Do you actually think Cordner played well last night Tim Gore?

Certainly he ran some good lines at good speed but he also dropped the ball two or three times, the first when NSW first had a look at the QLD try line. I think the strategy that worked in Game One for NSW was ‘run over them, then pass/offload inside’. When the attacking strategy is based around the forwards I reckon one of the most important aspects of the game is sustaining this pressure. A drop-ball in this scenario is significantly worse than a drop ball when your plan is to use your backs, get outside the opposition – generally accepted as a riskier strategy so drop ball is more likely. The big boys needed to run hard and not give it away.

Cordner also dropped one early in the second half, the sort of start we didn’t need when chasing points. His first two games were great but I thought he was off in this one, I hope it’s not attributable to his lack of match practice otherwise we might’ve been better with De Belin playing. Maloney/Graham/Hayne let us down in Game 2 but in this game only Frizz, Jturbo and Klemmer played well up front for mine. The forwards lost this game. Jackson was generally great but that play the ball error in the first half was very ordinary.

If Daley’s plan was to use the forwards it makes sense, they are meant to be our best cattle. Offensively I think Pearce played about as well as he can, and it’s true that he’s not great compared to the top 5/6 halfs from up north, but bar Adam Reynolds who was a no go at the start of the series (I think?) and not in great touch I don’t know that there are any better options. This means play Pearce with tactics to win the game elsewhere, where we have the advantage.

Us winning relied on playing the game at their end, continually beating them up. It’s hard to play like this from behind and relies on virtually mistake free footy. We did it in Game One and trounced them. Every time a forward makes a mistake in this type of play it’s a cardinal sin, especially early on. Those Jackson and Cordner errors in the first half were monumental. Sure it’s easier to play like this if you’ve got a half that can get the ball past the opposition back three but we don’t, we didn’t in Game One (although we were also helped by a significantly inferior Fullback http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/06/24/minutiae-mortals-difference-games-1-2/) and we managed to win because we completed every set bar a Tedesco drop over the line in the first half. QLD were flogged physically by half-time. NSW can play football that beats this Queensland team, they just didn’t and it was the fault of the guys like Cordner, Fifita, Woods, Graham that didn’t play their best football. QLD completed at an almost identical rate every game, NSW at 92% G1, 75-odd in 2 and 3. Daley gave NSW the blueprint in Game One, in Game Two and Three they didn’t execute it.

Cheers Baz.

I think when we’re dominating and go down by a skerrick the players cop much more of a beating than if it’s vice versa. It’s certainly annoying from the armchair but it’s what the qlders are specials at, and really it’s no good to only play one good half whether it’s the first one or the second. There really wasn’t much in it and the qld champions seemed the difference, that kick was a big play for mine.

Another little contrast like that I noticed was Maloney manhandling Boyd on the first blues set in Game One. He pulls Darius off Teddy, pushes him and Darius runs off. First time Maloney tries to rough up Slater he gets penalised and Billy gets in his face.

Thanks for saying Max.

From what Lockyer was saying last night I think he’s pushing for Munster to take Boyd’s spot in the centres. If he’s at 5/8 I’m not sure if O’Neill comes back or they shift Gagai to bring Oates back, you’d think the latter would be the better bet but Lockyer didn’t sound keen on taking Gagai off the wing – and he has been one of their best so I can understand the hesitation.

Getting shorter by the minute, I think I saw $1.75 just before. I’d just be happy with a win, never mind the punt haha.

Why is seeing a replay a negative? If the aim is to get as many calls right as possible (which i think it should be) why wouldn’t you want every party to have access to as much information as possible?

Thanks for the clarification Emcie.

Is there any treatment for concussion? I thought the reason it was important to get the player off was because a second knock would cause significantly more harm to an already concussed player not because of any treatment that needs to be administered immediately? If that’s the case then surely there’s virtually no risk of a second head-knock occurring during a kick at goal, we could even allow concussed players that are ruled out of games to keep kicking for their team if we wanted to couldn’t we?

I hope Matt Moylan not being mentioned in this article is an indication he’s not being considered at this stage. I’m pretty concerned about an incumbency argument being trotted out for his inclusion somewhere. For me at least Tedesco and Dugan are ahead of him at fullback, Bird and Peachey as utilities, and Walker, Reynolds, Maloney (i know he was 7 last year though) at five-eighth.

I thought Tamou was pretty good against the sharks, but along with the four mentioned there’s also Paul Vaughan being talked up for a spot. Klemmer could also end up being the lock.

Matth Henriques got the 50 but the run out was Cutting (off Henriques’ bowling though I think). Absolute beauty from deep square leg, one stump to aim at.

Harris looks like a Shield final specialist! Both he and Dean seemed to have pretty ordinary seasons before both going well in the big dance. I feel like there were no openers that had particularly good seasons though, is that the case? Cowan got most of his runs from first drop didn’t he? Burns seemed alright, real shame about Bancroft’s season. Could it have been the Dukes ball’s impact?

2 game series sounds like an interesting one, could be good Smudger. I’d guess CA would worry about teams gettin 1-0 up and producing a dead flat wicket if the second game was at home. Definitely an interesting thought though!

I agree The Shield ought to be valued more highly, but unfortunately I’ve not really got any ideas on attaining said value. While placing a higher value on a draw wouldn’t necessarily increase the pressure/desire for Shield success any pressure/desire that’s already there might be concentrated a little harder on batting for a draw – something the players could probably do with some practice at if the national team’s performances are anything to go by (Ranchi excluded obviously). Just because it’s seen by some merely as a training/practice platform for Test players doesn’t necessarily mean those players wouldn’t play/train in a different style if it was encouraged more is the point I’m trying to get across.

In a conversation discussing the best of Kohli, Root, Williamson and Smith, if you’re going to use career averages it’s well worth noting that only one of them started down the order as a leggie. He’s averaged heaps more than 60 since he’s been played as a batsman. From an Aussie perspective it’s a shame Williamson could be the better bowler now.

Pretty spot on for mine Ben. In fact I’d love to see the DRS used more. We’ve got 5 days and a fair percentage of Tests aren’t going the distance now anyway – why not use a bit more time to get more accurate decisions? I’d like to see umpires be able to use DRS too, maybe have them still make a call (out or not out) but let them ask to check a particular aspect of the dismissal. In Rugby League the on-field referee makes a try/no-try call then asks the video referee to check a particular piece of the play eg. grounding. The Umpire could raise the finger and then ask to send it upstairs to double-check where a ball pitched for example.
I realise the arguments against this are the umps could call for review every 4 balls and the fielding team would be pressuring them to do so, but i tend to back the very very few blokes who get to umpire at this level to stand their ground and not be bullied. For mine I’d sacrifice a bit of the speed of what is a reasonably slow game anyway to make sure we’re getting the right calls.

Gee Tana I feel like Warner’s been okay with the blade. In low-scoring games only the second innings of the first test was a real failure for mine. Where he’s been unusually poor is his catching – he’s dropped a couple. The extra 60 odd Rahul got in the first innings is almost the difference in this game. I think I’d like to see Renshaw given a go at leg-slip in the next game.

Yeah I’ll cop that’s a fair point Jeff. I guess the NRL is entitled to punish for whatever they please, however they please. Personally I just think the punishments are either inconsistent or the NRL’s moral compass is a bit off. Having said that I can’t entirely agree with the Law’s decisions either, but that’s not an article for a sports website i guess.

I can’t see how using violence on a member of the public (as Paulo did) can be considered worthy of a lesser punishment than using drugs personally (like Norman), but the main thing for me is i don’t know if the NRL care either way. I feel like they’re dishing out punishment in proportion to publicity. As you imply if the NRL want to punish player’s for bad publicity then they’re entitled to run their organisation that way if they want. I do however think it’s pretty ordinary for them to say the punishments are for a player’s actions if in fact the punishments are more for the publicity those actions attract.

As with on-field rulings I think most of us would settle for consistency The Barry.

Like Fafita, Paulo’s punishment took quite a while to determine. From memory he was convicted in court in October, but only punished early last month. He’d also missed the Nines already by the time the Raiders released the statement stating that was part of his punishment. As you say, it seems a funny way for the process to work (or not work as the case may be).

I’d argue that my logic is applied to speeding tickets. My suggestion isn’t to change the role of the officer (/referee) at all, they still give out the same ticket (penalty + on report), it’s the role/punishment of the court (judiciary) I’m talking about changing.

In fact, should your licence be suspended you can go to court and argue that your licence is in fact more “special” than someone else’s. In my student days I had to do court reports, and one of the most common things I saw was people arguing that their licence was more important, e.g they needed it for work or they lived too far from public transport, so a 3 or 6 month ban would disproportionately affect them, compared to the average licence holder. Same principle here, the next 3 matches could disproportionately affect Sims as he could miss games that the average player values more highly than 3 regular season matches. In this example the driver would usually then never have to serve their suspension though, which isn’t quite what I’m arguing for…

A more accurate example from the real world could be someone serving a prison sentence who is allowed to leave prison for a day for a funeral. That day is valued as being significantly more “special” for the prisoner than the average day, therefore they are allowed out of the prison for the day. I don’t know exactly how those things work but if they get an extra day tacked on the end of their sentence, that’s pretty similar to what I’d suggest the judiciary adopt. I understand it’s not exactly the same because if the prisoner is deemed too dangerous/their crime is considered too bad to release them, I’m sure the funeral day they miss out on wouldn’t count as two days served.