Hooper vs Gill
- Thread starter Blue
- Start date
- Status
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I think you'll find it was 3.7m. And the 4th number is last week's lotto was 37. Therefore Gill wins because his birthday in 3+7 days. (or there abouts).
Can't see why anyone would pick Hooper tbh, just a bunch of logic/math illiterates.
W
What2040
Guest
Hooper just over Gilly - Gill does some very good things but also gets penalised too much (rightly or wrongly) which negates the good work done. At the end of the day it comes down to the net effect ie 4 turnovers, 4 penalties = 0
C
cjf
Guest
both grand players.
with age they will only get better.
seen more of hooper than i have of gill. I think with maybe as little as 2 years (injuries permit) he will find himself over pocock in the wallabies 7 jersey as i think he has more to offer in his attacking game (tackle busts, offloads ect..)
Pocock is a magnificent player, easily one of the best loose forwards running around in world rugby at the moment.
I just think he lacks an attacking game. I cant recall to many big runs he has made, unlike mcaw, reid and thompson for NZ Spies and kenkowski from SA.
Gill not far behiend. expect big things from in the JWC. although i dont think australia as a team will compete. some big question marks in that team. although all the best to him.
with age they will only get better.
seen more of hooper than i have of gill. I think with maybe as little as 2 years (injuries permit) he will find himself over pocock in the wallabies 7 jersey as i think he has more to offer in his attacking game (tackle busts, offloads ect..)
Pocock is a magnificent player, easily one of the best loose forwards running around in world rugby at the moment.
I just think he lacks an attacking game. I cant recall to many big runs he has made, unlike mcaw, reid and thompson for NZ Spies and kenkowski from SA.
Gill not far behiend. expect big things from in the JWC. although i dont think australia as a team will compete. some big question marks in that team. although all the best to him.
Craig Riddington
Sydney Middleton (9)
Of course Gill will get 'pinged' more...he competes at more rucks than Hooper does (though on Saturday they were even with two each). That's not a criticism of Hooper by the way, it's just a difference in how the Brumbies and Reds play. Additionally, it's not just the number of pilfers that Gill gets which is amazing it's also how often he slows the ball and commits additional opposition forwards to the ruck. I also think, if you are going to take the stats from Saturday, it's interesting to note that Gill made double the number of tackles that Hooper made and that's despite the fact that he was working in tandem with Robinson.
Yeap...Hooper's a Seagul
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Of course Gill will get 'pinged' more...he competes at more rucks than Hooper does (though on Saturday they were even with two each). That's not a criticism of Hooper by the way, it's just a difference in how the Brumbies and Reds play. Additionally, it's not just the number of pilfers that Gill gets which is amazing it's also how often he slows the ball and commits additional opposition forwards to the ruck. I also think, if you are going to take the stats from Saturday, it's interesting to note that Gill made double the number of tackles that Hooper made and that's despite the fact that he was working in tandem with Robinson.
Yeap...Hooper's a Seagul
As mentioned above... the Reds in general made loads more tackles than the Brumbies...
Gill had the highest number of tackles for the Brumbies, along with Carter + Kimlin...
Craig Riddington
Sydney Middleton (9)
Ok but I would say that Gill still made 22 tackles, he completed a higher percentage of his teams total and the number of tackles made by the Reds are slanted by the greater number of runs made by the Brumbies forwards. In other words, the Brumbies kept it tight and pick and drove more...possibly/partly because they wanted to negate the Gill/Robinson combination. Really, it wasn't a good game to judge open side flankers by and you can look at the numbers and argue the point any which way. My feel, over the course of the season, is that Gill is the busier of the two, both in tackles made and work around the ruck, and that's pretty much the bread and butter for a 7.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Reds had way more in the first half, but made a lot more metres with each possession (then lost the ball through a penalty on most occasions). Brumbies had more possession in the second half, particularly at the start, but keep it so tight they barely went anywhere with most runs.
W
What2040
Guest
Of course Gill will get 'pinged' more...he competes at more rucks than Hooper does (though on Saturday they were even with two each). That's not a criticism of Hooper by the way, it's just a difference in how the Brumbies and Reds play. Additionally, it's not just the number of pilfers that Gill gets which is amazing it's also how often he slows the ball and commits additional opposition forwards to the ruck. I also think, if you are going to take the stats from Saturday, it's interesting to note that Gill made double the number of tackles that Hooper made and that's despite the fact that he was working in tandem with Robinson.
Yeap...Hooper's a Seagul
... yet still didn't top the tackle count for the Reds
Craig Riddington
Sydney Middleton (9)
Gill 22, Fainga'a 18, Higgs 17 ?
FrankLind
Colin Windon (37)
You could be right, which is why a lot of kiwis still say Macaw is better than Pocock.
T
TOCC
Guest
He was far from mediocre, he came into a forward pack going backwards... He made some good covering tackles and disrupted the AB ball
Richo
John Thornett (49)
Yeah, don't get the criticism of Gill. He played with a lot of guts and passion. Not much more you can ask of anyone in those circumstances.
Tordah
Dave Cowper (27)
if you're satisfied with that performance,good on you. It wasn't bad for a test rookie, it was just that Hooper was so much better. And he didn't get bumped off a winger. Also, Gill should have been penalised for blatantly playing the ball on the ground with Owens standing right beside, but he inexplicably only blew a knock-on.
To be clear, medicore does not mean bad. It means mediocre. That's why it's called "mediocre". Mediocre.
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Not only kiwis that think so.
Don't get the Gill criticism. Wasn't the worst forward out there.
T
TOCC
Guest
if you're satisfied with that performance,good on you. It wasn't bad for a test rookie, it was just that Hooper was so much better. And he didn't get bumped off a winger. Also, Gill should have been penalised for blatantly playing the ball on the ground with Owens standing right beside, but he inexplicably only blew a knock-on.
To be clear, medicore does not mean bad. It means mediocre. That's why it's called "mediocre". Mediocre.
You are quoted as saying his performance was "awful" in another thread....
Gill didn't have a great debut not did he have a bad one.. I saw him make some good tackles and good involvement at the ruck.. .
At the end of the day, RD shouldn't have subbed a blindside for a fetcher when we needed more physicality in the forwards..
- Status