• 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.

Reds 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
BDA

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Also as much as I love Gill, I'm yet to see anything to suggest he is anything more than a quality provincial 7 (potential aside). Hopefully he makes a real impact this year, because he's at risk of falling out of test consideration all together with McMahon now in the frame.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
BDA said:
I appreciate this is neither the time nor the place to argue this point, but just because you write something doesn't make it a fact. I think that comment is one of the most gross misconceptions that people on this board throw around. It's merely your opinion. Whilst I appreciate the game may have changed a bit over the last few years, I'm not so sure the Wallabies wouldn't benefit more from a traditional 7 like Pocock. Wallabies defence has gone to shit ever since Pocock left.

We might find out this year whether your comment is a fact or not.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was a fact, should people prefix every comment with "this is an opinion"?

Your comment is confusing, you say you don't think the Wallabies would benefit from a "traditional 7" yet the Wallabies defence has gone to shit since Pocock left?

Firstly, is Pocock really a traditional 7,? many people don't think so including Warren Gatland.. But again that's an opinion not a fact ;)

Secondly, if the Wallabies defence went to shit, doesn't that mean they could benefit from his inclusion?

And finally, can you directly link the absence of Pocock to the performance of the defence, or are other factors major contributors?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BDA

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
fair enough. but yes my point is that I'm not willing to accept that proposition(i.e. that the wallabies need a running 7 more than a traditional /over the ball 7), a proposition that many people believe is true (including yourself - if that's your opinion you must believe it to be true).

It's a fairly matter-of-fact statement that will be up for some debate this season.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
BDA said:
fair enough. but yes my point is that I'm not willing to accept that proposition(i.e. that the wallabies need a running 7 more than a traditional /over the ball 7), a proposition that many people believe is true (including yourself - if that's your opinion you must believe it to be true).

It's a fairly matter-of-fact statement that will be up for some debate this season.
Click to expand...


Mate don't get to caught up in the opinion of others, it is a rugby forum after all..

My comment was based on many factors and context needs to be considered, do I prefer a ball running 7? No I don't, I'm all for a pilfering open-side...
But a lack of ball running or line bending locks/back rowers means that recent Wallaby coaches have needed an extra attacking threat at open side flanker as well(yes that's an opinion), this gives Hooper a massive boost over Gill at the selection table.. Gills pilfering ability whilst superior to Hoopers isn't enough to offset the advantage Hooper has through his ball running ability.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sully

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
fatprop said:
Just for clarification, what is a "traditional 7"
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Could look something like one of these?

Simon_Poidevin_1969711c.jpg
 
B

Bobby Sands

Guest
TOCC said:
Mate don't get to caught up in the opinion of others, it is a rugby forum after all..

My comment was based on many factors and context needs to be considered, do I prefer a ball running 7? No I don't, I'm all for a pilfering open-side.
But a lack of ball running or line bending locks/back rowers means that recent Wallaby coaches have needed an extra attacking threat at open side flanker as well(yes that's an opinion), this gives Hooper a massive boost over Gill at the selection table.. Gills pilfering ability whilst superior to Hoopers isn't enough to offset the advantage Hooper has through his ball running ability.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Same page.
 
BDA

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Mate don't get to caught up in the opinion of others, it is a rugby forum after all..
Click to expand...

well the whole point of the forum is to debate things, question people's opinions, provide a different view point, etc. I'm hardly getting caught up, I'm merely point out that the benefits of a Pocock v a Hooper is a matter of much contention. I understand your view point though. Lets see how the Super season plays out.

Gills pilfering ability whilst superior to Hoopers isn't enough to offset the advantage Hooper has through his ball running ability.
Click to expand...

The truth is Gill's nowhere near selection. I say that as a massive fan of Gill. His work at the breakdown in 2014 wasn't even that great. How many pilfers did he get in 2014? cant have been many more than Hooper. Hooper is just an all round better player at the moment.
 
B

Bobby Sands

Guest
Hooper played in a dominant team, and pack for that matter and had no injury interruptions. Other than running, I can't think of a part of his game that is better. But Gilly needs to prove this, not me, and it's done on the pitch not on a forum.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
I'd also like to point out that pilfers are only one statistic, but equally as important is securing your own teams ball, in this regard "it's my opinion" that gill and Pocock do this better then hooper.. However, Hooper is one of the best forward ball runners in Australian super rugby teams, this is potentially a fact as its reflected in statistics..


At the end of the day, wallaby selection is about getting the right balance, even if Pocock, Gill and Hooper were the 3 best players in Australia you wouldn't select them all in the same starting team...this need of balance also flows over to attacking/ball running/set piece needs... Hooper suits those needs well now, but in 6 months Pocock or Gill could be pushing their case through improved performances.

BDA said:
The truth is Gill's nowhere near selection.
Click to expand...
Is that an opinion or a fact ;) jk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BDA

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
TOCC said:
Is that an opinion or a fact ;) jk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

haha. i realise you're just kidding, but im actually gonna say fact on that one. He has Hooper, Hodgson and probably McMahon all in front of him atm. Then you have the return of pocock. It pains me to say it because i was one of those people on this forum a couple of years ago opining how Gill was going to surpass pocock and hooper. It just hasn't happened yet. fingers crossed he has a big year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ash
Ash

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
Yeah, talking about Gill even pushing Hooper for selection right now is crazy.

That being said, a fit and firing Gill would be fantastic for the Reds and I'd love to see him have a great year and stick around.

It's a big shame that Gill just isn't slightly bigger, closer to McCaw in size.
 
Eggsie

Eggsie

Stan Wickham (3)
So we are saying that in the modern game we are more in need of a 7 who can run the ball than one who can win it? Cool, so how do we get that ball to run with? Are the backs gonna start catching passes?


More poorly thought out irrelevant noise Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top