Eels Blogs

One of my favorite optical illusions is the Ames Room illusion. And there is another one doing the rounds in the NRL world. 

That the modern rookie is the "Modern Way" and more likely to be in touch with the modern game - especially highly-touted apprentices such as the Melbourne-Rooster schooled Ryles, the Cronulla-Slater-Origin schooled Hannay and the Bennett touted Dean Young. The fresh, new car smell.

But why is that so?

Sure, most of the mainstream media sing this tune and the big names - not unlike the Pied Piper of Hamelin singing about the next young hot things in a modern rehash of the box-office smash hit Barbie World.

And thus present our club with a tantalizing temptation of apparantly reputable NRL-talent. In a sense, second-prize on the reputation stakes after losing the most reptuable big fish in Bennett. In some way, the appearance of less risk. Than an left-field choice in someone like Brian McDermott who is barely known in the NRL world, despite clearly being the most competent and successful by a long way.

But why else? Because Bellamy, Slater, Bennett and the likes of Wade Graham think they'll make great head coaches in the future?  We've seen what's happened to highly-touted rookies that Bennett like Price and the recently sacked JD. 

Let's look at facts, not what people say.

Head coaches make the decisions. Assistants need to get sign off on what they do. Head coaches, like CEOs cop the responsility and blame, not their assistants or assistants of the assistants which is the modern way of NRL these days.

Since 1967, when unlimited tackles ended that saw the birth of the modern game, there have been 58 titles up for grabs. Guess what percentage of those titles were won by rookie head coaches with less than five years of head coaching experience?

In the interim, cast your mind back to October 2010.

"Stephen Kearney brings a wealth of experience as a (assistant) coach and player to the club and is universally respected and admired in Australia, New Zealand and Britain," so said the then Parramatta Eels CEO Paul Osborne  (NZ Herald)

Reputation and appearances - optics - at its finest.

In 2010, when the Rookie Kearney inherited the Eels they were in a better position on the ladder at 12th than they currently sit at 16th - equal last at round 17. The following year in 2011, the Eels dropped to 14th. Still better than we are right now. Then in 2012, Kearney's Eels finally hit rock bottom to 16th place and a wooden spoon with the worst defence in the competition - matching where we currently sit. 

Not long after we punted on another well-regarded Manly and Melbourne schooled rookie in Bradley Arthur from the 2014 season for over ten years. Again it was meant to herald a New Era of Melbourne like success. Is that what we mean by the Modern Way? The one we just got rid of. Do it all again?

We are a declining force with 11 of our typical top 17 between 30-32 next year. We might be third for possesion and kings of offloads but most things have fallen off the cliff. Defence: 3rd (2020), 4th (2021), 8th (2022), 11th (2023),17th (2024). Attack: 3rd (2019), 9th (2020), 7th (2021), 6th (2022), 5th (2023), 14th (2024).  Yardage: 2nd (2019), 1st (2020), 3rd (2021), 2nd (2022), 4th (2023), 12th (at R15, 2024). Even an experienced coach in Arthur could not stop the rot.

Just because there's more rookies now than we can poke a stick at - Ciraldo, Webster, Payton, Benji - doesn't make it Modern. It doesn't mean they're more in touch with the modern game - or a better coach in modern times.

Again why are they the modern way and more in touch with the modern game? Is it because they're younger and inexperienced? Like a young, P-plate driver that has yet to learn the mistakes more experienced drivers have made? Or because they were schooled by more experienced mentors? It makes little sense, really.

Sure we have had some traumas with some experienced non-rookie coaches - like Michael Hagan in 2007-2008 (5th and 11th on the ladder) or Ricky Stuart in 2013 (last wooden spoon). But you could easily argue our most successful eras post 1967 have been under more experienced coaches - Brian Smith, Jack Gibson, Terry Fearnley, and Daniel Anderson who did fairly well in a short stint including the almost 2009 Hayne fairytale after throwing out the failing gameplan mid-season.

Some will point to Rookie Ciraldo as doing okay or so too Payton. The Cowboys and the Dogs are different clubs. Not just because of Gus or their diehards in the board. We also don't have many hands-on business suggar daddies or a few diehard mulit-millionaire or billionaire businessmen in the closet.  And the Origin-littered roster of young guns that Bellamy got in his first few rookie years certainly helped: Billy Slater, Cameron Smith, Ryan Hoffman, Dallas Johnson, Antonio Kaufusi, Jeremy Smith, Cooper Cronk, and Greg Iglis. The bottom line is P-plater rookie coaches have always existed. In good systems and usually money behind them they can work out - like Bellamy, Bennett, Robinson, Hasler. 

It's not a Modern Idea or some New. Far from it. It's retro if anything. Sure, every head coach was once a rookie. The first premiership winner of 1908 was a rookie captain-coach. Every coach that won a title was a born human and breathing.

1967 onwards

So back to modern history, from 1967. Since then there have been 58 titles for grab.

Since 1967, only twelve coaches have won a grand final with less than five years of head coaching experience (12/58 at 21%). So most, almost eighty percent, of grand finals in the Modern Era have been won by coaches with at least five years of head coaching experience.

Ivan Cleary took 15 years to win his first title in 2021 (Panthers). Bellamy took 5 years to win his first grand final (stripped) back in 2007 (Storm). Bennett took 5 years to win his first title with an Orgiin-littered Broncos (1992) and 23 for his last title (Dragons, 2010). Jack Gibson took six years to win his first title (Easts, 1974) and 11 years for his first with the Eels (1981-83).

So what you might ask? What does all that goobly gook mean? It means that if we're backing a rookie with less than five years of experience we're backing them to do better than Jack Gibson, Wayne Bennett, and Craig Bellamy. Good luck with that, considering our current circumstances. Maybe they will. But there is no evidence. None. Nada.

2003 onwards

It gets worse for rookies if we go more Modern.

Since 2003, only two of the 21 titles have been won by coaches with less than five years of head coaching experience. (2/21 at 9.5%). Trent Robinson (2013, Roosters) who also have two years experience in Super (Parisan based Catalans like Kevin Walters before him). The other was the last Paul Green who won it in his second year (2015, Cowboys).

 Grand Final Winning Head Coaching Experience

Summary

• Since 1967 over the last 57 years, almost 80% (45/52) of grand finals were won by head coached with at least five to twenty five years of head coaching experience.

• Between 1967-2002, almost 73% (20/37) of grand finals were won by head coached with at least 5 years of head coaching experience; 5-14 years.

• Between 2003-2023, over the last 21 years, over 90% (19/21) of grand finals were won by head coaches at least 5 years of head coaching experience; 5-24 years.

• Since 1967, there have been four rookies to win a title in their first year of head-coaching either in the NRL or Superleague. Ricky Stuart (2002 Roosters), Hagan (2001 Knights), Gus Gould (1988 Dogs), Leo Nosworthy (1969 Balmain). All four inherited teams that had been in grand finals in the last two to fours years (Knights premiers in 1997; Dogs, 1985 Premiers). All four inherited good teams that had success over the previous four years’ leading up to the rookie takeover with none over those four teams over 16 years ranked lower than 7th. 

• Since 1967, only 36% (71/198) of head coaches survive to 100 games (4-5 years)

Ironically, the easiest time for rookies to win a title was in the older form of the game from 1908 in the world of rookie captain-coaches and between 1967-2002. It's been worse for rookies since 2003. 

The Theory of the Rookie Coach being the Modern Way and thus more in touch with the modern game is not based on any evidence. It's a flawed illusion. Basically in the modern era, though it might not be sexy, experienced coaches are the ones that usually win championships having between 5-20 plus years of head coaching experience.

There is also the Goldfish theory. And those who pay scant regard to the lessons of history, in some way are bound to repeat their lessons.

The Ames Room illiusion. It happens when we warp our perspective through a peep hole.