Saints players LIVID with Luke Ball

[Mr Magic]

RL has not spoken a single word to Luke Ball since GF day. He was told he is 5th in on ballers and will not get any more game time than he is currently getting. Given initially a 3 year deal at half price and then take it away. How would you feel? Saints would not bend over to Pies - fair enough. One career finished as StKilda. We want running backs - fair enough. Don't lambaste Luke Ball.

unless you spoke with Luke ball or know his father or brother or was n the room when RL said this it is just speculation

ANd given that they apparently had a 20 minute conversation last Friday, just before the 2pm trade deadline, I think the statement is factually incorrect?

[Mr Magic]

Given Greg Denham's words this morning, we now know what Collingwood thought of the value of both Luke Ball and Picks #25,30

They offered North Melbourne Wellingham for Pick #25 which they wanted to give to St Kilda for Luke Ball.

NM also had Pick #21 (which St Kilda apparently would have accepted as that is what Bulldogs wanted for Everitt).

But Collingwood chose to go for Pick #25 and felt that Wellingham was fair compensation for that pick.
They then felt that pick #25 was fair compensation for St Kilda for Luke Ball.

Let no one misunderstand why Luke Ball finds himself in football limbo today.
There are 2, and only 2, parties responsible for his current position.

His manager for negotiating with a massive conflict of interest issue

Collingwood for failing to negotiate properly and fairly.

Maybe it's about time for those who have been pillorying the Saints over this to finally admit that our Club is not to blame for Ball''s inability to get to his Club of first choice?

[MCG-Unit]

RL has not spoken a single word to Luke Ball since GF day. He was told he is 5th in on ballers and will not get any more game time than he is currently getting. Given initially a 3 year deal at half price and then take it away. How would you feel? Saints would not bend over to Pies - fair enough. One career finished as StKilda. We want running backs - fair enough. Don't lambaste Luke Ball.

Do you know either Ball or Lyon to say they haven't spoken since the GF ?
Didn't they speak directly after the trading day.

Just wondering where you got this from - remember voices in your head don't count

[barks4eva]

good luck luke - wherever you play next year.
almost hope you go to collingwood, play 80+% and get the norm smith next year! (almost)

FAIR DINKUM

[BaysideSaint]

MM,
I dunno if you can read too much into Greg Denham on the KB show.
The two of them when they get together are rowing the Collingwood boat from the Queen Street Bridge to the Casino and back again.
They say this and they say that, but if you call them and propose an opposite view they look at you like you are mad.
In the end they didn't get him and they didn't ever need him or want him that much.
Now, as it stands, they can't really afford him.
Melbourne can afford him and Melbourne want him.
All this pro-Collingwood rambling on KB's show is ridicule.

The fact remains that LB put himself before the club and that will remain with him for the duration of his career.

He wont be remembered as a loyal saint and/or a loyal premiership-winning saint who stuck by his mates through thick and thin. He'll be remembered as the guy who thought he was better than he actually was and who jumped for money if he indeed does what everyone expects him to and trains at Casey next season for the red and the blue.

[Mr Magic]

MM,
I dunno if you can read too much into Greg Denham on the KB show.
The two of them when they get together are rowing the Collingwood boat from the Queen Street Bridge to the Casino and back again.
They say this and they say that, but if you call them and propose an opposite view they look at you like you are mad.
In the end they didn't get him and they didn't ever need him or want him that much.
Now, as it stands, they can't really afford him.
Melbourne can afford him and Melbourne want him.
All this pro-Collingwood rambling on KB's show is ridicule.

The fact remains that LB put himself before the club and that will remain with him for the duration of his career.

He wont be remembered as a loyal saint and/or a loyal premiership-winning saint who stuck by his mates through thick and thin. He'll be remembered as the guy who thought he was better than he actually was and who jumped for money if he indeed does what everyone expects him to and trains at Casey next season for the red and the blue.

I wasn'tt attempting to address those issues in my post.

It was more to those that felt last week that we had an 'obligation' to be 'screwed' by Collingwood just so he could get to his Club of first choice.

There were a number of posters who were quite forthright in 'blaming us' for this failure.
Interestingly they seem to have fallen silent on the issue as time passes and more people come to the realization that the fault for this 'non-trade' lies somewhere other than the Saints.

I also find it interesting that nobody seems to want to hold Paul Connors actions in this debacle to account?
Is he so powerful a figure in football circles that everybody is scared to 'cross him' for fear of recriminations down the track?

[SainterK]

Not me MM, I have enjoyed holding Collingwood entirely to blame

Really though, the minute Luke nominated only one preferred destination, I thought that Collingwood tried to take advantage of the situation.

[saintly]

Not me MM, I have enjoyed holding Collingwood entirely to blame

Really though, the minute Luke nominated only one preferred destination, I thought that Collingwood tried to take advantage of the situation.

and if you were in collingwood's shoes ( UGH) why wouldn't you take advantage of it.

iti'll be interesting if luke decides to come back to the club after all and does a ryan o'keefe.

[desertsaint]

good luck luke - wherever you play next year.
almost hope you go to collingwood, play 80+% and get the norm smith next year! (almost)

FAIR DINKUM

"almost" - as in 'not quite'
as in - in actuality i hope you don't go to collingwood
it's quite a common and generally well understood word!
almost


FAIR DINKUM

[fingers]

I can't be arsed reading through 11 pages of this so I will just add my own ill informed 2c worth along with everyone else's.

I have no idea what RL said or didn't say to Luke.

I have no idea how big or little the contract on the table was.

I do know that Collingwood didn't come to the table.

I do however believe that the behaviours that got us to 20-2 and a Grand Final are exaclty the behaviours I am seeing from the club - it's team and club first, not the individual.

You don't want to be here Luke - then go. Good luck. Thanks. Cya. I support the club.

[saintsRrising]

The problem that Ball and his Manager had was that they stuffed up buy choosing a Club that wanted another player more in Jolly, than they wanted Ball.

With the Pies finishing reasonnably high and not wanting to trade players that was always going to make it difficult for Ball to get to the Pies. With the Pies wanting Jolly more, Ball and his Manager should have moved onto another Club...much the same as Fev had to adapt to which Club he could get to.

By not being flexible Ball and his Manager have creared the situation which us rebounded on them, and St Kilda.

[BaysideSaint]

MM. i appreciate your point of view. one feels that if PC was doing a better job LB may be wearing navy blue right about now and working under harves. but he didn't and he isn't.

SainterK. yeah how stupid was it from PC and LB? pretty stupid i reckon. and LB is prancing around moorabbin for weeks with the genuine belief that he has had the last laugh.

Fingers.

it's team and club first, not the individual.

Sainthood 101.

SRrising. you make a good point although i think it has less to do with flexibility than it does to do with making a phone call to visy and asking them prior to the mcclean deal whether they needed another midfielder and if they were interested in LB whether they would take him. i suspect that if visy knew ball was available they would have taken ball over mcclean.

[matrix]

<< gave up after page four

[satchmo]

I think that perhaps collingwood were offered LB by his manager, and they probably thought yeah, sure why not? They never wanted to give anything worthwhile for him, or they would have sought mediation during the trade period. It seems that neither club was that fussed that it didn't happen, and his manager landed jolley at collingwood so he probably feels that he's done well too.

Poor Luke was misled methinks.

[Saints43]

So did we work out if 'Saints players LIVID with Luke Ball' or not?

[mals saints]

Get your other eye open you lot.
facts RL does not rate lb good enough to give him more than 45% of game time. ( which i think may have cost us the grand final, if there wasever a day that was suited to lb this was it)
Fact lb asked to be traded and rl decided he was worth more than what was offered.
Facts we will probably get nothing now.
Fact RL has said we are no longer going to pay what we offered so bad luck
Which one of you would stay when your employer offered you less that what you are currently getting. Facts are None or you are not being honest.
These guys have a very limited life span and would be stupid to stay with a club that has clearly said you do not rate in our best on ballers. Hence why would you not look at options and take opportunity elsewhere when offered. RL should have take what was offered for a player he really doesnt rate . I would have thought pick 25 was better than nothing for someone that is not rated.

[Mr Magic]

Get your other eye open you lot.
facts RL does not rate lb good enough to give him more than 45% of game time. ( which i think may have cost us the grand final, if there wasever a day that was suited to lb this was it)
Fact lb asked to be traded and rl decided he was worth more than what was offered.
Facts we will probably get nothing now.
Fact RL has said we are no longer going to pay what we offered so bad luck
Which one of you would stay when your employer offered you less that what you are currently getting. Facts are None or you are not being honest.
These guys have a very limited life span and would be stupid to stay with a club that has clearly said you do not rate in our best on ballers. Hence why would you not look at options and take opportunity elsewhere when offered. RL should have take what was offered for a player he really doesnt rate . I would have thought pick 25 was better than nothing for someone that is not rated.

Thank you for your contribution.

Yes you are 100% correct.

1.We should pay every player what they and thir management consider they're worth.
Not what our professional List Managers consider they're worth.
Afterall, they and their managers have a much more realistinc opinion on the player's value.

2. We should accept whatever other Clubs offer us in trade negotiations because anything is better than nothing. It makes no difference what we consider is a fair trade as long as we complete the trade on any terms.
Aftrerall it is more important to get teh player to where he wants to go rather than think of the Club's interests.

3. THe coaching staff DELIBERATELY played Ball only 46% of the game because they don't rate him.

4. They only picked him in the Grand Final team so that they could embarrass him by having him sit on the bench for over half the game.

5. They only picked him to start the game in the middle becasue they didn't rate him. Might as well show the football world how basd he is right at the beginning. Forget about trying to win the game.

6. They ignored whatever medical advice they have collected on him over the season to only consistantly play him approx 50% of game time.

7. He wanted to go to Collingwood 'even though St Kilda offered him more money' was just an illusion put out by the Saints 'PR machine' to try and hide the fact that the Club had tried to shaft him becasue they didn't rate him.

8. LB playing only 46% of gametime in the GF certainly cost us the premiership. Missing at least 6 easy shots had no bearing on that result.

It may well be that some of us are viewing this farce through one eye, but, unlike you that one eye is at least open.

[Beej]

We're going over old ground here. mals saints post is pretty accurate.

3. THe coaching staff DELIBERATELY played Ball only 46% of the game because they don't rate him.

That's exactly why MM.

If the coaching staff thought Luke Ball was as good as Lenny Hayes, Luke Ball would have played more than 46% game time.

The suggestion that we would go into any game, let alone a GF, with a player who was physically incapable of playing more than 50% of a game is ludicrous and pure fantasy. Just think about it for a second - playing a footballer in a GF knowing he can't play more than half a game and yet, while knowing that, still choosing to play him for almost the entire first half which meant he would've been unavailable for the second half!! It's crazy!

And in any case, that myth was busted a couple pages ago.

They didn't consistently give Luke Ball approx 50% a game.

Both games against Geelong Luke Ball played less than 50%, yet in other games he played between 70-80%. He was capable of more but was given less than 50% in both games against the Cats. That was the role the coaches outlined for him against Geelong, both times.

Now, if it's nothing to do with Luke Ball physically, and nothing to do with the coaching staff not rating him, then why else would Luke Ball play only 46%?

[Mr Magic]

We're going over old ground here. mals saints post is pretty accurate.

3. THe coaching staff DELIBERATELY played Ball only 46% of the game because they don't rate him.

That's exactly why MM.

If the coaching staff thought Luke Ball was as good as Lenny Hayes, Luke Ball would have played more than 46% game time.

The suggestion that we would go into any game, let alone a GF, with a player who was physically incapable of playing more than 50% of a game is ludicrous and pure fantasy. Just think about it for a second - playing a footballer in a GF knowing he can't play more than half a game and yet, while knowing that, still choosing to play him for almost the entire first half which meant he would've been unavailable for the second half!! It's crazy!

And in any case, that myth was busted a couple pages ago.

They didn't consistently give Luke Ball approx 50% a game.

Both games against Geelong Luke Ball played less than 50%, yet in other games he played between 70-80%. He was capable of more but was given less than 50% in both games against the Cats. That was the role the coaches outlined for him against Geelong, both times.

Now, if it's nothing to do with Luke Ball physically, and nothing to do with the coaching staff not rating him, then why else would Luke Ball play only 46%?

OLB,
Each of us believes what we want to believe.

You choose to believe the 'Luke Ball's Camp' version of events.
I choose to believe the 'St Kilda' version of events.

Neither of us actually know - we just happen to have formed different opinions.

You claim it is 'ludicrous and pure fantasy' that a team would pick a player physically capable of only playing 50% game time.

I point you to the weekly selection of Gardiner and King - both players not physically capable of playing significantly more than 50% of game time.

It may well be that they expected Ball to provide so much drive in the first half (when he was physically capable) so that we would be in such a strong position to win that it didn't matter that he couldn't play significant minutes in the second half?

I contend that what is being put, that the Coaching staff deliberately wouldn't play Ball more than they did 'because they didn't rate him', is even more 'ludicrous and fantastic'.

That anybody here can turn the conjecture of 'RL doesn't rate Ball' into an absolute given is a staggering proposition.

You might think it is so,
But to state it as an absloute fact when there is so much evidence to the contrary?

And before you ask what evidence?

He was offered a new 3 year contract - not something you do to an unwanted/unrated player.
He was selected in the GF team.
He was started on the ground and played most of the first half, when the game was in it's most physically explosive condition.

Ask yourself this question - do those 3 facts really sound like a Coaching Staff not rating a player?

[Beej]

We're going over old ground here. mals saints post is pretty accurate.

3. THe coaching staff DELIBERATELY played Ball only 46% of the game because they don't rate him.

That's exactly why MM.

If the coaching staff thought Luke Ball was as good as Lenny Hayes, Luke Ball would have played more than 46% game time.

The suggestion that we would go into any game, let alone a GF, with a player who was physically incapable of playing more than 50% of a game is ludicrous and pure fantasy. Just think about it for a second - playing a footballer in a GF knowing he can't play more than half a game and yet, while knowing that, still choosing to play him for almost the entire first half which meant he would've been unavailable for the second half!! It's crazy!

And in any case, that myth was busted a couple pages ago.

They didn't consistently give Luke Ball approx 50% a game.

Both games against Geelong Luke Ball played less than 50%, yet in other games he played between 70-80%. He was capable of more but was given less than 50% in both games against the Cats. That was the role the coaches outlined for him against Geelong, both times.

Now, if it's nothing to do with Luke Ball physically, and nothing to do with the coaching staff not rating him, then why else would Luke Ball play only 46%?

OLB,
Each of us believes what we want to believe.

You choose to believe the 'Luke Ball's Camp' version of events.
I choose to believe the 'St Kilda' version of events.

Neither of us actually know - we just happen to have formed different opinions.

You claim it is 'ludicrous and pure fantasy' that a team would pick a player physically capable of only playing 50% game time.

I point you to the weekly selection of Gardiner and King - both players not physically capable of playing significantly more than 50% of game time.

You can't compare ruckmen to midfielders. Naturally taller people have less stamina than shorter people - that's a proven fact.

However, they are capable of more than 50% a game, it's just that they share time between each other to ensure they're both fresh throughout a game.

That's how most ruck tandems work - by splitting time on the ground.

Totally different with Luke Ball.

Lenny Hayes, Dal, Montagna all play between 70-100% as has Luke Ball whenever he's been given the opportunity to.

In any case, both Gardiner and King have played up to 70% of games and more, usually when one of them has been out and McEvoy's been in.

[Beej]

These are the facts:

Luke Ball is capable of playing more than 70% of a game, as has been proven many times this year.

In some games, including both games against Geelong, Luke Ball was given less than 50%.

These are facts. Everything else is conjecture.

Now, what would be some of the reasons for a coaching panel to give a footballer less time than he is capable of?

[Mr Magic]

So becasue you didn't address the other points in my post, can I take it that you consider they have some validity?

I might argue with you that the game of AFL football is evolving at a rapid pace. Coaches are adopting trends and tactics from other codes/sports in seeking for that vital 'edge'.
There are professional sports around the world where coaches use various players for specific roles within their gameplan.

It doesn't mean they don't rate those particular players. In fact it is quite the opposite - they rate them so highly that they consider nobody else is capable of fulfilling that specific role.

How do we know that the Saints Coaching Staff haven't started doing this to a greater extent than what we've seen previously?

I keep reading on here about Lyon playing his 'favourites' at the exclusion of other 'better/more credentialled' players.
Why couldn't that be just more evidence of specific players being selected for specific roles within the 'Saints Masterplan'?

Some players mightn't be happy with the role thay have been asked to play by the coaching panel.
Others may well have been happy.

It doesn't mean that the Coaches don't rate the player because the role he has been selected to fulfill doesn't involve more game time.
In fact I would contend that quite the opposite applies - the coaches rate him so highly in that specific role.

That's the crux of my whole argument about Luke Ball wanting to leave.
This apparent desire by his management/family to portray his decision as 'being forced on him' by an unreasonable request/demand by St Kilda.

Why not just say, I'm moving on because I want to?
Why the need to paint his coach and Club as the 'bad guys'?
Does he need public confirmation that he's not the 'bad guy' for reaching his decision?

[Mr Magic]

These are the facts:

Luke Ball is capable of playing more than 70% of a game, as has been proven many times this year.

In some games, including both games against Geelong, Luke Ball was given less than 50%.

These are facts. Everything else is conjecture.

Now, what would be some of the reasons for a coaching panel to give a footballer less time than he is capable of?

I wish somebody would post the actual percentage of game time Ball played week by week.

I don't know it for a fact, but I believe it will show a gradual diminishing % as the season wore on.

I think you'll find that the second Essendon game (our first loss) he spent more time on the ground as he was tried as a permanent forward rather than resting off the ground?
That role didn't seem to work too well.

[satchmo]

Which one of you would stay when your employer offered you less that what you are currently getting. Facts are None or you are not being honest..

If I was getting 600k and was told it would be cut back to 350k I would happily take that, any day of the week. Hell I'll even take 150k. You must be a greedy bastard!

Have a look at Akermanis; Will play for whatever is left. The pay rates for these guys fluctuates enormously based on their performance. Most players can get more if they go somewhere else, yet most stay.

If he wants to go he can. If he wants to be traded to collingwood then they must give us what we want. If he had nominated a couple of clubs then it would have been much easier to do a deal. Oh well, let's see where he ends up.

[Beej]

He was offered a new 3 year contract - not something you do to an unwanted/unrated player.

Xavier Clarke was an unwanted player and signed a one year contract extension shortly before leaving.

Contracts can be nothing more than a way to ensure you get compensation for a player as opposed to them leaving for nothing.

Luke Ball is still respected throughout the AFL. A contracted Luke Ball is a lot more valuable than an uncontracted Luke Ball.

Who's to say we wouldn't have traded him anyway had he signed the new contract? We don't know. It's entirely possible.

He was selected in the GF team.

Of course. He is streets ahead of anyone who was left out.

He was started on the ground and played most of the first half, when the game was in it's most physically explosive condition.

Luke Ball is in his element during these occasions. The entire game was brutal. Luke Ball had a superb first half.