Can we avoid another Churchill Medal fiasco?

I didn't think Thurston deserved the medal last night, but in reality, he was always going to be awarded it in a Cowboys victory as it suited the narrative of the whole Cowboys premiership. By the way, DCE the best on ground in the 2013 GF in my eyes..

Writer, youve answered your own question, the churchill award as many of these awards have long been rigged. Same has happened with state of origin all the way back to the lewis era when he won awards on losing sides. more recently happened at the world cup where hayne was by far the standout player yet thurston got the player of the series and mom awards. Politics in rugby league is to my mind one of the great factors that turns fans away, its endemic. The truth of the matter is these awards have long been used to build and prop up certain players CVs.

DCE was definitely best on the field in 2013. The Rooters were just the better team on the night. That's how it is.

Ha..the 'experts' on this site are as one-eyed as they come. But this article rings true with valid points. I will be screaming bloody murder, if the Broncs are too good tonite and then the 'experts' decide to give the medal to the injured-one-man-Cowboy-immortal-hero JT.

This article is strange. GI better than Sam B in the GF last year, really? There were about 4 players better than GI last year. Given the author of this article lists himself as a rookie i think its best to leave it to the experts. Sam Burgess was legendary in that game even his stats were better than his brother.

Bigj, I agreed with you until you said that the winner could not come from the losing side. As has been pointed out by others, you could have someone who is head and shoulders above all the other players but is let down by his mates. Why is that not deserving of the award ?

Why not Scott. If he is the best player on the field then ergo he is man of the match. To not give it to him can be nothing but bias. The point I am making is that everyone is biased and provided they at least try to be impartial then that is ok but when that bias is mandated, we ought to be up in arms.

that's because he has not win a premiership yet why do you think hayne went to the nfl?

Ray Warren says a lot of things.

Haha you think Kimmorley was a worthy winner :) Tawera Nikau put the Storm on his back and carried them back into the game.

I agree, he owned the Rorter halves that night, some dodgy calls and the Easts forwards decided that one

I think the worst one was when that Willie Mason idiot win it in 2004, Clive still must be spinning in his grave over that one. Cherry Evans won it in 2013? are you serious? How did that little punk win that? they did even win the GF that year. Sam won it last year and rightfully so, he played entire game with a busted cheek bone, this brought back justice to the medal when so many have won undeservingly. It should be given to the player whom shows the most guts on field and leads the team to victory. (A losing side should not even be in the race). Hopefully tonight it goes to the right man my tip is matt scott. that if the cowboys win.

Sorry Lachlan but I cant agree with what you are saying at all. Awards are given by certain deemed qualified persons nominated to hand them out. They are usually quite professional people who know the sport well and your comments to me are quite insulting of their efforts. The point is firstly there is no rule written that says the player winning an award for the best player on the field (or whatever criteria is used) has to come from the winning side. That's just limited thinking. There can always be a player who stands out on one side well above his team mates, but his team mates dont overall match the quality of the other side as a whole. Secondly all decisions made about these things are subjective. We can only rely on the fact that those making the decision base their subjective selection in the most impartial manner they can and base them on the qualities we all observe in players on the football field. But we all have slanted vision and see some qualities better than others, while other people may see it another way. For example many of us consistently see the spectacular eye catching performances of some players like the Thurstons, the Cherry-Evans, the Haynes etc but its easy to overlook the grunt work of those players who set up the circumstances for these players to shine. Its all a question of personal perspective. I watch matches and then look at Dally M awards being dispensed and often wonder if the award givers are watching the same game. But that has always been the case. Identifying the manner of selecting for the Clive Churchill Award as somehow different from other awards, is just slanted thinking. Usually those who make the selection pick one of the best three or four on the field from most people's point of view. The choice will always be subjective though and therefore not agreed to by all who watch the game. All we can rely on is that they give it to one of the best on the field and not a turkey.

Of course it's bias. "Man of the match" should mean best on ground, plain and simple. How good your relationship with channel 9 is shouldn't come into it.

Last year it was either Sam or George for best and Koroisau third.

This year I don't care how well anyone else plays its hard to see them not giving it to Thurston. The commentators get it wrong as well though, watched cowboys games this year and Thurston didn't do much but still got mom

Last year Koroisau and George were both better than Sam. We always get swept away in the fairytale BS.

Ray Warren says the NRL medal is for Best on ground.

DCE won in a canter. Sam Burgess deserved his award too, not only for playing above and beyond but inspiring his teammates to another level. Willie Mason in 2004 was a dud call. From memory he played about 44 minutes, I reckon Utai carried more influence.

That's not bias, Cam won't speak to nine (and rightly so in my opinion) so there's no way they can give him the man of the match.