Barrett HS article

[Saint Bev]

Articles like that really annoy me, did he do any homework. So the only thing Luke Ball did wrong was be a tad slow. Seriously, this article is a load of shyte

[stinger]

Articles like that really annoy me, did he do any homework. So the only thing Luke Ball did wrong was be a tad slow. Seriously, this article is a load of shyte

i don't agree with you.....but hey.....that's one of the benifits of this great country we live in.... ...you tell me then what luke's other deficiencies were.....

[stinger]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

obviously...and the game in launceston where luke was given more game time and a freer game plan........

[stinger]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

Due to lack of running power Ball missed the second half. Probably cost us the game that he couldn't run.

Lyon should never have selected him because it effectively meant we had three on the bench after half time.

Now that is very harsh and you know, wrong. Even RL has admitted he could have played more in the second half.

yep...ross admitted he f***ed up...and that luke should have been given two more periods of six minutes.....one in each of the last two quarters...unforgivable in my opinion..a huge mistake .....and one that cost us luke ..and maybe the game......


...i heard ross say that with my own ears....he also said that he wasn't responsible and that someone else f***ed up...i thought at the time....wtf.......later he accepted responsibility as he should...


no good pple now trying to rewrite history.....that's what happened...and that's what has been said.....

[saintlee]

Articles like that really annoy me, did he do any homework. So the only thing Luke Ball did wrong was be a tad slow. Seriously, this article is a load of shyte

I'm with you Saint Bev, I think it was a terrible article

[BringBackMadDog]

Articles like that really annoy me, did he do any homework. So the only thing Luke Ball did wrong was be a tad slow. Seriously, this article is a load of shyte

i don't agree with you.....but hey.....that's one of the benifits of this great country we live in.... ...you tell me then what luke's other deficiencies were.....

Lukes other defficiencies:
Can't kick further than 35 metres
Even then misses more than 50% of his targets
Handball under pressure is suspect
He is a tool!!!

[stinger]

Articles like that really annoy me, did he do any homework. So the only thing Luke Ball did wrong was be a tad slow. Seriously, this article is a load of shyte

I'm with you Saint Bev, I think it was a terrible article

why....where is he wrong...?


you mightn't like the article....neither do i...but the truth is sometimes painful to accept.....

[stinger]

Articles like that really annoy me, did he do any homework. So the only thing Luke Ball did wrong was be a tad slow. Seriously, this article is a load of shyte

i don't agree with you.....but hey.....that's one of the benifits of this great country we live in.... ...you tell me then what luke's other deficiencies were.....

Lukes other defficiencies:
Can't kick further than 35 metres
Even then misses more than 50% of his targets
Handball under pressure is suspect
He is a tool!!!

...he's certaily not a tool....

[joffaboy]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

Due to lack of running power Ball missed the second half. Probably cost us the game that he couldn't run.

Lyon should never have selected him because it effectively meant we had three on the bench after half time.

Now that is very harsh and you know, wrong. Even RL has admitted he could have played more in the second half.

Are you sure P66?? From what I hear (and I could very well have been given incorrect info, but it was from an impecabble source) it was planned that Ball only play about the amount of the game he did, because, well, the boy cant run.

Still reckon, from what I heard that his selection cost us the game. We were shot in the last quarter and our bench was hamstrung because we couldn't rotate Ball. Only three on the bench meant we ran out of legs.

Lyon should never have selected Ball full knowing he hasn't the legs to run out a Lyon gameplan.

Of course if you definitively tell me this info is completely incorrect correct, I will change my view. But as i said, I have been told be an impeccable source that he got the game time they wanted to give him.

I'm not saying that wasnt the plan. I certainly dont know what they were going to do but after the game RL said he should have played more. Mayne RL didnt show enough initiative from the coaches box on the day

Maybe you are correct. Lyon may have not shown the initiative, however from what I have learnt, the Saints plan was to only give Ball half a game.

Considering Lyon had enough initiative to send on bj with a busted nose and broken collarbone, he may have been able to get something out of Ball in the fourth quarter.

However I think it was folly to even select Ball considering the plan was to only give him half a game.

To go into a GF with effectively three players on the bench for half a game, after the brutal and energy sapping PF against the Dogs seemed odd.

But you are correct, even if it was a plan, blind Freddie could see we were going backward in qtr4 of the GF. Lyon may well have used his initiative and threw the plan out of the window - improvise - and used Ball more in qtr4 - who knows.

I suppose I am a champion coach 4 months after the event, fact is Lyon didn't and we lost.

Oh well, nothing that is said can change the result.

[saintlee]

Articles like that really annoy me, did he do any homework. So the only thing Luke Ball did wrong was be a tad slow. Seriously, this article is a load of shyte

I'm with you Saint Bev, I think it was a terrible article

why....where is he wrong...?


you mightn't like the article....neither do i...but the truth is sometimes painful to accept.....

I think he misrepresents the Ball situation, both the attempt to trade him and Ball's worth....the comment that the only thing wrong with him is that he is a tad slow is crazy, he cannot run, and he cannot kick...

Also, he suggests we were the only club interested in Lovett which is plain wrong....

I agree that Lovett was a gamble that has turned into a disaster, but to say he was not sought after by a number of clubs is either a lie or grossly misinformed

[Dr Spaceman]

I haven’t watched the replay and probably never will so my memory is a bit hazy. However from what I can recall we were right in the GF til close to the end and if we had kicked straight may have held on. Ball had shown nothing over the last few seasons to suggest he was going to help us in the goal department.

Really I’m not sure if changing things would have helped. What if Ball had come on and got carved up? Then fans would have said we were going okay why did RL bring Luke on! Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If the Cats had’ve hit the front in the 3rd quarter, or early in the last then it may have been time to throw caution to the wind. However the Saints were hanging on and if we’d have been able to convert even one of those wayward shots at goal it may have been just enough. We had the personnel but just couldn’t kick straight and like I said Ball was never going to help change that.

Bringing Ball on may have won us the GF; equally it may have cost us one we were going to win. One thing is for certain - we’ll never ever know!

[saintly]

Is this article the first to include speculation over the details of Lovett's contract?

1 million over 3 seasons.

That's the first time I've seen that figure (although I admit I haven't been paying close attention).

If true, it's fair enough for the journo to draw the connection between Lovett and Ball, no matter how much some of you fans on here hate reading it.

If it had all happened at Carlton or Collingwood there'd be a lot on here posting "ha bloody ha: you gave up Luke Ball and $1 million for Lovett and got nothing back".

It wasn't a great off-season and the journo is right to suggest that the club will want to move on as fast as possible.

If all goes well on the field again this year, Lovett and Ball will soon be forgotten by everyone.

its been quoted everywhere (at the time of trading) that lovett is getting $350k per season for 3 years.

[stinger]

I haven’t watched the replay and probably never will so my memory is a bit hazy. However from what I can recall we were right in the GF til close to the end and if we had kicked straight may have held on. Ball had shown nothing over the last few seasons to suggest he was going to help us in the goal department.

!

really????....i must be wrong then.....i thought that the desperate footballer.....who broke/evaded a tackle and kicked the ball long into our goal square where it was marked by an equally desperate gardiner in the dying seconds of the game against geelong ....was ball.....

[degruch]

Bringing Ball on may have won us the GF; equally it may have cost us one we were going to win. One thing is for certain - we’ll never ever know!

I don't think Ball would have ever been considered an opportunistic goal kicker for late in the GF...it would have been a miracle. I'm not sure there was really a role for him late in the game, tagging wasn't really his thing, close checking of Chappy and Gablett would have been handy, but the best guys for those tasks were on the ground at the time.

[older saint]

Another hindsight expert. Obviously Barrett felt his name hadn't been in the papers enough recently with tennis and cricket on.

The uneducated link between Ball and the Lovett trade is becoming boring.
Ball played roulette during the year and lost. Lovett trade was for pick 16.

2 seperate transactions. IF Lovett trade did not occur Ball still would have left.

Should we have taken a later pick and a reserves player- no imo rather have cap room for resigning seniors players.

[stinger]

Another hindsight expert. Obviously Barrett felt his name hadn't been in the papers enough recently with tennis and cricket on.

The uneducated link between Ball and the Lovett trade is becoming boring.
Ball played roulette during the year and lost. Lovett trade was for pick 16.

2 seperate transactions. IF Lovett trade did not occur Ball still would have left.

Should we have taken a later pick and a reserves player- no imo rather have cap room for resigning seniors players.

sure they are separate issues....both show lack of judgment on the part of the club ...imhfo....

[stinger]

Bringing Ball on may have won us the GF; equally it may have cost us one we were going to win. One thing is for certain - we’ll never ever know!

I don't think Ball would have ever been considered an opportunistic goal kicker for late in the GF...it would have been a miracle. I'm not sure there was really a role for him late in the game, tagging wasn't really his thing, close checking of Chappy and Gablett would have been handy, but the best guys for those tasks were on the ground at the time.

not the issue.....he was our best player in the first half...when we dominated....not used after half time...when we struggled....those are the unchangeable facts...ross admitted he f***ed up...and he did.....

[SuperSaint]

Articles like that really annoy me, did he do any homework. So the only thing Luke Ball did wrong was be a tad slow. Seriously, this article is a load of shyte

I'm with you Saint Bev, I think it was a terrible article

why....where is he wrong...?


you mightn't like the article....neither do i...but the truth is sometimes painful to accept.....

That's right, the club has to live by the consequences of their off-season decisions, as right now after Lovett's latest headlines and nightmare allegations, the St.Kilda FC has the 'egg on its face'. What else would you honestly expect, especially from a confirmed Collingwood supporter who along with others, now think that with the inclusion of Jolly and Ball (together with the subsequent improvement of their list), they are a genuine top 2 side in 2010 and a real chance for the premiership. It is now only up to the players and Ross to deliver a similar performance on the field this year to silence the critics because if this doesn't happen, we will be subject to a hell of a lot more ridicule and negative press throughout the season than this article.

[degruch]

Bringing Ball on may have won us the GF; equally it may have cost us one we were going to win. One thing is for certain - we’ll never ever know!

I don't think Ball would have ever been considered an opportunistic goal kicker for late in the GF...it would have been a miracle. I'm not sure there was really a role for him late in the game, tagging wasn't really his thing, close checking of Chappy and Gablett would have been handy, but the best guys for those tasks were on the ground at the time.

not the issue.....he was our best player in the first half...when we dominated....not used after half time...when we struggled....those are the unchangeable facts...ross admitted he f***ed up...and he did.....

Meh...didn't notice that...this is the 2009 GF you're referring too?

We didn't kick straight, that was the only reason we lost the GF. Ball could have sat on the bench the entire game and it wouldn't have changed the result of those crap kicks at goal...even if Geelong had scored 5 goals in Ball's absense, we still would have won.

Honestly, you guys have had too long to think about this...in the off-season another 5,000 reasons for 'why we lost' have appeared, Ball has become Jesus, Lovett has become Satan, it's really not that complicated.

[joffaboy]

I haven’t watched the replay and probably never will so my memory is a bit hazy. However from what I can recall we were right in the GF til close to the end and if we had kicked straight may have held on. Ball had shown nothing over the last few seasons to suggest he was going to help us in the goal department.

Yup - SPOT ON!!!!!!!!!!

[stinger]

Bringing Ball on may have won us the GF; equally it may have cost us one we were going to win. One thing is for certain - we’ll never ever know!

I don't think Ball would have ever been considered an opportunistic goal kicker for late in the GF...it would have been a miracle. I'm not sure there was really a role for him late in the game, tagging wasn't really his thing, close checking of Chappy and Gablett would have been handy, but the best guys for those tasks were on the ground at the time.

not the issue.....he was our best player in the first half...when we dominated....not used after half time...when we struggled....those are the unchangeable facts...ross admitted he f***ed up...and he did.....

Meh...didn't notice that...this is the 2009 GF you're referring too?

We didn't kick straight, that was the only reason we lost the GF. Ball could have sat on the bench the entire game and it wouldn't have changed the result of those crap kicks at goal...even if Geelong had scored 5 goals in Ball's absense, we still would have won.

Honestly, you guys have had too long to think about this...in the off-season another 5,000 reasons for 'why we lost' have appeared, Ball has become Jesus, Lovett has become Satan, it's really not that complicated.

yes.....it was the grand final i was referring TO...


,,,but you are right about the poor kicking.....might still have won despite that..if the coaches had rotated their players in accordance with their predetermined plans...


of course i have had time to think about it...rather not though.....but its not real complicated ..to steal your words...... ...someone f***ed up....

[degruch]

of course i have had time to think about it...rather not though.....but its not real complicated ..to steal your words...... ...someone f***ed up....

Too right...the team that won every stat on the ground and still lost f***ed up...urgh...I'm starting to feel sick Sting, let's just forget about it (I knew there was a reason I took a forum holiday for 3-4 months).

[stinger]

of course i have had time to think about it...rather not though.....but its not real complicated ..to steal your words...... ...someone f***ed up....

Too right...the team that won every stat on the ground and still lost f***ed up...urgh...I'm starting to feel sick Sting, let's just forget about it (I knew there was a reason I took a forum holiday for 3-4 months).

i will never watch the match again......consign it to the bin...just like 65, 71, 97.........sigh.....

[degruch]

of course i have had time to think about it...rather not though.....but its not real complicated ..to steal your words...... ...someone f***ed up....

Too right...the team that won every stat on the ground and still lost f***ed up...urgh...I'm starting to feel sick Sting, let's just forget about it (I knew there was a reason I took a forum holiday for 3-4 months).

i will never watch the match again......consign it to the bin...just like 65, 71, 97.........sigh.....

At least '09 will take up less room...you'll have two 16mm reels, a VHS tape and a DVD in the bin now.

[fingers]

Lovett was brilliant for the bombers last year....Ball was shyte for us.

Miss the GF did ya?

Due to lack of running power Ball missed the second half. Probably cost us the game that he couldn't run.

Lyon should never have selected him because it effectively meant we had three on the bench after half time.

That is 100% correct - confirmed by the coaching staff.