PDA

View Full Version : Daily Player reviews #10 Greg Stafford


oh_my_hat
13 Feb 2003, 19:53
One of the guys who is in a Tigers e-mail loop with me at work is putting together a one-a-day player critique starting at #1 and working through the player list. It's a pretty good read so I thought I would share it with you.

Part 10 in the series….


10 - Greg Stafford

Position: Ruckman / Tall Forward
Age: 28 - Turns 29 a couple of days before Round 22
Height: 203cm
Weight: 100kg
Career Games: 146 ( 16 at Richmond)
Career Goals: 84 ( 26 at Richmond)
Draft History: Taken as a Zone Selection by Sydney (91?) then traded to
Richmond at National Draft 2001 in exchange for Nick Daffy, Draft Pick No 17
(so how is James Kelly going?) and some magic beans.

2002 Averages: 16 Games, 6.9 Kicks, 4.5 Marks, 4.4 Handballs, 1.6 Goals, 10.6
Hitouts, 1.8 Tackles, 0.8 Rebounds, 1.3 Inside 50s, 2.1 Clearance, 1.9 Clangers

2002 Summary: Came with a reputation of being big, mobile, injury-prone and a
confidence player who could kick the occasional goal. And pretty much played
the script out to a T. I didn't think he made much of an impact as a Ruckman
where I thought he struggled and was a bit too one-dimensional but did
eventually make a bit more of an impact as a forward where he showed he
could be handy. Started really well against Collingwood then began to struggle
eventually missing 4 games with a hip injury. Had the opportunity to grab the
number 1 Ruck position when Ottens missed a couple of games but fumbled it
badly, being exposed by Burton and Primus and worse - struggled against the
second stringers Porter & French which only confirmed my worst fears. Then
managed to get himself suspended and returned to finish the year predominately
up forward where he kicked a couple of bags of four. Finished the year as our
third highest goal-kicker with 26.

Previously: Debut with Sydney in 93 and looked a real up and coming prospect
in 96 when he first really hit the scene averaging nearly 14 possessions a game
with 5 marks and 10 hit-outs, but career never really hit the expected heights
when he was constantly being referred to a "Capable of being one of the
leagues best if he can get his body right". I remember him playing some very
good football in 2000 for the Swans but he did have a very poor 2001 and really
looked like he'd lost it. Always was highly regarded but just never seemed to
get over the line.

Ability: 5.5 - Possibly a bit hard, as he certainly always looks like he's got loads
of ability, but to be honest hasn't really shown himself to be much more than
middle of the road.
Offence: 5.5 - A bit of a surprise, he'd spent a bit of time up forward previously
where his size enabled him to be dangerous around goals but never looked like
kicking more than a couple here and there. Is a reasonable mark, led pretty well
at times, although primarily was a big target right in front. Helped to some extent
to straighten Richmond up at times by staying in the corridor and finished pretty
well for a man of his size. Excellent conversion rate.
Defence: 3 - Primarily spent his time either forward or in a role where he was
on his own. Disappointed me in that instead of pushing back to help the
defence he made himself too often into an option as a link man rather than plug a
hole.
Hardness: 6 - Above average in this department, certainly I wouldn't question
his courage and he would push his way through a pack but could learn to keep
the elbows down. Not overly tough, but hard enough.
Speed: 1.5 - I said mobile - I didn't say quick. I might be harsh here, but often
looked to me that he laboured to get the first few steps off at all. Really didn't
see him bar a few games each year before he came to Richmond and to be fair
had a Hip injury that may have made him look worse.
Stamina: 3 - Looked below average to me in this regard, also probably
something to do with injury and really rarely had the opportunity to Ruck all day
to prove it. The two games he did most of the work didn't look good to me.
Delivery: 7 - Well above average, his delivery was for me the biggest surprise.
Very fluent kicking style, if you kinda squinted he almost looked like a well
polished midfielder.
Air: 7 - Again well above average, although I think he could be better. Does at
times look like a bumbling Giant when the ball is in the Air, but good once he got
his big paws to it.
Ground: 4 - Respectable for a big man, at times quite good, but still gets the big
man fumbles down low at times.
Injury: 4 - Hasn't had the best of runs, although has managed to usually keep
himself on the park a lot, in fact not really a hell of a lot of games missed, but
always seems to be playing under a cloud.
Ruck: 5 - Had two games when Ottens was out and got flogged in the middle,
first by Burton (and Porter) then pretty well embarrassed by Primus & French.
Admittedly got double-teamed on both occasions without a lot of help from Hall,
but showed my worst Nightmare post-Gale. No Ottens means very little Big-
Man centre square presence. Can survive as a second stringer to Ottens and
by no means is a complete Mug in the Ruck, but really can't compete adequately
with the best. Is very one-dimensional when he Rucks in the centre square
(pretty much forward and left - I have no stat to back that, but that was my
impression) but better around the ground, particularly at Boundary throw-ins
where he can use his size (he is a big unit) to better advantage. Of biggest
worry is when he's beat there appears a real ease to the opposition midfield
and maybe needs to look more to a negating role at times.
Temperament: 5 - Looks like he doesn't mind the odd dose of angry pills and
there's a bit of lack of control there methinks.
Ball: 5 - Is a reasonable ball winner for a big man, but too often it's his mobility
and desire to play as an "option" that wins possessions.

Strengths: Has good skills and is quite mobile. A reasonable mark who will
deliver the ball with good precision. Looks a good athlete and seems to read the
ball fairly well, which should be expected from a 10-Year player.

Weaknesses: Ruckwork is relatively ordinary and will get flogged by the top-
liners. Often appears to be labouring under injury.

Overall: Stafford is a natural Richmond footballer:
a) The whole package looks just about right and on the surface we think we
could be on a real winner
b) Injuries just seem to occur at the wrong time
c) Confidence really makes a big difference
d) Promises to be spectacularly good but really ends up delivering constant
middle of the road performances with every now and again surprising with a
top level performance which indicates that potentially it could happen all the
time - but unlikely it will.
I think he's no more than an average Ruckman although there seems to be a lot
around who disagree, maybe they saw more of him at the Swans when he
was better. Does look like he has loads of talent and you'd say "naturally
gifted". I would say he did surprise me a bit by his effectiveness up forward.
There was a thought he could fill that role, but I had my doubts personally.
Despite my "average" assessment is actually very important to Richmond as he
allows us to do two things - Firstly it allows Ottens to rest instead of
permanently shouldering the load and secondly it buys us some time to start to
address a fundamental list problem with our big guys which leaves us
vulnerable to injury/loss of form/threats to leave. We really need Staff to kick
around 35+ goals from 20+ matches this year which would be a credible pass
mark from him. I have a bit concern that he will be found out a bit more in 2003
with teams more ready for him as a more regular forward and if his impact there
is diminished we may be in a bit of trouble.

What he needs to do?
1) Should be aiming at 35 goals as a forward, which would be a good return
for a non-permanent.
2) Keep the elbows down - structurally we're in a bit of trouble without him.
3) Be more prepared to take a negating role in the Ruck as when he's beat an
armchair ride is often on the cards.

tiger of old
14 Feb 2003, 08:13
i knew there would be one where i disagree with sooner or later lol.
there is no shame in getting beaten by someone like primus or even burton[who has suprised many].
i put it all down to the lack of a solid pre-season base that he couldnt fall back on due to his hip injury.

this year will tell the true story hopefully.

cheers!

CJH
14 Feb 2003, 12:34
This season, Stafford has Full Forward written all over him with the ruck duties to be split mainly between Ottens and Ray Hall. This placement is as much strategic as it is tactical.

The critical point here is - Stafford could stand at FF and not get a single kick and we would still be better for it because of the benefits delivered to Richo and Otto.

The reason for this is: When Richo is playing, he always gets the best defender and is often double teamed. Richo also plays his best football when he is roaming around the half forward line rather than being constricted up front.

Stafford is a huge man that presents a very dangerous prospect for any defence, especially when playing in the goal square. IMV, he is a better pack mark that Ottens and there aren't too many who can stop him.

Therefore, when Stafford and Richo are playing together up forward - and keeping themselves separate, it creates a quandary for the opposition. They simply are not able to double team both of them and going one on one presents a situation that favours us.

Having Stafford fill this role also enables us to implement a tactic I called the Ruck Rotation - something that was instrumental in our 2001 season but failed last year because of injury.

I don't think Stafford will go through the season without getting a kick however - as a permanent FF, he would probably get 60+ goals and be a huge headache for the opposition (for reasons other than those very pointy elbows!)

tiger of old
15 Feb 2003, 09:06
Originally posted by CJH
This season, Stafford has Full Forward written all over him with the ruck duties to be split mainly between Ottens and Ray Hall. This placement is as much strategic as it is tactical.

The critical point here is - Stafford could stand at FF and not get a single kick and we would still be better for it because of the benefits delivered to Richo and Otto.

The reason for this is: When Richo is playing, he always gets the best defender and is often double teamed. Richo also plays his best football when he is roaming around the half forward line rather than being constricted up front.

Stafford is a huge man that presents a very dangerous prospect for any defence, especially when playing in the goal square. IMV, he is a better pack mark that Ottens and there aren't too many who can stop him.

Therefore, when Stafford and Richo are playing together up forward - and keeping themselves separate, it creates a quandary for the opposition. They simply are not able to double team both of them and going one on one presents a situation that favours us.

Having Stafford fill this role also enables us to implement a tactic I called the Ruck Rotation - something that was instrumental in our 2001 season but failed last year because of injury.

I don't think Stafford will go through the season without getting a kick however - as a permanent FF, he would probably get 60+ goals and be a huge headache for the opposition (for reasons other than those very pointy elbows!) good in theory chris but i have my doubts about hall playing in the ruck.another problem when hall does go into the ruck where will otto go?3 talls in the fwd line might be one to many cooks in da kitchen.

cheers!

Rodan#18.
15 Feb 2003, 09:49
Originally posted by tiger of old
good in theory chris but i have my doubts about hall playing in the ruck.another problem when hall does go into the ruck where will otto go?3 talls in the fwd line might be one to many cooks in da kitchen.

cheers!

i think hall has shown enough in the past...they take time dont they ? 3 tall fwds is ok if the midfield are getting a share of the ball....Johnson, Coughlan and Rodan all showed something yesterday...which is good.

tiger of old
15 Feb 2003, 12:01
Originally posted by Rodan#18.
i think hall has shown enough in the past...they take time dont they ? 3 tall fwds is ok if the midfield are getting a share of the ball....Johnson, Coughlan and Rodan all showed something yesterday...which is good.
thats what im worried about with hall in the ruck.no matter how good our midfielders are if hall is gettin whipped in the ruck.

cheers!

Rodan#18.
16 Feb 2003, 02:03
otto..Richo...hilton ...maybe campbo and Blumfield with Krak'r : what a forward zone.

we just have to break even in the engine room to secure victory in most games.

And Stafford, Johnson, Coughlan and Rodan will do better than that. Bowdo and tivvers on the wings too.

and if it does go back...gas, Holland and Chubber...with Fiora , Zanners and Cameron will repel anything but the most efficient fwd thrusts.

with guys like dunc, chaff, dragga and hall, fleming, rogers and newman trying to get time as well :

we'll be awesome this year...

:D :D :D

CJH
16 Feb 2003, 11:38
Originally posted by tiger of old
good in theory chris but i have my doubts about hall playing in the ruck.another problem when hall does go into the ruck where will otto go?3 talls in the fwd line might be one to many cooks in da kitchen.

cheers!

I doubt that Hall would ever take the centre square work - it would usually be either Ottens or Stafford. However, when resting Ottens, Hall would be then able to work around the ground as a follower!

Can you think of any other ruckman that would be able to keep up with him?

tiger of old
16 Feb 2003, 11:53
Originally posted by CJH
I doubt that Hall would ever take the centre square work - it would usually be either Ottens or Stafford. However, when resting Ottens, Hall would be then able to work around the ground as a follower!

Can you think of any other ruckman that would be able to keep up with him? yeah good point about hall not taking the actual centre square work.
altho hall could be exposed in our backline when it comes to dropping in the space.
granted i dont think there is any ruckman who could keep up with him.lets hope we use this to our advantage.

cheers!

Rodan#18.
16 Feb 2003, 21:31
hall ...sydney made a big play for hall this year..apparently better money was involved.

source...I play footy with one of his mates.