As the dust settles on yet another lost Origin series for the Blues, it seems a change of tactics should be on the cards for NSW if they hope to return to their former interstate glory.
It seemed a forgone conclusion that Queensland’s brutal decade of dominance had come to a bitter end after they were delivered a 28-4 shellacking in the opening game of the series at Suncorp Stadium.
For many, myself included, the writing was on the wall for Queensland the moment coach Kevin Walters announced the omission of the in-form and devastating Billy Slater, favouring the incumbent Darius Boyd and Justin O’Neill at fullback and centre respectively.
After all, Boyd and O’Neill had got the job done in 2016 and were to be faithfully rewarded by the selection panel as per Queensland’s legendary ‘loyalty policy’.
True to form, Walters would also go on to select a cavalry of Maroon legends who similarly had served Queensland admirably over the last decade, despite rather disheartening club form. Such players included Nate Myles, Sam Thaiday, Aiden Guerra and Jacob Lillyman – all of whom were struggling to lock down starting spots in their respective club sides.
Throw in a debutant in the front row in Dylan Napa, and there was little doubt that NSW’s young and in-form monster forward pack would dominate the middle of the field through the likes of Andrew Fifita, Aaron Woods, David Klemmer and Jake Trbojevic.
Nobody, however, could have foreseen the degree to which the NSW forwards – led by Fifita – would dominate their Maroon counterparts, laying the platform for their backs to complete a brilliant victory and surely send the Queensland brains-trust into turmoil.
The latter appeared to come to fruition before Game 2, with the famous loyalty policy – often credited for a major role in Queensland’s dominance – abandoned without so much as batting an eyelash in pursuit of greener pastures.
Each of Myles, Thaiday, Guerra and Lillyman were dropped for the far better performing Jarrod Wallace, Coen Hess, Gavin Cooper and Tim Glasby, all of which were strong selections but, on paper, paled in comparison to the might of NSW. To some, it exposed the relative lack of depth in Queensland’s forward stocks when compared to NSW and even their own spine depth.
(AAP Image/Darren England)
Similarly, Slater was recalled to fullback, and O’Neill and Corey Oates were dropped to accommodate Sharks livewire Valentine Holmes.
The loyalty policy was no more, and as far as anyone south of the Tweed was concerned, so too was Queensland.
And yet, in true Queensland spirit, the Maroons rallied to overcome a 16-6 deficit and clinch victory from the jaws of defeat when a NSW series win seemed all but certain.
In the same shade of so many failed NSW campaigns before them, Queensland continued to chop and change their team for Game 3, this time due to injury. An injury to Boyd saw him replaced in the centres by regular utility Michael Morgan, while an injury to legendary five-eighth Johnathan Thurston resulted in debut call ups for the in-form Cameron Munster in the halves and the Broncos’ Ben Hunt on the bench.
With that, Queensland would cycle through their third different halves pairing for the series, using a total of 26 different players. Their Blue opponents, meanwhile, would name the same 17 for the entire series for the first time since 1996, clearly believing this was the recipe for success in State of Origin.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
If there is a lesson to be learned for NSW in the light of their embarrassing Game 3 and series defeat, it is that Queensland’s much-heralded tale of loyalty being the catalyst for their dominance is little more than a myth.
Instead, the answer is far more obvious – Queensland picks on form. The ‘damning’ fact that their team has rarely changed over the years is simply because the team’s nucleus in Slater, Thurston, Cronk and Smith never seem to be out of form. With the vast majority of the supporting cast following suit, it suddenly becomes very easy to be ‘loyal’.
Sneaky as ever, Queensland fooled NSW into a false sense of security – they had them believe loyalty would cultivate success. As one would have it, apparently the key is multiple once-in-a-generation players and a carefully structured winning culture to boot.
Nat
Roar Guru
As I thought. 80... y/o keyboard warrior. Don't associate yourself with Cam Smith, he's 50yrs younger and wouldn't agree with a word you've written on Roar.
Bert
Guest
I am Cameron Smith's alter ego after he has a couple of drinks.
Jeff dustby
Guest
Have a look in the mirror
Olo
Guest
how is this still something people don't understand? win a game - keep players responsible for winning lose a game - replace players responsible for losing obviously it's a blurred line and there are exceptions but this is the general rule. capiche? catfish!
jewboy
Guest
John, I don't know whether I'd call it being disloyal when some particular players are left out of the team , I think it maybe beinging realistic sometimes. I'm sure if you go through most of thoses players mentioned, you would find that age and injuries would account for a lot of those omissions and yes loss of form must be taken into account. To maintain State Of Origin at the high standard it has reached, all these factors should and must come be consideration. Sadly it's a part of life called , 'the ageing process', which none of us can avoid, and I don't know about you but I think it's sad to see a top claas player, play a year or two longer than he should. Although I can see how hard it would be to walk away from the life-style and money that comes with being a top palyer I think it is better to let the player know his use by date is coming up and hope he makes his own decision to retire rather than being droped. So that is why I say sometimes disloyalty can be mistaken for realism.
John
Guest
Even before this series the Queensland loyalty was shown to be a myth. Meninga retired around 30 players from Origin and only a handful of truly great Origin players actually got to leave on their own terms. https://www.qt.com.au/news/why-the-maroons-legendary-loyalty-is-a-myth/3185083/
Nat
Roar Guru
Bert are you actually Qlder or just rubbing it into NSW supporters? In every article since G3 you wrote in every umpteen times it was all Melbourne not Qld. Qlders are about Qld, not the team that supplies the players.
Bert
Guest
Queenslander!!! NSW people just don't get it.
Raugeee
Guest
Lovely
jewboy
Guest
Qld's loyality is an ongoing thing.They may be cut from the main' herd' but they are put in a greener paddock next to where the team train, so as they can keep an eye on the new boys and encourage and advise them when required.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
QLD's greatest loyalty is to success.
Raugeee
Guest
Picking the same 17, trying to emulate 1996, was ridiculous. NSW had no tricks up their sleeve so QLD went out and put into practice their well drilled defensive plans and the rest was easy. Over the past 12 years QLD could afford some "loyalty" to one or two out of form players because of their dominance. In time those players would return to form and voila! The debt of gratitude is repaid. I cried when the QLD team for Game 1 was read out. In hindsight, it was the best thing. Defeat whets the appetite for victory. The scene was set for a remarkable QLD comeback. I savoured every moment of it.
Nat
Roar Guru
Qlds loyalty policy has always been about what a player can bring to a team. Form matters but team dynamics and culture is a very important aspect of selection and therein lies the difference between the two teams. Nate Myles and Sam Thaiday may have seen their best playing days in yesteryear but as forward leaders and inspirations to Napa, MaGuire, Cooper, Glasby and Papali - the results are now in. Even Matt Scott, who has not laced a boot in 2017, was in the Maroon tracksuit in the coaches box. So loyalty, as described by NSW press, is far from dead. The older blokes are given two jobs, one on the field and another off and the results show they done both very well.
Long Black
Roar Rookie
True, but, of the new players that were bought in to the side, how many have been 18th man or part of the emerging squad? I'd suggest all but one or two. Isn't that showing both faith and loyalty?
Hoy
Roar Guru
I actually think the NSW were looking backwards to win the next game... They didn't vary tactics at all for all three games, but their execution certainly went a bit backwards... First game a half, they used the inside passing to great effect... then QLD worked it out, and... NSW had nothing in response that resembled a plan B. That taken care of, then in Game 3, QLD worked their different tactics, and completely dominated except for maybe 10 minutes after half time. NSW should have evolved their game plan a bit... varied it, something... Instead they didn't and kept trying to play the same plays once they were worked out. It didn't go that well for them from then on...
Matt
Guest
The loyalty that QLD have comes with a rider. Perform and you're still in the team, fail and you're are replaced. This is the reason that players in the past have played well above their club form, it's because they didn't want to let down the people that backed them. Meninga laid all the cards on the table to Lockyer, Civonceva and Price before Game 2 in 2006. Perform or Perish. That is why QLD gets it. They know if they fail they don't get picked. As mentioned above, it sure helps when you have some exceptional players in the team with you, but it doesn't always guarantee a win and if your performance was a reason for the failure, your seat at the table has gone.
Con Scortis
Roar Guru
D'oh! I mean D'Aloia!
Roberto
Guest
So you are saying that if an in-form team was picked by Walters from the start, we would now be looking at 3-0 series. "NSW’s young and in-form monster forward pack", what good did that do?....arrogance arrogance arrogance
Nico
Guest
Agreed, QLD showed plenty of loyalty in picking Myles, Guerra and Thaiday despite a lack of club form. Selecting Slater, Holmes and Hess for game 2 was based on form, but there were a few bolters such as Hunt and Glasby whose club form probably didn't have them banging down the door for selection either - these selections were based on a large part to getting the right team balance (although personally I didn't think the selection of Hunt was the right balance at the time) - so the QLD selection policy can probably comes down to a mix of loyalty, form and the 'right' balance
The Barry
Roar Guru
Yeah that's the Queensland recipe. It was fun to try and tease a bit before game two but not many Queenslanders bit. Despite the game one score line, NSW had significant problems exposed by Queensland but nothing was done. Those same problems (and more) were the reason we lost game two. Nothing was done. I don't think we (NSW fans) have any right to be having a crack at Queensland selection policies. We were outgunned at the selection table as well as on the paddock.