Scotland v Argentina: Some stats

Some very telling numbers came out of this game:

1. Pumas made 121 tackes, missing 19. Scotland made 92 tackles, missing 9.

2. Territory was 50:50, but Scotland had 54% of possession.

3. (This is the killer) - Pumas spent 2 minutes and 7 seconds in Scotland's 22 compared to Scotland spending 10 minutes and 50 seconds in Argentina's.

4. Pumas conceded 9 penalties, Scotland conceded 11.

5. Argenina used 4 replacements, Scotland used 7.

What can we conclude?

(a) Based on possession share, Scotland could have edged it.

(b) Scottish forwards acquitted themselves well in terms of winning ball.

(c) The weather upped the error count for everyone.

(d) Scotland cannot convert red zone pressure into points.

(e) Andy may have been too trigger happy with substitutions.

(f) Townsend, surely now, has to go.

I agree with (e). Fitzpatrick made the point after the game. Too many substitutions from Scotland. Hines was forced, but given how well Jackson was dealing with the game, and how strongly Jacobsen and Ford were playing, I have no idea why Parks, Hall and Dickinson had to come on.

I agree with (f) as well. The choice of Morrison at 12 wasn't a good one, and the backs were too lateral, and the backs didn't look to offload the ball enough. Why have Danielli on the bench as well? Rory Lamont or Ansbro would have brought some impact.

+1, George,

(a) Based on possession share, Scotland could have edged it - yes, unfortunately it's what you do with that possession that matters, and we didn't take our chances, particularly in the red zone as you've identified

(b) Scottish forwards acquitted themselves well in terms of winning ball - not sure I agree with this one, we were second best by a country mile at the breakdown and lost possession far too easily

(c) The weather upped the error count for everyone.

(d) Scotland cannot convert red zone pressure into points - too true, wrong options on a couple of occasions, not patient enough on a few others, panic at times too

(e) Andy may have been too trigger happy with substitutions - some of the selections and substitutions were distinctly odd

(e) Townsend, surely now, has to go - you would have thought so, can we not look to someone like Chalmers who seems to get the Melrose backline ticking over just fine, despite losing 3 or 4 players each year to the pro game - time for a reshuffle

Simple fact is we were not good enough. Townsend has to accept responsibility for having so much of the game in our favour and not converting it into scores

What about Andy Robinson? Personally I'd keep him and just give him some scope to reshuffle his coaching team. It was the players ultimately that lost us that game.

I would like to see John Kirwan.....

I'd take Nick Mallett, but I actually think Robinson has done ok. I think we need fresh ideas in the backs coaching, and I think we need to see some young blood having a go at 10 and 12. Problem is, who are those players? Edinburgh and Glasgow are hardly ripping up the league. Hunter? Weir? Wight? Not convinced.

My player ratings:

1. Chunk 7/10 - saw his man off in the scrums, did a reasonable amount of work around the paddock;
2. Ford 7/10 - good darts, carried hard, a few tackles;
3. Cross 6/10 - struggled a little in the scrum as expected;
4. Gray 7/10 - good work in the loose, disrupted oppo lineout, couple of good carries;
5. Hamilton 7/10 - led lineout well, carried hard, good grunt;
6. Stroks 6/10 - couple of decent tackles, a few ok carries;
7. Barclay 5/10 - slow and ineffective at breakdown
8. Brown 6/10 - not his best game, looked like he was knocked cold
9. Lawson 6/10 - wrong option on their line, but overall decent distribution
10. Jackson 8/10 - a coming of age, mature performance, and cool head
11. S Lamont 7/10 - came into the line effectively, worked hard on defence;
12. Morrison 4/10 - butchered at least one overlap, decent defence;
13. De Luca 4/10 - clueless with ball in hand, got isolated and pinged too often;
14 Evans 8/10 - looked our most dangerous player
15 Mossy 4/10 - a game he will want to forget, poor kicking from hand and the tee, awful missed tackle for Arg try
16 Hall 6/10 - not on long enough to show how bad he is
17 Dickinson 6/10 - likewise
18 Hines 7/10 - added some grunt when he came on, decent cameo
19 Vernon 6/10 - not on long enough to make an influence
20 Blair 5/10 - wrong option for last DG attempt, distribution slow in general
21 Parks 5/10 - some sublime moments, some downright awful, no blame for missing DG
22 Danielli 6/10 - didn't see him

funnyExiledScot wrote:What about Andy Robinson? Personally I'd keep him and just give him some scope to reshuffle his coaching team. It was the players ultimately that lost us that game.

Robbo to stay, he's not done too badly with the available resources, altho he must hold up his hand for part of poor performance at breakdown today - that's his area.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'd take Nick Mallett, but I actually think Robinson has done ok. I think we need fresh ideas in the backs coaching, and I think we need to see some young blood having a go at 10 and 12. Problem is, who are those players? Edinburgh and Glasgow are hardly ripping up the league. Hunter? Weir? Wight? Not convinced.

Don't think Mallett has much of a track record as a backs' coach? The young backs are coming thru, fES, but it's too early for them just yet - midfield of S Lamont and Ansbro for now, with Jackson at 10, Hunter, Weir, Bennett & co in a few years time

I feel fo the Scots to be honest, I really wanted you to win. They do at times look to 1 dimentional. I also think that Wayne Barnes was very poor, And exactly what are the line judges for if they cant spot such blatant infringment?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:My player ratings:

1. Chunk 7/10 - saw his man off in the scrums, did a reasonable amount of work around the paddock;
2. Ford 7/10 - good darts, carried hard, a few tackles;
3. Cross 6/10 - struggled a little in the scrum as expected;
4. Gray 7/10 - good work in the loose, disrupted oppo lineout, couple of good carries;
5. Hamilton 7/10 - led lineout well, carried hard, good grunt;
6. Stroks 6/10 - couple of decent tackles, a few ok carries;
7. Barclay 5/10 - slow and ineffective at breakdown
8. Brown 6/10 - not his best game, looked like he was knocked cold
9. Lawson 6/10 - wrong option on their line, but overall decent distribution
10. Jackson 8/10 - a coming of age, mature performance, and cool head
11. S Lamont 7/10 - came into the line effectively, worked hard on defence;
12. Morrison 4/10 - butchered at least one overlap, decent defence;
13. De Luca 4/10 - clueless with ball in hand, got isolated and pinged too often;
14 Evans 8/10 - looked our most dangerous player
15 Mossy 4/10 - a game he will want to forget, poor kicking from hand and the tee, awful missed tackle for Arg try
16 Hall 6/10 - not on long enough to show how bad he is
17 Dickinson 6/10 - likewise
18 Hines 7/10 - added some grunt when he came on, decent cameo
19 Vernon 6/10 - not on long enough to make an influence
20 Blair 5/10 - wrong option for last DG attempt, distribution slow in general
21 Parks 5/10 - some sublime moments, some downright awful, no blame for missing DG
22 Danielli 6/10 - didn't see him

I think you're harsh on NDL. When he did make yards he was often isolated, but not his fault. On several occasions Jackson chucked him a lateral ball and he was smothered, again, not his fault. He took a great take from an up and under and tried to dance through what we a heavy Argentina midfield. The chip through from Evans was the right tactice. Jackson tried it but failed to execute. I'd give NDL a 5 at minimum.

Didn't know Danielli even came on. Odd choice of sub that. Ansbro would have been a better sub to have.

I'd give Blair a 3 or a 4. It was his fault that Parks was denied a decent chance to win the game. He needed to tell Barnes to watch the offside. A commanding pass there would have been enough to win us the game. He paniced and lost his head and just flung a slow ball back.

CP deserves his 4. Missed a kick you'd expect him to knock over, one horrible unforced knock-on and a feeble effort on Ambrosino in the tackle. Hugo Southwell anyone??

Parks' DG that he got sums us up. 5m from the line, a penalty advantage that was almost in front of the posts and we take the DG instead of going for the try.

Not sure changing the attacking coach will suddenly transform us, but we need to try something. With such a poor set of backs, how Ansbro does not even make the bench is incredible.

Poor use of the replacements by the coaches. Subs by numbers, its 60 minutes so we must make X changes. Watched Glasgow do it for years and pay the penalty for it.

Overall we are just not good enough, its onto the next generation and at least Jackson had a good performance.

I agree that Townsend has to take responsibility for Scotlands attacking game in the 2 years Robbo's been in charge. Its just embarassing. Its been pointed out on another forum this morning that Scotland have only scored 12? tries in 18 matches against top opposition. That should dictate a performance review of our attack coach imo.

Also, I know its early, but in the post wc mortem, we need to address this problem we have with 12. Morrison is so poor going forward its an embarrasment.I know ive just ranted about the coaches tactics, but Morrison doesnt suggest that hed be any better under anyone else. King and/or Weir and maybe even Grove need to be brought in and for once, we need to take a gamble with this, instead of the conservative "oh but Morrison is defensively strong" bs. Good defence is useless if you cant score yourself.

I cant care less about their experience, were the only country in top flight rugby that appears to be so scared of bringing youngsters through in the backs (we dont seem to have a problem with doing it in the forwards), that by the time they do make it onto the international scene, theyve lost that youthfull arrogance that we so desperately need.

Im including Weir in my candidates for 12 as I believe that 12 is a great place to give young 10's experience, and I also believe that Weir has the skillset to play there anyway. Look at Carter, he has stated that starting his international career at 12 was the best thing that couldve happened, as he got to use his skills and settle into international rugby, but without the pressure of being the primary decision maker.

Agreed DM, we should have at least had a go for a try in that situation. Nothing to lose, plus it would have run the clock down another minute knowing the 3 points were there anyway. There was a real lack of clear thinking in the last 10 minutes from Scotland.

IBD - I can understand your frustration, but bringing through youngsters needs to start at the clubs, not at international level. I agree that Morrison was not the right choice for this game, and that Lamont was the better option at 12, but Lamont isn't exactly a creative genius either.

Going forward, I think Jackson might be an option at 12, he was more physical today and his floated pass over Camacho was decent, but I'd want to see him and Weir combine at Glasgow first.

Against England it should be Blair, Jackson, Danielli, Lamont, Ansbro, Evans and R Lamont starting. I know it leaves us without a front line kicker, but quite frankly we need to cross the whitewash early doors to stand a chance. I'd also play both Vernon and Rennie in the pack as well.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'd want to see him and Weir combine at Glasgow first.

Last season was the perfect opportunity to try that, and it didnt happen once. Morrison was injured, and glasgow had monopolised the position for Morrison by not bringing any 12s through for ages.

Imperialbigdave wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'd want to see him and Weir combine at Glasgow first.

Last season was the perfect opportunity to try that, and it didnt happen once. Morrison was injured, and glasgow had monopolised the position for Morrison by not bringing any 12s through for ages.

There wasn't much of last season when Weir and Jackson were both fit for Glasgow at the same time. A few games at the start at most.

After the WC, I want to see it, with Troy Nathan at 13 and Morrison on the bench. DTH and Seymour on the wings, and Hogg at 15. Cusiter should captain from 9.

We need to address the problems at club level, not throw kids into a Scotland jersey and ask them to swim.

argentina starting to pick up quite a few injuries to key players..

^true, but let's face it, with their recent performances, no other 1/4 finalists are going to be worried by even a full strength Argentina

Shame we can't have a more deserving team from another pool going through instead....

rumpelstiltskindoh wrote:^true, but let's face it, with their recent performances, no other 1/4 finalists are going to be worried by even a full strength Argentina

Shame we can't have a more deserving team from another pool going through instead....

Absolutely agreed. Canada have been playing some great stuff.

Indeed - Ander Monroe should have chosen Scotland!!

Never seen it with either De Luca or Morrison, just don't get it.

Lamont and Anbro please Andy

Well De Luca played pretty well in the warm-ups and showed up well in defence against Georgia. I agree, I prefer Ansbro at 13, but I wasn't baffled by the selection.

I'm actually not quite done with Grove personally, and I think there could be a case for slotting Max Evans back in at 13 once Visser becomes eligible, and using Visser and the Lamonts as a back three.

As for Morrison, I think we need to change to a more Aussie approach (pre-McCabe), with effectively two stand-offs playing 10 and 12. We need to get ball players in these positions, and use our bigger strike runners more effectively. That's why I reckon Jackson has a future at 12. He's not scared of the physical stuff, we saw that on Sunday, and he'd have more time on the ball at 12 to get his head up. That would allow one of the new crop, perhaps Weir, to have a shot at 10.

De Luca has a habit of doing well when it doesn't really matter, but has so far, IMO shown nothing in a big game