Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Would’ve freed up plenty of cap space, which is the real currency, not star players. It’s easy to buy/keep players if you’ve got cap space. Look at the annual recruitment by the likes of Canterbury and Wests.
Sooooooooo.......your saying???
Resources aren’t separate from playing talent or coaching. Resources are how you get those things. The salary cap at least provides the majority of currency for accumulating player talent, so resources outside the cap provide an advantage on top of that. How much depends on the club. Some clubs have more access to intangibles like investment opportunities, accommodation or jobs for family members that directly circumvent the cap. Others have far more resources devoted to staff (i.e. salaries and ‘consultancy fees’) to help recruit the best juniors in Australia and New Zealand. These players get paid so little (outside the NRL salary cap) that employment and housing benefits make a huge difference to which players a club gains or keeps in the face of rival offers. It’s the same with NRLW players.
I’d say if you’re a first grade NRL coach it’s up to you to maximise the potential of the playing squad you have. You also need to surround yourself with the right people to be able to do that. It’s every NRL clubs aspiration to try and build towards a premiership. How long do you think a first grade coach should be given before you see if you can find someone who can do those things better than what you have now?
This is it. The stupidest thing that ever been posted on this forum. It will take something considerable to beat this.
Sure but for an outside observer how do you determine the potential of the playing squad?
There is huge demand for the 'right people', so they cost a lot more than the 'wrong people'.
Is it possible to maximise the squad's potential every year and still fail to win premierships because other squads with more potential are being maximised? Bennet's premiership drought is longer than Brad Arthur's entire career. Does Bennett move on because those clubs think he failed? I'm certain he moves on because he knows the premiership window closed and he doesn't want to waste his time at a club without a realistic chance of winning.
You say that because you continually misrepresent my argument. We could've won a premiership under Arthur just as Newcastle and Souths could have won under Bennett. What was lacking during those premiership windows was luck.
Well that's good because it's not my assertion. Some coaches are obviously better than others. But every coach has different amounts of luck in a given year.
Why hasn't Bennett won a premiership since 2010?
Same reason Robinson only won six games in 2016.
Honestly, I think they got a massive boost in resources in 2012. A club's level of resourcing isn't static. Look at the Eels under Arthur pre-2019 compared to our performance since.
Agreed. But a feature of the best coaches is that they only go to clubs (or remain there) when they have a realistic chance at winning. This is why Bennett would be willing to leave the Dolphins, because they are still a few years away. It's why I'd be surprised if he came to Parra before 2026, if at all. It's why Cleary was willing to go to a club like the Tigers when he hadn't won anything. It's why Maguire went there after the 2014 gloss wore off. It's why Ricky Stuart went to Parra and then Canberra, because he didn't have better options. And it's why Arthur is happy to remain at Parra with our premiership window closed. Because his alternatives will be clubs like Newcastle or Souths.
What a stupid comment. If you've got nothing to add, keep it to yourself.
You appreciate how incredibly dumb that post was though, right?
I often overestimate you merkins' ability to comprehend. I now believe you read it to mean I think star players don't matter. My point is that if you lose star players you likely have the cap space to sign new ones or retain emerging talents, which was the case with Souths after 2019. Souths had a great crop of juniors coming through and Bennett was able to retain them plus bring in Latrell Mitchell. Don't forget Souths were strong enough for Seibold to get them into the preliminary final in 2018. But by 2019 Burgess, Inglis and Sutton were in their thirties. They were on the decline anyway, and Bennett would've loved being able to clear them off the cap. This let him keep or acquire all the merkins that played in the 2021 grand final. There was some quality in that squad who wouldn't have been if Burgess (33 in 2021) and Inglis (34 in 2021) were still there:
No, you’re right, that’s my bad. Easy for you to think that using the exact words “Would’ve freed up plenty of cap space, which is the real currency, not star players”, and using Wests and Canterbury as examples for the point, should’ve been interpreted to mean something entirely different to what you said.
It means exactly what I said. Wests and Canterbury buy a lot of players because their existing players weren't worth keeping. Clubs with high squad turnover always recruit more quality than teams with stable squads.
This is definitely my weak point. I write for the smarter posters around here and get frustrated when you dumber ones draw the wrong conclusions.
This point is so stupid that I am wondering if you’re just trolling now? Because your constant references to your high intelligence are incompatible with the point you make here.
The references to high intelligence are self-deprecating humour. What kind of deadshit brags about being smart on a footy forum ffs
It shows that replacing an overpaid star or two each year doesn't help if the squad isn't strong. Which is a point I've made repeatedly on this forum.
They have definitely let some quality players go to focus on keeping others. They are strong every year because they don't overpay top 30 players and because they spend so much on junior recruitment. So whenever they lose a star they're either (rarely) bringing in an established player (e.g. Coates) or more often upgrading a junior star they poached into their pathways (e.g. Grant, Papenhuyzen, Munster, Welch).
Yeah must be me
No, you just communicate your "points" rather poorly.
You finally got there! Well done, top of the class...
It definitely is, dipshit.
