Remove this Banner Ad

Matthew Smith

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by DaveW
Bring forth the anti-Matthew Smith venom. :D

Would be a surprising choice. On anecdotal evidence, he's behind Hazel and Parker.
I would have thought the above 2 would have got the nod first as well.
Maybe they have thoughts of playing him as forward replacement for Carey.

Surely they wouldn't elevate him and not play him?
 
Not the worst idea. I think Parker is a cert to be elevated at the end of the season.

Smith has, of all our rookies, been in the most consistent and best form for his SANFL club (Parker was very unsettled until recently, and Hazell has dropped away after a strong start to the season) - he has been arguably Sturt's best key defender.

Given our need for a big key defender (and Smith IS big), I see no problem in elevating him to see how he goes in defense, allows us to leave Hentschel up forward.

Because Smith is on the line to be permanently cut at the end of the season. Parker I don't think is.
 
Originally posted by spindoctor

Given our need for a big key defender (and Smith IS big), I see no problem in elevating him to see how he goes in defense, allows us to leave Hentschel up forward.

Because Smith is on the line to be permanently cut at the end of the season. Parker I don't think is.
Would they play him as a defender or Forward?

As a defender it could only be FB where I believe he has been playing for Sturt.
HB line has Hentschell and Mcgregor.

Playing him as a forwrd, could he be a third tall or even tried at FF?
 
Given we are trying Hentschel as a forward, and the fact that Smith has played all his SANFL as a defender, I would like to see him at FB. Releases Bassett to play as a third tall, something he is much better at.
 
Originally posted by spindoctor
Given we are trying Hentschel as a forward, and the fact that Smith has played all his SANFL as a defender, I would like to see him at FB. Releases Bassett to play as a third tall, something he is much better at.
Look given the caning he' has had I can understand the club being bagged for the possible decision.
But apparently he has been pretty impressive with Sturt?

9 games to go - definately worth a go - last chance though.
 
Oh No!

If they do this, they're out to prove to people they got it right by keeping him on. That's the only reason for it.

I saw him a couple of weeks ago when Sturt beat the Dogs and I wasnt impressed. The guy could not outmark Marco Bello. I'm not making that up, I saw Marco hold him out of a contest.

If they are going to promote a tall it would have to be Parker. Bays fans very impressed with him on the weekend.
 
Yep, he has been consistently good as a tall defender for Sturt, consistently shutting down his opponents.

Stiffy seems to think he doesn't use his bulk as a key defender well, but the few times I've seen him he has played the physical contests well.

I guess we'll see.

He's bigger than Bassett anyway.
 
Originally posted by Jerome
Oh No!

If they do this, they're out to prove to people they got it right by keeping him on. That's the only reason for it.

I saw him a couple of weeks ago when Sturt beat the Dogs and I wasnt impressed. The guy could not outmark Marco Bello. I'm not making that up, I saw Marco hold him out of a contest.

If they are going to promote a tall it would have to be Parker. Bays fans very impressed with him on the weekend.

Um...WHAT? Smith has been injured for a few weeks and didn't play that game...how the hell could you have seen him play in that game?
 
Originally posted by spindoctor
Um...WHAT? Smith has been injured for a few weeks and didn't play that game...how the hell could you have seen him play in that game?

Quite easily, he was there and I saw him play.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by spindoctor
Um...WHAT? Smith has been injured for a few weeks and didn't play that game...how the hell could you have seen him play in that game?
now iam :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Originally posted by Wayne's-World
now iam :confused: :confused: :confused:

Don't be.

Dogs V Sturt was June 4.

I have the Budget for June 11 and Smith is named for Sturt (v North) . So he's been injured since the game against the Dogs.
 
Maybe I'm wrong...that game was more than a couple of weeks ago..he has been out since that game I think...

Everyone has their bad nights, but generally he has been very good for Sturt, consistently in their best.
 
Originally posted by Jerome
Don't be.

Dogs V Sturt was June 4.

I have the Budget for June 11 and Smith is named for Sturt (v North) . So he's been injured since the game against the Dogs.
Because the budget is printed early in the week, don't they print a list of approx 25?
 
Originally posted by spindoctor
Um...WHAT? Smith has been injured for a few weeks and didn't play that game...how the hell could you have seen him play in that game?
No he actually played that game. I am pretty sure of this.

As on the promotion I don't have a big beef with it. See if he is up to it. If he can hold down FB then we have something. As far as consistency goes he has been the most consistent performer of out rookies.
 
Originally posted by Stiffy_18

As on the promotion I don't have a big beef with it. See if he is up to it. If he can hold down FB then we have something. As far as consistency goes he has been the most consistent performer of out rookies.
Where did we suddenly get room in the salary cap?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Interestingly, on the night in question against Centrals where Jerome said he was 'crap', the Sturt site had the following to say in its review of the game:

Matthew Smith’s ability to read the play enabled him to courageously take 10 marks on a night when marking was not easy.

10 marks on a dirty night is a good efoort for a tall defender.

Also says this somewhere else:

Matthew Smith continues to mature as an attacking defender, and is playing a far more disciplined game now than when he first commenced with Sturt last year.
 
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Maybe Smary calling it quits forfits the rest of his salary as Matthew Robran did when he retired.
Surely the club would have paid his contract out?

Does the fact Carey retired due to injury have an affect ie has Adelaide actually put him on the long term injury list for the season?
 
Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Surely the club would have paid his contract out?

Does the fact Carey retired due to injury have an affect ie has Adelaide actually put him on the long term injury list for the season?
I don't think they would because it was Smart's decision to call it quits therefore he is breaking the contract.

Carey's situation would be different because he would still be on our pay roll because it was injury forced retirement. I would assume Carey would still be getting match payments for the rest of the year even though he is not playing but he did sustain the injury while playing for the Crows.
 
And hence we should be allowed to upgrade a rookie as per LT injury rules. If we're not allowed to it's f'in stupid.
 
Originally posted by DaveW
Bring forth the anti-Matthew Smith venom. :D

Would be a surprising choice. On anecdotal evidence, he's behind Hazel and Parker.

If Smith comes in then that spells bad news for Parker. If they were going to elevate him and have a look at him now is the ideal time.

His form since crossing to the Bays has, on all reports, been outstanding. I would prefer to have a look at him, I saw Smith in the pre-season comp against Freo and I think he had one handball for the game - and he got plenty of gametime. Couldn't even hang onto a handball when someone else gave it to him!!

Granted, only one game, but he would want to have shown significant improvement.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom