Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
I certainly remember reading that Zac had to be convinced by Lyon to play in 2009 but by the same token I highly doubt Ross would have guaranteed him playing time.
Zac wouldn't have even been in the team round 1 had Max not gone down injured before the opening game. Had Max stayed fit, who knows how much he would have played?
My understanding is he was guaranteed an "opportunity" and plenty of support to make the most of that opportunity....things which had been sadly lacking at the end of his time at his previous club. It was along the lines of - do the work, here's an opportunity...its up to you what happens after that. He took a lot of convincing to put himself through it all again emotionally. As I've said in previous posts, he has become a bit of a favourite in my house because of this journey. Its been tough for him being made the scapegoat for displacing one of our favourite son's. There's still plenty of years left in Zac though - he's only early 20's. Here's hoping he continues to make the most of this opportunity. He'll get plenty of support in this house....
sainter35 wrote:I certainly remember reading that Zac had to be convinced by Lyon to play in 2009 but by the same token I highly doubt Ross would have guaranteed him playing time.
Zac wouldn't have even been in the team round 1 had Max not gone down injured before the opening game. Had Max stayed fit, who knows how much he would have played?
That's my way of thinking. Considering that he was drafted as a rookie at a time when there was no clear evidenceof who'd be an LTI apart from Allen.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
gazrat wrote:not a big call at all ...just a factual call
it came out of either zac's gob or lyons gob (i'll put money on lyon) as zac's successful recruitment was being discussed
zac was over footy , lyon desired him playing for us
i'm sure it was lyon in fact , because lyon stated how he came in at the tail end of negotiations to make sure the deal happened
easy call in fact
and , its not the first time i've stated same on here either
Yeah, he was so over football that he went and nominated for the rookie draft.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
gazrat wrote:not a big call at all ...just a factual call
it came out of either zac's gob or lyons gob (i'll put money on lyon) as zac's successful recruitment was being discussed
zac was over footy , lyon desired him playing for us
i'm sure it was lyon in fact , because lyon stated how he came in at the tail end of negotiations to make sure the deal happened
easy call in fact
and , its not the first time i've stated same on here either
Yeah, he was so over football that he went and nominated for the rookie draft.
He stated in the Social Club after an early game this year that he had mentally surpassed being an AFL footballer and had to be talked into it my Lyon.
From Zac's mouth, into a microphone, through the wiring, out the speakers, through the air molecules, into my ears.
sainter35 wrote:I certainly remember reading that Zac had to be convinced by Lyon to play in 2009 but by the same token I highly doubt Ross would have guaranteed him playing time.
Zac wouldn't have even been in the team round 1 had Max not gone down injured before the opening game. Had Max stayed fit, who knows how much he would have played?
That's my way of thinking. Considering that he was drafted as a rookie at a time when there was no clear evidenceof who'd be an LTI apart from Allen.
I dont think anyone can guarantee game time - but what would have been guaranteed was a fair dinkim opportunity.
The fact that Lyon was seriously considering Zac as part of the clubs future plans was imperative to him.........Zac obviously didnt want the club to select him and just piss in his pocket and waste another year fluctuating between early retirement and getting on with life.
sainter35 wrote:I certainly remember reading that Zac had to be convinced by Lyon to play in 2009 but by the same token I highly doubt Ross would have guaranteed him playing time.
Zac wouldn't have even been in the team round 1 had Max not gone down injured before the opening game. Had Max stayed fit, who knows how much he would have played?
That's my way of thinking. Considering that he was drafted as a rookie at a time when there was no clear evidenceof who'd be an LTI apart from Allen.
I dont think anyone can guarantee game time - but what would have been guaranteed was a fair dinkim opportunity.
The fact that Lyon was seriously considering Zac as part of the clubs future plans was imperative to him.........Zac obviously didnt want the club to select him and just piss in his pocket and waste another year fluctuating between early retirement and getting on with life.
Agree. And that's a huge difference from being promised or guaranteed a game IMO.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
The Smith development comes as speculation mounts about Luke Ball staying at St Kilda.
It has become increasingly likely Ball will remain at Moorabbin as he is uncomfortable throwing himself at the mercy of the draft, where Melbourne holds all the cards.
...well....might give all parties twelve months to make it work......if it doesn't he may well be the first gold coast captain....
"LUKE Ball's future, at least for one more season, appears to be with St Kilda.
The estranged former captain and best-and-fairest winner is understood to be loathe to expose himself to the uncertainty of this month's national draft and continues to ignore interest from Melbourne, the only club able to offer him a certain way out of Moorabbin.
Ball, who attended the wedding of St Kilda teammate Michael Gardiner in South Melbourne yesterday, returned to Melbourne from a vacation in the US in the early hours of last Thursday but is expected to leave the country for a further holiday tomorrow without having met or even spoken with the Demons.
With all reasonable possibility of getting to Collingwood gone - the Magpies will not enter the draft until the second round at pick 30, by which time one of 13 other clubs will almost certainly have called out his name - Melbourne is Ball's only guaranteed destination if he is still as determined to take his career elsewhere as he was a month ago when he pushed for a move to the Magpies.
This seems not to be the case, given the 25-year-old was able to meet with St Kilda coach Ross Lyon within 36 hours of touching down last week, but not at all with the Demons, who hold the first selection in the pre-season draft.
Melbourne also has the first two picks in the national draft, but has said it will not consider using either of them on Ball even if he was to nominate for the main recruiting event of the AFL year. Melbourne's earliest selections are expected to be invested in teenagers Tom Scully and Jackson Trengove, although the Demons also have picks 11 and 18 to play with before the second round begins.
The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.
Well there you go, if this part is true...
$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.
The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?
Yup, the club acted disgracefully.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
Milton66 wrote:The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.
Well there you go, if this part is true...
$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.
The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?
Yup, the club acted disgracefully.
interpretation based on your mindset?
it could well be interpreted as luke ball having an issue with his role - improve his game specifically to the requirements of the role the saints have in mind for him - hence an issue of game time and type - not a money issue! collingwood's offer is simply a secondary issue in this case.
as for apportioning blame - i don't know that there is anyone to blame - it is just a clash of ideals and goals- player and club.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
Milton66 wrote:The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.
Well there you go, if this part is true...
$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.
The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?
Yup, the club acted disgracefully.
interpretation based on your mindset?
it could well be interpreted as luke ball having an issue with his role - improve his game specifically to the requirements of the role the saints have in mind for him - hence an issue of game time and type - not a money issue! collingwood's offer is simply a secondary issue in this case.
as for apportioning blame - i don't know that there is anyone to blame - it is just a clash of ideals and goals- player and club.
I honestly don't have a mindset about this saga. They are hypothetical questions.
See my second reason why, which u did not hilite.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
Milton66 wrote:The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.
Well there you go, if this part is true...
$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.
The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?
Yup, the club acted disgracefully.
interpretation based on your mindset?
it could well be interpreted as luke ball having an issue with his role - improve his game specifically to the requirements of the role the saints have in mind for him - hence an issue of game time and type - not a money issue! collingwood's offer is simply a secondary issue in this case.
as for apportioning blame - i don't know that there is anyone to blame - it is just a clash of ideals and goals- player and club.
Football is a job, if you don't like your role, you do what any other employee would do.
Show the boss what you are capable of doing by demostrating that you are capable of a different role whilst doing the role assigned to you well.
Earn your promotion.
Last edited by ace on Thu 05 Nov 2009 11:17am, edited 1 time in total.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
But four months ago, defender Zac Dawson wanted to escape the harsh AFL world and needed more than a little convincing when Ross Lyon offered him a spot on St Kilda's rookie list.
After a frustrating 14 games in four seasons at Hawthorn, Dawson admits he didn’t know if he could cope with the intensity of once again fighting for senior selection.
"I didn’t know whether I’d be up for it mentally," Dawson told saints.com.au. "Last year I was on the fringe for the whole season and I didn’t want to go through another year without the opportunity to play.
"I didn’t really think it was a healthy thing to do because you don’t really think you’re worthwhile. Ross spoke to me and said, 'We wouldn’t take you if we didn’t think you were a chance to play'."
Dawson, then 22, hadn't trained since the Hawks cut him and was seriously considering turning his back on the sport until he consulted friends, family and the St Kilda coach.
"Because I didn’t have the greatest time at Hawthorn, he (Lyon) wanted to give me another shot at it," he said.
theres the first bit
Finally, I feel I should touch on the Zac Dawson issue. Poor bugger- I honestly feel sorry for him. Never have I seen a footballer so lacking in confidence. This kid was absolutely thrown to the wolves a few years ago, and was one of the few losers from Clarkson's 'sink or swim' approach with youngsters. Now the guy is essentially a laughing-stock--he knows it too, and it showed in his football on Saturday night. He was over-eager, giving away a number of avoidable frees and one crucial 50 metre penalty. On one occasion he did all the hard work, judging a leap above the pack very well before spilling a fairly simple grab. But I reckon this guy needs another chance, and it's hardly much of a risk for St Kilda to have him on the rookie list. Personally I think it was excellent to see him get a run pre-season, and I can honestly see him improving significantly with some solid game time in the reserves. His detractors may be right- he may be a dud. But we can't possibly know from what we've seen of him so far.
Milton66 wrote:The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.
Well there you go, if this part is true...
$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.
The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?
Yup, the club acted disgracefully.
interpretation based on your mindset?
it could well be interpreted as luke ball having an issue with his role - improve his game specifically to the requirements of the role the saints have in mind for him - hence an issue of game time and type - not a money issue! collingwood's offer is simply a secondary issue in this case.
as for apportioning blame - i don't know that there is anyone to blame - it is just a clash of ideals and goals- player and club.
Football is job, if you don't like your role, you do what any other employee would do.
Show the boss what you are capable of doing by demostrating that you are capable of a different role whilst doing the role assigned to you well.
Earn your promotion.
Or have a giant sook and quit or threaten to sod off elswhere.
I have through this entire saga said more than once that I belive Luke Ball has lost the right to be a St Kilda player and forfited the honor of wearing our jumper.
My stance is still the exact same. I personally have less than 0 desire to see Luke Ball in the team next year but my personal feelings obviously are less improtant than the team as a whole, if the players and staff want Luke Ball at St Kilda next year then I can accept that.
I hope the boy pulls his finger out and earns back the respect he has lost through this situation
BANG BANG
Mitsuharu Misawa 1962 - 2009.
I am vengeance....I am the night...I....AM.....BATMAN
I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass and im all out of bubblegum
Milton66 wrote:The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.
Well there you go, if this part is true...
$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.
The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?
Yup, the club acted disgracefully.
interpretation based on your mindset?
it could well be interpreted as luke ball having an issue with his role - improve his game specifically to the requirements of the role the saints have in mind for him - hence an issue of game time and type - not a money issue! collingwood's offer is simply a secondary issue in this case.
as for apportioning blame - i don't know that there is anyone to blame - it is just a clash of ideals and goals- player and club.
Football is a job, if you don't like your role, you do what any other employee would do.
Show the boss what you are capable of doing by demostrating that you are capable of a different role whilst doing the role assigned to you well.
Earn your promotion.
changing jobs is an option.
perhaps luke would simply prefer to play a different role - that's his choice surely. if you're not enjoying your footy, like any job, i would suggest you make a change. either a change in expectation or in employer. we are not slaves to the system - we are part of the system, and we can (and should) control the part we play - sometimes that will necessitate sacrifice. i have left jobs on principle in the past, and left jobs that were less than satisfying. took the risk and am a lot happier as a result.
re earlier reply - i didn't comment on your second hypothetical because i didn't disagree with it - my comment was that the supposition that if the pies offered more then ball's decision was based on money - i don't think it necessarily relevant (as long as the offer was reasonable) whether they offered more or less.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
Milton66 wrote:The Saints have not yet put a new deal to Ball and have asked him to make his way back over the threshold he crossed four weeks ago before they make an offer. A three-year contract of almost $1million was withdrawn after Ball failed in his bid to get to Collingwood in trade week.
It is understood that the meeting between Lyon and Ball late last week did not revolve around contractual issues but whether he is prepared to return and what he must do to improve his game if he does.
Well there you go, if this part is true...
$300k per year for 3 years knocked back. Did Collingwood offer $500k? If so then Ball was leaving for the money.
The meeting was about what Ball had to do to improve his game. So was he leaving because he wasn't prepared to do what's required of him?
Yup, the club acted disgracefully.
interpretation based on your mindset?
it could well be interpreted as luke ball having an issue with his role - improve his game specifically to the requirements of the role the saints have in mind for him - hence an issue of game time and type - not a money issue! collingwood's offer is simply a secondary issue in this case.
as for apportioning blame - i don't know that there is anyone to blame - it is just a clash of ideals and goals- player and club.
Football is job, if you don't like your role, you do what any other employee would do.
Show the boss what you are capable of doing by demostrating that you are capable of a different role whilst doing the role assigned to you well.
Earn your promotion.
Or have a giant sook and quit or threaten to sod off elswhere.
I have through this entire saga said more than once that I belive Luke Ball has lost the right to be a St Kilda player and forfited the honor of wearing our jumper.
My stance is still the exact same. I personally have less than 0 desire to see Luke Ball in the team next year but my personal feelings obviously are less improtant than the team as a whole, if the players and staff want Luke Ball at St Kilda next year then I can accept that.
I hope the boy pulls his finger out and earns back the respect he has lost through this situation
BANG BANG
Was just about to reply that 'most' employees would run off to the competitor.
