The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Ruggo]

Is Hooper still in the race?

Poey is an 80 minute player. Hooper is a waste of a bench option. If we want 7 cover on the bench, Hooper isn't dynamic enough. The loosie replacements has to be able to cover more than one back row position. The logical 7 cover on the Wallaby bench is actually Hodgo. Watch this space to see how his form builds as he builds game time.

 

[cyclopath]

Is Hooper still in the race?

Poey is an 80 minute player. Hooper is a waste of a bench option. If we want 7 cover on the bench, Hooper isn't dynamic enough. The loosie replacements has to be able to cover more than one back row position. The logical 7 cover on the Wallaby bench is actually Hodgo. Watch this space to see how his form builds as he builds game time.

What other position has Hodgson played at a significant level? Why does the replacement have to play 2 positions? Surely that depends on the makeup of the starting team and rest of the bench?
If you really want a 6/8 hybrid, McMahon would be more the option. Hodgson, having not played, is well behind the pack at the moment. Sad reality for any injured player at the moment.

 

[Gagger]

Hooper isn't dynamic enough.

eh? Kind of surprised you could type that with a straight face!

 

[Gagger]

Well, you can leave Higgers out of any back row balance reckoning. Has been completely awol from forward duties. I watched Timani and McMahon shouldering all the grunt for Rebels last night and thought 'if only they'd had another back rower'

 

[Pfitzy]

Interesting that you didn't calculate Palu into the #8 equation there Pfitzy.

I would think if he keeps playing like last week he's a lock in the starting team at 8. That means you have a much tighter playing 8 and you can afford to start a looser playing 7. Advantage Hooper.

Yes, and many people would ask why, given I'm a Tahs fan. Let me explain why, referencing the other two candidates:

I'm not a big fan of Higgers' seagulling BUT if you pick the right pack around that, you can make great use of it. He needs to stop doing that occasional brain fart thing too. You look at his usefulness against England - and if he has another 7 forwards doing their job, he can switch between being a ball running 8, grabbing the odd turnover, and then supporting the backs with his noted pace.

If the other 7 forwards aren't getting through the shit shovelling though, he's a liability IMHO against a big pack who love to scrum and maul.

I'm a fan of BennyMac's graft - simple, straightforward, rugby with a fucking beard and a large engine. He isn't going to pull off the "holyshithowdidhedothat?" plays but he is going to run at any brick wall in the general direction of where you point. You need that against England - just honest, I-don't-give-two-fucks-who-you-are hard work.

When it comes to Palu, I'm concerned about his age, his injury toll, and his consistency at the moment. But mostly I'm worried about how he gels into a pack that isn't being given multiple weeks to gel.

The Waratahs are inconsistent right now, and him being a leader is a big part of that. He had a great game against the Canes, but he was a penalty magnet against the Rebels, supporting my theory that he's a starting player, not a benchie (as a side note I thought Dave Dennis did alright at #8 last night).

However, in recent Tests that he played, he's been forced into doing a shitload of donkey work, because the other forwards simply haven't stood up. The workload is what leads to his injuries. And particularly if we're training a situation where Cliffy is smashing the ball up, and then playing a game where our other forwards and game plan in general aren't giving him space or opportunities to do it.

If I was picking my best current pack to take on England and Wales, they'd look slightly different - mainly because Wales have pretensions of playing Gatland's standard two-dummy-runners wide ball game (which we can exploit) whereas England will just kick the fuck out of it and use their pack. Palu might feature in the England game, but quite frankly I think they're packing the beef to make him ineffective. Against Wales I'm not sure his old legs are going to get the job done.

So rather than support Palu as my lock-in Waratahs bias pick, I'm going to do something else entirely:

Dave Dennis for #6 as the alternative to Fardy, depending on the opponent.

So against England:
Pocock to steal, disrupt, and generally frustrate
Dennis to help with lineouts and get through the donkey work
BennyMac to fuck people up from 8

Against Wales:
Hooper to switch between wide running and ruck work (people who think he doesn't get turnovers are, in short, developmentally retarded)
Fardy to be a niggly prick in general
Higginbotham to play as the extra centre

Can that work with the games in consecutive weeks? Maybe not.

But if you win one of those games you're pretty much through the pool, so then you get to think about what happens next.

 

[Iluvmyfooty]

Lol @ all the Waratah's posters trying to water down that performance last night. Even if he hadn't scored 3 tries, he was huge over the ball, made a huge number of runs with metres and line breaks, was setting up players through holes and jumping at the back of the lineout.

The guy is going to be the starting 7 by the world cup, injuries permitting. Everyone knock on wood.

Sounds like he played like a 6

 

[nathan]

Sounds like he played like a 6

 

[Brumby Runner]

What other position has Hodgson played at a significant level? Why does the replacement have to play 2 positions? Surely that depends on the makeup of the starting team and rest of the bench?
If you really want a 6/8 hybrid, McMahon would be more the option. Hodgson, having not played, is well behind the pack at the moment. Sad reality for any injured player at the moment.

Yep = McMahon is in front of Hodgson atm and might well stay there. But I think he's (McMahon) really a better 7 than 6 or 8. For a 6/8 hybrid, I would prefer any one of Jones, Timani (although he was pretty awful against the Tahs) or Cottrell. But to balance the backrow and allow Hooper to play, I'd have Pocock start at 7 with Hooper to come on later and Pocock to move to 6 or 8 if needed. ATM though, I don't think we should be running two 7s in the 23.

 

[Dave Beat]

I didn't get to see the Brumbies game so can not comment about Pockock, but saw most of the Tahs game and thought Hooper had a good game.

I WILL NOT miss this weekends game, really looking forward to it.

Yep = McMahon is in front of Hodgson atm and might well stay there. But I think he's (McMahon) really a better 7 than 6 or 8. For a 6/8 hybrid, I would prefer any one of Jones, Timani (although he was pretty awful against the Tahs) or Cottrell. But to balance the backrow and allow Hooper to play, I'd have Pocock start at 7 with Hooper to come on later and Pocock to move to 6 or 8 if needed. ATM though, I don't think we should be running two 7s in the 23.

Given they both bring different games i agree 2 sevens in the 23, I'd have a 6 / 2 bench for the WC.

 

[Eggsie]

Given we have some great rugby statisticians here, I reckon a table of key openside stats would help the discussion (across all of the Oz number 7s). I have always believed that the key role of the 7 was securing the pill at the breakdown, coz I was taught that it's very hard to win the game without the ball. So , for me, the ability to secure the ball would be a key stat. Others believe that a free running openside who links well is the key. Defence, line out and other stats would help flesh out the picture. I think we are blessed with a lot of depth here, with good - and some great - players across all of the franchises...but how do they stack up on key indicators? ( being a fellow who watches games with red tinted glasses, I think Gill is highly underrated so am hoping to see how his pilfers and general breakdown play compare across the board)


More poorly thought out irrelevant noise Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

Yep = McMahon is in front of Hodgson atm and might well stay there. But I think he's (McMahon) really a better 7 than 6 or 8. For a 6/8 hybrid, I would prefer any one of Jones, Timani (although he was pretty awful against the Tahs) or Cottrell. But to balance the backrow and allow Hooper to play, I'd have Pocock start at 7 with Hooper to come on later and Pocock to move to 6 or 8 if needed. ATM though, I don't think we should be running two 7s in the 23.

I tend to agree about 2 sevens in the 23. For the record, I would be more than happy to see Pocock starting, his recent form is very good. I see a bigger role for a 6/8 hybrid on the bench than a 6/7. IF we had both Hooper and Pocock in the 23, then the way you describe might see them together but I would probably prefer one swap for the other.
6/8 - well, those you mention but I'd include Higginbotham, Dennis in that bracket, not saying I'd pick any of the mentioned above another at this stage necessarily.
I can't see a better combo to start than Fardy, Pocock and Palu at the moment.
Pfitzy made some very good points about the relative merits of Higginbotham and McCalman above.
At least we're seeing some options.
My original point is that I struggle to see Hodgson in as 6/7 cover, let alone 7 alone at the moment with how the others are playing and how he is not actually playing. Players on the margins will unfortunately struggle if they have injury time in the next little while. That's the reality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[liquor box]

Is Hooper still in the race?

Poey is an 80 minute player. Hooper is a waste of a bench option. If we want 7 cover on the bench, Hooper isn't dynamic enough. The loosie replacements has to be able to cover more than one back row position. The logical 7 cover on the Wallaby bench is actually Hodgo. Watch this space to see how his form builds as he builds game time.

It would be nice if they can cover other back row options but don't overlook the value of a centre who can cover the flanker position, and also captain if needed

 

[BDA]

I seem to go back and forth on the Pocock v Hooper debate from week to week. All I know at this time is that I'd have one starting, the other on the bench. At the moment I'd be leaning towards Pocock starting. Whilst I think Hooper's running game is important to our game, I think Pocock's work at the ruck will generally make life more difficult for the opposition and will give us a distinct advantage at the breakdown. As we all know; win the breakdown and you're well on the way to winning the game. That is especially the case in games which tend to be tightly contested arm-wrestles, which WC games generally are.

Hooper's skill set also make him an attractive bench option. He can come on with 25 minutes to go and really make an impact. he's also versatile which gives you the ability to go 6/2. A fresh Hooper could easily come on and slot in the centres if required.

I don't buy into the theory that you can't play two 7s because it effects your line-out. If your line-out is creative and your hooker throws well it is not an issue. Play short line-outs. it's that simple. The only real downside is pack-weight which will need to be considered.

The decision of Pocock or Hooper will certainly shape how the rest of the Backrow will look and play.

 

[liquor box]

I seem to go back and forth on the Pocock v Hooper debate from week to week. All I know at this time is that I'd have one starting, the other on the bench. At the moment I'd be leaning towards Pocock starting. Whilst I think Hooper's running game is important to our game, I think Pocock's work at the ruck will generally make life more difficult for the opposition and will give us a distinct advantage at the breakdown. As we all know; win the breakdown and you're well on the way to winning the game. That is especially the case in games which tend to be tightly contested arm-wrestles, which WC games generally are.

Hooper's skill set also make him an attractive bench option. He can come on with 25 minutes to go and really make an impact. he's also versatile which gives you the ability to go 6/2. A fresh Hooper could easily come on and slot in the centres if required.

I don't buy into the theory that you can't play two 7s because it effects your line-out. If your line-out is creative and your hooker throws well it is not an issue. Play short line-outs. it's that simple. The only real downside is pack-weight which will need to be considered.

The decision of Pocock or Hooper will certainly shape how the rest of the Backrow will look and play.

A lot of people forget how effective a throw to number one can be, if it is done a few times then you make the other team think.

also if you consider a lot of teams dont compete at the line out then it is not that important

 

[Antony]

I don't buy into the theory that you can't play two 7s because it effects your line-out. If your line-out is creative and your hooker throws well it is not an issue. Play short line-outs. it's that simple. The only real downside is pack-weight which will need to be considered.

A lot of people forget how effective a throw to number one can be, if it is done a few times then you make the other team think.

also if you consider a lot of teams dont compete at the line out then it is not that important

Broadly, I agree - but the real downside is in defending line-outs. If the other team can throw to the back with impunity, you're going to be defending a lot of backline plays off great wide front-foot ball.

 

[Scoey]

And if your lineout defence is top notch, the oppo will be getting rubbish ball from 2 or 4, knocking on plenty and losing some of them outright.

Never sacrifice the lineout (or scrum) just to shoehorn in a player that doesn't fit elsewhere.

 

[BDA]

Obviously there will always be pros and cons of making bold selection choices (such as choosing two 10s), There is undoubtedly some downsides in playing 2 no.7s, mostly at line-out time. But IMO those issues are manageable, provided it doesn't effect our scrum.

 

[TSR]

If we play Hooper & Pocock the Fardy is either being left out, replaced or playing in the second row. None of those options appeal to me personally. I would rather have a strong running 8/6 who can cover 6 for injury, but otherwise replace our starting 8 and play Fardy for 80.

 

[Floggn']

If we play Hooper & Pocock the Fardy is either being left out, replaced or playing in the second row. None of those options appeal to me personally. I would rather have a strong running 8/6 who can cover 6 for injury, but otherwise replace our starting 8 and play Fardy for 80.

I would call Hooper a strong running forward.

 

[Scoey]

Personally I don't see why we don't just select this as our forward pack:

1. Butler
2. Pocock
3. G.Smith
4. McMahon
5. C.Fainga'a
6. Hooper
7. Gill
8. Hodgson

We'd kill it at the breakdown!