- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined January 2019
0
Views
0
Published
53
Comments
Published
Comments
8 reasons the 2010 Grand Final was the best Grand Final of the last 10 years.
1) The lead up to the Grand Final meant something. Potential redemption story for Todd Carney after his problems with the Raiders, the return of Mark Gasnier half way through the season, cue Puff the St George Dragon song as everyone wondered if after 5 grand final losses since 1979 could they possibly escape the choker tag. Some great match ups Bennet v Smith, Soward v Carney, Gasnier v SKD and Minichello v Boyd. Plus the focus was on the game, there was no controversy, there were no injuries. No soap opera about a fall out between former team mates who’s wives may or may not have disagreed about something, no faux drama about whether an injured player would play no drama about the judiciary. The focus was on the game not the drama, this was a lead up that focus on players playing sport not the press trying to create tension or drama where there wasn’t any. This was a lead up for fans of Rugby League the Game as it appeared on the backpage, not Rugby League the Soap Opera that appears on the front page.
2) The difference in style. The Roosters were a team blessed with flair in attack having a spine that included Pearce, Carney and Minichello. The Dragons were a team founded around defence and only Boyd contained genuine attacking spark in their spine otherwise composed of Soward, Hornby and Young all journeyman but who had all played with heart throughout 2010. Both teams had a fundamentally different philosophy to the game and both coaches had approached the game of Rugby League completely differently throughout the season.
3) Redemption or Failure in the halves. On each side there there was a potential 5/8 rags to riches story. In 2009 Todd Carney was in exile playing for the Atherton Roosters and in 2010 he was playing for the Sydney Roosters in the Grand Final. Similarly in 2007 Jamie Soward had been playing NSWRL Premier League for the Roosters and appeared a squandered talent who was never going to live up to potential. Yet the arrival of Wayne Bennett in 2009 saw Soward’s stock’s rise, he played rep football for NSW Country and was in a grand final.
4) The Wayne Bennett v Brian Smith factor. For one of the most taciturn NRL coaches the press always follows Wayne Bennett and any small thing he says is grabbed and magnifed by Sydney’s journos. Was this the time that Bennett proved his super coach status or were his Broncos successes just courtesy of a stacked team of superstars and massive TPAs? Alternatively was this the Brian Smith redemption story? The man who had previously played for the Dragons, coached both halves of the joint venture and had lost two Grand Finals with the Dragons and lost the 2001 Grand to boot, could this man deliver against his more vaunted opponent and shake the choker tag.
5) The game had actual tension, the result was not decided after 10 minutes. The first half was a tight tussle with a scoreline that saw both teams lead at different stages and the half time siren saw the Roosters with a two point lead, Weyman was off the field with a head injury thanks to Aubusson and most of the crowd (I imagine particularly the Dragons supporters) were wondering if the dreaded Dragons choke was about to materialise. With the Dragon’s ahead by only 4 points in the second half it started to rain and it appeared that the Dragon’s big but not terribly mobile pack would flounder. Despite the ultimately lopsided scoreline, the score was within four points with injuries, rain and Grand Final pressure it was anyone’s game until well into the second half.
6) Commeth the Hour Commeth the Man. Jamie Soward stepped up and delivered a master class in managing pressure. No mistakes in the second half, superb in game kicking and great penalties and conversions to make sure his team secured every point possible. Soward did not try to do too much and didn’t try to match the attacking flair of Pearce and Carney, he stuck to his game plan and his team showed confidence in him. On this day, on this 80 minutes heart and discipline beat talent and showed us all that if we worked hard and worked as part of team it is possible to win.
7) Genuine unadulterated joy and relief from fans. The Dragon Army actually got quieter towards the end of the game, they were going to win, but they almost couldn’t believe it , it didn’t seem real, they waited for the dreaded choke and a sixth grand final loss. At full time there was a moment of silence and then the Army erupted. There were tears, there were screams and complete strangers were hugging and embracing each other. You may not have known the person next to you; but you knew that you had experienced history together and in that moment you had a bond that was unbreakable and whatever else happened in your life you had experienced that 80 minutes together and no-one could take that away from you.
8) A deserving Clive Churchill Medal. Darius Boyd had made the step to leave the safe haven of the Broncos surrounded by superstars to follow Bennett to Sydney and to prove himself in a team that last won something in 1988 (the Panasonic Cup) before even his first birthday. He had proven himself a revelation as custodian, having mainly played wing for the Broncos, and his 2010 performance was masterful. His in game efforts in the GF were heroic; he assisted in two tries, made 113 metres and made 13 hit ups.
Eight reasons the 2018 grand final was the best in a decade
Hmm putting to one side the premise of the article that there need to be less Sydney teams for one moment. Lets have a look at the premise of the article and whether the grounds for culling is accurate.
Firstly Cronulla are not broke or financially bereft. Cronulla is an asset rich club which owns its own stadium and is part of a major property redevelopment which will provide them with a sound financial base that will set them up for years. Cronulla do have a cash flow problem but this is unlikely to make them a long term financial risk. Manchester United have a debt position of hundreds of millions of pounds but no doubts their value as an ongoing proposition, Cronulla will be in a positive financial position with an asset base that will continue to earn them ongoing revenue. If your argument is that a significant debt position precludes a club’s participation then you are arguing for the demise of one the biggest clubs in the sporting world.
The Dragons are no longer a joint venture club between two former rugby league clubs, it is the original St George team established in 1921 owning 50% of the league licence and having the casting vote on the board. So in reality it is the team established in 1921 which therefore has a historical claim greater than the Bulldogs, sheer weight of premierships should put them ahead of Canterbury; noting the Dragons have no debt and has the weight of a major corporation behind it and no history of salary cap breaches. If your argument is that because they are owned partially by a private sector corporation the date has changed. Then that same rule needs to be applied to Souths since they were bought by a private consortium lead by Russell Crowe and have one premiership to their name.
Using your logic Manly were not admitted in 1947, their date should be 2003 which was when Manly got the licence back from the Norths/Manly joint venture in established in 2002. Applying the same logic you have applied to Wests Tigers and the Dragons.
Removing Manly leaves minimal Rugby League coverage North of the Harbour in Sydney and given the inroads AFL is making this cedes an area for junior development to the AFL.
You have not provided a fact based rationale for why the Tigers and Canterbury should be included ahead of others, your argument does not provide any justification for their inclusion. Certainly both Cronulla and St George have much stronger balance sheets with their significant asset holdings than the Tigers and if your argument for expulsion or transfer is financial strength then the inclusion of the Tigers against these clubs is questionable, particularly since the Tigers have less 2019 memberships sold then either of these clubs. I am not suggesting the Tigers are broke just that both Dragons and the Sharks have stronger balance sheets than either the Tigers of the Bulldogs.
For 2018 the Dragons had an average home ground attendance of 16,606 which was the 6th highest in the league, the third highest in Sydney and the 6th highest for when they travel. So your argument is to move a club that is financially strong, has attendances in the top third and which attracts crowds when they visit other clubs. That is not a financially sound business idea if you argue that attendance is a critical for rugby league.
Please don’t suggest this a knee jerk Sydney based reaction. I am based in Canberra and its not the Raider’s have a strong liking for Sydney Clubs, if anything it is the Raider’s interests for Sydney Clubs to closed down as that would potentially free up dollars for the Mighty Green Machine.
I would strongly suggest that you need to move back to your original proposition. Firstly establish a rationale for why the number of Sydney Clubs need to be rationalised. Please do not simply base it on articles by Brad Fittler and or Andrew Johns but rather come up with your own logical reasoning for why there would be a benefit to the game and its fans including Sydney supporters. We cannot assume that fans of clubs closed down or moved will stay with their club or support another club. Dragons supporters will not support the Sharks (or vice versa) if their team was closed, similarly I cannot see Manly supporters supporting Easts or the Mid Coast. Personally I know if my club was shut down I would support the Swans or GWS, so it is important that your analysis considers how we ensure that by reducing the number of supporters we are not simply gift wrapping a supporter base to the AFL in Australia’s biggest city.
Secondly come up with a considered set of criteria and apply them evenly, without prejudice and apply the facts as they stand rather then with errors and incorrect assumptions.
Otherwise this simply looks like an exercise in dog whistling.
There are too many NRL clubs in Sydney
Ummm the definition from the Oxford dictionary (considered one of the more reliable sources of the English language):
A worker or sports player who is reliable but not outstanding.
This is the difference between idiom and defined language, you are used to idiom or colloquialism where I have used the correct meaning of words. You may not agree with the usage; however, the dictionary clearly shows that it is the correct application against the players mentioned.
I also find it interesting that you post a negative comment against someone who goes to the effort of writing a long piece supporting your position.
Eight reasons the 2018 grand final was the best in a decade