Report reveals how the Parramatta Eels crumbled under Daniel Anderson

A DAMNING report reveals the onset of a rot that would cripple the once-mighty Parramatta Eels.

PLAYERS turned up to recovery sessions drunk. The head coach was suspicious of his staff and lived in constant fear of the axe. The CEO signed one of his closest mates. The club had no football manager, wrestling coach or kicking specialist. In just a single season, the camaraderie that carried it to within 80 minutes of glory had vanished.

A short step back in time to October 2010 reveals the onset of a rot that would cripple the once-mighty Parramatta Eels.

Ahead of their season opener against New Zealand on Sunday, The Daily Telegraph has obtained a copy of Parramatta’s internal review from the season that precipitated the bleakest era in the club’s history - a fascinating document that sheds light on how the Eels crumbled to finish 14th, 16th and 16th over the subsequent three years.

The review was ordered to determine whether the head coach at the time, Daniel Anderson, should be granted a contract extension amid internal rumblings over his man management and media reports linking the club to Kiwi mentor Steve Kearney.

Director Geoff Gerard, Glenn Duncan - boss of former major sponsor Pirtek - and ex-CEO Paul Osborne undertook the review, questioning Anderson, his football department staff and senior players at length.

What they discovered was a vicious minefield of self-interest, mistrust, ill-discipline and deteriorating standards.

The team’s shock failure to make the top eight after storming into the grand final in 2009 provoked a frenzied round of finger pointing and buck passing that could double as the definition of dysfunctionality.

An internal review has slammed Daniel Anderson over his time as Eels coach.

As the central figure of the review, Anderson both attracts and inflicts some telling criticisms. The home truths are vital because Sunday night’s game will be his first at Parramatta Stadium since re-joining the Eels as football manager last December.

He’s now in charge of several areas – recruitment, junior development, coaching structures – that absorbed the most scathing responses three-and-a-half years ago.

Although Anderson left with a year remaining on his contract just a few weeks after the review was completed, the document did not recommend termination.

The final recommendation was for Anderson’s future to be determined early in 2011, guaranteeing him grace over the off-season. But after Osborne had been sprung meeting Kearney in Melbourne a few months earlier, Anderson wanted the certainty of a contract extension to dispel rumours of his demise.

“The coach (Anderson) suggested his position would be untenable for the 2011 season and the level of undermining and the resultant instability would make his job impossible,” the report reads.

“He said he was very disappointed and it was going to be a long year for all. He claimed his staff were ‘not on his bus’ and that it was a toxic environment.”

Anderson addresses his players.

Elsewhere, the report alleges Anderson felt undermined by at least two staff members.

He also struggled to handle relationships that longer serving staff and players had with the board, which he felt interfered in recruitment and crowded the dressing rooms with hangers-on after games.

Anderson was attacked for treating players unequally, ignoring scientific data, being a micro manager and communicating poorly.

The final point was the most repeated criticism, with staff claiming they were not adequately informed of schedule changes.

Anderson pointed to his suspicion that certain staff and players were undermining him as a reason for closing shop.

The report adds: “He (Anderson) acknowledged that discipline was a problem, however claimed his lack of job security made it difficult to be harder on players.”

The report paints an awful picture of player discipline at the time. Some took advantage of not being reprimanded for turning up late, or wearing dated training gear with defunct sponsors. Fitness was also an issue, with former lock Feleti Mateo ballooning from 106 to 114kg during the season.

But most distressing was accusations that players showed up for recovery sessions drunk and were not punished.

“Much was said by staff about the ‘looseness’ of the after match recovery sessions,” the report reads. “A number of players attended recovery during the year whilst either intoxicated or with the strong aroma of alcohol on their breath.”

Recruitment was another issue of contention between Anderson and his reviewers. It was established the coach had no input into the recruitment of dual international Timana Tahu, a close friend of Osborne’s at the time.

Anderson also complained about the lack of development of his halves – Daniel Mortimer and Jeff Robson – but was chastised for not hiring a specialist kicking or wrestling coach to help improve them.

The resultant signings of veterans Chris Walker, Paul Whatuira, Carl Webb and Chris Hicks was widely viewed as a recruitment blunder from which Parramatta’s roster is still suffering.

The club claimed it was forced to make a rash of late signings after its lengthy yet futile pursuit of Melbourne duo Greg Inglis and Cooper Cronk.

Even four years later, the roster is short on depth in the crucial areas of halves and front row and still on track to breach the salary cap by $80,000.

It’s little wonder the expectations on new coach Brad Arthur have been so limited ahead of this weekend.

Political infighting, a boardroom coup, a revolving door of CEOs and two more sacked coaches has seen Parramatta deteriorate further from the alarming signs of trouble that were present at the end of 2010.

Anderson’s return represents an intriguing about-face. Clearly, not everyone at the club thought he was the issue. Now he gets another chance to repay their faith and perhaps restore his in the blue and golds.