Newly appointed Wallabies selector Michael O’Çonnor has raised the prospect of David Pocock being selected as the Wallabies No. 7 over current incumbent captain Michael Hooper.
The selection of ‘The Pooper’, with Hooper at No. 7 and Pocock at No. 8, has been an ongoing debate since Michael Cheika first started playing the two opensides together in 2015.
Many since then have concluded that the initially successful tactic unbalances the back row by denying the Wallabies a tall lineout jumper and/or a big ball runner. With Pocock being acknowledged as the best pilfering No. 7 in the world, O’Connor’s suggestion that Hooper should be relegated to the bench is shared by many.
However, Pocock has suffered many injuries that have kept him off the field, with the rigours of sticking his head in dark places and being targeted for neck rolls by opponents increasingly catching up with him. He lasted five minutes in the Brumbies season opener against the Rebels on the weekend before being taken off with a concussion. It raises the question of whether his teams, both the Brumbies and the Wallabies, rely too much on his abilities at the ruck and whether he could be used more judiciously.
In the case of the Wallabies it needs to be remembered that if it were not for the presence of David Pocock, there would be no question ever raised about the suitability of Michael Hooper as No. 7. Hooper doesn’t have Pocock’s presence at the breakdown, but he more than makes his contribution by typically taking the largest defensive workload of any player when he plays and is one of the best attacking flankers in the world. Peter Samu and Tom Cusack can play pretty much the same role as Hooper does for the Brumbies as Hooper does with the Wallabies.
As much as Pocock contributes, the Wallabies and the Brumbies have won big games with other players at No. 7, backed up with more traditional loose forwards at No. 6 and No. 8. It may be time for Pocock’s coaches to consider how to use him in a way that maximises his impact while preserving his body for the sake of his teams and, more importantly, for his own long-term welfare.
The best way to do this might be to use him as a ‘finisher’ off the bench, to be brought on as an impact player late in the game. Having Pocock on the bench would allow coaches to minimise the number of minutes he plays and therefore his injury risk, as he would not need to be brought on while his teams are well ahead, but he could still be brought in if they were in trouble.
David Pocock. (Supplied)
Pocock was used in this way in 2015 against the Springboks in Brisbane, playing the last 40 minutes while the Wallabies were struggling to contain the Boks at the breakdown and setting the team up for a tight win. This approach could be particularly effective against fast-finishing teams like the All Blacks, with Pocock being introduced just as they get on a roll and helping to shut down the onslaught.
Moreover, it is possible that his teams rely too much on Pocock to generate turnovers when he starts. Having him as a backup may provide an opportunity for his teammates to step up and do more work to get the ball back themselves, presenting opponents with multiple challenges when it comes to keeping the ball.
Of course the approach would entail a risk trade-off, with the potential for problems if Pocock were to get injured after coming in off the bench and leaving the team short of a loose forward at the end of the game. However, that risk could be mitigated by playing locks like Adam Coleman and Isaac Rodda, who can reliably play the 80 minutes, and by selecting players like Luke Jones, Rob Simmons, Lukhan Salakaia-Loto or Jed Holloway, who can play both as locks and loose forwards. A 6-2 forward-back split would be another option.
Finally, it is important to note that Pocock himself has raised concerns about his health as a result of the type of work expected of him. He does not appear to have an ego that would make being a ‘finisher’ unacceptable to him, so it may be an idea that he would find acceptable.
Poey has been an outstanding servant to Australian rugby and he definitely has more to contribute. However, after a decade of him doing some of the toughest stuff on the park, it is time that Australian rugby thought about how to look after him in a way that best benefits the team and ensures his long-term health rather than just flogging him towards inevitable injury.
piru
Roar Rookie
Run him at 7, if he gets injured, run the 2nd best 7 I mean it's not rocket science.
LifestyleSpecialist
Roar Rookie
Fact is Poey and Hooper are given different roles by their coaches. Poey is on ball and Hooper plays wider. You can't compare them directly. I'd argue that lack of a genuine ball running backrower and having sh!te defence (hello Foley, Beale and the musical chairs system) has hampered both Poey and Hooper with them having to shoulder extra burdens. Few seem to remember when Hooper started he made his name for himself as a jackler. Was World Rugby Rookie of the year and polled 3rd in the John Eales Medal that first year. Check out this package of Hooper in his debut Wallaby year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94BdgBBUEGU
LifestyleSpecialist
Roar Rookie
That's not what the article is getting at. He is the best on ball 7 but is injury prone. Is it worth running him off the bench?
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
"All you are arguing for is to start matches with a particular 7 and attaching your explanation of why." No I'm not, I'm advocating finishing matches with a particular 7 and attaching my reason why. Perhaps I should have said "another 7" instead of Hooper, to avoid people getting fixated on him, but I think it is clear that the article is actually about Pocock.
piru
Roar Rookie
If Pocock had played in NZ, he'd have served an apprenticeship behind Richie and would now be starting, and probably captain. Only in Australia would this even be an argument - I've been following it for years and still don't get how anyone with a straight face can suggest he is not the obvious number 7.
Ralph
Roar Guru
The comparison with McCaw, to me, just casts another light on McCaws amazing career. There is no doubt number seven is a roll that has a particular physical load quite different from other roles (which can also be hugely physical but in a different way). International number sevens are always going to get targeted and with brutal defence the ticket going into RWC this is going to be a huge year for those guys - especially if they are carrying any kind of long term injury.
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
I haven’t really been following the Tahs this season so I’m talking based on what I have seen of Hooper previously. As I indicated elsewhere though, the idea could easily apply to Gill, McMahon or Hardwick.
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
“ ‘Pooper’ is a disaster because, at the Test level, Pocock find himself having to do the breakdown work of him AND Hooper, and without the support of a big body on the blindside to help him out.” That is a very valid point. Thinking about how Adam Thompson would follow and cocoon Liam Gill when he was over the ball, while they were playing together at the Reds, demonstrates what is lacking st the Wallabies.
Don
Roar Rookie
Hi Rhys, You aren’t really advocating for anything that breaks conventions. All you are arguing for is to start matches with a particular 7 and attaching your explanation of why. All anyone else is saying is, not to stick with convention, but simply start picking the best player in position to start. Now, if Michael Cheika actually grew a pair and stated that in his opinion Michael Hooper is who he considers our best starting option at 7, then people would at least have to accept that while he was sole selector he has the right to pick who he wants. Instead he has just selected both and said that they are both critical and done it to the detriment of the side.
Realist271
Guest
Rodda? Lolz
Realist271
Guest
How about Cheika selects some other decent in form forwards to help him at the ruck? Hooper, Dempsey, Hanigan, Simmons all terrible in that area. This article is off the mark.
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
Puff you are seriously under-rating Pocock value. Not only is he the best breakdown exponent in the world he's also one of the best defenders. He's certainly the best defender in the WB squad. Then ad on his on field leadership, discipline, ball carrying ability, link play in attack, calmness under pressure, supreme fitness and toughness and ......... The guy is a warrior that leads from the front. He should be 1st player picked at No 7 and captain imo. Pocock is the type of warrior they should be building a team around. By all means manage his work rate to keep him fit and healthy. Exactly how that's done will take great skill. Handled right he's got another 3-4 great years
BrumbiesMan
Guest
Interesting article, but I reckon Cheika's wrong-headed and biased selection policy has led to this very issue. 'Pooper' is a disaster because, at the Test level, Pocock find himself having to do the breakdown work of him AND Hooper, and without the support of a big body on the blindside to help him out. What's Hooper going to do to protect Pocock from a vicious cleanout? Teams can and do double-team Pocock, and the Wallabies forwards cannot protect him. The Brumbies aren't the problem: they can win without Pocock, and have had to do so for years. I read that Pocock has played less than half of his scheduled matches at the Brumbies, through injury, and through no fault of the Brumbies. When the Brumbies signed him, he already had weak knees from overuse and lack of big protection - think Matt Hodge - at the Force. Two seasons ago, Pocock turned up at the Brumbies preseason camp already broken from a stint in Japan! In fact, I would argue the Brumbies are the only Australian team (National or Provincial) who have tried to manage and protect Pocock. And, when he plays for the Brumbies, he nearly always has a big, quality 6 to protect and help him out. And when he can't play, the Brumbies have the depth. Okay, when the Brumbies lost him early against the Rebels they put on Samu and had no backrow replacement for 74 mins and, not surprisingly, they struggled. Yet Cusack did just fine against the Chiefs last night, and McCaffrey is an underrated backrower who can both fetch and carry, and is reliable in defence. The Brumbies also get turnovers from second rowers Carter and Arnold. Brumbies can make do without Pocock. Of course they'd rather use him: that's why they signed him, and that's why they pay him. Yet they have options. The Wallabies, not so much. And as I mentioned previously, when Pocock plays for the Brumbies he's had a big Valetini, Vaea, Naisarani, etc at blindside, and a decent Number 8. That is a huge help! It means the 6 and 8 can tie up their opposite numbers at the ruck, leaving Pocock with just the 7. Fair contest, no double-team, and less chance for the opposition to really work Pocock over and take him out.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
“there would be no question ever raised about the suitability of Michael Hooper as No. 7. Hooper doesn’t have Pocock’s presence at the breakdown, but he more than makes his contribution by typically taking the largest defensive workload of any player when he plays..” Not sure if we’ve been watching the same games. Hooper’s already misses 5 tackles in two games this season. Don’t think Pocock has missed that many in his career. No impact at the gain line. Gets pushed back or away in tackles as Savea did to him a couple of times at the gain line last week. Embarrassing! Dempsey and Hannigan were more effective in support and attack than Hooper yesterday. Don’t mind your idea about protecting Pocock so much, but In that scenario the starting 7 should be someone like McMahon, Gill, etc.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
Hi Rhys Moreover, it is possible that his teams rely too much on Pocock to generate turnovers when he starts. Having him as a backup may provide an opportunity for his teammates to step up and do more work to get the ball back themselves, presenting opponents with multiple challenges when it comes to keeping the ball. Arguably solid evidence for your point, in the top performance by Brumbies' pack last night! Cheers KP
terrykidd
Roar Pro
Nice article which raises a few questions. Is Pocock our best player? He is up there but right now I reckon Rodda is close to our best. Will Pocock last the season and/or will this be his last season. My thoughts are that he will not last the season and that either way this will be his last season. So I reckon the questions posed in this article will get solved.
Minz
Guest
Went to a Brumbies game a couple of years back where Pocock was being grabbed around the neck virtually every ruck. Guess who got a card for grabbing people around the neck? Yep, that's right, only Pocock. I expect he had figured it was open season; must've been surprised to find it was one rule for him, another if against him. Absolute rubbish.
CJ
Guest
I did a bit of PI law back in the day and can say with some knowledge that a neck injury is not something to be trifled with. Can also say from personal experience that I've woken up with 'crink necks' twice in my life. Remember every minute of them. Certainly, wasn't up to sticking my head in a ruck and being cleaned out by a Liam Squire!
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
I agree Ken, WR should be stamping the tactic out. I for one am sick to death of the supporters of certain regular perpetrators making a hullabaloo every time their players get penalised for “pushing to the limits of the rules”, and I am even sicker of the inevitable spineless capitulation by World Rugby. But in the meantime, are the Wallabies just going to let Poey’s neck get ruined, or should they get a little more creative about how they use him to prevent that happening? That is all that I am suggesting.
Tony H
Roar Pro
With the exception of Hooper being the current captain.. Or Foley being the current 10.