Saints players LIVID with Luke Ball

[joffaboy]

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

Of course there has to be. How else could papers create controversy and a story?

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

End of story.

More to it than that is what many are arguing. Still even with the fact that ball wants more money than what was offered by the Saints, it doesn't make Ball "bad" or a "traitor" etc, as some of the excitables have called him.

Ball can go (my option as I reckon he can be covered by soemone who is more physically able) or he can stay. Dont care really.

The point is that the club "stood its ground" (as RL stated) and wouldn't be railroaded by the unfair Collingwood.

To me it gives us much more as a club that soem list clogger and a virtual pick 30 would have.

[Beej]

I think the 40-50% game time that Luke Ball was consistently getting throughout the year was just the role he had within the structure of the side.

If it wasn't Luke Ball getting 40-50%, it would've been someone else.

That was Luke Ball's role in the side in the GF (and other games) and it was that role he was unhappy with.

Ross Lyon said after the game that he wished he could've played Ball another two 6-minute bursts, but it wasn't up to him.

Why wasn't it up to him? I think I know the answer.

The answer is, IMO, because the players had set roles and set times to play that day which they had planned well before the game, like they do any other game.

Game day they just executed that plan.

I think it's all part of the structure/plan.

And if Luke Ball is not happy to play his role, then he's not part of the future.

[plugger66]

I think the 40-50% game time that Luke Ball was consistently getting throughout the year was just the role he had within the structure of the side.

If it wasn't Luke Ball getting 40-50%, it would've been someone else.

That was Luke Ball's role in the side in the GF (and other games) and it was that role he was unhappy with.

Ross Lyon said after the game that he wished he could've played Ball another two 6-minute bursts, but it wasn't up to him.

Why wasn't it up to him? I think I know the answer.

The answer is, IMO, because the players had set roles and set times to play that day which they had planned well before the game, like they do any other game.

Game day they just executed that plan.

I think it's all part of the structure/plan.

And if Luke Ball is not happy to play his role, then he's not part of the future.

That is rubbish regarding game time. No team would have player doing a role that gets only 40-50% game time. he was given that because that is all his body could manage.

[Thinline]

I think the 40-50% game time that Luke Ball was consistently getting throughout the year was just the role he had within the structure of the side.

If it wasn't Luke Ball getting 40-50%, it would've been someone else.

That was Luke Ball's role in the side in the GF (and other games) and it was that role he was unhappy with.

Ross Lyon said after the game that he wished he could've played Ball another two 6-minute bursts, but it wasn't up to him.

Why wasn't it up to him? I think I know the answer.

The answer is, IMO, because the players had set roles and set times to play that day which they had planned well before the game, like they do any other game.

Game day they just executed that plan.

I think it's all part of the structure/plan.

And if Luke Ball is not happy to play his role, then he's not part of the future.

That is rubbish regarding game time. No team would have player doing a role that gets only 40-50% game time. he was given that because that is all his body could manage.

In your opinion, Plugger, or do you have a source you'd care to quote?

Too much speculatin' goin' down on Ball.

Goin' down on Ball (tee hee...)

Sorry.

But s*** gags aside: on the basis of your theory the question becomes 'why pick Mr 50% when there was up to three Mr 80%'s in the B's?'

A simple case of his 50% being better than the 80% offered by Geary/Armo/Steven?

[satchmo]

Firstly, the rotations happen so regularly nowadays that they are managed by fitness staff that monitor the players and make desicision with regard to who is ready to go. No doubt that the coach could over-ride this but he would surely be pretty busy.

Secondly Luke plays the kamikaze game; he knows no other way. How many times has his nose been broken? If he had started his career this year he would have been protected by the selwood rule, but unfortunately the damage to his scone is already done.

Thirdly, did you guys happen to see the grand final? Seemed to me like two very good teams smashing the crap out of each other in a war of attrition. I'm not surprised that Luke was one of the casualties of this, as he had his head over the ball for most of the time he was on the ground.

Fourthly, there is no fourthly.

Fifthly, I loved Luke as a player and I am pissed he wants out. But in the end I thank him for his contribution and wish him the best, as long as it's not at collingwood or carlton, or hawthorn!

Carry on...

[Beej]

I think the 40-50% game time that Luke Ball was consistently getting throughout the year was just the role he had within the structure of the side.

If it wasn't Luke Ball getting 40-50%, it would've been someone else.

That was Luke Ball's role in the side in the GF (and other games) and it was that role he was unhappy with.

Ross Lyon said after the game that he wished he could've played Ball another two 6-minute bursts, but it wasn't up to him.

Why wasn't it up to him? I think I know the answer.

The answer is, IMO, because the players had set roles and set times to play that day which they had planned well before the game, like they do any other game.

Game day they just executed that plan.

I think it's all part of the structure/plan.

And if Luke Ball is not happy to play his role, then he's not part of the future.

That is rubbish regarding game time. No team would have player doing a role that gets only 40-50% game time. he was given that because that is all his body could manage.

LOL Besides ruckmen you mean?

GF

King 45%
Ball 46%
Gardiner 55%
Ray 62%
Milne 66%
Schneider 66%

Gardiner, King and McEvoy have consistently shared time between each other getting anywhere between 40 and 60% of game time each.

This is from the few rounds of footy I checked - games which I knew Ball played.

Against Essendon, Hawthorn and West Coast Ball played between 70-80% of the game.

Ball was physically capable of more than 46% of game time. That is clear to me after a quick look at some stats.

Interestingly, last time we met Geelong, Ball played 48% of the game.

Eddy and Geary have both had between 45-55% of game time a number of times.

What does that tell us?

Luke Ball - unhappily playing roles est 2009.

[desertsaint]

Ross Lyon said after the game that he wished he could've played Ball another two 6-minute bursts, but it wasn't up to him.

Why wasn't it up to him? I think I know the answer.

The answer is, IMO, because the players had set roles and set times to play that day which they had planned well before the game, like they do any other game.

Game day they just executed that plan.

well, adhering to the game plan lost us the final - would've perhaps been smarter to adapt the plan according to how the game was panning out?
if the coach isn't able to do that, well blow me down.
maybe a bit of neil craig in our ross? or maybe there's another explanation?

[Milton66]

Ross Lyon said after the game that he wished he could've played Ball another two 6-minute bursts, but it wasn't up to him.

Why wasn't it up to him? I think I know the answer.

The answer is, IMO, because the players had set roles and set times to play that day which they had planned well before the game, like they do any other game.

Game day they just executed that plan.

well, adhering to the game plan lost us the final - would've perhaps been smarter to adapt the plan according to how the game was panning out?
if the coach isn't able to do that, well blow me down.
maybe a bit of neil craig in our ross? or maybe there's another explanation?

WRONG WRON WROMG!

(with respect).

Adhering to the game plan had us in front with 10 mintes to go.

And even until then, we were dominating play and entering our 50 quite frequently.

Had we kicked straight, it would have been over by half time.

This is dumb logic IMO.

Had we been down at the 10 minute mark, then yes you try something different. Truth is that we didn't nail our chances.

Bottom line is that adhering to a game plan worked a treat for al but 10 minutes of the game.

I still find it amusing that people can argue that an extra 10 mins of Ball would have made the difference. That is too simplistic.

There are so many factors such who he would have replaced... and other factors.

Just because RL stated that in hindsight, he may have erred... one can argue just, if not as strongly that had we kicked straight, Ball's game time would not have been an issue... in fact it would have been viewed as a master stroke.

[Mr Magic]

... in fact it would have been viewed as a master stroke.

Not by some.

[Milton66]

... in fact it would have been viewed as a master stroke.

Not by some.

true. But then you wonder why coaches don't say much. Ross was being honest in hidnsight, and he get's caned for it.

I stated in another post that in 97 at 3/4 time, then yes you make changes becvause we were on a hiding to nothing.

But in 09, I mean FFS, we were in it until 5 mins to go.

Maybe the geniuses amongst us can tell us exactly when these changes should have been made.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and throw peanuts.. but tell me please, without the benfit of hindsight.. what changes and when should they have been made?

I'm all ears.

[Mr Magic]

... in fact it would have been viewed as a master stroke.

Not by some.

true. But then you wonder why coaches don't say much. Ross was being honest in hidnsight, and he get's caned for it.

I stated in another post that in 97 at 3/4 time, then yes you make changes becvause we were on a hiding to nothing.

But in 09, I mean FFS, we were in it until 5 mins to go.

Maybe the geniuses amongst us can tell us exactly when these changes should have been made.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and throw peanuts.. but tell me please, without the benfit of hindsight.. what changes and when should they have been made?

I'm all ears.

Maybe you'll finally get an answer from Rodger about the selections and moves he was critical of that he hasn't bothered to elucidate?

[Beej]

Ross Lyon said after the game that he wished he could've played Ball another two 6-minute bursts, but it wasn't up to him.

Why wasn't it up to him? I think I know the answer.

The answer is, IMO, because the players had set roles and set times to play that day which they had planned well before the game, like they do any other game.

Game day they just executed that plan.

well, adhering to the game plan lost us the final - would've perhaps been smarter to adapt the plan according to how the game was panning out?
if the coach isn't able to do that, well blow me down.
maybe a bit of neil craig in our ross? or maybe there's another explanation?

WRONG WRON WROMG!

(with respect).

Adhering to the game plan had us in front with 10 mintes to go.

And even until then, we were dominating play and entering our 50 quite frequently.

Had we kicked straight, it would have been over by half time.

This is dumb logic IMO.

Had we been down at the 10 minute mark, then yes you try something different. Truth is that we didn't nail our chances.

Bottom line is that adhering to a game plan worked a treat for al but 10 minutes of the game.

I still find it amusing that people can argue that an extra 10 mins of Ball would have made the difference. That is too simplistic.

There are so many factors such who he would have replaced... and other factors.

Just because RL stated that in hindsight, he may have erred... one can argue just, if not as strongly that had we kicked straight, Ball's game time would not have been an issue... in fact it would have been viewed as a master stroke.

If there is one post in this thread that has stated that 10 more minutes of Ball would've made the difference, I've honestly missed it.

Another ten minutes of Ball may have lost us the game by more, we will never know. However, I don't think so given the way Ball played in the first half, but it's possible.

The amount of times I've heard Ross say things along the lines of:

"we don't coach according to the scoreboard, we have structures in place that we stick to diligently and, regardless of the score, if we stick to the plan and the effort is there, we believe the game will turn in our favour"

He said that after the Prelim.

Now, I'm not sure whether I believe that wholeheartedly because obviously if you're 5 goals down some drastic changes need to be made, but that's what Ross has consistently said throughout the year.

In the GF there was no need for drastic changes. As you say, we never lost control of the game once until it was too late to make changes.

Our game plan is based on structures that are followed religiously and this is the major reason for the success we had this year.

No doubt in my mind that, under Ross, we're the most well-organised side in the competition.

[desertsaint]

Ross Lyon said after the game that he wished he could've played Ball another two 6-minute bursts, but it wasn't up to him.

Why wasn't it up to him? I think I know the answer.

The answer is, IMO, because the players had set roles and set times to play that day which they had planned well before the game, like they do any other game.

Game day they just executed that plan.

well, adhering to the game plan lost us the final - would've perhaps been smarter to adapt the plan according to how the game was panning out?
if the coach isn't able to do that, well blow me down.
maybe a bit of neil craig in our ross? or maybe there's another explanation?

WRONG WRON WROMG!

(with respect).

Adhering to the game plan had us in front with 10 mintes to go.

And even until then, we were dominating play and entering our 50 quite frequently.

Had we kicked straight, it would have been over by half time.

This is dumb logic IMO.

Had we been down at the 10 minute mark, then yes you try something different. Truth is that we didn't nail our chances.

Bottom line is that adhering to a game plan worked a treat for al but 10 minutes of the game.

I still find it amusing that people can argue that an extra 10 mins of Ball would have made the difference. That is too simplistic.

There are so many factors such who he would have replaced... and other factors.

Just because RL stated that in hindsight, he may have erred... one can argue just, if not as strongly that had we kicked straight, Ball's game time would not have been an issue... in fact it would have been viewed as a master stroke.

If there is one post in this thread that has stated that 10 more minutes of Ball would've made the difference, I've honestly missed it.

Another ten minutes of Ball may have lost us the game by more, we will never know. However, I don't think so given the way Ball played in the first half, but it's possible.

The amount of times I've heard Ross say things along the lines of:

"we don't coach according to the scoreboard, we have structures in place that we stick to diligently and, regardless of the score, if we stick to the plan and the effort is there, we believe the game will turn in our favour"

He said that after the Prelim.

Now, I'm not sure whether I believe that wholeheartedly because obviously if you're 5 goals down some drastic changes need to be made, but that's what Ross has consistently said throughout the year.

Our game plan is based on structures that are followed religiously and this is the major reason for the success we had this year.

No doubt in my mind that, under Ross, we're the most well-organised side in the competition.

OLB - yep, agree with all you've said.
M66 - it was obvious to all and sundry geelong had most of the momentum in the last quarter - they outscored us 3 goals to zip.
we should have been further in front, but we lost it in the last quarter, no if, buts, or maybes. re ball being the difference -well that's unknowable, and not my point at all. my point is we weren't dominating the last quarter as you suggest. and even in your scenario -10 minutes is a long time to sit on your hands and leave things to the game plan.

Had we kicked straight, it would have been over by half time.

This is dumb logic IMO.

quite right, it is.

[rodgerfox]

true. But then you wonder why coaches don't say much. Ross was being honest in hidnsight, and he get's caned for it.

I stated in another post that in 97 at 3/4 time, then yes you make changes becvause we were on a hiding to nothing.

But in 09, I mean FFS, we were in it until 5 mins to go.

Maybe the geniuses amongst us can tell us exactly when these changes should have been made.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and throw peanuts.. but tell me please, without the benfit of hindsight.. what changes and when should they have been made?

I'm all ears.

Lyon's selections, and use of players worked all year.

Although I don't agree neccessarily with them - they worked. So why argue with it?

The only thing I categorically think he needs to be held accountable for, is the directive to 'bomb it long' in the final quarter. This was a huge, huge mistake and a significant moment in our history.

I still can't believe he did it.

[PJ]

I still can't believe he did it.

For all Rosco's strategies, structures, game plans and philosophy I still think he is a man of faith. He had faith in Roo to drag us across the line with his shear will power, to get that finger nail ahead of the opposition. Roo did manage in the last quarter to get one out with Harry but we just couldn't get it to him. I mean it was so f*****g close you could feel it - it was tangible. If it had come off he would have been called a genius and revered at St.Kilda. Such is life.

I have a feeling he'll be back with a few differing strategies next season - we wait and see.

[Milton66]

OLB: whilst there has probably been no direct statement, there's been quite afew connotations made about this.

I personally think that RL's comment has been blown out of proportion, and it is now been used to blame ofr the loss, as well as Luke BAll leaving.

Rodger: Bombing long as he put is the same as quick entry to our 2 key fowards. Much as has been the case all year.

All we need was a mark to stick, or a crumb to be converted and it would have latered the outcome.

If anything, the thing that annoyed me during the final was the lack of positioning by our crumbers, which is why I don't think Milne has a future with us anymore.

The only players "front and square" were the Geelong defenders.

I do not believe Geelong had the momentum in the last quarter. It was an arm wrestle, and they nailed their opportunities when they could.

My reply was to these comments:

well, adhering to the game plan lost us the final - would've perhaps been smarter to adapt the plan according to how the game was panning out?
if the coach isn't able to do that, well blow me down.

I maintain that the gameplan served us well until about 10 minutes to go.

[Teflon]

true. But then you wonder why coaches don't say much. Ross was being honest in hidnsight, and he get's caned for it.

I stated in another post that in 97 at 3/4 time, then yes you make changes becvause we were on a hiding to nothing.

But in 09, I mean FFS, we were in it until 5 mins to go.

Maybe the geniuses amongst us can tell us exactly when these changes should have been made.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and throw peanuts.. but tell me please, without the benfit of hindsight.. what changes and when should they have been made?

I'm all ears.

Lyon's selections, and use of players worked all year.

Although I don't agree neccessarily with them - they worked. So why argue with it?

The only thing I categorically think he needs to be held accountable for, is the directive to 'bomb it long' in the final quarter. This was a huge, huge mistake and a significant moment in our history.

I still can't believe he did it.

I feel slimey but have to agree.

Im a huge Ross Lyon fan but yep bombing the ball long to tall marking fwd (lets face it - it was Riewoldt or bust) on a greasy wet day was suicide.Geelong set up out of defence better than anyone - see the damage rebounding Scarlett did to the Dogs in the Semi Final (which IMO the Dogs shouldve won...).

I cant recall on the day once seeing the trademark searching Riewoldt lead that cuts opponents to shreds.....he was courageous.....but almost always seemed to be chasing the pack contested grab or inspirational death wish mark.....why move away from whats made you such a superstar? why would a coach request that?

That said, Lyon earns huge plaudits from me because he not only made the blue - he put his hand up after the GF to take his share of the blame ALONGSIDE his "boys" as he called them.

Sure I wanted to win the GF - but at 20/22...I'll cut him some slack...

I do still think back to that last qtr though....all we needed was a goal against the flow and I reckon we couldve broken the shackles....frrkk...

[rodgerfox]

I still can't believe he did it.

For all Rosco's strategies, structures, game plans and philosophy I still think he is a man of faith. He had faith in Roo to drag us across the line with his shear will power, to get that finger nail ahead of the opposition. Roo did manage in the last quarter to get one out with Harry but we just couldn't get it to him. I mean it was so f*****g close you could feel it - it was tangible. If it had come off he would have been called a genius and revered at St.Kilda. Such is life.

I have a feeling he'll be back with a few differing strategies next season - we wait and see.

I was worried about him relying on Roo throughout the year.

He played that card against Collingwood, and it worked. Again relied on it against the Dogs and it worked.

It was never, ever going to work against Geelong - especially in the wet.

We were in front. On a wet day. What we'd been doing all day was working - why the hell would you panic and change it?

By 'bombing' it, we opened the game up. They went pop, pop, pop and there goes the flag.

The only way to beat Geelong, was to not allow it to be opened up. The weather helped us with this, but then on our own accord, we go and open it up with 20 minutes to go!!

He panicked. And I just hope he improves from it.

[GeorgeYoung27]

M66 - it was obvious to all and sundry geelong had most of the momentum in the last quarter - they outscored us 3 goals to zip.

more than a little misleading... kicked 1 goal early, we missed a couple of chances... kicked another with 5 mins to go and then one after the siren.

You said the way he played in the 1st q suggested he would have been a bonus in the last, but perhaps it was because how hard he went in the 1st that meant he was on the bench at the end. Conditions were drier also.

[satchmo]

I feel slimey

You've earned it!

But seriously, kick it long is instinct under pressure more so than coaching, isn't it? I mean, there was some serious pressure in that last 5-10 minutes and we weren't exactly annihilated, and geelong are a pretty good team yeah?

Of course it hurts that we lost, but I'm willing to bet that Ross has sucked it all up and will be better prepared for next year. Now all we have to do is get there!

[Mr Magic]

I still can't believe he did it.

For all Rosco's strategies, structures, game plans and philosophy I still think he is a man of faith. He had faith in Roo to drag us across the line with his shear will power, to get that finger nail ahead of the opposition. Roo did manage in the last quarter to get one out with Harry but we just couldn't get it to him. I mean it was so f*****g close you could feel it - it was tangible. If it had come off he would have been called a genius and revered at St.Kilda. Such is life.

I have a feeling he'll be back with a few differing strategies next season - we wait and see.

I was worried about him relying on Roo throughout the year.

He played that card against Collingwood, and it worked. Again relied on it against the Dogs and it worked.

It was never, ever going to work against Geelong - especially in the wet.

We were in front. On a wet day. What we'd been doing all day was working - why the hell would you panic and change it?

By 'bombing' it, we opened the game up. They went pop, pop, pop and there goes the flag.

The only way to beat Geelong, was to not allow it to be opened up. The weather helped us with this, but then on our own accord, we go and open it up with 20 minutes to go!!

He panicked. And I just hope he improves from it.

In your opinion rodger - it's not a fact as far as I know.

[PJ]

What we'd been doing all day was working

Agree completely with the above but I'm not sure it was panic. Hard to say what you'd do in the big chair on the big day. It was clearly a mistake but sometimes you role the dice and when you do that you go with your gut.

And I just hope he improves from it.

My observations are that he is a quick learner - 09 learning curve was prodigious. He has the so called 'cattle" with some so we'll see what unfolds.

To be honest you can't be too critical most were saying we'd only just make up the 8 let alone dominate a season and I take alot from Thompson's acceptance speach on grand final day - they were indead lucky that's how close it was.

[Teflon]

I feel slimey

You've earned it!

But seriously, kick it long is instinct under pressure more so than coaching, isn't it? I mean, there was some serious pressure in that last 5-10 minutes and we weren't exactly annihilated, and geelong are a pretty good team yeah?

Of course it hurts that we lost, but I'm willing to bet that Ross has sucked it all up and will be better prepared for next year. Now all we have to do is get there!

Agreed which is why I was surprised when Lyon admitted he should take some of the blame for that bombing.....I think that took guts.

Slimey can rub off...

[Teflon]

What we'd been doing all day was working

Agree completely with the above but I'm not sure it was panic. Hard to say what you'd do in the big chair on the big day. It was clearly a mistake but sometimes you role the dice and when you do that you go with your gut.

And I just hope he improves from it.

My observations are that he is a quick learner - 09 learning curve was prodigious. He has the so called 'cattle" with some so we'll see what unfolds.

To be honest you can't be too critical most were saying we'd only just make up the 8 let alone dominate a season and I take alot from Thompson's acceptance speach on grand final day - they were indead lucky that's how close it was.

Me too.

I dont like Thompson Ive seen enough of him as an ungracious loser to know he struggles to contain his ego.

That said I could almost sense when he repatedly said "we were very, very lucky"......that he felt he'd just got an enormous break....and he knew it.

[Milton66]

I still can't believe he did it.

For all Rosco's strategies, structures, game plans and philosophy I still think he is a man of faith. He had faith in Roo to drag us across the line with his shear will power, to get that finger nail ahead of the opposition. Roo did manage in the last quarter to get one out with Harry but we just couldn't get it to him. I mean it was so f*****g close you could feel it - it was tangible. If it had come off he would have been called a genius and revered at St.Kilda. Such is life.

I have a feeling he'll be back with a few differing strategies next season - we wait and see.

I was worried about him relying on Roo throughout the year.

He played that card against Collingwood, and it worked. Again relied on it against the Dogs and it worked.

It was never, ever going to work against Geelong - especially in the wet.

We were in front. On a wet day. What we'd been doing all day was working - why the hell would you panic and change it?

By 'bombing' it, we opened the game up. They went pop, pop, pop and there goes the flag.

The only way to beat Geelong, was to not allow it to be opened up. The weather helped us with this, but then on our own accord, we go and open it up with 20 minutes to go!!

He panicked. And I just hope he improves from it.

An interesting observation made by Walls on the Monday where he stated that Roo should focus on taking more marks with his hands out front, not on his chest.

Looking at the replay, he tried to mark on his chest too often. That's not to say that he would have marked over his head, but gee, at least he would have got clean hands to the ball, and perhaps caused a clean spillage.