No issue with Gallen as MOTM. Unless people are exaggerating a few errors...which is most likely the case, he was quality and right next to Hoffman as our best.
The only people who don't think Gallen was great are Gould, who has always hated him, Sam Burgess fans who are jealous, Hayne fans who are jealous (not sure why, he was great too), Papalli fans, and the two headed ones, who always cry about Gallen.
Gallen made heaps of tackles and metres and "only" 2 mistakes, neither of which were actually his fault. He was (as he has been for years) one of the best on the park and the heart and soul of NSW resistance in both matches.
Apparantly making a lot of metres is selfish, always putting your hand up for a run is selfish, and "over calling" your halves (whose fault is that?) by always running hard near the ball is selfish (though when any other player gives a running option time after time it is good play, and he passed it as much or more than any other forward in the game, barring the hookers of course).
Similalry Bird and Farah were great, despite clueless people saying they were "trying too hard". There is no such thing in sport as trying too hard, and if the NSW halves or outside backs needed to do more, it was up to them to do more (they didn't, as it turns out, need to do anything other than they did, which was very solid play).
Gallen, Bird and Farah were more responsible for getting NSW to the QLD tryline than any other players. From there, if they are willing to always run rather than bludge for a tackle or two and they get the ball more often, that is not a sign of their poor play.
Is anyone saying QLD forwards "got in the way" despite their lack of trys? QLD forwards did not make the same inroads so did not give their backs the same chances (except Thaiday, who also ran hard all game) and when they got it they were smothered or dropped. NSW backs dropped it or were well covered too when the ball spread too early. Its like everyone suddenly forgets why you need forwards, just because the defense was so intense and people wanted to see a try every attacking set on the line.
Hoffman was also great (defensively good first game, better this game and great running too (also late in the count a lot, but no one was complaining about him, because it doesn't suit their steretypes or agendas)).
Hayne saved the game a number of times and could easily be MotM. Could still be player of the series (he and Gallen are the best so far).
In another low scoring affair, I thought most players did their jobs well.
The "niggle" that everyone is also complaining about made the game hard to flow, but that is the style the referees choose. Players are much better off doing niggle and slowing their opponent's rather than letting them up, if they can (again people said the teams should stop the "niggle" and "play football", Gould included, which is a gob smackingly stupid comment given that "niggle" is a defensive tactic and doesn't affect a team's ability with the ball whatsoever. If you can slow the play and put off the attacking team because the referees allow it, and you don't, you are silly. Has nothing to do with a team's attack.)
Obviously the first game was a classic, but this game was also very tough, without many errors, neither of which has been a feature of origin matches for years. Not sure why all the moaning about a game that featured the essence of what makes rugny league great (toughness under pressure).
