Wallabies v Pumas - Saturday 17 September, nib Stadium Perth

[Groucho]

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.

I think resting hand height is the right number, dru. (Target hand height - raised resting hand height) gives us distance traveled, and thus r in -GMm/r.

 

[Viking]

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.

No you will have 3 primary jumpers and a secondary jumper in Hooper. Lots of assumptions in your post but at the end of the day Hooper is never going to be a great option, he doesn't have the experience or athleticism (for jumping) as a Carter / Simmons/ Coleman. He can be a decent option but never a great one.

And Douglas is a poor example, given he is average in the line-outs.

Put 4 Hoopers up against 4 Simmons and see which line-out dominates.

 

[Groucho]

Put 4 Hoopers up against 4 Simmons and see which line-out dominates.

Like I said, the problem of the tallest man. I really wasn't talking about playing four Hoopers, as I tried to make clear. A more pertinent comparisonis four Simmons vs. three Simmons and a Hooper. I'd back that one because of the second lineout has the fastest man, in addition to three equal tallest men.

Lots of assumptions in your post.

Variables. That's how physics rolls.

 

[dru]

Groucho, honest!

Hooper is not a primary jumper. If your math is right you can blame the lifters.

 

[Groucho]

Groucho, honest!

Hooper is not a primary jumper. If your math is right you can blame the lifters.

dru, my maths is right but (crucially) speed into the air isn't the main differentiator in lineouts: it's height and skill, just like everyone says. A lineout with just one or two much taller or much more skillful men will dominate.

My point is only that a skilful fast man complements three tall men, because it's hard to exploit the height advantage of your fourth option, even in a seven-man lineout, and thus a fast man might be a better option.

I have to admit I've never jumped in a linout in my life, but as a winger in the days when hairdressers threw into lineouts, I've thrown at more than a few. My coach at Uni (a legendary old goat who would date me if I named him) once told me that lineouts were a mixture of chess and musical chairs. So I have a soft spot for the tactical part of lineout theory: what you do when the lineout is actually happening, and why.

 

[Viking]

Like I said, the problem of the tallest man. I really wasn't talking about playing four Hoopers, as I tried to make clear. A more pertinent comparisonis four Simmons vs. three Simmons and a Hooper. I'd back that one because of the second lineout has the fastest man, in addition to three equal tallest men.



Variables. That's how physics rolls.

Based on your logic, the Pooper should strengthen the line-out. But it clearly doesn't.

3 jumpers and Hooper can work but 2 jumpers and Hooper and your in trouble.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Groucho]

Based on your logic, the Pooper should strengthen the line-out. But it clearly doesn't.

3 jumpers and Hooper can work but 2 jumpers and Hooper and your in trouble.

Agree to disagree.

Goddamn it Seb, I'm gonna shout.

THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER.
THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER.
I SAID THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER.

;-)

I think it potentially does strengthen the lineout. We scored the most tries off our lineout at the last RWC of any team, with (you guessed it) three jumpers and a Pooper. It's gone to shit this year, not due to a lack of options to throw at (since there are no fewer than there were) but serial injuries to our callers, which have prevented the lineout functioning as a cohesive unit, and with opposing teams reading our calls, which Mick Byrne has attributed to our men bracing before jumping.

(2 jumpers and Hooper is the dreaded Peleton - Pocock, Hooper, Skelton)

 

[Brumby Runner]

The discussion regarding Hooper as a jumper is probably academic now. McMahon seems to me to be a better lineout option than Hooper, so it looks to me to be three primary jumpers plus McMahon for the next couple of tests.

 

[amirite]

If you want to get maths heavy, you need to consider torso length and wingspan - but I think it's much easily to just say that tall, lanky blokes are just much better jumpers in general.

I mean sure, a medium tall and medium lanky bloke can sometimes beat a taller/lankier bloke (Ben Mowen, for example, was just excellent) but a Hooper will generally not.

 

[Viking]

Goddamn it Seb, I'm gonna shout.

THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER.
THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER.
I SAID THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER.

;-)

I think it potentially does strengthen the lineout. We scored the most tries off our lineout at the last RWC of any team, with (you guessed it) three jumpers and a Pooper. It's gone to shit this year, not due to a lack of options to throw at (since there are no fewer than there were) but serial injuries to our callers, which have prevented the lineout functioning as a cohesive unit, and with opposing teams reading our calls, which Mick Byrne has attributed to our men bracing before jumping.

(2 jumpers and Hooper is the dreaded Peleton - Pocock, Hooper, Skelton)

Oh yeah it was great in the RWC where we didn't play SA or NZ until the final - where it wasn't great then either.

And as soon as England got their team sorted under Eddie Jones our line-out was easily dominated.

So yeah, it works against teams below the top 4 but struggles with any decent opposition.

Let me ask you a question, has Hooper ever stolen a line-out ball on the opposition throw? Ever? I don't think so.

How Hooper would ever strengthen the line-out over an experienced, taller jumper is something I cannot comprehend. A player who is short compared to his opponents and lacks any experience in the air - yet you consider him a "primary" jumper - on the same level as Simmons.

So keep shouting, cos I disagree. Hooper is an average line-out option at best.

Next you'll be saying Skelton strengthens the line-out too.

 

[ForceFan]

You would think that lineout proficiency would be demonstrated and utilised at Super Rugby level.
Hooper averaged a LOW every 10 games in 2016 and every 2 games in 2015.
McMahon av 1.5 LOW/game in 2016 and 2LOW/game in 2015.

 

[Pfitzy]

You know this game finished almost a week ago, right?

 

[Viking]

You know this game finished almost a week ago, right?

You know the next game is another week away right?

Got to keep entertained some how.

 

[Pfitzy]

And - amazingly enough - we have a thread for that!

 

[cyclopath]

If you want to bang on about lineout tactics, start a thread to that point. It's a good topic. This MATCH thread is closed.