Why the Dogs fell at the final hurdle
The Melbourne Storm's Ryan Hoffman (right) is congratulated after scoring a try against the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs during the NRL Grand Final at ANZ Stadium in Sydney on Sunday, Sept. 30, 2012. (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Related coverage
Like any other Bulldog supporter last Sunday evening, I was a dejected, heartbroken figure watching the Melbourne Storm deservedly lift the NRL premiership trophy.
Des Hasler has performed miracles this season. Not only did he lead Canterbury to the 2012 Minor Premiership and the grand final, but he instilled a new culture that will hopefully see future success for the boys from Belmore.
They spent over a million dollars on state of the art training facilities which saw them return to their spiritual home in Belmore. This new look Canterbury, was perhaps best summed up by Peter Sterling in Channel 9 commentary, when he suggested that “they’re a hybrid of Ted Glossop’s ‘Entertainers’ and Warren Ryan’s ‘Dogs of War’”.
A fit and fast side that played an incredibly attractive open style of rugby league, matched with gritty goal-line defence.
I won’t disagree with Peter Sterling – they were a great side to watch all season. But the question remains: after all the regular season dominance, how did they fall at the last hurdle?
Craig Bellamy is one hell of a coach, and that Sunday afternoon in Mackay when Canterbury downed the Storm 20-4 was more than just a lesson learned. It became the catalyst in the plot that Bellamy had conjured for the Bulldogs downfall for the next time the two sides met.
Canterbury’s success was on the back of a big and skilful forward pack, one which revolutionised the way forwards play through a short interchange of passing, which churned up metres through the middle of the park with ease, something much needed after a disastrous 2011 season.
However, I will go as far to say that the skill of this forward pack also became Canterbury’s achilles heel.
Having watched all of the Bulldogs games throughout the season it had become clear that many of the tries scored had been outside the opposition 40, a simple yet effective second man play, that usually saw two decoy runners, James Graham (or Sam Kasiano), to Josh Reynolds, to Ben Barba who would get outside of his marker back inside to Josh Morris.
It would usually result in a try. Just like a metronome, it happened over and over until the Dogs marched into the grand final with a comprehensive win over Souths.
But the previous night, having watched Melbourne easily dispose of Manly, made me realise that Canterbury wouldn’t have it so easy. I mainly noticed the way the Storm slid in defence.
There was nothing haphazard about it, it was intense, and very pleasing to watch. The way Will Chambers and Dane Nielsen came up and in, then started sliding right and left depending on the plays that Manly attempted to bring to fruition was almost hypnotic.
In a heartbeat, both centres would diffuse any half chance that Manly may have had. This defensive masterclass was mirrored on grand final day, any half chance the Bulldogs had to create room for Ben Barba on the fringes was immediately put to bed.
The up and in defence of the Storm stifled Canterbury of their favoured attacking weapon, the second man play. Ben Barba now had no room to move, and it was left to Canterbury’s halves to create chances in attack.
This is where Canterbury’s problems begin. I won’t go as far to say that they haven’t done too much all season, Josh Reynolds contended for the Dally M, and Kris Keating definitely stood up in the absence of Trent Hodkinson.
However, their inability to create scoring opportunities inside the opposition 20 was more than obvious, and has been obvious all season.
All it took was for one well coached, well drilled team to identify that. Enter the genius that is Craig Bellamy.
You could tell from kick off that the Storm came out with a strict game plan. Repeat sets was the key, have the monster Canterbury forwards defend for the majority of the opening stanza, tire them, nullify their impact to make metres, and lay down the challenge to the Canterbury halves to take responsibility for creating opportunities.
Time after time, the second-man play was cut off prematurely, and the Dogs, who had it so easy all season, began to panic.
Their halves tried, but were exposed for a lack of creative spark, which saw them score only due to some quick off the cuff thinking by Krisnan Inu that saw Sam Perrett score. The Storm however, on the back of the big three, scored three incredibly well executed tries within the Dogs 30m line.
That’s what separated the Premiers from the runners up, and is the reason why the Dogs fell at the final hurdle.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- How to increase crowd numbers in the NRL (181)
- How rugby league should expand (133)
- All I am saying is give Pearce a chance (123)
- Why do NRL fans love empty seats? (115)
- Let me tell you why people don’t like Manly (107)
- Ease up on ASADA: NRL boss (90)
- It’s time for Channel Nine to get serious about the NRL (90)
- Select The Roar’s NSW State of Origin I team (4)
- Stop the clock, NRL is running out of time (25)
- Once were Warriors, now are worriers (21)
- Wests Tigers at sixes and sevens for years (14)
- Listen Blues fans, let’s not kid ourselves (6)
- Pre-season draw sacrifices quality for quantity (11)
- Dave Smith’s crowd plan gaining credibility (29)
- Once were Warriors, now are worriers (21)
- Wests Tigers at sixes and sevens for years (14)
- Listen Blues fans, let’s not kid ourselves (6)
- Pre-season draw sacrifices quality for quantity (11)
- Dave Smith’s crowd plan gaining credibility (29)
- How accurate is the NRL ladder? (2)
- Channel Nine’s Broncos love-in continues to frustrate (10)
Recommend this story.

October 6th 2012 @ 7:52am
Campaign to return Melbourne's lost premierships said | October 6th 2012 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Good well written article. The dogs have been great all season but Bellamy is a great coach and one thing the storm do very well is execute a game plan. They often refer to it in after match speeches so if Craig does his homework then the Storm usually win.
October 6th 2012 @ 8:29am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 6th 2012 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Great piece.
And absolutely 100% spot on in your analysis of the Dogs pet play, and the Storm nullifying it. Barba lurking behind one or two decoy runners on the left side, before linking up with Morris, had served them well all year. And whilst it’s a dangerous plot to move away – in the grand final – from tactics that have served you well all year, it also means the opposition can be ready for you.
This is the strength of Bellamy and Cam Smith. Their preparation is second to none, and they were ready for the Dogs. Barba was consistently ‘met’ as soon as he got the ball, and with little time to operate, he couldn’t execute.
In this regard, Bellamy outcoached Hasler on the day, and it went a long way to the Storm defeating the Dogs.
The Dogs, and Hasler, will learn from the grand final.
But great analysis. Just perfect, mate.
October 7th 2012 @ 3:24pm
EmmanuelPTsardoulias said | October 7th 2012 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
I agree that Des Hasler was definitely outcoached, however, what sets Wayne Bennett, Craig Bellamy and Des Hasler apart from every other NRL coach is that they don’t make the same mistake twice. I personally think if the Dogs are a chance to go one better next season, Trent Hodkinson needs to slot straight back in at 7.
October 6th 2012 @ 12:05pm
Damn Straight said | October 6th 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
I was impressed with how well the outside backs from Melbourne(Nielson, Chambers) rushed off their line with perfect timing and repeatedly usurped the space of the second and third receivers of the bulldogs. ..something the doggies hadn’t experienced all year really. I’m quietly confident Dessie will find new attacking variations over the off season to keep the opposition defence guessing next year though. Pretty sure Dessie will get the best out of T-Rex again too. He was a wasted resource under Tooves. T-Rex is at his most damaging when he hits the line at speed…not hitting the line flat footed as we saw him do so much throughout the 2012 season
Hats off to Bellamy and Smith for a flawless game plan and strategy and to the Melbourne team as a whole for their text book execution on the biggest stage of the year. This was closure for the fallout of the salary cap scandal and would probably have been the one of the most satisfying moments in the careers of Smith, Cronk, Slater and Bellamy.Whilst for me, it wasn’t the most visually exciting grand final in living memory, you must applaud the resolve, determination and psychological toughness of Melbourne. Ten points goes to the Bulldogs legal team for their breathtaking level of deniability over the Graham gumming. Definitely a victory for video footage and common sense there.
October 6th 2012 @ 12:53pm
Eamon McDonnell said | October 6th 2012 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Great analysis of the grand final!
Have to agree that Bellamy totally outcoached Hasler in this one, finally laying claim to a legitimate title.. definitely think alot of the work for the dogs is improving the effectiveness of their halves, in a way its a shame for bulldogs fans it was so exposed at the pinnacle of their season, but can only mean they will learn and come back much stronger!
October 6th 2012 @ 4:56pm
solly said | October 6th 2012 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
I have to agree. An excellent analysis.
The differene between Melbourne and the other sides this season is their psychology. They can stick to a game plan like no other. The Bulldogs too. That is why both of them made it to the Grand Final. Alas, the Storm ajusted a little better than the Dogs did and well, the results speak for themselves.
When Canberra beat the Dogs, the one thing I noticed was just how disciplined the Radier’s defensive line seemed. All I could notice was how straight they were – no little gaps for Barba and Morris to sneak through.
Still, it is hard to maintain that kind of psychological committment for a full 80 minutes. In the second half, the Bulldogs were coming back – you could feel it. The possession rates were evening up and the Dogs were getting a bit of momentum. They were creating little half chances that unfortunately – and this was unlike the Dogs – ended up as knock-ons more often than not.
Too bad for them though they couldn’t hold the ball or get enough momentum but that is due to the Storm’s discipline. Other teams may have slipped a little but not Melbourne.
All in all, I thought it was a very enthralling Grand Final to watch. The whole match was, for me, when will Melbourne blink?
They didn’t, and the Bulldogs lost.
October 6th 2012 @ 5:52pm
Bearfax said | October 6th 2012 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
A couple of important points.
I dont dispute Hasler did wonders with the Canterbury side, this year but many of the players were already beginning to show their skill last year under Dymock.
Secondly Canterbury had a dream run as far as injuries and suspensions were concerned. They managed to keep their side for the most part intact which is always important when establishing fluid play.
Thirdly they had two players burst into first grade from their powerful lower ranks in Kasiano and Reynolds and make an immediate impact.
Fourthly, they then got cheaply two test class players mid season in Inu and Perret.
Fifthly what needs to be noted is that it was the genius of Barba who got them through a number of games they would have otherwise lost. They were a much stronger side than the side of 2011.
And finally they then benefitted in two of their finals matches with their opposition losing their two principal go to men. Manly lost Lyon early in what was a close match and Souths lost their half back Reynolds early when they seemed to be well on top. This had a major effect on the outcome.
I’m not begrudging Canterbury’s place in the GF. They have been outstanding this year. Its just that much has been going in their favour. That is until Bellamy realised that if he closed down Barba, he was half way to winning. His side defended brilliantly but it was that one factor that Canterbury have been relying on to get them out of fixes, the X Factor Barba, that Bellamy set about closing down. He did it successfully and Melbourne consequently, with the outstanding side they have, won the game.
October 6th 2012 @ 8:13pm
solly said | October 6th 2012 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
It’s one thing to close down Barba, it’s another to close him down AND shut out the Dog’s forward play.
Melbourne did both.
I’m a Bulldogs supporter but geez, I have a lot of time for Melbourne.
October 6th 2012 @ 9:04pm
onside said | October 6th 2012 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
Beer coaster wisdom.
I always compare sides in any sport at their theoretical best.
Never absolute; but if side A at their best is better than side B at its best,then A should win.
As an aside, I measure the class of individual players by how many other teams they would
automaticly be selected to play for.
Sport is never that simple of course, fat ladies singing et al.
But it seemed to me that if Melbourne turned up in the Grand Final with its theoretical A
game,then it would out trump Canturbury, even if it also produced its theoretical A game.
On paper, the Storm at its very best,looked a better side than the Bulldogs.
Doesnt always happen, because unpredictability is what we love about sport.
In summary;with hindsight,and 20/20 vision ,on paper, Melbourne at its best were a superior team.
October 6th 2012 @ 9:18pm
solly said | October 6th 2012 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
Not so sure about that.
The Bulldogs, once they got some momentum, appeared threatening. There were a few breaks and half breaks being made but unfortunately for the Dogs, they kept making too many unforced errors (or forced if you consider the pressure by Melbourne).
I think that at their best, Melbourne and Canterbury are equal. I think their positions on the ladder this year showed that. I also think that the Grand Final showed that. The Bulldogs couldn’t really get into the match until the second half. Remember, it was 0-0 in the second half.
The main difference on Grand Final day was that, and I’ll use a game of chicken analogy here, the Bulldogs blinked.
Does that make Melbourne the better team? Well, it did on the day!
October 10th 2012 @ 3:29pm
Dogs Of War said | October 10th 2012 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
I think it did highlight that we do need a half back with a better kicking game, and someone who can add a little more to the attach. Keating just couldn’t add that extra spark that was required.
October 7th 2012 @ 11:32am
onside said | October 7th 2012 @ 11:32am | Report comment
OK solly,
the Grand Final should have been a draw.
October 7th 2012 @ 1:45pm
solly said | October 7th 2012 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
lol
By the way, if I wasn’t a Bulldogs supporter, I’d be supporting Melbourne.
I’ve always liked them.