England Post-WC discussion

[goodNumber10]

Vunipola was also away with England, as was Parisse with Italy, Heaslip with Ireland, Picamoles with France...

Well i thought we were comparing him to Hughes, not parisse and heaslip...

though to be fair, Vunipola was only away for two game and was then dropped for Ben Morgan and James Haskell

 

[msf]

Well, work rate is the one thing stats are good at quantifying, and Vunipola is up there and Morgan isn´t (unless Morgan wins on rucks attended, but who needs that when we have Robshaw and Wood around?). Vunipola´s work rate in the six nations was outstanding, far better than Morgan´s.

Since I have already upset everyone, I might as well say I hope Easter is in the squad over Morgan.

- - - Updated - - -

I was comparing him to Europe´s best.

 

[goodNumber10]

Vunipola´s work rate in the six nations was outstanding, far better than Morgan´s.

not sure how you can make that assumption considering he was sat at home with his leg in plaster.

what are you comparing Vunipolas work rate in the 6nations against for Morgan?

I was comparing him to Europe´s best.

yeah see, it's kind of hard to tell because you mention hughes and vunipola and don't mention the rest of europe until we get to the guys on international duty bit.

Also not sure you're making anyone angry/offended anyone it's just with all your flip flopping it is hard to understand what you're basing you're view point on.

 

[msf]

Morgan´s in any game I´ve seen him play.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I did use the words world- and European- class only about a thousand times each, so it´s not surprising you missed that...

Could keep arguing, but I don´t see the point in arguing with someone who thinks that Marler is one of England´s best ball carriers (if you check the stats, he never makes more than 5 metres in a game, usually much less than that), and who thinks that Farrell plays flatter than Ford.

 

[goodNumber10]

Well, I did mention the words world- and European- class only about a thousand times each, so it´s not surprising you missed that...

you didn't compare him to european players, you compared him to billy and hughes, here let me remind you:

Well, I was comparing Morgan´s work rate with Vunipola´s, but Hughes´ isn´t far off Vunipolas: http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries...omparing-no-8s-premiership-pro12-top-14-42616

Could keep arguing, but I don´t see the point

Then don't, why not instead be pleasant, non-patronising and discuss these things instead instead of being a bit of a dick every time someone questions something you say?

 

[msf]

Haha, typical passive-aggressive response, that´s why I can´t be bothered with you.

 

[goodNumber10]

Haha, typical passive aggressive answer, that´s why I can´t be bothered with you.

yet, there you are reading my blog, and replying to my posts.

#winning

 

[msf]

I read it because I needed a laugh. Oh, and you have a silly, unmanly voice.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Please stop bickering like an old married couple

 

[Maverick1987]

Vunipola was fantastic in the 6N . He was poor last weekend but it quicker and easier to say who wasn't poor last week that the other way . Morgan will be back when he's match fit again. It's for the coaches to decide if they think that will happen before or after the World Cup . I don't like the way we ended up getting Hughes but he looks serious quality to be fair . Gonna have a Pacific island proportion battle on our hands for the 8 shirt for a decade probably

 

[j'nuh]

Well, work rate is the one thing stats are good at quantifying, and Vunipola is up there and Morgan isn´t (unless Morgan wins on rucks attended, but who needs that when we have Robshaw and Wood around?). Vunipola´s work rate in the six nations was outstanding, far better than Morgan´s.

The stats don't tell you:

• Rucks cleared out
• Opposition rucks slowed
• Number of dummy runs made
• Quality of dummy runs made
• Quality of carries
• Quality of the meters made
• Number of carries past the gain line
• Distance traversed off the ball (e.g. is one player inclined to stay central to the contact zone)
• Quality of tackle made
• Number of choke tackles made
• Quality of maul participation
• Quality of passes
• Number of "good" missed tackles
• Number of tackles made before and after the opponent reaches the gain line
• Oftenness of defending the fringes of the ruck
• Speed of fatigue
• Unforced errors made
• Quality of positional awareness
• Awareness of filling in defensive gaps
• Quality of communication in regards to directing others
• Timeliness in defensive structure (e.g. who is better at keeping in line in a blitz defence)
• Number of kicks chased
• Number of aerial kicks contested/won
• Meters won with boot (not important for an 8 unless you're Easter)

 

[goodNumber10]

The stats don't tell you:

• Rucks cleared out
• Opposition rucks slowed
• Number of dummy runs made
• Quality of dummy runs made
• Quality of carries
• Quality of the meters made
• Number of carries past the gain line
• Distance traversed off the ball (e.g. is one player inclined to stay central to the contact zone)
• Quality of tackle made
• Number of choke tackles made
• Quality of maul participation
• Quality of passes
• Number of "good" missed tackles
• Number of tackles made before and after the opponent reaches the gain line
• Oftenness of defending the fringes of the ruck
• Speed of fatigue
• Unforced errors made
• Quality of positional awareness
• Awareness of filling in defensive gaps
• Quality of communication in regards to directing others
• Timeliness in defensive structure (e.g. who is better at keeping in line in a blitz defence)
• Number of kicks chased
• Number of aerial kicks contested/won
• Meters won with boot (not important for an 8 unless you're Easter)

Those RW stats are pretty much pointless, they bear no real indication of work rate, they show a micro-shot of what any given number 8 may do within his teams structure/game plan and the respective strengths of their team in allowing him to do so.

For example Gloucesters first game of the season was a 56-3 pumping, whereas Wasps was a 34-28 loss and quins was a 20-15 win.

Yet Morgan recorded, 40m, 9 carries, 7 passes, 3 offloads.
Hughes recorded: 69m, 20 carries, 7 passes, 4 offloads.

Who's stats are more impressive the guy under the pump, or the guy in a team fighting it's corner?

The correct answer is neither as they are completely different games.


In the week following Gloucester beat Sale 34-27 and Morgan posted stats of 31m, 10 carries, 2 passes, 2 offloads. Hughes in Wasps 20-16 win against Saints posted almost identical stats: 31, 10, 3 and 1.

Giving a far better indication of their comparative ability?

Perhaps, but again, different games so ultimately futile.

Player stats such as carry pass etc... presented in isolation, in the context of work rate, indicate little more than how consistent someone is.

 

[msf]

I agree the stats show an incomplete picture, but my point was that if Morgan was playing well, he should show up in some of them, unless he does all the unseen work, which isn´t what I want from a no.8 anyway. All the other no.8s people think are good no.8s showed up in the stats, apart from Faletau (perhaps he didn´t start enough games?), so it seems a bit odd that they agree with what people think in all the other cases, but not in Morgan´s - there could be a good reason for it, like Morgan had a difficult season in a struggling team (although Hogg made the tackle stats with Newcastle) or it could just be that he isn´t as good as people think he is.

My comments on Morgan´s work rate are only partly based on the stats, they are mainly from watching him play - next time he does, count how many times he carries the ball in open play, which I would say is the main job of a no.8.

 

[goodNumber10]

I agree the stats show an incomplete picture, but my point was that if Morgan was playing well, he should show up in some of them, unless he does all the unseen work, which isn´t what I want from a no.8 anyway. All the other no.8s people think are good no.8s showed up in the stats, apart from Faletau (perhaps he didn´t start enough games?), so it seems a bit odd that they agree with what people think in all the other cases, but not in Morgan´s - there could be a good reason for it, like Morgan had a difficult season in a struggling team (although Hogg made the tackle stats with Newcastle) or it could just be that he isn´t as good as people think he is.

or it could just be that it's worthless stat that don't mean anything in the context they are presented, and that there is a whole world of factors we don't have any knowledge of impacting on why he isn't presented in a poorly written and confusing article.

I mean lets face facts, Lancaster and co will have stats coming out of their backside. Stats we can't get - attacking and defensive impact assessments, distance covered on and off ball, Fatigue levels and so on... i'm pretty sure if his work rate was as poor as you say they'd know and it would impact on his selection.

My comments on Morgan´s work rate are only partly based on the stats, they are mainly from watching him play - next time he does, count how many times he carries the ball in open play, which I would say is the main job of a no.8.

Yet the post game stats (oh the irony) from games don't back up your view point - they consistently show (bar a couple of spikes) him having a similar carry count etc... to the guy (Hughes) you're saying has a higher work rate.

Indicating, by using the basis of your point, that they actually have similar workrates.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

The fact is we don't need Hughes simples.

Got plenty of options coming up at 8 anyway.

 

[goodNumber10]

The fact is we don't need Hughes simples.

Got plenty of options coming up at 8 anyway.

true dat!

 

[msf]

Nice sample of two there, good no. 10, much better than the articles sample of half the season!

I predict, like Maverick, that if Hughes qualifies for England he and Vunipola will fight it out for the no.8 jersey for the next couple of World Cup cycles, and Morgan will be dropped from the squad.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Well I shouldn't need to set examples they been talked about enough on the forum.

You have for starters:
Vunipola
Morgan
Beaumont
Pearce
Clifford

All are either proven internationals or have shown huge potential.

 

[goodNumber10]

Nice sample of two there, good no. 10, much better than the articles sample of half the season!

No, it's consistent, I've presented two games as a context of how stats are misleading.

But I clearly am talking about more than one or two games game (hence the bar a couple of spikes). The trend continues over the first quarter of the season until Morgan goes to England camp. Feel free to go and check.

Hughes stats are inflated as he records one mammoth run stat of 87 against Sale (IIRC that was a pretty open game and he ran a try in from 20 metres or so) and another of 77 against Bath (again ran in from quite far out), and one of 91 against London Welsh (they pumped them 71-7, wheras Gloucester only hit 40 points).

They are clearly anomalies against weak teams.

Otherwise there is no massive inconsistency, they are both posting reasonably similar stats, sometimes someone is lower, sometimes they are higher, but there aren't really massive differences in their numbers as far as i interpret them.

But that's really the point it's how you interpret them.

I predict, like Maverick, that if Hughes qualifies for England he and Vunipola will fight it out for the no.8 jersey for the next couple of World Cup cycles, and Morgan will be dropped from the squad.

perhaps.

 

[msf]

So why is Morgan nowhere in the stats in Feb? He should be close shouldnt he, even with fact that he can actually score from distance, unlike Morgan.

- - - Updated - - -

Why isn´t he there in the tackle stats if Gloucester were having such a hard time, like Hogg at Newcastle?

- - - Updated - - -

And I predict that Morgan won´t be in the squad today, unless Lancaster does something really daft like put Easter in as an extra second row.