Does expansion affect the closeness of the competition?

[Pumpkin]

The question here is how do you define “quality” of a match?

Closeness of the game? Entertainment for the crowd? Physical power of the athletes?

Which one are we losing?

I define it by the skill level of the players.

It's a very simple concept. If you have 26 high level players and you form 2 teams out of them, you will see a high quality game. Then, it's decided to create 20 teams. Now those 26 players have to be spread out over all those teams, and the numbers made up by mediocre players, resulting in lower quality games.

The question is, are there enough high level players to accommodate expansion, and I'd say no. The games only really played in nsw, Qld and NZ. Melbourne has had a team for decades, and to my knowledge, there's never been a Victorian player in the team.

The participation rate is never going to go up when people like Phil Gould and Andrew John's are complaining about rules being enforced. People just switch off their tvs or change channel.

 

[Pumpkin]

There is plenty of talent to fill 20 teams. Poor roster management does not equal a shortage of talent.

Even so you could easily argue a low quality Rugby League match is still very entertaining - the Dragons Tigers match in Magic Round is a good example of this.

This is something you can't say about AFL. A low quality match is an absolute dogs breakfast. Heck most times I can't even tell the difference between a 'good' match and a terrible one.

I can't comment on AFL but if you find a Dragons Tigers match entertaining then good luck to you.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

The question is, are there enough high level players to accommodate expansion, and I'd say no. The games only really played in nsw, Qld and NZ.

England... PNG.. Pacific Islands. There is plenty of talent around if the NRL was serious about developing it.

Melbourne has had a team for decades, and to my knowledge, there's never been a Victorian player in the team.

Wrong. Although I think we should be aiming for more

I can't comment on AFL but if you find a Dragons Tigers match entertaining then good luck to you.

You didn't even watch the game did you?

 

[Colk]

Usually one of the biggest arguments against expansion is what happened to the quality of the competition between 95 - 98 where I think most can agree that there were some very weak teams and players who were either too young or too old for the premier competition.

That window, and the years leading up to it saw some ridiculous expansion in a very short window, with the Knights, Seagulls and Broncos added in 88, Cowboys, Warriors, Reds and Crushers in 95 and then Rams, Mariners in 97. Adding 9 teams in just 10 seasons would always dilute the player base.

Taking out that window most of the other times expansion has occurred it has had a minimal impact on the overall competition. When the Titans joined in 07, the competition was very similar to what was seen in 06, with the Storm still dominating, however there were actually more teams in the running for the top 8 coming into the final round.

Even Souths re-joining back in 02, didn't drastically change things for the competition overall, even though they were arguably an 'easy beat'

Exactly. The argument isn’t that we shouldn’t expand, the argument really is don’t expand too quickly.

 

[Colk]

There is plenty of talent to fill 20 teams. Poor roster management does not equal a shortage of talent.

Even so you could easily argue a low quality Rugby League match is still very entertaining - the Dragons Tigers match in Magic Round is a good example of this.

This is something you can't say about AFL. A low quality match is an absolute dogs breakfast. Heck most times I can't even tell the difference between a 'good' match and a terrible one.

I think the obstacle against 20 teams wouldn’t be finding enough forwards or three quarters, it is finding spine players.

 

[Canard]

Just some interesting statistics to mull over.

The top 7 teams are within 2 points of each other. 1 win or loss and (based on other teams results) they can end up anywhere from 1st to 10th. There are 13 teams within 1 win of the Top 8 and 15 teams within 2. That's a close competition.

But also consider this: there are 10 points - 5 wins - separating 1st and 17th.

Now go back to 2000 & 2001 when the NRL was a 14 team competition. This is the kind of competition that anti-expansionists would like to have and would argue was more competitive. But was it?

Round 11 2001: 12 points - 6 wins - between 1st and 14th.
Round 11 2000: 14 points - 7 wins - between 1st and 14th.

So the margin between 1st and 17th in 2023 (5 wins) is actually smaller than what it was between 1st & 14th (6 & 7 wins) during the 14-team competition.

I'd argue that expansion has not seriously impacted the closeness of the competition. We're closer today to the 'any given Sunday' concept than what we were under the 14 team competition.

Have you factored in byes?

 

[yakstorm]

Melbourne has had a team for decades, and to my knowledge, there's never been a Victorian player in the team.

There have been a few, not as many as anyone would like, but they exist.

Dean Ieremia (Casey), Richard Kennar (Northern Thunder), Young Tonumaipea (Northern Thunder), Denny Solomona (Waverley), Mahe Fonua (Hallam) and Jeremy Smith (Altona) are some.

You then have the likes of Kenny Bromwich (Hallam) and Gareth Widdop (Altona) who started their RL careers elsewhere but did play in the VRL system.

You then have the likes of Fonua Pole for Wests Tigers (Sunbury), Kelma Tuilagi for Manly (Casey), Gregory Marzhew for Newcastle (North West), Jamayne Taunoa-Brown for the Cowboys (Altona) who are playing now and are from the NRL Victoria system and hey even Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad played for Altona.

 

[mongoose]

I don't think anyone has said expansion will result in a lopsided competition. The argument against expansion or expanding too fast is that the talent is diluted too much across all teams. It's very difficult to prove that though - is a good quality game just a close game? I wouldn't think so.

I'm not against 20 teams but it has to be done gradually, in 1995 we expanded far too quickly and it was a very uneven comp for a few years. Manly, Broncos, Raiders, Knights, Roosters, Eels, Dogs were miles ahead of the bottom teams over that 95-99 period.

 

[Éamonn an Chnoic]

I define it by the skill level of the players.

It's a very simple concept. If you have 26 high level players and you form 2 teams out of them, you will see a high quality game. Then, it's decided to create 20 teams. Now those 26 players have to be spread out over all those teams, and the numbers made up by mediocre players, resulting in lower quality games.

The question is, are there enough high level players to accommodate expansion, and I'd say no. The games only really played in nsw, Qld and NZ. Melbourne has had a team for decades, and to my knowledge, there's never been a Victorian player in the team.

Well we know for certain that there is not a set number of quality players. The nature of aging means we have to keep developing young players.

so if the answer is pathways, opportunities and money to keep the beat athleles, I would imagine more clubs would result in more quality players (obviously expanded over time)

The participation rate is never going to go up when people like Phil Gould and Andrew John's are complaining about rules being enforced. People just switch off their tvs or change channel.

Different debate, but i 100% agree that they are unwatchable

i havent watched a C9 game with the sound on since 2012

 

[Éamonn an Chnoic]

I don't think anyone has said expansion will result in a lopsided competition. The argument against expansion or expanding too fast is that the talent is diluted too much across all teams. It's very difficult to prove that though - is a good quality game just a close game? I wouldn't think so.

I'm not against 20 teams but it has to be done gradually, in 1995 we expanded far too quickly and it was a very uneven comp for a few years. Manly, Broncos, Raiders, Knights, Roosters, Eels, Dogs were miles ahead of the bottom teams over that 95-99 period.

Yep, the more I learn about RL in the 90s, the more I am convinced that Arko and Quayle were f*cking morons…

 

[Diesel]

I agree. My argument would be that culling teams will do nothing to help the closeness of the competition. What's actually important is having the right set of rules.

Super rugby cut teams and everyone is sick of seeing the same teams over and over again. I’m not sure if games are close or not

 

[Billythekid]

I define it by the skill level of the players.

It's a very simple concept. If you have 26 high level players and you form 2 teams out of them, you will see a high quality game. Then, it's decided to create 20 teams. Now those 26 players have to be spread out over all those teams, and the numbers made up by mediocre players, resulting in lower quality games.

This assumes that there is a set number of skilled players and that we’ve already found them all. Adding teams also adds new pathways and gives more opportunities for players to make a name for themselves. Would all of the dolphins players who have stepped up this year have gotten that chance if no new club came in?

Also it’s not just about developing players from a certain region. We haven’t had a lot of players come from Victoria sure but it does give the opportunity for players to play and live in Melbourne which is one often considered one of the most desirable places in the world. It also adds more opportunities and money into the game which makes more people want to give it a crack.

It’s not as simple as assuming there are X number of good players to spread amongst the comp.

 

[docbrown]

Have you factored in byes?

Yes I considered the impacted of byes. Team 1 & 2 would be unchanged. Teams 3 to 8 would all be tied 1 win lower. Teams 9 to 11 would be 1 win outside the Top 8. Teams 12 & 13 would 3 points outside. Teams 14 & 15 would be 2 wins outside. So the margin between 1st & 15th would be the same.

 

[Canard]

Yes I considered the impacted of byes. Team 1 & 2 would be unchanged. Teams 3 to 8 would all be tied 1 win lower. Teams 9 to 11 would be 1 win outside the Top 8. Teams 12 & 13 would 3 points outside. Teams 14 & 15 would be 2 wins outside. So the margin between 1st & 15th would be the same.

And do you think its a very scientific assessment to make by Round 12?

 

[Pumpkin]

Wrong. Although I think we should be aiming for more

I actually made a true statement when I said " to my knowledge, there's never been a Victorian player in the team ". I never said there weren't any.

 

[docbrown]

And do you think its a very scientific assessment to make by Round 12?

Those are what they byes are.

 

[Vibing]

I actually made a true statement when I said " to my knowledge, there's never been a Victorian player in the team ". I never said there weren't any.

so,
your knowledge isn't very good then ?

 

[Pumpkin]

so,
your knowledge isn't very good then ?

You're the kind of person who would see an alien spacecraft land on the earth and would only be concerned about the tree it damaged on the way down. Focus on the crux of the matter. Has rugby league taken off in Victoria? No it hasn't. Will it take off in SA or WA? No it won't. Why? Because they are mildly interested in a game called AFL and can't understand a game where referees change their mind on the enforcement of the rules on a week to week and player to player basis.

 

[Pjf04b]

It happens in AFL as well!

 

[Vibing]

You're the kind of person who would see an alien spacecraft land on the earth and would only be concerned about the tree it damaged on the way down. Focus on the crux of the matter. Has rugby league taken off in Victoria? No it hasn't. Will it take off in SA or WA? No it won't. Why? Because they are mildly interested in a game called AFL and can't understand a game where referees change their mind on the enforcement of the rules on a week to week and player to player basis.

You're the kind of person who .... doesnt know anything