An example of the risks of expansion

[Jeba]

Did you just say 'great players' and rattle off THOSE names as an example of that?????

 

[Ari Gold]

If I was to follow that train of thought, I'm pretty sure we could have a friggin amazing NRL comp with 8 teams where the best crop of the NRL would go...
Actually, probably only 4 teams would be enough to harbour the cream of the NRL playing ranks.

As a matter of fact, this is what happens in most European soccer countries, where 3 or 4 teams out of the 16, 18 or 20 clubs competing, harbour the best players playing in that country. It's actually even worse, because probably 5 or 6 teams out of the whole of Europe (Barca, Real, Manure, etc...), monopolise the best players in the world. Still, despite the uneven competition, the sport attracts the masses and amazing amounts of money. But this a whole other kettle of fish, involving pros or cons of the salary cap... :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight... by your own admission we only need 4 teams to field the very best talent, and thus imply that you agree that quality goes down when you introduce more teams. And your solution is to add MORE teams? When we already have teams that really do struggle with getting talent on their roster as it is?

 

[Ari Gold]

Did you just say 'great players' and rattle off THOSE names as an example of that?????

Let's not forget Joel Moon!

 

[Dexter]

Totally with you on this Jeb, we are not ready for extra teams. Relocation is the best answer to get more teams into QLd as soon as possible. Qld has to have the new sides that much is obvious but I suspect the NRL will be soft c@(ks and increase the numbers and the new TV deal will keep the financially struggling clubs going for now.
Agree also with Coxy and AP that we need a strong 2nd tier comp in between the 20s and first grade. What a good day at the footy that would be, 20s followed by reggies and firsts.

 

[dukey]

Did you just say 'great players' and rattle off THOSE names as an example of that?????

Lot of talent in that list, and it's hardly an exhaustive list. But if that's your only response to the post I guess I've already won the argument...

 

[Jeba]

Lot of talent in that list, and it's hardly an exhaustive list. But if that's your only response to the post I guess I've already won the argument...

I replied on phone which is not the best means of a big reply. Stand by ;-)

 

[Bucking Beads]

AFL will be experiencing some pain over the next few years but it will be worth it in the long run. The NRL needs to bite the bullet and relocate Sydney clubs or make them fold or merge so we can move the game into other states.

 

[Porthoz]

So let me get this straight... by your own admission we only need 4 teams to field the very best talent, and thus imply that you agree that quality goes down when you introduce more teams. And your solution is to add MORE teams? When we already have teams that really do struggle with getting talent on their roster as it is?

Way to misinterpret my post... :shake:

Your definition of talent is different from mine. While there is only a small amount of players of Thurston, Smith and Locky pedigree, there is a plethora of talented players like Bronson Harrison or Jerome Ropati, as well as heaps of youngsters like for example Dale Copley, who unlike Jack Reed or Matt Gillett, never really break through and end up competing in the Qcup or Super League to name a few. Those players could easily fill a couple of extra NRL teams, and make them competitive under the cap.

My example from European soccer was to underscore how the very top range of players is rare. Out of an area with half a billion people, only a small amount of players (5 or 6 teams worth) are of true world class level, but there is enough talent to fill hundreds of teams.

 

[Ari Gold]

Lot of talent in that list, and it's hardly an exhaustive list. But if that's your only response to the post I guess I've already won the argument...

Some of it is talent that didn't get enough of a shot, but in some cases it's just unrealized talent. Players like Tim Smith and Brett Seymour aren't struggling to get a first grade NRL job next year due to lack of opportunities in their career, they just haven't made the most of those they did get. Hunt, Vidot and Mortimer are 3 you can quite rightly claim haven't really had their fair chance and I'll give you them, but you can't claim Seymour and Tim Smith as players who would form part of a quality side. Years of chances have proven they aren't up to it.

And whilst you may disagree, I just don't believe a team comprisiing the likes of Heighington, Mortimer, Vidot, Moon, Hunt, Warbuton, Laffranchi, Leulia, Hohaia, Heremia, Waterhouse and Flanagan really adds much to the NRL (I've listed every player you named and everyone I could find off to the ESL - aka leaving the NRL). Frankly, most of those players are in the twilight of their careers and may still prefer to head to England. And even if they stayed, for the most part you'd just end up with Dad's Army take II (Titans being the original)

 

[Ari Gold]

Way to misinterpret my post... :shake:

Your definition of talent is different from mine. While there is only a small amount of players of Thurston, Smith and Locky pedigree, there is a plethora of talented players like Bronson Harrison or Jerome Ropati, as well as heaps of youngsters like for example Dale Copley, who unlike Jack Reed or Matt Gillett, never really break through and end up competing in the Qcup or Super League to name a few. Those players could easily fill a couple of extra NRL teams, and make them competitive under the cap.

My example from European soccer was to underscore how the very top range of players is rare. Out of an area with half a billion people, only a small amount of players (5 or 6 teams worth) are of true world class level, but there is enough talent to fill hundreds of teams.

Soccer's presence reaches millions more people though. Billions actually. And those hundreds of teams don't all play in the same division. It's tiered, and a player from Burton & Albion has no place in the Premier League. IMO, the best way forward for the NRL is to provide a high quality product to as many markets as possible, which is why I think shelving some Sydney teams and giving other locations a team is a good thing (not relocated teams, though). With that said, a team filled with players like Dale Copley doesn't really make for a quality product. And as for Bronson Harrison, he's still playing first grade and has re-signed for the Raiders, and whilst I don't know Ropati's whereabouts next year, the only reason he isn't playing this year is because he is injured.

 

[dukey]

Can't wait!
Meanwhile, I've put together a side of players who've been forced to Super League or who aren't in the first grade side of their teams for any reasons. We're ready to play next year.

1. Denan Kemp
2. John Williams
3. Krisnan Inu
4. Daniel Vidot
5. Bryson Goodwin
6. Daniel Mortimer
7. Ben Hunt or Corey Norman
8. Joel Clinton
9. Kurt Baptiste
10. Junior Paulo
11. Paul Aiton
12. Andrew Ryan
13. Chris Heighington

I'd be happy with that. In fact I'd back that team to hold its own against most current sides in the comp. Ergo, there is much depth of talent in the NRL.

 

[dukey]

Some of it is talent that didn't get enough of a shot, but in some cases it's just unrealized talent. Players like Tim Smith and Brett Seymour aren't struggling to get a first grade NRL job next year due to lack of opportunities in their career, they just haven't made the most of those they did get. Hunt, Vidot and Mortimer are 3 you can quite rightly claim haven't really had their fair chance and I'll give you them, but you can't claim Seymour and Tim Smith as players who would form part of a quality side. Years of chances have proven they aren't up to it.

And whilst you may disagree, I just don't believe a team comprisiing the likes of Heighington, Mortimer, Vidot, Moon, Hunt, Warbuton, Laffranchi, Leulia, Hohaia, Heremia, Waterhouse and Flanagan really adds much to the NRL (I've listed every player you named and everyone I could find off to the ESL - aka leaving the NRL). Frankly, most of those players are in the twilight of their careers and may still prefer to head to England. And even if they stayed, for the most part you'd just end up with Dad's Army take II (Titans being the original)

Mortimer, Vidot, Moon, Hunt, are all young blokes with years left in them, hardly in the twilight of their careers. And in my post above you'll find a few older heads that would bring some experience to the side. It's certainly not a premiership winning side, but with the right coach that roster could make the 8 and build from there, which is what you want from an expansion side.
I feel that we're getting sidetracked in naming particular players; the entire point of my argument is that there is a surplus of talent, not a deficit.

 

[Porthoz]

Soccer's presence reaches millions more people though. Billions actually. And those hundreds of teams don't all play in the same division. It's tiered, and a player from Burton & Albion has no place in the Premier League. IMO, the best way forward for the NRL is to provide a high quality product to as many markets as possible, which is why I think shelving some Sydney teams and giving other locations a team is a good thing (not relocated teams, though). With that said, a team filled with players like Dale Copley doesn't really make for a quality product. And as for Bronson Harrison, he's still playing first grade and has re-signed for the Raiders, and whilst I don't know Ropati's whereabouts next year, the only reason he isn't playing this year is because he is injured.

Really? You reckon teams like West Brom, Stoke City, Swansea, Bolton, or Fulham offer that much? The level difference in the Premier league between those teams and the likes of Manure, Citeh or Chelski, is way bigger than Storm vs. Titans.

Then you have the same picture in pretty much all the other European countries.

And then you have the Champions League, which eventually gets thinned out until the cream comes to the top, and invariably 5 or 6 of the top clubs will be in the last 8. It's the law of the jungle!

Only expansion will grow the game, not trying to make it an elitist competition, which could really only be achieved with 6 teams or less!

 

[Ari Gold]

Really? You reckon teams like West Brom, Stoke City, Swansea, Bolton, or Fulham offer that much? The level difference in the Premier league between those teams and the likes of Manure, Citeh or Chelski, is way bigger than Storm vs. Titans.

Only expansion will grow the game, not trying to make it an elitist competition, which could really only be achieved with 6 teams or less!

The difference in the EPL is money and foreign competition rather than talent. The rich clubs can buy the talent and the small clubs are powerless to stop it. And the FA can't really stop big money transfers because FIFA would have something to say about it. In this example, the crap teams, rather than the rich ones buy the talent. Neither is a particularly great situation IMO.

Also, I'm not trying to make an elitist competition, I'm simply saying that we shouldn't reduce the current quality of the competition -- something I really do think more teams will do. Expanding into new markets is a great idea, and I'm all for it. But it should be at the expense of a Sydney team operating in an overflooded market place, rather than at the expense of the quality of NRL.

 

[Porthoz]

The difference in the EPL is money and foreign competition rather than talent. The rich clubs can buy the talent and the small clubs are powerless to stop it. And the FA can't really stop big money transfers because FIFA would have something to say about it. In this example, the crap teams, rather than the rich ones buy the talent. Neither is a particularly great situation IMO.

Also, I'm not trying to make an elitist competition, I'm simply saying that we shouldn't reduce the current quality of the competition -- something I really do think more teams will do. Expanding into new markets is a great idea, and I'm all for it. But it should be at the expense of a Sydney team operating in an overflooded market place, rather than at the expense of the quality of NRL.

Fair enough, it's your opinion. I think otherwise.

We're starting to go in circles, so let's agree to disagree! :cheers:

 

[Big Pete]

Can't wait!
Meanwhile, I've put together a side of players who've been forced to Super League or who aren't in the first grade side of their teams for any reasons. We're ready to play next year.

1. Denan Kemp
2. John Williams
3. Krisnan Inu
4. Daniel Vidot
5. Bryson Goodwin
6. Daniel Mortimer
7. Ben Hunt or Corey Norman
8. Joel Clinton
9. Kurt Baptiste
10. Junior Paulo
11. Paul Aiton
12. Andrew Ryan
13. Chris Heighington

I'd be happy with that. In fact I'd back that team to hold its own against most current sides in the comp. Ergo, there is much depth of talent in the NRL.

Heighington isn't going anywhere.

And that team is the s**ts, a hooker in the second row? What?

 

[dukey]

Heighington isn't going anywhere.

Awesome. He's one of my favourite players, I'd hate to see him going off to England.

 

[Big Pete]

With that said, the introduction of the Toyota Cup will ensure the player pool will grow expand, especially in places such as NZ, North Queensland and Melbourne who struggled to keep their locals interested in the game with sub-par junior leagues and pathways to first grade. Yes, the quality of the game will suffer initially with the introduction of a new side as it did when the Titans came in back in 2007 but it's a small price to pay for what should be a promising future.

What seperates us from AFL is that we aren't choosing to expand in regions that have shown little interest in our game. Our investments should ADD to our game, not be pipe dreams that could prove to be significant money pits.