Should Pocock have to earn back his starting spot?

[Shiggins]

McCaw did have an average 2011. I actually commented that he appeared to be fading, he was not more of a workhorse trucking the ball up quite regularly than showing a lot of class. Than he recoved from injury this year and once again showed the gap between the two players. I fucking hate the bloke with a passion and would love to see him fade away, but it doesn't appear to be happening.

What I'm saying is that George and Phil were different players, each preferred at different times in their career. Pocock plays a similar game to Phil Waugh, however a much more modern version of it. He certainly does not have the skills or running game to be compared to Smith as a player of similar style. Until Pocock can show ability as a playmaker, and running hitting holes regularly, whilst still being one of the best opensides in the world, he cannot be thrown in with Smith.

Just on these World VX's, how many of these were outside of Australia?

Not sure. Just googled it. Lol

 

[Shiggins]

I was hoping Hooper would of made a bigger impact of the bench.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I was hoping Hooper would of made a bigger impact of the bench.

Surprisingly I don't think Hooper is much of an impact player. All of his worst games have generally been off the bench from what I remember off the top of my head.

 

[Dave Beat]

I totally agree and maybe I hold a slight grudge against Pocock because he was picked over Smith, before he actually surpassed the bloke which bothered me greatly.

Couldn't agree with your second statement any more. I think Hooper probably has the best chance to be close to Smith if he continues on from where he is now. A lot can happen over time obviously, but I think he at least does have the potential to reach those heights.

Totally agree, Smith is on a different level, i do hold the same grudge as well but the more games I watch i think it is definately justified.
Pocock does suite Deans game plan though (if there is one beyond 2 phases), he is a good pilferer and given the amount of times we kick the ball we need one.
My 7 year old daughter asked me yesterday why do we always kick the ball away, you cant score trys without the ball. I couldnt answer that question.
Hooper is far better suited to an open attacking game, plays a good link, and has strong defence, certain disciplines can be coached, it is very difficult to coach talent / class and for that reason I think Hooper will show even more quality over time.

 

[Ruggo]

We have Waugh, Smith and Croft mark two on our hands. Opportunity will seperate Pocock, Hooper and Gill but when required, none will give anything less than 100% for the Wallabies.

I look forward to seeing how there battles unfold during the upcoming super rugby season.

 

[brumsfan]

I think we would have been better off with hooper in this game, pocock certainly tries hard and contests at more breakdowns but often it takes him out of play for no gain. He did win 2 balls but gifted a 3 pointer so the balance of value is tight. But the main issue for me is his attack game is poor in comparison to hooper, he passed the ball over the side line and struggled to make the gain line, hooper gets over the gain line and has much better hands and speed. Both are solid in defence but I feel if we want to have fast ball and score tries hooper is the better choice going forward.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'm a QLD supporter but I really don't see a point of difference with Gill. I think he is destined to be 3rd in the pecking order. Especially as when he gradually bulks up to compete physically he will likely lose an edge of pace which helped him lead the pilfers.

 

[TOCC]

bulk doesn't necessarily mean you lose speed... In the whole development phases a lot of players/athletes actually get faster.

But agreed Gill has his abilities and is quite a solid performer at Super Rugby level, but Hooper and Pocock have both been proven on the test stage and its going to take a barnstorming season from Gill to change this pecking order.

The ability to physically impose himself is the major point of difference, considering the Wallabies have always struggled in this area he really needs to prove that he is able to 'muscle up' in attack and defence, at super rugby level his technical skills are very very good which mitigates his lack of physicality, but at test level that isn't good enough.

 

[Shiggins]

I think we would have been better off with hooper in this game, pocock certainly tries hard and contests at more breakdowns but often it takes him out of play for no gain. He did win 2 balls but gifted a 3 pointer so the balance of value is tight. But the main issue for me is his attack game is poor in comparison to hooper, he passed the ball over the side line and struggled to make the gain line, hooper gets over the gain line and has much better hands and speed. Both are solid in defence but I feel if we want to have fast ball and score tries hooper is the better choice going forward.

I saw the game completely different. The mistakes you mention weren't his. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) taped the ball On into touch. And Robinson pushed pocock off his feet to give the 3 points to the welsh. Does everyone think of hooper started he would of played better? He played for about 20 min? And didn't really do much. Pocock was immense in defence and I think his presence lifted the whole team. Not to mention his leadership value.

I find it interesting. Hooper has been a very good attacker in a very poor attacking team.

The s15 season will be very interesting in regards to these 2 and it will decide who starts against the lions. Both players will be with new teams as well.

 

[Ruggo]

Bulk is over rated. Plenty of players out there that are more physically competitive than players that are larger than them.

 

[dudebudstud]

Am I the only one who thinks both Pocock AND Hooper should be in the starting lineup? Despite being smaller than most ball running flankers, Hooper brings a lot of aggression, always gets past the gain line and is solid in defense.

 

[Jnor]

Am I the only one who thinks both Pocock AND Hooper should be in the starting lineup? Despite being smaller than most ball running flankers, Hooper brings a lot of aggression, always gets past the gain line and is solid in defense.

I think a fair few people want to think it as both are such good individual players but many (like me) are hesitant to actually go for it after the previous Wallaby experiences playing two opensides.

 

[Sully]

I think you have to balance the back 5 of a forward pack. Actually you have to balance the entire forward pack. If you pick Hooper and Pocock then you have to look at the scrum and lineout options a lot more closely. Initially you might not think the scrum would change much but if you fiddle with the lineout to strengthen it to cover the loss of a jumping or lifting backrower things can go wrong in the scrum very quickly. So You're probably thinking that one of them would play at 6? At the moment our 6 is a pretty important part of our lineout. With Timani, Douglas and Palu all being heavy slower jumpers, some would say Timani is not a jumper at all, you'd have to look at replacing the #8 or the tighthead lock with a jumper to cover the 2 opensides on the field. The 2 most likely options would be moving Dennis into the second row or Higginbotham into 8. Neither option is optimal and in my opinion leaves you with a weaker pack, overall, at scrum time and around the park. While also leaving you one powerful tall lifter down.
When Horwill returns to full fitness the problem would be slightly alleviated because he's a power forward with the added bonuses of being reasonably fast around the park and a reasonable lineout jumper. But right now with the guys available, or favoured, I can't see it happening.
Remember when Waugh and Smith were running together we had Vickerman and Sharpe in the second row.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Hooper and Pocock both on the park are great options, if Higgers and Dennis are injured and or if Palu is injured. However to go without any of them, and unbalance the pack, would not be an ideal situation.

 

[cyclopath]

Spot on Sully.
I think this is why Dennis and Higginbotham (and maybe someone like McMenimen), who are all good lineout options, will be the 6 contenders, and we should not see Pocock and Hooper starting together just to get them on the park. Depends a bit on which lock options come on in the Super 15, such as Neville, Pyle, Fardie et al. Horwill would only slightly ease the problem, if Douglas or Timani play the other lock. Simmons needs to show us if he is the goods at Test level, being a good lineout man, but not quite there in other aspects.

 

[Sully]

Any of Timani, Douglas or Horwill starting together in the second row would stress our linout. You could cover it if you has jumping back rowers like Higgers and Samo at 6 and 8. But you would have to drop palu to make way for them and you're back where you started really.
We need a jumping second rower to step up.

 

[Ruggo]

It is the organisation of the lineout that will suffer in my view. The two big questions for mine are

1/ How will Simmons go this year. With Sharpe gone he is probably the best genuine lineout caller we have. Other parts of his game get criticised but it is hard to argue that this is not a major strength of his.

2/ Who will take control of the Tahs lineout this year with Mumm gone. I presume that the starting lock combination will be Timani and Douglas.

These are the questions that will impact the makeup of the next Wallaby tight five in my view. A fit Horwill I think will be the first selected and as captain but the three mentioned are his most likely partners. What I find most ironic is that only less than a couple of years ago we were crying out for genuine options for tight head locks and had the loose head side well covered. Now it seems the complete opposite.

 

[BlackBam]

I like Simmons, but I think the long term caller and jumper will be Pyle from the Rebels. Pyle and Horwill would be a fairly balanced package, I just think Pyle needs to put on a few pounds and focus on his scrum. I actually think the best backrow combination would be 6) Hooper 7)Pocock 8) Horwill. Horwill seriously has all the skills of a perfect 8. And the bonus is that if you put him there, you can select a 6 entirely on scrum/on-field-play qualities. As a side note, I would also like to see Hooper play at 11 for a couple of Wob games. The kid is one of the fastest players on the paddock, and 11 often has to cover the blindside 1-on-1. Playing Hooper at 11 would allow you to pick up a tight playing number 6, so you could chuck someone like Douglas there. By playing Hooper at 11, you could have a back 5 combination of 4- Pyle 5-Timani 6 Horwill 7 Pocock 8 Palu. That's a big fucking pack. Tis what the Sharks did for their Reds semi this year.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

So it seems to me that in order to get Hooper and Pocock on the paddock at the same time we have to compromise too many other parts of our game. You'd want the pay off around the paddock to be mighty good because our set piece(s) would suffer. I think we just let these blokes duke it out a couple of times in Super rugby next year and start the one who plays best. They'll be on the paddock together enough in the coming test matches (injury and form permitting), but it still doesn't feel right as a starting XV proposition.

 

[Bairdy]

The long term caller and jumper will be Horwill as he will be a mainstay in the team assuming he is captain.
I'm not sure Pyle will get a look in in the next few years, what with Douglas, Timani, Simmons and Neville before him.
Horwill has called the lineout a few times this year for the Reds so it wont be foreign for him.