Hooper versus Pocock: A statistical breakdown

Set their positions on a left or right side of the scrum and leave them there. Most players do not like being moved around. Particularly at their highest level. They will go along with wherever you put them but what is best is another matter. A lot of good players have been made less effective by being convinced by the coach to play out of position.

I have a preference for Pocock for all the reasons stated by others above. But I think people aren't considering the damage he can do coming on in the back end of a match and how that gives a prescription to an ill the wallabies have had for some years. I also don't mind the strategic approach the coaches and selectors are taking to player rotation/evaluation between now and the RWC. Tonight I prefer them both!!

For this game I would go with Pocock at 7. This Springboks team is going to try to give some flair to the ball so accurate tackling will be essential. They have crowded the forwards with breakdown specialists (BdP, FLouw, Coetzee) and Pocock is the one who can match them. I don't know if I'd be playing Hooper at 6 or else at 20, but I would certainly give the 7 to Pocock at least for this game.

They're both capable of playing 80 and the best loosies Aus has. Play them both, Pocock at 7 and Hooper at 8.

This is a massive point, I get sick and tired of seeing Hooper meerkating at scrum time.

Sure, but regardless - he's still playing the ball. It's just an example, there are plenty of similar examples. When he first goes in, he's supporting his weight. Then he transfers most of his weight forwards to make him harder to shift off the ball (you can actually see in the video there's a moment when both his feet come off the ground and go backward - at this stage his feet are too far behind his body for him to be realistically able to stay up unaided).

He might've thought that, but a croc roll goes sideways. He went backwards, that's clearly not what's coached. Croc rolls you use your own weight to drag people sideways and down. Gill wasn't using weight - he was fighting it the whole time. I don't think there'd be many people in Rugby who'd be able to lift Pocock or McCaw like that.

In my humble opinion the wonderful Michael Jones would overshadow them all and that is saying something. I think that Pocock is so good I don't know how Australia cannot select him especially when the team needs all the forward power it can get. I think to have a player like hooper you need clear dominance as per the Waratahs last year when he shone. This year that's not the case.

By that point he's already done enough to have earned the turnover...

Zero Gain, yes they should. Why should defending teams get leniency trying to use negative tactics? People don't watch rugby to see people wrestle over a ruck.

'I don’t buy the “super sub with 30 to go when the game opens up” argument Zero. To me, it’s a cop out to keep the Hooper fans happy. How many games really “open up” with 30 to go? How many of those games were against the likes of SA, NZ, England etc?' That's when the ABs eventually get on top of their opponents. Often behind in the first 50 mins.

'I saw Kronfield and Wilson in the same mould as today’s Michael Hooper, Bakkies. They were fetchers and gathers using pace around the field, clearing the ball quickly to supporting No6’s who set up second phase and allowed them to be free to do their supporting role again. Very much in the role of the master at that work, Graham Mourie.' Both were far more involved at the breakdown then Hooper is. Kronfeld killed off a lot of threatening attacks through his pilfers.

If I recall correct. Gill was interviewed later about this, and he mentioned he was attempting a croc roll, which went bad.

yep. And if we must consider strange out of position possibilities yo fit Hooper in the team, surely 12 is way superior than Pocock at 6.

ZG, I have no doubt you are correct but we see often (and many complain on the Roar) about players being 'picked out of position'. I make no judgement of competing players for specific positions, I have my views of course but in the wider scheme of things the selectors and head coach will make the decision, supported by fans or not. Michael Cheika has coached in the NH, he has coached in the SH, he will also have poured hours upon hours of watching video analysis, she he will have more than a fair idea what challenges await him. It's alright to wear your passion on your sleeve but as the National Coach, that is a privileged position similar in many ways to the players he selects. Pocock perfected his craft at No 7 ... why play him elsewhere by choice? To me its like Picking Stephen Moore, Australian's captain and best Hooker to play prop... why would one do it?

They are chalk and cheese but both chalk and cheese are required for the wallabies. Chalk for defence and cheese for attack. 6 and 7 are taken

Easy really, you just couldn't and wouldn't play Skelton. Simmons, Arnold, Higgers at 8 to cover the lineout. I just think its a stupid idea that didn't work with Waugh and Smith either.

If Australian rugby fans watched those sorts of informative clips they could get so caught up in the scrum and LO contest that they might forget to keep chanting the mantra: "Running rugby is the Australian way." It won't happen. Pity.

Left and right flanker. Depends where they are on the field

I've got feeling that Cheika will insist on playing Hooper at 7. Pocock might be on bench or ting himself out of position at 6 or 8. A disgraceful waste of talent. And a disgraceful indulgence of a second rate 7 like Hooper. No side in the world fears Hooper at the breakdown.