RC4 - Australia v Argentina

[Braveheart81]

Please, he absolutely will not.

Are you suggesting the Wallabies forwards don't play a pod structure and different positions don't have different roles in attack and defence?

 

[Tomikin]

I would personally prefer Timu at 8, but Samu was pretty impressive there last weekend. On comparison with Hooper, I'd say Samu is a better lineout jumper, a better fetcher but doesn't have Hooper's high work rate, though that is not a criricism of Samu. I would prefer Samu to Hooper at both No 6 and No 8, and therefore in my view is a better bench option than Hooper. My backrow would be Tui, Pocock, Timu, with Samu on the bench.

No chance Hooper is better then Samu
. Hits more rucks runs better steals more balls..samus good but Hooper would of started for the crusaders..

Now is it the best way to use him.. i dunno but the guys an amazing rugby player..world class

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Derpus]

Are you suggesting the Wallabies forwards don't play a pod structure and different positions don't have different roles in attack and defence?

You've clearly been watching too much league BH

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Up the Guts]

Damn now if we beat Argentina we’ll never hear the end of how much better we are without Hooper in the side.

 

[KOB1987]

Damn now if we beat Argentina we’ll never hear the end of how much better we are without Hooper in the side.

No it will be exactly the same as it is for this test every year - Argies will throw everything at it and be in the game till the last 20 when they’ll run out of puff. Post game the usual pundits will be on here claiming the ABs would have beaten us by 80. There will be an added dynamic this time though, regardless of what the back row actually does there will be people saying that if Hooper played we would have lost.

 

[Bobby Sands]

Are you suggesting the Wallabies forwards don't play a pod structure and different positions don't have different roles in attack and defence?

No.. But I am suggesting that Samu will not replicate the way that Hooper plays. A "pod" structure (well done, you must have been to a rugby club training before) is a concept of play. Rugby is chaos, no two players will attack or defend in the same positions.

"Structure" is a loose outline of play, closer to the breakdown it is more orderly and potentially "structured" as the play is stationary but in open play the way that players enter contact is completely driven by their individual nature. If you think a pod structure determines this, well.....

Let's watch how they play this weekend, and you tell me how Samu goes at impersonating Hooper.

 

[Bobby Sands]

You've clearly been watching too much league BH

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You realise that saying the word "pod" which literally means breaking the forward pack up into smaller groups (nothing more) does not determine structure? Or how they will attack or align in attack or defense?

You blokes are genuinely clueless.

 

[Up the Guts]

No it will be exactly the same as it is for this test every year - Argies will throw everything at it and be in the game till the last 20 when they’ll run out of puff. Post game the usual pundits will be on here claiming the ABs would have beaten us by 80. There will be an added dynamic this time though, regardless of what the back row actually does there will be people saying that if Hooper played we would have lost.

I agree with all that, I just reckon we’ll hear at the end how “that performance should end the Pooper experiment.” Beale had an average game at 10 last week, dropped ball off the setpiece, was anonymous when we attacked the South African line (all sins Foley would have been crucified for) and we heard some tripe about how the combination was just better so Foley should be out for good. Betting the same thing happens this week.

 

[Up the Guts]

You realise that saying the world "pod" which literally means breaking the forward pack up into smaller groups (nothing more) does not determine structure? Or how they will attack or align in attack or defense?

You blokes are genuinely clueless.

If it doesn’t determine how they align in attack or defence why do they break up into pods? Is it so they’re standing with their mates to exchange yarns?

 

[Derpus]

If it doesn’t determine how they align in attack or defence why do they break up into pods? Is it so they’re standing with their mates to exchange yarns?

I used to love sitting with my mates in School. Probably a mental strategy of Cheikas to keep control of the dressing room.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Derpus]

No.. But I am suggesting that Samu will not replicate the way that Hooper plays. A "pod" structure (well done, you must have been to a rugby club training before) is a concept of play. Rugby is chaos, no two players will attack or defend in the same positions.

"Structure" is a loose outline of play, closer to the breakdown it is more orderly and potentially "structured" as the play is stationary but in open play the way that players enter contact is completely driven by their individual nature. If you think a pod structure determines this, well...

Let's watch how they play this weekend, and you tell me how Samu goes at impersonating Hooper.

So you are saying that Samu wont play the way Hooper does in unstructured play, supporting your argument that Samu absolutely wont play where Hooper does in structured play.

Logical consistency optional up north?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Froggy]

I get it, Bobby Sands, everyone either agrees with you or they're clueless.
Well formed argument there mate, you must have been a debater!!
Michael Hooper's players player awards all come from a group of people who know nothing about rugby.

 

[Bobby Sands]

So you are saying that Samu wont play the way Hooper does in unstructured play, supporting your argument that Samu absolutely wont play where Hooper does in structured play.

Logical consistency optional up north?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Derpus,

Wow, you are thick.

Samu will follow the structure of our backrow spread just as Hooper would sure (its a team protocol).

But to suggest that Samu will hang in wide channels, in both attack and defense as Hooper does because that's "what Cheik wants" is just laughable.

They are different players, with different natural tendencies.

Samu will play much, much tighter than Hooper. Which loose forward in world rugby doesn't?

 

[Bobby Sands]

I get it, Bobby Sands, everyone either agrees with you or they're clueless.
Well formed argument there mate, you must have been a debater!!
Michael Hooper's players player awards all come from a group of people who know nothing about rugby.

Mate whinge all you like, but my observations at odds with most of you have been basically 100% correct with the changes Cheika had made in the last month.

Including Samu to 8 (from outside the squad), DHP to stay at fullback (Folau to wing), To'omua to replace Foley, and now through injury luck Pocock to 7.

I am more than happy to suggest that anyone saying "Foley is the best 10 we have", or "Hooper and Dave works in the backrow", or "Samu and Hooper are the same players" has ridiculous arguments that don't show much rugby intellect or intuition for the game.

Let's watch and see who is right this weekend, but I feel pretty confident that the backrow will function better as a unit and that Samu will not play in wide channels as a directive from Cheika as Hooper does.

Pro tip: Hooper playing wide is not a coaching directive, it is just his nature as a player. It is not part of our structure, or pod dispersion or any other team protocol.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Pro tip: Hooper playing wide is not a coaching directive, it is just his nature as a player. It is not part of our structure, or pod dispersion or any other team protocol.

It'll definitely be interesting to watch, when Hooper was the 7 at Brumbies he played a lot tighter and was very good on-ball, I was lamenting when he left as Pocock got injured that game. When he moved to the Tahs under Cheika was when he started playing wider so I guess it is either he is free to play how he wants under Cheika and not under White or the coaching directive was different.

 

[Strewthcobber]

If anyone wants to do their own assessment, have a read of this to see the basic structures that Cheika/Larkham use (anyone think Fardy's natural game is out on a wing?)
http://www.the42.ie/analysis-australia-1-3-3-1-shape-england-2016-2825557-Jun2016/

Tui and Hooper have been the wide players over the last few tests (Tui kept getting caught out wide against NZ on turnovers, but setup the first try last week with his run down the wing in the first couple of minutes)

 

[Bobby Sands]

It'll definitely be interesting to watch, when Hooper was the 7 at Brumbies he played a lot tighter and was very good on-ball, I was lamenting when he left as Pocock got injured that game. When he moved to the Tahs under Cheika was when he started playing wider so I guess it is either he is free to play how he wants under Cheika and not under White or the coaching directive was different.

Agree, and to be more specific when I say it is not part of our structure that Hooper plays wide.

Hooper playing in wider channels might be something that Cheika is okay with but it is certainly not part of the backrow structure as a mandatory element. For example; Cheika will not be saying "okay we have lost our wide backline loose forward, we need to now replicate that playing style with the next man up" (in this case Samu).

Teams do not have set roles for positions that are this rigid, the playing style of the individual players make up most of the IP to work with and then the coach picks the best combinations from those skillsets. Hence the idiom, play to the game style that your cattle dictates.

Note: I agree with you almost entirely, I was just going into more detail by what I meant by "coaching directive." I don't disagree that Cheika is okay with Hooper being wider, but I certainly don't think it is part of his plan for backrow play.

 

[Bobby Sands]

If anyone wants to do their own assessment, have a read of this to see the basic structures that Cheika/Larkham use (anyone think Fardy's natural game is out on a wing?)
http://www.the42.ie/analysis-australia-1-3-3-1-shape-england-2016-2825557-Jun2016/

Tui and Hooper have been the wide players over the last few tests (Tui kept getting caught out wide against NZ on turnovers, but setup the first try last week with his run down the wing in the first couple of minutes)

This analysis is from two years ago, and is a breakdown of how we are playing with Hooper at 7.

This is not a rote dictum of how we set up as a team (it is a structure based on the cattle). For example that analysis would suggest that our 7 always plays in the tram tracks.

If Pocock plays in the tram tracks this weekend, I will be astounded.

 

[Derpus]

Derpus,

Wow, you are thick.

Samu will follow the structure of our backrow spread just as Hooper would sure (its a team protocol).

But to suggest that Samu will hang in wide channels, in both attack and defense as Hooper does because that's "what Cheik wants" is just laughable.

They are different players, with different natural tendencies.

Samu will play much, much tighter than Hooper. Which loose forward in world rugby doesn't?

Keiran Reid

 

[Strewthcobber]

This analysis is from two years ago, and is a breakdown of how we are playing with Hooper at 7.

This is not a rote dictum of how we set up as a team (it is a structure based on the cattle). For example that analysis would suggest that our 7 always plays in the tram tracks.

If Pocock plays in the tram tracks this weekend, I will be astounded.

Of course - as we have been saying. It will be Tui and Samu