Wallabies v. Springboks, 18th July 2015, Suncorp, Brisbane

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I don't see Pocock or Hooper solving our breakdown issues, that is a team issue that will only be solved by accurate, aggressive cleanouts on attack and dominant tackling on defence

Typos by SwiftKey, errors in tone by me

Absolutely. It requires guys like Fardy and Horwill to shift rocks at the ruck area and lay that platform for Phipps et al to clear it quickly. We won't win if we're constantly in a dog fight on our own ball. On the other hand if Pocock is a nuisance on their pill it will frustrate the opposition into kicking it more, thus bringing Izzy and co. into the game.

 

[Lorenzo]

I'm not wild about having two opensides. We are already struggling for physicality in the breakdown and not having a number 8 won't help that.

I'd probably play Pocock at 7 and whomever is the fittest form 8 and put hooper on the bench.

 

[MarkJ]

My only concern with Pocock at 8 is his reach. If we're back peddling at scrum time we need an 8 with a decent reach to get in and drag the ball out. Which makes me wonder if Fardy has ever played 8?

Hasn't Pocock got long arms and short legs? It helps him get turnovers at the breakdown so might also work at the back of the scrum.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm not wild about having two opensides. We are already struggling for physicality in the breakdown and not having a number 8 won't help that.

I'd probably play Pocock at 7 and whomever is the fittest form 8 and put hooper on the bench.

Isn't Pocock physical enough for you?

 

[barbarian]

I'm not wild about having two opensides. We are already struggling for physicality in the breakdown and not having a number 8 won't help that.

I'd wager both Pocock and Hooper are far more physical and abrasive in their current form than Fardy and Higgers, and probably McCalman too.
.

 

[Dave Beat]

based on last night I'd bring in big Kev, and have Poey at 8.
Jumping 6, and 2 jumping locks (whilst not in the squad I'll throw Luke Joness name out there).

 

[Groucho]

Fair enough.

For mine, I don't think Pocock is an 8. He's had what – 30 minutes? And played his normal breakdown and fetching flanker's game.

I might drop Palu from my armchair side as well. But not for Hoop-cock.

Cock-a-hoop?

 

[kiap]

Cock-a-hoop?

Others are using Pooper.

Hard to say which is more unkind but there's no need to find out.

 

[cyclopath]

OK, we did the whole Hooper-Pocock funny name thing a while back on another thread, not again please.

 

[Sully]

OK, we did the whole Hooper-Pocock funny name thing a while back on another thread, not again please.

It was still funny at 11pm Saturday

 

[cyclopath]

It was still funny at 11pm Saturday

I don't recall, your Honour!

 

[Chris McCracken]

It was still funny at 11pm Saturday

It will be absolutely hilarious if we can somehow get Matt Burke to say it in commentary.

 

[qwerty51]

Just had at look at AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s try which a few said was a forward pass. From the live angle it does look forward but from an angle from behind the Bok's tryline it's definitely backwards.

 

[Brumby Runner]

6. Pocock
7. Hooper
8. McCalman

It just has to be.

Pocock to play open on defence and Hooper on attack.

McCalman would compliment those two beautifully and is a genuine line out option, with Skelton to the bench and another jumping lock starting.

Think enough posters here compliment Pocock and Hooper sufficiently to allow McCalman off the hook.

But seriously, I am not a fan of playing them both at the same time, but if it is to be done I am really in your corner that Poey plays 7 (open side) in defense and Hooper in attack, especially against the ABs where A Smith has a penchant for attacking the blind side of the scrum (and is amazingly good at it).

 

[Marcelo]

It's posted in the match thread.

Thanks bud

 

[Grant NZ]

Just had at look at AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s try which a few said was a forward pass. From the live angle it does look forward but from an angle from behind the Bok's tryline it's definitely backwards.

From a side on it appears forward but if you look at the end on view and put this Wallabies cap on and drink this can of Fosters it's definitely not.

 

[Chris McCracken]

From a side on it appears forward but if you look at the end on view and put this Wallabies cap on and drink this can of Fosters it's definitely not.

Fosters? Where would you even get it?

 

[Grant NZ]

Fosters? Where would you even get it?

Imported from the USA, I guess.

 

[terry j]

Fosters? Where would you even get it?

why would you want to?

 

[Grant NZ]

why would you want to?

Cause it's unique blend of alcohol and toxic chemicals would achieve the blindness required to not see that pass was a bit forward, of course.