A really interesting conversation about backrowers on Saturday evening proved to be a completely unrelated, but entirely valid follow-up to a point I made last week about Wallabies coach Michael Cheika’s Rugby World Cup planning and legacy.
“If Michael Cheika has his eye on other players, or different combinations, then we need to see them now,” I suggested last week. “To do the same thing and expect different results is only going to increase the volume of discontent.”
The conversation was sparked by the replacement of Queensland Country blindside flanker, Angus Scott-Young, who was really impressive in the reigning NRC Champions’ 45-35 win over the Canberra Vikings, the same team they beat in last year’s decider, and with the season-opening rematch again played at Viking Park in Canberra’s south.
Scott-Young was impressive for Country, operating mainly in the shadows where he often does and where he often goes unnoticed doing all his best work in the tight stuff. Ten carries – all of them pick-and-drives – and just one missed tackle in a dozen attempts. It was a productive 64 minutes for the 21-year-old.
He doesn’t get quite the same headlines as teammate Caleb Timu, but Scott-Young’s work was just as crucial.
But in noticing that he didn’t seem quite so hulking and brutal as he came from the field, I had the thought out loud that if he could maybe add ten kilos to his frame he could really start impacting at Super Rugby level, which in turn could quickly put him into the international frame.
In the days since, I’ve been somewhat surprised to see him listed at 194cm and 108kg. He’s got height about him, for sure, but he looked leaner than that on the night. He may well be. But 194cm and 108kg puts him in the same sort of rough dimensions (plus or minus) as Timu and Reds skipper Scott Higginbotham, as well as the likes of Ned Hanigan, Jed Holloway, Jack Dempsey, Ross Haylett-Petty, Isi Naisarani and Rob Valetini.
At 194cm and 108kg, Scott-Young already has a decent size advantage over new Wallabies flanker, Pete Samu.
Angus Scott-Young of the Reds (AAP Image/Albert Perez)
There was general agreement to my pondering, and there was no doubt among those in the conversation that Scott-Young had put in a better-than-decent shift for Country.
Only Canberra captain Ben Hyne and Timu had been better, we decided, before quickly beginning to wonder if being dropped from the Wallabies squad cold after his initial international foray in June was the right thing for Caleb Timu’s development.
How on earth was he supposed to learn from the mistakes he obviously did make against Ireland if he’s not even in the squad? Timu carried thirteen times and beat nine Vikings defenders on Saturday night, was always looking for offloads, scored a try for good measure, and not 24 hours later was added to the Wallabies squad for the Tests against South Africa and Argentina. Could he be the one the Wallabies are looking for, we wondered amongst ourselves?
“No, the one the Wallabies are looking for just moved to Melbourne,” came the accurate reply. “He’s just not quite eligible, yet.”
And it’s certainly true that the anticipation will only grow around Naisarani as he edges closer to that green-light date of eligibility – in March sometime, as I understand – and particularly if he begins his Super Rugby season for the Melbourne Rebels well. Even if he’d be raw, the consensus was quickly reached that Naisarani could be really, really handy come next year’s RWC.
“But you know what?” came another suggestion that may yet prove to be not so left-field at all. “Maybe the one they’re looking for is right here. He’s even due back in a fortnight…”
Ah yes, Rob Valetini, we all quickly nodded. Instant agreement that he could indeed be the one. Plenty of size, great ability, plenty of promise but horrid luck with injuries to date. Could be anything, we all agreed, just as the Vikings staged something of a comeback midway through the second half, which pushed us onto other topics that obviously weren’t as memorable.
In the days since, and thinking about the conversation further, I recalled writing that line last week and considered the very obvious issue that may well prevent any of these backrow alternates breaking through.
Will the Wallabies genuinely reconsider their backrow selections, or will they remain wedded to the Michael Hooper-David Pocock double act that Cheika has deployed throughout his stint as Wallabies coach?
How long will Australia persevere with this backrow? (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
Hooper and Pocock have played 27 Tests together, but it was actually Robbie Deans in 2012 who first used them, albeit bringing Hooper off the bench on all four occasions he tried it. Of the remaining 23 occasions the terribly-named ‘Pooper’ combination has been used, only once has Cheika brought Hooper off the bench. That was back in 2015, when the Wallabies beat Argentina in Mendoza, and Hooper replaced Number 8 Ben McCalman.
The Hooper-Pocock tandem worked pretty well during the 2015 RWC, but teams have worked out in the three full seasons since that you can nullify Pocock’s impact by running at him and forcing him to make more tackles. Pocock making more tackles means less opportunity for him to pilfer, in the safety that Hooper doesn’t quite pose the same on-ball threat. In fairness to Hooper, not many do.
For the sake of example, Pocock in the last three Super Rugby seasons for the Brumbies has averaged around eleven tackles and not quite one pilfer per game as an opensider. In the two Bledisloe Tests and the three-Test Ireland series as a number 8 or blindsider, Pocock has averaged more than 15 tackles per game and won 2.6 turnovers – which of course, aren’t necessarily the same as direct pilfers of possession from the opposition.
The use of Lukhan Tui as a blindside flanker is clearly being trialled now as a method of getting extra size into the backrow – Tui has at least ten kilos on all those flanker/no.8 options mentioned earlier – but its effectiveness remains in question. As with Timu though, how is Tui supposed to gain experience as an international flanker if he’s not persisted with?
Lukhan Tui of the Wallabies (left) (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
But then, as the borrowed line often miscredited to Wayne Bennett goes, if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.
I’ve no doubt at all that Hooper and Pocock are both within the best fifteen players in Australia. Both are within the best five probably. Can they remain as a combination right through to a Rugby World Cup still twelve months and upwards of 15 Tests away?
I’m really not so sure about that, and I know that that’s hardly an exclusive view.
Which probably just underlines the need to start looking at other options sooner rather than later. The time to unearth the bolters – in all positions on the field – is rapidly approaching. Maybe it’s already here.
Ruckersforum
Guest
It your light five ready for this weekend?
Lachness
Roar Rookie
I completely agree Johnny J-Dog. I am a big fan of CM and thought it was a real shame they let him slip through the Wallaby developmental pathway cracks. Young, big, strong, powerful runner and (when not injured) plenty of gas! I feel he is the Mortlock throwback we need in the Wallaby backline.
Crash Ball2
Guest
Respectfully Nick, “Will the Wallabies Feel the Need For Speed”, was a tear down piece on Lukhan Tui and an unsubtle assertion that the Wallabies backrow must value industry and pace above all other considerations - part of the weekly shock and awe narrative you have been skillful moulding regarding Michael Hooper’s benefits over months and years. You could easily have constructed a piece showing reels of several gainline breaking hard shouldered runs, deft passes and cleanouts by Tui, but chose a few snippets showing the fastest flyhalf in the world running past several forward (including Tui). I don’t necessarily disagree that Tui is a better second rower than a loosie, but his selection in that spot is itself a result of the coaches attempting to bridge the gaping forward centric chasm created by the ridiculous duel openside alignment. So yet another player’s card is marked attempting to fill the impossible role at 6. Even your conclusion is loaded: “Whatever happens, there is a need for speed to plug the holes defensively.” Hooper is very much your obsession. There isn’t a single piece you’ve written does anything but boost his stocks. Any time the dual openside alignment has come into question, it is only Pocock who has been in your crosshairs. And the reasoning vacillates depending upon your desired outcome. Irish Test 1: the Wallabies win and Pocock dominates the breakdown, your analysis: “Are the Wallabies breakdown gains worth the lineout woes?“ i.e. do the benefits of the dual openside alignment outweigh the obvious lineout detractions? Answer: despite being Australia’s best on field, somehow Poey’s spot is at risk. WTF? Test 1 Bledisloe: the Wallabies lose disasterously, Poey is the sole talisman and AB’s own the lineout. Suddenly: no, the small backrow has nothing to do with the lineout shambles. “Michael Cheika will inevitably come under a lot of pressure to adopt a radical solution to the lineout disaster in Sydney. He will be invited to drop either Michael Hooper or David Pocock from the run-on side and select another novice back-rower instead.” So now dropping a small backrower is a “radical solution” despite the fact you yourself suggested it yourself for Pocock only the preceding test series. Obviously, no one was suggesting dropping Pocock - only Hooper. And so the journalistic imbalance continues. There is no doubt Michael Hooper is a quality player. But you myopically highlight the positive and steadfastly ignore the negative. The bloke is not 100%. You have said so yourself. His pace, timing and effectiveness is lessened. He is not running the 80. If there were any time to give other backrowers a Pooper-less go, now - Sweet Jesus - much surely be that time.
Akari
Roar Rookie
the '????' was somehow substituted for my intended 'thumps up' emoji. What's going on eds?
Akari
Roar Rookie
???? and I'm sure Morahan would have done a much better job than Michael Collins. The Blues should send him on his way to Wales along with Patrick Tuipulotu
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
As far as Michael Hooper goes, I have just learned to recognize quality where I see it, and adapt my preconceptions about position, rather than just 'paint by numbers'! Diff B/R arrangements work - for example Eddie Jones' B/R of Vunipola, Robshaw and Haskell during the long England unbeaten run. No number 7 in that mix, but the combination of two 6 1/2's and non-jumping 8 worked in practice. It is simply about B/R structures than can work on the field, not about Michael Hooper. That is why my last article explored some of the Pooper-less options... The obsession is Hooper is very much your own not mine, and for some reason you don't seem to be able to post without bagging him. As I say, not my business :)
Boomeranga
Guest
Yeah, saw that mate. The NSW squads seem at least a step below the QLD, Force and (presumably) the Drua. I think Eagles could put out a decent starting side, all be it perhaps a bit weaker through 11-14 and in terms of depth. A good pack and nice 9-10 pairing. 01. Harry Johnson-Holmes 02. Hugh Roach 03. Paddy Ryan 04. Jed Hollaway 05. Tom Staniforth 06. Brad Wilkin 07. Will Miller 08. Sam Ward 09. Jake Gordon 10. Mack Mason 11. Alex Gibbon 12. Seb Wileman 13. Denny Godinet 14. Harry Jones 15. Alex Newsom
Crash Ball2
Guest
Jez - I'm happy to answer your question and Nick's. If availability was not an issue: I'd deploy Fardy / Pocock / Higginbotham (it wouldn't matter if Hooper was fit or not) If Cheika's current squad was not a limitation: I'd like to try Cottrell / Pocock / Holloway (it wouldn't matter if Hooper was fit or not) If Cheika's current squad is the limitation: I'd go with Tui / Pocock / Timu (if Hooper was 100% fit, I'd probably re-install the dual opensides but only because of the paucity of geniune options Cheika has assembled in the squad) As per Brett's article, my wish is for other options to get their shot whilst there is still time pre-RWC - and particularly whilst Cheika's front line choices are hamstrung (literally).
jeznez
Roar Guru
No he isn't - this was just who I would pick, doesn't match up with the squad that Cheika has named. Maybe Nick didn't repeat himself but I will repeat him - who would you pick for the match v SA? Am interested in who you are thinking (and whether Hooper being fit or not changes who you would include).
jeznez
Roar Guru
That does look to be the Aussie model but certainly speed at the hooker has been prioritised by the AB's if you look at Coles, Harris and Taylor.
Comrade Bear
Roar Rookie
I thought he was a great prospect - real shame he moved on...
JP Bogers
Roar Rookie
I still wonder who is talent spotting for the Wallabies? Sam couldn't get a place in a starting team until the Crusaders picked him up and now is in the Wallabies but seems like will hardly get game time? and now there's Ta'avao (allthough has played for a few teams eg the Tahs) is now an AB?
Crash Ball2
Guest
Actually Jez - that's not right. This was the initial request: "WB B/R selection with no hint of double open-sides" - no timeframe, no question of this weekend, no mention of the Boks, no mandate to choose within the current squad. My answer speaks directly to culling the dual openside selection and references those options developed (or not developed) over Cheika's regime - the very kernel of my beef with this coach. Nick's response is: "To repeat, who would pick for the game against SA this weekend?" Clearly this hasn't been repeated. He has added previously unspecified criteria of this weekend against SA. In then nominating Tui, Timu and Pocock, he has clearly ringfenced selection only to Cheika's current squad (all other options I nominated are external to that). In subsequently telling me I required a "real answer within the current squad!" in the next comment, this was confirmed. I have no major disagreement with your last three paragraphs (is Holloway in the squad?)
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
In fairness I think Roach is probably just too small for Super Rugby or higher. He's a good player in the Adam Frier mould but that really mobile hooker that's almost a second 7 has been replaced by big bodies like Uelese, BPA, Latu, etc. who are like a second 8.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Going from wing to 12 is such an odd thing... wing to 13 is closer, and the normal progression isn't it? Then players go from 13 to 12... 13 is without doubt the hardest defensive spot to play. To me, Reiko is a better option at 13 than 12...
jeznez
Roar Guru
CB - he's just asked you to name a loose forward unit for the Boks game next weekend. No need to bring up the history of guys like Fardy, Vaea etc, etc. Just who would you pick for next weekend (and he never restricted you to picking from Cheika's list). I'd have looked for an alternate to Hooper as he struggled with fitness in the last few matches, now have fingers crossed that he is back up to speed having been able to rehab for a couple of weeks. The player I really see as under pressure is Samu, I'd likely go Pocock, Hooper, Tui and Holloway. Assuming Hooper is further recovered. Over the last few weeks with Hooper off the pace due to injury I'd probably look to have given Hardwick his third cap.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Cron was talking up Sauni the other day. In an article highlighting that Latu is in for NSW Country and Fitzpatrick will captain Sydney. Cron was then quoted regarding how hard the two of them along with Sauni are making each other work. Thought it was telling that Roach wasn't mentioned so not surprised to read the above.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Yes he came off the bench for them. So did 3 other locks for that matter. Naisarani came off the bench also and he's not even eligible at the moment. So did Liam Wright and right now he'd be behind Richard Hardwick, who played for the Super selection. Almost every Super Rugby player that was available played in this game.
Crash Ball2
Guest
Nick, I don’t think or suggest you are a Michael Cheika advocate and defender. But very strangely, you are unblinkingly a Michael Hooper advocate and defender. As the two are inexorably intertwined, that might be the perception you have incorrectly arrived at. Cheika’s squad is not that which I would choose. That is the very point. Though, your bizarre point scoring first sentence is indeed hard to argue with when augmented by the raw power of an exclamation point. I certainly don’t agree that if 3 of your best backrowers are best suited to one position 2 should be accommodated. I suspect we’ll never agree on this point. The Australian backrow folly is simply a symptom, not the greater problem. If you can pause your fierce and unyielding defence of Michael Hooper for one moment, I don’t espouse a change in loose forward alignment as the defining panacea. Rather, I propose the ousting of Michael Cheika’s suffocating and parochial coaching regime that has led us to the “current squad” you are strangely demanding I select a backrow from and then justify. The whole point of Brett’s article is that there are, even now, outside the “current squad” potential backrow options that could be given an opportunity (like Dempsey) and make a definitive impression before RWC. But: “If Michael Cheika has his eye on other players, or different combinations, then we need to see them now.” I agree.
Faith
Roar Rookie
Thank you S Jiggle clearly hope springs eternal ...