Doctor
Bench
- Messages
- 3,612
Well, I’ve put off the annual dodgy predictions for the new season for quite some time.
Once again, the Oswin approach is to rank sides based on their first 17 players – it generally gives a fair indication of rough ranking, but is open to discussion and interpretation.
I already disagree with some of the conclusions in my system, but after a while of adding the figures, the rankings (including proportionate gaps in points) are as follows:
1) Roosters
2) Knights
3) Panthers
4) Warriors
5) Broncos
6) Melbourne
7) Parramatta
8) Dragons
9) Canberra
10) Bulldogs
11) Sharks
12) Tigers
13) Cowboys
14) Souths
15) Manly
The difference between the first-placed Roosters and last-placed Manly is significant – the equivalent of two extra players.
My analysis is bound to offend some people who support the clubs towards the bottom – but as I said: it’s open to discussion and criticism. I’m the first to admit I can and will be very wrong by the end of the season.
My brief notes:
The Roosters have a strong team, the same core side as last year. They won’t be far off the top 2.
Interestingly, I ranked every team’s back-up group of players (players 18-25 in each squad) and the Roosters didn’t fair too well. If the Roosters lose key players, especially in their forwards, they have few options to turn to. Barring injury, they are clear favourites.
The Knights haven’t faired to well in recent years under the Oswin system. But their side stands out as one full of representative material. Injuries have played a role, but so has laziness in defence. The good news is that the Knights have sufficient back-up strength in their 25 to cover for much of the usual injuries. Injury will hinder their chances, but won’t relegate them to the bottom eight, even if key players are missing.
The Panthers are near enough to the same level as the Knights, but have better forwards and a great potential to cover for potential injury-woes. They lack quality in their bench, but make up for it with powerhouse forwards, and several big names.
The Warriors compensate for an ordinary squad with extraordinary individuals who can direct the rest of the 17 around the paddock. They are level with the Panthers, but have a consistent balance to the side – decent attacking players capable of rising to brilliance on occassions. Don’t underestimate their forwards.
Few will have the Broncos as high as my little ranking system indicates they may get to. But big names don’t lose their influence, and the Broncos still possess some influential old heads, combined with some noteworthy youngsters. The rest of their 25 is weak though – few recognisable names catch the eye, and such names will inevitably find their way into the starting team when injury and representative-duties kick in. My gut tells me the Broncos are not going to go as high as 5th, but worse predictions have been made before. The Broncos will struggle if their top 17 isn’t consistently on the park, with key individuals playing out of their skin every week. They won’t want to rely on the no-names that make up their unimpressive squad.
Melbourne’s geographical position helps to keep them out of sight, out of mind. But all signs point to another successful season from the Storm, once again dependant on injuries. Not many big names anywhere in their 25, but the ones that are there make the otherwise average players look impressive. The forwards don’t look like matching up with the big teams, and that may be a concern. But if key individuals get on the park this season, Melbourne will worry the vulnerable sides with those annoying intricacies of league: kicking and 70th minute running of the football.
Parramatta are a bit like the Broncos – they’ve been over-rated by the Oswin system. But the stats don’t lie about the balance in the Parramatta side. A lot of good first-graders, without the representative theme flowing through their ranks. This type of side will help them stay out of the limelight, while maintaining a spot on the welcome-mat of the top eight. Only a handful of ordinary fringe-players in their 17, plus sufficient depth in their 25, points to a season spent lingering around the 7-10 positions.
The Dragons are the victims of the Oswin system’s promotion of the Broncos and Parramatta. St George are top 8 material, possibly even top 4. The number eight spot probably doesn’t do them justice, especially given their quality halves. But they are littered with ordinary players, and a vulnerable forward pack that relies too much on key individuals. The Dragons, barring injury, will do well this year, probably even in the top 4 if they’re on song. But many seasons of the Dragon’s inconsistency point towards their ranking in the Oswin system actually being right…..by default.
The Raiders get beaten up by tipsters. They deserve better than 9th place, but they strike me as a team struggling for the reserves to fill in for injuries. The backline is a bit raw, inexperienced and seemingly vulnerable to exposure. This theme continues on into the rest of their 25 – but they possess some heavy-duty forwards and several big names in key positions who can dominate even the best of defences. I’m prepared to concede the Raiders a better positioning than 9th – they will need to prove their youngsters are up to the task though – their depth may be a concern.
The Bulldogs have an inconsistent squad – not in their performance, but in their balance. Some big names, in amongst some no-names, further enhanced by more big names. A pretty average level of depth forces some younger players into first grade prematurely, but their ranking doesn’t take into account the potential for youngsters to suddenly make a mark in first grade. A makeshift forward pack doesn’t help, but they won’t come last - just not first.
The Sharks are level with the Bulldogs. How this is the case I’m not sure. Their forward pack is beefy, but I’m not sure this will be a factor if their fitness or ball-handling isn’t up to task. The depth is worrying, but there are big names inserted throughout the side which tends to enhance their chances. They are not premiership contenders, but you would want to think they wouldn’t come in last - not a big-name forward pack and few big-name bench-players.
The Tigers have the potential to make the top eight their home for the season. I won’t be surprised to see them settle in behind the big name teams, but this is based on individual rankings and not how well the side gels. They’ve made some purchases, some excellent ones in fact. Add this to the rise of a couple of key players, and the great potential for a consistent season, and I can’t help feeling like this may be a good season for the Tigers. But unlike all teams above them in the rankings, they lack key players. In fact they have no high-ranking individuals. They may well prove the critics wrong and succeed, even without any stars – we can only wait and see.
The Cowboys finally have a consistently solid side, the backline especially. Their 17 man squad is much like the Tigers’ – solid, but not star-studded. But two key areas stand out: They have only a handful of capable forwards, and will eventually have to use their no-name forward pack on the bench. Furthermore, there are very few options in the rest of the 25 – the lowest ranking back-up in the competition according to my logic. I can’t see them causing many concerns to the competition’s front-runners.
It was either one or the other. Far behind the Cowboys there loom two other clubs, struggling for different reasons.
Souths, according to the Oswin system, are more likely to avoid the wooden spoon this year. Last year was woeful, even given their off-field problems. But some big names have signed up with the Bunnies, in the hope of this being the defining season for the traditional club. Just a couple of big names means Souths will continue to struggle to match it with the classy teams. But these players will help build a core group of experienced players to assist the youngsters in their quest to make an impact. The forward pack is average, so too the backline. The 25-man squad as a whole doesn’t make for good reading. But you have to start from somewhere – if the Panthers can go from the experts’ relative no-hopers to minor and major premiers in a season then surely Souths can pull off some upsets and aim for a top 8 position this season.
Manly have never recovered from the end of the glory years in 1997. Their side was running on old legs back then, and despite the merger and the odd Cliffy Lyon’s comeback attempt, they’ve never recovered. The side is saturated in reserve-grade players, all keen as mustard to perform, but clearly not ready to gel as a first grade team. Only one big name, and even he is getting on in years and incapable of saving a sinking ship. All of the stats point to an ordinary season. A lowly-ranked pack of forwards, solid backs but lacking in depth. Who would have thought that 7-8 years after Manly’s 97 Grand Final loss, we’d still be feeling sorry for them. Dare I say I hope they do better this year?
Once again, the Oswin approach is to rank sides based on their first 17 players – it generally gives a fair indication of rough ranking, but is open to discussion and interpretation.
I already disagree with some of the conclusions in my system, but after a while of adding the figures, the rankings (including proportionate gaps in points) are as follows:
1) Roosters
2) Knights
3) Panthers
4) Warriors
5) Broncos
6) Melbourne
7) Parramatta
8) Dragons
9) Canberra
10) Bulldogs
11) Sharks
12) Tigers
13) Cowboys
14) Souths
15) Manly
The difference between the first-placed Roosters and last-placed Manly is significant – the equivalent of two extra players.
My analysis is bound to offend some people who support the clubs towards the bottom – but as I said: it’s open to discussion and criticism. I’m the first to admit I can and will be very wrong by the end of the season.
My brief notes:
The Roosters have a strong team, the same core side as last year. They won’t be far off the top 2.
Interestingly, I ranked every team’s back-up group of players (players 18-25 in each squad) and the Roosters didn’t fair too well. If the Roosters lose key players, especially in their forwards, they have few options to turn to. Barring injury, they are clear favourites.
The Knights haven’t faired to well in recent years under the Oswin system. But their side stands out as one full of representative material. Injuries have played a role, but so has laziness in defence. The good news is that the Knights have sufficient back-up strength in their 25 to cover for much of the usual injuries. Injury will hinder their chances, but won’t relegate them to the bottom eight, even if key players are missing.
The Panthers are near enough to the same level as the Knights, but have better forwards and a great potential to cover for potential injury-woes. They lack quality in their bench, but make up for it with powerhouse forwards, and several big names.
The Warriors compensate for an ordinary squad with extraordinary individuals who can direct the rest of the 17 around the paddock. They are level with the Panthers, but have a consistent balance to the side – decent attacking players capable of rising to brilliance on occassions. Don’t underestimate their forwards.
Few will have the Broncos as high as my little ranking system indicates they may get to. But big names don’t lose their influence, and the Broncos still possess some influential old heads, combined with some noteworthy youngsters. The rest of their 25 is weak though – few recognisable names catch the eye, and such names will inevitably find their way into the starting team when injury and representative-duties kick in. My gut tells me the Broncos are not going to go as high as 5th, but worse predictions have been made before. The Broncos will struggle if their top 17 isn’t consistently on the park, with key individuals playing out of their skin every week. They won’t want to rely on the no-names that make up their unimpressive squad.
Melbourne’s geographical position helps to keep them out of sight, out of mind. But all signs point to another successful season from the Storm, once again dependant on injuries. Not many big names anywhere in their 25, but the ones that are there make the otherwise average players look impressive. The forwards don’t look like matching up with the big teams, and that may be a concern. But if key individuals get on the park this season, Melbourne will worry the vulnerable sides with those annoying intricacies of league: kicking and 70th minute running of the football.
Parramatta are a bit like the Broncos – they’ve been over-rated by the Oswin system. But the stats don’t lie about the balance in the Parramatta side. A lot of good first-graders, without the representative theme flowing through their ranks. This type of side will help them stay out of the limelight, while maintaining a spot on the welcome-mat of the top eight. Only a handful of ordinary fringe-players in their 17, plus sufficient depth in their 25, points to a season spent lingering around the 7-10 positions.
The Dragons are the victims of the Oswin system’s promotion of the Broncos and Parramatta. St George are top 8 material, possibly even top 4. The number eight spot probably doesn’t do them justice, especially given their quality halves. But they are littered with ordinary players, and a vulnerable forward pack that relies too much on key individuals. The Dragons, barring injury, will do well this year, probably even in the top 4 if they’re on song. But many seasons of the Dragon’s inconsistency point towards their ranking in the Oswin system actually being right…..by default.
The Raiders get beaten up by tipsters. They deserve better than 9th place, but they strike me as a team struggling for the reserves to fill in for injuries. The backline is a bit raw, inexperienced and seemingly vulnerable to exposure. This theme continues on into the rest of their 25 – but they possess some heavy-duty forwards and several big names in key positions who can dominate even the best of defences. I’m prepared to concede the Raiders a better positioning than 9th – they will need to prove their youngsters are up to the task though – their depth may be a concern.
The Bulldogs have an inconsistent squad – not in their performance, but in their balance. Some big names, in amongst some no-names, further enhanced by more big names. A pretty average level of depth forces some younger players into first grade prematurely, but their ranking doesn’t take into account the potential for youngsters to suddenly make a mark in first grade. A makeshift forward pack doesn’t help, but they won’t come last - just not first.
The Sharks are level with the Bulldogs. How this is the case I’m not sure. Their forward pack is beefy, but I’m not sure this will be a factor if their fitness or ball-handling isn’t up to task. The depth is worrying, but there are big names inserted throughout the side which tends to enhance their chances. They are not premiership contenders, but you would want to think they wouldn’t come in last - not a big-name forward pack and few big-name bench-players.
The Tigers have the potential to make the top eight their home for the season. I won’t be surprised to see them settle in behind the big name teams, but this is based on individual rankings and not how well the side gels. They’ve made some purchases, some excellent ones in fact. Add this to the rise of a couple of key players, and the great potential for a consistent season, and I can’t help feeling like this may be a good season for the Tigers. But unlike all teams above them in the rankings, they lack key players. In fact they have no high-ranking individuals. They may well prove the critics wrong and succeed, even without any stars – we can only wait and see.
The Cowboys finally have a consistently solid side, the backline especially. Their 17 man squad is much like the Tigers’ – solid, but not star-studded. But two key areas stand out: They have only a handful of capable forwards, and will eventually have to use their no-name forward pack on the bench. Furthermore, there are very few options in the rest of the 25 – the lowest ranking back-up in the competition according to my logic. I can’t see them causing many concerns to the competition’s front-runners.
It was either one or the other. Far behind the Cowboys there loom two other clubs, struggling for different reasons.
Souths, according to the Oswin system, are more likely to avoid the wooden spoon this year. Last year was woeful, even given their off-field problems. But some big names have signed up with the Bunnies, in the hope of this being the defining season for the traditional club. Just a couple of big names means Souths will continue to struggle to match it with the classy teams. But these players will help build a core group of experienced players to assist the youngsters in their quest to make an impact. The forward pack is average, so too the backline. The 25-man squad as a whole doesn’t make for good reading. But you have to start from somewhere – if the Panthers can go from the experts’ relative no-hopers to minor and major premiers in a season then surely Souths can pull off some upsets and aim for a top 8 position this season.
Manly have never recovered from the end of the glory years in 1997. Their side was running on old legs back then, and despite the merger and the odd Cliffy Lyon’s comeback attempt, they’ve never recovered. The side is saturated in reserve-grade players, all keen as mustard to perform, but clearly not ready to gel as a first grade team. Only one big name, and even he is getting on in years and incapable of saving a sinking ship. All of the stats point to an ordinary season. A lowly-ranked pack of forwards, solid backs but lacking in depth. Who would have thought that 7-8 years after Manly’s 97 Grand Final loss, we’d still be feeling sorry for them. Dare I say I hope they do better this year?
See below for my ladder.
