The Wallabies Thread

[Bairdy]

Why does Ian Prior get overlooked in the scrumhalf discussions? Seems to have the passing and kicking skillset essential for test rugby, and that isn't to say his running game is nonexistent either.

Seems odd that a guy with little to no Super experience has one breakout season in the NRC and has somehow leapfrogged a more experienced, complete scrumhalf (albeit without the flashy running game).

 

[topgun]

The stat's probably won't show it but Lopeti was absolutely damaging in that match, left a dent in the defence every time and even won a turnover(didn't watch past 55 mins). Well worth persisting with. Pick an openside and stick with it.

 

[amirite]

Why does Ian Prior get overlooked in the scrumhalf discussions? Seems to have the passing and kicking skillset essential for test rugby, and that isn't to say his running game is nonexistent either.

He's had a couple of breakdown games - though his better minutes were played at 10.

The fact is, the bloke isn't even the Spirit's first choice 9, let alone the Force's. I think he's a bit off.

Maybe a big 2017, he certainly could be the starter.

 

[ForceFan]

Why does Ian Prior get overlooked in the scrumhalf discussions? Seems to have the passing and kicking skillset essential for test rugby, and that isn't to say his running game is nonexistent either.

Totally agree Bairdy.
The lack of game time is the reason why he moved West from the Brumbies.
Since then he's been developing himself physically, esp strength, and improving his skill set.
Working with players such as Matt Hodgson he's improved his tackling and strength at the breakdown.
When the Force was short of goal kickers he worked hard to improve his kicking so he could fill the gap.
However, he was always behind players such as Alby Mattewson et al.
One strength he has is his ability to play SH & FH and has a long field kick.
His tackling and breakdown work also makes him an option in the centres.
I think his time will come in 2017 as Super Rugby has a high attrition rate on halves.

 

[Braveheart81]

 

[amirite]

Nothing wrong with a bit of extra cash and some free clothes.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Shit I hardly recognized the bloke.

Computers are wonderful things

Good luck to him

 

[fatprop]

Whilst it is the Daily Mail so likely to be bullshit .....................................

Wasps could lose country's highest earner Kurtley Beale at end of season as Wallabies coach Michael Cheika plots Australia return

..................................................................................................................................................................

While Beale is contracted to Wasps until June, 2018, there is a break clause in his contract at the end of this season. If he was to exercise the option of an early release from the Aviva Premiership club, he would be free to officially negotiate with interested parties from January 1.

A return to the Waratahs would be the most likely scenario in that event, but the financially-troubled ARU may struggle to under-write a sufficiently enticing financial package.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3880116/Wasps-lose-country-s-highest-earner-Kurtley-Beale-end-season-Wallabies-coach-Michael-Cheika-plots-Australia-return.html#ixzz4OLAQ0n4J

 

[I like to watch]

Shit I hardly recognized the bloke.

Computers are wonderful things

Good luck to him

He should have his headgear on,so we can recognise him,a la Sirro in those Lowes ads

 

[Strewthcobber]

Whilst it is the Daily Mail so likely to be bullshit .............

Would be a pretty big spit in the eye of Wasps to have paid and rehabbed Kurtley through his knee injury only to lose him once he is fit again.

 

[fatprop]

Would be a pretty big spit in the eye of Wasps to have paid and rehabbed Kurtley through his knee injury only to lose him once he is fit again.

No sympathy for clubs, they are just as ruthless to players who are struggling and they gave him the contract with a get out clause in the first place

 

[ForceFan]

Hooper v Pocock – Defensive Effort in Tests

Did Michael Hooper show any improvement after Bob Dwer’s assessment in April 2016?

Michael Hooper was the deserved winner of the 2016 John Eales Medal.
He played an impressive 15 of the possible 18 Tests and was very consistent over the season.

But David Pocock deserves due recognition despite his year being monstered by injury.

Hooper earned 57% more votes than Pocock.
Hooper had 62% more game time (1214 mins v 749 mins).
Hooper played in 15/18 Tests.
Pocock played in 11/18 Tests but played < half a game in the last two of those - so no votes.
Hence Pocock earned his votes from 67% of Hooper's tests.

There is no doubt that Hooper has a superior offensive game to Pocock.

The Wallabies are indeed fortunate to have 2 players of this calibre.
The Wallabies will miss David Pocock while he's on his break.
I hope that we'll see him in the G&G again.

There’s been a lot of discussion about Hooper showing improvement after Bob Dwer’s assessment in April.
Can we see any marked improvement in the numbers?

The tables show comparisons of Ruck Involvements (RI), Turn Overs Won (TOW) and Tackles all calculated as averages per 80 minutes played. Both of these players generally play for the full game.

I’ve broken down the stats for:
· RWC
· England Tests
· TRC (including Bled 3)
I’ve included the SR2016 data for comparison.

Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective - but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.

General Comments:

1. Both players show improved work rates in Tests over their Super Rugby form. This is not the case with all players.
2. When playing together, Pocock and Hooper will undoubtedly have different roles within the team and will act in accordance with the game plan.
3. Both players make about the same number of Tackles per match.
4. Pocock consistently arrives earlier and has more impact at rucks.
5. In Tests, Pocock generally averages 10 more DRIs per match.
6. Pocock earns more TOW per match and has better hit rate (DRI/TOW – In this case lower is better).
7. Hooper’s most RIs was against the Pumas in the RWC: 38 Total (21A/17D). In the same game Pocock had 42T (17A/25D).
8. Pocock’s most RIs was in Bok1 in the TRC: 58 Total (36A/22D). In the same game Hooper had 29T (19A/10D).
9. Hooper had >10 DRIs in 9/15 Tests. Pocock had >10 in 11/11 Tests.
10. Pocock had only the single Test against England.
11. Unfortunately I have no TOW data for the England Tests.
12. **All Tests TOW average for RWC and TRC only.

Hooper’s improvement after Dwyer’s comments?

1. Against England, Hooper averaged 10% more TRIs (mostly in Attack) with no improvement in arrival time or impact. Pocock’s absence in DRIs (Eng 2 and Eng3) was partially covered by extra work from Fardy, McMahon and Moore (and Carter in Eng2).
2. In the TRC, although there was no improvement in the number of RIs, there was a significant improvement in his early involvements and impact – especially in support of the Wallabies ball carriers.
3. In the TRC, Hooper was earning TOW at >twice the rate of RWC and TRC (and Super Rugby).

The challenge ahead?

1. Pocock is fairly consistent with his 19 DRIs per game and DRIs/TOW.
2. The only other players averaging >10 DRIs per game are Scott Fardy (12) and Sean McMahon (10).
3. I've posted the average RI stats from the England, TRC & Bled 3 Tests for all Forwards earlier in this thread.
4. At this stage there appears to be no direct replacement for Pocock’s contribution in DRIs or TOWs.
5. It may be simply a case of up-skilling and spreading this work load over many.

Some key offensive stats.

I know that some people don't like stats.
I've posted them here in an effort to raise the discussion above the "Yes, BUT...." or "Yes, he is"/"No he isn't" type of argument.

 

[Braveheart81]

But David Pocock deserves due recognition despite his year being monstered by injury.

Hooper earned 57% more votes than Pocock.
Hooper had 62% more game time (1214 mins v 749 mins).
Hooper played in 15/18 Tests.
Pocock played in 11/18 Tests but played < half a game in the last two of those - so no votes.
Hence Pocock earned his votes from 67% of Hooper's tests.

It's reasonably clear that Pocock has a greater overall influence on the team than Hooper. The stats in terms of the Wallabies winning percentage with Pocock in the team bares this out (although correlation doesn't equal causation etc. etc.).

What can't be overlooked though is that Pocock missing games has never been down to selection decisions. Apart from appearing on the bench a couple of times he has always been selected when healthy but the reality is that he has missed large chunks of time through injury.

A substantial part of any player's value is their durability and consistent availability for selection.

It is pretty clear teams improve when they are able to field consistent lineups without requiring forced changes.

If you switched the injury histories of Pocock and Hooper we'd probably find that Hooper was only selected sporadically for the Wallabies (and Gill and McMahon may have played more tests) and Pocock would well and truly be considered one of the greats.

 

[Jagman]

One moment in an earlier test match caught my attention, can't remember which one. The Wallabies did an exit kick that was chased by Hooper, who then seemed to deliberately shepherd the opposition fullback down the blindside. Coming up to tackle the fullback on that side was a line of three wallabies followed closely by Pocock who would be the first at the ruck. I don't think anything came of it but if I noticed this whole play was designed for Pocock to perform a turnover I can only imagine how often I miss it. Hooper probably got a missed tackle from the play as he may have got a finger to the player.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[ForceFan]

@Braveheart81.
From my observations, the injury rate on Pocock is high because too often he's taking on the opposition alone as the support play from the Wallabies is too slow to protect him.
It was the same under Deans who elected to have Pocock ONLY in RWC 2011. Pocock was broken for the game against Ireland as we all remember. Hodgson was called over AFTER the event and never used.
Warrior your name is Pocock!

 

[Braveheart81]

@Braveheart81.
From my observations, the injury rate on Pocock is high because too often he's taking on the opposition alone as the support play from the Wallabies is too slow to protect him.
It was the same under Deans who elected to have Pocock ONLY in RWC 2011. Pocock was broken for the game against Ireland as we all remember. Hodgson was called over AFTER the event and never used.
Warrior your name is Pocock!

I don't think this is a realistic take on the situation.

He's a tough player who puts his body on the line but suggesting that his injuries are down to not getting adequate support from his teammates or the coach not selecting a backup are ridiculous in my view.

His first ACL injury was in a fairly innocuous tackle. The second was with no contact.

He had a head clash and fractured his eye socket against England. He broke his hand against New Zealand.

The guy gets injured. Some players get injured more often than other players.

 

[ForceFan]

I don't think this is a realistic take on the situation.

He's a tough player who puts his body on the line but suggesting that his injuries are down to not getting adequate support from his teammates or the coach not selecting a backup are ridiculous in my view.

Most blogs have rules which allow disagreement but not ridicule.
I have no issue when others disagree with my opinion.

Most injuries to forwards are due to repetitious strains or trauma - or a combination of both. Hence the serious injury which isn't explained by the nature of the last contact.

Pocock presents himself as a stationary target at Defence Rucks on average 10 times more per game than any other Wallabies forward. For Pocock that means 100 more Defence rucks over the Tests in question than any other Wallaby.

In this position he does not control the contact - he just has to take what the opposition dish out. This is very different to making contact when you have the momentum and can place the hit.

If the support is late, and for the Wallabies it's been late for most of the past year, then the number of attempted cleanouts rise. Very often Pocock is the only Wallaby at the ruck. The opposition have averaged 2.5 players in support of their ball carriers.

I respectfully suggest that the likelihood of injury increases.
But there's no compulsion to agree with me.

 

[Gnostic]

I'm glad there's no compulsion to agree because it just doesn't stack up to my mind, and I've not seen any statistics to suggest the statement about most forward injuries being due to repetitious strains or "trauma. I would say all injuries are the result of trauma as that is the definition of injury.

A lot of people have physiological characteristics that predispose or increase the likelihood of them suffering certain injuries. An easy example is the case of very heavy set players having knee issues eg. Willie O. Another is Rob Horne's well documented issues with his running gait being a major contributing factor to his repetitious hamstring injuries which were solved when he visited a Sports Physiologist and retrained his running style (there is a link around for this somewhere).

George Smith, Phil Waugh, Hodgeson et al have all played in the same sort of ruck structures that you assert are a causative factor of Pocock's injury issues, especially Smith/Waugh which is very similar to what we have now, and none suffered the same sorts of injuries.

As BH81 said, each injury examined on its own discounts the theory as well.

 

[Scoey]

I'm no scientician but in my opinion, there isn't a player around that is as strong over the ball as Pocock is. Some of the contorted positions I see him in regularly from being cleaned out must put large strains on joints etc. Sure, guys like Waugh and Hodgson will have suffered similar impacts from being on ball but when that fails on Pocock, they generally resort to the classic roll and twist style cleanout and I seriously wonder how he hasn't had more knee reconstructions.

 

[USARugger]

Most injuries to forwards are due to repetitious strains or trauma - or a combination of both. Hence the serious injury which isn't explained by the nature of the last contact.

He's said himself he thinks that his chronic knee issues relate back to his obsessive weightlifting earlier in life, where he may have pushed past the point of using proper form one too many times.

Going back a couple of posts, getting Beale back in Australia is probably one of the best things that could happen in the next year for the Wallabies. Keeping him healthy, fit, and focused is going to be a key to having any chance at making another run on the RWC in 2016. Anyone who doesn't believe he's an entire class above the vast majority of backline players in the Wallabies/Australia at the moment just needs to refer back to the RWC and particularly the England game.