Hackneyed phrases abound in the great game we call rugby league. Some of the classic cliches trotted out by players and coaches have long satisfied the nutritional needs for the comedy stylists that dot the sporting landscape. Yet amongst all the banal sayings, one will always ring true – rugby league is a simple game. This basic fact has been missing from the Eels for a couple of weeks, and the result has been unfortunately predictable.
“Hold The Ball”
Let’s begin with Brad Arthur’s comments from the press conference. “We lacked composure and patience”. Never a truer word was spoken in relation to last night.
The brief press conference was blunt and accurate.
The very essence of what the Eels train for, the aspect that was there in spades during the first two rounds, has sadly deserted the team over the last two weeks. The ball control and game management in those early matches literally strangled the Sea Eagles and the Dragons out of the contest. The Eels set up camp in the opposition half, but earned the right to do so through disciplined play. They earned no such right against the Sharks.
Undoubtedly, the statistics tell some of the story. Parramatta completed at around 63% to the Sharks 68%. That’s not great numbers for either team, and given Cronulla’s own issues with completions, it becomes a more damning indictment of the Eels performance.
Though I’m yet to sit through a replay of the match, the location of the Parramatta errors virtually consigned the team to a loss. Forget earning repeat sets. On no less than seven occasions, the blue and golds turned the ball over in the red zone. When that happens it’s impossible to build any pressure. The defence is never tested. The resolve of your opposition remains unquestioned.
Tim Mannah summed it up perfectly – “We shot ourselves in the foot.” We had no chunks of possession and consequently needed to create scoring opportunities out of single sets of 6 – that was never going to be the path to success.
“Only Offload To A Man In A Better Position (Don’t Push Your Passes)”
Here’s some interesting numbers. The Eels offloaded the ball 20 times against the Sharks 14. Such a statistic would normally favour the winning team. However, it doesn’t tell the true story.
How many offloads from the Eels helped to advance the football? How many offloads placed the ball receiver under pressure or increased the likelihood of a turnover of possession? Balls dropped out the back to unsuspecting supports are not the vehicle to successful second phase play. Whether such occasions are brought about by poor support play or impatience is for the coaching team to determine. However, the fundamental of not putting a player under pressure due to your pass is not being followed. If the player isn’t in a position to receive the ball, don’t throw the thing! It’s that simple.
“Support The Ball”
This is the other half of the composure equation.
Passes were pushed that shouldn’t have been, yet the pressure was also applied via poor support play. In addition to ill conceived or frustrated offloads, there were many times when the first receiver was left stranded without a runner. Was it communication breakdown? Was it mental or physical fatigue? It was certainly an indicator of a team on the wrong end of the scoreboard.
Another aspect of the match that the coaching team might examine would be Parramatta’s advantage in tackle breaks. The statistic reads something like 23 to 14. How does this not convert into line breaks or better running metres? Perhaps it’s a reflection of the Sharks defensive patterns, but I suspect that the Eels support play or lack thereof may be a factor. I cannot ignore the pedestrian performance in attack over the past two weeks. In around the last 150 minutes of play, Parra have only managed a fluke try from a poorly executed kick.
Eels fans had few opportunities to rise to their feet last night.
An Excuse?
Brad Arthur never takes press conferences down the path of excuses. Public criticisms of referees aren’t his go, because he has a mantra of controlling the things that the players can control, such as team discipline.
However, without apportioning any blame for the loss on the men in the middle, I must address a glaring fault in their control. Rarely was the Sharks defence onside during this match. Whether this was evident in the television coverage, I can’t answer. Nonetheless, Cronulla were able to apply pressure on the attacking team by consistently getting out early off the line. It’s a tactic ignored by match officials.
Undoubtedly, some of the frustrations and impatience in the Eels attack can be attributed to this rushing defence from the Sharks. It’s not an excuse for a poor performance but it cannot be ignored.
Where’s The Positive?
It’s difficult to find one in this game or in the clash against the Titans. Watching Parramatta’s attack has been as exciting as watching paint dry. So within such a lacklustre team effort, I have to consider some of the individual performances.
We can be buoyed by the debut of Siosaia Vave, especially his leg drive after contact. Frank Pritchard was better for his increased minutes and Semi righted his wrongs from the previous week. There are opportunities opening up around Nathan Brown, but his team mates need to become accustomed to reading what he creates. It would also be remiss to overlook David Gower’s first contribution for 2017. I thought he was one of the Eels better performers and added thrust with his carries.
The TCT box at ANZ Stadium provided a prime vantage point for this author.
Although it’s very early days in the season, I’m certainly not adopting a “don’t worry about it” response. You can be assured that the football department wouldn’t have that mentality either. There are genuine issues to be addressed and undoubtedly they will be. It will need to be a relatively quick fix. The Raiders away from home will be a tough ask, especially if we gift them possession and territory.
For mine, the team needs to take a step back and focus on those basics of the game. Our excellent pre-season training was a prelude to victories in the first two rounds. The team has proven that it has the ability to execute the core components of rugby league that are drilled at Saleyards. Somehow, on match day, we have strayed from that objective.
It’s time to work harder and smarter.
Eels forever!
Sixties
Images courtesy of the NRL and Parramatta Eels
I am not sure when the rule changed but I know that the original rule was that a defensive team cannot move up until the dummy half has the ball in his hands and that changed to allowing the defensive team to move up when the ball is played. When exactly is the ball played? When the ball is placed on the ground? When the ball is touched by the foot (or rolled back)? We played like a team with no distance between us and the defenders which just cramped everything and made us play poorly. That said, we looked to come up short in a couple of positions especially hooker/dummy half. Kaysa was MIA a few times and not able to even get into dummy half. His passing game seemed to stifle our attack. Hoffman looked out of his depth and although Taka seems like a terrific bloke, his lateral movement is catching him out due to injuries. Hooker, centre and wing may be too many changes for BA to make in one week but I agree sixties that the Sharks defence seemed to be up in our faces way too quickly which gave us no room hence forced passes. Having a defensive rule based on the “play the ball” rather than on when the dummy half handles the ball allows for way too much latitude/interpretation from the refs. What does the rule actually state sixties?
I thought the rule was when in hands of dummy half…but the rule is not enforced. Cronulla are like Melb IMO. I knew we were in for a ruck dominated game. And yes it looked avg in tv in terms of our errors and lack of ten metres. It’s frustrating to watch as it doesn’t allow a contest between ball and player. And with no one allowed to talk about the refs nothing happens. When was the last time the media mentioned the lack of refereeing….? I truly cannot recall. They seem more interested in sinners and saints and peeing in pockets of players and the NRL.
No doubt we will work on the things we should and i hole like others that we have our game heads on in Camberra as they may put 40 on us with ease if not.
Question…has anyone else noticed how offside teams are from scrums..? I said to someone last game versus the Titans. There is no room to attack off scrums anymore. It used to be the best option to attack…not now.
I think I might need to revisit some of the rules as I understood them, because the defence was certainly moving before the ball was even played. The Sharks may even have the same complaint about our line speed and perhaps that’s why the match was so scrappy. Our effort can’t be questioned, but we need to be smarter with our options and execute the simple plays much better.
60s I commented in a earlier blog that Sharks were allowed to stand 2 metres in front of the referee with impunity and hold down the tackled player for an age. Parra on the other hand generally reformed their defensive line in line with the ref and released the tackled player too quickly in my mind.
But ignoring that fact our attack was very pedestrian and our mistakes constant, particularly in our own area. You correctly picked the players that need replacing, Taka has been a shadow of his former self and offers very little go forward and no try assists to my knowledge so far this year. Lets hope BA takes action, if he has one major fault, it is that he stays loyal to his players far too long before replacing them.
People need to be realistic. With a young spine,who I think will get better and if they don’t we can go into the market to get what we need, are not at a stage to win without the ball especially when it is dropped when on attack in the Redzone. It continually killed momentum last night. I will say at this early stage I don’t think Kaysa can produce a good solid 80 minutes. I think the bench needs a rethink.
Our forwards need to stop the stupid offloads, that either result in a turn over or no real ground made. A quick play the ball would be better so we can build some pressure and have tired out the opposition.
Taka is a mystery. In the past, when injured, we missed him so much because he was so reliable in both attack and defence. Something must be up because you don’t suddenly forget all that so quickly. Watching from behind the posts last night Taka and Hoffman were doing the exact opposite to each other all the time, one up and in and the other sliding. Even in attack they did not seem to have any idea what each other was doing. The sharks missed many opportunities themselves. It is so out of character for Taka.
After all that, we are 2/2. We realistically must get 2 from next 3 and that will be a good start to the year. Finals are not won in March.
The ref’s were terribly consistent. Both teams stood offside all night, especially out wide. The problem was that hurt us because of our attack and suited the sharks because they play back through the ruck.
Love the banner guys.
I agree about the lack of support play. I haven’t seen our runners so isolated for a long time. Understandably there is no intent to pass the ball on a settler but the other team doesn’t need to know that. Also with the impatience, it was definitely forced by Cronulla’s defence. They may have been offside but as you stated so were we. The difference was as Gallen described in the presser – they knew they were going to get smashed but they didn’t let it force them into error. We let it force us into error yesterday just like Manly let us dictate terms in round one. Sometimes you just need to hold the ball and take your medicine.
Finally, I have to disagree about the relevance of the offloads stat. About half the time the losing team ‘wins’ the offloads for the reason you describe – most offloads are a desperation play by a player refusing to get dominated with the ball. A minority of offloads actually benefit the team.
I would suggest Pou that the majority of the time, the winning team provides the most offloads. This weekend the losing team provided more offloads in three matches, but two of those (Tigers and Titans) were on top and playing well when the offloads were flying. Regardless, my point remains the same (and it is stated in your response), there is no point in an offload that does not advantage your team.
10 METRES
All defending players except those who have taken up a position as Marker[s] must
‘retire 10 metres from the point at which the ball is played or to their own goal line’
Section 11 (10) (g)
All defending players are required to be ‘in line’ with the Referee marking the 10 metres. The Referee will call “go”
when the ball is clear of the ruck and then the defensive line is entitled to move forward.
If the defensive line is within 10 metres of their own goal line, the players:
1 Must be touching the goal line with a foot; and
2 The defenders cannot place their front foot past the centre of the ruck
The rules are just about impossible to find in their entirety (perhaps they are a secret) but here is an abbreviated version that I found. My understanding is that the “ruck” is the area in between the marker and the man playing the ball and so to clear the ruck the ball must be between the man playing the ball and the dummy half. That is just open to misinterpretation. It surely must go back to the ball having to be in the hands of the dummy half so that there is an absolutely clear understanding and no grey area. I cannot remember hearing a referee yell “go” thus allowing the defenders to move up. Why allow a grey area like this that is open to an individuals interpretation instead of a black and white rule that can be enforced?
I’d like to make a couple of points and see what people think.
Firstly, would the right side defence issues be helped by moving Taka to the left and Jennings to the right? We know that the Semi/Taka combination has worked brilliantly in the past in defence and especially in attack. Taka is not a selfish player and he sets up play either side of him. Jennings rarely has a bad game in either defence or attack but does have sticky hands.
Secondly, we are really missing an organising fb like Gordon. I know French is a young talent but at the Titans game he didn’t organise any defence, provided no support play and generally loitered around waiting for someone to set something up for him. I know he will get better but lets hope it happen quickly.
Thirdly, when are the senior players going to step in and settle things down, motivate or give a blast when needed in a game. Things happen in a game because they are allowed to happen. If the players don’t accept sloppy play and shortcuts etc then they become less and less until they’re gone from your game.
And lastly would it hurt to put a grubber in behind the defence when they are rushing up like Cronulla was. Smarter play would have turned them around and had them in two minds when we attacked.
Really interesting reading in these comments and in your main post 60s.
Obviously, holding onto the ball, and not letting the opponent get the ball away (along with doing it smartly ourselves), will go along way to reversing our fortunes somewhat. Going from 80% to 60 odd percent completion is a big red flag for a lot of issues we seem to be having.
Your point about Takz is interestinf AB, and I actually raised it on another forum myself. There’s no denying that Brad is a good player and at his best, an almost essential part of our side.
Himself and Semi were a great combo – since switching sides he hasn’t always looked as comfortable. I never realised what a small body Hoffman was until I saw him next to Takairangi. Let’s also not forget that since switching, he has gone through a myriad of partners on that side such as gutherson, Faraimo, Morgan (? Maybe?), Toutai, French, Gordon, and now Hoffman. Perhaps it’s a matter of him just getting used to yet another man outside him?
The raiders will definitely attack us down that side, but luckily they also have a weak side too. Next week needs a significant improvement, without a doubt.
I think no 9 is where it all starts . Every top team has a gun no 9 . Our bloke tries hard but doesn’t cut it for me . Teams working him over and leaving him a shell for attack . I thought Matagi was little off last night but I rated him highly so might be carrying little injury .
Need to uptempo the defence and really control The off loads . What I would do for a Moloney in the team !
I agree with what your saying about a No9 Paul. You only have to look at what Michael Ennis bought Cronulla. How though do you put an old head on young shoulders?
Gem KM good point about Taka’s partners. I’d forgotten about how many there are. One thing I’d say with regard to this is that those partners should be fitting in to how Taka defends and not the other way around.
It makes the prospect of putting someone like Robson at hooker. Not that it’s likely.
Good point AB, although I guess it depends on how Brad wants them to defend?