The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^^ C'mon @Slim, Surely there are more than 3 OSF's in the John 1 Dent Cup competition that must be battling for the Wallaby 7 Jersey. A couple of good'uns coming through the Under 20's programme as well.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is this the new thing for Tahs fans, the self depreciating fan? I thought the Force fans had laid claim to that?

It's entirely tongue in cheek I assure you.

Personally I think Hooper is a firm favourite to wear the 7 jersey at the RWC if he's healthy. Everyone else is chasing.

Pocock will have to do something fairly incredible to be the starting 7 come test season. Playing 1 game and then missing the next 3 is not what he needs to do the press his claims.

Many people seem to have this impression that Hooper has been awful and Pocock is set to waltz back into the starting role. I just don't see that happening without a fairly dramatic difference between their relative form and fortunes during Super Rugby season.

 

[Slim 293]

^^^^ C'mon @Slim, Surely there are more than 3 OSF's in the John 1 Dent Cup competition that must be battling for the Wallaby 7 Jersey. A couple of good'uns coming through the Under 20's programme as well.

I'm sure one of the die hard Queanbeyan or Royals guys will be in here any moment now to say that they have better flankers, and Vikings poached their guys anyways, and how it's all unfair or something.............

 

[Hans]

It's entirely tongue in cheek I assure you.

Personally I think Hooper is a firm favourite to wear the 7 jersey at the RWC if he's healthy. Everyone else is chasing.

Pocock will have to do something fairly incredible to be the starting 7 come test season. Playing 1 game and then missing the next 3 is not what he needs to do the press his claims.

Many people seem to have this impression that Hooper has been awful and Pocock is set to waltz back into the starting role. I just don't see that happening without a fairly dramatic difference between their relative form and fortunes during Super Rugby season.

Is there any huge objection out there to a hooper 7, pocock 6 set up? Aside from the loss of what Fardy brings, is there an argument to have both on at the same time. One seems to be a brilliant attacking player, the other brilliant defensively? Is there any major workload lost by playing Pocock over Fardy/McMahon?

 

[BDA]

After Pocock, Hooper and Hodgson I think McMahon and Butler are currently better options....

Give me a break Slim. McMahon isn't a genuine 7, and doesn't play like one. He's at best a reserve 6/7. Butler?! I think you're being a bit unfair to Gilly, who is a genuine 7 with solid test match experience (not that I seriously think he is putting his hand up to be our starting no.7)

 

[Braveheart81]

Is there any huge objection out there to a hooper 7, pocock 6 set up? Aside from the loss of what Fardy brings, is there an argument to have both on at the same time. One seems to be a brilliant attacking player, the other brilliant defensively? Is there any major workload lost by playing Pocock over Fardy/McMahon?

I think it would unbalance the forward pack too much.

Hooper and McMahon wasn't a good combination really.

I can see an option where Hooper and Pocock both make the matchday 23 but certainly unlikely that they both make the starting XV.

 

[Slim 293]

In regards to McMahon, he should be in the squad as a 7/6 cover, but I wouldn't be starting him at 6 in the chance that Fardy was injured/rested..........

I would look to have someone with more size like McCalman, or see who out of the likes of Cottrell, Jones or Timani can step up to cover that role.

 

[BDA]

agree BH. If both are fit I think we have to play to our strengths and play both in 23 (one at 7, one on the bench). Cheika (and Link before him) appeared to be planning for that situation last year. Both opted to carry an extra 7 on the bench on numerous occasions. It actually worked out well on most occasions. We'll see more of the same this year.

 

[Hans]

I think it would unbalance the forward pack too much.

Hooper and McMahon wasn't a good combination really.

I can see an option where Hooper and Pocock both make the matchday 23 but certainly unlikely that they both make the starting XV.

I think if both fit they will be there for sure, but in the absence of Fardy and potentially Higgonbottom, what are our other options at 6. I don't think McMahon is the answer YET, it seems it could make some sense to go down that road if the situation arises?

 

[BDA]

Slim I don't see the point of carrying McMahon as a 6/7 reserve, unless the likes of Pocock and Hodgson are not available. I think you either want a 7/8 reserve (like Higgers or McCalman) or you carry 2 backrowers, in which case you can carry a genuine 7.

 

[BDA]

If both Higgers and Fardy are injured I'd look at either Jones or Cottrell at 6.

 

[Slim 293]

Slim I don't see the point of carrying McMahon as a 6/7 reserve, unless the likes of Pocock and Hodgson are not available. I think you either want a 7/8 reserve (like Higgers or McCalman) or you carry 2 backrowers, in which case you can carry a genuine 7.

In hindsight, with the RWC squads limited to 30 he would likely miss out.............

I would assume that we'll be taking Fardy, Hooper, Pocock, and Palu............

And that leaves room for only one or two more backrowers.........

I would have McCalman as a certainty.

 

[Hans]

In hindsight, with the RWC squads limited to 30 he would likely miss out.....

I would assume that we'll be taking Fardy, Hooper, Pocock, and Palu....

And that leaves room for only one or two more backrowers...

I would have McCalman as a certainty.

Is the above based on an assumption of

Props - 4
Hookers - 3
Locks - 4
Backrow - 4
Half - 2
Flyahlf - 2
Centre - 3
Wing - 3
Fullback - 2

If so, you could build cover in the backrow by taking Jones as lock cover alongside Carter, Simmons and likely Horwill. Makes it tough for the likes of Scott H and McCalman

 

[Braveheart81]

If Fardy, Hooper, Pocock, Palu and McCalman are all healthy I reckon they will all be in the squad and there will be one spot left for the likes of Jones, Higginbotham, McMahon, and Timani (unless Jones or Timani get selected as the fourth lock).

I predict Simmons, Carter and Skelton will all be there and there'll be a fourth lock.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is the above based on an assumption of

Props - 4
Hookers - 3
Locks - 4
Backrow - 4
Half - 2
Flyahlf - 2
Centre - 3
Wing - 3
Fullback - 2

If so, you could build cover in the backrow by taking Jones as lock cover alongside Carter, Simmons and likely Horwill. Makes it tough for the likes of Scott H and McCalman

I reckon they'll take 10 players to cover 4 through 8. That seems to be the norm.

 

[Hans]

I reckon they'll take 10 players to cover 4 through 8. That seems to be the norm.

So make lock 5 and backrow 5, reduce fullback by 1 and centre by 1?

The above split is 18/12 forwards/backs. The suggested move makes it 20/10. Big difference there

 

[Braveheart81]

So make lock 5 and backrow 5, reduce fullback by 1 and centre by 1?

The above split is 18/12 forwards/backs. The suggested move makes it 20/10. Big difference there

How did you get to 20 forwards?

Your breakup of players above only totals to 27 people.

I tend to think squads will be increased to at least 31 to allow for an extra prop due to the change to matchday 23s.

 

[BDA]

I would think 5 props too. Do we know that it's limited to 30 in the squad? Seems strange that they wouldn't increase it to at least 31 now that you MUST play at least 4 props every game.

 

[TOCC]

4 props leaves no room for injury either..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ACT Crusader]

If you take 5 back rowers you probably want one to be able to cover lock in an emergency. Also 4 props is probably a little light on for a WC squad of 30 given 4 are selected every test. You'll need at least one back up option ready to go in case someone pulls a hammy in the warm ups.