Brent Kite - 56 mins - Churchill medal. Willie Mason 55 mins - Churchill medal. Sam Moa - 54 minutes - not long enough for Churchill medal according to the selectors who choose the award.
I'm glad DCE got the churchill. I sat there with two mates at the end of the game and we all agreed that DCE was the best on the park, then bitched for 3 minutes about how it'll go to someone from the Roosters because it always goes to a player from the winning side. Surprised the pants off me to see him get it, thought it was SBW for sure. Also good to see the wolf kook it, I said pre game he was finished and had an argument with a mate who disagreed saying 'well m8 u mustnt hav seen him last week against soufs, had one of the best put downs eva' Admittedly I missed the souffs game, but feel validated by his performance in the GF.
Also thought Kite was pretty immense in the opening stanza, gave me some hope that he'll have something left for Penrith next year. Although there's a second theory that that was his last big effort before winding down.
Needless to say I thought the refs were an absolute disgrace & were a contributing factor to the Roosters winning. Having said that, Manly don't usually blow 18-8 leads with 30 minutes to go either. Shit happens.
I think I have watched the Jennings try about 100 times now. Gives me goosebumps every time. Greatest.day.ever
I thought the 1st try was perfectly fine. The penalty try was the wrong call. The ball veered left at the last second, so even if Aubusson didn't tackle Lyon, the chances of him scoring was 50/50. The correct call should've been 10 in the bin. This sounds odd, but the penalty try was to the Roosters advantage. Manly could've (& I think would've), inflicted more damage on a 12 man Roosters side.
It is not odd at all I was debating this as it happened and was happy with the try over 10 in the bin.
I wasn't happy with the call. Well, not entirely. Happy that we got 6 points out of it, but thought that the wrong call was still made. Too many variables in that moment to definitively award a penalty try.
You can't just stop in the line as a decoy runner, you either need to run right through or hold up before the line. If you look how close SBW (who was to defending one in from Pearce) got to Tafua there's no way you can't say Pearce was denied an opportunity to stop the try. Like that other time we played with 12 men and outscored Manly 8-0? 12 men is not the advantage everyone thinks it is, it's rare to see teams actually fully capatalise on it.
Pearce made the wrong decision defensively & regardless, would not have stopped the try. SBW was caught out by a matter of numbers. Also, Horo was forced to stop as Pearce then SBW both bumped him. It was a quality backline move made even better by fooled defence. Manly in the 16-4 loss were a different unit to the one in the GF. In my opinion, they would've taken advantage of a 12 man Roosters side. I'm not saying the Roosters wouldn't have come back from it, but I think 1 more try would've been scored & 18-8 is much easier to come back from as opposed to 24-8. It's all of no consequence now anyway.
Not this year they weren't. But it's still one sided to Manly though. Including the 4 games from this season, the Roosters have only won 6 of the last 18 matches between the two sides.
Pearce didn't make a decision he hedged his bets and was blocked by Horo who was ball watching and stopped his run in the line. As a line runner you either run through the line or stop before. Watch the last tackle of the game if you want an example of a half covering his 3/4's, I'm not saying Pearce woud have stopped the try but he was denied the opportunity. Manly would of had to score two more tries to make it 24-8. That's presumptuous at best for a team who failed to take advantage of a team who completed at under 65% in both halves. Not when Manly fans keep whinging about it.
From watching the play, Pearce made a decision to take Horo then realised at the last second he'd made the wrong decision. By the time he contacts Horo, Taufua has the ball. SBW barely got there & Pearce was behind him. Ergo, Pearce would not have made it there to attempt to stop the try. How is it presumptuous? Manly put on 2 converted tries in that 10 minute period. Why would it be such a stretch of the imagination to see another try being scored. Has it finally drowned out the noise of Roosters supporters whingeing about 2010?