A tough win against the Roosters keeps us in second place on the ladder. For only the second time in our NRL history we're in the top 4 after 9 games. Last year was the only other time - when we were running first. You have to go back to 1986 for the last time that happened.
At the third-of-the-year mark it's a good spring board for another potential consecutive top-4 finish. Despite some fans and commentators actively critical of the Eels, we are in rarified air.
At this time last year, we were first place - the highest in NRL history we've been higher - but had lost to the Roosters in round 6.
This year, we've beaten a practically full-strength Storm, the reigning premiers, and the Roosters for the first time in 5 years in a tough game - the two most dominant teams for decades. And also Canberra in Canberra for the first time in 15 years. Although the way the Raiders are going, perhaps we can't read too much into that.
Here are five take-aways from the round 9 Roosters clash. It's not all roses and rainbows.
1. The Eels' team and attack has improved, but not without some "alarm bells"
We've scored 260 points. 46 tries. Equal second and third in the competition for both, respectively.
Last year at the same time in round 9, when we were running first, many were talking us up as premiership contenders - we were on 210 points and that was when we were at our attacking best. Before the slide began.
However, this game revealed some "alarm bells".
Glimpses of last year's achilles heel - a clunky side-to-side attack struggling to score points against a team up for the fight, in spite of good territory and possession.
Though stats often mislead and are open to interpretation, it's hard to argue with these stats.
The Eels had more than the lion's share of the ball and territory against the Tri-colours.
Mitchell Moses admitted it in a post match interview with 2GB, the Eels had too much lateral movement early on trying to get around the Roosters' futilely. However he added, he felt the side re-adjusted its strategy well to stay "in control" of the match.
To highlight this - the linebreaks in the match were 3-3.
In the press conference, Brad Arthur also he felt the team stayed "in control" and "didn't panic" and , in a tough game they have to fight for everything, noting:
"We had three tries disallowed against us but I didn't see any frustration creep into them...We didn't panic. We had to play right to the death, so I think that's as close as we've played 80 minutes [in 2021]. I talked to them at the end of the game and they felt like they stayed calm and in control...especially when ... they [the Roosters] made it a six point ball game"
Moses' and Arthur's take on the Eels - not panicking and being patient - was in stark contrast to Flanagan's and others at Fox.
The result and effort suggests the Eels didn't implode. Like they may have years gone by.
However, some of the criticism is warranted. The Eels really struggled to break the Rooster's line or score a try that didn't come off the back of a Moses' attacking kick. And not for the first time.
2. The Eels' have struggled to put away sides, but still find a way to win.
Despite the mountain of possession, territory and opportunities against the Roosters - the game was incredibly only sealed 5 minutes from fulltime.
Incredibly, 7 minutes out from full-time the Roosters were only behind by 6 points. Somehow the game had come to this.
The tri-colours fought back the 24-12 Eels lead to be within striking distance at 24-18 in the 63rd.
One could argue it was more, or as much, the Roosters' defence as the Eels' attack. However, this follows a theme throughout the year.
The Eels display a talent for finding ways to invite the opposition into the contest - even when seemingly "in control":
- Storm (round 2) the game was locked up at 12-12 with 4 minutes left on the clock. During the game, the Eels looked to be gaining ascendancy and momentum in a tight game but couldn't finish them off when they had the chance and Storm fought back. It was left to another Moses skyrocketing kick and miraculous Sivo take to seal the game.
- Sharks (round 3) were still in the game with 11 minutes left. This is despite the Eels were also enjoying a mountain of possession (over 60%) against an injury ravaged side without a bench.
- Tigers (round 4), Eels were only up by 24-22 with the game in the balance until the last 3 minutes. This was despite the Eels seemingly being in "control" of the game on the whole and dominant on the whole.
- Dogs (round 8) the Eels raced to 16-0 after 22 minutes and were up 22-0 in the 42nd minute, before clocking off. 12 minutes later the Dogs pick up two quick tries to get within striking distance of a contest 10-22. It was put to bed by two quick tries (60' and 67'). 32-10.
Notably, on the Storm game, despite the Eels not being able to take advantage of their ascendency and momentum, it was a gritty, courageous win against the reigning premiers. The Storm fought back strongly and ended up with 55% possession, more running metres 1835m to Eels' 1531, and more linebreaks 4-2 than the Eels, whilst the Eels also made 450 tackles (to Storm's 382).
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly - despite quite often switching off, being one's own enemy and lacking "killer instinct" - the Eels have found a way to win.
3. Heavily reliant on Moses' boot to win
On Friday night, four out of the five tries were set up by Moses' kicks.
The Eels' first two tries were set up by two well placed Moses kicks finding Matterson on the right edge. They were finished off by some good support quick passes for Fergo and then Cartwright who had been on for about 8 seconds.
The Eels third try was also set up by a Moses kick - albeit more indirectly - that found Sivo challenging Ivu mid air and stripping the ball off him to regain possession. That put the Eels 10m out. Then some clever work by Paulo (attracting Walker) and Mahoney put Cartwright over for his second.
The Eels fourth try by Tom Opaic's critical try (45') was also set up by an extraordinarily well-placed Moses kick from just outside the 40m mark. However, it wouldn't have happened if not for some terrific pressure chase a Kiwi-superhero. Who else, but Papali'i. As well as Opaic in support.
It's no accident Moses' peppered the Roosters' right edge and Iluvalu - as prior to the match the Roosters conceded almost 50% of the tries on this edge. Double their left edge.
In the round 2 Storm win, two of the three tries also came out from kicks - one by Moses and the other Dylan Brown - both taken by the Fijian superman Sivo to seal a matchwinner 4 minutes from full-time.
Take away those Moses kicks and support work and the Eels 'probably' lose both matches. We were far less dangerous without Mahoney's spark when he was off.
Is that a bad thing?
Not necessarily. The silver lining is three-fold.
One, Moses' kicking game is probably at its peak. That's a positive for us. It can mean the difference, when it counts. Again.
Two, it couldn't happen without the kick-chase, great aerial work from the likes of Sivo and Matterson, and great support work. The one percenters and good attitude. And it couldn't have been done without the momentum of the pack and hard metres they made.
Importantly, the Eels' iced these pressure moments against heavyweight opposition. Something they have often failed at.
This suggests the mental attitude of the Eels may also have improved from the "soft underbelly" years gone by.
Additionally, Mahoney, Papali'i and Cartwright have added another dimension to our attack this year - and there's still Gutho and Paulo - so it won't be all on Moses' boot.
4. Errors were down, but proved costly despite Roosters' being worse
The Eels are on the third most error-riddled team, making an average of almost 12 errors per game (along with Manly 1st, Cowboys 2nd, and Broncos 4th). It is one reason sides are invited in and our attack is still clunky at times, along with us switching off into flat periods in the game.
However, in the Roosters game the Eels errors were reduced to 8-16 with the Roosters producing their own error-thon. Unfortunately, some of the Eels errors proved costly:
- Roosters 1st try came early on, off loose Mahoney carry 20m out from the Eels' tryline. We couldn't defend the next set after attacking, with Sivo coming in jam up defence not trusting Opaic. So, the Roosters were able to strike immediately. Trust and communication issues on our edges were an issue last year, though with Tedesco flying into the line one could be half forgiven for panicing.
- Roosters 2nd try again came off another error. This time when Eels a wayward pass 20m out from the Roosters line in good attacking position. This time the expensive error came from a wayward pass from man-of-the-moment and often error-riddled, enigmatic Dylan Brown on the left edge (he floated on this edge at times) that went behind Gutherson.
We couldn't defend these errors.
Ironically, just before the Roosters scored their second try, the Eels were had an 4 on 3 overlap in the Roosters red zone and with better execution could have scored. Poor execution - converting opportunities - has also often been an ongoing issue with the Eels and it heavily featured in this match. Again, with what little ball the Roosters were able to convert - in contrast to the Eels. So that's a potential 12 point differential.
The other issue here with this moment, was with Dylan and Gutho in the line, coupled with the absence of Nathan Brown, our second line of defence and scrambling defence was undermanned and unable to cover a runaway Vunavula and Roosters. It was left to Moses (who does a lot more cover these days) and a Campbell-Gillard who tried valiantly but didn't have the speed.
Roosters 3rd try, completing the Vunuvalu hat-trick, came down our left edge once again with Sivo getting caught inside leaving ample space on his outside. Realising this, Moses began sprinting from the ruck, but there wasn't enough time for cover. We've often been caught short on the edges with a more compressed defence around the ruck and sluggish cover. For years.
It wasn't the first time the Roosters had a few opportunites and overlaps, however, weren't at their best to make use of what limited opportunities they had - unlike years gone by - partly due to errors and game smarts.
Robinson admitted the Roosters were physically courageous, but didn't play well enough to win the game. He didn't blame the officiating for the loss noting the Tri-colours didn't end sets well, in attack or defence. Not enough to build momentum, concluding "we weren't smart enough with our footy."
5. A brutal game: Injuries, HIA, suspensions, fines, apologies; Dylan in the spotlight
The Eels' club and Dylan, suspended for 3 weeks, put out a statement of apology with Dylan admitting: "Yesterday I contacted Drew to check up on him and apologise. I also let him know that it was an accident and never my intention for him to get hurt." Dylan now has time to think about where his head is at, as he's an important cog in our spine that needs to step up like others have.
Nuikore who has been a powerhouse on the right edge, is also suspended for 2 weeks, probably making Arthur's decision on the other enigma, Waqa Blake, easier.
It was a brutal clash with a lot of physicality up front and the Eels engine room prevailed.
On a bright note, Lane was better and Matterson continues to improve following his return from another worrying period with concussion. He had an excellent game, was involved in two tries, forced a drop-out, and was solid physically and had a few nice touches.
The Roosters won the post-match judiciary awards, with Siosiua Taukeiaho escaping suspension with a fine due to a 7-year incident-free record.
Team list Tuesday will be intriguing. Probably for both clubs.
Bottom Line: Are we the Reel Deal? Jury's Still Out.
At this point, Arthur and the club, and team can be proud of its off-season work. Its improvement, development and form of Reed in particular, Papali'i, Cartwright, Kaufusi, Moses, RCG, Gutherson, Junior and co. Kudos.
This game showed the Eels are a talented and tough opponent, yet still are not bonafide premiership contenders. Hitherto.
They are still are work in progress and show glimpses of weaknesses from years gone by that have led to their demise: flat zones - fading out of matches, letting teams back into the contest, clunky attack that struggles to score points even with lots of ball, as well as defensive vulnerabilites on the edges. These are the kind of issues that get exposed finals time. More improvement is needed.
They need to be more brutal. With more focused, single-minded killer-instinct. Yet, there's still time - the door is ajar and it's a marathon. But the clock is ticking. It won't wait forever.
Replies
Good summary HOE. You made a good point about improvement with our mental ability to hang in there for 80 minutes. I agree. We have made errors but disn,t seem to get frustrated with it which is an indicator that you are loosing self control.Penrith does that brilliantly.When they make an error they come back as if it didn,t worry them.Thats what you have to do.Ignore the error and not let that dictate how you respond emotionaly. Dylan has had some error issues and I don,t think we should compound the issue by bringing that up for him.He is well aware of them and needs to deal with that himself along with coaching staff. I think mentally we need to be stronger and consider how much better we are with our finals prospects than 95% on the other sides.Go with the flow knowing that issues around mistakes are better handled by looking for solutions rather than focusing on things which are history now.Its all about giving space to learn from your mistakes rather than dragging people back into cluttering headspace with non productive noise
Couldn't agree more, our attack has always been clunky and our strength is up middle with short passes and inside balls. Once we dominate the middle and get a quick play the ball then we should look to shift out wide.
Too much side to side is exactly how we lost to a Dragons team who easily picked us off defensively.
Another worry is our defence out wide, simple task of numbering up and sliding has always been a problem for us the last few years.
The defense bit is going to be a work in progress.
Thee attack as mentioned was sideways but changed in game and played more direct.
Attack for me is a worry but defense yes we really need to be a bit more consistent especially around our edges.
I don't worry about our attack. N Brown and Mahoney are critical in our attack, but were injured against the roosters.
I worry about our edge defence. We are compressed and alway jam in. We always suffer from an overlapp. We are not good defending quick play the balls.
EA. I think so, too. We do have defensive vulnerabilities on the edges that could get exposed in big games. There were some signs of that issue too in this game - on numerous occasions. It could prove very costly down the track.
Yep HOE. I notice numerous thing when are defending. If the oponents get a quick play the ball, the edge defence always panic and jam in:
Also to defend quick play the balls we need more effort from our middle players. Just look at this example of Storm. Storm are shot for numbers out wide. B Smith puts in effort. He runs diagonally towards Townsend (line speed) which allows the players on his outside to maintain there position, slide and importantly prevent any overlapp. Despite, Smith's efort there is still an overlapp because Sharks just had that many more players. However, all the Storm players in the line are sliding even once the ball is past then. Hence, players can trust that the player behind them is marking there inside, which allows them to continue sliding to cut of the overlapp. Smith's effort is backed up from Olam who is defending 3 in instead of 2 in which he normally does. Olam puts inside pressure on Johnson which caused an error. The pressure Olam put, and how fast he ran didn't allow Johnson to kick or throw a cut out ball to his winger.
Ultimately, if Smith never put this effort in, K Bromwhich would of had to mark Townsend. If Olam didn't put any pressure, Johnson would of iced a 3 v 2 overlapp. Thus, tithout the full storm line, espicially Olam and Smith joint efforts, Sharks would of most likely scored.
The hot take for me is we are putting 80 minutes together we are showing that we can nail big moments.
All the given games mentioned when teams are in it we are showing the ability to finish off games.
I like that because that's what's finals footy looks like the more you play like that the more it becomes second nature.
I can't believe the media is missing this.Parras biggest bugger bear has been playing for 80 minutes now we are nailing the important moments we can't put teams away man this makes me laugh.
Bottom line for me is Parra need to continue to build a game that will stand up under finals pressure and I believe playing teams close then as above nailing the big moments and putting teams away late is exactly how you want to play finals footy.
Dominating possession and territory go along way to doing this.For me if your ticking boxes Parra are doing exactly that.
The one thing I would like to point out, whenever people are saying Melbourne and Penrith are unstoppable, they seem to forget the Bulldogs led Melbourne a few weeks ago, we beat Melbourne and Penrith were pushed all the way by the Broncos.
We do have things to improve on, but for some people (not HOE) to be saying it's a Melbourne vs Penrith grand final is just ridiculous. We're winning, we're second, and we have more room for improvement than they do.
The stuff about our attack from Flanagan was just crap imo. Last year we were criticised for panicking, losing our heads and throwing games away. This year we're staying in the grind, clinically exhausting our opponents and coming home with a wet sail in almost every game. So what do people want us to do? Because at the end of the day, all that matters is winning.
Honestly speaking, I do predict a Melbourne vs Penrith grand final. But in saying that, I think Rabits and Eels are the only other teams that can challenge them two.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next