What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Parramatta - from the ashes......

The Colonel

Immortal
Messages
41,810
2001. What was going to be the first of many premierships that Brian Smith and the Mighty Riverslugs were going to bring back to Parramatta since the last one in 1986.

We had the emergence of Lyon, Hodgson, The Hindmarsh brothers, Vella, Cayless, Drew and Marsh. The best attack. The best defence. We were the benchmark.

For one reason or another it didn't happen. The issue is how do we compete with the top teams again like we did in 2001. How do we run with the Roosters and the Panthers when only two seasons ago everyone wanted to run with us.

Behind the scenes in 2001 the envelope called defence and flat line attack were being pushed by clubs like Melbourne and Chris Anderson. The NRL looked at the rules and responded by changing the play the ball rule so the attack was not as dominant as it once was.

Quick play the balls were turning the game of RL into a game of touch football. The quick Parramatta forwards were combining well with the acting half to get over the advantage line and set the backline in motion. The ten metre rule allowed the halves the room to move. Defence was brutal. It was North Sydney 1998 all over again but it wasn't one game it was every game. The quick forwards were able to adapt where bigger forwards were on the back step.

The gang tackle put into play by the Roosters under new coach Ricky Stuart changed the face of the game. They were able to stop players from hitting the advantage line as the referee did not have to move the defence back when the person playing the ball stepped forward. Ten metres became six or seven. Small quick and skillful forwards were pushed back towards their goalline. The sound of "dominant tackle" became common place from the mouths of the referees.

The Eels have since lost one of the Hindmarsh brothers. Probably the key loss in the Parramatta line up. Chased hard by the Raiders, Ian moved closer to his new farm in Cowra. Hodgson was not the force he was a in 2001 and the lack of quality in the halves was hurting Parramatta. McFadden, Green, Kusto, Drew etc have all been tried in the halves.

Smith had failed to adapt to the new face of the game. The smaller forwards were not competing with the new crash and barge style of the game. Injuries to our smaller more mobile forwards have been commonplace. Dominating the ruck which in 2001 was commonplace only happened at different times through the year. The fact new hooker Morris had found his way to the role he was purchased for only half way through the year did not help. Our better performed players were those seeking new contracts. Lyon, our most potent attacking weapon did not see the bal until late in the year busting his way to 14 tackles which should have been close to double that tally.

The key to going forward and competing at the top again comes down to a more dominant and bigger forward pack and a settled halves combination. That and the arrival of possible x-factors in Aaron Cannings, Chris Muckert and Chris Thorman should lead to Parramatta bringing some pride back to the blue and gold.

New buy Corey Pearson, Vella and Cayless will shoulder much of the go forward burden and should be ably supported by Muckert and Cannings. Hopkins, Morris and Wagon will need to work hard on their already good defence next year. Should the forward pack gel as above Hindmarsh will be able to revert to a role as a gamebreaker in a similar mould to Brad Clyde in the early nineties.

The backline will be remodelled. Stalwart Moodie will not be returning and with the wing and fullback spots up for grabs the only guaranteed positions 1-5 will be Lyon and Vaealiki. The number seven jersey however looks set to become the sole property of one M. Witt for quite some time provided injury and poor form are averted. The last half of the season saw Dykes find the form he was signed for. Waiting in the wings however is the young London Broncos half, Chris Thorman.

Competition for positions, which has not been seen since 2001, will be unrivalled. New signings will be keen to impress, youngsters keen to shine and take the next step and regulars will be looking over their shoulders for the first time in a long time.

This combined with a new logo and more importantly a new jersey where the old has only seen one year of triumph will bring new luck and hope to the Blue and Gold Army busting at the thought of 2004.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
151,031
Colonel Eel said:
The gang tackle put into play by the Roosters under new coach Ricky Stuart changed the face of the game. .

Smith had failed to adapt to the new face of the game.

Fair call there..................you've sumarised it all very well

The important items to me are the two that I have quoted above.

Ricky Stuart (like him or love him) was astep ahead of the other lot, with his defensive tactics.

I believe the signing of Cannings, Pearson and Co are to "beef up the engine room" to counter act the gang tackle.

This also highlights to me that we are trying to play catch up, thats why we finished so far behind the leaders.

Wouldn't it be good to have a innovative coach, rather than one who has shut the gate after the horse has bolted.
 

The Colonel

Immortal
Messages
41,810
Smith tried for too long to adapt to the game with forwards who in 2001 had been the dominate forwards. These forwards - in particular Cayless, Vella and Hindmarsh - in my opinion can and still do dominate on there day. However as I pointed out the key loss from last year to this was Ian Hindmarsh. He was the linchpin of our defence. Our biggest problem was the fact we did not really sign anyone to take up his workload when he left.

Widders, Solomona, Heckenberg, Peek and to a lesser extent Treacey are not the defensive equal of Ian. This would have allowed the two Nathans to pick and choose when and where they position themselves. This along with a lack of size has been our down fall. Hopkins is a workaholic and helped turn the season around but we lacked the size of Canberra, the Panthers and the Roosters.

The fact that he is willing to try something different rather than persist with the same train of thought ala Hagan and Anderson is in my opinion a small positive in the least. Most coaches would rather stick with what worked than change it. Yes, it may have taken some time but at least it is being done.
 

The Godfather

Juniors
Messages
755
Colonel Eel said:
However as I pointed out the key loss from last year to this was Ian Hindmarsh. He was the linchpin of our defence. Our biggest problem was the fact we did not really sign anyone to take up his workload when he left.

Not quite true. One of the reasons behind Ian leaving is that he wanted a long-term contract (and Canberra have given him a 3 year deal) but Parramatta were looking at developing Danny Sullivan. If we kept Ian, Danny's opportunities would have been limited, and we would have lost him.

With hindsight, it was the wrong decision, but that is what happens when you have good performing players, strong juniors and a salary cap. Throw in the variables such as injuries and form changes, decisions have to be made at the time that may not be proved correct.
 

The Colonel

Immortal
Messages
41,810
The Godfather said:
Not quite true. One of the reasons behind Ian leaving is that he wanted a long-term contract (and Canberra have given him a 3 year deal) but Parramatta were looking at developing Danny Sullivan. If we kept Ian, Danny's opportunities would have been limited, and we would have lost him.

With hindsight, it was the wrong decision, but that is what happens when you have good performing players, strong juniors and a salary cap. Throw in the variables such as injuries and form changes, decisions have to be made at the time that may not be proved correct.

True, especially given the injury that seemingly forced Sullivan out of football. Two years out is a long time especially when his first grade experience has been limited. The fact of the matter is the club tried to rely on bit part players after the Sullivan injury instead of looking for someone who would have filled Ian's role more permanently.
 

fish eel

Immortal
Messages
42,876
and I think Muckart from the Cowboys may be able to slot into that Ian Hindmarsh role nicely
 

Stagger eel

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
65,437
Greeat post Colonel! but you failed to mention Shane Muspratt. That bloke IMO will be the buy of the year. Especially under the coaching of Smith.
 

JessEel

Accredited Media Releases
Messages
28,677
well done colonel! you have restored some faith into this eels fan, who had all but given up!

THANKYOU! =D>
 

Pazza

First Grade
Messages
8,624
Colonel Eel said:
The Godfather said:
Not quite true. One of the reasons behind Ian leaving is that he wanted a long-term contract (and Canberra have given him a 3 year deal) but Parramatta were looking at developing Danny Sullivan. If we kept Ian, Danny's opportunities would have been limited, and we would have lost him.

With hindsight, it was the wrong decision, but that is what happens when you have good performing players, strong juniors and a salary cap. Throw in the variables such as injuries and form changes, decisions have to be made at the time that may not be proved correct.

True, especially given the injury that seemingly forced Sullivan out of football. Two years out is a long time especially when his first grade experience has been limited. The fact of the matter is the club tried to rely on bit part players after the Sullivan injury instead of looking for someone who would have filled Ian's role more permanently.

Forget Sullivan and I Hindmarsh, Armit will be better than both. He is a forward suited perfectly to the modern game. He is tall, strong, built very much like Adrian Morley. Able to put big men down in a dominant tackle yet has the speed and mobility to defend against much small and faster opponents. He will make a huge mark on first grade this season. I hope to see him in the starting side if Smith has any witts about him.
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
Good post. I have only two (or three? or four?) words to add...

Fuifui Moimoi !!

(or is it Fuifui Moi Moi? or Fui Fui Moi Moi?)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

2004, could it be the long-awaited new-millenium year of eel?
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,312
2004 will be a welcome to the Abyss of the Unknown Eels. It shall certainly be interesting what eventuates at Parra next year. One thing is for certain, competition for spots should be hot.
 

Pazza

First Grade
Messages
8,624
Don't diss Moi Moi, Peek was playing premier league at souths and he turned out being great for us!
 

Pazza

First Grade
Messages
8,624
Cayless
Hindmarsh
Vella
Wagon
Cannings
Tsoulos
Armit
Pearson
Stapleton
Hopkins
Widders
Muckert
Muspratt
Peek
Moi Moi

young players:
Hinchcliffe
Dillon
Mcmillan
??????? (could be anyone, who had heard of Justin Tsoulos before 2003?)

There is some damn huge competition for spots. In the forwards only Hindmarsh and Cayless are safe.
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
Pazza said:
Don't diss Moi Moi, Peek was playing premier league at souths and he turned out being great for us!

Hey, I'm not dissing the Fue... it's just that everyone is leaving him out of discussions of our pack depth? At his size he could be the surprise packet of the second half of the season. Such impact potential - if Brian and co can help get him to that level.
 
Messages
11,677
Colonel Eel said:
Smith had failed to adapt to the new face of the game.

Wrong - that is what he is doing now. Why now and not then?

Well basically because the Roosters were NOTHING until round 20 of the 2002 season. they were doing only average and it wasn't until the last 6 games of the regular season that they stepped up. Also note that when the contract signing time came, the Eels were actually sitting quite well on the table - we would have had to be to only win 3 from the last 13 and still make the 8!

By round 20 time the contracts had already been signed and sealed and Smith was stuck with his 2003 side that wasn't able to play the style of footy that was developed after the contract signing period was over.

Now Smith has had his chance knowing what the score is with a changed game and will have the chance to show in 2004 whether he can adapt.

This is why I dont get people bagging him out. Could he have done anythign about the way the game changed? No, as he doesnt make the rules. Could have bought a 2003 team to play by these rules? Nope, because 95% of contracts were signed by the time the change happened.
 

half

Coach
Messages
16,735
you could say smith was so good, the nrl was forced to make changes to stunt his team
 
Top