Player Watch #24: Ben Griffiths - retired effectively immediately

Will he play for the Tigers at AFL level again?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 32.1%

  • No

    Votes: 114 67.9%
  • Total voters
    168

Remove this Banner Ad

He was the ultimate tease.

We won't struggle to cover for him the kids we drafted will have as much influence on the game as he usually gave.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Goldust said:
Respectfully disagree. His five goals v Sydney was his Martin McGrath moment ... his Chris Pym moment.
How did Big Ben follow up his breakthrough performance in game 60-odd .... a massive four kicks and three handballs in a loss to a similarly struggling Freo Dockers. Ten touches the following week and then barely sighted in a 70 point loss to Norf the week after ... all this before concussions took hold. Concussions were not a factor in his Sydney game yet the excuse gets rolled out for every subsequent ordinary game he played.
Click to expand...
Some context here. The week following the was in the pissing rain on a freezing, windy night in Freemantle. The ball was a cake of soap. TV finally started on the bench that night after another of his 3 possession games. Guess who was back at full forward the following week TV. Remember at the time being so pissed off.

The problem with Griffiths was that he wasn't a great reader of the game, so he needed to be utilised where the ball came to him, full forward. But TV had that spot all wrapped up. He did a few weeks later against Essendon take 12 marks, the most contested marks in a game by a Richmond player since Richo and kick 3 goals. Then injured himself the following week and missed the rest of the season, 3 to 4 games with a groin.

Griffith had absolutely no luck, should have been our full forward in front of the chosen one Vickery, then we would be able to judge him better. A bit like Conca, who knows how they would have turned out. In the end he got a better offer.
 
Heisenberg_ said:
That's just dumb, he says no they say no worries and give somebody else a shot, it's a pretty big deal getting a US college scholarship, anybody in his position would do it rather then playing a year in the VFL, hoping to not cop more head blows (which by the way is a lot more serious then has ever been publicly acknowledged) and then get delisted then hope somebody else offers him another one after knocking back the opportunity of a lifetime 12 months earlier it's unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
It's a bad outcome for the club ,he should have retired before draft.I'm not sure why you're approving individual player decisions over what's good for the club.He would have played most games this year.
 
Socrates2 said:
It's a bad outcome for the club ,he should have retired before draft.I'm not sure why you're approving individual player decisions over what's good for the club.He would have played most games this year.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the point he would have played most games this year...

So if you look at it from that angle, it's not such a bad thing. If you acknowledge that EVERY team has a player on their list who doesn't play a single game in the seniors all year, then just think of our to be BG. Then on top of that we don't have to pay him either (I assume as his choice to retire)... So basically, the salary cap space we dont use this year, we can carry forward next year (in the hope of landing maybe Tom Lynch).
 
Socrates2 said:
It's a bad outcome for the club ,he should have retired before draft.I'm not sure why you're approving individual player decisions over what's good for the club.He would have played most games this year.
Click to expand...
I'm aware that it would've been better for us if he hadn't have left, but at the same time I'm also aware he had a once in a lifetime opportunity and given his circumstances it was a no brainer.
No he wouldn't have played most games unless you're including the VFL, he never had in the past and he definitely wouldn't in such a strong team.
 
Hank Heavenly said:
I disagree with the point he would have played most games this year...

So if you look at it from that angle, it's not such a bad thing. If you acknowledge that EVERY team has a player on their list who doesn't play a single game in the seniors all year, then just think of our to be BG. Then on top of that we don't have to pay him either (I assume as his choice to retire)... So basically, the salary cap space we dont use this year, we can carry forward next year (in the hope of landing maybe Tom Lynch).
Click to expand...
It's not about him being a good bloke or you met him once and he was nice.Its about a required player quitting after trade period, to leave the club in the lurch.The club wished him well because there was no point in slagging him off .Neil Balme said he was 'shocked' and he's usually pretty circumspect.Who cares if it's a great career move for him.He's been paid probably a million dollars over his time for little return.It's about the club not the individual. The worse thing is ,no one knew he was applying to NFL colleges.If he had of got rejected, he wouldn't mentioned it.That shows a lack of character.
 
Grrr said:
Some context here. The week following the was in the pissing rain on a freezing, windy night in Freemantle. The ball was a cake of soap. TV finally started on the bench that night after another of his 3 possession games. Guess who was back at full forward the following week TV. Remember at the time being so pissed off.

The problem with Griffiths was that he wasn't a great reader of the game, so he needed to be utilised where the ball came to him, full forward. But TV had that spot all wrapped up. He did a few weeks later against Essendon take 12 marks, the most contested marks in a game by a Richmond player since Richo and kick 3 goals. Then injured himself the following week and missed the rest of the season, 3 to 4 games with a groin.

Griffith had absolutely no luck, should have been our full forward in front of the chosen one Vickery, then we would be able to judge him better. A bit like Conca, who knows how they would have turned out. In the end he got a better offer.
Click to expand...

Why does no one judge Vickery predominantly on his six goal effort against Collingwood, which was up there with some of the great Richo performances from the previous decade?
Yet, everyone wants to judge Griffiths largely on his one night out v Sydney?
The stats do not lie, Vickery has Griffiths covered in basically every facet of the game. As I said yesterday, I made the call on TV earlier than most that he needed to be dropped (as I have on one or two others who were gifted games), but it's an indictment he could never work past him.
Go back and read the earliest threads on Griffiths, people on here were convinced we had our own Stewart Loewe, Scott Lucas or Kelvin Templeton. The hype was unbelievable - even while languishing in the Twos at Coburg as an out of form defender. It is a tough concept for many Tiger fans to grasp that sometimes a player was simply not adequate. Yes you get 60-odd chances you'll eventually pull a rabbit out of the bag and play a good one.
Here's my take on the game v Freo ..... TV was insipid and - finally the penny had dropped - the Tiger faithful reacted and came down on him like a tonne of bricks. But the conditions were the same for ALL tall forwards that night, including Griff, who equally as feeble, and Riewoldt, who actually played well, as did Pavlich for the opposition.
I have conceded he had no luck with injuries, but give me a break ... this bloke was not a shadow of what he is made out to be by some. Gumbleton from the Bombers was injury prone but was about as effective as Griff in his appearances, but you will argue the Bomber was a spud. His absence made us better ... ditto for Hampson.
 
Goldust said:
Why does no one judge Vickery predominantly on his six goal effort against Collingwood, which was up there with some of the great Richo performances from the previous decade?
Yet, everyone wants to judge Griffiths largely on his one night out v Sydney?
The stats do not lie, Vickery has Griffiths covered in basically every facet of the game. As I said yesterday, I made the call on TV earlier than most that he needed to be dropped (as I have on one or two others who were gifted games), but it's an indictment he could never work past him.
Go back and read the earliest threads on Griffiths, people on here were convinced we had our own Stewart Loewe, Scott Lucas or Kelvin Templeton. The hype was unbelievable - even while languishing in the Twos at Coburg as an out of form defender. It is a tough concept for many Tiger fans to grasp that sometimes a player was simply not adequate. Yes you get 60-odd chances you'll eventually pull a rabbit out of the bag and play a good one.
Here's my take on the game v Freo ..... TV was insipid and - finally the penny had dropped - the Tiger faithful reacted and came down on him like a tonne of bricks. But the conditions were the same for ALL tall forwards that night, including Griff, who equally as feeble, and Riewoldt, who actually played well, as did Pavlich for the opposition.
I have conceded he had no luck with injuries, but give me a break ... this bloke was not a shadow of what he is made out to be by some. Gumbleton from the Bombers was injury prone but was about as effective as Griff in his appearances, but you will argue the Bomber was a spud. His absence made us better ... ditto for Hampson.
Click to expand...
Yes. Griff kept showing potential; but every time he played a good or very good game he would follow up with diminishing returns. I always wondered why this was so. Did he rest on his laurels a bit after a good game or were his good games just one out of the box that he was unable to replicate consistently (for whatever reason). Good to free up some salary cap and I hope he does well and doesn't suffer any concussions in the US. Win Win.

I'm still mildly hopeful that Hampson can continue the improvement he was reported to be showing in the 2's in the latter half of the year and become a good contributor in the 1's if needed and warranted.
 
Goldust said:
Why does no one judge Vickery predominantly on his six goal effort against Collingwood, which was up there with some of the great Richo performances from the previous decade?
Yet, everyone wants to judge Griffiths largely on his one night out v Sydney?
The stats do not lie, Vickery has Griffiths covered in basically every facet of the game. As I said yesterday, I made the call on TV earlier than most that he needed to be dropped (as I have on one or two others who were gifted games), but it's an indictment he could never work past him.
Go back and read the earliest threads on Griffiths, people on here were convinced we had our own Stewart Loewe, Scott Lucas or Kelvin Templeton. The hype was unbelievable - even while languishing in the Twos at Coburg as an out of form defender. It is a tough concept for many Tiger fans to grasp that sometimes a player was simply not adequate. Yes you get 60-odd chances you'll eventually pull a rabbit out of the bag and play a good one.
Here's my take on the game v Freo ..... TV was insipid and - finally the penny had dropped - the Tiger faithful reacted and came down on him like a tonne of bricks. But the conditions were the same for ALL tall forwards that night, including Griff, who equally as feeble, and Riewoldt, who actually played well, as did Pavlich for the opposition.
I have conceded he had no luck with injuries, but give me a break ... this bloke was not a shadow of what he is made out to be by some. Gumbleton from the Bombers was injury prone but was about as effective as Griff in his appearances, but you will argue the Bomber was a spud. His absence made us better ... ditto for Hampson.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying his performances were up to scratch, and like you I am actually happy to see him go and do his own thing. He had potential and that is the problem. He was so far in front of Vickery in football talent it wash't funny. He was a beautiful kick, although for some reason not at goal, opposite to Vickery. That probably sums Griff up, couldn't be relied on. He was very agile for a 200cm guy, was good of the deck, tackled hard, was pretty quick, and could take some great marks. Vickery was none of these things, but he had a good footy brain, which is why he could get out the back and kick his gimme goals each week. Vickery was very good in traffic and a good handballer, which would have made him a good ruck man, but couldn't jump.

Griffiths was about as good a 200cm athlete playing besides Daniher. But he didn't read the game and was made to play 3rd fiddle. Early on I remember watching him live and couldn't believe how he was reading the game. So he was either instructed to get out of the corridor for Riewoldt or Vickery or he was useless as a floating forward. Probably a bit of both. But still he was almost never used as the main focal point at Full Forward. Never apart from that Swans game. Even when he was brilliant against Essendon it wasn't at FF. And that was my frustration, and I imagine his. Yes Ty occasionally had a good game, all average players do.
Yes Jack played well in the wet that night, Jack is the best wet weather forward in the game easily, and Pavlich is an AFL great and only 193cm tall. So Griff was given a game in the wet before he was duly back as ruck relief. Then of course the injuries.
I had given up on Griff this year, not because of lack of football talent, but because he was shot as a footballer mentally. But to say Vickery had more talent is not correct (IMO).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Grrr said:
I'm not saying his performances were up to scratch, and like you I am actually happy to see him go and do his own thing. He had potential and that is the problem. He was so far in front of Vickery in football talent it wash't funny. He was a beautiful kick, although for some reason not at goal, opposite to Vickery. That probably sums Griff up, couldn't be relied on. He was very agile for a 200cm guy, was good of the deck, tackled hard, was pretty quick, and could take some great marks. Vickery was none of these things, but he had a good footy brain, which is why he could get out the back and kick his gimme goals each week. Vickery was very good in traffic and a good handballer, which would have made him a good ruck man, but couldn't jump.

Griffiths was about as good a 200cm athlete playing besides Daniher. But he didn't read the game and was made to play 3rd fiddle. Early on I remember watching him live and couldn't believe how he was reading the game. So he was either instructed to get out of the corridor for Riewoldt or Vickery or he was useless as a floating forward. Probably a bit of both. But still he was almost never used as the main focal point at Full Forward. Never apart from that Swans game. Even when he was brilliant against Essendon it wasn't at FF. And that was my frustration, and I imagine his. Yes Ty occasionally had a good game, all average players do.
Yes Jack played well in the wet that night, Jack is the best wet weather forward in the game easily, and Pavlich is an AFL great and only 193cm tall. So Griff was given a game in the wet before he was duly back as ruck relief. Then of course the injuries.
I had given up on Griff this year, not because of lack of football talent, but because he was shot as a footballer mentally. But to say Vickery had more talent is not correct (IMO).
Click to expand...

He may have had more talent than Vickery (I still debate this), but I'll even grant you he had superior talent.
Well, if so, he wasted it and was sadly outperformed by a bloke with inferior talent.
Again, the stats - all of them - don't lie .... Vickery outperformed Griffiths, albeit he was not as talented ... which as you could grant me is not uncommon at AFL level. There are blokes with inferior talent who outwork their peers to carve a decent AFL career through sheer persistence, dedication and will and make the most of the minimal talent they have. In this case, and having granted you Griffiths had more talent than TV, it is even more of a shock that Griff was never able to reach the not-so lofty heights that Vickery did.
I suggest you re-read the bit you wrote in red ..... substitute Griffiths where you have written Ty and you have the same dilemma, albeit it truth. Yes blokes like Griffiths occasionally had a good game, all 'average' players do. That won't stop you and others believing we had the next Stewie Loewe or Jonathan Brown on our hands, but most who staunchly defended our Messiah over the year now concede he was nothing but mediocre, as I said all alone about both he and #29.
 
Socrates2 said:
It's not about him being a good bloke or you met him once and he was nice.Its about a required player quitting after trade period, to leave the club in the lurch.The club wished him well because there was no point in slagging him off .Neil Balme said he was 'shocked' and he's usually pretty circumspect.Who cares if it's a great career move for him.He's been paid probably a million dollars over his time for little return.It's about the club not the individual. The worse thing is ,no one knew he was applying to NFL colleges.If he had of got rejected, he wouldn't mentioned it.That shows a lack of character.
Click to expand...
He met Prokick on Dec 22nd for the first time, and it escalated very quickly from there. In fact, the original plan was to have him go there in 2019, but that changed very quickly. You might want to listen to the Nathan Chapman podcast on SEN. Try and keep an open mind.

https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=167815
 
Goldust said:
He may have had more talent than Vickery (I still debate this), but I'll even grant you he had superior talent.
Well, if so, he wasted it and was sadly outperformed by a bloke with inferior talent.
Again, the stats - all of them - don't lie .... Vickery outperformed Griffiths, albeit he was not as talented ... which as you could grant me is not uncommon at AFL level. There are blokes with inferior talent who outwork their peers to carve a decent AFL career through sheer persistence, dedication and will and make the most of the minimal talent they have. In this case, and having granted you Griffiths had more talent than TV, it is even more of a shock that Griff was never able to reach the not-so lofty heights that Vickery did.
I suggest you re-read the bit you wrote in red ..... substitute Griffiths where you have written Ty and you have the same dilemma, albeit it truth. Yes blokes like Griffiths occasionally had a good game, all 'average' players do. That won't stop you and others believing we had the next Stewie Loewe or Jonathan Brown on our hands, but most who staunchly defended our Messiah over the year now concede he was nothing but mediocre, as I said all alone about both he and #29.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the Vickery outperformed Griffiths argument, albeit marginally. My beef has been for years that he was almost never given a good go in his best position, that was Vickery's safe spot. We can all agree that injury and perhaps his inability to carry injuries like calfs, groins and hips that other players may have played through was a issue throughout his time at Richmond. Other times like young developing talls they are inconsistent, but when it was blindly obvious that Vickery was not up to it, especially the 2016 season, that he was still being played at FF in front of Griffiths. Even after Vickery had appalling no possession games with no chase and not a tackle in sight, he was still played there before Griffiths, who it was also blindly obvious was only a lead up player from the goal square. (Although I always held out that he would have been a good ruck man, until it was inevitable that he was just a knock away from going off the ground with another injury).
So my beef was with the team selection. But as 2017 showed he was only ever going to be a ruck relief for Nankervis in 2018.
There have been many young footballers like Gumbelton as you mention, who even with all the talent in the world for what ever reason didn't make it. I know exactly why Ty Vickery basically failed, I'm not so sure i do with Griffiths.
 
Last edited:
Socrates2 said:
It's not about him being a good bloke or you met him once and he was nice.Its about a required player quitting after trade period, to leave the club in the lurch.The club wished him well because there was no point in slagging him off .Neil Balme said he was 'shocked' and he's usually pretty circumspect.Who cares if it's a great career move for him.He's been paid probably a million dollars over his time for little return.It's about the club not the individual. The worse thing is ,no one knew he was applying to NFL colleges.If he had of got rejected, he wouldn't mentioned it.That shows a lack of character.
Click to expand...
Dont quote me if your ramble has nothing to do with what I put forward. I wasn't mentioning/questioning him be a good bloke... Mt response is trying to show how it might actually work out BETTER for the club!

As for him quitting after trade period, re-read my original post, it may actually work out as a positive for us....

A different example might be, if we dont pay Griff, we might give that Money to Dusty this year to alleviate salary cap pressure further down the track.

My point is, if Griif left early, would another pick in the 80's really help us? wouldn't we just be paying a kid $80k to more than likely never play a game for us (and keep in mind, a draftee automatically gets 2 years, not 1)...
 
Griff quitting will assist with our "war chest" moving forward - or - bring the Tom Lynch possibility, regardless of how small it might be, a little closer to being a potential reality .... and little downside of him for our onfield if previous injury history was to repeat

:thumbsu:
 
turtle27 said:
He met Prokick on Dec 22nd for the first time, and it escalated very quickly from there. In fact, the original plan was to have him go there in 2019, but that changed very quickly. You might want to listen to the Nathan Chapman podcast on SEN. Try and keep an open mind.

https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=167815
Click to expand...
Literally not a single person who wouldn't have done the same as what he did, people can bitch about it but it was a likely one time opportunity that he'd be a complete ******* idiot to say no to.
 
I only see positives with Ben Griffiths retiring and no negatives tbh

Saves us $$$ in the cap
Would have probably only played 5-10 games max
Callum Moore will provide just as much if not more
CCJ/Balta/ Miller/Chol all get more game time in Afl or VFL

Extra $350k a year in the war chest
 
Goldust said:
Yet, the hypocrisy of this Big Footy board blamred him for every loss during his stint at Punt Road and had posters queuing for a miles to stick the boots into him.
Click to expand...
You know it may be hard to see from your high horse but the forum is made up of lots of people with lots of different opinions with very little consensus.
 
NZ_Tiger said:
You know it may be hard to see from your high horse but the forum is made up of lots of people with lots of different opinions with very little consensus.
Click to expand...

Not a high horse mate, and happy for peole to disagree. Its the hypocrisy of the principle.
You or anyone else cant turn around when I am critical of a player as I have been in the past and roll out the usual "your always negative", "you don't like Richmond", and"you should support our players not crucify them", when those making those accusations are laying the boots into Tay;or Hunt. That's what I was addressing. Does he not deserve support too?
 
Goldust said:
Not a high horse mate, and happy for peole to disagree. Its the hypocrisy of the principle.
You or anyone else cant turn around when I am critical of a player as I have been in the past and roll out the usual "your always negative", "you don't like Richmond", and"you should support our players not crucify them", when those making those accusations are laying the boots into Tay;or Hunt. That's what I was addressing. Does he not deserve support too?
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your post except the bolded part tbh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top