sendit
Bob Loudon (25)
Kinda a BS claim to make when we know around the time Hooper will retire, our most promising crop of players in years and years should be hitting their straps on the international stage
Wallabies 2020
- Thread starter A mutterer
- Start date
Kinda a BS claim to make when we know around the time Hooper will retire, our most promising crop of players in years and years should be hitting their straps on the international stage
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
You are being purposefully petty now.
I addressed AAA above.
This isn't going anywhere mate.
Have a good week - you have left me with several strong and cogent arguments that I need to digest.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
That's why the caveat was immediately and long term.
Tell me we are not already building excuses in for Hooper when we are inevitably better without him?
dru
David Wilson (68)
Response to the issue brought up by others.
Clearly a big spend on THP is different to a 7. There are two in every game day and a theory that the 3 is the first signing required in a team and the second being the 18. Long term deal with a THP does not spell the same message as with a 7.
Though right now 7A's on a big contract and Tupou on a big contract - bet any decent up an coming THP will consider somewhere that is not Australia.
At any rate apparently Bobby claiming that the WBs are better off without Hooper is some kind of Reds fan delusion. By definition. But Waratah fans claiming Hooper is the first selected to start at the WBs, and a lock for captain is what? Simple logic?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Zero_Cool
Arch Winning (36)
To go back to the Gill (et al) vs Hooper debate the real issue that I see is the ARU signed Hooper to what many argue is a justifiable contract. Is the money he's on justified... Maybe.
The issue I think a lot of people are getting at and perhaps aren't expressing as clearly, is the value over replacement. If we say Hooper is the best 7 in the World - I disagree but let's assume that, let's even say he's completely worth his money- again I'd disagree but let's for the sake of argument I'll accept it.
The issue with Hooper is the value he brings over the alternative. Sure Gill might not be quite the player Hooper is (I'd argue he didn't get a chance to prove it), but would Gill have offered more value for the money -- especially considering the wealth of limitless back row talent we always have. Who could we have kept with that money, could we retain a Kalyn Ponga from NRL or something (the specifics are unimportant).
On a different note, Isi looked like he MIGHT be capable of playing test rugby, he finally stepped up to where he should be. If he's shown that every week then I wouldn't mind him in the 23. But the problem has been it's 3 games back before we finally see this.
On the AAAAA - Tupou discussion one of the big differences is you have 2 players in that position in every 23. 7's you don't often have two in the 23.
The issue I think a lot of people are getting at and perhaps aren't expressing as clearly, is the value over replacement. If we say Hooper is the best 7 in the World - I disagree but let's assume that, let's even say he's completely worth his money- again I'd disagree but let's for the sake of argument I'll accept it.
The issue with Hooper is the value he brings over the alternative. Sure Gill might not be quite the player Hooper is (I'd argue he didn't get a chance to prove it), but would Gill have offered more value for the money -- especially considering the wealth of limitless back row talent we always have. Who could we have kept with that money, could we retain a Kalyn Ponga from NRL or something (the specifics are unimportant).
On a different note, Isi looked like he MIGHT be capable of playing test rugby, he finally stepped up to where he should be. If he's shown that every week then I wouldn't mind him in the 23. But the problem has been it's 3 games back before we finally see this.
On the AAAAA - Tupou discussion one of the big differences is you have 2 players in that position in every 23. 7's you don't often have two in the 23.
sendit
Bob Loudon (25)
So how are you going to measure that? What are you defining as better? A win?
What if the last game Hooper plays they win and then the first game he doesn't they lose, is that enough to prove you're categorically wrong? Or are you going to give yourself some wiggle room to renege on this comment in the future?
Whats immediate? The first game after? The first 2?
Lot of broad language here left open to interpretation
Blackadder
Desmond Connor (43)
Still you never brought him up first. You just said Hooper hence the bias.
I will leave it for now
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
That hasnt been the case for the Wallabies for 20years. Remember the Smith and Waugh debate?
Funny thing is the ABs have been shoehorning an additional 7 into their backrow over the past 12mths
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Let's say this, so it can be a clear metric for you.
The Wallabies overall win rate will improve once we move on Hooper and play a more traditional backrow, and by extension rugby side.
I believe this will start as soon as whenever he goes to Japan.
Can I be any more transparent or clear?
Blackadder
Desmond Connor (43)
Well he is only going to Japan during super rugby and will be back for the wallabies so mute point
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Or moot even?
It's incredible your rugby knowledge is so good.
GN mate, really appreciate the chat. Very worthwhile.
molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
His upcoming stint in Japan is only for 6 months. Hooper will be very much in the picture should Rennie decide to pick him.
I personally have enough faith in Rennie, Wisemantel, Taylor & Johnson to assemble the best team as they see it at the relative points in time. If that's Hooper or not, it will be with reason.
Whilst I can see the desire for a more traditional backrow, I think there is enough evidence of many teams, players through history with untraditional elements. It's the part of Rugby I love. The diverse makeup of positions, teams & players. The constant evolution.
To be honest, I thought that Fardy, Hooper & Pocock backrow wasn't too shabby.
sendit
Bob Loudon (25)
Don’t get sassy cause you have a shitty ambiguous statement
And yea you can, because saying the overall win rate will improve is not an immediate outcome. As you so nicely bolded out for me in a previous comment.
And what time frame does it need to go up in? Win rates aren’t a thing that happen over night, you need a set time frame to work work within
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
How can what I am saying be considered ambiguous?
I can't be any clearer, the Wallabies will be better without him.
How else would you like me to define it?
Seriously - I will stand behind any statement you want to attribute for me.
Without Hooper > with Hooper - is this easier for you?
Maybe you could argue why we won't be rather than whatever dross you are serving up currently.
Blackadder
Desmond Connor (43)
Getting petty
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
I am happy to say from the very first test without him.
Does that satisfy you?
Why does this argument hurt so many feelings.
Surely if you all feel I am wrong, you would just say "we will be provably worse off without him", or "he is irreplaceable, and a true legend, it's impossible to fill his shoes."
But it almost sounds as if you are resigned to the fact that we will be better without him?
Maybe you are confused with what you are actually saying?
But I don't think I can be any clearer.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
I'll mute point then.
I think most pundits think the Wallabies will be better going forward.
Better set piece - most likely (although lock depth looks a tad dicey).
Better coaching - almost certainly.
Amazing crop of really good young players, with often several options in key positions - few would argue against it.
Multiple variables in the equation. One player is but one of many variables.
So both answers could be true!
Better set piece - most likely (although lock depth looks a tad dicey).
Better coaching - almost certainly.
Amazing crop of really good young players, with often several options in key positions - few would argue against it.
Multiple variables in the equation. One player is but one of many variables.
So both answers could be true!
sendit
Bob Loudon (25)
So now you can answer my previous question you glossed over, if it’s from the first test, and they lose, does that mean your argument is null and void based off one single game? Seeing you said there would be an immediate positive impact
I don’t feel you are wrong, I’m unsure how it will play out. But if you’re going to make a definitive statement and ask people to hold you accountable for it you’ve got to be able to articulate the criteria for which success is measured
Which btw I still don’t think you have
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Sure mate.
First test and if they lose I am completely wrong and Hooper is the king.
I thought people from Canberra were generally the most educated in the country?
Take your pick mate, set your terms, make me accountable, set me a few KPIs.
The simple fact is that I think they will be immediately more successful and win more games.
You can set the terms if you like - give it your all.