#27 Jonathon Giles

Football Discussion Non Essendon Stuff
22
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? Weā€™ve picked Gwilt a couple of times only to drop him the following week. Thatā€™s what ā€˜back-upsā€™ are for.

Because Giles isnā€™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 wouldnā€™t think Gwilt is either.

Iā€™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 didnā€™t play, is because the club thinks he is really, really, really rubbish. Iā€™d be interested to know what the real point of contention is, the VFL games Iā€™ve seen (admittedly on TV) heā€™s looked just like the Giles from GWS. Not sure what they were expecting.

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.

It just didnā€™t work this year. And it probably cost us a few clearances too. Calculated gamble. Meh.

23

just give the poor ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā–  a go. he may surprise us ! you knowā€¦footballers over athletesā€¦just might work.

24

LIFT!!!

25

I think play both Smack and Giles as well. Hopefully they combine well.

26
Reackon he came to the club unfit and they are making him pay. He looks allot fitter now.

Hone he puts together a string of 3-4 good games and gets 3-4 in the seniors. Heā€™s a competitive beast when he wants to be!

lol, competitive beast

Go look at GWSs first year.

27

Play him as first ruck, with McKernan as his backup.

28

Saw the VFL game vs. Geelong, thought he did fine. Iā€™d bring him and Smack in and drop Ambrose. Play 3 tall forwards, and rotate Smack and Giles in the ruck.

29

Doesnā€™t matter if he gets a game or not. His angel is a centrefold.

30
Reackon he came to the club unfit and they are making him pay. He looks allot fitter now.

Hone he puts together a string of 3-4 good games and gets 3-4 in the seniors. Heā€™s a competitive beast when he wants to be!

lol, competitive beast

31

Reackon he came to the club unfit and they are making him pay. He looks allot fitter now.

Hone he puts together a string of 3-4 good games and gets 3-4 in the seniors. Heā€™s a competitive beast when he wants to be!

32

Has a knack of kicking goals when forward. That alone means he must play!

33

Is he a chance now to Ruck with Mckernan as support.

34

for someone that hasnā€™t even played a game for the club yet, he has copped a fair bit of criticism. He may not be as athletic as we would like, but thereā€™s lots of those type getting regular games at the moment and performing a valuable role (eg Maric).

35

Surely he must play now that TBC is done?

36
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? Weā€™ve picked Gwilt a couple of times only to drop him the following week. Thatā€™s what ā€˜back-upsā€™ are for.

Because Giles isnā€™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 wouldnā€™t think Gwilt is either.

Iā€™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 didnā€™t play, is because the club thinks he is really, really, really rubbish. Iā€™d be interested to know what the real point of contention is, the VFL games Iā€™ve seen (admittedly on TV) heā€™s looked just like the Giles from GWS. Not sure what they were expecting.

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.

It just didnā€™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 donā€™t pick up someone and not play them when a situation is tailor made for them without something happening behind the scenes imo

only quoting your post cos i cant be bothered finding the other twits post.
but the assumption it ā€œworkedā€ last year for carlisle and ran him into touch.
he had a great game against Carlton in the ruck.
got mauled by sandilands the next week.

and subsequently over his next 5 games only scored in 5 goals in 2 games, 0 for the other 3, and didnā€™t get over 10 possies for the 5 matches.

if anything it set him back a few weeks playing in the ruck cos he was too sore from playing a position that heā€™d never played before.

ultimatley it was a stupid short sighted decision from the coaches.
Bellys form didnā€™t ā€œsuddenlyā€ just get ā– ā– ā– ā– , itā€™s been questionable for weeks. they had a guy in the reserves who they could have played, but he wasnā€™t supposedly in the ā€œlong term plansā€ of the club either, so they rush back winder for what reason exactly ?

then they donā€™t pick a guy who is a ruckman, because supposedly he isnā€™t playing well enough to be selected, on what grounds ?
giles must be an absolute ā– ā– ā– ā–  of person for 2 clubs to pretty much dismiss him as a footballer.

They got it wrong, by backing themselves into a corner. ironically who knows if giles would performed the same and got his pants pulled down too like our ā€œruckmanā€ did.
but honestly how many ā€œruckmanā€ are known for their ā€œaround the groundā€ abilities who barely average between 10-15 possies a game ?
there seems to be this illusion that giles will struggle around the ground, so what itā€™s not his job to get the pill, itā€™s his job like all ruckman to deliver the ball to players in ruck situations.

even the guy we played against on the weekend was getting ā€œmockedā€ around here cos for all his attributes he doesnā€™t get enough of the ball or do enough supposedly.
So if a guy who does have endurance, speed, agilty and all those other traits canā€™t find the ball more, why is anyone expecting any other lumbering ruckman to do so ? belly included as well as giles.

in 2 of the 3 games against quality ruckman that carlisle has supposedly been picked ahead of other ruckman, cos heā€™ll have an ā€œaround the ground advantageā€ heā€™s gotten 10 and 11 disposals.
when he played CARLTON, well he pantsed a bottom 4ā€™s ruckman.
that says it all,

yet some idiots (namely the coaches) thought carlisle would tear natanui a new one around the ground why exactly ?

37
I agree with what BK is saying. We were in a tug of war with Adelaide to gain him. The fact he passed going back to his home state was huge in that EFC obviosuly promised him game-time.

Didnā€™t he sign a 2 year contract or was it only one?

Made me curious. After reading this again, it makes me wonder more, if there isnā€™t something in this that the masses arenā€™t privy to. Or, he just isnā€™t quick enough, & they thought they could get him up to it in the 1st year, ready for the 2nd year of the contract.

RUCKMAN Jonathan Giles has nominated Essendon as his preferred new home over Adelaide.

The Giants ruckman had been weighing up his football future after meeting with the Crows and Bombers over the past week, but AFL.com.au understands Giles decided on Tuesday morning that his future lay at Essendon.

The Bombers now have until 2pm on Thursday to arrange a trade with the Giants, with the Dons understood to have offered Giles a two-year deal.

Having missed out on Giles, Adelaide could now focus on securing Hawthorn ruckman Luke Lowden, as it seeks to provide more support for No.1 ruckman Sam Jacobs.

Giles, 26, looms as a ready-made replacement for Patrick Ryder, who is seeking a trade from Essendon to Port Adelaide.

ā€œJonathan obviously had a big decision to make. He met with both Essendon and Adelaide over the last couple of days and heā€™s made a decision this morning that he feels from a football point of view that his opportunities will be greater at Essendon,ā€ manager Tom Petroro said.

"I think there was a lure to go back to Adelaide obviously because thatā€™s where heā€™s from and hence the decision, well he agonised over the decision for probably the last 24 hours, came to it this morning and hopefully now the two list managers Adrian Dodoro and Stephen Silvagni can work out a deal to get it done.

"I think heā€™s really enjoyed his time at GWS.

ā€œOnce the season finished he weighed it all up and thought well hopefully thereā€™s some clubs interested and my opportunity would be better elsewhere.ā€

Giles has shown an ability to hit the scoreboard when pinch-hitting in attack, and the Bombers feel he and fellow ruckman Tom Bellchambers can work well together in the same team.

The South Australian is contracted at GWS to the end of next season, but Giles told the club in his post-season review that he was keen to find a new football home after being overlooked for senior selection in the second half of 2014 as Shane Mumford cemented the No. 1 ruck position.

Giles made his AFL debut in the Giantsā€™ inaugural AFL game in round one, 2012, and became the first player to reach 50 games for the expansion club in round eight this year.

But after playing the Giantsā€™ first nine games this season, Giles was dropped and could not break back into the senior team despite outstanding form in the NEAFL.

Giles finished fifth in the Giantsā€™ 2012 best and fairest count, having averaged 14.3 possessions and 22.1 hit-outs a game and kicked 18 goals.

He followed that up with a sixth-place finish in last yearā€™s best and fairest award, when he averaged 10.5 possessions and 24.3 hitouts a match and kicked 14 goals.

Prior to joining the Giants, Giles spent four seasons at Port Adelaide without playing a senior game.

Giles has played 51 AFL games.

Twitter: @AFL_Nick

Newsletter
RSS

Share
38
Hirdy said Giles would have played had it been against a similar type ruckman.

However it was NicNatā€¦ 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 didnā€™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 canā€™t plan for an opposition player to get injured.

Smack in the side will fix everything up.

39

I reckon Giles lone rucking at Subi would have been the problem. Sharing with McKernan at Etihad is an entirely different story.

I expect Bellchambers and McKernan against the Hawks, but Giles / McKernan may happen at some time. Doubt they have put a line through him. Doubt they ever put a line through anyone until the season is done. Heā€™s an option and they will use if they think itā€™s the best option for a given match up.

40
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? Weā€™ve picked Gwilt a couple of times only to drop him the following week. Thatā€™s what ā€˜back-upsā€™ are for.

Yep. Beats playing debutantes as sub then dropping them next weekā€¦

41
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? Weā€™ve picked Gwilt a couple of times only to drop him the following week. Thatā€™s what ā€˜back-upsā€™ are for.

Because Giles isnā€™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 wouldnā€™t think Gwilt is either.

Iā€™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 didnā€™t play, is because the club thinks he is really, really, really rubbish. Iā€™d be interested to know what the real point of contention is, the VFL games Iā€™ve seen (admittedly on TV) heā€™s looked just like the Giles from GWS. Not sure what they were expecting.