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?
A cynic would say you got the order of that wrong, and that by "privately" they mean they haven't actually heard anyone say that but it must be true because we we wrote it, right?
We may be underestimating how much the game being in Perth influenced selection for this one week before Smack re-becomes available.
I put the word privately in there, only because no one at the club has said it in a public forum (and of course they wouldnât).
I take your point that Perth is a big ground and perhaps we decided not to take a lumbering ruckman that struggles to cover the ground, but I canât really see how playing no ruckman and extra numbers around the ball gives us a better chance of winning the game. Likewise I havenât seen any other clubs electing too not play a ruckman in Perth just because itâs a bit ground.
We elected not to play Thurlow under similar circumstances last year and of course he was cut from the list at the end of last season.
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?
A cynic would say you got the order of that wrong, and that by "privately" they mean they haven't actually heard anyone say that but it must be true because we we wrote it, right?
We may be underestimating how much the game being in Perth influenced selection for this one week before Smack re-becomes available.
What i donât understand is that is he really that bad? Surely he canât be that bad, ive seen him at VFL and although he dosnât look very agile and looks slow he still looks decent .
Strikes me as an old style crash and bang ruckman, would've been far more effective in the 70s and 80s.
Much more of move towards ruckman being agile and athletic to offer more around the ground, which is why we will upgrade McKernan and play him the moment we can.
Seems pretty effective up foward, and can still see him playing a role in the forward line/2nd ruck in the Seniors if the right match ups eventuate.
I think Mumford proves there is still a place for a crash and bash style ruckman. Not saying Giles is as good as Mumford, but IMO there is a role for him at Essendon around the centre bounces ala Mumford. But not as a sole ruckman, I believe we are much better off playing both Giles and McKernan than Bellchambers solo, because of McKernanâs mobility around the ground. He would make a beast of a centre bounce midfielder in Myersâ absence.
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.
Didnât he sign a 2 year contract or was it only one?
Giles+Smack
Giles takes off to the square after the tap and stays there. Smack CHF and chop-out. Laverde on the wingâŚklingons on starboard bow. Langford HHF BRING EM IN!!!
I had a similar thought, but decided it was something that might work if I was still coaching U18s, but not at AFL level,⌠but anyway,
I had a thought of having both Giles & SMcK at the centre bounce, and then SMK takes over as a Blicavs type around the ground, whilst Giles goes as fast as he possibly can to the goal square & stays put.
That way there would at least be a target there when the boys run forward, & Giles is really only doing the 2 things he excels at, centre taps, & kicking sausages.
Like i said, doubt weâd really get away with it at this level though.
Back to the OP. Why did we recruit him? Canât get a game when we are missing our first ruck and CHF. We would rather play an AA defender in the forward line and play a backup ruck as first ruck than give this guy a game. I donât understand it. Love SMACK but he is not a first choice ruck, been given a hiding today
