The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma
- Thread starter Hoolly Doolly
- Start date
- Status
Great game, but also highlights the rule changes since then
Clear release
Going beyond the ball and allowing the cleanout to help you scrag to the ball
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
If we are going to play that game, TPN and Cummins have the best winning record of players who've played a decent amount in the last 5 years at >75%.
They wouldn't be picked over their alternatives though would they?
I think this is a good point.
We're talking about a substantial period of time where there was significant changes both in the form of players who featured throughout and the players involved.
There's no doubt Pocock was a hugely influential player during that period but so were other players. It's shortsighted to suggest that our winning record is purely down to a single player.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
They weren't picked over their alternatives a lot anyway were they? Why would that change?
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
There is at least one game where a huge amount of guys here basically said that Pocock damn-near won the game by himself. Not some game against a minnow or an end-of-tour or exhibition game either. A RWC QF.
I haven't seen any Wallaby game since where you guys have been so strong in advocating Hooper's influence on a result.
No doubt that there are a lot of factors contributing to those wins in the Pocock Mark I era but hell - he's a pretty huge factor.
That's kind of the point. Taking one game where I also agree Pocock was by far the most influential player and then using that as the reason why he needs to be in the team now is equally as flawed as taking a higher winning percentage and attributing that to a single player (when you could run the same argument involving other players).
The Wallabies might be a better team in 2015 with Pocock starting at 7 and maybe we'll find that out later this year but the logic of attributing results in a team sport to a single player is incredibly flawed.
Wilson
David Codey (61)
The rules have changed but is it really that different? In the past three weeks we've seen both Pocock and Gill dominate the breakdown, getting multiple turnovers in much the same manner as the 2011 qf, so it looks like there's just as much room for a pilfering 7 in todays game.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
And how did those two teams go? What about the fact that Hooper's ball running is directly leading to tries? Who says a pilfer is better than his running game?
Are we just ignoring the fact that Hooper scored 2 tries against the All Blacks in Eden Park last year? Because Pocock would not have scored either of those and whilst he might've gotten more pilfers, if we do nothing with that ball what's the point.
Are we just ignoring the fact that Hooper scored 2 tries against the All Blacks in Eden Park last year? Because Pocock would not have scored either of those and whilst he might've gotten more pilfers, if we do nothing with that ball what's the point.
Floggn'
Jimmy Flynn (14)
Isn't reffed at all consistently, maybe clear release is but the others never.
Floggn'
Jimmy Flynn (14)
He helps. He actually pushes in a scrum and as someone here mentioned when did you or anyone else say they saw Pocock have a bad test match?BUT last season a lot of people were saying Hooper was having bad test matches.
Floggn'
Jimmy Flynn (14)
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
First off you're kidding if you think Pocock's scrummaging compared to Hooper's at openside is going to make a significant difference. Secondly, that's funny because Hooper topped the GAGR for best player of the year. Again.
McCaw might disagree.
If you go through the win percentages of the experienced All Blacks, Conrad Smith comes out as the most important member of the team.
As I said, it's not a particularly sound argument.
As they say, correlation doesn't imply causation.
Floggn'
Jimmy Flynn (14)
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
- Status