I've been having an on-going "debate" with many of you regarding Joseph Paulo, and all of that time my argument has been that Paulo's inclusion in the side was mostly out of a need to support Chris Sandow and compliment his lack of control in the middle. I started this debate even before Brad Arthur got here with my infamous 'Paulo could play 7' blog.
Now, if you want evidence about the problem Brad Arthur has been dealt in Sandow, read this quote in relation to a story about Sandow hoping to land a new contract at the Eels.
“It would be a good opportunity to play with Kieran because he’s really direct with the footy and he brings the boys onto the ball. With me out the back that could look really good. But I’ve just got to let my footy do the talking and hopefully things will fall into place.”
You don't really want your seven talking about playing "out the back" - that's what a fullback is for. But what Brad Arthur and his coaching crew have done with Sandow is to design a structure that lets him effectively play as an alternate second receiver. It plays to his strengths and has worked pretty well.
However, it's worked less well this year without Jarryd Hayne. Sandow's running threat created space for Hayne and Hayne's presence created room inside for Sandow. This year, sides have been more willing to hold on Sandow because the threat on his outside has been lesser. That has been particularly the case because Tepai's removal from the side has left that right-side particularly limp.
Take Sandow's show and go away from him and he's not left with a lot else to his armoury, particularly when you consider he will always be a liability in defence. Most of his contributions to the side have come from ad-lib play off second phase or break-down play.
Contributing to Sandow's demise has been the wavering form of Joseph Paulo. I don't think Paulo has been as bad as many of you make out, but he's had a number of poor games in recent weeks and he weakens the stiffness of our pack. BA also clearly values the linespeed and defensive cleaning up that IDG provides in the middle of the ruck but including both Paulo and IDG left him clearly deficient on the fringes in recent works, with Anthony Watmough no longer suited to that kind of role.
As I've considered Paulo and Sandow a package deal for some time, it did not surprise me at all that they were dropped together.
My feel has also been that I reckon sides have started to come to terms with our structure. Joseph Paulo hasn't been putting on enough short-balls in the middle and you don't have to bother over-committing to any defender on the right. I think if BA kept bashing away with that same structure we were going to continue to struggle.
So what do these changes mean? I think it means we're going to have to play with a pretty different structure (particularly compared to last week). What we know about Luke Kelly is he has limitations. You're going to run into trouble if you ask him to create too much, but what he can do is direct traffic better than Chris Sandow. So I expect Kelly to play a far more central role than Sandow did while Corey Norman floats around the field. If you go back to the Brisbane game, Norman pops up for two tries down the right side which has been a pretty unusual occurrence this year.
Indeed, the Brisbane game may be the best line to how we'll look to play in this game. With Kelly playing a more central role, we'll look to make much greater use of our second rowers and that's why you're seeing both Tepai and Pauli Pauli come back into the side. Those guys, as well as Mau, need to suck in the defence (as Pauli Pauli did in our first try against Brisbane) and Reece Robinson is going to have a lot of responsibility with the sweep play to deliver a final ball.
I imagine that Sandow's future at Parramatta will be decided in the next few weeks. BA can't carry an "out the back" halfback at seven, even when Foran arrives. I imagine he's been told to go and show that he can play like a genuine number seven. Chris is not incapable of playing that role, but he needs to keep his head in the game for a full eighty-minutes and play for the team first. His dropping also gives Corey Norman a chance to show if he's the real-deal. He'll be our go-to man against the Warriors.
The other significant factor here is that from memory Luke Kelly's preferred side is his left, which could mean Norman plays mainly on the right. That's key if Norman has moved into favouritism to partner Foran who is very much a left-side player.
While, I've no doubt the shift is about getting some immediate results, Sandow's dropping and the subsequent performances could just have as much significance for our 2016 season as they do for this one.
Replies
Awesome write up 1EE. There was a big article in the Telegraph today, talking about how Sandow has played 8 seasons in 1st grade, but never made the finals. That's over 150 first grade games with never making the finals.
Second place behind Sandow for NRL 1st grader with most games, but no finals footy is.... Joseph Paulo on 112 games or so. What a crazy coincidence! And how strange that they both play for the Eels and are paired together, as you say. I'm pretty sure this was before the announcement that they were both dropped together...
I feel as though we need to cut loose the players who've been with us the last few years. These 'losers' who are just used to it. Sandow, Joseph Paulo, Tim Mannah, Ryan Morgan. Shake things up a bit and start over.
My analysis: A dud call by BA. Kelly will once again be a flop and Sandow will return within two weeks.
Mabe Hayne made Arthur look better than he is?
Your most likely right Jimmy, but what is BA meant to do, keep Sandow in the top grade and keep going along the same lines?
Why would Sandow and Seff be a package deal?
My biggest disappointment is that Chris didn't get the chance without Sef in the side. Of late he just gets increasingly in the way.
How many Half backs have to share the ball between three playmakers?
As for Corey showing us what he can do, he has had as much chance/ball as Chris if not more. He has had plenty of time and ball to show if he is the real deal.
The biggest shame is that Sandow due to whatever, is not afforded the same chance with more ball & opportunity coming his way
As disappointed as I am that the dropping occurred, (when other clubs turn blind eyes to this sort of stuff) don't believe BA would have dropped him on form alone, and believe he would be dropping him for his own good hence ours.
Spot on Macy-agree with what you're saying.
I've long been a fan of Sandow and I think his long kicking game would have to be close to the best in the game. On top of that he's generally the first player on the scene trying to make the tackle after he's done the kick.
That said I've always been of the mindset that a great defensive team will beat a great attacking team more times than not. St George's performance this year supports that.
We all know Chrissy is a liability in D but moreso its his outside man that knows it as well and gets drawn in at critical moments creating a two on one down that side
Great points Macy, well said.
Yes it would've been nice to see Sandow get his chance with out Seffa hogging the ball or getting in the way for once.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next