The Sydney Roosters have become the first team to go back-to-back in a unified NRL competition in over 25 years with victory over the Canberra Raiders in the 2019 grand final.
Not since the Brisbane Broncos won in both 1992 and 1993 has a team managed to back up a premiership with the same result the next year. The Roosters have confirmed their status as the best side in the game.
2019 NRL Grand Final
» Player ratings: Sydney Roosters
» Player ratings: Canberra Raiders
» WATCH: Video highlights
It was a game which flipped and turned on a dime multiple times, with the Raiders looking the team more likely to take the victory for large chunks of the contest.
It could have all been so different through following a strong start for the tri-colours, who looked to simply come out and do what they have done so many times before in the last couple of months.
Their efforts early on, which included the opening try of the game (somewhat assisted by getting an extra set of six following the footy hitting the trainer) to Sam Verrills, and a penalty goal in the 20th minute, had the Raiders on the back foot.
However, unlike other teams before them, the green machine refused to wilt to the pressure, hanging around in the game to the point where they were on top of the contest, if not the scoreboard, by the time halftime rolled around.
They may have been unlucky not to have had more than one try on the board by halftime, which led to them still being two points behind, but they had all the momentum into the second half.
It was that momentum which kicked off the second half, with Canberra, for the most part staying on top of the game, even if they weren’t able to breach the watertight Roosters defence.
The Roosters continued to grimly hold on, including through a ten-minute period where Cooper Cronk was sent to the sin bin for tackling Josh Papalii early in a potential try-scoring position.
The tri-colours defence was phenomenal, and they eventually caught a break when the referee controversially ruled six to go for Canberra, only to change it to a call of last tackle.
Jack Wighton, instead of kicking as he otherwise would have done, died with the ball, and the Roosters were able to score a phenomenal long-range try down the short side, triggered by Luke Keary and a flick pass from Latrell Mitchell, as James Tedesco stepped up to deliver the match-winning try.
Sydney Roosters 14
Canberra Raiders 8
Rob
Guest
Rene, I agree with you. I haven’t fallen into the hysterical Raiders were robbed but more unfortunately denied an opportunity by officials incompetence. I feel the Raiders could have scored or Roosters conceded a penalty. I’ve felt the pain as a Cowboys supporter. I’ve also got a feeling the Rooster would feel a little annoyed like I did with Flanagan and Bennett comments after finals games over the years. The Rooster supporter should probably just let them vent and be sporting enough to accept they’re trophy graciously IMO.
Footlong
Roar Rookie
You bet, Meh The Asterisk will represent Back to Back :)
Fair and Square
Guest
The better team over through the whole season won one has to say - the two talking points really were non issues and again shows how little people know about the game and the rules. The charge down that later hit the trainer saved Canberra from being penalised as Keary's legs were taken out from under him by the Raiders defender - no one has raised this though. The 6th Takle correction was correct as well as if you actually listed to it - the ref asks his fellow ref the question is it - 6 again - he obviously says no as the ball came off the Canberra player- From the frantic passes I would say that Canberra knew it was the last tackle as the Roosters players did. Too many making something out of nothing
Dan
Guest
I really don't see how one lost opportunity to make a 5th tackle kick in an 80 minute game with the scores still locked up "taints" the result unless you are just very one-eyed for the Raiders. Ultimately the Raiders were the beneficiaries of a number of rough calls - none more significant than the sin binning of Cronk - and yet they couldn't make anything of them. Cronk's split second early tackle never met the threshold of a cynical and intentional play, but the Roosters just copped it and rallied. Yet Canberra get confused due to a refereeing stuff up and lose one chance at yet another repeat set on the Roosters line and they drop their bundle. In truth, had the Roosters been playing the storm in that instance I doubt they'd have been given the chance to march 90 metres in 4 tackles. A championship side doesn't fold on one bad or confused call. The Roosters showed why they're deserved champions by weathering theirs and the Raiders showed they probably need to play a few more big games before they'll be ready to win a comp.
Dan
Guest
If the ball doesn't hit the trainer and the Raiders pick it up and beat Teddy to score, then the video ref likely would have reviewed Soliola's hit on Keary in mid air and given a penalty to the Roosters.
Dan
Guest
You can mark it with an asterisk if it makes you feel better, but once everyone's emotions have calmed down I don't think too many people will look back at this as that big a clanger. For mine the controversy claims are massively overblown. There were a few tough decisions on both sides - none more than the sin binning of Cronk - but one side weathered their tough call for 10 full minutes and the other folded after just 30 seconds when things didn't go their way for once.
Renegade
Roar Guru
Never claimed to always be right... not sure what Manly has to do with the above anyway...
TJ
Guest
Handed the premiership? Didn't realise the refs were part of the defensive line that contained the Raiders for 80 minutes straight.
Meh
Guest
Alongside the 2009 GF, what a travesty. Mark this year with an asterisk! Uncle Nick obviously has deep pockets.
rebel
Roar Guru
Never looked like threatening despite Lealua bombing a try and Papali getting taken early and oh, Wighton scoring.
Renegade
Roar Guru
Fair enough Rob, you make solid points and I too understand the frustration and anger but it’s a stretch to say the team was robbed of victory.... also I understand the frustration on the other side of the fence, where people seem to think what this roosters side achieved was gifted to them. That’s not correct, and I couldn’t see them breaking last night.
Fraser
Roar Rookie
OK I'll give you that. It's highly likely that Tedesco makes a cover tackle. Still, the Raiders are on the try line with a broken defensive line and 6 tackles in hand. I should have said "Could've been 6-0 Raiders after 3 minutes."
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Don't get too comfortable, just have a look at all the nonsense you've been writing about Manly , the list is endless and it's all wrong.
Rob
Guest
Rene, I don’t think anyone can say who wins unfortunately. If the officials don’t break the rules by reversing the 6 to go call the Rooster don’t score that try and are defending a Raiders team with momentum. The officials over stepped and it resulted in a try that won the game. PS. For the record leading into GF’s the Sharks averaged 10 points against Storm 18 points during games played in 2016. The Raiders had averaged 21 points against the Roosters this season? The Raiders had scored more points against the best defensive team (Storm) this season and more than the Roosters did this year. To say they were long odds against scoring a second try doesn’t really have much validation IMO. The game was in the balance and the outcome was influenced by the officials mistake. It happens but I can sympathise and understand the supporters anger.
Andy F
Roar Rookie
They change drop outs to 20m taps and visa Versa almost every game.
My Little Pony
Roar Rookie
He could be penalised for making dangerous contact on a kicker. It doesn't matter if he charged the ball down. That's how the rule is applied. What stuff up are you referring to?
Succhi
Roar Rookie
Yeah, I’m over the NRL. No more for me.
Rob
Guest
Well if Soliola has successful charged the kick down how can he be penalised for Keary jumping and getting knocked over. What right does Soliola have as a defender who has successfully charged the ball down? Sin binning him would be farsical. It’s not a late hit and he can’t tackle Keary with his arms when they are in a contest to gain possession of the ball. I suspect an attacker has to sometimes wear the consequences for his stuff up.
Hansie
Guest
Sorry Bustling, no guarantee the Raiders would have scored (they scored one try all night). As for 'should have been penalised', you ignore the law book. It was a Roosters ball by the law book.
Mon
Guest
And yet, clearly, EFFECTIVELY, providing the reason for the outpouring of justified rage on this site right now , it wasn’t. Do you understand?