- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Opinion
One uneasy question has arisen from Daly Cherry-Evans’ spat with Manly – and it’s not the one about how to strip player agents of their Blackberries and abandon them all on a deserted island.
Should anyone in rugby league over the age of 35 have the right to command an asking price, or even a dignified exit plan?
Furthermore, should anyone elderly be given anything at all, let alone money and respect?
While evolving at a rapid clip, the genesis of this noxious uncoupling can be traced back to one ignition point:
It was when Manly baulked because Cherry-Evans is an old man and they feared another two years carrying an asset that could go flyblown at a moment’s notice.
In any other industry, retaining a 36 year old offering the elite performance, leadership and cultural value of Cherry-Evans would be the administrative equivalent of a 20m conversion from bang in-front.
But not in rugby league.
Like most professional sport outside golf and darts, anyone over the age of 30 in rugby league is considered to be a fading force less structurally reliable than a Scotch Finger or Tom Trbojevic.
Whether it’s a fear of losing their edge or just their false teeth, we believe anyone over this number shouldn’t be fronting up for another pre-season, they should be in a Telstra Shop with their pants hitched above their waist pestering staff about their discontinued Nokia 3310.
It’s even worse when these oldies then seek a shift to greener pastures.
That’s because for every Cooper Cronk or Steve Price there’s the jarring memory of Anthony Watmough in Parra colours, Wally Lewis at the Gold Coast Seagulls, or anyone over 30 and $900k at the Wests Tigers.
Daly Cherry-Evans. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
Yep, Cherry-Evans only crime is being long in the tooth, and that’s why this has descended in to an ugly imbroglio that has hogged headlines and benefited nobody except the player agents and Dylan Brown.
Now instead of an uninhibited premiership tilt, Manly’s season of promise is unraveling in to a carcinogenic PR war that is seeing more minutes for Tony Mestrov than Tommy Turbo himself.
Worse still, there’s seemingly no end in sight with every effort by both parties to kick the story in to the long grass only succeeding in restarting the debate like a six-again penalty on the fourth tackle.
So who is to blame?
Were Manly within their rights to initially lowball Cherry-Evans and neglect a favourite son because in a sporting context, he’ll be dead in two years?
Is this a wider issue, and rugby league is inherently myopic, anarchic and ageist?
Or should old people just play on for nothing but compliments?
Many blame the Manly club – mostly because it just feels right – plus because who’d trust any administration that upgraded Josh Schuster and released Jamie Humphreys.
On the other hand, some believe Cherry-Evans invited the scorn himself by lighting a bonfire so early in the season, with many firstly asking how he could he so carelessly derail Manly’s campaign, and secondly, why couldn’t he have done it in Maroons camp?
Put simply, there is no correct answer to this scenario- and it won’t be the last time it happens.
With sports science and player welfare supercharging career longevity, these stand-offs while become more commonplace- especially while the media is happy making a big deal out of who didn’t get invited to a player’s wedding.
There’s only one lesson that can be learned from this: if Cherry-Evans had his time over, he’d show dignity and simply lie.
If the skipper had just claimed he was leaving for more money or even just to return to Queensland, nobody would’ve batted an eyelid.
Unless it was to play for the Titans.