The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Hugh Jarse]

LF Gill is a state treasure and Club Red should be doing everything to keep him in town.

While there are some good young 7's coming through the Reds development machine, it will be a long time before they are ready to replace him.

Despite the rare brain fart (left foot clearing kick off the back of the lineout, WWE Suplex Back Slam on Nic White), I think @RugbyReg's idea of making him 2015 Reds Captain would be a sage move.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It would be an excellent move. The only reason Liam hasn't played more for the Wallabies is that Hooper and Pocock play their footy in Australia. He'd be a certainty otherwise.

 

[Marcelo]

It would be an excellent move. The only reason Liam hasn't played more for the Wallabies is that Hooper and Pocock play their footy in Australia. He'd be a certainty otherwise.

Australian Rugby is one of the best factories of openside flankers in the world. ALL Aussie rugby supporters should be proud about it.

 

[cyclopath]

Australian Rugby is one of the best factories of openside flankers in the world. ALL Aussie rugby supporters should be proud about it.

Can we tweak the production line to "hard-nosed bastard THP"? Just for a bit!

 

[boyo]

Australian Rugby is one of the best factories of openside flankers in the world. ALL Aussie rugby supporters should be proud about it.

The GOAT may have something to say about this.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Australian Rugby is one of the best factories of openside flankers in the world. ALL Aussie rugby supporters should be proud about it.

I'd expand that to back rowers in general. We've had some good 'uns over the years.

 

[BDA]

A lot of discussion on the Wallabies selection thread about the relative importance of different aspects of forward play at the world cup. Given the teams we are playing, I'd probably rate them in the following order:-

1. Breakdown
2. Scrum
3. Defence
4. Attack
5. Physicality
6. Line-out
7. Maul defence

Looking at our priorities, I think we have to choose Pocock. He's one of the few players in world rugby that can single handledly make you the stronger team at the breakdown.

 

[Bobby Sands]

it's one of the reasons he'd be my Reds captain next year. No disrespect to Slipper, but let him get back to propping and running (and enjoying rugby).

Gill has plenty of leadership experience and I think it would be another challenge for him, which I think could assist him in lifting his game (ala Horwill under Mooney).

Gill is a natural leader, as you say Reg. I am not sure that Slips is.

 

[Braveheart81]

Looking at our priorities, I think we have to choose Pocock. He's one of the few players in world rugby that can single handledly make you the stronger team at the breakdown.

One thing I find interesting though is that the games in which players like Pocock look their best are in games you're getting smashed.

The 2011 RWC quarter final is probably the best example of this. We were constantly under pressure and the Springboks had most of the ball and territory. That meant there were a huge number of tackles to be made and defensive rucks to try and steal the ball.

Likewise, Pocock had a blinder against the Blues in somewhat similar circumstances. The Brumbies were under lots of pressure and Pocock had a lot of forced penalties in defence.

The Wallabies beat the Springboks in that game and the Blues just got over the line against the Brumbies but I think it is pretty true that both South Africa and Auckland should have won comfortably based on the amount of possession and territory they had.

I think it can create a bit of a false economy if you look at those games as the benchmark for deciding that selecting Pocock is imperative. In those games, Pocock will be your best player but you will still lose the game, often quite comprehensively.

The challenge for Pocock is to become more useful in a game that doesn't involve his side being under huge pressure for much of the game.

Likewise, Michael Hooper looks his best when his team has a lot of possession and he can run with the ball, link with the backs and generally create havoc. He needs to work on other the side of his game so that he is more effective when his team is under immense pressure and having to defend a lot.

 

[Tomikin]

One thing I find interesting though is that the games in which players like Pocock look their best are in games you're getting smashed.

The 2011 RWC quarter final is probably the best example of this. We were constantly under pressure and the Springboks had most of the ball and territory. That meant there were a huge number of tackles to be made and defensive rucks to try and steal the ball.

Likewise, Pocock had a blinder against the Blues in somewhat similar circumstances. The Brumbies were under lots of pressure and Pocock had a lot of forced penalties in defence.

The Wallabies beat the Springboks in that game and the Blues just got over the line against the Brumbies but I think it is pretty true that both South Africa and Auckland should have won comfortably based on the amount of possession and territory they had.

I think it can create a bit of a false economy if you look at those games as the benchmark for deciding that selecting Pocock is imperative. In those games, Pocock will be your best player but you will still lose the game, often quite comprehensively.

The challenge for Pocock is to become more useful in a game that doesn't involve his side being under huge pressure for much of the game.

Likewise, Michael Hooper looks his best when his team has a lot of possession and he can run with the ball, link with the backs and generally create havoc. He needs to work on other the side of his game so that he is more effective when his team is under immense pressure and having to defend a lot.

I tend to agree, but I think Pocock has added to his game with his running and linking play (LIke against the Cheetah's) and his control of the rolling maul is good.

His not at Hoopers stage of running, but his getting through enough to be good and effective.

Although I'm still not sold on the fact people think Hooper's not good at the breakdown, I still believe that game plan comes into it, I think the Tah's don't want him trying to steal every ball. When he was playing Jakeball he got a mountain of steals (Lead the comp I believe in 2012). Which was the game plan of Kick to them and force the turnover.

Tah's play a dominate the contact (attack and defence) and the other team will go backwards.

I would say Hooper's better at the breakdown then Pocock probably shown with his running game.

Only a few problems I can see.

1/* His a Tah

2/* His not a Captain

3/* He needs to cut his hair

4/* Refer to problem 1/* - His a Tah

 

[Viking]

A lot of discussion on the Wallabies selection thread about the relative importance of different aspects of forward play at the world cup. Given the teams we are playing, I'd probably rate them in the following order:-

1. Breakdown
2. Scrum
3. Defence
4. Attack
5. Physicality
6. Line-out
7. Maul defence

Looking at our priorities, I think we have to choose Pocock. He's one of the few players in world rugby that can single handledly make you the stronger team at the breakdown.

For me, Physicality would be Number 1. At least in the forwards. The contact zone is so important and winning the collision often leads to dominance at the breakdown.

 

[Bullrush]

One thing I find interesting though is that the games in which players like Pocock look their best are in games you're getting smashed.

The 2011 RWC quarter final is probably the best example of this. We were constantly under pressure and the Springboks had most of the ball and territory. That meant there were a huge number of tackles to be made and defensive rucks to try and steal the ball.

Likewise, Pocock had a blinder against the Blues in somewhat similar circumstances. The Brumbies were under lots of pressure and Pocock had a lot of forced penalties in defence.

The Wallabies beat the Springboks in that game and the Blues just got over the line against the Brumbies but I think it is pretty true that both South Africa and Auckland should have won comfortably based on the amount of possession and territory they had.

I think it can create a bit of a false economy if you look at those games as the benchmark for deciding that selecting Pocock is imperative. In those games, Pocock will be your best player but you will still lose the game, often quite comprehensively.

The challenge for Pocock is to become more useful in a game that doesn't involve his side being under huge pressure for much of the game.

Likewise, Michael Hooper looks his best when his team has a lot of possession and he can run with the ball, link with the backs and generally create havoc. He needs to work on other the side of his game so that he is more effective when his team is under immense pressure and having to defend a lot.

So imagine how those 'Pocock-blinder' games may have turned out without him. Wallabies possibly lose and Blues possibly run away with it in the first half.

I don't think the 'Hooper-blinder' games stand-out as much in terms of Hooper's overall influence on the game.

The 2nd thing is that Pocock is having that much influence at Test level against the very top tier teams. I'll stand by my earlier comments that Hooper has never shown that kind of dominance or even influence against SA or the ABs.

 

[Viking]

I tend to agree, but I think Pocock has added to his game with his running and linking play (LIke against the Cheetah's) and his control of the rolling maul is good.

His not at Hoopers stage of running, but his getting through enough to be good and effective.

Although I'm still not sold on the fact people think Hooper's not good at the breakdown, I still believe that game plan comes into it, I think the Tah's don't want him trying to steal every ball. When he was playing Jakeball he got a mountain of steals (Lead the comp I believe in 2012). Which was the game plan of Kick to them and force the turnover.

Tah's play a dominate the contact (attack and defence) and the other team will go backwards.

I would say Hooper's better at the breakdown then Pocock probably shown with his running game.

Only a few problems I can see.

1/* His a Tah

2/* His not a Captain

3/* He needs to cut his hair

4/* Refer to problem 1/* - His a Tah

Pocock dominates the contact zone just as successfully as Hooper, if not better. Especially on defence. Obviously Hooper would dominate run metres and line breaks but I think once they get into contact it would be hard to say Hooper has the better of him especially when I can re-call Hooper being held-up a couple of times at test level.

Also, I'm confused by your last statement, I agree Hooper is under-rated at the breakdown but you've gone as far to say that you think Hooper is better at the breakdown then Pocock?

 

[Braveheart81]

So imagine how those 'Pocock-blinder' games may have turned out without him. Wallabies possibly lose and Blues possibly run away with it in the first half.

I don't think the 'Hooper-blinder' games stand-out as much in terms of Hooper's overall influence on the game.

The 2nd thing is that Pocock is having that much influence at Test level against the very top tier teams. I'll stand by my earlier comments that Hooper has never shown that kind of dominance or even influence against SA or the ABs.

I agree that without Pocock his team would have probably been destroyed in both those games.

It's hard to point at many games Hooper has played under similar circumstances. As Tomikin said, Hooper did get a lot of pilfers/forced penalties when at the Brumbies playing more of a defence/territory oriented game and he was the best openside for forcing turnovers in the 2013 test season (I think it was).

Mostly I was trying to highlight that the game that Pocock has the most exceptional stats in should be a game you lose. I think if you played that RWC quarter final 10 times in the same situation, the Springboks would win 9 of them. They really blew a lot of opportunities.

I tend to think they'll both be important parts of our squad going forward. As yet, it's difficult to know how to use them both to their greatest effect, particularly at the same time.

 

[Braveheart81]

Also, I'm confused by your last statement, I agree Hooper is under-rated at the breakdown but you've gone as far to say that you think Hooper is better at the breakdown then Pocock?

He was saying that Hooper is better on a relative basis at the breakdown than Pocock is running the ball.

If Pocock is a 10/10 at the breakdown and a 6/10 running the ball, Hooper is a 7/10 at the breakdown and a 10/10 running the ball (or whatever mark out of 10 you want to come up with).

 

[Viking]

The challenge for Pocock is to become more useful in a game that doesn't involve his side being under huge pressure for much of the game.

Likewise, Michael Hooper looks his best when his team has a lot of possession and he can run with the ball, link with the backs and generally create havoc. He needs to work on other the side of his game so that he is more effective when his team is under immense pressure and having to defend a lot.
.

First off, I really enjoyed your post. Quality stuff.

However I should point out regarding the above quote:
Almost every Test match is heavily involved around huge amounts of pressure.
It's really what sets it apart from Super Rugby. Especially those games against the likes of the AB and SA. Can you name a game against NZ in the last 4 years where we weren't put under pressure for huge parts of the game? I certainly can't.

It's not often the wallabies will dominate possession against the top teams. This is a disadvantage for Hoopers strengths.

Likewise, this is an advantage for Pocock for at Test level.

As a super xv player, Hooper is probably better but at Test level where pressure is key - Pocock wins 9 times out of 10. At least in my opinion.

 

[Viking]

He was saying that Hooper is better on a relative basis at the breakdown than Pocock is running the ball.

If Pocock is a 10/10 at the breakdown and a 6/10 running the ball, Hooper is a 7/10 at the breakdown and a 10/10 running the ball (or whatever mark out of 10 you want to come up with).

I see. That makes sense. I think its obvious I would disagree as I think Pocock's running game is under rated. But on a relative basis it would certainly be very very close.

 

[Bobby Sands]

One thing I find interesting though is that the games in which players like Pocock look their best are in games you're getting smashed.

The 2011 RWC quarter final is probably the best example of this. We were constantly under pressure and the Springboks had most of the ball and territory. That meant there were a huge number of tackles to be made and defensive rucks to try and steal the ball.

I would prefer a player who excels in a game when we have our backs against the wall, as opposed to a game where we are consistently getting front foot ball.

I am not even sure if this be filed under my opinion, I am pretty sure that is just a statement of fact.

The rest of your argument I don't follow at all.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think Pocock's running game is under rated.

I'd say massively overrated actually. Not that he's terrible, just that if Pocock has a few runs, breaks zero tackles, makes zero line breaks and makes almost zero meters in the tackle people still bang on about how his "running game is developing" merely because he ran with the pill a couple of times without at all objectively looking at the quality of his runs.

The majority of people want to see his running game improve, so they will look for any possible reason to support that.

 

[BDA]

Is Hooper's running game really a 10/10?

I'd say Folau's running game is a 10/10.