cause I very rarely do anyway. But readong about footy at this time of year bores me to death.

So if stuff has happened in relation to Ball since GF day that I've missed, forgive me.


He has been dealt with harshly by the club. Footy's a harsh business though.
The coaches don't rate him. If they did, he'd be playing more - and would have played more than 40% of the GF.

They played him in the 2s, and prior to that he was barely getting on the ground.

They don't rate him. Why? Who knows.

Ball may know, or he may not know. Regardless, it seems he isn't happy with it.

Fair enough too. But it's also fair enough that the coaches don't rate him, and don't play him. I don't agree with them on it, but they're the coaches. They're entitled to rate, and play whomever they want.

If we keep losing GFs by a whisker, then they'll be remember as errors. If we win GFs, they're be remember as heroes.

[Beej]

It would be for, in the coaches minds, good reasons. But in Ball's mind, the reasons either aren't good, or he just doesn't like not being on the ground.

Those reasons could be one of three:

1.They feel he's, physically, not up to it,

2.They feel they have better options (more effective footballers) at their disposal than Luke Ball,

3.Or both.

And on a side note: the day a footballer is happy to warm the bench for 50% of a game is the day he should think about retiring. No footballer likes to sit on the bench.

Clearly.

The concept of him wanting out, simply because they aren't playing him, isn't as outrageous as some seem to think.

Once a player realises he isn't rated, and isn't going to get to play a key role, they most often either retire, or move on.

Footballers become footballers to play football, no? When the opportunity to play football is limited (less than 50% a game is limited), surely any footballer worth their salt will not be happy.

X Clarke requested a move away because he knew his opportunities were going to be limited. After all, he just wants to play AFL footy. We allowed X to move, shortly after signing a contract extension, for the benefit of his own career.

Now, Luke Ball, who IMO, was told that he would have a similar role in the side next season and that his opportunities were going to be limited much in the same way, requests a move for essentially the same reasons as X Clarke.

Now, X is seen as a great club-man and loyal servant who just wants to play football and thankfully got his chance because Brisbane showed an interest while, on the other hand, Luke is a mercenary and a traitor who's chasing dollars because he's respected highly enough that he has the opportunity to choose the club he wishes to move to.

Isn't that what's happening?

[bob__71]

Luke Ball and Lenny Hayes play the same role. For much of the time we only use one on the field. Lenny is a better player than Luke, so he gets more gametime.