The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Marcelo]

I'd say massively overrated actually. Not that he's terrible, just that if Pocock has a few runs, breaks zero tackles, makes zero line breaks and makes almost zero meters in the tackle people still bang on about how his "running game is developing" merely because he ran with the pill a couple of times without at all objectively looking at the quality of his runs.

The majority of people want to see his running game improve, so they will look for any possible reason to support that.

Ok so the question is: What need the team? A #7 who is a top class pilferer or a #7 who can run all day?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Therein lies the rub. Against the likes of England, we are going to be getting less than 50% possession. The scrum will be a major source of extra possession for the poms.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Several games that we lost last year had us with plenty of pill. We'll get our share against the Poms, it'll be the quality and field position of that pill that will be key. I don't expect we'll have that many opportunities to score, so we'll need to make the most of them.

 

[cyclopath]

Ok so the question is: What need the team? A #7 who is a top class pilferer or a #7 who can run all day?

39 pages in, and you've worked out the question!!!
Please tell me we don't have to start the thread again.

 

[Bobby Sands]

I'm going to disagree with that entirely, but I have a good reason. When I met Pocock, I realised his legs are very short - even disproportionately so. I also think that he carries most of his weight in the legs, despite his much publicised upper body strength.

I feel that is why he's so good over the ball. his strong, low base makes it hard to move him. Nonetheless, I realise I'm a bit pedantic.
And, as they say in the classics, here's a picture...

Another thing to note is that Dave has ridiculously long arms. Most of the population has a wingspan that is the same diameter as their height. However old mate's wingspan is much broader than his height, which makes him a bit of an outlier in that regard. How that applies to his Rugby, I am not exactly sure. But I would suggest that it helps his defense no end in terms of balance and corralling attackers, and also his pilfers as he is able to reach for the ball and roll-up like an Armadillo.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Ok so the question is: What need the team? A #7 who is a top class pilferer or a #7 who can run all day?

I'm glad you made this post. As Tomikin noted, at the Brumbies, Hooper was an excellent pilferer. He topped the stats for Super Rugby in a season, and also topped the test stats for a season.

He has shown to be able to pilfer as well as, and better than all other international players, with the exception of David Pocock. When he has played that way he has in fact been world class.

David Pocock has never been a world class attacking player, and it's doubtful he ever will be.

To compare them and say Pocock is as good in attack as Hooper is at pilfering is hardly fair to Hooper. Pocock is nowhere near that level in his attack. He is not one of the best attacking 7s. He is actually one of the worst in fact.

I can see that Pocock could be the right decision, as the coaches may feel his superiority at the breakdown is more necessary than Hooper's attack that he brings. But we are talking about a player who is one of the weakest attacking loose forwards at international level here. To say attack is not what we want from a 7 ignores that some of the best 7s in the world (McCaw, previously Burger, O'Brian, Todd, etc.) are all good attacking players in the wider channels.

Pocock offers more in his strengths and they may in fact be best for the team. But to portray Hooper as some sort of hybrid player ignores the role the best 7s actually do play and the ability he has shown at the breakdown when he is instructed to play that way.

 

[Train Without a Station]

For reference did anybody see Todd's try last weekend from a Nadolo offload? What's that bludger doing out on the wing?

 

[Bobby Sands]

Pocock is not nearly as fleet-footed or as dynamic as Hooper carrying the ball, but that doesn't mean he is a poor "attacking" player. He is a far superior link player to Hooper, and especially at the Force would play as halfback from lineouts where he would ball-play to the backs. As mentioned ad nauseam he played 12 as a schoolboy, and could easily have played in the schoolboys team in that position (Hooper for all I know could have as well).

 

[TSR]

According to some, Hooper still is.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Pocock is not nearly as fleet-footed or as dynamic as Hooper carrying the ball, but that doesn't mean he is a poor "attacking" player. He is a far superior link player to Hooper, and especially at the Force would play as halfback from lineouts where he would ball-play to the backs. As mentioned ad nauseam he played 12 as a schoolboy, and could easily have played in the schoolboys team in that position (Hooper for all I know could have as well).

No it doesn't mean that. His lack of line breaks and tackle busts mean that.

 

[Marcelo]

I'm glad you made this post. As Tomikin noted, at the Brumbies, Hooper was an excellent pilferer. He topped the stats for Super Rugby in a season, and also topped the test stats for a season.

He has shown to be able to pilfer as well as, and better than all other international players, with the exception of David Pocock. When he has played that way he has in fact been world class.

David Pocock has never been a world class attacking player, and it's doubtful he ever will be.

To compare them and say Pocock is as good in attack as Hooper is at pilfering is hardly fair to Hooper. Pocock is nowhere near that level in his attack. He is not one of the best attacking 7s. He is actually one of the worst in fact.

I can see that Pocock could be the right decision, as the coaches may feel his superiority at the breakdown is more necessary than Hooper's attack that he brings. But we are talking about a player who is one of the weakest attacking loose forwards at international level here. To say attack is not what we want from a 7 ignores that some of the best 7s in the world (McCaw, previously Burger, O'Brian, Todd, etc.) are all good attacking players in the wider channels.

Pocock offers more in his strengths and they may in fact be best for the team. But to portray Hooper as some sort of hybrid player ignores the role the best 7s actually do play and the ability he has shown at the breakdown when he is instructed to play that way.

And this leads to repeat what I said a few months ago:
Pocock at starting XV and Hooper as impact player

 

[Viking]

I'm glad you made this post. As Tomikin noted, at the Brumbies, Hooper was an excellent pilferer. He topped the stats for Super Rugby in a season, and also topped the test stats for a season.

He has shown to be able to pilfer as well as, and better than all other international players, with the exception of David Pocock. When he has played that way he has in fact been world class.

David Pocock has never been a world class attacking player, and it's doubtful he ever will be.

To compare them and say Pocock is as good in attack as Hooper is at pilfering is hardly fair to Hooper. Pocock is nowhere near that level in his attack. He is not one of the best attacking 7s. He is actually one of the worst in fact.

I can see that Pocock could be the right decision, as the coaches may feel his superiority at the breakdown is more necessary than Hooper's attack that he brings. But we are talking about a player who is one of the weakest attacking loose forwards at international level here. To say attack is not what we want from a 7 ignores that some of the best 7s in the world (McCaw, previously Burger, O'Brian, Todd, etc.) are all good attacking players in the wider channels.

Pocock offers more in his strengths and they may in fact be best for the team. But to portray Hooper as some sort of hybrid player ignores the role the best 7s actually do play and the ability he has shown at the breakdown when he is instructed to play that way.

I'm not buying this "if he was instructed to play that way" he would be world-class. The same year you mentioned he topped the stats at super rugby level he also flopped against the B&I Lions and was outclassed by Warburton.

By all means I'm not saying he is poor but it is certainly a skill which almost every other Australian seven has been outperforming him at for the last 2-3 years. - Gill, Pocock, Hodgson.

The value of a turnover is not always about the stats but the amount of pressure relieved caused from the turnover. When your team is on the back foot and under great pressure a turnover can be a life saver, Hooper rarely makes a turn-over in these occasions and no coach in the world would tell a player who is a "world-class pilferer" to not go for a turnover in these moments.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

I'm not buying this "if he was instructed to play that way" he would be world-class. The same year you mentioned he topped the stats at super rugby level he also flopped against the B&I Lions and was outclassed by Warburton.

By all means I'm not saying he is poor but it is certainly a skill which almost every other Australian seven has been outperforming him at for the last 2-3 years. - Gill, Pocock, Hodgson.

The value of a turnover is not always about the stats but the amount of pressure relieved caused from the turnover. When your team is on the back foot and under great pressure a turnover can be a life saver, Hooper rarely makes a turn-over in these occasions and no coach in the world would tell a player who is a "world-class pilferer" to not go for a turnover in these moments.

Its also about forcing teams to commit more support players to the breakdown and leaving less players to attack the D-line because of the turn over risk.

 

[Brumby Runner]

One thing I find interesting though is that the games in which players like Pocock look their best are in games you're getting smashed.

The 2011 RWC quarter final is probably the best example of this. We were constantly under pressure and the Springboks had most of the ball and territory. That meant there were a huge number of tackles to be made and defensive rucks to try and steal the ball.

Likewise, Pocock had a blinder against the Blues in somewhat similar circumstances. The Brumbies were under lots of pressure and Pocock had a lot of forced penalties in defence.

The Wallabies beat the Springboks in that game and the Blues just got over the line against the Brumbies but I think it is pretty true that both South Africa and Auckland should have won comfortably based on the amount of possession and territory they had.

I think it can create a bit of a false economy if you look at those games as the benchmark for deciding that selecting Pocock is imperative. In those games, Pocock will be your best player but you will still lose the game, often quite comprehensively.

The challenge for Pocock is to become more useful in a game that doesn't involve his side being under huge pressure for much of the game.

Likewise, Michael Hooper looks his best when his team has a lot of possession and he can run with the ball, link with the backs and generally create havoc. He needs to work on other the side of his game so that he is more effective when his team is under immense pressure and having to defend a lot.

Not disagreeing with your observations BH but the Tahs' game against the Stormers is a great example of the team with a considerable advantage in possession noit taking asay the win. Would it have been a different result if Poey had played in place of Hooper. No one can say of course, but MH's style of play didn't turn the result around for the Tahs.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not disagreeing with your observations BH but the Tahs' game against the Stormers is a great example of the team with a considerable advantage in possession noit taking asay the win. Would it have been a different result if Poey had played in place of Hooper. No one can say of course, but MH's style of play didn't turn the result around for the Tahs.

I agree. The Tahs need to find their attacking form of 2014 and put these games to bed. The efficiency of their attack in 2015 has been very poor.

The Wallabies need to do something similar. Providing we fix our scrum, I expect we'll play England and Wales in our RWC pool games and enjoy a majority of possession and territory. We need to work out how to convert our opportunities into points and win those games comfortably. For a country that has always prided our rugby on our attacking ability, we shouldn't be losing games where we have >60% possession.

 

[Gnostic]

I agree. The Tahs need to find their attacking form of 2014 and put these games to bed. The efficiency of their attack in 2015 has been very poor.

The Wallabies need to do something similar. Providing we fix our scrum, I expect we'll play England and Wales in our RWC pool games and enjoy a majority of possession and territory. We need to work out how to convert our opportunities into points and win those games comfortably. For a country that has always prided our rugby on our attacking ability, we shouldn't be losing games where we have >60% possession.

That is what distressed me most about Super Rugby last weekend (barring the Reds as I don't know the stats) the Force, Brumbies and Tahs dominated possession, especially the Tahs and Force and did sweet FA with the ball. Where is the much hyped attacking intelligence?

 

[Bobby Sands]

No it doesn't mean that. His lack of line breaks and tackle busts mean that.

Line-breaks? No station is correct.

 

[Chris McCracken]

Another thing to note is that Dave has ridiculously long arms. Most of the population has a wingspan that is the same diameter as their height. However old mate's wingspan is much broader than his height, which makes him a bit of an outlier in that regard. How that applies to his Rugby, I am not exactly sure. But I would suggest that it helps his defense no end in terms of balance and corralling attackers, and also his pilfers as he is able to reach for the ball and roll-up like an Armadillo.

That's very true. In fact, it's like he's got a 6'3" bloke's upper body bolted onto a 5'8" bloke's lower body. And t all seems to help.

 

[Slim 293]

That is what distressed me most about Super Rugby last weekend (barring the Reds as I don't know the stats) the Force, Brumbies and Tahs dominated possession, especially the Tahs and Force and did sweet FA with the ball. Where is the much hyped attacking intelligence?

That's not actually true..............

Blues and Brumbies territory and possession stats were split 50/50, and the Brumbies rarely saw the ball for much of the first half..........

Reds and Bulls shared similar stats with the Reds having slightly more possession..........

 

[Bobby Sands]

Dave Pocock getting a Pilfer.

 

[cyclopath]

Dave Pocock getting a Pilfer.

I think someone's left nut just dropped.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD