Eels Blogs

Sigmund Freud once said that “one day, in retrospect, the years of struggle will strike you as the most beautiful”. With the Eels on-field general and kicking maestro, Mitchell Moses, out for up to 8 weeks with a fractured foot, the Eels will need to live by Freud’s advice to refocus and realize you will one day appreciate how rewarding it can be to overcome a challenge. Freud’s point was that, without struggle, growth is unlikely. We all know the Eels will need to improve their defence, which was shaky in 2023, and has been shaky out wide ever since ‘the system’ said jam in and chase the collision. Moreover, the Eels’ attacking system is to use offloads to unsettle the opposition defensive line. Both ‘zones of improvement’ can be worked upon during Moses’ absence: or as Freud might say, growth is possible, because of not despite the struggle. Thus, the question is, will the Eels be resilient through this Moses-free period? Resilience is rebounding from disruption and adapting in the face of adversity. How will the Eels rebound? More importantly, how will they adapt? Welcome to Round 4.

Teams

Monday 1 April, Commbank Stadium, 4:00pm (AEDT). Lands of the Burramattagal People. Referee: Liam Kennedy.

EELS: 1. Clinton Gutherson 2. Maika Sivo 3. Viliami Penisini 4. Morgan Harper 5. Sean Russell 6. Blaize Talagi 7. Dylan Brown 8. Reagan Campbell-Gillard 9. Joey Lussick 10. Junior Paulo 11. Shaun Lane 12. Bryce Cartwright 13. J'maine Hopgood 14. Luca Moretti 15. Ryan Matterson 16. Joe Ofahengaue 17. Kelma Tuilagi 18. Ofahiki Ogden 19. Wiremu Greig 20. Brendan Hands 21. Makahesi Makatoa 22. Bailey Simonsson.

Head coach: Brad keep-the-faith Arthur.

TIGERS: 1. Jahream Bula 2. Charlie Staines 3. Solomona Faataape 4. Justin Olam 5. Junior Tupou 6. Lachlan Galvin 7. Aidan Sezer 8. Stefano Utoikamanu 9. Apisai Koroisau 10. David Klemmer 11. Isaiah Papali'i 12. John Bateman 13. Fonua Pole 14. Jayden Sullivan 15. Alex Seyfarth 16. Asu Kepaoa 17. Samuela Fainu 18. Justin Matamua 19. Latu Fainu 20. Alexander Lobb 21. Brent Naden 22. Tallyn Da Silva

Head coach: Benji The Footwork Marshall

Notes: Moses is out for up to 8 weeks. BA surprised most by opting to replace the irreplaceable Moses with Talagi instead of the more experienced Asi, though Talagi is a 5/8 or fullback by trade. Cartwright has reported rib issues so his right-side backrow spot is a watch-this-space proposition, and it seems Kelma Tuilagi is ear-marked as a substitute. Moretti retains his bench spot after a strong attacking performance, and a commendable decision to play to the rules: you are not permitted to stop in the defensive line; nope, nada; it’s B&W you useless, sulking Moanly people. Who votes for Moretti on the bench for the Round 8 return clash vs Manly, with instructions to chirp away at Jurbo & Co all game? Probably Greig to bench if Cartwright drops out? Any theories on why Joe O is currently ahead of Greig? Theories on why Harper not Simonsson is starting left-centre? As for the Tigers, they have been playing in some other league, not first grade, for some time, I believe? I know little about them except ¾ of their spine are new, that Api Koroisau is the leading contender for NSW #9, that their outside backs are faster than the Eels (not hard), and that they’re coming off their best game for years.

Observations from Last Week

Eels (vs Manly), 28-24 (W), 53% possession, 82% completion rate, 4 linebreaks, 30 tackle breaks, 16 offloads, 29 missed tackles, 6 ineffective tackles, 9 errors, 5 penalties conceded, 1 ruck infringements, 1 inside 10 meters, 0 sin bin.

Tigers (vs Sharks), 32-6 (W), 53% possession, 86% completion rate, 4 linebreaks, 38 tackle breaks, 15 offloads, 38 missed tackles, 14 ineffective tackles, 6 errors, 2 penalties conceded, 1 ruck infringements, 1 inside 10 meters, 0 sin bin.

Eels/Manly R3 Highlights HERE.

Tigers/Sharks R3 highlights HERE

Let’s start with the Tigers because, aside from my joke about where they have been these past few years (above), the Tigers surprised everyone last week against the Sharks, with a defensive performance and intensity not seen for some time. The Sharks scored first, leading 6-0 after 15 minutes. The Sharks never scored again, but the Tigers scored on their first set in the Sharks’ 20m zone (6-6 after 20 mins). Api Koroisau then put on two tries late in H1 to gift the Tigers an 18-6 HT lead, and in the second half the Sharks leaked points due to their own errors and ill-discipline.

Crucially, the Tigers ‘lost’ most stats in the first half but the Sharks’ completion rate was poor, with errors and penalties gifting the Tigers field position they did not earn themselves. The Eels can avoid this trap by disciplined play, though note the Eels gifted Manly a 14-0 lead after 15 minutes in R3 by conceding a string of penalties. The Tigers have just shown they can take advantage of ill-discipline. The second half stats of the Tigers/Sharks game are the most instructive. The Tigers scored after Sharks errors or penalties. But the Tigers also led offloads 9/2, tackle busts 23/17, completion rate 18/21 (86%) vs 11/17 (65%), missed tackles were 17/23, errors 5/8, penalties 1/3. Overall, the Sharks ran themselves out of the game through errors and penalties, but the Tigers never gave them any breathing room, completing high, moving the ball, running strongly, and defending well.

Turning to the Eels, the victory over Manly was a game of two different stanzas in more ways than one. Yes, the Eels trailed 16-18 at half time, after the Eels’ left side outside backs leaked tries, though overall the Eels turned around a 14-0 score after 20 minutes to then go 10-28 the next 60 minutes. What is noticeable though is that the Eels adjusted, reducing their missed tackle count, increasing their offloads, and increasing their completion rate to the 85% territory, after trailing. Once the Eels were ‘in gear’, it seems, Manly could not stay with them.

Freud had a term for this kind of turn-around. Freud, in his paper ‘Remembering, repeating and working through’ (1914), spoke of ‘working through’ (German durcharbeiten). You uncover a “resistance”, something the patient was “failing to remember”, and acquaint the patient with that resistance. The patient can then name the problem and try to control the impulses driving the “forgotten situations and connections”. Like, how to defend properly. BA, in the presser after the victory over Manly, spoke of ‘fixing the spacing’ in the outside back defensive pattern: Talagi fixating on the inside lead runner and not shifting out. Note, with Moses out and Talagi at 5/8, the next step in Freud’s ‘working through’ method becomes important: you must “allow the patient time to become more conversant with this resistance with which he has now become acquainted”. It will be an “arduous task” for the “subject” (player(s)) and the “analyst” (coach), suggested Freud (though he forgot to mention for the fans too).

To see how the Eels started that arduous task, though, we can see how the Eels adjusted mid-game vs Manly. Given fans have complained (rightly) that when things are not going the Eels’ way, they seem not to adapt quickly enough, the fact the Eels adjusted mid-game is encouraging.

Let’s look at Pre-Contact Metres Per Run (PCM/run), which you may recall is a measure of how far a player ran before anyone even tried to tackle him or her, and is one means to assess line-speed. Recall the formula:

The greater the PCM/run, the greater is that team’s line-speed. In the R3 clash, the figures were: Eels 5.66, Manly 6.22 all-game; but in the first half it was Eels 5.50 vs 6.56 and in the second half it was Eels 5.79 vs Manly 5.95. Manly had the greater line speed all-game, but after being all over the Eels in the first 20 minutes, the Eels ‘evened up’ the line-speed battle, but via two different strategies? In the first half, via offloading (10 vs 4), and in the second half, via disciplined play (3 vs 4 errors, 1 vs 6 penalties) and Manly fatiguing (15 vs 8 tackle busts, and Manly missing 15 vs 8 tackles and a slew of ineffective tackles (total game was Eels 6 ineffective tackles vs Manly 25).

The other thing to consider in all of this is a reinterpretation of Manly coach Seibold’s post-game interview where he suggested the refs gifted the Eels the game, after ‘changing how they refereed once Manly got to 14-0’. Look at the stats. The Eels managed a 5.3% increase in their line speed H1 to H2, whereas Manly suffered a 9.3% decrease in their line-speed H1 to H2. The Eels grew a leg and Manly started hobbling. Or look at missed tackle performance: the missed tackle percentage for the Eels was a high 17.8% (one every set) for the Eels in H1 vs Manly 9.5%, reflecting the Eels outside backs on the left side struggling to hold their spacing and slide out properly. But in the second half the Eels decreased their missed tackle percentage by 70%, to 5.3% (one every third set) vs Manly remaining static at 9.5%.

The line speed of a team and their missed tackles is within the control of teams. Manly slowed down in defensive intensity while the Eels increased theirs and significantly decreased their defensive errors. We can add that once the Eels got the ball, Moses’ kicking game took over. The Eels were able to limit the starting position of the Manly attack, to just 20.8 metres from their line, and thus limited the width Manly had on offer from which to attack. Moses’ boot meant Manly had the worst starting position of any team in Round 3. The Eels’ defence, once they got their spacing right, also limited Manly to low value field position: an expected points of 13.8 only being 24 due to the early onslaught. For these latter two stats (kicking and expected points), see The Rugby League Eye Test post of 25 March.

Seibold is a whinger and the stats do not support his effort to distract from the Eels recovering well and steam-rolling his team. As always, Manly lacks Pride.

Good signs despite the bad news?

If you recall the stats from 2023, the Eels were 8-1 W-L when leading at half time, but 2-10 W-L if trailing at half time. In 2024, the Eels are 1-1 if leading and 1-0 if trailing. Given a 15% ‘turn around’ rate when trailing at half time in 2023, turning around the half time deficit against Manly is a good sign.

Other good signs are that we hope Seibold is right, and the Eels are not hated by the referee. The Eels have a good track record with the weekend’s referee, and the Tigers do not.

The Easter Bunny has also been kind to the Eels in these easter Monday clashes.

 And the Eels may even have a good luck charm at CommBank, with Maika Sivo returning, and hopefully not taking off some heads.

Of course, the story this week seems to be about emergence versus absence. The Tigers roared back last week against the Sharks, threatening to emerge from a long slumber. Api Koroisau will have to be watched, because he ran through the middle of the Skark's pack multiple times and his short-passing game pulling the Skark’s middle-defence apart repeatedly. It was Api Days for the Tigers but the Eels need to make it a one-off event.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line for the Eels will simply be about how they adjust to the absence of Moses. For Tigers fans, their last game promised an emergence: my sister, a Tigers fan, thought it was a birthday present. For the Eels, Moses’ absence also provides the opportunity for an ‘emergence’ story, with Blaize Talagi being given a big vote of confidence by BA to assume the #6 jumper. Dylan Brown, his coach expects, should step up and run the show. The Eels need star outside backs to emerge and they need Dyla Brown to assume on-field leadership, so Moses’ absence provides an opportunity for both those things to occur? Less silver lining, and more ‘better now than never’?

Let’s not sugar coat the situation, then. Like Freud advised, naming the problem is the first step to managing it. Moses kicking game, and his ability to organize the team as their on-field general, will be terribly missed.

I think it significant that Moses appears to make the team not far off 8 points better on average.

In 2023, when the Eels won, it was either close (1-9) or a blowout (20+), but when they lost, it was mostly a close loss (1-9). Half of the time the Eels won was close wins, but most losses were close losses. Hence that 8-point differential that Moses makes is significant for the Eels.

And so, back to resilience as rebounding and adapting. Again, we can turn to the psychologists for a few hints. The psychologist Meg Jay, in her book Supernormal: The Untold Story of Adversity and Resilience (2017), asked how people can beat the odds and have above average outcomes in the face of adversity? She shows that resilience stems from not treating a bad circumstance as normal and not focusing on how broken the situation might be. We expect the Eels to avoid the latter: to not dwell on the absence of Moses and use that as an excuse (i.e.: “it’s broken, the result is out of my hands”). From a team perspective, does that mean the task will be to not treat things ‘as normal’? An example would be that Moses’ kicking game is not just about distance: it is about the accuracy and hang time that permits that distance to be taken advantage of by a kick-chase operation that sticks the opposition with poor field position. By not treating the Moses-free condition ‘as normal’, the kick chased needs to be better, to accommodate less accuracy and hang time?

Now we return to Sigmund Freud. He said the struggle can make you better. Meg Jay would add that the resilient achieve that improvement in the face of struggle via the actions they take, how they actively push back against adversity. What actions will we see the Eels take, if they refuse to just try and tread water while Moses is out, and instead aim to improve?

Go Eels!