For & Against: Is there enough player depth for a 17th team?

The question of expansion is one of the most hotly debated in rugby league. 

Should the NRL have a second side in Brisbane? Is the time right to revisit Perth or Adelaide and set up a team there? Or should the focus be on keeping the 16 current clubs strong and viable?

If the NRL does decide to expand in the future is there enough quality players to set up a new franchise and ensure it is competitive?

 

Is there enough depth for expansion?

For – NRL.com journalist Chris Kennedy

Expansion has been one of those topics that just won't go away, with talk of a 17th team ebbing and flowing basically since the Titans were admitted back in 2007.

The arguments in favour are many: more games equals more broadcast dollars, another team means a chance to place a foothold in a new geographical area, and potentially another time zone if somewhere like Perth gets a team.

There is an appetite from fans in every mooted region, whether that be a second Brisbane team, another New Zealand team, a central Queensland team, Perth or even somewhere like PNG or Fiji.

The arguments against are few and basically boil down to whether there are enough good players to expand without diminishing the product. I for one say we can make this work.

You probably couldn't just conjure up a 30-man roster to make a 17th team immediately viable in 2022 but it would happen quicker than many would think.

I keep hearing the argument about how poor some of the games can be during Origin when 34 players are removed but that argument is flawed.

During Origin, 34 of the very best players across the whole competition, each one crucial to their team's weekly hopes, are removed at once.

An expansion club's 30-man roster could start with just a handful of marquee players, plus 12 or 15 solid first-graders who are struggling to get a run at their current clubs and a bunch of promising juniors looking to make their way into grade.

Look at some of the players who can't make NRL.com's round one predicted 17s at their respective clubs this year – Matt Burton, Sam Williams, Ryan James, Corey Thompson, Daniel Alvaro, Sam Verrills… the list goes on.

Clubs don't want to part ways with their depth in case of injury but the depth is there.

Once there is a 17th team in the market the talent spreads more evenly and players will move for opportunity.

When the Titans joined the competition they were able to snap up players like Scott Prince, Preston Campbell and Mat Rogers and be immediately competitive, making the top four in their third season.

The Warriors made a grand final in their eighth year while the Storm – admittedly an outlier for many reasons – won the comp in their second.

With better scouting and recruiting, boundless untapped talent from outside the NSW and Queensland heartlands, from across Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the Pacific, could help shore up pathways and ensure a much greater flow of talent over the longer term while the fledgling club is finding its feet.

Two years ago most rugby league fans had never heard of Ryan Papenhuyzen, Tino Fa'asuamaleaui, Harry Grant, Bradman Best or Stephen Crichton. Our game unearths superstars at an impressive rate.

There will be 480 players with a top-30 deal this year; a 6.25% increase to 510 over the next few years is achievable.

Against - NRL.com journalist Paul Zalunardo

There would be enough good players to have a 17th team in the NRL if every club only needed 17 players to get through a season. That will never be the case.

Including a few rep-standard stars, teams need 20-25 players capable of getting their job done each week in order to challenge for a title.

Each season we quickly find out which teams don’t have enough depth. Injuries and suspensions are never going to stop and with the increased speed and physicality of the modern game, the number of injuries are likely to increase in coming seasons.

So, when we are thinking about adding a 17th team to the competition we have to factor in that the number of first-grade standard players needed would rise from at least 350 to almost 400.

Yes, that’s a lot.

In planning for such an increase, keep in mind that last year the bottom four teams won as many games as the minor premiers Penrith – combined.

The sad reality is most of those teams were eliminated from finals reckoning within the opening 6-8 weeks of the season.

This situation raises the issue – one to be discussed on another day – of whether there are enough good players for 16 teams.

If a 17th team was to come in, the lag time needed for that club to assemble a roster would also give the other 16 teams time to ringfence those they want to keep.

Without the benefit of being able to manipulate a draft on entry level players (as was the case in the AFL when Gold Coast and GWS started) to give the newcomers an artificial advantage, an already tough job would be even more difficult for a 17th team.

As always, there would be players available on the free agent market, but how much quality would be among that. There is a big difference between players capable of performing at NRL level for a week here and there to someone a coach can rely on.

Yes, there will continue to be new players coming onto the scene each year, but there are often just as many who have finally lost the battle against Father Time.

An extra team would result in players who would not secure contracts in a 16-team competition landing a job for another year at least. That’s great for the players involved but not so good for the strength of the product people are watching.

While the boost to NRL coffers would be welcomed by all, the standard of the competition needs to remain the priority.

Sticking with 16 teams for the foreseeable future is the best way to do just that.

 

The views in this article do not necessarily express the opinions of the NRL, ARL Commission, NRL clubs or state associations.