State of Origin 2018

[Curns13]

NSWs weren't the better side---Qld were really up against it with the sudden,& shock retirement of Smith!! With Smith in,Qld win,IMO!! Even with the injuries to key players I believe Qld would have won with Smith playing!!
Also,SOO was at the crossroads---the very last thing needed was a Qld win!!??????

I agree that with one of Smith, Cronk or Thurston we win game 2 and the series. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

 

[Pommy]

I agree that with one of Smith, Cronk or Thurston we win game 2 and the series. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Thurston? Have you seen him play this season not the Thurston of old by a long stretch.

 

[Curns13]

Thurston? Have you seen him play this season not the Thurston of old by a long stretch.

We needed a competent halfback for 10 minutes, minutes 70 to 80 of game 2. If Thurston plays those 10 minutes (even 2018 Thurston) I think we win that game. But none of those guys were there and the result is a NSW win. That’s how it works.

 

[southsport]

We needed a competent halfback for 10 minutes, minutes 70 to 80 of game 2. If Thurston plays those 10 minutes (even 2018 Thurston) I think we win that game. But none of those guys were there and the result is a NSW win. That’s how it works.

Curnsy, NSW have some "ifs and buts" too.

 

[ThingFish]

Curnsy, NSW have some "ifs and buts" too.

Loving the excuse factory.
A well deserved 2-1 series win in the history books. The books never contain ifs, buts, coulda, shoulda or wouldas.

 

[Curns13]

Curnsy, NSW have some "ifs and buts" too.

No doubt. NSW won the series. You can’t go back in history and hand out trophies for what might have happened.

 

[Curns13]

Loving the excuse factory.
A well deserved 2-1 series win in the history books. The books never contain ifs, buts, coulda, shoulda or wouldas.

What excuse? I literally said “coulda, shoulda, woulda” at the end of my post. No excuses here: NSW won the series 2 wins to 1, 9 tries to 8, 52 points to 44 points.

 

[doyen]

What excuse? I literally said “coulda, shoulda, woulda” at the end of my post. No excuses here: NSW won the series 2 wins to 1, 9 tries to 8, 52 points to 44 points.

My point is that there was really nothing between the teams!!

Qld were the most disrupted side due to injuries to important players.

Therefore,IMO,NSWs shoulda,coulda won the series pretty easily under the prevailing circumstances but could barely scrape over the line!!
NSWs,however,did have lots of players on debut who will be better next year for the experience!

 

[southsport]

Loving the excuse factory.
A well deserved 2-1 series win in the history books. The books never contain ifs, buts, coulda, shoulda or wouldas.

Haha, you've gotta make the most of this moment Fish, it hasn't come along very often!

 

[Rabbit Stew]

Curnsy, NSW have some "ifs and buts" too.

To quote Dwight Schrute: "If onlys and justs were candies and nuts, then every day would be Ernte Dank Fest."
NSW was the better side and deserved to win the series. NSW will probably be the better side next year and will probably win the weries.
Queensland has been the better side for than a decade but that's no longer the case

 

[Curns13]

My point is that there was really nothing between the teams!!

Qld were the most disrupted side due to injuries to important players.

Therefore,IMO,NSWs shoulda,coulda won the series pretty easily under the prevailing circumstances but could barely scrape over the line!!
NSWs,however,did have lots of players on debut who will be better next year for the experience!

I agree with both of the first 2 points. QLD had a 10 minute opportunity to win game 2 and perhaps the series and the 17 blokes we had at our disposal weren’t good enough to do it. Pretty simple really.

I also wonder after Origin 3 if Kevvie thinks Hunt is our hooking solution.

1. Ponga
6. Munster
7. DCE
9. Hunt
14. Morgan

Plenty of attack there. Interesting times.

 

[handyman2190]

Just my 5cents worth, for what its worth, game 3 was never going to be won by nsw, the refs made sure that qld had all the ball and all the penaltys and no 50.50 calls our way. This is very sus. And i dont like or want to say it but it stinks to high heaven, how slater wins the medal playing 2 games stinks of favouratism considering 2 out of 3 judges are queenslanders and daley is bum chums with them both is remarkably biased and corrupt.
Ill go so far as to say this looks rigged and the outcry is fully justified. Id immediately get rid of meninga as aus coach and sack the 3 of them from any more involvement, they cannot justify voting for someone who only played 2 games and wins its utterly ridiculous.
Yes its a spectacle, for Qldlanders to feel good about themselves and all this politically correct stuff is BS.
Holding onto a player trying to play the ball , even having your hands on him is a penalty so tariq sims pushed forward yes that too is a penalty but what about the holding on. This has become a FARCE!!!

 

[Travitoh]

As bizarre as Slater winning man of the series was, discovering how it is decided does explain it.

Each game is voted 4-3-2-1 by the judges and tallied at the end of the series.
Looking back over the series, it's hard to see anyone who'd get votes in multiple games to win it.
Roughly from the top of my head (and how i saw the series) Tedesco only polls in game one with the threat of Cook pinching a 4 from him.
Game two was an open field and while Cordner got MOM, it was likely a low count to win it and some people had Slater as one of the better performers.
Game three Slater did play well and his biggest threat was probably DCE i thought.
So if Slater is voted 4 by all three judges in game three, that's 12 votes right there with only Tedesco a chance to equal him. A vote in game two gets him over the line as i don't believe Tedesco polls after game one.
I'm not saying that it is right and if anything i believe it highlights a flawed system but i can understand how they came to the conclusion.

 

[Curns13]

As bizarre as Slater winning man of the series was, discovering how it is decided does explain it.

Each game is voted 4-3-2-1 by the judges and tallied at the end of the series.
Looking back over the series, it's hard to see anyone who'd get votes in multiple games to win it.
Roughly from the top of my head (and how i saw the series) Tedesco only polls in game one with the threat of Cook pinching a 4 from him.
Game two was an open field and while Cordner got MOM, it was likely a low count to win it and some people had Slater as one of the better performers.
Game three Slater did play well and his biggest threat was probably DCE i thought.
So if Slater is voted 4 by all three judges in game three, that's 12 votes right there with only Tedesco a chance to equal him. A vote in game two gets him over the line as i don't believe Tedesco polls after game one.
I'm not saying that it is right and if anything i believe it highlights a flawed system but i can understand how they came to the conclusion.

Yeah, the system is the problem not the voters. Theoretically you could win it playing just one game on the losing team in the series. If you were far an away the best player in a dead rubber beating where no one from the series winning team gets a point, it is conceivable that 12 points could be the highest total in the series. A couple of close game where votes are split across a number of players and you could have an even more farcical situation.

The system needs to change. As far as player of the series goes: Tedesco, Maloney or Cook were the three best across the series for me and Gagai and Holmes QLD’s best. Just my opinion.

 

[doyen]

Billy didn't play in SOO due to injury---so he missed one exam----- so let's give him an estimate---let's assume he did play in SOO 1---Billy always plays nothing less than a v/good game;usually a brilliant one---he likely would have been a star in that game as he usually is!!! So his marks in SOO 2 & 3 plus his estimate for Game 1 probably gives him the best marks!!!
Has anyone ever seen Billy play a bad game???
Billy only had 2 games to amass his points--the others had 3 games--that's not fair!!

I don't begrudge an absolute star like Billy anything he's awarded--the chances are he deserved it!!

 

[Travitoh]

Billy didn't play in SOO due to injury---so he missed one exam----- so let's give him an estimate---let's assume he did play in SOO 1---Billy always plays nothing less than a v/good game;usually a brilliant one---he likely would have been a star in that game as he usually is!!! So his marks in SOO 2 & 3 plus his estimate for Game 1 probably gives him the best marks!!!
Has anyone ever seen Billy play a bad game???
Billy only had 2 games to amass his points--the others had 3 games--that's not fair!!

I don't begrudge an absolute star like Billy anything he's awarded--the chances are he deserved it!!

2008 RLWC final springs to mind...

So a player should get a rating for a game they didn't play? I'm glad you're not a judge for the Dally M!

 

[doyen]

2008 RLWC final springs to mind...

So a player should get a rating for a game they didn't play? I'm glad you're not a judge for the Dally M!

Pretty suss approach hey!!

I think I must have some Irish in me.

Nevertheless,I don't begrudge Slater that award!! In fact,I think he's won it more than once!
Smith has won it 4 times -----the only other multiple winner is Billy;twice now!!

I don't believe any player has been that good to win it in only 2 games!

 

[doyen]

According to Lockyer[Zero Tackle], after votes were counted, Billy was significantly ahead of his rivals for Player of the Series.
Discussion occurred on the fact that he'd only played 2 games; which Daley,Meninga & Lockie knew may be controversial.
Because he comfortably had the most votes they couldn't make a strong case to deny him the award!! It's quality that wins awards NOT quantity!
Judi DENCH won the Oscar for "Shakespeare in Love" & was on the screen for 8 mins of an 125 min film, but wait,that is not the record--Beatrice STRAIGHT won best actress in 1976 in the film "Network" for a 5 min performance--QUALITY!!???

The point scoring system for SOO's best will probably now be reviewed!