With confirmation that the NRL is keen on a second Brisbane team to enter the competition, all the attention has been on the various bids as each jostles to be the next franchise admitted to the competition.
We can all agree that a second team in Brisbane is well overdue. The nine Sydney clubs host around 100 home games each year. Brisbane, with just the Broncos, hosts 12.
However, there is another conundrum that the NRL must solve regardless of which franchise becomes lucky number 17, and that is where do the players come from?
Each club currently has a roster of 30 players. That’s a total talent pool of 480 NRL-quality players among the 16 clubs.
When you look at results after the first six rounds, it’s starting to become clear that there is a big gap between the top eight teams and the teams in the bottom eight. In fact, with the Tigers taking up the customary position of ninth spot, I can’t see any team from the bottom half of the ladder forcing their way into the top eight.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Realistically, in any given year only ten to 12 teams have any genuine hope of making the top eight. Teams that find themselves at the bottom of the ladder tend to stay there for several years. There are exceptions of course, but typically clubs at the bottom of the ladder talk of rebuilding, a process that takes years to achieve.
And it seems that any club that manages to get up off the mat is immediately replaced by another team pinned to the bottom of the ladder. The successful rebuild of one club coincides with the demise of another.
Why is it that at no stage do we ever have 16 clubs built? Sixteen clubs that, while perhaps not equal in challenging for the premiership, are equal in their chances to make the top eight?
My theory is that we don’t actually have 480 NRL-quality players in the talent pool. The number is closer to 360, with the bottom four clubs in the unfortunate position of having their squads made up mostly of the other 120 players.
To emphasise my point, look through the Bulldogs and Titans teams named to play this weekend, and think about how many of those players could force their way into any of the top eight teams. It’s a small number. It’s a really small number. Now do the reverse. That’s a much bigger number.
Yet we need to find an additional 30 players to field a 17th team. I just can’t see that happening. Adding another 30 players will only ensure that the teams on the bottom will never climb back up the ladder.
The only possible way in the short term that the NRL can field a 17th team is to cut the NRL squads from 30 to 28. That at least spreads the current talent across all clubs.
However, it doesn’t solve the real problem.
(Photo by Albert Perez/Getty Images)
What is required from the NRL is long-term strategic planning, making decisions for the future direction of the game and making the necessary investments in the here and now to get there.
It’s great that the NRL is considering expansion. But they should have decided ten years ago, and made the investment in junior rugby league back then, to ensure there was enough talent today to sustain all 17 clubs.
The 19-year-old kid who bursts onto the scene in the 2030 premiership is nine years old today. We need investment in these kids now to ensure there are development opportunities for more kids to reach the elite level.
The NRL squads should be the best of the best – not all of the best plus a bunch of extras.
Beyond the second Brisbane team there are calls for teams in Perth, Central Coast, a second New Zealand side or a Pacific Nations team. All of these bids have varying degrees of merit.
But without cutting one of the Sydney teams, there simply isn’t enough talent to sustain further expansion, unless the NRL commits to investing in its own future.
There’s no time like the present.
kk
Roar Pro
Late, but glad I got to read. Agree 100% with your reasoning.
Adam
Roar Guru
I'm a romantic at hear, so I agree the Bears should be next after Brisbane 2.0
Dogs Boddy
Roar Rookie
Dare we dream...... BEARS :laughing:
DL2191
Guest
Salary cap and list management are what causes teams to do well or poorly. Allowing for a year or two of settling in, there is plenty of talent in terms of volume for an additional team without hurting the overall quality of the competition. Dogs for example are at the bottom of their cap 'cycle' so with a few extra big name players they are mid table again. Titans are about to spend big next year. Take one or two players from easts and parra and they are still near the top and playing more or less as well as they are now. Not growing is shrinking - a second Brisbane team is an absolute no-brainer and Perth, Wellington and Adelaide should follow somewhere down the track either as new teams or relocations from Sydney. If teams move or merge of their own volition that's one thing, but as the loss of the bears showed relative to the north shore, the game never recovers in areas where teams are cut.
Nat
Roar Rookie
I reckon by the time expansion does come around they will have another contender along with Brisbane 2.0. One more game is worth another $30m p/season at least to the broadcasters. To include a single club and introduce a bye round equates to nothing but an extra cost to the NRL. Either that or one club goes...
jamesb
Roar Guru
Roar expert Ryan O'Connell came out with a good paragraph last week in one of his articles about the talent in the NRL. "It’s always easy to blame the players or coaches, because they’re the most visible example to focus on, yet if you look at the struggling teams, there’s a consistent thread: they’re not very well run and have made some very questionable decisions"
johnno 2
Roar Rookie
Tonga and Samoa added in This will open the door for new talent to feed in existing clubs Reduce the salary cap Cap player contract payments ( what does the Prime Minister take home ?) After all these are multiple businesses that need to make a profit Make League Great Again
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Yes, although the AFL did it in consecutive years, so there was one year with 17 teams, which is manageable, as long as there is a plan. I see no plan from the NRL.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
You see I agree with one part of your reply. If say the Titans squad swapped with the Storm squad, its not unreasonable to think that over 4 years Bellemy could get them into the 8, BUT in year 4 the squad would be hugely different than what he first inherited. So now we wouod have a different team not up to scratch. True talent is rare and it's spread like boarding house butter in the NRL. Add more teams and it's dry bread for all.
Adam
Roar Guru
Agreed. Expansion needs to go up in 2s
Don
Roar Rookie
Yep I get the benefits of a draft. If there was a draft I’d support free agency or limited free agency after 5 years. He would be allowed to leave without much compensation at the end of this season.
Big Daddy
Guest
Expansion or increase in teams. I don't think we will ever have more than 16 teams so the NRL ( V'Landys) says the next team to be included will be in Brisbane . He hasn't ruled out a team being relocated or a team being cut. Heck it might even mean relocating Gold Coast to Brisbane. Given his performance so far anything is feasible.
Walter Black
Guest
"Someone on here said if you could pick a team from the bottom 6 sides do you reckon they would go top four? Not a chance in heel. And that’s some indictment." If you took the roster from any (and I repeat any) of the bottom 6 sides and moved that squad to either the Roosters or Storm then I would pretty much guarantee that they would be a top 8 side within a couple of years and probably top 4 in say 5yrs. The issue is more Coaching and the Club than it is the players.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I hear on a regular basis that the main problem with struggling clubs is because they have an inferior coach. If only they had Bellamy or Robinson then they would fire up pretty quickly. In the case of those two , we won't know until they move on and coach a struggling club. In the case of many other ''Super Coaches'' , we do know the answer. Sometimes they win titles elsewhere as in the case of Jack Gibson and to a lesser extent Bennett and Sheens but the list of title winning coaches who are expected to take another club to Boogie Wonderland and don't, is vast. Even Gibson and Bennett and particularly Sheens had dismal seasons when they had average rosters. The last time a title winning coach won a title elsewhere is 10 years ago at Saints and before that I'm guessing in the early 80's with Gibson at the Chickens or am I missing someone like Chris Anderson? It's a pretty strong stat whatever the fine details are. Recruiting and keeping the right players who are pretty happy with their lot is the key in my opinion. The Eels have exactly the same coach who steered them to the magic spoon recently but you can bet your life if he was replaced by Bellamy two years back that all the good times would be put down to Bellamy. I'm not saying coaches like Bellamy aren't superior but I'm always surprised when it goes without debate that they would fix another club up. Would Ivan Cleary have won titles at the Chooks if he was coach? I reckon he would.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
The biggest issue I have with expansion to 17 teams is the dreaded bye. Byes are fine if they occur mid-season and give your players a nice rest, but what about the team who gets the dreaded R1 bye?? I can assure you that Melb, Roosters, Souths and Broncos will never have the bye in the first couple of rounds of the season. Just be another advantage to the bigger teams. And the 17th team doesn't give an extra game to sell to broadcasters, so unless the NRL have a vision for the 18th team, then its hard to see the value.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Quality, its an incredibly hard thing to define but but just like obscenity you know it when you see it. I watch a lot of footy and quality games are becoming fewer and further between. Now there are numerous reasons, the covid break , the rule changes , the quality of coaching etc, but anyone who thinks the quality of player has little influence on it has their head in the sand. Imagine a six team comp. Does the quality of player and game improve? Then imagine a 30 team comp . Does the quality of the player and game deteriorate? It’s pretty simple . Someone on here said if you could pick a team from the bottom 6 sides do you reckon they would go top four? Not a chance in heel. And that’s some indictment. There are numerous players atm not of nrl standard, and adding more teams will just make it worse. Quality stands out in all sports and RL must preserve ours.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
The draft does more than that Don. It stops the big teams from just signing whoever they want to throw cash at. If the Roosters want James Fisher-Harris (as has been rumoured), they would have to trade with Penrith for his services, ie: Penrith might get compensation in the form of the Roosters top pick in next years draft.
Don
Roar Rookie
I’m not a big draft advocate. Just the only mechanism to provide the top young talent to the lower ranked teams. And as long as clubs only look at the assistants of the best coaches to be their head coaches, there’s going to be a lack of diversity. Recruiting from Super League is an option for sure. I’d be looking at some of the guys who’ve been in a couple of systems though. And Siebold? He must interview really well. It’s rumoured that Lockyer was the one who pushed super hard for Siebold.
brookvalesouth
Roar Rookie
The truth is that when there are more opportunities - players improve. The bottom 8 teams languish where they are not due to a lack of talent, but due to poor recruiting and poor coaching. There are teams with, for instance, an overabundance of five eighths, but few props, and vice versa. When there are more first grade opportunities, more players exposed to first grade, then the quality improves. Additionally, there are players that haven't been given an opportunity yet due to incumbents ahead of them. A good example of this is Harry Grant. Third choice hooker at Melbourne, now sitting in the number 3 tier of the Dally M Table - all because he got an opportunity to play first grade at another club. Anti-expansionists will always cite a reduction in quality as a reason to not expand - but if clubs are selecting 30 players for their first grade squad, theres up to 13 other players sitting in the wings - at each club. Add on top of that youngsters outside the top 30. We will be fine with one extra team (even two) - provided that club is set up with a good recruitment and coaching team.
jamesb
Roar Guru
Ok lets have a look at a few teams outside of the eight. The Dragons were a whisker away from playing in a preliminary final in 2018. Last year they came second last. The Bulldogs are four or five players away from genuinely competing. They need to find a hooker, a half, a replacement for Corey Harawira Naera, who was good for the Dogs in the back end last year, and an outside back. The Titans have representative players like Shannon Boyd, Jarrod Wallace, Jai Arrow, Tyrone Peachey, Ryan James,Nathan Peats, Kevin Proctor. Add to that, other capable players like Ash Taylor, AJ Brimson, Anthony Don, Corey Thompson, Moeaki Fotuaika, Brian Kelly, Phillip Sami. The Titans players are underperforming. With the Warriors, they have been the greatest underachievers. Up in Townsville, Paul Green has been there too long. Again the Cowboys squad is not bad, but a few players have gone backwards. Example, Coen Hess. Rather than looking at the playing talent, perhaps the real issues surround the quality of development and coaching. Is there enough quality head coaches to fill 16 teams?