Latrell doesn't warrant superstar money

By Tim Gore / Expert

No one should be alarmed that the Roosters have withdrawn their offer to Latrell Mitchell, which was rumoured to be for $800,000 a season.

What Mitchell needs to understand – along with the many others astounded by the Roosters withdrawing the offer – is that $800,000 is absolute top dollar money for a centre. The only way he will get more than that is by going to a weaker club or by successfully transitioning to a position that clubs ascribe a higher value to. And that will take time.

Sure, this time last year the Taree product was on top of the rugby league world. He was a victorious Australian Kangaroo, NSW Blue and premiership player with the Sydney Roosters. At the age of 21, he was arguably the hottest property in rugby league.

In February this year The Roar duly ranked him in the top ten players in the NRL, with only Cam Munster, Cam Smith, Cooper Cronk and James Tedesco being ranked above him. The only issue I’d ever seen with him was his propensity for brain explosions. However, that’s part and parcel with young players with lots of talent. By the conclusion of the 2018 State of Origin series it was clear that Mitchell’s brain had become very focused indeed.

The idea that just a year later the Roosters would play hardball with him and withdraw an offer was unthinkable.

Yet here we are.

(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)

The first real sign that Mitchell might not be quite as good as the likes of me had rated him was when he was dumped from the NSW team after Origin 1 this year.

I was totally stunned. There was just no way I would have even considered doing it.

Yet Brad Fittler made the call and his side duly came back from one-nil down to win the series. What did that tell us? Frankly, it said Mitchell might be a superb player but he was clearly not pivotal to the success of the Blues.

The question is why wasn’t he? Mitchell is a wonderfully talented player: big, fast, strong and with great hands. He is the sort of player I go to watch play.

But that doesn’t mean he is a player essential to the success of a team.

The reality is that his value – strategically and therefore monetarily – is far lower than other players in the game.

And it’s not because he lacks the skill. It’s because of the position he plays.

In the grand scheme of things, the centre position just isn’t as essential to the success of a team as other positions.

“What? Of course they are!” I hear you say. But that’s an emotional response. Since Mal Meninga, what centre could you argue was a team’s key reason for achieving success? I can’t think of one.

Further, Meninga’s influence was as much about his leadership of the team as anything.

When there have been superstar centres they usually haven’t just been centres. They offered versatility. Greg Inglis could play centre, wing, fullback or five-eighth. Andrew Ettingshausen was also a great winger and could play fullback or five-eighth when required. Laurie Daley started in the centres but went to five-eighth.

This utility value was also true of the likes of Darius Boyd, Dale Shearer, Jarryd Hayne, Brent Tate, Mark Gasnier and Jamie Lyon.

Mitchell certainly has the potential to provide that versatility. And just like all of those players, he may well do so in time.

And when he does that, he will definitely get the really big bucks – although $800,000 is pretty damn good – that he is now testing the market for.

That brings us to the question of which positions have the most value and which have the least?

Let’s start from the bottom.

Wingers
While there is no doubt that an excellent winger is a great asset to a team, you don’t build a team around them. Sure, there have been some legends of the game who have worn the two and the five: Kerry Boustead, Eric Grothe, Semi Radradra and John ‘Chicka’ Ferguson, for example.

However, representative teams frequently put fullbacks and centres on the wing. They are finishers of the play, not the architects. They need to be fast, able to take a high ball in attack and defence, with the ability to make their tackles a definite asset. They may get good money but they aren’t going to get the big bucks.

Centres
See above. One step above wingers, there is more of an emphasis on defence though, and it is a really good thing if you are good at putting your winger away. But, again, they are finishers of the play and not the architects.

(Matt King/Getty Images)

Props
A prop needs to make the hard yards with the ball in hand as well as putting in big work in defence. However, the amount of game time they can play is becoming ever more vital. The bigger pigs just can’t play as big minutes as smaller players and their presence in a team is becoming a liability because of the ever reducing number of interchanges.

This is evidenced by the fact that the two teams who contested the 2019 grand final had the lightest packs in the NRL. The props may be in the engine room of a side, but they are not where the big money is routinely spent.

Second-rowers
The ever increasing mobility of second-rowers has seen them become far more of an influencing factor for success. These guys play wider, making lots of tackles – often as minders of playmakers – but then turning into attacking running weapons.

Viliame Kikau, John Bateman, Boyd Cordner, Felise Kaufusi, Wade Graham, Josh Jackson and Tyson Frizell all have distinct influence on the success of their teams that can command big dollars.

Five-eighths
Five-eighths are match-winners, playmakers and command big dollars indeed. Cam Munster, Luke Keary and Jimmy Maloney are all stars who win games and are vital parts of the roster-planning that teams enter into. The likes of Cam Munster – just like Darren Lockyer and Brad Fittler before him – can command the hugest money. However, usually not as big as other members of the spine.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Locks
Yes, I rate lock forwards above five-eighths. Only just, but I do. The 13 is a vital part of a team’s spine. They are the dynamic work horse of the team. Their capacity for repeat efforts and big minutes makes them incredibly valuable. The massive value of the likes of Cam Murray, Dale Finucane, Jai Arrow and Jake Trbojevic is indisputable.

And then there are locks like Jason Taumololo and Sam Burgess who bring an attacking running game that can often transcend the game. A team can be built around a good lock and the huge money given to Sam Burgess and Jake Trbojevic shows you the value they are given.

Fullbacks
The custodians aren’t just there to clean up. They are key to a side’s attack. From getting big kick return metres to chiming into the back line to score, they are in everything. The likes of Billy Slater, James Tedesco, Roger Tuivasa-Sheck and Tom Trbojevic also inject themselves as playmakers, assisting lots of line breaks and tries. These guys get the huge bucks because they are a crucial part of the spine and pivotal to a team’s game plan.

Hookers
When I was a kid the hooker had two essential roles: to tackle everything that moved, and to pick the ball up cleanly at the play the ball and pass it effectively to the first receiver. With the death of the contested scrum, those were really the key roles they played. Then came the likes of Benny Elias and Steve Walters, who added more to the role through great dummy-half running, as well as a hatred for each other that we all enjoyed witnessing at Origin time.

(AAP Image/Craig Golding)

But Cam Smith broke the mould and set a new standard for what a hooker should be: all of the above but also a playmaker and game manager. Whatever negative things you might have to say about Smith, he is the best hooker the game has ever seen and he has redefined the role. If you can get one like him – or Josh Hodgson and Damien Cook – it is of huge value to your side and you will have to pay huge money.

Halfbacks
These guys are the key. Even with Cam Smith, Dale Finucane, Billy Slater and Cam Munster, the Storm couldn’t beat the Roosters with Cooper Cronk. Even with a busted shoulder.

A halfback is the general. He runs the team and puts the game plan into action. If you’ve got a good one you pay lots to keep them. If you don’t, you pay even more to get one.

In the five seasons before they signed Cronk, the Roosters were knocked out in the preliminary final three times in four years. Once they signed Cronk, they won two consecutive premierships.

Halfbacks of his ilk – Daly Cherry-Evans, Andrew Johns, Johnathan Thurston, Allan Langer, Ricky Stuart, Peter Sterling – are players that win games and win premierships. They are the primary players that you build teams around, and that players want to play with and will take less money to do so. They are the most valuable commodity in the game.

The Crowd Says:

2019-11-09T09:09:36+00:00

Footy Fan

Guest


Jacko, to paraphrase what you said: the best winger (Maumolo? Fergo? Tupou?) deserves the same pay as the best player in the game, period (Teddy? Smith?). Obviously, that's false. So different positions very much have different pay ceilings.

2019-11-09T06:44:29+00:00

ScottWoodward.me

Roar Guru


Hi Tim, With a Cap of $9.6m, it is not ideal to pay any player 800k+ that plays centre; it simply gives you an unbalanced list. Long term it will come back and bite. Tim I have upgraded the value of modern-day wingers now and rate them higher than centres, largely as their new role of bringing the ball back is crucial to the team getting good field position. I believe the recruitment of Ferguson and Sivo is the main reason why the Eels improved so much this year. Latrell only makes 8 runs per game and in some games, he can go 20 minutes without touching the ball, not what you want for a highly paid player. To his credit, he scores a try with every 10 runs, the best in the NRL. To justify a higher salary he would need to play a spine position and have an even higher influence on the outcome. Like GI and even SBW, he has the skill to play a pivot role, but he would need the right people around him and have a very good coach. He does not have the motor of a Teddy, Tommy or a RTS to play a normal fullback role in a team, but providing he had the right centre/wing combination, he could play a roving pivot role with one on his back. Michael McGuire won a competition doing just this with GI.

2019-11-08T23:27:55+00:00

Gus O

Roar Rookie


Three points: 1. How is $800k per season for playing footy NOT already superstar money? 2. For every highly paid superstar in the team, the salary cap means every other guy in the team has to accept less pay while putting in the same effort. There must be a tipping point beyond which this becomes counterproductive for the team. 3. The media spent the first half of the 2019 season pumping Latrell’s tyres as the best player in the comp. Now we are told he’s getting big-headed and wants to be amongst the competitions top paid players... duh. How. Did. That. Happen.

2019-11-08T03:10:21+00:00

Chuck Duck

Guest


I was a big fan of Mark Gasnier, great player and seemingly a good bloke,But every game i saw where Tate was up against Gasnier, Tate got the better of Gaz. I was a fan of both so watched with interest to see how the matchup went.

2019-11-08T00:56:40+00:00

mushi

Roar Guru


Sorry "Gassed" not just. Not sure what you mean when you say you disagree his physique is different to inglis. He's way thicker set. As a runner in space he's awesome sure, but if that was all a fullback did they'd get centre money. Remember he was originally tried out at FB but his positioning and decision making was woeful. He's got to be at least 2 years away from being effective and what 3 away from being actually elite. You know provided he gets good at stuff he's not now that other fullbacks aslready were.

2019-11-08T00:10:35+00:00

Nat

Roar Guru


I agree re the money for a centre, he is at the top of the bracket for the position. I do disagree on his physique, I think he's coming into the peak of his powers and with space would be as damaging as any other FB in the game. If he had the enthusiasm of Turbo to want to be on and around the ball like he does, I would suggest he would be a better/more damaging FB then Turbo in a short period of time.

2019-11-07T22:10:33+00:00

Gray-Hand

Roar Rookie


Agree that Tim probably undervalued wingers, but I wouldn’t put them above props. If you have two weak wingers, but are otherwise solid across the park, then it’s no big deal. If your two starting props are a bit crap, then even if everyone else is decent, you will have a tough time making the finals.

2019-11-07T19:14:11+00:00

mushi

Roar Guru


I wouldn't say he's the same level of ball player as inglis. His issue at FB is motor, his body shape is very different to what I remember inglis being and he's going to struggle with just. He's an incredibly good centre but if you pay him as an incredibly good full back I think you've lost the cap game. The assumption he'd still get the same try scoring opportunities as a gassed full back is also bold. Also you can't value his goals 2pts , you have to value the gap of his percentage to your next best option. Given he was a 75% kicker his goal kicking is about as valuable to the average NRL team as his fullback play is to the roosters

2019-11-07T12:31:25+00:00

The Barry

Roar Guru


I’m not saying there’s a grand history of 120kg halfbacks, I’m just saying there’s no rule against it and that players aren’t paid according to weight. Both of those statements are pretty much irrefutable Decisions about who was made an immortal from the eras between 1908 and say 2000 aren’t really relevant to how the game is played and how positions are judged today I appreciate and agree with the argument that it’s a team game and you can’t win with just good spine players and nothing else. But that doesn’t mean props are more valuable than halfbacks

2019-11-07T12:12:14+00:00

The Barry

Roar Guru


What are you talking about now?

2019-11-07T11:19:39+00:00

Brainstrust

Roar Rookie


If he wants money why not go to the wolfpack or the Wallabies. Easily worth triple what SBW and Folau are worth now. I dont think he is that cut out for NRL he has lazed off. rugby is exhausting only for the forwards, Super lague he could dominate easily.

2019-11-07T09:59:36+00:00

jamesb

Roar Guru


Latrell should've taken the Roosters offer of 800k a year, allegedly. He would've been playing for a successful,stable club. Once that contract ran out, then go for a deal worth $1.2 or $1.3 million a year either at the Roosters or another club. Now, Latrell wants around a million, and for him to get to that mark, he has to go to another club. And this is where it becomes an unknown. Which club will take him on? Will that club be successful like the Roosters? And what would Latrell's value be worth once that contract expires at his new club. He is taking a huge risk.

2019-11-07T08:38:41+00:00

Nick

Roar Guru


According to Josh Dugan's profile, he's under the ton...and he's now a permanent centre anyway. In his fullback days, he was definitely under 100. Justin Hodges absolutely was not 100kgs early in his career. He bulked up signficantly from about 2009. You are right re: Lewis and Inglis. They are freak anomalies.

2019-11-07T08:13:03+00:00

Gray-Hand

Roar Rookie


Josh Dugan is over 100kgs. Justin Hodges won a grand final at fullback. Wally Lewis, weighed 95kgs in the early 90s. If he had played in the modern era he would have been above 100kgs. Immortals like him and Inglis probably fit into a special category though. 40, maybe even 30 years ago, the lock was considered part of the spine, sort of like a five-eight who could tackle. Fullbacks weren’t part of the spine or playmakers, and were really just tackling wingers.

2019-11-07T08:05:08+00:00

Succhi

Roar Rookie


Nice article - thanks for sharing. The value could almost be modelled on the player who touches the ball the most often gets paid more? Obviously their involvement and influence is higher.

2019-11-07T07:02:00+00:00

Jacko

Guest


Of course its wrong...you even like your own posts.....Oh dear..

2019-11-07T06:44:39+00:00

Nick

Roar Guru


Brett Tate too in that decade. Inglis dominated at centre in Origin. Even before then. There's a reason why centres rate so highly in the 2008 100 players of the century, and in the immortals list. Dally M, Reg Gasnier, Mal Meninga, Bob Fulton (for half his career), Dave Brown, Langlands (for a chunk of his career). I reckon Mitchell can deservedly fetch $1m.

2019-11-07T06:38:39+00:00

Nick

Roar Guru


But Souths will botch his shoulder. They'll find a way. Especially if Burgess stays at the club in a consultative capacity.

2019-11-07T06:34:24+00:00

Nick

Roar Guru


That's not ludicrous tbh. That's a 1.1 million a year. Sounds a lot now, but by year 7-8 that will be mid-range stuff. The cap will go up enough by then to guarantee 4-5 players per team will be on $1m+ per year.

2019-11-07T06:17:14+00:00

Ben Lewis

Roar Pro


Spot on as usual Tim; the fact that he turned down 800K to seek bigger is insane to me. As far as his value and potential goes... I’m just glad Parramatta withdrew their ludicrous 10 year, $11 million deal.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar