WHENEVER teams beat the Sharks they invariably describe their win as "ugly".
Yesterday, Wests Tigers captain Brett Hodgson was the latest to offer that response after his team had just squeaked past Cronulla for a narrow but deserving victory.
It's funny that when the Sharks win a game, they too refer to their success as ugly; but they are always happy to take the competition points.
Conclusion: all Sharks games must be ugly. Perhaps that's being a little harsh but I think there's something to this generalisation.
The other comment regularly passed on the Sharks is that they lose a lot of close games, which I imagine is supposed to imply they must be an unlucky team. They were beaten by fewer than five points nine times last season. But perhaps they lose a lot of close games because they play in a lot of close games.
Already this season they've beaten Manly 16-10, the Storm 17-16, the Dragons 18-16 and South Sydney 12-10.
Now, in consecutive weeks, they've lost 20-21 to the Panthers and 16-20 to the Tigers.
They could be six wins out of seven; or just as easily no wins out of seven.
So what does all this mean? Are the Sharks' games ugly because they're always close; or are they close because the football is always ugly?
I don't know. What I do know, though, is if you keep playing in close games, you can't win them all.
The problem is the Sharks start playing for a close result from the opening whistle and maintain this same negative attitude throughout the game.
They play as though the scores are always level and the next mistake or score will decide the match.
Yesterday they had a glut of possession in the first 20 minutes and had the Tigers at their mercy. The Tigers were run off their feet and fatigued from a mountain of tackling close to their line. At times they appeared to be waiting to be put out of their misery.
Somehow the Sharks managed to keep the Tigers in the game with a string of missed opportunities and a plethora of thoughtless attacking plays.
The Sharks did lead 6-0, but had enough possession to lead 20-0.
When the Tigers finally managed to get some possession at the other end of the field they quickly manufactured two tries and took a two-point lead to half-time. The Sharks left the ground wondering how the hell they were in that position.
Cronulla go into every game with a grafting, spoiling, in-your-face attitude.
Their wrestlemania method of defence slowly chokes the life out their opponent and with it any chance of them playing attractive football.
When in possession, the Sharks' attack is a simple procession of hit-ups and rehearsed plays rather than anything that probes, or asks difficult questions of the other team's defence.
Mind you, they're not the only team in the NRL suffering from this affliction.
They take more penalty shots than any other team in the NRL. Twice yesterday they opted to shoot for the two points (one success), when on both occasions the Tigers were on the ropes.
This would suggest they either have no confidence in their attack or they're convinced the next penalty goal will be the final difference in the scores.
They don't seem capable of punishing their opponents and blowing them away.
I have to concede they're excellent at restricting their opponents from playing football. However, they, in turn, don't play much expansive football, so we end up with a tight, ugly game every week.
The Sharks are obviously happy to keep taking their chances in the close ones. They have the players to develop a more dangerous attacking style but seem reluctant to experiment.
That being the case, they're going to be disappointed as often as they are happy.
The Tigers, on the other hand, have a far more enterprising attitude.
It was no fluke they managed a superb ad-lib try in the dying minutes of the contest when they needed a touchdown to clinch victory. I think there's a message in there somewhere.
