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

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Haha
    • 34 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Like
    • 246 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    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.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Clap
      • Love
      • Like
    • 47 replies