In recent years, the political divide in this country, and the USA, has become a major stumbling block to progress.
In the US, senate gridlock holds the world’s economy to ransom, and in Australia, Labor has been guilty of voting against legislation in opposition that they actually drafted while in government.
But it isn’t only politics, where entrenched positions have become immutable. In rugby – and I will concentrate on union but the same argument could be raised for league – the divide appears to be between NSW and the rest of the country, but correcting for my Queensland bias, I am prepared to concede that it might be that the Tweed River is now flowing through a Grand Canyon of disagreement.
Why is this so? I don’t know. Growing up, we always hated NSW rugby.
Queenslanders, players and fans alike, were brought up on the legend that NSW refused to play us in the 60s because they didn’t think Queensland had a competitive side.
I was at Ballymore on a famous day in 1982 (I think), when revenge for that slight was extracted, ultimately fruitless chants of “We want 50” rung from the McLean Stand, as Queensland went on to win the centenary match 41-7. Queensland always felt that NSW dominated the decision making in the ARU, and we forever got the wrong end of the pineapple, so to speak.
But recently, the difference of opinion seems to have grown into a feud. Perhaps the advent of anonymous internet comment (like this!) has opened us up to a rabid discourse that always existed, but had hitherto been hidden.
Perhaps the introduction of professionalism to rugby, and the advent of big money for players and administrators, has raised the stakes to a point where politicking and Machiavellian behaviours are now the norm. I don’t know.
But in recent months and years, it seems that every comment piece on rugby that expresses an opinion is immediately categorised by readers as biased, or “agenda” driven.
There are myriad examples of these accusations, including several recent ones from The Roar‘s own David Lord and Spiro Zavos. Scott Allen wrote a piece on November 12th about some of the Wallaby weaknesses, and within 20 minutes of it being up a Roarer had labelled it agenda driven.
However, I am not trying to say that there are not instances of “agenda journalism” in rugby. The Australian earlier this week published a cracker. Bret Harris, bless his soul, decided to take on the various criticisms of Michael Hooper and refute them all at once, by just saying the opposite. The article is worth a read if you can get past the paywall, but for those of you who prefer the highlights, this is the offending paragraph:
“Still, it was senior Waratahs players who led the way in Cardiff. Captain and openside flanker Michael Hooper was herculean. His ability with the ball and over the ball is unrivalled among flankers in world rugby. His infectious enthusiasm and boundless energy are critical to the Wallabies, and he is becoming Richie McCaw-like in his leadership, which is better than the All Blacks skipper’s at the same young age of 23 years.”
Now, as you can see, I am treading on dangerous ground. Being a Queenslander, if this was a perfectly just article, I would have given an example of state bias that came from a one-eyed Reds supporter, promoting Nick Frisby as the country’s best halfback, or Beau Robinson as the solution to the Wallabies scrum woes… but try as I might, I couldn’t find anything to that effect.
So let me put it this way. If I was selecting the Wallaby team to play France, Hooper would be the first name on the sheet. He is a great young player.
But surely, really, anyone who has ever watched David Pocock, Liam Gill, George Smith, or Matt Hodgson play “over the ball” would have to realise that Hooper is not even close to the best in Australia at this particular aspect of the game, much less the world? And don’t even start me on McCaw, Robshaw, Brussow, Coetzee, O’Brien, or even Sam Warbuton, his opponent on the weekend.
Statistics that are accurate are hard to find, but there are a couple of sources that show that in 2012, Pocock had the most pilfers in Super Rugby.
In 2013 Hooper had five pilfers, according to rugbystats.com.au, behind the winner Liam Gill, and nine other players. Hooper had 15 in 2014, compared to Matt Hodgson’s comp leading total of 26.
As Hooper’s awards show, he is well respected by his peers. He is a great runner, fearless and enormously mobile. But he is not great over the ball.
I won’t profess to know how good a captain Hooper is, but there is a lot of noise to suggest he is still learning. However Harris’s claims are irrefutable, but not for the reason he may have us think.
McCaw was appointed captain of the Crusaders in 2004, aged 23, and captain of the All Blacks at 26. So the statement that Hooper’s leadership is “better than the All Black skipper’s at the same young age of 23” is a pretty safe one.
I always suspected Harris was close to the ARU, but throughout the Beale affair, he was a staunch critic of the handling, so I don’t know where that relationship stands, if I ever had a club. And I don’t think there is an observer anywhere in the game who thinks Hooper’s outspoken public support of Beale was wise, no matter how strongly he felt it.
So the question becomes – why would Harris, a person who is paid to write about rugby, produce something which is so glaringly, inarguably false?
And when will these people realise that disunity is death? Why can’t we just enjoy the Wallabies “one-in-a-row” winning streak and hope for an extension this weekend?
Crazy Horse
Guest
It was Hodgson that started the sequence that ended with Horne scoring the winning try.
Crazy Horse
Guest
Yep, all the attributes of a great back line player which is fortunate because he spends most of his time at 12.5.
Crazy Horse
Guest
Because Pocock last played a full season in 2012 (with the Force)
Who?
Guest
As Scott Allen pointed out, you're not going to be the best in the world - or even just your team - if you spend all your time standing off to the side looking to have the next run. That's fine, it just raises the question of the role of the openside in the team, and whether that's what you want in an openside... I don't think anyone who question's Hooper selection ever questions his ball running ability, it's more his effectiveness at the breakdown. And their focus is that an openside should live in the breakdown.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
If you pulled your head out of your arse for 30 seconds, you'd note that Hooper in general play is operating wide and linking with the backs like several number 8s rather than in tight over the ball as we've seen from a lot of 7s, my point was that the flak he catches is mostly because he isn't playing like several of the 7s people have become used to. He was picked to captain Australia because one captain went to play rugby in France (incidentally, you could replace the entire second row and number 8 from the Wales game with Australian players currently playing in Europe and the team would be vastly improved for it) and another blew his knee out. As a captain he's been hopeless, no captain should ever respond to a referee instruction to fix the teams discipline with "it's hard". However, seeing as you brought it up, yes, the Wallabies would be better with a healthy David Pocock wearing the seven. There's a reason the Wallabies haven't beaten South Africa in South Africa or NZ at all since the 2011 tri-nations and it's mostly down to the Wallabies getting stomped into mulch in set pieces and the breakdown.
Common Sense
Roar Rookie
Hooper is 22, my nephew is 5. Therefore my nephew has more potential than Michael Hooper.
Bernie Larkham
Guest
Yeah you trash Gill's playing ability or, you could just be happy that the starting open sides next year are Hodgson, Hooper, Gill, Pocock and Faingaa/McMahon. That's a delicious slather of talent in any country and I look forward to seeing how they all go next year.
mikeylives
Guest
Very interesting post. Thanks.
Robertthebruce
Guest
Agreed
Robertthebruce
Guest
agree
Robertthebruce
Guest
Agreed
Robertthebruce
Guest
A number 7 with strength over the ball is critical in test rugby. Hooper was repeatedly smashed out of the ruck against Wales and was not a big threat at the breakdown. The threat that a strong number 7 constantly presents is winning the ball from the attacking team. This that means attacking teams have to commit more resources to the ruck where the ball is often slowed for the vital few seconds that allow defenders to reset. If Hooper weighed another 15kg and was 10cm taller he would be a brilliant number 6. However, his size and strength over the ball are flaws in an otherwise excellent player. At his best, I would prefer Pocock as WB 7.
Trent
Guest
Hodgson out scored Hooper 6 tries to 2 this Super season. And that included 2 doubles. Just a point in reply to your last comment. You can hardly count Test tries against test tries as the minimal minutes that Hodgson has had vs Hooper makes this argument obsolete
bennalong
Guest
So no complaints if he had 8 on his back? You've got to be joking! He's not a bloody 8! He's a once in a generation player who was chosen to captain Australia! Why? Because he's 'first chosen' and he's above the constraints of what's normal in a certain position. It's so bloody infuriating, handles, that you see your bias (kudos for that by the way) but you can't see how nonsensical it is to try to find another position for Hooper. Comparison's are odious. Compare McCaw now to McCaw at his best and you'd pick the younger! But the younger isn't available but old Richie is still selected for what he brings. I was a fan of Hooper when he was a Brumbie. He was that good obviously at 19. I have sympathy for McMahon because he reminds everyone of Hooper, increasing expectations so he looked dodgy letting in that try. Picking on Hooper has to be the most daft waste of time and would be sabotage if it wasn't the province of dumb buggers who can delude themselves through anonymity that they should voice absurd observations without critical analysis. Is it therapy? Would the Wallabies be better if Hooper was out and Pocock in? Or Gill? Or Hodgson? I'd find a second best position for the 'other bloke', no doubt! Even if he better fitted your rigid definition of a seven. Hooper scores bloody tries you dills!
mikeylives
Guest
Stick to the subject please. What sensationalism? I don't think that people are ranting about Hooper being better than McCaw or Hodgson at pilfering. The point is even the author admits he is first picked in the team. So nothing new or controversial.
AndrewWA
Guest
What Hooper showed in 2013 "over the ball" in TEST rugby is NOT what he's been showing in 2014 in TEST rugby. And that comment is hard to argue against as all of the stats show it!! The discussion isn't about what Hooper is capable of it's about what he's actually doing. In the same way Higginbotham is capable of great things in test rugby but unfortunately in 2014 he has shown little - despite 2 starts and 5 appearances off the bench. In the Wales Test, which prompted the Harris article, Hooper was slower to ruck engagement than ALL of the other Forwards and he had less impact than the other Forwards (other than Carter and Simmons). Hooper has been more involved in rucks in Attack than in Defence - hence the lower turn-over stats. I'm sure that this is part of the game plan. But it means that others have to step up and in some instances they have (especially the Centres and some Backs - Folau, Kuridrani, Leali'ifano Toomua and even Foley). For those who raise his ruck stats......under most game monitoring systems (often provided as a paid service) players get 3 points for actually making it to the ruck (to place their hand on someone's bum or play statues) without actually doing something which effects or impacts upon the ruck. The players know this and it's why you see players like Simmons laying his hand on a colleague.
Jack
Guest
Well said bun ratty,Wallabies not such a great side that we can do without a genuine no.7 we then need to build a team around Hooper to accomodate him in that position when we have genuine 7 such asLiam Gill left at home or Hodgson on the bench.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
The thing with Hooper is it's very hard to see him as an Openside Flanker in the same role as Smith or Pocock, so he'll always be divisive. If he packed down at 8 in the scrum (and actually pushed) I don't think many of the complaints currently levelled against him would be made, but it just seems wrong to have a number 7 standing out with the backs in the line when we're so used to that powerful presence over the ball constantly as was seen when Smith and Pocock wore the jersey. I think a lot of the complaints are valid, especially with Fardy out nobody is really filling that void.
handles
Guest
Bret Harris, writing in The Australian. Said his ability over the ball was unrivalled in the world.
Trent
Guest
Really Mikeylives? Have you read the comments above? It’s about bias and agenda-driven journalism. It's about cheap sensationalist article statements that are just so far from the truth that it is laughable. But the masses consume the statements as fact and walk around with views based on these claims. You only have to talk to people at work to discover how influential these articles are on people' perception of players or situations. It is a privileged position to be a voice in the media and too often it is being taken too lightly The example given regarding Hooper was extreme and illustrated the point made. It also got people to react so on all points Handles did a great job.