Good run with injury in '09 no accident

[stinger]

SURE, BE PISSED OFF AS WE ALL ARE, BUT I HAVENT HEARD ANYONE EVER SAY THAT LUKE BALL WAS GOING TO BE THE DIFFERENCE

i could say that that's only because you don't listen......, or don't get out much...but good manners dictate that i keep that to myself.....


he was the difference in the geelong game ffs....

....and don't shout ffs...it's bad manners ...on your part...

Ball, for once in far to long, was extremely effective when he was on the ground on GF day.

But THE difference?

Reckon Schneider, Milne, Mini et al missing when they should not have was probably THE telling factor all said and done.

probably true....but after they missed would have been good to have our better players on the ground and not getting splinters in their arse.....imhfo,that is....

[joffaboy]

Too black and white JB. Haven't you ever "voluntarily" walked out on a job where you were made so uncomfortable that you felt you had no choice but to go. I have, and my employer told the media (i was a very minor sort of celebrity in a specialized field) that I chose to go. But I didn't really.

This is just BS.

Felt uncomfortable - like starting in the middle of a GF

No choice but to go - 3 year deal in June

Not traded and encouraged to stay before the draft.

Walked out of the Saints.

In Lyons words - was never traded or delisted.

Then manipulated the draft so he would get paid his mandatory $500k.

if you dont think it was all about money - you dont live in the real world.

BTW - that is not bad, but just admit it Luke Ball, dont umm and ahh when asked why you left the Saints, just say, they wouldn't offer my what my huge private schoolboy sense of entitlement deems I am worth.

No drama there, but Ball left for money.

Nothing else was an issue.

And the last bit of your post - are you inferring Lyon is a liar?

Please answer - yes or no.

[stinger]

SURE, BE PISSED OFF AS WE ALL ARE, BUT I HAVENT HEARD ANYONE EVER SAY THAT LUKE BALL WAS GOING TO BE THE DIFFERENCE

i could say that that's only because you don't listen......,

....and don't shout ffs...it's bad manners ...on your part...

SOR..sorry

accepted

[Milton66]

Can anyone state categorically that Ball was fit enough to play more game time?

This is the thing that gets me with these debates...

What difference would Ball have made exactly? It's all good and proper to make rash statements... but how about some alternative scenarios?

FFS, we were in front and as I recall doing plenty of attacking up until the last few minutes.

In the last, it was our fwds who couldn't capitalise. The fwd 50 entries were there.

So can someone for the life of tell when exactly should Ball have been put back on, if we were going ok?

Had we been down by a few goals with 15 minutes togo, then throw caution to the wind by all means. But the FACT remains that up until afew minuutes to go, we were in front.

I repeat: A lack of entry into our fwd fifty did not cost us the game.

And people accuse me of arguning just for the sake of it.

Anyone who believes that giving Ball more game time would have won us the game are either on another planet... or simply cannot find anything with substance to hang on Lyon.

And to argue that it would have been better to take Shceids, Milne and Mini off after they missed is just as crazy. Yup, they did their job and provided opportunities... so take em off.

IIRC, didn't Luke get a run this year as asmall fwd? If so, how did he go?

[Milton66]

And the last bit of your post - are you inferring Lyon is a liar?

Please answer - yes or no.

I guess we'll have to find out when Lyon retires and starts work on radio... and hopefully he'll be as forthcoming as GT and admit his lies.



I was once taught when speaking in public that you never make a statement, and them follow up with a "but"... because it totally dismisses the validity of of the previous statement.

Yet all I'm seeing is "Oh I like Ross Lyon... BUT..."

[PJ]

It's pretty simple really - if you follow the Ball was hard done by theory then go support Collingwood.

Anything else is pure speculative bitchery. Not honest and open criticism just a bunch of malcontents venting there spleens. Who cares whether you like lyon or not - if you have any facts that support the poor ol' Luke hypothesis stick em in a mailbag and send to "Who gives a f*ck".

The emotional cloud around here surrounding the departure of a few couldn't cut it or don't fit the game plan players is really getting on the nose.

We have a seriously good team and a coach with a plan what have you got?

[joffaboy]

It's pretty simple really - if you follow the Ball was hard done by theory then go support Collingwood.

Anything else is pure speculative bitchery. Not honest and open criticism just a bunch of malcontents venting there spleens. Who cares whether you like lyon or not - if you have any facts that support the poor ol' Luke hypothesis stick em in a mailbag and send to "Who gives a f*ck".

The emotional cloud around here surrounding the departure of a few couldn't cut it or don't fit the game plan players is really getting on the nose.

We have a seriously good team and a coach with a plan what have you got?

+1.

Absolute fact is that Luke Moneybags Ball was only scheduled to play half a game because, as a poster who had this confirmed by STKFC coaching staff, the boy cant run.

He wouldn't hasve made a difference. We looked slow in qtr 4 and he would have made us look treacle.

he wasn't anywhere near BOG in the first half. Grams was better and so was Lenny.

His touches were because he wasn't tagged, because his possessions wont hurt a team.

He wasn't feited like a prodigal son, sooked at Sandi (I saw him moping around in the reserves there, absolutely pathetic it was) then demanded his entitlement as the private schoolboy he is - more money and more game time than he was worth.

How some posters here can still defend a Collingwood player and pretend to be a Saints fan is beyond me.

as pj said, go and support Ball at Collingwood if you love him so much.

[SainterK]

I will not agree that he no longer was valued by the club.

He could of had a good career at the Saints, he was still of value to us as a burst player. Funny that, how the coaches seemed to groom him for this new modified role that required less TOG with high impact.

Now the point we should discuss is if he was satisfied to play that role. The irony with humility, is that you need to be strong.

[Milton66]

It's pretty simple really - if you follow the Ball was hard done by theory then go support Collingwood.

Anything else is pure speculative bitchery. Not honest and open criticism just a bunch of malcontents venting there spleens. Who cares whether you like lyon or not - if you have any facts that support the poor ol' Luke hypothesis stick em in a mailbag and send to "Who gives a f*ck".

The emotional cloud around here surrounding the departure of a few couldn't cut it or don't fit the game plan players is really getting on the nose.

We have a seriously good team and a coach with a plan what have you got?

Well said. Better you than me.

Although it would probably be more expected from em than you.

Club is bigger than any individual IMO.

I'd like to know exactly what Lyon should have done. In other words, let the tail wag the dog. Boy hasn't that approach delivered us a cabinet full of trophies.

[matrix]

heavens forbid if he has a half decent game against us and kicks a couple


the place will go bananas

[SainterK]

heavens forbid if he has a half decent game against us and kicks a couple


the place will go bananas

I am confident he will have many great games actually, not so confident on him kicking a couple though

[meher baba]

Too black and white JB. Haven't you ever "voluntarily" walked out on a job where you were made so uncomfortable that you felt you had no choice but to go. I have, and my employer told the media (i was a very minor sort of celebrity in a specialized field) that I chose to go. But I didn't really.

This is just BS.

Felt uncomfortable - like starting in the middle of a GF

No choice but to go - 3 year deal in June

Not traded and encouraged to stay before the draft.

Walked out of the Saints.

In Lyons words - was never traded or delisted.

Then manipulated the draft so he would get paid his mandatory $500k.

if you dont think it was all about money - you dont live in the real world.

BTW - that is not bad, but just admit it Luke Ball, dont umm and ahh when asked why you left the Saints, just say, they wouldn't offer my what my huge private schoolboy sense of entitlement deems I am worth.

No drama there, but Ball left for money.

Nothing else was an issue.

And the last bit of your post - are you inferring Lyon is a liar?

Please answer - yes or no.

What is truth? said Pilate.

Yes, it is true - strictly speaking - that Luke "walked out" on the club. So Lyon was not lying. He is very clever at only answering the precise question put to him: which I very much admire.

All I'm suggesting is that, while it is certainly true that Ball put his hand up and said he wanted out, there is clearly more to the story. And your statement that it was because he wanted $500k per annum because he went to a private school (!?) doesn't explain it all to me.

It makes more sense to me that he didn't want to take a large pay drop and (uin his view) to be treated like s$&t by the club. Studies have shown that employees are far less likely to leave organizations for more $$$ elsewhere if they feel valued where they are.

What sort of messages did the club send Ball in the second half of 2009? Would he have felt valued, respected as a senior player and loyal servant of the club? Would anything the club did over that time make Collingwood's offer to him look unattractive when it came?

To me, the whole story looks fairly straightforward to me. And, unlike others, I'm blaming neither the club nor Ball. It's just a case of conflicting priorities. I'm just hoping that the club's priorities turn out to be right.

[plugger66]

The question that really needs to be asked is was our run with injuries no accident. Well apparently that is the topic.

[markp]

The question that really needs to be asked is was our run with injuries no accident. Well apparently that is the topic.

Should have an agreed answer by about page 35 (which will probably be a tentative 'maybe')....

[joffaboy]

Yes, it is true - strictly speaking - that Luke "walked out" on the club. So Lyon was not lying. He is very clever at only answering the precise question put to him: which I very much admire.

What was the presise question put to him? he volunteered that answer.

All I'm suggesting is that, while it is certainly true that Ball put his hand up and said he wanted out, there is clearly more to the story. And your statement that it was because he wanted $500k per annum because he went to a private school (!?) doesn't explain it all to me.

A huge sense of entitlement comes from being told how great you are. When you are told that you aren't as good as you have been told, and you have to be better, and you DONT deserve your huge paypacket because you cant do what is required - well that comes from the upper crust private schoolboy ethos.

It makes more sense to me that he didn't want to take a large pay drop and (uin his view) to be treated like s$&t by the club.

As I said no problem with trying to get more money - just tell it as it is. How did the club treat him like s.hit? By asking him to work on his game in the reserves? Well you may be correct because he was hangdog and really not interested when playing for the Scorps. I went to the huddle a few times while he was playing there and all he did was sulk in the background - never a word, no encouragement, when spoken to wouldn't comment.

And the club continued to tread his like s.hit by selecting him in the Grand Final team

Studies have shown that employees are far less likely to leave organizations for more $$$ elsewhere if they feel valued where they are.

Studies have shown that football team are far less like to win a flag if allthe players aren't doing what is required by the coach.

Anyway what is your studies salary base rate based on? half million a year compared to 350k a year?

Football is not just any old job. it is very highly paid for a very short time, so I dont blame Ball wanting to get more money for the short time he has left. Cain Ackland did the same thing.

What sort of messages did the club send Ball in the second half of 2009?

To work harder and do what is required by the team?

Would he have felt valued, respected as a senior player and loyal servant of the club?

probably not because he is the only player ever dropped in AFL football. What a thing to do to a player who cant do what is required by the coach. After all he was a loyalt servant (debateable, $600k a year certainly made him loyal).

How did Milne and Dal Santo respond to being dropped? How did Armo play in his one and only game during the year? Did he mope because he couldn't get a gig?

What a precious little flower you make Ball out to be.

Would anything the club did over that time make Collingwood's offer to him look unattractive when it came?

You mean like offer him a THREE YEAR contract and select him to play in the Grand Final.

Yeah really shoved it up him didn't they?

To me, the whole story looks fairly straightforward to me. And, unlike others, I'm blaming neither the club nor Ball. It's just a case of conflicting priorities. I'm just hoping that the club's priorities turn out to be right.

Conflicting Salary Cap issues you mean. A bloke offered a million dollar contract in June, gets it leaked to Denham that Collingwood is offering $500k a year in August, plays in the finals and Grand Final, then walks out on the club because he can get more money, but tries to smokescreen and deflect, and tries to blame the club.

But you keep supporting a Collingwood player, I prefer to support the likes of players who earn their money at the Saints like Roo, and Lenny, and bj. Blokes who have not walked out on the claub when the going got tough.

Enjoy barracking for Ball at Collingwood because apparently you dont support the Saints as a team but individual players.

[rodgerfox]

Can anyone state categorically that Ball was fit enough to play more game time?

This is the thing that gets me with these debates...

What difference would Ball have made exactly? It's all good and proper to make rash statements... but how about some alternative scenarios?

FFS, we were in front and as I recall doing plenty of attacking up until the last few minutes.

In the last, it was our fwds who couldn't capitalise. The fwd 50 entries were there.

So can someone for the life of tell when exactly should Ball have been put back on, if we were going ok?

Had we been down by a few goals with 15 minutes togo, then throw caution to the wind by all means. But the FACT remains that up until afew minuutes to go, we were in front.

I repeat: A lack of entry into our fwd fifty did not cost us the game.

And people accuse me of arguning just for the sake of it.

Anyone who believes that giving Ball more game time would have won us the game are either on another planet... or simply cannot find anything with substance to hang on Lyon.

And to argue that it would have been better to take Shceids, Milne and Mini off after they missed is just as crazy. Yup, they did their job and provided opportunities... so take em off.

You do realise that Lyon conceded he erred in not giving Ball more 2nd half game time?

[meher baba]

The question that really needs to be asked is was our run with injuries no accident. Well apparently that is the topic.

All right, I can have a go at giving you a definitive answer on this, although I don't think too many on here agree with my line on it.

First of all, I'm not sure that we did have such a great run with injuries in 2009: X out for the season, Allen out for the season, Dempster out for the first half, Maguire failed to recover properly, Leigh Fisher was a crock a lot of the time, Max struggled, Ball struggled, Riewoldt got injured at a crucial time and battled on, etc., etc.

The good news about all of these injuries is that most of them - other than Riewoldt's right at the end of the season - didn't affect our on-field performance all that much: we could field one of the best 22s in the competition without most of these players. If it had been BJ, Lenny, Dal and Kosi rather than X, Dempster, Allen and Goose it might have been a different story.

Secondly, our on-field perfromances were so good that we had the luxury of being able to rest players who were a bit proppy, or nurse them through games with reduced game time. We didn't have this luxury in 2004-08, where we were generally struggling to ensure a spot in the top 4 or top 8 until Round 21 or 22.

Thirdly, Misson does seem to have made some sort of a difference at the margins: certainly we aren't seeing hamstrings pop with the regulariity that they once did (however, do remember that X - the main culprit/victim in the hamstring saga - only turned out for 8 senior games in the two years that Misson has been at the club, so we haven't as much opportunity to see his hamstrings go during games as we once did). However, to be fair to Misson, he does seem to have done wonders with Kosi.

However, I come back to my point that its the big collision/awkward landing injuries - the major knee ligament injuries, the broken collarbones and the like - that really stuff up your list, and I do not believe that there is anything that a fitness/conditioning coach can really do to prevent these. The law of averages says that a club will experience between 1 and 5 of these per season: we had one bad one last year - X - plus the hangover effect of Dempster and Allen from the season before. It is my view that clubs which play regularly on poor surfaces like the Dome (slippery) or Subi (like cement) will experience far more of these injuries than those who play more often on the relatively lush pastures of the MCG and SCG.

I sincerely hope I am wrong about this and that Misson really does have the magic formula to elminate ACLs, PCLs and the like from our club. But, alas, I doubt it.

[rodgerfox]

I'm alarmed by a couple of things in this discussion....

1) The comments suggesting that players and coaches are honest in the media. "Is Ross Lyon a liar?"
Of course he is.

Has he ever lied or to the public via the media? Of course he has.

Fair dinkum. How incredibly naive.

2) Has Luke Ball 'fed us empty words' via the media??

Derrr. Of course he has.

Players, coaches, officials etc. just want a job. How do you get a job in football, or keep one?
2 ways.....win flags and/or keep the 'footy public' happy. They'll tell 'you' anything you want to hear.

One club wins the flag each year, the others are losers. The only way to keep the suckers putting their hands in their pockets is to feed them hope.

Players, coaches, officials lie through their teeth to the press. Those in the public who choose to believe it - are well, quite stupid really.
Take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Roo did an ACL in the pre-season last year. Remember what the club's comments were? "He's fine".

Lie.

Aaron Hamill, 2 weeks anyone?

Ben Cousins outside our recruitment policy??

I could go on, and on and on.

[rodgerfox]

Studies have shown that football team are far less like to win a flag if allthe players aren't doing what is required by the coach.

Got a copy of these 'studies'?

[Milton66]

Can anyone state categorically that Ball was fit enough to play more game time?

This is the thing that gets me with these debates...

What difference would Ball have made exactly? It's all good and proper to make rash statements... but how about some alternative scenarios?

FFS, we were in front and as I recall doing plenty of attacking up until the last few minutes.

In the last, it was our fwds who couldn't capitalise. The fwd 50 entries were there.

So can someone for the life of tell when exactly should Ball have been put back on, if we were going ok?

Had we been down by a few goals with 15 minutes togo, then throw caution to the wind by all means. But the FACT remains that up until afew minuutes to go, we were in front.

I repeat: A lack of entry into our fwd fifty did not cost us the game.

And people accuse me of arguning just for the sake of it.

Anyone who believes that giving Ball more game time would have won us the game are either on another planet... or simply cannot find anything with substance to hang on Lyon.

And to argue that it would have been better to take Shceids, Milne and Mini off after they missed is just as crazy. Yup, they did their job and provided opportunities... so take em off.

You do realise that Lyon conceded he erred in not giving Ball more 2nd half game time?

Did he concede that he he should have, or that he could have? And I'm not being smart here.

And feel to tell how that would have changed the game, btw. Let's not pick semantics... how about some real alternative solutions.

[meher baba]

Can anyone state categorically that Ball was fit enough to play more game time?

This is the thing that gets me with these debates...

What difference would Ball have made exactly? It's all good and proper to make rash statements... but how about some alternative scenarios?

FFS, we were in front and as I recall doing plenty of attacking up until the last few minutes.

In the last, it was our fwds who couldn't capitalise. The fwd 50 entries were there.

So can someone for the life of tell when exactly should Ball have been put back on, if we were going ok?

Had we been down by a few goals with 15 minutes togo, then throw caution to the wind by all means. But the FACT remains that up until afew minuutes to go, we were in front.

I repeat: A lack of entry into our fwd fifty did not cost us the game.

And people accuse me of arguning just for the sake of it.

Anyone who believes that giving Ball more game time would have won us the game are either on another planet... or simply cannot find anything with substance to hang on Lyon.

And to argue that it would have been better to take Shceids, Milne and Mini off after they missed is just as crazy. Yup, they did their job and provided opportunities... so take em off.

You do realise that Lyon conceded he erred in not giving Ball more 2nd half game time?

Did he concede that he he should have, or that he could have? And I'm not being smart here.

And feel to tell how that would have changed the game, btw. Let's not pick semantics... how about some real alternative solutions.

I've never been quite sure what that comment of Lyon's was all about. He seemed to be saying that he was incorrectly advised by the guy managing the bench that Ball wasn't fit enough to go back on.

I accept that this might have been what happened , or that Lyon doesn't quite have the courage of his convictions to state publicly "I made the decision that Ball wouldn't be used much in the second half and stuck to it" and therefore adopted the tried and true leadership strategy of saying "if it isn't what I wanted, it isn't what I asked for".

As for whether or not Ball playing more game time would have made a difference, I don't think anyone can really say. It couldn't possibly have made as much difference as Milne, Dempster, Schneider, Mini, etc kicking more of those gettable shots on goal.

But most coaches would certainly have tried Ball again in the final quarter. You must admit that Lyon's decision not to do this was extremely unusual under the circumstances.

[rodgerfox]

Absolute fact is that Luke Moneybags Ball was only scheduled to play half a game because, as a poster who had this confirmed by STKFC coaching staff, the boy cant run.

Fact?

That's not what Lyon said after the game.

So, was he lying, or are you?

[Moods]

The question that really needs to be asked is was our run with injuries no accident. Well apparently that is the topic.

All right, I can have a go at giving you a definitive answer on this, although I don't think too many on here agree with my line on it.

First of all, I'm not sure that we did have such a great run with injuries in 2009: X out for the season, Allen out for the season, Dempster out for the first half, Maguire failed to recover properly, Leigh Fisher was a crock a lot of the time, Max struggled, Ball struggled, Riewoldt got injured at a crucial time and battled on, etc., etc.

The good news about all of these injuries is that most of them - other than Riewoldt's right at the end of the season - didn't affect our on-field performance all that much: we could field one of the best 22s in the competition without most of these players. If it had been BJ, Lenny, Dal and Kosi rather than X, Dempster, Allen and Goose it might have been a different story.

Secondly, our on-field perfromances were so good that we had the luxury of being able to rest players who were a bit proppy, or nurse them through games with reduced game time. We didn't have this luxury in 2004-08, where we were generally struggling to ensure a spot in the top 4 or top 8 until Round 21 or 22.

Thirdly, Misson does seem to have made some sort of a difference at the margins: certainly we aren't seeing hamstrings pop with the regulariity that they once did (however, do remember that X - the main culprit/victim in the hamstring saga - only turned out for 8 senior games in the two years that Misson has been at the club, so we haven't as much opportunity to see his hamstrings go during games as we once did). However, to be fair to Misson, he does seem to have done wonders with Kosi.

However, I come back to my point that its the big collision/awkward landing injuries - the major knee ligament injuries, the broken collarbones and the like - that really stuff up your list, and I do not believe that there is anything that a fitness/conditioning coach can really do to prevent these. The law of averages says that a club will experience between 1 and 5 of these per season: we had one bad one last year - X - plus the hangover effect of Dempster and Allen from the season before. It is my view that clubs which play regularly on poor surfaces like the Dome (slippery) or Subi (like cement) will experience far more of these injuries than those who play more often on the relatively lush pastures of the MCG and SCG.

I sincerely hope I am wrong about this and that Misson really does have the magic formula to elminate ACLs, PCLs and the like from our club. But, alas, I doubt it.

Not a bad analysis. However I don't buy into this surface thing re injuries. The surface at the dome WAS terrible about 6-7 years ago. Now the surface is fine and no more slippery than every other ground. You don't see players slipping around on it any more than other grounds I reckon. Kangaroos have a great record with injuries over a 5 yr period and play on Etihad nearly as much as us.

Just finished reading that Collingwood book (side by side) which basically goes through their whole year from an insiders point of view. Very self serving as you would expect but some very interesting parts in it.

Their fitness guy, Dave Buttifant points out that the aim of his department isn't necessarily to play safe with injuries, but to do everything poss to get the best players out on the paddock. Didak tore a hammy mid year as they were pushing the envelope too much with him when he had a niggle. My point is the best fitness ppl get the best players out on the paddock in the shortest time frame. It's a fine balancing act. It means complete trust b/w the coaches and the fitness ppl that each are doing their job competently and an acknowledgement that players will get injured - including soft tissue injuries. Managing those injuries is part of the skill. A big part. Something which Misson did very well last year.

Misson is no more a guru than many of the other highly educated sports scence ppl in AFL - however he has brought to the club a level of professionalism that the saints have probably never seen. THis is in part b/c of what Lyon demands, and also b/c of the current board prepared to pay the extra dollars.

In answer to the O.P. I would argue our run with injury last year appears to be no accident. However I wouldn't say this definitively until maybe 2 or 3 more years under his guidance. Who knows? Maybe Misson got lucky last year. His history though suggests that he's always lucky

[Milton66]

I'm alarmed by a couple of things in this discussion....

1) The comments suggesting that players and coaches are honest in the media. "Is Ross Lyon a liar?"
Of course he is.

Has he ever lied or to the public via the media? Of course he has.

Fair dinkum. How incredibly naive.

2) Has Luke Ball 'fed us empty words' via the media??

Derrr. Of course he has.

Players, coaches, officials etc. just want a job. How do you get a job in football, or keep one?
2 ways.....win flags and/or keep the 'footy public' happy. They'll tell 'you' anything you want to hear.

One club wins the flag each year, the others are losers. The only way to keep the suckers putting their hands in their pockets is to feed them hope.

Players, coaches, officials lie through their teeth to the press. Those in the public who choose to believe it - are well, quite stupid really.
Take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Roo did an ACL in the pre-season last year. Remember what the club's comments were? "He's fine".

Lie.

Aaron Hamill, 2 weeks anyone?

Ben Cousins outside our recruitment policy??

I could go on, and on and on.

Grant Thomas "we followed the process to appoint me". Lie.

Overall, that's a a fair and reasonable assessment. I will add the following:

A club's marketing dept is there to sell hope. Membership sales are a by product of effective marketing messages. People want to be associated with winners. The average punter wants hope that he can go along and see his team win... which in turn gives him reassurance that he's ok.

That's a general assessment, I must add, but for many it is probably the case.

I write sales copy every day, and my purpose is to appeal to people's emotions and not logic. I don't lie. I paint the picture in an appealing way. I suggest that clubs do the same before resorting to outright lies.

Footy is now a high stakes financial game, so rightly or wrongly, there are many considerations to make before sending out an announcement.

No doubt both club and player are safeguarding their interests, which is why we get a no comment or an answer that avoids answering the question.

[joffaboy]

I've never been quite sure what that comment of Lyon's was all about. He seemed to be saying that he was incorrectly advised by the guy managing the bench that Ball wasn't fit enough to go back on.

I agree because it is common knowledge that Ball was only going to get half a game because he cant run.

My beef is selecting him in the first place. Why not select Armo who would at least give us four on the bench all game. By chosing Ball we effectively hade three on the bench in the second half.

The Cats ran over us in the 4th quarter. Maybe with a fresher bloke who could do the job required on the bench we may have had more options.

Iaccept that this might have been what happened , or that Lyon doesn't quite have the courage of his convictions to state publicly "I made the decision that Ball wouldn't be used much in the second half and stuck to it" and therefore adopted the tried and true leadership strategy of saying "if it isn't what I wanted, it isn't what I asked for".

Considering this is true, thats what should have happened. Ball's selection was a big mistake.

As for whether or not Ball playing more game time would have made a difference, I don't think anyone can really say. It couldn't possibly have made as much difference as Milne, Dempster, Schneider, Mini, etc kicking more of those gettable shots on goal.

Because Ball cant spread, we would have looked even slower with him in the 4th quarter, would have been a hinderance. The goals should have been kicked and it wouldn't have mattered.

But most coaches would certainly have tried Ball again in the final quarter. You must admit that Lyon's decision not to do this was extremely unusual under the circumstances.

No it wasn't. He wasn't ever going to use him. Should have selected a player with legs who could have made a difference in the 4th quarter. As it was the strategy of playing Ball in the first half would have paid dividends if the forwards had of kicked straight.