The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[ACT Crusader]

Mortlock may have bagged the famous intercept try, but Smith killed it in that game.....

It wasn't just the intercept, it was his ability to break the line that had us scrambling which expended a lot of energy on what was a humid Sydney night. I don't doubt Smith played well though, he had the invisible cloak on that night off his feet and on his knees at most rucks....,

 

[JJJ]

Surely the only area where we need to significantly improve the 'fear factor' of our forwards is the scrum.

We dominated possession throughout the EOYT and lost games on the back of our scrum.

Generally we're faring fine around the field and at the breakdown.

NZ is better than us in every facet play currently. That was also the case when Pocock was in the team and in form.

My recollection of the EOYT was that we dominated possession because we weren't kicking much and the opposition were. And the reason we weren't kicking much is because we weren't great at regaining possession once lost.

As for NZ, I don't think anybody is suggesting that Pocock is a free ticket to beating them.

 

[BDA]

back in 2011 and prior there certainly was a certain "fear Factor" (if you want to call it that) or probably more just a "recognition"n of certain no.7s. You had to come up with a specific plan to deal with the likes of McCaw, Pocock and Brussouw at the breakdown. That seems to have changed slightly in recent year but you can still create that headache for attacking teams. The Bok Backrow (at least until the EOYT when they lost the plot against Ireland) was probably the best IMO, because they were so strong over the ball, as a unit. It really made life tough for the opposition. A Backrow of Pocock/McCalman/Fardy could achieve something similar (not that I'm suggesting we go with that).

 

[Merrow]

10 days until a likely face off. Can't wait.

 

[cyclopath]

10 days until a likely face off. Can't wait.

Well, yes and no.
As in many things, Super Rugby is not analogous to Test rugby, although it is obviously the selection point. I, too, look forward to the contest.
Larkham won't play the same game plan as Cheika at this level, and neither will be the same as The Wallabies might play either. And, with respect, neither the Brumbies nor the Waratahs are playing Test rugby; it's one of the beauties of Super Rugby ( or any provincial rugby) that the game is often a bit looser than a Test. So, we can say Player A had a better game than Player B, but I doubt we can use the single match data to prove anything, except how impressively a few internet gurus can piss. And gloat, no doubt.
It's partly why I find this thread (not your post, by the way) a bit retarded - if both are fit, both will be in the squad, and both will get plenty of game time this year, with both bringing different great skillsets to the table. I honestly can't understand the need for one to be better than the other. The amount of bandwidth consumed on a good "problem" to have seems odd, when we have some glaring Achilles' heels in selection. Oh, well.

 

[Merrow]

^^^
Actually I can't wait for the game whether Poey and Hooper are playing or not.....and thanks for not calling my post retarded. The squad would benefit from both of them playing.

I will however take this opportunity to say if Poey wipes the floor with Hooper, I will most likely help waste some more bandwidth and crow loudly. I fully expect you to do the same if the opposite occurs.

 

[formerflanker]

We will all have to go back to the drawing board if during the Brumbies/Tahs game Pocock has a blinder with his rolling maul offence and strength over the ruck ball - while Hooper has another blinder in defence and run meters.
Then it will over to Cheika to select horses for courses.

 

[cyclopath]

^^^
Actually I can't wait for the game whether Poey and Hooper are playing or not...and thanks for not calling my post retarded. The squad would benefit from both of them playing.

I will however take this opportunity to say if Poey wipes the floor with Hooper, I will most likely help waste some more bandwidth and crow loudly. I fully expect you to do the same if the opposite occurs.

If you think I would, you clearly didn't read my post very well.

 

[Merrow]

If you think I would, you clearly didn't read my post very well.

Sigh,........just a small joke........I should've known better.

 

[BDA]

The amount of bandwidth consumed on a good "problem" to have seems odd, when we have some glaring Achilles' heels in selection. Oh, well.

This thread seems like nothing more than a way to pass the time til the world cup really. I guess it's more enjoyable to spend 6 months agitating over which of our world class 7s should start, rather than worrying about a inevitable injury crisis and poor scrum that will lead to our demise.

On the other hand, this selection is probably Cheika's most important / difficult, and n that respect its much more interesting. As everyone has pointed out, it'll not only dictate the make up of our backrow but might also dictate who our captain is, which is an important piece of the puzzle that still hasn't been resolved

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It's not difficult at the moment, Bam's not playing!

 

[Marcelo]

With both at their best would be wonderful Pocock at the starting XV and Hooper as impact player

 

[Athilnaur]

Well, yes and no.

It's partly why I find this thread (not your post, by the way) a bit retarded - if both are fit, both will be in the squad, and both will get plenty of game time this year, with both bringing different great skillsets to the table. I honestly can't understand the need for one to be better than the other. The amount of bandwidth consumed on a good "problem" to have seems odd, when we have some glaring Achilles' heels in selection. Oh, well.

To be fair it's more productive than the QC (Quade Cooper) and Beale controversy threads were Cyclo!

In all seriousness while you are completely right they are both good and will get lots of gametime (if fit/fingers crossed) most selections are easy decisions. I forecast that if Hoops and Poey are available at the RWC and we lose then that particular decision, whatever it is, will be debated for years. It's the Energiser Bunny vs the Rock, or try shoehorn both in.

 

[A mutterer]

To be fair it's more productive than the QC (Quade Cooper) and Beale controversy threads were Cyclo!

In all seriousness while you are completely right they are both good and will get lots of gametime (if fit/fingers crossed) most selections are easy decisions. I forecast that if Hoops and Poey are available at the RWC and we lose then that particular decision, whatever it is, will be debated for years. It's the Energiser Bunny vs the Rock, or try shoehorn both in.

A rockbunny?

 

[cyclopath]

To be fair it's more productive than the QC (Quade Cooper) and Beale controversy threads were Cyclo!

In all seriousness while you are completely right they are both good and will get lots of gametime (if fit/fingers crossed) most selections are easy decisions. I forecast that if Hoops and Poey are available at the RWC and we lose then that particular decision, whatever it is, will be debated for years. It's the Energiser Bunny vs the Rock, or try shoehorn both in.

I wouldn't hold those up as paragons of the forum. But yes, I suppose it sort of is.

 

[barbarian]

My problem with the 'Hooper is not a 7' is not the argument itself, though I do think it's flawed, but the way it seems to have become ingrained in a certain section of the online rugby community.

Now it seems no discussion on Hooper or the Wallabies or Gill or the Waratahs can go without a mention that Hooper is not a 'true' 7. Not only that, but now many seem to seriously think he should play in the outside backs, because apparently if you make a line break or run the ball a lot you are best suited to the wing.

Any evidence to the contrary is explained away as an outlier. If Hooper came out this weekend and took 12 turnovers people would say 'for ONCE he has played a good game' or something similar. The evidence against their argument is now just ignored totally.

That's true of a lot of rugby issues (AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) can't pass, TPN can't throw etc) but this one seems to have been really adopted by the online loony fringe. I'm not saying everyone who thinks Hooper is not the best 7 is a loony, just quite a few of the front page commenters are.

And it's going to come up on every fucking article this year. It shits me because ultimately he's an outstanding player with some flaws, just like all of our players, and yet some bullshit online groupthink sees him trashed at any opportunity.
.

 

[formerflanker]

My problem with the 'Hooper is not a 7' is not the argument itself, though I do think it's flawed, but the way it seems to have become ingrained in a certain section of the online rugby community.
...but now many seem to seriously think he should play in the outside backs, because apparently if you make a line break or run the ball a lot you are best suited to the wing.

Good point. He is not a back. He is a very good loose forward.

 

[BDA]

Now it seems no discussion on Hooper or the Wallabies or Gill or the Waratahs can go without a mention that Hooper is not a 'true' 7. Not only that, but now many seem to seriously think he should play in the outside backs, because apparently if you make a line break or run the ball a lot you are best suited to the wing.

Hooper is obviously an outstanding 7. In terms of the question of "how do you fit both guys into the 23", the fact that Hooper has those abilities (akin to an outside back) that most 7s don't is a real benefit.

Hooper's unique skill set is a major positive from my POV. His versatility allows you to play a 6/2 bench, which is what I think Cheika should be doing for the big games at the world cup. He can act as a third reserve back, if absolutely necessary.

 

[Scoey]

My problem with the 'Hooper is not a 7' is not the argument itself, though I do think it's flawed, but the way it seems to have become ingrained in a certain section of the online rugby community.

Now it seems no discussion on Hooper or the Wallabies or Gill or the Waratahs can go without a mention that Hooper is not a 'true' 7. Not only that, but now many seem to seriously think he should play in the outside backs, because apparently if you make a line break or run the ball a lot you are best suited to the wing.

Any evidence to the contrary is explained away as an outlier. If Hooper came out this weekend and took 12 turnovers people would say 'for ONCE he has played a good game' or something similar. The evidence against their argument is now just ignored totally.

That's true of a lot of rugby issues (AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) can't pass, TPN can't throw etc) but this one seems to have been really adopted by the online loony fringe. I'm not saying everyone who thinks Hooper is not the best 7 is a loony, just quite a few of the front page commenters are.

And it's going to come up on every fucking article this year. It shits me because ultimately he's an outstanding player with some flaws, just like all of our players, and yet some bullshit online groupthink sees him trashed at any opportunity.
.

It's a pretty small section of the online community though, if you ask me. You acknowledge this to an extent when you reference the group as a fringe.

But, when anyone points out Hooper's flaws or suggests they want their 7 playing a different way to the way Hooper does, the reaction from his fans is as dismissive as it is swift. I think that a lot of his fans are reacting to the very vocal minority and getting a touch sensitive, and as a result being a bit quick to defend any criticism. To the point that, the defence can come so quickly that it is automatic and in the eyes of some he is almost beyond criticism.

Your post highlights this in a few places. You say that 'many' seem to think he should play in the backs. Many? I doubt that. You've read the of comments form a few trolls (usually the same keyboard warriors), it's pissed you off, as it would me, but now it's somehow the serious opinion of many. No it's not. Ask just about any Wallaby fan to name their team now and Hooper takes the 7 jersey at least 99.9% of the time.

I get that it shits you, and it shits me too, but the issue is not with the discussion of Hooper and how he plays, it's simply that on the internet, people are sometimes dickheads.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, I agree, some people clearly have shit for brains based on their comments on the topic, but not all of us. So if you (everyone) see a comment on Hooper or the Wallabies, or Gill or the Waratahs, read it, work out what they are saying and respond based on that alone. Don't chuck the poster in the loony fringe group as a default setting and then dismiss them. That's what shits me. /rant

 

[barbarian]

I suppose I am separating the forum from the blog here Scoey.

I don't think these opinions are seen on the forums much (thankfully) and I don't see automatic dismissal of anyone arguing against Hooper, as evidenced by this thread.

Your points are well taken, and I may well be a bit sensitive. But I don't think the minority is as small as you think. These type of comments routinely lead the 'up' voted comments on the blog, and they aren't nearly as well thought through and reasoned as forum posts. For example:

Saying hooper was the standout open side is like saying al Baxter was a world class THP coz of all the work around the field he did. This site loses all credibility. Fulfill your role first and everything else comes second. Would you give that tag to a prop who couldn't scrum of a lock who couldn't jump. Double standards. Gill clearly the best openside on the field in a well beaten pack. If hooper wants to run out him on the wing.

From the recent ruck stats article. The same article that showed pretty clearly that Hooper was in plenty of rucks, and was effective in those rucks. And yet this peanut gets his idiotic comment up-voted by other equally dim peanuts.
.