NRL Teams Rated : 2020 Also Rans

The teams that had their shortened 2020 match regular season cut back further in missing out on the play-offs. Twenty matches for those departing early. For the NZ Warriors (pictured scoring above), surely mixed emotions, not playing in the finals but at last being able to return to New Zealand to see family. This after having to stay in Australia for the season. On to the rankings from the bottom.

16th: 6 points, Brisbane Broncos (Queensland).

A team with a proud history was humiliated this season. They had their longest losing streak in club history of 11 matches, which could be added to at the beginning of the next season, as it's still open-ended. Overall, their points differential was -18 points per game overall 20 games. The team had better players than this result would suggest. It was the first wooden spoon in their history.

15th: 6 points, Canterbury Bulldogs (Sydney).

The poorest team on paper (in my estimation) and therefore my favourite to come last. They went close but a superior points differential saved them. They didn't do badly in that, a -11 points per game for the season. A solid side but that isn’t enough in the NRL.

14th: 10 points, North Queensland Cowboys (Queensland).

I wondered how the club would fare once JT retired a few years back (a former star player). Well, they have struggled and this poor season was about right for the team as it is presently. It goes to show how important a skilful playmaker is if that was ever in question.

13th: 14 points, Manly Sea Eagles (Sydney). The team from the north side of Sydney Harbour had the potential to be playing finals football but fell someway short this season. They didn't seem to be able to play for a full 80 minutes, having good spells but then letting their opponents off the hook.

12th: 14 points, St George-Illawarra Steelers (Sydney/NSW Country).

This unique club straddles both Sydney suburbs and a city further south in the NSW state. I wasn’t expecting them to make the finals and they delivered on that. However, their points differential of just -4 showed they were not far off the pace.

11th: 14 points, Wests Tigers (Sydney).

This was a team I saw as finishing anywhere. It was hard to predict how they would go and as is often the case in a tough competition, such sides often end up at the wrong end of the ladder. -3 points on average were not bad at all.

10th: 16 points, NZ Warriors (Auckland, NZ).

The coronavirus disrupted the team badly in the early part of the season. It wasn't even a given that they could compete. They eventually stayed in Australia away from their families for a prolonged period. At first, they really struggled but gradually a closeness seemed to develop and the latter part of the season went well for them. Their efforts and personal sacrifices the team made earned them much respect. A points differential of -6 points but considering the circumstances, a fine result. Credit to the coaching staff too.

9th: 18 points, Gold Coast Titans (Queensland).

This relatively young club has struggled but with a new coach, they went above my expectations. I was thinking maybe second to bottom but the top of the also-rans instead. A -6 points differential wasn't that flash but they did something they have previously struggled to do, that is win close games. They were last by some distance last season so this was a huge improvement. It will be interesting to see if they can build on the progress in 2021.

	Rk	Team	Pts	W	L	Diff
	9	Gold Coast Titans	18	9	11	-117
	10	New Zealand Warriors	16	8	12	-115
	11	Wests Tigers	14	7	13	-65
	12	St George-Illawarra Dragons	14	7	13	-74
	13	Manly Sea Eagles	14	7	13	-134
	14	Queensland Cowboys	10	9	15	-152
	15	Canterbury Bulldogs	6	3	17	-222
	16	Brisbane Broncos	3	3	17	-356

Problems & Solutions - Part Two

The code needs to expand internationally but it has developed into a game that is about big men. It wasn’t always that way. Even a few decades ago, it had both big and small players. Things changed as new rules kept favouring size. Now, unless a team has some huge forwards, it’s all but impossible to compete. It’s especially noticeable at the international level.

Another issue is player safety and welfare. General injuries due to higher collision impact Are an issue but very importantly head knocks and concussion. The body can only take so much and eventually, bodies or brain tissue suffers. Ten-metre defensive lines and repeated rotational interchange are two rules that have had that effect.

We need a solution and I'd like to put one forward. It’s somewhat radical but each change is designed to mitigate the problems I’ve raised which retaining the essence of what makes it such a great spectator game.

Change One. Rotational interchange needs to end. When a player leaves the field, he cannot return. Three to four players on the bench maximum.

Effect. Teams will hold back interchange too late in the game to provide cover for injuries. Once the bench has been used, there are no more replacements.

Benefit. Fatigue will play a role, especially for bigger players. This will encourage more small, nippy types to be used.

Change Two. Return to five-metre defensive lines.

Effect. It will make attacking players stand deeper and spread the ball wider. The game will be more expansive instead of too much middle third stuff.

Benefit. Reduced impact in tackles.

Change Three. Unlimited tackle while a team is in possessions in its own quarter. Once a player is tackled outside that, the referee calls six tackles. Then regardless of where future tackles take place, they have the six tackles.

Effect. With only five metre defensive lines, it would hard for a team near its try line to make much progress upfield apart from kicking. If the attacking team wanted the ball back (if behind on the scoreboard), they may even not press too hard on the attack to get their opponents out of their quarter. Or there could be a limit of two defenders per tackle until the count restarts.

Benefit. Getting away from your try line with a five-metre defensive would be almost impossible and lead to a side constantly defending. This rule would give the defending team a chance, evening the game up.

Change Four. If a ball-carrying player is forced into touch, it counts as one tackle. The player comes in five metres and plays the ball.

Effect. Spreading the ball wider and flirting with the touching will be encouraged.

Benefit. More expansive game.

Change Five. The team conceding points retains the ball by being given a tap the ball to restart the game on their quarter line (or halfway line).

Effect. It will give the team conceding the chance to reply.

Benefit. Reduce the effect of momentum and score blowouts.

Summary. These rule changes are designed for player welfare and broader inclusiveness regarding body size. They will also bring in the fatigue factor, making the game more open as it progressed. It would hopefully even up teams and allow lesser international sides be a bit more competitive.

Problems & Solutions - Part One

About the only thing growing in RL is female participation

All aspects of life are constantly changing and only those prepared to adapt have any hope of survival. Sport is no different. Rugby league has always been a code that innovates. It can and has to for the same reason, it's a small sport.

The changes that have been implemented were to enhance the two professional competitions (NRL & SL). They provide the income and run the game so it's basically all about them. A few expansionists have dreams of taking a great product further, but the conflict of interest between looking after the NRL and SL as opposed to funding the game's international growth has always had the latter underfunded. Any increase in revenue the pro comps receive is given to the clubs to spend on player wages.

This operational model has been badly exposed by the coronavirus. With no financial cushion to cover it, the sport almost immediately went with cap in hand to the government for assistance. Unless RL changes how it operates, I'd call it throwing good money after bad. In other words, the whole sport of RL is irresponsibly run.

The only solution to this is player wages have to be less than the current percentage of earnings so that some of the money generated is set aside for a rainy day, plus some pumped into the international game to expand it. In the long run, this will create more income for the sport but the shortsighted attitude that now exists ultimately limits what the game could become and therefore earn. Self-centred policy coming home to roost.

Unless those controlling the purse strings wish to change, the sport will meander along, at best surviving as it is and at worst shrinking to even lesser relevance than now.

Part two will look at rule changes.