297 run metres plus 2 try assists 3 line break assists 3 tackle breaks and 1 offload, is why he got the points. Stats don’t tell the full story and I agree with you that Jake deserved the points but Tom and DCE will just naturally get the points when we win or go close as they are the high profile and flashy players.
Spine/attacking players always dominate the points, history tells us so.
Does Jakes 50 tackles and 90 minutes deserve any points, maybe, maybe not.
That's his role effectively, yeah?
What surprises more is despite that there being two judges per game now is the differences in what they see.
They are driven by the result, stats, how they expect a player to perform...and God knows what.
I can't remember when a player from the losing side got the 3pts no matter how narrow the loss.
Maybe only Wighton and DCE in GF'S from memory.
I'll pick the three games that could've gone either way this weekend.
Manly v Knights
( so 3 and a 2 ), Hastings 4
( 3 & 1 ), Miller 2
(2 ), Young 1
Would Turbo have got 5 if we'd lost?
Who else would've figured in the points if we'd won?
DCE's match stats were similar to Hastings.
I dare say he'd have featured in the points if we'd won, even if it was JUST kicking a FG.
Sharks v Warriors
( 3 & 3 ), Nicoll - Klokstad 3
( 2 & 1), Mulitalo 2
( 2 ), Tevaga 1
Was Mulitalo the Sharks best player?
He dropped a bomb cold that led to 6pts against.
Hynes no points? One could argue that his stats were on par with Johnsons.
Dogs v Cows
(3), Burton 2,
(2), JAC 2
(2), Feldt 1, Luki 1
So Kiraz and Preston get 3's yet not even a 1 from the other judge?
The Dogs steal it at the death yet no Cowboys player was worthy of even a 2?
Two of the Dogs best players were their wingers? WTF?
So in those three games the only forward that they think really influenced the games' result was Preston (Dogs).
That says it all really.