Blame Bailey for this one. We were just too meek and nice under his reign.

I love the fact that Neeld said "stuff this, we're getting Mitch Clark and nothing is going to stand in our way"

At this time in 2009, did our list management strategy at the club allow us to recruit Luke Ball then ? TH had only just started the staggered approach to contracts around then...which helped allow us to claim Mitch Clark recently.

I don't know the definite answer to it - and I doubt many here would - but I gather there were many things to take into account at that time.

And seeing there is a fair amount of hindsight in play here, so given the inch I'll take a yard - what sort of position would be in, having recruited Ball at 18... would we still have had Bruce ? McDonald ? Even Clark ? Or Neeld for that matter ? Craig ? Misson ? Or any of the out-of-contract players at that time, that got re-contracted ?

It's a wonderful thing, hindsight. Maybe he would have been captain at present - who knows ? and the hierarchy wouldn't be faced with a decision to give it to Trengove, Grimes in the next few weeks.

Mitch Clark was going home to Fremantle until the MFC changed his mind. I wish we had used the same attitude on Luke Ball. He would have been a great asset. The Filth never owned him, they flexed their muscle and everybody else sat down meekly.

I see WyL

.....^^

ლ (ಠyಠ) ლ

...... v

At this time in 2009, did our list management strategy at the club allow us to recruit Luke Ball then ? TH had only just started the staggered approach to contracts around then...which helped allow us to claim Mitch Clark recently.

I don't know the definite answer to it - and I doubt many here would - but I gather there were many things to take into account at that time.

And seeing there is a fair amount of hindsight in play here, so given the inch I'll take a yard - what sort of position would be in, having recruited Ball at 18... would we still have had Bruce ? McDonald ? Even Clark ? Or Neeld for that matter ? Craig ? Misson ? Or any of the out-of-contract players at that time, that got re-contracted ?

It's a wonderful thing, hindsight. Maybe he would have been captain at present - who knows ? and the hierarchy wouldn't be faced with a decision to give it to Trengove, Grimes in the next few weeks.

Of course it is hindsight, what else can it be...every single game the MFC has ever played in it's entire history is hindsight.

Why is it always looked down upon on this board to look at situations in hindsight?

I see WyL

.....^^

ლ (ಠyಠ) ლ

...... v

Sorry DL this reply is a little cryptic...fill me in a bit mate!!

At this time in 2009, did our list management strategy at the club allow us to recruit Luke Ball then ? TH had only just started the staggered approach to contracts around then...which helped allow us to claim Mitch Clark recently.

I don't know the definite answer to it - and I doubt many here would - but I gather there were many things to take into account at that time.

And seeing there is a fair amount of hindsight in play here, so given the inch I'll take a yard - what sort of position would be in, having recruited Ball at 18... would we still have had Bruce ? McDonald ? Even Clark ? Or Neeld for that matter ? Craig ? Misson ? Or any of the out-of-contract players at that time, that got re-contracted ?

It's a wonderful thing, hindsight. Maybe he would have been captain at present - who knows ? and the hierarchy wouldn't be faced with a decision to give it to Trengove, Grimes in the next few weeks.

Most of this thread was foresight, HT...

I don't like hypotheticals, I don't care that we didn't get him.

I do care that we made the wrong decision.

And we learnt from that experience.

Mitch Clark told us he didn't want to play for us.

But guess who is coming to dinner?

Most of this thread was foresight, HT...

I don't like hypotheticals, I don't care that we didn't get him.

I do care that we made the wrong decision.

And we learnt from that experience.

Mitch Clark told us he didn't want to play for us.

But guess who is coming to dinner?

I guess my point is then, was it the wrong decision based on my first line regarding list management ?

Without knowing all the variables of the LM and the room available, how do we know it was wrong ?

Edited January 30, 201213 yr by H_T

I guess my point is then, was it the wrong decision based on my first line regarding list management ?

Without knowing all the variables of the LM and the room available, how do we know it was wrong ?

It is not necessarily wrong...But there are so many times i wish we had done it...Luke was always going to be a gun, he & Lyon had a major rift...My Bro has been a Saint Tragic for 40 odd years and as a coterie member was Furious at what happened, and it takes a lot for him to fire up.

Look at the Leadership our list still lacks....The way we got Clark was a beautiful thing because it may mean the days of Timidity are over.

The Filth got a flag because of that deal...Yes it was close, but without Ball & Jolly they would not have got there...Stand over tactics must be matched at all times.

Sorry DL this reply is a little cryptic...fill me in a bit mate!!

I found this on another site so played with it a bit. I'm bored with the Pre Season, so I thought I'd throw it in somewhere, & I thought you would mind the least. I wanted it out there so it's not lost to the site.

it is interesting, just a little, isn't it?

Bring on the real stuff, Please.

Of course, whether you think the Ball decision was right or wrong is subjective.

It isn't priori, but posteriori in my view.

We lack what Luke Ball gives. A mature body in the midfield, a mature mind in the leadership group, and a captain in 2012.

It was the wrong decision in my view.

I found this on another site so played with it a bit. I'm bored with the Pre Season, so I thought I'd throw it in somewhere, & I thought you would mind the least. I wanted it out there so it's not lost to the site.

it is interesting, just a little, isn't it?

Bring on the real stuff, Please.

HaHaHa! Fair enough, i will pay that....You are a slight Loose Cannon aern't you DL....Be proud of it...!

Whilst much of this thread was prospective, and opinions were, as per every sample group, divided, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

But remember, he was suffering rather badly from OP, and our medical / physio / fitness staff (at least at that time) had a pretty poor record in managing that.

Had we picked him and he only managed a handful; of games,,how many would have backed up BP's decision? None too many I would imagine.

Collingwood got lucky / had the team to get him through it and he became and effective player in a good midfield.

Would he have been as effective in a slower and less mature midfield? Again, one can only speculate.

It is over - time to move on on this one.

Why is it always looked down upon on this board to look at situations in hindsight?

Its misused by people who mistaken it for foresight that should been obvious at the time of the event being reviewed.

Mitch Clark was going home to Fremantle until the MFC changed his mind. I wish we had used the same attitude on Luke Ball. He would have been a great asset. The Filth never owned him, they flexed their muscle and everybody else sat down meekly.

Thats revisionist rubbish without a basis of fact. Ball refused point blankly to meet with anyone from any other Club than Collingwood. There was a question at the time about his fitness and only Collingwood were given access to that. There was also the front loaded contract that Collingwood and Ball had agreed to that put him out of realistic contention for all other Clubs. The failure with Luke Ball was not on MFC's side. And given Collingwood was in a premiership window and right in the mix its fair more attractive for Ball to have been at Collingwood amongst the Swans, Pendlebury's etc then be the battering ram at a Club that had no defined ruck (like a Jolly) and bunch of kids that he would have to take the hit. We had no avenue to Ball with no surety he would have played for us or committed to us. We did need his type but there werent the other options....We could have kept McLean.

Mitch Clark was still open to offers even though his preference was Freo and WAS prepared to talk to other parties. There was always a lever possible and well done to all that played a part in securing it. One of which would have been that the MFCof 2012 is alot more attractive potentially than MFC of 2010.

Blame Bailey for this one. We were just too meek and nice under his reign. I love the fact that Neeld said "stuff this, we're getting Mitch Clark and nothing is going to stand in our way"

Well done BBP. Up there with your vent on the regret the Club would feel for getting rid of TJ.

Of course, whether you think the Ball decision was right or wrong is subjective.

It isn't priori, but posteriori in my view.

We lack what Luke Ball gives. A mature body in the midfield, a mature mind in the leadership group, and a captain in 2012.

It was the wrong decision in my view.

How would I have gone playing BP in that draft RP? The top 2 were a given, I had Ball at 11 and Vardy at 18. Would mean we wouldn't have Tappy who I rate, and Gysberts who I'm still unsure of, but the way Vardy played his games in 2011 was quite impressive, and I agree with your sentiments re Ball. And I'd still have 2 first round compo picks up my sleeve

We learn from our mistakes.

And a player saying 'No' when they have little alternative is something we should listen to.

And RR, no two situations are alike but we were told at one point to not bother with Clark just the way Ball said - we didn't listen and he came around.

Its misused by people who mistaken it for foresight that should been obvious at the time of the event being reviewed.

Thats revisionist rubbish without a basis of fact. Ball refused point blankly to meet with anyone from any other Club than Collingwood. There was a question at the time about his fitness and only Collingwood were given access to that. There was also the front loaded contract that Collingwood and Ball had agreed to that put him out of realistic contention for all other Clubs. The failure with Luke Ball was not on MFC's side. And given Collingwood was in a premiership window and right in the mix its fair more attractive for Ball to have been at Collingwood amongst the Swans, Pendlebury's etc then be the battering ram at a Club that had no defined ruck (like a Jolly) and bunch of kids that he would have to take the hit. We had no avenue to Ball with no surety he would have played for us or committed to us. We did need his type but there werent the other options....We could have kept McLean.

i remember all you mention above as well as you do Rhino, and yes i know Ball wanted to go to just Collingwood, and he allegedly with held medical records from others.....but my view will always be...Luke entered a National Draft as a proffessional footballer. Our list was crying out for leadership...we should have had a very serious crack at him, regardless of verbal filth deals.

On Mclean. That ankle he fractured badly against the bears effectively ended his career, Carlton did us a mighty favour there.

i remember all you mention above as well as you do Rhino, and yes i know Ball wanted to go to just Collingwood, and he allegedly with held medical records from others.....but my view will always be...Luke entered a National Draft as a proffessional footballer. Our list was crying out for leadership...we should have had a very serious crack at him, regardless of verbal filth deals.

On Mclean. That ankle he fractured badly against the bears effectively ended his career, Carlton did us a mighty favour there.

He went into the draft with pre determined strings that had been negotiated with Collingwood. He would not even speak with us. We had no guarantee that if drafted he would (interest) or could (fitness) fulfill contractual obligations. And given the situation it was a very big risk on those issues that its easy to say we shoulda coulda. There was some fundamental unknowns with Ball

And that crap on McLean. His career ended when the game sped up in the last six years and he didnt. Never quick he became molasses whose slowness was magnified by poor on field peripheral vision. No arguments about Carlton.

We learn from our mistakes.

And a player saying 'No' when they have little alternative is something we should listen to.

And RR, no two situations are alike but we were told at one point to not bother with Clark just the way Ball said - we didn't listen and he came around.

I dont think there was a mistake. MFC made a number of approaches as other clubs did to Ball. We even approached him in the US as well and he refused to talk with us. Clark did not show that capacity.

luke ball is very overrated imo he is slow and kick more than 35m, i think his injuries really got to him

He went into the draft with pre determined strings that had been negotiated with Collingwood. He would not even speak with us. We had no guarantee that if drafted he would (interest) or could (fitness) fulfill contractual obligations. And given the situation it was a very big risk on those issues that its easy to say we shoulda coulda. There was some fundamental unknowns with Ball

And that crap on McLean. His career ended when the game sped up in the last six years and he didnt. Never quick he became molasses whose slowness was magnified by poor on field peripheral vision. No arguments about Carlton.

Pre determined strings towards the Filth...how was this allowed to happen? Does the AFL go on holiday when this sh!t occurs? Luke played his cards as he wanted. Good luck to him. But i will never understand how he was allowed to black ban certain clubs & walk over them with AFL approval, we were treated as a 3rd class citizen by our most hated enemy. And that hurt.

Luke Ball chose to speak with Collingwood and chose not to speak to MFC. His preferences were understandable if you actually thought about where Ball was in his career and what he wanted to achieve. Luke Ball played a high risk game himself but the odds were stacked in his favour. If he was chosen by MFC and did not want to play with us, his career was potentially on a knife's edge. This risk has always been known by Clubs and the AFL. The issue with Ball was expensive contract with high upfront, questionable medical condition that required external medical certification that was withheld and a player stating where he wanted to go. And your melodramatic last sentence does little to show that you actually understood what happened.

luke ball is very overrated imo he is slow and kick more than 35m, i think his injuries really got to him

Thanks for the chuckle...

Luke Ball chose to speak with Collingwood and chose not to speak to MFC. His preferences were understandable if you actually thought about where Ball was in his career and what he wanted to achieve. Luke Ball played a high risk game himself but the odds were stacked in his favour. If he was chosen by MFC and did not want to play with us, his career was potentially on a knife's edge. This risk has always been known by Clubs and the AFL. The issue with Ball was expensive contract with high upfront, questionable medical condition that required external medical certification that was withheld and a player stating where he wanted to go. And your melodramatic last sentence does little to show that you actually understood what happened.

No arguement Rhino on this one. I followed it all very closely so i understand well what happened. My response is Why bother to have a draft if that course of action is sanctioned?

Edited January 30, 201213 yr by why you little

I dont think there was a mistake. MFC made a number of approaches as other clubs did to Ball. We even approached him in the US as well and he refused to talk with us. Clark did not show that capacity.

It's subjective as I said.

I think it was a mistake to give any credence to the games the bloke played, I think we did give credence and chose to heed his 'oh-so-meaningful quibbles' with our club.

It's subjective as I said.

I think it was a mistake to give any credence to the games the bloke played, I think we did give credence and chose to heed his 'oh-so-meaningful quibbles' with our club.

Certainly was not placing weight on games played but he was subject to extensive medical testing by Collingwood prior to agreement. If I a person said that they would not speak to us in response to continual requests for discussion i dont know if we had much of a choice in actually finding out what his issues were with MFC. We did not get an opportunity to speak with Ball. Clark chose to speak with us and we did a good job. It is subjective at best but if we had been given a chance to speak with Ball or his management about what MFC could offer I would accept your perspective that possibly we could have done things better or differently.

There were questions marks on whether Luke Ball was ever going to function again at top speed or fitness.

Fact is, we got pick 11 for Brock Mclean, who has since done exactly what it was feared Luke Ball's future held. Broken down, too slow, not able to contribute fully, playing in the 2s.

You win some you lose some - and I don't think Melbourne circa 'way back then' was in a position to take the risk on an expensive recruit when clearly we believed there was good talent on offer in the draft (Tapscott, Gysberts, Gawn).

As for the difference between Mitch Clarke changing his mind and Ball not wanting to come to us... have we forgotten the junction oval aready? Have we forgotten that we were looking at years of misery and still the possibility of the club folding?

How different things are now.

Also, I was doing a quick fact check of stats and the like on footywire. They have the clubs listed by 'nickname', and for a few seconds there I couldn't remember what Collingwood were called. Good times.