Eels in the media

[Poupou Escobar]

Not all the teams that finished above us were better than us. Case in point Manly and Roosters last season. The 2017 Cowboys weren’t better than us either and they made it to the grand final.

How'd they make the grand final if they weren't better than the three teams they beat to get there? They were packed with big game experience. Origin, finals... they won the comp two years earlier ffs

 

[Incorrect]

How'd they make the grand final if they weren't better than the three teams they beat to get there? They were packed with big game experience. Origin, finals... they won the comp two years earlier ffs

And got belted in the GF.... Which in my mind showed they overachieved or more likely, beat teams who were weak with the burden of expectation in the preceding weeks....

 

[Poupou Escobar]

And got belted in the GF.... Which in my mind showed they overachieved or more likely, beat teams who were weak with the burden of expectation in the preceding weeks....

They didn't overachieve. Their for-and-against was comparable to every other finals team except Melbourne and Brisbane (who underachieved in the finals). The Storm were the dominant team that year. They would have belted anyone:

2017 finals team	Points differential
Melbourne	+297
Brisbane	+164
Sydney	+72
Cronulla	+69
Penrith	+45
Manly	+40
Parramatta	+39
North Queensland	+24

As you can see, across the most granular metric (points differential) it was daylight second and fourth. It should really have been Melbourne belting Brisbane in the grand final. The final six teams were all in the same class. The Storm should've smashed any of them.

 

[Incorrect]

They didn't overachieve. Their for-and-against was comparable to every other finals team except Melbourne and Brisbane (who underachieved in the finals). The Storm were the dominant team that year. They would have belted anyone:

2017 finals team	Points differential
Melbourne	+297
Brisbane	+164
Sydney	+72
Cronulla	+69
Penrith	+45
Manly	+40
Parramatta	+39
North Queensland	+24

As you can see, across the most granular metric (points differential) it was daylight second and fourth. It should really have been Melbourne belting Brisbane in the grand final. The final six teams were all in the same class. The Storm should've smashed any of them.

Gotcha.... That's why we won the 2001 GF so convincingly. It all makes sense when you put it in those granular terms....

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I knew I shouldn't have turned it off at halftime!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Gotcha.... That's why we won the 2001 GF so convincingly. It all makes sense when you put it in those granular terms....

2001 was obviously a massive failure. It would've been as much of a failure if the Storm hadn't won in 2017.

But also, we weren't really the best team in 2001. We dominated on the back of exploiting the ruck rules at the time (a loophole that was closed off after that season with the surrender tackle rule), but on grand final day we faced a team with far more big match experience who knew the ref would be reluctant to penalise them too much in the biggest game of the year.

But the point is that the 2017 premiership was Melbourne's to lose. Nobody failed for not beating them in the finals. Instead the Broncos failed for not making the grand final. The other six teams were evenly matched, which is why the Cowboys beat us and the Roosters and the Sharks. You could hardly say the Sharks were mentally weak or whatever bullshit narrative you want to apply. They proved their chops the year before by winning it. The Roosters proved theirs by winning the next two years. If they didn't 'fail' by losing to the Cowboys in 2017 then neither did we. When two evenly matched teams play one of them has to lose. There's no need to make up stories about why.

 

[Incorrect]

2001 was obviously a massive failure. It would've been as much of a failure if the Storm hadn't won in 2017.

But also, we weren't really the best team in 2001. We dominated on the back of exploiting the ruck rules at the time (a loophole that was closed off after that season with the surrender tackle rule), but on grand final day we faced a team with far more big match experience who knew the ref would be reluctant to penalise them too much in the biggest game of the year.

But the point is that the 2017 premiership was Melbourne's to lose. Nobody failed for not beating them in the finals. Instead the Broncos failed for not making the grand final. The other six teams were evenly matched, which is why the Cowboys beat us and the Roosters and the Sharks. You could hardly say the Sharks were mentally weak or whatever bullshit narrative you want to apply. They proved their chops the year before by winning it. The Roosters proved theirs by winning the next two years. If they didn't 'fail' by losing to the Cowboys in 2017 then neither did we. When two evenly matched teams play one of them has to lose. There's no need to make up stories about why.

Was wondering what took you so long!!

You've found a way... somehow..... A post TheRam would be proud of!!!

 

[hineyrulz]

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Was wondering what took you so long!!

You've found a way... somehow..... A post TheRam would be proud of!!!

It's not just for you mate. It's for whoever wants to learn.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Gotcha.... That's why we won the 2001 GF so convincingly. It all makes sense when you put it in those granular terms....

This is where the team with the best points differential has finished since:

2002 3rd
2003 3rd
2004 Runner-up
2005 3rd
2006 Runner-up
2007 Premiers*
2008 Runner-up
2009 5th
2010 Premiers
2011 Runner-up
2012 Premiers
2013 Premiers
2014 3rd
2015 3rd
2016 Runner-up
2017 Premiers
2018 Premiers
2019 3rd
2020 Runner-up
2021 3rd

This is where each premier ranked on points differential.

2002 4th
2003 4th
2004 2nd
2005 5th
2006 3rd
2007 1st*
2008 2nd
2009 2nd*
2010 1st
2011 2nd
2012 1st
2013 1st
2014 2nd
2015 3rd
2016 4th
2017 1st
2018 1st
2019 2nd
2020 2nd
2021 2nd

This is where Parra ranked on points differential in the last 3 years.

2019 5th
2020 6th
2021 6th

Some takeaways:

* 2009 Dragons are the biggest finals underachievers in the last 20 years, followed by last year's Storm.
* 2005 Tigers are the biggest finals overachivers followed by the Sharks in 2016.
* Teams that finish 3rd or better in points differential have won 85% of the premierships.
* We haven't managed better than 5th in points differential in the last 3 years. The 2005 Tigers are the only team to have won a premiership with such a poor differential.

 

[84 Baby]

*looks at current points differential table*
….f**k

 

[hineyrulz]

 

[Gary Gutful]

There has only been 3 years where the minor premiers didn't have the best points differential (15% of the time).

There has only been 7 years where 1st and 2nd place after the regular season weren't also 1st and 2nd in points differential (35% of the time).

What was also interesting was even when Melbourne were lower down the ladder, they were almost always the reason for Teams 1 and 2 not having the two best points differentials.

 

[hineyrulz]

Melbun aren't fair.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I should have used 'have' rather than 'has'. What a dickhead.

 

[King-Gutho94]

2017 was a missed opportunity we should have beat Melbourne in week 1 which would have flipped the whole final series on its head.

We would have faced brisbane in a preliminary final who we put 50 on 2 weeks before the finals and have their measure.

Melbourne would have had to go down the hard route to get to the GF as well.

 

[lucablight]

They didn't overachieve. Their for-and-against was comparable to every other finals team except Melbourne and Brisbane (who underachieved in the finals). The Storm were the dominant team that year. They would have belted anyone:

2017 finals team	Points differential
Melbourne	+297
Brisbane	+164
Sydney	+72
Cronulla	+69
Penrith	+45
Manly	+40
Parramatta	+39
North Queensland	+24

As you can see, across the most granular metric (points differential) it was daylight second and fourth. It should really have been Melbourne belting Brisbane in the grand final. The final six teams were all in the same class. The Storm should've smashed any of them.

They only made the finals because the Dragons choked to the Bulldogs in the final round. They were lucky to even be there. They came into the finals losing 5 of their last 6 and no Thurston. We were $1.30 favourites against them and had a 10-0 lead. We definitely lost our way in that game. If you were so sure the Cowboys were going to win why didn’t you put your life savings on them at the time? You would be filthy rich right now.
I actually think history is very unfair to the 2001 Parramatta Eels. Newcastle was a very good side that season who were capable of blowing anyone away if they played their best and that’s what they did in the grand final. Johns was injured that season and if he hadn’t been there’s every chance they would have finished above us with a similar record. That team also had the likes of O’Davis, Tahu, Macdougall, Gidley, Hughes, Simpson, Kennedy and arguably the best player of all time in Johns at the peak of their powers. Johns getting injured for such a large part of the season meant we were overrated compared to the Knights going into the backend of the season.

 

[Gary Gutful]

We were $1.30 favourites against them and had a 10-0 lead.

First part is correct. Second part isn't.

 

[lucablight]

First part is correct. Second part isn't.

Thanks for the pick up. I misremembered the exact scoreline.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

They only made the finals because the Dragons choked to the Bulldogs in the final round

No, they made it because of the 13 games they won over the entire season.

If you were so sure the Cowboys were going to win.

I wasn't sure they were going to win. Like I said, outside of the Storm and Broncos everyone else was evenly matched. That's how the Cowboys were able to also beat the Roosters and the Sharks. The problem wasn't their opponents, the problem was pundits and punters focusing too much on form and not enough on the quality of the team. That included me.

I thought the Eels were going to win because I was emotionally invested in the result. But in hindsight I looked at it clearly instead of being resentful and demanding a scapegoat.