Jump to content

Featured Replies

Christ. This is like when gus had that last head knock and everyone jumped in with comments like 'he's cooked' 'thats it for Gus' etc. without giving him a diagnosis or time to actually hear how he was!

Things we know:

- AVB has had a lingering foot issue due to initially getting a stress fracture

- He has built his way up but is currently only training with the main group once a week and off legs the other days to manage the foot. It's something he has admitted he will have to manage most likely for the rest of his career

- Played a good second half of football against Adelaide and was average against Hawks (maybe due to sore foot)

- Post game the only reports we've heard is that he's got a bruised foot

 

Too much hysteria about investing in talented injured players. 2/3rds of the list actually play - about 30-32/44. That's 12-14 who don't play.

If one of AVB, Bennell, KK or Smith make it then it's worth the risk IMO.

Interesting the commentary around a 3 year deal.

Rewind to when it was announced - not too much dismay at that point:

 

 

AVB accidently kicked an opponent's leg when taking a kick early in the game... he continued on but was limping. It was the sort of accident that could happen to any player. I'm suggesting that his current condition is a new 'bruising' and not the old injury... but I understand the concerns!

10 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

AVB accidently kicked an opponent's leg when taking a kick early in the game... he continued on but was limping. It was the sort of accident that could happen to any player. I'm suggesting that his current condition is a new 'bruising' and not the old injury... but I understand the concerns!

If I remember correctly Melksham did this last season and it put him out for quite a while. Unfortunate injury. 


so we still dont know,stop guessing,why cant the club tell the SUPPORTERS

25 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

AVB accidently kicked an opponent's leg when taking a kick early in the game... he continued on but was limping. It was the sort of accident that could happen to any player. I'm suggesting that his current condition is a new 'bruising' and not the old injury... but I understand the concerns!

SO YOU DONT KNOW

6 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

We've not made a lot of big list blunders in the last few years, but IMO signing vB for 3 years while simultaneously ditching Dean Kent (who simply wanted more than 1 year) has been one of them.

 

Because Kent wasn't injury prone and has set the world on fire at his new club???

 
Just now, Moonshadow said:

Because Kent wasn't injury prone and has set the world on fire at his new club???

This has been addressed a fair few times in this thread already.

 


3 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Neither was vB, that's my point.

 

You didn’t show my full quote.  
I also said that AVB’s upside is way above Dean Kent’s.  

Edited by monoccular

2 minutes ago, monoccular said:

You didn’t show my full quote.  
I said that AVB’s upside is way above Dean Kent’s.  

It was irrelevant as I'm trying to deal in facts not hypotheticals and opinions about players 'upsides'.

I've stated numerous times the point I'm making isn't about player v player, it's about the different handlings of similar circumstances and how, IMO, we made a blunder by giving an injury plagued player a long contract. He could have easily been put on a 'triggered' contract where he gets an extension based on availability to play, but now we potentially could be looking at paying/paying out a player who doesn't play.

I hope he gets right. I like him a lot, and tbh I wouldn't have blamed him moving to Sydney if we offered a triggered contract given his injury and even more so, given his family situation at the time.

21 hours ago, bingers said:

Let's call a spade a spade. He's cooked. 

Finished ... will not play another game!!

UNFORTUNATELY

Any games we get from AVB during the Season will be a bonus. 
Should we have given hime 3 years?

Hard to say as it depends on what Sydney were prepared to offer. 
Foot injuries are far more serious now, because all players are expected to run consistently


8 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

It was irrelevant as I'm trying to deal in facts not hypotheticals and opinions about players 'upsides'.

I've stated numerous times the point I'm making isn't about player v player, it's about the different handlings of similar circumstances and how, IMO, we made a blunder by giving an injury plagued player a long contract. He could have easily been put on a 'triggered' contract where he gets an extension based on availability to play, but now we potentially could be looking at paying/paying out a player who doesn't play.

I hope he gets right. I like him a lot, and tbh I wouldn't have blamed him moving to Sydney if we offered a triggered contract given his injury and even more so, given his family situation at the time.

I’m sorry LN but about now you should probably just admit your post was poorly thought through and move on rather than trying to defend it. Clearly every player’s contract is managed based on who that player is and what they can bring to the team.

Injury concerns will of course be a big factor but suggesting that we should negotiate the same contract for both Kent and AVB based on the fact that they simply share that both have had a history of injuries is kind of absurd. 

3 minutes ago, FlashInThePan said:

I’m sorry LN but about now you should probably just admit your post was poorly thought through and move on rather than trying to defend it. Clearly every player’s contract is managed based on who that player is and what they can bring to the team.

Injury concerns will of course be a big factor but suggesting that we should negotiate the same contract for both Kent and AVB based on the fact that they simply share that both have had a history of injuries is kind of absurd. 

I didn't suggest we should negotiate the same contract for Kent and AVB.

 

22 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I didn't suggest we should negotiate the same contract for Kent and AVB.

 

It's clear the club thought that out of 2 players prone to injury that AVB was the preferred choice and I fully agree with that. Kent can be a handy player at times but not as effective as AVB. We will know by the end of this season whether 3 years was correct or not.

I just want to chip in to confirm that I also do not know anything about VanDenberg's foot, and I feel very strongly about that.


1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

It was irrelevant as I'm trying to deal in facts not hypotheticals and opinions about players 'upsides'.

I've stated numerous times the point I'm making isn't about player v player, it's about the different handlings of similar circumstances and how, IMO, we made a blunder by giving an injury plagued player a long contract. He could have easily been put on a 'triggered' contract where he gets an extension based on availability to play, but now we potentially could be looking at paying/paying out a player who doesn't play.

I hope he gets right. I like him a lot, and tbh I wouldn't have blamed him moving to Sydney if we offered a triggered contract given his injury and even more so, given his family situation at the time.

Similar situations are always going to be dealt differently according to ability and potential or "upside".

I totally agree AVB is more important to us than Kenty and IMO has considerable upside if both are compared fully fit:

But both have been dreadful on the fitness  front. I dare say if Paul Burgess had been here for the last 3 years all of AVB Kent Viney Hogan Joel and Tim Smith and Tommy MAC and Stephan May may have been very different.

3 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

This has been addressed a fair few times in this thread already.

 

As did the club quite some time ago. 

 

I just saw that - AFL website. The MFC website is a sad, unfunny joke.

Lets hope the report is accurate and it is short term. I am firmly in the camp of those who think he is a terrific player. His combination of steadiness and hardness is fantastic.

Will be missing just round 1.. didn't we all read that last year ?

Edited by dazzledavey36


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • REPORT: Richmond

    The fans who turned up to the MCG for Melbourne’s Anzac Day Eve clash against Richmond would have been disappointed if they turned up to see a great spectacle. As much as this was a night for the 71,635 in attendance to commemorate heroes of the nation’s past wars, it was also a time for the Melbourne Football Club to consolidate upon its first win after a horrific start to the 2025 season. On this basis, despite the fact that it was an uninspiring and dour struggle for most of its 100 minutes, the night will be one for the fans to remember. They certainly got value out of the pre match activity honouring those who fought for their country. The MCG and the lights of the city as backdrop was made for nights such as these and, in my view, we received a more inspirational ceremony of Anzac culture than others both here and elsewhere around the country. 

    • 0 replies
    Demonland
  • CASEY: Richmond

    The match up of teams competing in our great Aussie game at its second highest level is a rarity for a work day Thursday morning but the blustery conditions that met the players at a windswept Casey Fields was something far more commonplace.They turned the opening stanza between the Casey Demons and a somewhat depleted Richmond VFL into a mess of fumbling unforced errors, spilt marks and wasted opportunities for both sides but they did set up a significant win for the home team which is exactly what transpired on this Anzac Day round opener. Casey opened up strong against the breeze with the first goal to Aidan Johnson, the Tigers quickly responded and the game degenerated into a defensive slog and the teams were level when the first siren sounded.

    • 0 replies
    Demonland
  • PODCAST: Richmond

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 28th April @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we analyse the Demons 2nd win for the year against the Tigers.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/
    Call: 03 9016 3666
    Skype: Demonland31

    • 18 replies
    Demonland
  • PREGAME: West Coast

    The Demons hit the road in Round 8, heading to Perth to face the West Coast Eagles at Optus Stadium. With momentum building, the Dees will be aiming for a third straight victory to keep their season revival on course. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Like
    • 159 replies
    Demonland
  • POSTGAME: Richmond

    After five consecutive defeats, the Demons have now notched up back-to-back victories, comfortably accounting for the Tigers in the traditional ANZAC Eve clash. They surged to a commanding 44-point lead early in the final quarter before easing off the pedal, resting skipper Max Gawn and conceding the last four goals of the game to close out a solid 20-point win.

      • Like
    • 294 replies
    Demonland
  • VOTES: Richmond

    Max Gawn leads the Demonland Player of the Year from Jake Bowey with Christian Petracca, Ed Langdon and Clayton Oliver rounding out the Top 5. Your votes for the Demons victory over the Tigers on ANZAC Eve. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, & 1.

    • 48 replies
    Demonland