Barrett HS article

[BringBackMadDog]

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.

Excellent post, this is exactly right, Ball was allowed to roam freely for the entire time he was on the ground because he isn't damaging when he has the pill. How quickly did they shut down Lenny and with arguably their second best midfielder?

[kosifantutti23]

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.

Yes it was a strange statement. I think it was made in the context that we didn't need to find an 18 year old gun with that pick but could trade it for an experienced player who could help immediately.

[degruch]

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.

Yes it was a strange statement. I think it was made in the context that we didn't need to find an 18 year old gun with that pick but could trade it for an experienced player who could help immediately.

The statement was attributed to Matthew Drain I believe, not that I've ever seen it in a news articles...only on here.

[Dr Spaceman]

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.

Yes it was a strange statement. I think it was made in the context that we didn't need to find an 18 year old gun with that pick but could trade it for an experienced player who could help immediately.

The statement was attributed to Matthew Drain I believe, not that I've ever seen it in a news articles...only on here.

I remember reading this at the time although I read it in the Herald Sun:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/st ... 5807290394

[vacuous space]

The statement was attributed to Matthew Drain I believe, not that I've ever seen it in a news articles...only on here.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/g ... 5788522154

"From our point of point of view it was one of the reasons we gave up pick 16 (for Andrew Lovett) because in the back of our mind we thought we could get him," Drain said.

[meher baba]

The statement was attributed to Matthew Drain I believe, not that I've ever seen it in a news articles...only on here.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/g ... 5788522154

"From our point of point of view it was one of the reasons we gave up pick 16 (for Andrew Lovett) because in the back of our mind we thought we could get him," Drain said.

Thanks VS

It remains a really odd comment IMO. Was he saying even then that the Lovett deal was a major gamble and that it was "hedged" in some way by the recruitment of Walsh? Surely you would always use your first round draft pick to get the best result possible, regardless of whether you believe you have picked up the best Irish rookie in the history of the universe.

Drain appears in the media a fair bit and he comes across as if he wants to be a wheeler-dealer in the player market in the manner of a UK Football manager.

I know many on here like this sort of approach, but it doesn't appeal to me much at all. I prefer the idea of building up a list patiently over several years, nurturing a group of players who work well together on and off the field: Geelong ATM, us until recently, the Lions in the late 90s/early 2000s.

I really hope that the also rather odd process by which we lost Ball and got nothing back wasn't overly influenced by Drain's "wheeler-dealer" proclivities.

Sure, we did pretty well (in net terms) with Schneider/Dempster/King/Gardiner and reasonably well with Ray. But the history of corporate and personal financial failures is filled with people who make a possibly lucky killing on their first outing in the market and then start believing that, and behaving as if, it was all down to their superior ability to pick winners (and consequently come a cropper).

I'm not wanting to be overly critical here. I still think Lovett was a reasonable gamble under the circumstances.

But I just don't get the connection with Walsh......

[Mr Magic]

I understood it to mean that we were so excited with the prospect of getting Walsh, who we consider to be at least the equivalent of a late round 1 pick (which is what 16 is) that we felt we didn't need to use pick 16 on another 'developmental' player, but instead could use it on an experienced player who could add something to the team immediately.

How many players chosen in the picks 13-20 over the last few years have had a significant impact on the top teams immesiately? (I'm not talking about teams on the bottom who are just trying to get games into talented youth and play them when they're not really ready).

[bobmurray]

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.....

Luke Ball wasn't picked up in the Pre Season draft....thats a glaring mistake right there......shoddy journalism...(Pick 30 in the National Draft)

[vacuous space]

Drain appears in the media a fair bit and he comes across as if he wants to be a wheeler-dealer in the player market in the manner of a UK Football manager.

There have been enough blunders at the list management level in the last few years that I'm really starting to have my doubts about Drain. I don't have a problem with his trades though. Resigning Howard to a 2-year deal and then promptly delisting him defies belief. Signing Leigh Fisher to a long-term deal when he was on the fringes doesn't seem to be very clever either. Even offering Luke Ball a 3-year deal doesn't strike me as wise given his injuries and declining play.

I wasn't against the Lovett deal, but I didn't see the need for Lovett. Even without him, and with Smith on the sidelines, we have 25 senior players 23-years old or older. We then have three highly touted first round picks, a couple of highly rated later picks (Stanley, Steven) and three elevated rookies who had significant gametime this year. That's 33 players by my count who would be pretty comfortable playing in the AFL.

Competition for spots is one thing. At some point, I worry that AFL-calibre players playing for Sandy get frustrated and walk out on the club. That's a lot easier to deal with if you have highly rated youngsters coming through. I would have kept the pick, taken Jasper Macmillan-Pittard, traded Ball and used the pick on Mitch Duncan. Our list managers chose to go another way. They obviously didn't rate this draft very highly. Time will tell if they're right. Let's hope they are.

[Teflon]

Drain appears in the media a fair bit and he comes across as if he wants to be a wheeler-dealer in the player market in the manner of a UK Football manager.

There have been enough blunders at the list management level in the last few years that I'm really starting to have my doubts about Drain. I don't have a problem with his trades though. Resigning Howard to a 2-year deal and then promptly delisting him defies belief. Signing Leigh Fisher to a long-term deal when he was on the fringes doesn't seem to be very clever either. Even offering Luke Ball a 3-year deal doesn't strike me as wise given his injuries and declining play.

I wasn't against the Lovett deal, but I didn't see the need for Lovett. Even without him, and with Smith on the sidelines, we have 25 senior players 23-years old or older. We then have three highly touted first round picks, a couple of highly rated later picks (Stanley, Steven) and three elevated rookies who had significant gametime this year. That's 33 players by my count who would be pretty comfortable playing in the AFL.

Competition for spots is one thing. At some point, I worry that AFL-calibre players playing for Sandy get frustrated and walk out on the club. That's a lot easier to deal with if you have highly rated youngsters coming through. I would have kept the pick, taken Jasper Macmillan-Pittard, traded Ball and used the pick on Mitch Duncan. Our list managers chose to go another way. They obviously didn't rate this draft very highly. Time will tell if they're right. Let's hope they are.

Cant agree with seeing no need for Lovett.

Its got little todo with his pace...more his ability to ball carry and to goal assist (let alone his very good finishing skills which for a mid....lets face it we struggle at times with...Hayes, Ball and Jones werent/arent reliable in front of goal and Joey makes me nervous...).

The need for Lovett was obvious....many friends commented to me he was just what Saints needed.....we just didnt need the othet shyte thats all.

[vacuous space]

Cant agree with seeing no need for Lovett.

I'm not saying that Lovett wouldn't have brought anything to the team or that we're better off without him. I'm saying that without Lovett, we're still a pretty good chance to win the flag, so I would have opted to bring in some quality youth instead of more experienced players.

[stinger]

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.

clear cut to me too......confirmed out of the coach's own mouth

[Dr Spaceman]

Drain appears in the media a fair bit and he comes across as if he wants to be a wheeler-dealer in the player market in the manner of a UK Football manager.

There have been enough blunders at the list management level in the last few years that I'm really starting to have my doubts about Drain. I don't have a problem with his trades though. Resigning Howard to a 2-year deal and then promptly delisting him defies belief. Signing Leigh Fisher to a long-term deal when he was on the fringes doesn't seem to be very clever either. Even offering Luke Ball a 3-year deal doesn't strike me as wise given his injuries and declining play.

I wasn't against the Lovett deal, but I didn't see the need for Lovett. Even without him, and with Smith on the sidelines, we have 25 senior players 23-years old or older. We then have three highly touted first round picks, a couple of highly rated later picks (Stanley, Steven) and three elevated rookies who had significant gametime this year. That's 33 players by my count who would be pretty comfortable playing in the AFL.

Competition for spots is one thing. At some point, I worry that AFL-calibre players playing for Sandy get frustrated and walk out on the club. That's a lot easier to deal with if you have highly rated youngsters coming through. I would have kept the pick, taken Jasper Macmillan-Pittard, traded Ball and used the pick on Mitch Duncan. Our list managers chose to go another way. They obviously didn't rate this draft very highly. Time will tell if they're right. Let's hope they are.

Cant agree with seeing no need for Lovett.

Its got little todo with his pace...more his ability to ball carry and to goal assist (let alone his very good finishing skills which for a mid....lets face it we struggle at times with...Hayes, Ball and Jones werent/arent reliable in front of goal and Joey makes me nervous...).

The need for Lovett was obvious....many friends commented to me he was just what Saints needed.....we just didnt need the othet shyte thats all.

Totally agree. Other teams have em but we struggle. And you're not gonna pick one up @ #16 in a weakened draft; certainly not one who is capable of having an immediate impact.

Of course that capability may never be put to use with us which sucks big time but nonetheless I'm fully in the court of those who supported the trade.

[stinger]

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.

Yes it was a strange statement. I think it was made in the context that we didn't need to find an 18 year old gun with that pick but could trade it for an experienced player who could help immediately.

The statement was attributed to Matthew Drain I believe, not that I've ever seen it in a news articles...only on here.

I remember reading this at the time although I read it in the Herald Sun:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/st ... 5807290394

it's called...in biz. speaK...'COVERING YOUR ARSE".

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Meh.

The only line I would take umbrage with is:

In trade week, St Kilda refused to deal with Collingwood, which ultimately saw Ball become a Magpie (via the pre-season draft) for nothing in exchange.

There was no refusal to deal with Collingwood. We just couldn't reach an acceptable agreement.

He might have also mentioned that in an injury free season, Ball could only manage to finish equal 17th in the Saintsational Player of the year award.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b ... 5820991611

so ball was 17th in saintsational player award.
was dropped in round 16 and the coach publicly discussed the weakneses he needed to work on.
was played mainly off the bench: BUT
the coach would not accept pick 25 for him cos he was too good and he wanted fair value.

Well put, Con. Well Put.

[chook23]

Meh.

The only line I would take umbrage with is:

In trade week, St Kilda refused to deal with Collingwood, which ultimately saw Ball become a Magpie (via the pre-season draft) for nothing in exchange.

There was no refusal to deal with Collingwood. We just couldn't reach an acceptable agreement.

He might have also mentioned that in an injury free season, Ball could only manage to finish equal 17th in the Saintsational Player of the year award.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b ... 5820991611

so ball was 17th in saintsational player award.
was dropped in round 16 and the coach publicly discussed the weakneses he needed to work on.
was played mainly off the bench: BUT
the coach would not accept pick 25 for him cos he was too good and he wanted fair value.

Well put, Con. Well Put.

forum votes to be used in your points

Dalsanto was dropped.............so on that bases you would accept pick 23+

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Hell no, especially since he was only left out (a week after getting 27 possessions) for not doing some of the "team things", not because of much harder things to "fix" such as a serious lack of pace, a history of crippling injuries and an inability to kick with penetration, etc. He was also playing a full game (so to speak) every week at the time. This year Ball was not. Not even close.
So to make that comparison is ridiculous.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Article's done exactly what it was supposed to, it's generated a bit of discussion amongst Saints supporters without needing to present anything new.

Would they love their time over, knowing what they know now? Pffft, of course.

Thing is, I'd bet that what they'd really like is for Andrew Lovett to have his time over, and not end up under investigation for rape. I'd bet that what they'd really like is for an extra week to work out a more amicable solution to the Ball scenario as they were trying to do with North (the guys who actually held the much vaunted pick 25) and the Bulldogs (who allegedly refused a pick 25 for Everitt swap, and told us to hunt pick 22 or higher).

Unless getting their time over included prescience, I'd bet that the Saints would do exactly the same thing, that they wouldn't consider the 2 disasters to be the result of bad decisions, but worst possible outcomes from their strategy.

[BigMart]

You cannot comment on a draft pick.....it does not guarantee a successful or unsuccessful player.....which most on here are arguing about.....and it's pointless giving examples, there are a thousand to prove either pov right

what going to the draft does do is give you an OPPORTUNITY to pick a player.......having NO pick makes drafting a success story an impossibility....

the order of your pick......makes the odds of picking a player better.....but it's always a gamble......but NOT having a pick is a bigger gamble, because you gauranteed NOT to get a successful player

[plugger66]

You cannot comment on a draft pick.....it does not guarantee a successful or unsuccessful player.....which most on here are arguing about.....and it's pointless giving examples, there are a thousand to prove either pov right

what going to the draft does do is give you an OPPORTUNITY to pick a player.......having NO pick makes drafting a success story an impossibility....

the order of your pick......makes the odds of picking a player better.....but it's always a gamble......but NOT having a pick is a bigger gamble, because you gauranteed NOT to get a successful player

So we shouldnt have traded for Gehrig, Hamill and any other player we traded for because we have lost os draft pick.

[Moods]

You cannot comment on a draft pick.....it does not guarantee a successful or unsuccessful player.....which most on here are arguing about.....and it's pointless giving examples, there are a thousand to prove either pov right

what going to the draft does do is give you an OPPORTUNITY to pick a player.......having NO pick makes drafting a success story an impossibility....

the order of your pick......makes the odds of picking a player better.....but it's always a gamble......but NOT having a pick is a bigger gamble, because you gauranteed NOT to get a successful player

So we shouldnt have traded for Gehrig, Hamill and any other player we traded for because we have lost os draft pick.

No. Not if that player is 27yrs old. Has a history of trouble. Also has a history of laziness as well as inconsistency. Have we ever traded a first rounder for that type of player before?

[chook23]

You cannot comment on a draft pick.....it does not guarantee a successful or unsuccessful player.....which most on here are arguing about.....and it's pointless giving examples, there are a thousand to prove either pov right

what going to the draft does do is give you an OPPORTUNITY to pick a player.......having NO pick makes drafting a success story an impossibility....

the order of your pick......makes the odds of picking a player better.....but it's always a gamble......but NOT having a pick is a bigger gamble, because you gauranteed NOT to get a successful player

all fair and good bigmart but clubs also do trade that possibility for an established player....they work and don't work out as well..........

Ball not traded (not aware of all the reasons) not involved in any of the parties concerned... I presume (aftertrade deadline)in the end there was hope that he may stay like O'Keeffe did.........but he did not and we missed out on that "OPPORTUNITY"

Lovett at this stage appears to be the latter ...we traded the OPPORTUNITY
for a ready made player that suited a need,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what he has alleged to to have done could not have been expected to have bee seen in a 'glass bowl'

[meher baba]

Article's done exactly what it was supposed to, it's generated a bit of discussion amongst Saints supporters without needing to present anything new.

Would they love their time over, knowing what they know now? Pffft, of course.

Thing is, I'd bet that what they'd really like is for Andrew Lovett to have his time over, and not end up under investigation for rape. I'd bet that what they'd really like is for an extra week to work out a more amicable solution to the Ball scenario as they were trying to do with North (the guys who actually held the much vaunted pick 25) and the Bulldogs (who allegedly refused a pick 25 for Everitt swap, and told us to hunt pick 22 or higher).

Unless getting their time over included prescience, I'd bet that the Saints would do exactly the same thing, that they wouldn't consider the 2 disasters to be the result of bad decisions, but worst possible outcomes from their strategy.

Well, of course the loss of Ball and the seeming non-arrival of Lovett are not "disasters".

As was the case when Brooks went bad and Watts went bad and Brad Howard wasn't worth pick 27 and etc., we had more than enough strength in our list to remain a top club throughout that period.

And we will almost certainly be one of the top clubs again this season.

I don't personally care so much about the fact that we got nothing for Ball in the end than I do about the nagging feeling I can't get rid of that the club wasn't really prepared to make more than a token effort to hang onto him. Even with his limitations, I think he was a required player in 2010 and I think others will have to lift to take up the slack in order to prevent us from going backwards.

I know a lot of other posters on here think Ball is "crap", a "waste of space" and so forth (well, at least, this is what they keep posting). And it would seem that the coach is not an enormous fan.

I disagree. I think Ball as a player and a man was a pretty important element in the "ecology" of the playing group and I am nervous about the impact his departure will have.

The recruitment of Lovett excited me and I thought (although a different sort of player) he could help to compensate for the damage done by the loss of Ball. I don't agree with some of the posters on here who suggest that Lovett is overrated. I reckon he's a gun.

I also don't see how the club could foresee what happened on Xmas Eve. I think everyone expected Lovett to continue to make minor transgressions like the "caught drinking" incident. But to be accused of such a reprehensible and inexcusable form of sexual assault? Nobody could have predicted that.

So the Ball and Lovett affairs have, it would seem, left us the poorer. And I think - in combination - they outrate the bad recruitment outcomes from past off-seasons: you have to go back to the Timmy Watson era to find such a severe net blow to the collective talent pool at the club.

But, as you say, not a "disaster". Just a rotten outcome.

[shmic_s]

what they'd really like is for Andrew Lovett to have his time over

but worst possible outcomes from their strategy.

Well said BAM.

We should still be pushing for a flag this year. We have a great list, with strong leaders. We have plenty of young 'talet' coming through the ranks. And we have a young irishmen training with us who could be anything.

Our recruitment guys would've looked at the worst case scenario. Just so happens that its the scenario that has played out. Was it the wrong choice... who knows, just bring on season 2010.

[plugger66]

You cannot comment on a draft pick.....it does not guarantee a successful or unsuccessful player.....which most on here are arguing about.....and it's pointless giving examples, there are a thousand to prove either pov right

what going to the draft does do is give you an OPPORTUNITY to pick a player.......having NO pick makes drafting a success story an impossibility....

the order of your pick......makes the odds of picking a player better.....but it's always a gamble......but NOT having a pick is a bigger gamble, because you gauranteed NOT to get a successful player

So we shouldnt have traded for Gehrig, Hamill and any other player we traded for because we have lost os draft pick.

No. Not if that player is 27yrs old. Has a history of trouble. Also has a history of laziness as well as inconsistency. Have we ever traded a first rounder for that type of player before?

It may be a first round but it was pick 16 in a very weak draft. maybe our recruiters said that any player going that late is probably not going to make it or if he does he will just be a GOP. Lets face it we are in our window of opportunity right now and if Lovett had come off it might have been the difference between winning a flag and not winning one. Pick 16 last year wouldnt have been the difference you would think.