Hey Parra fans, and welcome to the first TCT Golden Point series; Beyond the Blame Game; where I’m going to try to dissect some of the popular current topics of discussion among Parramatta supporters by looking beyond the obvious symptoms to explore their potential causes—and, importantly, what might actually help address them.

The idea came from a 1:00am insomnia induced reflection; after responding to comments on my recent data analysis, where I tested my one-eyed frustrations about the Eels’ 2026 performance; and found that controllable, player-led actions were a bigger factor than referees, the bunker, injuries or fan fatigue.

What began as a fairly simple thought to apply a near 100-year-old theory to an 80-year-old football club; quickly became a cyclonic rabbit hole, eventually producing a 62-page MS-Word file that simply couldn’t be given justice; or proper scrutiny; in a single article.

So, a shout-out to our TCT readers for always keeping me thinking; particularly BDon, for reminding me of both the wonders and woes of applying 5 Whys in study and practice, and Namrebo, for encouraging me to dig further into causation given my concerns about the validity of publicly available match data, and the inherent limitations of subjective data interpretation.

As always, I hope you find the series insightful and engaging. More importantly, I look forward to hearing your own views and perspectives in the comments; whether they are similar, dissimilar, or indifferent.

 

BEYOND THE BLAME GAME SERIES – PART 1: ASK WHY?

Data can only tell us so much. It can help identify a problem and discredit assumptions of what the problem might be. However, further investigation is required to sufficiently understand why the problem exists, why it isn’t changing or why it consistently reappears; and this is where meaningful analysis begins.

The Eels have rarely lacked plausible reasons for the situations they find themselves in throughout each season. The more difficult question is whether those reasons are being addressed using a clear and consistent process for identifying underlying causes, learning from them and ultimately moving the club closer to what feels like a perennial quest for Premiership Glory.

That requires clear accountability, critical reflection, systems capable of adapting when evidence challenges existing assumptions, and a willingness to test whether proposed solutions actually address the problems they were designed to solve.

• What is actually driving the problem?
• Which factors are symptoms, and which are causes?
• Who has the authority, responsibility and accountability to address it?
• How can we prevent the same issues from hindering premiership success?

This is not an argument that every problem has one simple cause or owner: football clubs are complex ecosystems in which a broad group of key stakeholders’ influence, challenge, and lean on one another, often concurrently. However, hierarchical complexity does not excuse repeated underwhelming results, accountability, and corrective actions.

So who is responsible for what? While not being privy to each party’s position description specifics, based on my significant understanding of corporate systems, I have made the following evidence-based assumptions:

• The Board is responsible for ensuring the club has the right strategy, leadership, governance and accountability structures in place.
• The CEO is responsible for organisational performance, executive accountability and whether the club’s resources are being converted into results.
• The General Manager of Football oversees the execution of football strategy, including recruitment, retention, development and succession planning.
• Football operational staff manage the systems, logistics, communication and support structures that allow coaches and players to concentrate on performance.
• The Head Coach is accountable for the overall football program, including playing philosophy, preparation, selection, standards, tactical direction and measurable on-field improvement.
• The Coaching Team supports the Head Coach through specialist coaching, player and positional development, technical and tactical preparation, performance review and reinforcement of required behaviours.
• The Captain helps convert the coach’s strategy into collective action by reinforcing standards, communication and responses under pressure.
• The Top Squad, including the captain, must ultimately take ownership of preparation, behaviour, teamwork, decision-making and individual execution.

Each stakeholder therefore owns a different part of the system, and together those parts shape Parramatta’s performance. But establishing who contributes to an outcome is not the same as establishing who is ultimately accountable for it. That distinction becomes important when responsibility is distributed across several layers of a football club.

For example: a player leaving should not automatically be interpreted as a GM of Football failure. A player may leave for money, family, opportunity or circumstances the club cannot reasonably control. By the same token, where valued players repeatedly choose to leave, the club should shift their retention strategy focus beyond contract negotiations alone. I.e. the discussion should consider matters broader than dollar value, such as how coaching relationships, broader opportunities (succession planning), culture, communication, leadership and confidence in the football program contributed to that decision.

My aim here is not to criticise the current process or manufacture a solution for an industry I have not worked in. I am just attempting to address recurrent fan discourse and put forward ideas in an evidence based and rational fashion.

That is where this three-part Beyond the Blame Game series begins.

• Part One introduces RASCI in context then applies Toyodas Five Whys to each internal club stakeholder and what I have subjectively prescribed as their biggest problem.
• Part Two will then Challenge the System through Double-Loop Learning and correlating behavioral theories; questioning whether the assumptions, habits and structures beneath those problems also need to change.
• Part Three will Test the Solution through the Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle, turning a number of tried and tested theoretical measures into practical experiments that can be evaluated, refined and improved.

Together, RASCI and these three broad organisational analysis methods prescribe an accountability framework that is informed, adaptable and impactful: clarifying ownership, identifying the cause, challenging the system, and testing the response.

The Accountability Lens: RASCI

Before I jump into asking why, it helps to be clear about what accountability actually means. A RASCI Matrix is a simple governance tool that separates stakeholders into five different roles in a task, decision or outcome.

RASCI evolved from the RACI responsibility-assignment matrix, a project and management tool developed to clarify roles, responsibilities and decision-making authority. While the model’s exact origins are difficult to attribute to a single source, its development has been linked to early organisational structure and management systems work, including that of Edmond F. Sheehan, before being further developed and popularised through organisations such as DuPont and Ernst & Young into the responsibility-assignment frameworks that eventually evolved into the RACI and RASCI models used today.

Across almost every organisation or agency I have worked in over the past 30 years, I have encountered some form of framework that resembles RASCI. But, much like the Likert-scale surveys workplaces use to measure job satisfaction or gather feedback, models designed to challenge the status quo are only as useful as the way they are applied. Their value depends on whether they are used intentionally, applied appropriately and, most importantly, acted upon effectively.

• Responsible (R): the person or people who perform the work or take the action.
• Accountable (A): the person ultimately answerable for the outcome and with the authority to ensure the work is completed. Good RASCI practice generally seeks one clear accountable owner.
• Support (S): the people who provide practical assistance, resources or specialist help to the Responsible person or team, without owning the task or outcome.
• Consulted (C): the people whose expertise, perspective or input should inform a decision before action is taken.
• Informed (I): the people who need visibility of a decision, progress or result, but are not responsible for making it happen.

Importantly, those labels are not permanent job descriptions. A stakeholder may be Accountable for one issue, Responsible for another, Support work on a third, be Consulted on a fourth and Informed on a fifth. Not every issue requires every category. In a football club, where responsibilities overlap, that distinction matters: when everyone appears responsible, it becomes difficult to identify who actually owns the outcome.

The following five examples apply the RASCI to different issues facing the Parramatta Eels to show its primary value as an accountability identifier that will help form a broader understanding of the way accountability can vary across internal stakeholder groups. Which will (I hope) strengthen the relevance and validity of the 5 Whys analysis that follows.

 

The Five Whys

The Five Whys method is credited to Sakichi Toyoda, founder of Toyota Industries, who developed the technique during the 1930s. It has since been widely adopted by organisations as a practical tool for root-cause analysis, reflection and continuous improvement.

The Five Whys is a problem-solving method designed to move beyond symptoms and identify the underlying cause of failure. Rather than accepting the first and most convenient explanation, it repeatedly asks why until the discussion reaches something the organisation can meaningfully address. Applied properly, the process is not about allocating blame; it is about establishing accountability, challenging assumptions, and preventing the same problems from reoccurring over and over again.

How the Process Works:

• Write the problem: State the clear, factual issue you see.
• Ask Why 1: Why did this happen? Write down the direct cause.
• Ask Why 2: Why did that cause happen? Dig one step deeper.
• Ask Why 3 & 4: Keep asking why based on the previous answer.
• Ask Why 5: Identify the underlying root cause—or causes—that can be addressed through meaningful and lasting action.

The following section applies the Five Whys to each key stakeholder from the boardroom to the bench. The purpose is not to permanently label any stakeholder R, A, S, C or I, but to test whether responsibility, support and accountability are aligned around the issue being examined. As each analysis reaches a possible root cause, the RASCI check becomes: who should be Responsible for action, who is Accountable for the outcome, who should Support delivery, who must be Consulted, and who needs to be Informed?

5-Why’s for The Board

Problem: The club has not consistently converted its strategic vision, resources and governance into sustained on-field success.

1. Why has the club been unable to consistently convert its resources, facilities and supporter base into sustained football success? Because strong resources and infrastructure create opportunity, but they do not automatically produce aligned leadership, effective decisions or consistent performance.
2. Why has the organisation not consistently converted that opportunity into results?  Because responsibility is distributed across the Board, executive leadership and football department, creating the possibility that individual functions are reviewed without sufficient scrutiny of how the entire system performs together.
3. Why can collective accountability become difficult to establish? Because boards generally govern through reports, recommendations, performance measures and delegated authority. If those mechanisms are unclear, incomplete or overly focused on short-term results, problems may only become visible after they have already affected the football program.
4. Why might significant problems remain unresolved across multiple seasons or leadership changes? Because changing personnel does not necessarily correct the governance conditions surrounding them. New coaches, executives and football staff can inherit the same unclear expectations, fragmented decision-making processes or inconsistent measures of success.
5. Why must the Board examine its own role in sustained underperformance?Because the Board is ultimately responsible for ensuring the organisation has an effective strategy, capable leadership, clear accountability and appropriate oversight. It may not make individual football decisions, but it governs the system in which those decisions are made.

Assessment: The Parramatta Board needs to look beyond whether it has appropriately delegated responsibility and assess whether it has created a governance environment capable of identifying poor performance early, challenging ineffective decisions and holding the right people accountable before another cycle of underachievement becomes entrenched.

Board – RASCI Implication: The Board is Accountable for the governance environment, with the CEO Responsible for organisational execution and football leaders Consulted or Supporting where their expertise is required.

 

5-Whys for the CEO

Problem: The organisation has not consistently translated its people, resources and football operations into the results expected by members and stakeholders.

1. Why has the football program not consistently delivered results that reflect the club’s resources, facilities and supporter base? Because strong resources create potential, but they do not automatically produce effective football decisions or consistent on-field performance.
2. Why has that potential not been fully converted into results? Because responsibility is spread across recruitment, coaching, development, high performance, pathways and administration, while accountability for the combined outcome can become less clear.
3. Why can accountability become unclear? Because organisations often measure individual departments and appointments without adequately assessing how effectively the entire system works together.
4. Why has the broader system not consistently identified and corrected problems earlier? Because governance can become focused on whether the appropriate structures and personnel exist rather than whether those structures are producing the required outcomes.
5. Why is stronger organisational accountability necessary? Because sustained underperformance cannot continually be explained by changing coaches, injuries, individual errors or isolated roster decisions. At some point, the organisation must examine how those problems were anticipated, managed and allowed to persist.

Assessment: The challenge for the CEO is to create an environment where accountability is clear, performance is measurable and ineffective decisions are identified, challenged and corrected before they become entrenched. Success will depend not only on responding to problems, but on building an organisation capable of learning from them before another season is lost.

CEO — RASCI Implication: The CEO is Accountable for ensuring organisational accountability and performance systems work effectively, with football and operational leaders Responsible and Supporting within their respective functions and the Board maintaining appropriate oversight.

 

5-Whys for the GM of Football

Problem: The football program has not consistently maintained a balanced, resilient and strategically aligned roster through an integrated approach to recruitment, retention, development and succession planning.

1. Why has the roster not consistently sustained finals-level performance? Because it has at times lacked the balance, depth and succession required to maintain consistent performance across an entire season.
2. Why have those roster imbalances emerged? Because recruitment, retention and succession decisions have not always anticipated future roster needs, player departures, injuries or the natural evolution of the squad.
3. Why has roster planning sometimes appeared reactive rather than proactive? Because identifying future needs and securing the right players at the right time are different capabilities, particularly within salary-cap and contractual constraints.
4. Why has Parramatta struggled to consistently build and maintain roster balance? Because recruitment, retention, pathways, player development and succession planning may not yet be operating as one integrated football strategy.
5. Why is an integrated football strategy important? Because premiership rosters are not assembled through isolated signings. They are built through years of coordinated decisions in which every extension, release, pathway promotion and recruitment target supports a clearly defined football identity. Consistency in those decisions builds continuity; inconsistency creates recurring roster gaps.

Assessment: The challenge for the GMF is to take a broader, more integrated view of Parramatta’s talent acquisition and roster management strategy. The issue is not simply whether the club has enough talented players, but whether it has a clear and adaptable plan for attracting, developing and retaining a balanced squad of elite performers, dependable core players and emerging talent. Achieving that balance is essential to building depth, maintaining confidence in the roster and ensuring sufficient quality remains available when injuries, representative commitments or other disruptions inevitably affect player availability.

GM of Football — RASCI Implication: The GM of Football is Accountable and Responsible for an integrated roster strategy, supported by Football Operations and informed by the Consulted expertise of the Head Coach and Coaching Team.

 

5-Whys for Football Program Staff

Problem: We know the Clubs facilities are world class. However, this function cannot be excluded from possibly attributing to the wider performance issues. Hence operational systems, processes, and support services must be reviewed to ensure they are consistently providing the best possible environment for coaches and players to perform.

1. Why might avoidable operational problems affect football performance?  Because incomplete information, last-minute changes, unclear responsibilities or poorly coordinated logistics can create unnecessary distractions for coaches and players.
2. Why do those problems occur?  Because football operations involve multiple people, departments, deadlines and external organisations, with seemingly minor failures capable of affecting the wider match-day preparation.
3. Why can small operational failures become recurring problems?  Because the immediate issue may be quickly resolved without examining the process that allowed it to occur. A missing item is replaced. A scheduling conflict is rearranged. A communication failure is corrected. The match proceeds—and everyone moves on.
4. Why might the underlying process remain unchanged? Because successful operations are often judged by whether a planned action/event ultimately occurred, rather than whether it was delivered efficiently, consistently and without avoidable disruption.
5. Why is a focus on efficiency, consistency and streamlined operational practices so important? Because repeated small failures create administrative burden, distract key personnel and gradually normalise reactive problem-solving.

Assessment: The challenge for football operations staff is to review, reflect upon and reform potentially entrenched processes to ensure the operational systems supporting the team consistently reduce uncertainty, anticipate problems and allow coaches and players to concentrate on performance.

Football Program Staff — RASCI Implication: Football Operations is Responsible for reviewing and improving the systems that support the football program, while the GM of Football remains Accountable for ensuring those functions collectively enable performance.

 

5-Whys for The Head Coach

Problem: The team is not consistently translating its preparation, playing systems and game plan into disciplined, repeatable, match-winning performances.

1. Why has the team struggled to convert competitive periods into victories? Because it has repeatedly undermined its own performance through errors, poor completion, missed attacking opportunities, defensive lapses and an inability to sustain pressure for long enough periods.
2. Why are those performance failures continuing? Because the team is not yet consistently executing the required standards, decisions and behaviours when fatigue, scoreboard pressure and changing momentum test its discipline.
3. Why has the coaching program not yet produced greater consistency in those moments? Because establishing a game plan and identifying mistakes are only part of the Head Coach’s responsibility. The broader coaching environment must ensure preparation, selection, role clarity, standards and tactical expectations collectively reinforce the behaviours required under pressure.
4. Why is alignment across those areas so important? Because players are more likely to reproduce behaviours that are consistently trained, clearly expected and reinforced through selection, accountability and match preparation. If expectations, consequences or priorities are unclear or inconsistently applied, recurring weaknesses can become tolerated rather than corrected.
5. Why must responsibility for sustained improvement ultimately sit with the Head Coach? Because while assistant coaches deliver specialist programs and players remain responsible for their own execution, the Head Coach is accountable for the overall football system: what is prioritised, what standards are demanded, how the team prepares, who is selected and whether the collective approach is producing measurable improvement.

Assessment: The challenge for the Head Coach is to ensure that Parramatta’s broader coaching system progressively converts preparation, strategy and expectations into more reliable match-day performance. This requires more than identifying recurring errors or allowing time for combinations to develop; it requires clear standards, aligned coaching priorities, meaningful accountability and selection decisions that reinforce the behaviours the team is expected to reproduce under pressure. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Head Coach’s program should become increasingly visible through measurable improvements in execution, discipline, adaptability and results.

Head Coach — RASCI Implication: The Head Coach is Accountable for the overall coaching response, with the Coaching Team Responsible, Football Operations providing Support, and the Captain and Squad Responsible for translating preparation into match-day behaviour.

 

5-Whys for the Coaching Team

Problem: The coaching program is not yet consistently converting identified performance weaknesses into sustained improvements in player execution, decision-making and collective performance.

1. Why do recurring execution and decision-making problems continue despite being identified through coaching and review? Because recognising what went wrong does not automatically change the technical skills, habits or decisions players reproduce under match pressure.
2. Why might identified problems not consistently translate into changed behaviour? Because improvement requires coaching interventions to be specific, repeated and reinforced across individual, positional and team environments until the desired response becomes increasingly automatic.
3. Why can that reinforcement become inconsistent? Because a modern coaching program involves multiple coaches, specialist areas and competing performance priorities. Without strong alignment, players may receive technically sound instruction without every component consistently reinforcing the same broader playing principles and behavioural expectations.
4. Why is alignment across the Coaching Team so important? Because attack, defence, skills, positional development and individual preparation cannot operate as isolated functions. Each contributes to the same match-day performance, meaning coaching messages, priorities and measures of improvement must complement rather than compete with one another.
5. Why must the Coaching Team continually evaluate whether its methods are producing the required improvement? Because coaching effectiveness cannot ultimately be measured by the quality of instruction alone. It must become visible through progressively better execution, decision-making, adaptability and consistency when players are exposed to fatigue, pressure and changing match conditions.

Assessment: The challenge for Parramatta’s Coaching Team is to ensure that identifying a performance problem leads to a coordinated and measurable coaching response. Specialist coaches must do more than recognise and correct individual errors; their methods, messaging and performance measures need to collectively reinforce the Head Coach’s broader football strategy. Effective coaching should progressively convert review findings into stronger habits, better decisions and more reliable execution until improvement becomes evident not only on the training field, but when those behaviours are tested under genuine match pressure.

Coaching Team — RASCI Implication: The Head Coach remains Accountable for the broader coaching program, while the Coaching Team is Responsible for delivering coordinated interventions, supported by relevant football staff and informed by player feedback.

5-Whys for The Captain

Problem: The Captains significant influence as The Squads chief playmaker does not always translate into the calm, consistent and empowering leadership required to guide the team through pressure, adversity and changing momentum.

1. Why can leadership become more difficult for The Captain during critical moments? Because as both captain and chief playmaker, he carries significant responsibility for game management, attacking direction, kicking strategy and communication, while simultaneously being expected to lead the team emotionally and tactically.
2. Why can combining those responsibilities affect his effectiveness as a leader? Because when pressure increases, the demands of personally managing the football contest can compete with the broader leadership requirement to remain composed, communicate clearly and provide reassurance and direction to those around him.
3. Why is composure particularly important for a captain? Because a captain’s behaviour can influence the emotional temperature of the team. Urgency can sharpen standards and demand accountability, but visible frustration or overly reactive communication can also reduce clarity when teammates most need calm and decisive leadership.
4. Why might Moses need to adapt his leadership style rather than simply demand more from himself? Because effective leadership is not only about setting high standards or personally taking responsibility. It also requires understanding how different players respond to communication, knowing when to challenge and when to steady, delegating responsibility and creating confidence in others.
5. Why is developing that broader leadership capability important for Captain and Squad? Because the strongest captains do more than direct play or produce decisive individual moments; they amplify the performance of those around them. As Moses develops his ability to balance intensity with composure, direction with empowerment and accountability with confidence, his influence can extend beyond his own performance and become a more consistent stabilising force for the team.

Assessment: The challenge for The Captain is to continue evolving from being a dominant on-field organiser into an increasingly adaptable and influential leader. His competitiveness, football intelligence, and willingness to take responsibility are significant leadership strengths, but captaincy requires those qualities to be translated into calm, clear and constructive influence; particularly in high pressure moments.

Captain — RASCI Implication: The Captain is Responsible for reinforcing standards, communication and collective responses on the field, while the Head Coach remains Accountable for the leadership environment and the wider Squad provides Support through shared ownership and behaviour.

5-Whys for the Top Squad

Problem: The Top Squad has shown it is talented and capable of competing against elite teams; but they have failed to consistently sustain the discipline and execution required to turn opportunities into points and competitive performances into wins.

1. Why are we losing games we are capable of winning? Because too many possessions and defensive periods are being undermined by avoidable errors, poor discipline, missed opportunities and inconsistent execution.
2. Why does execution deteriorate at important moments? Because decision-making, communication and patience can become less reliable when players are fatigued, under scoreboard pressure or trying to immediately regain momentum.
3. Why does pressure continue to expose the same weaknesses? Because under stress, players tend to revert to their most deeply ingrained habits, meaning standards that are understood intellectually are not always embedded strongly enough to survive match pressure.
4. Why are those standards not yet consistently embedded? Because improvement requires more than recognising mistakes in review. The required behaviours must be repeatedly practised, reinforced and demanded by teammates until disciplined execution becomes automatic rather than situational.
5. Why must responsibility ultimately sit with the playing group? Because coaches can design systems, analysts can identify patterns and leaders can reinforce expectations, but only the players can consistently execute the tackle, complete the set, communicate, support one another and make the correct decision in the moment.

Assessment: The challenge for Parramatta’s top squad is to translate planning, training and development into automatic on-field behaviours. This goes beyond simply understanding what good execution looks like; the real test is whether those behaviours can be reproduced consistently when fatigue, pressure and shifts in momentum test discipline and decision-making. Sustainable improvement requires collective ownership, with teammates reinforcing standards, responding constructively to mistakes and refusing to allow avoidable lapses to become accepted habits.

Squad — RASCI Implication: Individual players are Accountable and Responsible for their own execution, while the wider Squad Supports collective standards and the Captain and Coaching Team reinforce the behaviours required under pressure.

 

The Golden Point: The Questions Beneath the Questions

The Five Whys can help identify what lies beneath the visible problem, while RASCI clarifies who should own, act on and support what that diagnosis reveals. But a root cause and accountable owner still do not guarantee change. A club can identify poor execution, inadequate succession planning, unclear accountability or ineffective preparation and still make another short-term adjustment; rather than addressing the cause. If the same problems continue despite that clarity, the next question is whether the assumptions, habits and structures surrounding the problem also need to change.

That is where Double-Loop Learning (DLL) becomes important. We will look at DLL in part 2 of the Series: Beyond the Blame Game Part 2: Challenge the System; where I will be questioning whether the assumptions, habits and structures beneath the Whys also need to change.

Until then, stand together and stick with us. We appreciate you all.

See you at the game on Saturday.

Roly-Poly