The Wallabies Thread

[RugbyReg]

Honestly, I've been saying it for a while I'm not entirely sure we should be selecting both Pocock and Hooper, ultimately I think you pick Pocock over Hooper, but that's really not important to this point what's important is that we really can't keep picking both too many of the same weakness that amplify each other leaving us no forward pack balance.

The only problem with this is we haven't really had a genuine 6 step up (yet) maybe Higgers could be an option if he can keep on the field and find some form. But guys like ASY (Angus Scott-Young), Wells, Holloway etc could be options but need time to get to test level. Timu & Valetini could be an option if Valentina were healthy.

because they are probably 2 of the top 5 players we have in Australia. It would be madness not to pick both of them.

 

[Zero_Cool]

because they are probably 2 of the top 5 players we have in Australia. It would be madness not to pick both of them.

If we assume for sake of the point that it's proven that playing them both would actually be worse than playing the alternative, does it matter that they are the top two (let's assume 1B and 2A)?

I do think it's reaching a point where if they don't perform together likely over this series, surely we need to at least explore the possibility?

 

[Joe Blow]

We should absolutely go with a more traditional back row at some point this year, maybe start with one in most tests. Hooper and Pocock should be rotated in the starting side and both should get lots of game time. The Pooper can be used at certain points and most often to close out matches when both are available.
Starting with Pocock and Hooper together is pretty straight forward to combat from a tactical perspective.

 

[Slim 293]

because they are probably 2 of the top 5 players we have in Australia. It would be madness not to pick both of them.

Yep.......... it's the best option we have with what's available.

Personally, my ideal backrow would be Fardy/Pocock/McMahon, but alas.........

 

[TSR]

Every time people suggest that we pick the backrow without both Hooper and Pocock, you need the also list your 3 person backrow.

If there is a backrow that includes Pocock or Hooper and two others, neither of whom is a significant step down from the player you have left out then I’d love to go with it. I don’t see it personally.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Last 4 years we've had 18 matches where Hooper and Pocock have both played, and 55 in total.

Winning percentage in both cases is 55%.

So after all the analysis either way, it doesn't seem to make much difference, on the surface at least.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[TSR]

How many of those that didn’t involve Pocock included McMahon. If he was available I would be more agreeable to the idea.

 

[dru]

because they are probably 2 of the top 5 players we have in Australia. It would be madness not to pick both of them.

In this case we need a bench jumper at 20/21 (21 if you go for a 6/2 bench) AND you need to be willing to make a tactical substitution if the starting line out goes to pot. Your 6 also needs to be a genuine lineout option.

What this does is create more "balance" problems where fans are also looking for a 6/8 who is a genuine bruising all carrier. It is a conundrum. Demanding a double-7 in the start is understandable, but it does need a very clear strategy on how to mitigate the potential weaknesses.

Like Slim, I thought Fardy an obvious answer. With him on hte outer, like Z-C I thought Higgers the next best. Hanigan, Dempsey, Rodda (as has been suggested) are possible way forwards. Just not at all proven at this stage.

The comment earlier that Toupo might ease the need for a tackle busting 8 is also germane. But would have other repercussions as it puts him in the tight pod. That is a hell of a work load for a THP. It is why you usually have locks and no8 in that pod.

 

[Derpus]

Every time people suggest that we pick the backrow without both Hooper and Pocock, you need the also list your 3 person backrow.

If there is a backrow that includes Pocock or Hooper and two others, neither of whom is a significant step down from the player you have left out then I’d love to go with it. I don’t see it personally.

Possibly:

Pocock/Hooper, Timu, Samu

If he becomes available. Not looking likely though.

 

[Strewthcobber]

For what it's worth, players who have the best record over that time (with >10 games), Giteau, Coleman, Holmes, Beale, all above 65%.

Worst records (>10 games) Alexander, DHP both around 35%

Disclaimers around team game, signifigance, opposition etc etc etc

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Zero_Cool]

Last 4 years we've had 18 matches where Hooper and Pocock have both played, and 55 in total.

Winning percentage in both cases is 55%.

So after all the analysis either way, it doesn't seem to make much difference, on the surface at least.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

The question is hardly how many wins did we get with Pocock and Hooper, the question is how effective (especially more recently) have Pocock and Hooper been. Particularly when we consider how many/some teams have 'figured it out'.

Further if we give them an NBA-esqu number ranking saying Hooper and Pocock are 80's but the guy we are forced to play at 6 is a 60 we have an average of like 73; perhaps it would be better to play one of them and two 75's giving us more balance. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but this is the question we need to be asking.
This idea of 'play your best players' frankly is bullshit, it's like the argument that you have to play your 'best players' regardless of age or other factors, how fucking dumb is that. Seriously.

 

[Derpus]

Zero you are missing the point. Who are our 75s? An aging Higginbotham might cut it for a little while. Timu? has never played a test before.

 

[Braveheart81]

Starting with Pocock and Hooper together is pretty straight forward to combat from a tactical perspective.

I'm not really sure what there is to combat which is different from another backrow. Our biggest weakness fielding both of them is our lineout so presumably the opposition looks to pressure us there by throwing to full lineouts more often and trying to force us to have short(er) lineouts.

I don't think we're trying to do anything particularly different in selecting Hooper and Pocock. We're trying to get our best players on the park for the most minutes. I think the key here is that we aren't playing with a different game plan because we've decided to select two 7s.

We probably do have a bit more defensive breakdown presence with both Pocock and Hooper than just Pocock because with both of them Pocock probably won't be required to do as much tackling.

Given the alternative is an inferior player who has more overall weaknesses in their game I'm not really sure how facing that player isn't an easier task for our opposition.

 

[TSR]

ZC - I am going to leave your last paragraph alone as I can only assume I am misunderstanding it - but who are the two ‘75s’ we have on your scale. I am prepared to accept Timu for the point of discussion because he looks good to me - but he is unproven at test level and is currently injured. Who is the next one?

 

[Braveheart81]

Further if we give them an NBA-esqu number ranking saying Hooper and Pocock are 80's but the guy we are forced to play at 6 is a 60 we have an average of like 73; perhaps it would be better to play one of them and two 75's giving us more balance. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but this is the question we need to be asking.
This idea of 'play your best players' frankly is bullshit, it's like the argument that you have to play your 'best players' regardless of age or other factors, how fucking dumb is that. Seriously.

We're going to play our next best backrower with Pocock and Hooper so your equation doesn't work. No superior player is being left out because we have to compromise heavily on that third player. I think odds are we will pick Timu to play number 8 and he would also be in the backrow if you didn't pick both Pocock and Hooper.

 

[eastman]

If we do go for a more 'traditional' backrow there is absolutely no chance that Pocock will be starting ahead of Hooper- the Australian captain. Pocock is still getting lauded for his historical performances, Hooper's is in better form and a more rounded skillset for modern rules.

 

[Zero_Cool]

While I accept they are all untested we really should be exploring options because my point is we need an alternative.
Guys we should be looking at:

• Higginbotham
• Valetini
• Tui
• Holloway
• Fainga'a
• Hardwick
• Scott-Young
• Wells
• Korczyk
• Cottrell

Assuming fit Higgers obviously, Valetini has shown he might have the capacity to be a genuine test option. By constantly selecting Pocock and Hooper together and refusing to consider alternatives we have driven away guys like McMahon, Gill, Fardy, Schatz... a few of those guys might be useful right about now.

 

[Braveheart81]

Pocock has probably played half a dozen or more tests as a number 8 that are better than any test Higginbotham has played. That is why he will be starting with Hooper.

Suggesting we look at Holloway is laughable. The guy will probably struggle to still have a Waratahs contract next year. Fainga'a is about the most traditional 7 we have. I'm not sure how he fits into any Wallaby side where people are arguing we shouldn't be selecting both Pocock and Hooper.

I agree that some inferior players have gone overseas because we kept selecting our best players. That's how it works. Unfortunately those players who aren't regularly in the test side can earn more money overseas. Suggesting we give everyone more of a go is ridiculous.

McMahon made a decision to go overseas because he could earn a lot more money. That was a shame but he was a starting Wallaby when he made that decision.

Fardy made a decision to go overseas because he was getting towards the end of his career and wanted to test himself in Europe. He has specifically said that. He was selected most of the time at least on the bench in the season before he announced he was leaving. It was probably his worst year of test rugby and this year he has probably produced his best form since the 2015 RWC. It's a shame he isn't here to be playing for the Wallabies still.

 

[Joe Blow]

I'm not really sure what there is to combat which is different from another backrow. Our biggest weakness fielding both of them is our lineout so presumably the opposition looks to pressure us there by throwing to full lineouts more often and trying to force us to have short(er) lineouts.

I don't think we're trying to do anything particularly different in selecting Hooper and Pocock. We're trying to get our best players on the park for the most minutes. I think the key here is that we aren't playing with a different game plan because we've decided to select two 7s.

We probably do have a bit more defensive breakdown presence with both Pocock and Hooper than just Pocock because with both of them Pocock probably won't be required to do as much tackling.

Given the alternative is an inferior player who has more overall weaknesses in their game I'm not really sure how facing that player isn't an easier task for our opposition.

The main difference will be in the line out where we could have one or even two further genuine options. This could also present a bit more weight in the scrum and at the breakdown. The line out is the most important and most frequent set piece. Ireland, who have an excellent lineout and maul can kick to the line all day long against the Pooper. Playing a genuine 6 and 8 will also give us stronger ball running capability.
As it has always been there are pros and cons with both approaches. It may good to have a squad that can go either way?

 

[TSR]

Pocock is still getting lauded for his historical performances, Hooper's is in better form and a more rounded skillset for modern rules.

I don’t agree - Pocock May have more limited skill set, but he is so good at what he does he is our player most able to influence a result. He is the only current player (IMO) that could arguably have a place in a current world 15. Regardless of rule changes, top rugby teams still have pilferers - it is just not always their number 7.

And he has proven since coming back he is as good as ever. The bloke is our stand out best player.