Hmmm.... Interesting notion....

[Eelementary]

I have been hearing for weeks now how teams like the Tigers and Manly have been deemed to have over-achieved this year and it got me thinking.

I believe that 2001 was a year of tremendous over-achievement. We did 10 times better than we deserved.

Time to swallow some pride and answer honestly - do you really think that if we were really that good and deserved to win the Premiership we would have choked so badly in those first 40?

I just think it was a HUGE fluke season which could never be repeated.

 

[strider]

I believe we over-acheived a bit, but I don't believe the season was a fluke - the players really clicked and we had VERY FEW injuries - the lack of injuries meant players developed alot of trust in defense and great combinations in attack.

However, I do believe alot of other teams under-achieved in 2001...Newcastle had Johns go down for an extended period mid-season and they only began to fire again towards the end of the year....Brisbane had a bad year...and a few other clubs weren't really crash hot.

 

[Eelementary]

I agree since 2001 we have lost personnel due to ibjury and the cap.

But from our 2001 squad:

Burt
Hindmarsh
Wagon
Lyon
Vaealiki
Vella
Cayless

have been with us since.

And nothing has changed in recent years. Our core team in unaltered (apart from injuries and suspension) and we struggle.

I think we fluked and over-achieved. We were very good, but I doubt we could have achieved similar feats in 2002 with the same squad if we could.

 

[strider]

Those ARE our core players, but there is no way they have all been together for extended periods since 2001.....all of them except Wagon have had lengthy periods on the sideline - Burt and Hindy both missed half a season, Vaealiki has missed nearly all of this season and missed alot of 2003, Lyon had a major injury and has gone MIA now, Vella has been all over the place with injuries, Cayless has had 2 lengthy breaks with broken arms and suspensions in between.

The confidnece is shot....how can u have confidence in your team if you hardly play together for longer than 4 weeks???


Look at the 2003 Panthers - kicked arse - injuries and rep duties hit this year and they are beginning to feel the pinch....admittedly not fallen into the depths we have - we obviously have more issues than just injuries, but it can really knock a team around.

 

[Eels Dude]

I have been hearing for weeks now how teams like the Tigers and Manly have been deemed to have over-achieved this year and it got me thinking.

If Manly are over-achieving this year, I'd hate to see how bad they'd be if they were under-achieving.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I think the rule changes got us. And the fact that we are still trying to play the game like 2001. We need to hit the ball up flat and change out defensive style so we actually get up and put hits on the opposition.

 

[The Colonel]

I think the rule changes got us. And the fact that we are still trying to play the game like 2001. We need to hit the ball up flat and change out defensive style so we actually get up and put hits on the opposition.

Flat attack doesn't work however getting the ball on or near the advantage line and running hard at the defnce will help our attack - which I thought was the whole idea of big and ugly.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I think the rule changes got us. And the fact that we are still trying to play the game like 2001. We need to hit the ball up flat and change out defensive style so we actually get up and put hits on the opposition.

Flat attack doesn't work however getting the ball on or near the advantage line and running hard at the defnce will help our attack - which I thought was the whole idea of big and ugly.

Big and ugly must be accompanied by getting the ball flat and on the fringes. Morris passes the ball further back than an U6's dummy half.

 

[The Colonel]

The "flat attack" that Chris Anderson employed doesn't work.

As I said getting the ball on the advantage line as you have suggested does. I was just trying to clarify the two.

 

[The Engineers Room]

The "flat attack" that Chris Anderson employed doesn't work.

As I said getting the ball on the advantage line as you have suggested does. I was just trying to clarify the two.

I know we are in agreement. I have said this for so long I am sick of it. I want to crash the training session and show the forwards what to do. Heck I'll play front row for us. Although I only weigh 75kg I think I could make more metres than the rest of them.

 

[True EEL]

playing people out of position and choosing dumb sides and not motivating your players properly doesn't help much either

 

[oldmancraigy]

I think the rule changes got us. And the fact that we are still trying to play the game like 2001. We need to hit the ball up flat and change out defensive style so we actually get up and put hits on the opposition.

Why are we all so blind to see this!!! I totally agree - the rule changes got us!

The defensive line is allowed to move up more more quickly since that year, which means that the bigger forwards are more effective.
2001, our pack was a light and mobile pack of forwards - Cayless, Drew, Vella, Hindmarsh, Hindmarsh and Wagon. You've only really got one big forward there (N Hindmarsh) - and Ian was effective because he had much more room.

Sinc the rule change we've seen Nathan Cayless become a little ineffective as a prop, and Vella lost a lot because he didn't have so much room to wind up! Subsequently Vella has put on 5kgs for this year, and Cayless has moved to the second row (where he was good until outed!).
Wagon and Ian Hindmarsh are both far too small to be good players anymore, and so they both fit into the workhorse mould.

Our pack just wasn't as fiery as it used to be because it was just too small to compete - where once our mobility was the big weapon, it has become a liability. Hence this year Smith bought some bigger guys - sadly Cannings has only played a couple of games and Pearson has only just come back (despite what everyone says about him he makes meters and doesn't shirk any responsibility in carting the ball forward!) And Cayless (playing powerfully as a second rower) has also been missing all year.
I think this year we never quite got to see how our forwards would pan out - and as a consequence we haven't been able to see how much room our backs would have to work in (not to mention the fact that our two international centers have been out all year, and also our best winger has missed most of the season).

 

[The Engineers Room]

They also don't get the ball at the advantage line so we are having to make 2-3 metres just to break even.

 

[True EEL]

[/quote]

Hence this year Smith bought some bigger guys - sadly Cannings has only played a couple of games and Pearson has only just come back (despite what everyone says about him he makes meters and doesn't shirk any responsibility in carting the ball forward!) quote]

Pearson shirks his responsibility every chance he can get!!!!!

he is playing bloody 5/8 for christ sake and even when he does run it up he passes, he is old, fat, slow and scared, get rid of him and get some young players in there, i mean what does Chris Armit have to do to get a run, he is gun who always makes meters and keeps his legs driving once tackled????

give me a break

 

[The Engineers Room]

I agree that Armit is in the Eels future but he needs better service from the dummy half and to not get the ball flat footed.

 

[Misty Bee]

The term 'overachievement' is a false one, by defenition. If one "overachieves" that implies that one achieves things beyond their capabilities, yet the were perfectly capable of achieving it otherwise the wouldn't have!

We didn't overachieve in 2001. We underachieved in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

I agree that rule chages got us. So? That was the 2002 excuse. It's 2004 now, and we still havent come to grips with it.

All teams have injuries. Easts have made 3 gf's from 4 years with major injuries to Luke Phillips, a wonderfully talented player who played like Langlands in GF's. They have missed Fittler for long periods. At one stage, Jeremy Cusak was captaion of a virtual PL side, and almost toppled a full strength KNights.

Our full strength side got flogged in round 1. Whio are we kidding that it's all injuries???

 

[oldmancraigy]

Pearson shirks his responsibility every chance he can get!!!!!

he is playing bloody 5/8 for christ sake and even when he does run it up he passes, he is old, fat, slow and scared, get rid of him and get some young players in there, i mean what does Chris Armit have to do to get a run, he is gun who always makes meters and keeps his legs driving once tackled????

give me a break[/quote]

Ummm..... ok...

I think somebody is full of the "I hate Pearson" pills....

Are you watching the games?

I know the guy passes, but he also runs forward!

In the 6 games he has played so far this year, he has averaged 14.2 hitups per game! That's a good work-rate for half a game! In just a few less minutes per game, your precious Chris Armit has only averaged 7.2 hitups per game, for an average of 55 meters! Pearson thumps out 101 meters per contest - not only that, but he is a chance of an off-load to put Wade McKinnon away - getting 1.2 offloads per game - oh, Armit only gets 0.1....

I think Armit is a great talent, but I gotta say that bagging Pearson is not the way to go! He actually does bring his go-forward every game he plays, and just because he has some ball skills is no reason to criticise him (we don't criticise Cayless for passing before the line do we?)

 

[oldmancraigy]

I agree that rule chages got us. So? That was the 2002 excuse. It's 2004 now, and we still havent come to grips with it.

All teams have injuries. Easts have made 3 gf's from 4 years with major injuries to Luke Phillips, a wonderfully talented player who played like Langlands in GF's. They have missed Fittler for long periods. At one stage, Jeremy Cusak was captaion of a virtual PL side, and almost toppled a full strength KNights.

Our full strength side got flogged in round 1. Whio are we kidding that it's all injuries???

The rule changes got us because we let J Cayless, M Hodgson and others go who have thrived under the new rules (and were fringe first graders under old rules!) And the players we signed long term (Vella) just don't cut it under the new rules! So it's affected our team, making us a low top 8 quality team for the season!

I hate to say it, but that has had a long-term effect - good players don't just grow on trees!!


As far as giving our full-strength team curry for the big loss round 1

If you saw that game you'd admit that Lyon played like a goat - coughed up possession on a number of occasions and dead-set let in 2 tries (as did KAtiverata)
I think we all know Jamie's mind was somewhere else, and Kat - need I say more?

The same full-strength side came out and beat the Broncos next up and played well for the next few weeks - but in those few weeks the injuries started to pile up!

Sure sides can cover one or two lossess of personel - but as they stack up it becomes pretty hard!
With Cannings and Pearson out almost straight away it made it hard, and losing Lyon and Prince early sure didn't help! Then Vaealiki went down and suddenly the backs looked a little useless, and then it was Cayless and then Grothe!
Of those players, only Pearson has made it back, surely you can admit that missing half your starting pack makes life a little difficult? And surely you'll admit that having zero strike backs makes it doubly difficult?

When the Roosters lost Fitler for long periods they also lost games - despite having most other players fit! Take their three best forwards and their best outside backs and even they would struggle - and they have greater depth than us!

 

[Misty Bee]

Lyon was posted in defence on his pat malone.

Round 2, Brisbane were abysmal.

Craig, every side has it's injuries. We seem to have injuries who kill our season. 14 other clubs don't. I recall in 2001 that Hindmarsh and Cayless missed a large part of the year. I reall Hindy playing injured (shoulder?) for the second half of the year to help the side out.

Injuries is an excuse. Example - the most damaging injure in Parra's history came in a trial in 1986 when Pebbles Laurie poked Mick Cronin in the eye - this detaching his retina. Without Cronin - the most important pointscorer and back this club has ever had, Parra killed it. Cronin made his 1996 debut in the major semi final!

Injuries are being used as an excuse for Brian SMith's failures for too long!

 

[thedux]

The whole injury debate crashes when you consider the Dragons side that flogged us a couple of months ago. As for the nucleus still being there, I have always maintained that a side wins premierships based-on the ability of their fringe players. Top players are pretty level across the board, but your second-tier guys can vary dramatically from team to team and even week to week. These are the guys you need to get consistency from. In 2001 we had players like Westley, I.Hindmarsh, Buettner, Drew, Moodie, J.Cayless and even JT who gave us great consistency for the whole year. These guys, in all fairness, wouldn't be in the top 10 in their positions if you are honest but they played like they were. At the moment we have too many of the same type of player, giving us crap every week: Petersen, Langi, Burt, Witt, Graham etc. These are the guys that really need to play at a higher level for us to be a force.