In the current NRL climate where club and player loyalty are dependent on the power of the dollar, NRL clubs do their best to manage the funds to assemble a squad that will bring them premiership glory.
It’s always a challenge to get the balance right between recruitment and development, and this year is no different.
Sonny Bill Williams and Greg Inglis are only two of the biggest names that have moved between club and code in recent years chasing a premiership. With this in mind, I thought I’d take a look at the four sides remaining in the 2013 NRL title race and look at the numbers relating to purchasing players.
The stages of a player’s development vary between each player throughout junior footy, through to his first contract and eventually progression into the NRL. It is this final step that I believe is the most important.
If a club can see promise in a young man and turn him from a good player into a regular NRL starter they deserve much of the credit. They are the ones taking the risk on a young man and investing time, money and a place in their NRL squad for this potential star.
Given the number of players in the NRL compared with the state comps, the step from state footy to consistent NRL footy for an individual is quite significant.
I’ve used the player’s first 10 NRL games as a line in the sand for comparison and given that club credit for blooding an NRL player. Using the current squads, I’ve calculated how many players started their career at that club or were purchased from another side.
Given the romantic perception of the working class area of South Sydney and the rugby league landscape of Newcastle, the comparison with the Roosters and Manly is quite outstanding, especially considering the historical accusations aimed at the Roosters and Manly for purchasing players from other clubs.
These stats are based on sides named to play this weekend:
South Sydney:
Named a 20-man squad for this week, 11 players of which began their NRL careers in the Red and Green, meaning they’ve purchased 45% of their side from other clubs.
Manly:
Named a 20-man squad, 13 of whom began their NRL careers at Manly. They’ve purchased 35% of their team from other clubs.
Roosters:
Named a 19-man squad, 13 of whom began their NRL careers as a Rooster. Of the four remaining sides, they have the largest percentage of home-grown talent with a shade over 68%, having purchased a shade over 31% of their side from other clubs.
Newcastle:
Named their 17-man team, only eight of which began their careers at Newcastle. This means they’ve purchased over half their side from other clubs and have the lowest number of players of the four remaining teams who began their career at the club they represent today.
Interestingly, the players purchased from other clubs provide a fairly even spread across the league, with the 2013 preliminary finalists South Sydney having the largest number of players from a single other club with three players who began their careers at Melbourne.
Looking at grand final success over the past few years and the results lean toward clubs who have introduced a core group of players to the NRL and stuck by them.
In 2012 the premiership-winning Storm had 70% of their team start their NRL careers in Melbourne, while only 29% of the runners-up Bulldogs started their career at Canterbury.
In 2011, Manly prevailed, again with a large number of players who started their careers at the Sea Eagles. In fact, in recent history the lowest percentage was St. George Illawarra, a Wayne Bennett-coached side, with only 53% of players starting their careers at the Dragons.
So, history suggests that clubs can’t simply buy a premiership team.
What does all this mean for 2013? Well, I believe history will continue to reward clubs who ‘largely’ produce their own teams and we’ll see the Roosters lift the trophy.
Hopefully, we’ll see clubs take note of this trend and club/player loyalty will have a renaissance.
Todd
Guest
End of the day lads it's not how many u buy or how many u bring through the juniors it's how many premierships u can win!!! That's the final say lol
Gobbler
Guest
Hannant was a Rooster before he was ever a Bronco, Jay C. Other than that, good point.
eric
Guest
I totally disagree with your first assumption " I’ve used the player’s first 10 NRL games as a line in the sand for comparison and given that club credit for blooding an NRL player." The development of a player starts well before 10 first grade games. In fact, that is the problem. Most clubs poach players just before they debut for NRL or just after they have played a few games. If you have played 10 first grade games you are a pretty developed NRL player.
maximillian
Guest
so do you think the current free-for-all is better where clubs spend massive resources developing juniors, just for other clubs to benefit from that development by offering better contracts once they get really good?! Where is the incentive to develop young players if that's the case? The Warriors paid a record transfer fee to Wigan for Tomkins & I think that's fair. He has been in the Wigan system for 12 years & now he is coming into his best years he wants to test himself in the NRL. That's fair enough & Wigan have rightly been compensated so why shouldn't this be the norm?
Haz
Guest
+1
The eye
Guest
I think it is a rep team..the people of Newcastle for example,support the team that represents their area,the Newcastle Knights..and it just makes the team that much closer to your heart when the players are from the same land and not Bulgarian weightlifters bought in,given a passport on Friday and representing Australia at the games on Monday..to use an extreme..Horo sounds like a Bulgarian name to me..
mushi
Roar Guru
Also why does it matter? It's a professional football comp not a rep team.
Renegade
Guest
8 finals in 42 years.... I think Incompetent was the right word Sleiman.
maximillian
Guest
Hiku played junior league for the Manurewa Marlins in the local Auckland competition since he was 14? It was from there he got noticed & picked up by the Warriors so I'm unsure how he has a Union background? He is a warriors junior & has been in the system for a while now so I think a small transfer fee is reasonable.
mushi
Roar Guru
so paid for by local clubs and the government then?
mushi
Roar Guru
Max, you should not receive compensation for a player that isn't contracted. As to no incentive - please juniors are your cheapest players, it takes some pretty special "reasoning" to say there is no incentive to have access to cheap talent under a salary cap. This type of concept is ever present in the real workplace with graduate programs. Also do the various NRL clubs then pay compensation to the schools and local rugby league clubs that actually did the actual complete athletic development from child to late teen? If not why not, that would have played a much bigger part in their athletic development than the warriors picking him up at 16.
mushi
Roar Guru
way to pat yourself on the back without taking back the 50 times you've said the roosters are buying their team.
peeeko
Roar Guru
Very good points Glenn
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Between, and including, their last premiership in 1971 and being minor premiers in 1989, they made the finals 8 times. Not sure if that is good or not, though I guess it could have been worse.
Chui
Guest
Arrrrmmm nowt a smarrrrt man Jenneeee...........but ar know wo league eis
DubbleBubble
Guest
Sourths incompent for 40 years?. It may have been a long time since a premiership[ but they were fairly competitive right up until 89.
DubbleBubble
Guest
That is pretty impressive. I hadn't realised the consistency of their success.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Not sure I can agree with that, though I understand the sentiment. As far as I am concerned, no matter what benefits a club has, they still have to make use of them. Some clubs know how to do that, others don't. Based on that, I still believe that Brisbane and Melbourne deserve to be known as 'outstanding'.
Glenn Innes
Guest
How does one define a "local junior" much of the talent in the NRL started their football in country NSW or QLD were noticed by talent scouts from NRL clubs in their early teens and brought to Sydney or Brisbane to play junior football. There are too many to name but take Greg Inglis as an example he comes from Kempsey was signed by Melbourne sent to play football in Brisbane and then goes onto to play NRL for Melbourne. Is he a Melbourne junior, a Brisbane junior, or a Kempsey junior? I would argue the latter and there are heaps of players in the NRL with similar backgrounds to Inglis
maximillian
Guest
Fair point Chris but as the current rules go, there isnt enough incentive for clubs to develop their own juniors as other clubs can freely poach them when they get good. I agree it should be proportionate to your contract so the fee for a player like Hiku would be minimal. At least with transfer fees, clubs are encouraged to develop their juniors or pay other clubs for their players.