The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Godfrey]

It's a pretty small section of the online community though......

Good post and could apply to many, many of the "trending" arguments that come up on this forum and elsewhere. The occasionally-annoying opinions aren't always fires that need to be put out.

Even though it's the GaGR one, I think the comments section of nearly any article in internet history will be infuriating so it is often right to just take the best of what's there.

 

[Brumby Runner]

My problem with the 'Hooper is not a 7' is not the argument itself, though I do think it's flawed, but the way it seems to have become ingrained in a certain section of the online rugby community.

Now it seems no discussion on Hooper or the Wallabies or Gill or the Waratahs can go without a mention that Hooper is not a 'true' 7. Not only that, but now many seem to seriously think he should play in the outside backs, because apparently if you make a line break or run the ball a lot you are best suited to the wing.

Any evidence to the contrary is explained away as an outlier. If Hooper came out this weekend and took 12 turnovers people would say 'for ONCE he has played a good game' or something similar. The evidence against their argument is now just ignored totally.

That's true of a lot of rugby issues (AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) can't pass, TPN can't throw etc) but this one seems to have been really adopted by the online loony fringe. I'm not saying everyone who thinks Hooper is not the best 7 is a loony, just quite a few of the front page commenters are.

And it's going to come up on every fucking article this year. It shits me because ultimately he's an outstanding player with some flaws, just like all of our players, and yet some bullshit online groupthink sees him trashed at any opportunity.
.

Just like the view that the Smith twins are particularly weak scrummers. But I agree Michael Hooper is a very good No 7 and an exceptional rugby player.

 

[Joe Blow]

Anyone who suggests that Hooper is anything but one of the Wallabies best for the past couple of years doesn't know what they are talking about.
However, the major problem over the same period of time for the Wallabies has been an ineffective pack against stiff opposition. Some may even say soft.
That makes Pocock a pretty attractive option in that he will stiffen up the pack and their performance at the breakdown if back on past form.

 

[Dave Beat]

I will preface what I am about to say by stating that I think that Hooper is an incredible Rugby player. In terms of my criticisms of him, I can only speak for myself but it comes back to what I want from my #7. I want him securing quick ball and slowing down the oppositions ball. I want him hard on the ball when there is half a chance of a turnover. If he's excelling at those things, then if he value adds elsewhere then that stuff is gravy.
It's the same old argument that folk have about props. I think there is zero point having a prop that is excellent around the field if he can't hold his side of the scrum up, yet plenty will disagree.
I get frustrated when people laud Hooper as the pinnacle of openside flankerism and then rattle off line break and run meter stats. If he was David Pocock in the rucks and Michael Hooper with the ball in hand then I think I would have a Rugby orgasm every time I saw him run onto a pitch, but he's not. No one is, and if it has to be one or the other, for my openside flanker I go the David Pocock in the rucks guy.
That's how it is for me anyway.

I get the shits when people rave on about a player without justifying why - great to see the reasoning here Scoey and I agree with your points.

However - my angle to selection, if you have to give a score of 1 - 10 in varying facets of the game and then add them together I think Hooper's total would be higher. BUT i say "I Think" because I'm doing this based on the memory bank - its been about 3 years since I've seen Poey play a number of games back to back - so how can we judge right now?

I think it also comes down to game plan and what the coach wants to achieve, and what roles he gives the players on the field. Are we not seeing Hooper in over the ball because he has been given a different role within the team?

Gee it was only 2 years ago G. Smith, spent a season back here and he carved it up - we have some great 7's.

At the moment it is Hooper by a long way because I'm not getting to see Pocock play, and if Pockock returns playing how he was in 2010 / 2011 my choice would be based on opposition & game plan as I think they are equal but bring different benefits.

 

[Dave Beat]

Anyone who suggests that Hooper is anything but one of the Wallabies best for the past couple of years doesn't know what they are talking about.
However, the major problem over the same period of time for the Wallabies has been an ineffective pack against stiff opposition. Some may even say soft.
That makes Pocock a pretty attractive option in that he will stiffen up the pack and their performance at the breakdown if back on past form.

Not sure how one man, and a loosie at that can strengthen up a pack of 8.
I think Pocock is stronger at the breakdown, but gee to think one player can make such a change is a huge call.

My take on the breakdown comes down to commitment, and game plan - are we playing a game in tight, or are we wanting to be able to play a wide game?

So as per my above post, I rate both and i think the selection should come down to game plan / opposition. In the case of these 2 great players, if either of them is on the bench he has not been dropped.

 

[Viking]

Not sure how one man, and a loosie at that can strengthen up a pack of 8.
I think Pocock is stronger at the breakdown, but gee to think one player can make such a change is a huge call.

My take on the breakdown comes down to commitment, and game plan - are we playing a game in tight, or are we wanting to be able to play a wide game?

So as per my above post, I rate both and i think the selection should come down to game plan / opposition. In the case of these 2 great players, if either of them is on the bench he has not been dropped.

One player can make a difference. Refer to Pocock V South Africa RWC quarter final. Isn't that the great thing about sport, that one man's efforts at times can make a huge difference.

Although I do agree with the rest. We should not rely on one player to make a difference. If the pack are committed to the right game-plan then that is always going to be more effective then one man's efforts.

Agree, both great players and it will come down to who is going to fit Cheika's game-plan better.

 

[Braveheart81]

One player can make a difference. Refer to Pocock V South Africa RWC quarter final. Isn't that the great thing about sport, that one man's efforts at times can make a huge difference.

One player can certainly make a difference as evidenced by South Africa losing their fetcher to injury within 20 minutes of the game starting.

Pocock was amazing in that game but ignoring some of the other aspects that contributed to Pocock's dominance is pretty shortsighted.

Pocock will never have the benefit of having Bryce Lawrence referee him in a test match again.

 

[Viking]

One player can certainly make a difference as evidenced by South Africa losing their fetcher to injury within 20 minutes of the game starting.

Pocock was amazing in that game but ignoring some of the other aspects that contributed to Pocock's dominance is pretty shortsighted.

Pocock will never have the benefit of having Bryce Lawrence referee him in a test match again.

Pocock much like Smith and McCaw actually adjust's his game to the ref. You are right in implying that the ref was lenient that day, and SA losing their open-side didn't help, but Pocock took FULL advantage of the situation and he deserves full credit for doing so.

Pocock was a HUGE contributor to that win. No doubt about it.

Hoopers ruck work is good, evident from his stats but I'd certainly like to see Hooper testing the boundaries of ref's more often.

 

[Braveheart81]

Pocock much like Smith and McCaw actually adjust's his game to the ref. You are right in implying that the ref was lenient that day, and SA losing their open-side didn't help, but Pocock took FULL advantage of the situation and he deserves full credit for doing so.

Pocock was a HUGE contributor to that win. No doubt about it.

Hoopers ruck work is good, evident from his stats but I'd certainly like to see Hooper testing the boundaries of ref's more often.

I'm not saying that Pocock was anything but amazing in that game and by far Australia's most crucial player in that game based on his performance.

Using that game as the basis for him being amazing is a false economy though. Most would probably argue it's the best test he's ever played. I'm not saying that he wasn't consistently very good (like Hooper has been) but using someone's best game where a couple of substantial aspects completely out of his control went heavily in his favour is not the best way to judge things in my opinion.

It would be like saying that Kurtley Beale is the best clutch goal kicker in the world on the basis of kicking a 50+ metre kick to secure our first win at altitude in South Africa in 40 years. Or saying that's he's the worst clutch goal kicker in the world because the turf came out from under him whilst trying to kick the winning goal in the first Lions test.

It's a tiny sample size that doesn't necessarily extrapolate particularly well to what the player is like in general.

 

[Dave Beat]

One player can make a difference. Refer to Pocock V South Africa RWC quarter final. Isn't that the great thing about sport, that one man's efforts at times can make a huge difference.

Although I do agree with the rest. We should not rely on one player to make a difference. If the pack are committed to the right game-plan then that is always going to be more effective then one man's efforts.

Agree, both great players and it will come down to who is going to fit Cheika's game-plan better.

Agree,
See I think QC (Quade Cooper) is a freak of a player as well, and have many debates about it. But to see what impact he can really have, he needs a season playing so he and his team mates can read what each other are doing - expect the unexpected, to stay in the play, to stay in the game.

That 2011 Super tittle QLD one, there was some fantastic rugby played, and QC (Quade Cooper) created allot of it because the players had the season to be able to understand & read what each other, they started to expect the unexpected.

Seb - as we have agreed before, both awesome players that each bring something different.

 

[barbarian]

In that game Pocock made 27 tackles and missed zero.

That's not a contribution to the discussion, or me taking sides. Just pointing out how amazing that stat is. 27 made, 0 missed. Fuck me.
.

 

[Viking]

I'm not saying that Pocock was anything but amazing in that game and by far Australia's most crucial player in that game based on his performance.

Using that game as the basis for him being amazing is a false economy though. Most would probably argue it's the best test he's ever played. I'm not saying that he wasn't consistently very good (like Hooper has been) but using someone's best game where a couple of substantial aspects completely out of his control went heavily in his favour is not the best way to judge things in my opinion.

It would be like saying that Kurtley Beale is the best clutch goal kicker in the world on the basis of kicking a 50+ metre kick to secure our first win at altitude in South Africa in 40 years. Or saying that's he's the worst clutch goal kicker in the world because the turf came out from under him whilst trying to kick the winning goal in the first Lions test.

It's a tiny sample size that doesn't necessarily extrapolate particularly well to what the player is like in general.

I agree with what your saying. We shouldn't judge on one game alone. Otherwise KB (Kurtley Beale) would be the world's best fullback.

The great thing about Hooper and Pocock is they consistently play at a high level. Pocock has shown he can go one step further and have a once-in-a-lifetime performance that will go down in history as one of the best. Hooper has the potential to do the same.

Compared to say a player like McCalman or Carter where we pretty much know what we are going to get. Or KB (Kurtley Beale) who is far from consistent but has played some blinders.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Forgive the off-topic post, but in that QF in 2011 there's another guy who was nothing short of heroic: Pat McCabe. That was the very definition of putting ones body on the line for the team.

Anyway, back to discussing opensides.

 

[Viking]

I think we need to send an SOS to George Smith so we can end this thread.

 

[Godfrey]

Ok now I have to go watch a reply (or highlights) of that 2009 game against Wales with Pocock in the first half and Smith in the second. Jesus they were good.

 

[cyclopath]

I think we need to send an SOS to George Smith so we can end this thread.

We can end this thread any time. George Smith is not required for that!

 

[qwerty51]

Ok now I have to go watch a reply (or highlights) of that 2009 game against Wales with Pocock in the first half and Smith in the second. Jesus they were good.

Last game played under the old interpretations, can see why they had to change it. Just so dominant.

 

[JJJ]

Ok now I have to go watch a reply (or highlights) of that 2009 game against Wales with Pocock in the first half and Smith in the second. Jesus they were good.

Pocock was pretty damn good in the 2009 trinations against SA in Brisbane too. IIRC it was the only trinations match the boks lost that year. Of course it was also the only one we won.

 

[Viking]

We can end this thread any time. George Smith is not required for that!

We better keep it going until the Brumbies V Tahs and they can finally go head to head.

 

[cyclopath]

We better keep it going until the Brumbies V Tahs and they can finally go head to head.

Yeah, because that will resolve it. This thread is a wormhole thread - normal rules of time and space do not apply!