Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
S
slim he's signed with the dent cup, hoping to get a run with the brumbies
The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma
- Thread starter Hoolly Doolly
- Start date
- Status
T
Tip
Guest
My point was that I would prefer a fit Elsom over McCalman or Dennis on the Bench. Fuck me for losing credibility for suggesting that right?
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Is allowed to play in the dent
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Just not for Vikings.........
He probably wouldn't be good enough to crack their 2nds anyways..........
T
Tip
Guest
Kinda like a "fit Palu" & a "sober-Beale"
Warburton didn't outplay hooper! in the 1st test hooper played approx 35 mins in the centres, gill came on at openside, in the second test that the wallabies won british commentators Brian Moore gave hooper motm and smith played the 3rd test that we got thrashed in. Doesn't sound bad to me.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Yup
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
1st test: Good point. he played poor but was in the centres. No his fault.
2nd Test:
From the G&GR player ratings:
"Worked and worked some more. Cant fault his enthusiasm though Warburton got the better of him on the ground."
I recall him getting dominated - this backs up my thoughts. He tried hard but lacked impact in that game.
3rd Test: I thought he played the last 20mins? and had no impact which was much needed from a Bench player. Could be wrong though.
Yes you are wrong, hooper played the last 13 mins and forced a penalty something smith didn't do.
Re 2nd test
brianmoore666 Brian Moore
My MoM - Hopper; his battle with Warburton one redeeming feature of the game. Warburton would have been if he'd done 80 & Lions had won.
About five months ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
Re 2nd test
brianmoore666 Brian Moore
My MoM - Hopper; his battle with Warburton one redeeming feature of the game. Warburton would have been if he'd done 80 & Lions had won.
About five months ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Smith won a penalty also. After being concussed - I wouldnt say that was a bad effort - just an average effort for what SMiths usual standards are. And it was the last 20mins we got hammered.
Isn't this the same commentator that continuously praised Giteau as he would crab across field, or calling McCalman one of the best on field?
Lots of different opinions I guess. I think some people see his enthusiasm and work-rate and want to continuously praise him for his efforts.
Personally I believe he has lacked impact against top opposition - NZ, SA and the B & I Lions. Work-rate I would never question. He has the right mentality.
Believe it or not I was more anti-Hooper then I am now - it wasn't until the last Bledisloe Test that I thought he finally stepped up - since then he has been great. Still prefer Pocock however.
Isn't this the same commentator that continuously praised Giteau as he would crab across field, or calling McCalman one of the best on field?
Lots of different opinions I guess. I think some people see his enthusiasm and work-rate and want to continuously praise him for his efforts.
Personally I believe he has lacked impact against top opposition - NZ, SA and the B & I Lions. Work-rate I would never question. He has the right mentality.
Believe it or not I was more anti-Hooper then I am now - it wasn't until the last Bledisloe Test that I thought he finally stepped up - since then he has been great. Still prefer Pocock however.
I think you need to judge our forward pack as a unit in these situations. When we have several forwards who go completely missing against top opposition, the other forwards are going to struggle to make much of an impact because they're carrying a larger load than they should be against players who are as good or probably better than they are.
The only times we compete with NZ are when our forwards really muscle up as a unit. It doesn't matter who the 7 is if we've got 2-4 forwards doing almost nothing.
We failed to compete against South Africa this year because our forwards got completely outmuscled in both games. It doesn't matter who your 7 is in that situation either.
I find it strange that people keep coming back to the 7 when we've just played a game where we've been smashed by players like Eztebeth, Oosthuizen, Retallick, Whitelock, Faumuina etc. depending on which test it was.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Agree, but I also think Seb is being fair in his assessment, a few posts up he has also said Hoops has been one of the better performing Wallabies.
I've noticed improvement across the park with the improved game plan, and management since the Lions series (not over night but steady). Lets hope it continues so we can clean sweep Group A in the 2015 RWC.
I've noticed improvement across the park with the improved game plan, and management since the Lions series (not over night but steady). Lets hope it continues so we can clean sweep Group A in the 2015 RWC.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
I agree - his job has been much more difficult with a poor forward pack. However this is where I believe Pocock & G.Smith bring so much value - So many times our forward pack has been on the back foot and Pocock makes a turn-over - which just seems impossible given the momentum of the opposition - this is why I rate him so highly and above Hooper.
This is not to say Hooper is a bad player - he is very very good. But I feel Pocock performs at at a higher level especially when we are on the back-foot.
This is not to say Hooper is a bad player - he is very very good. But I feel Pocock performs at at a higher level especially when we are on the back-foot.
mudskipper
Colin Windon (37)
We will need both Hooper and Pocock fit and ready...
Dumbledore
Dick Tooth (41)
Having a figurehead to point at and blame is always the easier way out.
The Hooper/Pocock argument is a bit like Hooper/Gill for me. By selecting Hooper you concede a degree of breakdown dominance with the understanding that you'll get a far superior ball carrier. With Palu and Higgers both out, and with neither of the starting locks being strong carriers (Horwill is when fit, granted) it's relatively easy to see why McKenzie has carried on with Hooper. Mowen and Fardy are both grinders who hit a lot of rucks, so the loss of Gill's breakdown work is somewhat offset.
It's a similar equation with Pocock. Is his breakdown dominance worth the loss of the carrying game Hooper brings? I think yes, with the caveat that we'll have to wait and see what his form is like. He's been out for a longg time and there's just no guarantee he'll be able to walk straight back in. Fortunately, return should coincide with the return of one, or both, of Higgers and Palu. At that point you're trading the ball carrying responsibilities to the 6/8 and getting your 7 back to being a breakdown beast. Is Pocock + Higgers/Palu more valuable than Hooper + Mowen? Again, I probably think yes.
So much of this will come down to form in the Soup though. Pocock just might not be right, Hooper might shift his focus and start playing a genuine 'fetcher' role, Gill might take his linking play to a whole new level, Colby might have an enormous season and force his way into the equation. That's even without taking into account injuries and what will be happening with the rest of the pack.
tl;dr, we've got a lot of good opensides. How we use them will, and should, be predicated on who the remaining seven members of the pack are.
Also, it would be really fucking handy to have a proper carrying lock.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Players have to prove themselves when they come back.
If test Player A has been injured and backup Player B has been outstanding, I think it is up to Player A to show clear evidence that he will be superior in the next test match we have.
And in this case, Player B (Hooper) has been outstanding: being voted Player of the Year by others who were on the park with him in the games.
I don't care what the name of the player is or what position he plays - or what level of rugby we are talking about, including Super Rugby.
Not to the point, but people are saying that Beale should get the fullback spot at the Tahs instead of Folau, because Folau can play on the wing.
Good grief—if you compromise on a significant area of quality you devalue it, and thereby you affect outcomes by doing so.
Initially you make a hard decision on Beale to play other than at fullback at the Tahs, and make a similar one on Pocock's starting selection for the Wallabies.
Later you review and recalibrate if you have to.
.
If test Player A has been injured and backup Player B has been outstanding, I think it is up to Player A to show clear evidence that he will be superior in the next test match we have.
And in this case, Player B (Hooper) has been outstanding: being voted Player of the Year by others who were on the park with him in the games.
I don't care what the name of the player is or what position he plays - or what level of rugby we are talking about, including Super Rugby.
Not to the point, but people are saying that Beale should get the fullback spot at the Tahs instead of Folau, because Folau can play on the wing.
Good grief—if you compromise on a significant area of quality you devalue it, and thereby you affect outcomes by doing so.
Initially you make a hard decision on Beale to play other than at fullback at the Tahs, and make a similar one on Pocock's starting selection for the Wallabies.
Later you review and recalibrate if you have to.
.
Mate,your last point mentioned Elsom being a better bench option but all your previous posts were knocking Hooper's ability.Most good judges would disagree with you on that.
I also think that Pocock at his best is the top 7,but Hooper deserves praise for the way he has performed in his absence.
What some people keep choosing to ignore or acknowledge is that on top of everything else hooper is doing, he is still the dominate breakdown turnover exponent in international rugby this year. He was top of the RC and is top of the spring tour stats. The speed work rate and powerful running game is cream on top that makes him so outstanding and unique.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, mine is that baring injury it is hooper position to retain next year, and it will take an awesome effort from someone to dislodge him.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, mine is that baring injury it is hooper position to retain next year, and it will take an awesome effort from someone to dislodge him.
- Status