Saints players LIVID with Luke Ball

Mr Magic · Post: # 850024Post **Mr Magic** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 11:03am

OLB wrote:
Mr Magic wrote: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.

Mr Magic wrote:He was selected in the GF team.
Of course. He is streets ahead of anyone who was left out.

Mr Magic wrote: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.

I can see that you've made your mind up.
Nothing I nor anyone else posts to the contrary seemingly will disuade you from that opinion?

'Luke Ball has left St Kilda becasue he is not rated by the Coaches'

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I hold the Club and Coaching staff in higher regard that to accept that, IMO, preposterous proposition.

Beej · Post: # 850025Post **Beej** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 11:12am

Mr Magic wrote:
OLB wrote: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.

It's not the case. They didn't gradually diminish. It was totally random. He'd play 48% against Geelong then play over 70% against West Coast the following week.

That game against West Coast, Lenny Hayes had an extremely quiet game getting less than 70% game time. Luke Ball's increased time in that game would have a lot to do with the other mids being down after the bruising encounter against Geelong the week before which goes with the theory that Ball was seen as a burst player or a pinch-hitter.

If I recall correctly Ball played around 80% against Hawthorn which was round 19, a game where a whole host of our mids didn't play.

His game time has everything to do with his role for the team on any given day.

When our a-grade midfielders had big games in terms of game time, Ball's minutes were low.

When a few of our a-grade midfielders had smaller games in terms of game time or didn't play, Ball's minutes increased.

Mr Magic · Post: # 850031Post **Mr Magic** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 11:18am

OLB wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
OLB wrote: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.
It's not the case. They didn't gradually diminish. It was totally random. He'd play 48% against Geelong then play over 70% against West Coast the following week.

That game against West Coast, Lenny Hayes had an extremely quiet game getting less than 70% game time. Luke Ball's increased time in that game would have a lot to do with the other mids being down after the bruising encounter against Geelong the week before which goes with the theory that Ball was seen as a burst player or a pinch-hitter.

If I recall correctly Ball played around 80% against Hawthorn which was round 19, a game where a whole host of our mids didn't play.

His game time has everything to do with his role for the team on any given day.

When our a-grade midfielders had big games in terms of game time, Ball's minutes were low.

When a few of our a-grade midfielders had smaller games in terms of game time or didn't play, Ball's minutes increased.

If you've got the figures, please post them in game sequence.

Also, why, in your opinion, was he dropped from the team in the very week that Sandringham had a bye?

Beej · Post: # 850033Post **Beej** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 11:25am

Mr Magic wrote:I can see that you've made your mind up.
Nothing I nor anyone else posts to the contrary seemingly will disuade you from that opinion?

'Luke Ball has left St Kilda becasue he is not rated by the Coaches'

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I hold the Club and Coaching staff in higher regard that to accept that, IMO, preposterous proposition.

I just can't see any other answer.

And re your last comment. You seem to think that the coaching staff not rating Ball is in some way a slight on them which it isn't.

Lets face it, Ball is not as valuable as Hayes, Dal Santo, Joey, Jones and if the coaching staff saw it that way, then IMO they're correct.

It's not that the coaches thought Luke Ball was a poor player, it's just that they believed they had better options.

Mr Magic · Post: # 850037Post **Mr Magic** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 11:36am

OLB wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:I can see that you've made your mind up.
Nothing I nor anyone else posts to the contrary seemingly will disuade you from that opinion?

'Luke Ball has left St Kilda becasue he is not rated by the Coaches'

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I hold the Club and Coaching staff in higher regard that to accept that, IMO, preposterous proposition.
I just can't see any other answer.

And re your last comment. You seem to think that the coaching staff not rating Ball is in some way a slight on them which it isn't.

Lets face it, Ball is not as valuable as Hayes, Dal Santo, Joey, Jones and if the coaching staff saw it that way, then IMO they're correct.

It's not that the coaches thought Luke Ball was a poor player, it's just that they believed they had better options.

It's the use of the emotive term 'didn't rate Ball'.
I just don't believe that.
Maybe Ball rates himself higher than the coaches did?
Maybe Ball feels he has more to offer than what the coaches have asked him to do?

But to use 'RL didn't rate Ball' is IMO a slur on RL , the coaches, fitnes staff and everybody involved in the team selection process.

Unless of course RL or somebody else of note at the Club came out and publicly stated that we don't want Luke Ball becasue we 'don't rate him'. Unfortuately for the arguers of this, the opposite is true.
RL has repeatedly stated that Ball is rated/required/wanted/respected.

Some obviously think RL was lying on all those occasions.
There can be no other conclusion drawn - he has said it repeatedly and yet some accept the notion that 'Ball wasn't rated' as being fact?

To my way of thinking the statement is nonsensical and the more often it is used the more nonsensical it sounds.

Beej · Post: # 850042Post **Beej** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 11:49am

Mr Magic wrote:
OLB wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
OLB wrote: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.
It's not the case. They didn't gradually diminish. It was totally random. He'd play 48% against Geelong then play over 70% against West Coast the following week.

That game against West Coast, Lenny Hayes had an extremely quiet game getting less than 70% game time. Luke Ball's increased time in that game would have a lot to do with the other mids being down after the bruising encounter against Geelong the week before which goes with the theory that Ball was seen as a burst player or a pinch-hitter.

If I recall correctly Ball played around 80% against Hawthorn which was round 19, a game where a whole host of our mids didn't play.

His game time has everything to do with his role for the team on any given day.

When our a-grade midfielders had big games in terms of game time, Ball's minutes were low.

When a few of our a-grade midfielders had smaller games in terms of game time or didn't play, Ball's minutes increased.
If you've got the figures, please post them in game sequence.

Also, why, in your opinion, was he dropped from the team in the very week that Sandringham had a bye?

Mr Magic · Post: # 850046Post **Mr Magic** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 12:09pm

What those stats show is that from rounds 9-13 he had between 81-89% time on the ground.
Round 14 (against Geelong) he had 48%
Round 15 they don't give the stat.
Rounds 16-18 he didn't play
Round 19 he had 73%
Round 20 they don't give the stat.
Round 21 and 22 don't bwliwvw he played.

It would seem that whatever the issue was (medical or coaches not rating him') it occured in teh geelong game of Round 14?

I asked about the timing of his 'dropping' becasue it would seem a really strange time to drop a player for 'form reasons' if he cannot regain form by playing in the reserves.

My understanding of his 'dropping' was that it was to do with his diminishing 'base fitness' level and that the fitness staff deliberately chose that time so that he could get a couple of weeks of intense training into him (without worrying about playing and the recovery period from that) to increase his 'base fitness'.

Other than maybe an 'attitude problem' I cannot see any valid reason beyond the fitness one at that particular time?

Beej · Post: # 850049Post **Beej** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 12:17pm

round 20 he played 84 mins of a possible 120 (70%, stat is further down, zac dawson highest amount of minutes 120, i assume he played full game)

round 15 83 out of a possible 119 (70%)

I don't think you can say fitness was the issue only in those two games against Geelong.

That would be too much of a coincidence.

It has to be because of the opponent and Luke's role in those games.

Coaches map out a plan for rotations before every game.

Mr Magic · Post: # 850052Post **Mr Magic** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 12:31pm

OLB wrote: It has to be because of the opponent and Luke's role in those games.

Coaches map out a plan for rotations before every game.

Yep agreed, which makes the 'game time' comment #2 of the reasons given last week, so strange.

I think that given you and I seem to be the only ones interested enough in keeping this thread going, we should probably take it to pm?

Beej · Post: # 850053Post **Beej** » Sat 17 Oct 2009 12:34pm

Mr Magic wrote:
OLB wrote: It has to be because of the opponent and Luke's role in those games.

Coaches map out a plan for rotations before every game.
Yep agreed, which makes the 'game time' comment #2 of the reasons given last week, so strange.

I think that given you and I seem to be the only ones interested enough in keeping this thread going, we should probably take it to pm?

Haha, that seems to be the case.

I'm already late an hour and a half for a bbq as it is because of the last page and a bit of this thread.

We shall continue this at a later date though I am sure.

GeorgeYoung27 · Sat 17 Oct 2009 12:35pm

OLB I think those stats show something, the less minutes played the more disposals (like the GF). The 2 games in the 2nd half of the season where he played much more that 50% GT, he had 9 possessions and 11 possesions. Luke is a great guy (according to everyone), why would he be the 1st player in recent memory to have had a grudge held against him by a coach of St Kilda which was done at the detriment of the team? Especially a team that was closer to ultimate success than any since 1966. That makes less sense than his game time issue.

SainterK · Post: # 850270Post **SainterK** » Sun 18 Oct 2009 12:16am

Can we have kicking efficiency included in those TOG stats, perhaps that may give us some indication of what his self confessed "bad habits" were?

saintly · Post: # 850495Post **saintly** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:43am

well, going back to the OP, the saints players either were not livid, as they are trying to persuade him now to stay (if you believe the newspapers) or were livid and have changed their minds.

joffaboy · Post: # 850499Post **joffaboy** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 12:06pm

saintly wrote:well, going back to the OP, the saints players either were not livid, as they are trying to persuade him now to stay (if you believe the newspapers) or were livid and have changed their minds.

The positions aren't mutually exclusive.

Most of the Brisbane Lions players intensely disliked Akermanis but still wanted him in their premiership teams.

Beej · Post: # 850513Post **Beej** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 1:05pm

GeorgeYoung27 wrote:OLB I think those stats show something, the less minutes played the more disposals (like the GF). The 2 games in the 2nd half of the season where he played much more that 50% GT, he had 9 possessions and 11 possesions. Luke is a great guy (according to everyone), why would he be the 1st player in recent memory to have had a grudge held against him by a coach of St Kilda which was done at the detriment of the team? Especially a team that was closer to ultimate success than any since 1966. That makes less sense than his game time issue.

Georgie boy, I am not suggesting that the coach has a personal grudge against Bally at all - I doubt there is any truth to that.

Even if there was, Lyon would want that flag as much as any of the players, possibly more as he wasn't able to win one as a player, so surely he would be professional enough not to let a personal difference come between him and that goal particularly if he believed Ball could help him achieve it, which Lyon obviously did as he picked Ball in a GF.

The side that played the majority of the 2nd half would be, in Lyon's opinion, his most balanced side.

Milton66 · Post: # 850523Post **Milton66** » Mon 19 Oct 2009 1:40pm

OLB wrote:
GeorgeYoung27 wrote:OLB I think those stats show something, the less minutes played the more disposals (like the GF). The 2 games in the 2nd half of the season where he played much more that 50% GT, he had 9 possessions and 11 possesions. Luke is a great guy (according to everyone), why would he be the 1st player in recent memory to have had a grudge held against him by a coach of St Kilda which was done at the detriment of the team? Especially a team that was closer to ultimate success than any since 1966. That makes less sense than his game time issue.
Georgie boy, I am not suggesting that the coach has a personal grudge against Bally at all - I doubt there is any truth to that.

Even if there was, Lyon would want that flag as much as any of the players, possibly more as he wasn't able to win one as a player, so surely he would be professional enough not to let a personal difference come between him and that goal particularly if he believed Ball could help him achieve it, which Lyon obviously did as he picked Ball in a GF.

The side that played the majority of the 2nd half would be, in Lyon's opinion, his most balanced side.

Aaah, now this is a very intelligent post.

I think you'll find in most cases where a player and coach do not get along, then a coach will move them on... see Hall and Everitt.

The only exception to this would be the Akermanis/Matthews relationship where Aker was tolerated because of his skill and playing abaility.

So, if RL didn't like Ball, he'd move him on, which he hasn't.

Also, in their prime Aker > Ball as a player, so the excepiton probably won't apply for Luke.

On the other hand, a coach will favour a player who can contribute and provide what's required from them... regardless of skill. This has been most notable this year.

So if there was a difference based on contribution, then I'd guess it may have become personal by Ball cracking the poos.