Luke Ball Interview on The Footy Show - Opinions?

[SainterK]

You are comparing the two then MB, and concluding that Luke's dropping was more humilating than Dal's?

Given he was among the first high profile players to be made an example of at St Kilda, he was pretty much the line in the sand?

You underestimate Dal's work ethic, and strength of character to swallow his pride and turn it around.

[meher baba]

You are comparing the two then MB, and concluding that Luke's dropping was more humilating than Dal's?

Given he was among the first high profile players to be made an example of at St Kilda, he was pretty much the line in the sand?

You underestimate Dal's work ethic, and strength of character to swallow his pride and turn it around.

No question that Dal responded really well to being dropped: much better than Ball did.

Ball's dropping was more humiliating because the club chose to make it more of a personal issue. Public statements around the time that Milne and Dal were dropped were along the lines "we are sending a message to the entire team". With Ball, it was "we are sending a message to Ball that what he regularly does on the field doesn't satisfy us".

However, I agree that Ball was a bit sooky and soft about it all. I think a lot of the problem is that he is physically unable to play the way Lyon wanted him to play: it would always be hard for someone to motivate themselves in such circumstances (a bit like someone saying to you after the first date that they don't want to have anything more to do with you because you aren't good looking enough).

But what got me was the club's behaviour at the end of 2009, which was sort of "how could Luke possibly treat us like that?"

His departure was the inevitable consequence of his being told that he needed to change his playing style significantly in a way that he found it physically difficult to do and which didn't really suit his strengths as a player. And perhaps he got offered some more $$$ as well.

So why did we get so miffed about it?

[ralphsmith]

He basically needed to learn how to run and kick an AFL football.

Neither of which he can do very well.

No place in the saints.

Collingwood supporters will learn the terrible truth soon.

[SainterK]

You are comparing the two then MB, and concluding that Luke's dropping was more humilating than Dal's?

Given he was among the first high profile players to be made an example of at St Kilda, he was pretty much the line in the sand?

You underestimate Dal's work ethic, and strength of character to swallow his pride and turn it around.

No question that Dal responded really well to being dropped: much better than Ball did.

Ball's dropping was more humiliating because the club chose to make it more of a personal issue. Public statements around the time that Milne and Dal were dropped were along the lines "we are sending a message to the entire team". With Ball, it was "we are sending a message to Ball that what he regularly does on the field doesn't satisfy us".

Actually I was curious and had a look, and Ross said when Dal was dropped

"It's not about swinging the axe and sending messages. It's not about that. It's about who's best living the behaviours we want and the leaders want at the club."

I fail to see the difference, both guys were equally challenged, both were not living up to the trademarks of the club.

I am glad that you acknowledge Dal responded well, I firmly believe this experience will make him a better leader.

[plugger66]

I fail to remember Bally being upset at the time of his dropping. Was there an article on it? of course Bally and Dals dropping was different and for good reason to. Dal was a much better player than Bally at the time they were both dropped. Dal was put back up to the seniors straight away even though his performance wasnt great in the two's were as Bally was given i think 3 weeks and then dropped again later on. They were totally different apart from the fact they both played 2nds.

[meher baba]

You are comparing the two then MB, and concluding that Luke's dropping was more humilating than Dal's?

Given he was among the first high profile players to be made an example of at St Kilda, he was pretty much the line in the sand?

You underestimate Dal's work ethic, and strength of character to swallow his pride and turn it around.

No question that Dal responded really well to being dropped: much better than Ball did.

Ball's dropping was more humiliating because the club chose to make it more of a personal issue. Public statements around the time that Milne and Dal were dropped were along the lines "we are sending a message to the entire team". With Ball, it was "we are sending a message to Ball that what he regularly does on the field doesn't satisfy us".

Actually I was curious and had a look, and Ross said when Dal was dropped

"It's not about swinging the axe and sending messages. It's not about that. It's about who's best living the behaviours we want and the leaders want at the club."

I fail to see the difference, both guys were equally challenged, both were not living up to the trademarks of the club.

I am glad that you acknowledge Dal responded well, I firmly believe this experience will make him a better leader.

Another one of those convoluted Rossisms. He is priceless!!

It's also interestingly ambiguous: it seems to hint that the dropping might have been about off-field behaviour rather than on-field performance. I didn't recall that, and it wasn't picked up by the media at the time.

I still think the comments made about Ball last year were far more direct and personal.

[SainterK]

I chose to quote the part that was significant to your comment that it was a message to the entire team when Dal was dropped, when it clearly wasn't the case.

Here it is in it's entirety, not ambiguous at all.

"It's not personal, it's not about personalities, the colour of your hair, the colour of your eyes, how tall or short you are. It's about the standards, the benchmarks.

"At the end of the day, we just facilitate the information put in front of us and, right or wrongly, that's the decision the match committee have made.

"It's not about swinging the axe and sending messages. It's not about that. It's about who's best living the behaviours we want and the leaders want at the club."

"I haven't entered into it lightly, but, between the leadership group and playing group, we've got a set of behaviours and standards that everyone has to meet on-field," Lyon said.

"We've drawn a line in the sand. We're not getting the results we want and previous performance isn't really a precursor to what's going to happen.

[joffaboy]

So the line in the sand was drawn with the Dal Santo dropping according to the quote posted by SainterK.

Cant see how mb can then state that Ball was more humiliated than Dal Santo and Milne.

Interesting also how when SainterK produced a direct quote to debunk one more of mb's "my assumption/ suspection/guess" we get him deriding Ross Lyon.

Why is it mb, in the face of facts, given to you by a number of posters regarding the Luke Ball saga, you still hold on to your assumptions and straw man arguments?

Do you have an agenda against Ross Lyon? I really dont understand you line of argument. Seems you are arguing for the sake of it

[meher baba]

Actually, here's a longer quote. In full context, the thought process seems to be even more convoluted.

It's the system," Lyon said on The Footy Show.

"It's not personal, it's not about personalities, the colour of your hair, the colour of your eyes, how tall or short you are. It's about the standards, the benchmarks.

At the end of the day, we just facilitate the information put in front of us and, right or wrongly, that's the decision the match committee have made.

"It's not about swinging the axe and sending messages. It's not about that. It's about who's best living the behaviours we want and the leaders want at the club."

"I haven't entered into it lightly, but, between the leadership group and playing group, we've got a set of behaviours and standards that everyone has to meet on-field," Lyon said.

"We've drawn a line in the sand. We're not getting the results we want and previous performance isn't really a precursor to what's going to happen.

"We've made a decision and we'll stick by it ... we're looking forward to getting them back."

What I interpret this to mean was that

1. In recent times, although their footy had been ok, Dal and Milne hadn't done what the coach had told them to do (in Lyonspeak, they "hadn't met the required on field standards and behaviours").

2. The evidence of this was put to the match review committee which decided it had no choice but to drop them.

3. It was about "drawing a line in the sand", but for the two players concerned and not for the team as a whole. We're "not getting the results we want" but we're better than our results have suggested ("previous performance isn't really a precursor to what's going to happen": and fair to say, subsequent events showed that truer words were seldom spoken).

The problem with it all is that it doesn't ring true. Surely Lyon was trying to send a message to the whole team that he was the coach and they all had to try to do what he told them to do. This is how the entire AFL world interpeted the dropping of the two players.

You can see here how Lyon tends to tangle himself up with all of his weasel words. A bit like Kevin Rudd, I reckon he'd come across much better if he could learn simply to say what he means.

[markp]

I think MB is just using RF's fishing gear while he's not about.

[meher baba]

I chose to quote the part that was significant to your comment that it was a message to the entire team when Dal was dropped, when it clearly wasn't the case.

Here it is in it's entirety, not ambiguous at all.

"It's not personal, it's not about personalities, the colour of your hair, the colour of your eyes, how tall or short you are. It's about the standards, the benchmarks.

"At the end of the day, we just facilitate the information put in front of us and, right or wrongly, that's the decision the match committee have made.

"It's not about swinging the axe and sending messages. It's not about that. It's about who's best living the behaviours we want and the leaders want at the club."

"I haven't entered into it lightly, but, between the leadership group and playing group, we've got a set of behaviours and standards that everyone has to meet on-field," Lyon said.

"We've drawn a line in the sand. We're not getting the results we want and previous performance isn't really a precursor to what's going to happen.

Sorry: you beat me to it. Please see my comments in the post above.

[markp]

(in Lyonspeak, they "hadn't met the required on field standards and behaviours").

Yes, we practically need the Enigma machine to decipher that.

[joffaboy]

I think MB is just using RF's fishing gear while he's not about.

Possibly. Not as technically sound as Rodge, but pretty good anyway.

[meher baba]

So the line in the sand was drawn with the Dal Santo dropping according to the quote posted by SainterK.

Cant see how mb can then state that Ball was more humiliated than Dal Santo and Milne.

Interesting also how when SainterK produced a direct quote to debunk one more of mb's "my assumption/ suspection/guess" we get him deriding Ross Lyon.

Why is it mb, in the face of facts, given to you by a number of posters regarding the Luke Ball saga, you still hold on to your assumptions and straw man arguments?

Do you have an agenda against Ross Lyon? I really dont understand you line of argument. Seems you are arguing for the sake of it

I will always deride Ross Lyon about what he says in the media until he starts talking in plain English. I don't think it is either necessary or appropriate for him to use weasel words. He comes across as being enormously scared of being criticised: perhaps that's why so many on here are so inclined to jump to his defence all the time.

I think the decision to drop Dal and Milne (which, as you can see, he tried really hard to distance himself from for reasons that I can't for the life of me understand) was an inspired decision and a critical event in the recent history of the club. It put Lyon firmly in the driver's seat for the first time, and the good results flowed (and haven't really stopped flowing) from that moment on.

The Ball decision was different: it was far more personal and, unlike the Dal/Milne decision, the message was directed solely at Ball himself. He'd been playing reasonably well all season: it was as if Lyon had thought and thought and finally reached the conclusion that Ball at his post-OP best wasn't going to be good enough for him.

Ball eventually came back, but I couldn't see that he played any differently to how he did before he was dropped. Nevertheless, he was selected for the GF and then only used for half a game. The message Lyon seemed to be sending was that he didn't rate Ball and didn't want him.

It's two very different sets of circumstances IMO.
[/u]

[markp]

I think MB is just using RF's fishing gear while he's not about.

Possibly. Not as technically sound as Rodge, but pretty good anyway.

Indeed... Rodge would've been more cryptic and a less verbose, thus saving valuable bait and leaving more room for misinterpretation.

Pepsi to Coke really, but not bad.

[Teflon]

I think MB is just using RF's fishing gear while he's not about.

Possibly. Not as technically sound as Rodge, but pretty good anyway.

Indeed... Rodge would've been more cryptic and a less verbose, thus saving valuable bait and leaving more room for misinterpretation.

Pepsi to Coke really, but not bad.

spot on.

MB as usual wants to be the voice of dissent....he craves to be the differing view in the hope he stumbles upon an argument that makes sense and somehow validates his "reading between the lines...." nonsense.

Bring back the Fox if this is the case....at least hes a moderately hdany trolll whose thoughts occasionally link up.....

To suggest Ross Lyons a weasle word user is to suggest Grant Thomas was as down the line as Wilson Tuckey.....er ...no.

[Dr Spaceman]

I think MB is just using RF's fishing gear while he's not about.

Possibly. Not as technically sound as Rodge, but pretty good anyway.

Indeed... Rodge would've been more cryptic and a less verbose, thus saving valuable bait and leaving more room for misinterpretation.

Pepsi to Coke really, but not bad.

spot on.

MB as usual wants to be the voice of dissent....he craves to be the differing view in the hope he stumbles upon an argument that makes sense and somehow validates his "reading between the lines...." nonsense.

Bring back the Fox if this is the case....at least hes a moderately hdany trolll whose thoughts occasionally link up.....

To suggest Ross Lyons a weasle word user is to suggest Grant Thomas was as down the line as Wilson Tuckey.....er ...no.

Well we must be a team of weasels, as the players certainly don't seem to have any trouble understanding and responding to RL's words

[Mr Magic]

What's got me stumped is this revision of history that seems to be going on re Ball's dropping.

IIRC Ball was initially dropped, after consultation with the fitness people, himself, the coaching staff, his family and everybody else concerned, in a week when Sandringham had a bye?

There was talk at the time that the dropping was purely a response by the fitness people to try and rebuild Ball's base fitness level which was dropping alarmingly because of his inability to train early in the week due to needing more time for recovery (early week sessions were devoted to maintaining fitness, whereas later sessions in the week were for gameplan).
It was decided to train Ball hard, without playing him, so that he could get some additional base fitness. The original plan was for a 2 week cycle (with no Sandringham game in that period) and obviously something occured during that period to change that initial plan.

Somehow this reasonable and logical plan has been twisted into 'Lyon deiberately belittling poor Ball and forcing him out because he didn't really rate him'.

I also note that Ball's 'replacemet' Armitage was also dropped after the NM game - he obviously didn't follow the coaching panel's instructions either. When the 'crunch' came, the Match Committee chose to play teh 'unwanted Ball' rather than his natural replacement and then the guy(s) who didn't rate him all that well chose to start the grand final with him in the middle. They were obviously trying to lose the grand final. Maybe they told all our forwards to deliberately miss gettable shots at goal as well - all part of the great conspiracy?

For some posters complaining about others not seeing clearly on this and other matters, maybe it's time to see an optometrist themselves?

[meher baba]

Ahem MM: this was the media version from July 2009

Lyon has ruled out resting players at this point of the season and football manager Greg Hutchison confirmed Ball's omission was form-related.

"The coach has spoken to Luke about areas where he needs to improve and we've taken a lot of things into account. Unfortunately in Luke's case, he's made way," Mr Hutchison said.

"He's obviously disappointed but he understands it's a team game and there's areas he's got to improve on and work on."

Nothing about fitness there. I was wrong in thinking that Lyon had made the comments: they were made by Hutchinson.

They are much more direct comments about form and the need to improve performance than were made about Dal and Milne, or Gram (about whose dropping nothing was ever said).

[Saints43]

What's got me stumped is this revision of history that seems to be going on re Ball's dropping.

Lenny Hayes was interviewed after Ball was dropped and said that the leadership group had dropped him.

I don't think it was just RL who didn't rate his ability or willingness (whichever) to charge down the next contest...

I'm not sure if this is on topic but I haven't seen it mention throughout the saga.

[Mr Magic]

Ahem MM: this was the media version from July 2009

Lyon has ruled out resting players at this point of the season and football manager Greg Hutchison confirmed Ball's omission was form-related.

"The coach has spoken to Luke about areas where he needs to improve and we've taken a lot of things into account. Unfortunately in Luke's case, he's made way," Mr Hutchison said.

"He's obviously disappointed but he understands it's a team game and there's areas he's got to improve on and work on."

Nothing about fitness there. I was wrong in thinking that Lyon had made the comments: they were made by Hutchinson.

They are much more direct comments about form and the need to improve performance than were made about Dal and Milne, or Gram (about whose dropping nothing was ever said).

I didn't realize you were actually responding to my posts these days?
Afterall I only asked you 4 times to explain to me and everybody else how Sheahan's statement that Ball was earning less at Collingwood (on K500 pa for 2 years plus a yet to be negotiated 3rd year) than what he was at St Kilda (1 mill over 3 years) other than the nonsense sprouted by Jon Ralph.

As for the reason Ball was 'dropped', maybe you eed to speak to someone with some inside knowledge rather than hypothesizing adn trying to fit what you've read/heard into your own view of what transpired - anything that you feel paints Ross Lyon in a bad light must be good?


Obviously I was wrong to think that your ignoring of those requests was a general desire not to respond to me/my posts?
Maybe you just didn't want to try and explain that 'plank' of the Ball defense / Lyon and Reiwoldt attack?

Because that was a major 'plank' in the Collingwood PR attacks on St Kilda/Lyon/Reiwoldt handling of the whole Luke Ball saga.

It si the one problem that Collingwood/Ball have in all of this - 'how not to look like I left for better conditions (including more money), because I don't want to look like a mercenary'.

[saintsRrising]

Do you have an agenda against Ross Lyon? I really dont understand you line of argument. Seems you are arguing for the sake of it

I will always deride Ross Lyon about what he says in the media until he starts talking in plain English. I don't think it is either necessary or appropriate for him to use weasel words. He comes across as being enormously scared of being criticised

We will take that as a yes then.

So we should deride our coach because MB does not like how he talks???

That he can coach and runs a tight ship are clearly irrelevant. Clearly the Saints should have hired a coach witha sales background rather than worrying about anything as silly as coaching!!!!

And geeze...can't have the situation of any under-performing player actually being told what to do to improve. Much better evidently to just stroke their egos and through cash at them rather than pay them what they are worth.

[PJ]

I will always deride Ross Lyon about what he says in the media until he starts talking in plain English.

As opposed to the used car salesman that preceeded him

[Saints43]

I will always deride Ross Lyon about what he says in the media until he starts talking in plain English.

As opposed to the used car salesman that preceeded him

"We'd lost some integrity in the selection process, and what we wanted to stand for had lost some credibility," said Ross Lyon. "So strong integrity has been brought to the selection process and what we want to stand for and no one's immune, as of last week and going forward.

"We felt we'd compromised it a little bit — hence our inconsistency, but you know, we've gone forward."

[Finna]

Here's the link for the interview:


It seems pretty simple to me. He remarks that there were enough players playing his kind of role.

He didnt want to do the work to beat those players for a spot so he took the easy road.

Its not right or wrong it just is....He likes the easy road!