Eels Blogs

We all know the drill. The Eels play well, beat contenders, then fail to show up against a team not expected to challenge for honours. In the opening three rounds the Eels have seen off a contenders in the Storm and a top eight aspirant in the Sharks. So far, so good; the Eels have reversed their 2020 habit of failing to fire against top teams. But mental fade-outs, where they fail to show up, have haunted the Eels in recent years. The Eels should defeat the Tigers, based on form and talent. But will the Eels perform as they should, or will it be one of those Brad Arthur press conferences where he talks of lack of respect and failing the effort areas? Welcome to Round 4.

DISCLAIMER: This is co-authored with Professor Daz. We will take turns on being the primary writer; with Daz doing the even rounds, like this round, and me doing the odd rounds as well as the graphics. Thanks Ladies and Gentlemen for all your encouragement.

The Easter Monday Eels v Tigers Tradition continues...

Teams
Monday 5 April, Stadium Australia, Sydney, 4:00pm (AEDT): Referee: Ashley Klein.

Tigers, meow meow meow: 1. Daine Laurie 2. David Nofoaluma 3. Tommy Talau 4. James Roberts 5. Asu Kepaoa 6. Adam Doueihi 7. Luke Brooks 8. Zane Musgrove 9. Jacob Liddle 10. James Tamou 11. Luke Garner 12. Luciano Leilua 13. Alex Twal 14. Moses Mbye 15. Thomas Mikaele 16. Stefano Utoikamanu (vroom, vroom, goes the tractor) 17. Joe Ofahengaue
Head coach: Michael Maguire

Eels: 1. Clinton Gutherson 2. Maika Sivo 3. Tom Opacic 4. Marata Niukore 5. Blake Ferguson 6. Dylan Brown 7. Mitchell Moses 8. Reagan Campbell-Gillard 9. Reed Mahoney 10. Junior Paulo 11. Shaun Lane 12. Ryan Matterson 13. Nathan Brown 14. Oregon Kaufusi 15. Isaiah Papali’i 16. Will Smith 17. Ray Stone
Head coach: Brad Arthur
Injuries: Bryce Cartwright (broken jaw, round 5 but is in the top 21), Michael Oldfield (knee, round 5)

 Tigers only success against Eels over last eight seasons has been at this ground, four times.

Observations from Last Week

Eels (vs Sharks) 61% possession, 77% completion rate, 7 line breaks, 32 tackle breaks, 15 offloads, 18 missed tackles, 14 errors.
Tigers (vs Knights) 52% possession, 87% completion rate, 4 line breaks, 30 tackle breaks, 5 offloads, 27 missed tackles, 8 errors.

The fact the Tigers are coming off an upset victory over the Knights (24-20) should help keep the Eels grounded. Better yet, the Eels coaching staff should have picked up that the Tigers improved last week in their victory over the Knights, reducing their missed tackle count from 35 (Raiders) and 34 (Roosters) to 27 (Knights), while their error rate dropped as well from 13, 11, to 8 (respectively). Most importantly for the Tigers, Brooks and Doueihi earned plenty of praise for supporting each other and steering their team around the park, including coming back again after conceding their lead to the Knights late in the game.

For the Eels, by the 23rd minute of the first half against the Sharks, the Eels had completed 11/11 (Sharks completed 12/13).After that, both Eels and Sharks were affected by injuries and HIA, though the Sharks got the rawest deal. If there was a sloppy period for the Eels, it was the last 14 minutes of the first half against the Sharks, after Moses went off for a HIA (and did not return), when the Eels completed 3/8, with DBrown, NBrown, Mahoney and Fergo dropping some sitters.

But in the second half, the Eels played disciplined footy, completing 21/25, wearing the Sharks down through crash plays, 4 forced line drop outs, and limiting the Sharks to just 1 tackle in the Eels 20m (vs 30 to the Eels).

Eventually, 11 minutes out from full time, the Sharks entered a state of tonic immobility, and rolled over for the Eels to race in three glorious tries in the final 15 minutes. 

If there is a weakness that was evident in the Storm and Sharks' games it's the inability of the Eels to capitalise fully when they have a team on the ropes. 

The Ensemble Eels: Distributed Playmaking and game management
A talking point from last week’s game against the Sharks was whether Dylan Brown had ‘stepped up’, after Moses went off and did not return.

We thought we could bring some light to this discussion by asking what is it we expect from Dylan Brown?

Do we expect DBrown to take over dominant-half duties from Moses, in Moses’ absence, or do we expect DBrown to continue to play a more specific role within the overall organizational and attacking structures of the Eels (as he does when Moses is on the field)?

If we measure what happened in the 14 minutes of the first half after Moses went off the field, the Eels completed 3/8 sets, which is poor, though Sivo’s late try from Will Smith’s looping pass rescued the Eels. In this 14-minute period, the Eels were clearly missing Moses’ direction, with simple errors in attacking positions by NBrown, DBrown, Mahoney, and Kaufusi (poor ball from Mahoney). Will Smith had nearly scored off a Gutho kick, but Gutho also put in a poor clearing kick, DBrown dropped the ball cold after a Gutho line break, and Lane did his ‘what line was I running’ trick again.

The second half was different. The Eels completed at about 80% in the second half. Sivo was off from the 28th to 13th minute, forcing Opacic to the left wing and Papali’i to left centre. The Eels accommodated by mostly attacking to the right, through crash plays involving Niukore on the Sharks’ line. Ironically, the Sharks were down on troops and stationed two backrowers in front of Niukore (Teig Wilton, Billy Magoulias), so we are left to ask how a lighter centre would have fared against Niukore’s charges?

Whenever the Eels went to the right, Dylan Brown played as first receiver, with Gutho chiming into the line as either 5/8 or fullback, however you interpret the modern way many fullbacks now come into the line. If the ball was shifted back to the left after this right-side raid, DBrown was first receiver and either slung a long ball to Mahoney placed in the dead centre of the field or put in a cross-field kick to the left corner post.

On the left side of the field, Will Smith played first receiver and runner. If the ball then swung back to the right, it again went through Mahoney in the centre, and on to DBrown.

Moreover, the kicking duties were evenly shared: Gutho and Mahoney (from dummy half) performing clearing kicks, or Gutho, Mahoney, Smith or DBrown performing grubbers, and Dbrown or Smith handling cross-field attacking kicks. The Eels kept the Sharks camped in their territory through kicks and 4 forced line drop-outs.

The picture here is of an ensemble playmaker setup. No dominant half, but playmaking and kicking distributed amongst 4 players. The question to ask is whether we should judge DBrown by dominant half standards, when the evidence from the Sharks game suggests BA has them play an ensemble playmaker setup if Moses goes down. Is it too soon for DBrown to play like a dominant half? Is it not what BA wants to do if Moses goes down?

The strength of the ensemble playmaker setup is the width in attack that the Eels achieved. All credit to the Sharks, who defended gamely. But eventually (11 minutes from full time) it looked like the Eels had forced the Sharks to spread themselves thin, and the Eels then punched through the middle, with the Eels forwards stepping, off-loading and passing to each other through the middle, for a few tries.

The weakness might be what happens when possession and territory are more even, and the quality of clearing kicks becomes important? DBrown took zero clearing kicks, and Gutho can sometimes misfire with them, while Mahoney’s clearing kicks are from the middle of the park in the 40-50 zone after quick play the balls. Minus Moses, the Eels have a long kicking problem, though not a short kicking problem.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line in Round 4 is two-fold. One, the Eels should beat the Tigers, who struggled against Raiders and Roosters and were thrashed. But the Eels have often disappointed their fans by dropping intensity against lesser teams. That must change. Two, these two teams are very different teams. Round 4 appears to be a contest of chalk vs cheese.

In the past week, Electric Analysis posted an interesting blog on decoy runners: asking if the Eels might have an attacking issue because they ranked low if measured by use of decoy runners. After 3 rounds, the Tigers were 6th with 123 decoy runs, and the Eels 14th with 82 decoy runs. I think all of us recall the end of 2020 where out attack stalled, so asking about whether the issue is decoy runs is fair, especially because some players looked like they had no idea which lane (cough) to run. And against Sharks we saw Opacic nearly falcon the ball and Moses gave him the ‘over there, dude, you were supposed to run over there’.

But … at the end of Round 3 the Eels had out-pointed the Tigers 68 to 42 (23 vs 14 per game). Yet it would be too simple to dismiss the decoy runner issue because Panthers, Rabbitohs and Roosters lead the way on decoys and points scored. So, let us look at other statistics. All figures entering Round 3 … The Eels are 4th ranked for set completions (79%), and the Tigers 2nd (81%). The Eels are first for offloads with 14/game, the Tigers just 8.7/game. The Eels run 56 supports per game versus the Tigers 66.7 supports per game. The Eels engage the line 20.7 times per game versus the Tigers 15.3 per game line engaged.

Stats can be hard to find patterns in sometimes, but this time. The Eels and the Tigers are two quite different teams. The Tigers are near the top of the table for set completions, decoy runners, and support players. The Tigers have a lot of players in motion. The Eels are near the top of the table for set completions, offloads, and line engaged. The Eels get in your face and try to go straight through you or offload to someone who will.