In October last year Jack Viney signed a 5 year deal until the end of 2025. 

I acknowledge how great he is for standards, leadership and work rate around the club. 

However, I believe he is no longer a fit for what we need and I don't know how we can afford to play him for the next few years.

Put simply he is slow, he struggles to get any penetration on his kicks, he doesn't hit the scoreboard, lacks composure and continues to have niggling injuries that deteriorate his career.

I think the game is going to go past him with the way he plays and I'm fearful that he will slow down our growth

Where do we go with Jack Viney?  

I've been Vineys biggest critic and was gobsmacked we signed him for 5 years. 

But, his first couple of games this year was some of the best footy I'd seen him play for a long time. I'm not ready to write him off just yet, as he has come back from a significant foot injury.

It's taken Patrick Dangerfield 4 weeks to get back up to scratch and on the weekend he was back to his powerful best once again.

Have faith that Hopefully Viney gets back to his best form that he showed early on this year.

1 minute ago, WA Demon Boy said:

In October last year Jack Viney signed a 5 year deal until the end of 2025. 

I acknowledge how great he is for standards, leadership and work rate around the club. 

However, I believe he is no longer a fit for what we need and I don't know how we can afford to play him for the next few years.

Put simply he is slow, he struggles to get any penetration on his kicks, he doesn't hit the scoreboard, lacks composure and continues to have niggling injuries that deteriorate his career.

I think the game is going to go past him with the way he plays and I'm fearful that he will slow down our growth

Where do we go with Jack Viney?  

At this stage I'm not too concerned about Viney's future. Prior to his foot injury I thought he was excellent. In fact, he appeared to be in career best form. He's only two weeks back from his injury so he's clearly not completely fit. If we keep persisting with him, he should return to his early season form.

only viney's 2nd game back after a long break off......give him a bit of time, he's still got credits

I think he would have been better off with some games in the VFL rather than going straight back into the first team

His toughness and attack on the ball are his biggest asset and will be important for us come finals time

11 minutes ago, Hopeful Demon said:

At this stage I'm not too concerned about Viney's future. Prior to his foot injury I thought he was excellent. In fact, he appeared to be in career best form. He's only two weeks back from his injury so he's clearly not completely fit. If we keep persisting with him, he should return to his early season form.

I'd say his career best form was way back in 2016 when he was averaging 25 touches a games and received 14 Brownlow votes - 3 of which came against Hawthorn in a 39 possession inspiring performance.

He'd have to massively step up his performance from the GWS game if he's going to have any say in a win against Port.

If he didn't have the surname Viney and we had integrity of selection he'd be on the chopping block this week.

Perhaps he should've played 2 Casey games from return. It's not as if he had much influence in the Essendon win and the less said about his performance on the weekend the better.

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

I question, as others have, why after such an extensive layoff, he walked straight back into the Seniors. I think we should have built him back up through the Reserves. He looks well off the pace and unable to pick up the game plan. 

2 more games and he will be cherry ripe

He has been back for two games, give him time. 

Agreed he should have been integrated a bit slower, especially as we've got a mountain of inside mids. 

Not hitting the panic button yet, as others have said it may take a few more weeks before he's back to his usual standard. 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I'd say his career best form was way back in 2016 when he was averaging 25 touches a games and received 14 Brownlow votes - 3 of which came against Hawthorn in a 39 possession inspiring performance.

Oh yes his form in 2016 was excellent but I honestly think that his form early this year was just as good. The only difference is that his 2016 form stood out more because other midfielders such as Oliver and Petracca were yet to rise. 

The problem with Viney is that in recent years he's been getting injured after showing promising signs. In the middle of 2018 he was finally returning to his best football until he suffered from a foot injury. I think that if Viney was less injury-prone he'd be far more consistent.

Needed some soft games to get back into form and completely injury free. Throwing him in the deep end that requires 100% intensity doesn’t help. He’s still NQR.

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by John Crow Batty

The only part I find puzzling is why we wouldn't bring him back on the 50% or so game time rotation that Sparrow has been playing? Surely Sparrow could cope with the 75% that Viney has been doing? From the outside it would have made sense to switch them around.

This is the Burgo way though, he's the complete opposite of Misson as far as this stuff goes, and probably a small part of the reason why our injury list often 'looks' smaller when it might not be by other fitness bosses standards.

 

He played like [censored] yes. And he didn't respect the football in terms of not turning it over. He was extremely loose. He needs to stick to the defensive stuff and either handball or kick long. None of this finessing stuff. 

I notice you guys that right off Viney go missing when he plays well.

He just needs to be match fit, he doesn't look right and has played poorly the last two weeks. He is an important part of our team and we need him back to his best ASAP, whether that is at Casey or in the 1sts, the coaches know best

I worry for him long-term 

His style of play, lack of skills and speed is going to be exposed big time in the next two years plus. 

It's not like he can play an outside role, go forward or back 

He's just going to be stuck in the middle and clog up a position that we desperately need other assets in

I don't think its a question of fitness - it's a question of his football ability

 

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I've been Vineys biggest critic and was gobsmacked we signed him for 5 years. 

But, his first couple of games this year was some of the best footy I'd seen him play for a long time. I'm not ready to write him off just yet, as he has come back from a significant foot injury.

It's taken Patrick Dangerfield 4 weeks to get back up to scratch and on the weekend he was back to his powerful best once again.

Have faith that Hopefully Viney gets back to his best form that he showed early on this year.

It's amazing we signed him to 5

I would of given him max 3. 

Also you can't compare Viney to Danger

Even when both are fully fit, Danger is a few levels of class above Viney. He can see his time out as a forward, he has speed, he can change the momentum of a game and his ability in the air is far greater

I'm going to make a statement and say that Viney is going to struggle for the rest of his career to adjust to the modern game (even when he's at full fitness)

I want to be proven wrong, but that's just what I'm seeing with how he's travelling vs the how the game is evolving

This was covered extensively last year - both as to potentially trading out an insider and our best midfield mix, and at the time of Viney's re-signing. We know what he brings (although I think some can't appreciate what he does off the ball) and his deficiencies, and we all assign different values to those things. I don't think the OP getting worried about his form two games back from an extensive injury is going to add much to the conversation. He looked pretty decent at the start of the year. Above all though, as noted, he also recently signed a five-year extension, so we'll likely just have to live with the full Jack Viney package. 

One thing though, and it's minor - he cops a fair bit of grief as being a 'rugby player'. Yet, when I pin-point the loss last weekend - the exact losing moment, not the overall reasons behind the loss - it was due to Clarry releasing the ball by toe-poke while tackled about 70 out in defense, which led directly to Whitfield's goal to put them back up by 16 with around 10 minutes to go. There was no prior, Oliver could have just wrapped the ball up. I hate to criticise them, as I love them both dearly, but he and Trac do it all the time - unnecessarily release the ball to disadvantage. I wish it was Jack who had his hands on the ball at the time. 

I agree Viney is a problem.

Having Harmes, Viney and ANB in the same side is not a good mix. Oh my lord, the turn-overs.

Harmes who had essentially replaced Viney in the middle was doing a pretty good job with a few turn-overs but reasonable connection with Trac and Oliver. James Jordan was also doing a fine job helping out as the inside mid. On the weekend we put Viney in the middle and got slaughtered in the middle and lost Harmes hard tagging ability around stoppages. Harmes had to be called back into the middle for longer periods of the last half when we were slightly better. Sparrow and ANB shared the half forward role. Sparrow kicked a goal but really looked lost and ANB kicked a great goal and was involved in another but had some horrendous moments as well. 

Viney has definitely upset the balance of the side. He doesn't connect well with our two gun mids and when he gets the ball he stops and props which also upsets our fast moving style. It's not necessarily that Viney needs to get fit as much as the team needs to adjust to having him back in the side.

I'm not sure the answer but unfortunately Sparrow who was also developing nicely and is a better sharer of the ball will probably have to go out and the others in there will need to park their egos and get connected again or we're [censored]!

17 minutes ago, Skuit said:

This was covered extensively last year - both as to potentially trading out an insider and our best midfield mix, and at the time of Viney's re-signing. We know what he brings (although I think some can't appreciate what he does off the ball) and his deficiencies, and we all assign different values to those things. I don't think the OP getting worried about his form two games back from an extensive injury is going to add much to the conversation. He looked pretty decent at the start of the year. Above all though, as noted, he also recently signed a five-year extension, so we'll likely just have to live with the full Jack Viney package. 

One thing though, and it's minor - he cops a fair bit of grief as being a 'rugby player'. Yet, when I pin-point the loss last weekend - the exact losing moment, not the overall reasons behind the loss - it was due to Clarry releasing the ball by toe-poke while tackled about 70 out in defense, which led directly to Whitfield's goal to put them back up by 16 with around 10 minutes to go. There was no prior, Oliver could have just wrapped the ball up. I hate to criticise them, as I love them both dearly, but he and Trac do it all the time - unnecessarily release the ball to disadvantage. I wish it was Jack who had his hands on the ball at the time. 

Great observation. Oliver and Petracca are great players but you do need to question their footy IQ at times.  It isn't a mistake Viney would've made.

For mine he still plays his way, which at times exposes our zonal set up, but long time critic, so take with a grain of salt.

Jordon's tackling was far more important for our first 11 rounds than anything Viney has brought this year. I also think Harmes' effectiveness is reduced with Viney in the side, but I acknowledge Jack can at times play a pivotal role in setting intensity levels amongst our group. I think some overrate his presence though.

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by A F

1 hour ago, Swooper1987 said:

Great observation. Oliver and Petracca are great players but you do need to question their footy IQ at times.  It isn't a mistake Viney would've made.

Surely you're not saying Jack has a high footy IQ? His decision making is repeatedly ordinary. 

In answer to the OP too, I'd be playing him 70% forward and 30% midfield, but I've been saying this for at least 12 months, and I doubt it'll happen.

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by A F

1 minute ago, A F said:

Surely you're not saying Jack has a high footy IQ? His decision making is repeatedly ordinary. 

He would've sat on that footy instead of letting it out indiscriminately.  Viney doesn't have great skill but he has pretty reasonable game awareness.

34 minutes ago, A F said:

Surely you're not saying Jack has a high footy IQ? His decision making is repeatedly ordinary. 

In answer to the OP too, I'd be playing him 70% forward and 30% midfield, but I've been saying this for at least 12 months, and I doubt it'll happen.

Play him forward? In what world?

He can't kick more than 40m, has 0 aerial skills, isn't nimble, hand to foot drop is slow and defenders would have a field day running off him. 

I genuinely hope we trade him. Might sounds harsh but he's going to be a liability and hurt us in the future. 

Or I hope young guys come in for Viney 


 

Edited July 5, 20214 yr by WA Demon Boy

If we progress as a club, his best footy will see him as a fringe player. Injury or not he is limited, he makes the midfield setup worse and does not appear to work well with Clarry or Trac.