Manly dynasty faces salary cap challenge
Roar Guru
By Steve Kaless, 7 Oct 2008 Steve Kaless is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Des Hasler, grand final, Manly, Matt Orford, Melbourne Storm, Rugby League, salary cap, Sea Eagles, Storm
Well, the dust has settled on another rugby league season and while the autopsy has already been well and truly completed on the Storm’s capitulation, it also didn’t take long on Sunday for people to ask whether the Sea Eagles could do it all again.
The nature of their victory coupled with the dominance during the regular season for the past two years has certainly given the club a look of one with a dynasty in mind and they look ready to take Melbourne’s crown as the team to beat just as the Storm deposed the Roosters before that.
Of course the Sea Eagles will now face stiff competition from other clubs both on and off the field.
On the field everyone will lift when playing them, everyone does whenever they play the premiers, but it is off the field that some of the greater challenges lie when it comes to building a dynasty.
Much has been made of the fact that Manly have rebuilt themselves in five years, but the forces that helped them rebuild may just start to tear them apart.
During their dark years the Sea Eagles were able to stay close to competitive because the big guns of the competition were reigned in by the salary cap and the talent remained more evenly spread.
Once they had money in the bank again the former silvertails were again able to get into the market because there were always plenty of players being shopped about and the Northern Beaches lifestyle is always a good selling point.
Of course, credit should go to Des Hasler and Noel Cleal for many of the shrewd decisions in their recruitment and retention, they have spent their money well. The big money has gone on players that have earned it, Matt Orford, and they have also got plenty of value out of others on smaller contracts, Glen Stewart.
But this is where things will start to get tricky.
Bearded winger David Williams was probably close to the find of the season and may well end up in the Australian squad, but that will mean that come next contract he maybe able to command more than double his current salary.
The salary caps eats at your depth.
The Sea Eagles had excellent cohesion around the rucks through Matt Ballin and Heath L’Estrange but they may soon find they can only afford to have one instead of the other.
And will one be as effective without his foil?
Brent Kite and Josh Perry, who arrived on big money, may soon be due even more and this may force out the likes of Glenn Hall and Adam Cuthbertson.
And of course when you trim your side, injuries and suspensions bite even harder.
Just ask the defeated Grand Finalists.
Of course, this has happened to most sides that have won the competition and it is nothing new, it is also well known that players will often be happy to stay at clubs for less if they think they can win a comp or play rep footy and the prospects of both look good at Brooky.
But in reality some players will always leave for more money or maybe more game time.
You just can’t keep everyone.
There is no coincidence that no side has won competitions back to back since Brisbane in 1997-1998, Manly will start from pole position in 09 but it is a long, long race.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- An open letter to Channel Nine (107)
- Gallop and some of his precious Sydney NRL clubs must go (101)
- The NRL is back baby! (65)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (48)
- Bulldogs setting benchmark for Sydney’s NRL clubs (46)
- New league chief coy on TV deal
- RL Commission was never in doubt, says Searle RL Commission was never in doubt: Searle
- Chalk predicts bright rugby league future
- Clubs must stop knifing Gallop, if commission is to succeed
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (23)
- New dawn for rugby league gets underway (11)
- Rugby league commission ushers in new era (3)
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (23)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (49)
- An open letter to Channel Nine (108)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- Is the All Stars match increasing the divide? (25)
- Channel Nine needs NRL-cricket ODI compromise (36)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Explore:
- Des Hasler, grand final, Manly, Matt Orford, Melbourne Storm, Rugby League, salary cap, Sea Eagles, Storm
Millster said | October 7th 2008 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Well written Steve. Again, the spotlight is squarely put on the perverse effect of the salary cap. It artificially created a protected environment in which Manly was able to build, and now that they are successful it has the reverse (yet equally artificial) effect of not letting that building go on – and rather of being a force for dissolution of the playing group at the club.
The Link said | October 7th 2008 @ 9:15am | Report comment
The Delmage and Penn families ensured Manly survived, but by any measure they haven’t simply opened the chequebook and bought the premiership. This makes it all the more satisfying and the lesser of evils.
Anyway, I would’ve thought that the same teams playing each other in GF’s two years in a row (for the first time in 15 years) would prove that dynasty’s are possible.
If Manly don’t make the big one next year it wont be for lack of trying, Dessie’s already got the cones out and doing 400′s in prepartation for the off season.
oikee said | October 7th 2008 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Manly might lose a few good players but the competition gets stronger with good players moving around, also the players wages go up to meet there ranking in the game, so the benifit of the salary cap does its work again. With the N.R.L being such a strong competition this is good for the game, in other comps it might not work that well, but with so much talent coming through the ranks it makes sense, even allowing for good players to move overseas frees up alot of money for the juniors.
The system in place has created so many opportunities for more players than ever before in the rugby league history. Now thats a good thing not only for the game here, but also for the growth of the game overseas as well. The super league in england has nearly come up to par with our game here. Which i have to say is good for a healthy comp and international scene.
The players skills are at the best level i have seen, not just 1 or 2 teams but all 16 clubs. Now thats a good result and something that i think has been overlooked.
Greg Russell said | October 7th 2008 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
Ah how we all romanticize. It’s in our nature, and so every year after the grand final the D-word – “dynasty” – gets bandied about. If ever it looked possible it was after last year, when the Storm had a crushing win to match Manly’s this year, and they were to suffer only the negligible losses of Clint Newton and Ben Cross (more than adequately replaced by Sika Manu), and the manageable loss of Matt King. The rest is history.
OK, it’s possible that Manly will go back to back, but the statistics are heavily weighted against them. Brisbane 1997-8 was the last instance, but in 1997 they only had to beat half a competition. Before that it was Brisbane 1992-3, but that was pre-salary cap (wasn’t it?). So Manly will be defying the statistics if they win next year.
How will they be beaten? Steve concentrates on the salary cap, but the reality is that the damage is done on many fronts. Here are just a few:
1. Manly got a rails run from the rep selectors this year, with only Brett Stewart playing Origin. A lot more will be selected next year, and let’s see how fresh they are come finals time. Just look at Melbourne’s tired legs this year in the finals or ask Wayne Bennett about how hard it is for Origin players to put in big performances in the finals.
2. I can’t remember who else will be leaving apart from Beaver (someone please enlighten me!), but he alone will be a huge loss. Don’t be fooled by him playing off the bench: right to the end he retained his uncanny nose for the tryline (1 try per match from a backrower is a big gap to fill) and, perhaps even more importantly, he was the key element in Manly’s phenomenal kick-chase game, which was the major factor in setting up their wins over the Warriors (kicking to Vatuvei’s wing) and Melbourne (Turner’s). Both these opponents found it very difficult to get out of their red zone, with Beaver often being the one who tackled the kick receiver.
3. “He who makes no progress goes backwards in the eyes of God”. Just ask Bellamy (Storm) or Mark Thompson (Geelong), who steadfastly stuck to the same tactics this season as last, so confident were they that their superiority in personnel would carry them to victory. But on the big day this year, both coaches got found out by opponents who had gradually developed new tactics (who would have thought that the Manly of 2007 could have laid on the tries they have in recent weeks?). Well now the onus is on Hasler to devise new tactics, and he will find that is a lot harder to do as reigning premiers than it as a team who “are still flying under the radar” (Hasler’s own words).
4. Injuries. I know Manly were without one or two players through injury (e.g. Luke Williamson), but the bottom line is that they had all their key players for the finals. It’s hard to imagine they will be so lucky again next year.
Having said all the above, I like Manly’s prospects for 2009 much better than those of the Storm! They really are history as we have known them.
Millster said | October 7th 2008 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Oikee on that I disagree. I don’t see how, if a club has built a team with good player development and a good game play and tactics, splitting that team up can be good overall for the league. A bloke that plays great for one team doesn’t necessarily mean he will play great for all teams. To me I’d prefer a system that allows a successful club more freedom to keep itself together and really set the benchmark for the rest of the league to match. Also I don’t agree with players wages going up to meet their standard. Either of two things happen with the premiership players – they stay at their winning club but can’t get paid much more because there is no room under the cap, or they leave for a club where there is more salary cap room so they can be paid more but in doing so they are playing with a club of lesser standard. I think it brings the game down because its a system so biased towards propping up the bottom clubs rather than really consolidating and extending the standards at the top end of the ladder. I’d like to see at least some kind of loyalty provision under the cap (like the Larry Bird exemption in the American NBA) so that a winning club can keep its winning squad together and set the benchmark. Its only in that way that the standard will be set by the top clubs not those at the bottom.
oikee said | October 7th 2008 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
But thats part of my argument Millster, the bar is already set high. You cant get much better with the amount of talent on show, and manly was also made up of bits and pieces from other clubs, everyone thinks beaver and then think that all manly players are from manly, not true, lyons is from the eels, bell from melbourne, etc. So this benchmark might never be acomplished under your no salary cap system, theres so much talent around.
By the way Greg, that guy you mentioned Williamson is headed off, along wioth Bryant and bell, also one more i think beaver, so if you look at it like this then they do retain most of there squad. Beaver was about to retire but he is getting paid a fortune to have another couple of years in the super-league. Next year there might be a few players moving on, but next year they might not be at the top of the comp, not because they have lost players, because the other teams just get better, all of them.
Millster i like your no-salary cap idea, but it would destroy the game here, we like to have a close comp, this is what we are getting, the skill level is not a issue, i have said before that i was amazed at the skill level of the under 20′s, most of them are 18.
Greg Russell said | October 7th 2008 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Thanks oikee for the information on Manly’s departures. Indeed I should have remembered Steve Bell is leaving. Another Roar article today (“Sea Eagles too manly as Melbourne are cast in void”) says that Michael Robertson is also leaving. These two plus Menzies is most of the “chase” component of Manly’s kick-chase game. I know Hasler is a fitness fanatic who drills his players relentlessly, but one can’t create this cohesion, speed and tackling ability in a pre-season. I therefore can’t see this vital component of Manly’s game being nearly as effective next year, and so all bets are off about them repeating their premiership.
2009 shapes as the most open competition in memory. Canterbury is perhaps the only team I would write off at this stage.
Millster said | October 7th 2008 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
But oikee the “bits and pieces” would happen anyway without a cap. A club would determine what positions it wanted filled and would make offers accordingly – either picking up out-of-contract players, or if it wanted someone contracted to another club it would have to agree a transfer fee with the club involved to get the player. So that freedom is not lost. In fact it is gained because under a cap clubs are limited in what they can put on the table to assemble the squads they want whereas without one the club can offer up to what it sees as the real value of the player and what the player will bring to them.
While I’m not bagging NRL standards – I agree that some great skills are shown in the code – I don’t think any code can sit on its hands and say “you can’t get much better than this”. And part of that is making sure the standards rise. If successful teams can be held together, and if groups of the best players can be assembled (through both purchasing and player development) then the standard will surely rise. But if you have a system that distributes high-value players away from the good clubs and towards the crap ones then its not so clear to me that this leads to rising standards overall. The thing it does is make the code more internally competitive – it brings the best clubs down and raises up the worst ones a bit. This of course is great for the fans in terms of ‘even-ness’ and I understand the logic of doing so. But to me it is clearly at the cost of the best clubs being able to ‘lead the way’ over a number of years in improving the standard, even if this means the weakest clubs fall away and risk disappearing.
oikee said | October 7th 2008 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Why would you want any clubs to dissapear millster, this is australia not england, and your thinking is all over the place, look i have told you before that soccer has done this and it has worked for them, hence complete world game but the quality never differs, hence any team is capible of winning the world cup, just look at who has won it the last 20 years. So to put your thoery to practise here in oz is a waste of time, for any code. Salary caps are only to help the clubs survive at the moment, if we had unlimited money there would not be a salary cap. Thats all i am saying.
Ray yes they lose robertson but they have picked up a under 20 player in williams from parra, now thats what i mean, plenty of talent to replace players.
skull said | October 7th 2008 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Robertson isnt leaving, they wint miss Williamson and they have a couple of new signings, that big unit winger from Parramatta is one, but I think they may have earmarked him for the forward. Menzies will be badly missed, not only for his general play, it was after he came on they really started to fire due to his running off and with the ball and his tackling. Menzies will also be badly missed in the dressing room as well