NRL's growth mindset points to 18th team. And it ain't Perth.

[MugaB]

How can you prove the standard is down though? A lot of so called experts say this (Andrew Johns) but never actually have any proof or reasoning. I think 2005 was the most even competition we've seen and also 2018 there was only 2 points separating the top 8 teams. These types of season aren't the norm and just because it's an even comp doesn't mean the teams are of a higher standard. I've seen Raiders teams that have less talent than this current one make the top 8 and this current side are not in the top 8.

I don't really know the grassroots situation but if League is dying in the country and other areas I don't think it's affected the quality of players coming through the NRL, not yet anyway...

Its just bad roster management, there's plenty of talent juniors, you only have to look at penrith, wests magpies and wests tigers in lower grades all killing it at junior level, even norths bears are doing well.
If you could get the clubs to all have good management at the front office, there would be a whole even keel of talent spread out, good coaches = talented players en masse for unders, good scouts identifying talent for interstate teams that struggle for a junior base... Melbourne are the best at this

 

[TheRam]

Can anybody prove top teams dominating means there's a depth problem?! Seems like distribution of talent a bigger factor. Could say same for NBA another league with cap

So what you are saying is that the top teams are hoarding 2 and 3 NRL standard teams while the other 10-12 teams are struggling to put 1 good team together.

Look all the top 4 or 5 teams have roughly 17-20 top quality to standard NRL players in their rosters. After that the quality starts to diminish quite alarmingly to journeymen that are barely capable of playing NRL anymore or juniors that are still learning and not ready yet, if ever, but are showing promise. The Roosters for example who have probably got the best depth are really lucky that they pulled a rabbit out of their feathery arse and young Walker has stood up as a future superstar in the making.

But how many teams could handle more then 3-4 major injuries before they fade into non contenders? As it stands virtually none. Some can't even handle that. So hardly says that the top teams are hoarding all the best players beyond what should be a normal roster for all team if the depth standard was broader/larger.

Just because there are lower grade teams at different club that are doing really well doesn't mean that those juniors will make it in the NRL or that if an NRL team grabbed them now and shoved them in their NRL team that they would be NRL standard ffs.

All it means is that as has been the previous behaviour of the better run 5 or 6 clubs at present, they will end up luring them to their roster when that crop of young players are ready or show enough potential to take a punt on and continue their clubs success and dominance. If a lower standard club gets its sh*t together, then it will keep its quality lower grade players and add to them from outside and become a force also. But what that means is that one or two of the current top teams will struggle to replenish its roster depending on its player cycle and then go into the struggling group of teams.

It's like musical chairs. There aren't enough plush chairs for all 16 clubs to sit on. There are maybe 5 or 6 at present. The rest of the clubs only have a large splintery bench to sit on and wait their turn. Some don't even get to sit on the bench and make the grass their home.

The NRL doesn't have enough high quality players coming through anymore to fill 10-14 high NRL standard rosters. It did back in the 90's and early 2000's because we had a better system of junior CLUB development. Now the clubs have abandoned it and the proof, without the wrestle in the game, is there for all to see.

The AFL has and is moving into areas that were once RL heartland areas and we have done nothing about that so we have made it a perfect storm for the game to start to shrink its player pool over the next 10-20 years. Good stuff clubs, State Leagues and ARLC. With organisations like them who needs enemies?

 

[TheRam]

Its just bad roster management, there's plenty of talent juniors, you only have to look at penrith, wests magpies and wests tigers in lower grades all killing it at junior level, even norths bears are doing well.
If you could get the clubs to all have good management at the front office, there would be a whole even keel of talent spread out, good coaches = talented players en masse for unders, good scouts identifying talent for interstate teams that struggle for a junior base... Melbourne are the best at this

Read my post above.

 

[mongoose]

The NRL doesn't have enough high quality players coming through anymore to fill 10-14 high NRL standard rosters. It did back in the 90's and early 2000's because we had a better system of junior CLUB development. Now the clubs have abandoned it and the proof, without the wrestle in the game, is there for all to see.

The bottom table teams in the late 90s and early 2000s were terrible, utterly terrible. It was a 20 team comp for a few years but the top few teams in that era regularly racked up +300 differential. Maybe there isn't enough talent to go around but I reckon the current NRL could handle 20 teams better than the comp in the mid 90s.

 

[Perth Red]

So what you are saying is that the top teams are hoarding 2 and 3 NRL standard teams while the other 10-12 teams are struggling to put 1 good team together.

Look all the top 4 or 5 teams have roughly 17-20 top quality to standard NRL players in their rosters. After that the quality starts to diminish quite alarmingly to journeymen that are barely capable of playing NRL anymore or juniors that are still learning and not ready yet, if ever, but are showing promise. The Roosters for example who have probably got the best depth are really lucky that they pulled a rabbit out of their feathery arse and young Walker has stood up as a future superstar in the making.

But how many teams could handle more then 3-4 major injuries before they fade into non contenders? As it stands virtually none. Some can't even handle that. So hardly says that the top teams are hoarding all the best players beyond what should be a normal roster for all team if the depth standard was broader/larger.

Isnt that the same in all sports though? I mean if you took the top ten sprinters out of the olympics I'd imagine the next ten wouldnt be close to their standard? And thats only ten people out of a million who are sprint athletes in the world. The very top cream will always be a ultra thin lair, then the fat cream then the milk. Same as any sport really. If all the top teams lost 2-3 of their best then we would have a very even competition! Maybe exansion would bring that evening as the marquee money would be more available with extra clubs so the top 3-4 players goes down to 2-3 each club?

I've yet to see any science that says if you have X number of juniors playing the game you will end up with X number of star players. Probably because it is as much about elite quality pathways with coaching and nutrition and psychology etc as it is about a numbers game?

The best example I can think of that proves this is the Olympics. When a country wins hosting rights they pump loads of money into athlete development in the 8 years leading up to their games. They arent getting more people playing those sports, they are giving the best the best to succeed. Low and behold the host nations breaks its medal record tally. Funding goes back to normal afterwards and so does medal tally at next Olympics. This is a clear example of improved elite pathways being the answer, not more participants

 

[TheRam]

The bottom table teams in the late 90s and early 2000s were terrible, utterly terrible. It was a 20 team comp for a few years but the top few teams in that era regularly racked up +300 differential. Maybe there isn't enough talent to go around but I reckon the current NRL could handle 20 teams better than the comp in the mid 90s.

Sorry, I meant before we went to 20 and after we went down to 14 again. When we went to 20 teams I agree, the standard was terrible. Same thing is happening now and will only get worse, especially if we expand up again without fixing the development side of things properly once and for all.

 

[Perth Red]

Sorry, I meant before we went to 20 and after we went down to 14 again. When we went to 20 teams I agree, the standard was terrible. Same thing is happening now and will only get worse, especially if we expand up again without fixing the development side of things properly once and for all.

Problem is we have a large number of variables this past two seasons so its not really possible to judge if development is an issue or not. Covid, no reserves, massive rule changes, clubs not playing at home, major head coach changes etc all are variables on the comp this last two years. You cant definitively say the bigger gap is solely due to lack of talent coming through. Seems to me the good teams had adapted best, the worse teams havent. Is that a development problem or just poorly run clubs?

 

[TheRam]

Problem is we have a large number of variables this past two seasons so its not really possible to judge if development is an issue or not. Covid, no reserves, massive rule changes, clubs not playing at home, major head coach changes etc all are variables on the comp this last two years. You cant definitively say the bigger gap is solely due to lack of talent coming through. Seems to me the good teams had adapted best, the worse teams havent. Is that a development problem or just poorly run clubs?

Mate that is a whole lot of excuses for teams that have very ordinary rosters. Quality is quality. Even the worst teams have a few quality players, but the problem is they don't have many and therefore can't sustain pressure and fade away.

The bush has been an issue for decades and the AFL has seen an opportunity to pounce. Our RL east coast cities are also being infiltrated by them through schools, clubs and councils that see the easy money that the AFL gives them to irresistible. There are areas that the AFL has 20 to 1 development officers to the NRL's. They are constantly focussing on the mums and the kiddies. They promote and market constantly and way better then the NRL does. They have slowly created a legitimate alternative brand within the NRL States that now has history and is part of our culture whether we like it or not. And on it goes.

Only a fool would deny that if the NRL doesn't address this in a serious(money and thought out focused long term plan) over the next couple of decades they will have basically usurped the NRL and will start to dominate in all the areas that were once ours. The next generation will definitely NOT have any allegiance to RL and will be prone to follow and play what looks cool, the chicks dig and even play and follow, the mums want their kiddies to play and follow, has the best game atmosphere and marketing and power through money and opportunities through association and so on.

The NRL is way behind in all of these things in so many regions already and I am sure that the AFL has a large map of Australia somewhere at their downtown headquarters in a strategy battle room with AFL and NRL pins all over it and every so often replaces an NRL pin for a AFL pin.

If we had a similar room, a doubtful notion, it would still look the same as it always did. Clueless.

I know that that last sentence is hyperbole, but you get my drift.

 

[mongoose]

Mate that is a whole lot of excuses for teams that have very ordinary rosters. Quality is quality. Even the worst teams have a few quality players, but the problem is they don't have many and therefore can't sustain pressure and fade away.

The bush has been an issue for decades and the AFL has seen an opportunity to pounce. Our RL east coast cities are also being infiltrated by them through schools, clubs and councils that see the easy money that the AFL gives them to irresistible. There are areas that the AFL has 20 to 1 development officers to the NRL's. They are constantly focussing on the mums and the kiddies. They promote and market constantly and way better then the NRL does. They have slowly created a legitimate alternative brand within the NRL States that now has history and is part of our culture whether we like it or not. And on it goes.

Only a fool would deny that if the NRL doesn't address this in a serious(money and thought out focused long term plan) over the next couple of decades they will have basically usurped the NRL and will start to dominate in all the areas that were once ours. The next generation will definitely NOT have any allegiance to RL and will be prone to follow and play what looks cool, the chicks dig and even play and follow, the mums want their kiddies to play and follow, has the best game atmosphere and marketing and power through money and opportunities through association and so on.

The NRL is way behind in all of these things in so many regions already and I am sure that the AFL has a large map of Australia somewhere at their downtown headquarters in a strategy battle room with AFL and NRL pins all over it and every so often replaces an NRL pin for a AFL pin.

If we had a similar room, a doubtful notion, it would still look the same as it always did. Clueless.

I know that that last sentence is hyperbole, but you get my drift.

You still have no proof that the quality is down and rosters have less talent than ever before, all your have put forth is that its your opinion. Perth Red made a thread about depth with a team of quality players who are either not in the NRL currently or not in the starting 13 at their club. You have not shown any evidence backing up your point of view, except "AFL is taking over"

 

[TheRam]

You still have no proof that the quality is down and rosters have less talent than ever before, all your have put forth is that its your opinion. Perth Red made a thread about depth with a team of quality players who are either not in the NRL currently or not in the starting 13 at their club. You have not shown any evidence backing up your point of view, except "AFL is taking over"

Cool Mr Magoo.

 

[Hartwood]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/leagu...r-second-kiwi-nrl-licence-based-in-wellington

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/leagu...r-second-kiwi-nrl-licence-based-in-wellington

I like it. We could end up having two marine mammals as mascots if Dolphins are also accepted.

 

[Foreign Legion]

 

[cumbrian Mackem]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/leagu...r-second-kiwi-nrl-licence-based-in-wellington

No....no....no....no....no....no....no....no...no...no...no!!!

Did I say no.

either base it in wellington or base it in Christchurch but not both. You can’t have a team that’s trying to represent such a large area of New Zealand like the southern part of the north island and the entire South Island.

 

[cumbrian Mackem]

Horrible jersey!!!

 

[Rugged Rigid Robust Roy]

Most of the NRL executive want the game played exclusively in Sydney

 

[cumbrian Mackem]

There’s never been a better time for the NRL to expand into New Zealand with a 2nd franchise especially with the NZRU domestic scene in such a state of flux.

With the South African teams gone from the super rugby competition and the continuing decline of the Aussie super rugby sides this could lead to RU fans in NZ becoming bored and uninterested in the Aotearoa super rugby competition which only has 5 teams.

Also add to this the selling off of a large part of the game to a US private equity firm which could see the game in NZ become even more Allblacks centric leaving a huge hole in the market for the NRL to take advantage of.

 

[Rugged Rigid Robust Roy]

That's it! Rugby League should kick the All Blacks out of New Zealand.

 

[Perth Red]

There’s never been a better time for the NRL to expand into New Zealand with a 2nd franchise especially with the NZRU domestic scene in such a state of flux.

With the South African teams gone from the super rugby competition and the continuing decline of the Aussie super rugby sides this could lead to RU fans in NZ becoming bored and uninterested in the Aotearoa super rugby competition which only has 5 teams.

Also add to this the selling off of a large part of the game to a US private equity firm which could see the game in NZ become even more Allblacks centric leaving a huge hole in the market for the NRL to take advantage of.

You sure? It seems the move away from an international Super comp has done wonders for NZ crowds this year and the NZRU are about to get a NZ$387million war chest from selling a stake in the game to US investors. A chunk of that will flow through the game to the provinces. You really think the NRL can compete?

 

[flippikat]

You sure? It seems the move away from an international Super comp has done wonders for NZ crowds this year and the NZRU are about to get a NZ$387million war chest from selling a stake in the game to US investors. A chunk of that will flow through the game to the provinces. You really think the NRL can compete?

Precisely.

Plus, if NZ Rugby got smart about All Blacks eligibility & allowed NZ players to play for Australian Super Rugby teams and still qualify for the All Blacks.. then that would pretty quickly bring the Aus teams up in quality, and make the competition very interesting.