The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Bullrush]

The skill is to let them know they've only got say 60 mins on the field so they bust their arses and cram everything into that time and don't leave anything in the tank. You can always leave them on for extra time if they're travelling well.
It's no coincidence that players often do something spectacular just before they are to be replaced. They know that their last 2 minutes is the last 2 minutes they'll be playing but others on the field are thinking '20 mins to go'.

The great players bust their arses for the whole time regardless of when they mite be pulled off.

The only ones who need play those sort of mind games are the ones who aren't fit enough to last 80min anyway.....

 

[It is what it is]

The great players bust their arses for the whole time regardless of when they mite be pulled off.

The only ones who need play those sort of mind games are the ones who aren't fit enough to last 80min anyway...

The great players still play smart and use their energy when they need to.
Its about outcome not effort.

 

[TheKing]

If its a comparison between Pocock's impact at the breakdown vs Hooper's running ability, a good way to compare would be to evaluate Hooper's run metres per game vs the penalty metres gained by a Pocock penalty won (either kicking for touch or for goal) or the kick clearance metres if a clean turnover.

I.e. if Hooper ran the ball 9 times for 45 metres in the 2013 Brisbane bledisloe test, and Pocock won 3 turnovers in the 2012 Brisbane bledisloe that was converted in to 3 points and 80 odd metres, then it's clear Pocock has had a superior impact on the game in attack.

If anybody in a position to write a blog post comparing the 2 stats over a range of games, and included additional stats like average breakdown time when each is engaged in a defensive ruck (measuring ability to slow down the ball) then I'd say we've come pretty close to scientifically determining who is the more effective 7, worthy of starting in 2014.

Just an idea

 

[Train Without a Station]

TheKing I get what you are saying but it's probably not a fair comparison either.

What if Pocock is getting in there drawing penalties, that the player next to him in the defensive line would have got anyway?

Much the same, who's to say that Hooper's runs wouldn't have been just as effective by another forward who supported and cleaned out, meaning they would have ran it if Hooper wasn't in front of them.

The decision will really come down to whether you want to play a very attacking game, and then the other options in the team because with a certain pack composition Hooper's running would be less utilised. Or whether you want to play a tighter, territory game, thus giving opposition more ball which you are hopefully of pilfering in better position as much as possible.

I think fatprop had the comment, horses for courses. Can't disagree with that.

 

[Viking]

Against SA, NZ, and the B & L Lions we have clearly been missing Pocock's presence.

 

[TheKing]

Very true Train. But, if such an analysis was to be performed I think a suspension of disbelief would be necessary, because the fact is that Hooper did make that run, and Pocock did win that penalty, full stop.

In such a situation I think this would be the best way to judge it though, and it would make an interesting read. Apologies if that came across argumentatively, just providing discussion

 

[Train Without a Station]

Against SA, NZ, and the B & L Lions we have clearly been missing Pocock's presence.

One could argue that we were actually missing all 7 of the remaining pack doing their jobs more so though.

 

[Viking]

One could argue that we were actually missing all 7 of the remaining pack doing their jobs more so though.

I agree. But this is pretty much my argument against Hooper. If everyone was doing there primary jobs correctly we wouldn't have problem.

IMO an opensides primary role is to have a presence at the breakdown, slow opposition ball down, make turnovers, and tackle like a machine.

Their secondary role is to link with the backs, be in support in attack, make carries when needed.

Any other traits aren't exactly a requirement but are a nice bonus. Eg heaps of pace, offloads frequently etc.

I think Pocock covers all the primary functions of a 7 exceptionally well. But Hooper is only average, however he is exceptional at the secondary stuff and also offers a few other traits like having heaps of pace.

But IMO we need everyone to do there primary jobs and do them well.

 

[brumsfan]

Hooper is not average at the breakdown he is outstanding, was head and shoulders the best at the rugby championships (stats confirm it) and is also the best of all teams during these spring tour matches. Pocock at his best wins 1-2 or 3 breakdown turnovers per game, that is exactly what hooper is doing now, pocock will have to get back to that standard and improve his running to compete with hooper.
But the biggest advantage hooper brings is that he is at the breakdown contesting or cleaning out before pocock would even arrive, so hypothetical greater strength is irrelevant
I also think that people have to get over the idea of what a 7's job should be, smith plays nothing like McCaw who plays nothing like hooper or pocock.
Hooper has a unique skill set of endurance, speed, power and skill that any coach would want to take advantage of and only a fool would limit.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I agree. But this is pretty much my argument against Hooper. If everyone was doing there primary jobs correctly we wouldn't have problem.

IMO an opensides primary role is to have a presence at the breakdown, slow opposition ball down, make turnovers, and tackle like a machine.

Their secondary role is to link with the backs, be in support in attack, make carries when needed.

Any other traits aren't exactly a requirement but are a nice bonus. Eg heaps of pace, offloads frequently etc.

I think Pocock covers all the primary functions of a 7 exceptionally well. But Hooper is only average, however he is exceptional at the secondary stuff and also offers a few other traits like having heaps of pace.

But IMO we need everyone to do there primary jobs and do them well.

That's far too simplistic. An openside could have an extremely high presence and a ruck and not being doing their job. An example of this would be providing a target for opposition forwards to clear out one pass off the halfback. That would not be an openside doing their job at all. That would be an openside playing far too tight and not utilising their primary advantage over the other 7 forwards, their mobility.

"Presence at the breakdown" is far too vague too. If a player had the best possible presence at the breakdown, he would like win a few pilfers/penalties and neither make a tackle or a run all game.

In regards to your comment about slowing down opposition ball, you have to consider the affects of that. The more rucks they have a presence in, without actually effecting anything increases the risk of a penalty and limits the player's chance to get to the next one which may be a better opportunity to pilfer. Hooper does a great job getting in and getting out, not getting in a wrestle with a tight forward without really slowing the ball down which a number of players actually do. It also limits the ability of the player to be free to make cover tackles which given our still porous defence is pretty important right now. Hooper has made countless cover tackles.

What you also need to consider is Pocock has not played a lot in what has probably been one of the weaker Wallaby teams in recent years. When he last played a full test season it was alongside Palu, Horwill at his best, Vickerman, Sharpe, Elsom, etc. Since these players have left or been injured and below par the team definitely is defending less dominantly than in the past. It's harder to dominate the breakdown when the offence is going forward into the ruck and you need to retreat then come through the gate.

With regards to turnovers and tackling like a machine, Hooper is topping the tackle count almost every game and getting close to 2 pilfers/penalties a game so you cannot say he is not getting the job done in that regard.

Perhaps Hooper is not the better option. But you cannot just blindly say that Pocock is without a doubt the only option to look at. Also the comments like him being the only player other teams fear is hyperbole. Our disappointment half of the time is a result of us building up these players in our mind on the back of a few great performances (like the RWC QF) as if they do that every single game, and then acting shocked when they don't.

 

[brumsfan]

I'm a rugby nobody, like most of you, but the comments below are those of Peter Winterbottom ex England openside after the ireland match.

We turn our attention to Dublin. The four-try Wallabies put Ireland to the sword, led by a wonderful display of back row skill from openside flanker Michael Hooper, and some touches of brilliance from the mercurial Quade Cooper.

"I love to see a great seven doing the hard yards," laughed Winterbottom.

"Hooper is a class act and we've seen him produce performances like this before. He's a real scrapper on the deck, and the Irish failed to get to the ruck area early enough, and to drive him up and off the ball. He had a field day," he explained.

"Ireland paid the price of getting too narrow in defence. I believe Hooper's dominance at the breakdown forced them to throw too many players in, and that left a lot of holes around the outside of the drift.

"And what of Quade Cooper? I know he has his critics, but a lot of players could learn from how he attacks the gainline, and how he is prepared to challenge the fringes. His 'feint and go' was absolutely sublime, and the way it silenced the Dublin crowd said it all," said Winterbottom.

"It wasn't all doom for Ireland; Sean O'Brien put in a great shift and was always powerful. But once Sexton had departed, Ireland struggled in their game management, and Hooper's breakdown dominance was always going to create issues."

If you still think you know better, have a look at what Bob Dwyer said about hooper. If you still think you know better. Good on you.

 

[A mutterer]

i think there is only one way to settle this

hooper and pooey to square off

i will get a kickstarter launched to make this spectacle happen. paypal donations accepted in advance.

 

[brumsfan]

Look I'm not bagging pocock he's great, but he does not deserve to be judged on his best games over 2 years ago, he will have to start again and show what he can do throughout the next super rugby season. because hooper is doing it week in and week out right now, and is clearly the most consistent and outstanding wallaby forward, all the awards and accolades are no coincidence.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Look I'm not bagging pocock he's great, but he does not deserve to be judged on his best games over 2 years ago, he will have to start again and show what he can do throughout the next super rugby season. because hooper is doing it week in and week out right now, and is clearly the most consistent and outstanding wallaby forward, all the awards and accolades are no coincidence.

I agree. David Pocock is a great player. Arguably the best individual breakdown exponent in the game right now perhaps.

However the more time passes since his last game, the greater his legend seems to become. Last TRC the question asked by a lot of people was "Is Pocock losing his effectiveness" (The answer IMO was no, the referees were harder on the defending teams at the breakdown) and suddenly he is a better openside than any other to ever play the game and doesn't have a flaw in his game (exaggerating with that last one).

People are throwing up highlight videos as if that's what he does 80 minutes every game.

 

[Dan54]

The biggest problem with this argument is, the fact that Pocock hasn't played a good game of test rugby in last 2 years ,so Hooper is battling a memory,of Pocock when he was good.

 

[Dave Beat]

However the more time passes since his last game, the greater his legend seems to become. Last TRC the question asked by a lot of people was "Is Pocock losing his effectiveness" (The answer IMO was no, the referees were harder on the defending teams at the breakdown) and suddenly he is a better openside than any other to ever play the game and doesn't have a flaw in his game (exaggerating with that last one).

People are throwing up highlight videos as if that's what he does 80 minutes every game.

This is so true.

 

[Paradox]

. because hooper is doing it week in and week out right now, and is clearly the most consistent and outstanding wallaby forward

No, that'd be Moore.

The capability of Pocock winning turnovers is unmatched in Oz. He can turn opposition front foot ball into Oz attack - Cooper et al will thrive off this sort of ball.

Which 7s have outplayed Pocock head to head? Certainly not Warburton who did over Hooper. McCaw and Cane outplayed Hooper as did the SA and Frog Openside. Pocock has matched and outplayed these players.

Anyway, Pocock has to get through next year injury free and perform.

 

[Dave Beat]

No, that'd be Moore.

I think both, maybe marginally Moore. Please we have them both on the pitch.

The capability of Pocock winning turnovers is unmatched in Oz. He can turn opposition front foot ball into Oz attack - Cooper et al will thrive off this sort of ball.

Which 7s have outplayed Pocock head to head? Certainly not Warburton who did over Hooper. McCaw and Cane outplayed Hooper as did the SA and Frog Openside. Pocock has matched and outplayed these .

As said above, his absence has made people think he is untouchable. I'm pleased we have a Super Season to look at form.

 

[wamberal]

A wild card in all this is how well Pocock returns from a debilitating injury. His strength over the ball is probably unparalleled in world rugby - or it was. If he loses anything in this department, Hooper will probably get ahead.

 

[Viking]

That's far too simplistic. An openside could have an extremely high presence and a ruck and not being doing their job. An example of this would be providing a target for opposition forwards to clear out one pass off the halfback. That would not be an openside doing their job at all. That would be an openside playing far too tight and not utilising their primary advantage over the other 7 forwards, their mobility.

Pocock was a master at picking his rucks, as was George Smith so I'm not sure you would use that as an argument against him.

"Presence at the breakdown" is far too vague too. If a player had the best possible presence at the breakdown, he would like win a few pilfers/penalties and neither make a tackle or a run all game.

Presence was a bad word of choice then. How about effectiveness at the breakdown.

In regards to your comment about slowing down opposition ball, you have to consider the affects of that. The more rucks they have a presence in, without actually effecting anything increases the risk of a penalty and limits the player's chance to get to the next one which may be a better opportunity to pilfer. Hooper does a great job getting in and getting out, not getting in a wrestle with a tight forward without really slowing the ball down which a number of players actually do. It also limits the ability of the player to be free to make cover tackles which given our still porous defence is pretty important right now. Hooper has made countless cover tackles.

Pocock has made countless cover tackles also, including many try-saving tackles. And he actually seems to concede less penalties then Hooper. Pocock was great at slowing the ball down without conceding a penalty. You are implying Pocock isn't mobile - he got around the park very well.

What you also need to consider is Pocock has not played a lot in what has probably been one of the weaker Wallaby teams in recent years. When he last played a full test season it was alongside Palu, Horwill at his best, Vickerman, Sharpe, Elsom, etc. Since these players have left or been injured and below par the team definitely is defending less dominantly than in the past. It's harder to dominate the breakdown when the offence is going forward into the ruck and you need to retreat then come through the gate.

I did not consider this. Good point. Although to be fair Elsom was injury plagued and never performed to level we expected of him, Sharpe flopped all over the ruck, Palu was on and off, Vickerman played only a handful of games in the WC.

However agree it is quite a different wallaby side.

With regards to turnovers and tackling like a machine, Hooper is topping the tackle count almost every game and getting close to 2 pilfers/penalties a game so you cannot say he is not getting the job done in that regard.

Never said he wasn't, However Pocock was the same except I think was a more dominate tackler and more consistent pilfer.

Perhaps Hooper is not the better option. But you cannot just blindly say that Pocock is without a doubt the only option to look at. Also the comments like him being the only player other teams fear is hyperbole. Our disappointment half of the time is a result of us building up these players in our mind on the back of a few great performances (like the RWC QF) as if they do that every single game, and then acting shocked when they don't.

I'm not arguing Pocock is only option. I am simply arguing he is the better one. However most of my comments are viewed at facing the top ranked opposition like NZ and SA.

So you are right. Hooper probably would be a better option for other teams less physical.

And your right I am building him up, probably more-so then he deserves. As mentioned before Pocock hasn't played rugby for nearly 2 years so I'm basis this off his form 2 years ago.

I think 2 years ago he was more effective then Hooper is presently. I think he will be a better player then Hooper when he returns. But we will only have to wait and see.