“Billy Slater was well in front of anyone else,” was how Darren Lockyer explained how the Queensland captain took out the Wally Lewis Medal as Origin man-of-the-series award, despite missing the first game through injury.
Lockyer was one of three selectors with Mal Meninga and Laurie Daley. The three share 91 Origin and 131 Kangaroo caps, arguably the most experienced trio in the code’s history.
Yet the public outcry since Wednesday night has gone through the roof.
Billy Slater is chaired off the field (Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
And mostly it’s been Lockyer’s explanation that simply doesn’t cut the mustard.
As well as Slater played in the last two games, it wasn’t mathematically possible that “nobody was close to him”.
Daley made a far more sensible explanation with “Billy Slater won fairly under the system”.
And therein lies the problem – the system is wrong.
The three selectors handed out 4-3-2-1 points for each of the three Origins, and that obviously turned up a ridiculous decision.
In future, the only fair points method would be for the three selectors to individually rate every Origin player who takes the field with points out of 10. The NRL has already announced it is considering changes to the voting system.
After three games every player will have a total, and there is the winner of the man-of-the-series.
I did that system for this series, and Slater wasn’t way in front. In fact he was way behind.
Under the system I used, there were 15 players in front of Slater.
James Tedesco (NSW) – 9.5 – 7 – 7 – total 23.5.
Valentine Holmes (Queensland) – 7.5 – 7.5 – 8.5 – 23.5.
James Maloney (NSW) – 9 – 8 – 6 – 23.
Damien Cook (NSW) – 8.5 – 7 – 9.5 – 23.
Tom Trbojevic (NSW) – 8.5 – 7 – 7.5 – 23.
Jake Trbojevic (NSW) – 7.5 – 7.5 – 8 – 23.
Boyd Cordner (NSW) – 8.5 – 7 – 7 – 22.5.
Dane Gagai (Queensland) – 8 – 7 – 6.5 – 21.5.
Cameron Muster (Queensland) – 5.5 – 6.5 – 8 – 20.
Jack de Belin (NSW) – 6 – 8 – 6 – 20.
Tyson Frizell (NSW) – 7 – 6 – 7 – 20.
Gavin Cooper (Queensland) – 6 – 6 – 7.5 – 19.5.
David Klemmer (NSW) – 7 – 5.5 – 7 – 19.5.
Nathan Cleary (NSW) – 6 – 6.5 – 6.5 – 19.
Felese Kaufusi (Queensland) – 4 – 7 – 8 – 19.
Billy Slater (Queensland) – 0 – 8 – 9 – 17.
Sharing a medal isn’t on, so Tedesco wins on two counts – he was on the winning side, and his best points tally of 9.5 was better than Holmes’ 8.5.
But the telling stat is ten from NSW, and five from Queensland, finished ahead of Billy Slater.
To be fair, the look on Slater’s face when Wally Lewis placed the coveted medal around his neck was one of astonishment, not delight.
He knew it wasn’t possible when he played in only two of the three games.
And what make the decision even more amazing, the selectors were banned by the NRL from mathematically proving their decision.
Now it’s up to the NRL to support the full bottle of awarding points out of ten to every player who takes the field in all three games.
If the NRL can come up with something better, I’ll be all for it.
There’s just one thing for certain, the 4-3-2-1 points system is fatally flawed.
mushi
Roar Guru
The issue on judgement might be the three disagreed who was second. I could deifntiely see a world where Cook and Teddy were switched around through the judges.
Kelvin Johnson
Roar Rookie
How could Slater be way in front of anyone else? It doesn't make sense because he wasn't MOM in game 2. Slater must have got 4 points from all judges in game 3 =12 and 3 points from every judge in game 2 = 9 Total 21. Tedesco say he got 4 points from all judges in game 1 =12 then surely a couple of 1's and 2's in games 2 and 3 = another 8 or 9 to make him equal on 21. So how was Slater so far ahead of everyone?
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
IMO, it had to be Cook, Tedesco or Turbo. They were all consistent throughout.
Fiddlestix
Guest
Well boo hoo! Slater won! The blues won! Who cares? Get over it! Bring on next year’s series!
Albatross
Guest
I think what Mr.Lovell was implying is that perhaps those 3 are more qualified than someone such as, say... you Mr.Turner. Which is both quite logical and extremely correct. Your statement about ‘too different sets of skills’ That’s actually hilarious. Total genius.
Craig
Guest
ummm no. And obviously they didn’t , because the same system has been used over that period.
Short Memory
Roar Rookie
What I really like about this site, and why I and others come here rather than the tabloids, is the lack of trolls. Let's try and keep it that way, hey?
Raynaldo
Guest
Billy won the medal for his Neymar Jr style dive when Maloney breathed on him. Well done young Wiliam. Whats the fuss fellas Billy & Co have been kicking our Blue butts for years Slater got a send off he deserved Remember we ar all Aussies
Wayne Turner
Guest
"three ex captains of Australia are better qualified than any of the sulking agitators, at choosing the recipient." - Illogical and incorrect. Playing and judging are too different sets of skills.Playing at the top level makes you great at playing at the top level,but it does not then lead to then being top judges of how other plays.Yes,the judges must know and have an interest in rugby league,but being a high level ex-player doesn't mean you are better qualified than others.
Wayne Turner
Guest
Inbred is the best way to describe the problem with these three being appointed to chose the winner of this award.Whoever appointed them is foolish not to see the "conflict" of interest",just as the three are for accepting the job.The three are too close to the two teams and players.The award could have been decided by a panel of refs and/or media,but no one from the tv rugby league media: Just about all ex-players suffering from the same inbredness. It's the biggest problem in the NRL - Inbred and not merit based eg: The Sutton's and the ref appointments.
Wayne Lovell
Roar Guru
Billy slater getting the WLM just means that NSW played as a team better. Maybe they should do the 4,3,2,1 for each team then award it to the winner of the winning team but that eliminates the chance for individual brilliance from the losing team. Personally I’m happy to accept that three ex captains of Australia are better qualified than any of the sulking agitators, at choosing the recipient.
RoryStorm
Guest
Wayne Turner. Is that how you get your point across? Calling the judges inbreds? Pretty childish aren't you. Obviously an awful lot of unchecked anger inside you desperate to get out me old China. I know not to bother with you if we have a different point of view. You are so full of hate!
Albatross
Guest
C’mon, who really cares about this whinefest.
The Barry
Roar Guru
There’s lots of really credible explanations here about how under this system Slater could have beaten Tedesco. None of them really explain how Slater could have been “well ahead” of anyone else as per Lockyer’s explanation. So far ahead that the selectors couldn’t exercise judgement to award the medal to another player (which Lockyer also mentioned was possible in his piece on the footy show).
Ads
Guest
For the love of all things rugby league, enough already. All the outrage about this has been driven by endless sensationalist articles written for clicks. Boring as, mate.
cantoad
Guest
can someone grab the dummy and put it back into baby NSW mouth? it is embarrassing for Australia if people from overseas are reading this tripe!
Canetoad
Guest
ok we call it the Lewis Mortimer shield, then we have as many immortals from QLD as from NSW, it is only fair. NSW ... little nanny state???? i think they are getting infected from Victoria ...
Buttery
Guest
My take on this is that there is a perception of bias, the powers that be should have appointed another person from NSW as one of the judges, 2 Queenslanders &1 New South Welshman is not a good look even though we have 2 Queenslanders saying they are honest johns..
Craig
Guest
If Slater was second best on ground in game 3 and third best on ground in game 2 it would likely be enough to secure the medal. I doubt any player aside from Slater would’ve been in the top 4 players in more than 1 game. Game 1 Teddy Maloney Cook Token Queenslandsr Game 2 Cordner Slater Ponga Cook Game 3 DCE Slater Holmes Cook If Cook was 4th best across 3 games (max 9 points) it still wouldn’t be enough to our score Slater. Albeit he was consistently one of the best.
Glen
Guest
Agree David. Excellent points. This is just one of many stupid calls for these types of awards. Happens regularly with the Clive Churchill medal over a number of years. Sentimental favourite gets it instead of the actual best player. Fifita missing out in particular comes to mind.