It was the right decision at the time. It forced Leeds to have to score instead of giving Sinfield the option to slot over a penalty we would have no doubtedly given away and forced a possible golden point scenario! I'd have rather have lost the way we did than by one point in extra time.

People are using 20/20 hindsight. It was a bad decision because we lost. But there are plenty of coaches in the game including the top one, Wayne Bennett, who advocate taking the points that are on offer. Leeds have a pretty good defence and there was no guarantee we would score, in fact far from it. There was every possibility that those 2 points might have been the last score of the game.

Nice sweeping statement about hindsight many people round me in the ground were shouting for us to the put the ball into the corner and go for the kill, Leeds were rocking at the time what would have happened we will never know but one thing we do know is it wasn't the last score of the game and the two points were in the end ultimately useless.

I was one of them mate. But I've explained why they went for the two. Most teams would have done the same, including any team coached by Wayne Bennett, because they believe that you take the points on offer. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand. It was the correct decision at the time given the closeness of the game, and the opportunity to take the penalty out of the equation for Leeds. We had other opportunities to score, but didn't take them, so why would we have necessarily scored on that particular set?

Taking the 2? It's a 'hive mind' thing. It's swept all over the NRL like a rash in the last year or so. One team starts doing it, and everyone copies them. Now it's in SL too. I expect the fashion to change again next year. And yes, Wayne bloody Bennett can take a fair amount of the blame!

Also, the "It's a big game/final, so take the points on offer" argument we often hear: it doesn't stand up to much thought, does it? Sides want to win every game they play. Why should it being a "big" game affect a decision like that?

Dunno about youse guys, but for me one of the many pleasures of our game compared to Yawnion is the predisposition to go for tries rather than kick penalties. And long may that continue!

Wigan have never been a side wanting to take kicks; I hope they stay that way.

Yes I agree with you. I'm not saying that I agree with taking the two, but I understand why they do it. FWIW I think Leeds have been one of the biggest culprits over the years. So it's a bit rich to accuse Wigan of lacking big game management, when Leeds would most likely have made the same decision at that time in the game.

Scoring or not is not the whole story we could have got a repeat set or two turned the ball over a yard from the Leeds line leaving them the task of driving it away with a tired bunch of forwards, worst case scenario drop it on the first tackle scrum 15-20 yards out.

The resultant kick off got them up the field easily and put the pressure on Wigan to drive the ball away.

Guess we will never agree but taking the two when two points up has no merit for me.

I wanted to take the two to be honest. We weren’t exactly scoring tries for fun so an easy two points was too tempting to turn down. It meant that Sinfield couldn’t level it with a long range penalty and we wouldn’t be under as much pressure if they scored an unconverted try. Plus at 62 minutes it didn’t hurt to run the clock down whilst we were ahead, keeping in mind we get all the time it takes to take the penalty, then for them to kick off, then we are in possession for a set. Meanwhile all the pressure is on them to score.

It also puts us in the position where another kickable penalty would have seen us go six ahead without having to break their defence. It’s all ‘ifs’ of course and the way it panned out obviously didn’t vindicate the decision but I’d argue it was far from a sure thing that we would score or keep them in their own half. I’d always advocate taking the two in any situation unless you are more than two behind or so far ahead that the result isn’t in doubt.

Leeds wouldn't have made the same decision. In the first half at 6-6, leeds got a penalty on wigan's line and tapped it. Moon scored. In the second half when leeds were 2 points ahead, exactly the same, leeds got 2 kickable penalties at different stages and tapped it both times to keep the ball down that end of the field.

Leeds knew wigan were fresher and needed points on the board in the first half, so tapped it. In the second half leeds knew they were knackered and needed to keep wigan down the other end of the field so tapped it. That game management is the difference and it's so hard to get it right because every game and situation is different to call and there's no set rule for what to do because of that.

FWIW if roles were reversed I reckon leeds would have tapped it to apply the killer blow, and if that didn't occur they'd have ran it on the last and had wigan start the set 2 metres away from their own line, probably making them kick on their own 30 metre.

Sometimes at that stage in the grand final, territory is more important than points if you are already ahead.