I was amongst the sceptical when we signed Ben Roberts. From what I’d seen of Roberts at the Bulldogs, you had a player who was ‘theoretically’ the perfect footballer. He was the triple threat, a player who could create opportunities through kicking, passing or running. However, Roberts seemed to consistently struggle with his decision-making - taking poor options or committing errors when he seemingly over-thought his execution.
Clearly, there was the belief within Parramatta that Roberts game could be worked on, and he could start fulfilling the potential that saw him represent New Zealand at a young age. And indeed, there were signs in his early games that Roberts was on an upwards trajectory.
However, Roberts faltered. It seemed like a couple of bad misses in defence rocked his confidence, and his all-round game just dropped off. If you have Bulldogs mates that were probably jabbing you in the ribs and questioning why you would expect any differently.
At the same time, the combinations that Kearney set up at the start of the year were also faltering. Again, they sounded good in theory. Roberts and Sandow on either side of the ruck, with Hayne chiming in on both the left and right as he saw fit. Theoretically, it was a strategy that would allow Hayne to do his magic on the fringes while allowing both Roberts and Sandow plenty of latitude to take advantage of their running games.
However, the theory also came with an assumption that both those players would take their composure and directional abilities to new levels. Neither were dominant playmakers at their former clubs but would need to share that responsibility pretty evenly for Kearney’s structure to work.
That didn’t play out. What became clear in the first half of this season is that Parramatta lacked any stability through the middle, with Sandow and Roberts both struggling to lift their control games to the required levels and consequently only succeeding in dragging each other down. As such, when Casey McGuire replaced first Sandow and then Roberts he brought more stability into the halves and the combinations began to get better, despite the fact that McGuire isn’t nearly the attacking threat that either of the other two halves represent. However, the balance was better and it’s something I’m fanatical about - good Rugby League teams first and foremost have the right balance of skills and personalities.
Ben Roberts was given the chance to return to first grade last game, and for the most part he did pretty well. It wasn’t his best game, but it was up there around the level Kearney needs him to product on a week-in, week-out basis. Sandow’s game was at a similar level. But even those two players producing fair games was enough to give Hayne the freedom to produce a stellar performance that Parramatta rode to victory on. That was the theory being realised in practice.
However, for Roberts, having to make the return to first grade in front of a home ground made for a pretty easy game for the enigmatic half to get up for. Nobody has ever denied he isn’t capable of producing those “big” games. What he has not proven he is capable of is producing solid, consistent performances.
With the signing of Luke Kelly, the need for Roberts to produce is immediate. I believe Kelly as five-eighth gives the Eels side a better chance of achieving the kind of balance and foundation they’ve lacked so far this year.
Kelly has a good all-round game, but lacks pace. I would suggest that if Kelly is teamed with Sandow it would require Kearney to change up his structure and move away from the split halves option.
Kelly potentially brings you the kind of stability that Jeff Robson offers. I can see him taking over a larger share of the directional play, which would let Sandow get back to more of the game he was playing at South Sydney. Kelly and Sandow can play a more traditional first receiver/second receiver role (who is first, who is second is pretty irrelevant and based primarily on the play that is attempting to be set, more so than the number on their back), with the aim of hitting Hayne on the edges. That structure is further enhanced by the fact we now have a strong ball- playing lock in Joseph Paulo, who can lurk around the ruck looking for blindside opportunities. That’s a bonus Kearney wouldn’t have really banked on at the start of the year.
In this kind of structure the “theory” is closer to the realities of what the players involved have shown they are capable of consistently achieving. It seems to me, a recipe for more consistent performances than throwing your faith behind three players who are all “bricks or diamond” styles of players. Now, as Kelly showed in his most recent performance for Melbourne, he’s only young and he’s going to make his share of poor decisions as well, but it’s at least a formula that can be confidently worked on.
And that’s the future that Ben Roberts is facing. If he isn’t immediately capable of making work the initial plan that Parramatta went into this year with, then he is going to find it very tough to retain his spot in this side because I do think Kelly provides something the side has been largely missing.
I tend to think Robert’s is fundamentally let down by concentration. He seems to get up for big games so it’s not to do with an inability to handle pressure. It was one of the reasons I was very confident we would win against the Sharks - I thought Roberts would storm back into first grade with a bang and that the team would perform well off the back of that. I do think Kearney’s plan for his halves is potentially wonderful if all three of the pieces did what they were meant to. However, when Robert’s confidence dropped upon getting trampled in defence, it seemed to pre-occupy him and his form crumbled sharply. Ben needs to treat every game he goes into as if it could be his last, because I’m pretty much of the opinion that is pretty close to being the case.
Replies
Yep not looking good for roberts, However Sandow aint home and hosed either
I don't think we have another option to Sandow. We desperately need one player in the halves who is a genuine threat to the defence, or its too easy for opposition defences to number up on Hayne. For all of Sandow's faults, his acceleration forces you not to slide early and that kind of player is in very limited supply.
wow, thats an in-depth wall of text. your title sums it up tho.
Roberts, now we got Luke Kelly, time to up your game or your career is gooooonsky!
Nice blog.
This all seems to suggest Kearney will be vindicated in how he has handled Roberts.
1) Gave him a fair chance.
2) When it wasn't working out, demoted him to get his mojo back.
3) Came up with "Plan B" (Kelly). Always good to have credible competition for spots to keep people on their toes.
4) Now Roberts has earned a second chance it is up to him to prove he has what it takes.
5) If, as some people suggest, Roberts fails, "Plan B" comes into effect and Roberts will not be able to say he didn't get a fair go.
Good blog Phil.
Last year I watched a few NSW Cup games on Fox and I was bewildered by the Roberts signing. He was an average NSW Cup player, not a stand-out. I've seen enough this year to confirm my view that Roberts is not NRL standard in his consistency, application or toughness. He's flashy, mistake-riddled and soft.
So why the hell did we not retain Robson? Sandow/Robson could have been great, like Carney/Robson for the Sharks. Signing Kelly seems to me to be an admission that a player in that mould is what we need.
Tomorrow's a big game. Win and suddenly our season is out of the toilet. Lose by 20 and it will be like the win never happened.
Agree, that's his best role. Still, I'd love for him to hit a streak of form - if he did we'd make a run at the finals I reckon, but I reckon that's the one crucial mistake we've made this year in our planning. Banking on key players to do better than they have in the past. You'd have to describe it as a rookie mistake.
The only point with that is you do lose a bit of flexibility with only four forwards on the bench. But of course, it gives you nice backup for a game like the Dragons one, where if you don't have a back on the bench you're screwed if one of your halves go down.
Could Roberts be more of a centre than a half?
I proposed this on LU and got absolutely trashed for it. But, IMO, Roberts' greatest strength is running the ball - not being a chief playmaker. We have and have had weaknesses in our centres, so Roberts could at least be trialed there? Other than that, I see him being of more use to this team as a genuine utility who can play multiple positions off the bench - and he can play within the backs or the forwards, ie. halves or even centre, hooker or backrow.
If Kelly is as good as people are saying i would be using Roberts as a backup hooker immediately.Bring him in and lift the tempo around the middle with 15min to go in each half.Just tell him to pass straight away or run and nothing else.
I hope people don't put too high, an expectation on Kelly. It's got to be remembered, he's only played a handful of NRL games and you just don't become an NRL player overnight. You can have all of the success you want in the junior grades, but until you've done it week-in, week-out you don't know if you're up to it.
Like every young player Kelly is likely to come in, have a few howlers do some dumb things and no doubt people will be calling for him never to play NRL again, like they have with the likes of Blair, Morgan and even Loko when he first came in. You only have to look at James Maloney who was very average for a long time, until he was able to string a good series of games together and get used to playing NRL.
If we expect to make any kind of rally, it's going to depend on Roberts playing consistently well. Chopping Roberts for a rookie will be the admission that there is zero hope left for the season, and that we're only playing with next year in mind.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 8 Next