The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Dave Beat]

viz pat Leafa

he had a shocker the other night.

 

[Brumby Runner]

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.

The scrum really struggled. I think McMahon jumped and took some lineouts, but it is really weakening both Lineout and scrum to have a No 6 like McMahon over Fardy.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

The scrum really struggled. I think McMahon jumped and took some lineouts, but it is really weakening both Lineout and scrum to have a No 6 like McMahon over Fardy.

Have a read through Barbars post in this thread re fardy v McMahon in the lineout quick summary it made no difference and McMahon took more lineouts in 3 games than fardy did in 10 and the lineout efficiency was the same.

 

[Brumby Runner]

That would be my guess as well. Seems reasonable- that Simmons would call to himself double as much as he would to Fardy. The answer, though, is...

Five.

Five lineouts in 10 tests. 10 Tests in which our lineout won 87% of its throws.

So can Fardy really be considered a jumping blindside, if he took only five lineouts in 10 tests? McMahon took eight in three tests, Skelton took four in his one start and six stints off the bench.

I understand the idea of being a threat, but surely opposition teams would know this statistic. That number isn't nearly high enough for him to be considered an active threat.


The evidence of last year’s tests seems to support the idea that playing Skelton and two 7s could work, as Simmons calls the ball to himself most of the time anyway, and the blindside isn’t really a threat. Or maybe it just shows us that Fardy isn’t the lineout asset we may have thought.
.

The number of lineouts taken is purely and simply a function of how many the caller sent to him. Fardy is one of the better jumpers at Super level, and my distinct impression is that he takes more steals than most other jumpers. I would hazard a guess that Cheika/Simmons see him as a spoiler at the lineout rather than a primary target, but I would back him to out jump any of McMahon, Palu, Hooper, Pocock, Hodgson et al any day. Higgers would be his equal but not as good in defense around the park.

 

[barbarian]

That might well be the case, BR. His jumping skill isn't really in question here. Actually your point kind of serves my argument, in a weird sort of way.

If we had such a decent jumping 6, why did Simmons never call him? If all we can get out of picking a lineout jumping 6 is five takes in ten tests, then why bother at all?

The answers, clearly, are:

a) because Simmons is going to call to himself most of the time, even if the pack was him and seven clones of John Eales.
b) Fardy was still our best option at six, with or without the lineout. But now there's a spanner in the works, in the form of Pooper.
.

 

[cyclopath]

That might well be the case, BR. His jumping skill isn't really in question here. Actually your point kind of serves my argument, in a weird sort of way.

If we had such a decent jumping 6, why did Simmons never call him? If all we can get out of picking a lineout jumping 6 is five takes in ten tests, then why bother at all?

The answers, clearly, are:

a) because Simmons is going to call to himself most of the time, even if the pack was him and seven clones of John Eales.
b) Fardy was still our best option at six, with or without the lineout. But now there's a spanner in the works, in the form of Pooper.
.

I find this disturbing. For some reason.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I mentioned this on the other thread but the more I think about it the more I like it. 6. McCalman. 7. Pocock 8. Palu. Hooper comes onto to replace Palu at around the 50-55 minute mark. Two hard running backrowers and one ball fetcher. You could have Fardy on the bench to cover 6 and a 2nd reserve lock.
In the 99 Campaign we had Finnegan/Cockbain (6), Wilson (7) (Fetcher) & Kefu (8). That combo was lethal and pretty similar to the one above.

Doesn't look similar to me at all. Finegan is a Fardy type of player (or vice versa), Cockbain similar to Jones, Wilson like but not as good as Pocock and Kefu is more like Palu. Best back three for RWC 2015 looks like Fardy, Pocock and Palu.

 

[Lindommer]

Difficult to grizzle about that backrow, BR. Another point of view is Braveheart's: turnovers are more often won through blasting the opposition off the ball early in the match while skill pilfering the pill could come into its own later on, he suggested starting with Hooper and finishing with Pocock. We're bloody lucky to be blessed with two such good openside breakaways in Oz ATM, either of 'em'd grace a gold jumper with distinction.

 

[Brumby Runner]

We're bloody lucky to be blessed with two such good openside breakaways in Oz ATM, either of 'em'd grace a gold jumper with distinction.

Too true.

 

[ACT Crusader]

If I were Wallabies coach Fardy would be one of the first names on the team sheet. The guy has a bit of edginess to him. He is effective at the ruck. Last 4Ns he put in some big plays that blew opposition players off the ball and/or won TO ball.

Whilst he may not get called at LO time, I seem to recall him being one of two Wallaby forwards that is used to disrupt or at least contest opposition throws.

I guess some focus on his height and say "he's a LO option and that's why he's our blindside". But like baabaa I wouldn't be so concerned about that when he brings other important attributes to the table that seem to fit the overall strategy/game plan.

 

[RugbyReg]

Doesn't look similar to me at all. Finegan is a Fardy type of player (or vice versa), Cockbain similar to Jones, Wilson like but not as good as Pocock and Kefu is more like Palu. Best back three for RWC 2015 looks like Fardy, Pocock and Palu.

I think you're stretching a bit here. Finegan was a high impact player, and played most of his wallaby career from the bench. Fardy, in form, has much greater consistency across his game and plays tighter.

Cockbain was an aggressive, no-nonsense flanker with a limited 'tradition ' skill-set. That's nothing like what I see I Jones.

I see Wilson is more an amalgam of Hooper & Pocock. Was fantastic with the ball in hand, an excellent link man, but was brilliant over the ball too. He's heads and shoulders above both these players at the moment.

Your Kefu - Palu comparison is your only valid one.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think you're stretching a bit here. Finegan was a high impact player, and played most of his wallaby career from the bench. Fardy, in form, has much greater consistency across his game and plays tighter.

Cockbain was an aggressive, no-nonsense flanker with a limited 'tradition ' skill-set. That's nothing like what I see I Jones.

I see Wilson is more an amalgam of Hooper & Pocock. Was fantastic with the ball in hand, an excellent link man, but was brilliant over the ball too. He's heads and shoulders above both these players at the moment.

Your Kefu - Palu comparison is your only valid one.

Wasn't necessarily saying that Finegan and Fardy are identical or that Cockbain and Jones are either. Perhaps not clearly, but I was making my point that Fardy is more like Finegan than McCalman is, and that Cockbain (essentially a lock/6) is also more like Fardy or Jones than McCalman (essentially a No 8).

Wilson was undoubtedly a good player, and as you say was more of an amalgam of Pocock and Hooper, but my lasting memory of him is that he kept George Smith, an emphatically better player, out of the Wallabies for at least a year simply, imo, because he was the incumbent - not a better player. And I certainly would dispute that he was as good let alone head and shoulders above either of Pocock or Hooper.

 

[RugbyReg]

Wilson was undoubtedly a good player, and as you say was more of an amalgam of Pocock and Hooper, but my lasting memory of him is that he kept George Smith, an emphatically better player, out of the Wallabies for at least a year simply, imo, because he was the incumbent - not a better player. And I certainly would dispute that he was as good let alone head and shoulders above either of Pocock or Hooper.

unfortunately your memory fails you again. Smith made his Super Rugby debut sometime during the 2000 season when Brett Robinson was injured. Remembering he came off the bench in the Super Rugby final and scored a try v the Cruaders.

David Wilson was in the Wallabies obviously through their 1999 RWC campaign (and was captain earlier that year with Eales injured). Wilson retired in that last Tri-Nations game of 2000 in South Africa (in with Morty kicked that winning kick) alongside Jason Little and Richard Harry.

Smith made his debut the very test after Wilson retired, v France. Earning MOM and getting a yellow card.

 

[barbarian]

If I were Wallabies coach Fardy would be one of the first names on the team sheet. The guy has a bit of edginess to him. He is effective at the ruck. Last 4Ns he put in some big plays that blew opposition players off the ball and/or won TO ball.

2013 Fardy would be a lay down misere for the Wallabies.

2014 Fardy....... I'm not so sure. He had some good moments but it was undoubtedly a step back from his incredible 2013 form.

If he can't rekindle this old form then he definitely leaves the door open for others to come and take the 6 jersey, and for us to consider more unorthodox strategies.

The ball is in his court, though, and he will surely have first crack at establishing himself in the 6 role.

 

[Scoey]

That might well be the case, BR. His jumping skill isn't really in question here. Actually your point kind of serves my argument, in a weird sort of way.

If we had such a decent jumping 6, why did Simmons never call him? If all we can get out of picking a lineout jumping 6 is five takes in ten tests, then why bother at all?

The answers, clearly, are:

a) because Simmons is going to call to himself most of the time, even if the pack was him and seven clones of John Eales.
b) Fardy was still our best option at six, with or without the lineout. But now there's a spanner in the works, in the form of Pooper.
.

As I've said before, what a player brings to a lineout is more that what is captured in stats.

Lineout strategy IMO is one of the least understood (or even acknowledged) aspects of Rugby but is close to one of the biggest impacts to a team's effectiveness and ultimately, success.

It can be likened to the ruck. The objectives are the same:
On your own ball, secure good clean quick front foot ball. On the oppo's ball, turnover possession, spoil, slow down and essentially prevent them from securing good clean quick front foot ball.

In a ruck, speed, accuracy and aggression is king. There isn't a whole lot of strategy (for want of a better expression). In a lineout you need speed and accuracy but there is less room for aggression, at least in the same sense as that which is used in rucks. What replaces pure muscle is sleight of hand and misdirection. On a defensive lineout, the ability to read and decipher the oppo's smokescreens, make quick decisions and react instantly and without hesitation. I really don't mean to sound patronising but until you've jumped in a lineout it's hard to know how nuanced it can be, particularly on a defensive one.

A good example is Jake Schatz. Watch him in a defensive lineout. He will generally jump in the front pod. His speed and accuracy in the air is top notch. He may not get tons of steals (he gets a few) but what he does do is put immense pressure on the oppos lineout. His presence dictates to a degree what the oppo can do with their throw. They can throw to the front and risk a steal, and if they retain possession it will likely be messy. There goes thier first phase move they had planned. They may be put on thier back foot and may need to kick when they hadn't intended on it.
Their other option is to throw to the middle or back, which with a good jumper in the front pod, puts immense pressure on the throw and also obstructs the view of thier new intended target. The result is the same. I could go on but hopefully you get the picture.

What makes him so good there is a whole different story. Suffice to say I could bang on about this forever and a day. I'm not trying to tell folk that they are wrong either, just simply trying to illustrate that it's not that easy to discount guys like Fardy based on stats alone. There's a hell of a lot more going on than you may think.

Sorry about the loong post!


EDIT: Just read BaBa's latest post. In case it's not obvious, I am NOT endorsing selection solely on the basis of lineout ability either. I agree that Fardy's form isn't what it was when he burst on the scene in '13. He is more than a menace at the rucks though.

 

[KOB1987]

OK I've slept on this for a couple of nights and I'm convinced we are going to see a game in the TRC which has Hooper and Pocock both start. I'm not suggesting it will be locked in beyond and into the RWC but it's one of those situations which carries several advantages and also has its disadvantages. The only way to find out which outweighs the other is to try it.

We'll want to try it before the Bledisloe games and I also think we need to try it against a top tier side so I'm tipping it to be in the opener v the Boks at Brisbane on July 18.

If it happens I also think we'll see a move away from one playing open and the other blind. It won't be as simple as left and right, but we'll see variations depending on whether we are attacking or defending, field position, etc.

 

[barbarian]

Lineout strategy IMO is one of the least understood (or even acknowledged) aspects of Rugby but is close to one of the biggest impacts to a team's effectiveness and ultimately, success.

I disagree. And I say that as a lanky lock whose only real rugby skill is jumping in low level Subbies lineouts (not that that gives me any authority on the subject. It actually probably gives me less. Though really I haven’t had any credibility on any subject here for years, so it’s all irrelevant anyway. Like life. What is existence? What is reality? But I digress).

I don’t think that it’s as important as you suggest. It is important, as we generally have 8-12 lineouts a game. But in the hierarchy of rugby I would have it below the scrum, below the ruck, below forward ball-running, below general handling etc.

The main reason is this- I can’t remember a Wallaby game in the past two years where the lineout has played a discernible role in the end result. I can’t remember thinking ‘our lineout really hurt us’, or ‘fuck how good was our lineout, really gave us a leg up!’. It’s been pretty good the last few years, but not outstanding, especially on opposition ball.

I wonder if this a product of increased professionalism- teams are simply too good, too accurate, too fast, and it is getting harder and harder to steal opposition ball, or lose your own.

.

 

[Joeleee]

Hmmm, I agree that it will be tried in TRC, but unless it's a complete disaster, I don't know that it will tell us that much. If it's anywhere from a slightly not as good performance, to quite a good performance, other factors can be blamed or lauded for the game. If it's a raging success, there will be claims that it was a failure in game plan of whoever we played.

I'm not disagreeing it will be tried, I just don't think one game will provide all the answers. In my opinion, if we're going to roll with it for the RWC, we should play with it through the majority of TRC.

 

[Joeleee]

I disagree. And I say that as a lanky lock whose only real rugby skill is jumping in low level Subbies lineouts (not that that gives me any authority on the subject. It actually probably gives me less. Though really I haven’t had any credibility on any subject here for years, so it’s all irrelevant anyway. Like life. What is existence? What is reality? But I digress).

I don’t think that it’s as important as you suggest. It is important, as we generally have 8-12 lineouts a game. But in the hierarchy of rugby I would have it below the scrum, below the ruck, below forward ball-running, below general handling etc.

The main reason is this- I can’t remember a Wallaby game in the past two years where the lineout has played a discernible role in the end result. I can’t remember thinking ‘our lineout really hurt us’, or ‘fuck how good was our lineout, really gave us a leg up!’. It’s been pretty good the last few years, but not outstanding, especially on opposition ball.

I wonder if this a product of increased professionalism- teams are simply too good, too accurate, too fast, and it is getting harder and harder to steal opposition ball, or lose your own.

.

I also think it's because the difference between a great lineout and a dour one, is ~95% of wins Vs. ~70%. That's ~11 lineout wins Vs. ~9 if we take the high end of your range. Those two possessions, while they would be useful, are not generally going to be game changing. While scrums may have similar good Vs. Bad statistics, it's the propensity for scrum penalties on those ones you lose that really hurt you. You don't just lose possession, you lose 30m of territory, and potentially a man for 10 min/a penalty try.

 

[Joeleee]

I also think it's because the difference between a great lineout and a dour one, is ~95% of wins Vs. ~70%. That's ~11 lineout wins Vs. ~9 if we take the high end of your range. Those two possessions, while they would be useful, are not generally going to be game changing. While scrums may have similar good Vs. Bad statistics, it's the propensity for scrum penalties on those ones you lose that really hurt you. You don't just lose possession, you lose 30m of territory, and potentially a man for 10 min/a penalty try.

Also, sorry for three posts in a row, but if say you get 2-3 less possessions in a game for playing a subpar lineout, but you bring Pocock in, and he gets 2-3 steals per game, you've more or less nullified the difference. With Australia's counter-attacking talent, turnover ball can be just as good an attacking platform as lineout ball as well.