Eels Blogs

Statler and Waldorf are two elderly, very grumpy characters from The Muppets who regularly heckle the rest of the cast, always from the stage left balcony in The Muppet Theatre. Statler and Waldorf always criticize the performance, yet they return every week. In one episode of the opening – ‘The Muppet Show Theme’, always a musical composition - Waldorf asks, “why do we always come here?” to which Statler replies “I guess we’ll never know”.  Fans of the Eels are Muppets, specifically Statler and Waldorf, complaining routinely but returning faithfully. Why we do it is a bit of a mystery. But Statler and Waldorf give us a clue, by virtue of their famous reviewing skit which begins positively but descends into derision. Imagine Statler and Waldorf’s alternating comments: “That was wonderful, bravo, I loved it, that was great, well it was pretty good, it wasn’t bad, there were parts of it that weren’t very good though, it could have been a lot better, I didn’t really like it, it was pretty terrible, it was bad, it was awful, it was terrible, get em away, heh boo, booooooooo!!!” Not only does that describe the Round 6 Tigers game, it captures both the Eels’ style and fans’ experience: something brilliant, something awful. But Eels fans are Muppets, so welcome to Round 7, and all the rounds to come.

Teams

Sunday 16 April, CommBank Stadium, Parramatta, 4:05pm (AEDT). Lands of the Burramattagal People. Referee: Chris Butler.

EELS: 1. Clinton Gutherson 2. Maika Sivo 3. Viliami Penisini 4. Sean Russell 5. Haze Dunster 6. Dylan Brown 7. Mitchell Moses 8. Reagan Campbell-Gillard 9. Josh Hodgson 10. Junior Paulo 11. Shaun Lane 12. Bryce Cartwright 13. Ryan Matterson 14. J'maine Hopgood 15. Brendan Hands 16. Wiremu Greig 17. Makahesi Makatoa 18. Jakob Arthur 19. Matt Doorey 20. Ofahiki Ogden 21. Jack Murchie 22. Waqa Blake.

Head coach: Brad Can’t Tackle Arthur.

DOGS: 1. Hayze Perham 2. Jacob Kiraz 3. Jake Averillo 4. Paul Alamoti 5. Braidon Burns 6. Matt Burton 7. Kyle Flanagan 8. Max King 9. Reed Mahoney 10. Tevita Pangai Junior 11. Viliame Kikau 12. Jacob Preston 13. Raymond Faitala-Mariner 14. Josh Reynolds 15. Jayden Okunbor 16. Corey Waddell 17. Ryan Sutton 19. Karl Oloapu 20. Jackson Topine 21. Samuel Hughes 22. Declan Casey 23. Andrew Davey.

Head coach: Cameronphil Gould-Ciraldo.

Notes: Paulo returns from suspension, with Greig shifting to the bench. Russell and Dunster keep their spots missing tackles in the outside backs. Bryce Cartwright continues to start in the second row: who knew? Does Doorey and Murchie’s omission from the bench - which has three middles (Makatoa, Greig and Hopgood) – indicate BA has realized the Eels’ middle has lacked punch in attack and starch in defence? The Dogs see a host of troops return in the forwards: TPG, Kikau and Faitala-Mariner. Oops, not Kikau, late mail is a peck injury and out, so a late reshuffle yet to be named. Dogs also lose Addo-Carr from the wing.

Observations from Last Week

Eels (vs Tigers), 28-20 (W), 43% possession, 78% completion rate, 4 linebreaks, 17 tackle breaks, 8 offloads, 39 missed tackles, 24 ineffective tackles, 12 errors, 3 penalties conceded, 0 inside 10 meters, 4 ruck infringements, 0 sin bin.

Dogs (vs Bunnies),16-50 (L), 43% possession, 71% completion rate, 1 linebreaks, 12 tackle breaks, 6 offloads, 30 missed tackles, 7 ineffective tackles, 10 errors, 11 penalties conceded, 0 inside 10 meters, 2 ruck infringements, 1 sin bin.

Eels/Tigers highlights HERE.

Dogs/Bunnies highlights HERE

It is said that winning ugly still gets the chocolates, but neither Eels fans or players were impressed by the overly conservative attack and ineffective defence. Or as once said by Statler in reviewing a Muppets performance, after Waldorf has asked “what was that?”, and Statler replied “it’s called the medium sketch. It wasn’t rare and it certainly wasn’t well done”.

The stats support this feeling of ‘that wasn’t well done’. Though possession was shared 50/50 in the first half, the Eels lost the territory battle 59/41, and in the second half lost both possession (59/41) and territory (60/40). The Eels won, yay; but it could have been better, indeed, it was bad.

Despite improving from 72% completion in H1 to 88% completion in H2, in that second half the Eels’ tackle busts, offloads and linebreaks fell away, they made less run meters per run and less post-contact meters per run, missed tackles remained high in each half, though errors diminished in the second half. The Eels reverted to conservative play but lacked the defensive mettle and defensive smarts to shut the game down. If it were not for Mitchel Moses’ 4 try assists and 537 kick meters, the Eels would probably have been losers.

The Bunnies R6 game, where the Dogs were thrashed 16-50, may not actually tell us much. The Dogs were in that game for the first 20 minutes, down 6-8, but they had lost JAC in the sixth minute. A backrower (Topine) moved to left centre and Alomoti to left wing, and the combination did not work. The Bunnies ran in two tries down the Dogs’ left side in the final 10 mins of H1, and then in the second half the Dogs were again in the fight for the first 20 minutes. But Preston, left edge backrower, was sin binned in the 62^nd minute, and the left side of the Dogs was a rabble, conceding three triers in that sin bin period.

The Muppets Routine

First, the good news. The Eels have dominated both the Tigers and Dogs in recent years, so in an ideal world these back-to-back games should be running the Eels into form?

Further good news is that the Eels have the wood over the Dogs at CommBank.

 And even more encouraging news is that the Eels have been increasing their winning margin over the Dogs of late.

But there are parts that could be better. Specifically, the Eels score 22.2 points per game (ppg) - a fair ranking of 8^th - but the Eels concede 24.3 ppg, a poor ranking of 13^th. The Dogs sit above the Eels on the ladder, their 3 wins giving the Dogs 6 to the Eels’ 4 points from 2 wins, and the Dogs concede almost the same points (24.2 ppg), but the Dogs score a few less points (17.2 ppg) than the Eels.

Or, see Table 1: per game stats (because the bye creates uneven ‘games played’ so we need to divide for/against by games played).

As Table 1 above shows, the Eels have the 13^th worst defence, conceding 24.3 points per game (ppg). Only the Sea Eagles and Raiders (each conceding 25 ppg), the Dragons (26 ppg) and the Tigers (26.7 ppg), defend worse than the Eels.

Why? For some guidance, this week we turn to The Rugby League Eye Test, which aims to ‘democratize data’.

How far downfield does each team have their first play the ball?

Call this Table 2: from where each teams starts their sets.

You can quickly see that it may not have been an anomaly that the Tigers won every statistical category against the Eels but still lost. The Tigers achieve good field position from kick returns, starting their sets 42 meters away from their try line, but at 15 ppg scored, their attack gets lost as they head upfield. But look at the Eels, at the bottom. The Eels are starting their sets about 35 meters out from their own try line, literally giving themselves further to go to be in an attacking position.

Now switch perspectives. How are opponents of the Eels doing against the Eels?

Call this Table 3: from where do opponents start their sets?

Four teams (Titans, Cowboys, Knights and Chooks) concede their first play the ball 40m+ out, letting their opponent start from a strong field position. At the other end of the scale, teams forcing their opponents to start from weak field positions, are … the Eels. Mitchel Moses’ kicking game is forcing opponents to start their first set 36 meters from their own try line (just a smidge worse than the beast known as Penrith, who force their opponent to run it out from 35m from their own try line).

What have we seen so far? In Rounds 1-6, the Eels are ranked in the Top 4 for forcing their opponents to start from a weak field position, but correspondingly are the worst team in terms of where they begin their own sets. How can the Eels be good at forcing the opposition to start from a weak field position, but correspondingly start from a weak field position themselves?

First part of The Muppets Review: yay, great kicking Mitchel Moses, forcing the opposition into returning kicks from corners near their line. Second part of Muppets Review: boooo, Eels, you’re getting bogged down with the ball and then conceding meters without the ball.

The next table we can thus call Table 4: where are teams playing the ball?

The Eels are dead last in a few categories. The Eels play 63% of their play the balls in their own half (the most (worst!) of any team), and recall the Eels are the worst for where they begin their sets (closest to their own try line of any team). The Eels also have the lowest (14%) percentage of any team of total play the balls inside the opponents’ 20m zone. In another stat, the Eels are ranked last for average play the balls inside an opponents’ 20m zone (21 pg).

The stats say the Eels are literally struggling to advance the ball out of their own half. But Moses kicks the Eels out of trouble and thus the Eels are 4^th best for forcing the opponent to start from a weak field position. In visual form, the Eels mostly play the game in the middle of the field in their own half.

How are the Eels managing any points at all?

Note the Tigers spend the most time of any team in their opponents’ 20m zone, helped by starting from a strong field position 40m from their own try line on average, but fail to convert that into points (15 ppg, the worst over rounds 1-6).

By contrast the Eels start from a weak field position, clearly failing to stop teams from marching up field, despite Moses’ kicking game forcing teams to start from a weak field position. Yet the Eels score 22.2 ppg (an 8^th placed ranking for points scored despite only 2/6 wins), but not because they camp themselves in the opponents’ 20m zone. The Eels rank last for getting into the 20m zone.

If we go to nrl.com and check the updated statistics, the Eels only perform well in a small sub-set of attack-relevant stats. On average over the first six rounds, the Eels rank: offloads (2^nd), 1 pass hit ups (3^rd), runs (4^th), and line engaged (5^th). Note this does not translate into line breaks or tackle breaks, where the Eels rank in the bottom four for each, or even high average run meters (where the Eels rank 12^th).

The Eels are manufacturing points … from a mix of offloads, engaging the line, and kicking, but nothing spectacular. A clue to where the points come from is late tackle plays.

The next table we can call Table 5: getting creative late.

Orange is bad and blue is good. The Eels do very little with the first three tackles but are pretty good on the last three tackles (where meters gained puts them in the top four). A relevant stats thus becomes that, by player, the Eels are the only team with both halves in the Top 10 for try assists. The Eels are capable of being creative, but it is late in tackle counts and orchestrated by their halves’ running and passing games.

But can the flow of points continue to hide the poor defence? The Eels’ poor defence is forcing them to play off the back foot. Mitchel Moses’ boot cannot continue to save them, because the Eels have not been good at kick return defence, undoing Moses’ efforts.

The next table we can thus call Table 6: how to negate Moses’ efforts.

The Eels give up the most meters of any team on tackle 1 to 2 and concede the equal second highest from tackles 4 to 5. Could we say it is possible that because the Eels are struggling to make meters, Moses might be forced to kick too far, and it becomes tough to set a good defensive line on kick returns? Then once set the Eels nevertheless give up territory again late in the count (we have all seen the high missed or ineffective tackle counts in the ruck and outside backs). Moses kicks us out of trouble. But then the clock starts over again.

The Bottom Line

If you skim those tables and pictographs again, a clear emerges:

• Eels tend to start each set from a weak field position.
• This is due to the Eels giving up meters on kick returns and late in the tackle count.
• Eels struggle to get out of their own half with ball-in-hand.
• Eels rarely make it into their opponents’ 20m zone. They score points via late tackle plays involving their halves.
• Moses’ kicking is making the meters our kick returners and forwards are not making.
• But the Eels fail to apply defensive pressure and the cycle begins again.

Where might the Eels conjure enough points against the Dogs to hopefully overcome the Eels’ lacklustre defence? The Eels have been scoring out wide: 43% of tries on each wing, and 13% in the middle. The Dogs’ attack has favoured Add-Carr’s left wing: 56% on the left wing, 17% in the middle and 31% the right wing. But Addo-Carr is out injured. The Eels are conceding tries relatively evenly across the park: 32% (L), 28% (Middle), 40% (R). The Bulldogs are even more even in how they concede points: 36% (L), 28% (Middle), 36% (R). The Dogs’ left side attacking strength if JAC was there would have faced off against the Eels’ weaker right-side defence, but Dunster kept his spot over Simonsson. So, who knows?

But what we do know is that the Eels’ current pattern of play is not working well. The Eels make little territory in the first three tackles and then rely on their halves and some offloads to create points, but are typically doing so far from the 20m red zone, and scoring on the extreme edges if they do score. The conversions are tough. But more often than not, Moses is kicking from his own 40-50m zone, and his general play kicking sees the opposition start form a weak position. But the Eels do not defend it. Teams roll down-field. The cycle starts all over again.

It's great. Yeah, it’s good. Well, some things could be better. Many things could be better. It’s terrible. It’s awful. Rinse and repeat.

We are all Muppets, fans and players alike, apparently.