The player pool depth debate

[titoelcolombiano]

Where does everyone think we are realistically at right now with our player depth? It seems that we always seem to have one team without a hope in the world of winning many games. Currently that is the Gold Coast a few years back it was Newcastle. Does this show that as it stands right now we have enough top line talent for 15 team? With the 16th team (whoever happens to be the poorest at recruiting in any era) being left out in the cold?

I know @T-Boon gets a lot of flack for his out-of-the-box ideas but would reducing the number of players on a RL team from 13 to 12 or 11 help two fold?:

1. Boosts the depth of all clubs / leagues (albeit this is a short term until the market adjusts)
2. Opens up more space and stretches defenses in a game that has become increasingly dominated by defense and wrestling.

 

[MrE_Assassin]

Where does everyone think we are realistically at right now with our player depth? It seems that we always seem to have one team without a hope in the world of winning many games. Currently that is the Gold Coast a few years back it was Newcastle. Does this show that as it stands right now we have enough top line talent for 15 team? With the 16th team (whoever happens to be the poorest at recruiting in any era) being left out in the cold?

I know @T-Boon gets a lot of flack for his out-of-the-box ideas but would reducing the number of players on a RL team from 13 to 12 or 11 help two fold?:

1. Boosts the depth of all clubs / leagues (albeit this is a short term until the market adjusts)
2. Opens up more space and stretches defenses in a game that has become increasingly dominated by defense and wrestling.

TBH, No I don't think this would fix anything. At the end of the day someone has to come last and it's usually the teams that have recruited poorly or have coaching/off-field issues. If you look at teams like the Roosters or Manly who have been plagued with injuries and suspensions through the year yet have had incredible success with their 2nd tier and debut players filling in.

Some teams are only in the bottom 8 because they have lost by narrow margins which shows the talent and tightness of the competition is at a good level. So many games this year have been unpredictable because anyone can win on the day.

I don't think dropping a player or 2 from each side on the pitch is going to improve the quality of play or fairness because the clubs will probably still be required to hold 30-man playing rosters for the top flight.

 

[mongoose]

I think it's simplistic to blame poor performances and lack of form on player depth.

You have to know what standard you are expecting from a team and each position in that team and then compare it to previous era's. But how do you even measure that?
The 15th and 16th place teams have Ben Hunt and Ash Taylor as their halfbacks, tell me who the halfbacks were for the teams that finished 15th and 16th in 1994 and i would be shocked if they have even a quarter of the talent Hunt or Taylor possess.

 

[Walter sobchak]

Where does everyone think we are realistically at right now with our player depth? It seems that we always seem to have one team without a hope in the world of winning many games. Currently that is the Gold Coast a few years back it was Newcastle. Does this show that as it stands right now we have enough top line talent for 15 team? With the 16th team (whoever happens to be the poorest at recruiting in any era) being left out in the cold?

I know @T-Boon gets a lot of flack for his out-of-the-box ideas but would reducing the number of players on a RL team from 13 to 12 or 11 help two fold?:

1. Boosts the depth of all clubs / leagues (albeit this is a short term until the market adjusts)
2. Opens up more space and stretches defenses in a game that has become increasingly dominated by defense and wrestling.

No to cutting teams and a huge no to reducing the number of players.

If you where to go around various European football(soccer) leagues you’d see more than 1 team struggling in say the premiership, bundesliga, serie A and La Liga etc.

My team Sunderland struggled for years just and so avoiding relegation before eventually the inevitable happened.

In my opinion the NRL needs to grow the grassroots game more in Perth, Victoria and Adelaide. Also more should be done to arrest the decline of RL in places like wellington and Christchurch in NZ.

There’s also a huge untapped talent pool in PNG and Fiji. Not to mention how NRL clubs could raid Fiji, Samoa and Tonga RU more, especially Fiji at both u20’s level and 7’s level. More attention could be turned to the union schoolboy talent in NZ too which has lots of players too.

 

[Stallion]

Where does everyone think we are realistically at right now with our player depth? It seems that we always seem to have one team without a hope in the world of winning many games. Currently that is the Gold Coast a few years back it was Newcastle. Does this show that as it stands right now we have enough top line talent for 15 team? With the 16th team (whoever happens to be the poorest at recruiting in any era) being left out in the cold?

I know @T-Boon gets a lot of flack for his out-of-the-box ideas but would reducing the number of players on a RL team from 13 to 12 or 11 help two fold?:

1. Boosts the depth of all clubs / leagues (albeit this is a short term until the market adjusts)
2. Opens up more space and stretches defenses in a game that has become increasingly dominated by defense and wrestling.

NO! You clearly haven't played!

 

[mongoose]

I think it's simplistic to blame poor performances and lack of form on player depth.

You have to know what standard you are expecting from a team and each position in that team and then compare it to previous era's. But how do you even measure that?
The 15th and 16th place teams have Ben Hunt and Ash Taylor as their halfbacks, tell me who the halfbacks were for the teams that finished 15th and 16th in 1994 and i would be shocked if they have even a quarter of the talent Hunt or Taylor possess.

Actually had a look
15. Gold Coast Seagulls - HB Craig Coleman
16. Balmain Tigers - HB Nathan Wood

Coleman was a good player, probably past his best by 94 though
Don't remember Nathan Wood

 

[greenBV4]

Where does everyone think we are realistically at right now with our player depth? It seems that we always seem to have one team without a hope in the world of winning many games. Currently that is the Gold Coast a few years back it was Newcastle. Does this show that as it stands right now we have enough top line talent for 15 team? With the 16th team (whoever happens to be the poorest at recruiting in any era) being left out in the cold?

I know @T-Boon gets a lot of flack for his out-of-the-box ideas but would reducing the number of players on a RL team from 13 to 12 or 11 help two fold?:

1. Boosts the depth of all clubs / leagues (albeit this is a short term until the market adjusts)
2. Opens up more space and stretches defenses in a game that has become increasingly dominated by defense and wrestling.

Titans roster isn't that bad though, they are just a basket case in many departments, and the Dogs were written off but then went on a spree, Dragons also don't have a bad roster, same as Cowboys, and thats your bottom teams.

There's definitely enough player talent for 16 teams, personally I think there's enough for 18 looking at some clubs reserve players, plus opening up new pathways in places like Perth, (20 would be too much at the moment)

If anything, it's not the depth of players that might be to thin but rather quality football staff and coaches..

 

[MrE_Assassin]

If anything, it's not the depth of players that might be to thin but rather quality football staff and coaches..

This I actually agree with. Look at the current crop of coaches and so forth. If I were a new club looking to get off to a good start I would want to be luring the Bellamys, Bennetts, and Robinsons to my club as inaugural coaches.

I think you’d be hard pressed to find an administration that would want to hire a Barrett, Brennan or a Taylor as their first coach. Winning starts with the right mindset and that’s what the great coaches do, they train mindset rather than skills.

 

[Perth Red]

Aus Govt are superkeen to strengthen ties with png further given China’s growing presence. Nrl should be talking to them about funding a png junior elite program and slackening the working visa so the best 18 year old kids can come over and play in Aus. In a few years you’d see dozens of png players in nrl.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

NO! You clearly haven't played!

Would you like to expand on why you don't like the idea?

What do you take from my post that suggests I haven't played the game? Why does that matter either way?

Are you equally upset that in 1906 the Northern Union changed the game from 15 a side to 13 a side?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

No to cutting teams and a huge no to reducing the number of players.

If you where to go around various European football(soccer) leagues you’d see more than 1 team struggling in say the premiership, bundesliga, serie A and La Liga etc.

My team Sunderland struggled for years just and so avoiding relegation before eventually the inevitable happened.

In my opinion the NRL needs to grow the grassroots game more in Perth, Victoria and Adelaide. Also more should be done to arrest the decline of RL in places like wellington and Christchurch in NZ.

There’s also a huge untapped talent pool in PNG and Fiji. Not to mention how NRL clubs could raid Fiji, Samoa and Tonga RU more, especially Fiji at both u20’s level and 7’s level. More attention could be turned to the union schoolboy talent in NZ too which has lots of players too.

Thanks for the response. I'm interested to read everyone's take on this. BTW - I wasn't advocating for the cutting of teams.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

TBH, No I don't think this would fix anything. At the end of the day someone has to come last and it's usually the teams that have recruited poorly or have coaching/off-field issues. If you look at teams like the Roosters or Manly who have been plagued with injuries and suspensions through the year yet have had incredible success with their 2nd tier and debut players filling in.

Some teams are only in the bottom 8 because they have lost by narrow margins which shows the talent and tightness of the competition is at a good level. So many games this year have been unpredictable because anyone can win on the day.

I don't think dropping a player or 2 from each side on the pitch is going to improve the quality of play or fairness because the clubs will probably still be required to hold 30-man playing rosters for the top flight.

Some good points

 

[Stallion]

Would you like to expand on why you don't like the idea?

What do you take from my post that suggests I haven't played the game? Why does that matter either way?

Are you equally upset that in 1906 the Northern Union changed the game from 15 a side to 13 a side?

I respect the 13 a side game. That is fundamental to the code. You are advocating it's extinction ! That's exactly what the rugby union people would love to see happen to rugby league! More confusion and loss of integrity achieved. You can't see this. It's clear you haven't played. It matters when discussing very important intricacies of this sport. You are not aware of such details. So you venture into adhoc ideas that actually weaken the code.

 

[T-Boon]

I respect the 13 a side game. That is fundamental to the code. You are advocating it's extinction ! That's exactly what the rugby union people would love to see happen to rugby league! More confusion and loss of integrity achieved. You can't see this. It's clear you haven't played. It matters when discussing very important intricacies of this sport. You are not aware of such details. So you venture into adhoc ideas that actually weaken the code.

I think the arguments for things like 13 aside are emotion based. Nostalgia, tradition etc. rethinking all the core parameters of the game is logic based. 11aside makes a lot more sense logically than 13 aside.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I respect the 13 a side game. That is fundamental to the code. You are advocating it's extinction !

No - I asked other forum members their opinion on the matter, big difference.

That's exactly what the rugby union people would love to see happen to rugby league! More confusion and loss of integrity achieved. You can't see this. It's clear you haven't played. It matters when discussing very important intricacies of this sport. You are not aware of such details. So you venture into adhoc ideas that actually weaken the code.

I'm actually not sure what Rugby Union people love and don't love. You are the only person that I know that has played the game so I guess you would be in a good position to tell me what Union people think.

BTW: Are you equally upset when the Northern Union changed the rules to drop the number of players from 15 to 13 in 1906? Or is it just the arbitrary number of 13 that you respect?

 

[T-Boon]

I like to think the one big difference between RL and RU is that RL is innovative and prepared to look at itself in the mirror. While RU is doggedly inflexible.

That should be RLs core, not strict allegiance to outdated rules.

 

[Stallion]

I think the arguments for things like 13 aside are emotion based. Nostalgia, tradition etc. rethinking all the core parameters of the game is logic based. 11aside makes a lot more sense logically than 13 aside.

Rugby union would certainly like that approach. We differ. And I note the guy whom hasn't played rugbyleague 'likes' your comment.

 

[Stallion]

No - I asked other forum members their opinion on the matter, big difference.



I'm actually not sure what Rugby Union people love and don't love. You are the only person that I know that has played the game so I guess you would be in a good position to tell me what Union people think.

BTW: Are you equally upset when the Northern Union changed the rules to drop the number of players from 15 to 13 in 1906? Or is it just the arbitrary number of 13 that you respect?

Going to 13 was a smart move.We still have a scrum and back line! Very important. It's a way better sports product than union but this code hasn't gotten the friends in high places that so fundamentally propagate and promote union. That's the plight of rugby league. Mind you people like yourself don't help either!

 

[T-Boon]

Rugby union would certainly like that approach. We differ. And I note the guy whom hasn't played rugbyleague 'likes' your comment.

I only played in the under 12s myself so what?

Why would union like that approach?
And why would what union thinks have any baring on what RL does?

 

[T-Boon]

Going to 13 was a smart move.We still have a scrum and back line! Very important.

There isn't enough space now even for a RL backline. Hardly any line breaks and to create any space at all you have to run dubious decoys everywhere. 11 aside would look way more like how the founding fathers of the game wanted it to be played.
Look at rugby. From the outside looking in it is as obvious as the nose on the face that Rugby has way to many players on the field (15) but the people on the inside disagree because they are too close and emotionally involved.
The same applies to RL, the RL fan needs to have a look in from the outside every now and then. We aren't bound to the old ways the same way RU is.