Five questions from the 2014 NRL grand final

Jake, whether people get tired of the "woulda coulda" talk, it's not gonna make a difference. When you have your favorite team in the Cowboy's fans case get knocked out by dodgy decisions at best, speculation is gonna arise...

BroncOAbe05th Oct 2012A well written email. Thoroughly enjyoed reading your comments. Although I agree with you regarding the media, it is still important for a club and players to remain highly professional in all aspects of NRL media relations, whether win or lose. Clubs know the media will twist stories to suite them, hence, sensationalize all stories. All supporters are a part of a club, therefore, they too need to be professional when supporting their club. I attend many NRL games in a given season, because I love the NRL. I am a Broncos supporter and my wife is a Bulldog supporter. We attend many Bulldog games which I thoroughly enjoy. The way to prevent the media beating you up is by not causing any stories that may provoke unwanted publicity. Infact keep it boring for the media. For example, the unnecessary burning of the Melbourne Storm Jersey at Belmore by a small group of so called Bulldog supporters created hysteria and sensational news for the media. This was definitely an issue which these supporters needed to remain professional. These so called supporters deliberately set out to tarnish themselves and the club as they knew of the powerful ramifications that was about to incur from the media. Bulldog supporters need to make opposition supporters feel welcomed at their home games as well, whether win, lose or draw. Don't allow the opposition supporters to walk out of a Bulldog home game say to themselves and others I will never ever go to a Bulldogs home game ever again . These opposition suppporters will tarnish your club as well via talk back radio and other social media. Mad Monday should be swapped over to Mad Tuesday. This allows the players to digress the GF as a group and do media presentations soba on Monday. Journalists have a deadline as well, they are pressured for stories by editors and producers. Therefore, have all major media interviews completed on the Monday. The players will gain more respect and move on to their private Mad Tuesday. This is the point to ban all media for 1 or 2 days. I am not for or against the media, however; the media is a powerful tool, work with them and not against them. Don't provoke stories that are susceptible to sensationalism. Bulldogs players and supporters are the most scrutinized in the NRL. Only you can change it as currently I'm observing as an outsider looking in, you are falling into the trap of the media. If you remain as one professional group, it will help change your so called bad habits. The media will have different and great sensational stories. Last week should have been a celebration of the NRL, Melbourne Storm and Bulldogs GF, that is, before, during and after the GF. Bulldogs players and supporters should not have allowed the media turn some onfield and off field antics into major stories. They should not have allowed a celebration of another code become huge in NSW and Qld especially. NRL and the Bulldogs will once again bounce back. Dare I say watch out for both Melbourne Storm abd CB Bulldogs in 2013. However, Broncos 2013.

So the findings of all of these submissions were that any team who wins more than 50% of close games does so completely and solely based on the very scientific finding of "luck"?

Plenty of submissions to the Sloan sports conference disagree with you so I'm going to side with people who have done research over Barry's gut feel. Admittedly I haven't see a piece on the NRL but when I analysed a four year sample a few years ago the previous performance in tight games won slightly over 50%. I'd want to see a bigger sample but given it backed up research in other sports and it was purely for my own information I didn't delve any further

I haven't read one comment from you where you've seemed at all happy about Souths GF win. All you want to do is whinge about what you perceive a bulldogs player has done.

But luck is a two way street. You're just looking at the things that went the Dogs way in isolation and saying they were lucky. They also had heaps of things go against them during the semis and during the regular season. You've said yourself that luck balances out. Their one point wins were against Souths, Roosters and Warriors in NZ. Do you expect them to win those games by 30 points? They put 38 or more on teams in three of their first 9 games. They had no trouble scoring points at the start of the season. Was it good luck that they unexpectedly lost both their halves to origin? Was it good luck that they had 8 first graders out injured after origin?

All James Graham has added is further grubbiness into the NRL again, the NRL should really look at those tackles that he so innocently and the referees interpret as head clashes, what a lot of BS. This guy is going to injure someone very seriously or injure himself very seriously which the latter is what I want to see so much because his tactics are just pure grub tactics and unwanted in any sport especially the NRL where we have enough troubles with tackles and serious injuries we don't need Mr graham to come from wherever to add to that list.

That's not what I'm saying Barry. The Bulldogs were LUCKY that 2 games they played opposition who had a shocker. This isn't common. They were LUCKY that their other game was against Manly, who 6 weeks ago were clear leaders, and were in freefall ever since. This is even more rare, to play a team who finished 2nd, who is playing like they finished about 12th on the ladder. So they had to play 3 games, 2 of which the opposition played poorly, and 1 of which the opposition was tanking. What a dream run Unless you disagree, you think the Storm played well? And Penrith? Manly played the best they could given their form, which was pretty ordinary. Perhaps they need more depth, I don't follow Manly closely. In the finals series, the Dogs had what you could call, "practically the easiest run imaginable". Yet twice they still just falling over the line, as they'd often done throughout the season. As such, they made the finals whilst simultaneously never looking that good. I'm not sure who was tipping the Storm? Personally I thought they would win against the Bulldogs and be eliminated the following week. They are certainly not the Storm of old. Although they finished 6th in the end (helped by a close middle), their season was rather ordinary - a long way behind the team who started their season with 9 odd wins in a row. Well, every team could have won if they played better! If only it was that simple. Souths were poor finishers, no doubt. Luckily for them they played one of the worst finishers in the comp of late, 2nd hard points were very hard to come by for the Dogs. They never looked that good though, they had 3 one point wins in a row. Most times they won they *just* got over the line, they never put teams away, never looked unstoppable. Souths/Roosters/Cowboys had a fair share of ups and downs, they had a few games where they showed a top gear far greater. Storm/Penrith/Broncos were never going to win the GF IMO.

"I’d broadly agree that the Dogs weren’t the second best team in the comp". That's a straight copy & paste. You sort of agree they weren't 2nd best, which means in a way, you do think they were the 2nd best team in the comp.

I know Mark - sorry about that. My point wasn't to bag the Tigers but more that there's a general understanding that the Tigers, Penrith and Manly all had a bad run with injuries at various times. The Dogs had Kasiano, Tolman, Reynolds, Morris, S Perrett, Klemmer, Browne, Stanley and L Perrett out for extended periods after Origin. In the space of 4 weeks the dogs dropped from equal first to 7th. Now I have to swallow that the Dogs have apparently had a lucky season.

You're basically saying "If the Storm / Manly / Panthers had played better they could have won" Derrr - what game can't you say that about. You choose to look at it that the Dogs beat the Storm because the Storm played badly not because the Dogs played well. The Storm were being touted as roughies for the premiership in the lead up to that game. No one was saying they were out of form then. Didn't 8 of the dogs forwards run for over 100 metres? Didn't Lafai score 3 tries? They beat them by 24 points but you're putting it down to luck !!! If you're going to put games down to luck have a look at both teams not just one. Manly game - the dogs were lucky. The dogs were missing regular first graders. Hodkinson was injured and off the field in the 24th minute when they were leading 16-0. Did the Bulldogs not have to cope with their own bad luck? Up until Hodko got injured the dogs were 44-4 in a game and a quarter of football. Is that not bad luck for the dogs? Penrith. Hodko on one one leg - couldn't kick in general play or at goal. Ennis gone when they were leading 12-0. Were Penrith lucky that these injuries happened? Why couldn't they win and make the most of THEIR luck? It's such a cop out to put every game down to luck. You can actually do that with every game. Souths played Manly in the semis, Manly had three key players out and Souths still let in 24 points at the end of the game. Then they played the Roosters. The Roosters were rubbish, battered from two close games in the previous weeks. Souths let in 12 points at the start and 12 at the end. If the Roosters had played better they could have won. Dogs had Ennis out, Hodkinson and Morris on one leg. James Graham got three head knocks and it still took souths 74 minutes to put them away. Talk about lucky. It's easy to do it - doesn't make it fact. You're right about luck comes and goes in the regular season. You still haven't acknowledged or explained that while at full strength the dogs were at the pointy end of the comp for two thirds of the season. They dropped to 7th in the space of four weeks when they had 8 players out. Is that not bad luck for the dogs?

Yeah, it is silly. Of course if the ref had just blown fulltime in the Dragons-Melbourne game at the correct time, the Dragons likely would have made the finals and would certainly have beaten Souths.

That's only if you accept that luck is the sole determining factor in who wins a tight game. Which it's not.

On any salary? I think every single club in the comp

You went 8/10 in close games that's luck. The team from 2012 no luck at all you had an average of 8.3 points on your opponents. That's a bloody good team. This year you had 0.3 that's an "Average" team if there ever was one.

And you don’t get to the grand final with 80 minutes... Yes you need to put yourself in a position to win. But if you’re winning the coin flip 45-55% type of games (where you can go back to one or two rub of the green or freak incidents changing the outcome) 80% of the time then that’s lucky. And when ladders work with one side getting 100% of the credit and the other 0% you can get a standing that perhaps isn’t actually illustrative of the various team’s abilities. You look at the For and against and play the game of which one of these is not like the others. What was the bulldogs record in two points or less games? 6-2? In less than a converted try – 8-2. So in games where one or two things either way could sway the outcome they came out smell of roses 80% of the time right that’s freaky. Now maybe Des Hasler is an amazing coach in close games, but given he’s 12-12 in the previous 4 seasons he must have only just learnt the magic formula which has alluded coaches in every other major sport. The doggies had an outlier year and rode it to the finals, good on them but if going when going just 7-3 in close games would have knocked you out you’ve got to acknowledge a giant smattering of luck right?

Can't have one without the other! lol