‘Consistency’ is a word often used throughout the rugby league season. In today’s salary cap-levelled, high injury-rated, rep season-affected game, it can often be what gets a team across the line heading towards the finals and the big dance in October.
What can often be of similar importance is the consistency of a team from season to season.
It is understated though, given how rare it is.
How often do we see a club have a stellar year and either come back to the pack or fall over completely the season after?
Conversely, how common is it for a poorly-performing club one year to rise to the top after an off-season of soul searching? It happens a lot, and has happened a great deal in recent seasons.
One big factor in a club’s year-to-year consistency is player retention – and not just that, but the retention of key players.
Funnily enough it is this time of the year (pre-season) which is one of the two times each year where we find ourselves talking mostly about the rugby league rather than who’s going where (the other time being finals time).
But a look at the player retention of certain clubs gives us some interesting results, which may be surprising to some but really do reflect the importance of player retention across the seasons.
It also reflects how much player movement has affected the NRL. No club has managed to retain more than 35 percent of their roster from season 2008 into 2013, and no club has more than nine players who are still there.
This probably represents a number of things: professionalism, the salary cap, a lack of concessions to clubs for long-serving players (until recently), shorter playing careers, the presence of England as an attractive alternative to an NRL gig, an increase in intra-code athletes, to name but a few.
I would say that going back even as little as a decade, player retention rates over a five-year period would have been much higher. I digress.
But back to the current crop. Despite bombing out of the finals in spectacular fashion last year, Manly are by far the best performers when it comes to player retention over the 2008-2013 period.
Nine of their players who tasted NRL action in 2008 are still on the club’s books, exactly one third (33.33%) of the 2008 playing list.
Out of these nine players, seven current or former internationals: Brett Stewart, Glenn Stewart, Jamie Lyon, Steve Matai, David Williams, Brent Kite and Anthony Watmough.
The other two, Jason King and Matt Ballin, are Origin representatives. Four have played rep football in the last 12 months.
Given this is the calibre of player Manly has managed to hold onto for five consecutive seasons, is it any surprise that they have been the most consistent team over those years?
Two premierships, one preliminary final, two top eight finishes don’t happen by chance when you’ve got this sort of quality turning out year after year, and it’s a fair bet the trend will continue in season 2013.
Any number of factors could combine to achieve this result of player turnover. Most of the players I’ve named were blooded into the NRL while at Manly and have become stars of the game there.
They may feel a sense of loyalty to the club. They may all be close mates. They may not want to leave a team that has won two premierships in four seasons. They might like the beach.
Whatever the reasons are, Manly demonstrates just how vital it is for clubs to put a high priority on the retention of their players.
Short-sightedness is often the reason for a club’s troubles as CEOs and coaches look for a quick fix rather than plan for the future, while a sown plan has reaped rich rewards for Manly over the past five years.
Melbourne have also done relatively well, managing to retain six of their 30-strong NRL roster from 2008.
As with the Sea Eagles, these players are key men: Slater, Smith, Cronk and Hoffman among them (although Hoffman did leave and return after a season abroad).
We’ll never know how well they would have performed if their 2008, 2009 and 2010 season results had been achieved legitimately.
But if they’d managed to keep these players and abided by the salary cap they might have ended the season near the top of the pile anyway. Unfortunately we can only speculate.
At the other end of the scale, Canterbury trail the rest by retaining only one player from their 2008 squad: Ben Barba.
The other 37 players from that year have moved on. Given the turmoil around the Bulldogs since 2008, is it any wonder that a) the players have moved so readily, and b) the club’s results have fluctuated wildly during that period?
Since 2008 they’ve finished last, second, thirteenth, ninth and second. A stable, core group of players might have prevented such severe fluctuation.
Although they deserve credit in that the one player they have kept from 2008 has become one of the genuine superstars of the game, and with the shrewd Des Hasler and Noel Cleal in charge of the roster, glory days a la Manly since 2008 might be just around the corner for the Dogs.
Brisbane’s figures show a change in the club’s culture over the past half decade.
Owing to their location and their late entry into the national competition, the Broncos were traditionally considered a ‘developing and retaining’ rather than ‘recruiting’ club.
In the 1990s for example, the club had Kerrod and Kevin Walters, Allan Langer, Gorden Tallis, Darren Lockyer, Andrew Gee, Michael Hancock and Wendell Sailor back up year after year, and it’s no surprise that they were the decade’s best-performing club.
However only seven of the club’s 2008 squad remain. During that period the team has had four top-eight finishes but has missed the finals once, and many tip the same to happen again this year.
A reversion to the 1990s ways, as much as it is possible in today’s game, might be the best way for the Broncos to return to the glory days of the past.
The increase in the salary cap might turn out to be a good thing for clubs’ player retention strategies; at least in the short term.
And this writer is loathe to suggest that an injection of fresh blood into an NRL squad each year is a bad thing for the team or the game.
But as much as we love talking about the ins and outs, the comings and goings and the mid-season switches, there is something special about seeing a group of players so tightly identified with one club run out in the same colours in round one season after season.
Whether keeping a group like this at a club over time breeds culture, familiarity or loyalty which in turn breeds success will always be open for debate.
But the way Manly has gone about things in building a team and holding on to it, as well as their results over the past five years, might just speak for itself.
(The numbers for all clubs are here: Manly (9/27 players from 2008 remain, a percentage of 33.33 percent); Sydney (7.26, 26.92 percent), Wests (8/30, 26.67 percent), Newcastle (7/27, 25.92 percent), St George Illawarra (7/27, 25.92 percent) Brisbane (7/28, 25 percent), New Zealand (6/26 23.07 percent), Melbourne (6/30, 20 percent), Canberra 6/31, 19.35 percent), Parramatta (5/26, 19.23 percent), Penrith (6/34, 17.64 percent), Cronulla (5/31, 16.12 percent), Souths (5/32, 15.62 percent), North Queensland (5/36, 13.88 percent), Gold Coast (5/36, 13.88 percent), Canterbury (1/38, 2.63 percent).
Matt F
Roar Guru
No doubt that consistency in their roster has helped them but that's the benefit of having such a good roster. Of course Canterbury will go well if they retain a lot of their current roster as the roster that just made a GF. Any club would want to retain a roster like that. I'm not disagreeing with your general point, consistency is definitely important, I'm just saying that Manly had a roster worth retaining while other clubs didn't. As you say it's about keeping the right players. Manly had a lot of players worth keeping so they naturally looked to keep them. The Bulldogs of 2008 didn't so they moved them on and brought in better players. As JayBob said, if the Bulldogs of 2008 had players like Lyon, Stewart x2, Watmough etc then they would have a) finished a lot higher, and b) looked to retain them as they are great players. The reason for the high turnover was because the Dogs didn't have players of that quality and were looking to get some. I think what you're describing is really a standard premiership window. Manly have had a roster capable of winning a premiership for the last 5 years and are lucky enough to have won 2. Eventually the current roster will move on (whether that's to other clubs or retirement etc.) Manly will more than likely drop down the ladder and will then have high turnover as they attempt to rebuild their roster. Teams competing for the premiership don't have to change too much. Teams competing for the woden spoon need to change a lot.
Lou
Guest
A combination of player retention ,coaching staff , culture ,and some luck in the injury dept has meant that Manly has been the bench mark for the last 5/6 years, apart from the Northern Eagle debacle Manly have always been strong in these key areas and dispute there age they will continue to be, next year sees the return of the Beaver who will slot in somewhere on the board or in the coaching dept, another example of Manly using in house resources to continue to strive for success as a fan there's nothing better than having past great players stepping into a coaching role or administrative role , it keeps the juggernaut rolling and sets the benchmark even higher
JayBob
Guest
I sort of agree with what you're saying but I think Matt is right. Obviously keeping the nucleus of your squad will result in more consistent performances, look at the Storm with the big 3. However there is clearly a correlation with the players that are available. I'm pretty sure if the Bulldogs had both Stewart brothers, Watmough & Lyon they would have retained them. The names used in your example for the Bulldogs aren't real good, most were retained, or released under circumstances out of their control. El Masri, Patten, Ryan were all retained until they retired. SBW walked out mid contract. Maitua was sacked from the club for taking performance enhancing drugs. Utai was 30 something and on his way out. Tonga is the only one that possibly should have been retained and wasn't. Clearly Tonga is no comparison to Lyon, let alone Stewart's, Watmough etc. as well.
Sleemo
Guest
My point is that having a settled line-up from year to year will ensure clubs enjoy sustained success, or at the very least consistent performances, across those seasons. Obviously Manly had a great squad in 2008 and they still have the nucleus of that squad, which will only help them. I'm not saying that a club should hold onto players for the sake of holding onto players alone - it's all about managing which players to keep and working out how many you want to keep. It's tough to say that a roster is good or poor based on the performance of the team alone. Using the Bulldogs as an example, was their 2008 squad really a poor one? El Masri, Hughes, Maitua, Patten, Ryan, Tonga, Utai, SBW. Perhaps they just had a bad year, or were affected by off-field dramas, or the SBW walkout played on their minds. They had some good players that year and if they had retained and developed them over the following few seasons they might have done consistently better than the wildly fluctuating performances they gave us between then and now. Surely it's a fair bet that if Canterbury can keep ten or so of their current squad - and choose the right players to keep - until 2017 they should do pretty well over that period? I guess my point is about choosing the right group of players to hold onto: players of an age who will blossom over the next five years, who may not command top dollar thus allowing you to keep more, and in whom the club has inculcated a sense of loyalty to the jumper (as much as that is possible in today's game). Manly have done that well and that's why they still have so many players from 2008 running around for them, and to me, that's been a big part of their success.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Are Manly good because they hold on to players, or do they hold onto players because they happen to have players worth holding on to? Manly won the competition in 2008 so it makes sense for them to try and hold that roster together as much as possible, particularly the key players, as they had a roster that could win titles. The Bulldogs on the other hand finished last in 2008 so holding onto those player probably wouldn't have helped as their roster was clearly a poor one. IF you look at the 2008 ladder there seems to be a fair correlation between where a team finished that year, and where they sit on your lists (with a few exceptions here and there.) For example the bottom 4 for that year was the Titans, Rabbitohs, Cowboys and Bulldogs and they also fill out the bottom 4 in your retention list.
Sleemo
Guest
I think the key is in looking at the players these clubs have retained. Manly wisely retained their players at a good stage in their careers when they can get the most out of them. I suppose it is the retention of the right players rather than simply retention itself which is where the success comes from. In any case, there is no doubt that a club's maintenance of a core group of players in key positions over a number of seasons allows those players to learn the others' games inside out which only helps a team's performance.
Haz
Guest
It's interesting to look at the stats for all teams. Although Manly have clearly been successful in recent years, the fortunes of the Roosters, Tigers, Knights and Dragons (the next best 4 on the list) have fluctuated wildly. The Dragons, in particular look like they have been hurt by retaining too many veterans, and have needed to recruit rookies (e.g. Josh Drinkwater) to cover vitally important slots. I think an emphasis on player retention can only be mixed in with a good development strategy. Craig Bellamy consistently brings through new talent, and develops fringe first-graders into solid first-graders. Hasler did the same (think of what he achieved with Tony Williams!).