• 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.

The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Forcefield

Ken Catchpole (46)
Hooper had an okay game against the Force by his standards. He ran very well and it took a lot of effort/numbers to bring down. He also tackled pretty well too. But he seemed completely ineffectual at the breakdown. A couple of times I saw him smashed off the ball by the Force cleaners and thought that Pocock wouldn't have been knocked off that easily. On the other hand, I think Pocock gave away a few penalties and I can't remember Hooper giving any off the top of the head. I guess Hooper also didn't get as much support at Pocock from his fellow forwards. But that makes me wonder- What if Pocock's effectiveness is less affected than Hooper's when playing in a beaten forward pack.
 
BDA

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Pocock was often playing in a beaten pack for the wallabies, which is what made him such as great asset. He seems to be in his element defending in his own 22.

The man almost single handedly won us a World Cup QF in a badly beaten pack
 
G

G_Beard

Stan Wickham (3)
fatprop said:
I would love to learn your definition of domination, in what ways did Alcock dominate Hooper on Sunday?
Click to expand...
To nullify your opponents threat. Under UFC rules a dominant round is a 10-8 score. You are better than your opposite number.
Alcock dominated Hooper on Sunday.

I like what Hooper brings to the field and think he is a very good player.
Yes I'm Force bias, and rate the aspects that Hodgo and Alcock bring to the field.
But with Hodgo injured at the moment, Pocock unable to play a couple games in a row and the RWC looming...
I'm enjoying the 7s battles on the field and am backing Alcock and the Force back row.
Isn't that the joy of a rugby discussion and the whole idea of forum pages?
 
T

Tip

Guest
BDA said:
Pocock was often playing in a beaten pack for the wallabies, which is what made him such as great asset. He seems to be in his element defending in his own 22.

The man almost single handedly won us a World Cup QF in a badly beaten pack
Click to expand...

If the table rule is "finish your beer if Pocock draws a turnover / penalty" for a World Cup game you could be hitting the euphoric but sometimes rage inducing mark of 4 jugs in a half*

If the table rule is "finish your beer if Hooper gets a linebreak / turnover / penalty" for a WC game I'd be tipsy at full time but no where near drunk enough to forget about us not making it past the Pool stage.

*Did happen, unfortunately my memories a bit hazy from the 60 minute mark of the QF
 
fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
G_Beard said:
To nullify your opponents threat. Under UFC rules a dominant round is a 10-8 score. You are better than your opposite number.
Alcock dominated Hooper on Sunday.

I like what Hooper brings to the field and think he is a very good player.
Yes I'm Force bias, and rate the aspects that Hodgo and Alcock bring to the field.
But with Hodgo injured at the moment, Pocock unable to play a couple games in a row and the RWC looming.
I'm enjoying the 7s battles on the field and am backing Alcock and the Force back row.
Isn't that the joy of a rugby discussion and the whole idea of forum pages?
Click to expand...


I think we were watching different games
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Maybe we should retitle the thread to THE IMPENDING HOOPER V POCOCK V HODGSON V BUTLER V GILL V ALCOCK V MCMAHON V Fainga'a V ROBINSON DILEMMA?

That way we have all bases covered.............
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
BDA said:
The man almost single handedly won us a World Cup QF in a badly beaten pack
Click to expand...

One issue now days is that I doubt we'll see a referee allow the defending team that much leeway at the breakdown in a test match again.

Pilfers and forced turnovers were higher across the board and to a reasonable extent that has diminished by referees favouring the attacking team more in the last few years.
 
hench

hench

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Slim 293 said:
Maybe we should retitle the thread to THE IMPENDING HOOPER V POCOCK V HODGSON V BUTLER V GILL V ALCOCK V MCMAHON V Fainga'a V ROBINSON DILEMMA?

That way we have all bases covered.....
Click to expand...

Who are these guys anyway?

Give me Smith and Waugh any day of the week.
 
Dave Beat

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
I prefer Hooper - BUT
Seriously I can not split them - they both have the - fuck did you see that play more than any other 7 we have.

It is the game plan and the opposition that would possibly determine my selection because I think they are very close to being on par.

An example;
  • Jake White type rugby - I'd possibly have Pockock.
  • Last Tah's / Cheika type rugby - I'd possibly select Hooper.
We have other very good 7's but I rarely say - fuck did you see that.
 
fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
I do think it is a good point re current referee interpretations, the most likely to get a turnover is the second to the tackle and that is any of the other 14 with the turnover successful and only when the next couple to that ruck effectively cleaning out



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Rock Lobster

Rock Lobster

Larry Dwyer (12)
I honestly don't get the rave reviews Pockock got for that game last week. I watched him pretty closely & while he didn't have a bad game it was hardly MOTM material that some have given him.
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Rock Lobster said:
I honestly don't get the rave reviews Pockock got for that game last week. I watched him pretty closely & while he didn't have a bad game it was hardly MOTM material that some have given him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was no (insert my team's 7 here)..............

Seriously though, he wasn't player of the round.......... but he played well and was the pick of the 7's for round one..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top