Eels Blogs

Attack "sells tickets but defence wins championships," was coined by the legendary, late Amercian football coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant. His teams' aggressive defences won championships. Apparently, he even wrestled with bears as a younger lad. 

And so it is, the Eels currently have the best defence in the competition, going into round 16. 

Firstly, the good news. The no.1 ranked defensive side has played in 8 of the last 11 Grand Finals. So, are we in with a shot, really?

The case for defence 'rules'

Over the last 14 years, since 2006, 12 of the last 14 premiers were top two defensive teams. And, only one has had a defence ranked outside of the top three. 

Additionally, the best defences invariably end up in the all-important top four - where no team has ever won an NRL title outside. We seem to be destined for the top four unless we stumble badly over the next few weeks.

Over the last 12 years, since 2008, the top four have had the top four ranked defences - all 48 teams - except for 5 teams. Those five exceptions happened: in 2015, with the 3rd placed Cowboys, eventual premiers (2nd in attack, 5th in defence); in 2014, with the 4th placed Panthers (5th in defence); in 2010, with the 3rd placed Tigers (5th in defence); in 2009 with the 4th placed Titans (5th in defence); and in 2011, with the 4th placed Tigers (6th in defence).

So, in recent time, a good defence almost gives you a ticket to the big games.

The changing trends: towards defence, and less balance
Also, the game has changed after the NRL and the salary cap to a more defensive slant.

Post 2006, the NRL swung to a more defensive pattern where the average premier had a defensive ranking average of 1.7. 

Before that, from 1908 to 1988 there was a more predictable balance to teams attack and defence where the premiers on average were around 2nd ranked in attack and defence, and less unbalanced teams won. Post 1989 a greater percentage of unbalanced teams were able to win. Attack initially outweighed defence in the initial phase of the NRL.

In pre-NRL era from 1908-1997, a greater percentage of balanced team won.

Interestingly, the big picture trend shows there is a trend towards more points being scored, and even more points being leaked by defences, progressively over time, in average means. So, either defences are getting worse or they're under more and more pressure. I'd suggest the latter, partly due to rule changes and natural evolution of bigger, faster bodies.

Now, for the bad news: Despite our defence, we're currently at long odds to be premiers, according to historical stats.

Slipping outside 'The Zone'

If we look at all the NRL premiers there is a "zone": a range of points per game for both attack and defences (20.71-31.67; 11.54-16.88, respectively).

We currently sit just outside the zone, due to our attack (20.8 scored per game overall, conceding 11.7 points per game). So, perhaps the bookmakers have it about right. We're fourth favourite ($6.50), after the Storm ($3.75), and equal second favourites the Roosters and Panthers ($4.00 each). All those three are in the "zone".

Our defensive average, around 11.7 per game, betters every legal premiership winning team in the NRL's history. You'd need to go back to 1996's premiers, Manly to find a better defensive average (at 8.68 per game (when Fulton started using professional wrestlers). Only, the illegal 2017 premiers, the Storm, had a better defensive average (11.54).

However, worryingly, despite the improvements in our defence and attitude this year, we're slipping further away from the zone over the last 8 weeks - towards improbable premiership success, statistically.

From round 9, we've scored at an average of 16 points per game (conceding 12 per game). You'd need to go back to the beginning of the game, when the game looked nothing like today to find a premier with a comparable attacking average. It happened almost a century ago, in 1933 with Newtown (4th in attack at 15.29, 1st in defence at 10.36, converting tries to four points). To reinforce this point, the Eels have averaged just 14.8 points per game against top-8 teams.

No premiership team has ever won with an attack averaging that low. So, there's much work to be done, yet. Maybe, Sun Tzu, the famed 5th century military genius in the "The Art Of War", was right: 

"Invincibility lies in the defence, and the possibility of victory in the attack."

Speed at altitude, meeting attitude

So, if having a good "attitude" and "defence" is akin to being able to a fighter jet being able to fly high altitudes and handle the pressure of big games, attack is like speed.

If one team handles the pressure better, the other invariably crashes and burns regardless of their attack or talent. Say, like 2001, where the Knights (2nd in attack, 9th in defence) handled the pressure better than us (1st in attack,1st in defence). Or in 2003, when the minor-premiers, the Panthers (3rd in attack, 7th in defence, and a tough 10-2 away record) vanquished the Roosters (2nd in attack, 2nd in defence).

But, if both team are in an arm wrestle, playing with purpose and "attitude", defending the goal line at all costs, running hard, tackling hard - then quite often attacking genius provides the edge. And, not surprisingly, most NRL premiers have a better attack than their grand final opponent.  Sometimes, it's a case of both teams being comparable in defence, but attack setting them apart. It also explains why poorer defensively ranked teams can win - such as in 2005 and 2015.

In 2015, the Cowboys (2nd in attack at 24.46ppg, 5th in defence at 18.82ppg) had comparable defensive rankings to the Broncos (4th in attack, 3rd in defence). Alas, it was the class of Thurston that helped scrape them to the finish line first 17-16. Same in 2005's outlier. The Tigers (2nd in attack, 10th in defence) met the Cowboys (5th in attack, 8th in defence). Both were comparable in defence, but the Tigers' superior attack got them home.

As you can see defence might be the ticket into the big time, but attacking superiority matters in the big games, when the pressure is on - and the arm wrestle needs to be broken. 

As such, we could be in trouble if we face the Roosters, Storm, especially, or even the Panthers. They have the ability to handle the altitude and usually have fighter jet speeds, at Mach II if fit. We're fliying Mach I, for now. Bottom line, we'll need to improve our attack dramatically. Unless we're relying on weaker opposition, or to get on top of a team attitude-wise and a very low scoring match.

Perhaps, it all comes down to a few critical moments? Vincent Lombardi thought so.

Lombardi: it comes down to two to five plays

Lombardi believed, in a high pressure situation, winning could come down to between two to five plays:

"It all comes down to this: In a football game, there are approximately 150 plays. We play a 14-game schedule, so there are, more or less, about 2,000 plays. If I am going to get out of my team, made up of men of varied talents and varied temperaments, the utmost effort by each man on each play, I must sell each one this truth: our studies show that the difference between the winning and the losing of a game hinges, on the average, on a minimum of two plays and a maximum of five; and of course, at any time, at any place on the field, it may hinge on one. Each man must go all out on every play because no one knows when that big play is coming up."

As such, we can't afford to be squandering our opportunities in the big game - two to four try-scoring opportunites - like we did against the Storm, last week in round 15.

We seemed disjointed and bumbled our way in attack a lot of the time. Moses is a talented player, and he provides stability and has been doing an admirable job with his kicking game and defence. Yet, last week, it was when Gutherson chimed into to either side right and left as an extra man, running direct, that set up both tries last week. Moses didn't gel with the right side last week, or in recent time, like he did last year, when our right side was one of the best.

So what's the matter?

Part of the problem seems to be self-evident. Arthur admitted the Eels aren't spending much time training with the ball.

Andrew Johns, made an interesting observation during the match against the Storm, to explain our attacking woes. If he's right we're going to need to do more than work within our "structures" as Arthur suggested. But, with our offloading game, and ability for second phase game, strong running game, the potential is there to work "outside" our structures.

Gus Gould thinks our issues are deeper than attacking problems. He attributes it to an attitude issue. A "soft underbelly".

Gus points to the games we've let other teams back into the game in the second half, after gaining some ascendancy.

Our defensive rank doesn't seem to suggest we have attitude problems. And, our scrambling defence has been a feature of our game all year. Also, we've won 8 of our 10 close games, decided between 1 to 6 points. It doesn't seem to scream of a soft underbelly.

But, Gus is right in so far as we have squandered match-winning positions and/or failed to capitalize on them on numerous occasions, which suggests issues somewhere. Turning off at crucial times during the match, making errors, and letting the opposition back into the game. Could that suggest some attitude related issues? 

The two close losses against Saints (R14) and Manly (R10), were cases where we had an inferior attitude to the opposition. The opposition ran harder, tackled harder, and pressured our defence enough to win. 

Jennings admitted the Eels didn't have the right attitude against the Dragons. Well, it's a long season. And, tonight's game and next week's against the red-hot Panthers will be telling.

I won't write us off yet, because of our defensive attitude and potential, but whatever the truth and reasons for our stalling attack and switch-off times, two things are sure: we need to improve our attack and step up even more, to stand a serious chance when it's squeaky bum time. And our attitude, our will to work together, will be critical.