Joined: Sep 01 2006 Posts: 5139 Location: Wall Street
Mrs Barista wrote:Whilst Morgan's annual February "we want to win everything" interview is good fun, it's the whacky denial 3 months later that any such aims were ever stated that's the real entertainment value.
On topic - Murrell - isn't a hooker, I'd say. Hodgson and Fisher are hookers. Might sound a bit radical, but what about playing Hodgson and Fisher at hooker and having Newton, Galea and Murrell as the back 3?
I disagree Mrs B.
Murrell is a better 9 than a 13, or a 6 for that matter. Some chose to use his conversion to hooker as an excuse for Rovers poor form when the answers clearly lie elsewhere. Murrell has all the right attributes to be a decent 9 but imho he is not and never will be a 13.
Motto of the week -
It is the way of the weak to secretly bleat to those in authority rather than fight their own battles.
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Gordon Gekko wrote:I disagree Mrs B. Murrell is a better 9 than a 13, or a 6 for that matter.
Fair enough GG. I'll take your word for it as I've not seen loads of him at 9.
Gordon Gekko wrote: Some chose to use his conversion to hooker as an excuse for Rovers poor form when the answers clearly lie elsewhere. Murrell has all the right attributes to be a decent 9 but imho he is not and never will be a 13.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
Gordon Gekko wrote: Murrell has all the right attributes to be a decent 9 but imho he is not and never will be a 13.
To my entirely untrained eye, he doesn't look comfortable there. Hodgson and Fisher look very natural and lively out of dummy half. Fair enough, attack is only half the game and Murrell probably offers more in defence and allows us to play a bigger pack, but the cons have so far outweighed the pros, IMO. I agree though that it isn't the reason for Rovers' extreme inconsistency.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Mar 05 2007 Posts: 13190 Location: Hedon (sometimes), sometimes Premier Inn's
Gordon Gekko wrote:I disagree Mrs B.
Murrell is a better 9 than a 13, or a 6 for that matter. Some chose to use his conversion to hooker as an excuse for Rovers poor form when the answers clearly lie elsewhere. Murrell has all the right attributes to be a decent 9 but imho he is not and never will be a 13.
He is too slow at 9, his distribution is not good enough. Hodgson is far better at 9 than Murrell.
'when my life is over, the thing which will have given me greatest pride is that I was first to plunge into the sea, swimming freely underwater without any connection to the terrestrial world'
rover49 wrote:He is too slow at 9, his distribution is not good enough. Hodgson is far better at 9 than Murrell.
Agreed, both Fisher and Hodgson are far better and more natural at hooker. Murrell's best position is definitely loose forward, although think he will be deputise at stand off for the remaining games this year until another number six is bought in for next season.
Standing up to the forum bully.
It must be working, he doesn't like me...i'm devastated
Joined: Sep 01 2006 Posts: 5139 Location: Wall Street
rover49 wrote:He is too slow at 9, his distribution is not good enough. Hodgson is far better at 9 than Murrell.
His distribution is fine and he is far better out of dummy half than Fisher. Hodgson however, is one for the future and has International written all over him imho Rovers main problem is slow play the balls something the coaching staff have failed to improve.
Motto of the week -
It is the way of the weak to secretly bleat to those in authority rather than fight their own battles.
Joined: Sep 01 2006 Posts: 5139 Location: Wall Street
Bertie wrote:Agreed, both Fisher and Hodgson are far better and more natural at hooker. Murrell's best position is definitely loose forward, although think he will be deputise at stand off for the remaining games this year until another number six is bought in for next season.
Murrell is a far more natural hooker than both Fisher and indeed Hodgson who i rate highly. Murrell is definately not a 13 and offers pretty much nothing with ball in hand in that position and his defence gets exposed badly on the edges. Also the fact he is likely to play 6 for the rest of the season shows what a ridiculous decision it was to let Cooke go, a decision that has basically killed Rovers season.
Motto of the week -
It is the way of the weak to secretly bleat to those in authority rather than fight their own battles.
Joined: Sep 01 2006 Posts: 5139 Location: Wall Street
Mrs Barista wrote: What are they, in your opinion?
Rovers have a far too structured approach and pretty much all their plays are predicable even in good ball. They don't posess anyone who can play whats in front if them and channelling everything through Dobson make them very one dimensional. The most obvious problem was letting Cooke go who was easily Rovers most creative player but was never allowed to play his natural game. On top of this Rovers PTB's are the poorest and slowest i've seen and the lack of urgency here is appalling. All the front rowers possibly with the exception of Clinton get dominated with great regularity and fail to provide the team with any real go forward, also defensively they come up with way too many tackle losses, which are not to be confused with tackle misses which are already ridiculously high.
Motto of the week -
It is the way of the weak to secretly bleat to those in authority rather than fight their own battles.
Gordon Gekko wrote:Rovers have a far too structured approach and pretty much all their plays are predicable even in good ball. They don't posess anyone who can play whats in front if them and channelling everything through Dobson make them very one dimensional. The most obvious problem was letting Cooke go who was easily Rovers most creative player but was never allowed to play his natural game. On top of this Rovers PTB's are the poorest and slowest i've seen and the lack of urgency here is appalling. All the front rowers possibly with the exception of Clinton get dominated with great regularity and fail to provide the team with any real go forward, also defensively they come up with way too many tackle losses, which are not to be confused with tackle misses which are already ridiculously high.
Pretty much spot on, against the better sides we aren't quick enough around the ruck. We looked good against Crusaders purely because their pack was weak. I think if you add to that list that we always send in a minimum of 3 men into every tackle wheras the better teams rarely use more than 2 it just opens us up far too easily. Strange that a year ago our defence looked so solid and now it looks paper thin.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 123 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
