The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[cyclopath]

And we all sing Kumbayah!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

You've clearly got your views, and that's fine. I'm not putting one guy above another at this point. I'm just sticking up for Hooper, not because I'm a Tahs fan, but because I don't think he is as far behind Pocock as you state.
.

That's the bottom line right there.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Like spotting the first swallow, I'd like to see BamBam produce a repeat performance before I'm calling the Hooper v Pocock v Gill v The Rest over.

It was a pleasing return to form and it has thrown some ginger into the contest for the Wobs 7 jumper, and Gill made a statement overnight as a beacon of competence in an otherwise sub-par performance by his team mates.

 

[Benaud]

The way I see it Pocock was one of the world's best players pre-injury. Since then Hooper has held his spot while he sat on the sidelines, and performed reasonably. The question for this year was whether Pocock would get back to his prior self - in which case there's no question he comes straight back in - or whether he has lost it in the interim, in which case Hooper is retained. It's early days but I think the former is looking the winner atm.

 

[BDA]

Hooper has been the best Wallaby for the past two years. Full stop.
.

Didn't Folau win the John Eales Medal last year?

 

[barbarian]

I meant it more in the context of 'over the course of the last two years'.

 

[Viking]

It's pretty simple.
Do you want a solid breakdown operator and a master ball runner (Hooper)
Or do you want a solid ball runner and a master breakdown operator (Pocock).

Both great workrates and both great tacklers.

I'd go with Pocock. I think the value of a breakdown master has been greatly under-rated the last couple of years! Lots of talk about the game having less emphasis on turn-overs but personally I think Pocock showed last game (and has showed numerous times in the past pre-injury) just how valuable they can be. And they become even more valuable at Test level.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Be nice if the Wobs Selectors had a dilemma of this nature for more than a couple of positions in their team.

 

[Chris McCracken]

It's pretty simple.
Do you want a solid breakdown operator and a master ball runner (Hooper)
Or do you want a solid ball runner and a master breakdown operator (Pocock).

Both great workrates and both great tacklers.

This exactly. Who it is depends on availability, then gameplan and what we need in the squad. If you've made a decision on that in your mind before you know if we have locks who can shift rucks and run the ball, I'd suggest you're putting the cart before the horse.

 

[BDA]

Like spotting the first swallow, I'd like to see BamBam produce a repeat performance before I'm calling the Hopper v Pocock v Gill v The Rest over.

i agree with this. There's still a lot of rugby to be played and not that unlikely that one of the above will be injured for the test season. Pocock is not going to unseed Hooper with one great performance. However, I think the tide in the debate is clearly turning after this weekend's performance.

Until now the main argument of Hooper supporters / Pocock detractors seems to have been that Pocock is riding on reputation from several years ago, that he hasn't dominated a game since 2012, that the game has changed, etc, etc. I don't disagree with the sentiment of those arguments.

But this weekend's performance was a pretty good response to those points. It was vintage Pocock. Quite frankly he played a game that only Pocock can play. The type of game that Hooper can't replicate. Keep in mind that the Blues essentially started two no.7s to combat Pocock. It worked okay for a while, but as soon as Luke Braid came off, Pocock just dominated the breakdown and nearly carried the Brumbies to a comeback win. It's a good example too of opposition teams having to work out how to combat his strengths.

If he can stay healthy I predict he'll be our best no.7 come WC time. Whether Cheika would select him is another question

 

[Bullrush]

This exactly. Who it is depends on availability, then gameplan and what we need in the squad. If you've made a decision on that in your mind before you know if we have locks who can shift rucks and run the ball, I'd suggest you're putting the cart before the horse.

I agree with you and Seb. If you are playing any of the top teams in the world, I can't think of when you'd go with the 'master ball runner' over the 'master breakdown operator'.

 

[Ruggo]

And we all sing Kumbayah!

My Lord?

 

[Rodger]

Ive always rated Hooper but never ahead of Pocock. While I still think Pocock has superiority at the breakdown, Hooper does enough at the breakdown and defense but brings so much more in ball carries and linking with the backs. Maybe its been so long since we had a good look at Bam Bam and have forgotten what he brings but at this point Hooper has definitely won me over and would start him ahead of Pocock looking ahead in 2014. Thoughts?
Also there's been talk about starting them both al the george smith and phill Waugh experiment..just cant see it happen without stuffing up the balance in the back row.

Lastly Liam Gill has to be the unluckiest bugger in the country. I felt he had a much better super season then Hooper. I think defensively and at the breakdown he has superiority over Hooper but probably needs to develop other parts of his game significantly in order to stand out....when you also consider Alcock was the forces best loose forward and hopefully the emergence of Colby In Melb we're pretty lucky to have a fair bit of depth at 7.

Im a big fan of gill. I agree..unlucky at least. He leaves nothing on the paddock and does the work of three. Give him a go ffs.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I agree with you and Seb. If you are playing any of the top teams in the world, I can't think of when you'd go with the 'master ball runner' over the 'master breakdown operator'.

I think it will depend a bit on our other ball running options at the time in the pack. Just as you can't not have a fetcher, you can't not have line bending forwards either. I hope that we're not just relying on Hooper to make busts up the middle (even though he's very good at it).

 

[Bobby Sands]

If fit, forever more.

7. David Pocock

 

[Dave Beat]

It's pretty simple.
Do you want a solid breakdown operator and a master ball runner (Hooper)
Or do you want a solid ball runner and a master breakdown operator (Pocock).

Both great workrates and both great tacklers.

I'd go with Pocock. I think the value of a breakdown master has been greatly under-rated the last couple of years! Lots of talk about the game having less emphasis on turn-overs but personally I think Pocock showed last game (and has showed numerous times in the past pre-injury) just how valuable they can be. And they become even more valuable at Test level.

So hard to split them - i like both players, but this is my who and why.

The Brumbies have for a long time played a different style of game to the Tahs, if i recall when Hooper was at the Brumbies he received allot of plaudits for his pilfering as well, however at the Tahs i believe his roll is to play more of a link to allow a wider attack, and he also appears to have the duty of tracking / covering the ball more than Poey.

So I'm not wanting to separate the 2 - my selection would come down to game plan and opposition, and example.
Hooper V AB's
Poey V Boks.
& Given that Moore becomes captain.
Bit like I'd pick Skelton against the Boks but not the ABs.

With regards to who brings the most to a game - I'd chose Hooper as it is a team sport (not to be taken outa context they are both team players), and he can add more to the players around him.

 

[Marcelo]

I think that Pocock at 6, and Hooper at 7 still gives you balance. Pocock already plays the same role as fardy does when hes at 6, but Poeys as good at defending, a better Runner, and the best Pilferer, so why not have both?

Pocock is too short to play at blindside flanker. You lose a jumper at the lineout. At international level you need a #6 who can be an option at the lineout

 

[Gillys_ghost]

But why cant you have an 8 thats a lineout option instead?

 

[Scoey]

Of your 6 & 8 you pretty much want one to be an excellent jumper and the other to be above average. It's not an 'either or' situation. 4 solid lineout options in a test team should be achievable and should pay dividends come game time.

 

[Joeleee]

I don't know about anyone else, but for mine Gill and co. are pretty much out of the running. I think Gill is a great player, but I think in a position in which we have the luxury of having two proven world class test performers, it would be a massive mistake to omit either of them in favour of someone with potential this close to the RWC. Even if Gill could be better than either of them, I don't see it as being worth the risk.