Cheika's Wallabies should start Hooper and Pocock

As my article in April showed, the openside flanker is now king in rugby. There are so many more rucks and mauls compared to set pieces in the modern game that the ability to dominate this area is now the most important aspect of modern play.

Therefore it is widely recognised by many rugby stakeholders that a good back row is arguably the most important facet of a successful side nowadays.

That’s not to say you don’t need a tight five to hold their own or a back line that can reap the rewards of good possession. What is clear is that unless your back row is able to lead by example at the breakdown or in phase play you will rarely taste success regardless of anything else.

For most sides the most prominent and important back-rower will be the No. 7. For the Wallabies that is either Michael Hooper or David Pocock.

By naming Hooper as vice-captain it seems that Michael Cheika has already made his decision as to whom will be the main No. 7. There have already been laughable calls, mainly from former Brumby commentators, that Hooper will not be in the starting line-up even though he is a vice captain.

The captain and both vice-captains may not be in the side each week but if fully fit they will be in the starting XV come the major games of the Rugby Championship and Rugby World Cup. Otherwise why name them?

I will say that personally I would’ve probably gone with David Pocock as a leader and starting No. 7, possibly alongside Scott Higginbotham and Wycliff Palu. This for me is the most balanced back row, and if not Palu then Ben McCalman. One of the most interesting finds from a bit of research is that both of these combinations are yet to taste defeat in Test match rugby.

Alas, I am not a selector and so I am happy enough to go with Hooper as our No. 7. This simply makes the selection of the No. 6 and No. 8 all the more interesting.

Hooper is undeniably world class at what he does but in a completely different way to his main rival in the Wallaby squad. Whereas Hooper is arguably the best attacking No. 7 in the world, Pocock is arguably the best defensive No. 7 in the world. Of course both players also have attributes to offer their sides in both attack and defence.

My point is that Hooper and Pocock are so different that they would complement each other in a Test match XV. Leaving aside the lineout for a moment, to have them in the same team would be a real point of difference between all other Test sides. Considering the open style that we seem intent on playing, dual openside flankers may be the way to go. It should be considered that Pocock and Hooper are a completely different proposition to the unpopular George Smith and Phil Waugh experiment.

For those fans that recall this period, Eddie Jones came to the conclusion that he would rather not waste his two opensides by selecting one over the other. His solution was to play them both and in hindsight it was not a success. Or was it?

The truth is that one of the best back row combinations we’ve ever had in terms of longevity and win ratios involved Smith, Waugh and David Lyons. When this combination played together the Wallabies won 82 per cent of the time (from 11 Tests).

For the record the Wallaby back row combinations that have started in more than 10 Tests together in the professional era, with more than a 50 per cent win ratio, are as follows:

1. David Wilson, Matt Cockbain and Totai Kefu (18 Tests) – 83% wins
2. Waugh, Smith and Lyons (11 Tests) – 82% wins
3. Smith, Rocky Elsom and Wycliff Palu (17 Tests) – 75% wins
4. Smith, Owen Finegan and Totai Kefu (14 Tests) – 57% wins

Special mentions:

• Pocock, Elsom and McCalman (9 Tests) – 67% wins
• Smith, Elsom and Lyons (6 Tests) – 83% wins
• Pocock, Higginbotham and Palu (4 Tests) -100% wins
• Pocock, Higginbotham and McCalman (3 Tests) – 100% wins

I am confident that a Michael Hooper and David Pocock combination would be a truly great one with any of the current crop of excellent No. 8 options.

Of course we can not forget the argument that we would have a weak lineout with this combination. Perhaps, but let’s remember the modern game has far less set piece and far more phases than ever before. Having a disproportionate emphasis on the lineout is not necessary.

With the most likely tight five featuring the set piece specialism of Rob Simmons, alongside the much improved front of the lineout gargantuan Will Skelton, I do not see a need of selecting an extra lock at No. 6, as we seem to do in this country.

A player like Scott Fardy is indeed an extra lock pretending to be a flanker. He has some good moments over the ball but he never goes close to topping work rate statistics and his relatively light frame means he rarely wins a contact.

Therefore he is surplus to requirements. But that’s just an opinion. The truth is there is no blue print for success by way of a stereotypically balanced back row. It turns out there is no such thing.

By looking at all the different combinations that there have been in the Wallaby back row in the modern era, and there have been too many to mention, it is clear there is nothing set in stone in order to have a successful back row.

You simply need to select the back row that best suits your style of play.

Only Cheika and his coaching staff will know exactly what that is.