TC's JT Discussion Thread

[Rex]

My replies are not based on " who is the better player" responses it is who would suit Manly better combined with past history performance showing Thurston in a squad does not automatically guarantee results.

A lack of success even with big names for Australia, the loss of certain players at Origin and not bringing up players at club level to rep status like other past greats have been able to do.

My point form analysis on past success was not about determining who is the better player it is to show that Thurston's presence in a squad does not show the success levels of a great player by the lack of consistent success.

Like you, I'd question whether Manly would have won in say '11 if Thurston was in the team. Unlike you, the reason I'd question it is because of the significant number of important players we'd have to shed to fit him in the cap.

IMO your premise of equating greatness of an individual player with team success is quite illogical. eg Fulton did not win a single title in the six years from 1966 to 1971. Not because he wasn't the best player in the competition, but because Manly didn't yet have the team around him to win the comp. And until Morgan joined Thurston in the halves last season, the Cowboys had a pop-gun backline where he was the only major threat. In comparison, Manly had arguably the best forwards and best backs in the comp when they won in both '08 and '11 (only the salary cap cheaters were comparable in quality).

 

[Technical Coach]

Like you, I'd question whether Manly would have won in say '11 if Thurston was in the team. Unlike you, the reason I'd question it is because of the significant number of important players we'd have to shed to fit him in the cap.

IMO your premise of equating greatness of an individual player with team success is quite illogical. eg Fulton did not win a single title in the six years from 1966 to 1971. Not because he wasn't the best player in the competition, but because Manly didn't yet have the team around him to win the comp. And until Morgan joined Thurston in the halves last season, the Cowboys had a pop-gun backline where he was the only major threat. In comparison, Manly had arguably the best forwards and best backs in the comp when they won in both '08 and '11 (only the salary cap cheaters were comparable in quality).

Our pack in 2011 was not the best far from it and showing it's age already, 2013 we played beyond ourselves to get into the GF.

Our back-line saved our asses beyond belief for way too long.

 

[Technical Coach]

Like you, I'd question whether Manly would have won in say '11 if Thurston was in the team. Unlike you, the reason I'd question it is because of the significant number of important players we'd have to shed to fit him in the cap.

IMO your premise of equating greatness of an individual player with team success is quite illogical. eg Fulton did not win a single title in the six years from 1966 to 1971. Not because he wasn't the best player in the competition, but because Manly didn't yet have the team around him to win the comp. And until Morgan joined Thurston in the halves last season, the Cowboys had a pop-gun backline where he was the only major threat. In comparison, Manly had arguably the best forwards and best backs in the comp when they won in both '08 and '11 (only the salary cap cheaters were comparable in quality).

Well DCE is on more than Thurston and look at the squad we have---if Thurston was so great his greatness would have created a squad that was not so pop gun.

The test is now on DCE to show his worth being the central figure and we sure as hell need the forwards rolling forward big time this year more so than the last decade or his performances will suffer more than people think.

The coaching department and making all the right decisions in terms of structures, discipline and bringing up certain players and getting the most out of them as quick as possible is what helped the Cowboys, Thurston's "greatness" since 2005 was not enough to make the difference.(Also other teams going backwards----the GF teams were a step back in performance level from the last 3-4yrs)

 

[Rex]

Well DCE is on more than Thurston and look at the squad we have---if Thurston was so great his greatness would have created a squad that was not so pop gun.

The test is now on DCE to show his worth being the central figure and we sure as hell need the forwards rolling forward big time this year more so than the last decade or his performances will suffer more than people think.

"if Thurston was so great his greatness would have created a squad that was not so pop gun"

lol. Buy your team of Wiliames and put them with Foz and just see how he goes creating a squad.

 

[Rex]

Well DCE is on more than Thurston and look at the squad we have---if Thurston was so great his greatness would have created a squad that was not so pop gun.

The test is now on DCE to show his worth being the central figure and we sure as hell need the forwards rolling forward big time this year more so than the last decade or his performances will suffer more than people think.

The coaching department and making all the right decisions in terms of structures, discipline and bringing up certain players and getting the most out of them as quick as possible is what helped the Cowboys, Thurston's "greatness" since 2005 was not enough to make the difference.(Also other teams going backwards----the GF teams were a step back in performance level from the last 3-4yrs)

Do you know how much of DCE's pay is included in the cap?

 

[Technical Coach]

"if Thurston was so great his greatness would have created a squad that was not so pop gun"

lol. Buy your team of Wiliames and put them with Foz and just see how he goes creating a squad.

The teams he has had have not been "full of Williames", agree to a certain point but don't exaggerate it to sound convincing.

 

[Technical Coach]

Do you know how much of DCE's pay is included in the cap?

Do you know if adding Thurston to Manly's squad would have necessarily reduced our depth due to cap pressures as you are so convinced it would have.

If caps really were applied to the letter of the law how on earth did certain teams create dynasty like eras more so than the past, even in AFL.

One reason is more money directed towards the training and rehab side to elevate performance but that does not explain it all that is for sure.

 

[Technical Coach]

Do you know how much of DCE's pay is included in the cap?

I think Penn or someone else of an official nature during or just after the Foran/DCE negotiation process/period gave roundabout figures in an article (i'm sure it was a quoted figure but i might be wrong) in relation to percentage of cap space that retaining the two might take up. (i think it was around 30% but i'm not 100% sure it was so long ago)

I've quickly searched for the article or video interview and can't locate it so maybe i am wrong and it wasn't a quoted figure.

 

[Rex]

The teams he has had have not been "full of Williames", agree to a certain point but don't exaggerate it to sound convincing.

You've got the point. There's only so far a class player can lift those around him. It is a team game - of 17 players, not 1.

But a single player weakness can be, and often is, the difference between winning and losing.

 

[maxta]

I have little doubt if you ask every player in the Manly squad who they would prefer (which is all that matters in this debate) they would pick Foran over Thurston close to 100% of the time. (how often did Foran receive players player award at Manly shows you how well he is regarded---even Turbo in his limited time playing in 1st grade specifically mentioned Foran when he could of said others at Manly)

The point I'm making is who would best suit Manly, (along with showing i feel Thurston is over-rated as a side point)

Look at this way if age was not an issue would you pick Thurston over Cliff Lyons in wanting to build a successful consistent performing "NRL Club" i know who i would choose, does not necessarily mean the better player but the player best suited at club level to generate consistent performances. (i would also pick Fittler over Thurston, Lockyer over Thurston, Kenny over Thurston and many others that will be made fun of because i know these players work well at NRL level)

I would pick Thurston over L.Daley though as Daley is over-rated in my books just to give balance and Thurston over Cliff Lyons at Origin level.

If Origin was played over an entire season i would pick Lyons over Thurston do you see what i am getting at. Cliff Lyons looked more adlib than he really was, he played what was in front of him yes but there was still structure at work and players needing time to get used to playing with Cliffy.

Its like owning a pet with 1 eye, scraggly fur & is flea infested & saying its the most beautiful creature on earth....After the 2011 GF like the players, most fans would have chosen Foran because he bled Maroon & White also.
After 2008 I think we could say the players prefer Robbo than GI too.
That's not a reality, more a loyalty card of all belonging to the same team, like protecting your mate when he is in trouble, though was not an angel.
To make it clear, Thurston has Foran covered in every attribute, though at his best Foran would match him in competitive desire, just has a rifle instead of a bazooka to get the job done.
Not massive into stats but without looking at RLW from recent years , will be surprised if neutral NRL players didn't rate Thurston almost 100% in comparison....in fact, count me out TC.....this is as plausible as when you rate players attitudes if they have a tattoo.

 

[Rex]

Do you know if adding Thurston to Manly's squad would have necessarily reduced our depth due to cap pressures as you are so convinced it would have.

If caps really were applied to the letter of the law how on earth did certain teams create dynasty like eras more so than the past, even in AFL.

One reason is more money directed towards the training and rehab side to elevate performance but that does not explain it all that is for sure.

Melbourne showed the difference rorting the cap can make. And the Dogs the same before them. If Manly could afford Thurston without sacrificing other positions, be in no doubt that they would.

 

[Technical Coach]

Its like owning a pet with 1 eye, scraggly fur & is flea infested & saying its the most beautiful creature on earth....After the 2011 GF like the players, most fans would have chosen Foran because he bled Maroon & White also.
After 2008 I think we could say the players prefer Robbo than GI too.
That's not a reality, more a loyalty card of all belonging to the same team, like protecting your mate when he is in trouble, though was not an angel.
To make it clear, Thurston has Foran covered in every attribute, though at his best Foran would match him in competitive desire, just has a rifle instead of a bazooka to get the job done.
Not massive into stats but without looking at RLW from recent years , will be surprised if neutral NRL players didn't rate Thurston almost 100% in comparison....in fact, count me out TC.....this is as plausible as when you rate players attitudes if they have a tattoo.

I see your point in relation to players in the same squad would pick one of their own and considered that myself but as i stated it is about "what best suits Manly and the team" and i think players in the Manly squad know what is best more than "neutrals".

Disagree with Thurston having Foran covered in every attribute far from it...

To be honest i've noticed players in general make the worst judge of players and the best of players tend to make the worst coaches.(talented players don't understand their talent while the less talented tend to learn and observe what is effective to get the best result)

 

[Technical Coach]

You've got the point. There's only so far a class player can lift those around him. It is a team game - of 17 players, not 1.

But a single player weakness can be, and often is, the difference between winning and losing.

10yrs at one club his greatness should have created more rep quality players surrounding him.

Look at Melb Cronk,Smith,Slater how many average players have they turned into rep players at Melb then turn out to be average when they leave.

 

[Technical Coach]

Melbourne showed the difference rorting the cap can make. And the Dogs the same before them. If Manly could afford Thurston without sacrificing other positions, be in no doubt that they would.

Yeah right they are the two only clubs rorting the cap.

Yes "now" Manly could/would go after Thurston if they could afford Thurston without sacrificing other positions, what is your point, but if they had the choice of retaining Foran or signing Thurston they would pick Foran.(all else being equal including age)

 

[Rex]

10yrs at one club his greatness should have created more rep quality players surrounding him.

Look at Melb Cronk,Smith,Slater how many average players have they turned into rep players at Melb then turn out to be average when they leave.

lol. That is quite a premise. That players "turn" other players into rep players. Like they are all generic clean slates waiting to be "turned". And that you only need one "great" player to "turn" nobodies into rep stars? And if you have three of these "great" players in one team that is no more effective in "turning" nobodies into rep stars than having a single "great" player?

 

[Rex]

Yeah right they are the two only clubs rorting the cap.

Yes "now" Manly could/would go after Thurston if they could afford Thurston without sacrificing other positions, what is your point, but if they had the choice of retaining Foran or signing Thurston they would pick Foran.(all else being equal including age)

I give two examples to show how rorting the cap works and you conclude that I'm saying there can be no others? Nice jump there.

Manly would prefer Foran over Thurston at the same price? lol. Do you question that Manly would instantly jump into premiership favouritism if they added Thurston, and that the Cowboys would fall to distant outsiders if they lost him? Parra have added Foran and other quality players and there's little discernible difference to their premiership odds. The oddsmakers don't consider Foran to be a "great" player who "turns" nobodies into rep stars then?

 

[Technical Coach]

I give two examples to show how rorting the cap works and you conclude that I'm saying there can be no others? Nice jump there.

Manly would prefer Foran over Thurston at the same price? lol. Do you question that Manly would instantly jump into premiership favouritism if they added Thurston, and that the Cowboys would fall to distant outsiders if they lost him? Parra have added Foran and other quality players and there's little discernible difference to their premiership odds. The oddsmakers don't consider Foran to be a "great" player who "turns" nobodies into rep stars then?

The "jump" was all about you stating the obvious and that "breaking the cap to achieve success" happens more often than not.

I never said Foran at this stage of his career or even ever might be considered a great player who turns nobodies into stars but neither is Thurston (so why in my eyes is Thurston being labelled a "great") when his NRL career and International performances suggest he is only a good player not great.(This is the main point we are debating along with overall i think Foran is a player best suited to Manly's structures and forward playing depth compared to Thurston)

You keep harping on about Thurston has been surrounded with nobodies----when Thurston has been provided with top of the line players at international level he did not rise, when there was a few injuries at Origin QLD lose a series.(This is not the mark of a great player)

This is not about me thinking Foran is a future great---as a matter of fact with his chronic injuries that have aged him and now has him playing in a more reserved/conservative manner than his aggressive in your face past, he will only ever be a good player---but i would prefer his at the line ball playing and thinking smarts over Thurston any day.

You can agree to disagree which is fine, but stop putting words in my mouth to prolong a debate.

 

[Technical Coach]

DCE's contract would actually be one of the lower one's on our roster. You need to consider the following. Assume DCE is on 1.1 million (that's a guess) inclusive.

X Kelly has him listed as our marquee player. Therefore, 600k of DCE's contract comes off the cap hit. Yes, he still gets paid, but it doesn't affect our team cap wise.
X He is one, along with (Stewart, Matai & Lyon) eligible for the Long Serving Player Allowance of $300k per team, so lets assume he received 25% of it to be fair (I'm betting he'd get more), that's another $75k off his contract.
X There was an article saying that DCE picked up a vehicle recently (find it yourself, I'm too lazy), and that's $20k that can be included in his contract (but not in the cap)
X 3rd party agreements in his contract not listed. Assume in his 1.1 mill salary, only $50k per year was made up of 3rd party (just to be conservative - I'd bet there is much more in the 1.1 amount)
X A lesser known, is that I'm betting the club has set up an agreement with Fox for DCE to do a media Apprenteship. This can be part of his contract (included in the 1.1 mill), but is not included in the cap (and is unlimited) - so if the deal is $200k per year for example, that would come off the cap hit (but lets NOT include this).

I'll be conservative though, and only include:-
Assume salary if 1.1 mill per
1. Marquee player Allowance
2. Long Serving Player Allowance
3. Car Allowance
4. $50k 3rd Party Allowance

His cap hit would be $355k.

That's how the NRL keeps its marquee players like Thurston, Inglis and co. in the game. I'd bet his 3rd party agreements are much greater. I bet there is a Fox Sports deal built in there somewhere.

I actually think his real cap hit would be MUCH lower.

Also, all of the above is why marquee player contracts take so long to produce, sign and agree. There is heaps of parties, and heaps involved.

Thurston has most of the above opportunities to reduce his impact on the cap as well, i would say both players individual impact on the cap at each club is roughly the same so i don't see why Rex even tagged that element into the debate---it was pointless but i ran with it which was stupid of me to do so.

 

[Rex]

The "jump" was all about you stating the obvious and that "breaking the cap to achieve success" happens more often than not.

I never said Foran at this stage of his career or even ever might be considered a great player who turns nobodies into stars but neither is Thurston (so why in my eyes is Thurston being labelled a "great") when his NRL career and International performances suggest he is only a good player not great.(This is the main point we are debating along with overall i think Foran is a player best suited to Manly's structures and forward playing depth compared to Thurston)

You keep harping on about Thurston has been surrounded with nobodies----when Thurston has been provided with top of the line players at international level he did not rise, when there was a few injuries at Origin QLD lose a series.(This is not the mark of a great player)

This is not about me thinking Foran is a future great---as a matter of fact with his chronic injuries that have aged him and now has him playing in a more reserved/conservative manner than his aggressive in your face past, he will only ever be a good player---but i would prefer his at the line ball playing and thinking smarts over Thurston any day.

You can agree to disagree which is fine, but stop putting words in my mouth to prolong a debate.

This is not so much a debate as an opportunity to express treasured thoughts more clearly. At least that's another way of looking at it. The label "A Great" is just a label. Isn't it? But what does it mean? I'm getting clearer on what you consider to be "a Great". I'm not wanting to put words in your mouth, but this is what I'm currently hearing. It is someone who:
1. Turns fellow club players into rep players
2. Wins premierships
3. When provided with top players at international level rises and wins
4. When there are injuries in the side at SOO level still wins

Is that it? If not, what is it? These are the reasons you focused on when saying Thurston was not a "Great". And who fits this bill of meeting all these criteria for you?

 

[Rex]

The turning point for me is not really about premierships (it is just that great players tend to win premierships and is "one" indicator) my turning point is---- has this player changed the way the game has been played, elevated performance, along with consistency of brilliance.

Way too many players are labelled a great...

You've also said Great is "changed the way the game has been played, elevated performance, along with consistency of brilliance". They are all highly subjective measures. Probably most would rate Thurston as meeting these criteria. If you disagree, can you be more specific why you disagree with the masses on this?

PS
Eric Simms was pretty much a plodder in general play. Barely first-grade standard. But he changed the way the game is played through his consistent brilliance in kicking field goals. In one game he kicked five field goals in 11 minutes. As a result of Eric Simms' consistent brilliance in kicking field goals, they were forced to be downgraded to be worth one point, and field goals virtually disappeared from the game. Prior to that they were almost as common as kicks to the in-goal are today.

It has been said of Simms and his ability to kick field goals that he is "one of the few men whose influence was such it singlehandedly changed the game"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Simms_(rugby_league)

Is Eric Simms the plodder a "Great", because he, more than probably anyone else, fits your criteria exactly?