Saints players LIVID with Luke Ball

[Saint Bev]

All,
there are two sides to every story! I actually saw and spoke to Luke Ball on Friday night (October 2nd) and Luke stated that he wasn't wanted by the club.

I for one would like Luke Ball to be part of our premiership campaign for season 2010 as he is a valuable player even if it is for 50 - 60 % game time.

Don't shoot him down as he is a class player and more importantly a class person.

I believe he is a class person, thats where it is all so confusing. He told you he wasn't wanted by the club. Where did he get that from. We offered him a 3 yr deal, doesn't sound like we didn't want him. Maybe he is believing his Manager/Family. I believe the Family are a bit over the top.

Luke also once told me that he didn't have OP. So maybe he just says what he thinks people want to hear? I have noticed players do that. Don't really tell you as it is. I don't know how well you know him.

Not disagreeing with you, or having a go, these are just thoughts. I doubt the players would be livid with him as this sort of thing does happen in footy. But I am sure they would be disappointed. I think it is a decision he will live to regret, time will tell.

[joffaboy]

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?

No.

If you cant see the difference, you haven't been paying attention.

Much different situation.

For a start why would the club trade a No.5 dp for #60? His opportunities would be limited at the Saints and was not part of the plans (harsh but thats footy).

Now why would the club play hardball and not trade for a player and #30 unless Ball was a required player and fitted into the plans going forward?

Why would the club offer a three year contract to LB (X got a one year contract)?

Why would all this stuff be leaked to the rags?

Collingwood $500k a year contract
Colling then less than Saints offered (meaning Saints offered more than $500 and LB wanted to leave the Saints because he was disillusioned or the inference of that(
Then the emotional card - why bring his family into it?
Then it was game time
Then it was he was pushed

It has been dirty and grubby compared to the goodwill displayed to and by X.

One cant help but feel that it all started because LB was offered a reduced contract. He was hawked about and only Collingwood raised some interest and then we hear the $500k contract stuff.

To believe it only had to do with conditions and money wasn't an issue is to be niave.

As it is to believe that only money was the issue. However it all started with the reduced contract and the rest stemmed from there. IMHO of course

[CaptainRiewoldt]

All,
there are two sides to every story! I actually saw and spoke to Luke Ball on Friday night (October 2nd) and Luke stated that he wasn't wanted by the club.

I for one would like Luke Ball to be part of our premiership campaign for season 2010 as he is a valuable player even if it is for 50 - 60 % game time.

Don't shoot him down as he is a class player and more importantly a class person.

I believe he is a class person, thats where it is all so confusing. He told you he wasn't wanted by the club. Where did he get that from. We offered him a 3 yr deal, doesn't sound like we didn't want him. Maybe he is believing his Manager/Family. I believe the Family are a bit over the top.

Luke also once told me that he didn't have OP. So maybe he just says what he thinks people want to hear? I have noticed players do that. Don't really tell you as it is. I don't know how well you know him.

Not disagreeing with you, or having a go, these are just thoughts. I doubt the players would be livid with him as this sort of thing does happen in footy. But I am sure they would be disappointed. I think it is a decision he will live to regret, time will tell.

SPOt ON of corse they dont tell you what you wanna hear whats bally gonna say to a mad saints fan? nah i hate the saints i just wanna get more money?

get a grip. understand we will never know the inside word unless you are family and even then its second hand and bias.

just support - as for bally its clear hes a cint.

[Milton66]

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.

If they don't rate him, then why a 3 year deal?

And why pick hin to play in a GF?

Perhaps they do rate him, but not as highly as Luke rates himself?

I don't think anyone is denying Luke's right to move on... the issue is that everything we've heard has come fromhis camp. And the stories have been changing almost on a weekly basis.

Funny how the club obligingly moved X on, and made sure he was traded smoothly. Yet with Luke, it was different scenario. Once again, I can only assume they rated him, and in fact stated that he is a required player.

Finally, I don't think that myself or others are automatically assuming that the club were squeaky clean, but given the different stories coming out form Ball's camp... we can only draw certain conclusions.

If the club told him "here's the deal... 3 years and no guarantees on game time - take it or leave it" then I don't have a problem with that.

Given that he didn't sign, and the club said "ok, then go"... then I also don't have an issue with that either.

[SainterK]

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.

Is it all possible that his aspirations have fallen behind his body?

Reserve your judgement if he goes to another club and increases his game time significantly, this will not prove anything as far as I am concerned.

We must remember that Luke is also walking away from a first class health and conditioning department led by Dave Misson, who I believe was doing their best to ensure Luke's prolonged time in the game.

Limited opportunties v reality IMO

[Beej]

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?

No.

If you cant see the difference, you haven't been paying attention.

Much different situation.

For a start why would the club trade a No.5 dp for #60? His opportunities would be limited at the Saints and was not part of the plans (harsh but thats footy).

Now why would the club play hardball and not trade for a player and #30 unless Ball was a required player and fitted into the plans going forward?

Why would the club offer a three year contract to LB (X got a one year contract)?

Why would all this stuff be leaked to the rags?

Collingwood $500k a year contract
Colling then less than Saints offered (meaning Saints offered more than $500 and LB wanted to leave the Saints because he was disillusioned or the inference of that(
Then the emotional card - why bring his family into it?
Then it was game time
Then it was he was pushed

It has been dirty and grubby compared to the goodwill displayed to and by X.

One cant help but feel that it all started because LB was offered a reduced contract. He was hawked about and only Collingwood raised some interest and then we hear the $500k contract stuff.

To believe it only had to do with conditions and money wasn't an issue is to be niave.

As it is to believe that only money was the issue. However it all started with the reduced contract and the rest stemmed from there. IMHO of course

I understand the difference. Here's my version of the "difference".

Luke Ball was part of the plans, as you say, but a limited part of them.

Why wouldn't we have taken pick #30 and a cast off from Collingwood? Because Lyon didn't believe it was a fair deal for a player of Ball's standing (X Clarke does not have the same standing).

+ We didn't want to strengthen a rival.

Lyon must have thought pick #60 was fair for a player of X's standing who had played hardly any football for two years and was no longer part of the future and wouldn't be able to command a decent price at the trade table (v.important).

What if Lyon was honest with Ball when the initial three year contract was offered and told Ball he saw him as bit-part player and planned to use him in much the same way as he was used this year?

Then, why did we offer three years and not two or one?

A contracted Luke Ball is worth more than an uncontracted Luke Ball. Gold Coast, trade options, many reasons. We knew Luke Ball could still command a decent price, unlike X.

A three year contract does not necessarily represent that the club planned to keep him for three years and it probably doesn't mean Ball was seen as an integral part of the team. Just as a one year contract extension to X.Clarke didn't mean he was part of the plans either.

Tie Luke Ball onto a new contract, or risk losing an ex-club captain and club champion for nothing?

Quite rightly, the club was looking after themselves first.

However, no way Ball was going to sign it knowing that he wasn't going to play a major role which, I'm going to give Luke Ball some credit here, he knew very well.

Luke Ball was onto the fact he was being used as a pawn and he was offended and requested a move.

[westy]

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?

No.

If you cant see the difference, you haven't been paying attention.

Much different situation.

For a start why would the club trade a No.5 dp for #60? His opportunities would be limited at the Saints and was not part of the plans (harsh but thats footy).

Now why would the club play hardball and not trade for a player and #30 unless Ball was a required player and fitted into the plans going forward?

Why would the club offer a three year contract to LB (X got a one year contract)?

Why would all this stuff be leaked to the rags?

Collingwood $500k a year contract
Colling then less than Saints offered (meaning Saints offered more than $500 and LB wanted to leave the Saints because he was disillusioned or the inference of that(
Then the emotional card - why bring his family into it?
Then it was game time
Then it was he was pushed

It has been dirty and grubby compared to the goodwill displayed to and by X.

One cant help but feel that it all started because LB was offered a reduced contract. He was hawked about and only Collingwood raised some interest and then we hear the $500k contract stuff.

To believe it only had to do with conditions and money wasn't an issue is to be niave.

As it is to believe that only money was the issue. However it all started with the reduced contract and the rest stemmed from there. IMHO of course

I understand the difference. Here's my version of the "difference".

Luke Ball was part of the plans, as you say, but a limited part of them.

Why wouldn't we have taken pick #30 and a cast off from Collingwood? Because Lyon didn't believe it was a fair deal for a player of Ball's standing (X Clarke does not have the same standing).

+ We didn't want to strengthen a rival.

Lyon must have thought pick #60 was fair for a player of X's standing who had played hardly any football for two years and was no longer part of the future and wouldn't be able to command a decent price at the trade table (v.important).

What if Lyon was honest with Ball when the initial three year contract was offered and told Ball he saw him as bit-part player and planned to use him in much the same way as he was used this year?

Then, why did we offer three years and not two or one?

A contracted Luke Ball is worth more than an uncontracted Luke Ball. Gold Coast, trade options, many reasons. We knew Luke Ball could still command a decent price, unlike X.

A three year contract does not necessarily represent that the club planned to keep him for three years and it probably doesn't mean Ball was seen as an integral part of the team. Just as a one year contract extension to X.Clarke didn't mean he was part of the plans either.

Tie Luke Ball onto a new contract, or risk losing an ex-club captain and club champion for nothing?

Quite rightly, the club was looking after themselves first.

However, no way Ball was going to sign it knowing that he wasn't going to play a major role which, I'm going to give Luke Ball some credit here, he knew very well.

Luke Ball was onto the fact he was being used as a pawn and he was offended and requested a move.

Geeze, both very plausible arguments. Now I am totally confused!

[joffaboy]

Yup OLB has very good points.

Hopefully mine are fairly objective as well.

Both are supposition and the truth of the matter probably falls some where in between.

Anyways I think we would all say good luck LB.

[rodgerfox]

If they don't rate him, then why a 3 year deal?

Having a depth player running around in the 2s for 3 years, of the calibre of Luke Ball would be pretty sweet for the club. Unheard in the AFL, but from a club perspective it would be fantastic.

Would Luke Ball want this? Shiit no. Of course not.

And why pick hin to play in a GF?

That's the strangest part. He sits out most of the finals, then warms the pine in the GF after blitzing early.

It's completely puzzling.

Perhaps they do rate him, but not as highly as Luke rates himself?

Clearly, that's the case. They rate him to a point, obviously. They offered him a contract and gave him a game in the GF. But then they don't rate him enough to pick him every week, and keep him on the ground on GF day!

It's just all a bit wierd.

I don't think anyone is denying Luke's right to move on... the issue is that everything we've heard has come fromhis camp. And the stories have been changing almost on a weekly basis.

I haven't heard any of it, and don't really care. I don't know what the issue is.
He got a rough trot, wants to leave, and we didn't let him go easily.

What's the fuss about?

The only fuss I see is the incredibly predictable 'Luke Ball is a monster' stuff, that magically appears the econd he is no longer at the club.
If he does end up playing for us, he'll be 'a quality person' again.

The club isn't perfect, and aren't in the business of making the world a better place. They want to win flags.

Some don't get this. Or don't want to get this.

Funny how the club obligingly moved X on, and made sure he was traded smoothly. Yet with Luke, it was different scenario. Once again, I can only assume they rated him, and in fact stated that he is a required player.

If you drop a 5c piece on the ground, you'll most likely leave it. If you drop a $5 note, you'll stop and pick it up.

I dont' think it's funny that X and Ball were handled differently.

Finally, I don't think that myself or others are automatically assuming that the club were squeaky clean, but given the different stories coming out form Ball's camp... we can only draw certain conclusions.

I think plenty are.

If the club told him "here's the deal... 3 years and no guarantees on game time - take it or leave it" then I don't have a problem with that.

Given that he didn't sign, and the club said "ok, then go"... then I also don't have an issue with that either.

Most players don't sign during the year.

Personally, I think the GF clinched the deal. It was odd, and clearly not the type of scenario a player would consider reasonable.

[westy]

They are. Wouldn't a genuine in-depth interview with Luke Ball be a revelation!

[Eastern]

They are. Wouldn't a genuine in-depth interview with Luke Ball be a revelation!

I could see his manager "STRONGLY ADVISING" against anything of the kind !!

[SainterK]

How have we not let him leave, whether we as a club are compensated fairly or not, Luke is still very much able to leave?

[fingers]

Does Luke Ball want to leave ?

[Mr Magic]

There seems to be an argument being pursued by OLB and Rodger that Ball was only getting 50% game time and that as a 'proud person' who wants to play as much as possible, it's a reasonable decision to leave over it.

There is a huge presumption being made that Ball was physically capable of actually playing more game time.

Rodger keeps posting a connotation (his opnion as a given fact as ususal) that the Coaches used him for a prolonged period in such a manner for some reason other than his physical ability to perform for longer in a game.

Why do they assume that is correct?

If Ball was physically unable to perform at the level requires for longer, then the whole 'game time' reason is at best a 'delusion' on his part and at worst a 'furphy' to obfuscate the real reasons (whatever they are).

Is it possible for someone to post Ball's game time from teh beginning of the season through each game until he was 'dropped'.

I don't know but I'd be really surprised if we didn't see a pattern developing that gives credence to the argument that he was losing base fitness which caused the drop off in game time.

I accept OLB's points as they are plausible given what we actually know.
I just don't happen to agree with his conclusions.

[bigcarl]

from ross's perspective bally is probably a little one-dimensional and this explains his lack of game time.

provides in-and-under grunt but little else.

in other words, if lenny is out there what is the other role that ball can fill?

he's not quick enough to provide a lot of run. doesn't use it that well. doesn't kick many goals.

he's very strong in one particular area, but lacking in others. unfortunately for bally, all the willpower in the world might not enable him to improve on some of those weaknesses.

a player cannot acquire pace, for instance. he either has it or he hasn't.

[Beej]

from ross's perspective bally is probably a little one-dimensional and this explains his lack of game time.

provides in-and-under grunt but little else.

in which case, if lenny is out there what is the other role that ball can fill?

he's not quick enough to provide a lot of run. doesn't use it that well. doesn't kick many goals.

he's very strong in one particular area, but lacking in others.

That's what I think.

I've tried to grasp the idea that Luke Ball was not physically capable of playing more than 50% of a game, but I just can't do it.

It's not as if he was on a drip at half-time.

Also, if the club knew Luke Ball could not play more than a half of footy, what's he doing in a game, let alone a GF?

Imagine this scenario:

GF, just after half-time - we lose a player to injury, another is stretchered off.

Saints have Luke Ball on the bench, surely he must now come into calculations.

But no, Luke Ball sits on the bench the entire time.

Ross is asked post-game why he didn't bring Ball on - "we couldn't use Ball, he had played half a game, he wasn't physically capable of playing any further part."

Can you just imagine the fall-out of selecting a player who could physically only play a half a game of football?!

We would never go into a game of football, let alone a GF, with a player who was only capable of playing 50% of the game.

No chance.

[Leo.J]

Can't run anymore.

Can't kick with any penetration.

Can't kick accurately consistently.

Doesn't kick goals.

See you later Luke unless you're willing to be paid what someone with the above attributes is worth.

[SainterK]

from ross's perspective bally is probably a little one-dimensional and this explains his lack of game time.

provides in-and-under grunt but little else.

in which case, if lenny is out there what is the other role that ball can fill?

he's not quick enough to provide a lot of run. doesn't use it that well. doesn't kick many goals.

he's very strong in one particular area, but lacking in others.

That's what I think.

I've tried to grasp the idea that Luke Ball was not physically capable of playing more than 50% of a game, but I just can't do it.

It's not as if he was on a drip at half-time.

Also, if the club knew Luke Ball could not play more than a half of footy, what's he doing in a game, let alone a GF?

Imagine this scenario:

GF, just after half-time - we lose a player to injury, another is stretchered off.

Saints have Luke Ball on the bench, surely he must now come into calculations.

But no, Luke Ball sits on the bench the entire time.

Ross is asked post-game why he didn't bring Ball on - "we couldn't use Ball, he had played half a game, he wasn't physically capable of playing any further part."

Can you just imagine the fall-out of selecting a player who could physically only play a half a game of football?!

We would never go into a game of football, let alone a GF, with a player who was only capable of playing 50% of the game.

No chance.

Just because it's hard to imagine, doesn't mean it's not true...

[rodgerfox]

Rodger keeps posting a connotation (his opnion as a given fact as ususal) that the Coaches used him for a prolonged period in such a manner for some reason other than his physical ability to perform for longer in a game.

Am I? That's not what I'm intending to say at all.

That may be the reason. Doesn't matter what the reason is, I don't particularly care. The point is that Ball may well care, and apparently does.

All I've been saying, is that leaving a club to get yourself more game time is completely reasonable.

[rodgerfox]

Just because it's hard to imagine, doesn't mean it's not true...

It would have to go down as one of the worst, and most baflling coaching/selection decisions in the history of the sport if it was the case though.

[SainterK]

Just because it's hard to imagine, doesn't mean it's not true...

It would have to go down as one of the worst, and most baflling coaching/selection decisions in the history of the sport if it was the case though.

The fact he was selected with a likely output of limited gametime, or that you think someone should have been selected instead of Ball?

[rodgerfox]

The fact he was selected with a likely output of limited gametime, or that you think someone should have been selected instead of Ball?

The fact that he was selected with a likely output of limited gametime.

Especially considering we played a team who's midfield abuility and depth is their biggest strength.

[SainterK]

The fact he was selected with a likely output of limited gametime, or that you think someone should have been selected instead of Ball?

The fact that he was selected with a likely output of limited gametime.

Especially considering we played a team who's midfield abuility and depth is their biggest strength.

I am still not clear on your argument, you seem to switch from being defender of Luke to being critical of selection?

Do you think Luke was capable of more time on ground and that was the error, or that someone else should have been selected instead of Luke?

I have asked you a couple of times now, to outline what you thought were the obvious selection errors. To have a reasonable and objective discussion, I would like to know if Luke would have been in your final lineup?

[rodgerfox]

I am still not clear on your argument, you seem to switch from being defender of Luke to being critical of selection?

Do you think Luke was capable of more time on ground and that was the error, or that someone else should have been selected instead of Luke?

I have asked you a couple of times now, to outline what you thought were the obvious selection errors. To have a reasonable and objective discussion, I would like to know if Luke would have been in your final lineup?

Yes, Luke Ball would have been in my team.

I don't know whether he was physically capable or not - if he wasn't though, then Lyon probably wouldn't have said after the game that he should have played him more.
If he wasn't physically capable of playing more than 45% of the match, I'd be staggered and frankly, quite angry if he was selected in a GF.

Based on his ability, and output, he definately should have had more time on the ground.

My 'argument' if you could call it that, is that Luke was harshly done by. He wasn't getting a game.
I'm 'defending' him in regards to rightfully not being pleased about it, and that being a catalyst for him wanting to leave.

However, as most logical humans can do, aren't thinking black or white on the subject.
I'm not bagging the club for not playing him more (GF aside). That's their call as coaches. If he doesn't like - stiff shiit.

I don't see a 'baddy' in this. There doesn't need to be.

We didn't rate him enough to play him, and he didn't like that. So he wants to leave.

End of story.

[SainterK]

I am still not clear on your argument, you seem to switch from being defender of Luke to being critical of selection?

Do you think Luke was capable of more time on ground and that was the error, or that someone else should have been selected instead of Luke?

I have asked you a couple of times now, to outline what you thought were the obvious selection errors. To have a reasonable and objective discussion, I would like to know if Luke would have been in your final lineup?

Yes, Luke Ball would have been in my team.

I don't know whether he was physically capable or not - if he wasn't though, then Lyon probably wouldn't have said after the game that he should have played him more.
If he wasn't physically capable of playing more than 45% of the match, I'd be staggered and frankly, quite angry if he was selected in a GF.

Based on his ability, and output, he definately should have had more time on the ground.

My 'argument' if you could call it that, is that Luke was harshly done by. He wasn't getting a game.
I'm 'defending' him in regards to rightfully not being pleased about it, and that being a catalyst for him wanting to leave.

However, as most logical humans can do, aren't thinking black or white on the subject.
I'm not bagging the club for not playing him more (GF aside). That's their call as coaches. If he doesn't like - stiff shiit.

I don't see a 'baddy' in this. There doesn't need to be.

We didn't rate him enough to play him, and he didn't like that. So he wants to leave.

End of story.

Ross admitted that he would have played him for two more bursts of 6 minutes, increasing his TOG to 56% which still isn't a huge amount...

I don't think the argument is so much about what he is capable of, perhaps it's more become more about the amount of time that he is effective?

Luke himself said towards the end of the year about being used in high rotations....

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