The never-ending Toronto saga has come back into play this week, with the will-they-won’t-they, in-then-out, shake-it-all-about international myopic coming to the fore.
It is expected Toronto’s 2021 fate will be decided in the coming weeks. For Roosters fans this has implications for the, er, mercurial Sonny Bill Williams. For the rest of Australian rugby league, I imagine it’s been greeted with an indifferent shrug, like hearing Friday night’s fixture is the Bulldogs versus Sea Eagles.
Closer to home, this brought out the inevitable arguments about expansion, conducted with all the civility that four years of Brexit debate has imbued us. But I’ve noticed very different points of contention against British spread to Canada and the NRL’s expansion, notably that of player quality.
I would love NRL expansion if nothing but for more early morning entertainment and the chance to lose even more money on winning points margins. But I’m not here to argue the who, where and when. I don’t know if it’s wise to push into Western Australia or divvy up the Queensland market.
I merely want to take apart a specific argument against additional sides that player quality and depth cannot support any more first-grade teams. There are two tenets to this idea: whether there are enough first-grade quality players and how they’re top-loaded to the game’s powerhouses.
To those looking for a more equitable competition, expansion is a distraction. A new side in Christchurch won’t push Melbourne to raid Queensland any more than present. For a more exciting format where bottom can beat top and year-to-year performances are as unpredictable as a Cowboys job interview fighting against expansion is the avoidance of other ideas like a draft that can make a meaningful difference.
Then comes the issue regarding the quantity of first-grade-quality players. There are those that argue the 16-team competition is too big as it is, with players who don’t belong in the big time merely making up the numbers. Another side or two would surely make this worse.
That is possibly true if recruiters continue in their current vein, but there are cheap and viable solutions. At the risk of sounding like a broken record – played at a whiny 45” from a one-hit wonder – it involves looking slightly further afield than New South Wales and Queensland.
Any Melbourne fans who have studied Justin Olam’s play this year – and, being in Victoria, they may not have much else better to do right now – know this kid is the real deal. He came through the Papua New Guinea Hunters, and having seen the Hunters win the 2017 Queensland Cup and the national side reach the 2017 World Cup quarter-finals, their large rugby league-mad population offers the potential for so many more Olams.
It’s unlikely clubs will find world-class finished articles, but by signing young Hunters and developing them in-house there exists the opportunity for a whole generation to develop into NRL-quality footballers. With the addition of Fiji into the NSWRL set-up similar opportunities, if on a smaller scale, exist in this patch of Melanesia too.
And then there’s the Old Dart. At the risk of betraying blinkered home-grown bias, who across the game has not been impressed by Canberra’s Englanders, or the Burgesses or Jimmy Graham crashing into anything with a pulse? Even Herbie Farnworth is standing out for the Broncos (not a hard task, admittedly).
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
The thing is, these players, while brilliant, were not too far out of the ordinary in the UK. Most would not have predicted such success for them Down Under. They don’t stand out in the UK because of the competition’s low profile and inconsistently competitive nature. But there are many players in England who are above NRL average and could make a real difference to an Australian team.
Canberra and Newcastle are already in on the act of signing young English players, like Harry Rushton and Dom Young respectively, and developing them in the mould of my Papua New Guinea example. There is a whole hemisphere of talent, both NRL-ready and with high potential, that can take the competition’s quality to the next level.
Perhaps I’m a little naïve. Not every Brit is Josh Hodgson. For every Sam Burgess comes a Luke Burgess. But let’s not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. The foreign examples I have given would be complementary to the already bustling talent pool pre-existing in Australia. It’s not as if a Perth side would become some sort of 13-manned Botany Bay, but there exists room for plenty more foreign players to take the NRL in their stride.
I don’t know key details, if a second Brisbane side would just halve the city’s fan-base et cetera. These are questions that require hard answers from those more qualified and better paid. But let’s not scupper the chance for more great rugby league because we’re afraid the Perth hooker isn’t as good as Cameron Smith or because the next young hotshot prefers Marmite to Vegemite.
Beergardener
Roar Pro
Very well written article, Tom. I feel like your points have gone over a bunch of these commenters' heads.
mushi
Roar Guru
It's more a risk reward. A big reason why many global enterprises look at NZ as too tough. Low population density and entrenched local competition. Christchurch is what?350- 400k population. It doesn't add to the benefits of sponsors who are not trans tasman. And SI sponsors aren't going to have the same value proposition either. The cost structure for the comp is higher due to travel. And you're starting from a position of weakness. Pretty hard to sell a high cost low upside move
Sammy
Guest
It is often said that Rugby Union is a religion is New Zealand but that is terribly overstated. It is the All Blacks' popularity and link to NZs national identity that make this assumption. We can't write-off the idea of having a Rugby League Team in Christchurch (South Island) simply because the Canterbury Crusaders are the most successful Super Rugby Team.
Nick
Roar Guru
Mate, just cause pacific islanders are coming to Auckland doesn't mean there is a demographic shift that would warrant a second team. The existing Auckland team has crowd averages that rank higher than most in the NRL, sure. But it is a one team town in a city of 1.5m. The numbers aren't strong enough to host a second team. You'd cannibalise the Warriors fan base. The Warriors exist in a vacuum in Auckland anyway. Even then, if you've ever been to Auckland, you'd also know full well that 80% of the Warriors fan base are in South Auckland and smatterings of the west of the city. The North Shore and east have never, ever cared about rugby league and never will. Even if they did - they're not going to the game. Do you know just how far away from the North Shore - the fastest growing area of Auckland - is from Mt Smart? So, if you were to put a second team, where would you put it? You can't put another one in the south. You can't possibly put a team in Wellington. Population is too small. Can't put one in Christchurch...the gig is over in that city. Can't put one in Hamilton - too small, plus lacks direct connections to Aus. Secondly, all of the above is still beside the point. You haven't a freaking clue just how dominant rugby is. There coverage of high school rugby games shames Channel 9's coverage of league games. Rugby will always provide the greater opportunities for decent players in NZ.
Sammy
Guest
So it's a stupid suggestion just because you say so ? Can you elaborate and substantiate before writing off the suggestion for another NZ team in the NRL ? Both Australia and New Zealand are experiencing demographic changes, but when you examine those demographic shifts relative to one another it is completely plausible that NZ's Rugby League talent pool will grow at a faster rate than Australia's Rugby League talent pool.
Nick
Roar Guru
For someone who made a crack at people's maths...your suggestions are financially ruinous.
Nick
Roar Guru
People who consistently call for an expansion team in NZ need to go to NZ to realise how stupid that suggestion is.
Nick
Roar Guru
How many players have we lost to Union, early retirement, another sport then there is what we could gain. A tragic over-reactionary comment, Walter. Less than 1% of league players move to union. Early retirement is indicative of players not good enough for NRL standard. Expanding the comp simply to give these players a gig definitely lowers the standard of the comp. How many NRL players have the option of a second sport? Again, probably less than 1%.
Sammy
Guest
Never say never - it is quite possible that Rugby League will eventually become a 12-man game.
Tony
Roar Guru
Then we can play soccer
Succhi
Roar Rookie
I don’t think there is a lack of quality players, I think their is a lack of quality administrators, coaches and business experience. Clubs should be profitable, with an array of local juniors and a competitive second and third tier competition.
Robert Szemeti
Roar Rookie
God everyone here seems to be so shitt at maths, 1995 ARL expanded into a 20 club competition, with the game only rich as $55 million, players filled those teams, as they were announced 2-3 years prior to commencement, superleague mucked up that whole growth period, and since then Rugba Leg has never gotten over that. Expansion in these exact same areas of WA, NZ and 2 more QLD clubs will solidify RL back to its greatness again. The Mercs will come from UK and Rugby if there is a team that needs a 1st grade spot, everyone worries about "enough talent" But Wests has 4 halves, Storm have 3 Hookers, Souths have 6 Wingers, and Penrith have 2 Nrl grade Squads playing at one team, its depth in each club that everyone wants, but you cannot create depth in squads without creating more opportunities or pathways to get there. More clubs, less rounds, is the answer, 19 round season and add a magic round opener as a heritage/rival match up to start at whichever city that pays for it.
Robert Szemeti
Guest
26 rounds, you cannot play yourself Derfred, maths helps when you want to expess an opinion regarding expansion. The league can go to 20 teams easily, more teams, more opportunities for juniors to crack the big time. An extra 2 pathways set up in Nz or Pacifica, and they'll be so many players to choose from, problem is everyone wants a competetive "quality/talented" clubs, but how many competitions in the world have half their teams able to make finals each year, 20 team comp, top 8, makes for a better comp. For me kjey areas in expansion for the next decade are... A rival team based in Auckland, "South Pacific Cyclones" or "North Island Bears". A team in Perth, "West Coast Pirates" And two teams in QLD, "Easts Firehawks" To rival the broncos in brisbane city and another in Redcliffe, that encapsulates the northern Moreton bay region upto Sunshine Coast, "East Coast Dolphins". This happened in 1995 with the ARL introducing 4 new clubs in those areas, north qld, south qld, perth and nz. Had SL not affected the game, probably would have a better comp by now, and be the leading sport in Australia and Pacifica. 20 teams, 19 rounds plus a magic round in brisbane or which ever city pays the highest, as a rivalry/heritage round to kick off the season, play every team once and switch the next year. As it stands 25 round comp is too long, and attrition rate is becoming too high, less games per season become more valuable
Nat
Roar Rookie
Add in the idea that a developing talent is known at 17-18yo. There is some gold sitting in ISP/C.Cup that has taken a few more years to develop but now stuck behind a 'promising' teenager and rarely gets considered again. I don't get to watch much NSW Cup but I could put together a team from Q Cup tat would be higjhly competitive in NRL. Just the 2019 Sunshine Coast Falcons would have been competitive at NRL level.
Nat
Roar Rookie
It's a good point to raise the finiancial considerations. You could argue that one upside of a Sydney centric comp is a lower cost base to produce games from both an NRL and broadcaster aspect. That said, we also differ from the US is the cap and relitively low cost of running an NRL franchise. If the NRL are tipping in (what was) $13.5m per team, just their cost restructure with an estimated $80m saving could fund another club quite easily. Obviously with a bt of due dilligence so the NRL are bailing them back out again in a few years but the financial opportunity is there.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
This issue raises it's head regularly on the Roar. It's always seemed obvious to me that we don't have enough quality players for 16 teams let alone for expansion. Quality is a difficult thing to define but like obscenity , you know it when you see it. There was an article on here the other day by Barry Heath about getting rid of the dead wood from every side . I think Barry named 32 players who really just aren't up to it. Roarers added their opinion and it would have got to maybe 50 players who arent nrl standard. Now I didn't agree with them all but I reckon 40 are playing out of their league. So get rid of them and replace them with who? Add another 64 players for 2 new teams and we need 100 nrl standard players. They don't exist. Now I go to a lot of ISC games and every now and again I see a player I reckon is nrl standard ( like Fogarty from the Titans) but it doesn't happen very often. I have no problem watching lower grade footy. I have done so forever, but don't try to pull the wool over my eyes on its quality.
Nick Symonds
Guest
If there aren't enough quality players for expansion, then the only solution is to reduce the number of players on each team while increasing the number of teams in the competition. The higher rate of scoring will be popular.
chris
Guest
Cant be done. this would stop Jr development teams as the 24 odd teams would have to be totally independent of each other which means you would need over 1000 players at a good standard.
chris
Guest
You cant have a tier system, it wont work as we would need 32 independent teams with no ties to other club. This would stop some club spending money on Jr footy which inturn affects the game in the long run. My idea is fold - 1. 20 teams play each team once per year. You play each team on the same round each year and do a year about home and away with each team I.E. Rooster V Melbourne round 1 each year, first year Melbourne at home next Rooster at home. - 2. Salary cap compassion for JR coming throw and Player who have played more than 10 years at a club. I.E. Hazem El Marsi was a dogs Jr so the Dogs would be able to get 50% off his cap and After 10 years another 50% off so after 10 years the dogs could offer Hazem $1 million per year and only $250,000 would be under the cap. 50% off for Jr $1 million is $500,000 after 10 years another 50% $500,000 is $250,000. - 3. Bring in a new table system where if its a draw after 80 mins both teams get one point, and a winner in golden point that teams get an extra point. so its still 2 points for a win , 1 for a draw and nothing for a lose after 80. the only difference is the winner in golden point get 2 and the loser gets 1
Big Daddy
Guest
Rellum, I think your pretty close to the mark when you say Sydney is the area that is the problem. The big Sydney clubs are strong when their leagues clubs are strong. Canterbury, Roosters and Penrith have thriving leagues clubs although Penrith revenue is high profit is not. Canberra have strong support for their 2 nd tier through Mounties and the rest struggle. Even Parramatta leagues have struggled recently. South's have no leagues club apar t from junior support through South's juniors and Manly , West's and St George aren't what they used to be and Cronulla are reasonably lucky to own their own ground. I think the NRL would like to cut a Sydney team but don't have the knowhow or the gonads to do it. Maybe they are waiting for some one to self destruct.