Lyon doesn't regret Ball inaction

[plugger66]

We had pick #2 once and missed out on Chris Judd.

Compounded last night when the player we chose instead of Judd left the club.

Thomas really stuffed up by picking a lovechild from his kids school instead of going for one of the games greatest champions.

Yes if only Thomas had listened to Butterss who wanted us to use the selection on Chris Judd instead of picking his lovechild!

btw has Ball been DNA tested yet?

Might clear up the 600K question?

Anyway another brick in the wall of Grant Thomas stuff ups that to date has cost us at least two quite possibly 3 premierships.

Another story of fiction but if it is mentioned often enough it may become fact to you and a few others. While we are at it was it Gt who gave Ball the deal. Do you have the dates of the contract or another piece of fiction.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The hindsight something v nothing are missing the strategies. While it has to be noted that it all came to nothing in the end, this was a risk that St Kilda took knowingly.

Strategy #1: Was never a draft pick. We were trying to work out a deal for Everitt... it'll be interesting to see how mr. Free Agency advocate Luke Darcy looks at things next year if Everitt ends up walking. The Dogs had a requirement that to let him go would require a pick 22 or higher. The Pies tried to work out a deal with North, but North thought the Pies package was worth pick 25 rather than 21, and that wasn't enough for Everitt.

That's where the 25 comes from, not from 25 ever really being considered. St Kilda offered an alternative of Nathan Brown.

The Pies didn't blink, and took the risk that they wouldn't get Luke Ball.

Strategy #2: Keep Ball away from Collingwood. Since Ball wouldn't talk to anyone else, this meant not trading. He had to walk and be traded elsewhere. Ball on Melbourne would have been better for us than having 2nd tier kids who aren't going to play for us as we chase a flag over the next couple of years.

The risk with this path was that he'd slip through, and end up at Collingwood anyway.

In the end, everyone stuck to their guns, and Ball slipped through to 30. I have no problem with the strategy and risk taken (even if it didn't work, I like the bold line in the sand). I'd only have had a problem with it if they hadn't been aware it's what they were doing. I'm filthy that Ball made it to the Pies, and think Melbourne has erred.

Note, I don't think that the big picture considerations like knowing that Ross won't be put over a barrel or that he'll use the draft as a weapon (regard the drafting of Smith as well as the Ball move) in getting the players he wants will have any direct payoff which compensates us better than pick #30. We got screwed, plain and simple.

But when you're going to play any game (including negotiating) sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes it rains (Bull Durham). To negotiate effectively, you've got to be willing to walk away from the table with a deal 95% done. We lost this one, but I know the guy negotiating can do the job.

[rodgerfox]

Anyway another brick in the wall of Grant Thomas stuff ups that to date has cost us at least two quite possibly 3 premierships.

Let's do a running tally....

No. Flags Lost due to Stuff Ups-

Thomas: 2
Lyon: 1

Gee, he's making ground fast!!

[Con Gorozidis]

Apparently it was pick 25 we were going to get for Ball (after Coll were going to trade someone to Nth Melb) and according to Kevin Sheahan etc, on the Draft show tonight, Aaron Black, who went at pick 25, is a "gun", that they were very surprised didn't get picked up much earlier. On the Big Pond website Black was tipped to be picked up at either pick 11 or 12.
Reportedly he's talented enough to play College basketball in the US and the highlight of his season "was in round 14 against Subiaco. It was wet and windy but he still managed to amass 29 disposals, took 14 grabs, and kicked an amazing 6.4.":

http://www.contestedfooty.com/2009/10/a ... spect.html

So that's who we potentially missed out on, by not agreeing to the trade. Someone with that sort of talent/ability.
Are we really going that well that we'd rather have nothing, than someone like him? We must be good!

yeah great logic

We had pick #2 once and missed out on Chris Judd.

Compounded last night when the player we chose instead of Judd left the club.

Thomas really stuffed up by picking a lovechild from his kids school instead of going for one of the games greatest champions.

I reckon the logic of APS is undeniable. We have definitely missed out on someone...

And the 'great champion' isn't at the club that drafted him either. I reckon the Senior Assistant Environmental Consultant might have moved on for a bigger payday as well.

rogers logic is totally sound. u cant try and confuse it by saying what if 30 was a list clogger. cos then we just would have not got 72. and 30 has a lower chance of being a list clogger than 72.

so we still lost. stick to facts. not speculaltion. crystal ball grazing

[Con Gorozidis]

The hindsight something v nothing are missing the strategies. While it has to be noted that it all came to nothing in the end, this was a risk that St Kilda took knowingly.




Strategy #2: Keep Ball away from Collingwood. Since Ball wouldn't talk to anyone else, this meant not trading. He had to walk and be traded elsewhere. Ball on Melbourne would have been better for us than having 2nd tier kids who aren't going to play for us as we chase a flag over the next couple of years.

.

strategy 2 is the problem. why do we give a toss where he goes? isnt a coaching manual mantra about "controlling the controllables"

once luke was officially out - its saints job to look after saints. and that means get best possible trade. plain and simple.

i dont understand the "keep him from collingwood strategy". what the F*** is that about? cutting off our nose to spite our face and prove some point that will be forgotten come next draft period anyway?

[joffaboy]

Anyway another brick in the wall of Grant Thomas stuff ups that to date has cost us at least two quite possibly 3 premierships.

Let's do a running tally....

No. Flags Lost due to Stuff Ups-

Thomas: 2
Lyon: 1

Gee, he's making ground fast!!

Thomas never had the opportunity for a flag. Never got us to the big dance therefore

Thomas: 0
Lyon: 1

Lyon got us to the big dance and we missed out.

Cant compare a coach who got us to a position where we can actually win the flag against someone who failed to do so.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The hindsight something v nothing are missing the strategies. While it has to be noted that it all came to nothing in the end, this was a risk that St Kilda took knowingly.




Strategy #2: Keep Ball away from Collingwood. Since Ball wouldn't talk to anyone else, this meant not trading. He had to walk and be traded elsewhere. Ball on Melbourne would have been better for us than having 2nd tier kids who aren't going to play for us as we chase a flag over the next couple of years.

.

strategy 2 is the problem. why do we give a toss where he goes? isnt a coaching manual mantra about "controlling the controllables"

once luke was officially out - its saints job to look after saints. and that means get best possible trade. plain and simple.

i dont understand the "keep him from collingwood strategy". what the F*** is that about? cutting off our nose to spite our face and prove some point that will be forgotten come next draft period anyway?

It would mean that if the Saints played in a bubble. They don't, they play in the AFL. We're not playing for draft periods, we're playing for flags.

Collingwood were a top 4 side who made a prelim last year. Ergo, a side that will challenge us for a premiership.

Whatever people may be telling themselves to ease the pain, Luke Ball is a very good footballer who adds clearance power to any midfield. He was in our 22 on GF day, he'll improve the Pies 22.

The thing that would have looked after the Saints most over the next 12-24 months is to ensure Luke Ball doesn't improve the Cats (wouldn't make the Cats midfield anyway), Dogs (likely wouldn't make their midfield either) or Magpies (he will almost definitely be front and center in their starting 18).

Few kids would have offset that immediately. Had it been pick 14 (traded for Jolly), it might have been more advantageous to have Jetta (Milne replacement) than Everitt over the next 24 months.

By the time we live to not regret the lack of Black/Coyler/Mitchell/Duncan/whoever, the list will have turned over enough over a period of >= 36 months that Luke Ball and Collingwood aren't going to be relevant anyway.

It's a calculated risk that blew up in our faces, but the thing I'm finding hardest to understand is why it's such a hard risk to understand.

[Spinner]

Anyway another brick in the wall of Grant Thomas stuff ups that to date has cost us at least two quite possibly 3 premierships.

Let's do a running tally....

No. Flags Lost due to Stuff Ups-

Thomas: 2
Lyon: 1

Gee, he's making ground fast!!

That is just a stupid post.

All that its worth.

[ctqs]

If Luke Ball was that good why was he dropped part-way through the season as his form tapered, and then struggled to get back into the team? It won't hurt us as much as people think. Not on field, anyway. As I posted elsewhere, it's his knowledge about our gameplan that could hurt us.

[maverick]

If Luke Ball was that good why was he dropped part-way through the season as his form tapered, and then struggled to get back into the team? It won't hurt us as much as people think. Not on field, anyway. As I posted elsewhere, it's his knowledge about our gameplan that could hurt us.

Maybe his knowledge of the gameplan WAS the problem...

[saintbrat]

If Luke Ball was that good why was he dropped part-way through the season as his form tapered, and then struggled to get back into the team? It won't hurt us as much as people think. Not on field, anyway. As I posted elsewhere, it's his knowledge about our gameplan that could hurt us.

he's going to work hard now to be the best he has ever been

didn't feel the need to do that at the saints

NEW MAGPIE Luke Ball believes the best football of his career could still be ahead of him.

Ball flew out to Arizona on Friday eager to meet his new teammates but, more importantly, throw himself into pre-season training.

Injury prevented Ball from completing a full summer program for most of his eight years at St Kilda and, though he's not expecting to walk straight into a side that made a preliminary final in 2009, is backing his ability.

"[I'm] supremely confident," Ball said.

"Looking back I've probably only really ever done one full pre-season, if I'm going to be honest about it.

"So I'm really confident that, provided I want to do the work - which I'm pretty sure that I do - that I've still got some good footy left in me

."

[ctqs]

He's going to HAVE to walk back into the side, because he sure as hell can't run.

[meher baba]

FWIW I don't think we have ended up losing all that much with Luke going to the Pies through the draft rather than for a trade for, say, pick 30 or even Everitt (who I'm far from convinced has that much to offer: I would have been quite happy with Goldsack, tho).

The big loss IMO is that of Ball himself. But, in the end, we didn't have any choice. I still don't think it was really about $$$, but rather about a clash of ideas/values/styles/cultures what have you between club/coach and player. The Club/Lyon's view was that, if Ball wanted to be paid more than $300k or so per annum, he needed to be able/want to play a different style of AFL to that which he had been playing. Ball couldn't/wouldn't (I think it's a mixture of both) change.

Personally, I don't think he should have been required to change his game, but Lyon and the club had a different view, and their view prevailed: as it always should. The general must always been in charge of the army: if the general gets it wrong, then sack the general and get another one. But never, ever undermine the general's authority by taking into account what suits the infantry.

So, in the end, what had to happen has happened. The net result of Max, Goose, Ball and X gone and Lovett, Peake, Winmar, Smith, etc. doesn't look all that wonderful.

But I still think our list still looks strong enough to win a flag.

As for Ball himself, I reckon he gave great service to the team over a long period. Yes, Judd would have been a better pick up, but then we could easily have recruited duds with the picks we used to get Dal Santo and Joey.

I am so sick and tired of all the nit picking about our recruitment decisions over the past decade or so. I reckon that, on the whole, our list has continued to get stronger and stronger over that period: both through the decisions made in the Thomas era and in the Lyon era. Yes, there was the odd decision that - with the benefit of hindsight - we would have liked to have over again: Ball over Judd (although the salary cap would have become a problem earlier on if we had taken Judd), Barry Brooks, Fergus Watts, Brad Howard, etc.

But, on the whole, I think our recruitment has been great over a prolonged period: only Hawthorn and Geelong (the latter aided and abetted by the Father/Son system) could perhaps claim to have done better. Maybe 2009 will turn out to be the first trade week/draft period for a long time in which the net ledger isn't tilted particularly in our favour. But even this could change if a Smith or a Peake to come on in a big way.

So, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that things are looking pretty good, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to get too glum.

[SainterK]

FWIW I don't think we have ended up losing all that much with Luke going to the Pies through the draft rather than for a trade for, say, pick 30 or even Everitt (who I'm far from convinced has that much to offer: I would have been quite happy with Goldsack, tho).

The big loss IMO is that of Ball himself. But, in the end, we didn't have any choice. I still don't think it was really about $$$, but rather about a clash of ideas/values/styles/cultures what have you between club/coach and player. The Club/Lyon's view was that, if Ball wanted to be paid more than $300k or so per annum, he needed to be able/want to play a different style of AFL to that which he had been playing. Ball couldn't/wouldn't (I think it's a mixture of both) change.

Personally, I don't think he should have been required to change his game, but Lyon and the club had a different view, and their view prevailed: as it always should. The general must always been in charge of the army: if the general gets it wrong, then sack the general and get another one. But never, ever undermine the general's authority by taking into account what suits the infantry.

So, in the end, what had to happen has happened. The net result of Max, Goose, Ball and X gone and Lovett, Peake, Winmar, Smith, etc. doesn't look all that wonderful.

But I still think our list still looks strong enough to win a flag.

As for Ball himself, I reckon he gave great service to the team over a long period. Yes, Judd would have been a better pick up, but then we could easily have recruited duds with the picks we used to get Dal Santo and Joey.

I am so sick and tired of all the nit picking about our recruitment decisions over the past decade or so. I reckon that, on the whole, our list has continued to get stronger and stronger over that period: both through the decisions made in the Thomas era and in the Lyon era. Yes, there was the odd decision that - with the benefit of hindsight - we would have liked to have over again: Ball over Judd (although the salary cap would have become a problem earlier on if we had taken Judd), Barry Brooks, Fergus Watts, Brad Howard, etc.

But, on the whole, I think our recruitment has been great over a prolonged period: only Hawthorn and Geelong (the latter aided and abetted by the Father/Son system) could perhaps claim to have done better. Maybe 2009 will turn out to be the first trade week/draft period for a long time in which the net ledger isn't tilted particularly in our favour. But even this could change if a Smith or a Peake to come on in a big way.

So, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that things are looking pretty good, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to get too glum.

Change his game so much as change his role? He seemed to be used in a very similar way, but for shorter periods of time. Perhaps it was more his unwillingness to be a burst player...

[ctqs]

Well said Meher Baba. The players we delisted were on the fringe, or even outside it this year, if not the past couple. They were back-up at best. We have to be realistic and live in the moment.
The player's we've drafted don't necessarily set my heart racing just yet, either. One has character flaws, one walked out on his club after bagging it even though he never lived up to his part of the deal for one reason or another, another was cut from the worst club in the comp.
But I'll give them a chance to prove themselves before I set my judgment in stone.
Our recruiting has been pretty good overall. Yeah, there have been some questionable decisions. But it's given us a list that can win us a flag.
The players we've got in this draft may not give us the extra seven points we needed to win the flag (I don't count that last goal). But who's to say they won't? Zac Dawson and Farren Ray (or Sharon Gay, as some called him, rather harshly) copped the same flak this time last year. And look what happened.

[fingers]

He will continue to play his style of game and not the one that the coach wants. Will fit in well at Collingwood. Individuals.

I like Luke. Loved his time at our club. But he wasn't up to the challenge of making the changes he needed to make.

To quote someone - He couldn't run and spread.

he won't have to at Collingwood. He can just be himself.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

So, in the end, what had to happen has happened. The net result of Max, Goose, Ball and X gone and Lovett, Peake, Winmar, Smith, etc. doesn't look all that wonderful.

I don't really think as a set of substitutions it's bad at all. The one that hurts us most is Max, and if we look at the '09 season, Max was unable to get back to the '08 form that pursuaded him to go around once more... the question there is whether Dawson can back up the form that won him Max's spot.

Ball - Lovett, very different players, but it's best mid out best mid in, and if that had been a straight swap, I'd have taken it.

Goose -> Smith. From a guy who hadn't been able to get back into the team to an injury prone almost star... I look at Smith as a possible Drummond (all the injuries, not quite the receiving game, a bit more useful in tight). When North got 19 games out of him in '07 he was VERY good. Goose had lost his job, so it's an upgrade.

X -> Peake, X hadn't been able to get on the ground and gain form. I'm not sure that Peake will be able to do it either. I liked the upside and (dare I say it) X factor of X more... but I can retain an open mind, I suspect if Brisbane gets X healthy, we'll shudder, but unfortunately it didn't happen for him here.

Winmar -> is a kid. I expect nothing in the short term, and we'll see what the long term provides.

We're Not likely to go backwards as a result of these moves... they just didn't end up as good as they could have.

[desertsaint]

Should've taken pick 30!
Stuff whatisname who fell to pick 25 or 26,
a far better player fell to 30!
We could've swooped up a gun!