The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma
- Thread starter Hoolly Doolly
- Start date
- Status
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Nope.
The Wallabies with Pocock may not have have won Bledisloes or destroyed teams but here's what they did do :
Not lose 3 out of 4 Tests on the Spring Tour
Not slip to 6th on the IRB rankings
Not lose to Argentina
On a GAGR article late last year that looked at all the ruck involvements by Wallaby forwards in detail, here was the comment about Hooper:
"Hooper makes the most rucks but with average early engagement and one of the lowest impacts."
Who cares if he's won the GGR award?! Even the John Eales medal isn't really indicitive because you're only pitting Wallabies against other Wallabies. It means Hooper has been better than the other guys in the 6th best team in the world.
While he hasn't won it, Pocock has been nominated for the IRB Player of the Year twice in a row. He's been regarded one of the best players on the field across every team on the planet and every game played over a 24-month period.
Pocock was being hailed by some as the best 7 in the world in 2011 with even ex-AB Josh Kronfeld saying he was better than McCaw.
If my memories of Pocock are tinted, then I'm in pretty good company. In May last year, even though Pocock hadn't played for well over a year, Sam Warburton was still rating Pocock as his hardest rival.
“If I had to name one player who’s the most difficult to play against, I’d say David Pocock. He’s so strong over the ball, you literally cannot move him. He’s a superb jackaler and as well as being extremely strong, he’s also very flexible. Personally, I do a lot of stretching, with the glutes, hamstrings and groin because you have to get into unusual positions. He’s not the tallest but even so he can ridiculously low. He’s been unlucky with injuries but I have no doubt he’ll come back even stronger.”
Hooper just isn't in the same class as Pocock except by some here in Australia where line breaks by a forward are more valued than the grunt work.
I never denied Pocock wasn't a great player. I love the guy. I just disagreed with the picture you were painting- that Pocock swept all before him, and Hooper was OK but really never that good at international level.
And then you spout crap like the last line, that again basically implies people who value Hooper only do it because he makes line breaks. It's that sort of shit that makes me lose respect for your argument.
Hooper has been the best Wallaby for the past two years. Full stop. He is a consistent performer who leads in attack and defence. He has been rewarded for that work, both here and overseas.
That is why he is the incumbent, and that is why Pocock will need to produce more of the outstanding work he put in against the Blues to oust him.
He has different strengths to Pocock, and that is why it's such an interesting debate, and the selection battle will come down to more than just 'who is better'. It's about balance, it's about opposition, it's about game plan, it's about conditions.
Bringing it back to 'well, Pocock's better and if you don't agree you have no idea about forward play' doesn't help anyone.
.
And then you spout crap like the last line, that again basically implies people who value Hooper only do it because he makes line breaks. It's that sort of shit that makes me lose respect for your argument.
Hooper has been the best Wallaby for the past two years. Full stop. He is a consistent performer who leads in attack and defence. He has been rewarded for that work, both here and overseas.
That is why he is the incumbent, and that is why Pocock will need to produce more of the outstanding work he put in against the Blues to oust him.
He has different strengths to Pocock, and that is why it's such an interesting debate, and the selection battle will come down to more than just 'who is better'. It's about balance, it's about opposition, it's about game plan, it's about conditions.
Bringing it back to 'well, Pocock's better and if you don't agree you have no idea about forward play' doesn't help anyone.
.
Gillys_ghost
Dave Cowper (27)
I think that Pocock at 6, and Hooper at 7 still gives you balance. Pocock already plays the same role as fardy does when hes at 6, but Poeys as good at defending, a better Runner, and the best Pilferer, so why not have both?
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Gillys_ghost
Dave Cowper (27)
I wouldnt mind seeing Lopeti Timani at 8, which might nullify the lineout jumping problem?
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Sarcasm bro.
light
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Wonder if it's possible to add a poll to this forum?
I reckon it would be pretty clear as to who is preferred at 7.
For mine, based on current form and previous test performances, I'd start Pocock.
Pretty harsh on Hooper who is the rightful incumbent and captain but IMO Pocock is one of the very few Australian players I'd consider world class.
I reckon it would be pretty clear as to who is preferred at 7.
For mine, based on current form and previous test performances, I'd start Pocock.
Pretty harsh on Hooper who is the rightful incumbent and captain but IMO Pocock is one of the very few Australian players I'd consider world class.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Now we have New Zelanders trying to pick our test team?
Dismal Pillock
David Codey (61)
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/important-pole-australias-best-7.15410/
hehe, with all the regional bias around here we may be the only pricks who can be trusted to be objective! Pocock is the one I fear the most. You need to gear the gameplan to revolve around taking the pesky bastard OUT of the equationNow we have New Zelanders trying to pick our test team?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
It's probably the only position we can say that unfortunately.
I've been very impressed with Gill this season (excluding the brain snap), Pocock going well and brings another dimension to things and Hooper has consistently been one of the best, if not the best, over the past two years.
If I was picking a team today, I'd probably go with Hooper on that basis. That may change before the first test team is picked. I certainly think that Cheika would be mad not to start Pocock in at least one of the first 2 or 3 tests of the season.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Now we have New Zelanders trying to pick our test team?
Well it's not like it's unprecedented..............
FWIW I'm with @Dismal on this one, Pocock's the guy who worries me most, followed by Gill then Hooper (& Hooper for very different reasons than either of the others).
Samson
Chris McKivat (8)
Pocock gets the accolades for his work at the breakdown but is he as effective as Gill? Gill's work at the breakdown often results in turnovers with the play continuing as opposed to Pocock where he forces scrum or penalty for his team. This results in a stoppage and the mandatory back slapping - hence his effort is more obvious. Given the current state of our set piece I think Gill is more suited.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
1. Yes, Hooper may have been the best Wallaby for the last 2 years (except I don't think he was even in the Top 3 of the 2014 GAGR award someone brought up earlier so 'one of the best' may be more accurate) but AGAIN - it's not that relevant given the slide in results and form of the team in the last 2 years.
2. Please tell me what 'rewards' Hooper's picked up overseas for his play? I've mentioned Pocock's 2x IRB Player of the Year nominations, what does Hooper have?
This is just rubbish. I haven't said that anywhere. You stated and ask:
I gave you a reason as to why winning Wallaby-only awards don't show any kind of dominance in Tests. @Merrow stated the exact same thing in the post before mine - we must have been writing at the same time. Hooper is ONLY competing against other Wallabies - not the every single other player on the planet. The ONLY award that goes across other countries I believe Hooper has won is the 2013 Super Rugby Player of the Year. That's not even Test status - there's a whole Northern Hemisphere as well as Argentina and a few other countries who don't even get a look in. Pocock's nominations, 2 years in a row, put him as one of the best players on the planet. Now that's a FULL STOP.
I also provided references from players outside of Australia talking about what they thought of Pocock. Josh Krefeld stating he was better than McCaw, Warburton naming Pocock as the the most difficult player to play against.
So I made a reference to an article from GAGR - an Australian rugby forum I mite note - which had gone thru all the breakdown stats last year and the final analysis said that Hooper was pretty much ineffective at the breakdown. So if his breakdown game is not as good as Pocock's, then most people, including yourself, rate his running game better. You earlier said:
That's great - again, I'd pick a 7 based more on the grunt than his run. Oh...and 'balance'. You don't bench Michael Jordan to give your team more 'balance'. So Scottie and Horace and Cartwright can play their more natural game. Stuff that - you build your team (or your back row as the case may be) around Michael Jordan.
You tell me that I'm spouting crap and trying to reduce my arguments to either things I have never said or stupid one-liners like
'well, Pocock's better and if you don't agree you have no idea about forward play'
but I'm the only one who has referenced anything else like
1. GAGR analysis
2. IRB Nominations
3. Josh Kronfeld
4. Sam Warburton
I've even done the background work for you to show that Hooper's 2013 Super Rugby Award. Where are your references showing Hooper has dominated at Test level? Where are your quotes from players talking about how they think Hooper is the best 7 on the planet? Or the player they find most difficult to play? I'm not saying they don't exist - I really have no idea - but I've done the work on Pocock and you tell me I'm spouting crap?!?
I will give you this credit though (something you never give to myself, not that I need it - I do my research so I KNOW what I'm saying is based on at least some level of truth). I think you yourself recognise that it's only a matter of time
I'd say he's pretty much there. Pocock just needs to keep playing. He's doing everything that he WAS doing before injury that made him so feared then. Hooper's had 2 years to get to the same level and, IMO, didn't get there.
As for picking Gill over both of them?! He's got shown even less at Test level and has even less experience - I think he would have to be so far above the other two AND show the same dominance in the Bledisloe games and RC to be considered first choice.
Finally, the benefit of Kiwi input is that we don't care about what colour jersey these guys play in outside of Tests. It's up to you whether you believe us when we say we'd rather face Hooper/Gill than Pocock but I have consistently said here that while it would be great for the ABs to never face Pocock again, it would be a travesty to world rugby to not see him at his best again.
But if anyone is able to get me a gig as an advisor to the Wallaby selection panel, I'm available and keen!
Tomikin
Simon Poidevin (60)
I think That Hoops should cut his hair, then he would be in with a shout
Tomikin
Simon Poidevin (60)
I think Gill got a few good steals last night and was busy as always but his more of an opportunists stealer then a bully breakdown stealer.. Nothing wrong with that.. Just different
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
With all the debate about whether or not Hooper has dominated at test level, I would point out that either last season or the one before he was listed as the openside in nearly every rugby critics world XV. He's also won several MotM awards at test level. The bloke can play at the top level, no doubt in my mind. I'm just glad we're even having this debate at all. Two fine players duking it out for one of the most pivotal positions on the paddock is a good problem to have.
It was this line that got to me, Bullrush.
This is rubbish. We value line breaks more than grunt work? That's the problem with Michael Hooper in this debate- he's a great player, but castigated as just some flashy linebreaker who shirks the hard stuff.
The fact is he makes just as many tackles as Pocock, and hits just as many rucks. Pocock is far better over the ball, of course, but that doesn't mean that Hooper shirks the 'grunt work'.
And I'm not going to reel off a list of references. I don't need to, and neither do you. We all know Pocock is a great player, that is not in dispute here. And in reality that is all you proved. He was great two years ago, but since then has been on the sidelines while Hooper has claimed the spot. Two years ago he was a lay down misere for the side, a 'Michael Jordan' if you will. He's not any more, but could be soon. I hope he is soon.
From watching the coverage of the NH tour games last year, all the foreign commentators rate Hooper. I'm not going to scour the internet for any evidence of that, but I certainly heard it.
You've clearly got your views, and that's fine. I'm not putting one guy above another at this point. I'm just sticking up for Hooper, not because I'm a Tahs fan, but because I don't think he is as far behind Pocock as you state.
.
This is rubbish. We value line breaks more than grunt work? That's the problem with Michael Hooper in this debate- he's a great player, but castigated as just some flashy linebreaker who shirks the hard stuff.
The fact is he makes just as many tackles as Pocock, and hits just as many rucks. Pocock is far better over the ball, of course, but that doesn't mean that Hooper shirks the 'grunt work'.
And I'm not going to reel off a list of references. I don't need to, and neither do you. We all know Pocock is a great player, that is not in dispute here. And in reality that is all you proved. He was great two years ago, but since then has been on the sidelines while Hooper has claimed the spot. Two years ago he was a lay down misere for the side, a 'Michael Jordan' if you will. He's not any more, but could be soon. I hope he is soon.
From watching the coverage of the NH tour games last year, all the foreign commentators rate Hooper. I'm not going to scour the internet for any evidence of that, but I certainly heard it.
You've clearly got your views, and that's fine. I'm not putting one guy above another at this point. I'm just sticking up for Hooper, not because I'm a Tahs fan, but because I don't think he is as far behind Pocock as you state.
.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
- Status