In modern rugby league, discussions around players being overrated or underrated are irrelevant, despite being a popular activity amongst hardcore fans of the game.
What matters more is value; the return clubs receive on their significant financial investment. Spend big with little to show for the purchase and a decent percentage of the salary cap is eaten up pointlessly.
Invest wisely in a diamond in the rough that no one else recognised and the club wins on the field in the short term, despite then being likely to lose the player to the highest bidder when the original terms of the contract expire.
Canterbury’s Matt Burton arrived at the club with a growing reputation as one of the future stars of the NRL.
On the back of 32 first grade games for the Panthers and a role in the 2021 Premiership as a centre, the Bulldogs splashed out a reported $500,000 per season for a three-year deal that has since been upgraded to extend the 23-year-old’s stay at Belmore until 2027.
What the Bulldogs have received in return for their intention to make Burton the fulcrum around which the future of the club would be built is very little.
Whilst fans go wild when the Dubbo-born Burton hoists one his insanely high kicks into the backfield for a hapless fullback to attempt to catch under the pressure of a looming defence, I’m not exactly sure Canterbury fans would feel that return on investment has been anywhere near in their favour after his two seasons in blue and white.
Burton’s kicking draws much attention, yet have his performances matched the investment made in him by the Bulldogs? (Photo by Jason McCawley/Getty Images)
Still yet to prove himself as a successful pivot and struggling defensively in a team that has a mountain of work to do on that area over the off-season, Canterbury do not yet have the player it thought it was buying.
Penrith’s continued success and dominance suggests they were well aware that Burton was expendable and perhaps not as important to their chances as some people believed during the 2021 Premiership year.
As yet, the decision has not paid off for the Bulldogs.
Nor has the Roosters’ investment in Brandon Smith, rumoured to be in the vicinity of $800,000 per season.
Smith’s three year deal saw him leave the powerful Storm machine, with the Chooks feeling they had benefited from Melbourne coach Craig Bellamy’s inability to hang on to every brilliant talent he develops. Instead, they now have a player lacking in confidence and execution and looking more like one worth half the pay packet he is receiving.
Brandon Smith’s first year with the Roosters has been far from satisfying for both he and the club. (Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
St George Illawarra’s Zac Lomax is another problematic player, representing a club that had hoped for so much more. Dropped by former coach Anthony Griffin early in 2023 and still prone to moments of madness, the schoolboy star has plenty of talent, yet is well off the reported $550,000 per season he commands.
An option to extend that contract in 2026 would raise that figure further and many a Dragons fan might feel inclined to disagree with new coach Shane Flanagan, who has expressed a desire to keep Lomax on the books as he attempts to make the Dragons competitive again.
In terms of value for money, Manly may well have set the lowest bar in the business, signing utility Josh Schuster mid-season on a deal worth in the vicinity of $800,000. Schuster has been dropped twice in 2023 and remains out of the team heading into this weekend’s clash with the Bulldogs.
Should the Sea Eagles seek to sever the relationship and cut their losses, a figure of around $300,000 has been bandied about as the one required to pay a third party to take Schuster off their hands.
Of course, the jury remains out on all the players mentioned above, each with a chance to prove the skeptics wrong in the future. Yet the money splashed out by the respective clubs conveys a sense of desperation and hopeful risk, rather than a prudent piece of business.
Why then, after a successful 2022, third place on the ladder and much hope for a repeat in 2023, did the Cowboys spent over $2 million across three seasons on former West Tigers big man Luciano Leilua?
The investment made in Luciano Leilua by the Cowboys is yet to reap a return. (Photo by Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
A mere 112 running metres per game in 2023 was not what the Cowboys had anticipated, yet perhaps a few canny Tigers folk are far from surprised. A player full of promise is well off delivering for his club in what has been a disappointing season for them.
There are plenty of other men not quite living up to NRL club expectations and Luke Brooks’ deal with Manly for 2024, reported to be worth $660,000 per season, will be another interesting watch.
The man who has so long disappointed and never met the value of his contract with Wests Tigers on a consistent basis, has convinced the Sea Eagles that he a risk worth taking.
No player should be criticised for signing any of the above deals. Good luck to them in earning what they can from the game.
Focus and scrutiny should be placed on recruiters, coaches and club officials, who mire their clubs in mediocrity when such deals fail to bear fruit. Clubs pay over the actual value to get players in and then hamstring themselves with salary cap’s that fill up quickly with talent that is simply not delivering bang for buck.
Getting it right means entering Premiership windows, getting it wrong equals precisely what the clubs at the bottom of the NRL ladder have been experiencing for far too long.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Thanks mate - I always appreciate the info you provide on the data side of things… makes me feel like a dum.b erse a lot of the time, but that’s definitely on me, not you :laughing: :laughing:
mushi
Roar Guru
Hmm not sure why my response didn't go through but - yes, definitely could fo that if you had ever players data. That's the first principle of most US teams proprietary models. But you're right that wasn't what I set out to do as that would take forever (I can't code) - when looking at value you also need to assess the value played against, if he's normally against the opposition's first choice players then that needs be accounted - he was materially better (outside of big losses to Penrith and Melbourne) than off field
mushi
Roar Guru
You definitely can, it'sthe building block of lots of US sports valuation models. But given I did it manually and can't code to scrape the data Brandon would probably be retired by the time I got the answer. It's also worth noting I'd imagine the other side is probably rotating their players in a similar fashion, the good versions of these models calculated relative to the value deployed at the time by the opponent as well. I was more looking at it from the rhetoric that he was playing poorly and it suggested otherwise. My eye test also saw that, yes he makes mistakes but he ignited the team in the final 20m, which for a broken offence is huge. We had a better w/l record in Brandon time. His under performing games came in the landslide losses.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Brandon Smith is a bench forward or utility, getting the wage of a 80 min player. He's also a starting international hooker...
The Barry
Roar Guru
Yeah, that’s a great comment The article also implies it’s a mistake to re-sign players on big money criticising the re-signing of Lomax, Brooks and Schuster, the upgrading of Burton It’s all 100% hindsight. If you sign / re-sign someone on big coin and it works you’re a genius. If it doesn’t you’re a dud. The Dogs are dolts this year, but if Burton plays unreal next year they know what they’re doing
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Even before then this has been common as well. Tonie Carroll was known as Lockyer's body guard nearly 20 years ago!
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t know the correct terminology for this but I’ll muddle my way through… So the Roosters are better when he’s on vs when he’s off based on for and against/minutes, but is there a way to make that relative to his cost? You’d expect someone on 800k to have a positive on field impact, but is there a way of determining whether the amount of positive impact is worth 800k or only say 250k? And apologies because I get that wasn’t remotely the point of your exercise… it’s just an interesting idea…
Succhi
Roar Rookie
I think sometimes clubs make an offer to attract a player from another club, then insert the player into a position which matches their pay packet. Burton and Mitchell are both very good centres, but because they get paid higher than they should, they get shifted into more involved positions to earn their money. Schuster is a back rower, getting paid to be a 6. Brandon Smith is a bench forward or utility, getting the wage of a 80 min player.
mushi
Roar Guru
Essentially the for and against when he's on the field vs the for and against when he's off. Not sure if someone actively tracks I just did it manually going through the play by play and noting the points scored and conceded when he was on the field. You then divided that by the #of minutes he played and compare that to the team's f/a when he's off the field/minutes he didn't play. I did give him the points conceded when in the bin though as that's his fault. It showed that we were better with him out there (atleast back when I did it)
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
Especially these days with concussion protocols (which I support) you dont want a $1m half making tackles a $500k backrowers or centre could be making.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I think blaming managers is a cop out. They are employed by the player to get the best deal for the player. Can't criticise them for doing their job well. It's clubs agreeing to bad deals that's the issue. If it's too much money for a player, they shouldn't offer it.
Tez
Roar Rookie
Yeah good article. I reckon the Sea Eagles are the biggest losers with Schuster. Everyone can see that he is simply not fit and obviously does not do the work required. Yeah he might have talent, but without hard work and desire that means very little. Problem for Manly is that even if they chip in $300K that still leaves $500K for another club to pay for a very problematic player. Schuster could struggle to find another club.
Dutski
Roar Guru
If he plays centre and that means Suaalii doesn’t then I’m happy
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
Pfft, just a Jack of all trades :silly:
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I'm always amazed whether it be RL or RU, the fans that except halves to tackle like back rowers. You don't pick players with that skill, to tire them out tackling. If they are making lots of tackles there's a problem with your defensive structure.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Mitch Moses wasn't a top halfback 5 years ago.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
They also criticised when the Knights signed him initially I believe
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
The other thing on Burton is this. The thrust of the article is don't guy out and pay big money to recruit, develop your own instead and try and retain. How has recruiting Burton prevented this? Was there a promising 21 year old alternative when they signed Burton? I don't believe so. Which means we are looking younger. So signing Burton hasn't stopped the Dogs retaining a young player who would be outside their Top 30. And that player is a few years away, so Burton isn't taking NRL minutes off them, stunting their development. You can do both at the same time here. Then the next general question is what quality player did the Dogs lose, because they recruited Burton? And if people can't throw up names to either of these, even if Burton was a dud (which your stats indicate he almost certainly is not), what does it matter? The only question should be what better player should they have recruited for the same money.
Dumbo
Roar Rookie
"He needs to up his defence..." No. He's playing for 80 minutes. He's running, kicking, being imaginative, etc. If you want him tackle like Cam McInnes then his performance in other areas will fall off.
Dumbo
Roar Rookie
Huh ? Can you clarify that, Mushi, please.