The impending Hooper vs Pocock Dilemma

[Scoey]

I tend to agree with you Qwerty and I was talking in more of a general sense as to why I probably don't rate Hooper as highly as some others.

It's interesting though as quite a few of the more vocal Hooper supporters that will cite line break and run meter stats as evidence of his superiority were highly critical of Higginbotham back in 2011-12 for playing in the backs when he was probably the Reds highest forward for line breaks and run meters.

But sorry, back on topic, picking today it's a no brainer. Between Hooper and Pocock, you pick Hooper. One is fit and in form, the other is not. Essentially, all things being equal (ie fitness and form) I prefer a 7 with Pocock's skill set over and equal player with Hooper's. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the season. 6 months is an eternity in Rugby.

 

[Joe Blow]

Theres the key.
With Hooper at 7 you need a 6 and 8 that play very tight and on the ball. With Pocock you can play an 8 or 6 that plays a little wider like Higgers.

That's assuming Pocock completes a successful comeback. I think we saw enough in his first(and only game) to assume that if he stays fit he will be the same calibre player as he was previously.

 

[fatprop]

Would love him to get 10 turnovers per match as well but whilst he has the biggest motor in Super rugby he still is only human. An incredibly durable and tough competitor.

I think that just isn't possible by anyone under the current ruck rules, no one is doing it

When Pocock, McCaw & Smith were at their turnover best they didn't have to release; that change means there is more time for the cleanout.

Now it is the second in who is more likely to get a poach turnover, it is now the team's responsibility, not just the 7s, and then because of the work at the previous ruck as much as the poach effort.

In 2013 (the last full stats I could find for S15 whilst drinking coffee) Gill was first with 11 followed Smith with 10, for the season, not a game

Looking at a random game (Chiefs vs Highlanders)

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match34325.html

They list 7 ruck n maul turnovers with no one getting more than one, actually looking at more games and I could only find 2 players who have got 2 in a game, neither were open sides.

My point, I think we may be wish'in & hope'in for a bygone era where this could happen and using it as the key criteria is now less relevant.

I would be happy for someone to prove me wrong

 

[Scoey]

Turnovers are far more easily captured by stats than holding on penalties and I don't think you could record a stat that captures how much and how often a player slows the oppositions ball down at all.
Just as you can't say that Pocock will be as effective as he was prior to his injuries, I don't think you can say that the game has changed and he won't be as effective either.
The proof will be in the pudding.
That doesn't mean you can't speculate wildly though, I'm just saying is all.

 

[fatprop]

Turnovers are far more easily captured by stats than holding on penalties and I don't think you could record a stat that captures how much and how often a player slows the oppositions ball down at all.
Just as you can't say that Pocock will be as effective as he was prior to his injuries, I don't think you can say that the game has changed and he won't be as effective either.
The proof will be in the pudding.
That doesn't mean you can't speculate wildly though, I'm just saying is all.

Yeah, but there have been a change.

Will Pocock be as effective as that out and out fetcher under previous interpretations? I really doubt it, because none his current contemporaries are as effective either

The true fetcher is just no longer as effective.

 

[A mutterer]

So does that mean sir Ritchie is a true flopper rather than fetcher?

 

[JJJ]

I think Ireland are showing at the moment that there is still plenty of opportunity at test level under the current interpretations to attack teams at the breakdown to great effect. They really put the fear of God into ballrunners. Also, the choke tackle seems to be a great way to get around the clear release laws while still slowing down or even turning over opposition ball. Would love to see Pocock add that to his repertoire, I can't imagine it'd be easy to fight your way to the ground if he has you wrapped up.

Of course probably the last thing we want in the wallabies is more mauls created.

 

[TOCC]

Yep I've got no problem pushing for Pocock to make it back to the Wallabies starting XV, yes he has a long way to go to come back from injury, but if anyone has the chance it's Pocock.. You don't get nominated for IRB Player of the Year two years running if your aren't a very high quality player.

Hooper is obviously a very good player as well, I just love the physicality at the breakdown that Pocock brings. I don't think physicality can be measured just by turnovers, it's also protecting your own ball, disrupting the opposition ball and overall forcing the opposition to commit more players to the ruck.

It would be a massive boost for the Wallabies to have both in contention come RWC time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimmyboulevard]

I think that just isn't possible by anyone under the current ruck rules, no one is doing it

When Pocock, McCaw & Smith were at their turnover best they didn't have to release; that change means there is more time for the cleanout.

Now it is the second in who is more likely to get a poach turnover, it is now the team's responsibility, not just the 7s, and then because of the work at the previous ruck as much as the poach effort.

In 2013 (the last full stats I could find for S15 whilst drinking coffee) Gill was first with 11 followed Smith with 10, for the season, not a game

Looking at a random game (Chiefs vs Highlanders)

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match34325.html

They list 7 ruck n maul turnovers with no one getting more than one, actually looking at more games and I could only find 2 players who have got 2 in a game, neither were open sides.

My point, I think we may be wish'in & hope'in for a bygone era where this could happen and using it as the key criteria is now less relevant.

I would be happy for someone to prove me wrong

Turnover stats are no doubt important when comparing number 7s, and indeed the other backrowers. However you also need to consider how much pressure each number 7 is putting on the other team to clean out effectively by simply being at each breakdown and competing for the ball and not just how many steals or turnovers they claim. From experience, one way to completely break an attack is to have them clean out a hard-on-the-ball number 7 every second breakdown.

I admittedly haven't watched the number 7s too closely this season, however from previous seasons I think Pocock is far more of an asset in this regard than Hooper.

Just another consideration fro the debate.

 

[BDA]

That's all well and good and I agree if we're talking about David Pocock 2010-11 but it's amazing how many people think he's just going to pick up from where he left off despite no evidence of it in the 1 or 2 games he's played a year since the first major injury. Ignoring him as a player, the game has moved on, holding on penalties are much harder to come by. The current David Pocock hasn't shown anything to suggest his game in any facet is better than Hooper's.

I think most people are prefacing their preference for Pocock on the assumption that he will return to his previous form in 2010 and 2011. I do think that what we saw from him in game 1 was enough to suggest that by seasons end he'll be there or there abouts. Maybe not, but I think it's certainly not out of the question. After two years away from the game, its going to take him time to hit full stride. You could have excused the bloke for looking off the pace in the first round, but he wasn't. In fact he was arguably the best aussie no.7 that round. I think it's more likely than not that he'll be the best no.7 in Australia in terms the "in the rucks guy" as Scoey puts it.

If he gets to that point, then this selection issue will become real rather than hypothetical.

Generally I tend to agree with Scoey's views on this, but at the same time, when I was trying to select my best wallabies 23 the other day, it really struggled to leave Hooper out of the starting side, even with my preference for a traditional 7. He really does suit our style of play very well.

Having Pocock at the world cup will at least give Cheika the option of playing a guy like Higgers, who just doesn't balance out well with Hooper. If Pocock isn't in the squad I probably leave Higgers out of the squad.

 

[Tomikin]

Yeah, but there have been a change.

Will Pocock be as effective as that out and out fetcher under previous interpretations? I really doubt it, because none his current contemporaries are as effective either

The true fetcher is just no longer as effective.

Im pretty sure G.Smith came back from Japan, and showed what a true fetcher can do.. its all about class.. and if he was good in 2011 he be good in 2015..

 

[Braveheart81]

Im pretty sure G.Smith came back from Japan, and showed what a true fetcher can do.. its all about class.. and if he was good in 2011 he be good in 2015..

He played one test and whilst he should have stayed off after getting concussed, he hardly produced a big game.

George Smith looked excellent pretty much every week at Super Rugby level as does Michael Hooper and formerly David Pocock.

It's the question of whether they can replicate that at test level on a regular basis.

None of the players, whatever they're specific strength or role tend to have as significant an impact at test level compared to Super Rugby level. When it goes up a level it's hard to be as dominant.

 

[Slim 293]

George Smith is simply immortal.

He could return in 8 years and still be the best 7 in the country...........

I discovered this recently - somebody has clipped up all his turnovers from 2013:

 

[qwerty51]

It's comments like Pocock was back to his former self in round 1 that I find perplexing.. he was good but hardly showed anything of the sort, certainly not in a game the Brumbies dominated with the ball.

 

[Tomikin]

It's comments like Pocock was back to his former self in round 1 that I find perplexing.. he was good but hardly showed anything of the sort, certainly not in a game the Brumbies dominated with the ball.

Agreed, but he did get MOM and was the best 7 of the round.. although the Red's were rabble... so he didn't have to work hard for it

 

[qwerty51]

Agreed, but he did get MOM and was the best 7 of the round.. although the Red's were rabble. so he didn't have to work hard for it

He was pretty involved in attack which was a good sight but didn't see any dominance around the ruck.

 

[Braveheart81]

Has there been any word out yet as to whether Pocock is likely to play against the Reds?

 

[BDA]

It's the question of whether they can replicate that at test level on a regular basis.

I think this is probably the reason, more than any other, that a lot of us feel that Pocock is the man for the job. The man always rose to the occasion at test level, more so than any other player in recent memory (save for perhaps Hooper ironically). If I'm not mistaken the guy played 1 game for the wallabies in 2013 as a replacement for Hooper and won man-of-the-match.

 

[qwerty51]

No he didn't play at all in 2013. In 2012 Pocock played the first 5 Tests, Scotland, Wales (3x) and got injured half-way through the 5th vs the All Blacks. He was out until the last Test of the year in which he started vs Wales and Hooper came on as a replacement in the 2nd half and played with Pocock as they did throughout the Welsh series earlier in the year. That was his last Test. I don't recall if he got MoM I think it might've been Palu.

Hooper has won the most MoM awards on GAGR since his debut. He topped the count against last year..

 

[Braveheart81]

Pocock hasn't played a test since since the last game on the EOYT in 2012 against Wales.

According to ESPNScrum, Leigh Halfpenny was MOTM.