Wallabies 2020

[Up the Guts]

I will bet my hat, that the Wallabies will be immediately more successful when he is not in the side.

In fact if he is so good, why has he had such a lack of results in every team he has played for (barring the Tahs winning the flag)?

Is it that everyone around him is so bad? Why haven't they got better? Why haven't his tactics worked?

If we assume he is the god of rugby that so many on here want to tell us he is - is everyone else is Australian rugby just that bad and dragging him down?

You can say this about any player regularly in the side in the last 5 years.

 

[Bobby Sands]

You can say this about any player regularly in the side in the last 5 years.

Mark this post. Make it a signature or whatever.

The Wallabies will be infinitely better when we move past Hooper at 7.

This might be because he never built combinations at the Tahs that carried through to the Wallabies because they were not as good as he was or because we were never able to build a balanced backrow. Or perhaps his game style is individualistic and doesn't naturally build combinations and or improve others around him.

I would argue this could be because his skillset has never allowed us to build a balanced backrow, but let's say that point is moot for now.

But the fact remains the unit, the sum of all parts, does not and has not worked for a long time.

It will 100% work more effectively when we move past Hooper, and can play a more cohesive backrow.

Mark it down.

 

[Up the Guts]

Consider it marked.

I don’t dispute the backrow was unbalanced and caused us problems. My view is that we didn’t have near the same caliber of 6s and 8s we do now and that was the root of the problem. I’m sure you’ll disagree but let’s allow time to tell us.

 

[Derpus]

Mark this post. Make it a signature or whatever.

The Wallabies will be infinitely better when we move past Hooper at 7.

This might be because he never built combinations at the Tahs that carried through to the Wallabies because they were not as good as he was or because we were never able to build a balanced backrow. Or perhaps his game style is individualistic and doesn't naturally build combinations and or improve others around him.

I would argue this could be because his skillset has never allowed us to build a balanced backrow, but let's say that point is moot for now.

But the fact remains the unit, the sum of all parts, does not and has not worked for a long time.

It will 100% work more effectively when we move past Hooper, and can play a more cohesive backrow.

Mark it down.

Yeesh and i get called out for being hyperbolic.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

The ARU signed Hooper in a 5 year, 6 million dollar deal.

No-one else in history was given a deal like that, and I hope we never do it again.


https://www.talkingrugbyunion.co.uk...r Michael Hooper has,year deal for $6 million.

What about the Allan Ala'alatoa deal? Didn't seem to have a negative effect on Thor's development.

 

[dru]

If Gill was good enough he would have taken the 7 spot, he didn't

Are you saying Gill was better than Pocock?????

Hooper and Pocock were both better than Gill on (different) specialist elements of what you want from a 7. Gill was the better overall but could not match Pocock in pilfering or Hooper on speed and energy.

Selection in the WBs then comes down to how you are trying to set the team up. The double 7 solution with Pooper was probably the most daft of the various options.

Whether or not Gill was better than the other two is down to how you judge the most important attributes. For me I would go with the generalist Gill every time for a far better balanced back row. Though there were other ways to achieve this that did not necessarily need Gill.

SO you can call Gill the third choice (at the time) if you preferred those attributes over Gills more complete game (with lesser specific strengths).

Hooper is better now than he was, but still requires the loose forwards to be played in a specific way. Whether he takes the number 7 in 2020 is about:
1. how much Rennie wants a new look (don't think he is bothered)
2. how he wants the team to play
3. how he wants to handle leadership given experience is likely to be treasured.

There is a good chance this means Hooper. But not guaranteed.

 

[Bobby Sands]

What about the Allan Ala'alatoa deal? Didn't
seem to have a negative effect on Thor's development.

I would argue that is a terrible contract as well, for the exact reason you mentioned.

But that aside, looks lets sum it up like this up and at least get to some conclusions on thoughts here rather than further abstraction.

The majority here think Hopper is fantastic, and I don't. That's fine.

The majority think his enormous contract was sound business, I don't. Again that's fine.

The takeaway here is that I think the Wallabies will be better without him, and I am sure most think I am completely mad.

But's let see - you can tell me I am wrong all you want - but we won't know until it happens and thankfully it's not far away.

The one objective fact that can't be argued in all of this is that Australian rugby has one of it's darkest periods and he has been right in the centre of it. Now maybe we would be much worse without him? I am sure many think this, and the thinking carries some water.

But I don't think so, and it's not because individually he doesn't make great contributions.

It is because his skillset is so unusual, that it makes it very difficult to build combinations and winning rugby teams around him.

 

[Slim 293]

Didn’t Thor receive a significantly bigger contract than Ala'alatoa?

 

[Number 7]

In fact if he is so good, why has he had such a lack of results in every team he has played for (barring the Tahs winning the

There’s a big difference between causation and correlation.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Ok, here is one for you

If Gill played for the Tahs and got the big contract and Hooper played for the reds would you be attacking Gill??

A hypothetical that means nothing and proves nothing BA. Bobby Sands posts a lot of tripe, imo, and he is off course suggesting LFG was a better No 7 than Hooper. Not much inferior, but inferior.

But I reckon he has a point in criticising the huge money and length of the contract RA signed Hooper to. I am one of the adherents to the view that Poey was a better No 7 than Michael and that he was, maybe not wasted, but underutilised at No 8 in the Wallabies. It's probably fair to say that RA at the time didn't see the likes of Wright and McReight coming through in the last couple of years of Hooper's contract, but they should have factored that sort of risk into his contract. I don't think anyone would have been concerned at a two or three year contract, but the amount per year would or should still have been a concern.

I wonder now how much they would like to reduce both the duration and the value of the contract when it is a lot clearer that there will be excellent options available in the lead up to and for the 2023 RWC?

 

[Derpus]

A hypothetical that means nothing and proves nothing BA. Bobby Sands posts a lot of tripe, imo, and he is off course suggesting LFG was a better No 7 than Hooper. Not much inferior, but inferior.

But I reckon he has a point in criticising the huge money and length of the contract RA signed Hooper to. I am one of the adherents to the view that Poey was a better No 7 than Michael and that he was, maybe not wasted, but underutilised at No 8 in the Wallabies. It's probably fair to say that RA at the time didn't see the likes of Wright and McReight coming through in the last couple of years of Hooper's contract, but they should have factored that sort of risk into his contract. I don't think anyone would have been concerned at a two or three year contract, but the amount per year would or should still have been a concern.

I wonder now how much they would like to reduce both the duration and the value of the contract when it is a lot clearer that there will be excellent options available in the lead up to and for the 2023 RWC?

The amount is fine - it's the duration. He likely could still earn more overseas than what he is on here. Contracts are about valuing past performance in an effort to anticipate future performance which obviously means all contracts carry some risk. But trying to predict whether a player is still top of their game in 5 years? rubbish.

I also don't buy into the 'he can't be dropped because he's on big money' stuff. I don't think Rennie cares at all bout the amount he is earning.

 

[Blackadder]

I would argue that is a terrible contract as well, for the exact reason you mentioned.

But that aside, looks lets sum it up like this up and at least get to some conclusions on thoughts here rather than further abstraction.

The majority here think Hopper is fantastic, and I don't. That's fine.

The majority think his enormous contract was sound business, I don't. Again that's fine.

The takeaway here is that I think the Wallabies will be better without him, and I am sure most think I am completely mad.

But's let see - you can tell me I am wrong all you want - but we won't know until it happens and thankfully it's not far away.

The one objective fact that can't be argued in all of this is that Australian rugby has one of it's darkest periods and he has been right in the centre of it. Now maybe we would be much worse without him? I am sure many think this, and the thinking carries some water.

But I don't think so, and it's not because individually he doesn't make great contributions.

It is because his skillset is so unusual, that it makes it very difficult to build combinations and winning rugby teams around him.

But you didn't mention Alan did you? Just Hooper which proves the Tah connection for this argument

 

[Blackadder]

A hypothetical that means nothing and proves nothing BA. Bobby Sands posts a lot of tripe, imo, and he is off course suggesting LFG was a better No 7 than Hooper. Not much inferior, but inferior.

But I reckon he has a point in criticising the huge money and length of the contract RA signed Hooper to. I am one of the adherents to the view that Poey was a better No 7 than Michael and that he was, maybe not wasted, but underutilised at No 8 in the Wallabies. It's probably fair to say that RA at the time didn't see the likes of Wright and McReight coming through in the last couple of years of Hooper's contract, but they should have factored that sort of risk into his contract. I don't think anyone would have been concerned at a two or three year contract, but the amount per year would or should still have been a concern.

I wonder now how much they would like to reduce both the duration and the value of the contract when it is a lot clearer that there will be excellent options available in the lead up to and for the 2023 RWC?

Cool release Alan Ala'alatoa then. 5 year deal big money. Same point different team.

Bobby never mentioned Alan just Hooper because he hates the Tahs which has has said quite often.

I mentioned the Hypothetical to prove a point, it's about the fact Hooper is a Tah.

 

[Silverado]

Didn’t Thor receive a significantly bigger contract than Ala'alatoa?

I thought the same thing. 850k a year rings a bell. But that's ok, he's a Red

 

[Bobby Sands]

Cool release Alan Ala'alatoa then. 5 year deal big money. Same point different team.

Bobby never mentioned Alan just Hooper because he hates the Tahs which has has said quite often.

I mentioned the Hypothetical to prove a point, it's about the fact Hooper is a Tah.

If that's what I was doing, to counter it by doing the same is kind of disingenuous no?

As much as it would suit your limited capacity to say that's what I am doing, it really isn't.

A big part of the reason I don't like NSW is because of decisions like this, not the other way around.

It is so clear that you do not want to meet this conversation on its merits, most likely because you can't.

I think AAA is a good player, but I think he is overrated too. In saying that though he plays a position we have never historically had much world class talent in, and now all of a sudden we do.

Tupou will go past AAA, but you need two TH props in every game day squad.

Openside is one position Australia consistently produces world class talent so it is the last position we need to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Again, you can all say I am mad, and it is just my Reds biad.

But mark my words, the Wallabies will be better immediately and long term without Michael Hooper.

 

[dru]

There’s a big difference between causation and correlation.

Sure. But in this case correlation should at least suggest further consideration of the claimed experience.

And of course, without correlation there can be no causation.

 

[Blackadder]

If that's what I was doing, to counter it by doing the same is kind of disingenuous no?

It is so clear that you do not want to meet this conversations it's merits, as it's easier for you to say that it is just bias.

I think AAA is a good player, but I think he is overrated too. In saying that though he plays a position we have never historically had much world class talent in, and now all of a sudden we do.

Tupou will go past Hooper, but you need two TH props in every game day squad.

Openside is one position Australia consistently produces world class sevens so it is the last position we need to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Again, you can all say I am mad, and it is just my Reds biad.

But mark my words, the Wallabies will be better immediately and long term without Michael Hooper.

Yep

 

[Bobby Sands]

Yep

Sure mate no worries.

Really appreciate your time and considered thoughts.

I will reconsider my position.

 

[Blackadder]

Sure mate no worries.

Really appreciate your time and considered thoughts.

I will reconsider my position.

Doubt it

 

[Blackadder]

If that's what I was doing, to counter it by doing the same is kind of disingenuous no?

As much as it would suit your limited capacity to say that's what I am doing, it really isn't.

A big part of the reason I don't like NSW is because of decisions like this, not the other way around.

It is so clear that you do not want to meet this conversation on its merits, most likely because you can't.

I think AAA is a good player, but I think he is overrated too. In saying that though he plays a position we have never historically had much world class talent in, and now all of a sudden we do.

Tupou will go past AAA, but you need two TH props in every game day squad.

Openside is one position Australia consistently produces world class talent so it is the last position we need to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Again, you can all say I am mad, and it is just my Reds biad.

But mark my words, the Wallabies will be better immediately and long term without Michael Hooper.

But you didn't mention Alan who is on big money and signed for 5 years, just Hooper