Opinion
Cameron Murray looked pretty pleased with South Sydney’s win over the Tigers when he arrived at the post-match press conference on Saturday with his coach. By the time Wayne Bennett was finished, Murray was almost apologising for a humiliating victory.
“Wayne,” the questions began, “it’s been described as a tough, fighting, gritty performance. What words would you put around that win?”
“Oh, not much.”
Silence.
“Surely you can add to those descriptions. The smirk describes you’re relatively happy with it.”
“You’re never unhappy with a win.”
“You must be happy with the defence … Talk to us about the defence?”
“Talk to Cam.”
As spokesman for defence, Murray’s smile was already dimming as he tried to look as disappointed as the coach, who soon received another question.
“Does it change anything to carry that confidence into a bye weekend?”
“Nah. It’s a bye.”
“What about the debut of Moala Graham-Taufa?”
“I saw him out there.”
“How did you find him?”
“A bit hard to explain.”
The dialogue was more Beckett than Bennett by the time he was asked if he was unhappy about Souths’ attack, given how good their defence had been.
“You watch the video and work that out. I’ve said enough about it.”
“You’re the coach.”
“I’m coaching them, I’m not coaching you.”
Specifically, he was coaching Murray, who, having arrived with a big winner’s smile, left with a face adjusting downwardly to be in sync with someone who had just got through the 964th time he has done the job he loves so much.
Dialectical materialism and rugby league
The kerfuffle around there being too many six agains turning rugby league into “touch footy”? Same as past kerfuffles on obstructions, high shots and … six agains.
The Peter V’landys era embraces the Hegelian dialectic. The league states a thesis, whingeing coaches state an antithesis and we meet in the middle with a synthesis.
In the first two rounds, the number of ruck infringements had doubled this year, from about five a match up to 10. In round three, the average was seven a match.
The team caught infringing more often had won more matches than they lost. Between “wrestlemania” and “touch footy”, the NRL has taken three rounds to strike a happy medium. As it does every time.
Name blame game
One criticism of the six-again glut was that the reason for infringements wasn’t being communicated to the players. All we get is a referee waving his arm overhead and the gong on the PA.
Referees get a hard time, but praise where it’s due. Their ability to remember players’ first names is astonishing. They have to memorise at least 34 a match.
A debut reserve forward runs on and the ref is right onto it. “Luke, get off him!” It’s hardly ever “No.17, stay back!”
A lot of memorising goes into referee preparation. You know what’s missing? A sense of poetic justice. I’d like to see a professional referee-botherer, such as Clint Gutherson or James Tedesco, get told: “Um, you. Sorry champ, I’ve drawn a blank. No.1, what’s your name again?”
Buyer’s remorse and seller’s regret
Talk about Daly Cherry-Evans’ return to Brookvale will inflate like a balloon this week.
But after three rounds, I’m guessing the Roosters and Sea Eagles have more pressing issues.
For the Roosters, DCE’s arrival has brought little change: bullying wins over weak teams, mistake-fests against strong teams and Trent Robinson yet again crashing dad’s Ferrari. A win over Manly would not change that pattern.
At Manly, losing DCE’s game management has removed the last fig leaf from Anthony Seibold’s standing as a coach.
But Seibold still believes in his players, which is as reassuring as the Penns, the club’s owners, giving a board position to a 24-year-old family member, which was celebrated, bizarrely, as if it’s a good thing.
Most Manly fans have a keen grasp of reality. One day the club might catch up with them.
Malcolm Knox is a journalist, author and columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald.
