BY DAN

Chalk it up, take the win and walk away.

The Canberra Raiders 16-12 victory over the Wests Tigers was not good. But it was hard-working, tough, and proved that the Raiders can win games in multiple ways. Instead of playing fast and ready and overwhelming their opposition, they instead played the game behind the advantage line. They still won, on the back of a hitherto unheralded defence. They can’t play like that every week and win, but this week it was enough.

This was an unusual game for Canberra. Normally their aim is to wear teams down through the middle, and play with as much width as that advantage gives them. Their slow starts come from the patience of knowing that their power game will wear down oppositions. In this game though they were faced with a team that had the temerity to out vim their vigor. The Tigers came to play, and matched all the best things the Milk did. The Raiders couldn’t win their usual way so they instead had to tackle their way to victory.

Canberra did have periods of dominance through the middle. From about the point of Joe Tapine’s stupendous try-saver on Jarome Luai in the twelfth minute until Tapine went off the field in the 29th, the Raiders’ props were on top. Tapine had 86 of his 117 total match metres in his first stint. Josh Papalii 70 odd of his 120. Corey Horsburgh too had the majority of his 140 metres in the first half. They were rolling up the field.

This was the platform Canberra are used to, and for a period they thrived. The played freely, allowing Seb Kris and Ethan Strange running rings around Starford Toa. All their points came in this period pushing against the right side of the Tigers defence. Papalii’s pass to Tapine for the first try was as beautiful as right-side half Heath Mason’s defensive read was poor. On the back of Kaeo Weekes’ exciting kick-return break, Seb Kris flipped a pass to Jed Stuart for a debut (and heart-warming) try. Kris then got into space and found Strange again. Strange found Tom Starling, who grubbered. Somehow, Starling landed on it despite three people seemingly being there before him. That was luck. But it was the kind of luck you only get because you make the effort to be there for it.

This was Canberra at their flying best. They were winning the middle, making metres hand over fist. It allowed them the freedom to shift as they saw fit. They found an area they wanted to attack and made hay while the sun shined. But when the clouds came in the form of less dominance in the middle, the try-scoring opportunities evaporated. Outside of some isolated moments, like Strange’s near try off a great kick from Fogarty in a rare but ineffective attacking set in the second half, the Raiders really didn’t get many more opportunities to attack.

The game was almost exclusively played with the Tigers on the march. Red zone tackles were 30 plus to less than 10 to the Tigers advantage at one point in the second half. Wests ended up with 55 per cent of the ball, and 28 minutes of the game was played in the Tigers attacking twenty (per champion NRL data). That’s hard to keep out, and hard to overcome.

The reasons for this are various. One that is obvious and worth noting was the absence of Savelio Tamale. It meant that so many Canberra sets started slowly. Jed Stuart did nothing wrong, but like Weekes yardage work on exit sets is not his strength. Combined with Xavier Savage being uncharacteristically quiet in yardage (48 metres in total?) and it had a compounding effect. This meant that after a tough set in defence, Canberra couldn’t necessarily rely on their back five to do all the work to allow their middles to rest.

This was something the first string could overcome and did. For the rotation middles however it was less clear. Morgan Smithies had his least impressive game with the ball this year (54m in total). It left Ata Mariota doing the yeoman’s work, taking tough carry after tough carry in bad sets. Canberra kicked the ball having only made thirty metres from their turn on so many sets through the middle of the game that the plan of ‘waiting until the other team is wore down’ was clearly working in the reverse.

Wests weren’t bystanders in this. Their middles aimed up, and Luai was a handful in all facets but particularly his kicking and ball-play. All three Fainus were impressive. Add to that the strategic change of working more to the edges through the first twenty minutes of the second half, and the Raiders were having a hard time matching the strategy, not to mention the energy of the opposition.

So Canberra played the game from their own half, with the Tigers stalking their pray in the redzone. In this game they were able to avoid catastrophe through a defensive effort that was impressive, if not perfect. It was borne through multiple efforts rather than precise contact, building on a structural cohesiveness that only felt significantly threatened on the Milk’s right edge.

This was the Tigers best weapon. Attacking the Canberra right created several line breaks, including the one that became their second try, and was a constant threat through the game. But as time wore on in the second half, extra efforts by players like Tapine and Horsburgh to help were critical in keeping the Jerome Luai, Samuela Fainu partnership in check.It saved the day on multiple occasions. Tapine’s tackle of Luai is an obvious example, but there were others (a Hosking ankle tap of a nearly-through Tiger in the 34th minute comes to mind).

In the past such a possession (55 percent to the Tigers) and position advantage would have been a recipe for disaster for the Raiders. Shit earlier this year it led to 40 points from the Sea-Eagles who had similar weight of possession. But the good thing about this team is that they improve week to week and month to month. They didn’t have the running. They didn’t have their best performance. But their defensive effort put such a high-bar into the performance that the Tigers couldn’t vault. Their opposition at times looked bereft of ideas in the red zone, despite having such an advantage in possession and position.

One might be tempted to compare it victories of late 2024, in which the Raiders used tremendous defensive hustle to overcome better oppositions through sheer will. But rather than being just hot blood and courage, this came with a quieter depth to it. A trust that even when the rest of the game isn’t working the way they want to, they had the structures and plan to win. This wasn’t emoting your way to victory. This was more built from a more sustainable, structural base.

So it wasn’t a good victory but it was an important indication. It proved that their defence is good enough to win them games. If there’s been a quibble this year with this side now and in the past it’s that possession is all you need to beat them. Well the Tigers had all the ball (55 per cent in the second) and played plenty of it in scoring position (over 28 minutes of the game was played in the Raiders’ red zone.) That’s what you need to win finals football. When Plan A doesn’t work do you have another way? Defending your way to victory is probably Plan C or D for the Milk, but they still found a away.

The key thing now is to make this week the outlier and get back to the game that was so successful through the first 14 weeks of the competition. Tamale or no Tamale, they need better yardage from their back three. They need to keep ensuring they have the energy and intent to make the defensive efforts that kept their line intact to night. Grinding out a victory against a non finals team is fine for the origin period but not a habit you want to build.

There’s things to work on, but they reflect the higher bar the Raiders have set for themselves. In the past this would just be a victory and we’d be pleased with that. Instead this showed there’s work to do, and yet here we are still celebrating victory. That’s the gift of this season so far.

Do us a solid and like our page on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, or share this on social media because we may never lose again. Don’t hesitate to send us feedback (dan@sportress.org) or comment below if you think we are stupid. Or if we’re not.