Why are NRL teams slow or unable to take advantage of a weakened opponent?

Round 10 provided further evidence of a phenomenon that has become widespread in recent seasons: where teams post poor performances despite facing a much-weakened opposition lineup, having strong motivation to the contrary or both.

This has become increasingly common in the approach to the finals series, where teams out of contention (and without any pressure or expectations) often defeat those with the lure of securing or improving their top 8 position, but the mid-season malaise suffered by many teams is often due to facing opposition missing many important players.

In some instances, this can be an absence of players before State of Origin games or just a host of players missing due to injury, but it can also come when playing an opposition well down on form. The factors attributed to many current failings in the NRL (static salary cap, significant talent and experience losses to UK/Rugby, continued increases in speed and intensity of games) are also relevant here (in making it difficult to maintain consistency and focus from week to week), but there is more to it: over short periods (enough time to build a significant lead), Rugby League is a game where a burst of effort alone can make a difference, especially in such an even competition. When the favoured team is flat or complacent, anything is possible.

Most games in Round 10 featured a healthy dose of playing down to a weakened opposition / playing poorly when circumstances or motivation suggested otherwise. Without doubt, the best of this came from Parramatta, for whom such an effort (or lack thereof) was not really a surprise.

Parramatta's Round 10 opponent was the Roosters, who were missing 4 of their best forwards to State of Origin. Even a pack as strong and as deep as the Roosters cannot fully cover for the loss of the 4 quality players; that is, they cannot fully cover for this loss against most teams. Against Parramatta, the Roosters' weakened forward pack still dominated.

The first half was relatively even, as the Roosters made a number of errors, but their defence held quite firm against a rather pedestrian Parramatta attack. However, in the first 15 or so minutes of the 2nd half, the Roosters held onto the ball and their forwards took over. From this platform, halves Anasta and Pearce took advantage and did as they pleased. Tries came far too easily and within 20 minutes of the second half, the Roosters had a match-winning lead. Parramatta supporters everywhere would have been disappointed, but perhaps none more so than Ray "Rabbits" Warren, who sounded almost funereal as Pearce took a late intercept and ran away to score.

As noted earlier, Parramatta has become one of the teams most likely to put in an "unexpected" stinker like this. They have become almost as bad as the Dragons at losing games when they're favoured by many to win. Speaking of the Dragons, one of Parramatta's more famous losses came against them in 2004 (which took place, like the Roosters game, before State of Origin 1). In this game, the Dragons were missing Bailey, Barrett, Cooper, Gasnier, Hornby, Kite, Thompson and Timmins either to State of Origin or to injury. Parramatta was missing Burt, Cayless and Hindmarsh, but they were thrashed 37-6 by the second-string Dragons (led by the...ahem...inspirational leadership of Jason Ryles). As Piggy Riddell dominated, the boos reverberated around Parramatta Stadium: the Eels probably deserved boos on Friday night as well.

Cronulla is not as bad as Parramatta when it comes to losing games they should win - their forté is an alarming inability to win at home and perhaps the worst attack in the NRL - but they were in a similar situation as the Eels on Saturday night. In fact, Brisbane was probably weakened more than the Roosters by State of Origin and injuries, but the fact that they were not massive outsiders showed how little respect many gave to Cronulla's ability to win at home and to score enough points to beat Brisbane (who, in their Origin and injury-weakened state, rarely looked like scoring).

Despite having some of the best supporters in the NRL, Cronulla had won just ONE of their past nine games at home and have endured long losing streaks there in recent years: a stark contrast to the period between the mid 90s and early 2000s, when Cronulla was almost unbeatable at home. The fans again turned up in hope on Saturday night, but it didn't look very good early, as Cronulla errors gave Brisbane a much-needed assist into attacking field position. In contrast, Brisbane's ball-handling early on was exemplary and eventually they found a try to take an early lead.

Slowly, Cronulla fought their way back into the game - a significant task given a still very-strong Brisbane forward pack - and dominated the game for an extended period into the second half with the wind at their back. However, this dominance resulted in just 12 points. While Cronulla was missing their two best players in Gallen and Bird, they still had significant attacking field position but rarely looked like scoring.

Their best attack came from set plays; there is little doubt of the significant improvement in Cronulla's defence under Ricky Stuart's coaching, but their attack has regressed markedly. The enterprise, instincts, nous and (most importantly) attacking confidence has almost completely disappeared in Cronulla's game. Instead, they rely on several set plays and the bare bones of an attacking system. Stuart is either over-managing his team from an attacking perspective, unwilling or unable to coach an attacking system (as opposed to a few plays) or the key attacking players are under instruction not to undertake any risky attacking plays. Given Stuart's history of chopping and changing halves, the latter would not be surprising, although Kimmorley may now play a more expansive attacking game with his NRL future now secure.

Kimmorley did seal the win for Cronulla with a late field goal: at this stage, any home win for Cronulla is a great one, no matter how ugly.

The same could be said for Penrith, who have an incredibly poor recent record: at home, when favoured to win at home and when coming off a win. They were also without Petero Civoniceva for their game on Sunday against the still injury-hit Warriors. But his absence meant little as Penrith gave a rare glimpse of their attacking potential. Pritchard and Jennings dominated down the left-hand side. They dominated to such an extent, you wonder why it doesn't happen more often. Meanwhile, the newest, largest halfback in the NRL, Luke Lewis, had another good game (although his introduction to halfback has been made quite gentle by another poor defensive showing by Penrith's opposition) and Tighe and Gordon continued their strong recent form on Penrith's right.

That said, the Warriors were again (for a game in Australia) very poor. They fought back late in the first half, but a weak attempted kick in attack by Grant Rovelli was returned by Pritchard then Jennings for a Penrith try: this broke the game open and Penrith piled on the points from here. Still, a win in this situation is a very good one for Penrith. There's a looooong way to go, but they just might have turned the corner.

Even Manly and Gold Coast slipped from their previous strong form against weakened opposition. Manly figured to be the weekend's big winners. They took on a Cowbores team minus Feral Thurston, Matt Bowen, Carl Webb and (if the rumours were true) coach Graham Murray (on a permanent basis). Even still, the Cowbores competed very well for most of the first half. Alas, without anyone with more than rudimentary playmaking talents, they never seriously were in the contest, but they stuck close with a team known for their consistency of effort for far longer than many expected. The final wide margin flattered Manly, but also reflected the magnitude of problems within the Cowbores.

The Bulldogs don't have Feral Thurston (well...not since 2004 anyway) but they have almost as many problems as the Cowbores, with injuries, a coaching change already booked in for 2009 and some big-name player unrest. While the table-topping Gold Coast was without the likes of Rogers, Laffranchi and Campbell, a close contest between these teams seemed extremely unlikely, especially with Scott Prince's omission from State of Origin and the return of inspirational co-captain Luke Bailey.

The Bulldogs dominated possession in the game's early minutes but never seriously threatened to score. When the Gold Coast finally saw some ball, they put on 3 tries in relatively quick time: the thrashing looked on to everyone except the most one-eyed Bulldogs supporter and the Channel Nine commentators.

However, in the remaining minutes of the first half, it became quickly apparent the above list included most of the Bulldogs' players. They came back into the game with two tries down Gold Coast's right-side defence: once they had this sniff of a chance of victory, they attacked wherever chances made themselves apparent. This attack took place both with and without the ball, as a series of well-executed tackles secured an increasing amount of possession. Much of this possession was returned quickly towards the Gold Coast tryline.

Despite more Scott Prince brilliance and a Prince penalty goal, the Bulldogs were not to be discouraged. How was this the same team who meekly submitted to Penrith last week? Even when Gold Coast had the ball, the Bulldogs smelled blood and attacked any sign of weakness (which were becoming more apparent). A turnover of possession in Gold Coast attacking territory was bundled back down the field by, of all people, Jarrod Hickey. Soon after, Reni Maitua scored: he looked more energised than he has been in years.

To describe Gold Coast's four-point lead at this point as tenuous was to be polite: they were in desperate need of the full-time siren. A dubious penalty and a possible knock-on came in the lead-up to what appeared to be the game-tying try to Michael Sullivan; alas, a forward pass was called, denying what would have been an incredible comeback win.

For the Gold Coast, it was another home win, but it was not so much a wake-up call as fingernails down 1000 blackboards. Sure, they were without several important players, but until they see off a challenge such as this in somewhat more convincing fashion, they will have little support to come close to Premiership success.

Perhaps luckily for the Gold Coast, their next opponents also came close to defeat against an understrength opponent in Round 10. For the third time in four seasons, the Wests Tigers played the Knights in Newcastle with the Knights missing a host of important players. State of Origin meant the absence of Buderus (as it did for the corresponding game in 2007) and Cross, injury and suspension ruled out Gidley and Hilder respectively, while Newcastle's massive effort to be competitive with Melbourne for 60 minutes last Monday night meant most other players were not 100% for this game.

In contrast, the Tigers were coming off the bye and welcomed back Robbie Farah and Benji Marshall: they were perhaps two players away from being at full-strength. This game went much the same as the games in 2007 and 2005 did: the understrength home team played quite well for some time, before the Tigers exerted their authority and surfeit of ability to win fairly comfortably. While they looked good for about a 20 minute period in the second half and scored some nice tries, the overall display was so-so: Tim Sheens had every right to publically voice his concern after the game.

Last night's game saw Canberra take on Souths. Canberra's ongoing terrible luck with major injuries saw them field a team significantly weaker than their best (although many teams would take the likes of Monaghan, Purtell, Carney, Tongue and Tilse in a significantly weakened team) while Souths was really only missing Craig Wing (a major loss, of course. You can probably guess how it turned out: a combination of strong play by the Raiders and insufficient intensity from Souths saw Canberra enjoy an easy win. The good work of recent weeks was wasted by Souths, while Canberra continue to be dreadful away and brilliant at home.

Lastly, in a round where the increasing tendency of Rugby League teams to waste dominating positions (or to rise against adversity and the loss of important players), the team most closely linked with such bizarre play - St George Illawarra - did as the formline suggested and thrashed a significantly weakened Melbourne Storm. However, it may be important to note that the Dragons were missing three of their important players: see the story above from 2004 as to how the Dragons often fare quite well when missing big-name players. Players such as Soward, Chase, Ryles and Poore had great games: if only they could reproduce this form on a more consistent basis.

It is also important to note just how understrength the Storm was. They won 2 games before State of Origin last season, but those teams featured Slater (one game), Folau, Quinn, Cross, Aubusson, Rua, Crossman, Newton: these players are now either Origin players or were forced elsewhere due to salary cap constraints. Melbourne is renowned for developing (or purchasing) some of the best youngsters in the game, but the young Storm players were out of their depth in this game. They gave away far too many late tackle penalties and errors.

The extent of the dropoff in performances in Round 10 from Melbourne, Brisbane and the Cowbores has brought a host of complaints that the NRL should make play State of Origin games on a stand-alone weekend. This would mean less potentially one-sided contests, but also less chance to see how teams on both sides react to being put in such unusual situations. One thing's for sure: Parramatta supporters wouldn't disagree with such a proposal (unless, of course, they were without many of their big-name players).

See you next week.

Read More...

Summary only...