I have agreed with this many times. Pocock is the best player Australia has.
Would you be happy if they switched numbers? How exactly would that change the way they played?
The Wallabies Thread
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
I have agreed with this many times. Pocock is the best player Australia has.
Would you be happy if they switched numbers? How exactly would that change the way they played?
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
G'day BR
All data has been collected over the full 17 rounds.
Ruck Involvement stats I collect myself.
All other stats are grabbed from ESPN Scrum or the SANZAAR Super Rugby site - which seem to be in close agreement.
I don't use FoxSports stats as they appear unreliable and don't agree with other sites. They appear to focus on WOW factor stats yet they too have yet to measure X-Factor.
The reality is that our current options re Locks are generally low impact Locks compared to some of our opposition.
As you can see most of them are not strong ball carriers nor big point scorers.
Re Rory Arnold - his ball carries and impact of same are all included in these stats. He has has only 1 CB, 4 DB, 2 OL and 27 Passes for the whole season (14 part games - equiv to 9 x 8-0 min games). Divide these by his 9 x 80 minute games and only the Passes actually rate a mention (when rounded to the nearest whole number).
I expressed LOS to the decimal point to show that some playersd HAVE actually stolen line outs from the opposition throws.
Coleman, Arnold and Neville made 4 LOS; Mumm, Jones and RHP 2 LOS; Simmons 1 LOS; all of the others had nil LOS.
Again when divided by the no of 80-minute equiv games the final number is small.
If we had some decent locks at the Tahs it'd be worth trying, but we don't. So, no.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Nah people don't rate him as an 8, it's not like he was nominated for player of the year playing in that position.
And was favourite to win the thing if it wasn't for Carter's superb RWC final's effort.
No offense though Bullrush, I can see what your argument is based on. A backrow balance of:
6. Bit of both
7. On-the-baller
8. Ball-runner
Our backrow has the same balance just at different positions:
Aus backrow
6. bit of both
7. Ball-runner
8. On-the-baller
Hooper is playing the 8 role, but he wear 7 because Poey is prefered at the back of the scrum - he has longer and better hands then Hooper.
So it's really not a "radical adjustment". It's a tiny adjustment. Play exactly the same in every way possibly except in the scrum.
Maybe next game Poey can wear 7 and Hooper 8, but Poey will still scrum at the back wearing 7, but he'll fit your style of 7 around the park.... if that makes you happy?
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
I think saying that Pocock was your best player doesn't say much. It's like saying I'm the best player in my family. You could probably play Pocock at 12 and he'd still run close to being the best LOL
I understand that the lack of credible No.8's is an issue - hence why I also said that Vaea was such a massive loss - but I'm just not convinced that moving the best player out of position is how you fix that. And I'm not sure that running Pooper isn't just out of that lack of personnel rather than a desire to have them both on the field. The 2nd I think is silly cos Hooper just isn't THAT good.
Hooper is good but he's probably he's a little bit further down the list on world 7's IMO anyway. And going forward, I think he'll get pushed down that list further but I don't see that with Pocock. He's got a few things to work on his game but like McCaw I think he'll keep improving and evolving.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Yeah - maybe. I dunno.
However it works out I guess but going thru this discussion has definitely highlighted for me how much the Wallabies need a couple of decent 8's!
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
It's kind of like saying you're the best player in your family. Except you were nominated for the World Rugby Player of the year award.
Surely it's not odd to try and fit 2 players who were into one team, when they both prefer one position, when you don't have any great option who it is as the expense of.
You may not consider Hooper THAT good. In 2015 a lot of people did. Specifically those who chose the World Rugby Player of the Year shortlist.
Surely it's not odd to try and fit 2 players who were into one team, when they both prefer one position, when you don't have any great option who it is as the expense of.
You may not consider Hooper THAT good. In 2015 a lot of people did. Specifically those who chose the World Rugby Player of the Year shortlist.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
It's simple Bullrush. What would you do if Poey and McCaw were in the same team and your best number 8 was McMahon?
Are you really going to drop one of Poey and/or McCaw so McMahon can start at 8? I bet my ass you'd start both - even if it is a little unbalanced, an out of position McCaw/Poey is better then a McMahon.
You can only work with what you got, currently Aus has no strong 8's. But we got a dynamic ball-running seven and a specialist on-the-baller seven and that is currently better then a mediocre 8.
Proven by both players being nominated for player of the year. Yes Hooper made that list too Bullrush.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Hooper is no McCaw. Not even close. So let's not try to make like-for-like comparisons.
I don't know how Hooper got on the short-list. I'm sure you guys will have felt that way about plenty of other nominees and even winners over the years.
This year you are talking about a guy who hit less rucks with the lowest tackle % than all the other Aussie 7's in Super Rugby. And almost all of your 8's.
Personally, I don't think he does enough of the grunt work. That's just my opinion.
To quote @ForceFan from a few pages earlier:
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
T
TOCC
Guest
Hooper as Wallabies inside centre
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
That's not a silly comment.
Bloke is fast, tough,has an unbelievable motor, can tackle and cover a multitude of positions
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Force Fan does amazing work collating these stats but surely all they tell us is how each super rugby coach uses each player in their individual game plans. It's interesting data, but it's a mistake to use them to compare players.
They are all part of different systems and are performing different roles.
Cheika then selects his team to perform the roles in his system.
They are all part of different systems and are performing different roles.
Cheika then selects his team to perform the roles in his system.
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
I disagree.
The data allows objective comparisons between players and especially of their skill sets and application of same. I reckon Ruck Involvements for a Forward are not negotiable and are a good measure of work rate and putting in for the team. To look at all other stats without the work at the breakdown is naive. It's where the Wallabies are consistently worked over by the ABs and by England. It's our defence that is letting us down.
I prefer objectivity rather than subjectivity - the stats should support popular opinions.
I also compare how well individual players transfer Super Rugby form into the Test Match arena. Some consistently apply themselves at a higher level in Tests (Carter & Fardy & Pocock) while others too frequently fall short.
After the England series I don't have the blind faith in Cheika as seems apparent from others. IMO the Wallabies were outplayed and out-coached.
It's becoming apparent that Cheika can build culture but doesn't necessarily build winning teams and combinations. To simply say that the players need to get fitter doesn't cover the performance when skills were sadly so lacking at key moments in the June Tests.
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Isn't the title of this thread Wallabies 2016 and Onwards?
The Wallabies have another 12 Tests to play in 2016.
Since the June Tests I've found it a bit tragic to see Hooper step aside to let Bernard Foley get involved in a number of breakdowns.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
That's fine - but coaches clearly disagree with you.
To use Hooper as an example there are times in games where he does not compete as much as a traditional 7 would in offensive rucks. His coaches are directing him to stay out to provide attacking options. They feel he provides more value to the team and the system playing that role rather than protecting the ball.
Similarly, Hooper often doesn't compete in defensive rucks, rather he hangs back in the defensive line and attempts to make the next tackle. The opposition avoid his channel because of his ability, especially when Pockock is on hand to compete for the ball after Hooper's tackle.
So now, Hooper has missed two rucks he could have been in, has no improvement in his stats but has altered how the opposition play, hopefully to Hooper's teams advantage
Surely it's naive to use blind statistics to compare players when they are playing specific roles.
Now, you may disagree with those roles, but that should be a criticism for the coach, not the player.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Is he playing against the same opposition, using the same game plan as in 2015?
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Obviously not as the Waratahs were 11 from 16 in 2015 and were 8 from 15 in 2016.
The Wallabies, are 0 from 3 in 2016.
Is it not just as valid to highlight Hooper's lower work rate in 2016 as it is to say that the lower involvement COULD be part of the Coach's game plan?
And to highlight that there are other No 7s putting in more on the field - where it counts - than Hooper in 2016?
I think that may be true when looking at one match in isolation, but across a Super season, with multiple teams playing different styles, I'm not sure.
The Force can hold the ball for long periods, but rarely do anything with it. They clock up a lot of rucks, and they are often caught on or behind the gain line so they need to commit multiple players to secure possession. They have great ruck stats, sure, but they aren't a good rugby team.
The Waratahs and Wallabies play a style which values quick ball above all else. They attack wider, and rely on 1-2 players effectively clearing the breakdown before the ball is cleared. Because of the width, tight forwards just don't rack up the numbers in terms of rucks hit, especially in attack.
The Brumbies, Rebels and Reds all play different games too, so I just don’t think these statistics are that reliable.
Michael Hooper is a prime example of the game being played on grass, not paper. His stats never appear great- eg missed tackles, rucks hit, but if you actually watch the game he always makes a huge impact. His tackles will be harder, he will do a couple of inspirational things every game, he probably has the biggest motor in Aussie rugby. This stuff is never shown up by statistics.
.