Wallabies vs England, Sydney, 3rd Test, 25 June @ 8:00pm

[TSR]

Why are people still leaving Hooper out of their teams? Not only is he not going to be dropped, but why would any Australian supporter want him to be? I believe he was awarded the Australians best player award for the second test and was close to our best in the first. The criticism of his work rate doesn't stack up to an examination of the stats.

He is not assigned the role as a fetcher. Full stop. But the role he is given he is performing well. If everyone was doing their job as well as Hooper we would be up 2 - 0.

 

[RugbyReg]

I guess the question is does this team need a 7 who plays closer to the ruck in tight or one that plays out wide?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Viking]

Why are people still leaving Hooper out of their teams? Not only is he not going to be dropped, but why would any Australian supporter want him to be? I believe he was awarded the Australians best player award for the second test and was close to our best in the first. The criticism of his work rate doesn't stack up to an examination of the stats.

He is not assigned the role as a fetcher. Full stop. But the role he is given he is performing well. If everyone was doing their job as well as Hooper we would be up 2 - 0.

I agree. He has been a solid performance but then again you got guys like Gill on the fringes who could possibly be equally good - but offer a different skillset.

If a player like Gill balances out the back-row better then Hooper, then I can't see why it shouldn't be an option.

Even the best player on the field can be improved upon, Hooper will do equally good off the bench.

I am pretty much open to all options in the third test.

 

[fatprop]

I agree. He has been a solid performance but then again you got guys like Gill on the fringes who could possibly be equally good - but offer a different skillset.

If a player like Gill balances out the back-row better then Hooper, then I can't see why it shouldn't be an option.

Even the best player on the field can be improved upon, Hooper will do equally good off the bench.

I am pretty much open to all options in the third test.

yeah, nah

 

[ACT Crusader]

I don't think Hooper should be dropped. What message does that send to a guy who has played his backside off in the first two tests and on an individual basis I would say has easily been in the top 3 for the team. Sure if he was not doing much it might be warranted.

 

[TSR]

If Gill gets picked, he will fill Pococks role, not Hoopers. They are simply not playing the roles which people are equating to the number on their back. The selection of McMahon to replace Pocock was actually the move away from playing a fetcher, not the continued selection of Hooper. Cheika even highlighted this in the lead up when deliberating whether he would pick Gill as a 'like for like' replacement.

 

[USARugger]

At the least Gill would give us a strong option to carry off the back of the ruck, even though it seems like doing so may currently carry a penalty of death based on how little it happens in the face of a rush defense.

 

[Sully]

I think we should start picking #8's to play 8 and not opensides and notters. The backrow is unbalance to the shit house.

 

[TSR]

It is worth noting Hooper performs the role for Australia that Kieran Read performs for New Zealand. Most good judges feel he is going ok.

 

[TSR]

I think we should start picking #8's to play 8 and not opensides and notters. The backrow is unbalance to the shit house.

That is only because you are assigning the traditional roles to the numbers on their back. Apart from where they pack in scrums, and what it says on his back, Hooper is our 8.

In the last test, I agree the backrow was unbalanced. But McMahon was the problem, not Hooper. Plus Fardy has played two bad tests in a row - but he has been very good for us up until now and deserves another chance. In the first test, the back row balance was fine, apart from being short.

I would pick Gill in the 8 shirt. Again, working on the basis that the numbers are irrelevant. He would be the best compliment to the skills of Hooper and Fardy and works well in the centre of the field and in the tight. He is also a lineout option.

 

[USARugger]

It actually breaks my heart to say this and I know I've backed Houston a bit on here but I'm hardly more a fan of him than Gill.. but I think Houston would bring more balance to our back row than Gill right now.

Of course, he's untested at this level so it's all in theory.

I'm basing this mostly off the fact that when it comes to attack Houston is likely considerably more effective in wider channels than Gill and has a stronger offloading game. Both are capable of making the meters in tight when needed. Letting Houston play more of the wide role on attack that Fardy has been placed in and having Fardy/Hooper closer to the ruck/midfield (they've proven in the past that they're more than a competent duo on the floor) would allow our attack to function much better, in my opinion.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The back row is only unbalanced with Pocock not there and someone being picked to do his role and not doing it quite as well. We were getting nearly everything we needed with Fardy, Hooper and Pocock, but the problem is that McMahon isn't Pocock yet (or maybe won't ever be).

 

[ForceFan]

Just to help the discussion, here's some relevant stats for key No7s and No8s after Round 13 in Super Rugby.

I do realise that neither McCalman nor Holloway are available for selection in the 3rd Test.
Thomson included for comparison purposes only.
NOTE:
1. These are average stats per 80 minutes played.
2. Palu has yet to play a full game and has averaged only 32 minutes.
3. Holloway has played 3 full games, has had 6 games of 55 mins or less, and has averaged 60 minutes per game.
4. I have no equivalent stats for Houston.

It's fine having lots of ball carriers but someone has to put in the hard work at the breakdown and make effective tackles (because the Tight 5 aren't all doing it!).

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Thanks Forcefan, makes you wonder why Gill wasn't at least on the bench in one or both tests.

 

[Marcelo]

And this is what I was talking about:

"Once again, the Wallabies have shown they are the grand masters of ruining the big opportunity.

Imagine the enormous free promotional kick-along that Australian rugby would have enjoyed this week had the Wallabies levelled the Test series against England in Melbourne to ensure that everything would revolve around the final Sydney international.

Even in a State of Origin week, the third Australia vs. England Test had the potential of being the sporting talking point in Australia's largest city-- commanding a prominent profile in all forms of the media, including those outlets that take delight in ignoring the game. After a lacklustre Super Rugby season, a code that often fights for recognition in Australia needed a timely morale boost. So much for that.

Now the Third Test is bound to be deliberately ignored by the masses. It has suddenly become a subject to avoid because it holds the danger of being a day of shame for Australian rugby if England enjoy a 3-0 series romp just seven months after being rated a national disgrace for not making the finals of the Rugby World Cup they were hosting."

http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/...unity-england-greg-growden?ex_cid=espnTW_ANZL

 

[Joe Blow]

And this is what I was talking about:

"Once again, the Wallabies have shown they are the grand masters of ruining the big opportunity.

Imagine the enormous free promotional kick-along that Australian rugby would have enjoyed this week had the Wallabies levelled the Test series against England in Melbourne to ensure that everything would revolve around the final Sydney international.

Even in a State of Origin week, the third Australia vs. England Test had the potential of being the sporting talking point in Australia's largest city-- commanding a prominent profile in all forms of the media, including those outlets that take delight in ignoring the game. After a lacklustre Super Rugby season, a code that often fights for recognition in Australia needed a timely morale boost. So much for that.

Now the Third Test is bound to be deliberately ignored by the masses. It has suddenly become a subject to avoid because it holds the danger of being a day of shame for Australian rugby if England enjoy a 3-0 series romp just seven months after being rated a national disgrace for not making the finals of the Rugby World Cup they were hosting."

http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/...unity-england-greg-growden?ex_cid=espnTW_ANZL

Thats great but I'm sure no-one associated with the Wallabies planned it this way.

 

[Twoilms]

Holloway at 8.2 metres a carry, and just through watching his general play this season in Super Rugby, seems like he might be one for the future.

Regarding the back row conundrum. Surely it's too rigid to suggest that any one particular set up is going to work universally. Clearly the current set up can and has been effective, with the two open sides. But equally, when it is not effective a team should have the flexibility to adjust. Seems like dropping hooper is seen as a convenient way of putting out a more conventional back row.

If dropping a great performer in a malfunctioning team makes the team function then it might be worth doing.

Personally think dropping him would be madness. I'd have Palu at 8 for the 30 minutes he can still run and then throw on Gill in another double 7, considering we havn't got another fit number 8 left. I'd also put literally anyone in for Fardy.

Edit: also seems that recently fetchers on the defending side are getting judged fairly harshly, so any tactic that relies heavily on fetching would not be playing the referees wisely.

 

[Joe Blow]

I would love to get a look at Houston but am fully aware that he may not be up to scratch fitness or Wallaby wise. Is Cheika willing to throw in Palu?
Holloway needs to keep working hard to come into calculations.
Pocock will be gone all of next year but hope he is fit for the RC.
The Wallabies are looking decidedly thin in a few areas despite the expanded number of Super Rugby teams. Wing, inside backs, 8 and the second row although we have some good prospects there.

 

[tragic]

I think we should start picking #8's to play 8 and not opensides and notters. The backrow is unbalance to the shit house.

And that's Bob Dwyers 1991 shithouse as well which was a really really long way away.

 

[Dan54]

Not a Hooper fan normally, but from what I have seen no way would I drop him, he playing his type of game well. Everyone probably needs to stop assuming a 7 has to be judged on his fetching ability, there is s a lot more to the game than that.

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk