A couple of journos have mentioned in the last 24 hours that the club is privately saying Giles is no good and won’t be picked for senior footy. The evidence of last weekend seems to back this up. How did our recruiting staff get it so wrong? He was recruited only 7 months ago and we’ve now completely put a line through him without playing a senior game?
Enter the moment, enter the man.
If he cant make it now, he never will.
Reckon he will fire up big time now that tbell has gone down.
The reason we played with no ruckman is: 1. Belly's form was so bad, he just had to be dropped. 2. They intend to go with McKernan medium-term, and he could not be elevated until next match. 3. Why pick Giles and drop him the following week? 4. Giles would have got spanked by Nic Nat in the hitouts, so it made sense to try to level the ledger around the ground with Carlisle. 5. Giles tested abysmally in preseason running drills and subsequent GPS data confirms this, so he would've struggled on the large expanses of Subi anyway.
Sounds like inside info. I agree he looked slow during the pre-season. He was injured at the start, but maybe his fitness level just has not come up to the minimum required level after 10 matches in the 2s…
Could come up with a lot of worse ideas than to combine Giles and McKernan in the seniors. They have an excellent track record as a combination in the VFL. Maybe it would act as a spur for both of them to be selected?
We could definitely be coming first in rookie upgrades soon!
With Colyer & T Bell out for at least 8 weeks (isn’t that a convenient number for TBC?), plus the mid year upgrade available, we could have almost alll our rookies on the main list next week… if we wanted to.
It is time for Giles to come in, give him a crack at playing senior footy. He has played over 50 games in a side which had Shane Mumford. If he can't ruck exclusively, then he needs support. LTI for Bellchambers - upgrade McKernan.He can kick goals, which is better than what others are providing at the minute.
We don’t need to put anyone on the LTI to upgrade mckernan I’m pretty sure, were at the stage where everyone can have a rookie upgrade (unless you can only have a certain amount of people on your primary list?)
It is time for Giles to come in, give him a crack at playing senior footy. He has played over 50 games in a side which had Shane Mumford. If he can't ruck exclusively, then he needs support. LTI for Bellchambers - upgrade McKernan.He can kick goals, which is better than what others are providing at the minute.
He played 9 games in a side that had Mumford.
Hope he gets a gig.
Is one of the few players on our list who is actually a dead eye in front of goal so it is only natural that we’ve kept him in the two’s all this time.
Time to sheiiiine
Hirdy said Giles would have played had it been against a similar type ruckman.However it was NicNat… And so they while they expected to lose majority of ruck contests thought they could get more out of Carlisle around the ground than Giles.
Not that difficult of a concept.
This, Giles would have been destroyed too. We didn’t lose the game in ruck anyway
But we did lack a 2nd marking option up fwd and were unable to exploit the McDonough injury
I agree, but you can’t plan for an opposition player to get injured.
Smack in the side will fix everything up.
Sure but we still lacked a second tall forward regardless
Hirdy said Giles would have played had it been against a similar type ruckman.However it was NicNat… And so they while they expected to lose majority of ruck contests thought they could get more out of Carlisle around the ground than Giles.
Not that difficult of a concept.
This, Giles would have been destroyed too. We didn’t lose the game in ruck anyway
But we did lack a 2nd marking option up fwd and were unable to exploit the McDonough injury
No game time because of gingerness: there is a quota you know.
Hirdy said Giles would have played had it been against a similar type ruckman.However it was NicNat… And so they while they expected to lose majority of ruck contests thought they could get more out of Carlisle around the ground than Giles.
Not that difficult of a concept.
This, Giles would have been destroyed too. We didn’t lose the game in ruck anyway
VS HAWKS- In- Giles McKernan.
Hirdy said Giles would have played had it been against a similar type ruckman.
However it was NicNat… And so they while they expected to lose majority of ruck contests thought they could get more out of Carlisle around the ground than Giles.
Not that difficult of a concept.
And to think historically ruck was an area of strength for the EFC
Recent history? I’d say we’ve had one of the poorer ruck divisions over the last 15-20 years. Even Ryder only stood up last year. Before that Hille had that one amazing year and then there’s nothing unless we go back some time.
By that logic we should've picked Tommy, because he was the #1 ruck as of round 1. Priorities change, your opinions on players change, players' form changes, what the team needs changes.I don't actually think it was that bad a gamble, running Carlisle in the ruck. It worked for him last year, in terms of getting him around the footy, getting some touch, and just letting him play. simplifying his role somewhat, there's so many elements to playing in our forward line - mainly deciding whether to point and scream or pout and sook in the hour between having it kicked to you.The reason we played with no ruckman is: 1. Belly's form was so bad, he just had to be dropped. 2. They intend to go with McKernan medium-term, and he could not be elevated until next match. 3. Why pick Giles and drop him the following week? 4. Giles would have got spanked by Nic Nat in the hitouts, so it made sense to try to level the ledger around the ground with Carlisle. 5. Giles tested abysmally in preseason running drills and subsequent GPS data confirms this, so he would've struggled on the large expanses of Subi anyway.How is that a reason? We’ve picked Gwilt a couple of times only to drop him the following week. That’s what ‘back-ups’ are for.
Because Giles isn’t in our long-term plans, and it would have denied someone else a game I suppose. Also, they probably thought that giving Carlisle a run in the ruck maybe would have given him the opportunity to get his hands on the footy playing on-ball, and release some pressure. As it turned out, Buckets did SFA around the ground, but I can see the merit in trying it.
I wouldn’t think Gwilt is either.
I’m also not sure how chucking Carlisle up against the all-jumping, all-leaping circus that is NicNat was going to release any pressure on him. He was always gonna get mauled.
We weakened our forward line in order to weaken our rucks.
Anyway, the only conceivable reason Giles didn’t play, is because the club thinks he is really, really, really rubbish. I’d be interested to know what the real point of contention is, the VFL games I’ve seen (admittedly on TV) he’s looked just like the Giles from GWS. Not sure what they were expecting.
It just didn’t work this year. And it probably cost us a few clearances too. Calculated gamble. Meh.
Pretty much how i saw it. Was worth the risk. I was just happy Hird took a risk and tried something different.
Would love to know what is different about Giles now than when they got him last year. Has his attitude changed, is he not putting in the effort required. Something must of happened for him to go so far down the pecking order. You don’t pick up someone and not play them when a situation is tailor made for them without something happening behind the scenes imo
I don't actually think it was that bad a gamble, running Carlisle in the ruck. It worked for him last year, in terms of getting him around the footy, getting some touch, and just letting him play. simplifying his role somewhat, there's so many elements to playing in our forward line - mainly deciding whether to point and scream or pout and sook in the hour between having it kicked to you.The reason we played with no ruckman is: 1. Belly's form was so bad, he just had to be dropped. 2. They intend to go with McKernan medium-term, and he could not be elevated until next match. 3. Why pick Giles and drop him the following week? 4. Giles would have got spanked by Nic Nat in the hitouts, so it made sense to try to level the ledger around the ground with Carlisle. 5. Giles tested abysmally in preseason running drills and subsequent GPS data confirms this, so he would've struggled on the large expanses of Subi anyway.How is that a reason? We’ve picked Gwilt a couple of times only to drop him the following week. That’s what ‘back-ups’ are for.
Because Giles isn’t in our long-term plans, and it would have denied someone else a game I suppose. Also, they probably thought that giving Carlisle a run in the ruck maybe would have given him the opportunity to get his hands on the footy playing on-ball, and release some pressure. As it turned out, Buckets did SFA around the ground, but I can see the merit in trying it.
I wouldn’t think Gwilt is either.
I’m also not sure how chucking Carlisle up against the all-jumping, all-leaping circus that is NicNat was going to release any pressure on him. He was always gonna get mauled.
We weakened our forward line in order to weaken our rucks.
Anyway, the only conceivable reason Giles didn’t play, is because the club thinks he is really, really, really rubbish. I’d be interested to know what the real point of contention is, the VFL games I’ve seen (admittedly on TV) he’s looked just like the Giles from GWS. Not sure what they were expecting.
It just didn’t work this year. And it probably cost us a few clearances too. Calculated gamble. Meh.
Pretty much how i saw it. Was worth the risk. I was just happy Hird took a risk and tried something different.
Would love to know what is different about Giles now than when they got him last year. Has his attitude changed, is he not putting in the effort required. Something must of happened for him to go so far down the pecking order. You don’t pick up someone and not play them when a situation is tailor made for them without something happening behind the scenes imo