Grand final preview: The halves

All of the above Muzz

It was Reynolds that created the overlap and space for Hayne to release the Morris bros for Brett's try. He also was the player that got back and booted the ball dead when DCE was set to score in game 1 or 2.

Jack I think you're the one that has confused his whinging blah blah with his actual input. Someone you don't like can still be a good player. There's a couple of good highlight packages on YouTube of Reynolds. A lot of highlights for someone in his third full year of first grade.

Wow Thaiday is a poser. Fair enough Reynolds deserved to be penalised but the dive and face covering Thaiday did was worthy of the EPL.

At this moment I'd say he's just a tad behind young Brooks, although Keary has been handling finals football quite well.

Are Queenslanders supporting Souths cause 1) Bunnies are cute ? 2) They hate J Reynolds ? 3) GI, Te'o, Mcqueen are Queenlsanders ? 4) All of the above ?

I don't disagree with any of that, Hoy.

OK, positive impact for the Blues I can live with. They wanted an in your face style and they certainly got it with him. I can agree with you on that.

I love the Anasta Effect, but in this instance I think maybe the MAJOR part of "been a major part of a winning Origin team" needs to be defined... I think that is what trips me up. I dont think they carried him. He defends well. That is worth a lot in Origin. But with ball in hand, close to 50% of most games, in a play making role, he is not a playmaker. I don't know. I agree, he deserves full credit to get there and cut it where many don't tread, but I just honestly don't understand how some players get to that level. He can tackle, and defend, and isn't worried about putting his body on the line, I will give him that. But his skill set is limited. He is playing in a skilled position. I just don't get it. Does being a pest get him there? Obviously something keeps him employed.

'Major part' is an arbitrary term, so I guess it's hard to argue either way on that. But do I think he had a positive impact on the series for the Blues? Absolutely.

I never said that 'got them over the line', and I never said the absence of Cronk didn't play a massive part. But to suggest Reynolds added 'nothing', or that the Blues 'carried' him is borderline absurd. To be honest, I think Reynolds suffers from something I call 'The Anasta Effect', where a player is so unbelievably overrated, that people become blind to the actual skills and ability he does have, and said weirdly becomes underrated.

Which halves pairing are more likely to execute their role at the big dance and under so much pressure? My money's on Hodko and Grub if he's playing at stand- off. If the Bunnies win, then stocks in A Reynolds will sky-rocket. If they lose, he may be heading down to the shire sooner than later.

Fair call. But I think that was more for defense, and niggle presence. I think you need way more than that to be called a major part of an origin winning team... Dont you?

Just on the "class halves pairing" being a necessity of winning a premiership - Broncos won in 2006 when Lockyer was paired with the unparalleled brilliance of Shane Perry. Nothing against Perry - he was an honest performer, but it does put a bit of a hole in that theory

Sorry, I got a rush of blood. I put your call that he was a major part of a winning blues team up there with calls that Hayne should have been Man on the Series, but when you look at it, he only played one very good game... but that isnt' enough for Man of the Series. Reynolds was in the team, but I seriously do not think he added anything other than grub and niggle. If you think that really got them over the line, then we differ. I think really, Cronk missing effectively two games, and DCE being injured for the second game did more for the Blues than Reynolds did. I thought at one point in game two, Reynolds was actively trying to lose the game with some of his shockingly poor passing. You are right though... Teams he plays in, win... but that does not mean he is a major factor. I could play for Australia against Russia in a game of league, and Australia would still have the talent to carry me... I think. Doesn't mean I was a major part of it, particularly if as a 5/8, I don't lay on tries, and all I do is rub/pat heads, and clap loudly in opposition faces.

Let me make a correction to that previous post. Me saying Reynolds was 'great' in game 1 is an opinion, not fact. But the Daily Telegraph ranked him an 8 out of 10 for that performance, The Roar gave him a 7, and Rugby League Week also gave him a 7. I think that indicates he added something.

How is that the same argument for Hayne getting Man of the Series? Did I say Reynolds should have been named Dally M player of the year? If you don't think Reynolds added anything to the Blues series victory, you're welcome to your opinion. But you're not entitled to your own set of facts. He was great in game 1 - a win in Brisbane that set up the series victory. After that, he wasn't very good in games 2 or 3, but the damage had been done. And he unquestionably added a lot in terms of intensity, confidence and toughness. Only three qualities regarded as critical in State of Origin . . . And whether anyone likes it or not, he niggled the Maroons with great success. So he definitely 'added' something to the Blues (even if he took away quite a bit too). To suggest otherwise is rubbish. Hate Reynolds because he's overrated. Hate him because he has poor ball-playing skills for a half. Hate him because he's a 'grub'. All that would be fair enough. But don't begrudge him the success his teams have had, and assume it's pure coincidence, or that he had no influence/impact.

Walker has all Jennings attributes.. besides Jennings superior try scoring rate, especially in recent years.

There was the forward pass try he set up for Burgess last time they played the dogs.