You can’t blame St Kilda for punting on Lovett
By Michael DiFabrizio, 23 Feb 2010 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Andrew Lovett, Ben Cousins, Luke Ball, St Kilda Saints

Essendon's Andrew Lovett celebrates a goal during the AFL Round 17 match between the Essendon Bombers and the Richmond Tigers at the MCG. Slattery Images
This time last year, St Kilda didn’t have it in them to take a punt on Ben Cousins. They met with him more than once, they researched thoroughly – all part of what was labelled a “five-month process” – and at the end of it decided he was too big a risk.
Fast forward twelve months and, well, hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
After a year in which their stance on Cousins went from understandable to a tad regrettable, the club decided they didn’t want to be left wondering again and audaciously traded away their first-round draft pick to get Essendon’s Andrew Lovett.
And just like last year, despite adopting a completely different stance, their move backfired.
Unlike Cousins, the concerns over Lovett did not go away once he joined a new club. Back in 2008, Lovett was twice suspended by the Bombers for off-field indiscretions. Just six weeks after becoming a Saint, he was arrested for being drunk in a public place.
And things hardly improved from there. He was suspended indefinitely from the club shortly after rape allegations emerged and last week was sacked in the wake of charges being laid by Police.
It mightn’t have been the right move legally. It mightn’t have been the right move financially. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the club hurt in both those areas sometime in the future. But their decision was the right move for the football club – pushing the issue aside for the playing group and coaches right before the start of the season.
Having said all that, you can’t blame them for the initial decision to go after Lovett, as some have chosen to do.
The Lovett saga, coupled with Luke Ball’s controversial departure, have clearly made an easy target out of the Saints this summer.
Damian Barrett wrote in the Herald Sun well before last week’s events that “those decisions – to recruit the troubled Andrew Lovett while providing ample reason for ‘Mr Perfect’ Luke Ball to leave – are the type that can result in the unravelling of years of meaningful progress.”
To an extent, the criticism makes sense. But first of all, the Saints weren’t to know Lovett would misbehave so early into his stint at the club. In fact, like with Cousins, they’d done a fair bit of due diligence. Ross Lyon has kept referring to the ten references he’d collected before going ahead with the trade.
What should be considered above that, though, is exactly what the Saints were facing as trade week progressed.
That was the week where the Ball saga blew up. His presence at the club in 2010 was growing more and more unlikely with each day. Losing him without gaining a ready-made replacement would have been far short of ideal.
On top of that, the club was super keen to make amends for how 2009 played out.
Mainly because they fell so short of winning a premiership and wanted to add that little bit extra to their midfield, perhaps with a player with a bit of “X-factor”.
But also, maybe, because of how the Cousins situation worked out.
A year ago, the Saints performed an extraordinary amount of due diligence on a potential midfield recruit who came with a few risks. In the end they failed to pull the trigger.
When the same situation came up this year, they did the opposite.
But after they pulled the trigger, things just didn’t go to plan.
Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (7) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Lovett, Ben Cousins, Luke Ball, St Kilda Saints

Brett McKay said | February 23rd 2010 @ 8:21am | Report comment
no, I guess you can’t blame them for the punt Michael, but at the same time you can’t blame the Saints decision to cut Lovett loose either. In the end, they had no other option but to – his situation became untenable very quickly…
Michael C said | February 25th 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
So – Lovett is sacked but still considered a listed Saint???
trouble is Mary McKillop has just been elevated onto the Saints list and now the board might have to go back to the pope and ask for her to be shunted back to the Saints rookie list to make room for Lovett.
OH it’s all beginning to get sooo messy. This surely will be the greatest test that Pope Benedict and Greg Westaway face in managing the Saints.
Raf said | February 23rd 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Good analysis that the Cousins scenario probably affected their decision-making, but it doesn’t make it the right decision. Taking Lovett partly because they felt they were too cautious with Cousins is what we call “still fighting the last war”. You’ve got to make these decisions based on the current scenario, and not what would have been best in the last one.
For a player group who clearly relied very strongly on a team ethos (witness all the talk from Saints players about their “trade mark” and how Ball got dropped for deviating from the trade mark even if he didn’t play badly from an outside point of view), it’s iffy whether parachuting in a loose cannon like Lovett (and one with a well-publicised past clash with Nick Riewoldt, at that) could have improved the team even if he kept his nose clean. Putting individual skill and flair ahead of teamwork wouldn’t have improved St Kilda. But because of the Cousins scenario and the Grand Final choke, they panicked. End of story.
BigAl said | February 23rd 2010 @ 11:24am | Report comment
As a Saints fan I was quite elated when they signed Lovett, feeling that he could be that additional lift to get the Saints over the line for a flag . . . well, you can’t win ‘em all !!
Tony said | February 23rd 2010 @ 11:41am | Report comment
I don’t agree. It was pretty clear that he had character problems and that Essendon had enough of him for those reasons. StKilda didn’t do their homework, although they couldn’t anticipate these events they certainly should have realized he wouldn’t be smooth sailing. He was the opposite of the ‘committed’ player called for by Lyon, which underlines what a mistake it was. StKilda have been making emotional decisions ever since their loss in the Grand Final.
Moonface said | February 23rd 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
They gave away their first round draft pick for him too.
The allegations were made last year, so the Saints knew they were taking a gamble with him and he had attitude and behaviour problems at Essendon too, where he was also suspended from playing.
Moonface said | February 23rd 2010 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
You people don’t like negative comments about AFL do you.
That’s why I left Victoria and moved to NSW.
Have yourselves a Groundhog Day deleting and editing all my comments.