brett finch

[Karmawave]

Ok, it's presumptuous crap.

Think what you will.

 

[Pika]

Haha, karma, apart from a few recent errors often has good info on this sort of stuff.

Sorry serc, you think to high of me, I was just after juicy gossip....

 

[Serc]

HAHA there we go...presuming a bit too much myself

 

[Pika]

I am not clever enough to set someone up mate

You know me well enough to know that!

 

[Serc]

That is very modest of you to say that

By the way I haven't thought about this too much myself in terms of specific players (aside from Price to the Warriors a few years ago) but can you name me some teams that have purchased themselves 2-3 signings or more of the quality of Ben Kennedy during the last 5-10 years Karma?

 

[Karmawave]

That is very modest of you to say that

By the way I haven't thought about this too much myself in terms of specific players (aside from Price to the Warriors a few years ago) but can you name me some teams that have purchased themselves 2-3 signings or more of the quality of Ben Kennedy during the last 5-10 years Karma?

The context I used with Ben Kennedy was mentioned as being state players and international quality stars. No one can match Kennedy's toughness etc. But going on the context I intended, here are some names I can think were signed by rival clubs when already state/international reps.

Justin Hodges - multiple times.

Ben Hannant

Israel Folau

Petero Civoniceva

Steve Price

Scott Prince

Willie Tonga

Craig Wing

Anthony Tupou

Brett Kimmorley

Greg Eastwood

Mark O Meley

Bronson Harrison ( not a household name, but an international all the same )

Willie Mason

And next year, Justin Poore

And then there's the others/rugby union/ or UK transfers- Ashley Harrison, Gareth Ellis, Trent Barrett, Joel Monoghan, Mat Rogers, Wendell Sailor...

And then there's the Brett Finch's, Greg Birds, Todd Carneys who will be all available, but we won't get.


They are just off the top of my head.

Granted, not all of them have been major successes - Willie Mason and O Meley being downright failures, but the point being, that whenever rep quality name players are off contract, they rarely, if ever, get signed here at the Knights. The Knights rarely, if ever, are even in the hunt to sign those players.

Now if we have been having unbelievable success doing what we do, fair enough, but we haven't won a competition since 2001 - ( When outside signing Ben Kennedy was in his prime ), and have never even gone close in recent times.

I can understand everyone saying that big name players ' cost too much ' and we can get ' 4 players for the value of that one ' - yeah well that's all well and good if it translates to success on the field.

Success on the field need not necessarily be a premiership, but Top 4 should be a genuine goal every year.

The jury is out if this ' value for money ' approach works long term.

It sure didn't help the Oakland Athletics ' moneyball ' approach long term did it Pika?

 

[Pika]

Not really no.

Looking bad this season as well.

 

[Big Tim]

I can understand everyone saying that big name players ' cost too much ' and we can get ' 4 players for the value of that one ' - yeah well that's all well and good if it translates to success on the field.

Success on the field need not necessarily be a premiership, but Top 4 should be a genuine goal every year.

The jury is out if this ' value for money ' approach works long term.

So what?

Big names on long contracts to "set them up for life" and risk being duds.

Or small contracts of the "we will wait and see production" approach.

I dont know how well either will go.

What would you do?

 

[Karmawave]

So what?

Big names on long contracts to "set them up for life" and risk being duds.

Or small contracts of the "we will wait and see production" approach.

I dont know how well either will go.

What would you do?

You only risk big name/long contracts being duds if your club doesn't do their homework on the makeup of a character/background/commitment levels of the player you are about to sign.

When a bloke is put on good money and worries more about what colour boots they are going to wear this weekend - hello Krisnan Inu - the warning signs are there. You can almost see it as a fan far removed from the game! Look at Chris Walker - he seemed an obvious candidate to take the money and lose it. Not much analysis needed on that one.

But do you think the characters of blokes like Craig Fitzgibbon, Nathan Hindmarsh and guys of their ilk etc, ever really looked like taking a paycheck without 100% commitment. Did you really think blokes like Ben Hannant or Justin Poore would be that much of a risk?

It's all about intelligent groundwork by your recruitment staff to recognise the risk in individual players. Lots of aspects need to be looked into.

It's not hard to do, and I imagine that is what recruitment managers get paid for.

You might not get every single one spot on, but you can aim for a bloody high %.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

You only risk big name/long contracts being duds if your club doesn't do their homework on the makeup of a character/background/commitment levels of the player you are about to sign.

When a bloke is put on good money and worries more about what colour boots they are going to wear this weekend - hello Krisnan Inu - the warning signs are there. You can almost see it as a fan far removed from the game! Look at Chris Walker - he seemed an obvious candidate to take the money and lose it. Not much analysis needed on that one.

But do you think the characters of blokes like Craig Fitzgibbon, Nathan Hindmarsh and guys of their ilk etc, ever really looked like taking a paycheck without 100% commitment. Did you really think blokes like Ben Hannant or Justin Poore would be that much of a risk?

It's all about intelligent groundwork by your recruitment staff to recognise the risk in individual players. Lots of aspects need to be looked into.

It's not hard to do, and I imagine that is what recruitment managers get paid for.

You might not get every single one spot on, but you can aim for a bloody high %.

Or if the player signed decides to let himself get injured like you make out ben cross did. Cross is our biggest signing in years, yet you get stuck into his signing at every opportunity. A little consistency from you wouldn't go astray...

 

[Serc]

Hodges – no, doesn’t count because he didn’t become one of the best players in his position until after he went back to the Broncos. 06 he was huge and it’s been full steam ahead since then.

Hannant – yep

Folau – jury is still a bit out but still fair enough

Petero – yep fair enough, but you would’ve never signed him on your Ben Cross criteria great in hindsight but slightly risky buy for the Panthers

Price – yep (slightly a risk though still a great buy with hindsight for the Warriors too)

Prince – doesn’t count as he went to the Titans for their first season

Tonga – not really as he’s not *that* good…but certainly if any club signed him it would be a good purchase. Not quite good enough for this list though.

Wing – yep, but not too much of a bigger signing than Tonga

Tupou – give that one to you again, but he is a little overrated.

Kimmorley – yeah a maybe/maybe not but I’ll be nice and give you the thumbs up here, hindsight is always nice of course (also don’t forget the Ben Cross criteria here)

Eastwood – yep good signing

O’Meley – should’ve been good in theory but has been a gold plated dud. Imagine if we had signed him 2 years ago? Geez

Harrison – doesn’t count because the Raiders signed him before he was called up for the World cup, decent player but below the Tupous of this world.

Mason – see O’Meley, almost as bad

Poore – yep he’s pretty tops

A lot of the ‘others’ are either borderline rep quality players or risks that came off (Sailor could’ve had a De Vere style comeback for all anyone knew for example)

Finch – no, handy, but not rep quality

Bird – great talent but if I was the Knights, I would struggle to put pen to paper given how much of a fool he is

Carney – see Bird

So overall not many clubs have signed many ‘rep quality’ players over and above the sort of quality we have bought in the last few years (De Gois, Cross). So I think this idea of us not signing or being mentioned in the papers as chasing after these players is because there aren’t many going around, and not too many clubs go chasing after them. Its a bit of a myth to use a famous LU term If we were really lacking in this department compared to everyone else then we would see lists of 6, 8, 10 teams chasing after Justin Poore in the last month or two!

Now if we have been having unbelievable success doing what we do, fair enough, but we haven't won a competition since 2001 - ( When outside signing Ben Kennedy was in his prime ), and have never even gone close in recent times.

We haven’t won a competition since 2001 because of Hagan and other poor practices, which we’re only properly getting over 8 years later! If we bought Steve Price and Justin Hodges (circa 2004-05 when they were making their most recent team moves) we'd have still been well out of the top 8 come 05-07 I reckon!!!

I can understand everyone saying that big name players ' cost too much ' and we can get ' 4 players for the value of that one ' - yeah well that's all well and good if it translates to success on the field.

Success on the field need not necessarily be a premiership, but Top 4 should be a genuine goal every year.

Personally I would prefer a slight increase in star power in our team, but overall I can’t complain given this joint needed complete revamping (note I avoided using the other ‘r’ word ) from the day Smithy and Burro walked in the door. Top 4 (even moreso top 6) is quite possible this year, and given our re-signings in the past few months I see no reason why on paper we can’t continue to push deep into the top 8 for the next 2 years and perhaps longer.

So (in my opinion at least) the moneyball approach is not working too badly so far…

 

[BG]

Justin Hodges - multiple times.

Ben Hannant

Israel Folau

Petero Civoniceva

Steve Price

Scott Prince

Willie Tonga

Craig Wing

Anthony Tupou

Brett Kimmorley

Greg Eastwood

Mark O Meley

Bronson Harrison ( not a household name, but an international all the same )

Willie Mason

Good list of players, but has the money spent on them really been beneficial to their clubs overall? Lets look at the clubs involved here. Roosters, Raiders, Sharks and Souths all struggling. Titans have missed finals last couple of years through lack of depth. Broncos have begun to feel their lack of options in the forwards which Folau's huge hunk of salary cap isn't helping. Penrith are feeling the pinch of a few injuries. Price is one of my favourite players but since he went to the Warrors they've finished 11th, 10th, 4th, 8th and don't look like doing much better this year. Bulldogs do seem to have recruited wisely.

 

[Karmawave]

Or if the player signed decides to let himself get injured like you make out ben cross did. Cross is our biggest signing in years, yet you get stuck into his signing at every opportunity. A little consistency from you wouldn't go astray...

Because he had played 56 first grade games at 28 years of age when we signed him. That's the only reason I have issues with the Cross signing. If he could stay on the park, he'd be fine.

However, he had done nothing at all apart from 1 solid season at the Storm. I'm not saying its Cross fault he gets injured. I am saying we shouldn't be suprised given he had played a mere 56 first grade games at 28 years old.

Petero – yep fair enough, but you would’ve never signed him on your Ben Cross criteria great in hindsight but slightly risky buy for the Panthers

See above. Unlike Ben Cross, Petero had shown durability and high standard longevity over a long period of time by playing over 200 NRL games when he was signed ( not to mention always backing up after Origin games ).

I don't think you quite get my issue with Cross, as you have mentioned him a few times in your references to other players on that list.

My issue isn't with signing a 28 year old.

My issue is signing a 28 year old with just 56 first grade games under his belt at the time of his signing and somehow consider him a top line talent. There's a reason Petero / Price / Kimmorley were 28 and had played as many games as they had - they are top quality, and above all, they are more durable than most.

They were less risky signings than Ben Cross.

 

[voltron]

Good list of players, but has the money spent on them really been beneficial to their clubs overall? Lets look at the clubs involved here. Roosters, Raiders, Sharks and Souths all struggling. Titans have missed finals last couple of years through lack of depth. Broncos have begun to feel their lack of options in the forwards which Folau's huge hunk of salary cap isn't helping. Penrith are feeling the pinch of a few injuries. Price is one of my favourite players but since he went to the Warrors they've finished 11th, 10th, 4th, 8th and don't look like doing much better this year. Bulldogs do seem to have recruited wisely.

good point
these teams have sacrificed depth for big stars
broncos is the main one in this,
but the roosters, raiders, sharks and souths are all struggling as you said
the warriors broke the salary cap to get price and wiki and were deducted 4 points for the season last year

our winning against the bulldogs at super understrength is a great sign for us and our depth
but having one great buy every couple of years would be great though

 

[Karmawave]

good point
these teams have sacrificed depth for big stars
broncos is the main one in this,
but the roosters, raiders, sharks and souths are all struggling as you said
the warriors broke the salary cap to get price and wiki and were deducted 4 points for the season last year

our winning against the bulldogs at super understrength is a great sign for us and our depth
but having one great buy every couple of years would be great though

The Broncos won the competition in 2006 and were one game away from the grand final last year.

The Roosters made the Top 8 last year. Ditto the Sharks. Souths made the finals more recently than us.

Sure they might not be going all that great now, but that is what happens in a competition that revolves around a Salary Cap. Sustained success is not easy, and worst to first situations are more common than you realise.

When was the last time Newcastle made the 8?

All of the teams mentioned above have had more recent success than we have that is for sure...

 

[Pika]

The Broncos won the competition in 2006 and were one game away from the grand final last year.

The Roosters made the Top 8 last year. Ditto the Sharks. Souths made the finals more recently than us.

Sure they might not be going all that great now, but that is what happens in a competition that revolves around a Salary Cap. Sustained success is not easy, and worst to first situations are more common than you realise.

When was the last time Newcastle made the 8?

All of the teams mentioned above have had more recent success than we have that is for sure...

Since 2001?

Or since 2007?

I am not sure the point you are trying to make here Karma.

We are talking about two polar opposites in recruiting and retention styles in Smith and Hagan.

If you are to look at the current situation, you can only go back to 2007.

2007 - Massive clean out, almost complete new stable - 2nd last.

2008 - one game out of the top 8, 9th. Could only be considered a successful turn around from previous year.

2009 - Currently 6th, six points off the pace with a bye in hand. Two wins out of top 4. Not so bad really.

So when you ask the question regarding making the finals, what are you referring to?

If its pre 2007, well we are talking about Hagan, thats done and burried and no fault of the current team.

If you are talking about the last few years, I really cant see an issue with where we are at.

 

[Karmawave]

Since 2001?

Or since 2007?

I am not sure the point you are trying to make here Karma.

We are talking about two polar opposites in recruiting and retention styles in Smith and Hagan.

If you are to look at the current situation, you can only go back to 2007.

2007 - Massive clean out, almost complete new stable - 2nd last.

2008 - one game out of the top 8, 9th. Could only be considered a successful turn around from previous year.

2009 - Currently 6th, six points off the pace with a bye in hand. Two wins out of top 4. Not so bad really.

So when you ask the question regarding making the finals, what are you referring to?

If its pre 2007, well we are talking about Hagan, thats done and burried and no fault of the current team.

If you are talking about the last few years, I really cant see an issue with where we are at.

The jury is out isn't it. We can only wait and see what happens for the rest of this season. We are not the only team who goes through coaching structural changes mate, so go as far back as you want.

It's just so lame when everyone here gets so defensive ( and I'm not meaning you Pika ) all the time, and then goes on to point out ridiculously crap teams as if to say that ' hey at least we are not like them '.

Too many people here love to focus on comparisons to mediocrity, and that will get us nowhere fast.

A case can be argued that to win grand finals, or at least to be Top 4, successful outside recruitment needs to take place on top of looking after your own junior system.

A reliance on outside signings seems to be more an issue for us now because to be frank, our junior system - one of the largest in the game - has somehow gone to ratsh*t in the last couple of years.

This all started from me suggesting that very rarely - if ever - do the Knights have any success chasing down a another player from another club if other teams are interested as well.

Simple as that. All the rival NRL clubs signing stuff was mentioned as a sidetrack point.

Recently we know we have chased Leeson Ah Mau and Chase Stanley - 2 fine buys - and it seems we are once again unsuccessful.

People talk about our 2009 being similar to the 2008 Cronulla Sharks. I don't see anything to suggest that the 2009 Cronulla Sharks could potentially be the 2010 Newcastle Knights either...

 

[Big Tim]

Because he had played 56 first grade games at 28 years of age when we signed him. That's the only reason I have issues with the Cross signing. If he could stay on the park, he'd be fine.

That could have been the reason for the signing.

It is conceivable to think that a player of 28 with 50 games would be more durable in the long run than a player of the same age with over 200...... Its always going to come down to hindsight.

 

[Karmawave]

That could have been the reason for the signing.

It is conceivable to think that a player of 28 with 50 games would be more durable in the long run than a player of the same age with over 200...... Its always going to come down to hindsight.

I expected naivety from other forum members Tim, but not you man.

How many late blooming front rowers signed at 28 with 50 first grade games go on to have a memorable career? How many blokes do we have running around in the NRL over 30 years of age as a % of total players who are not already complete champions?

 

[Big Tim]

Not many at all. My point is about durability.

A player who has played just 50 or so games could provide more games for a club over a guy who has already played 200+

In regards to Petero and Cross, that obviously hasnt eventuated.

You cannot argue that playing less games at the top level could possibly make you a more durable player as far as existing injuries go. If you dont understand that, than you have misinterpretated my point.