The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Braveheart81]

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.

I definitely think that if Cheika tries it in the first TRC game and it is successful he'll persist with it.

To me it seems that if you can get away with it in the areas it weakens we'll be stronger in other areas (tackle, breakdown etc.) and it will generate an overall positive.

I think it's all about impact and Hooper and Pocock both produce effective involvements in spades.

Fardy would be an unlucky loser but his form hasn't hit the peaks it did in 2013 on a consistent basis since.

 

[KOB1987]

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.

And that's why I think it will be tried v the Boks, they are a team that would try to exploit it..if they can't then it would be a good sign, if they can one of them will be on the bench for the Bledisloe.

 

[Scoey]

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 know I probably overstate the importance a bit but I don't think I'm too far wide of the mark. You make a reasonable point about where it sits in the hierarchy of rugby and why you place it where you have.

I think you're probably even close to the money on the why. As in increased professionalism etc. I imagine a considerable amount of video analysis is performed by each team on their oppositions lineouts. So when it comes around to game day, the margin between an average and a good lineout is probably getting pretty small.

The thing is though, a good lineout is like a good referee. If it's going well, you won't notice the impact it had on the game; you'll barely even notice it was there.

My point was essentially that unless you have a really good hard look (and even then you may miss a lot) at a particular player you probably won't see what they contribute at the lineout. The risk is then that you can grab a bunch of stats about how many takes they have ..... erm..... taken and form the view that they don't do a lot and subsequently underestimate the risk of swapping them out with a player whose strengths are in different areas.

 

[Scoey]

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.

That is the problem with stats. They are absolutes and really don't give you an idea of what is actually happening in the game. Take tackle success as an example. A team can have a 95% tackle success rate and lose a game because of one poor miss letting in a try at the death. Another team may have a tackle success rate of 80% and win as the ones they missed were covered well etc.

With lineouts it's not the absolutes of steals/wins that matters so much as the pressure applied to the opposition and the ability to force them to do something they didn't want to do.

 

[Joeleee]

That is the problem with stats. They are absolutes and really don't give you an idea of what is actually happening in the game. Take tackle success as an example. A team can have a 95% tackle success rate and lose a game because of one poor miss letting in a try at the death. Another team may have a tackle success rate of 80% and win as the ones they missed were covered well etc.

With lineouts it's not the absolutes of steals/wins that matters so much as the pressure applied to the opposition and the ability to force them to do something they didn't want to do.

Absolutely the importance of any missed tackle, or failed lineout isn't taken into account in the stats. With a bit of handwaving however, you can assume that they would be in that situation anyway, and there is either a 95% chance of coming out on top in the important situation, or a 75% one. Then you have to look at that ~20% difference in completion and adjust for how often you're in an "important" situation with the lineout, compared to how much extra Pooper will give you in another facet (say turnovers) and how turnover opportunities will occur in "important" situations. Not a simple task, no doubt, but it's all about tradeoffs.

As for the "intangibles" of a strong lineout, that's another confounding factor, that definitely needs to be thought about. Does having a strong lineout make it harder to form an effective rolling maul? Does a strong lineout mean teams will be more likely to kick to our impressive back three? Again, I don't know the answers, but it doesn't seem, to me at least, to be evidently ludicrous that the loss in lineout prowess moving from Fardy to Hooper/Pocock will be more than made up for with the corresponding gain in ass-kickery.

 

[Chris McCracken]

I can't let that one go, I'm afraid. Firstly, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We already have a good lineout. Some say among the world's best. Why would we sacrifice that for a percentage shot at "ass-kickery"?

Then, you have to take into account what you lose in general play as well. One Pocock or Hooper is not worth two Fardys. However highly you rate them.

What if I told you that in 2014 tests where both Hooper and Hardy started, Hooper made 7 turnovers to Fardy's 6? (ESPN stats)

So, to replace him and make up the two or three lineout we'd drop in a game, Pocock or Hooper would have to make up Fardy's 1 per game average, as well as two or three for the lineout plus the couple we normally expect. Pocock might get six turnovers a game against Parkes third grade, but I don't think you'd see it consistently against England.


Plus, the lineout has intangibles that even Scoey hasn't described. Firstly, the ability of a jumper to be a viable threat. One of the reasons Simmons can call to himself is that the other jumpers are being covered. Take out two jumpers and replace with Skelton and a third string jumper and defense becomes easier as there are fewer real options to cover.

The ability to disrupt opposition ball is also of massive importance. It will never show up in the stats. But a good defensive jumper has to be tall and fast into the air (more important in defence than attack actually). Our most best defensive jumper are Simmons and Fardy. Carter is okay to. It's not Horwill's strongest suit. Big Dog goes alright. Skelton is probably right out. I'm not sure part timers like Hooper or Pocock would compete that well either.

That's before you get into matters around the other technicalities with the lineout that we would miss. Though there wouldn't be any problem picking those up.

It's true that we can trade one off against another. Maybe even enough to make it work. However, I think you undervalue the lineout in this case.

 

[barbarian]

I agree with a lot of that Chris, but again the fact that a player is 'covered' doesn't mean that you can't run an effective lineout.

I'm not sure that without Fardy we still couldn't run at normal efficiency, mainly relying on speed and accuracy.

Ultimately the argument boils down to this: Pocock and Hooper are the two best rugby players in Australia. OK maybe Slipper and TK get in there, but week in week out they are the best. So the more minutes we can have them on the ground, the better, in the most basic sense.

Then the question becomes can we minimise the damage, so that the positives will outweigh the negatives? At this point the answer is a big fat question mark, but there's is enough doubt for it certainly to be worth a try.

 

[Braveheart81]

One Pocock or Hooper is not worth two Fardys. However highly you rate them.

Well if we can pick two Fardys, that changes everything. Do both of them wear 6?

 

[KOB1987]

For interest:

 

[Scoey]

On the point of gains in ass-kickery, both Hooper and Pocock offer different things but there is certainly a large amount of crossover with the two.
In any game of Rugby, there is only a limited number of opportunities for a player like Hooper or Pocock to display their ass-kickery. (E.g. there is only a limited number rucks that turnovers are achievable and good players like Hooper and Pocock know which ones to attack and which ones to leave. Attacking every ruck won't necessarily yield more turnovers than picking the ones to go in on.)

Anyway, picking an arbitrary number, if for arguments sake, both Pocock and Hooper do 10 ass-kicks in a match, the assumption that if they both play then together they will do 20 ass-kicks is probably flawed. They may do more than 10 but I doubt it would even be close to 20.
Just sayin'

 

[barbarian]

I suppose the thing that also helps the Pooper argument is that Fardy plays a game quite similar to Pocock's. Both are solid 'up the guts' kind of ball-runners, both love to get their hands on the ball at the ruck, both are physical in defence.
.

 

[qwerty51]

For interest:

Groundbreaking infographic, it tells us Hooper is the better attacker and Pocock is the better defender. Who'd of thought that?

 

[TOCC]

Super Rugby turnover ranking for turnovers won, Hooper is ranked 76th


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

Groundbreaking infographic, it tells us Hooper is the better attacker and Pocock is the better defender. Who'd of thought that?

However, it is skewed by the fact that breakdown interpretations have moved on a bit since Pocock's last Test run. And don't get me wrong - it was a fucking good run - but attacking teams are more favoured now.

At Test level, would Poey get a shot at that many turnovers? We'll find out in June I suspect.

I know - we cover allot of duties, prop up the team with the hard work, seagull - it would be an odd game without us.

Without real front rowers, its just fucking LEAGUE!

 

[Scoey]

However, it is skewed by the fact that breakdown interpretations have moved on a bit since Pocock's last Test run. And don't get me wrong - it was a fucking good run - but attacking teams are more favoured now.

I find it curious now when comparing the two that people often state that the game was different when Pocock played, he might not go as well these days as the game favours attacking teams more. The converse could be said that Hooper wouldn't have been as good back when Pocock played either so comparisons are skewed both ways yet the argument is only used to talk down Pocock's stats. I get that this is because the context is how they will fair now under the current laws. Hooper is a know quantity and Pocock less so.
What I see though is two players that played to the rules and interpretations at the time. That is what top players do; adapt. I think Pocock will be just fine.

 

[TOCC]

Looking purely at turnovers, Pocock seems to be doing pretty well under the current breakdown interpretation at Super Rugby level.. Hooper not so much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BDA]

However, it is skewed by the fact that breakdown interpretations have moved on a bit since Pocock's last Test run. And don't get me wrong - it was a fucking good run - but attacking teams are more favoured now.!

famous last words in a world cup year

 

[BDA]

Looking purely at turnovers, Pocock seems to be doing pretty well under the current breakdown interpretation at Super Rugby level.. Hooper not so much

This is true. Brussouw's a good example of a player that seems to have died under the new breakdown interpretations. Pocock seems to still be very dominant

 

[Chris McCracken]

I agree with a lot of that Chris, but again the fact that a player is 'covered' doesn't mean that you can't run an effective lineout.

I'm not sure that without Fardy we still couldn't run at normal efficiency, mainly relying on speed and accuracy.

Ultimately the argument boils down to this: Pocock and Hooper are the two best rugby players in Australia. OK maybe Slipper and TK get in there, but week in week out they are the best. So the more minutes we can have them on the ground, the better, in the most basic sense.

Then the question becomes can we minimise the damage, so that the positives will outweigh the negatives? At this point the answer is a big fat question mark, but there's is enough doubt for it certainly to be worth a try.

I hope I didn't say that was impossible. Only that I think that some are underestimating the importance and technicality of the lineout and potentially overestimating the contribution an extra on-baller can give.

I would, in fact, have them both on the field for a significant length of time in the game, but I would approach the whole bench very differently to what's been suggested.

 

[Chris McCracken]

Well if we can pick two Fardys, that changes everything. Do both of them wear 6?

Perhaps you could read the paragraph following that one. Context is important.