He probably will play Hooper at 7 & Pocock at 8 essentially because there are no better players available to cover those two positions.
All that means is that the 4,5 & 6 will need to again be picked to compliment our 7 & 8
Bledisloe 2 - Wallabies vs All Blacks, Wellington, 27 August 2016
- Thread starter Brumby Runner
- Start date
- Status
He probably will play Hooper at 7 & Pocock at 8 essentially because there are no better players available to cover those two positions.
All that means is that the 4,5 & 6 will need to again be picked to compliment our 7 & 8
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Definitely agree that Chek will do that. (with Douglas, Coleman and Fardy)
He loves the bloke.
I wonder what he would actually do if we had a good 8 available (like a Palu in his prime) ie pick Hooper or Pocock at 7. I still reckon he would chose Hoops, irrespective that Pocock is the best 7 certainly in Australia.
Anyway that dilemma or discussion of same will be invalid in 2017 when Poey pisses off
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
tragic
John Solomon (38)
I'd rather pick our best 4,5,6 & 7 and then pick the best 8 to compliment them.
But I guess that's just too traditional.
The numbers don't matter, it depends who has the best solid hands at the back of the scrum, at times on Saturday it was Pocock, at other times it was McCalman.
It is how the backrow work as a unit.
If you did that (and I assume you think Pocock is the better 7) I would suggest that Hooper is still a better 8 than the other options.
So the question is mute
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
tragic
John Solomon (38)
Hooper is not our best 8. In fact he is not an 8 at all.
He's a great 7 who unfortunately has the worlds best 7 ahead of him.
It's tough but it's reality, just as it was for Phil Waugh.
So rather than being mute, in my opinion it is actually the most important decision Cheiks has to make.
Does our lineout really improve that much with a taller player?
The lineouts we lost were pretty much all because the All Blacks picked where it was going and got up easily in front of our jumper because our movements were slow and predictable and the throws too low.
Read beat Hooper to that first lineout because he was two feet in front of Hooper and the throw wasn't close to going over him, not because Hooper is short.
Set piece is important but I don't think we really lost lineouts because of a lack of jumping options. It wasn't like we kept losing the lineout because the All Blacks knew everything was only being thrown to one or two players.
So do we stick with McCalman and accept that despite being largely ineffective at test level against quality opposition, at least 8 is his normal position?
In a forward pack that is getting out-enthused massively by the All Blacks is dropping one of our two best forwards really a good plan?
For what was supposedly a poor test by Hooper, he topped the tackle count and run metres amongst the forwards, didn't miss a tackle despite the pack missing about 20 and had our third highest ruck involvements from ForceFan's stats.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I'm sure I saw someone screeching "4 JUMPERS IS BETTER THAN 3!!!" somewhere around here....
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Fatprop
I think you are absolutely correct. Both will be chosen this week.
So the point is moot or rooted whichever you prefer
When you look at the other options, Hooper simply is a better backrower, he makes more metres, hits more rucks and more tackles than any of the options. Stick whatever number you want on his back but you lose his phenomenal workrate
Now if you want a lesser player to sure up our lineout, I can understand, but be very aware about what you lose in that decision playing someone who will make less metres, hit fewer rucks and make less tackles.
tragic
John Solomon (38)
The more targets, the less predictable the lineout, and the harder it is to defend.
That's an undisputable fact.
The problem is our set piece forwards are not necessarily our best in general play.
But the balance has swung too far away from the set piece, which is the source of many tries at an international level.
It needs to swing back if we want to be competitive
That's an undisputable fact.
The problem is our set piece forwards are not necessarily our best in general play.
But the balance has swung too far away from the set piece, which is the source of many tries at an international level.
It needs to swing back if we want to be competitive
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Never said anything about height. Experience certainly counts though and Hooper has minimal at jumping in line-outs.
Like you said, he's slow off the mark and easy to read by the opposition.
Maybe Moore knows this and throws lower?
I think even McMahon would be a decent option in the line-out given he takes quite a few in super xv. Not the tallest guy either but effective.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
McMahon is right on Hoopers heels. Not proven yet (IMO), but he's getting there. Also a better option in the line-out.
Timani is an unknown, possibly a harder hitter and even more effective around the park. It's a risk to start him but theirs only one way to find out right?
Plus he does have height, so could be a good Test level line-out option if skilled up in that area.
Not that I don't think Hooper is a great player, i'd have him 3rd best behind Poey & Folau - but unfortunately i don't agree with the balance of the back-row right now. Hooper the unlucky player to miss out.
It's simply another Waugh V Smith scenario. Both great - can't have both.
If we plan to run full lineouts all night, I expect 5 mans a lot meaning less need for the more targets, for every option there is a counter.
Tis why I love rugby
I just picked that lineout because it was the first one. We lost a couple more in similar fashion.
I didn't say Hooper was slow off the mark. I said our lineout moves in general were slow. It was like watching a team going through the steps in slow motion when practicing them for the first time.
It didn't matter who the jumper was, it was easy to see who was moving around and was going to get it and where it was likely to be thrown. Unless the throw then hits the jumper at the top of their mark (and therefore clears any jumpers in front of them), it is easy to pick off as happened to us several times.
It came down to execution in my opinion, not the number of jumping options.
I think a reasonable amount of the blame rests with Moore and Simmons. The lineout improved when both of them were off the field.
And hands like feet
- Status