Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
saintbrat wrote:Good On you Ross- Hit them head on and turn the questions back.....
turned the questions back? what does that mean?
did you listen- he turned the questions back at them--
aafter they asked about Luke and he explained he then said- does that answer your question.. and was prepared to answer any more But they called an ad break.
scared BT- according to BT
Ross was also fired up during the media call at the club today..
i did listen and thanks for that question..........
what a shame BT didn't ask him why he thought Luke wanted out.
Thought Ross was great with his explanation of draft picks & Luke Ball.
Obviously there were some issues with Luke otherwise the Saints wouldn't have dropped him & offered him a reduced contract & Luke wouldn't have wanted to leave. However Ross answered as best he could without revealing what he thought Luke's weaknesses are. To do otherwise would have lacked a bit of class.
Dr Spaceman wrote:Thought Ross was great with his explanation of draft picks & Luke Ball.
Obviously there were some issues with Luke otherwise the Saints wouldn't have dropped him & offered him a reduced contract & Luke wouldn't have wanted to leave. However Ross answered as best he could without revealing what he thought Luke's weaknesses are. To do otherwise would have lacked a bit of class.
Said Ball was averaging 82 minutes and Hayes 87 minutes up to the time Ball was dropped to Sandringham.
Also said Ball was offered a three year contact at $350,000plus per year.
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
ace wrote:Said Ball was averaging 82 minutes and Hayes 87 minutes up to the time Ball was dropped to Sandringham.
Also said Ball was offered a three year contact at $350,000plus per year.
-> Drafting
Mentioned at the start that they expected to take three kids in the rookie draft.
-> Patterson
Questioned initially why they drafted patterson. Reasoning was that King had some knee and shoulder issues, and Gardiner was up and going but still fragile. Stanley is exciting but raw and McGrath is a few years off. Basically is was insuring McEvoy had a decent partner if SK and MG went down during the year,
-> Jess Smith
Mentioned that our 2.5 physios and 2.5 docters had tremendous faith in getting him up. Spoke about increasing the range of movement for the lad, in which the team was confident in doing. Mentioned that he was keen for three kids, but they were confident they could get Will Johnson later, and the staff detailed that the only other options were more rookie worthy at 60.
-> Luke Ball
Asked plainly why had Luke Ball decided to leave. Didn't answer the question.
Detailed that he was a required player, offered 350,000+ a year (3 years - I believe it must have been performance based as well)....Responded to time on ground issue that he was averaging 80's for the first half of the season. Re-iterated that he was a required player, and he decided to leave.
-> Lovett
Asked if they had spoken to him as it was not the best start to a new football club - Ross answered by saying that LH, NR and himself had spoken to him (I think he was referring to pre-trading for him though) and that they obtained many references. Basically brushed over the issue expressing that there were not criminal abuse or substance abuse issue that they were aware of.
ace wrote:Said Ball was averaging 82 minutes and Hayes 87 minutes up to the time Ball was dropped to Sandringham.
Also said Ball was offered a three year contact at $350,000plus per year.
Then why the ***** did he want out?
It's a strange one. Luke has only said that he was stale after 7 years and needed a fresh start. Whilst that has happened with many players, and indeed with many people in regards to jobs or relationships, it just feels a bit odd in this instance. Players play for a premiership. So why after 7 years, having made the GF for the first time, do you then decide you're stale and need a fresh start? No doubt there's more to it than is being said.
In the absence of an explanation we can only speculate. I suspect he felt a bit threatened by his difficulties in adapting to Lyon's new, and successful, game plan. This would have been made worse by his realisation that he can be dropped. And maybe by adopting a team plan where everyone's accountable meant he no longer felt that extra bit special. Whatever it was I just don’t buy the "stale" story at a time when a flag is perhaps closer than at any other time at the club.
Art Vandelay wrote:Maybe Gerard can ask him what he sees in Raph Clarke, and how he preferred him over Max. Maybe ask him why he chose to get rid of Matt Maguire only to pick up Jesse Smith who is probably less likely to play again due to on-going injury concerns. Also, maybe ask him why he treated Luke Ball the way he did and whether he thinks that his departure from the club will have a destabilising effect. Also maybe Gerard can ask him who our back-up key defenders are should one of Fischer, Dawson or Blake go down. And maybe ask him about why we are recruiting recycled players and the impact that is going to have on the long term sustainability of the Footy Club. Just a few questions which I'm sure no-one will ask.
Why don't you ring in and ask him yourself?
You seem to have reached a certain conclusion - obviously from your post that Ross Lyon is 'steering' the CLub in the wrong direction.
Oh and btw, if you think that Max and Raph were vying for the same spot in the team thank goodness you're not on the selection panel.
Maybe Fisher could replace Fischer if he goes down?
Art Vandelay wrote:Maybe Gerard can ask him what he sees in Raph Clarke, and how he preferred him over Max. Maybe ask him why he chose to get rid of Matt Maguire only to pick up Jesse Smith who is probably less likely to play again due to on-going injury concerns. Also, maybe ask him why he treated Luke Ball the way he did and whether he thinks that his departure from the club will have a destabilising effect. Also maybe Gerard can ask him who our back-up key defenders are should one of Fischer, Dawson or Blake go down. And maybe ask him about why we are recruiting recycled players and the impact that is going to have on the long term sustainability of the Footy Club. Just a few questions which I'm sure no-one will ask.
You are such an astute judge of football maybe you should be coaching.
I can never understand complete empty glass, negative, miserable stuff like that. It must be difficult being that sort of 'supporter' if that's even what it can be described as!
I think some people should just stick with their Seinfeld dvd collections and maybe leave forums like this alone if all they have to contribute is open up well worn festering wounds and worm cans.
ace wrote:Said Ball was averaging 82 minutes and Hayes 87 minutes up to the time Ball was dropped to Sandringham.
Also said Ball was offered a three year contact at $350,000plus per year.
Then why the ***** did he want out?
It's a strange one. Luke has only said that he was stale after 7 years and needed a fresh start. Whilst that has happened with many players, and indeed with many people in regards to jobs or relationships, it just feels a bit odd in this instance. Players play for a premiership. So why after 7 years, having made the GF for the first time, do you then decide you're stale and need a fresh start? No doubt there's more to it than is being said.
In the absence of an explanation we can only speculate. I suspect he felt a bit threatened by his difficulties in adapting to Lyon's new, and successful, game plan. This would have been made worse by his realisation that he can be dropped. And maybe by adopting a team plan where everyone's accountable meant he no longer felt that extra bit special. Whatever it was I just don’t buy the "stale" story at a time when a flag is perhaps closer than at any other time at the club.
Finally someone who is intellectually able to offer credible scenarios, well done.
I would like to offer the "Super payout " by a dumb club scenario to add to the reasons. 3AW had the chance to ask why Luke left and blew it.
-> Drafting
Mentioned at the start that they expected to take three kids in the rookie draft.
-> Patterson
Questioned initially why they drafted patterson. Reasoning was that King had some knee and shoulder issues, and Gardiner was up and going but still fragile. Stanley is exciting but raw and McGrath is a few years off. Basically is was insuring McEvoy had a decent partner if SK and MG went down during the year,
-> Jess Smith
Mentioned that our 2.5 physios and 2.5 docters had tremendous faith in getting him up. Spoke about increasing the range of movement for the lad, in which the team was confident in doing. Mentioned that he was keen for three kids, but they were confident they could get Will Johnson later, and the staff detailed that the only other options were more rookie worthy at 60.
-> Luke Ball
Asked plainly why had Luke Ball decided to leave. Didn't answer the question.
Detailed that he was a required player, offered 350,000+ a year (3 years - I believe it must have been performance based as well)....Responded to time on ground issue that he was averaging 80's for the first half of the season. Re-iterated that he was a required player, and he decided to leave.
-> Lovett
Asked if they had spoken to him as it was not the best start to a new football club - Ross answered by saying that LH, NR and himself had spoken to him (I think he was referring to pre-trading for him though) and that they obtained many references. Basically brushed over the issue expressing that there were not criminal abuse or substance abuse issue that they were aware of.
Interview cut short for ads.
Dont agree with someof that Spinner.
Re Ball - The question from BT was suggestive we didnt want Ball etc - Lyon had to IMHO quickly stop that rot (BT often has a crack at us - this guy also said Clint Jones was not up to it as an AFL player...). Shame the other clowns started talking cause I got the sense Taylor was saying in the background that there was more to this....either way Ross shut him up with facts with respect to the game time cr@p.
IMHO there is clearly an issue between Ball and Lyon (Balls comment about saying more when the dust settles was telling for me) - I care not. Its TEAM Im interested in....one in all in - good enough for Dal Santo/Milne to suck up a bit of tough love from the coach then it should also be for Ball. The days of prima donna players running our club and the senipor coaches agenda are over and thank frk for that.
As for Lovett - I dont think he brushed over the issue - the issues with Lovett is with him as a person (not just one night) and includes his previous ordinary record. I think Lyon had the right and infact needed to address our due diligence in taking him on and I thought he did that well (no doubt would have had more to say if the ad break hadnt cut in).
He goes allright Ross - doesnt get the media respect he should (Eade for example is pandered to by them) but I dont think Ross gives a shyte.
-> Drafting
Mentioned at the start that they expected to take three kids in the rookie draft.
-> Patterson
Questioned initially why they drafted patterson. Reasoning was that King had some knee and shoulder issues, and Gardiner was up and going but still fragile. Stanley is exciting but raw and McGrath is a few years off. Basically is was insuring McEvoy had a decent partner if SK and MG went down during the year,
-> Jess Smith
Mentioned that our 2.5 physios and 2.5 docters had tremendous faith in getting him up. Spoke about increasing the range of movement for the lad, in which the team was confident in doing. Mentioned that he was keen for three kids, but they were confident they could get Will Johnson later, and the staff detailed that the only other options were more rookie worthy at 60.
-> Luke Ball
Asked plainly why had Luke Ball decided to leave. Didn't answer the question.
Detailed that he was a required player, offered 350,000+ a year (3 years - I believe it must have been performance based as well)....Responded to time on ground issue that he was averaging 80's for the first half of the season. Re-iterated that he was a required player, and he decided to leave.
-> Lovett
Asked if they had spoken to him as it was not the best start to a new football club - Ross answered by saying that LH, NR and himself had spoken to him (I think he was referring to pre-trading for him though) and that they obtained many references. Basically brushed over the issue expressing that there were not criminal abuse or substance abuse issue that they were aware of.
Interview cut short for ads.
Dont agree with someof that Spinner.
Re Ball - The question from BT was suggestive we didnt want Ball etc - Lyon had to IMHO quickly stop that rot (BT often has a crack at us - this guy also said Clint Jones was not up to it as an AFL player...). Shame the other clowns started talking cause I got the sense Taylor was saying in the background that there was more to this....either way Ross shut him up with facts with respect to the game time cr@p.
IMHO there is clearly an issue between Ball and Lyon (Balls comment about saying more when the dust settles was telling for me) - I care not. Its TEAM Im interested in....one in all in - good enough for Dal Santo/Milne to suck up a bit of tough love from the coach then it should also be for Ball. The days of prima donna players running our club and the senipor coaches agenda are over and thank frk for that.
...
You arrogant little shite that you are.
Ball was benched in the most important quarter and game he has ever played in ... despite being one of best afield at the time.
Neither Dal nor Milney were as good as LB in the GF in case you missed it.
-> Drafting
Mentioned at the start that they expected to take three kids in the rookie draft.
-> Patterson
Questioned initially why they drafted patterson. Reasoning was that King had some knee and shoulder issues, and Gardiner was up and going but still fragile. Stanley is exciting but raw and McGrath is a few years off. Basically is was insuring McEvoy had a decent partner if SK and MG went down during the year,
-> Jess Smith
Mentioned that our 2.5 physios and 2.5 docters had tremendous faith in getting him up. Spoke about increasing the range of movement for the lad, in which the team was confident in doing. Mentioned that he was keen for three kids, but they were confident they could get Will Johnson later, and the staff detailed that the only other options were more rookie worthy at 60.
-> Luke Ball
Asked plainly why had Luke Ball decided to leave. Didn't answer the question.
Detailed that he was a required player, offered 350,000+ a year (3 years - I believe it must have been performance based as well)....Responded to time on ground issue that he was averaging 80's for the first half of the season. Re-iterated that he was a required player, and he decided to leave.
-> Lovett
Asked if they had spoken to him as it was not the best start to a new football club - Ross answered by saying that LH, NR and himself had spoken to him (I think he was referring to pre-trading for him though) and that they obtained many references. Basically brushed over the issue expressing that there were not criminal abuse or substance abuse issue that they were aware of.
Interview cut short for ads.
Dont agree with someof that Spinner.
Re Ball - The question from BT was suggestive we didnt want Ball etc - Lyon had to IMHO quickly stop that rot (BT often has a crack at us - this guy also said Clint Jones was not up to it as an AFL player...). Shame the other clowns started talking cause I got the sense Taylor was saying in the background that there was more to this....either way Ross shut him up with facts with respect to the game time cr@p.
IMHO there is clearly an issue between Ball and Lyon (Balls comment about saying more when the dust settles was telling for me) - I care not. Its TEAM Im interested in....one in all in - good enough for Dal Santo/Milne to suck up a bit of tough love from the coach then it should also be for Ball. The days of prima donna players running our club and the senipor coaches agenda are over and thank frk for that.
...
You arrogant little shite that you are.
Ball was benched in the most important quarter and game he has ever played in ... despite being one of best afield at the time.
Neither Dal nor Milney were as good as LB in the GF in case you missed it.
So what is your logic?
Potting people on BS is not a great attribute.
Seriously Daggy making up boorish posts accusing people of being "potted"...(do show me where?) is beneath even you....
I know you feel unloved round here, most see your views as a joke and I feel your pain (theres that arrogance you mentioned creeping in) but try and keep your dislike for individual posters seperate to what's actually being discussed on the topic - its so sad to see good footy discussion hijacked by lunatics who clearly only want to settle some score cause they feel someone was 'nasty' to them some time before. If I ever have been btw I dont apologise.
If you can't do that best say nothing - or even better spell yourself from the board?
Luke alluded to the fact that he will expound further once the dust is settled, I can't help but take the cynical view that he will wait to see if his form justifies it next year...
-> Drafting
Mentioned at the start that they expected to take three kids in the rookie draft.
-> Patterson
Questioned initially why they drafted patterson. Reasoning was that King had some knee and shoulder issues, and Gardiner was up and going but still fragile. Stanley is exciting but raw and McGrath is a few years off. Basically is was insuring McEvoy had a decent partner if SK and MG went down during the year,
-> Jess Smith
Mentioned that our 2.5 physios and 2.5 docters had tremendous faith in getting him up. Spoke about increasing the range of movement for the lad, in which the team was confident in doing. Mentioned that he was keen for three kids, but they were confident they could get Will Johnson later, and the staff detailed that the only other options were more rookie worthy at 60.
-> Luke Ball
Asked plainly why had Luke Ball decided to leave. Didn't answer the question.
Detailed that he was a required player, offered 350,000+ a year (3 years - I believe it must have been performance based as well)....Responded to time on ground issue that he was averaging 80's for the first half of the season. Re-iterated that he was a required player, and he decided to leave.
-> Lovett
Asked if they had spoken to him as it was not the best start to a new football club - Ross answered by saying that LH, NR and himself had spoken to him (I think he was referring to pre-trading for him though) and that they obtained many references. Basically brushed over the issue expressing that there were not criminal abuse or substance abuse issue that they were aware of.
Interview cut short for ads.
Dont agree with someof that Spinner.
Re Ball - The question from BT was suggestive we didnt want Ball etc - Lyon had to IMHO quickly stop that rot (BT often has a crack at us - this guy also said Clint Jones was not up to it as an AFL player...). Shame the other clowns started talking cause I got the sense Taylor was saying in the background that there was more to this....either way Ross shut him up with facts with respect to the game time cr@p.
IMHO there is clearly an issue between Ball and Lyon (Balls comment about saying more when the dust settles was telling for me) - I care not. Its TEAM Im interested in....one in all in - good enough for Dal Santo/Milne to suck up a bit of tough love from the coach then it should also be for Ball. The days of prima donna players running our club and the senipor coaches agenda are over and thank frk for that.
...
You arrogant little shite that you are.
Ball was benched in the most important quarter and game he has ever played in ... despite being one of best afield at the time.
Neither Dal nor Milney were as good as LB in the GF in case you missed it.
So what is your logic?
Potting people on BS is not a great attribute.
The thing with Ball is that he gets it well but he doesn't distibute it well enough so he's not damaging. He stops and props, gives it off and doesn't link up. That's why even though he played well in the 1st Q I don't think Geelong were too worried about him. No point getting in the back half and stagnating with it.
SainterK wrote:Luke alluded to the fact that he will expound further once the dust is settled, I can't help but take the cynical view that he will wait to see if his form justifies it next year...
Does that also make me arrogant?
Yes apparently any logic with respects to Ball that doesnt just focus on his GF effort displays gross arrogance.
