Sounds good, can we make it retrospective to 2009? ;-)
What I actually meant was that I thought the best team on the day were the Storm and they deserved to win despite the call. My overall point was that the decision was wrong and it ruined a spectacle, but the better team on the day won the game.
Well if you mean scoring 23 points to the opposition's 16 then yeah of course they were better on the day.
But Parra made more metres, more offloads and more linebreaks. The only place Melbourne won was on the scoreboard, which happens to be the only place that counts.
But if we're only going by the scoreboard then why bother having these discussions?
Inglis should have had a blatant penatly from a kick chase
True.
and Slater should not have received that penalty late on.
And true.
But both incidents would have had very different effects on the game.
Apart from that the refs were excellent, although the Storm could argue the fact that they were on the end of a 5 or 6-2 penalty count until that Slater incident at the end.
Surely you're not going to argue that the penalty count should be even in every game?
Melbourne are well known for being grubby around the ruck - they should lose the penalty count in every match (and slowing the play-the-ball would still be a good tactic for them, given its effectiveness).
Parra should have had 10 penalties by halftime for holding down.
That said, Parra came out grubby in the second half and why not? It was working for Melbourne and Parra won the second half.
The ref's had a shocker. The grubbiest team in each half won that half of footy.
Mate, with one massive dud call at that point Parra were dudded. They got themselves 16 points behind and then got themselves to within 6. That call took the game out of their hands.
Surely if the ref is going to f**k up the benefit of the doubt should go to the team trailing on the scoreboard.
It just makes for good entertainment.
You could argue that they had the better of the game to a degree, winning the yardage battle and looking more dangerous in attack with their off-loads. But at the same time it was the fundamentals that lost them the game. Woeful last tackle options and very soft defense which allowed the Storm to slice through their little men easily for 3 simple tries.
All true.
That wasn't Archer's fault.
Nobody's saying it was. But Parra came back to make a game of it and Archer ended it all with one whistle blast.
Melbourne never really had to get out of 3rd gear
Melbourne were sh*tting themselves until Archer's call. Cameron Smith said as much after the game.
and Parra are kidding themselves if they think one decision cost them the game.
At the time the decision was made it cost them the game. All that came before was history by the time Archer made that call.
By far the best team were Storm and worthy winners and unquestionably the team of the decade.
Definitely the team of the decade and sure they deserved it more.
But aside from better defence and kicking from the Melbourne halves, Parra played better footy on the day.
They were just very unlucky.
neutral looks at scoreboard and says "Good Luck" to the wailers
Your obvious Hayne Envy says there's nothing neutral about you. It doesn't matter if you don't support the storm; if you hate Parra then you're not a neutral.
Suck monkey balls you dirty parra grub cry babys
You sad little hater.
