Should Pocock have to earn back his starting spot?

[qwerty51]

Can we stop this.. Pocock and Hooper should never start together, it's an ok preposition for the last 10 or 15 in a game but that's it.

 

[dudebudstud]

Can we stop this.. Pocock and Hooper should never start together, it's an ok preposition for the last 10 or 15 in a game but that's it.

if you don't like the discussion then don't participate in it?

 

[Scoey]

Horwill seriously has all the skills of a perfect 8.

Didn't they try this at the Reds in 2010? Or was it 6 he played? I can't quite remember. I do remember thinking (which ever jumper he played in) that he wasn't quite quick enough around the paddock for a loosie. Could be misremembering though. Love Big Kev in at lock though!

 

[qwerty51]

Never 8 but played 6 a few times, IIRC it failed most times.

 

[Scoey]

From what I recall I think it was aimed at adding weight to the scrum. It came at the expense of mobility around the park but. Which is basically what this thread has been about recently. Gotta strike the right balance with the piggies.

 

[qwerty51]

It's more feasible at Super rugby level where there's less scrutiny on a set piece, having Hooper and Pocock start would be suicide in a Test match, especially against the Lions who will likely have an excellent lineout and scrum.

 

[Ruggo]

Didn't they try this at the Reds in 2010? Or was it 6 he played? I can't quite remember. I do remember thinking (which ever jumper he played in) that he wasn't quite quick enough around the paddock for a loosie. Could be misremembering though. Love Big Kev in at lock though!

I remember the Darwin trial in 2011 vs the Brumbies. Horwill played bindside and Samo played lock. Kind of odd as you would of thought swapping those two would be more effective.

In 2010 Link played Kev at 6 vs the Tahs and it worked well. The next week he had him back at lock vs the Crusaders and he suffered the season ending injury in that game so we didn't see where it would eventuate.

2011 in the first two rounds he played six. Our entire back row dynamic was not right and we played Quirk at 7.

Thinking of what attributes you would expect from a Lions pack, the Kev at 6 experiment may have merit. I would expect it to be large and physical but a bit slow much like the Tahs pack.

 

[Groucho]

Can we stop this.. Pocock and Hooper should never start together, it's an ok preposition for the last 10 or 15 in a game but that's it.

I disagree, so no.

 

[Ash]

Neither Timani nor Horwill are mobile enough to be blindsides in my book. They are mobile tighthead locks. Horwill in particular, the guy gets through a mountain of tight work - watch him closely sometime, it's incredible the way he gets around the park for a guy of his size. And saying that, he's not a six, not even close.

Those first two games in 2011 I thought that backrow of the Reds with Horwill at 6, Quirk at 7 and Higgers at 8 one game and Houston at 8 another (I think) was badly found out. The two teams that found them out were the Force, with an incredible backrow and average tight 5, and the Tahs, with a fantastic and balanced pack (before the injuries started, and correct me if I am wrong but they didn't field a real openside either that game - edit: oops, it was Phil Waugh, but I'll leave it up to you to decide if he was a fetcher by that part of his career).

Guys who can play lock and blindside tend to only be passable at one, and they end up being generally a lock playing blindside, or blindside playing lock, instead, of, well, a lock at lock or blindside at blindside. They'll shine in an odd game, but games where the hammer comes down and you need a specialist in that position you'll come up short. Horwill in those games looked very much to be a lock playing blindside.

I am another that believes the backrow is about balance. You need players that complement each other's strenghts and weaknesses, and the strengths and weaknesses of the tight 5. If you play Timani out wide, for example, then playing Palu out wide and picking Higgers makes no sense. Picking Hooper and Pocock you need three other good jumpers, two on them very good. Not to mention that short lifters do have a large effect on the height reached by the jumper.

On Timani, I personally wouldn't carry him when you want three good jumpers, particularly if the other lock is Douglas or Horwill, neither or which is terrific in the air. I'd take Horwill and Douglas as the locks currently myself, they jump a lot better than Timani (who seems to have issues with his spring off the ground) and should be able to lift (which can be an underrated skill) just as well. If you are carrying Timani just to be a big munter in the middle of the park then your pack is unbalanced elsewhere.

Again, picking Pocock and Hooper will work for a faster, open game. A slower, grinding game with lots of set pieces on a heavy pitch will be the undoing of it when faced with a massive pack who are aiming to belt the crap out of you.

Without the right balance, with the wrong conditions and/or up against the wrong team makeup and you will be toast.

 

[Gagger]

I would normally reject two sevens out of hand. A good challenge to that is that no-one else has nailed the tight 6 role since Elsom in his heyday, and with both Hooper and Pocock being freaks....

Still not comfortable with it though

 

[Train Without a Station]

Those first two games in 2011 I thought that backrow of the Reds with Horwill at 6, Quirk at 7 and Higgers at 8 one game and Houston at 8 another (I think) was badly found out. The two teams that found them out were the Force, with an incredible backrow and average tight 5, and the Tahs, with a fantastic and balanced pack (before the injuries started, and correct me if I am wrong but they didn't field a real openside either that game - edit: oops, it was Phil Waugh, but I'll leave it up to you to decide if he was a fetcher by that part of his career).

I think the biggest issue with that experiement was not Horwill at 6, but Quirk being chosen at 7. I'm sure if it was tried again with Beau at 7 it would be a success. That being said I doubt it will happen, as we will likely see Beau play 6 and Gill play 7 from now on for the Reds.

Guys who can play lock and blindside tend to only be passable at one, and they end up being generally a lock playing blindside, or blindside playing lock, instead, of, well, a lock at lock or blindside at blindside. They'll shine in an odd game, but games where the hammer comes down and you need a specialist in that position you'll come up short. Horwill in those games looked very much to be a lock playing blindside.

I was under the impression that all locks are actually blindside flankers, they've just played lock for the last 15 years...

 

[TSR]

I would normally reject two sevens out of hand. A good challenge to that is that no-one else has nailed the tight 6 role since Elsom in his heyday, and with both Hooper and Pocock being freaks.

A therein seems to lie the problem. We didn't have a genuine blindside demanding to be picked, let alone a group of them who are consistently pushing to be picked. Not to say both Higgers & Dennis won't ever get there, but neither are there yet. Our number 8 stocks aren't much better with the minimal options behind Palu & Samo. (I thought Samo was excellent in the second half of the season but his days are limited, as is ability to play long minutes). Meanwhile at 7 we have two guys playing the house down, with Gill also showing promise.

Very much a case of 'do we pick the best 15 & build the game plan/structure around them' or pick a game plan and pick a team to suit (I am going to leave aside the apparent lack of a discernable game plan).

Hopefully the new year will see ours 6s & 8s really step up to the late and we can leave Hooper & Pocock to really fight it out for the one jersey. The more we see guys concentrating/being considered for one specialised position, the healthier Australian rugby will be.

For the same reason, I hope that by June there will be no need to consider Horwill or Timani at 6 unless they have spent considerable time there in Super rugby and excelled.

 

[Scoey]

I was under the impression that all locks are actually blindside flankers, they've just played lock for the last 15 years.

Lol! Love this! I was a no 8 that played lock all my career! So yeah, pretty much on the money.

 

[Quick Hands]

The title of this thread encapsulates one of the issues/problems that have crept in since players were contracted to the ARU in the professional era. That is that a particular player "owns" a particular position in the team.

I was brought up with the concept that you pick your best team, based on the form of the players who were fit and available for selection. You then pick the captain, you don't pick the captain first and then try to structure the team around him.

Sometimes players are selected in a different position, but this is only to suit the needs of the team, not to give the coach an easy option to keep 2 players in a team/squad when there is only room for 1.

Hooper and Pocock are both brilliant players, but at the moment Hooper has done everythings asked of him and more. He is certainly the incumbent, but needs to maintain this form to hold his place, which is a good thing for Australian rugby. He shouldn't be guarranteed his spot any more that Pocock should be entitled to automatically go back in.

The Wallabies seem to have decided on a make it up as you go style of game, so they can't base selections on game plans.

At least we know that the Michael Cheika coached Waratahs will have a game plan based on ball in hand and one suspects that players who can't or won't adapt to this won't be selected. I can never recall a Randwick team repeatedly performing chip kicks coming out of their own 22, so I don't think we'll see that aspect of Wallaby play RD style coming back to the Waratahs.

 

[Ruggo]

Listening to the latest pod cast got me thinking. Talking about the next Wallaby loose head lock got me thinking as Scott threw Sam Wykes's name out there and it was also mentioned how either Dennis or Higgers had locked in the 6 jersey. Thinking of his 2011 form Wykes could be a viable option as he meets all the criteria.

 

[Forcefield]

Wykes doesn't offer enough as a loosehead lock. He is athletic and a good ball runner but that is about it. I had hoped he would specialise as a 6 a few years ago.

 

[wamberal]

Anybody who seriously thinks that a lock can play blindside should have a look at Garrick Morgan's effort. He was awful, and he was one of the most athletic locks to have played in recent years.

The only way that a lock can be considered as a blindside for the Wobbs is if he plays pretty much the whole Super Rugby season in the 6 jersey.

 

[biggsy]

I thinker Hooper should start and Pocock come for 60min. But I dont think Hooper is as good as people think he is,yet.
Pocock is a great leader on the Field does his work so well, and this upcoming tour Australia needs that.