Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Haaaaaaaaa...............
New Zealand v Australia - Auckland - 23 August 2014
- Thread starter Hugh Jarse
- Start date
- Status
Haaaaaaaaa...............
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
So the Wallaby players and many of his opposition who do rate him don't count then? And if we don't use some sort of metrics in a game are we supposed to go solely on the vibe?
As far as replacement goes, if you're bagging a bloke then presumably you think there is someone better. If you can't name that person then the complaint becomes rather moot does it not?
We'll get 100 pages for this thread if we keep comparing Hooper vs Pocock, and Link's record and tactics vs Dingo's record and tactics.
IMHO Poido was a more complete all round footballer than George Smith.
IMHO Poido was a more complete all round footballer than George Smith.
Spewn
Alex Ross (28)
Hornet, read my posts. Did I say anything positive about him? I simply had the audacity to query his pilfering and prefer someone who I think does it better. You stick to your stats then. The reaction over a comment about Hooper reminds me of the response to someone once criticizing Phil Waugh.
Spewn
Alex Ross (28)
Oh Hugh, don't start that one.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Metrics - (n, pl) something which may be measured, data.
Opinion - (n, s) something whose prevalence is at least the same as the cloacal orifice
I've tried to make a case that a pretty wide demographic seems to think he's good. Even those who might be removed from bias (e.g. Overseas fans).
You just don't think he pilfers enough, despite evidence (or even metrics) to the contrary.
I'm not bothered by people saying they think Pocock is / was better - that's fine.
I am a bit bothered when some try to make the case that he's poor. Not necessarily you.
Redsman
Allen Oxlade (6)
Mate if you watched the first game of NRC there wasn't too much forward play anyway.... all looked like touch footy to me...
Though in context... kiwis at home were nearly always odds on... I say lets friggin smash their prideful kiwi asses @ Suncorp and hopefully get a ref that doesn't mind turing a blind eye to high shots and feet in touch...
Though in context... kiwis at home were nearly always odds on... I say lets friggin smash their prideful kiwi asses @ Suncorp and hopefully get a ref that doesn't mind turing a blind eye to high shots and feet in touch...
as a kiwi, I view hooper as your only forward to fear, with both Moore and TPN injured, Hooper is always there always going and a gutsy little bastard. Its the other 7 forwards you guys should be talking about. Retallick is a good example of what the wallabies need, and while Skelton might be more skilful by the time it takes him to get match fit he's not going to be any bigger, the 16 kgs in weight difference is the fat big Wills carrying.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Hooper vs David Wilson is about just as relevant for mine. Pocock has had 3 major knee injuries in 2 years. Every time he comes back he gets re-injured within a couple games. I love the bloke but I'm a realist. He's not coming back the same player and I'll say he'll never play another Test again unfortunately. Until he even plays Super Rugby consistently again can we just about rule a line through his name..
Spewn
Alex Ross (28)
Cyclo, I knew you'd go to the dictionary. I don't believe rugby stats are as objective as say cricket stats and much is based on perception/cloacal discharges. But how anyone can suggest Hooper is poor (across all aspects of play) is beyond me. Pilfering is something I rate highly (obviously) and some are better in my opinion. Does that make him poor, no, but if one even hints at it, then don the brown trousers in preparation for the attack.
Didn't bother with a dictionary, that shit is in my head.
I know you didn't say he was poor - as I said you value pilfers. But he makes them. I agree stats are to be taken with a grain of salt, but multiple sources say he is one of the leading pilferers.
I suspect pilfering, in general, is less common, and it is other ways that players have an effect - slowing the ball, cleanouts and so on, so I am less fussed by someone not making 6 pilfers a game.
For me, the things that make him good are:-
His motor - frikking Energiser bunny
His linking play
His ability to make metres in contact
His tackling - yes, I am going to numbers again, and he usually features highly in this count too.
Would he have been as effective 5 years ago - I don't know. But he is now.
And he is bloody young - he could be anything.
Spewn
Alex Ross (28)
Agreed - once he starts pilfering (better)!Didn't bother with a dictionary, that shit is in my head.
I know you didn't say he was poor - as I said you value pilfers. But he makes them. I agree stats are to be taken with a grain of salt, but multiple sources say he is one of the leading pilferers.
I suspect pilfering, in general, is less common, and it is other ways that players have an effect - slowing the ball, cleanouts and so on, so I am less fussed by someone not making 6 pilfers a game.
For me, the things that make him good are:-
His motor - frikking Energiser bunny
His linking play
His ability to make metres in contact
His tackling - yes, I am going to numbers again, and he usually features highly in this count too.
Would he have been as effective 5 years ago - I don't know. But he is now.
And he is bloody young - he could be anything.
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
I may not have any scientific analysis to back this up other than the fact that I haven't misses a 3Ns, 6Ns or winter and spring tour tests between tier 1 nations in 15 years (just ask Missus ACT), but I'd say there isn't a 7 in tier 1 rugby today that is making more than 2 breakdown steals (hate that p word) on average per test against another tier 1 nation.
Sure they are great when one is won, but they aren't a prominent part of test footy between the top nations like they once were. Other players are getting them - locks, hookers, blindsides, centres - the really good 7s of the last few years are effective tacklers and link players, carry the ball far more than previous years. Their speed and high work rate are still very essential in creating the contest when the ball goes wide. Slowing pill and competing and maybe falling on the wrong side on the odd occasion
......Specifically in regards to Hooper, I think he is building into a fantastic test player. His game hasn't completely developed, hell who's has after one and a bit seasons of the big stage. On the evidence before us, he's been the most effective forward but games aren't won off the shoulders of one player no matter how talented they are.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Of all the things I didn't think we'd be discussing 3 days later I'd say hooper's raison d'être would have been #1.
And I'm not even a huge fan.
And I'm not even a huge fan.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Fixed.
When you have kiwis - full-on, passionate, staunch All Black fans - starting to concede that someone is a better 7 than McCaw, that is saying something. It's not a criticism of Hooper I just don't think we see him as much of a threat as what Pocock was. Prehaps that's not how it should be but I think that's how it is.
And as everyone has pointed out, Pocock is not playing and may never be again - which would be a huge huge shame.
If he were fit and ready, I would definitely start Pocock. At 6 and Hooper at 7. That would be a fucking nightmare for any Test team to come up against.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
No tribalism here
- Status