The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Agreed on the ideal combo. At the moment it's Hooper, Fardy and Cliffy (assuming he's fit and firing, otherwise Big Dog).

 

[Scoey]

Who the hell is big dog?

 

[BDA]

mccalman

 

[Bairdy]

Not to detract from the premise of the thread, but has McCalman played at 6 - for the Force or Wallabies - or has he exclusively played at 8? Could be a handy option at blindside if Palu is fit.

I reckon TGC take his pick of Fardy, Dennis, Jones for BSF depending on his first-choice OSF i.e. Fardy/Dennis with Hooper; Jones/McCalman (if he is an option) with Pocock.

Otherwise I'll let you get back to the proverbial ferrari or lamborghini debate.

 

[qwerty51]

Don't think so, I think he has for Uni however. McCalman is ahead of Higginbotham/McMahon imo. If Palu/Fardy aren't fit, he's into the starting lineup at 6 or 8.

 

[fatprop]

McCalman has played a load of 6, but he plays tighter than the rest, so he wouldn't work as well if Palu was 8. With a Palu\McCalman nexus a 8, it fits well to have a Fardy\Higgers option at 6 who can play wider/freer roles.

 

[Scrubber2050]

IMO Fardy is by far the best option at 6, he has proved it time and time again,,,,,

 

[Braveheart81]

If everyone is fit, I'd almost consider a back 5 in the forward pack of:

4. Fardy
5. Simmons/Skelton
6. McCalman
7. Hooper
8. Palu

19. Simmons/Skelton
20. Pocock

McCalman is slated to play 80 minutes. He moves to number 8 when Palu comes off and is replaced by Pocock who plays 6.

I thought one of the best points in Bob Dwyer's piece about selecting a RWC squad was about impact vs workrate and that he'd always take someone who scores a couple more points out of 10 for impact over a couple of points of workrate with the premise that the workrate will be filled elsewhere.

The two Achilles' heels of the Wallabies forwards are the scrum and the physical contest. Both are critically important to put us in a position to win. I thought that generally we've been much better in the physical contest than we were through much of the Deans era but the scrum has got worse. Our scrum will hopefully improve with Skelton's scrummaging improving and finding a reserve THP that is stronger at scrum time. I tend to think a pack that is high on impact will put us in a better position to win the big games.

 

[A mutterer]

IMO Fardy is by far the best option at 14, he has proved it time and time again,,,,,

fixed that for you

 

[Viking]

If everyone is fit, I'd almost consider a back 5 in the forward pack of:

4. Fardy
5. Simmons/Skelton
6. McCalman
7. Hooper
8. Palu

19. Simmons/Skelton
20. Pocock

McCalman is slated to play 80 minutes. He moves to number 8 when Palu comes off and is replaced by Pocock who plays 6.

I thought one of the best points in Bob Dwyer's piece about selecting a RWC squad was about impact vs workrate and that he'd always take someone who scores a couple more points out of 10 for impact over a couple of points of workrate with the premise that the workrate will be filled elsewhere.

The two Achilles' heels of the Wallabies forwards are the scrum and the physical contest. Both are critically important to put us in a position to win. I thought that generally we've been much better in the physical contest than we were through much of the Deans era but the scrum has got worse. Our scrum will hopefully improve with Skelton's scrummaging improving and finding a reserve THP that is stronger at scrum time. I tend to think a pack that is high on impact will put us in a better position to win the big games.

Putting Fardy at lock won't help the scrum woes. I really liked Bob's article and the points you raised. Although I think McCalman is more workrate then impact, at least at Test level. Whilst he isn't on the top of his game at the moment I think Higgers could potentially have more impact.

I'd actually go with:
4. Skelton - impact
5. Simmons - workrate
6. Fardy - impact/workout - all rounder really
7. Hooper - workrate
8. Palu - impact

Higgers bench.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Pocock took a giant step forward in this debate yesterday

 

[Viking]

Countless turnovers forced by the hands of Pocock and not against light opposition either. Sorry Hooper you had your fun but its time for the master to step back in.

 

[Bullrush]

It was only ever a case of if he got over his injuries, which it looks like he is - if not already has!

Hooper has never dominated at Test level the way Pocock has an ability to. He is the one guy that makes me very nervous if the ABs meet the Wallabies in the RWC...

 

[Viking]

It's funny when you read all these comments like "Pocock was only good when the laws at the breakdown were different", "He isn't effective anymore because its harder to make turnovers now." etc.

Then he comes back and dominates the breakdown and makes countless turnovers.

IMO, if Pocock can stay fit and that is a still a big question mark then he's starting against the AB, England, SA.

 

[wamberal]

I have not followed this thread at all, so forgive me for making an observation that might have been made.


Pocock is certainly the master of the turnover, but Hooper is far better as a ball runner - he can break a game wide open, in fact, against just about any defense. Pocock, by contrast, is pretty pedestrian with ball in hand. Hooper is pretty good at the breakdown, obviously not as good as Pocock.

So it seems to me that the choice between them would come down to the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. (Other factors as well, of course - particularly form and fitness).

 

[Ruggo]

Too much fucking around fitting players in. Time to just harden up and accept that some of the forum favorites won't fit in.

 

[ChargerWA]

I have not followed this thread at all, so forgive me for making an observation that might have been made.


Pocock is certainly the master of the turnover, but Hooper is far better as a ball runner - he can break a game wide open, in fact, against just about any defense. Pocock, by contrast, is pretty pedestrian with ball in hand. Hooper is pretty good at the breakdown, obviously not as good as Pocock.

So it seems to me that the choice between them would come down to the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. (Other factors as well, of course - particularly form and fitness).

But Hoopers ball running is going to be nullified somewhat due to the nature of RWC games. I'd also disagree that he is "pretty good" at the breakdown. I'd say barely adequate for an Australian starting 7.

Though I shudder to think when we do make breaks who will be there to support the ball runner if Hoopers not in the team. He's the only one who works as hard as the AB's do off the ball, and that includes our backs. It's one area we are weak and seem to never look to address.

 

[Tomikin]

Im still backing G.Smith to sign for a 3 week contract with the Brumbies next year so he can take the 7 jersey

 

[qwerty51]

It's funny when you read all these comments like "Pocock was only good when the laws at the breakdown were different", "He isn't effective anymore because its harder to make turnovers now." etc.

My point was always he has done nothing this year, everyone was just basing how good he was on 4-5 years ago. He had an awesome game last night and another one of those will show he's still got it. This thread has a long way to go..

 

[Viking]

My point was always he has done nothing this year, everyone was just basing how good he was on 4-5 years ago. He had an awesome game last night and another one of those will show he's still got it. This thread has a long way to go..

Yes to be fair, Pocock needs to continue his form for the remainder of the season. And more importantly stay injury free.

But I think the value of his breakdown work was highlighted last game. Something I think the wallabies need more-so then a ball-running forward.