The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Slim 293]

Yeah, Mitchell broke his leg/ankle when Higgers tripped him in earlier in the year..........

 

[Rock Lobster]

Interesting point made about the game being different to when Pockock was dominating. Refs don't give nearly as many "holding on" penalties as they used to with the attacking side seemingly given more time to blow a defender off the ball. Admittedly Pockock is incredibly hard to shift once he is "over" the ball but until we see him play under the current rule interpretations, talk of rushing him back in to the Wallabies starting side is misplaced.

 

[Westie]

I've heard Cheika will pick him just to make sure sales of moral high horses and ivory towers remain strong.

And untraceable phones...

 

[ACT Crusader]

Rock Lobster, is there any stats to back up your claim about holding on penalties? I'm genuinely interested, if that is really the case.

From my armchair perspective, it seems there are less penalties for holding on because more defending players aren't winning them because they are simply off their feet, whereas in the past guys would win a penalty for example when they appeared to have a knee on the ground (eg George Smith) or were bridging over a team mate (ala McCaw).

Pocock hasn't been out of the game that long. I think he adapted when there was the last significant change to the variations and if he has to make a minor adjustment (that's really what it will take) then I think he will easily be up to it.

 

[Godfrey]

Yeah, Mitchell broke his leg/ankle when Higgers tripped him in earlier in the year....

To be fair(er) to Higgers, Drew broke his ankle when Higgers moved off his line to block him while he was chasing a kick. Still foul play, but I think a trip in that context is worse.

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest change to me in the last couple of years has been more consistently penalising players for initially going past the ball so they are supported by their hands on the ground and then going for the ball as they are cleaned out.

That used to be something that won the defending team the ball and penalties and now they are generally being penalised for it. It's much better in my opinion.

I think a couple of years ago a second arriving player got away with contesting the ball more often than they do now. There'd be one guy from each team battling it out over the tackled player and then a second guy would come in and go for the ball.

Rightly they should be penalised because the ruck is alraedy formed before they had hands on the ball.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah, going past the ball and supporting your weight on your hands isn't staying on your feet. I'm happy to see that penalised.

 

[Rock Lobster]

No stats ACT Crusader, just an observation & I agree with the other points you, Braveheart & The Brown Horne have raised. I think there are even more penalties out there for "off your feet" not given than there are. In some of the positions players find themselves in trying to win the ball, it is a physical impossibility to be supporting their weight on their feet.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Round 4

Hooper 2
Poco I 1

And a draw as well

Hooper starting to get a good lead

 

[A mutterer]

I also think Gill has probably lost some ground - and not all of that can be fairly attributed to personal performance

 

[liquor box]

I also think Gill has probably lost some ground - and not all of that can be fairly attributed to personal performance

losing ground on Pocock? I thought he was better than Hooper and on a losing team as well.

 

[Braveheart81]

losing ground on Pocock? I thought he was better than Hooper and on a losing team as well.

What did Gill do exactly?

 

[formerflanker]

It was interesting to see Hooper pack at blind-side flanker (left side) on a couple of occasions, and it was his default side when packing a mid-field scrum. Perhaps it was a strategy to get Potgieter's weight behind the tight head prop.
And on a minor burr under my saddle - why does Hooper bother with head strapping at all when it keeps riding up and off? Perhaps we GAGR pundits should run a sweep, $5 in, on the minute of play that his carefully wrapped strapping slips upwards and makes him look like the headless horseman.

 

[A mutterer]

losing ground on Pocock? I thought he was better than Hooper and on a losing team as well.

the stats indicate otherwise.

 

[BDA]

Round 4

Hooper 2
Poco I 1

And a draw as well

Hooper starting to get a good lead

I don't think we should be counting the rounds where one or both aren't playing. It creates a false economy.

 

[qwerty51]

Then we can't count any rounds?

 

[Braveheart81]

Surely missing games through injury will have a significant impact on the overall battle between the two in terms of who wins selection. It's entirely relevant in my opinion.

 

[Pfitzy]

What did Gill do exactly?

Play for QLD. Immediate 200 pont head start on anyone else.

 

[BDA]

I don't think it is. If Pocock wins every round he plays, but sits out the first 6 7 rounds, by your calculations Hooper could still win.

Palu's injured all the time. Does that dictate whether he is our best no.8?

The question should be, if both are fit, who should be selected.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think it is. If Pocock wins every round he plays, but sits out the first 6 7 rounds, by your calculations Hooper could still win.

Palu's injured all the time. Does that dictate whether he is our best no.8?

The question should be, if both are fit, who should be selected.

If it is just one injury stint during the season, that may be the case but we won't know that until the season is done.

The selection won't be made on a match by match basis anyway.

If there are several players who prove to be injury prone and are considered unlikely to make it through 7 matches in the RWC, it might cause some of them not to be selected.