By Spiro Zavos
October 5th 2009 @ 1:37am
Related coverage
Slater beats Hayne for a deserved Storm victory
NRL Grand Final against the Parramatta Eels at ANZ Stadium, Sunday, Oct. 4, 2009. The Storm won the 2009 NRL premiership with a 23-16 win over the Eels. AAP Image Dean Lewins.
Jarryd Hayne’s last touch in the 2009 NRL Grand Final, a dropped ball, summed up his play throughout the match. Nothing he tried came off. His opposite number, Billy Slater, had a tremendous match, scoring a try, running the ball back strongly and injecting himself into the line to try and make something happen for his well-organised and methodical side.
Before the match I noted that only one fullback (Robbie O’Davis) had won the Clive Churchill medal for best on the field since the medal’s introduction in 1986. The suggestion was made that if Hayne or Slater won the medal, then that player would lead his side to victory.
And this is what happened. The Storm scored in the first five minutes and it seemed to me that Hayne should really have been in a position to prevent the try. But a earlier he’d been tested with a kick across the flow of play which he just defused. Perhaps he was hanging around the posts again waiting for a repeat when the try was scored out wide.
Then in the second half Hayne had waited for a towering up-and-under to be caught by one of his team-mates instead of handling it himself. Greg Inglis caught the ball unchallenged and beat Hayne with a swerve to score a try for the Storm.
Slater followed this by running off a pass from the base of the scrum, and then backing up to take another pass to clear out for the decisive try.
It seemed to be that the difference between Slater’s style of play and that of Hayne is that Slater actually creates breaks for himself with his fearless and speedy running, while Hayne tends to set up plays for his team-mates.
Hayne’s problem in the Grand Final was that the Eels outside backs didn’t seem to be putting themselves in a position to capitalise on any chances offered to them. Too much of the backplay was virtual slow-motion passing with few players being prepared to charge on to the ball.
The Storm were the better team throughout the match. They had to play against a determined opposition and a seemingly even more determined crowd. It is one of the most difficult thing in sport to defeat a committed side (and the Eels had that commitment as their fightback towards the end of the match revealed) which has the unconditional support of a vast crowd.
That the Storm could do this and win more emphatically than the 23 – 16 suggests indicates that the side and the Storm franchise deserves now to be considered with some of the great teams in the past, all those Broncos sides that won premierships with Wayne Bennett, and those great Parramatta sides with Jack Gibson as their coach.
The broadcast of the match was exemplary, especially the commentary from Peter Sterling and Phil Gould who were quick and expert on picking up aspects of interest for the viewers. But Channel 9 somewhat ruined things a bit with the inappropriate plug by Darryl Somers for his ‘Hey, Hey It’s Saturday’ revival show.
In the past there has been talk of taking the NRL Grand Final out of Sydney. The vast passionate crowd of 82,538, with its tumultuous sea of yellow flags, provided the reason why this special occasion should remain a Sydney occasion, just as the AFL Grand Final should always be a Melbourne special occasion.
The Storm and Slater might have ruined the Eels party. But at least the party was held in western suburbs of Sydney, the spiritual home of the rugby league code in Australia.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(51)
znotty said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:09am | Report comment
dont worry about juniors or a Leagues Club or a supporter base just go & buy the comp, a total disgrace
Mr cheese said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Dear Spiro
you said in another article that Rugby Union brings a high calibre of supporter i.e. middle class.
Is it still like that over in Aussie ? Traditionally in England, Rugby Union has been controlled by the middle class. I didn’t realise you had the same thing over in the prison colony.
Bill Baxter said | October 5th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Channel 9’s telecast of the Grand Final was NOT exemplary!!!!.
Viewers in Victoria and I guess the ‘other non NRL States’, were insulted when the telecast terminated abruptly at the conclusion of the game. No post match comments, no post match awards, no post match celebrations!!!.. Channel 9’s arrogance towards the Melbourne Storm continues and this from a Sponsor!!!. Who needs Sponsors like this?.
Richard said | October 5th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Well said Bill. At the end of a terrific and absorbing, tension filled match we were all just left hanging. I don’t know whether the telecast was cut short only in Melbourne, but nine definitely lost the plot there. Clearly they care not for the Storm or their Melbourne viewers. I feel this exemplary finals performance by this great Melbourne team has done more than the all the other Storm wins to raise interest in NRL in Melbourne. Combined with the new stadium, League could now be on the verge of major growth here. Channel Nine could have played their part to help this process. Instead they demonstrated how little they understand what being a team player means. From a predominately AFL fan, well done Storm. Great, great win in a thoroughly engaging and thrilling game.
Hilly61 said | October 5th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
I’m sorry Richard but I thought the game rated about a 3 out of 10 for excitement. “Tension filled”, are you serious ? My mate next to me on the lounge, nodded off for 20 minutes before the Eels mounted a ‘minor comeback’ late in the second half. If it wasn’t for those ten minutes, the game was BORING and PREDICTABLE. Melbourne’s defence smothered Parramatta in the first half and game was as good as over. I’m not an Eels or rugby league fan for that matter, but the game just didn’t live up to it’s hype. The Storm have now played in four consecutive NRL GF’s and I bet you the general public in Melbourne still couldn’t name you more than three players in the team. The AFL pay a lot more for TV rights than the NRL, so I believe the Storm will never get the full support they need in AFL heartland to get ‘major growth’ as you hope.
John Ryan said | October 5th 2009 @ 10:25pm | Report comment
Well in WA they showed it right through presentation as well,very unusual for 9 who dont like RL very much in this state
Dan said | October 5th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Mr Cheese,
Rugby Union traditionally did have a more middle class supporter base, but is far more diverse than that now, with half their players coming from public schools (public schools meaning.. errr public – never could understand why England insist on calling their private education sector ‘public’). Nevertheless, League does have a far stronger working class supporter base still thanks to it’s deep social and cultural penetration and general high level of accessibility. Union remains constrained by its short Super 14 season that remains completely wedded to cable television and the inferior quality (compared to the NRL) of the club competitions that play after it.
Mr cheese said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Dan,
you have a point about the English tendency to use their own language in a peculiar way. I went to an English state school. My family was nowhere near rich enough to send me to a public school.
As for ‘Super 14′, I didn’t know until v recently that there was no Rugby Union competition in Aussie. That surprises me. You even have a football league, for kangaroo’s sake !!!!! Surely 15 man egg-chasing is more popular than football.
I am a football man myself, but I thought you lot preferred the egg.
Dan said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Soccer (I never use the word ‘football’ – to me it’s an umbrella term for all the codes) is played in the summer here so it doesn’t compete with the the other three codes. It enjoys a moderate level of success, but ultimately Australians generally prefer the AFL or NRL over either Union or Soccer (spectator wise at least – soccer’s mild physical nature means it enjoys high levels of participation, but it seems that the fans prefer watching the more gladatorial sports of League and AFL).
Ultimately though Australia is very hard to pin down sporting wise though. In England it’s fair to say soccer is the national game and is entrenched so deep that it seems being a fan of a team is tantamount to being a member of a gang (never could understand the EPL’s ability to generate a gang culture). Whereas in Australia the country is split over AFL and Rugby League, with soccer having a strong level of niche support the nation over and Rugby having it more limited to NSW and Qld.
Mr cheese said | October 6th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
First of all you have to understand that ‘the EPL’ is a foreign thing. We don’t call it that. People over here probably think that EPL is that drug used by the cyclists.
I am afraid that I will continue to use Football to describe, er, Football.
Anyways, Football over here is the number one sport by 5000 million miles. The clubs have been around for 125 years or something, and Rugby League is very very very small.
It’s still quite funny, though, that you have a football league but not Rugby union league. Bizarre.
Dan said | October 6th 2009 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
Wasn’t telling you not to call it football, was just explaining why I don’t so you didn’t get all shitty with me using the word ’soccer’ (as my experience with the English soccer fan – the ones who don’t try and kill you for the colour of your jumper at least – is that they think this is some how an illegitimate and offensive word, despite being of English origin and having significant utility in confusion avoidance in countries where soccer is more of a peripheral sport).
In any case we do technically have a Rugby Union ‘Leagues’ here, it’s just that they remain city centric, with the largest being in Sydney. Australia is geographically too large for a national league without the proper funding and well thought out club-transcending team divisions given that it would compete directly with Rugby League and AFL. Moreover, a ‘League’ in Australia is not what, say the EPL (or whatever the local English vernacular for it is), is. They’re leagues with knockout competitions made up of the top half of each league tacked on to the end of it. It is like this in all our football codes, even the Super 14 involving South Africa and NZ.
Union in Australia is ultimately very dependent on the success of the wallabies and, to a lesser extent, the 4 (soon to be 5) Super 14/15 sides we have. We have roughly one 6th of the player numbers of England, so our success in that sport is quite remarkable in many ways. The same could be said of soccer here too I fancy, given that for so long it was derided as a game for girls. We’re doing quite well in that though too now, despite the relatively low quality of the competition here.
Dan said | October 6th 2009 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
Mick from Giralang said | October 5th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Slater had a terrific game but I don’t understand how the Churchill medal for best player on the field didn’t go to Nathan Hindmarsh or Fui Fui Moi Moi, who were both standouts. Hindmarsh made 65 tackles and took the ball up relentlessly. Not even the great Ray Price could have matched that effort.
Luke W said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
I’ve never valued workhorse forwards. Yes, Hindmarsh did make a lot of tackles, but how many times was he the second, third or even fourth man into the tackle? I remember Anthony Watmough getting criticised for missing a lot of tackles, but Des Hasler defended him saying that he misses those tackles because he is usually rushing off the line, looking to make solid contact and force an error. Fui Fui Moi Moi did less than half the work, but his runs and tackles were much more effective for Parramatta than Hindmarsh’s.
As for Clive Churchill medallist, how did it not go to Cooper Cronk? His linebreak set up the second try, his bomb for Greg Inglis’ try was pinpoint and when the Storm were in front and looking to hold off the Eels, he controlled the game through his kicking. Saying that though, Slater was probably the second best on field, and was probably the more obvious choice over Cronk.
Brett McKay said | October 5th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Luke, I’d agree with that, I thought Cronk was BoG by a considerable margin, had a hand in Blair and Inglis’ tries, and maybe the kick for Slater’s too (?). Slater was good, but I’m not sure he was the best. But then he also won the Ch9 MotM too, so maybe we’re all wrong…
Hammer said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Mick – I thought the same thing – no way did he deserve the Churchill medal – sure as always good on attack but his defence is still lacking … if the medal needed to go to a Storm player – then Blair, Smith and Cronk were well ahead of Slater …
skull said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
As far as I’m concerned Melbourne would not have won without Dallas Johnson if ever there is a freak it is this guy. He would have done at least 50 tackles and plenty of hit ups, offloads as many as Hindmarsh and was always there to tackle Moi Moi and Hayne. Fantastic effort, wish my team had him.
GB said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Skull, could not agree more. Dallas Johnson was in the thick of it the entire match. He hit Fuifui in the first tackle of the match and was still taking it up towards the end. All this after being by pole-axed by Fui Fui early in the first half. Lesser players would have been out for the count but he kept coming back to dish out and take more punishment for himself. In my eyes, a clear best on ground performance.
Campbell Watts said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Suspect he may not remember much of his effort though! Was clearly concussed from the Moi Moi shot but full credit for the effort – tough as teak!
sheek said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
If I may say so, I suggested in a previous article from Spiro that Hayne might come back to the pack in the GF, & this is precisely what happened.
Hayne is a huge talent, & both he & Parramatta will be better for this loss. But perhaps it’s a loss that needed to happen. In recent weeks I detected Hayne had got carried away with all the adulation being directed at him. He was “hogging” the Eels attack, & he still had that erraticness in his play that I thought Melbourne might exploit.
He’s young, & he will learn from this disappointing experience.
Spiro, we rugby union fans can only look on with envy at last night’s extravaganza. As is often the case, the match didn’t quite live up to expectations, but the occasion was a sea of colour & joy. Even the SMH dedicated 30 pages of wrap-up this morning. Not to mention the pages upon pages of previews these past few days.
Right now, rugby union is a very sick puppy dog on so many fronts.
Luke W said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Completely agree about Hayne “hogging” the play at the Eels. I’m not sure if this came from the fact he was becoming arrogant and believing the hype around him, or the fact that Jeff Robson is one of the worst halfbacks ever to compete at first grade level, but in the last few weeks, Hayne was doing far too much kicking and ball playing. Hayne is a great ball runner (easily the best in the league right now, probably of the modern era) but his kicking and ball playing skills are pretty mediocre. Flashes of brilliance like his chip and chase and his ball for Joe Gulavao’s try last week masked this a bit, but it came to the front last night.
reds fan said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
It wasn’t just Hayne. When you look at the traditional attacking spine of a league team; hooker, half, 5/8, fullback, and then consider the players from both teams in those positions it becomes obvious. Smith, Cronk, Finch, Slater v Keating, Robson, Mortimer, Hayne. Its not really a contest is it?
Campbell Watts said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
I thought Mortimer was the only one of these players to stand up for Para.
Wilba said | October 5th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
That was a very solid performance by the storm, worthy gf winners. What stood out for me was the intensity of the defensive work by the storm early on, combined with the clever kicking by Cronk and Smith that really pinned Parra into the corners and gave the storm an edge. It was a bit like an origin in intensity and I was waiting for the storm to fall into a hole at the backend of the game. This may have happened if not for Slater and Inglis(x2) who supplied the knockout punches.
I thought foifoi and hindy were fantastic, a performance worthy of the CC medal if they got up; however, the rest of the parra side looked a bit flat/weren’t allowed to play. That makes it very hard for Hayne to do his thing when the team had very little momentum and about a quarter of the offloads compared to recent weeks. Whereas all of the storm players looked on the ball, particularly Blair (dominated the ruck), Cronk (steered the team well), Johnston (regular machine like performance) and it was only a matter of time before Slater and Inglis cut loose.
I have no problem with Slater picking up the CC medal he puts his body on the line with his suicidal runs a least 5 times every game. That is 150 time a year and yet oppositions can not stop him. Hayne has become the master of exploiting an opportunity, Slater consistently creates the opportunity. In a tight gf I know which guy I would want on my team.
Well done Storm.
Art Sapphire said | October 5th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
“The broadcast of the match was exemplary, especially the commentary from Peter Sterling and Phil Gould who were quick and expert on picking up aspects of interest for the viewers.”
You’ve got to be joking. I watched most of the second half. I thought commentators were supposed to be impartial.
I feel sorry for the Melbourne Storm fans and viewers – first they have to put up with biased commentary from Channel 9 and then are subjected to the indignity of having the plug pulled before the celebrations.
How are Melburnians going to accept the game when both the broadcaster and the comentators see it as a little Sydney game?
The Link said | October 5th 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Well done to the Storm. The first 30 mins was always going to be the key and they blew the Eels off the park. RL is very fortunate to have such a star studded team in a developing market. With the bubble stadium next year, the Storm should improve on their 12-15k average and will be in the best shape possible with the introduction of the Rebels in 2011.
The commentary from Waldron and the players before the game was all class, RL just wants its place in Melbourne, everyone in the club has their own AFL side etc… If the Storm can get 15k members and 20k average that’s pretty successful.
Tom Alexander. said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
The Storm had too many playmakers. Especially in the 1, 6, 7 and 9 positions. Channel Nine Melbourne’s treatment of Rugby League in this day and age is nothing short of disgraceful and whoever is responsible for the decision making in Melbourne needs to be held accountable if not sacked. But then again maybe this disgraceful treatment will only make Rugby League followers in Melbourne more determined to support and grow the code even more. With friends like these at ch 9, who needs enemies.
Chris Beck said | October 5th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
I thought the commentary was quite biased for Parramatta. OK, I wasn’t expecting much, what with one Sydney team against some bunch of outsiders from AFL territory and all that, but come on . . . .
As for player of the match, Slater was good, but I was thinking while watching late in the second half that I might have gone for Adam Blair. It seemed like every time he got the ball he was slicing through the Parramatta defense and causing problems.
Luke W said | October 5th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
The irony is that the commentator you could forgive for being biased (Peter Sterling, former Parramatta great) was probably the most unbiased of the lot. Shows you a lot about his professionalism.
AndyRoo said | October 5th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Ray Warren is also an Eels fan.
Gould has never ever been impartial.
Alan Nicolea said | October 5th 2009 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Andy
I am pretty sure he is a Rabbitohs fan hence the nickname Ray ‘Rabbits’ Warren.
AndyRoo said | October 5th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Alan I think the nickname is based on his surname rather than club he supports but I am starting to doubt my claim. I had it down in my mind as him being an Eels fan.
Brett McKay said | October 5th 2009 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
correct on both counts Andy, nickname origin (Warren) and direction of support (Parra – “I just loved watching this little bloke who now sits beside me…”)
westy said | October 5th 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
I thought inglis was very special. Not man of the match may be but a palyer who just make things happen. No parramatta player could match hm. in fairness to one called Groethe best game i have seen him play.
I think our AFL bretherin would understand innocuous up and under but ingils at full pace an awesome site in its own right with eyes only for the ball breathtaking.
westy said | October 5th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Warren is an Eels fan.
Bulldog said | October 5th 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Well done to Melbourne – the are an extremely well coached and drilled team that have a couple of special players that get them over the line. I however have to admit that I do not particularly enjoy watching them play as their style tends to be a “suck the life” out of their opponents and hence out of the game style of game. It leave the game a bit stale and boring for mine. I am sure Storms supporters disagree with me though.
I also have theory on why they seem to dominant the game. I have been watching their play closely trying to work it out and I have concluded that they are very good at cheating in the paly the ball area. It is very subtle and well coached – so good luck to them. What I have noticed is that when the Storm have the ball – players when they are tackled look to get to ground immediately on their stomachs so they get a quick play the ball. They therefore surrender but do not get called as surrender tackles by the refs. They therefore get much quicker play the balls which they exploit very well.
In defence they really concentrate on turning the oppostion on their backs – this is why they get a lot of chicken wing allegations. They also purposely entangle themselves with the tackled player. They get their arms wrapped up and caught up with the opposition. The refs seems to allow them extra time to untangle themselves from the tackled players and hence slower play the balls which are easier to defend. As I said – well coached and well drilled.
AndyRoo said | October 5th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
I said similar that “they are boring” on one of the lead up articles and got criticized but I stand by it.
I would say there less boring than in previous years because the second ref has helped a lot but they still don’t play an exciting game until the other team is exhausted.
It’s strange to say that because they have exciting players in Cronk, Smith, White, Inglis, and Slater but I believe it’s true.
Watching the game on Sunday it seemed like because Parramatta were hurt by the fact they had the potential to offload the ball so the ref doesn’t consider the tackle to be completed until much later.
Their boring style stops them getting compared to the great Broncos and Raiders teams of the recent past that their record would eclipse.
Great team and great achievements but most importantly great coach.
Won’t miss them if they are not in the grand final next year though.
Hoy said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
I loved the try that was scored when Cronk made the break.
Same base play to the move that Billy Slater scored off against the Broncs, slight variation, and it completely sucked the Eels in.
I remember when McQueen used the same thing with the Wallabies, when they had three tries over consecutive games, using the same base move, with three subtle variations, and it sucked the opposition in each time for a try.
AussieWallaby said | October 5th 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
I think Inglis showed why is he the best player in the NRL. I can’t believe the amount of hype that has surrounded Hayne suggesting he is the best player. Sure he was the ‘form’ player for the last 12 weeks but we should be observing this from a whole season’s perspective.
For the sake of Hayne, hope he can back it up next season and not turn into a ‘dud’ like Kris Inu.
Going back to Inglis though – he is a true big match player and it was only fitting that he slotted the drop goal at the end, the same way he did when the storm won the first game of the season vs dragons.
Great season…great win…even as a ra ra fan, I appreciated this league spectacle.
Worlds Biggest said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
Spiro, just need to correct you regarding Robbie O being the first fullback to win the Churchill medal. Darren Lockyer won the Clive Churchill medal playing fullback in the 2000 Grand Final win over the Roosters.
Onto the game, I agree the Storm were by far the better team as most people expected. It took the Eels one half of footy to get into the game and you can’t play catch up with Melbourne. The Eels kicking game was deplorable particularly in the first half, I don’t remember them getting any repeat sets from good kicking. Storm won the game when Inglis went uncontested for the high ball and scored untouched. I couldn’t believe the Eels didn’t contest this, Hayne should have gone for it, just poor play. At that stage it was 10-6 and game on, then GI scores, takes the crowd out of it and kills Eels momentum. The Eels did well to get back to 22-16 but ran out of time. Congrats to both teams for making the GF and the Storm for a great premiership win. How many Clubs could bounce back from a GF flogging the previous year and win it, amazing. As for MOM, I thought Slater was good but Inglis and Cronk were better and one of them should have won it. Slater acknowledged this in his speech.
Anakin said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
> ont worry about juniors or a Leagues Club or a supporter base just go & buy the comp, a total disgrace
ROTFLMFAO – hang on, werent Storm in the 18s, 20s and NRL Grand Finals? Sounds like pretty good development to me .. how many Parra juniors have come thru parra’s ranks from day dot? Get some facts before spruiking off – the Storms juniors are Melbourne based and Melbourne developed.
Who cares about a Leagues club – its a money grabber, nothing to do with the running of a football club, and as for supporter base – lets see Sydney clubs seperate each others supporters via seperate terminals at games between two Sydney based sides and see exactly who has what supporter base. Almost half of every Sydney clubs home ground supporter count belongs to the opposition .. Storms gate count would be 90% + die hard Storm supporters.
You seem to me to be a Fitgerald clone – an archaic dinosaur without a clue!!!
Anakin said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Worlds biggest: “Spiro, just need to correct you regarding Robbie O being the first fullback to win the Churchill medal. Darren Lockyer won the Clive Churchill medal playing fullback in the 2000 Grand Final win over the Roosters.”
Exactly! – and Robbie ‘O’ won his in 1997 .. making him the FIRST; yet clearly not the last (or only one) to win the “Churchill” medal.
That said, as part of the Centenary Of League celebrations, the Clive Churchill Medal has been retrospectively awarded for man-of-the-match performances from season 1954, the first to feature mandatory grand finals. The first recipient from the 1954 season is the man for which the award was originally named, Clive Churchill.
Despite claims to the contrary at the time of the announcement of the retrospective medals that there had not been Man Of The Match awards for Grand Finals prior to 1986, this was not the case – there had been the Dave Brown Medal awarded at some stage, and, according the NSWRL’s official match day program, a new prize was awarded in 1971, with the winner named by reporters covering the game (the first was won by South Sydney’s Ron Coote). In 1972 the award went to Manly half back Dennis Ward, and the following year, to Manly’s Bob Fulton. The retrospective Clive Churchill Medals – either by coincidence or design – reflect those award winners.
In the replayed grand finals of 1977 and 1978, the award was based on efforts over the course of both games.
These retrospective awards saw 6 fullbacks cliam the gong: Churchill, Langlands, Johns, Simms, Schubert, & Eadie (twice)
katzilla said | October 5th 2009 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Slaters performance is over rated.
The Churchill should have gone to Moimoi, Cronk or Blair. All had far more impact on the game then Slater.
Hayne was unlucky in that his halves decided to go missing during the biggest game of the year.
Mortimer and Robson for all their success this year both had poor games, leaving far too much for Hayne to do, and with Melbournes defense being as good as it was Hayne stood no chance. The lack of incision by Inu and Mateo was telling also, that left hand offense which scored so many tries for Para this year was well and truly shut down. All adding to the pressure on Hayne to pull off a miracle every time he touched the ball. I doubt Slater would make any difference with the same inneffectual play makers around him. His bonus is that he always gets to play with the best in the game, from Melbourne to the QLD SOO team. Put Slater at the back for the roosters then we’ll see how great he really is.
So I wouldn’t give Slater the points victory in this one, Hayne to wear the Green And Gold 1.
Karlos said | October 5th 2009 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
I was hoping for a Parra win, but Slater was absolutely fantastic yesterday. He and the other Storm players made Hayne look second rate. The only other bloke I could have given the Best player award to was Hindmarsh for 68 tackles and the other work he did. Hindmarsh could rest up and be explosive if he wished, but he sacrifices himself for the good of the team week in week out and without him The Storm would have won by 20 easily. To often fans and talent scouts look for the flashy or brilliant attacking players and I guess that is why the U/20 have so few good defenders.
MrE said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
I wonder when was the last time in an AFL or NRL GF that a player from the losing side was given ‘the medal’ as best player?
The poers that be probably feel that it would be a bit anti-climactic to award it to . . . ‘a loser’
MyGeneration said | October 6th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Wikipedia tells us the last time in NRL was Brad Mackay for the Dragons in 1993 and, in AFL, Chris Judd for West Coast in 2005. I would have gone for Dallas Johnson the other day myself, but Hindmarsh, Cronk, Moi Moi, Slater and Inglis all had claims.
MyGeneration said | October 6th 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Oh, and Adam Blair.
Worlds Biggest said | October 6th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Anakin, I will now correct myself !. I meant to state that Robbie O wasn’t the only Fullback to win the Clive Churchill medal as Lockyer won it in 2000. Spiro alluded to Robbie O being the ONLY fullback to win the Churchill medal.
Anakin said | October 6th 2009 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
Right you are WB – in hindsight perhaps I should have simply read Spiro’s full text more clearly and simply pointed out what was actually said. Oh well – trust my comment was informative nonetheless
George said | October 7th 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
What about the game deciding dodgy penalty in the dying stages??? Is anyone concerned that 1st grade matches and now a grand final are being decided by such rubbish and not player merit?? Fui did so well to pull off that game breaking tackle to possibly take it to extra time. Parra had gathered momentum at that point and it was in crucial feild position. Archer for some reason decided to kill every chance of a come back in the last 10 minutes when Melb was finally on the back foot. He clearly allowed Melb to slow the play the ball down more as the game went on. Missed a blatant knock on which everyone saw.Then a disgusting premiership deciding unecessary penalty. I could see from the stands with my binocs that Slater lost the ball. Please check out replay its obvious. As for the so-called second grab? The tackle wasn’t completed, Fui had every right on a dominate tackle or otherwise, to do what he did. That was the best thing Archer could come up with after he viewed the replay. So whats the next excuse Archer will think of? Give me a break. He ruined the grand final for everyone except Melb. He did Storm a huge favour in the end when they desperately needed it.This is a disaster for the game. Shame on the NRL if they don’t encourage Archer to retire. Clearly and especially in a grand final that penalty is a sackable offence. Remember PEOPLE, now anyone’s team is a target.
As for J Howard at the helm of NRL. ARE THEY FOR REAL??? Gus Gould cares more for the game than a politician and knows and understands the game much more as a player. More importantly he has the guts to say it how it is.
Anakin said | October 7th 2009 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
George – I’ve watched the replays champ, and I’m still of the opinion Fui was required to release Slater when he attempted to rise. Its irrelevant how good the tackle was – the rules state he must clear off once the tackle is effected. That said, the reply clearly shows Slaters arm being hit by a Parra player running back onside .. which is what dislodged the ball. Its semantics which penalty was given – but either way the rules were on Storms side, not Archer!
All that aside, I’ve never seen so much dribble on behalf of the losing team! Melbourne have had their share of critics over the years, but at least (in most cases) their dominance has been recognised. Whether one agrees with the structured game, flat rucking, lack of spontaneity blah blah blah is all subjective … the bottom line is they’re in the business of winning premiership. And as anyone who has lost one will tell you, they’d rather win one ugly than lose one in any fashion. But alas, I digress: how about the NSW folk get off the Fitgerald bandwagon and acknowledge the Storm for what they are – a well drilled, well coached club (and I say club, because with personnel changes over the years i dont think its fair to refer to their era as a “team” effort) who have managed to do what it takes in the modern game to make grand finals – the only place from which one may win a premiership.
Yes, Parra had a rapid rise at the back end of the season; yes, Jarryd Hayne is a talented player; yes, hindmarsh & Cayless are footballing gods who probably deserved a premiership (as did El Masri!!) but were THEY really the success story of the year in the big picture. What of the Bulldogs rise from cellar dwellers to contenders; the Dragons rise under their deity Bennett; the emergence of manly when all thought they’d suffer premiership hangover; the ressurection of the Broncos after a record thrashing … etc etc.
The big news for me comes out of todays RLW – and a rumour the Storm may let Dallas johnson go!!! WTF?
Kudos to Storm for winning the premiership and sealing their place as a great team of their time; and commiserations to the Eels for getting close, but no cigar. Acknowledge the superstars of our game – but lets not dwell on things which one arguably see’s with one eye because of club allegiances (or otherwise). Put it in the been there, done that basket and lets simply look forward to season 2010.
Look not back int the past, but towards the future, you’ll spend the rest of your life there!!