By Mushi
July 15th 2009 @ 12:59am
Loading ...Related coverage
It’s all dollars and sense for the Roosters
I find myself constantly looking for reasons why the Roosters are so pedestrian. Watching the game they look lost and unmotivated for stretches, and looking at their stats, it gets even worse.
Just about every metric of the forward pack is below average, from metres gained, to defensive work rate and time on the pitch.
Our back three don’t help out, with well below average kick returning and our centre’s don’t break tackles and our halves assist relatively few line breaks and tries.
But one thing fills me with both hope and fear: we have potentially one third of our salary cap available after this year with Fitzgibbon, O’Meley, Minichello, and potentially, Mason departing.
Now this isn’t a plea for sympathy regarding how little bang we got for almost 1.5 million bucks. This mess is almost entirely of the Roosters own making.
See, like many NRL clubs, the Roosters pay is based on how a player used to play, not how they are likely to play over the life of the contact.
This is typically a problem with the subjective player analysis that rules the roost in the NRL. It is tough to weed out memories from years ago when assessing how good a player is going to be in the near future.
Minichello, for instance, received a contract fit for the best player at his position. But the thing was, whilst he had been one of, if not the best player in his position for a number of years, he had also suffered an injury that has a habit of recurring.
Even injury free, he would be 29 by the end of his contact, well beyond the best years for a speed and acceleration reliant position.
O’Meley, who we paid as an elite prop, came to the Roosters after playing almost 200 games since he was 18 in the most physical position in the world’s most physical league.
Look at his numbers and it is clear that he had been in decline for about three years prior and was no longer an elite prop, merely a good first grader.
So what led the Roosters to believe that a player with his body shape was going to somehow return to his 23 year-old production as he got older?
Fitzgibbon, despite being the oldest of the four, was perhaps the most defensible signing.
He played a position which typically holds up better over time and fulfilled a leadership role that goes beyond his direct contribution. However, holding up better is different to staying the same.
Plus, signs of a subtle decline had already set in. So the Roosters predictably paid him in line with his current production.
Mason was the enigma.
Coming off an interrupted year for the Bulldogs, where his antics contributed to an acrimonious split, he had perhaps his most dominant year when he was on the field.
But if there was any elite player from the past ten years you felt may not have the emotional maturity or work ethic to maintain their performance into his late 20s early 30s, wouldn’t it be Mason?
At a discount price tag his talent would have been worth it. But the Roosters paid purely on production and didn’t factor in the downside risks.
I think these four contractual millstones around the Roosters neck have weighed more heavily than letting Jamie Soward go.
So with this newly available war chest, I hope this time round we continue to learn from our mistakes and pay for the improving future performance of younger players, rather than pay for the glory days of past heroes entering their decline.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(6)
The Link said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Mushi – hard to see how the Roosters can shake the transit lounge tag after this year.
After having some of the best junior sides in the last 5 years, they opened the chequebook for over the hill stars – bizzare.
Mason looks disinterested. Superleague here he comes.
Mushi said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Mason would be a great loss. By great I mean exceptionally beneficial to have that 400ish grand divided up between two younger players with potential that can contribute.
The transit lounge tag isn’t that bad as long as we pay the right price, Mini is apparently resigning for 100k ish plus incentives, still a little high for someone who is unlikely to take the field but at least it is a reasonable gamble.
Personally though I’d rather see us target the younger players of other clubs where they are cap constrained.
Andrew said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Mason is a cancer. It has even been stated by the Roosters players that he is a bad influence. It was one of the problems the Bulldogs had with him, he was always mucking around at training. Which may seem fun, but you have to be prepared to put in the hard yards, not to mention that Mason has achieved everything in the game, so how do you motivate him?
Probably the best thing to happen to the Roosters was Anasta getting injured. The season is gone anyway, but now Pierce can learn to run the team around the field, without the support of Anasta, that will go a long way to his development as a player, and when Anasta returns next year, the halves pairing should be a lot stronger.
Still they are missing in the forwards, and until they address those issues, I think at best, a mid table position is what they will get in 2010.
Crosscoder said | July 16th 2009 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
You have a casual coach,with a casual approach,you get casually disciplined players.It reflects on the attitude on the field,stifles creativity,and mason the less said as an influence on the younger players the better.
The Bulldogs are a classic example of a complete turnaround,with responsible players who want to play as a team ,a coach who whilst a disciplinarian on structure, gives players the freedom of expression when they feel it is time.Getting rid of the riff raff earlier has a big bearing.
Roosters need a forward of the ilk of Petero,or a Webke.Go men on the field and gents off the field.
Nick Pappas said | July 17th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Mushi……as a Roosters supporter for many years, I have a theory regarding some of their recruitment decisions. I believe Politis brings players to the club who are going to increase the PR factor. Whether it be for good or bad news, having the club in the papers regularly can boost their profile. Its like you said, they have been buying players who were great, meaning that they’ll bring headlines with them. In addition to this, I also believe the better looking the player is the better chance he has at the Roosters. Think about it, Craig Wing, Jack Elsegood, Braith Anasta, Anthony Minichiello and Luke Ricketson were always in the social pages of the Sunday papers because of who they were dating and what parties they had attended, not because of their football abilities. In my opinion, Politis loves the ‘glamour club’ tag the Roosters have as it gives them more power with sponsors. Its about getting their phots, and sponsors brands, on TV and in print. I bet he loves to see his boys in the social pages of the Sun-Herald in pictures that have been taken at product launches and nightclub openings, as long as they’re behaving themselves. A more recent example of this is Daniel Conn, who has done a bit of modelling before and has also been in the news before because of rumours that he’d been seeing a porn star. He is coming to the club next year and is sure to get some attention in the social scene. Let’s face it, Politis is a good business man. He has been at the top of a successful business for many years and has made the Roosters the club they are today. He was one of the first to realise that football clubs weren’t just about football. They are businesses and that’s just how he treats them, even when it comes to player recruitment.
Mushi said | July 17th 2009 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
See that works in an ownership model but in a members model what does being a business achieve? I’m as economically focused as the next guy but this is club that is not established for the purpose of turning a profit.
I think a lot of it is that we don’t value projected contributions effectively