Since 2004, the Wally Lewis Medal has been one of the most prestigious awards in rugby league, given to the best player at the end of the State of Origin series. Handing that accolade to a player who only played two of the three games has devalued it forever.
How a player who missed Game 1 – winning or losing side – can be handed the award is beyond me. That the player was on the losing side makes it a farce.
My gripe here isn’t with Billy Slater, who was, of course, the man given the medal last night. It’s with the selection panel and the process by which they have to pick the Wally Lewis Medal.
That panel consisted of Laurie Daley, Darren Lockyer and Mal Meninga.
Even though they’re among the best to ever lace up a boot, having such a subjective award decided by three men who still have close ties to the players running around for the Blues and Maroons is problematic.
I don’t want to come across as questioning their integrity to select an award like this, but you cannot deny it seems like they’ve just picked the feelgood person rather than the best candidate; this was Slater’s final Origin series, so why not give him the perfect send-off?
Now, while they’ve picked the wrong man, the decision wasn’t entirely their own fault. The process they have to pick by is flawed.
Each of the three pick on a 4-3-2-1 system after each game, meaning the maximum amount of points a player could get across the series is 36.
If Slater was to pick up 12 points last night and, say, eight in Game 2, he would all of a sudden have 20, which would be tough for another player to match.
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
It means a player taking part in only two-thirds of the series could still come away with the player of the series, which is just what we saw.
What the correct system actually looks like is up for debate. Perhaps the rules need to be tightened around eligibility for the award. The NRL themselves have said they’ll consider changing the process after what happened last night.
It’s hard to be objective in the judges’ positions. That’s not to say others would have come up with another option, but picking with no affiliation to players, officials or coaches would be a handy start.
The public should also be granted some transparency around the voting process. Footy fans should be able to see exactly how votes were awarded across the three games. I’d be very surprised if James Tedesco didn’t get 12 from Game 1 and plenty from Game 2 as well.
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
Other leagues around the world see different selection methods. The NBA MVP is picked by the media, players and officials. The AFL’s Brownlow Medal is picked by umpires after each game, and that’s a model the NRL should consider adopting to protect the integrity of the Wally Lewis Medal.
The problem with using those models is Origin’s need for immediacy, rather than having a delay like we see in the NBA or the AFL – or even in the NRL with the Dally M.
There is no reason Origin’s player of the series shouldn’t be picked by the referees on game day. Heck, we have a bunker sitting there watching the game, plus four in the middle of the field and a few on standby. If the eight of them can’t get together and work out collectively who gets the points, then there is something wrong.
It would take five minutes at most and you’d get the same level of immediacy as we currently have, allowing it to be part of the post-match presentation following Game 3.
The Wally Lewis Medal, at any rate, is supposed to reward the best player of the entire Origin series, not just one or two games. Under the current system, we didn’t get that this year.
This is a slap in the face for players on the winning side who had sensational series. James Tedesco, Damien Cook, Tom Trbojevic and Blues captain Boyd Cordner all put in three brilliant performances in what was one of the best Origin series in history. In fact, you’d almost go as far to call it the best.
Giving the Wally Lewis Medal to Slater isn’t right. That’s the hand we’ve been dealt in 2018, but it should be the catalyst for change to restore the award to its former glory.
DP Schaefer
Guest
Greg Bird had some good games but never made the impact Slater did. Except for Tommy T, the other NSW players with a claim on the award dropped form when Slater was on the field.
Woodhouse
Guest
I actually think that the inclusion of DCE was more impactful, personally.
Woodhouse
Guest
I wouldn't be as mad if Billy actually DID have a blinder in game 2 and 3, then it'd be fair play, definitely a candidate then for the WLM. But he didn't. Not by a long shot. He didn't even deserve MOM on Wednesday, if anything it should have been either Valentine Holmes or DCE. The fact Mangina and Daley have come out acting quasi-offended makes their voting seem a little more suspect, imo
Emcie
Roar Guru
As I said, I wouldn't have picked Slater but I can understand how he beat others to it under the system. Slater was in the top 2 players for his state in every game he played, Teddy was in the top 4 or 5 in his team in the games he played. Even so called experts at NRL.com have 5 different Blues players as player of the series. I have no trouble understanding the disappointment, I'm surprised that the disappointment around a post match award is so much greater then the disappointment from losing a game pumped up to be proof of where NSW were headed that it's essentially dominated any discussion of the game. The outrage being fanned by the media (not you Scotty) has been massively disproportionate to the "offence". If any one of the 5 other players had been selected there's be a quick report with a couple coments arguing for someone else and that would be it, but because it's this one player the topic deserves to completely overshadow the game.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Everybody knows Alfie Langer was player of the series anyway.
Matt H
Roar Guru
So if, for example, Andrew Johns played two blinders and NSW are up 2-nil (Or substitute Thurston/Lewis on the QLD side), he is not eligible if he misses game three through injury? Really?
Matt H
Roar Guru
Fair points.
Matt H
Roar Guru
I remember Andrew Johns nearly winning the Dally M one year despite only playing half the season. It was unfair I tells ya.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Given I can't remember there ever being a significant controversy over the award before, can we just write this one off to an anomaly and let it go?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Of course its a big deal. Imagine the response if Greg Bird had won it in one of Queensland's winning years...
The Barry
Roar Guru
Haha…nice one Sherlock…I had a bad feeling I was going to dob myself in there. Anyway wrong article. This is what I wrote about Tedesco: “Teddy “only” ran for 144 metres on Sunday night. That’s the first origin game he hasn’t run for 200 which is remarkable given he’s now played six games. He had a try assist and a great try saving tackle on Ponga following the linebreaks on Sunday. I thought he was close to NSW’s best again…” https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/06/26/tedesco-absolute-genius/ Doesn’t prove anything but I just wanted to clarify that I had made commented on Teddy’s performance contemporaneously and not just pulled it out now. For the record this is what you wrote about Slater’s game 2 performance “Slater was involved in everything for the first 30 but seemed to take a step back once Ponga came on around the 20 minute mark which seemed to be part of the gameplan. I’m not sure Slater was countered (Mitchell tackled Munster on the opposite side of the field…) so much as Ponga took his place in the attacking structures. QLD certainly looked a lot more dangerous with Munster combining with Slater then with Ponga chiming in. I think Kevie should be under some pressure after the loss but not because Slater was “shut down” “ https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/06/25/nsw-win-blues-take-origin-2-thriller-win-2018-series/ Surely you can understand some of the disappointment, if not the outrage at having an opponent on the losing team who only played two games getting man of the series. I’m sure there’d be the same reaction if it happened in reverse. Multiply that by two series wins in 13 years and it does feels like a slap in the face. I get that’s an emotional response but the objective explanation doesn’t really provide much comfort and there’s still gaps in how Slater could get the WLM, even allowing for 4-3-2-1’s. To be fair I haven’t come up with any of the “bluewash” or “dynasty” junk. I’ve been bagged by NSW supporters for not agreeing that NSW would win game one by 40 points or that NSW would win 3-0 or that this is the start of a dynasty. Last year I was called a hater and a traitor for suggesting the game one victory wasn’t as conclusive as it looked and that there were significant issues with NSW edge defence. After game one I argued to the point of embarrassing myself that Maloney’s pass to JAC was forward. I admit I’m biased when it comes to Origin (footy in general) but I generally at least try to be objective. This one does leave a bad taste though.
Forty Twenty
Guest
Do the players not regard the awards as a big deal? People still talk about Chris Close's awards in the first two games, it has defined his place in history.
Lovey
Guest
I’m actually surprised at reasonable blokes like you Scott, and Freddy are in such high dudgeon. These individual awards are not a big deal really, it is a team sport. In that last game, nobody played badly. Players were marked down for mistakes that are always on the cards. If you think this award was sentimental, ask the judges the points they scored.
Big daddy
Guest
In those days it was best and fairest. I think bozo was best but neverthe fairest.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I thought that’s what it meant. Just quietly, Origin was born off the back of Queenslanders complaining...
Scott Pryde
Expert
Ha, all good mate.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Not having a go at your reporting Scott, just highlighting the difference in tone between the two instances
JonD
Guest
It means "whining sook", which is something we actually thought we might not have seen as NSW actually won this year. However never underestimate the determination of a Blue to have a good whine .....
Emcie
Roar Guru
Hate to break it to you but here's your quote- "I thought Jake Trbojevic was outstanding and arguably NSW best in a team game where there weren’t standouts" ;) Look, I don't actually care who got the medal, I wouldn't have picked Slater but I wouldn't have picked Teddy either, all I'm saying is that Slater wasn't that far out of contention to justify the amount of airtime this story has recieved. My objection to all the complaints is that all through the lead up to this game the naratives (in the media) were "blue whitewash", "blue dynasty", "NSW to dominate AUS selection", "DCE's been set up as a scapegoat" etc etc. But then QLD wins in one of the best origin games for a while and apparently the biggest talking point is who won some arbitary medal usually viewed as a footnote in the post game celebrations. Both NRL360 and The Matty Johns show last night treated it as the biggest issue of the week (with the usual agendas thrown in) and we've already had 5 or so articles on the Roar about it. I mean come on, the outrage is massively out of proportion
Scott Pryde
Expert
Come on Emcie, digging up old articles.... That's a straight news piece.