RugbyRebels

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:The potential is there with Morgan, though he just seems a bit nice.

I know what you mean. Still, I'd like to see him get another chance, maybe Eddie just gives him a slap in the chops as he leaves the changing room.

Maybe. I just think there are some players who have an edge to them, and in a clean way are just really, really nasty to play against, more a Martin Corry than Calum Clark, and Morgan just isn't one of those. Morgan reminds me more of Castaignede, a player who makes a play because it'll look beautiful and he plays to have fun, which like Morgan is nice. Okay some games Morgan will front up, but it's not the core of what he is.

I don't want to label Morgan a luxury player, he's much better than that even before carriers that good aren't that common. But I'm not sure he can find the abrasive edge often enough because he is just a nice lad.

The days of being "Nasty" being a positive is over in my opinion. Any off the ball incident is picked up and will be reprimanded and any positive tackle involving picking someone up or near the clavicles will be penalised. Its an outdated characteristic in my opinion,

As a professional rugby player, I expect you would fear playing against a great player, as opposed to a player that will give you a bit of afters. You're subconsciously giving the ref preconceived ideas about you as a player when you gain that rep also.

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.

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.

padprop wrote:The days of being "Nasty" being a positive is over in my opinion. Any off the ball incident is picked up and will be reprimanded and any positive tackle involving picking someone up or near the clavicles will be penalised. Its an outdated characteristic in my opinion,

As a professional rugby player, I expect you would fear playing against a great player, as opposed to a player that will give you a bit of afters. You're subconsciously giving the ref preconceived ideas about you as a player when you gain that rep also.

I'm not really going with off the ball nonsense as being something that makes a nasty player in this instance, thus the use of Martin Corry as an example of a nasty player, someone who was simply going to try and ensure legally (or mostly legally) that every positive action you wanted to take was going to hurt or be as inconvenient as possible. And that for someone to be nasty to play against they're relentless in not allowing you to act as you want, always dragging you and yours back into an arm wrestle looking to suffocate your team's ambitions of a win.

Morgan like Corry has the size to be physical in how he approaches the game, but one can be nasty without being all that big, Back was nasty to play against if not downright vile at times. Morgan just seems a bit like an overgrown school lad who's out running around having fun with his mates, and there's nothing wrong about that it's commendable even, I'm just not sold it wins enough games at test level even if perhaps more's the pity.

Digby wrote:

padprop wrote:The days of being "Nasty" being a positive is over in my opinion. Any off the ball incident is picked up and will be reprimanded and any positive tackle involving picking someone up or near the clavicles will be penalised. Its an outdated characteristic in my opinion,

As a professional rugby player, I expect you would fear playing against a great player, as opposed to a player that will give you a bit of afters. You're subconsciously giving the ref preconceived ideas about you as a player when you gain that rep also.

I'm not really going with off the ball nonsense as being something that makes a nasty player in this instance, thus the use of Martin Corry as an example of a nasty player, someone who was simply going to try and ensure legally (or mostly legally) that every positive action you wanted to take was going to hurt or be as inconvenient as possible. And that for someone to be nasty to play against they're relentless in not allowing you to act as you want, always dragging you and yours back into an arm wrestle looking to suffocate your team's ambitions of a win.

Morgan like Corry has the size to be physical in how he approaches the game, but one can be nasty without being all that big, Back was nasty to play against if not downright vile at times. Morgan just seems a bit like an overgrown school lad who's out running around having fun with his mates, and there's nothing wrong about that it's commendable even, I'm just not sold it wins enough games at test level even if perhaps more's the pity.

Do you remember Fergus Slattery? He sounds like your ideal player.

I started watching rugby in 1990, so I know the name but that's all.

He was the classic Irish spoiler - most players hated playing against him, I suspect. Metaphorically, he punched well above his weight. He was ahead of his time in stopping opposing teams playing, IMO.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/rugby-positio ... tery-67190

Here's a description.

Six Nations: Dylan Hartley confirmed as England captain for 2017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38742427

Does "match fit" really apply anymore? I imagine Kruis will play against France and he wont have played since Christmas time.

Jones said they do specific drills to replicate a match so as to ascertain fitness levels, but I'm sure that can only tell you so much.

Digby wrote:

padprop wrote:The days of being "Nasty" being a positive is over in my opinion. Any off the ball incident is picked up and will be reprimanded and any positive tackle involving picking someone up or near the clavicles will be penalised. Its an outdated characteristic in my opinion,

As a professional rugby player, I expect you would fear playing against a great player, as opposed to a player that will give you a bit of afters. You're subconsciously giving the ref preconceived ideas about you as a player when you gain that rep also.

I'm not really going with off the ball nonsense as being something that makes a nasty player in this instance, thus the use of Martin Corry as an example of a nasty player, someone who was simply going to try and ensure legally (or mostly legally) that every positive action you wanted to take was going to hurt or be as inconvenient as possible. And that for someone to be nasty to play against they're relentless in not allowing you to act as you want, always dragging you and yours back into an arm wrestle looking to suffocate your team's ambitions of a win.

Morgan like Corry has the size to be physical in how he approaches the game, but one can be nasty without being all that big, Back was nasty to play against if not downright vile at times. Morgan just seems a bit like an overgrown school lad who's out running around having fun with his mates, and there's nothing wrong about that it's commendable even, I'm just not sold it wins enough games at test level even if perhaps more's the pity.

I kind of agree, but with the exception of his first couple of caps, Morgan has always been very effective at test level regardless of whether he's 'nasty' or not.

I don't doubt that he could potentially be more effective with a bit more aggression and more of a mean streak, but at the same time, I don't think it's held him back before.

When it comes to defining 'nasty', I'm with Peat regarding Lawes. For me the best players of that ilk aren't necessarily dirty players but have that brutal edge that means they will smash anything that moves.

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:

padprop wrote:The days of being "Nasty" being a positive is over in my opinion. Any off the ball incident is picked up and will be reprimanded and any positive tackle involving picking someone up or near the clavicles will be penalised. Its an outdated characteristic in my opinion,

As a professional rugby player, I expect you would fear playing against a great player, as opposed to a player that will give you a bit of afters. You're subconsciously giving the ref preconceived ideas about you as a player when you gain that rep also.

I'm not really going with off the ball nonsense as being something that makes a nasty player in this instance, thus the use of Martin Corry as an example of a nasty player, someone who was simply going to try and ensure legally (or mostly legally) that every positive action you wanted to take was going to hurt or be as inconvenient as possible. And that for someone to be nasty to play against they're relentless in not allowing you to act as you want, always dragging you and yours back into an arm wrestle looking to suffocate your team's ambitions of a win.

Morgan like Corry has the size to be physical in how he approaches the game, but one can be nasty without being all that big, Back was nasty to play against if not downright vile at times. Morgan just seems a bit like an overgrown school lad who's out running around having fun with his mates, and there's nothing wrong about that it's commendable even, I'm just not sold it wins enough games at test level even if perhaps more's the pity.

I kind of agree, but with the exception of his first couple of caps, Morgan has always been very effective at test level regardless of whether he's 'nasty' or not.

I don't doubt that he could potentially be more effective with a bit more aggression and more of a mean streak, but at the same time, I don't think it's held him back before.

When it comes to defining 'nasty', I'm with Peat regarding Lawes. For me the best players of that ilk aren't necessarily dirty players but have that brutal edge that means they will smash anything that moves.

I don't agree Morgan has always been very effective, indeed I'd suggest the pattern was more he'd look ineffective and then Vunipola would come off the bench and look good Vs some tired players and Vunipola would start the next match look largely ineffective and then Morgan would come off the bench and look good Vs some tired players and Morgan would start the next match, and so on and so on.

I don't especially think that was the fault of either Morgan or Vunipola and was more down to Burt having no ability in the team to play at pace and/or wide, and then picking just the one call carrier to start in Billy or Ben. Still, Morgan certainly hasn't always looked effective, even if Burt did handicap him more than a little.

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.

I don't have an irrational love for Morgan - I'm just surprised that he's not getting more attention over the likes of Timmy or Beaumont. I assume some of it is work rate and some of it is versatility, but we need another specialist 8 and it seems wasteful to ignore a player with a proven test record.

Scrumhead wrote:I don't have an irrational love for Morgan - I'm just surprised that he's not getting more attention over the likes of Timmy or Beaumont. I assume some of it is work rate and some of it is versatility, but we need another specialist 8 and it seems wasteful to ignore a player with a proven test record.

I would agree. Perhaps there is a role for Morgan as an explosive no.19 impact player - who can cover for the locks or no.8 (leaving a back row no.20 sub to be reserve flank/another reserve 8). Given we have potentially Launch, Lawes, Hughes and Itoje as four proven lineout jumpers might we then be afforded the flexibility of selecting a more explosive lock option on the bench (even if they weren't a lineout specialist)? To be honest I'd also see Atwood or Slater as potentially offering this carrying impact too (as would Garvey if injury had not intervened.) I'm less enamoured with the prospect of Kruis as an impact sub as I think he (a bit like Wood or Robshaw) is a player you pick to start or not at all given his lack of explosiveness in the carry. I also think Kruis is much more effective picked as a unit with Itoje than with another lock.

I agree with most of that. Not sure Morgan could cover lock, but with Itoje likely to be playing at 6, you could accommodate it by moving him back to the second row and swapping the subbed lock for a 6 and 8 (probably Hughes) for Morgan.

I also feel that with Farrell starting, and the likes of Daly, Slade, JJ, Nowell and Watson kicking around; a 6:2 bench is a very viable option, allowing too for a lock, a flanker and an 8

Which Tyler wrote:I also feel that with Farrell starting, and the likes of Daly, Slade, JJ, Nowell and Watson kicking around; a 6:2 bench is a very viable option, allowing too for a lock, a flanker and an 8

Looking at the current game only, I'd agree - looking at options for future games, I'd prefer to be trying players like Te'o (well, mainly just Te'o)

Balls:

Six Nations: Anthony Watson an injury doubt for England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38777814

Mellsblue wrote:Balls:

Six Nations: Anthony Watson an injury doubt for England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38777814

The article mentions May will now get a chance but cannot understand why Nowell would start over May in the first place.

skidger wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Balls:

Six Nations: Anthony Watson an injury doubt for England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38777814

The article mentions May will now get a chance but cannot understand why Nowell would start over May in the first place.

Because he's in outstanding form

skidger wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Balls:

Six Nations: Anthony Watson an injury doubt for England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38777814

The article mentions May will now get a chance but cannot understand why Nowell would start over May in the first place.

EP beat me to it. The more pertinent question would be why they think Watson was slated to start over May.

Shame not to have him, but May and Nowell are fine starting and Daly now has the 23 shirt wrapped up. There are worse injuries that we could have, but *no more please.* Thanks.

Puja

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

skidger wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Balls:

Six Nations: Anthony Watson an injury doubt for England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38777814

The article mentions May will now get a chance but cannot understand why Nowell would start over May in the first place.

Because he's in outstanding form

I am not sure that club form has really ever mattered with England selection,rightly or wrongly. Certainly not for a good few years now. I do think you should have a bit of credit in the bank at top level and May is a better winger than Nowell imo. If form came into England selection then someone send a memo in regards to Mike Brown.