If Michael hooper was English would he actually start at 7?

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I rate me hooper as the best 7 in the world at the moment. The question I have is, with robshaw and wood and Lancaster would he actually be used or not?

No question about his maxing ability it's more about out game plan and if we would bring a player like him in it not?

 

[Canuck]

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure he would given England's usually choices at flank.

As a SA fan I rate Heinrich Brussow very highly but realize that he doesn't really figure in the Bok rotation became HM prefers a different style of openside flanker. Hooper could be in the same situation if he was eligible for England.

 

[Patchey]

I'm going to get this in before Olly, but there is already one English flanker similar in style to Hooper who has been consistently one of the best forwards in the domestic game for a long time. Dave Seymour (aka. the greatest player to ever live).

No one has ever given him a chance in the England set up (sevens aside obviously) so I think the answer to your question lies there. If Dave Seymour hasn't had a look in during the tenure of three or four different coaches I doubt Hooper would either. Its a question of game plan and mentality about what flankers should be. I'm not saying I agree, just that I doubt Hooper would fit the mould.

 

[welshglory]

Interestingly enough Hooper's dad is actually an Englishman who moved to Australia in his early 20's!.

Hooper also speaks with quite a posh/well spoken Australian English accent.

On the subject of him being in the English set up.
Yes he's way better than any jackling 7 there is in the English game. If he had moved to England before his breakthrough with the Brumbies and tried to go through the system... im not to sure to be honest.

The comparisons with Dave Seymour... yea no... Seymour is talented but he never has had the explosiveness and dynamism which Hooper has.

 

[Guilty]

I'm quite surprised to see these replies as I think it is pretty clear that Hooper is by quite some margin the best #7 in the world and would start for any team, including the All Blacks.

Obviously, as an Australian I am biased but would say we have just two world class players, Hooper and Israel Folau.

 

[DuncTheDoodle]

If he were to switch nationalities now, having shown what he can do on the world stage, yes.
If he were a young English player, having to establish himself as a Premiership player, no way. He probably would have just been called up to play the midweek game for the first time this year, following three years of great domestic form.

 

[William18]

I reckon Michael Hooper is the best rugby player in the world right now. Robshaw is good but it would be a big indictment of any coach if you can't fit someone so good into your team. I get that different coaches have different styles and ideas of how to play the game. That's part of the beauty of rugby but a coach shouldn't be afriad to do thing differently, should they need to.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I'm quite surprised to see these replies as I think it is pretty clear that Hooper is by quite some margin the best #7 in the world and would start for any team, including the All Blacks.

Obviously, as an Australian I am biased but would say we have just two world class players, Hooper and Israel Folau.

I assume you didn't read the original post, so go back and read it and then comment. I said he is the best 7 in the world but the England coaches are a strange bunch in terms of who they pick these days!

 

[goodNumber10]

Like Armitage he doesn't fit into the current game plan, England aren't looking for turnovers on the ground, so no, he probably wouldn't be playing for England unless they have a drastic change of gameplan.

Having said that if he'd come through the England set up/age grades would he even be as good a groundsman as he currently is? We don't coach it in the same way as the Aussies and Kiwis do so he'd have probably developed into a completely different style of player.

 

[Patchey]

Interestingly enough Hooper's dad is actually an Englishman who moved to Australia in his early 20's!.

Hooper also speaks with quite a posh/well spoken Australian English accent.

On the subject of him being in the English set up.
Yes he's way better than any jackling 7 there is in the English game. If he had moved to England before his breakthrough with the Brumbies and tried to go through the system... im not to sure to be honest.

The comparisons with Dave Seymour... yea no... Seymour is talented but he never has had the explosiveness and dynamism which Hooper has.

Well I only said they were similar, I'd agree Hooper is more dynamic than Seymour, although I think its a little harsh to say Dave isn't a fairly explosive presence on the pitch. Certainly Seymour is the closest thing to an English version of Hooper, maybe Kvesic as well I guess. In fact the more i think of it the more I think Kvesic's lack of game time is another indication that Hooper wouldn't make much headway if he was English.

Guilty, I agree that he's world class but I think the issue is that England have a habit of passing over better players in favour of players who fit the system the team is playing in at any given time. For back rows that means we haven't had a jackling, turn over winning, in your face flanker for a while now. And when they do come along we don't pick them.

Like Armitage he doesn't fit into the current game plan, England aren't looking for turnovers on the ground, so no, he probably wouldn't be playing for England unless they have a drastic change of gameplan.

Having said that if he'd come through the England set up/age grades would he even be as good a groundsman as he currently is? We don't coach it in the same way as the Aussies and Kiwis do so he'd have probably developed into a completely different style of player.

I think probably yes. Kvesic came through the youth system, as I think did Armitage, and both have ground skills similar to Hooper. I think that while the international coaching team is maybe less keen on that type of flanker, individual clubs are more than happy to develop players who show the potential to play in that kind of way. Maybe they'd be better at it if they had also been coached in that way at in the international set up while young as well, but who knows?

Interestingly, who of England's best flankers, Wood and Kvesic, came from the same academy (Worcester right?), but both have pretty different styles and strengths. So I think that shows that players can be coached by the same set up and develop differently according to their strengths.

 

[goodNumber10]

I think probably yes. Kvesic came through the youth system, as I think did Armitage, and both have ground skills similar to Hooper. I think that while the international coaching team is maybe less keen on that type of flanker, individual clubs are more than happy to develop players who show the potential to play in that kind of way. Maybe they'd be better at it if they had also been coached in that way at in the international set up while young as well, but who knows?

Interestingly, who of England's best flankers, Wood and Kvesic, came from the same academy (Worcester right?), but both have pretty different styles and strengths. So I think that shows that players can be coached by the same set up and develop differently according to their strengths.

Fair points mate.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

No.
England don't want a true openside (blah blah blah robshaw blah blah blah). Seymour's not had a sniff, and Kvesic's only gotten a look in in the 23 when several players have been missing.

If the IRB lost his paperwork, forgot about his Aussie caps, and he became English tomorrow then he'd definitely make the EPS, but if he had come through the English systems and showed the same form he has for Aus/Tahs but for someone like Quins, then flip a coin.

 

[Big Ewis]

I say yes. Hooper's the best 7 in the world, quite easily, and as I've read on this thread he'd make any team including the All-Blacks. You've got the best 7 in the world and you refuse because "he doesn't fit the game plan" ? fk that. England have never been big fetchers and all, but you can't just refuse Hooper. Make room for him, let the game plan expand and find a way to fit him in, I don't care.
This is virtually the same as would you English have picked Dan Carter in his prime or Kieran Read right now - oh they don't fit the game plan - so you'd pass on Dan Carter or Kieran Read ? K, your move, but I wouldn't. I'd work it around the acquisition and make sure we incorporate whichever guy adequately and coherently. You can pass lol, I'm keeping.

 

[ratsapprentice]

This is a question of would, not should, Ewis.

English management has often made bewildering selection choices.

 

[welshglory]

I believe that if there were true world class options England would select them.

Mccaw, George Smith, Hooper, O'Brien , Louw. Truely world class 7's and specific strengths in their games.

I'm sorry but Kvesic, Seymour are not in the same league. Luke wallace, Fraser are also not good enough.
When Kvesic starts to have some crackers like Hooper did with the Brumbies before his Australian debut and shows more than just promise then he will be more involved.
Tom Rees would have been (and pretty much was) a mainstay in the English set up had he not been injured all the time and then subsequently retired.

By the way England wouldn't select Warburton or Tipuric either. They're not that much better than the current options for England.

Basically the English 7 options are not better than the current incumbents who are comfortable enough on either flank because of the style of the premiership and in general English rugby.

 

[Big Ewis]

This is a question of would, not should, Ewis.

English management has often made bewildering selection choices.

right. Well then in that case I'm still guessing they'd pick him. If he were English, producing as he's currently doing but in the Prem, it would be insane not to pick him. English management may have made some weird picks, you're probably referring mostly to backs selection, but you guys I don't think have a François Trinh-Duc case. Have you guys had a player in recent memory (or ever for that matter) who was head and shoulders above the rest and the obvious, clear pick for a position that your staff just stubbornly would. Not. Pick. ? I understand England has depth, and I read Kvesic and Tom Croft or other flankers should be picked...but the English staff wouldn't be that incompetent and headstrong to not pick Michael Hooper at openside flanker.

 

[welshglory]

Just have a look at the 7/openside options England have had since Neil Back retired and they haven't exactly been that exciting or promising
I can understand why they've selected other options who were available.

Dave Seymour
Michael Lipman
Magnus Lund
Andy Hazell
Will Skinner
Hendre Fourie
James Scaysbrook
Andy Saull
Luke Wallace
Will Fraser

Guy Mercer is on the radar but isn't that promising
Steff Armitage didn't play that well when he got the chance for England
Matt Kvesic is really promising and that's why he's been in pretty much every England squad since he came into the premiership.

Calum Clark is a 6/7
James Haskell is a 6/7
Lewis Moody was a 6/7
Joe Worsely was a 6.5

Tom Rees had genuine world class potential and was always invovled with the English squad, even with little to no game time, but like i said he was always injured and then had to retire from injury.

I mean c'mon Julian Salvi was the best 7 in England from 2009 till now with his stints in Bath and Leicester and he couldn't even crack the Australian squad half of the time.
England just doesn't produce really really good traditional fetching 7's. Mostly just guys who are very comfortable as flankers in general. I don't want to sound too harsh and i'm not even criticising, i'm just observing and think there's a bit of a fantasy of the standard of the English "genuine" 7's. From what i've witnessed first hand in grassroots and schools rugby, pro rugby seems to be the same apart from a few exceptions, in England having a very well round skill set is much more respected than being extremely good at one or a few things. Same with other sports like football.

 

[Geordie]

England play a left and right flanker more than a blindside and openside.
Thus you have two guys in Wood and Robshaw who are good alrounders. But we dont have a specialist fetcher at 7 or a beast at 6 (oh for Burgess to be a 6).

Personally i would play a 6 & 7 instead of a left and right. I think its important to get the turnovers.

I think Kvesic needs a BIG season this one...he impressed me hugely with Wuss but had a quiet season last one. Like wise i would like to see Will Fraser actually stay fit. And the Falcons have two absolute gems coming through at 7. One a kiwi who looks the real deal and one a young local lad a real Neil Back in style.

Oh and how will people feel watching Steffon Armitage running out for France soon.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think the issue is that coaches in England don't like specialising flankers.
If Salvi had grown up here he probably would have become a 6/7 IMO.

They don't seem to want to pick classic blindsides either - could you imagine Lancaster picking Fearns?

 

[Geordie]

Rats, i would love to see England pick a right big beast at 6. Then keep Robshaw until one of the real fetching 7's comes good.