IF Ball is still available at our picks 11, 18 or 34 should we take him or take a youngster?

The club must take Luke Ball at pick 18 if he's available.

End of discussion.

Last one's a moot point. He will definitely not be available at 34.

The club must take Luke Ball at pick 18 if he's available.

End of discussion.

I'm happy to keep discussing it with you.

As the poll stands you're down 5-1.

Last one's a moot point. He will definitely not be available at 34.

I'm happy to keep discussing it with you.

As the poll stands you're down 5-1.

Sorry I was being a bit of a smart ass by saying end of discussion.

Ball at pick 18 would be a 7 pick upgrade on McLean.

Ball will provide clearances for the 16th ranked club at clearances.

Ball is a proven quantity who's won All Australian and Best Fairests, and was commendable in the Grand Final.

Ball is a quality person who would have a positive impact on our young midfield.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Edited November 13, 200915 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

I'm still not sold on the "we shouldn't take him" argument.

Best available to me means just that. If it gets to pick 18 and the FD judge him as better than any youngster is likely to be then I'll back them.

Sorry I was being a bit of a smart ass by saying end of discussion.

Ball at pick 18 would be a 7 pick upgrade on McLean.

Ball will provide clearances for the 16th ranked club at clearances.

Ball is a proven quantity who's won All Australian and Best Fairests, and was commendable in the Grand Final.

Ball is a quality person who would have a positive impact on our young midfield.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Turns 26 next year. How many more years can his body hold out for? I don't believe he is good enough, or will give this club enough, to warrant using Pick 18.

There's also the matter of him not wanting to be here, but even that aside, I still don't think his return will be enough to make using 18 worthwhile.

Sorry I was being a bit of a smart ass by saying end of discussion.

Ball at pick 18 would be a 7 pick upgrade on McLean.

Ball will provide clearances for the 16th ranked club at clearances.

Ball is a proven quantity who's won All Australian and Best Fairests, and was commendable in the Grand Final.

Ball is a quality person who would have a positive impact on our young midfield.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

yeh if you say it like that. the fact is he didnt nominate for the pre-season because he doesnt want to come to us. If we get him at 18, then he stays for 1,2 or 3 years then decides to leave what will we have gotten from him 1-3 years of service, a wasted pick 18 and when we trade him we wont get any pick in the top 30 for him.

yeh if you say it like that. the fact is he didnt nominate for the pre-season because he doesnt want to come to us. If we get him at 18, then he stays for 1,2 or 3 years then decides to leave what will we have gotten from him 1-3 years of service, a wasted pick 18 and when we trade him we wont get any pick in the top 30 for him.

There are 15 clubs that he would rather not play for, he has publicly stated that. Will that stop the other 13 clubs (excluding Saints and Pies) from picking him? I'd think not.

Think about it from this angle, if he is 110% certain he doesn't want to play football for the Melbourne Football Club, and would perhaps harm himself if selected by us (slight exaggeration!), WHY DID HE NOMINATE FOR THE ND??? He is not silly, he knows there is a big chance he will be in the red and blue next year because of our draft picks, if he was dead against playing for us he would have had 12 months out of the game. At that age it wont harm him too much (look at Ben Cousins, and he's 30+), all it would do is harm his reputation.

I think if we would get 3-5 solid, midfield years out of him, with 2-3 years as a back pocket/tagging type, he would be well and truly worth pick 11. The impact he would have on the development of Scully and Trengove would be massive. At the end of the day, I rate Ball's leadership, ability and football brain (in his time at St Kilda) probably more than any of our players - just ahead of Davey. He showed in the GF that he still has it, so can't see why the next team that picks him up will get anything less. As I have said in the past, over the next 3 years, Ball would/could quite easily win our B&F, why wouldn't we pick him???

Edited November 14, 200915 yr by billy2803

Think about it from this angle, if he is 110% certain he doesn't want to play football for the Melbourne Football Club, and would perhaps harm himself if selected by us (slight exaggeration!), WHY DID HE NOMINATE FOR THE ND??? He is not silly, he knows there is a big chance he will be in the red and blue next year because of our draft picks, if he was dead against playing for us he would have had 12 months out of the game. At that age it wont harm him too much (look at Ben Cousins, and he's 30+), all it would do is harm his reputation.

The number 1 thing for Ball is to leave St Kilda. Since he didn't get traded, it leaves him with either ND or PSD.

He chose ND because the PSD is a certain move to Melbourne. At least in the ND he has a chance of going somewhere else. According to Hannibal, he still thinks he can get to Collingwood.

I think if we would get 3-5 solid, midfield years out of him, with 2-3 years as a back pocket/tagging type, he would be well and truly worth pick 11. The impact he would have on the development of Scully and Trengove would be massive. At the end of the day, I rate Ball's leadership, ability and football brain (in his time at St Kilda) probably more than any of our players - just ahead of Davey. He showed in the GF that he still has it, so can't see why the next team that picks him up will get anything less. As I have said in the past, over the next 3 years, Ball would/could quite easily win our B&F, why wouldn't we pick him???

Pick 11?!?!? No way.

I doubt that Ball will be in our best 22 when we are good enough to win the flag. I'd rather use our picks on 18 year olds.

I'd rather use our picks on 18 year olds.

If we only had 3 top 20 picks, then I'd be using them all on 18 year olds. But now that we have one extra pick, I feel that we have the luxury to select a proven mature age quantity.

And it must be said that that the probability of selecting four 18 year olds that will all be future guns are very low. Daniel Bell (poor awareness and disposal), Lynden Dunn (yet to cement a game) and Luke Molan (career killed by injuries) have all been top 20 picks and look how successful they've turned out

Three 18 year olds and Ball is a safter bet than four 18 year olds.

Edited November 14, 200915 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

The number 1 thing for Ball is to leave St Kilda. Since he didn't get traded, it leaves him with either ND or PSD.

He chose ND because the PSD is a certain move to Melbourne. At least in the ND he has a chance of going somewhere else. According to Hannibal, he still thinks he can get to Collingwood.

Pick 11?!?!? No way.

I doubt that Ball will be in our best 22 when we are good enough to win the flag. I'd rather use our picks on 18 year olds.

And when will this be? 1 year? 2 years? 3, 4, 5 or 6 years?

I would say 3 years+. Ball will be 28 in 3 years, and STILL in our best 22, if not 18 - he's a proven quality. Ball will play a part in the development of that team that could win a flag, and may just be in the side that hopefully wins it.

On draft night, I will cheer just as loud if we pick a kid at 11 or 18 as I would for Luke Ball at either of those picks. The difference is that I will be cheering more for Luke Ball over the immediate years as he will no doubt assist getting a winning culture back in the club, more so than those pick 11 and 18 kids (unless we are fortunate enough to jag a Selwood/Rich-type, ready-made slider).

Ball WILL play at 110% for Melbourne if we select him. He wants to play football, this is proven by his nomination. He would rather play for the scum, but if it's the red and blue jumper that he pulls on next year, he will give it his all. Anyone that thinks differently need to have a serious look at themselves because that is absolute rubbish.

If we only had 3 top 20 picks, then I'd be using them all on 18 year olds. But now that we have one extra pick, I feel that we have the luxury to select a proven mature age quantity.

And it must be said that that the probability of selecting four 18 year olds that will all be future guns are very low. Daniel Bell (poor awareness and disposal), Lynden Dunn (yet to cement a game) and Luke Molan (career killed by injuries) have all been top 20 picks and look how successful they've turned out

Three 18 year olds and Ball is a safter bet than four 18 year olds.

Here here. Scully, Trengove, Ball and Vardy.

Ball = Proven, capable midfielder. B&F winner, has enough quality to instantly be one of Melbourne's elite (given the opposition in this category)

Scully = Possible SUPERSTAR, if not, will be a very, very good player (not many that fit that category in the red and blue)

Trengve = see Scully

Vardy = Will make the grade, just needs to become a solid ruckman

3 out of 4 are going to be in our upper bracket players in the next 2-3 years, and Vardy will take a little bit longer.

There is no risk, it's the safest and best result we could ask for. Take risks in the compromised drafts, and later picks this year for the matter.

We can argue this until we're (red &) blue in the face, but seriously guys, we want to win games, we don't want to risk anything with our first 4 picks, how can picking Ball in that group harm us in any way????????????????????

Edited November 14, 200915 yr by billy2803

And when will this be? 1 year? 2 years? 3, 4, 5 or 6 years?

I would say 3 years+. Ball will be 28 in 3 years, and STILL in our best 22, if not 18 - he's a proven quality. Ball will play a part in the development of that team that could win a flag, and may just be in the side that hopefully wins it.

Ball's body isn't in prime condition. In 3 years there's every chance he'll be struggling to play at AFL level.

If the FD is happy to draft someone at age 26, which seems to fly in the face of our recruiting process of the last few years, then OK. But I don't know if he will be good enough or fit enough to be in our 22 in 4 or 5 years.

The club must take Luke Ball at pick 18 if he's available.

End of discussion.

Apparently it's not the end of the discussion - looking at the poll.

Wonder what price he is putting on his head, and how many years?

Having said tha, he could have almost named his own price at MFC. He has chosen not to. End of story for mine.

Could be very interesting. A first for a 'name' player in the ND (with no obvious go to/selection tabled)?

Just ask yourself what are the qualities we're looking for in recruits?

Wins own ball - check

Good pace/athleticism - No

Good disposal - No

Age bracket - No

One out of four.

We could add leadership if you like, then it'd two out of five. Still not good enough.

If that's not enough then there is the issue of his choice to leave the Saints. All reports say that he was told exactly which areas of his game he needed to work on to regain a regular spot in the side. Rather than doing so, he asked to leave a team which has played in one grand final and will probably play in at least one more in the near future. He has asked to go to a team with little realistic chance of winning a flag while he is playing for them but with very high quality facilities and lots of money. To me this indicates that he is unwilling to work on (or even acknowledge) weaknesses in his game and has instead chosen the soft option. Forgive me if I'm not seeing a guy I want rubbing off on our talented youngsters in all this.

Must admit I'm surprised that we're 9-20 against picking up Luke Ball at pick 18.

I doubt we'll pick him up, but if we do I'll be interested to see if the anti Luke Ball scibes around here will be praising him next year if he has a good game.

Must admit I'm surprised that we're 9-20 against picking up Luke Ball at pick 18.

I doubt we'll pick him up, but if we do I'll be interested to see if the anti Luke Ball scibes around here will be praising him next year if he has a good game.

He might have a great year, or a poor one. Doesn't matter to us. He had the chance to name his own $s, and get to the MFC in the PSD. He has chosen not to.

And before I get the "he is a professional who will play anywhere" line, the saints can draft him too. Bet they won't BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY THERE.

Simple really.

He might have a great year, or a poor one. Doesn't matter to us. He had the chance to name his own $s, and get to the MFC in the PSD. He has chosen not to.

And before I get the "he is a professional who will play anywhere" line, the saints can draft him too. Bet they won't BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY THERE.

Simple really.

When has he chosen not to go? He nominated for the ND, knowing very well that his chances of becoming a Demon were more likely than not. If he didn't want to become one, he wouldn't have nominated.

Oh, his body is wrecked...

Tell me, and be honest everyone - who was BOG in the 09 Grand Final at half-time?

Ball at Pick 18 is the only question for me, BP might see it as good value.

If he does, I couldn't care less about our hurt feelings...

Must admit I'm surprised that we're 9-20 against picking up Luke Ball at pick 18.

I doubt we'll pick him up, but if we do I'll be interested to see if the anti Luke Ball scibes around here will be praising him next year if he has a good game.

I'm a bit surprised too. I hate the idea. I think that in ignoring our attempts at contact, and nominating for the ND instead of the PSD, he has given us an f' u. Yet we still don't mind the idea (it's now 15:26 for pick 18) of taking a bloke who has deliberately cost us a top 20 draft pick if he is taken at 18.

I feel like a broken record, not just on my own behalf, but on the behalf of many other contributors to this site. I guess the problem is that this seems so clear cut to me that I can't understand why others don't agree!!! I don't feel like this on too many issues. I'm fine with disagreement usually, but this issue really has us all divided. I've heard the "who cares?" argument, but I don't buy it. He does not have our club's interests at heart. If he did, he'd have answered a phone and nominated PSD. If we pick him now, he's directly cost us a top 18 draft pick, and I think that's inexcusable.

So yeh... I'm surprised. Surprised that 15 people don't mind that this single player has put us in the position where we have compromised our just rewards for years of being in the doldrums and for having to go to the 'G' last year, hoping for a close game that we'd lose (which made me sick), just to pick him up. I don't believe Luke Ball has done this to caress his ego. I believe he's done it to tell us he does not want to be here at MFC.

If we pick him with anything better than 50 (which will obviously see him at the filth 1st anyway), we've seriously compromised our own ego.

It's like a girl telling you she won't go home with you until she's sure nobody else at the pub who's better looking wants her too and that if you wind up getting her, she'll want some coin to do the deed.

In the words of many a good Aussie bloke; "I don't need to pay for it".

Must admit I'm surprised that we're 9-20 against picking up Luke Ball at pick 18.

I doubt we'll pick him up, but if we do I'll be interested to see if the anti Luke Ball scibes around here will be praising him next year if he has a good game.

Of course we'll be praising him!

It will be a good move to pick him up. I just think that it will be even better to pick up the best young players at 11 & 18, especially if it's someone with great disposal (Tapscott, Talia).

I'm a bit surprised too. I hate the idea. I think that in ignoring our attempts at contact, and nominating for the ND instead of the PSD, he has given us an f' u. Yet we still don't mind the idea (it's now 15:26 for pick 18) of taking a bloke who has deliberately cost us a top 20 draft pick if he is taken at 18.

I feel like a broken record, not just on my own behalf, but on the behalf of many other contributors to this site. I guess the problem is that this seems so clear cut to me that I can't understand why others don't agree!!! I don't feel like this on too many issues. I'm fine with disagreement usually, but this issue really has us all divided. I've heard the "who cares?" argument, but I don't buy it. He does not have our club's interests at heart. If he did, he'd have answered a phone and nominated PSD. If we pick him now, he's directly cost us a top 18 draft pick, and I think that's inexcusable.

So yeh... I'm surprised. Surprised that 15 people don't mind that this single player has put us in the position where we have compromised our just rewards for years of being in the doldrums and for having to go to the 'G' last year, hoping for a close game that we'd lose (which made me sick), just to pick him up. I don't believe Luke Ball has done this to caress his ego. I believe he's done it to tell us he does not want to be here at MFC.

If we pick him with anything better than 50 (which will obviously see him at the filth 1st anyway), we've seriously compromised our own ego.

It's like a girl telling you she won't go home with you until she's sure nobody else at the pub who's better looking wants her too and that if you wind up getting her, she'll want some coin to do the deed.

In the words of many a good Aussie bloke; "I don't need to pay for it".

Well said Baz!

getting over the luke ball debate...

at the end of the day we couldn't get him to the club for an interview. has the club even done a medical on him?

any player that gold coast don't want the following year is going to be pretty dirty cheap...they will be 25 going 26....say we take a decent one next year.

Turns 26 next year. How many more years can his body hold out for? I don't believe he is good enough, or will give this club enough, to warrant using Pick 18.

There's also the matter of him not wanting to be here, but even that aside, I still don't think his return will be enough to make using 18 worthwhile.

I would rather a Tall at 11, & a Moore or a Colyer @ 18.

A Grimes @ 34.

A Daw @ 50.