With David Pocock’s 2017 sabbatical sure to fire up the debate on what back row arrangement will replace the ‘Pooper’, I crunched some stats on win percentages associated with the different starting back row arrangements the Wallabies have used.
The time period is since Pocock’s first start on June 20, 2009, to the game against England on December 3, 2016.
Of course the back row combination is far from the only factor which will influence the outcome of the game, but with 112 Test matches during that period, the influence of different combinations will start to show up in the win/loss statistics.
The combinations that I initially looked at are as follows:
1. David Pocock starting in a conventional back row, with a large six and eight – win percentage 68 per cent.
2. Pocock starting with Michael Hooper – win percentage 57 per cent.
3. Hooper starting in a conventional back row – win percentage 52 per cent.
4. All dual open-side combinations over the period, including George Smith and Sean McMahon – win percentage 61 per cent.
Hooper appears to have substantially reduced the win percentage when he plays in a conventional back row and even the Pooper had the team at a lower win percentage than when Pocock played without him.
However, Hooper’s stats paint a harsher picture than reality, with much of his period as the sole 7 during two tumultuous coaching upheavals.
The team sustained a number of losses in the Rugby Championship when Ewen McKenzie took over from Robbie Deans in 2013, before finding a groove on the 2013 Spring Tour. Similarly, performance dropped badly when Michael Cheika took over at short notice from McKenzie after the Mendoza fiasco, where the Wallabies were beaten 17-21. Neither of these falls in performance could have been countered by Hooper’s individual efforts.
Pocock however, played most of his games until 2012 in a conventional back row with an established team and benefited from the same coach for five seasons, a much more settled environment.
I would also note that Hooper was the only 7 playing during two draws against the All Blacks in 2012 and 2014, the Wallabies being injury-depleted on both occasions, so I consider those to be worth a win. Pocock’s only draw was against Ireland in 2009.
So, I have created a percentage for Hooper based on the Spring Tour 2013 plus the French tour and Rugby Championship (excluding Mendoza) in 2014. I have also counted the 2014 draw as a win for the purposes of this percentage. This period effectively covers an entire Test season, if in a slightly different order, and that it is when we best saw what Hooper could do in a conventional back row, in a functioning team environment. The percentage is 76 per cent.
So, what I take from this is:
1. Running dual open sides is clearly inferior to just running Pocock in a conventional back row.
2. Depending on whether you adjust Hooper’s percentage, running duel opensides somewhere between a little better and clearly inferior to running Hooper in a conventional backrow. I am in the clearly inferior camp, based on Hooper’s excellent 2013-14 season results.
3. On the question of which openside is better for the team, depending on how you treat Hooper, it ranges between Pocock being a lot better and both of them being about the same. I am in the latter camp – McMahon would do as well as either at 7 if he were to start as part of a conventional back row.
The selectors need to acknowledge that if the Wallabies are to succeed, they need to end the experiment with starting dual open sides and move back to having a ‘full size’ 6 and 8, with players only big enough to be a 7 started in that position or run off the bench.
With Pocock overseas, McMahon has his chance at more starts at 7 this year, without unbalancing the back row at 6 or 8.
BF
Guest
The hole in your argument is that Cane and Savea are #7's that are being picked at #7. Pocock - a #7 - has to shuffle between #6 and #8, so Cheika can keep picking hooper. We will continue to come up short whilst we continue picking hooper at #7, and the stats in this article prove that. Ps. Pocock was runner up in the RWC player of the year behind Carter, therefore ranking him better than Cane and Savea.
Jacko
Guest
Pocock would never make an ABs side...Never...not close even...Richie was the no 7 for all but this year of Pococks career and Cane is already better than Pocock and he will get better. Then there is big Ardie coming thru
Jacko
Guest
Did you see the way RHYS reacted??? He needs help.....quick
Jacko
Guest
Haha they were Aussie experts for sure. No one else thought they were "worlds best"
BF
Guest
Wrong. Pocock is the best #7 in the world - in fact he's the only wallaby that would make the All Blacks team based on performance. The reason we don't have the perceived depth at #6 and #8 is because we have to pick players to cover hooper - not good enough at the breakdown, not good enough at the set piece, etc. Our backrow has no balance. If Cheika drops his pet hooper, we could pick a proper #7 at #7, a proper #6 at #6 and a proper #8 at #8. - that way we would have all bases covered (balance) breakdown. Set piece, ball carries, defence.
Rhys Bosley
Guest
I agree that Hooper needs to work on his technique over the ball, it is his greatest weakness and the fact that a similarly lightweight Gill could do it so much better tells the story. That said, I have seen him do a lot better this year than last, he is really quick at getting the strike in now. Maybe he has learned a thing or two off Pocock.
BF
Guest
It's called technique Smith - and Pocock for that matter - never got blown off the ball as they have low body height, whereas hooper is more upright Therefore Smith and Pocock are 2 foot off the ground and a lot harder to shift and hooper is essentially a 5 foot target, much easier to shift. As I tell my under 9's - the lowest shoulder wins the breakdown.
BF
Guest
We wouldn't need to run dual open sides if hooper did his job. can you run the stats on hooper - the number of times he contests a breakdown v number of times he's on the wing.
Noodles
Guest
While I'm certainly in the camp that favours having power in the back row I'm not sure these stats tell us much. One obvious fact: the WB improvement has come with having a driving 8 and two forceful ball capable locks. It's also obvious that the pocock at 7 results cane a while back in a different team. Personally I'm not sold on hooper at 7 in test rugby. Love his work but really want to see aggression over the ball and strong tight support. Anyhow we are going to find out next year how that goes. I'd simply remind everyone of pocock at the Rwc. Both most recent and previous.
Rhys Bosley
Guest
I'll have to take your word for Hooper's weight, but please see my response to Taylorman on how proper teamwork is the best way to address that.
Rhys Bosley
Guest
Yup I agree the problem is getting a tall 6 to support like he should anyway is the problem, not Hooper. It is what should happen anyway, Gill and Thompson hunted together at the Reds in 2015 and were very effective, and I don't think McMahon is going to do much better than Hooper unless it happens. It is possible that the Wallabies have gotten too used to Pocock and his solo turnovers, having to do things differently might do them good.
Rhys Bosley
Guest
Thank Nick, but I addressed Hooper's win rate in the article.
Charlie Turner
Guest
Rhys I agree with most of what you have written however the 7 in any side in any grade should top the tackle count. I also think Hooper must be standing on an uncalibrated scale if he is reported as the same weight as George Smith. Hooper is regularly blown off the ball, something I cannot recall with Smith. Hoopers unique point of difference is his tremendous stamina and resilience which is why he polls so highly in peer driven awards.
Charlie Turner
Guest
Rhys I agree with most of what you have written however the
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes but Hoopers problem is as you say he doesnt have the heavier and taller artillery around him in the back row, so needs to provide some of that himself to make up for it. And he doesnt. ABs can play a Savea type like Hooper because he has that around him, leaving him to roam and expose. But even then they go with the McCaw, Cane types who are much more effective in the tight loose work. Hooper is not and I believe McMahon could be, but even he cannot have Hooper along side him. Hooper suffers because hes not complemented by other back rowers fulfilling the tradtional roles. Hed go much better in the AB pack for that reason. As would most but Hooper would at least be able to rely on others doing their own work. Cant just look at one position if the rest are not catered for in the back row.
Rhys Bosley
Guest
Taylorman, I agree with all your points except on Hooper not having an impact on the match. When he plays he reliably provides one of the highest tackle counts, makes the most metres for the forwards, disrupts the opposing breakdown, runs in support and does it for the same intensity over 80 minutes. Then beyond that he has the athleticism, skills and reflexes to produce extraordinary match winning moments, it is genuine x-factor. I think too much is made of his size, he is the same weight and height as George Smith, and nobody ever questioned his suitability to be a 7. That said I would be just as happy for McMahon to start, they are both excellent players so all that needs to happen is for them both to get game time.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Interesting article Rhys. Looking back through my own records, they appear much less conclusive than the stats you offer. Since Hooper became the regular number 7 back in 2012, I have 11 wins out of 23 for the dual open-sides, and 19 wins out of 37 for Hoops in an orthodox back-row. So both near 50%. Too hard to draw any definitive conclusions from those stats, I would have thought.
taylorman
Guest
three tries to two... :-(
taylorman
Guest
Well put Rhys, as I said I generally agree anyway, I just thought the link to the scores was a tenuous one, and youve certainly tightened that up above, and I certainly agree trawling through those stats for that extended period would have to be a paid job! But would nevetherless be extremely telling I would think, because I think if you can clearly show that your back three is consistently outplaying, or not outplaying the opposition back three, that can render the results irrelevant- i.e. no point changing a back three that is performing just because the side is losing so to speak. Another, largely unmeasurable, factor in terms of what contributed to the actual results might simply be key moments that turned a match- Foleys kick against Scotland if missed would likely have made Pooper stats worse where the two match winning tries by I think Nic White and Kefu last year to beat the ABs and SA at home to win the RC might have made the figures worse, and there are probably many of those over that 8 year period that could have swung matches on their own. That is particulary important where Oz is concerned as for the period you mention- 2009 to the present (I get): Played 113, won 62 at 55%, winning by an average 24-22 scoreline, scoring three tries to one. That suggests the average match was both winnable and loseable in the last minute...key moments are important with margins that small, and there have been many that probably had nothing to do with the back row, given they constitute 3 of a potential 23 players, 46 if you count the opposition. However, regardless of all that, I agree with the conclusion and its heavily supported by the All Blacks back three make up over the years who for at least 30 years- and longer going back into the 70's and 60's, have always formed the back three on those principles. At 7 weve always had a high presence, high speed, high carrying and tackle mechant- If I limit it to the 80s on the Jones, Kronfeld, McCaw types. Hooper doesnt match any of them for physical presence and impact on the match...he 'needs' someone else to do the grunt work. At 6 as you say the big, rangy full size model- Allan Whetton, Jones in his later career, Messame and now Kaino, all big hitters and carriers, enforcers most of them. And certainly at 8- Buck, Zinzan, (I think we fell off a bit with Randall and 6 around then, hence our limited success through that period) with Soloalo and now Read picking the pace up again. So agree with your main point and thats why Pooper simply doesnt work for me at the top echelon and why I think a Hooper McMahon flank combination will fail in the same manner. I think Hooper has to go, and McMahon should be given the chance at 7, with Timani, Fardy, Higgers and Hooloway fighting out the 6 and 8 positions.
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks Rhys. I Agree Death to the Pooper model Death to "Running" Rugby