• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Wallabies v Pumas - Saturday 17 September, nib Stadium Perth

Status
Not open for further replies.

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
This is a pointless argument.

The only aspect of the game where the numbers of players' backs specifically relates to what the players are doing is where they pack in the scrum and who throws in the lineout (only in modern times).

Everything else is based on historical stereotypes, coaching decisions and tactics.

If we based everything on historical stereotypes props would never pass the ball and backs would never compete at the breakdown.

You have an unbelievable hangup that Pocock is only able to do the things he is good at in general play if he has a certain number on his back. All evidence suggests that is incorrect.
 

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
I thought players had certain numbers on their backs so planers and supporters (and coaches) know what position they were playing. I'm fine with that being historical.

Following your reasoning it is irrelevant that 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 14 and 15 actually wear those numbers specific to their "playing "position.

In other words Genia can have 15 on his back yet play at half, Folau wear 9 and play fullback etc etc. That would be rather confusing.

I might be a cantankerous prick but I like to know in which position a player is supposed to be playing. That's why they wear numbers - identification.

In respect of Poey, he looks like a seven, plays like a seven and just isn't an 8.

I think you just have a hangup on Hooper playing in another number other than 7 and muddy the water to justify that position.

Personally I think he could easily be a long term 12 for the Wallabies.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
It would be highly unusual if the 9 didn't feed the scrum. Of course the player doing that should wear the 9 jersey.

I'd be perfectly happy for Hooper to wear the 8 jersey but it would be ludicrous to make that change if he wasn't packing at number 8 in the scrum because that is the only time the position is defined.

I couldn't care less what numbers the players are wearing. I am almost certain that Cheika decided Pocock would wear the 8 jersey because that is where he was packing in the scrum though.
 

Micheal

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I think that certain positions, and therefore certain numbers, are more fluid than others.

1, 2, 3? Prop, hooker, prop. No doubt about it. Folau in a 3 jersey would be out of the question.

4, 5? Second Row. Folau would look ridiculous in these.

9? Halfback. 10? Flyhalf - primary playmaker.

All the above are obvious. Why? Because they all have obvious and clearcut individual roles.

Where there isn't a clear cut individual role I think it becomes more blurry.

6, 7, 8 just don't have the cookie-cutter roles that they used to have (despite the desires of some of our *perhaps older* posters).

What really is the role of the 6? Or a 7? Or an 8? Well you have to look at each player in each position in the context of the role the back row has to play as a collective whole.

The backrow has to supply atleast one lineout jumper. The back row has to supply ball runners, both tight and wide, and players to secure the ball (again, across a few different channels). They have to be fit, high workrate players, and have to be of certain physical attributes. If they're not of certain physical attributes, they have to play like they are (Hooper, McMahon). One of them has to pick the ball up at the back of the scrum with confidence and deft hands.

In essence, as long as you can find 3 players who fulfil all of the above between them with a healthy balance of all the required skill sets, it doesn't really matter which one wears 6, 7 or 8. In fact, if it helps your game plan, you can have your 8 pack down at one position on offensive scrums, and another on defensive scrums! It's entirely up to the coach.

I think its similar in the backline. Yes we need a halfback to get to every ruck, provide direction to the team and provide crisp ball. Folau would never be seen in a 9 jersey.

Yes we need a flyhalf to be the primary playmaker for a team, to direct the traffic around the field and provide a ball running, ball playing and kicking option.

But from 11-15 it becomes more fluid. What do you need from these players?

I think you need strike runners, people who are damaging with ball in hand and who can bend or break the line.

I think you need a few ball-players, a few kicking options and I think all of them need to be solid defenders.

Where you play them is up to you. In fact, where they line up in offence and defence will be entirely up to the game plan and the unique attributes of each player.

England doesn't field the same types of players / composition of players that we do in the backline nor the back row. Neither does New Zealand, nor South African, nor Argentina, France, Scotland, Ireland, Uruguay, Madagascar or the Nudgee u15s.

Billy Vunipola is a very different player to Kieran Reid. Matt To'omua or Kurtley Beale are very different to Ma'a Nonu or Jamie Roberts. Malakai Fekitoa is certainly different to Conrad Smith.

It all depends on the cattle available to you and your own game plan.

Its time we stop caring so much about the type of player in a jersey of a particular number. The games moved on, so should we.
 

Jagman

Trevor Allan (34)
I always assumed that Hooper packed on the openside because he's the fastest forward. Why would you pack your fastest forward even half a meter further from the next open side breakdown than needed. It maximizes the range of the backrow.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
I always assumed that Hooper packed on the openside because he's the fastest forward. Why would you pack your fastest forward even half a meter further from the next open side breakdown than needed. It maximizes the range of the backrow.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

Works for me. Our problem is that we have two 7's, no scratch that, that back rowers who can not be primary jumpers. This impacts how you select the third and how you select the locks.
 

Groucho

Greg Davis (50)
Works for me. Our problem is that we have two 7's, no scratch that, that back rowers who can not be primary jumpers. This impacts how you select the third and how you select the locks.

Why can't Hooper be a primary jumper? He may be 18cm shorter than the tallest locks, but he's also 20kg lighter, and thus can be lifted higher, and crucially faster. We dont lose lineouts because their defensive jumper gets higher than our target, but because he gets in front of our man.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Why can't Hooper be a primary jumper? He may be 18cm shorter than the tallest locks, but he's also 20kg lighter, and thus can be lifted higher, and crucially faster. We dont lose lineouts because their defensive jumper gets higher than our target, but because he gets in front of our man.

G, Nothing is impossible. Secondary jumper for sure. Getting in front suggests the defensive jumper is faster. But I would have thought he's not likely to get there if the ball is high.

That said, I dont think our desire for bigger, taller (heavier, slower) locks is clever. Some mobility does not go astray.

Btw, for clarification I am not a Hooper-hater. Far from it. (Edit, he got 3 points from me that last game)
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Groucho no he can't be lifted just as high.

His max height is the full span on the back lifter and Hooper's height from ass to full reach.

A combination of a 190cm prop and 200cm lock will be higher.

A combination of 195cm flanker and 200cm lock (a frequently used option with the flanker with lock a front lifter an alternate option) will be highest.

As a jumper he's absolutely the worst option to use.

That's before you consider he won't have string aerial skills compared to locks who have been jumping since they were old enough to.
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
Why can't Hooper be a primary jumper? He may be 18cm shorter than the tallest locks, but he's also 20kg lighter, and thus can be lifted higher, and crucially faster. We dont lose lineouts because their defensive jumper gets higher than our target, but because he gets in front of our man.


Faster? Why do you assume Hooper will be faster? He may move quicker but he has a longer distance to travel to get to the same height a taller lock reaches.

Also, if the locks are the ones who are lifting, then they have to move a longer distance to pick him up and lift.

I think taller locks being lifted is the quickest method, hence why it has been used to decades.
 

amirite

Chilla Wilson (44)
Faster? Why do you assume Hooper will be faster? He may move quicker but he has a longer distance to travel to get to the same height a taller lock reaches.

Also, if the locks are the ones who are lifting, then they have to move a longer distance to pick him up and lift.

I think taller locks being lifted is the quickest method, hence why it has been used to decades.


Agreed. I'd add that whenever I've seen Hooper lifted it has always been at the tail and has looked messy. Sometimes the team lifting him win the ball because he's not marked, sometimes they don't because he's not a natural jumper and looks all over the place in the air and his transfer is messy.

Also (to Groucho) - I'd add, why do you think he'd be lifted higher? This isn't juniors where the kids only get the heavier blokes up to half mast, they're pretty technical and consistent at this level.
 

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
Playing at no.8 is very different to the other loose forward positions.

Trapping the ball at scrum time, picking the ball up, combining with the halfback, etc.

Just ask Kaino who struggled to do those key skills as an 8. As a ball runner, tackler, ranging skills etc, he is right up there with no8's, but those key areas that set the no8 apart, he wasn't proficient. Therefore he was persisted with at blindside (I'll take that )

So for those that say Pocock is playing like a 7 or doing the work of a 7, doesn't ring true given he's he guy trapping the ball at the scrum, picking it up, linking with his halfback etc.

There's nothing to say that Hooper couldn't learn those skills but I would say that Hooper's speed off the side of the scrum is a good attribute to hold on to.

It always comes down to balance of the skills required and the gameplan.
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
I don't understand how people can't see the current structure:

General play:
Hooper: 8 (if your talking traditional roles)
Pocock: 7

Scrum:
Hooper: 7
Pocock: 8 - obviously better at the back of the scrum.

Lineout:
Both 7's.

Who really cares which number they wear on their back?
 

amirite

Chilla Wilson (44)
Which - leading on from Seb V's point - is why either Lopeti or McMahon would be a good replacement for Poey in some way.

OBVIOUSLY, you lose your pilfering ability and a fair bit of mobility, but it allows the 8 to continue to play in the middle of the park, and Hooper to continue playing in a wider channel whilst roaming for opportunities.

To make up for lost mobility, and lost ruck presence, bring Fards back in. At his best he rounds out that back row nicely and he's done the right things to get back in the side.

Bringing new guys in without having to change the whole system is a good thing.
 

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
Although Seb V at lineout time Pocock isn't always used in what I would classify as a traditional openside role but more in the no8 role. He does feature at the back of the maul from an attacking lineout.

I would say a more traditional role of a 7 at lineout time is out in the defensive/attack line.
 

Groucho

Greg Davis (50)
Faster? Why do you assume Hooper will be faster? He may move quicker but he has a longer distance to travel to get to the same height a taller lock reaches.

Also, if the locks are the ones who are lifting, then they have to move a longer distance to pick him up and lift.

I think taller locks being lifted is the quickest method, hence why it has been used to decades.

Several points.

Firstly, I'm not talking about Hooper (or any shorter, lighter jumper) being used instead of the locks, but as a fourth main target, in addition to the locks and the six / eight, thus giving us four primary options. This isn't a new idea. Hooper has been used in this role at the Waratahs.

Secondly, faster into the air doesn't just include lift time but also time across the ground in the movement phase of the lineout. A small fast man can change position more quickly than a heavy one. This increases the number of plays available, and thus makes the lineout harder to defend.

Thirdly, on the narrow point of lift time, let's compare Hooper (101kg and 1.8m) with Francois Louw (a six who is 113kg and 1.9m) and Kane Douglas (a lock who is 123kg and 2m). Say target hand height is 4m. Say resting raised hand height is player height * 1.25. Gravitational potential energy is U=-GMm/r. For Hooper, U=1732 joules. For Louw, U=1799 joules. For Douglas, U=1808 joules. Thus (for those variables) more energy is required to lift Douglas to 4m than Hooper, and thus the same force will lift Hooper to 4m faster than Douglas.

Obviously a string-bean lock would be a different matter to Douglas. A 110kg 2m lock needs only 1617 joules for the same result, and thus would be fastest of all in the lift phase.

Finally, we don't pick tall locks because they're faster into the air, but because their upper limit is higher. This is to avoid the problem of the tallest man, in which one team can get one man higher than the other team's upper limit by more than the reliable variance of the hooker's throw, and can thus win every lineout simply by throwing it higher than any of them can be lifted.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Change from "resting hand height" to centre of gravity, one lower than the other at starting.

At any rate, I think the short loosies work fine as secondary jumpers ala Hooper at the Waratahs. Thats different from a primary jumper at international level.

Agree with you that greater mobility will help a lot in getting in front of the jumper. We saw Etzebeth make that look easy. But a taller (than Hooper) AND more mobile love ck will be better than hooper with his mobility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top