http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/ball-...8220010915.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melb...f-1225801655733

Exactly what I wanted to hear from CC. Go on Essendon, take him at 10, I dare ya

Same mantra as last year before the PSD. We will take the best player, regardless.

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but it's hardly a surprise CC states we're taking two midfielders at 1&2.

A big part of me hopes we pick just to call his bluff. Another part hopes Fremantle of Port pick him just to see him have to move interstate.

The selection of Luke Ball is going to be interesting and i still havent discounted Port taking him at #9 as they have #8 as well (Butcher if he is still there)

I am not convinced we should select Ball but its hard to argue he isnt the best option at pick 18 when the quality of youngsters starts to wane

rpfc will be pleased.

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but it's hardly a surprise CC states we're taking two midfielders at 1&2.

Yeah ... well, given that most of the pundits are suggesting that up to 9 out of the first 10 to be selected on Thursday night will be midfield types it really is hardly surprising. But can we possibly guess which two he has in mind?

I think if we took Ball at 18 I would not be unhappy, but if we take him at 11 I will be dissapointed.

Also said in the age that we ARE taking J McDonald at #1 in the PSD.

I think if we took Ball at 18 I would not be unhappy, but if we take him at 11 I will be dissapointed.

While I am not in the get Ball camp, I agree with your statement.

My preference would be for him to be taken by Port at 9 together with another mid possibly leaving us the choice of Butcher, Black or Talia.

Right now that I'm completely beyond caring whether Luke Ball ends up with us or not, but I am glad to see that we're not going to stand aside and just watch him manipulate the process for his own ends. Even if coming out like this provokes another team into doing something rash and taking him early (Port with 9 or Essendon with 10) that's still really good for us.

Either way, I can't see him making it to Collingwood at 30 and that's gotta be good for everybody concerned.

While I am not in the get Ball camp, I agree with your statement.

Well I'm in the get Ball to Melbourne camp ... and I would like to disagree with your statement .. sorry.

Well I'm in the get Ball to Melbourne camp ... and I would like to disagree with your statement .. sorry.

Sorry, you have lost me. Do you mean you would be happy to take him at 11?

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but it's hardly a surprise CC states we're taking two midfielders at 1&2.

Yes I think CC spilt the beans in this article. However he doesn't make the final decision.

I don't know if he's just bluffing with Ball, but i can see why Melbourne would want a 25yo former captain with 140 odd games under his belt.

Let's assume we don't pick Ball in the ND and we pick 6 rookies. Also assume we pick Mcdonald in the PSD.

That will give us 19 players on the senior list who have played less than 21 games each. That's nearly 1/2 our list. 8 of this group have never played a senior game.

Only 5 of the other 21 players have played more than 100 games, and 4 out of the 5 could be gone in 1-3 years.

We will start 2010 with the most inexperienced list in the AFL. Luke Ball starts to become an interesting option.

We will have a big bunch of kids who need as much senior game time as possible. The problem here is that the FD needs to win games (hopefully double our average of 4 a year for the last 3 years). Otherwise they will be out of a job.

It's a juggling act. For example do we pick McDonald or Bruce on the HBF because of their experience and endurance, or do we pick Strauss because of his potential?

If DB can get it right he deserves another year.

More than happy to take him at 18 , i think the threat of 11 is more of a bluff

18 ball PSD Joel

we will all find out soon enough

I love Chris Connolly, he's awesome.

Not only is he a "Top bloke", now he's come out a few days before the draft and fired a rocket up Ball's arse, saying if we want you, you can talk the talk but we'll damn well take you and there's nothing you can do about it. You'll play footy for us and you'll like it and you'll give clubs that aren't Collingwood the respect they deserve.

Even if we don't end up taking Ball with those picks, at least we look ruthless and we look to be getting what we want, and not kowtowing to anybody.

I like the CC article.

But I do hope it is a bluff to get other teams to pick him up earlier. I think the Dee's are hoping Port Adelaide might use Pick 16 to allow a youngster to slip one spot closer to us at Pick 18.

Bailey has said he doesnt want anybody who doesnt want to play for the Melbourne Football Club. And I coudnt agree more.

We havnt even spoken to Ball. It would show alot of disrespect to our playing group if we draft him I would think.

I would prefer a Bastnac at Pick 18 if he slips that far. Or the best available rather than Ball.

THIS A BLUFF BY CC. BALL WILL NOT BE A DEMON!!!!

I love Chris Connolly, he's awesome.

Not only is he a "Top bloke", now he's come out a few days before the draft and fired a rocket up Ball's arse, saying if we want you, you can talk the talk but we'll damn well take you and there's nothing you can do about it. You'll play footy for us and you'll like it and you'll give clubs that aren't Collingwood the respect they deserve.

Even if we don't end up taking Ball with those picks, at least we look ruthless and we look to be getting what we want, and not kowtowing to anybody.

Great Work CC , It will hurt them, take him or leave him we win,

PUTs the MFC on the Map

Extreme Black and White's Colin Wisbey, whose views on drafting are well respected, suggests that in the Ball scenario, the "Demons would be making the professional decision":

When a player wants to go to a particular club, most other clubs respect the players' wishes during trade week.

After trade week though, a club should select on draft day whoever it thinks is the best player for them at each pick.

Plenty of kids have not wanted to move to another state and plenty of those have been drafted interstate anyway despite alleged concerns re the "go home" factor. History tells us that very few of the genuinely good players do jump ship to return home - at least not until they have given years of service to their original drafting club, by which time they have value at the trade table.

Ball chose to leave his club and chose to nominate for the National Draft. IMO, once a trade didn't go through, AFL clubs should treat him as a draft prospect no different to any othet draft prospect. If he's the best available for a certain pick and is deemed to bring appropriate value to a club, they should draft him. No ifs and buts. AFL clubs have to be focussed on building the best lists they can. Part of that means drafting the best players available where possible. An AFl club is a business, not a benevolent philanthropist.

If Jesse Smith had no injury concerns and had stipulated the only club he wanted to play for was (say) WBD, I would be determined to draft him regardless. 18yo players know how drafting works and that they could finish up anywhere and that they simply have to do adapt and their best at whichever club drafts them. Ball is on very big coin and already proven at AFL level but the bottom line is that he is a normal draft prospect in terms of a club's recruiting assessments and drafting decisions.

If I was on a club's board, I would be scathing of my club's staff if they recommended we overlook a player, not on ability but because "he really likes another club more than us". If a bottom club took that approach with draft prospects in general, they would overlook a large chunk of the best prospects in the draft pool and be rightly ridiculed.

Since trade week, Ball and Pies have done all they could do, tactically. IMO, any club interested in what Ball could add to its list has to take no notice whatsoever of that though. If Ball's preference was (say) WBD instead of us, I reckon most EBnW posters who rate Ball would be pushing for us to draft him anyway ... and for the very reasons I've mentioned.

My preference would be for him to be taken by Port at 9 together with another mid possibly leaving us the choice of Butcher, Black or Talia.

if they are best available they will take them...

melbourne is going to be taking the best two mids. leaving 8 players to fill the picks until pick 11...fingers crossed Butcher, Black or Talia slide to pick 11 & pick 18.

I hope we don't get Ball...

Sorry, you have lost me. Do you mean you would be happy to take him at 11?

I would be "happy" to leave all options open at 11 ... dont like ruling things in or out.

I like the CC article.

But I do hope it is a bluff to get other teams to pick him up earlier. I think the Dee's are hoping Port Adelaide might use Pick 16 to allow a youngster to slip one spot closer to us at Pick 18.

Bailey has said he doesnt want anybody who doesnt want to play for the Melbourne Football Club. And I coudnt agree more.

We havnt even spoken to Ball. It would show alot of disrespect to our playing group if we draft him I would think.

I would prefer a Bastnac at Pick 18 if he slips that far. Or the best available rather than Ball.

THIS A BLUFF BY CC. BALL WILL NOT BE A DEMON!!!!

Couldn`t agree more

More than happy to take him at 18 , i think the threat of 11 is more of a bluff

18 ball PSD Joel

we will all find out soon enough

I think you are correct this article leans me more than ever to thinking we will not take him with 11 or 18.

I was 100% in favor of getting Luke ball 4 weeks ago. The fact that he and his management team have clearly kept the dees at arms has me concerned.

Ball would make an instant impact if he played with heart, the fact he appears to not want to play for us means he could turn out to be a bust. Let the filth have him, keep picks 11 & 18.

I would love to have Ball at Melbourne, however it would mean missing out on a pretty dcent kid at 18. Perhaps someone like Troy Taylor just to put into perspective. I see positives for both scenarios so I'm really not fussed which way we go, I respect Ball's playing ability and leadership qualities but I also back the judgement of BP to pick up a quality kid - basically I can't lose

I am very surprised Melbourne are going down this path! Excited too. Ball at 18 would be great having said that, it sounds like the quality at pick 11 compared with 18 is no real difference so that might explain them taking him so high.

I also cant help but think this is a ploy to entice Essendon or Port Adelaide to take him at 9 or 10 and thus increase our chances of Butcher (or whoever else we have our eyes on) slipping to 11 which is a great move. Would love one of them to take him early and a Butcher or Lucas slip to us.

Having said that, CC is very much spot on when he says Ball would be a great influence on he development of Trengrove, Scully, Blease and co.

With the exception of J MCD who is in his last year, Moloney is really our only strong leader int he midfield. Sylvia is not there yet and may not ever be, Jones is still young and inexperienced. So Ball would be great a helping develop our young talent, particularly mentally.

Nov 26 is going to be VERY VERY interesting to watch!

rpfc will be pleased.

Yeah, it's a strong attitude.

Bluffing being an unprovable variable, I would say that we are seriously considering doing what is best for the MFC.

And that is not listening to a misguided, guileless, old Xaverian.

That's advice a few on this board should heed...