What`s Wrong With An 18 Team Competition???

[Berkeley_Eagle]

According to Sterlo, 170 players have made their first grade debut in the NRL over the last 2 seasons. Seems to be quite a few players available for an extra team.

http://www.crikey.com.au/columnists/2004/08/24-0003.html

I think we are looking for quality not quantity

Do you think the NRL has been filled with low quality players over the last 2 years then?

You have to admit the Comp has'nt been very even for a long while
I think this season the teams are going to be closer together

 

[Iafeta]

The point being though, just from second stringers, or benchies, at least a 16th team would look impressive. I grabbed these blokes who started the season as either premier league players, played a lot of premier league, or who aren't established in top grade.

Now I haven't taken the crem da le crem, like your Tupou's, or Joe Williams, or your Sonny-Bills

1 Paul Atkins
2 Nick Youngquest
3 John Carlaw
4 Dustin Cooper
5 Jake Webster
6 Daniel Holdsworth
7 Matt Head
8 Michael Weyman
9 Tevita Latu
10 Garrett Crossman
11 Ashton Sims
12 One of the Paeas
13 The other Paea

Bench

Justin Poore
Luke O'Dwyer
Cooper Cronk
Tom Learoyd

Now, as the Warriors showed, to bulk that team up you can also pick up a couple of evergreen veterans, if there was a team admitted the new team would have had every chance to snare Price and Wiki, Logan Swann was off contract and keen for a return etc.

That to me is competitive, I'd say it'd run 11th-ish. Which isn't too bad. I doubt they'd get many 40 point floggings. And what's more, most of these young kids would jump at the chance to be a permanent, cemented first grader. Each of them is going to improve, I can see Sims going places, Weyman going places, Cooper Cronk and the Paea boys going places. You stick in a couple of old heads, a Price, a Wiki, a Logan Swann, a Chris Beattie, a Kevin Campion - all of whom were off contract to add some stability and experience, and its not looking too bad. Granted, when injuries come along it could get tough, but that happens with every new club.

Think of how good that squad could be in 5 years, how much the kids will look up to that squad then, and how many people would be attracted to league?

I think if we look to the long term, rather than the short term, accept a little short term pain that they're not going to be the bookies favourites, and there may be severe teething periods, if we got behind them and helped them through the tough financial and on field struggles to start off with the pot at the end of the rainbow would be incredibly bright. The Bears identity wouldn't be gone forever, Queensland would become more competitive in Origin again with increased juniors exposure, and New Zealand internationally could improve a bit with increased juniors exposure to harden them up quicker.

 

[aids]

i would rather have WA and SA before Central coast and wellington
good idea for goldcoast to be re-added, and i recon it would be tops if a team like souths or cronulla relocated to gosford.

the gosford bunnies wouldn't be bad.
for the club, and spreading the game around NSW.

team 15. gosford bunnies
team 16. goldcoast dolphins
team 17. adelaide barrel stuffers
team 18. perth gatecrashers/ wellington fush mongers.

 

[Big Mick]

The point being though, just from second stringers, or benchies, at least a 16th team would look impressive. I grabbed these blokes who started the season as either premier league players, played a lot of premier league, or who aren't established in top grade.

Now I haven't taken the crem da le crem, like your Tupou's, or Joe Williams, or your Sonny-Bills

1 Paul Atkins
2 Nick Youngquest
3 John Carlaw
4 Dustin Cooper
5 Jake Webster
6 Daniel Holdsworth
7 Matt Head
8 Michael Weyman
9 Tevita Latu
10 Garrett Crossman
11 Ashton Sims
12 One of the Paeas
13 The other Paea

Bench

Justin Poore
Luke O'Dwyer
Cooper Cronk
Tom Learoyd

Now, as the Warriors showed, to bulk that team up you can also pick up a couple of evergreen veterans, if there was a team admitted the new team would have had every chance to snare Price and Wiki, Logan Swann was off contract and keen for a return etc.

That to me is competitive, I'd say it'd run 11th-ish. Which isn't too bad. I doubt they'd get many 40 point floggings. And what's more, most of these young kids would jump at the chance to be a permanent, cemented first grader. Each of them is going to improve, I can see Sims going places, Weyman going places, Cooper Cronk and the Paea boys going places. You stick in a couple of old heads, a Price, a Wiki, a Logan Swann, a Chris Beattie, a Kevin Campion - all of whom were off contract to add some stability and experience, and its not looking too bad. Granted, when injuries come along it could get tough, but that happens with every new club.

Think of how good that squad could be in 5 years, how much the kids will look up to that squad then, and how many people would be attracted to league?

I think if we look to the long term, rather than the short term, accept a little short term pain that they're not going to be the bookies favourites, and there may be severe teething periods, if we got behind them and helped them through the tough financial and on field struggles to start off with the pot at the end of the rainbow would be incredibly bright. The Bears identity wouldn't be gone forever, Queensland would become more competitive in Origin again with increased juniors exposure, and New Zealand internationally could improve a bit with increased juniors exposure to harden them up quicker.

You say you taken benchies and stuff.

Its more than a 13 man game.

you need a solid 25 to be successful in the NRL.

If any team doesn't have a good 25 they wont win a comp.

If u take 1-2 out of every club and put it in another team, you'll see a lot more clubs struggle.

A new team will get flogged for 2-4 years, but its their ability to bring young players up that will see them succeed.

I agree they're are enough players out their in PL who are good quality for a 16th team, but their isn't enough as yet for 18.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

You say you taken benchies and stuff.

Its more than a 13 man game.

you need a solid 25 to be successful in the NRL.

If any team doesn't have a good 25 they wont win a comp.

If u take 1-2 out of every club and put it in another team, you'll see a lot more clubs struggle.

A new team will get flogged for 2-4 years, but its their ability to bring young players up that will see them succeed.

I agree they're are enough players out their in PL who are good quality for a 16th team, but their isn't enough as yet for 18.

Exactly! If you look at all 15 clubs you will see they all have a strong first 17. But it is the next 10 players or so that decide if they can go well after a few injuries have set in.

If we added 3 more teams then after a month of the season we would be seeing a handful of reserve grade players running around with each club.

Also the team that someone named earlier is hardly one good enough to back up the argument.

 

[Iafeta]

The point being though, just from second stringers, or benchies, at least a 16th team would look impressive. I grabbed these blokes who started the season as either premier league players, played a lot of premier league, or who aren't established in top grade.

Now I haven't taken the crem da le crem, like your Tupou's, or Joe Williams, or your Sonny-Bills

1 Paul Atkins
2 Nick Youngquest
3 John Carlaw
4 Dustin Cooper
5 Jake Webster
6 Daniel Holdsworth
7 Matt Head
8 Michael Weyman
9 Tevita Latu
10 Garrett Crossman
11 Ashton Sims
12 One of the Paeas
13 The other Paea

Bench

Justin Poore
Luke O'Dwyer
Cooper Cronk
Tom Learoyd

Now, as the Warriors showed, to bulk that team up you can also pick up a couple of evergreen veterans, if there was a team admitted the new team would have had every chance to snare Price and Wiki, Logan Swann was off contract and keen for a return etc.

That to me is competitive, I'd say it'd run 11th-ish. Which isn't too bad. I doubt they'd get many 40 point floggings. And what's more, most of these young kids would jump at the chance to be a permanent, cemented first grader. Each of them is going to improve, I can see Sims going places, Weyman going places, Cooper Cronk and the Paea boys going places. You stick in a couple of old heads, a Price, a Wiki, a Logan Swann, a Chris Beattie, a Kevin Campion - all of whom were off contract to add some stability and experience, and its not looking too bad. Granted, when injuries come along it could get tough, but that happens with every new club.

Think of how good that squad could be in 5 years, how much the kids will look up to that squad then, and how many people would be attracted to league?

I think if we look to the long term, rather than the short term, accept a little short term pain that they're not going to be the bookies favourites, and there may be severe teething periods, if we got behind them and helped them through the tough financial and on field struggles to start off with the pot at the end of the rainbow would be incredibly bright. The Bears identity wouldn't be gone forever, Queensland would become more competitive in Origin again with increased juniors exposure, and New Zealand internationally could improve a bit with increased juniors exposure to harden them up quicker.

You say you taken benchies and stuff.

Its more than a 13 man game.

you need a solid 25 to be successful in the NRL.

If any team doesn't have a good 25 they wont win a comp.

If u take 1-2 out of every club and put it in another team, you'll see a lot more clubs struggle.

A new team will get flogged for 2-4 years, but its their ability to bring young players up that will see them succeed.

I agree they're are enough players out their in PL who are good quality for a 16th team, but their isn't enough as yet for 18.

A lot of clubs don't have a good top 25. Canberra don't seem to, Cronulla don't seem to, Souths don't, should we boot them from the comp?

Of course the new ventures aren't going to have a great top 25, that'll take time. But give them 5 years, and they'll have established good squads if they're managed right. Add to that, they'll be exposing new juniors, instead of them heading off to other codes.

Personally, I think if they structured it to be something like 2006 Gold Coast, 2008-2009 Southern Orcas, 2012 North Sydney/Central Coast, then you'd aleviate some of that problem. You won't be creating 60 new spots straight away, but bringing through 10 odd juniors from that area for their first three years of establishment, if you see what I'm getting at.

 

[Iafeta]

You say you taken benchies and stuff.

Its more than a 13 man game.

you need a solid 25 to be successful in the NRL.

If any team doesn't have a good 25 they wont win a comp.

If u take 1-2 out of every club and put it in another team, you'll see a lot more clubs struggle.

A new team will get flogged for 2-4 years, but its their ability to bring young players up that will see them succeed.

I agree they're are enough players out their in PL who are good quality for a 16th team, but their isn't enough as yet for 18.

Exactly! If you look at all 15 clubs you will see they all have a strong first 17. But it is the next 10 players or so that decide if they can go well after a few injuries have set in.

If we added 3 more teams then after a month of the season we would be seeing a handful of reserve grade players running around with each club.

Also the team that someone named earlier is hardly one good enough to back up the argument.

That team I named was taking some good young prospects, not the crem-de-la crem. Don't forget, some of those players in the ESL would be hungry for an extra chance in the NRL. Imagine mixing those players with Lyon, Lauitiiti, Marcus Bai, De Vere, Richard Swain, Motu Tony, Luke Davico, Logan Swann, Brad Meyers etc. You won't get them all, but instead of 20 players going overseas, 10 of the quality ones could stay in the NRL in the new venture and work with the youngsters looking for a chance to cement themselves.

For the record, I think until injuries set in, that team I named could run 11th-12th and not be a disgrace to the competition.

 

[Raiders Plight]

The point being though, just from second stringers, or benchies, at least a 16th team would look impressive. I grabbed these blokes who started the season as either premier league players, played a lot of premier league, or who aren't established in top grade.

Now I haven't taken the crem da le crem, like your Tupou's, or Joe Williams, or your Sonny-Bills

1 Paul Atkins
2 Nick Youngquest
3 John Carlaw
4 Dustin Cooper
5 Jake Webster
6 Daniel Holdsworth
7 Matt Head
8 Michael Weyman
9 Tevita Latu
10 Garrett Crossman
11 Ashton Sims
12 One of the Paeas
13 The other Paea

Bench

Justin Poore
Luke O'Dwyer
Cooper Cronk
Tom Learoyd

Now, as the Warriors showed, to bulk that team up you can also pick up a couple of evergreen veterans, if there was a team admitted the new team would have had every chance to snare Price and Wiki, Logan Swann was off contract and keen for a return etc.

That to me is competitive, I'd say it'd run 11th-ish. Which isn't too bad. I doubt they'd get many 40 point floggings. And what's more, most of these young kids would jump at the chance to be a permanent, cemented first grader. Each of them is going to improve, I can see Sims going places, Weyman going places, Cooper Cronk and the Paea boys going places. You stick in a couple of old heads, a Price, a Wiki, a Logan Swann, a Chris Beattie, a Kevin Campion - all of whom were off contract to add some stability and experience, and its not looking too bad. Granted, when injuries come along it could get tough, but that happens with every new club.

Think of how good that squad could be in 5 years, how much the kids will look up to that squad then, and how many people would be attracted to league?

I think if we look to the long term, rather than the short term, accept a little short term pain that they're not going to be the bookies favourites, and there may be severe teething periods, if we got behind them and helped them through the tough financial and on field struggles to start off with the pot at the end of the rainbow would be incredibly bright. The Bears identity wouldn't be gone forever, Queensland would become more competitive in Origin again with increased juniors exposure, and New Zealand internationally could improve a bit with increased juniors exposure to harden them up quicker.

You say you taken benchies and stuff.

Its more than a 13 man game.

you need a solid 25 to be successful in the NRL.

If any team doesn't have a good 25 they wont win a comp.

If u take 1-2 out of every club and put it in another team, you'll see a lot more clubs struggle.

A new team will get flogged for 2-4 years, but its their ability to bring young players up that will see them succeed.

I agree they're are enough players out their in PL who are good quality for a 16th team, but their isn't enough as yet for 18.

A lot of clubs don't have a good top 25. Canberra don't seem to, Cronulla don't seem to, Souths don't, should we boot them from the comp?

Of course the new ventures aren't going to have a great top 25, that'll take time. But give them 5 years, and they'll have established good squads if they're managed right. Add to that, they'll be exposing new juniors, instead of them heading off to other codes.

Personally, I think if they structured it to be something like 2006 Gold Coast, 2008-2009 Southern Orcas, 2012 North Sydney/Central Coast, then you'd aleviate some of that problem. You won't be creating 60 new spots straight away, but bringing through 10 odd juniors from that area for their first three years of establishment, if you see what I'm getting at.

Exactly. Canberra don't have a good top 25 and they still make the top 8. :lol:

 

[Iafeta]

The point being though, just from second stringers, or benchies, at least a 16th team would look impressive. I grabbed these blokes who started the season as either premier league players, played a lot of premier league, or who aren't established in top grade.

Now I haven't taken the crem da le crem, like your Tupou's, or Joe Williams, or your Sonny-Bills

1 Paul Atkins
2 Nick Youngquest
3 John Carlaw
4 Dustin Cooper
5 Jake Webster
6 Daniel Holdsworth
7 Matt Head
8 Michael Weyman
9 Tevita Latu
10 Garrett Crossman
11 Ashton Sims
12 One of the Paeas
13 The other Paea

Bench

Justin Poore
Luke O'Dwyer
Cooper Cronk
Tom Learoyd

Now, as the Warriors showed, to bulk that team up you can also pick up a couple of evergreen veterans, if there was a team admitted the new team would have had every chance to snare Price and Wiki, Logan Swann was off contract and keen for a return etc.

That to me is competitive, I'd say it'd run 11th-ish. Which isn't too bad. I doubt they'd get many 40 point floggings. And what's more, most of these young kids would jump at the chance to be a permanent, cemented first grader. Each of them is going to improve, I can see Sims going places, Weyman going places, Cooper Cronk and the Paea boys going places. You stick in a couple of old heads, a Price, a Wiki, a Logan Swann, a Chris Beattie, a Kevin Campion - all of whom were off contract to add some stability and experience, and its not looking too bad. Granted, when injuries come along it could get tough, but that happens with every new club.

Think of how good that squad could be in 5 years, how much the kids will look up to that squad then, and how many people would be attracted to league?

I think if we look to the long term, rather than the short term, accept a little short term pain that they're not going to be the bookies favourites, and there may be severe teething periods, if we got behind them and helped them through the tough financial and on field struggles to start off with the pot at the end of the rainbow would be incredibly bright. The Bears identity wouldn't be gone forever, Queensland would become more competitive in Origin again with increased juniors exposure, and New Zealand internationally could improve a bit with increased juniors exposure to harden them up quicker.

You say you taken benchies and stuff.

Its more than a 13 man game.

you need a solid 25 to be successful in the NRL.

If any team doesn't have a good 25 they wont win a comp.

If u take 1-2 out of every club and put it in another team, you'll see a lot more clubs struggle.

A new team will get flogged for 2-4 years, but its their ability to bring young players up that will see them succeed.

I agree they're are enough players out their in PL who are good quality for a 16th team, but their isn't enough as yet for 18.

A lot of clubs don't have a good top 25. Canberra don't seem to, Cronulla don't seem to, Souths don't, should we boot them from the comp?

Of course the new ventures aren't going to have a great top 25, that'll take time. But give them 5 years, and they'll have established good squads if they're managed right. Add to that, they'll be exposing new juniors, instead of them heading off to other codes.

Personally, I think if they structured it to be something like 2006 Gold Coast, 2008-2009 Southern Orcas, 2012 North Sydney/Central Coast, then you'd aleviate some of that problem. You won't be creating 60 new spots straight away, but bringing through 10 odd juniors from that area for their first three years of establishment, if you see what I'm getting at.

Exactly. Canberra don't have a good top 25 and they still make the top 8. :lol:

Its a 15 team comp, over half the comp make the finals. Its not exactly halle-freakin-luejah, the bickies were two-three weeks after when your mob finished.

I meant more or less season 2005, where quite frankly your depth is pitiful.

15th. No doubt

 

[mightybears]

nothing wrong with an 18 team comp
the 'quality' of play/players argument is bullshit
it should be about FINANCIALLY VIABLE teams representing all the markets that will support an nrl team, that don't need to be owned by head office/nrl/news ltd
in this counrty that is the central coast, gold coast and or brisbane II

only a market/team like melbourne should be helped out/owned by the league
same with any future move to perth or adelaide, both melbourne like markets

 

[LeagueXIII]

If there isn't enough players or money, and I don't think this is true it's just scaremongering, why don't our useless officials get off their arses and find new streams of revenue and put resources into country areas and local leagues, nurturing development rather than plundering it, they ALWAYS take the easy options which most times can be avoided. How does putting a team in a new area (which has it's own population and business sector) effect the corporate dollar or spectators in Sydney. We should find a balance between tradition and expansion (like the AFL have done). We need our traditional clubs as much as we need growth. After all that's why every year people look forward to a big game at Leichhardt Oval, because of it's perception as a traditional ground. Back 10 or so years the Roosters were looking to merge and were drawing smaller crowds (1990 ave. 5446) than Souths, look at them now. Sport goes in cycles good times followed by bad. Who would have thought that Parra of the 80's would go so badly in the 90's, or West Indies cricket fortunes turn upside down. For me 18 teams is perfect with 22 rounds and an 8 team semi-finals series.

 

[Big Mick]

The point being though, just from second stringers, or benchies, at least a 16th team would look impressive. I grabbed these blokes who started the season as either premier league players, played a lot of premier league, or who aren't established in top grade.

Now I haven't taken the crem da le crem, like your Tupou's, or Joe Williams, or your Sonny-Bills

1 Paul Atkins
2 Nick Youngquest
3 John Carlaw
4 Dustin Cooper
5 Jake Webster
6 Daniel Holdsworth
7 Matt Head
8 Michael Weyman
9 Tevita Latu
10 Garrett Crossman
11 Ashton Sims
12 One of the Paeas
13 The other Paea

Bench

Justin Poore
Luke O'Dwyer
Cooper Cronk
Tom Learoyd

Now, as the Warriors showed, to bulk that team up you can also pick up a couple of evergreen veterans, if there was a team admitted the new team would have had every chance to snare Price and Wiki, Logan Swann was off contract and keen for a return etc.

That to me is competitive, I'd say it'd run 11th-ish. Which isn't too bad. I doubt they'd get many 40 point floggings. And what's more, most of these young kids would jump at the chance to be a permanent, cemented first grader. Each of them is going to improve, I can see Sims going places, Weyman going places, Cooper Cronk and the Paea boys going places. You stick in a couple of old heads, a Price, a Wiki, a Logan Swann, a Chris Beattie, a Kevin Campion - all of whom were off contract to add some stability and experience, and its not looking too bad. Granted, when injuries come along it could get tough, but that happens with every new club.

Think of how good that squad could be in 5 years, how much the kids will look up to that squad then, and how many people would be attracted to league?

I think if we look to the long term, rather than the short term, accept a little short term pain that they're not going to be the bookies favourites, and there may be severe teething periods, if we got behind them and helped them through the tough financial and on field struggles to start off with the pot at the end of the rainbow would be incredibly bright. The Bears identity wouldn't be gone forever, Queensland would become more competitive in Origin again with increased juniors exposure, and New Zealand internationally could improve a bit with increased juniors exposure to harden them up quicker.

You say you taken benchies and stuff.

Its more than a 13 man game.

you need a solid 25 to be successful in the NRL.

If any team doesn't have a good 25 they wont win a comp.

If u take 1-2 out of every club and put it in another team, you'll see a lot more clubs struggle.

A new team will get flogged for 2-4 years, but its their ability to bring young players up that will see them succeed.

I agree they're are enough players out their in PL who are good quality for a 16th team, but their isn't enough as yet for 18.

A lot of clubs don't have a good top 25. Canberra don't seem to, Cronulla don't seem to, Souths don't, should we boot them from the comp?

Of course the new ventures aren't going to have a great top 25, that'll take time. But give them 5 years, and they'll have established good squads if they're managed right. Add to that, they'll be exposing new juniors, instead of them heading off to other codes.

Personally, I think if they structured it to be something like 2006 Gold Coast, 2008-2009 Southern Orcas, 2012 North Sydney/Central Coast, then you'd aleviate some of that problem. You won't be creating 60 new spots straight away, but bringing through 10 odd juniors from that area for their first three years of establishment, if you see what I'm getting at.

Thats my point.

The person who started this is saying admit them all in 2007, thats just stupid.

Admit Gold Coast 2007

Admit Southern Orcas 2009-2010

Central Coast 2012-2013

That gives 3 years for a new team to get established, get the players going, also for other clubs to recover. Then get the new team. A new team every three years, is sustainable. My point, was that there isn't enough for 18 teams NOW!, if u get new teams at a steady rate, then yes, for sure i'm all for it. But there isn't enough quality players for 3 new teams now.

By the way, when did I say Cronulla, Canberra and Souths should be out of the comp. That just backs up my argument, because as I recall neither of the 3 have won a premiership the past 5 years, and the teams that have won the comp, had a solid core of 25 players to choose from.

 

[Big Mick]

nothing wrong with an 18 team comp
the 'quality' of play/players argument is bullsh*t
it should be about FINANCIALLY VIABLE teams representing all the markets that will support an nrl team, that don't need to be owned by head office/nrl/news ltd
in this counrty that is the central coast, gold coast and or brisbane II

only a market/team like melbourne should be helped out/owned by the league
same with any future move to perth or adelaide, both melbourne like markets

right so if you got money you can play in this competition, but your team will be the whipping boys of the comp for 10 years while u field a reserve grade team, yeah, thats a smart idea. :roll:

 

[paulmac]

The easy thing to do to make it a more even comp although a little unfair would be to split the 3 groups like this pool 1 - teams 1 thru 6,pool 2 - teams 7 thru 12 & pool 3 - teams 13 thru 18.
As for where the players are gonna come from they will find them they just might have to look outside the square to get them.Scouting NZ,the pacific,png,england,france and even unions ranks will have to be looked at.

 

[bender]

The point being though, just from second stringers, or benchies, at least a 16th team would look impressive. I grabbed these blokes who started the season as either premier league players, played a lot of premier league, or who aren't established in top grade.

Now I haven't taken the crem da le crem, like your Tupou's, or Joe Williams, or your Sonny-Bills

1 Paul Atkins
2 Nick Youngquest
3 John Carlaw
4 Dustin Cooper
5 Jake Webster
6 Daniel Holdsworth
7 Matt Head
8 Michael Weyman
9 Tevita Latu
10 Garrett Crossman
11 Ashton Sims
12 One of the Paeas
13 The other Paea

Bench

Justin Poore
Luke O'Dwyer
Cooper Cronk
Tom Learoyd

Now, as the Warriors showed, to bulk that team up you can also pick up a couple of evergreen veterans, if there was a team admitted the new team would have had every chance to snare Price and Wiki, Logan Swann was off contract and keen for a return etc.

That to me is competitive, I'd say it'd run 11th-ish. Which isn't too bad. I doubt they'd get many 40 point floggings. And what's more, most of these young kids would jump at the chance to be a permanent, cemented first grader. Each of them is going to improve, I can see Sims going places, Weyman going places, Cooper Cronk and the Paea boys going places. You stick in a couple of old heads, a Price, a Wiki, a Logan Swann, a Chris Beattie, a Kevin Campion - all of whom were off contract to add some stability and experience, and its not looking too bad. Granted, when injuries come along it could get tough, but that happens with every new club.

Think of how good that squad could be in 5 years, how much the kids will look up to that squad then, and how many people would be attracted to league?

I think if we look to the long term, rather than the short term, accept a little short term pain that they're not going to be the bookies favourites, and there may be severe teething periods, if we got behind them and helped them through the tough financial and on field struggles to start off with the pot at the end of the rainbow would be incredibly bright. The Bears identity wouldn't be gone forever, Queensland would become more competitive in Origin again with increased juniors exposure, and New Zealand internationally could improve a bit with increased juniors exposure to harden them up quicker.

You say you taken benchies and stuff.

Its more than a 13 man game.

you need a solid 25 to be successful in the NRL.

If any team doesn't have a good 25 they wont win a comp.

If u take 1-2 out of every club and put it in another team, you'll see a lot more clubs struggle.

A new team will get flogged for 2-4 years, but its their ability to bring young players up that will see them succeed.

I agree they're are enough players out their in PL who are good quality for a 16th team, but their isn't enough as yet for 18.

A lot of clubs don't have a good top 25. Canberra don't seem to, Cronulla don't seem to, Souths don't, should we boot them from the comp?

Of course the new ventures aren't going to have a great top 25, that'll take time. But give them 5 years, and they'll have established good squads if they're managed right. Add to that, they'll be exposing new juniors, instead of them heading off to other codes.

Personally, I think if they structured it to be something like 2006 Gold Coast, 2008-2009 Southern Orcas, 2012 North Sydney/Central Coast, then you'd aleviate some of that problem. You won't be creating 60 new spots straight away, but bringing through 10 odd juniors from that area for their first three years of establishment, if you see what I'm getting at.

Thats my point.

The person who started this is saying admit them all in 2007, thats just stupid.

Admit Gold Coast 2007

Admit Southern Orcas 2009-2010

Central Coast 2012-2013

That gives 3 years for a new team to get established, get the players going, also for other clubs to recover. Then get the new team. A new team every three years, is sustainable. My point, was that there isn't enough for 18 teams NOW!, if u get new teams at a steady rate, then yes, for sure i'm all for it. But there isn't enough quality players for 3 new teams now.

By the way, when did I say Cronulla, Canberra and Souths should be out of the comp. That just backs up my argument, because as I recall neither of the 3 have won a premiership the past 5 years, and the teams that have won the comp, had a solid core of 25 players to choose from.

I am starting to think that the NRL badly needs to subsidise travel costs for a second division. A Second division would be made up of the top non nrl clubs in the country. Eg Gold Coast Burleigh, Redcliffe, Easts, Wynnum Manly, Ipswich, Toowoomba, Cairns, Hunter Valley Wests, Central coast Representative, Norths, Newtown, Canberra, as well as Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Northern territory, Hobart, Wellington, Christchurch and some NSW and Qld Country sides. the second division would be a feeder league for the NRL, but it would give sides the chance to develop local players and harness diehard support, in preparation for an eventual entrance into the NRL in 3, 5, 10 or 20 years.

 

[strong_latte]

One step at a time.... all these areas will be in the comp in another five years or so ...

give it 10-15...

 

[Misty Bee]

Admit 3 teams to the comp and watch the player talent level out accordingly. The argument "not enough quality players" is utterly rediculous. We are a big enough player factory to prop up the ESL AND the Wallabies with those that can't squeeze their full worth from the NRL. There are always talented lower graders who haven't had their chance. Tim Smith was carving the Poms up a few years ago with the Aust. Schoolboys side - and is yet to make his first grade debut. How long has Frank Pritchard been biding his time for?

Another point: 18 teams would equal a shorter season. Therefore, less injuries.

It's gotta happen for the good of the game!

 

[ali]

I don't get the "not enough quality players" line, when discussing expansion. As said by someone else, what defines a quality player? Adding a team like Wellington will provide more opportunities for players in NZ. So suddenly a bunch of players, who may have given the game away, switched to or stayed in Union or never got a chance to go full time will be playing RL, and the player pool expands. Adding the Gold Coast would have a similar but lesser effect in QLD.

I am all for adding The Gold Coast and Wellington. For mine we don't need any more teams in and around Sydney, but they do have a great stadium up there in Gosford which I guess would add to the NRL. I'd add one expansion team every year, hence giving them a good crack at the player market and not suddenly leaving us with 3 substandard teams.

 

[ali]

Misty, didn't Smith's Aus schoolboys side lose to the poms? Anyway, I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[steaming stormer]

That`s the point i`m trying to make!Some teams have much more depth than others and that`s the big difference between 1st and last.A draft to select all players after the 1st 17 would create an even more level playing field!

I'm not sure how old you are, but you don't seem to understand that a draft is illegal. It has been challenged and ruled a restraint of trade, and unless the players all voted to reinstate (whilch would never happen IMO), then the draft is gone for good