Wallaby Watch 2014

[Brumby Runner]

Absolutely. This is why I always wish that Michael Hooper was a back. He is very good at the breakdown. He is very fast. He is a committed chaser. He is tough to tackle and has an eye for running into the space that will see him even harder to take down or make a linebreak or put himself in a position where quick ball can be taken. He is a very good tackler too.

One of the strengths of the ABs is how well each of their players competes at the breakdown. Having a Pocock or a Smith at 7 and a Michael Hooper out wide would bring out a bit of anxiety I reckon.

Michael Hooper played 12 a few times for Manly in the SS a few years ago. Speaking with him about that experience at a later Brumbies' function, he quite clearly stated that he didn't enjoy it. Times change, I suppose, but I'd be very surprised if he sees himself as a viable option in the backline.

 

[ForceFan]

At least twice? Guess I must have missed all these Argentinian line breaks.

I'll give you a hint champ. Talking up a single player from the Force will be taken with a massive grain of salt when your name is "force fan".

Apologies TWaS, I meant to refer to Hodgson's efforts in his 20 minutes against the ABs in Bled3.

Thanks for your hint but I've never considered myself a "champ". Dctarget raised the query. I assumed that he was promoting some discussion.

Take it "with a massive grain of salt" if you need to but it doesn't change my opinion!

Would be only too happy to hear other' views re best tackler for various situations.

Any views of your own or just into tearing other contributors' opinions apart??

PS. Also pleased with Cheika's selection of Captain and 7 for the Wallabies against the Barbarians......

.

 

[Forcefield]

I am not saying I ever expect to see Hooper playing in the backs. I just wonder what it would be like if he had moved there earlier on in his career. Just in the same way as I would have loved to have seen George North as a backrower.

Spoken like a true Force fan.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Ruggo]

I really want Chieka to stay the course with Hodgson as captain. He is by far good enough to hold the starting openside spot but the Wallabies badly need a mature head at the helm. He just might be the catalyst to bring the show together. He brings no baggage to the job, is an experienced player and very much strikes me as the type of player that commands respect from all those that deal with him weather they be team mates, coaches or referees.

 

[Slim 293]

Heat up the popcorn..........

This thread is going to kick off today.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Hodgson is probably just 2014's Ben Mowen (or Mike Brierley)

 

[Train Without a Station]

Hodgson is probably just 2014's Ben Mowen (or Mike Brierley)

Exactly. Though I'm a younger vintage than you so I don't know who Mike Brierly is.

I really want Chieka to stay the course with Hodgson as captain. He is by far good enough to hold the starting openside spot

Disagree. He was arguably the top openside in Australia in 2014.

That being said, he would have been less effective for the Waratahs, much in the same way Hooper would have been less effective for the Force.

But we also need to remember that Pocock, Gill and Robinson all missed a large number of games through injury. In addition, all 3 Rebels openside options ended their seasons with shoulder surgery.

It's not a matter of just picking the bloke who is in the best form today.

Form is important but the Wallabies aren't just a rep team. They are a team with their own season so you need to actually build a team rather than just pick players. Due to that, consideration needs to be paid to last year's form and next years form needs to be considered.

On that basis Hodgson is not by far good enough to hold the starting openside spot. He's a good openside, actually he would probably be a good a international quality openside too. But Hooper was better in 2013, has still been one of the better opensides (though behind Hodgson) in 2014, and at 23 vs 34 or 35, I'll back Hooper to be the better of the two in 2015 too.

 

[Viking]

Exactly. Though I'm a younger vintage than you so I don't know who Mike Brierly is.



Disagree. He was arguably the top openside in Australia in 2014.

That being said, he would have been less effective for the Waratahs, much in the same way Hooper would have been less effective for the Force.

But we also need to remember that Pocock, Gill and Robinson all missed a large number of games through injury. In addition, all 3 Rebels openside options ended their seasons with shoulder surgery.

It's not a matter of just picking the bloke who is in the best form today.

Form is important but the Wallabies aren't just a rep team. They are a team with their own season so you need to actually build a team rather than just pick players. Due to that, consideration needs to be paid to last year's form and next years form needs to be considered.

On that basis Hodgson is not by far good enough to hold the starting openside spot. He's a good openside, actually he would probably be a good a international quality openside too. But Hooper was better in 2013, has still been one of the better opensides (though behind Hodgson) in 2014, and at 23 vs 34 or 35, I'll back Hooper to be the better of the two in 2015 too.

I agree with everything except for the assumption that Hodgson would be less effective at the Tahs. I imagine he would have absolutely carved it up at the Tahs.

 

[liquor box]

Hodgson is probably just 2014's Ben Mowen (or Mike Brierley)

I think they should all read Brearley's book "the art of captaincy". It might teach a bit about how to lead and also how to follow a leader.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I agree with everything except for the assumption that Hodgson would be less effective at the Tahs. I imagine he would have absolutely carved it up at the Tahs.

A high tackling, high pilfering openside is less effective when you defend less of the game. That's a simple fact. He still would have been a good player, but the Tahs game played to Hooper's strengths in the same way the Force's did to Hodgson's.

Much in the same way that Hooper, with his running ability would have been less effective in the Force who played with much less possession. He likely would have made more pilfers with more opportunity, but may not have been as effective.

So in summary, they both would have been good playing for either team, however I believe the teams they played for allowed them to play closer to their best.

You feel me player?

 

[Viking]

A high tackling, high pilfering openside is less effective when you defend less of the game. That's a simple fact. He still would have been a good player, but the Tahs game played to Hooper's strengths in the same way the Force's did to Hodgson's.

Much in the same way that Hooper, with his running ability would have been less effective in the Force who played with much less possession. He likely would have made more pilfers with more opportunity, but may not have been as effective.

So in summary, they both would have been good playing for either team, however I believe the teams they played for allowed them to play closer to their best.

You feel me player?

Sure, but according to stats Hodgson is also a high try-scoring open-side. Teams who attack more score more tries, that's a simple fact! Just imagine how many opportunistic tries Hodgson would have scored form the back of a ruck - since the Tahs would have more rucks close to line given their attacking play.

Plus who needs another running backrower when you already got Potgeiter, Palu, TPN, Kepu, Douglas, Skelton all hitting the advantage line effectively.

I rate a team with balance. Hodgson would add another dimension to the pack.

You feel me player?

 

[Braveheart81]

Hodgson scored a couple of his tries at least from very close range and also a couple from rolling mauls if I remember correctly.

In his 100th game I think it was, he bagged a double which included a long range try where he received the final pass to score.

I think Hodgson would have probably scored less tries at the Tahs because there were almost no attempts at scoring from pick and drives or rolling mauls.

They're both excellent players, but I find the notion that Hodgson would have done better at the Tahs than Hooper a bit puzzling.

Hodgson's greatest strength lies in attritional rugby. The Tahs played a completely opposite style to that.

 

[Train Without a Station]

In isolation you could say that. But Hooper, who ran quite a lot was a big part of getting them to that position to score tries. If he's not there shedding tackles and scoring tries, there's no opportunity to be opportunistic.

Hodgson would have ran more at the Waratahs. Hooper would have pilfered more at the Force. Does Hodgson have the attributes to be as effective as a runner as Hooper was? No. In the same breath, does Hooper has the attributes to be as effective at the breakdown as Hodgson? No.

Hodgson not going to run a whole like Hooper, and Hooper may miss some harder pilfers that Hodgson makes. It's that last 5% that is why a player looks better playing in a team that suits their abilities more.

And don't go stealing my lines Seb!

 

[Train Without a Station]

They're both excellent players, but I find the notion that Hodgson would have done better at the Tahs than Hooper a bit puzzling.

I think you've misinterpreted Seb a little. He's not saying Hodgson would have been better than Hooper, just claiming he would have been a better attacking player at the Waratahs than he was at the Force.

 

[cyclopath]

As a Tahs fan, I am quite happy we had Hooper. Hodgson is a terrific player, but I wouldn't swap them for quids. Now if Hooper didn't exist, that's a different matter.

 

[Train Without a Station]

When you consider the players the Wallabies have and the style they therefore need to play, Hooper is the better option.

If this was South Africa that could play a more tight, forward dominant game, Hodgson would be a more highly valued player.

 

[Tomikin]

I think Poey should be 7 he plays for the Brumbies, then Butler then Fardy
. Screw the Force and Tahs.

Hooper's 1st.. Hodgson next Atm.

Theirs really nothing else to say about it.

 

[Viking]

In isolation you could say that. But Hooper, who ran quite a lot was a big part of getting them to that position to score tries. If he's not there shedding tackles and scoring tries, there's no opportunity to be opportunistic.

Hodgson would have ran more at the Waratahs. Hooper would have pilfered more at the Force. Does Hodgson have the attributes to be as effective as a runner as Hooper was? No. In the same breath, does Hooper has the attributes to be as effective at the breakdown as Hodgson? No.

Hodgson not going to run a whole like Hooper, and Hooper may miss some harder pilfers that Hodgson makes. It's that last 5% that is why a player looks better playing in a team that suits their abilities more.

And don't go stealing my lines Seb!

Haha I do enjoy rustling your jimmies if you didn't notice!

Look to be serious I agree. Hooper definitely the front runner in the wallabies with the current squad.

Although it's interesting you say Hooper would be less effective at the Force. Which is true given the points you made. But that doesn't mean he is less needed!

In fact the Force are missing a player exactly like Hooper in their team. I believe they play a defending style of play because that is what the current stock of players allow. A few more attacking players would allow a more diverse game-play.

Similar to the Tahs being able to play the aggressive, hard running, attacking style - because the current stock of players allow it - in fact encourage it given their skill-set.

Playing to your strengths is the key point. Hooper at the force would mean the strengths of the pack are different - which ultimately could allow the force to attack more.

So I would like to see Hooper at the force - it would be an interesting experiment. Sorry Tah fans!

 

[Ash]

Heat up the popcorn....

This thread is going to kick off today.

Are you referring to Wayne Smith's latest article, or something else?

 

[Tomikin]

Haha I do enjoy rustling your jimmies if you didn't notice!

Look to be serious I agree. Hooper definitely the front runner in the wallabies with the current squad.

Although it's interesting you say Hooper would be less effective at the Force. Which is true given the points you made. But that doesn't mean he is less needed!

In fact the Force are missing a player exactly like Hooper in their team. I believe they play a defending style of play because that is what the current stock of players allow. A few more attacking players would allow a more diverse game-play.

Similar to the Tahs being able to play the aggressive, hard running, attacking style - because the current stock of players allow it - in fact encourage it given their skill-set.

Playing to your strengths is the key point. Hooper at the force would mean the strengths of the pack are different - which ultimately could allow the force to attack more.

So I would like to see Hooper at the force - it would be an interesting experiment. Sorry Tah fans!

It is funny cos Hooper at the Brumbies never got questioned about his pilfering skills and pretty sure he lead the stats for it in super rugby. The game plan was kick it tackle the crap out of them and get the ball back.. He was awesome at it. Then at the tah's it was Ball in hand. In the wallabies he usually plays with Fardy, who is a good runner but a great onballer 6. So Hooper does less on ball attack and more running.

He'd be awesome if he just cut his hair..