• 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.

Australia Vs. England, Twickenham, 2nd November 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tip

Guest
Braveheart81 said:
Let's agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Mowen, Fardy & Hooper were all guilty of "chilling out" at scrum time. I'm not the only Aus fan who cracks the shits at the TV everytime our one (if not all) of our back row decide to poke their heads out of the Turtle shell that is the Australian scrum. It's lazy and selfish.

Hooper doesn't need to poke his head out. His heads already out... keep pushing and keep your head up. Ditto Fardy @ 6.
Mowen doesn't EVER need to take his head out of the scrum until Genia calls break!
The 8 is the glue keeping the 2nd rowers together, and the 2nd rowers are the glue that keeps the front row together. When the 8's head pops up like a meercat the machine falls apart!
Against Argentina, during their Scrummaging assault on our line in the first half, Mowen's head stays in the scrum for the duration for 1... and that is the last scrum which the ball is kicked out and Hooper swoops on.
It's just so frustrating that it had to be a 7 man forward pack for Mowen to realise that the Wobblies need every Kilo of his already light frame applied ruthlessly.

Simmons body positioning was terrible in this game as well, and there was a noticable improvement when Fardy shifted to the 2nd row.
 
Blue

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Tip said:
I think we'd all like to see how a front row of Robinson, Moore & Slipper would go, after all Slipper was the form THP during the Super XV season in Australia. We'd all agree that the wrong prop was dropped post B&I Lions series.

I think Link is trying to gain some consistency in the front row. Slipper & Alexander didn't fail last week, and barely failed the game before against the Argies. (I thought the scrum problems were more of a 4, 6, 7 & 8 problem against Argentinia. Mowen, Fardy, Hooper & Simmons were all guilty of ''chilling owt'' at scrum time.)
Click to expand...

I don't suggest they will be better, but if after a Lions series and a Rugby Championship of woeful scrummaging you carry on with the same players?

How much more time do you need for this "consistency"? What the heck is that anyway? Consistently getting your arse handed to you?

The scrum looked better to me late in games with Kepu and Fatcat. I know it's a different story to start but at least try SOMETHING.
 
Scrubber2050

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
Blue said:
Slipper and Alexander. Jaysus. Some people just don't seem to get it.

My grandfather once told me that if you're stupid and keep doing the same dumb thing over and over you deserve to suffer.
Click to expand...

Blue old mate - maybe you should have taken Grandpa's advice
 
Merrow

Merrow

Arch Winning (36)
Rob42 said:
Can you name a player who has taken less than a full season of play to get back to good form after a knee reconstruction? I don't doubt Pocock's commitment to rehab, but history shows it's a long way back.
Click to expand...

But what you have to remember is that Pocock's superhuman :)
 
Scrubber2050

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
I think most agree that Gill is a better fetcher than hooper and the reverse when turning to running the ball.

Without Pocock we DO need a fetcher - someone who can turn 2 or 3 balls over
 
BDA

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Hooper at 12 is not the best idea but I do think you could confidently have Hooper on the bench covering backrow and centre if you wanted to play only two backs on the bench
 
USARugger

USARugger

John Thornett (49)
Yeah I'd rather not see Hooper plant his feet and get embarrassed in the back line ever again.

Pretty sure he's even said himself that he does not want to, or enjoy playing 12.
 
F

Forcefield

Ken Catchpole (46)
The problem is that Michael Hooper is not as good in his core business at David Pocock. But he offers a lot that Pocock doesn't. It seems like a waste to keep a guy like Hooper on the bench.

I don't think Hooper would be a worse option at 12 than most of the guys who have played there in the Robbie Deans era.
 
USARugger

USARugger

John Thornett (49)
Forcefield said:
The problem is that Michael Hooper is not as good in his core business
Click to expand...

Don't want to derail on a tangent but this brings up a pretty big philosophical issue which is very relevant to the topic of Hooper v. Pocock.

What is the 'core business' of our #7? Is he primarily a ruck monkey on attack and defense? Or should all of our forwards being working the ruck as we've seen the Saffers and ABs do more and more as time has progressed?

Is it a case of a lack of individual ability on the part of Hooper or a lack of balance within/support from our forward pack?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPC
emuarse

emuarse

Desmond Connor (43)
Ash said:
I'm very doubtful about starting Timani, particularly with a more up-tempo game plan. Off the bench for 20 is Timani's limit for me. Timani is just too lazy in some of his applications, too often you see him exploited defensively in the backline where our props do better, too often you see him with a lazy cleanout. I don't mind his impact off the bench - a big hit or two, but even his running hasn't been effective for a guy of his size. Starting Timani, you will lose an effective lineout jumper and a harder worker around the ruck (I believe all of the locks in our squad work harder than Timani, my personal opinion), and I think you'd likely need to sub him by 50 minutes.

If you want to replace Horwill, I'd actually go with Douglas. Despite Douglas' shocking form (I thought it was as bad, or even worse, than Horwill's), he's at least had a rest. Douglas is more of a like-for-like replacement for Horwill than Timani.

If a second row of Fardy and Simmons would work, that's the best option I think. The problem is, who would be tight head lock. That's the worry.

Otherwise, persist with Horwill and hope he turns it around - but I wonder if he is carrying too much injuries since his return from his hamstring problem.
Click to expand...

I notice Horwell was replaced mid second half in both the more recent Argy & AB games. In the past, both with the Reds and with the Wobs, he was the last person to be subbed by The Boss (I prefer to think of him as that rather than Link; when he says jump, the boys ask 'how high'). To me. this suggests niggling injuries which hopefully will be sorted by Saturday week.
 
Jets

Jets

Paul McLean (56)
Staff member
The thing about Pocock is that he covers the deficiencies of our pack more than Hooper. He's a hard tough bugger who punishes himself every game. If we had some other hard heads in the pack then Hooper might suit. Unfortunately at the moment our forward pack seems to be made up of a bunch of really nice guys.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Jets said:
The thing about Pocock is that he covers the deficiencies of our pack more than Hooper. He's a hard tough bugger who punishes himself every game. If we had some other hard heads in the pack then Hooper might suit. Unfortunately at the moment our forward pack seems to be made up of a bunch of really nice guys.
Click to expand...

I think they cover different deficiencies though. Pocock is much better at improving our breakdown when the other forwards aren't doing a lot (think SA in the RWC quarter final - although the rest of our forwards weren't that bad that day). Hooper does more defence and ball running to get us going forward.

Either way, our back row in general struggles to make a big impression on the game if we have several forwards playing badly. It's no secret that when our forwards put in a strong team effort, our backrow and 7 in particular tend to have a field day at the breakdown. That premise seems to hold true across any and every team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top