A sneak preview of the new Wallabies selection panel's first meeting

Waxhead There’s this organisation called World Rugby. They have a system of ranking teams based on their results. Actually it is the same one that you mentioned earlier. They’re not dubious at all. My ‘highly selective list’ is in fact the only times that Pocock has been captain. The fact you call it highly selective might point to the fact he’s never really been incumbent Wallabies captain. Yes he has been out injured for two years and chose to read books for a third. He may be your best bet for No7, I won’t get into that argument with you, but the argument that you presented in your last comment ‘Back in the good old days when WBs were no 2 in the world Pocock was captain and a great one too.’ Doesn’t actually state why he was a good captain and also doesn’t explain why the regressed in the rankings and ranking points. Your argument about making good onfield decisions is interesting. I seem to remember watching them play at home against Scotland. Pocock the great captain he is turned down a kick in front as he opted to go to the corner and subsequently lost the game. I don’t disagree that Hooper shouldn’t be captain. But Pocock is no better. If he was a genuine captain he would be picked as captain for all the teams he plays in. But he’s not?

"Being dismissive of somebody who clearly has an axe to grind and who isn’t interested in alternative points of view." Buy a mirror.

"Regardless, great effort in purporting that to state an opinion on a rugby fan portal one must apply to RA first. How did your own application go? Or does this process only apply to those who hold a different view to your own" Not really, it was more of a case of being dismissive of somebody who clearly has an axe to grind and who isn't interested in alternative points of view.

Yep, Deans - who thought a gutsy but bantam weight, upright running, non-passing, moderately fast Pat McCabe would be the ideal Gold 12 or "a fullstop in the middle of a sentence" as Bob Dwyer once described this horrible selection. Or perhaps McKenzie who thought that senior rugby players like Beale, AAC or Hooper might be reasonably asked to respect agreed team protocols or, at least, professionally accept the consequences of not doing so without unapologetically and systematically white anting the boss. Mistakes all. Regardless, great effort in purporting that to state an opinion on a rugby fan portal one must apply to RA first. How did your own application go? Or does this process only apply to those who hold a different view to your own?

I was talking about Deans, he kept us at second or third in the World and won Super Rugby five times. But by all means send RA your CV and tell them how you know better.

Well, success is a subjective topic as well Rhys isn’t it? At international level, over many (far, far too many) terminal seasons, I’m not sure that the worst Australian test coach of the professional era (and about 30 years prior) might be categorised as “successful”. Coaches have opinions. Coaches make mistakes – like the rest of us. Hanigan is an test class backrower. That’s one opinion. Dean Mumm was a better footballer than Scott Fardy. That’s another opinion. Nick Phipps could hit the side of a barn with an elephant at least 3 times out of 10. There’s a hat trick right there. Squeezing an out of form, narrowly skilled backrower onto the Wallabies bench would just be the next mistake amongst a cavalcade of Cheika’s selection trainwrecks. But fear not, Hooper is likely to be wearing 7 regardless so the conversation is largely moot.

"A bench backrower is needed to cover 6, 7 and 8. Hooper is not the best option for that because of the narrowness and nature of his skill set." An opinion that at it's crux, has not been supported by the practices of successful international coaches.

It is you that is attempting to obfuscate. Classic straw man stuff. And circular in nature. If Poey is uninjured, Hooper is unneeded given the options available to the Wallabies and Hooper’s current lack of form. I’ve even nominated a potential alignment that fits the bill. As for your “100%” red herring, here’s the line Champion: “. If a player is fit and ready to go at the start of any match“. Very, very different scenario from selecting an injured, out of form player before the starting whistle even blows as Cheika did when he brought back Hooper too early from long term injury last season. In comparison, as you might have noted, Pocock’s return from injury and long term lay off in 2018 showed him as not just the best backrower or forward, but indeed, Australia’s best player. A bench backrower is needed to cover 6, 7 and 8. Hooper is not the best option for that because of the narrowness and nature of his skill set. If Pocock is injured prior to the match, Hooper should compete with whoever is in frame for the 7 jersey based on form. If Poey’s not injured prior to the match, Hooper should wear a suit on game day. It’s actually a pretty straight forward proposition. And many are making it.

You are changing what you are arguing as you go, arguing with me on points that I haven’t disagreed on and ignoring key facts. The original point that a bench 7 is needed to cover injury prone Pocock stands. If you don’t want to select players who aren’t 100%, you would never pick Pocock, because he has always been injury prone, and your mate Hooper would be starting anyway. Would that be your preferred outcome? As it is Deans used to pick Hooper on the bench to back up Pocock and Gill to back up Hooper when they started. That was when they had a 22 man squad to begin with as well, when they didn’t have the sane flexibility to pick s lock/flanker as they do now. So the issue you raise about flexibility for the bench loose forward is a non issue.

@ Kane. Where did you get those dubious stats from ? Even if we accept them - and I certainly do not - you've presented a highly selective and non representative list imo. You ask - "how can you have a captain play in 34% of tests?" Well as you should know Poey was injured for 2 yrs then had another year out. The fact is he's back and is now the best option for No 7 and captain. You have totally ignored the most important part of the matter. In the Tests where he has been captain Pocock was excellent. He made good on field decisions and led well from the front. If he's injured, or rested, the backup should be Genia with Coleman as VC imo. On form of 2018 and 19 Hooper does not deserve a run on position and he's been a poor captain imo over past 3 yrs. So there should be a new captain. My opinion is that Pocock & Genia are 2 much better options. But unless Cheika is over-ruled I've no doubt he'll pick favourite Waratah Hooper again for both positions.

And if Hooper remained injury cover for better players, as logically he would have, no one would be blinking an eyelid because, as you say, he is second (sometimes, less) best. Every single one of his starting caps under Deans and McKenzie, came when the best; and preferred, openside flanker was unavailable. Pocock or Smith suddenly becomes available for Robbie or Ewan – Hooper caps with a single digit jersey: zero. Simple. Under Cheika however, the overwhelming majority of those starting caps came as a direct consequence of his abysmal, fatally flawed, and now almost universally panned first XV selection accommodation/abomnination. Cheika’s blind insistence on starting Hooper, carte blanche regardless of form or function, is absolutely the problem. Right again. Because with the best 7 rightly installed – at 7 – and Hooper non-viable as bench backrow cover for 6 and 8 (or any other position), this whole discussion becomes a total non-event. Hooper is a worthy 50-test second stringer whose opportunities came through default rather than dominance in his chosen position. No shame there. Great opportunistic career. AU$6M precious funds spent more judiciously (unlikely knowing RA). Ardie Savea on the other hand is a far more versatile backrower than Hooper. He is indeed a dynamic player, but also dominates the central gainline, clears rucks with venom, links as well as runs and possesses breakdown currency going both ways. He’s not just gravy, but meat and potatoes also. Different animal. Covers his central requirements before adding the glitter. And when Cane starts, Ardie doesn’t. Good coaching – no attempt to compromise core requirements for extras. How refreshing that must be for AB fans.

Respectfully, Hooper was selected off the bench for Pocock and then as the preferred starting number 7 while Pocock was injured from 2012 to 2014 by Robbie Deans and Ewan McKenzie, He had played 37 test matches before Michael Cheika was even coach. There are plenty of things you can blame Cheika for but getting Hooper his big game experience isn’t one of them. He got that because he is the second best seven in the country and the best one keeps getting injured. There isn’t very much between them in terms of individual impact on a game, Pocock is only on 56% win percentage to Hooper’s 50% and Pocock has been in three wins over the All Blacks since 2008, while Hooper has been in two since 2012. Regarding the problems with the Wallabies pack, that is to do with Cheika’s insistence on starting them together, which I think has ceased being an innovative idea and has become more to do with politics. If Hooper is started with a conventional large 6 and 8 he is fine. The All Blacks did the same thing with Michael Jones and don’t have a problem doing the same with Ardie Savea if Sam Cane is unavailble, both similar x-factor players to Hooper and demonstrate how the approach clearly works.

Respectfully, Hooper has “big game experience” because Cheika selects him regardless of form, capability or performance. It is the classic flaw in the “test cap” measurement. Ned Hanigan has almost 20 test caps - many of those what one might be considered “big game” caps. He doesn’t deserve about, ah, 20 of them. Hooper certainly has “x-factor”. It segues nicely with his “rag doll factor” - which is a metric about as tangible, measurable and objective as “x factor”. I’m not convinced that his ethereal “balance of capabilities” makes up for the patent lack of impact the Wallabies forward pack subsequently experiences at the collision point, central gainline, set piece, maul and breakdown that provides due equity. If we needed a good tramline positioned, support line running x-factor player in Gold, half of the team are designated as “backs”, pick any double figure numbered Gold jersey and take a stab. Hooper’s own long term, serious injury occurred in the first few minutes of a test match. That’s the nature of injuries. If a player is fit and ready to go at the start of any match - pick him on form and capability. If he’s not 100%, don’t pick him at all, and then review the alternatives. Too many red herrings being thrown out currently as reasons to insulate a guy who is not only not the best player in his position, but also, not even in form. Currently Hooper can play one spot. And he’s not the best at it. He’s not versatile enough for the bench loosie spot and therefore, press your pinstripe suit next game day Mike. Just lucky Cheika is still clinging on to his clipboard.

Pocock has captained all of 7 tests? His win rate as captain is less than 1% different than his win rate under other captains. When Pocock captained his first Wallaby test match, the Wallabies were already ranked No2, they subsequently lost that game and then won the next three before losing his last test in charge. After his first stint as captain the Wallabies had 1.80 less ranking points than what they had prior. Since then the Wallabies have played 93 tests and Pocock has been captain in 2 of them for an away win over France and a home loss to Argentina. Pocock has been involved in just 32 of those 93 tests. How can you have a captain play in 34% of tests? The final two tests Pocock has been captain the Wallabies were third playing seventh ranked France and gained 0.63 ranking points but remained 3rd, and fifth playing ninth ranked Argentina and lost 2.00 ranking points and two spots to seventh which in case you have a short memory is the lowest they have ever been ranked. So overall, Pocock's seven games in charge have resulted in the Wallabies losing two spots on the ladder to an all time low and 3.17 ranking points.

I disagree, if Pocock went down in the first five minutes of a game like he did in the first Brumbies match against the Rebels, Hooper is by far the best bench option to replace him. He brings big game experience, work rate, speed and x-factor that no other 7 in the country has, Sean McMahon comes close but he isn’t available for selection. The breakdown is only one dimension of the 7s game, it involves a balance of capabilities and Hooper’s other capabilities with the ball, far exceed what he gives up on the deck. The Wallabies have won big games with only Hooper playing, including the last time against the All Blacks, it is when you try to run Hooper and Pocock together that we get problems. As for the other locks and back rowers we should only be playing 80 minute players anyway, so there shouldn’t be a need to sub unless there is an injury. I would rather see a 19 like Salakaia-Loto, Simmons, Jones or Holloway, who can cover a lock or a back row spot should there be an injury.

The selectors will just get together over a few beers and agree with the team Cheika picks, though Cheika will consider recommendations. It’s another layer to protect the ra Ceo. Hooper hardly gets injured that’s why he will always be in the 23 and unlike Poey has an attacking component to his game.

I cant believe nobody is talking about Rangi. He is easily Aus best hooker at the moment in all aspects of play. No he doesn't have the experience but he surely needs to be a look in for the squad

Have you seen Deegan play? If you had, I doubt you would be making that comment.

Good comment Also, notice how in 2015 Cheika was hailed as genius for his selection of “finishers” not reserves and waxed lyrical about the importance and strategy. Just a couple of years and plenty of losses later there was no mention of finishers? The real difference? When winning he can take credit for anything and pass it off as good planning. When losing he deflects it as “working towards something better.” Ultimately, he got lucky with the form of some guys from the bench for a while and his luck ran out. He’s no Rugby genius. He’s a fraud.