WYL is right. The reason for recruiting Ball is for his leadership and the example he sets of the standards required - in that sense he'd have a similar impact to Judd. There's no doubt that Judd is a far better player - he's better than everyone. BTW, Judd cost pick 3, Josh Kennedy and 20. Ball would've cost pick 18.

The reasons for not picking Ball were two-fold:

- he didn't want to come to us, but I reckon he would've gotten over that

- would his body hold up, I think today's article answered that

A learned man who sees through the smoke...Thankyou 55

Well, he's not right.

He said "Ju$$ is not better than Ball, regardless of what the media says."

Incorrect, in my opinion.

+1

Judd, as much as i hate him, is an absolute superstar. Few players are in his realm. He's Michael Jordan like.

Luke Ball, ridiculous!

You are allowed your opinion....i put them very close together...They do different jobs just as well.....(ad Naueum!!!)

Even as a hypothetical its bordering on moot surely. As Rhino and others correctly suggest.. He didnt want to meet us..end of story. No use suggesting each has a price...as he simply wasnt interested...and his hindsight ( let alone foresight) is on the money , if any are honest..

Ball is not Judd... You could say Judd is not Ball. I would jhave Judd over Ball.. Id probably have Judd over 99% of players..but hey .lol

The Ball was never in our court...finito

No it isn't. The Both do different jobs equally well...watch closely.

Ju$$ is no better than Ball, regardless of what the media says.

Agree Luke Ball is good player - B&F winner, All Australian a few years back. Gets the ball out and plays his role.

However...... Judd is a 5 time B&F winner, 5 time All Australia, premiership captain, soon to be triple Brownlow medalist.

Even as a hypothetical its bordering on moot surely. As Rhino and others correctly suggest.. He didnt want to meet us..end of story. No use suggesting each has a price...as he simply wasnt interested...and his hindsight ( let alone foresight) is on the money , if any are honest..

Ball is not Judd... You could say Judd is not Ball. I would jhave Judd over Ball.. Id probably have Judd over 99% of players..but hey .lol

The Ball was never in our court...finito

He may well have chosen to sit the season out had we called his name out.

There was a real risk of that as I recall.

WYL is right. The reason for recruiting Ball is for his leadership and the example he sets of the standards required - in that sense he'd have a similar impact to Judd. There's no doubt that Judd is a far better player - he's better than everyone. BTW, Judd cost pick 3, Josh Kennedy and 20. Ball would've cost pick 18.

The reasons for not picking Ball were two-fold:

- he didn't want to come to us, but I reckon he would've gotten over that

- would his body hold up, I think today's article answered that

There is another reason. Luke Tapscott. Hardness, longevity, teammate and close friend of Jack Trengove. Is also flexible.

Best available ? Definitely Luke Ball.

Best available for next 10-12 years ?...

With regards to his body holding up, and OP, weren't there concerns at St Kilda ?

Agree Luke Ball is good player - B&F winner, All Australian a few years back. Gets the ball out and plays his role.

However...... Judd is a 5 time B&F winner, 5 time All Australia, premiership captain, soon to be triple Brownlow medalist.

Fair enough...Should Ju$$ have won last years Brownlow????? Dodgy eye Gouge got over looked IMO

Luke Ball has he ever been reported??? Luke Ball is better than just good.

Excellent value for money...works hard all week.

You just don't like to push hard enough Rhino....and that is exactly what this club must do or we will not survive. "Every Man has his Price"

If we had picked Luke Ball in the Draft...he would have come, along with his medical records We didn't and got Tappy...which is ok.

But overlooking Luke Balls Leadership was a dam shame....

I will make it simple. It was not a matter of price with Ball.

The only way we could have pushed harder is to have drafted him without the knowledge of his medical condition and without his consent. He refused to show the records to MFC and only showed them to Collingwood. If we had taken him it would have been a gamble because we did not know the extent of his physical condition or his keenness to actually play for us. Its like buying a pre owned car that has had some road damage and you forgo the roadworthy test.

Fair enough...Should Ju$$ have won last years Brownlow????? Dodgy eye Gouge got over looked IMO

Luke Ball has he ever been reported??? Luke Ball is better than just good.

Excellent value for money...works hard all week.

I guess go the cheap shot on Judd was your only option.

He has won 2 B'lows, odds on to win a 3rd. Whether Ball has been reported or not is not a sensible metric to define Judd as a better player or not.

Its interesting that both were taken in the 2001 draft. On hindsight its clear who has been the better player. Ball is good value for money player you are right. But he aint in Judd's class. Its no insult either. There are very few players who are.

Should we have bitten the bullet?

Definitely not. In fact, we dodged a bullet by not selecting him at # 18.

I don't doubt Ball's leadership skills in a team that bristles with leadership and experience but Melbourne is currently in an entirely different stratosphere to Collingwood and Ball alone would make no difference. He would suffer similar problems and issues to the ones that face our on field leadership.

But my problem with Ball at Melbourne starts with the issues surrounding him when he had his falling out with St. Kilda at the end of the 2009 season.

Ball was already committed to the Magpies and didn't even give our football people the courtesy of a meeting when he returned from overseas before the draft. Leaving aside his medical problems at the time, the evidence is that had any club bar Collingwood taken him, they would have been lumbered with an onerous contract over a short term because of his demands (the Pies reportedly did a deal with him to spread the pay over time) and the relationship between player and club could have been toxic given his obvious desire not to be selected. In other words, except for one club and one club alone at the 2009 AFL National Draft, Ball was an untouchable.

Naturally, this obvious piece of tampering with the draft was ignored by the AFL, perhaps because they weren't prepared to take on the strength of the Collingwood machine.

Furthermore, we don't currently have a David Buttifant and we don't have the resources at home or the ability to send our players abroad on special three week training camps at altitude to get them up the way Collingwood has done with several of its players.

Finally, I still prefer that we picked Luke Tapscott with #18. He wants to play for us, has cost us a suitcase less in $'s than Ball would have cost us and he will be at his peak well after Ball's gone.

The reasons for not picking Ball were two-fold:

- he didn't want to come to us, but I reckon he would've gotten over that

- would his body hold up, I think today's article answered that

On your second point - his body is holding up, but as he would not release his medical records to the club, it had no way of knowing that in advance. I can't see how the club could pick him up with any confidence whatsoever.

I like Rhino's used car analogy.

I'm not a fan of gambling when it comes to adding talent to the list. Especially not at such a high cost - it's hard enough to get those 10-20 picks in the draft right as it is.

On your second point - his body is holding up, but as he would not release his medical records to the club, it had no way of knowing that in advance. I can't see how the club could pick him up with any confidence whatsoever.

I like Rhino's used car analogy.

I'm not a fan of gambling when it comes to adding talent to the list. Especially not at such a high cost - it's hard enough to get those 10-20 picks in the draft right as it is.

Well the best mechanic in town was prepared to buy the car having seen the full service records. Yes he is the best mechanic in town and could back himself in to fix any problems but it's a pretty strong indicator that they weren't fatal.

I don't agree that the relationship between Ball and MFC would've been unworkable if we picked him. He wanted to indicate his strong desire to go to Collingwood so didn't talk to anyone else - what other levers did he have? There was a risk but it's most likely that after we picked him his professionalism would have seen him knuckle down to the task at hand.

The suggestion that he would've made no difference must apply to Judd's leadership and example at Carlton too then. I don't agree.

He signed for $450K x 2 years at Collingwood - we could afford that.

He signed for $450K x 2 years at Collingwood - we could afford that.

That was what he nominated and what he signed for but that figure was considered well over the odds at the time. The information I was given was that it was arranged that if Collingwood drafted him, the real terms would involve a three year deal with the remuneration spread more evenly over the three year period. Therefore, given the known condition of the used vehicle as advertised, the price tag of $450k was well and truly overs. It wasn't just us who wouldn't touch him at that price. All clubs with picks 19 to 29 inclusive that followed our pick 18 had the opportunity and baulked at it ... and rightly so.

I'm not averse to paying a little over the odds in order to get what you want sometimes but I agree with the FD's judgement in continuing to go for youth on that particular occasion. Now that we're two years down the track with our list development, I would not be averse to looking for players with leadership qualities via the trades or even the drafts.

That was what he nominated and what he signed for but that figure was considered well over the odds at the time. The information I was given was that it was arranged that if Collingwood drafted him, the real terms would involve a three year deal with the remuneration spread more evenly over the three year period. Therefore, given the known condition of the used vehicle as advertised, the price tag of $450k was well and truly overs. It wasn't just us who wouldn't touch him at that price. All clubs with picks 19 to 29 inclusive that followed our pick 18 had the opportunity and baulked at it ... and rightly so.

I'm not averse to paying a little over the odds in order to get what you want sometimes but I agree with the FD's judgement in continuing to go for youth on that particular occasion. Now that we're two years down the track with our list development, I would not be averse to looking for players with leadership qualities via the trades or even the drafts.

Yes it was in the paper that he signed at Collingwood for $450K, $450K, $90K so Collingwood got a great deal. He still would've been value to us at $900K over 2 years though. You almost always have to pay over the odds to attract a player to your club - sometimes you need to take a risk. That other clubs passed on him means nothing - we have different, particular and obvious needs. IMO we would be better with Luke Ball than with Luke Tapscott.

St.Kilda fans who were adamant his body was stuffed must blanche when they see him against them these days - they got nothing for him.

Yes we could definitely do with Luke Ball now - got any suggestions who we should target?

Yes we could definitely do with Luke Ball now - got any suggestions who we should target?

Just off the top of my head, Chris Judd but I'm sure a few others will come to mind in due course.

He didn't want to play for us. So I didn't want him.

I think a salient point is that Ball will soon be gone, but Tapscott will be reaching his peak when we aim to contend for a flag.

Who is to say the the dearth of leadership at the club now, will be of detriment to the club in years to come?

It may just accelerate the development of some of our younger players.

Ball sets a good example, and is a great player now, but I'm all about winning a flag tomorrow.

No it isn't. The Both do different jobs equally well...watch closely.

Ju$$ is no better than Ball, regardless of what the media says.

Judd is a step above every other player in the competition. He drags his side kicking and screaming to a new level. The epitomy of leadership.

He didn't want to play for us. So I didn't want him.

Ditto.

Judd is a step above every other player in the competition. He drags his side kicking and screaming to a new level. The epitomy of leadership.

Yes he does, but you see i think Luke Ball does the same thing in a more introverted way, both at training and on match day...i am not disputing Ju$$'s greatness at all...i just think Luke Ball is quite under rated....he has made a huge difference to the Filth, without the fanfare.

A top bloke that the Aints sadly miss

I guess go the cheap shot on Judd was your only option.

He has won 2 B'lows, odds on to win a 3rd. Whether Ball has been reported or not is not a sensible metric to define Judd as a better player or not.

Its interesting that both were taken in the 2001 draft. On hindsight its clear who has been the better player. Ball is good value for money player you are right. But he aint in Judd's class. Its no insult either. There are very few players who are.

I didn't go the cheap shot...Judd did.

Get off your high Horse Flanders.