1 hour ago, Demons11 said:

I can’t see Vanders playing seniors this year but deserves another year after his horror run of injuries. 

When was the last time he actually played?

Rd 23 2016. Missed all last season and all this season to date. Really hope for his sake he is able to get on the park. He’s definitely a very capable player when he’s going. It must be so frustrating.

23 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Rd 23 2016. Missed all last season and all this season to date. Really hope for his sake he is able to get on the park. He’s definitely a very capable player when he’s going. It must be so frustrating.

Despite his absence, Vanders represented a competitive player who would’ve fit nicely into our team. 

As others have suggested I think you need to analyse both players against their present competition and bear in mind that we will have at least four new players being added to the list at years end.

VDB is a mid fielder so there is the present four musketeers plus Stretch, Tyson and JKH at Casey and say one new midfielder from the draft. That makes a big queue along with all the other mountains he has to climb fitness wise.

Kent's mountain is smaller but he sits along Bugg, Garlett, Spargo , Hannan and ANB plus I would suggest another draft pick. Realistically he's almost behind all of them.

I thought Kent was OK when he played earlier this year. 

I highly doubt VDB will get back to good enough form that he'd be pushing for senior selection this year. So whether or not he gets another contract will come down to how well he plays at Casey and whether our list could use the depth he currently offers.

I reckon Vanders should be moved on at year's end. I'd prefer us giving Jason Taylor another pick to find a gem. 

I've long been on record as saying Kent won't make it. He showed some progress early this year, but then his body broke down again. He may well be handy in the lead up to finals, but who knows.

37 minutes ago, A F said:

I reckon Vanders should be moved on at year's end. I'd prefer us giving Jason Taylor another pick to find a gem. 

I've long been on record as saying Kent won't make it. He showed some progress early this year, but then his body broke down again. He may well be handy in the lead up to finals, but who knows.

If Vanders can get his body right he could still be a gem 26 isn't that old. Don't give up on him yet.

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I thought Kent was OK when he played earlier this year. 

I highly doubt VDB will get back to good enough form that he'd be pushing for senior selection this year. So whether or not he gets another contract will come down to how well he plays at Casey and whether our list could use the depth he currently offers.

Plays well and stays fit then I think the pressure mounts on Tyson.

They will both get an opportunity to impress at Casey, which one continues as depth will be determined head to head at Casey.

Vanders will be an intriguing one as you match his versatility, size and strength up against his dodgy kicking. We’ve seen that if you struggle to hit targets by foot you will find yourself being squeezed out of this side (see Bugg, Hunt etc). How he performs at Casey will determine his future but as it stands I think there’s enough to persist with him for another year. Kent I’d keep on the back of what he was showing before he got injured. Both he and Vanders will have a fight on their hands to break into the side but as depth we could do far worse.

Given the timing of entering a “premiership window” (horrible term) I’d opt to keep decent players in this age bracket rather than replace them with a couple of kids that are unlikely to provide immediate competition for a place in the side. Spargo has hit the ground running but he’s the exception, not the rule.

12 hours ago, McQueen said:

I think both these blokes have the types of attributes required to be an important part of the list make up - particularly where we’re at right now and moving forward.

Delist these two and start from scratch again?

No.

 

Yep, they are both good footballers with some interesting attributes and can both do the job well on opposition players. 

2 hours ago, P-man said:

Vanders will be an intriguing one as you match his versatility, size and strength up against his dodgy kicking. We’ve seen that if you struggle to hit targets by foot you will find yourself being squeezed out of this side (see Bugg, Hunt etc). How he performs at Casey will determine his future but as it stands I think there’s enough to persist with him for another year. Kent I’d keep on the back of what he was showing before he got injured. Both he and Vanders will have a fight on their hands to break into the side but as depth we could do far worse.

Given the timing of entering a “premiership window” (horrible term) I’d opt to keep decent players in this age bracket rather than replace them with a couple of kids that are unlikely to provide immediate competition for a place in the side. Spargo has hit the ground running but he’s the exception, not the rule.

Other than raw skills and adaptability, experience is going to be critical nearing the finals. Kent and Vanders have some of these attributes that may be far superior to the array of youthful inexperience. 

6 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

If Vanders can get his body right he could still be a gem 26 isn't that old. Don't give up on him yet.

Kent's dislocated shoulder was not 'his body breaking down, again'. His hamstring injury, earlier, may have been. The amount of sheer effort he was putting into retrieving a ball heading to the boundary line against an advantage in the game that we were about to lose at that moment, added to the push and fall of his opponent on top of him, would dislocate any player's shoulder in a frontal fall. That opponent was just about to get 'done' by Kent's speed, ball handling skills and intelligence in positioning - and the rebound was definitelly 'on' because of those efforts which were first class. He didn't even get a free from the umpire, transferred to another player. 

6 hours ago, A F said:

I reckon Vanders should be moved on at year's end. I'd prefer us giving Jason Taylor another pick to find a gem. 

I've long been on record as saying Kent won't make it. He showed some progress early this year, but then his body broke down again. He may well be handy in the lead up to finals, but who knows.

'Broke down' ... not the case. Squashed at top speed winning the ball is more accurate. 

10 hours ago, DeezNuts said:

Despite his absence, Vanders represented a competitive player who would’ve fit nicely into our team. 

Absolutely, Vanders was a very versatile, big-bodied player with a real sense of attack on the football. It is not impossible for him to return to the side where he would be an enormous asset. His injury was and has been a major one; his efforts to recover have been frustrating but indicative of his resolve to return - we must wish him well with that return once it can fully take place.

I like them both but the problem with injury prone players is they tend to stay injury prone

It’s a long season, especially with finals beckoning, having both fit, in form and pushing our starting 22 would be a real asset, as both on their day can do damage and VdB esp enjoys the physical stuff. 

Excited to see them back on the park. 

19 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I had always hoped that AVB would develop into a bullocking inside mid, in the mould of Jobe Watson or Josh Kennedy.  It's hard to see his body allowing him to do this as it breaks down so regularly and hopefully the game, team and gameplan haven't moved on without him.

If he is able to get back to AFL fitness and remain injury free, it'd be a huge credit to our fitness crew.

Does his body break down regularly or has he had difficulty returning from one specific, albeit longterm, injury? 

For what it's worth, whether it's Kent, vandenBerg or any other player(s), I would be expecting the list managers to be trying to get us back into the pointy end of the draft this year, so some reasonably good players may be traded to fulfil that aim.

Kent has been dogged by injury his whole time at the club. Has played 62 games in six years that is barely ten p.a.He has low serviceability, the majority of his missed games are due to injury. Low value IMO . Will be gone at the end of the year.

30 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Does his body break down regularly or has he had difficulty returning from one specific, albeit longterm, injury? 

For what it's worth, whether it's Kent, vandenBerg or any other player(s), I would be expecting the list managers to be trying to get us back into the pointy end of the draft this year, so some reasonably good players may be traded to fulfil that aim.

Over the last two years, its been listed as 'ankle', 'heel' and 'foot'.  Hard to say if it's one recurring injury or three, albeit related, injuries.

Vandenberg is 26 years old with 28 games to his name, the last of which was almost two years ago. His skills are atrocious (particularly by hand) and he averages 15 possessions and 0.6 goals a game. I was amazed that he got a contract to play this season when he wasn't back training at the time. It would be such a backward step to even contemplate giving him a game either this year or next. Our young half forwards (eg Spargo, Fritsch and Hannan) are miles ahead of Vandenberg and are much younger. I can't see him playing another AFL game.

Kent showed earlier this season that his best football is good enough, but between his regular injuries and his inability to keep his focus and intensity up for more than two weeks at a time, how could you possibly trust him to perform in a big game? I assume he'll be given a one year contract because we have higher priority delistings, but he would need to perform at Casey on his return.

33 minutes ago, poita said:

Vandenberg is 26 years old with 28 games to his name, the last of which was almost two years ago. His skills are atrocious (particularly by hand) and he averages 15 possessions and 0.6 goals a game. I was amazed that he got a contract to play this season when he wasn't back training at the time. It would be such a backward step to even contemplate giving him a game either this year or next. Our young half forwards (eg Spargo, Fritsch and Hannan) are miles ahead of Vandenberg and are much younger. I can't see him playing another AFL game.

Why do we always judge players before they've had a chance to prove themselves?

For starters his stats across his 28 games are average on paper yes. But from what I remember he was developing nicely as a third tall option who could also provide good pressure on the opposition backline. He's an above average tackler with solid inside 50 numbers. He's not too quick but like a few of our talls can run all day with midfield experience. He's a solid mark with good size and I can't see why he couldn't add to our depth.

Yes Spargo, Fritsch and Hannan are ahead of him. Because those three have played football and proven themselves this year. If Vanders built some form in the VFL why wouldn't you contemplate it for next year? It's how Pederson and Tim Smith were able to break into the side. Two very similarly average footballers to begin with who worked on their games and found a role.

I think its a step backwards to write off players without seeing them have a go after some awful luck with injuries.

16 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I thought Kent was OK when he played earlier this year. 

I highly doubt VDB will get back to good enough form that he'd be pushing for senior selection this year. So whether or not he gets another contract will come down to how well he plays at Casey and whether our list could use the depth he currently offers.

Kent, trade bait.

We are required to delist a minimum of three players at years end as I understand it.

JKH is probably one.

One of the two in this thread has to be in the mix.. if not who else?

Maynard ?? McKenna? DJ ?

Nothing wrong with discussing who is on the fringe as it makes watching their performances in the VFL more interesting.

 

19 hours ago, Adzman said:

Kent can still break into the side.

Can't see Vanders making it back.

I can't see either happening. 

Hope I am wrong because at their best they were valuable players.

But Kent appears to be injury prone and has not had the opportunity to develop a tank. He is a burst player.

When you look at the way we are playing with intensity, contested footy and run both ways for 4 quarters, I can't see him being able to make it.  

Vanders has had a shocking run but his injuries appear chronic. Both he and Kent have lost so much time, I think our individual and team progression has passed them by. 

24 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

We are required to delist a minimum of three players at years end as I understand it.

JKH is probably one.

One of the two in this thread has to be in the mix.. if not who else?

Maynard ?? McKenna? DJ ?

Nothing wrong with discussing who is on the fringe as it makes watching their performances in the VFL more interesting.

 

I think the requirement is that we have to take three players in the draft (with each promoted rookie counted as a selection). How we get to have the available spaces on the list can be via retirement, delisting, loss of free agents or trading.

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think the requirement is that we have to take three players in the draft (with each promoted rookie counted as a selection). How we get to have the available spaces on the list can be via retirement, delisting, loss of free agents or trading.

Accepted but other than trading Kent for a "give away draft choice" at say 60 plus I cannot see any of the other scenarios playing out.

Must admit the seemingly constant rookie listing changes have somewhat lost me.