The Sydney Roosters’ recent signing of Daly Cherry-Evans has sparked a flurry of debates, and personally, I think it’s a move that reveals more about the club’s desperation than its strategic brilliance. Let’s be clear: Cherry-Evans is no Cooper Cronk. While Cronk’s arrival in 2018 was a masterstroke, delivering back-to-back premierships, the comparison to Cherry-Evans feels like wishful thinking at best. What many people don’t realize is that Cronk was five years younger and in peak form when he joined the Roosters, whereas Cherry-Evans, at 37, is undeniably past his prime. This raises a deeper question: Can an aging player, whose defensive lapses and decision-making have been under scrutiny, truly replicate Cronk’s impact? From my perspective, the answer is a resounding no.
One thing that immediately stands out is the age factor. At 37, Cherry-Evans is closer to retirement than resurgence. Brent Read’s observation that Cherry-Evans’ best years are behind him isn’t just a blunt statement—it’s a reality check. What this really suggests is that the Roosters are banking on a player whose physical decline is inevitable. Braith Anasta’s critique of Cherry-Evans’ poor decisions and defensive weaknesses last season isn’t just nitpicking; it’s a glaring red flag. If you take a step back and think about it, the Roosters are essentially asking a player to defy the natural aging process in a sport as physically demanding as rugby league. That’s not just ambitious—it’s borderline delusional.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the Roosters’ apparent belief that Cherry-Evans can mentor Sam Walker while also being a game-changer on the field. In my opinion, this dual role is a recipe for disaster. Mentorship is valuable, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of on-field performance. Gorden Tallis’s expectation that Cherry-Evans would bring his kicking game and experience to the table in the 42-18 loss to the Warriors was fair, but the reality was underwhelming. A detail that I find especially interesting is how the Roosters’ discipline issues—penalties, errors, and defensive lapses—are compounding the pressure on their halves. Unless Trent Robinson addresses these systemic problems, Cherry-Evans’ presence will be a band-aid on a bullet wound.
The broader trend here is the NRL’s fascination with older players as quick fixes. While experience is invaluable, it’s not a substitute for physical prowess and consistency. The Roosters’ move feels like a gamble born out of desperation rather than a calculated risk. What many people misunderstand is that signing an older player isn’t just about their current form—it’s about their ability to sustain performance over time. Cherry-Evans, unfortunately, doesn’t fit that bill.
Looking ahead, the Roosters’ season hinges on more than just Cherry-Evans’ performance. Their discipline, completion rates, and defensive structure need urgent attention. Braith Anasta’s optimism that Cherry-Evans will improve is commendable, but it feels more like hope than a realistic expectation. The reality is that teams will continue to target the Roosters’ small halves pairing, and unless Walker and Cherry-Evans step up defensively, the club’s title aspirations will remain just that—aspirations.
In conclusion, the Cherry-Evans signing is a high-stakes gamble that could backfire spectacularly. Personally, I think the Roosters have overlooked the undeniable truth: age and form are not negotiable in professional sport. While Cronk’s success was a triumph of timing and talent, Cherry-Evans’ arrival feels like a desperate attempt to recapture past glory. If you take a step back and think about it, this move isn’t just about one player—it’s a reflection of the Roosters’ broader challenges. The real question is whether they can address those issues before it’s too late.
