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.

 

1 hour ago, forever demons said:

SO YOU DONT KNOW

AND YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

3 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

AND YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

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 March 11, 20206 yr 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.

45 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Finished ... will not play another game!!

UNFORTUNATELY

Glad you posted that, it means that he will play again.

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. 

https://www.afl.com.au/news/384774/luckless-dee-set-to-miss-season-opener-after-another-setback

AARON vandenBerg is set to miss at least round one with a fresh foot injury sustained in Melbourne's win over Hawthorn on Friday night.

Edited March 11, 20206 yr by RedLegs23

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 March 11, 20206 yr by dazzledavey36