Yeah Im a bit miffed by the Richie hype TBH. I know he's Rory's identical twin, but he's not his clone and I doubt he will be handed an international debut at altitude. That would be a massive stitch up. Maybe off the bench at Parra would work better if Eddie wants a look.The media seem to be talking up Richie Arnold a lot in the last few days. I don’t see how you could leave out frost from the starting lineup after his form. I watched the top 14 final and didn’t think Arnold was that great but I guess Eddie wants a look at him
Adidas sponsors too many different kind of sports. Canterbury main focus is rugby, sometimes they sponsor other sports but rugby is their main focusThat doesn’t make a lick of sense…
Maybe start Frost and Neville together in the first game for continuity and bring Skelton off the bench?The media seem to be talking up Richie Arnold a lot in the last few days. I don’t see how you could leave out frost from the starting lineup after his form. I watched the top 14 final and didn’t think Arnold was that great but I guess Eddie wants a look at him
Adidas sponsors too many different kind of sports. Canterbury main focus is rugby, sometimes they sponsor other sports but rugby is their main focus
Happy for Skelton to start as he has been in the set up before and I think our whole structure changes with him so we need to get used to him asap. Arnold off the bench though makes sense.Maybe start Frost and Neville together in the first game for continuity and bring Skelton off the bench?
Repeated message
Why Eddie Jones might not start Michael Hooper against Springboks
Test veteran Michael Hooper may not be called on by coach Eddie Jones to start in the No. 7 jersey against the Springboks next month according to another former Wallabies captain.www.rugbypass.com
Tom Hooper is a chance at 6 - not at 7 at all. PSDT doesn't play 7, remember SA (and France generally although rare to see genuine fetchers in France) play their opensides at 6.hopefully Eddie will see the light and select Tom Hooper at 7, at 199cm & 120kg he is Australia's Pieter-Steph Dutoit equivalent.ll be
Yeah PSdT is not an open side, he wears number 7 because they do it the other way around there. He is an out and out blind side. I will go out on a limb and say that Tom Hooper is zero chance to be selected as an open side flanker.Why Eddie Jones might not start Michael Hooper against Springboks
Test veteran Michael Hooper may not be called on by coach Eddie Jones to start in the No. 7 jersey against the Springboks next month according to another former Wallabies captain.www.rugbypass.com
As usual Horwill knows what he's on about, an exceptionally good leader & very astute captain for Reds & Wallabies.
Hooper's too small for the modern backrower, consistently blasted-off of rucks by bigger players, ragdolled when attempting to carry the ball in tight, hopefully Eddie will see the light and select Tom Hooper at 7, at 199cm & 120kg he is Australia's Pieter-Steph Dutoit equivalent.
Shame Gleeson sounds like he's not going to be fit for this.
Tom Hooper is a chance at 6 - not at 7 at all. PSDT doesn't play 7, remember SA (and France generally although rare to see genuine fetchers in France) play their opensides at 6.
7 will be Gleeson (when fit), Kemeny or Samu.
When did he play at open side? I'm assuming it was an injury ravaged circumstance. Playing him there for the Wallabies will end about as well as playing Ben McCalman there in '11.And yet out of all those players, Tom Hooper is the only one to play at 7 this year…
Aaaaand that article talks about a big, jumping 7… sooooo, not Gleeson?
When did he play at open side? I'm assuming it was an injury ravaged circumstance. Playing him there for the Wallabies will end about as well as playing Ben McCalman there in '11.
OK I stand corrected - however I assume that the rationale was to get a bit of height in the lineout and not muck around with Valetini and Samu in their regular positions. Did he switch with Samu on defensive scrums? I'll still maintain you wouldn't do it at test level, the opposition would target the shit out of the breakdown.No, it was last week…
In the semi-final against the Chiefs.
OK I stand corrected - however I assume that the rationale was to get a bit of height in the lineout and not muck around with Valetini and Samu in their regular positions. Did he switch with Samu on defensive scrums? I'll still maintain you wouldn't do it at test level, the opposition would target the shit out of the breakdown.
I didn't see the game but it doesn't appear that anyone was. From the stats I can find Neville got a steal and that was the only Brumbies lineout win of the night. Off topic I know but I was curious to see that if Hooper wasn't used in the lineout then who was.I believe the rationale was that Hooper is a big guy who possesses the engine of an open side flanker - hits a lot of rucks, and makes a lot of tackles and carries.
I don’t believe he was used in the lineout at all in that game…
I didn't see the game but it doesn't appear that anyone was. From the stats I can find Neville got a steal and that was the only Brumbies lineout win of the night. Off topic I know but I was curious to see that if Hooper wasn't used in the lineout then who was.