The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Bullrush]

For interest:

Holy crap - a 97% tackle success in 45 Tests is unbelievable. I wonder how many tackles that amounts to.

What a friggen machine.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Also, sorry for three posts in a row, but if say you get 2-3 less possessions in a game for playing a subpar lineout, but you bring Pocock in, and he gets 2-3 steals per game, you've more or less nullified the difference. With Australia's counter-attacking talent, turnover ball can be just as good an attacking platform as lineout ball as well.

The ABs have counter attacking capability. The Wallabies will generally just kick turn over ball back to the opposition.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Henry Speight with 10 turnovers in Super. Little wonder the Brumbies play him at 6 or 7 when a player down in the scrum.

 

[cyclopath]

The ABs have counter attacking capability. The Wallabies will generally just kick turn over ball back to the opposition.

I don't think that's necessarily so. Folau, Foley and Beale (for example, not sure he'll be in the Test team) run it back a fair bit for NSW, and I can't see why a team would be less inclined to do that with, say, Speight and O'Connor in the mix too. All useful broken field runners, and we know Cheika isn't averse to it. It depends if Larkham stifles all creativity or not!
But in all seriousness, I think they'll do it a bit.
I agree the ABs are the leaders in the pack at doing it, though.

 

[BDA]

Interesting comments from Cheika last night on RHQ. To summarise his comments - he generally likes a big ball-running backrowers - i.e. starting 2 no.7s is not something that he has any great intentions of pursuing. But he wants to use both players and referred to Rebels finishing with 2 no.7s on the field last week.

The impression I get from this is that he'll have one in the starting side and 1 on the bench. no Poopcock

 

[KOB1987]

He did say all those things but he also said 'I'm certainly not ruling it out'..intentionally vague I think..

 

[BDA]

Some interesting analyse last night on RHQ about the two player's attacking games.

Pocock - goes for more runs, and averages less metres, but basically all of his work is in the channels close to the ruck.
Hooper - averages less runs for more metres, but works almost exclusively wide of the ruck.

Nothing much that we didn't already know, but I found it interesting comparing the two players' attacking games. The often espoused misconception on this forum is that Pocock is not an attacking player, but that's just not true. He just plays a different game with ball in hand. He attacks much tighter and doesn't get the time and space that Hooper does. He actually touches the ball more in attack than Hooper does.

Again it comes down to what Cheika wants from his starting 7. I suspect he'll lean towards Hooper's wide running, but personally I expect the RWC to be won and lost in the trenches. I'd prefer to have a Pocock in close to the ruck out working the opposition.

 

[BDA]

He did say all those things but he also said 'I'm certainly not ruling it out'..intentionally vague I think..

You're right he was intentionally vague, but if I was to try to decifer his comments its that, whilst not ruling anything out, his plans as of now are to play a bigger Fardy'like no.6, and that's unlikely to change.

 

[Brumby Runner]

You're right he was intentionally vague, but if I was to try to decifer his comments its that, whilst not ruling anything out, his plans as of now are to play a bigger Fardy'like no.6, and that's unlikely to change.

My take on his comments as well.

 

[Joeleee]

It's true that we can trade one off against another. Maybe even enough to make it work. However, I think you undervalue the lineout in this case.

I tried as hard as I could to be clear that I'm not sure what the correct answer is in lineout ability vs. general play ability. I was just trying to steer the argument into the direction of considering what we're trading off, rather than just "lineouts are important, we can't sacrifice them" or "turnovers are great, lets get as many as we can!". I think it's important to think about what the actual statistical game impact is of being weak or strong in an area, rather than just dismissing something because it goes against the status quo.

Having said that, a great quote I once heard was that stats are like bikinis. They show you a lot, but they hide all the really important stuff.

I guess the long and short of it is, I'm just a massive nerd and like to put numbers to everything!

PS good point Scoey on Pooper's combined ass kickery not necessarily equaling the sum of each of their ass kicking parts. Synergy is very important, and is certainly a big reason why rugby positions have evolved to be structured as they currently are.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Nothing much that we didn't already know, but I found it interesting comparing the two players' attacking games. The often espoused misconception on this forum is that Pocock is not an attacking player, but that's just not true. He just plays a different game with ball in hand. He attacks much tighter and doesn't get the time and space that Hooper does. He actually touches the ball more in attack than Hooper does.

Personally I think your off the mark BDA.

The attacking roles players play will depend on their strengths. To say Pocock is a good attacker because he runs more, but just runs tighter and doesn't make breaks because of that is flawed.

Why does he run tighter?

Personally, if I was a coach structuring a team and I was telling one player to run tight and one to run loose it would be due to the fact that I don't see the tight runner capable of making many breaks, and I want him doing the grunt work, whilst I see another player capable of making breaks and I don't want him wasted doing grunt work which we can get any average attacker to do.

Now of course that doesn't mean it applies in this case because we are talking about 2 different coached teams using different tactics. BUT, if Pocock is runner inside the 10 channel a lot, and another Brumbies forward is running outside the 10 channel a bit, I'd be confident that is the reason.

I don't think it's a misconception that Pocock's not a strong attacking player at all. He plays like another tight forward in attack a lot, he doesn't put himself in the position to be an attacking threat so why would people ever see him as one? Now that may be down to coaching direction. Or it in fact may be down to himself thinking he doesn't offer much out wide, so just doing what he can to offer the most to the team.

That being said, if he continues to make line breaks and line break assists like he did last game, the perception of his attacking ability will certainly change.

 

[BDA]

Look I agree with your comments. I'm not trying to overstate Pocock's attacking skills. Pocock wouldn't be effective playing the role Hooper does. He's clearly not as dynamic with ball in hand. I suppose my point is that he is effective on attack in his own way. He doesn't have the speed or footwork of Hooper, so he keeps things very simple. However he still makes a big contribution on attack. He has a very high number of carries, he literally never loses the ball in contact and despite the fact that he attacks exclusively in those close channels he still has a few line-breaks this season.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's an interesting conundrum in that I think there are positives to having both as the reserve player to come on with 20-30 minutes to go.

Both Hooper's running and Pocock's pilfering are stronger in the back end of games when players are tired. Hooper is more likely to brush off tackles and make big breaks in those stages and opposition cleanouts are more likely to be ineffective on Pocock when they're fatigued.

I tend to think breakdown turnovers in the first thirty minutes are more likely to come from dominant tackles and counter rucking than someone over the ball.

Hopefully we see some experimentation in the Rugby Championship in terms of trying both starting together and also alternating which ones starts to see if we can get an idea of which strategy works the best.

 

[Gillys_ghost]

Cleanouts are always ineffective against Pocock.

 

[Braveheart81]

Cleanouts are always ineffective against Pocock.

If that was the case he'd be getting 20 breakdown penalties/pilfers a game.

 

[Gillys_ghost]

It was kind of a Tongue in Cheek comment, meant more as a joke about how good Poey is then literally.

 

[KOB1987]

There seems to be almost universal agreement here that both will be in the 23 and that both will be on the field at some point. What I would like someone to explain is why it's better that this happens at the end of the game than the start of it. Taking everything into consideration not just tired legs.

Anyone??

 

[pissedoffihavetoregister]

I thought the most important stats on poey v hooper comparison (from rugby show last night)was poey missing heaps less tackles and making heaps more steals. I think they are the 2 most important stat for a 7.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think Hooper's missed tackle stat is high because they have him rush out of the line quickly to cut down options as well as being the first to the ball runner on some kick chases. He might miss the tackle but generally he'll force the ball carrier to move into the next line of defenders and the tackle will be made.

The only bad miss I remember this season is when he missed To'omua in a one on one tackle and To'omua scored. Otherwise I don't think his misses have been at all costly.

Hooper has been making more tackles than is optimal this year in my opinion. The same was happening a couple of years ago. The other forwards need to take away some of his tackles so he can compete at the breakdown more. He shouldn't be the Tahs top tackler by so much. He's currently 5th in the comp for total tackles which is way higher than he should be given the Tahs generally play with one of the higher possession stats in the competition.

There's no doubt that Pocock is the benchmark for openside flankers in defence though. His tackle completion rate is just phenomenal.

 

[daz]

I am going to put this debate to bed once and for all.

You are all wrong.

The Wallaby 7 at the RWC will be Jordy Reid, with Sean McMahon at 6.