The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

It is time to give Quade Cooper a fair go

Autoplay in... 6 (Cancel)
Up Next No more videos! Playlist is empty -
Replay
Cancel
Next
Roar Guru
16th March, 2019
197
3097 Reads

On Friday Will Knight wrote an article entitled ‘Calm down over Quade’, and it’s about time someone put together a rebuttal.

Aside from the fact that Quade Cooper had played three good matches in a position where the Wallabies have struggled for direction for years – whereas Ned Hanigan had only one moderately good game in a position a lot of Australian players are currently playing well – the article repeated the same criticisms, red herrings and misleading claims that are repeated again and again about Cooper.

But this isn’t meant as a direct rebuttal to Will’s piece; rather it’s a general rebuttal of those same criticisms that are repeated against Quade and will serve to highlight the dual standards applied to Cooper and all other Australian players.

Criticism 1: Quade is a poor defender
This criticism is actually true. Cooper’s defence is indeed weak. He is always one of the poorest defenders in any team he plays in.

However, where this criticism becomes absurd is that it ignores two very important things: First, that flyhalves are almost always one of the poorest defenders in any team and, second, Cooper’s defence is not manifestly worse than his competitors for the Wallabies flyhalf jersey.

Along with halfbacks, flyhalves are usually one of the two smallest players in a team. They are selected for their skill and ability to lead the team around, not for their physical prowess.

One of Cooper’s two competitors for the flyhalf jersey is Bernard Foley, who is an equally average defender.

Advertisement

According to Fox Rugby stats, in Super Rugby 2019 Foley has made 30 tackles and missed 16 for a 65 per cent success rate. Foley is missing four tackles on average a game and making only 7.5. Foley’s poor tackle rate in 2019 is not out of the ordinary and is fairly reflective of his long-term defensive results.

Cooper has made 14 tackles and missed eight, for a 64 per cent success rate. He is making 4.6 tackles a game and missing only 2.6.

The results are similar, but this ignores the fact that Cooper has made some spectacular try-saving tackles. Were it not for Cooper’s two try-saving tackles on Tevita Kuridrani in Round 1 and another likely try-saving tackle on Pete Samu, the Rebels would almost certainly have lost that game.

When compared to Christian Lealiifano, who has made 27 tackles and missed seven for an 80 per cent success rate, making 6.7 a match and missing only 1.75, they are both poor defenders.

However, Foley is the incumbent and the player Cooper is usually compared against, and defence is not a way of separating the two players.

Quade Cooper

Quade Cooper of the Rebels. (Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images)

Criticism 2: Quade is error-prone
This criticism is sometimes true but potentially less accurate than it was in the past, and it also ignores the types of errors he commits.

Advertisement

Back in 2011, when Cooper was by far the best No. 10 in Super Rugby, he was error-prone, but the fact is that players who chance their arm going for genius plays will make errors. It is no surprise that Roger Federer virtually always made more unforced errors than Lleyton Hewitt, David Ferrer or Andy Murray, but which of these will be remembered as the better player?

In a 2018 article Ben Smith noted that the conventional wisdom that Foley was safe was a fallacy. When that article was written after Round 7, Foley had the most turnovers of any Super Rugby flyhalf, and in the previous season he had made only three fewer turnovers than Cooper.

The primary difference between the two is that Cooper is a mercurial but genius attacker. Foley, on the other hand, has long been presented as the ‘safe’ alternative to Cooper.

The reason Cooper’s lows are more obvious is that his highs are so much higher than Foley’s. Does it make any sense to opt for someone whose lows are just as low as Cooper’s but whose highs are nowhere near as high?

Criticism 3: Quade lacks a running game
This was a central point of Will’s commentary. While it is true that Quade’s running game has sadly largely disappeared since his 2011 injuries, it ignores the fact that a great running game is nowhere near as important to a flyhalf as great playmaking abilities.

Cooper’s running game has been absent since 2011, but his greatest period for the Wallabies was from the 2013 Dunedin Bledisloe to the end of the spring tour. Cooper guided the Wallabies around wonderfully on a tour that they very nearly won a grand slam. He was named man of the match against both Wales and Ireland. All this despite his running game.

Foley had a wonderful running game from 2014 to 2018. However, during this time results have been appalling and the Wallabies have struggled with direction at No. 10. This is because Foley often struggles to engage his outside backs. Because of this, the Wallabies have been forced to select a second playmaker at inside centre, usually Kurtley Beale, which has resulted in abominable defensive results.

Advertisement

Despite playing in one of the key defensive positions in the team, where defence should be non-negotiable, Beale’s defence is on a par with Foley’s and Cooper’s.

Quade Cooper after the Wallabies loss to Scotland

Quade Cooper playin gofr the Wallabies (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)

Criticism 4: Quade is a poor goal-kicker
This, again, is true – Cooper is not a great goal kicker. But this ignores the fact that Foley and Lealiifano are not strong goal-kickers either.

Foley has currently made 65 per cent of goal-kicking attempts. Worse still, he has made only five of ten conversion attempts for a 50 per cent success rate, while he has made eight out of ten penalty attempts. This lends credence to the claims that fans make that Foley’s boot is very limited, with him choosing to take easy penalties artificially boosting his rate.

He missed a kick almost directly in front that would have seen the Waratahs beat the Hurricanes in Round 1, and he also missed two kicks almost directly in front against the Brumbies.

While he made a very good kick against the Crusaders to win the 2014 Super Rugby title and another very good one against Scotland to win the 2015 World Cup quarter-final, he is no sharpshooter off the tee. Foley had to make that penalty to win the match because he missed three of five conversion attempts in that match. In the second Bledisloe in 2017 Foley had only a 33 per cent kicking percentage.

Cooper’s kicking percentage sits at 62 per cent by comparison. He has made eight of 13 conversions and two of three penalties. Given Cooper has a 62 per cent conversion rate and does not get to choose whether to kick, it is reasonable to assume that if Cooper made the same decision to kick penalties like Foley, his percentage would be above Foley.

Advertisement

This is not to argue that kicking percentages is a reason to select Cooper over Foley, but it shows that kicking is not a good way of separating the two players.

Criticism 5: Quade is not as good as X
Quade is often compared with a mythical benchmark. On Friday Will noted that he was not as capable as Handre Pollard of South Africa or Owen Farrell of England.

Even ignoring the fact that Cooper can do things in attack that neither Farrell nor Pollard are capable of, Will may as well have said that Cooper was not as good as Stephen Larkham or Dan Carter. While true, it is utterly irrelevant. Cooper can only be compared against the other Wallabies No. 10 options when it comes to national selection.

Quade Cooper

Quade Cooper playing for Brisbane City. (Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)

Criticism 6: Quade was dropped by ‘X’ coaches so must be a bad influence or a poor player
Examining the facts presents a very different narrative. Over 2010-11 Cooper was Robbie Deans’s preferred Wallabies flyhalf. He was dropped in 2012 when he struggled to get back to form after his 2011 knee injury. Any sensible coach would choose not to select a player if they were struggling for form after an injury.

In his biography Deans said very clearly that the reason Cooper was not selected against the Lions in 2013 was for reasons of form. He did not think Cooper was taking the ball to the line as much as he did before his injury. One can agree or disagree with this claim, but Deans also said that Cooper was returning to form after his injury. There is no reason to think this is evidence of fundamental opposition to Cooper.

Toulon’s coach did not drop Cooper per se either. Despite Toulon playing a very defensive style of game, Cooper was rotated through matches along with Matt Giteau and Jonny Wilkinson, playing matches at both fullback and flyhalf.

Advertisement

Michael Cheika did indeed drop Cooper, allegedly for not enjoying his rugby. However, Cheika’s selections are much maligned, such as choosing Dean Mumm and Ned Hanigan ahead of Scott Fardy, and he has returned abysmal results as Wallabies coach every year other than 2015.

Brad Thorn also dropped Cooper. In addition to some horrific results with the Reds, including a 63-28 thrashing by the poor Sunwolves in 2018 and taking the Reds to the lowest-ranked Australian team, Thorn dropped Cooper for Hamish Stewart in December 2017. Stewart has since struggled at Super Rugby level, with Thorn preferring other players he has since gained in Jono Lance, Bryce Hegarty and now the young Isaac Lucas. This showed an appalling lack of judgment and planning.

Therefore the only two coaches who can be said to have dropped him have shown poor judgment, had abysmal results and are criticised for their coaching and selections. This could count in Cooper’s favour, indicating that only unsuccessful coaches have a history of dropping him.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Conclusion
For years Cooper has been held to a different standard to other Australian players, especially when compared to his competitor for the flyhalf jersey, Foley. This has gone back to the 2011 World Cup, when Cooper was held accountable for a poor campaign in which selections and tactics by Deans were poor.

Overall, when Cooper plays, the Wallabies have a 61 per cent win percentage, an 18 per cent win percentage in the Bledisloe Cup, a 58 per cent win percentage in the Rugby Championship and a 75 per cent win percentage in world cups.

Advertisement

With Foley the Wallabies have a 49 per cent win percentage overall, a 17 per cent wn percentage in the Bledisloe Cup, a 50 per cent win percentage in the Rugby Championship and a 84 per cent win percentage in world cups.

Foley’s overall percentage is boosted hugely by the 2015 World Cup anomaly. Despite Cooper’s Rugby Championship statistics, including back when it was the Tri-nations and therefore did not include the far easier matches against Argentina that Foley has had, his results are still far better.

Australia has won only 31 per cent (11 of 31) of its Test matches since the World Cup when Foley has started at No. 10 but has won 50 per cent (two of four) Tests when Cooper has started, with the two losses being to South Africa on the Highveld and to the All Blacks in New Zealand.

He can do incredible things on a rugby field, things that Lealiifano and Foley could only dream of, and he combines brilliantly with Will Genia and is currently the form flyhalf in Australia.

It is time that Cooper was held to the same standard as everyone else in Australia, especially compared to Foley, and given a fair chance to wear the Wallabies jersey. Whoever proves themselves the best Australian flyhalf this year should be given the Wallabies jersey.

close