Is Hooper...bettah than Pocock ?

[Big Ewis]

Hooper is seriously underway for player of the year, or at least plays at that caliber. He's got better and better almost exponentially, and his game seems to grow with versatility as well overtime. He's not just some quick to the rucks openside now, he does a bunch of stuff. I don't think he's got Pocock's fetching ability, that guy was the most impressive I've ever seen, with Steffon Armitage somewhere close. Those two guys with their low centers of gravity are/were immovable when on their feet.
Anyways: Hooper has become a very complete player and seems even more active and all over the place than his elder countryman. He's much better ball in hand, he probably tackles better, seems to have a bigger motor/stamina/workrate, is more athletic and quick off his feet, has an attacking dimension Pocock didn't have and is much more prone to score tries, and still so very young (22yo).

What do you think ?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's really hard to make a proper comparison as Pocock hasn't really played rugby in the last...two years?
Before his run of injuries he was absolutely immense, but then Hooper looks that way now.

 

[TheSaffycen]

At Pocock's best Hooper wouldn't get a chance. Pocock is a better tackler and jackler, but Hooper is good at both and adds a running game. If he gets fit maybe they will play duel-opensides..

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

do feel sorry for pocock now a days he's just always getting injured.

 

[Gavin]

Two completely different players really. Both are fantastic pilferers of the ball but Hooper run a lot better, whereas Pocock has strength. Wouldn't mind seeing both playing on each side of the scrum.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

If Hooper can win games against us on his own like Pocock has done in the past (okay, so he was allowed to get away with murder numerous times but that is not part of the record now) I'll seriously entertain the idea. Not that I don't think Hooper is a phenominal player but he still has a tad wee bit to go to pass Pocock IMO.

 

[lynam1104]

While playign them dual flankers is a tasty thought, bring Hooper and his running game off the bench in the last 20 would also be an option to consider.

 

[Big Ewis]

If Hooper can win games against us on his own like Pocock has done in the past I'll seriously entertain the idea.

I hear you there, Pocock would literally shut the ball down in those rucks. Cleanest fetching you'll see, and I'm sure we're both thinking about that same game against the Boks when he stops the attack 7m from his line and turns it over all by himself with like 4 Saffa forwards on his back. Dude was brutal, brutal, brutal at the bdown. But then Hooper has such a well rounded game, so quick, athletic, versatile...

And yes if I've got the chance, i.e. if Pocock returns to his old form, somewhat, I'm starting Pocock+Hooper. Fucck OS and BS, if I've got both available I want that combination at the same time. The opposing team better commit at the bdown all game long.

 

[Darwin]

On current form Hooper is better than Pocock. That is mainly because Pocock has no current form, as he hasn't played any rugby for the last few years....

Which of the two is better at full fitness is an interesting question. Personally I don't think Hooper is better than Pocock, but if he continues the way he is he will certainly be at the same level. When fit they are they two best 7's in world rugby IMO, they have quite different styles though.

Where Hooper stands out is with his ball running. Despite his lack of size he is an incredibly dynamic ball runner - his pace from a standing start is one of his biggest assets. He links well with his backs (as does Pocock), and is very good at the breakdown (though not at the same level as Pocock), and is a good defender these days. When fit Pocock is the best breakdown exponent in world rugby, and also in my opinion the best defense 7 in world rugby. He makes a ridiculous number of tackles per match - on average perhaps probably 5-6 more tackles than Hooper (based on Super Rugby stats) - and makes these tackles at a phenomenal success rate (his Super Rugby tackling % is often around 96-98%, whereas Hooper - and most other loose-forwards - tackle at closer to 90%).

Simply put Hooper is a much better when your team has the ball, Pocock is much better when the opposition has the ball. As has been mentioned Australia's best option when both are fit may well be to play dual opensides. The only issue with this is it would leave them short of lineout options (which is already an issue when Skelton comes onto the field). They would probably be better off starting McCalman at 8 rather than Palu (as he is a slightly better lineout option IMO) - if they still had Ben Mowen they would be set though, as his style of play and lineout expertise would have been the ideal complement to dual opensides...

 

[Guilty]

I think Darwin just nailed it, couldn't agree more. Hooper does it all where as Pocock was the tackle and jagkle master. Considering our depth at #7, if Pocock could get back to his RWC 2011 form then I think we would absolutely want to start then both and play the dual open side game everyone has mentioned. Pocock is easily big enough to cover the blindside at scrum time. What a back row that would make to watch... To answer the question, at their bests I think David Pocock was better but I expect Michael Hooper to surpass him shortly.

Pocock ever getting back on form is a huge IF though. Hasn't he done both ACL's in the last two years? I can't imagine him being the same player if we were to stay healthy but I would love to be wrong.

 

[Big Ewis]

I don't know if the following is utter BS, I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe for Pocock's style, coming back from injury isn't as bad as for other players. For example, in basketball, you get problems in the ACL's, you're done for. We've seen cases of guys returning close to very good form, but still. Here, he'll clearly be a lot less mobile, and with the aging anyways, he surely won't return to prime form. But for the fetcher he is, maybe the surgery (?) he got won't affect him as badly as we think. I don't know how much ACL knee injuries affect a person's ability to get strong position on the ground. Maybe with lots of leg strengthening at the gym, he can get back to a solid level in that deptmt ?

And oh how I'd love to see them both at it at the same time...would be fkn awesome, and as you said Guilty Pocock's big enough to play 6 anyways.

And I'd have imagined Hooper would be the more prolific tackler, just based on his mobility and absolute ubiquity on the field, but I'll take Darwin's word for it Pocock is in fact.
It's pretty interesting as Pocock was the best 7 in the world during his time, and now it's Hooper. If both "best 7's" would now play together...

 

[Darwin]

I don't know if the following is utter BS, I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe for Pocock's style, coming back from injury isn't as bad as for other players. For example, in basketball, you get problems in the ACL's, you're done for. We've seen cases of guys returning close to very good form, but still. Here, he'll clearly be a lot less mobile, and with the aging anyways, he surely won't return to prime form. But for the fetcher he is, maybe the surgery (?) he got won't affect him as badly as we think. I don't know how much ACL knee injuries affect a person's ability to get strong position on the ground. Maybe with lots of leg strengthening at the gym, he can get back to a solid level in that deptmt ?

And oh how I'd love to see them both at it at the same time...would be fkn awesome, and as you said Guilty Pocock's big enough to play 6 anyways.

And I'd have imagined Hooper would be the more prolific tackler, just based on his mobility and absolute ubiquity on the field, but I'll take Darwin's word for it Pocock is in fact.
It's pretty interesting as Pocock was the best 7 in the world during his time, and now it's Hooper. If both "best 7's" would now play together...

Much of the difference between Pocock and Hooper on defense is to do with their respective styles of play. Not only is Hooper far more prominent with ball in hand than Pocock (so spends more energy in this regard), but there is a difference in where they defend.

There is difference in the way players "pilfer" the ball these days (e.g. in the last 2-3 years) compared to how it was done in the past. In the past it was more often or not the tackler that got to his feet to pilfer the ball (think McCaw or George Smith in their primes), whereas these days (with the increased emphasis on the a "clear release" after the tackle) it is usually the arriving player that pilfers the ball. The new breed of Australian openside flankers (Gill, Hooper etc) have been coached to not always stand flat in the defensive line, but rather stay a little deeper (say 1m) behind the first line of defense so the moment the tackle is made they can attack the ball and look to force the turnover. This means these players don't necessarily have as bigger roles as tacklers as they have in the past, and they can get caught out bit more often on defense (as they may not always be completely focused on making the first up tackle). David Pocock can at times play in a similar fashion, but is more likely to be flat in the line on defense. Perhaps Pocock's will change his style somewhat to be more in-line with the younger Australian opensides, as the law interpretations have changed a bit since he last played a full season of Super Rugby....

 

[Big Ewis]

^ yeh, that's true. Hadn't thought about that but it's in the back of my mind. There's been such a huge persecution of the tackler not releasing, or player tackling and competing for ball at breakdown in one motion as of the past few years...
Overall I'd just say Hooper is more "dynamic". Quicker off his feet, better runner, carrier, more athletic...etc..Etc...everything that's been said on this thread, I think we all agree on what their differences are, but our conclusions might differ, although there seems to be a majority of ppl that thinks Pocock's prime > Hooper's prime.
I'll bet in a bit of time, Hooper will be seen as the better player overall fairly unanimously.

 

[Icemn]

hooper is better

 

[Big Ewis]

hooper is better

hoopah bettah ?!!

 

[Kapa O Pango]

George Smith.

 

[tompaton7]

Hooper is a far better all round player. The game has changed so much last 2 years since Pocock played. Fetching is important for a seven but because everyone else 1-15 has that ability now there is more importance place on other elements. Personally, I thought Pocock was better over the ball, but he'd also have games where he'd just be nullified in that area and because he didnt have many other tricks he'd fade from the game. Hooper on the other hand just doesnt get nullified. He can kill it at the breakdown, he can make big hits -I reckon his physicality in the tackle is probably on par if not better than Pocock's now. Then on attack he is far more dynamic on attack and has x factor. Put simply the man is always having an impact on the game in some way whereas Pocock will only influence it if the ref allows a breakdown contest. Even last night he made turnovers, big tackles and scored a stunning individual try. And I disagree Pocock could play 6 haha he's not even 6ft - not even nearly tall enough. McKenzie won't pick Skelton cause of his lineout prowess, there's no wah he'll make reservations for Pocock and Hooper to play together.

 

[austingtir]

George Smith.

THIS. Hooper still has a ways to go but at his current trend he will probably surpass George Smith. Pocock doesnt even come into it for me in the WC cup semi NZ totally out thought and outplayed him in every facet. And I actually believe NZ can do that exact thing to Hooper atm aswell which is why I dont rate him as good as George Smith YET.

As NZ kinda had game plans to contain George Smith and it never totally worked. Whereas I dont think they've had to get to that stage yet with Hooper.