The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma
- Thread starter Hoolly Doolly
- Start date
- Status
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Maybe 15 minutes off the bench on current expectations I think.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Yet another week in which Hooper continues to smoke Poey, The Chosen One.
Score is getting lopsided
Score is getting lopsided
JJJ
Vay Wilson (31)
That could explain Hooper's crazy eyes. Stay in school kids, just say no to Poey. Smoking it doesn't make you cool.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Its probably a shame both dont run on, Both fresh and can be rated against each other.
If Poey comes on with 15 to go and plays well (over that 15 minutes) or touches the ball or tackles a player many Posters will give him the points over Hooper (irrespective of Hooper playing 80)
To be honest that would be a joke - but I will put my funny hat on waiting for the sure to come posts.
If Poey comes on with 15 to go and plays well (over that 15 minutes) or touches the ball or tackles a player many Posters will give him the points over Hooper (irrespective of Hooper playing 80)
To be honest that would be a joke - but I will put my funny hat on waiting for the sure to come posts.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Just read headlines:
"Pundits say Pocock smokes Hooper"
Correction: Thats actually Monday's headline
"Pundits say Pocock smokes Hooper"
Correction: Thats actually Monday's headline
BDA
Peter Johnson (47)
Doesn't look like we are going to get a great indication of how they fair against each other this weekend. A returning Pocock off the bench in the last 20-30 minutes with no rugby under his belt against a battle hardened/weary Hooper.
Good to see Pocock back though. lets hope its smooth sailing from here.
Good to see Pocock back though. lets hope its smooth sailing from here.
emuarse
Desmond Connor (43)
I apologize if this aspect of the Hooper/Pocock selection dilemma has already been analysed.
To me, Hooper suits the fast running game of rugby, as he's all over the place, backing up, taking passes into open space, fast in defence etc. etc.
For Pokock, who can forget his playing style against the Springbok juggernaut in the RWC in NZ in the quarter-final.
He's best suited to the trench warfare type of game as an open flanker, being a serial pest, interrupting the tempo of opposition forward packs, and is a heavier option for the scrums.
Now, the RWC is unfortunately no longer suited to the running game, especially against the top favourite teams. They play trench warefare, with the onus on penalty points rather than tries. So as wonderful as it is to see Hooper in full flight, IMHO, that is not what the most successful teams will bring to the table.
Our first two games are against Fiji and Uruguay, then England, and finally Wales. The first two of these games from the wallabies view point will be more 'open', so mainly Hooper, but Pocock will need to come off the bench for match fitness.
The latter two games will be more dour affairs; against England, no doubt Pocock. As for Wales, by then their form will have an input, but for the reasons given above, I think Pocock.
Nice to have the selection problem (hopefully).
To me, Hooper suits the fast running game of rugby, as he's all over the place, backing up, taking passes into open space, fast in defence etc. etc.
For Pokock, who can forget his playing style against the Springbok juggernaut in the RWC in NZ in the quarter-final.
He's best suited to the trench warfare type of game as an open flanker, being a serial pest, interrupting the tempo of opposition forward packs, and is a heavier option for the scrums.
Now, the RWC is unfortunately no longer suited to the running game
, especially against the top favourite teams. They play trench warefare, with the onus on penalty points rather than tries. So as wonderful as it is to see Hooper in full flight, IMHO, that is not what the most successful teams will bring to the table.Our first two games are against Fiji and Uruguay, then England, and finally Wales. The first two of these games from the wallabies view point will be more 'open', so mainly Hooper, but Pocock will need to come off the bench for match fitness.
The latter two games will be more dour affairs; against England, no doubt Pocock. As for Wales, by then their form will have an input, but for the reasons given above, I think Pocock.
Nice to have the selection problem (hopefully).
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
I apologize if this aspect of the Hooper/Pocock selection dilemma has already been analysed.
To me, Hooper suits the fast running game of rugby, as he's all over the place, backing up, taking passes into open space, fast in defence etc. etc.
For Pokock, who can forget his playing style against the Springbok juggernaut in the RWC in NZ in the quarter-final.
He's best suited to the trench warfare type of game as an open flanker, being a serial pest, interrupting the tempo of opposition forward packs, and is a heavier option for the scrums.
Now, the RWC is unfortunately no longer suited to the running game
Our first two games are against Fiji and Uruguay, then England, and finally Wales. The first two of these games from the wallabies view point will be more 'open', so mainly Hooper, but Pocock will need to come off the bench for match fitness.
The latter two games will be more dour affairs; against England, no doubt Pocock. As for Wales, by then their form will have an input, but for the reasons given above, I think Pocock.
Nice to have the selection problem (hopefully).
Emu - excellent post - agree wholheartedly
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
Great post Emu Arse. I might add that when I think about which one would be more suited to being an impact player off the bench I can't help but admit that's Hooper. Maybe after this World Cup the rules/interpretations may accommodate a more expansive game as the RWC in Japan is the first "outreach" cup and there's talk of admitting another 4 teams in order to accommodate the German and Russian broadcasting market. BUT! This year it's in England and what's popular in England will dictate the way the game is played unfortunately. Pocock, if he returns to something near his best is far more suited. But Hooper would be immense in the final 30 minutes too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
rarely do you have 2 x 7's in the game day 23,
Emu's idea of picking between Pocock and Hooper for team specific has huge merit.
Emu's idea of picking between Pocock and Hooper for team specific has huge merit.
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
Yeah I can't see Hooper being kicked out of the match day squad. Deans played Hooper of the bench behind Pocock in 2012 and once behind Smith in 2013 and McKenzie played Gill off the bench behind Hooper several times so I'm not sure how rare it is. Hodgson also played some games off the bench no?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think two 7s in the matchday 23 is generally a good plan whatsoever.
The temptation for Australia to do it is that in recent years it's been one of our strongest positions and if Hooper and Pocock are both healthy they're two of our best and most influential players.
I tend to think you can't really start both of them against a top line opposition. We don't have the grunt at lock to make up the shortfall of being undersized at 6 and 7 (collectively) plus it also means we miss Fardy who is one of our better and more consistent forwards. If we had locks the calibre of Retallick and Whitelock you probably could play Pocock and Hooper at 6 and 7 but we don't.
If we can find a reserve scrummaging unit that can hold its own in the last 20-30 minutes of the match, we'll be far more likely to see Hooper and Pocock on the field together in my opinion. I think their combined dynamism and big match temperament is more likely to win us games if we can get around the shortfalls at set piece time than maintaining a more traditional forward pack structure.
If both of them are in the 23 their styles of play certainly suits starting Pocock and injecting Hooper later in the match.
The temptation for Australia to do it is that in recent years it's been one of our strongest positions and if Hooper and Pocock are both healthy they're two of our best and most influential players.
I tend to think you can't really start both of them against a top line opposition. We don't have the grunt at lock to make up the shortfall of being undersized at 6 and 7 (collectively) plus it also means we miss Fardy who is one of our better and more consistent forwards. If we had locks the calibre of Retallick and Whitelock you probably could play Pocock and Hooper at 6 and 7 but we don't.
If we can find a reserve scrummaging unit that can hold its own in the last 20-30 minutes of the match, we'll be far more likely to see Hooper and Pocock on the field together in my opinion. I think their combined dynamism and big match temperament is more likely to win us games if we can get around the shortfalls at set piece time than maintaining a more traditional forward pack structure.
If both of them are in the 23 their styles of play certainly suits starting Pocock and injecting Hooper later in the match.
nathan
Darby Loudon (17)
It's a little bit off topic, but I'd be keen to get people's thoughts on Butler. He's obviously been doing a great job for the Brumbies filling in at 7 this year and last, but arguably doesn't play a traditional 7 role somewhat similar to Hooper.
I know Lee always talks about Notters, the concept of a backrower who's a jack of all trades and master of none. Ultimately do people consider Butler's long term future at 7 or is at 6 or 8? In a way guys like Sean McMahon are probably faced with the same problem, so it'll be interesting to see how both the players and game itself develop over the next few years and ultimately where they'll end up.
I know Lee always talks about Notters, the concept of a backrower who's a jack of all trades and master of none. Ultimately do people consider Butler's long term future at 7 or is at 6 or 8? In a way guys like Sean McMahon are probably faced with the same problem, so it'll be interesting to see how both the players and game itself develop over the next few years and ultimately where they'll end up.
I tend to think they're both too small to play 6 or 8 at test level effectively.
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
That might be right but the problem is that both Pocock and Hooper are rare, "freakishly good" players. You can't compare them to any other back 5 player the Wallabies might put on the park. It's unfortunately the case and I just can't see Hooper missing out completely. I would rearrange the bench to fit him in even if it meant a 6/2 split, our backs will be very versatile anyway and Phipps can play 80 minutes if he has to.
I'll point out here that I do not believe there is any room to start the game with two opensides.
I tend to agree that space will be found for both in the 23. It does involve making compromises elsewhere but when fit and in form they are two of our best players in the whole team.
We've just got to find the team structure where having both of them is actually a bonus for how we can play a game over 80 minutes.
We've just got to find the team structure where having both of them is actually a bonus for how we can play a game over 80 minutes.
- Status