Jethro Tah
Bob Loudon (25)
A few postings on the EOYT thread about Cliffy Palu got me thinking about the concept of ‘mongrel’.
Players are often said to have or to lack mongrel. So what exactly is mongrel? The ole dick n’ arry (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mongrel) refers to mongrel as “toughness and physical aggression” in an aussie or enzed sporting context. Many would suggest that having a bit of mongrel should be a player prerequisite in the rugby sphere, especially in the forwards. However, I would prefer to see more toughness and less aggression.
From the dictionary again, aggression refers to a hostile suppression or an offensive action. To me, that suggests flouting the laws of the game and just gives away penalties. Toughness is a better way to describe what is necessary to compete at the highest level. A player can dominate his opposite number through being tough without being aggressive. In my opinion, prime examples in the current Wallabies who can do so include Pocock, TPN and Genia but I don’t recall it being said that these guys have mongrel.
Aggression will always be a part of a physical game like rugby. It can be used early in a game via a dominating tackle that borders on illegal to put the opposition off their game. If a young up and coming player shows a degree of mongrel then I am not saying it should be quashed as long as another player with greater toughness is there for guidance.
On a slight digression, many a thread has been filled with discussions of McGaw pushing the boundaries of the law but this is not necessarily in a physically aggressive manner. He is the undisputed master of this and full credit to him but I wonder is it because he senses that he is losing a bit of physical toughness at the breakdown versus a younger player like Pocock, Brussouw or Croft and he seeks to gain advantage in another manner. I am not meaning to fish for an argument on this so don’t bother, I am just putting my idea into context.
A player that resorts to aggression will only do so in frustration when his skill and toughness fail, and often when his team is down on the scoreboard. Some players and fans love a bit of biff but I applaud a player that fronts up to a cheeky hit but then goes no further. To me this represents mental toughness. A player with the ability to redirect his aggression towards executing the game plan and mastering his skills is better than one with pure mongrel.
Thoughts?
Players are often said to have or to lack mongrel. So what exactly is mongrel? The ole dick n’ arry (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mongrel) refers to mongrel as “toughness and physical aggression” in an aussie or enzed sporting context. Many would suggest that having a bit of mongrel should be a player prerequisite in the rugby sphere, especially in the forwards. However, I would prefer to see more toughness and less aggression.
From the dictionary again, aggression refers to a hostile suppression or an offensive action. To me, that suggests flouting the laws of the game and just gives away penalties. Toughness is a better way to describe what is necessary to compete at the highest level. A player can dominate his opposite number through being tough without being aggressive. In my opinion, prime examples in the current Wallabies who can do so include Pocock, TPN and Genia but I don’t recall it being said that these guys have mongrel.
Aggression will always be a part of a physical game like rugby. It can be used early in a game via a dominating tackle that borders on illegal to put the opposition off their game. If a young up and coming player shows a degree of mongrel then I am not saying it should be quashed as long as another player with greater toughness is there for guidance.
On a slight digression, many a thread has been filled with discussions of McGaw pushing the boundaries of the law but this is not necessarily in a physically aggressive manner. He is the undisputed master of this and full credit to him but I wonder is it because he senses that he is losing a bit of physical toughness at the breakdown versus a younger player like Pocock, Brussouw or Croft and he seeks to gain advantage in another manner. I am not meaning to fish for an argument on this so don’t bother, I am just putting my idea into context.
A player that resorts to aggression will only do so in frustration when his skill and toughness fail, and often when his team is down on the scoreboard. Some players and fans love a bit of biff but I applaud a player that fronts up to a cheeky hit but then goes no further. To me this represents mental toughness. A player with the ability to redirect his aggression towards executing the game plan and mastering his skills is better than one with pure mongrel.
Thoughts?
