The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[A mutterer]

skelton will be #2 in the lineout, so we can stop worrying about this whole jumping business

 

[ACT Crusader]

Is Hooper still in the race?

Poey is an 80 minute player. Hooper is a waste of a bench option. If we want 7 cover on the bench, Hooper isn't dynamic enough. The loosie replacements has to be able to cover more than one back row position. The logical 7 cover on the Wallaby bench is actually Hodgo. Watch this space to see how his form builds as he builds game time.

Waste of a bench option? Eh? A back up hard working 7 has been a pretty effective option off the bench, Holah, Waugh, Cane,

 

[boyo]

I have a note.

Signed by your mum?

 

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

Surely it's time that the title of this thread is changed...

It's not longer an impending dilemma....

 

[Hans]

Sorry, better than Fardy at 6, who has been consistently one of our best players in the last couple of seasons?

Fardy has been solid and consistent, but Hooper has been damn near the best player for the past 2 years, and if Pocock gets back to captain Pocock days, then both are ahead of Fardy. Its an unfortunate position for Fardy, but both are better players in terms of their impact.

 

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

Fardy has been solid and consistent, but Hooper has been damn near the best player for the past 2 years, and if Pocock gets back to captain Pocock days, then both are ahead of Fardy. Its an unfortunate position for Fardy, but both are better players in terms of their impact.

You're comparing apples with oranges though...

All three (if fit - touch wood) will make the 31 for the RWC.

Who will make the game day 23 comes down to the tactics Cheiks wants to employ... not simply because player A has more impact than player B.

It also depends on how you define "more impact". Does Hooper have more impact on the set piece than Fardy... Not in a million years.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Fardy has been solid and consistent, but Hooper has been damn near the best player for the past 2 years, and if Pocock gets back to captain Pocock days, then both are ahead of Fardy. Its an unfortunate position for Fardy, but both are better players in terms of their impact.

I respectfully disagree with that. Firstly, you'd have to compare them with Fardy in terms of the skill set of a blindside. To my mind that encompasses being a line out option, providing mongrel in terms of clean out and dominant defence and some ball running ability. There is also the size you give up by effectively playing two opensides, which against the heavier packs in the NH and South Africa I don't think we can afford to do. I think it would alter the balance of the back row too much and besides, Fardy has been pretty excellent at 6. Witness how much we missed him on the EOYT in 2014.

 

[BDA]

If we had a strong front row, a Kieran Reid at 8, and a Whitelock/Retalick second row, I'd start Hooper and Pocock every day of the week. but we don't unfortunately our backrowers and locks aren't as well rounded as the all blacks'. Skelton is powerful but limited at the line-out, Simo is technically strong but a very average ball runner, Palu (see skelton), Carter workhorse but isn't strong in the collision. The balancing act is more much difficult having regard to the personnel at our disposal. To top it off, we need to be looking to beef up our pack as much as possible if we are to compete well in the scrums.

I just don't think starting 2 opensides is currently viable. Not looking at our current squad.

 

[KOB1987]

I'm warming to it. For every line out it costs us we will win two turnovers...

 

[Antony]

Yeah, there is an element of 'do what your opposition doesn't want you to do'. I'm sure most oppositions would rather face what is still going to be a fairly average line-out and only have have to deal with one of Pooper, than face a genuinely pretty limited line-out and have to deal with both.

 

[Scoey]

So we play dual open sides, we win penalty after penalty at the breakdown for holding on then we kick for touch and the opposition double team our main jumper and contest our secondary and then they win the ball back. Cracking idea!

It astounds me the blasé attitude so many people have towards the lineout.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yes, you ignore the set piece at your peril at test level.

 

[Antony]

I understand what you mean, and I've even expressed the same view over the course of this thread (my views on this subject are pretty schizophrenic). However, one of the great beauties of rugby is that there are a million and one ways to skin the proverbial cat. I genuinely think you've got two once-in-a-generation players playing the same position, and it's not entirely absurd to look at playing them both. The line-out is clearly very important, but nothing in this game is absolute.

 

[Antony]

For clarity: I would still start Fardy. I'd try to shoehorn Pocock in at 8.

 

[Braveheart81]

It astounds me the blasé attitude so many people have towards the lineout.

Is it that hard to have decent lineout stats on your own ball when playing 2.5 jumpers?

The Wallabies don't have a dominant lineout in that we're not about to start winning lots of steals on opposition ball but with some variation, you should be able to win your own ball with 2 strong jumpers and 1 reasonable jumper.

I'm certainly of the mindset that the we're less likely to lose games based on our lineout weakness compared to other facets of the game so in a less than perfect world where we don't have the players do be excellent across every aspect, it makes sense to weaken the lineout to a degree.

 

[KOB1987]

One of the reasons rod macqueen had such success was that he would modify the 'job descriptions' of the positions to suit such that the best players were on the field..all the jobs were still out there, just not always the usual people doing them..

I can counter your scenario scoey by calling a 5 man lineout.

Innovation always wins over

 

[Scoey]

Is it that hard to have decent lineout stats on your own ball when playing 2.5 jumpers?

The Wallabies don't have a dominant lineout in that we're not about to start winning lots of steals on opposition ball but with some variation, you should be able to win your own ball with 2 strong jumpers and 1 reasonable jumper.

I'm certainly of the mindset that the we're less likely to lose games based on our lineout weakness compared to other facets of the game so in a less than perfect world where we don't have the players do be excellent across every aspect, it makes sense to weaken the lineout to a degree.

Put simply, yes. It's pretty unlikely that we'll have decent lineout stats with 2.5 jumpers at test level.
You sacrifice your lineout you're effectively giving up field position. If you can't secure pretty much 100% of your own ball then the opposition should and would attack you there.

Given the topic I can only assume that by 'other facets' of the game you mean playing both Hooper and Pocock then I certainly don't think the perceived benefit of playing them both and not having a player like Fardy at 6 absolutely won't justify weakening an average lineout.
It's a ridiculous proposition and I think it's even more ridiculous that only a couple of months ago before Pocock found his form, the very idea of playing dual open sides was lambasted because of the affect it would have on the lineout but now that we have two cracking sevens we're all of a sudden trying to shoehorn them in anywhere and to hell with the consequences.

 

[Braveheart81]

I would probably give Hooper and Pocock a go together in the Rugby Championship just to see how it fares. Generally I think we'll ultimately end up playing one in the starting team and one off the bench later in the game as with everyone available, I think Fardy should play 6 and Palu or McCalman 8.​

​

If there are injuries and we're compromised at 6 or 8 I'd definitely consider it more strongly. If the option was McMahon at 6 like on the EOYT I'd absolutely go with Pocock and Hooper in the starting XV.​

​

Did our lineout struggle particularly on the EOYT when we had McMahon at 6? I don't really remember it being an issue.​

​

 

[Chris McCracken]

One of the reasons rod macqueen had such success was that he would modify the 'job descriptions' of the positions to suit such that the best players were on the field..all the jobs were still out there, just not always the usual people doing them..

I can counter your scenario scoey by calling a 5 man lineout.

Innovation always wins over

It looks that way until you realise that it's hard to set a maul off a five man. Worse, in a five man, the ball off the top can put your halfback in a nasty position as their forwards come through the lineout faster. Plus, if you miss with the throw, the defence usually has a better position to clean up the loose ball. It's also pretty dangerous to use in your own 22 and puts an extra two forwards in their defensive line

The full modern lineout usually has 4 viable jumpers. There's a reason for that and a reason short lineouts are used in specific circumstances.

Yes, you can adjust job descriptions. I would think that's a great idea. We can indeed have both on the field. But, it would really mean having Simmons, McCalman and someone like Carter in the lock and 8 spots.

 

[Scoey]

One of the reasons rod macqueen had such success was that he would modify the 'job descriptions' of the positions to suit such that the best players were on the field..all the jobs were still out there, just not always the usual people doing them..

I can counter your scenario scoey by calling a 5 man lineout.

Innovation always wins over

I can't agree with any of this. One of the reasons Robbie Deans struggled to gain success is that he prioritised getting the 'best players' onto the field regardless of what position they played in.

Yes you can use a 5 man lineout at times, but there are times that you should always use a full lineout and if you don't have it at your disposal you will leak points.