Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[Train Without a Station]

I think the ones Hooper makes seem more difficult.

 

[Train Without a Station]

also, I was obviously exaggerating Hodgeson would double the pilfer stats but my point was he would have done just as well if not better.

Well statistics indicate, he likely wouldn't have, because based on the same opposition rucks as Hooper's team faced, Hodgson would have made 0.97 pilfers per game as opposed to 0.87.

So yes. He likely would have done as good. You said without the running game Hooper would only be an average 7. Considering Hodgson only averages 0.1 more pilfers than Hooper on a per ruck basis, I guess he is an average 7 too. Good thing we went with Hooper.

Would Hooper have made more with more defensive rucks? Unknown. Likewise Hodgson and less. But with a season of data, the trends show how many each makes over how many defensive rucks and it's a pretty solid stat over a sample size that large.

The results align exactly with the expectation. The player who faced more opportunities achieved more results than the player who faced less.

 

[Viking]

I think the ones Hooper makes seem more difficult.

Not at all. He makes his turnovers due to his short size and natural low centre of gravity, not his hard-nosed strength over the ball.

I really have no idea how you can think Hooper is a better defensive player then Hodgeson.

Lets agree to disagree.

 

[Tomikin]

Funny that you mention Dean's as I'm sure he had a word to Hooper about his shortcomings. He did after all send an SOS out to Smith to get him back for the Lion Series since Hooper wasn't up to it at the time.

I never said he was an average seven, I said without his ball-running he is average. Think about it. Without his ball-running Hodgson is superior. Yes Hooper can pilfer but other players in Aus are simply stronger over the ball, make more dominate tackles, and have just as good work-rate.

Hooper's work rate is higher then any other 7 he covers more ground and gets to more ball then any other 7. He actually probably did too much. If you put Hooper in the Force side this year his status would have been as good as Hodgson if not better. His absolutely class. He proved that in his Brumbies days, His been asked to play different now.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Not at all. He makes his turnovers due to his short size and natural low centre of gravity, not his hard-nosed strength over the ball.

I actually don't have any opinion on either, I was just pointing out how your comment "Hodgson's are more difficult" is merely an opinion and not a fact, because I could say the exact same about Hooper!

 

[Viking]

Well statistics indicate, he likely wouldn't have, because based on the same opposition rucks as Hooper's team faced, Hodgson would have made 0.97 pilfers per game as opposed to 0.87.

So yes. He likely would have done as good. You said without the running game Hooper would only be an average 7. Considering Hodgson only averages 0.1 more pilfers than Hooper on a per ruck basis, I guess he is an average 7 too. Good thing we went with Hooper.

Would Hooper have made more with more defensive rucks? Unknown. Likewise Hodgson and less. But with a season of data, the trends show how many each makes over how many defensive rucks and it's a pretty solid stat over a sample size that large.

The results align exactly with the expectation. The player who faced more opportunities achieved more results than the player who faced less.

Actually that was my original thought process. Hodgeson is an average seven, and he is a better defensive player then Hooper therefore without the attacking abilities Hooper he is an average.

You really do love your stats. Like i said before stats are much a small indiciator of a players worth.

It was only a game or two ago Hodesgon made a crucial turnover in the 10minutes he was on the field which resulted in us re-gaining possession and winning the game. It was absolutely crucial. Hooper did not make one turn-over in the 80minutes he was on the field. Hodgeson made 2. One absolutely changed the result of the game.

Hooper scored 2 tries. But again, his worth is his attacking ability not his turn-overs.

 

[Train Without a Station]

He forced a penalty for the player not releasing. That is the same as making a pilfer.

Seb I love my stats because they are facts. You cannot support an opinion with just an opinion.

My opinion is Hooper is almost as good at making pilfers as Hodgson. The stats indicate that is the case on a per ruck basis.

Your opinion is Hodgson is much better than Hooper in some aspects. Your opinion indicates this.

 

[Viking]

I actually don't have any opinion on either, I was just pointing out how your comment "Hodgson's are more difficult" is merely an opinion and not a fact, because I could say the exact same about Hooper!

How could it ever be a fact? There are no Stats out their rating the difficultly of the turn-overs or the effectiveness of the players hitting rucks, or how dominate the tackles are etc.

That is the problem with your stats. Pretty sure I could russle up a game or two where Jesse Mogg looks like a good defender on paper but its pretty bloody obvious he isn't.

This forum is about expressing our opinions, And mine is simple. Hodegson is better defensively and Hooper is better at attacking.

Also, by no means do i think Hooper is a poor defender, I just think Hodesgon is better. Don't even get me started on Pocock. Lol.

 

[qwerty51]

Oh please. Hooper is the best defender and attacker in the country, possibly the world. The tackle on Mogg in the Brumbies game and Perenara in the Hurricanes are just some examples where his insane speed is so critical. Others wouldn't have touched those players.

 

[Viking]

He forced a penalty for the player not releasing. That is the same as making a pilfer.

Seb I love my stats because they are facts. You cannot support an opinion with just an opinion.

My opinion is Hooper is almost as good at making pilfers as Hodgson. The stats indicate that is the case on a per ruck basis.

Your opinion is Hodgson is much better than Hooper in some aspects. Your opinion indicates this.

So if Hoopers "Stats" which indicate he makes more turn-overs then lets say George Smith. You would still choose Hooper even though its pretty bloody obvious who the better player is.

Stats can back-up a point but it can't be the definitive answer.

 

[Train Without a Station]

So if Hoopers "Stats" which indicate he makes more turn-overs then lets say George Smith. You would still choose Hooper even though its pretty bloody obvious who the better player is.

Stats can back-up a point but it can't be the definitive answer.

No. Because they do not.

Back to your previous comment, you could russle up a couple of stats from a couple of games to indicate he is a good defender. You couldn't put together a season of stats to indicate so though.

As I said, it's a large fair sample. If anything it's unfair to Hooper because it only includes his worst recent year (2013 was much better in that regard) and Hodgson's best recent year (2013 worse for him). But it's a large sample.

 

[Viking]

No. Because they do not.

Back to your previous comment, you could russle up a couple of stats from a couple of games to indicate he is a good defender. You couldn't put together a season of stats to indicate so though.

As I said, it's a large fair sample. If anything it's unfair to Hooper because it only includes his worst recent year (2013 was much better in that regard) and Hodgson's best recent year (2013 worse for him). But it's a large sample.

It's not fair at all. They play for different teams with completely different styles. It's completely unknown how many turn-overs Hooper would have made for the Force or Hodegson for the Tahs.

You simply assume based on their respective stats in their respective teams. It's impossible to actually know. So isn't that simply an opinion also?

 

[Viking]

No. Because they do not.

Back to your previous comment, you could russle up a couple of stats from a couple of games to indicate he is a good defender. You couldn't put together a season of stats to indicate so though.

As I said, it's a large fair sample. If anything it's unfair to Hooper because it only includes his worst recent year (2013 was much better in that regard) and Hodgson's best recent year (2013 worse for him). But it's a large sample.

So Beale should be 12 because his Stats are far better then To'omua's for the season? More try-assists, more offloads, more run-metres.

Stats are not everything mate.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Well Seb, if you can point to any data or information that can support your opinion other than, "I saw 'x' is better", I'd be happy to look at it.

You can't dispel stats based on them being on different teams and then refer to your opinion. What if Hooper played for the Force? He could have made more difficult pilfers! OMG!!1!!1! How can you compare two players at all in fact? They play for different teams, it's impossible to know how either would perform in the same environment.

 

[Train Without a Station]

So Beale should be 12 because his Stats are far better then To'omua's for the season? More try-assists, more offloads, more run-metres.

Stats are not everything mate.

No. Because defense is half of the game and Beale statistically doesn't stack up there.

 

[Braveheart81]

Classic GAGR forums. They guy claiming that Matt Hodgson is totally amazing can't even spell his name right

Although if you really want to hear someone wang on about how good Matt Hodgson is, you can't go past the man himself at www.matthodgson.com.au. It's possibly more wanky than James O'Connor's website.

In life and in competition, you will often hear Matt Hodgson described as the quiet achiever, industriously going about his business without fuss or spectacle.

It’s this same quality that translates through his rugby and business pursuits and is evident time and time again throughout his decorated career.

While it’s unusual for a player to be redeveloped as a forward at such a late age, Hodgson accepted the challenge with enthusiasm and has grown throughout his career to be one of the most formidable loose forwards in International Rugby.

A specialist openside flanker, Matt’s versatility across all back row positions, speed and consistency in winning the ball at the breakdown have cemented him as an indispensable component of the starting lineup with his provincial team, the Emirates Western Force.

Matt is the type of player that every coach needs. His willingness to put his body on the line and consistency, no matter where he is placed in the lineup, is a major asset to the Force.

 

[Tomikin]

So if Hoopers "Stats" which indicate he makes more turn-overs then lets say George Smith. You would still choose Hooper even though its pretty bloody obvious who the better player is.

Stats can back-up a point but it can't be the definitive answer.

No I'd pick George Smith every time because his not a stinking Tah..

 

[Viking]

No. Because defense is half of the game and Beale statistically doesn't stack up there.

True. BUT his Stats show him being the best attacking back in Aus. According to your logic he should be the best attacking option. Yet its funny how his attacking stats didn't back up his attacking or lack of attacking ability for the wallabies.

 

[Viking]

Classic GAGR forums. They guy claiming that Matt Hodgson is totally amazing can't even spell his name right

Although if you really want to hear someone wang on about how good Matt Hodgson is, you can't go past the man himself at www.matthodgson.com.au. It's possibly more wanky than James O'Connor's website.

Actually never said he was amazing just a better defensive player then Hooper.

 

[Viking]

Well Seb, if you can point to any data or information that can support your opinion other than, "I saw 'x' is better", I'd be happy to look at it.

You can't dispel stats based on them being on different teams and then refer to your opinion. What if Hooper played for the Force? He could have made more difficult pilfers! OMG!!1!!1! How can you compare two players at all in fact? They play for different teams, it's impossible to know how either would perform in the same environment.

How about the game where Hodgson made 2 turn-overs in 10 minutes to Hoopers zero. In the exact same environment as they were on the same team in the same game.

2 turnovers in 10minutes. Hooper none. That is a pretty bloody good comparison if you ask me.

It really shows where the mind-set of each player is and Hodgson obviously came on looking on for the turn-over immediately, whereas Hoopers mind-set is on other things.