The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Scoey]

I definitely think the biggest worry about trying to play Pocock and Hooper together is that the scrum won't have enough grunt. We'd need to be very careful there as ultimately, I think that's where our RWC chances will live and die.

My memory of 2014 (and in particular a couple of the Bledisloe tests) is that Simmons calls to himself too much. He's our best jumper and caller but if the ball goes to him too often it becomes too easy to steal or at least disrupt.

Skelton has won quite a lot of ball at 2 for the Tahs this season and much of it comes down to the fact that I don't think other teams really think he's a threat so they mark up against Dave Dennis much more heavily and he is the lineout caller. I think the Wallaby lineout would improve if Simmons called to himself a fair bit less.

These are all reasons not to weaken play both 7's.

Scrum weaker.
Simmons calls to himself too much and in doing do weakens our lineout. Who is he going to call to if he's the only real option?
Skelton working at two because the big threat (Dennis) draws defence away. The key being threats in a lineout are often more important than who jumps.

 

[KOB1987]

There seems to be almost universal agreement here that both will be in the 23 and that both will be on the field at some point. What I would like someone to explain is why it's better that this happens at the end of the game than the start of it. Taking everything into consideration not just tired legs.

 

[Scoey]

For the year, Simmons had four steals, Fardy and Horwill had one each. That was all.

This could lead you to two conclusions:

1. Our defensive lineout is so bad that we could only manage six steals in a calendar year, so why in God's name do we want to weaken it further by playing Skelton, Hooper and Pocock in the one XV?

or

2. Our defensive lineout is so bad that we could only manage six steals in a calendar year, so in reality what do we really lose by playing Skelton, Hooper and Pocock in the one XV?
.

As with ruck stats, lineout stats only tell part of the story. The objective is the same for both, you want clean front foot ball. The stats don't tell how many fumbles were forced on the opposition and recovered. They don't show how many missed their intended target because the hooker threw high to avoid competing jumpers but were cleaned up at the back etc.

At the end of the day, I don't pick the team. I am as curious as anyone to see what would happen but in my opinion, I can't see it working.

 

[TSR]

Personally I think you are undervaluing the importance of being as strong as possible in the set peice.

I'm also not sure why Fardys ability is not more highly rated. I think there were a couple of tests last year where he was a bit run of the mill, but other than that I feel he has been excellent. Hooper or Pocock may both be better players, but I'm not convinced either is a better 6 or that having both on the field makes us a better pack. There was an earlier post about the need for balance and I agree with that.

I do feel that, if we go with Pocock than Higginbotham's stocks rise, whereas I don't see a place for him and Hooper in the same back row.

But that's just me.

 

[barbarian]

These are all reasons not to weaken play both 7's.

Scrum weaker.
Simmons calls to himself too much and in doing do weakens our lineout. Who is he going to call to if he's the only real option?
Skelton working at two because the big threat (Dennis) draws defence away. The key being threats in a lineout are often more important than who jumps.

But Simmons has ALWAYS called to himself. Opposition teams know this. But we still seem to do OK. I can't see how that really changes with Skelton, Hooper and Pocock.

I mean it's not going to help our lineout, obviously, but I think we could get away with it.
.

 

[Pfitzy]

But Simmons has ALWAYS called to himself. Opposition teams know this. But we still seem to do OK. .

Except when he does it inside the 22, gets double-teamed because Simmons, then we lose the fucking ball ala All Blacks last year.

Maybe he should just, I dunno, surprise me?

 

[barbarian]

As with ruck stats, lineout stats only tell part of the story. The objective is the same for both, you want clean front foot ball. The stats don't tell how many fumbles were forced on the opposition and recovered. They don't show how many missed their intended target because the hooker threw high to avoid competing jumpers but were cleaned up at the back etc.

At the end of the day, I don't pick the team. I am as curious as anyone to see what would happen but in my opinion, I can't see it working.

True, but the cold hard facts are that Fardy is rarely called on our lineouts. So opposition lineouts wouldn't be marking him closely, they would focus their attention on Simmons who receives at least 50% of all of our throws.

I'm not trying to argue that the lineout isn't important. Just that I'm not sure that having Hooper and Pocock in the back row would make a big enough difference to justify not considering starting both of them.
.

 

[barbarian]

Except when he does it inside the 22, gets double-teamed because Simmons, then we lose the fucking ball ala All Blacks last year.

Maybe he should just, I dunno, surprise me?

But with him doing that we won 87%. Everyone knew that he only calls to himself (even you, FFS), and yet....... 87%.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

But with him doing that we won 87%. Everyone knew that he only calls to himself (even you, FFS), and yet... 87%.
.

This is why I don't have great concerns over the lineout. Even with an average lineout you are still only a throw or two behind a good lineout in the average game.

Being able to defend the rolling maul is critical as that is where you can give away penalties (and tries).

I think the set piece really only becomes an issue when the other side can force penalties on a regular basis (like against our scrum on the 2014 EOYT).

I think a lot of it will come down to who is available. Playing Hooper and Pocock together becomes a dramatically more enticing proposition with only a couple of injuries affecting who is available.

 

[Scoey]

But Simmons has ALWAYS called to himself. Opposition teams know this. But we still seem to do OK. I can't see how that really changes with Skelton, Hooper and Pocock.

I mean it's not going to help our lineout, obviously, but I think we could get away with it.
.

We're nit picking now but if we have say Simmons and Horwill in a lineout. the oppo will still mark both regardless of whether Simmons is calling 99% of the throws to him. If we have Simmons and Skelton they will double team Simmons more often than not and force us to throw to Skelton and also pressure our throw. He might take every single one but chances are he won't and there goes our clean ball or possibly even possession. Extend that scenario out to include the other guys and the same result is likely. It's not an absolute but as with every trade off it's risk vs benefit.

As for your second sentence, at Test level I'm not sure that's the attitude I would want but each to their own.

 

[Scoey]

True, but the cold hard facts are that Fardy is rarely called on our lineouts. So opposition lineouts wouldn't be marking him closely, they would focus their attention on Simmons who receives at least 50% of all of our throws.

I'm not trying to argue that the lineout isn't important. Just that I'm not sure that having Hooper and Pocock in the back row would make a big enough difference to justify not considering starting both of them.
.

Fardy may have greater impact on a defensive lineout. He may be able to spoil more etc. I don't know, I'm just saying, there's more to it than the stats tell.

 

[Scoey]

But with him doing that we won 87%. Everyone knew that he only calls to himself (even you, FFS), and yet... 87%.
.

87% is not good and is pretty alarming for mine. We duff a lineout within our own half against the All Blacks and we quite possibly pay with points.

 

[barbarian]

We're nit picking now but if we have say Simmons and Horwill in a lineout. the oppo will still mark both regardless of whether Simmons is calling 99% of the throws to him. If we have Simmons and Skelton they will double team Simmons more often than not and force us to throw to Skelton and also pressure our throw. He might take every single one but chances are he won't and there goes our clean ball or possibly even possession. Extend that scenario out to include the other guys and the same result is likely. It's not an absolute but as with every trade off it's risk vs benefit.

As for your second sentence, at Test level I'm not sure that's the attitude I would want but each to their own.

But see your analysis rests on this idea of us not being able to win lineouts if players are 'marked', which is a bit simplistic.

Simmons could be marked by three guys, by four, by seven, but if we are smart and fast and accurate then we could still throw successfully to him every time. Which we do, often.

87% is not good and is pretty alarming for mine. We duff a lineout within our own half against the All Blacks and we quite possibly pay with points.

87% must be about standard for International level. That includes 'not straight' calls as well. I'd expect to lose one lineout in every 10 at International level, I reckon that is OK.
.

 

[Tomikin]

I suppose it didn't stop Cheika picking McMahon and Hooper in the back row which to my mind wasn't successful, we lacked in the scrum and we lacked at the lineout..

I think Fardy is our 6 he does alot of stuff really well at the breakdown and set piece.

 

[Scoey]

But see your analysis rests on this idea of us not being able to win lineouts if players are 'marked', which is a bit simplistic.

Simmons could be marked by three guys, by four, by seven, but if we are smart and fast and accurate then we could still throw successfully to him every time. Which we do, often.

Yeah it is simplistic and wasn't meant to be analysis. It's hard to explain the intricacies of lineout strategy in 25 words or less. Lineouts are all smoke and mirrors. They are made quite difficult if the smoke machine is broken and you left the only mirror in the dressing room.
In short, I don't think playing both 7's would yield a benefit that would justify the added pressure we would suffer at such a critical part of the game. But I can't quantify it any more than you can your position. We may well see it in the Rugby Championship but that's a while away and the change in mindsets in this thread in the last fortnight or so tells me that come TRC this discussion could be a distant memory.

87% must be about standard for International level. That includes 'not straight' calls as well. I'd expect to lose one lineout in every 10 at International level, I reckon that is OK.

I have no idea what the Wallabies KPI is but I would expect you are probably right. 87% is probably standard. I think thats a good reason for us to want to be in the low to mid 90's and also a good reason why we shouldn't be doing anything to further weaken it.

 

[barbarian]

I suppose it didn't stop Cheika picking McMahon and Hooper in the back row which to my mind wasn't successful, we lacked in the scrum and we lacked at the lineout..

I think Fardy is our 6 he does alot of stuff really well at the breakdown and set piece.

In those three games (with Hooper and McMahon starting) we won 32 lineouts and lost 4. We stole one opposition throw.

That's not outstanding but it is OK, certainly wasn't the reason we lost (in the case of the England and France games).
.

 

[barbarian]

In short, I don't think playing both 7's would yield a benefit that would justify the added pressure we would suffer at such a critical part of the game. But I can't quantify it any more than you can your position. We may well see it in the Rugby Championship but that's a while away and the change in mindsets in this thread in the last fortnight or so tells me that come TRC this discussion could be a distant memory.

See I think having Hooper and Pocock on the field for the full 80 could be great, both blokes are such outstanding players.

But I agree there is PLENTY of time before this discussion comes anywhere near reality, and I could well change my position 5 or 6 times before then.

But don't bring reality into this and suck the joy away from this interesting Tuesday afternoon debate!!
.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's certainly going to be interesting what happens this year.

I certainly think some of the comments we've seen (particularly on the front page of GAGR (which is less surprising!)) declaring that the contest was over and Pocock had won were incredibly premature.

Friday's contest in Canberra will definitely be very interesting. Can't wait!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

All of this smacks of a repeat of Smith and Waugh back in 2003 and the mania to get two excellent players on the paddock at the same time. I think we'll get smashed if we do that, but as I said earlier let's give it a go for a period in the RC and see how it pans out. I can't see it ending any better than it did on the EOYT in 2014.

 

[barbarian]

Two things on that BH-

1. I never get why the Smith Waugh thing is so derided, when we got within an inch of winning the World Cup with that exact combination.

2. Smith and Waugh had really similar skill sets, especially in 2003 when Smith's ball-running was a few years away from being awesome.

Pocock and Hooper have quite different skill sets, which is why I think this just might work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk