Barrett HS article

meher baba · Tue 19 Jan 2010 12:21pm

Sorry, JB, but I don't agree with you.

If Ball hadn't played, we wouldn't have gone so well in the middle in the first half and wouldn't have dominated up to that point as we had.

If we had kicked the goals that we should have done given our dominance in the middle, we would have been far enough ahead in the last quarter that it wouldn't have mattered if Ball was too buggered to come of the bench.

So the selection of Ball was fine IMO. He was just about BOG in the first half: no way could an Armitage or a Steven have played as he did.

In terms of whether or not Ball was too buggered to come back on in the last quarter: obviously someone involved in managing the rotations off the bench decided he wasn't up to coming back on. I understand that Ball himself did not agree with this assessment. Lyon later publicly accused the guy managing the bench of having "f@#ked up".

Seems like a pretty clear cut chain of events to me.

joffaboy · Post: # 873259Post **joffaboy** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 12:31pm

meher baba wrote:Sorry, JB, but I don't agree with you.

If Ball hadn't played, we wouldn't have gone so well in the middle in the first half and wouldn't have dominated up to that point as we had.

If we had kicked the goals that we should have done given our dominance in the middle, we would have been far enough ahead in the last quarter that it wouldn't have mattered if Ball was too buggered to come of the bench.

So the selection of Ball was fine IMO. He was just about BOG in the first half: no way could an Armitage or a Steven have played as he did.

In terms of whether or not Ball was too buggered to come back on in the last quarter: obviously someone involved in managing the rotations off the bench decided he wasn't up to coming back on. I understand that Ball himself did not agree with this assessment. Lyon later publicly accused the guy managing the bench of having "f@#ked up".

Seems like a pretty clear cut chain of events to me.

yes all good points mb.

A couple to ponder.

As fingers pointed out my info was spot on. It was the plan that because the boy cant run, he could only play half a game. This is the assessment of the coaching staff. Right or wrong? Well did we win the flag? So in hindsight it may well have been wrong.

My point is that if true, the selection of a player the staff saw as only being able to play half a Grand Final, was flawed. It hamstrung us to only three players on the bench to rotate in the second half.

Did this cause us to go backwards in the final qtr? Dont know and really does it matter now?

However it is not clear cut as you may think, if what I have been told is correct.

Anyway we lost - cant change that.

meher baba · Tue 19 Jan 2010 12:36pm

joffaboy wrote:
meher baba wrote:Sorry, JB, but I don't agree with you.

If Ball hadn't played, we wouldn't have gone so well in the middle in the first half and wouldn't have dominated up to that point as we had.

If we had kicked the goals that we should have done given our dominance in the middle, we would have been far enough ahead in the last quarter that it wouldn't have mattered if Ball was too buggered to come of the bench.

So the selection of Ball was fine IMO. He was just about BOG in the first half: no way could an Armitage or a Steven have played as he did.

In terms of whether or not Ball was too buggered to come back on in the last quarter: obviously someone involved in managing the rotations off the bench decided he wasn't up to coming back on. I understand that Ball himself did not agree with this assessment. Lyon later publicly accused the guy managing the bench of having "f@#ked up".

Seems like a pretty clear cut chain of events to me.
yes all good points mb.

A couple to ponder.

As fingers pointed out my info was spot on. It was the plan that because the boy cant run, he could only play half a game. This is the assessment of the coaching staff. Right or wrong? Well did we win the flag? So in hindsight it may well have been wrong.

My point is that if true, the selection of a player the staff saw as only being able to play half a Grand Final, was flawed. It hamstrung us to only three players on the bench to rotate in the second half.

Did this cause us to go backwards in the final qtr? Dont know and really does it matter now?

However it is not clear cut as you may think, if what I have been told is correct.

Anyway we lost - cant change that.

The comments from your source are interesting. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the plan was to use Ball as a "shock troop": go all out for the first half and then crash out.

With a four man bench, this seems to be me to have been a reasonable gamble, and one which effectively paid off.

So why did Lyon later suggest that the failure of Ball to appear in the second half was a result of a stuff-up rather than being something that had been planned from the outset?

In my mind, the only significant stuff-ups on the day were made by Messrs Schneider, Milne, Dempster and McQualter. I watched the game again not long ago and there is no question that - over the four quarters - we were well on top everywhere except on the scoreboard. Even in the final quarter, we held our own ok.

If we'd kicked a few more goals (and if Hawkins hadn't be awarded that ridiculous goal), we'd have won by a fair margin.

MCG-Unit · Post: # 873262Post **MCG-Unit** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 12:42pm

saintspremiers wrote:well talk about a d!ckhead Journo!

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

Get your facts right noob!

Is that right? Lovett was brilliant, wonder how he went in the B&F

I believe they gave him a minder, and had weekly meetings with the coach just to keep him on track. Was he not suspended twice, then walked out on them....

How was Ball's season again ? And his GF

degruch · Post: # 873263Post **degruch** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 12:43pm

meher baba wrote:So why did Lyon later suggest that the failure of Ball to appear in the second half was a result of a stuff-up rather than being something that had been planned from the outset?

In my mind, the only significant stuff-ups on the day were made by Messrs Schneider, Milne, Dempster and McQualter. I watched the game again not long ago and there is no question that - over the four quarters - we were well on top everywhere except on the scoreboard. Even in the final quarter, we held our own ok.

If we'd kicked a few more goals (and if Hawkins hadn't be awarded that ridiculous goal), we'd have won by a fair margin.

Deflection? Our minds are aligned (except you forgot Montagna too), I can't see why he'd pin-point a tactical bench rotation, as opposed to pointing out a series of mammoth disposal blunders, as the reason for our demise.

saint66au · Post: # 873264Post **saint66au** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 12:43pm

People who pump up Luke Ball's GF performance forget one lil detail..

IT WAS PYSSING WITH RAIN!!

The conditions were totally tailor-made for Luke. If we couldnt have an impact on a day like that, with everyone reduced to his pace..then he might as well give it away

Might have been a whole different story if had been a fast track. I doubt he would have been selected.

His description of Trade Week was an over-simplification IMO. We had to play hard withy Collingwood? The alternative? Give in to the demands of a fellow Top-4 side? No thanks.

We took two calculated risks during that week. One was Andrew Lovett, the other playing hardball with the Pies and hope he didnt fall through to them during the draft. Both look likey to have failed..but hey thats footy. We've had a lot of good fortune in Trade Week of late (Schneider, King, Gardy) so the coin was probably destined to fall the other way sooner or later.

I'm very confident that the Club ARE moving on...and not going through the huge amount of inwards-looking angst that some on here are

joffaboy · Post: # 873266Post **joffaboy** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 12:47pm

meher baba wrote:The comments from your source are interesting. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the plan was to use Ball as a "shock troop": go all out for the first half and then crash out.

Well it seemed to work in the 46% of the time he played.

meher baba wrote:With a four man bench, this seems to be me to have been a reasonable gamble, and one which effectively paid off.

I suppose it was reasonable at the time. I mean I am speaking in hindsight,AND four months after the game. Really easy to point fingers from here.

meher baba wrote:So why did Lyon later suggest that the failure of Ball to appear in the second half was a result of a stuff-up rather than being something that had been planned from the outset?

Yes this was interesting. Maybe P66 is correct in his surmisation that maybe Lyon could have used more initiative. They may well have a gameplan for players, but circumstances change. Had noqualms putting bj back out there with a busted nose and collarbone. Perhaps he just thought that Ball wasn't the answer. Who really knows?

meher baba wrote:In my mind, the only significant stuff-ups on the day were made by Messrs Schneider, Milne, Dempster and McQualter. I watched the game again not long ago and there is no question that - over the four quarters - we were well on top everywhere except on the scoreboard. Even in the final quarter, we held our own ok.

yes - we had chances and blew them. If they had kicked them, all this would be acedemic. At one stage we were absolutely dominating and I looked up to see Geelong 7.1. I just thought, our missed will come back to bite us.

All this Ball talk is periphery. I do think that we were going backwards in the last quarter and our rotations weren't helped by Ball warming the pine, but considering I am not as courageous as you and cannot watch that game again, I'll bow to your judgement.

meher baba wrote:If we'd kicked a few more goals (and if Hawkins hadn't be awarded that ridiculous goal), we'd have won by a fair margin.

Dont know by a fair margin. never was that type of game, however we may well have been three + goals up at 3/4 time and that may have been enough.

Oh well always THIS YEAR

stinger · Post: # 873271Post **stinger** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 1:04pm

saint66au wrote:P

I'm very confident that the Club ARE moving on...and not going through the huge amount of inwards-looking angst that some on here are

not really.....just joining in the debate and trying to straighten out some poor souls who have a rw and b patch over one of their eyes.....i tell it like i see it...as do you......

BigMart · Post: # 873288Post **BigMart** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 1:30pm

Fair enough article.....I would like Ross to have his time over again and think about the decisions....

Pick 16, 30, 32, 63 would have been nice...

Milton66 · Post: # 873289Post **Milton66** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 1:31pm

Ball asked to be traded.

Club looked after it's own interests.

Club has stated that getting Walsh meant that pick 16 wasn't as important because they believe they have the equivalents of a 1st rounder in Tommy.

Saints did't trade on Ball because they didn't want a useless draft pick or a 3rd rate Scum reject.

No one would have picked what AL has done.

Had we kicked staright, we would have won the flag.

If Breen had missed, we wouldn't have won the flag.

If Fox was't the Prez, we wouldn't have a club to b1tch about.

Let's move on... 2010 isupon us. Time to reload and get excited.

People who get pleasure by dwelling on negatives can suit themselves.

Aloha!

stinger · Post: # 873294Post **stinger** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 1:38pm

BigMart wrote:Fair enough article.....I would like Ross to have his time over again and think about the decisions....

Pick 16, 30, 32, 63 would have been nice...

yes...it is a fair enough article.....i don't think you would see a solitary supporter from another club objecting to anything said there.....

and yes....those picks would have been nice.....anybody still trying to link pick 16 and tommy walsh are kidding themselves.....lovett had a history that should have made the club wary...it made me wary...and yes......they got bitten on the bum....

...but...once the season starts we can move on..

.till then, everyone is entitled to express their view and their disappoinment

Con Gorozidis · Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:29pm

BringBackMadDog wrote:
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!!!

if he so crap why didnt we take pick 25 for him ? seems like we would have been laughing to get 25 for such a dud?

i also wonder if RL's admission of error in the GF about Lukes game time was just PR Draft talk to talk Lukes value up pre trade week knowing full well he was going to be at the trading table for him....

All year RL acted like LB was a fringe player and then all of a sudden post GF - he starts saying how good a player he is. No wonder the Pies werent prepared to do a better deal than 25. Why should they when RL was clearly playing silly buggers with Luke all year???

Fact is Pies gave an honest pick for a guy who was a fringe player in a top teams 22 all year. Fact is we knocked it back.

Objectively what is a 25 year old guy on the fringe of a GF side worth at draft time? Im thinking matty stokes, kane tenace, david wojcinski, luke ball?

objectively where do u rate those guys? I mean noone picked up Tenace..... So i have no idea in what planet and using what criteria we thought we could get better than 25 for Luke Ball???

Anyone who calls me a troll or a pies sympathiser can bite me. Im sticking to facts.

Spinner · Post: # 873339Post **Spinner** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:34pm

saint66au wrote:People who pump up Luke Ball's GF performance forget one lil detail..

IT WAS PYSSING WITH RAIN!!

The conditions were totally tailor-made for Luke. If we couldnt have an impact on a day like that, with everyone reduced to his pace..then he might as well give it away

Might have been a whole different story if had been a fast track. I doubt he would have been selected.

His description of Trade Week was an over-simplification IMO. We had to play hard withy Collingwood? The alternative? Give in to the demands of a fellow Top-4 side? No thanks.

We took two calculated risks during that week. One was Andrew Lovett, the other playing hardball with the Pies and hope he didnt fall through to them during the draft. Both look likey to have failed..but hey thats footy. We've had a lot of good fortune in Trade Week of late (Schneider, King, Gardy) so the coin was probably destined to fall the other way sooner or later.

I'm very confident that the Club ARE moving on...and not going through the huge amount of inwards-looking angst that some on here are

Great post.

Spinner · Post: # 873340Post **Spinner** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:38pm

saint66au wrote:People who pump up Luke Ball's GF performance forget one lil detail..

IT WAS PYSSING WITH RAIN!!

The conditions were totally tailor-made for Luke. If we couldnt have an impact on a day like that, with everyone reduced to his pace..then he might as well give it away

Might have been a whole different story if had been a fast track. I doubt he would have been selected.

His description of Trade Week was an over-simplification IMO. We had to play hard withy Collingwood? The alternative? Give in to the demands of a fellow Top-4 side? No thanks.

We took two calculated risks during that week. One was Andrew Lovett, the other playing hardball with the Pies and hope he didnt fall through to them during the draft. Both look likey to have failed..but hey thats footy. We've had a lot of good fortune in Trade Week of late (Schneider, King, Gardy) so the coin was probably destined to fall the other way sooner or later.

I'm very confident that the Club ARE moving on...and not going through the huge amount of inwards-looking angst that some on here are

Great post.

I was really starting to think that everyone on this site saw only in black and white (pun not intended)

There is an element of grey within the real world, and decisions don't always end favorably. As long as the planning, and the decision making process is intellectual and reasonable....I can accept mistakes. This is the situation with both the Lovett and Ball situations....

Some people tend to only think with hindsight at their doorstep.

Con Gorozidis · Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:39pm

Spinner wrote:
saint66au wrote:People who pump up Luke Ball's GF performance forget one lil detail..

IT WAS PYSSING WITH RAIN!!

The conditions were totally tailor-made for Luke. If we couldnt have an impact on a day like that, with everyone reduced to his pace..then he might as well give it away

Might have been a whole different story if had been a fast track. I doubt he would have been selected.

His description of Trade Week was an over-simplification IMO. We had to play hard withy Collingwood? The alternative? Give in to the demands of a fellow Top-4 side? No thanks.

We took two calculated risks during that week. One was Andrew Lovett, the other playing hardball with the Pies and hope he didnt fall through to them during the draft. Both look likey to have failed..but hey thats footy. We've had a lot of good fortune in Trade Week of late (Schneider, King, Gardy) so the coin was probably destined to fall the other way sooner or later.

I'm very confident that the Club ARE moving on...and not going through the huge amount of inwards-looking angst that some on here are
maybe they were giving in to our demands for pick 25?
wouldnt you love a top class kid running around at training right now?

Great post.

joffaboy · Post: # 873344Post **joffaboy** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:41pm

Con Gorozidis wrote: maybe they were giving in to our demands for pick 25?
wouldnt you love a top class kid running around at training right now?

A top class kid @ #25?

In that draft?

Dreaming

Con Gorozidis · Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:50pm

joffaboy wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote: maybe they were giving in to our demands for pick 25?
wouldnt you love a top class kid running around at training right now?

A top class kid @ #25?

In that draft?

Dreaming

Susan Boyle dreamed a dream! Why cant I

degruch · Post: # 873348Post **degruch** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:50pm

joffaboy wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote: maybe they were giving in to our demands for pick 25?
wouldnt you love a top class kid running around at training right now?

A top class kid @ #25?

In that draft?

Dreaming

Who says we haven't got one out there right now...geez...do they have to be a top 10 pick to be top class? Have a bit of faith guys...this is a multi-million dollar business as well as a sporting club, I'm sure they're not looking for duds.

aussiejones · Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:50pm

People seem to forget the duds we have picked up in the past.
Need to concentrate on the positives now.

AL was a risk sure ......and a disappointment.

degruch · Post: # 873354Post **degruch** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 3:57pm

aussiejones wrote:People seem to forget the duds we have picked up in the past. Need to concentrate on the positives now.

People need to forget about the duds of the past...the club has moved on, it's a very different St Kilda, it's a very different game.

aussiejones · Tue 19 Jan 2010 4:01pm

Just saying ... a bit of perspective .......please

joffaboy · Post: # 873357Post **joffaboy** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 4:04pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:
joffaboy wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote: maybe they were giving in to our demands for pick 25?
wouldnt you love a top class kid running around at training right now?

A top class kid @ #25?

In that draft?

Dreaming
Susan Boyle dreamed a dream! Why cant I

lol - Susan Boyle for Luke Ball - hmmmmmmmmmm not a bad trade

Spinner · Post: # 873360Post **Spinner** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 4:30pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:
joffaboy wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote: maybe they were giving in to our demands for pick 25?
wouldnt you love a top class kid running around at training right now?

A top class kid @ #25?

In that draft?

Dreaming
Susan Boyle dreamed a dream! Why cant I

Brad Howard went at 27.

Enough said. If we had picked up Brad Howard with the pick given for Luke Ball, everyone in four years time would be sooking and crying why we took such little for him.

Or people can just assume we missed out on the next Hird.

Works any way you want it to.

Moods · Post: # 873363Post **Moods** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 4:32pm

[quote="saint66au"]People who pump up Luke Ball's GF performance forget one lil detail..

IT WAS PYSSING WITH RAIN!!

The conditions were totally tailor-made for Luke. If we couldnt have an impact on a day like that, with everyone reduced to his pace..then he might as well give it away

Might have been a whole different story if had been a fast track. I doubt he would have been selected.

quote]

Exactly right! People get hung up on the GF. It can either mask your inadequacies or players can be unfairly maligned as a result of the game. Everyone seems to refer to Ball's game in the GF. Yes, very important game. But as saints66 accurately points out. If he didn't play a good game with thise conditions he was never going to.

A more accurate reflection of Ball's season is gauged by our first two finals. Ball was a stady but hardly outstanding contrubutor, despite game time being down compared to the other mids. In actual fact if you held these games up against his reputation and his status that some on here seem to hold him at, you would have to say his form in the finals was poor until the GF.

Jason Gram is another whos reputation was enhanced by his GF performance. Now I have defended Grammy before and feel he's a very important player to our team, however his GF performance was not an accurate reflection of his year. He played far better in the GF than in any other game. A ton of work is put into the GF and many times an average player will get off the leash in the GF. Ball playing well and Gram playing well is more a reflection of the space these two players were afforded compared to others.

meher baba · Post: # 873378Post **meher baba** » Tue 19 Jan 2010 4:51pm

Milton66 wrote:Club has stated that getting Walsh meant that pick 16 wasn't as important because they believe they have the equivalents of a 1st rounder in Tommy.

Who said this exactly? I've read it several times on here and I reckon it is one of the oddest comments I've ever seen.

If someone at the club did say this, I would like to ask them whether they would also agree that, in a season in which a club gets a priority pick, it then doesn't matter what they do with their other first round pick.

I would have thought that Walsh was a significantly greater risk than one would normally wish to take with a first round draft pick: sure he looks like he's built right and has some of the necessary skills, but his not an AFL footballer yet and it is also possible - as has happened with other Irishmen - that he might decide that Australia is not for him and head back home.

That said, it is (alas) also true that Walsh currently looks far more likely to be playing AFL football at some time in the next 3 season than does AL.