Now before i start i would like to say that i believe that the melbourne midfield craps all over the Richmond midfield, but thought i'd raise the subject due to the article below.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tige...f-1225786845272

RICHMOND has entered the race for disenchanted Saint Luke Ball, with the Tigers desperate to win his leadership skills as well as his football ability.

New coach Damien Hardwick has endorsed the club's decision, made on Friday afternoon after the club assessed its list after the trade period.

The club is aware Melbourne would be able to meet Ball's financial terms, but Richmond still has a powerful position to win a player in December's pre-season draft. Ball might prefer to slot into a Richmond midfield full of young talent, rather than be seen as the sole shining light in a Melbourne midfield that is exciting, but extremely raw.

The former St Kilda captain is travelling in America and has not yet made a decision on his future, or any potential new home.

Richmond chief executive Brendon Gale said yesterday the club - with pick No. 2 in the pre-season draft - would actively chase Ball when he returned from his holiday.

"He is an impressive bloke. We had a chat on Friday afternoon and if Luke Ball was available we would have a really serious look at him," Gale said yesterday.

"If he nominates for the national draft, we would be reserving those selections for kids, but in the pre-season draft it would be a real possibility."]

Without going into an indepth analysis, Melbourne's midfield is much more extiting than the Richmond midfield. Who, other than Delidio, Cotchin, Cousins (Who will be gone in 1-2 years) & Tambling do they have?

Thought this could be a good discussion topic that could be elaborated on....what are everyones views on this?

I haven't put this in the draft & trading board because i think it is a midfield v midfield and issue and not a Luke Ball issue.

Now before i start i would like to say that i believe that the melbourne midfield craps all over the Richmond midfield, but thought i'd raise the subject due to the article below.

Who have we got that can compete with Cousins, Cotchin, Foley and Deledio at the present time?

MFC have performed like a 3rd world midfield for the past 3 years.

The promise is indeed brght with Grimes, Morton, Sylvia, Blease, Strauss, Jones, Scully and Trengove (in expectation). And I expect the MFC to surpass the Tigers within 2 to 3 years time

But at this point in time, MFC are crud in the midfield.

I just love that Richmond seem to think they can engineer a situation where they get Ball in the PreSeason Draft, but we can't/won't choose him.

Are they that delusional??

I just love that Richmond seem to think they can engineer a situation where they get Ball in the PreSeason Draft, but we can't/won't choose him.

Are they that delusional??

They would be mad not to try to get him. The issue with the Tigers is that their cream is either very young or its very old with few stars in between.

It was never going to be easy for MFC.

Surely Richmond wouldn't be entertaining this thought unless there was some way they could ensure that we would be totally unable to select Ball in the PSD. So maybe they expect Ball to put a price on his head or something to that effect. Something that stops us from wanting/being able to take him.

As for the two midfields, at the moment, unfortunately, theirs is better. Cotchin, Cousins, Foley, Deledio > Jones, Moloney, Davey, Sylvia, McDonald, whoever else we run though there. But we have a much, much stronger defence, and our forward line is a better prospect than Richmond's.

They would be mad not to try to get him. The issue with the Tigers is that their cream is either very young or its very old with few stars in between.

It was never going to be easy for MFC.

They would be, but at the same time, there is no way they can engineer a situation where we don't have the chance to take him first.

I don't care where Luke Ball says he'd prefer play, whether its Collingwood, Richmond or Timbuktu -- if he's available on the PSD we take him with pick 1

Surely Richmond wouldn't be entertaining this thought unless there was some way they could ensure that we would be totally unable to select Ball in the PSD. So maybe they expect Ball to put a price on his head or something to that effect. Something that stops us from wanting/being able to take him.

As for the two midfields, at the moment, unfortunately, theirs is better. Cotchin, Cousins, Foley, Deledio > Jones, Moloney, Davey, Sylvia, McDonald, whoever else we run though there. But we have a much, much stronger defence, and our forward line is a better prospect than Richmond's.

But Richmond have admitted in the article that they simply can't pay a price for him that we'd be unable to match.

And yes, their midfield excites me much more than ours does right now. In the near future that should change dramatically.

The only way I can see this changing is if they tear up Cotchin's contract and talk him into entering the PSD.

They would be, but at the same time, there is no way they can engineer a situation where we don't have the chance to take him first.

I don't care where Luke Ball says he'd prefer play, whether its Collingwood, Richmond or Timbuktu -- if he's available on the PSD we take him with pick 1

If he decides after consdieration that he does not want to play for MFC then I dont want him...period.

It would be stupid to draft a high profile player like Ball if he does not want to play for us. I know the "Stuff you buddy" scenarios that MFC could play but i only think that serves to punish MFC in the long run. And i dont think we need further damage to our brand.

We should in the meantime do everything within our reasonable means to encourage Ball to choose us.

If I were Richomd, I would be talking MFC down at every opportunity and encouraging him to go with Punt Rd. If I were Ball, I wouldn't do that.

If he decides after consdieration that he does not want to play for MFC then I dont want him...period.

It would be stupid to draft a high profile player like Ball if he does not want to play for us. I know the "Stuff you buddy" scenarios that MFC could play but i only think that serves to punish MFC in the long run. And i dont think we need further damage to our brand.

We should in the meantime do everything within our reasonable means to encourage Ball to choose us.

If I were Richomd, I would be talking MFC down at every opportunity and encouraging him to go with Punt Rd. If I were Ball, I wouldn't do that.

I'm sorry, I don't agree.

I don't think Ball s in the position to choose his destination through the PSD and would be foolish to think so.

To take the "I want Rich, not MFC" stance is just as risky a situation for him as the ND, if not more so.

If we did happen to draft him under those circumstances, which we'd be likely to do, it would bring him to the list in a situation less tenable than what he had at St Kilda.

It would lead to a hard couple of years in his life and possibly a sour end to his career.

Richmond = Cousins, Foley, Deledio, Cotchin, Tambling, the out of favour Tuck, plus King and a couple of other hacks.

Dees = McDonald, Moloney, Jones, Davey, Sylvia, Green, Bruce, plus youngsters on their way.

They have a little better top end class, but in reality not much, if at all. Deledio doesn't do much in the midfield and Cotchin had a poor year, yet reeks class. Foley sprays it a bit, but is a good player. If anything we've got more depth through the rotations when you add Grimes, Morton, Petterd, Dunn and a couple of other hacks.

Once Blease, Scully, Trengove and Grimes get their teeth into the midfield we'll surpass them quite easily. Their midfield was basically on a par with ours in 09 considering we beat them reasonably well the first time - although they came back late; and virtually won the unlosable game the second time round. And if we'd won, as we should have under 'normal' circumstances, they'd be the spooners. Games are still predominantly won and lost in the midfield.

Sometimes we can fall into the trap of overrating others in an attempt to be seen to be 'above' the parochial masses.

So in summation we currently have better depth but RFC have a slightly better "top 6"... for now.

Cousins will soon be another year older too.

He doesn't yet look like slowing down, but he's getting to the age where he could become crippled by old men's injuries like calf strains.

If he decides after consdieration that he does not want to play for MFC then I dont want him...period.

I don't agree.

Our football club line must be, "The MFC will be choosing the best player available in the draft and we will make that decision on draft day, or earlier if we have an agreement in place with our preferred player".

If we have no such agreement we will take the player we deem to be best available. End of story.

I'm sorry, I don't agree.

I don't think Ball s in the position to choose his destination through the PSD and would be foolish to think so.

To take the "I want Rich, not MFC" stance is just as risky a situation for him as the ND, if not more so.

If we did happen to draft him under those circumstances, which we'd be likely to do, it would bring him to the list in a situation less tenable than what he had at St Kilda.

It would lead to a hard couple of years in his life and possibly a sour end to his career.

It would be ludicrous for MFC to draft a high profile player at considerable $$$ who does not want to play for us.

It would be both untenable for MFC and Luke Ball.

MFC would get a disinterested player and be the venue for a sour end to a players career with little in return.

If he did choose Richmond, he could only do so if MFC confirmed that we would not exercise our PSD 1 pick on him. Ball would require some form of promise from MFC to proceed to Richmond. If MFC back tracked on that deal and drafted him, MFC would cop it in spades for years to come from current and potential players, their managers and other Clubs as a dishonest and untrustworthy negotiator on player contracting and recruiting. Furthermore we would hardly have a happy recruit (or his manager) who would feel they have been "cheated" in the process. It would send a rightful chill in the minds of other players and agents if we behaved in such a belligerent and provocative manner.

I hope wiser minds are handling the Ball negotiations

It would be ludicrous for MFC to draft a high profile player at considerable $$$ who does not want to play for us.

It would be both untenable for MFC and Luke Ball.

MFC would get a disinterested player and be the venue for a sour end to a players career with little in return.

If he did choose Richmond, he could only do so if MFC confirmed that we would not exercise our PSD 1 pick on him. Ball would require some form of promise from MFC to proceed to Richmond. If MFC back tracked on that deal and drafted him, MFC would cop it in spades for years to come from current and potential players, their managers and other Clubs as a dishonest and untrustworthy negotiator on player contracting and recruiting. Furthermore we would hardly have a happy recruit (or his manager) who would feel they have been "cheated" in the process. It would send a rightful chill in the minds of other players and agents if we behaved in such a belligerent and provocative manner.

I hope wiser minds are handling the Ball negotiations

Yes, but what could possess us to make that sort of promise to Ball?

We wouldn't, short and simple.

I don't agree.

Our football club line must be, "The MFC will be choosing the best player available in the draft and we will make that decision on draft day, or earlier if we have an agreement in place with our preferred player".

If we have no such agreement we will take the player we deem to be best available. End of story.

While I agree with that approach from the MFC to encourage Ball to us and that was MFC's stated intention, then that would close out Richmond in the running.

However, if Ball states flatly that he does not want to go to MFC then he should nominate for the ND to avoid disappointment. However he has no control where he will end up in the process and that will be interstate.

I think we can leverage the PSD to our benefit in that way to encourage Ball. However if does not want us and nominates for the PSD then he is playing russian roulette with a blindfold.

I guess it also depends on how Ball actually thinks. If we hypothesis that he is not a robot or a tool and can appreciate shades of grey (rather than 'they are great' or 'they are crap'), he may well express a preference to go somewhere else. If it is a fairly loosely held preference, then I'd happily pick him up, even if we were not his preferred club. If he refuses to come to us - has a tanti and behaves like a primadonna - or his manager is a total halfwit (which is highly unlikely), then you'd leave him alone and wish him all the best at ninthmond.

So, my bet is that we'll see him in the red and blue - our position will be that we want him and we are going to take him wherever he is in whatever draft he is in. He'll see that playing footy for us and getting paid well is really not that bad. WE'll persuade him to go PSD and everyone will be more or less happy.

I think, RR, that you misunderstand what I"m saying.

I'm not saying MFC should or shouldn't do anything or take any such stance.

I'm saying from LB's perspective, it is a risky move to burn bridges you may yet be forced to cross.

I don't think he's the type to do that and I don't think he's that foolish.

As TimD alluded to, if Ball doesn't want to play for Melb then nominate for the ND.

We will pick who we deem to be best available in the PSD. It's pretty simple really.

I would understand if he wanted to go to Richmond. Their midfield stars (which is what we're talking about here) are further developed than ours. When your two big selling points are two kids that are more than a month away from actally being at the club, then you have problems. It could easily take 5 years for these kids to RELALY find their feet, at which time Ball would be 30.

What I don't prescribe to is the idea that it's all about the midfield. We have other players FCS.

I guess it also depends on how Ball actually thinks. If we hypothesis that he is not a robot or a tool and can appreciate shades of grey (rather than 'they are great' or 'they are crap'), he may well express a preference to go somewhere else. If it is a fairly loosely held preference, then I'd happily pick him up, even if we were not his preferred club. If he refuses to come to us - has a tanti and behaves like a primadonna - or his manager is a total halfwit (which is highly unlikely), then you'd leave him alone and wish him all the best at ninthmond.

So, my bet is that we'll see him in the red and blue - our position will be that we want him and we are going to take him wherever he is in whatever draft he is in. He'll see that playing footy for us and getting paid well is really not that bad. WE'll persuade him to go PSD and everyone will be more or less happy.

What timD said.

Yes, but what could possess us to make that sort of promise to Ball?

We wouldn't, short and simple.

I dont think it would get to that.

But worst case (and I hope its not), if Luke Ball flatly refuses MFC then if MFC adopts Hannibal's approach it would be silly for Ball to take the PSD.

So yes it is tough for Richmond.

At the end of the day, its seems unlikely that Ball will repair his ties at StK. I would think all sensible roads lead to MFC...hopefully.

I'm saying from LB's perspective, it is a risky move to burn bridges you may yet be forced to cross.

I don't think he's the type to do that and I don't think he's that foolish.

Neither do I and Ball needs to be careful indeed.

I don't agree.

Our football club line must be, "The MFC will be choosing the best player available in the draft and we will make that decision on draft day, or earlier if we have an agreement in place with our preferred player".

If we have no such agreement we will take the player we deem to be best available. End of story.

H, I completely agree. If he's available for a pick that we're prepared to spend on him then we should take him regardless what he wants.

Without going into an indepth analysis, Melbourne's midfield is much more extiting than the Richmond midfield. Who, other than Delidio, Cotchin, Cousins (Who will be gone in 1-2 years) & Tambling do they have?

If we don't have a midfielder better than Tambling I will never go to another MFC game.

Firstly, what's to stop Richmond picking up Ball at pick 19 in the ND?? I realise they now have a youth policy but if they're desperate for Ball (and he nominates for the ND) they should select him at pick 19.

Secondly, Luke Ball will stay at St Kilda. The MFC have been [censored] out of luck since 1965 so I expect the trend to continue.