The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Viking]

I'd say massively overrated actually. Not that he's terrible, just that if Pocock has a few runs, breaks zero tackles, makes zero line breaks and makes almost zero meters in the tackle people still bang on about how his "running game is developing" merely because he ran with the pill a couple of times without at all objectively looking at the quality of his runs.

The majority of people want to see his running game improve, so they will look for any possible reason to support that.

True.

But the same can be said of Hooper at the breakdown. Makes his tackles, hits his rucks, stats look good for turnovers but many posters failing too see the quality of his ruck involvements and turnovers.

 

[Viking]

Is Hooper's running game really a 10/10?

I'd say Folau's running game is a 10/10.

Nah Folau is 9/10. He's kinda slow

 

[BDA]

I'd say massively overrated actually. Not that he's terrible, just that if Pocock has a few runs, breaks zero tackles, makes zero line breaks and makes almost zero meters in the tackle people still bang on about how his "running game is developing" merely because he ran with the pill a couple of times without at all objectively looking at the quality of his runs.

The majority of people want to see his running game improve, so they will look for any possible reason to support that.

One thing I'll say about Pocock's running game is this - When he use to start for the wallabies he was used pretty regularly as a ball runner, particularly off the back of the line-out and he was always reliable, if perhaps uninspiring. He never loses the ball in contact, so he's a good ball runner in that regard. In his game against the Cheetahs he looked to be trying to hit the line with more velocity, which is what Hooper does well. That is an area he looks to be trying to improve as a ball runner.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is Hooper's running game really a 10/10?

I'd say Folau's running game is a 10/10.

My scale was purely in terms of openside flankers. Otherwise it would get way too complicated. I also didn't put much thought into it.

 

[Tomikin]

Pocock dominates the contact zone just as successfully as Hooper, if not better. Especially on defence. Obviously Hooper would dominate run metres and line breaks but I think once they get into contact it would be hard to say Hooper has the better of him especially when I can re-call Hooper being held-up a couple of times at test level.

Also, I'm confused by your last statement, I agree Hooper is under-rated at the breakdown but you've gone as far to say that you think Hooper is better at the breakdown then Pocock?

I meant it to say that Hoopers Breakdown work is better then Pococks running game... E.G Hoopers Breakdown is about an 8 where Pococks running is a 6 or 7.. Where Hoopers running game is about a 9 and Pococks Breakdown work is a 10..

Make sense ? I didn't think so either

 

[Scoey]

One thing I find interesting though is that the games in which players like Pocock look their best are in games you're getting smashed.

The 2011 RWC quarter final is probably the best example of this. We were constantly under pressure and the Springboks had most of the ball and territory. That meant there were a huge number of tackles to be made and defensive rucks to try and steal the ball.

Likewise, Pocock had a blinder against the Blues in somewhat similar circumstances. The Brumbies were under lots of pressure and Pocock had a lot of forced penalties in defence.

The Wallabies beat the Springboks in that game and the Blues just got over the line against the Brumbies but I think it is pretty true that both South Africa and Auckland should have won comfortably based on the amount of possession and territory they had.

I think it can create a bit of a false economy if you look at those games as the benchmark for deciding that selecting Pocock is imperative. In those games, Pocock will be your best player but you will still lose the game, often quite comprehensively.

The challenge for Pocock is to become more useful in a game that doesn't involve his side being under huge pressure for much of the game.

Likewise, Michael Hooper looks his best when his team has a lot of possession and he can run with the ball, link with the backs and generally create havoc. He needs to work on other the side of his game so that he is more effective when his team is under immense pressure and having to defend a lot.

So one of them may win you a game you would have otherwise lost and the other may help you win by more in a game you would've have won anyway?

 

[Scoey]

One thing I'll say about Pocock's running game is this - When he use to start for the wallabies he was used pretty regularly as a ball runner, particularly off the back of the line-out and he was always reliable, if perhaps uninspiring. He never loses the ball in contact, so he's a good ball runner in that regard. In his game against the Cheetahs he looked to be trying to hit the line with more velocity, which is what Hooper does well. That is an area he looks to be trying to improve as a ball runner.

This is probably the fundamental difference in the two. Pocock is stronger in the upper body and likely has a higher centre of gravity whereas Hooper's main strength is in his legs and I would estimate his centre of gravity is much lower than Pocock's. This is why Pocock is stronger over the ball and Hooper can bust tackles like he does. Even if either player targets those weaker areas for improvement, they won't match the other guy who is naturally built better for it. If any of that makes sense.

 

[cyclopath]

So one of them may win you a game you would have otherwise lost and the other may help you win by more in a game you would've have won anyway?

On face value, yeah. But there are close games where there are lots of points scored (i.e quite "open") and close games which are dour arm wrestles. RWC 2011 v SA is the latter, Aus v NZ 2000 was the former (just as examples before someone points out Hooper didn't play in 2000!!!).

 

[cyclopath]

This is probably the fundamental difference in the two. Pocock is stronger in the upper body and likely has a higher centre of gravity whereas Hooper's main strength is in his legs and I would estimate his centre of gravity is much lower than Pocock's. This is why Pocock is stronger over the ball and Hooper can bust tackles like he does. Even if either player targets those weaker areas for improvement, they won't match the other guy who is naturally built better for it. If any of that makes sense.

No, you've got it all wrong.
Pocock IS the centre of gravity.
Hooper IS the centre of levity, or the centre wearing "7" - take your pick!

 

[Braveheart81]

So one of them may win you a game you would have otherwise lost and the other may help you win by more in a game you would've have won anyway?

No, not at all.

Just saying that using the game where your team is most under pressure and hasn't got the ball as the guide for how good a player is is perhaps a misnomer unless your game plan is to have 35% possession and spend most of the game in your own half.

The Wallabies are always likely to play a more ball in hand style of game and like on the EOYT, we need to be able win those games where we have well over 50% possession and territory. The biggest thing that will help that is having a scrum that doesn't get penalised off the park.

 

[Bobby Sands]

All I can get from this, is that the Brumbies and Tahs should do a swap for the rest of the season.

Dave to play 7 for the Tahs, Butler to play 7 for the Brumbies and Hooper to play 12.

 

[BDA]

Therein lies the rub. Against the likes of England, we are going to be getting less than 50% possession. The scrum will be a major source of extra possession for the poms.

 

[Braveheart81]

Therein lies the rub. Against the likes of England, we are going to be getting less than 50% possession. The scrum will be a major source of extra possession for the poms.

In the 2014 EOYT test where we lost 26-17, we had 66% possession and 70% territory.

 

[Wilson]

I meant it to say that Hoopers Breakdown work is better then Pococks running game. E.G Hoopers Breakdown is about an 8 where Pococks running is a 6 or 7.. Where Hoopers running game is about a 9 and Pococks Breakdown work is a 10..

Make sense ? I didn't think so either

I get what your saying but I think it's worth pointing out that Pocock's breakdown work is not just a 10, it's the best in the world, or at least it was at his peak and it looks like he's not far from it already. I don't know that you can really say that about Hooper's running game, good as it is.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'd say massively overrated actually. Not that he's terrible, just that if Pocock has a few runs, breaks zero tackles, makes zero line breaks and makes almost zero meters in the tackle people still bang on about how his "running game is developing" merely because he ran with the pill a couple of times without at all objectively looking at the quality of his runs.

The majority of people want to see his running game improve, so they will look for any possible reason to support that.

I love it when we agree.

 

[Chris McCracken]

This is probably the fundamental difference in the two. Pocock is stronger in the upper body and likely has a higher centre of gravity whereas Hooper's main strength is in his legs and I would estimate his centre of gravity is much lower than Pocock's. This is why Pocock is stronger over the ball and Hooper can bust tackles like he does. Even if either player targets those weaker areas for improvement, they won't match the other guy who is naturally built better for it. If any of that makes sense.

I'm going to disagree with that entirely, but I have a good reason. When I met Pocock, I realised his legs are very short - even disproportionately so. I also think that he carries most of his weight in the legs, despite his much publicised upper body strength.

I feel that is why he's so good over the ball. his strong, low base makes it hard to move him. Nonetheless, I realise I'm a bit pedantic.

And, as they say in the classics, here's a picture.....

 

[BDA]

In the 2014 EOYT test where we lost 26-17, we had 66% possession and 70% territory.

wow. i didn't know that. shocking. I had thought that it was our shit scrum that lost us that game, but clearly not.

Surely Foley has a lot to answer for. losing a game with that much possession and territory

 

[TSR]

My two cents worth - for me it was only a matter of whether Pocock could get back to somewhere near his best (and stay injury free.) Last weekend was promising, but we won't really know for a few more weeks.

If he can it is a no contest as far as I am concerned - Pocock at his best is a level above Hooper + his skills really address one is of our critical points of weakness. My only other consideration is that if playing Pocock & Fardy (who I consider a shoe in) together, I would consider a more wide running 8 like Higgers - even if he may not be front of the pecking order on his own merit.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Braveheart81]

wow. i didn't know that. shocking. I had thought that it was our shit scrum that lost us that game, but clearly not.

Surely Foley has a lot to answer for. losing a game with that much possession and territory

As does Cooper who replaced Foley with 35 minutes to go.

 

[BDA]

ha. touché