Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[The_Brown_Hornet]

For me the back row encompasses three distinct roles:

- The fetcher. Their primary job is to be first to the breakdown, secure possession on our ball and try to pilfer some of theirs. The rules have changed this a bit, but a good fetcher is still worth having. However a traditional openside needs to have more to their game than this alone these days. They must also be able to link with the backs, support the ball carrier, tackle like a mad man and run the ball a bit themselves.

- The enforcer. This position requires a real bruiser most of the time. That is, a guy who can consistently make dominant tackles, carry the ball up in the tight-loose, clean blokes out effectively and generally put the hurt on (legally of course). It also helps if they are a nuisance on defensive rucks too.

- The ball runner. This is your traditional eight. They carry the pill up multiple times in the loose, run back in support of the back three on kick returns and in multiple phase play and gets through a lot of defence.

Two of these blokes also need to be line out options as well. You can't just have the two locks jumping these days. I think Pocock could fulfil the enforcer role. He's certainly strong enough. In fact he's one of the toughest loose forwards we've produced in many years. Not mongrel type tough, just a rock. He'll be competing against Fardy and Higgers though.

 

[something]

pocock - fetcher in the tight.
palu/skelton even - enforcer
hooper/higgers - ball runner in the loose

that is actually how i think of those players.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

And Fardy (he's in our current XV after all)?

 

[Lorenzo]

Can someone clarify the main differences between a 6 and a 7 and why it would be a bad idea for pocock to play 6?

for mine, flankers blokes who hang around the ball trying to make a nuisance of themselves at breakdowns. They should be able to do a little bit of lineout work too (which i think pocock could learn).

I don't think its totally inconceivable to play two opensides in a game - especially when they are two of your best players (in form). Forgive my lack of knowledge in this matter but when has it failed before? and were we in the same boat with two gun 7's and an average 6 (no offence to fardy but he hasnt set the world on fire).

I just figure, if pocock comes back all guns blazing i don't want him on the bench. I dont want hooper on the bench either. i'd prefer pocock to slightly tinker his game and play 6. Considering he and hoops games are basically ying and yang i reckon it would be incredibly formidable

Phil Waugh and George Smith were shoehorned in together at various times in 2003 through 2005. It was all going to be great because we would just be too mobile and teams wouldn't know what hit them. They'd be run off their feet! At one point Waugh even played number 8.

Of course most ideas of this nature have been thought of already and there are usually good reasons they are widely discarded - they're shit.

Wallabies packs - even with parity in height and weight - already play small. It is an unsolved mystery that we've all been trying to solve for years. The most common expression is that they lack the requisite "mongrel". Fardy looked like he might be enough of a fluffybunny to mimic the likes of Matt Cockbain but he has regressed in terms of impact.

The last thing we need is smaller forwards. Pocock is a nuggety bloke and plenty strong enough but he just isn't big enough when you consider that our pack already has problems with enforcement.

 

[Dave Beat]

Phil Waugh and George Smith were shoehorned in together at various times in 2003 through 2005. It was all going to be great because we would just be too mobile and teams wouldn't know what hit them. They'd be run off their feet! At one point Waugh even played number 8.

Of course most ideas of this nature have been thought of already and there are usually good reasons they are widely discarded - they're shit.

Wallabies packs - even with parity in height and weight - already play small. It is an unsolved mystery that we've all been trying to solve for years. The most common expression is that they lack the requisite "mongrel". Fardy looked like he might be enough of a fluffybunny to mimic the likes of Matt Cockbain but he has regressed in terms of impact.

The last thing we need is smaller forwards. Pocock is a nuggety bloke and plenty strong enough but he just isn't big enough when you consider that our pack already has problems with enforcement.

Can't recall Waugh at 8, I do believe smith played 6, 7, and 8

 

[Train Without a Station]

I believe Waugh actually debuted there for the Waratahs Dave! I was shocked when I read it.

 

[Dave Beat]

I believe Waugh actually debuted there for the Waratahs Dave! I was shocked when I read it.

If you say so I just can't recall.

 

[BDA]

Surprised guys like kafer and Marto are choosing Beale at Fullback. Folau's best asset at Fullback is that he's rock solid under the high ball. Anyone who watched the England/All Blacks series would have seen that England will put up a lot of high balls at the world cup. They will probably be forced to change their tactics against us. I noticed that the All Blacks kept the ball on the ground with little grubbers and chip kicks at Eden Park. The Wallabies weren't ready for it and it turned out to be super effective.

 

[wamberal]

They will probably be forced to change their tactics against us. I noticed that the All Blacks kept the ball on the ground with little grubbers and chip kicks at Eden Park. The Wallabies weren't ready for it and it turned out to be super effective.

Our total inability to change our gameplan when circumstances demand it, just baffles me.

Are we just dumb? Is the team leadership incapable of changing things on the hop?

I think this is one of the very biggest things we have to get right, to have the slightest chance of making the final 8, let alone progressing further.

 

[Viking]

With all due respect, Pocock offers nothing with ball in hand that requires, speed, skill, or any inherent ability. He is a decent tight runner, but he isn't a tackle breaker.

How many teams say "oh geez we could use another tight forward to truck the ball up consistently without ever breaking the line".

Not to try and knock the guy, but he what he offers can easily be replaced, and is generally covered well by all our front row options.

I actually think the current wallabies need another tight runner. Slipper plays wide for a prop. There is no TPN or Moore, Kepu is average, Carter and Simmons poor ball runners IMO, Palu is good when in form, Fardy average, Hooper plays loose. And ball security seems like an issue with the current squad.

You say what he offers can easily be replaced. I hope you are only referring to his ball-running because his other skills are world-class.

Hoopers point of difference is his ball-running, without that he an average seven. So it's not going to take much for him to be "easily replaced" either. We just need a Higgers and/or a Palu, Skelton, to add some more ball running and tackle busting.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yes I was referring to Pocock's ball running.

I don't agree Hooper can be easily replaced at all. It requires an ability that not all players have. If coaches wanted Hooper to play more like Pocock, he could play tighter, focus more on strength work at the expense of speed and play more of that role whilst still offering more in attack.

If Hooper is an average 7 though, a good one must be fucking amazing. Considering he was the highest pilfering player in 2013 test rugby, what does that say about the other 7's in the world?

I refuse to believe that coaches are not pretty happy with his style, and just haven't said anything to him about correcting what they perceive as issues. Link and Cheika don't exactly strike me as the shrinking violet types. Even Deans didn't have any issues plastering Cooper's short comings in the media saying exactly what he needed to work on.

 

[Viking]

Yes I was referring to Pocock's ball running.

I don't agree Hooper can be easily replaced at all. It requires an ability that not all players have. If coaches wanted Hooper to play more like Pocock, he could play tighter, focus more on strength work at the expense of speed and play more of that role whilst still offering more in attack.

If Hooper is an average 7 though, a good one must be fucking amazing. Considering he was the highest pilfering player in 2013 test rugby, what does that say about the other 7's in the world?

I refuse to believe that coaches are not pretty happy with his style, and just haven't said anything to him about correcting what they perceive as issues. Link and Cheika don't exactly strike me as the shrinking violet types. Even Deans didn't have any issues plastering Cooper's short comings in the media saying exactly what he needed to work on.

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.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

But that's like saying if you take out passing and kicking, Luke Burgess is the best halfback in world rugby.

The other parts of Hooper's attacking play (i.e. passing, link play, hole running/timing etc.) are also exceptional.

 

[Train Without a Station]

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.

Yet he still picked him over Hodgson and Gill, both fit and available Wallaby capped players at that point.


Also, without his ball running, he still made more pilfers and just as many tackles than every other international 7 in 2013. Once again, if that's average, who exactly is good?

Yes some other players are stronger over the ball, but you can only say Hooper doesn't make dominant tackles if you don't watch him play. He makes plenty, probably more in fact that most 7's.

 

[Viking]

Ok. Average is a stretch.
He is a good pilferer and an amazing ball-runner and attacking player.
Hodegson is a great pilferer and average ball runner.

The reason he is picked over Hodgeson is for his ball-running/attacking play. You say he topped the stats last year well Hodgeson probably would have doubled those stats.

@Braveheart.
I agree. My point is. His attacking abilities are his point of difference. It is what seperates him from Hodgeson. It certainly isn't his defence because Hodgeson and other Aus sevens are just as good if not better.

The reason he is first picked on the team sheet is because we have no-one else is making his run metres and busting tackles, running his lines.

I believe if other players can step up in this ball running/attacking area then Hooper will be down the list behind Hodgeson. We have potential in players like Higgers to do this.

You guys act like he is god and will be the incumbent for the next 10 years when that is far from the truth.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't for a second think that if we had more excellent ball runners in the forward pack that Hooper's standing would decrease.

If anything, the more good ball runners we have, the more threatening Hooper becomes with his support play and ability to hit gaps.

No one is going to suggest that any player will be the incumbent for a decade, regardless of how good they are now. There are just too many unknowns.

Things might be different if Pocock was in peak fitness and form but he hasn't been for a long time and it's unknown when and if that situation will arise again.

I doubt Hooper will lose his place in the side based on some consideration of balance or the like. It will take another openside flanker to be seen to have a greater overall impact on games in all facets than Hooper which at this stage is a long way off.

 

[Viking]

I don't for a second think that if we had more excellent ball runners in the forward pack that Hooper's standing would decrease.

If anything, the more good ball runners we have, the more threatening Hooper becomes with his support play and ability to hit gaps.

No one is going to suggest that any player will be the incumbent for a decade, regardless of how good they are now. There are just too many unknowns.

Things might be different if Pocock was in peak fitness and form but he hasn't been for a long time and it's unknown when and if that situation will arise again.

I doubt Hooper will lose his place in the side based on some consideration of balance or the like. It will take another openside flanker to be seen to have a greater overall impact on games in all facets than Hooper which at this stage is a long way off.

Great point. I didn't think of that. but again it's going to depend of what our current weakness and strengths are. Do we need his attacking abilities or will a stronger defensive seven be a better option?

I disagree about the second comment. He should lose his place for the balance of the team if other players step up. If our breakdown, especially defensive breakdowns and ruck work continue to be a problematic area then Hodgeson should take his place.

In the short-term I don't see that happening. But I agree with @The_Brown_hornets posts about the balance of the back-row. I think that balance of a specialised fetcher, enforcer and ball runner is better then what we currently have - which is players are a bit of both.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The reason he is picked over Hodgeson is for his ball-running/attacking play. You say he topped the stats last year well Hodgeson probably would have doubled those stats.

That is absolute bullshit Seb. I'll tell you why Hodgson got close to (not actually it was something like 22 to 14 which works out something like 1.3 to 0.8), but not actually, twice as many pilfers as Hooper. Now lean in close when I tell you this

Because the Waratahs defended for nearly 25% less phases than the Force this season.

I know right? Mind = Blown.

I've run through the stats, and there is one game missing from the Force but I've used averages so it won't matter.

Waratahs averaged 56% possession (with 7 of their games being less than 55% and their lowest ever being 46%) 95 tackles and most importantly, 65 opposition rucks per game. In addition there was not a single game where their opposition had 90 rucks or more with only 39 in one game. They made more than 100 tackles on 5 occasions. In addition they made 90 tackles or less in 9 games.

The Force averaged 50% possession (with at least 11 and potentially a 12th game having less than 55% with 33% being their lowest and once further in the 30s), 96 tackles and most importantly 84 opposition rucks a game. In addition they made more than 100 tackles on at least 8 occasions and potentially a 9th. There were 5 games where their opponent had 90 rucks or more and 3 of those were in the 100s with a whopping 121 in one game and 50 being the lowest.

Now fuck me, if Hodgson isn't getting more pilfers he has zero excuse.

 

[Viking]

That is absolute bullshit Seb. I'll tell you why Hodgson got close to (not actually it was something like 22 to 14 which works out something like 1.3 to 0.8), but not actually, twice as many pilfers as Hooper. Now lean in close when I tell you this

Because the Waratahs defended for nearly 25% less phases than the Force this season.

I know right? Mind = Blown.

I've run through the stats, and there is one game missing from the Force but I've used averages so it won't matter.

Waratahs averaged 56% possession (with 7 of their games being less than 55% and their lowest ever being 46%) 95 tackles and most importantly, 65 opposition rucks per game. In addition there was not a single game where their opposition had 90 rucks or more with only 39 in one game. They made more than 100 tackles on 5 occasions. In addition they made 90 tackles or less in 9 games.

The Force averaged 50% possession (with at least 11 and potentially a 12th game having less than 55% with 33% being their lowest and once further in the 30s), 96 tackles and most importantly 84 opposition rucks a game. In addition they made more than 100 tackles on at least 8 occasions and potentially a 9th. There were 5 games where their opponent had 90 rucks or more and 3 of those were in the 100s with a whopping 121 in one game and 50 being the lowest.

Now fuck me, if Hodgson isn't getting more pilfers he has zero excuse.

You can pull all the stats out of your ass that you want. Do you actually believe Hooper is a stronger player at defensive rucks, and at pilfers then Hodgeson?

You need to look at the fashion in which the turnovers take place. The turnovers that Hodegson makes seem much more difficult then the ones Hooper has pulled off.

Personally I believe one crucial turnover that breaks the opposition momentum if far more important that 2 turn-overs at not-so-crucial moments in the game.

That is the difference.

Stats are such a small indicator of a players worth.

 

[Viking]

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.