Oakboy wrote:Peat wrote:Nasty doesn't mean cheap short merchant.
Lawes is a nasty player. He's not just looking to make his tackles, he's genuinely looking to level people. But if he's ever given someone a shot in the kidneys off the ball, he's never been banned for it. One two week ban for reckless play. That's it. Hard but more or less fair.
You compare Morgan with Vunipola in an England shirt, Vunipola wants to dominate every tackle he makes. He wants to make more tackles. Morgan doesn't have that edge to him. Legally nasty is still a thing and still a virtue.
Incidentally, there's been a fair few off the ball incidents gone unpunished over the last so and so, and that's without taking into account everything that goes on unseen at rucks. I don't think it adds value to a player's game either but the authorities clearly aren't picking up everything.
Interesting and thought-provoking! Where do you stand on Ashton's line of dustbins and whether players see the bins or the gaps?
It has long been my contention that both Bily V and Tuilagi could be far better players if they saw the gaps. Yes, they should want to be dominating in tackling and defence generally. But, I think the past decade or more has over-emphasised physicality in attack at the expense of subtlety. Billy looks twice the player now he is going into contact looking to offload. Previously, I always thought Morgan had more to offer going forward because he could commit multiple defenders and still move the ball. Now, apparently, he is not physical (nasty) enough.
Oddly enough, although, for some reason, he is widely disliked, Hughes could become the ideal combination of physicality/subtlety. He has very good hands.
Nastiness is a far great virtue when the ball is out of one's hands than when in it. What tilts me decisively towards Vunipola in the debate at the moment (other than far greater proof of international consistency) is he puts in a big effort in defence. It wasn't like Morgan didn't rack up the odd tackle count here and there, but you didn't see him driving people back or getting over the ball quickly.
Ideally, players shift mindsets a little when in defence and when in attack, but I suppose it is possible it carries over. However, I think its possible to overegg the amount of free will players have on bins vs gaps. Attacking plans do come down from the coach and if you're being told to carry on the fringes or take the ball from 10 and straighten the line, you usually don't get a choice of bin or gap. You just get bins. The more powerful the player, the more they'll be told to take on the carries where there's only ever going to be bins. Burrell's 2014 try vs France is a great example of just how good Vunipola can be with a bit of space to work in but 90% of the time it just doesn't happen because he's the only guy who can do what he does against the bins. Ditto Tuilagi.
Which probably does influence their thinking a little when presented with an actual choice. Although with Tuilagi, I know I've seen him go for gaps. Tuilagi's problem is less about seeing gaps for himself and more about realising there's three bins in front of him and none in front of his outside man. At least from what I remember. Not seen him play much rugby recently.
I guess what I'm saying is its up to the coaches to see that players are abrasive in defence but know when to be clever in attack. That's the ideal we're looking for.
However, if presented with a choice of players who aren't doing that, Jones has a clearly stated preference for abrasive everywhere and there's a lot of international coaches who seem to agree with him. When it comes to players whose role in the game plan is to charge at the bins, I think he's right. Although if that is Vunipola's role, I think that offers a lot of scope for a suitably industrious wide-carrying 8 to play besides him in the same back row with one claiming to be a 6.
Morgan can be that player, but he has to up the nastiness and abrasiveness in defence. Elsewise the role goes to which of Hughes, Clifford and Beaumont gets it first. And I'd point out that Jones has already questioned that sort of thing in Clifford - it clearly is important to him.
