Tuesday 14 October 2008

"...I sure didn't see that coming"

Craig Bellamy's post-game press conference quote was shared by many thousands more who watched the game.

Just how did Melbourne lose by 40 on the biggest day of the Rugby League year?! How did Manly do it? And what might happen in 2009 for these and other teams (although given my patchy record at forecasting, this may be a somewhat pointless exercise)? All this and more below the fold.

After struggling through the torturous pre-game entertainment (perhaps the first pre-game entertainment to be remembered despite going as planned), the game got underway.

Manly was always going to come out fast and hard. They threatened to overwhelm a full-strength Melbourne when they last clashed at Brookvale in August, so Manly's best chance was to physically dominate and wear out the Storm's point-scoring threats.

But it appeared Manly may have come out too hard. Their great efforts brought only a few marginal try-scoring chances in the first 10 or so minutes, while Melbourne seemed to absorb Manly quite comfortably and a bit of luck saw Folau threaten to wreak havoc on Manly's left-side defence.

As I always do in neutral grand finals, I end up cheering for the team who I think will win, so I was hoping Manly would win, but as Manly failed to break the Storm's resistance, as Melbourne looked like possibly moving down the field just a few times and utilising the talents of a Folau or Slater to take an undeserved early lead, as Manly looked edgy a few times (Stewart under the high ball from Inglis, Matt Orford several times on the last tackle), I feared a gritty Melbourne win was a very real possibility.

But Manly slowly took major control of the game. Melbourne's kick-chase might have been very good for Inglis's towering bomb, but it was sloppy for two kicks which saw David 'Wolfman' Williams return the ball in between a scattered Melbourne defensive line for significant metreage.

The second of these saw a return of about 20 metres and after Manly secured a six-again (when a Menzies offload was unable to be gathered in by Lima), their pressure eventually paid off as Ballin snuck across for the first try.

It gradually became clear (in hindsight i.e. while watching the game without having consumed a few beers) that Melbourne had little more to give than what they were displaying. With just under 10 minutes left in the first half, a relatively straight-forward Manly play (with the standard decoy runners and second-man plays) saw Manly (just) get around Melbourne: Robertson scored in the corner. There might have been a fair bit of doubt on the try, but the ease with which Manly scored (there wasn't even a dominating run to put the defence into backpedalling mode before) was an ominous sign for Melbourne.

But Matt Orford's bad goal-kicking (or bad ankle...or both) meant Manly led by just 8-0. Watching the game live however, I still feared a Melbourne comeback. They'd done it so many times from less than 14 or 16 points down, it was such a big stage, they had the wood on Manly etc etc.

But when Manly went across again early in the second half (thanks to a well-placed Orford kick - wow!), it was all but over. When Robertson made it 3 in a row soon after (not long after I rejected someone's assertion of a Manly win by more than 16), Manly had 4 tries on the board (but only 18 points: Matai could only hit one out of 2 from the sideline).

I couldn't remember when Melbourne last conceded 4 tries in a game. In the old days for Melbourne (i.e. 2003-2005), they crumbled when the opposition got to 20 against them, but the current Storm is streets ahead of the talented but fragile team from 3+ years ago...but the 2008 team's super-competitive psyche and toughness was in the process of being smashed by the dominant Sea Eagles. The rout was on (despite Melbourne never giving up).

It ended up at 40, Menzies scored a great try, 'Against the Grain' Bell finished off some excellent work: it was a thorough effort from a great team.

But you wonder: could Manly have beaten a Storm team at full-strength which didn't have half its team have to shoulder the extra workload of Origin (compared to almost no Origin representation for Manly)? We'll never know, but you'd think Manly will get a lot more respect when Origin teams are chosen in 2009. There's the salary cap and the representative selections which always (eventually) bring great teams in the NRL back to the pack: Manly will be no different.

But Manly might - might - be on the cusp of dominance. Their physical prowess over a league where those who dominate are brought back to the pack soon enough was quite amazing (at times). Most NRL games result in possession being shared about 50-50 between the teams. In a few games this year (often when a big game was needed), Manly was able to dominate possession and utilise their size, strength and speed advantages over most teams to such an extent that when it came time for the other team to enjoy some possession, the other team had nothing left. What Manly and their strength and conditioning regime has done with Ben Kennedy and Josh Perry has been amazing: talented players with injury/attitude problems were transformed after less than 1 year playing for Manly.

This may be Manly's legacy: that they can be much better physically than most other NRL teams. While their skills base has improved in leaps and bounds since a few years back, the skills base generally builds up the margin in wins, but it is their physical prowess which wins games for them.

Melbourne will still have a heap of Origin reps in 2009 (despite losing players such as Folau, Crocker and Kaufusi) but despite their big-name playing roster, has their run at the top finished? Their depth will (again) be lessened: they've lost a host of very good players over the last few years during their tenure at the top of the NRL. There's no doubting Bellamy's ability to bring very good younger players through and get a lot of players who've struggled at other teams, but you'd think more will be asked of him/the fringe players than at any time since the start of 06.

They still will have perhaps 3 of the top 10 players in the NRL (Slater, Smith and Inglis) next year, but more will be asked of them. Recent history says it's tough for teams to remain at the top for more than 3 years: a tricky year ahead for Melbourne.

Lastly, Matt Orford. He joins the 'elite' list of recent premiership-winning halfbacks: Cronk, Perry, Prince (2005 was an exception in so many ways), Sherwin, Gower and Wing. Who said you need a championship halfback to win it all?

I know, I know...Orford won the Dally M. But he so did all of his good work on the back of his great forwards. He's not a leader, he's a follower of the good work of others. Even someone like Cooper Cronk, who is so far from being a natural halfback its not funny, is such a leader that it doesn't matter he has relatively few halfback skills. Could you see Orford being in Cronk's position and leading his weakened team to a win over Cronulla? Well.. anyone can beat Cronulla when it matters, but Orford is just not that sort of player. The timid, almost frightened look on his face after he won the Dally M and during grand final week was almost embarrassing.

But Manly must be a team of great guys: they all seem to love Orford heaps and are prepared to work hard for him. A very talented and physically dominant team prepared to work harder for someone earning more than most of them: there's something quite...nice about this. How can anyone hate Manly anymore?? But that's a post for another day.

On that note, farewell and see you in 2009!

Read More...