The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Scrubber2050]

and knees as well

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Fardy has that blindside position locked up for mine. He's so good at all the fundamentals that I think it would be a mistake to alter the balance of the back row by not starting with him. If he was injured that would be a different story. Pocock could play at six or maybe at eight in a stretch but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice. The most likely scenario is that he and Hooper share the openside duties, rather like George and Pocock did a few years back. Hopefully that would create the same kind of mayhem we saw back then too.

 

[fatprop]

When you pick the bench, I don't think you would budget for either Pocock or Hooper to play less than 80 minutes

Who ever starts will play 80, the other wouldn't make my bench without injury, there are better 6 & 8 options than Pocock or Hooper

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree. I think we'll only see Hooper and Pocock in the same 23 if there's a plan to have them both on the field at the same time.

You don't have enough reserves to have the luxury of planning to swap your 7 after 50 minutes.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It's a good point. If Pocock is fit, then how does our bench potentially look?

Maybe something like....
Sio
TPN
A.N. Other Prop
Jones
Pocock
AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
Genia
QC (Quade Cooper)/Foley

 

[Jagman]

Interestingly enough the other day on twitter Brett McKay and Scott Allen were having a tweet about opensides in the RWC squad and Allen said emphatically that you must include 3 opensides in a squad to go to a northern hemisphere RWC. I don't think he explained his position.

 

[Braveheart81]

I can't see a reason why you'd include more than 2 specialist opensides.

We may have 2 in our matchday 23 but that is only because they are two of our best players overall and we're trying to make use of that without exposing too many other shortfalls it might create.

A desire to pick 3 openside flankers in our RWC squad of 31 or whatever it is just seems like a way to fit Liam Gill into the squad.

 

[Jagman]

I can't see a reason why you'd include more than 2 specialist opensides.

A desire to pick 3 openside flankers in our RWC squad of 31 or whatever it is just seems like a way to fit Liam Gill into the squad.

That was my feeling too. He didn't plug Gill in the end but the conversation was born out of him having such a good game and whether he could make a way into the squad. Brett McKay said "what about Hodgson" because he can cover multiple positions in the backrow and Allen said Hodgson wasn't any good (my extrapolation) at the other positions but was a good 7. He said you don't need 2.5 opensides (like a McMahon, Fainga'a, Butler) you need 3, quite emphatic. I'd point out that hardly any squads that make it to the semi finals get there without calling up 2 or 3 other blokes and get them on the plane. There's your 15, your 23, your 31/32 and then there's your speed dial squad.

 

[Gnostic]

So you haven't thought about it? You have just rolled out the Smith v Waugh equation of playing two very similiar 7s.

Liam and David are quite different if you hadn't noticed.

This is all hypothetical of course, but let's play it out.

Gill is a fetcher is he not? Good.

He is good aerially and is regularly used at the lineout. Is he 190+cm? No.

Can Dave do all the fundamentals of an Australian 6?

Well his work in tight is sound. He is more than adequate defensively, and ball in hand. Just for good measure he is also very good over the ball, and is more difficult for the opposition to clean out.

However he is not good aerially, so we lose out in the line-out.

You would think we a decent jumping option at 8, let's say similiar to Imanol Harinordoquy than this option lends itself to probably working no?

I have thought about it and last year (or 2013) I did a front page blog piece about playing specialists in their positions.

But as you say let play it out. In 2003 the Wallabies played Smith and Waugh. IMO Smith was a far better lineout option than either Gill or Pocock and Hooper for that matter. Now say you want the skill sets that the two 7 model brings, as E. Jones did for the RWC you then have to select dominant lineout options at both lock positions and also No.8.

In 2003 they had Giffen, Harrison and Kefu + reserves. We are struggling for lineout dominant 2nd rowers, with all options adequate to a greater or lesser degree. There are certainly no dominant jumpers like Giffen. Of the 8s McCalman or Hoiles are the best lineout options but lack the impact at the gain line, of Palu, so that area is compromised, which is then compromised further when you consider that without a genuine lineout option at 6 like Fardy or Higgers, Skelton's limitations at that set piece cannot be covered and the dominance at the gain line will be lost.

Now lets look at how the game is being played, I am making an assumption that you want the two 7 model to play fetcher roles? This ignores the statistical fact that the numbers of "pilfers" at the breakdown have been falling since the heyday of Smith/Waugh/McCaw. The game has moved back to more of a counter-ruck model, which will support a bigger 6 and 8 supporting the early arriving 7 (who has slowed the clearance) to counter ruck when available.

As for defence, I have no doubt that two backrowers like Gill, Pocock, Hooper would enhance the defensive line, but no by much, Fardy and Higgers are very fast and have a high workrate (Fardy more so than Higgers).

So yes I have thought about it and discarded the idea, as I think most coaches confronted with the idea would, given the players and skill sets available.

Even with dominant lineout jumpers in 2003 and Kefu's strength in carrying to and over the gain line the 2 seven model failed. It didn't gain the edge that E. Jones thought it would, because the sum of Waugh and Smith is not simply adding together their individual impact and also failed to take into account the opposition. If they were playing a wide running side they may well have made a greater impact, they did not and against England in the RWC final they came up against perhaps the best backrow England has ever fielded, extremely well balanced in terms of skill sets and very well drilled on maintaining their possession with their game plan which held the ball far tighter when in hand than Smith and Waugh were suited to counter.

A very brief superficial examination of why I dismissed the idea of the two 7 model. I wont even go into the study between the the way Chieka has played the game up to now and what it will mean to have the two 7 model and how in 2003 the two 7 model looked good on paper with E. Jones play by the number grid system.

There is one player who might be able to make it work, the hybrid 7/6 McMahon. But again he is not a sure enough jumper to remove the limitations on skill sets to balance the rest of the pack.

 

[Wilson]

My reading was that he was saying we should be playing to our strengths and running a dual openside game (probably as one to start, one with plenty of time off the bench, to maintain the pace throughout). If that's the case than third becomes important as an injury backup. If we do it than it's going to be a key pillar of our game and you want all 3 ready from the get go so even with a warm up injury you've got the guys ready to go. No one else does it, but no one else (maybe NZ) has our depth at 7.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, just explaining it how I read it.

 

[Jagman]

^^^ It also had something to do with hemisphere though. I wish he'd explained that a bit. Why 3 but only for NH tournament? Weather, officiating?

 

[Tomikin]

I can't see a reason why you'd include more than 2 specialist opensides.

We may have 2 in our matchday 23 but that is only because they are two of our best players overall and we're trying to make use of that without exposing too many other shortfalls it might create.

A desire to pick 3 openside flankers in our RWC squad of 31 or whatever it is just seems like a way to fit Liam Gill into the squad.

I didn't think the Red's had 3 opensiders he could pick

 

[Bullrush]

^^^ It also had something to do with hemisphere though. I wish he'd explained that a bit. Why 3 but only for NH tournament? Weather, officiating?

Prob for the same reason you take 3 hookers and 3 halfbacks.

If one goes down injured, your 2nd choice starts. I think you have up to the last 48hrs before a game to bring new members into your RWC squad and if you have to fly them from Australia, you lose 1-2 days with travel, jet-lag etc.

Scott may feel that it's that important and specialised a position that you don't want to run the risk of having 2 open sides inured and not having a proper back-up.

 

[terry j]

If one goes down injured, your 2nd choice starts. I think you have up to the last 48hrs before a game to bring new members into your RWC squad and if you have to fly them from Australia, you lose 1-2 days with travel, jet-lag etc.

Check should ask all of the players in aus to take their holiday in england, that way if he needs any player they are already there on holiday!

(assuming those not picked do indeed have their holidays at that time)

 

[Jagman]

If one goes down injured, your 2nd choice starts. I think you have up to the last 48hrs before a game to bring new members into your RWC squad and if you have to fly them from Australia, you lose 1-2 days with travel, jet-lag etc.

But George Smith is just across the channel

 

[Braveheart81]

There's a set time before a replacement player can be used for a game. I think it's 48 hours as Bullrush said once you've made the announcement (or application to World Rugby) before the player can play. That's so teams aren't disadvantaged when they have to bring someone over from the other side of the world.

I just can't see a situation where 3 opensides fit into the squad. You just don't have the squad spots available to have that sort of luxury. You need three hooker and three halfbacks because you need two in each matchday 23 and it's always possible to get an injury in the captain's run or warm up. If your second openside got injured you'd have to make do with one for that game which is entirely normal anyway.

I think the desire to play dual opensides decreases when you take Hooper or Pocock out of that equation because the 'too good to leave out' argument starts losing momentum.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It all comes down to back row balance in the end and I think we're going to need a combination of a few things across the three positions to be successful (other folks will obviously come up with other criteria):

1, Securing and/or disrupting attacking and defensive ball at the breakdown (i.e. fetching capability)
2, Hard clean out and counter rucking
3, At least one line out option
4, Line bending ball running capability
5, Consistently dominant tackles in tight
6, Cover defence if the line is broken
7, Linking play with the backs to keep the ball moving forward

Hooper gives 1 (mostly), 4, 5 and 6
Pocock: 1 (in spades), 5, 6 and 7 (to a degree)
Fardy: 1 (to a surprising degree, he's almost a traditional 7), 2, 3 and 7;
Cliffy: 3, 4 (in spades) and 5
McCalman: 2, 3, 4 and 5
Higgers: 3, 4, 6 and 7

So basically pick three of the above in the right combination and most of the bases are covered. Which three is the big question of course.

 

[BDA]

You cant start a game with two no.7s but there is really no issue finishing a game with two no.7s.

The argument about losing a line-out jumper is a bit of a Furphy. You can make do with 2 genuine jumpers and a jumping no.8 for the final 20 minutes of the match if you need to, you just need to be intelligent. Use short line-outs, well rehearsed moves, etc. Compared to other sides I'd wager you won't be seeing the wallabies kick that much ball away and if the likes of England and Wales are kicking to the corner in the final 20 I'd suggest you'd be defending the maul more than actively contesting.

The Wallabies aren't going to lose the world cup because they dont have enough line-out jumpers. It'll be because the scrum is dominated or our defence is shit. Provided you don't weaken the scrum it's not a big issue havign an extra 7 out there.

Pocock (in top form) and Hooper are too good not to have both in the 23

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The Wallabies aren't going to lose the world cup because they dont have enough line-out jumpers. It'll be because the scrum is dominated or our defence is shit. Provided you don't weaken the scrum it's not a big issue havign an extra 7 out there.

I'd agree with that. The scrum is more of a worry than the lineout.

 

[Tomikin]

It's interesting discussion, but if I think back to the EOYT and I thought Cheika got the back row completely wrong in more then a few games...

One thing we do need is size, I know we had injuries Fardy/Higgers were out, but playing McMahon (great player) at 6 with Hooper at 7 wasn't effective. I went on a rant back then about it but we do need to have some size in the backrow at 6 and 8... So guys like Higgers McCalmen, Fardy, Palu, Timani, Jones and Dennis should probably be the guys being looked at for 6 and 8.. That leaves 7 for Pocock, Hooper and Gill.. and McMahon probably as a Bench Backrow Cover as he can play all 3 at a pinch..

So my perfect back 3 would probably be 6 Fardy, 7 Hooper, 8 Palu, now in order I would probably have backups for each position as followed
6. Higgers
7. Pocock
8. Big Mac

But if Higgers gets the 6 jersey I would probably play Pocock over Hooper for the .. yin and yang of the backrow.

If I was Coach, at some time before the world cup, I would start with 6. Fardy 7. Pocock and 8. Palu and at half time or 50 mintues swap in super Hooper for Pocock.. Just to see if it works.