The return of David Pocock, a solution or compounding the problem? Part II

By Highlander / Roar Guru

I posted the first part of this article on the third of May this year, before a ball was kicked in Southern Hemisphere international rugby, having watched David Pocock play against the Highlanders in Dunedin and then the following week against Los Pumas.

The key thrust was, as good as he is as an individual player – and this addendum will not dispute that – does the way David Pocock play make it almost impossible to fit him into a balanced and effective loose forward trio?

The article highlighted that, for an openside flanker, he does almost all of his work at or behind the gain line and used two video clips, one of Pocock and one of Dillon Hunt to highlight the stylistic differences of how the seven role can be played.

The Wallabies, of course, already have a seven who works almost solely in front of the gain line, but I have observed in subsequent posts that the ‘Pooper’ combination, rather than being accretive, actually cannibalises the net output of the two players. There will be further analysis to follow on this.

To be honest, I was prepared to leave it there, until a series of statistically skewed opinion pieces began to run ad nauseum on the expert side of The Roar’s rugby page which were, in my view, little more than an unsupported attack on the current Wallaby captain.

Such views should not be allowed to go unchallenged and nor should shoddy use of statistics be allowed to go un-highlighted, even by we amateurs.

Why do I care, or even bother to write in response? It’s not my team after all.

Anyone who has been on this site for any length of time will know it is my view that the rugby media has a role to play in educating the rugby public, assisting the viewer with the enjoyment of the sport by accurately reflecting what happens on the park.

Blatant cheerleading, obfuscation and diversion does nothing in promotion of the code, nor does it add to any positive debate.

So, after that rather lengthy introduction, let’s examine the claims that David Pocock is the best individual for both captain and openside flanker for Australia.

The Pocock claims for captain

These claims seem to rest solely on a record of four wins from seven with the armband on, let’s examine this in detail and play with some stats.

Let’s consider the following;
1) Three of these four wins were against an extremely poor Wales side in consecutive weeks.
2) Pocock has only beaten 40 per cent of the sides he has captained against, Hooper has defeated 89 per cent of the nations he has captained against.
3) David Pocock has a 100 per cent losing captaincy record against New Zealand, Scotland and Argentina, the last two of these being catastrophic losses at home. Michael Hooper only has a 100 per cent losing captaincy record against only Scotland.
4) Michael Hooper’s winning percentage as captain is 45 per cent, however, when he captains a side with David Pocock in it, his win rate falls to a horrendous 25 per cent, quite the correlation for mine.

Seems some people are looking for solutions to Australia’s win rate in all the wrong places. This stat is the blaring warning siren on the hill.

Remove the Pocock anchor from Hooper’s record and he is magically up above 50 per cent as a winning captain.

David Pocock’s second poorest serving record is under George Smith – now isn’t that interesting.?

Wonder if that ‘too hard to fit into a balanced loose forward trio’ statement is getting any traction yet?

Why would you even consider promoting a guy who does not captain his Super Rugby team?

Why would you promote as captain an individual who has such a poor attendance rate having played 75 of 148 tests available since debut?

Michael Hooper of the Wallabies. (Photo by Matt Roberts/Getty Images)

Hooper has played in 88 of 101 games available since debut. Hooper’s playing percentage is above both Richie McCaw’s and Kieran Read’s.

Finally in section one, many years ago, I studied GARCH theory at the University of Sussex. Amongst other things, if the memory isn’t too hazy, it proposes that when applying analysis, a greater weighting should be given to the most recent events.

David Pocock’s most recent efforts as both captain and open-side were against Argentina on the Gold Coast this year. Not sure any of the following would be considered facts in dispute.

The first-ever loss to an Argentinian side at home, the slowest and clunkiest performance from an Australian loose forward trio in living memory with almost no involvement on the opposition side of the advantage line, the captain on the day managed to get involved in multiple off the ball niggles with the opposition and established zero rapport with referee John Lacey.

Perhaps the two happiest people, when David Pocock was selected at seven for this game, were David Lord and Nico Sanchez.

One, because his continuing calls for his elevation could be tested, the other because he was going to get an armchair unpressured ride around the park for eighty minutes, and so he did.

Quite interesting to look at a question from another perspective, if one can be bothered to take a deep breath and change your field of vision isn’t it.

And now the seriously contentious part that may well put the The Roar’s servers to the test.

Why David Pocock should not be selected as open-side flanker for Australia

This is all about balance and not about shoehorning your best players into a system or a side that is simply not set up for it.

With his primary action areas being at or behind the gain line, added to the fact that Australia has no metre-eating, ball-linking, back-tackling, lineout-jumping individuals available for selection in the six and eighth – plus an expansive game played centred around Bernard Foley, Kurtley Beale, Israel Folau and Marika Koroibete that needs speed and support from the open side, it is difficult to see how Pocock’s natural game is a natural fit for this side.

I believe he is now a six, a short six yes, but a six nonetheless and the match evidence this year appears to support it.

He would be considerably more effective if restricted to the requirements of just that role.

His tight tackle work is impressive and high volume, and defensive ruck efforts, when selected well, are impactful. He has also seriously improved his in close carrying.

All of that points to a narrowly defined blindside role.

1) Offensive Rucks
In my view, this is the Wallabies single largest and mainly uncommented on issue in the loose forward trio.

In order to support playing ‘the Australian way’, the seven needs genuine pace to be both a support runner and offensive ruck cleaner. There also needs to be at least one other member of your forward pack or loose trio who is going to make the offensive rucks.

In the second Test versus Ireland, it took an hour before Pocock or Caleb Timu hit a single offensive ruck with any value. The following clip shows the field day Ireland had at the breakdown as Hooper was at least getting to offensive rucks but was cutting something of a lonesome furrow as a forward.

Any doubt as to the requirement of a side to play in front of the gain line should re-watch the Australia home game against Argentina this year. Please watch with a responsible adult as some scenes may be disturbing to sensitive viewers.

2) Going hard at the ball on the floor all the time is completely flawed.
Surely nothing warms the cockles more than the sight of a brave defender, clamped over the ball, surviving waves of clean outs to nick the ball or, more likely in today’s game, to win the penalty, as the game commentators reach new levels of laudatory exaltation and the home crowd roars its collective approval.

Great fun, and David Pocock is the undisputed champion of the art (with apologies to Malcolm Marx).

But when it comes to being a core skill of the modern openside flanker it is simply a distraction, a nice thing to have.

If said turnovers or penalties are being won at the cost of multiple failed attempts that keep you out of the defensive line, then it is a net negative.

Those with highest turnovers for New Zealand in recent years include TJ Perenara, Sonny Bill Williams, Waisake Naholo, Brodie Retallick and Read by the way.

After Bledisloe 2, Spiro Zavros of this parish noticed that, while the All Blacks were busy running in twelve tries over the previous two weeks, David Pocock seemed to be conspicuous by his absence in the defensive line, suggesting much of his time is spent on the ground after having failed to turn over the ball at the ruck.

Enter Highlander’s Happy Helpers, dispatched, replete with pencils, hard hats and torches into the abyss that is rugby statistics and video archives to answer to test this observation.

Is there genuine value in going hard at the ball in the ruck as an ongoing team strategy?

The definitions
A successful turnover is a clean steal, a penalty won or a tackle that dislodges the ball and your team regains possession.

A failed attempt is one where you do not win the ball, you do not slow the ball down and, by your actions at the ruck, you are not taking a defensive position in the line.

The dataset: the three Bledisloe Cups games of 2018.

David Pocock’s outcomes: One clean steal, three penalties won, one penalty conceded and a whopping 24 occasions when staying out of the ruck and taking up a defensive role could have been a better idea. It appears Spiro was onto something.

Sam Cane’s outcomes (he only played two games): One clean steal, two penalties won, no penalties conceded and a single failed attempt to turn the ball over when he could have been better off posting up in defence.

Sam Cane of the Chiefs breaks a tackle. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

The number of times Cane would arrive at a ruck, only to assess it as over and then post up in defence bolstering the line was illuminating.

Can anyone recall the last time Australia generated a try from a jackal turnover?

It’s simply not going to happen when the halfback defends way behind the line and the two ballplayers are hidden miles from the action when the opposition has the ball.

Again, skill sets are encouraged that don’t fit the team set up.

3) Pooper cannibalises Hooper
While rummaging around in the data cave the following also came to light; data from Hooper’s debut to after Bledisloe 2 this year.

When Pooper is selected, the following are the impacts on Michael Hooper versus Hooper being selected alone.

– He has fewer carries
– Runs fewer metres
– Throws fewer passes
– Makes more tackles
– Misses more tackles

The differences are consistent over time, and in some cases, quite divergent.

My conclusion, they simply get in each other’s way with their roles defined as they are today. This may well be a coaching point.

I heard a Michael Chieka interview prior to the Ireland series and, when questioned on Pooper, he stated; ‘David will pop up where he sees fit’ (or words to this effect).

This is not a game strategy.

It’s not fair on the player, nor those that need to play with him. Case in point was Caleb Timu, who simply couldn’t find his role in the game in his two Tests vs Ireland.

4) The acceleration requirements of the modern seven, plus the ability to accurately assess situations as they unfold are critical requirements.
When the calls are made for “the best openside” in Australia to be restored to his rightful position, perhaps reflection on the following clip should be pondered for just a few seconds.

There were pretty basic errors for a potential openside flanker in the following five examples.

– A bulk standard inside-out open side set piece tackle miss, despite getting a running start from the 15-metre line
– Not getting off the side of a scrum to make a near channel tackle on the halfback (have put in a needless penalty conceded in front of the posts also for good measure).
– Poor decision to leave a goal-line defensive position at a ruck which was already over, leaving the post defence to his halfback.
– After the Barrett break, Pocock is one of two blindside defenders against two All Black attackers, he needs to stay put, but he bites at the ruck and it costs Australia 35 metres. At the next ruck he posts up correctly, but the damage is done and, with the line going backwards, New Zealand string phases together until the gap opens for the try of the year.
– The last clip starts a second or two late, but Robertson takes the ball into the tackle, Coleman and then Pocock join ineffectually and, despite being outnumbered, Retallick nicks the ball and the All Blacks go the length to score.

Also, note the position of the New Zealand halfbacks when the turnovers occur.

The most disturbing thing for all Wallaby supporters is that in four of these video clip errors tries were conceded, two of them in games which were ultimately close losses.

In addition, this season we have also seen some very un-Pocock like actions, and I would speculate they stem from a lack of acceleration to an incident, or a lack of defined role as the frustration for these.

Early tackle on TJ Peranara, a high shot on Aphiwe Dyantyi after arriving late for a charge down, an offside high shot on Beauden Barrett and a blatant kick at Tomas Lavanini on the ground.

These simply don’t fit the way the a guy this good plays, or has played in the past.

Perhaps we’ll leave further speculation as to why we are seeing these manifest, to others.

It appears that, while Michael Hooper may not the best international rugby captain running around, there is no compelling case to replace him based on, well, any actual evidence at all.

Pooper is its current form is cactus; it is affecting results. It does not fit the structure of the rest of the side, and the imbalance evidently impacts any chance of turning the current form book around.

But it would appear the Australian coaching team have more than enough reasons to keep Hooper in both roles and perhaps, just perhaps, they are seeing what has been presented here.

Please note I did not think a comparison of the offensive threat required of a seven even need be discussed as this is somewhat self-evident for an article already too long.

Will note, however, does anyone think Australia would have led 21-0 in Dunedin last year had Michael Hooper not been playing on the openside?

Light blue touch paper and retire.

The Crowd Says:

2018-11-20T04:31:50+00:00

Crash Ball2

Guest


This will no doubt be lost due to the subsequent volume of articles and comments about the weekend's games, Who. But, really nice, well reasoned contribution!

2018-11-19T11:30:02+00:00

Who

Roar Rookie


Interesting article, Highlander. But some clear flaws in your thinking. Firstly, you're pointing at Pocock's recent captaincy record, but fail to admit that Hooper's recent record is 4 from 10. Not exactly brilliant. Secondly, whilst I agree it's not common to pick a bloke who's not captain a level down to captain the national team, it's not unprecedented. McCaw wasn't captaining the Crusaders for years of the time he captained the ABs. I'm happy to say that Hooper has - slowly - improved his rapport with referees, but it's not uncommon for the refs to show more respect to Pocock than Hooper. Thirdly, you've pointed at hitting attacking rucks as a KPI for 7's. Now, I'd traditionally agree with you. But... I've come to realize that, given the Wallabies use the Crusaders' 1 -6-1 stagger pattern for the forwards, you can't. The same way we shouldn't criticise Hooper for the fact that he spends a lot of time outside our winger (which some claim is seagulling). If you're one of the loose forwards posted in the tram tracks (which changes week to week, but has often been Pocock and Hooper this year), hitting attacking rucks in the midfield is a clear mistake. Fourth, in terms of hitting defensive rucks... Australia need the ball slowed down, especially given our complex defensive structures, and Pocock going digging (and sometimes Latu, when selected) is about the only way that happens. Compare that with the ABs, having a simpler, more effective defensive structure, and their longstanding decision that rucks generally aren't going to be contested. Perhaps they should've contested a bit more on the weekend... Compare it with Wales' technique, where they look to hold up the ball carrier in the tackle, forcing mauls if possible, but at least slowing ruck ball by delaying the formation of the ruck by delaying the player getting to ground. Compare it with Scotland, who often play 3 fetchers. Compare it with England, where Eddie Jones is still horribly disappointed at the lack of local fetchers. I agree that our loose forward selection is unbalanced. But I don't see that taking out the only loose forward we have who is capable of making a consistent difference at the breakdown (compared with the inaccurate and easy to move Hooper and Hanigan, and the solid-but-returning Dempsey - we might not score tries off turnovers, but Pocock does save them with turnovers), the most respected of our loose forwards, is going to improve anything. I actually agree that jackalling isn't everything. But you've got to have someone who can actually turn a ruck into a contest, and that's not the other guys who are currently selected. Claims of Pocock losing his speed are exaggerated. Claims of Hooper's speed are exaggerated. I'll never forget seeing Liam Gill chase down Foley after Hooper held him back in their last clash. Gill outpaced Hooper, caught Foley, then got up and contested the ball before Hooper got to the tackle. Both had a clear run. Meanwhile, Pocock is rarely left embarrassed on the field for pace. He was with Marika for his first try. Pocock also has a much better passing/linking game than Hooper. Hooper's game is heavily focused on the run. He said recently he doesn't have the passing skills to play centre, half in jest. But he's right - that's the area of his game that isn't up to playing centre (and I say that with respect, because he's a very good rugby player). Whereas Pocock developed that area of his game, that was his key reason for playing under Robbie in Japan last December. Is he the messiah? No. But he's clearly our best loose forward, and perhaps rather than patching our loose forwards by picking him and two ineffective blokes, we should look at picking three effective blokes who compliment each other...

2018-11-18T10:03:22+00:00

Julsza

Guest


This article has one major flaw - it claims that the Wallabies have a game plan. The so called super stars - Hooper, Folau, Beale and Foley simply run around like headless chickens. Back row of Farley, Higgingbottom and Pocock should have been developed but everything is about fitting Hooper in the team. The author seems to think the back row only has 2 players - Pocock is not only covering for Hooper but he now has to cover for every number 6 that MC picks. Once Foley is picked the whole Wallaby game is played behind the gain line because he stands so deep.

2018-11-18T08:56:26+00:00

Luke Popplewell

Guest


Terrible article with cherry picked stats. Who won the Eales medal?

2018-11-17T08:32:01+00:00

Stu

Roar Rookie


Yes! My perception too - exactly how I saw them. I would add in the first clip, where Foley was first on the scene, is another example of our undersized athletes for the brutal sport it is now. He made a half arsed cleanout attempt and the guy barely budged, and it was only on a winger, I think? Completely ineffective as always. Lots of Wallabies are loathe to get their heads low in there and just wrestle around up top.. Not much chop.

2018-11-17T08:23:47+00:00

Stu

Roar Rookie


I agree. Sorry HL, but I'm not a fan of using stats as a sole indicator of an idealised outcome. Realtime rugby is anything but idealised when things are happening in realtime. Is there a stat for Pocock's disruptiveness in breakdowns where he's failed in stealing the ball? How do you measure that as a positive value? I'm not sure, but sure as eggs if he's in there, not only is he a dog's breakfast to the fluidity of the opposition's distribution, but the opposition gets terrified of his presence too, and even the refs know he's a proper menace to the opposition, which weighs always in our favour and we don't have a single other player who even starts to do that. Ever seen Folau taking it seriously with his head in the ruck?? But in any case, it's all beside the point, imo. Pocock plays in one super rugby team. They sucked this year, in exactly the same way that all the other Aus conference teams did. The Wallabies suck due to the combined mess of Aus rugby, not the combined mess of Hooper and Pocock. Interesting article though. But given the choice, I'll be happy to keep the one single premium rugby brain we have in Poey.

2018-11-17T07:28:03+00:00

mzilikazi

Roar Pro


Queenstown....one of my most loved areas of NZ. Look forward to what you come up with for the WB's plan to lower the standard of St George, Highlander.

2018-11-17T06:27:07+00:00

Highlander

Guest


Thanks all As we have a likely rain day here in Queenstown tomorrow, I will work on the Wallabies game plan to beat England.

2018-11-17T06:03:03+00:00

mzilikazi

Roar Pro


Well done, CB2. You have rescued the discussion part of this excellent post by Highlander. Thank you.

2018-11-17T05:58:37+00:00

mzilikazi

Roar Pro


"Highlander – Roar rookie" Must be a disguise, CB. Highlander is no rookie, that is for sure !

2018-11-17T05:51:45+00:00

mzilikazi

Roar Pro


Highlander, I think it is just the timing of the article that has caused the lack of good discussion. I only just saw it down the page a bit. So many articles are coming through at the moment, and I am not reading everything by any means. I can see your argument about 6 being Pocock's best position....just a pity he is not taller, and a lineout specialist. One thought I have had about Pocock for a few years now is how he would have turned out if he played for either the Boks or AB's. I think both would have developed him better, and used him to greater effect. Also with the AB's he would have been playing in a strong pack, but would have had to stand in line behind McCaw all those years.

2018-11-17T05:50:28+00:00

Crash Ball2

Guest


Saw the article yesterday HL, but didn’t have the time to respond. I was keeping an eye out though, given our chat earlier in the week. Sometimes I think the currency of a good opinion seems lessened depending upon who is flying the flag. Whilst D Lord’s point that Hooper should neither be the starting 7 or Wallabies Captain is correct. His reasons for that stance are paper thin, and it just gives rise to similarly thin counter-arguments. I understand you were fighting like for like in this instance. But the stats only show that he dual openside model is at fault, not that David Pocock’s selection is. In which case, Pocock as a 6 is patently no different to Pocock as an 8. So again, the central message is confused. Are you arguing that the Pooper be maintained with Pocock at 6 instead of 8? Or that we should be choosing only one of Hooper and Pocock to be in the starting backrow? Because if the former is the point - Pocock at 6 instead of 8 is exactly the same. And if it is the latter, Hooper is ensuring the pine is heated to a steady 27.8 degrees every day of the week and twice on Sunday’s. Even some of the assumptions proffered give a hint to the overlay of clear preconceptions: “ I did not think a comparison of the offensive threat required of a seven even need be discussed as this is somewhat self-evident.” There is a distinct difference between providing a link to, and multi-phase ruck support for, the backline to simply acting as an extra running option within the three quarter channel and flanks of the backline. Across both facets, Pocock’s play has been superior to Hooper’s and, ironically, some of the examples of MH’s consistent mistakes this season are evident in your own supporting videos. Meanwhile, Pocock - Australia’s premier player, winner of the JE medal in an embarrassing canter, having missed a huge chunk of the voting period in 2017 - has his defensive acumen compared to a Wallaby Captain who has been in the top 3 across all Super Rugby teams and players for “ineffective tackles” 4 seasons in a row? David Pocock’s inclusion in the Walabies backrow isn’t causing Michael Hooper to miss more tackles as the article tenuously claims, he’s doing just fine on his own. I appreciate the effort, eloquence and pure volume of your argument HL, as with all of your contributions. Though, there is a Swiss cheese quality to the central tenants of this piece that simply can’t go unchecked, and - like the video proffered earlier in the week that purported to show Pocock’s inadequacy of pace but only illustrated Bernard Foley’s aversion to Defence - the intention of your video evidence and its reality are polar opposite. None the less, thank you for the article HL. It was an interesting read and deserved more comment.

2018-11-17T05:50:16+00:00

Highlander

Guest


Would add Bob I was at the Australia v Ireland test in melbourne, and made a special trip to see it. ( wanted a look at the Irish side in truth ) The wallaby offensive ruck issue was real clear at the ground, not always easy to cut the clips that show wider pictures.

2018-11-17T05:40:18+00:00

jeznez

Roar Guru


Ha ha. Of course mate! Combinations, role definitions, coherent structures are out the window with this coaching team. And certainly not just in the backrow. You could write a similarly styled article about our 10/12 structures, the roles that Beale and Foley have been performing in attack and the impact on our outside backs in defence

2018-11-17T05:34:58+00:00

Charlie Turner

Guest


Nice to see a respectful discourse. Well done HL and CB2.

2018-11-17T05:21:08+00:00

Kiwi Bob

Guest


It's interesting how differently people see things. In the first attacking ruck there five Wallabies involved and none of them hit it with any accuracy. Hooper is the first and only backrower as you would expect, committing more numbers would not have been wise. Where was Timu? Hopefully setting up the midfield pod or preparing to defend a counter attack off turnover. The last ruck was poorly refereed. The Irish 9 failed to roll away and should have been penalised. I'm not saying you're wrong Highlander it's just how plays can be interpreted by different eyes and without the benefit of full field vision. The Wallabies backrow is unbalanced no question. My pov is Pocock to 7, one of Dempsey, Holloway, Higginbotham or Timu to 6 and 8 and that Brumbies fella Naisarani? to 8 when he's eligible. Cottrell looks like a guy who might lift at the next level too. What to do with Hooper? If he was on the Highlanders list I want him coming off the bench with 20 to go. The Wallabies should have switched Pocock to hooker as a 20 year old when Smith was still around. Would've been a world beater.

2018-11-17T04:33:21+00:00

Highlander

Guest


Haha, appreciate the disclosure on his position that day But your point on the combinations that day is well made, where has that gone?

2018-11-17T04:25:46+00:00

jeznez

Roar Guru


To support your argument Pocock was wearing 6 that day! Apart from his attacking ruck cover, what we also saw was Coleman, Arnold and Timani working very well together. Pocock playing behind the gain line never became an issue because Wales never had the pill

2018-11-17T03:51:15+00:00

jeznez

Roar Guru


My guess would be that Pocock went to set up the first pod of 3. The outside backs and an edge forward, in this instance it's Hooper who goes to that position are expected to recycle that pill and three pigs set up inside to provide the next attacking platform I think you've given plenty for people to mull over both in that original article (which I remember well) and in this one. I think your observation about Pocock playing behind the gain line is particularly on point. I'm not trying to make this a clip by clip argument, I'm just trying to say the lack of presence in attacking rucks is not something that has historically been a weak part of DP's game - I believe his lack of pace is not the only reason he isn't showing up. I'd be curious to know how much he has slowed down in the last two years - if at all.

2018-11-17T03:50:39+00:00

Highlander

Guest


Wondered where you'd been CB2 1. Very clear all the captaincy stats were just playing with numbers in response to the Lord 4 from 7 argument. 2. This is not a Hooper vs Pocock piece at all although clear some would read it that way 3. If the selector (s) are going to insist they play together I reckon Pocock in a tightly defined blindside role would add a whole lot more than they way they are playing today 4. And lastly I would rather argue with you on structure and game plans way more than screeds of screen space on speculative selections and line ups. Good to read your response though.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar