Good run with injury in '09 no accident

[rodgerfox]

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.

Sorry, but I have to comment on this.

I simply can't accept this.


Are you seriously, with a straight face, saying that the St Kilda Football Club's match committee (or whatever they call themselves) selected a guy to only play half a game?

Are you for real?


Honestly, and I do mean this, if this happened, the members of the club should march down to the joint and demand that heads roll.

If that is what happened, that is the most unbelievable decision ever made.

So unbelievable that it is simply laughable.


Surely you're taking the piiss?

[meher baba]

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.

I actually agree with you on the whole: we were going on the attack in the final quarter and needed run, not Ball's hard in and under stuff.

But Lyon's post-match comments seem to suggest that he later thought he should have used Ball more. I guess Ball could have been able to fill up a spot on the ground and release someone else to go more on the attack.

I still think that, like the rest of the Ball saga, it's all a bit odd. But, unlike others on here, I don't think it cost us the GF: we'd already done that to ourselves in the first half with our kicking for goal.

[Milton66]

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.

That's a truly odd comment...

The team goes in with a set game plan. You only flip to plan B if plan A isn't working.

Up until about the 25 minute mark of the last... plan A was working... we were in front and doing plenty of attacking.

I think you'll find that coaches don't just mix things up for the fun of it. If anything, rightly or wrongly, RL showed great faith in the players to execute.

In other words, he backed his players in. Sound familiar?

Not picking on you MB, I'm still to see anyone come up with a plausible alternative as to why he should have got more game time.

[matrix]

FFS!!!!!!
who gives a f***!!!!
he plays for collingwood

[Milton66]

FFS!!!!!!
who gives a f***!!!!
he plays for collingwood

Collingwood supporters do.

[meher baba]

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.

Interesting....Isn't that a possible alternative explanation to the "training services" one as to why our injury situation was so bad under GT?

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.

This is precisely my view as to the role of these guys: it's not about injury prevention, it's about helping the players continue to front up and perform with minor or chronic injuries. And I accept that he seems to have done really well at this. For instance, none of Ball, Kosi and Riewoldt ever looked anything like 100% fit during the year, but they all had pretty productive seasons: Ball and Kosi had their best seasons for several years.

What gets my goat is the totally simplistic view of the world put forward by the GT haters on here: injury management was "appalling" under GT, and that's why Ball and Kosi and Goose all became crocks, and why Hamill and X kept breaking down, etc, etc.

It just didn't happen like that. There undoubtedly has been an improvement (and there'd better be, as we are now paying far more than twice as much for fitness management than we did a few years ago), but it was always only going to be at the margins. There is no magic bullet/magic wand here.

[Moods]

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.

Interesting....Isn't that a possible alternative explanation to the "training services" one as to why our injury situation was so bad under GT?]

Maybe - but did every other club that played at the dome have the same terrible run with injury as what we had?

[matrix]

FFS!!!!!!
who gives a f***!!!!
he plays for collingwood

Collingwood supporters do.

no seriously
who here gives flying f*** about him?
the guy plays for another team and STILL gets brought up in a thread about injury which is basically an argument thread for the GT v LYON fighters who like nuthin more than to get THEIR point across for everyone to agree with.

[cowboy18]

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.

Interesting....Isn't that a possible alternative explanation to the "training services" one as to why our injury situation was so bad under GT?

In any case - was injury management under GT that bad?

From memory the longest anyone was slated to miss games was 2 weeks.

[Milton66]

FFS!!!!!!
who gives a f***!!!!
he plays for collingwood

Collingwood supporters do.

no seriously
who here gives flying f*** about him?
the guy plays for another team and STILL gets brought up in a thread about injury which is basically an argument thread for the GT v LYON fighters who like nuthin more than to get THEIR point across for everyone to agree with.

I agree.

I am however interested in seeing what alternatives people suggest in response to their "he should have played more" concept.

But, that's just me.

[joffaboy]

Sorry, but I have to comment on this.

I simply can't accept this.

Too bad. From a reliable source.

Are you seriously, with a straight face, saying that the St Kilda Football Club's match committee (or whatever they call themselves) selected a guy to only play half a game?

Are you for real?

Who cares what you think.

Honestly, and I do mean this, if this happened, the members of the club should march down to the joint and demand that heads roll.

Off you go - oh are you are member though?

If that is what happened, that is the most unbelievable decision ever made.

So unbelievable that it is simply laughable.

Is it. I think your reaction to a bloke who only played 50% of most games this year the laughable thing.

Ohhh good for another 5 or so pages hey Rodge???

Really mate, give the feigned outrate a rest. The routine is getting a bit old hat.

Surely you're taking the piiss?

Surely you think you have found a gold nugget.

Ho hum Rodge the feigned outraged member (or is he?) i s going to mount a popular revolt because a player only got 50% of game time

lol - you really crack me up Rodge

We all see right through you RF.

We will have to start calling you O'Briens

[SainterK]

FFS!!!!!!
who gives a f***!!!!
he plays for collingwood

Collingwood supporters do.

no seriously
who here gives flying f*** about him?
the guy plays for another team and STILL gets brought up in a thread about injury which is basically an argument thread for the GT v LYON fighters who like nuthin more than to get THEIR point across for everyone to agree with.

I agree.

I am however interested in seeing what alternatives people suggest in response to their "he should have played more" concept.

But, that's just me.

Matrix, I know what your saying. Sure the discussion seems to be about LB, but there is always the implication that the club treated him badly.

If Luke was no longer valued by the club, why did he remain a part of the leadership group? Why was he offered a new contract? Why was he able to work his way back into the side?

[Milton66]

I'd be interested to see a direct comparison between the posters who are pushing the "poor Luke" agenda and where they line up on the GT v RL.

Maybe I'm wrong but it appears that way to me.

[meher baba]

I'd be interested to see a direct comparison between the posters who are pushing the "poor Luke" agenda and where they line up on the GT v RL.

Maybe I'm wrong but it appears that way to me.

"Poor Luke?". He's ok, I couldn't give a rat's about him.

I can't speak for others, but I'm only worried about us, in 2010 and beyond. I am concerned that we let a good player go (which is still what I believe happened) and, although IMO we remain strong enough to win a flag, it's just possible we might live to regret it.

Nothing whatsoever to do with GT as far as I am concerned.

[Milton66]

I'd be interested to see a direct comparison between the posters who are pushing the "poor Luke" agenda and where they line up on the GT v RL.

Maybe I'm wrong but it appears that way to me.

"Poor Luke?". He's ok, I couldn't give a rat's about him.

I can't speak for others, but I'm only worried about us, in 2010 and beyond. I am concerned that we let a good player go (which is still what I believe happened) and, although IMO we remain strong enough to win a flag, it's just possible we might live to regret it.

Nothing whatsoever to do with GT as far as I am concerned.

I think we'll survive quite nicely without him.

[SainterK]

I'd be interested to see a direct comparison between the posters who are pushing the "poor Luke" agenda and where they line up on the GT v RL.

Maybe I'm wrong but it appears that way to me.

"Poor Luke?". He's ok, I couldn't give a rat's about him.

I can't speak for others, but I'm only worried about us, in 2010 and beyond. I am concerned that we let a good player go (which is still what I believe happened) and, although IMO we remain strong enough to win a flag, it's just possible we might live to regret it.

Nothing whatsoever to do with GT as far as I am concerned.

What are your concerns MB, is it with regards to the midfield?

[iwantmeseats]

dodgey, your such a wanker.



















That is all.

[SENsei]

I'm not necessarily disappointed Luke Ball is gone. I think I was on record early in the season that I thought he was struggling to meet RL's criteria.

However, I am annoyed that we got nothing for him. We thought he was worth more than a pick 30 yet pick 30 is better than a nothing. And he still got to where he wanted to go.

I suppose we didn't just bend over, but so what? We got a moral victory?

And then we recruit someone who is morally bankrupt it seems.

Not good.

[matrix]

yeah im with you there SEN

getting 100% what he wanted??????
in a draft???

wonder how that happened

[saintsRrising]

I simply can't accept this.


Are you seriously, with a straight face, saying that the St Kilda Football Club's match committee (or whatever they call themselves) selected a guy to only play half a game?

Are you for real?


Honestly, and I do mean this, if this happened, the members of the club should march down to the joint and demand that heads roll.

If that is what happened, that is the most unbelievable decision ever made.

So unbelievable that it is simply laughable.


Surely you're taking the piiss?

Now this is funny.

Clearly RF has not heard of the term" Impact Player".

Ever since AFL teams expanded to 22 players with 4 interchange players, Clubs have often had in the 22 a player that the coach felt could make a difference in bursts, but not over the whole game.

Often players who were not quite right, or who perhaps were in their last years.

Heads role for using an "Impact Player'? Would there be a coach left in the AFL??

[saintsRrising]

I'm not necessarily disappointed Luke Ball is gone. I think I was on record early in the season that I thought he was struggling to meet RL's criteria.

However, I am annoyed that we got nothing for him. We thought he was worth more than a pick 30 yet pick 30 is better than a nothing. And he still got to where he wanted to go.

I suppose we didn't just bend over, but so what? We got a moral victory?

.

True.

Everitt would have been a fair trade. But for whatever reason the deal did not come about.

[rodgerfox]

FFS!!!!!!
who gives a f***!!!!
he plays for collingwood

Collingwood supporters do.

no seriously
who here gives flying f*** about him?
the guy plays for another team and STILL gets brought up in a thread about injury which is basically an argument thread for the GT v LYON fighters who like nuthin more than to get THEIR point across for everyone to agree with.

I agree.

I am however interested in seeing what alternatives people suggest in response to their "he should have played more" concept.

But, that's just me.

Wayne, having a player sit out a half in any game of football is pretty much a disaster.

In a final it's worse.

In a GF, it's simply unheard of.

This is why everyone craps on about the old 'never take injured players into a final'. Because the intensity that they're played out means that you get outrun and can't compete with only 21 men able to carry out the work of 22.

This is the obvious one. Regardless of his ability - he was fresh. Having a fresh player on the bench in the last quarter of a GF would be considered gold by most people involved in the game.

Secondly, he'd been incredibly influencial in the first half. In the second half, when Lenny's influence was steadied dramatically by Bartel, we needed Ball to provide some of the grunt and drive that he and Lenny gave in the first half.

We not only didn't have Ball's influence in the 2nd half, we also lost Lenny's to a large extent.

No matter one-eyed or no matter how well tinted the rose-coloured glasses are, no one could possibly say that having a guy like Luke Ball sit out the second half of the GF for no obvious reason is simply a perplexing decision.

[rodgerfox]

I simply can't accept this.


Are you seriously, with a straight face, saying that the St Kilda Football Club's match committee (or whatever they call themselves) selected a guy to only play half a game?

Are you for real?


Honestly, and I do mean this, if this happened, the members of the club should march down to the joint and demand that heads roll.

If that is what happened, that is the most unbelievable decision ever made.

So unbelievable that it is simply laughable.


Surely you're taking the piiss?

Now this is funny.

Clearly RF has not heard of the term" Impact Player".

Ever since AFL teams expanded to 22 players with 4 interchange players, Clubs have often had in the 22 a player that the coach felt could make a difference in bursts, but not over the whole game.

Often players who were not quite right, or who perhaps were in their last years.

Heads role for using an "Impact Player'? Would there be a coach left in the AFL??

You're clutching badly there SrR.

In a GF, against Geelong, you take a bloke into the game who you plan only to play for the first half?

You're kidding me.

And secondly, if this guy is so good that he can take a spot off someone else and add more value in a GF in a half than someone else could in an entire game - why the hell did we let him leave the club and get nothing in return??

Come on.

Seriously.

[SainterK]

To provide us with what, more inside 50's?

[Milton66]

FFS!!!!!!
who gives a f***!!!!
he plays for collingwood

Collingwood supporters do.

no seriously
who here gives flying f*** about him?
the guy plays for another team and STILL gets brought up in a thread about injury which is basically an argument thread for the GT v LYON fighters who like nuthin more than to get THEIR point across for everyone to agree with.

I agree.

I am however interested in seeing what alternatives people suggest in response to their "he should have played more" concept.

But, that's just me.

Wayne, having a player sit out a half in any game of football is pretty much a disaster.

In a final it's worse.

In a GF, it's simply unheard of.

This is why everyone craps on about the old 'never take injured players into a final'. Because the intensity that they're played out means that you get outrun and can't compete with only 21 men able to carry out the work of 22.

This is the obvious one. Regardless of his ability - he was fresh. Having a fresh player on the bench in the last quarter of a GF would be considered gold by most people involved in the game.

Secondly, he'd been incredibly influencial in the first half. In the second half, when Lenny's influence was steadied dramatically by Bartel, we needed Ball to provide some of the grunt and drive that he and Lenny gave in the first half.

We not only didn't have Ball's influence in the 2nd half, we also lost Lenny's to a large extent.

No matter one-eyed or no matter how well tinted the rose-coloured glasses are, no one could possibly say that having a guy like Luke Ball sit out the second half of the GF for no obvious reason is simply a perplexing decision.

No, it's not a matter of rose coloured glasses. It's about getting real answers from people who are suggesting that he should have had more game time.

NAmely, we were pretty much inf ront. So when should he have come on?