Scotland's permanent coach

by 123456789 Wed 13 Mar 2013, 6:49 pm

First topic message reminder :

Scott Johnson has produced an interesting set of results and has the player's backing and I reckon that if Scotland win on Saturday the SRU will sign him up forever but is this the right decision?
I personally think that wins over a very poor Italy side and an injury ravaged Ireland team have papered over a few cracks, in fact I believe this team should be beating a second class Ireland team by more than four points on the other hand the same Italy side only lost by seven to England and the Ireland team drew with France. I do not doubt that it has been an improvement and we have clearly missed a true open side, despite this I think Johnson should be kept as backs coach and if possible Ryan as forwards coach but I'd like somebody new to oversee things.

However finding somebody to coach the team may be difficult, there are very few candidates, Robbie Deans may be available if the Lions win in the summer, Gregor Townsend will be mentioned if Glasgow win but I think he should be allowed to keep control of Glasgow for five years and try to push towards Heineken cup progress before he can be linked with Scotland aside from that there are very few candidates.

by TJ1 Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:08 pm

Yes the back row selection appears to be a mistake - but compare that to Robinsons ludicrous selection its not a biog one. thats my point.

by **Biltong** Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:18 pm

beshocked wrote:flyhalffactory how many matches does Barclay need to play before he's declared match fit? According to Glasgow fans I thought he's played in their last 4 matches.

Of course Strokosch was picked because of the weather, not because of Dean Dyan.

Do you genuinely think Strokosch is Scotland's best 6?

Do you think Kelly Brown is Scotland's best 7?

TJ Wales won by 10 points but if they had taken the numerous opportunities on hand they would have won by far more.

You can peddle out the story that it's the ref's fault but let's be honest - Wales were the better side and didn't even get out of first gear.

Actually he has copied one of Robinson's idiocies - picking Strokosch at 6 and Brown at 7.

Scotland with Andy Robinson in charge at least managed quite a few line breaks and try scoring opportunities. Scotland's attacking game is basically heavily reliant on the back three and that's it.

what does it mean when a team doesn't get out of first gear?

What about if the other team didn't even get into gear?

Would they then have won if they got to second gear, or would they need the other team to be in reverse gear?

What if both gave automatics with slip diffs?

Would it not just make more sense to say the winning team played less poorly than the other?

by Scrumdown Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:19 pm

It doesn't really matter who the coaches are. The fact of the matter is that Scotland as a population do not possess the genes required to produce first class sportsmen.

Who was the last world class footballer or rugby player produced by scotland? Kenny Dalglish?

by bsando Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:20 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
bsando wrote:Jeez you're just as bad as asbo

I demand you take that back!!

Seriously though, there are plenty positive things to say about Robinson, but describing Scotland under him as enjoying "multi-phase through the hands rugby" is just nonsense.

I've said many positive things about him though. He did add steel to our pack, and improved a number of our forwards. He was a very technical coach and Scotland's rucking under him improved hugely. His side were also responsible for some great wins against the SH sides, and his record against those sides (Australia x2, South Africa, Argentina series away, Fiji away and Samoa home and away) really do him credit. Those are achievements that Telfer and McGeechan seldom if ever managed, and with far better players.

His weaknesses are also well (if not better) documented. As his WC and 6 Nations records went from bad to worse, there was a suggestion of discontent between Robinson and his senior players, and his team selections were frequently illogical at best. He also never really gave the impression of strategy, or showing that he had a plan to take Scotland forward long term. He often harked on about not looking past the next game, and this being a results business. Admirable sentiments in my view. Problems were (a) he didn't actually pick on form or the best XV to actually win the next game, and (b) the results ultimately weren't good enough (or rather a reflection of Scotland's abilities).

As for Johnson, I've posted my views on him numerous times. We should wait until the end of his contract before passing judgement (half term report is mixed), and should nevertheless, regardless of what happens, make sure that he is only one of a number of candidates when the SRU comes to make its decision. The net should be spread wide. Johnson has shown some nice touches, particularly in dealing with the media and his man management and team selections seem on the whole sensible, however clearly the forwards in a number of respects have taken a step backwards, and we aren't competing for enough ball. Still, he has an interim contract, and we shoudl judge him utlimately once it's done.

Okay I take it back FES, don't know what came over me Very Happy

I agree with you on Johnson, I just hope the SRU have the Same opinion. I think that assessment of Robinson is also very fair, but towards the end he was trying to get the team to play the ball through the hands rather than crash ball tactics he employed most of his time with Scotland. Radge makes a some good points above which i would tend to agree with.

by **RDW** Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:27 pm

Scrumdown wrote:It doesn't really matter who the coaches are. The fact of the matter is that Scotland as a population do not possess the genes required to produce first class sportsmen.

Who was the last world class footballer or rugby player produced by scotland? Kenny Dalglish?

You not already brought this up on the Scotland Wales thread last week? Broken Record

by TJ1 Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:29 pm

Don't feed the trolls. Nasty racist that he is - best ignored and reported.

by Scrumdown Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:42 pm

TJ wrote:Don't feed the trolls. Nasty racist that he is - best ignored and reported.

Scotland do not produce talented rugby players or footballers and this is the reason why their national sides are so poor. I'm just stating facts. It might hurt you as a scotsman. The truth sometimes does hurt.

by tigertattie Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:43 pm

by **RDW** Fri 15 Mar 2013, 4:50 pm

Scrumdown - irrespective of your in depth and scientifically sound argument about genetics, your post at best has absolutely nothing to do with a thread discussing who should be the next Scotland coach, and at worst is downright offensive to Scottish people and is posted with the sole intention of winding people up and ruining a good thread.

If you're here to try and wind the Scots up then best you stop now and leave the thread. If you would however like to discuss the next Scotland coach then feel free to contribute.

And before you level any accusions of bias against me as a Scottish Mod, this is the decision of the moderation team as a whole.

by **Biltong** Fri 15 Mar 2013, 5:02 pm

Scrumdown wrote:
TJ wrote:Don't feed the trolls. Nasty racist that he is - best ignored and reported.

Scotland do not produce talented rugby players or footballers and this is the reason why their national sides are so poor. I'm just stating facts. It might hurt you as a scotsman. The truth sometimes does hurt.

scrumdown you really need to learn diplomacy, you are being judgemental and losing credibility.

by funnyExiledScot Fri 15 Mar 2013, 5:11 pm

Regardless of views on gene pools etc., what cannot be disputed is that in the past , Scotland has produced top class coaches and managers, and it's in that regard that I think (in rugby at least), we're starting to slip.

The SRU needs to start promoting some of the excellent coaches we have on the club scene in Scotland, and giving them a chance at pro level. The sacking of the entire Edinburgh coaching staff opens a real opportunity in this respect.

In football we still have some of the best coaches about, but in rugby the numbers are dwindling. Coaches like Tait and Redpath haven't really taken off, and it's very early days for Gregor Townsend. We need the next Jim Telfer to emerge.

by TJ1 Fri 15 Mar 2013, 5:49 pm

It seems that some of the coaching talent has got lost. Ritchie Dixon got so fed up with the SRU he went off to Georgia, Craig Chalmers seems to have upset too many folk from what I hear ( could be a good shout for Edinburgh) George Graham? what happened to him? Peter Wright?

Redpath looked a good shout but has had a bad year or two.

I would like to see some of these folk involved in the future but don't think they are the man now hence a young ambitious outsider until after the next WC

by funnyExiledScot Fri 15 Mar 2013, 5:51 pm

To be honest I was never convinced that Richie Dixon was any good. His tenure as Scotland coach hardly inspired.

I don't think Chalmers has friends in the SRU, but I've have no objections to him being interviewed for the post so he can at least put forward his vision.

There should be no closed doors.

by GLove39 Fri 15 Mar 2013, 6:09 pm

Heard from ESPN just now Dean Ryan will step down from at the end of the 6 Nations.

by flyhalffactory Fri 15 Mar 2013, 6:17 pm

RubyGuby wrote:FHF - you were banging on our line for the last few minutes when effectively the game was over. I've seen my own team do it a 1000 times, it's more from desperation than anything - Look at the 80 minutes, of course you were in the game and the ref was against you but across the board you offered very little and it wasn't the greatest welsh perrformance was it yet it was comfortable in the end. Maybe Robinson as head coach and Johnson as backs would have been a decent option although I think a heavyweight like Dean Richards would do a great job

Dont be rediculous, we lost by 10 points and at one time we were 7pts behind and for the last 10 mins (more than enough time to score a converted pen and a pen) we were camped in your 22m for most of that period. Yes we got tucked up like a kipper in the scrum and give credit to Robin McBryde for assessing our strength i.e. a quick scrum hit technique, and negating one of our biggest assets and yes Wales deserved to win but it was anything but a comfortable win.

I think its a really difficult position we as a rugby nation find ourselves in, the money isn't there to pull in the best and we would rather a Scottish coach, probably Gregor is the guy in the driving seat but I think he should spend at least three years at Glasgow with the view to bringing him in for the next WC. SJ isn't the favoured choice but in the interim period might be the most logical option

As far as "form" Stroko has been in fine fettle for Perpignan this season, and he did ok until injured against England, Gilchrist has been playing well in an absolute dire Edinburgh pack. We were seriously not at the races as far as the breakdown, and rucks against every team during this 6Ns. Harley whilst a very busy nuisance hasnt got the steel to win the at the rucks, and Stroko will compete in this area. From a personal point I would have picked the Killer Bees and Swinson.

by Scrumdown Fri 15 Mar 2013, 9:27 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:Scrumdown - irrespective of your in depth and scientifically sound argument about genetics, your post at best has absolutely nothing to do with a thread discussing who should be the next Scotland coach, and at worst is downright offensive to Scottish people and is posted with the sole intention of winding people up and ruining a good thread.

If you're here to try and wind the Scots up then best you stop now and leave the thread. If you would however like to discuss the next Scotland coach then feel free to contribute.

And before you level any accusions of bias against me as a Scottish Mod, this is the decision of the moderation team as a whole.

Scotland haven't produced a world class footballer or rugby player for at least 25 years. This is a fact. The inept performance of scotland at international level is not a coaching issue. It is a player talent issue. At a stretch you could argue that Hogg is a potential world xv player but one player in 25 years is simply not enough whoever the coach is.

I find it rather pitiful that scottish fans should be discussing a new coach believing that it will lead to an upturn in fortunes when it is clear to any outsider that this is a pipe dream.

For what its worth, wayne smith has some scottish ancestry so would be my choice.

by alive555 Fri 15 Mar 2013, 9:38 pm

[quote="Scrumdown"]It doesn't really matter who the coaches are. The fact of the matter is that Scotland as a population do not possess the genes required to produce first class sportsmen.

This is one of most dumb statements I have ever heard laughing

It has got absolutely nothing to do with genes and everything to do with playing numbers

In fact if most of the other 6n teams had to discard 70 or 80 pc of their playing pool to match ours they too would be dross

More players = more better players.

That's why Jamaica never wins toboggan races.

I think for the numbers we have we actually push well above our weight thumbsup

So scrum down on that plonker picard

by **Biltong** Fri 15 Mar 2013, 9:45 pm

Scrumdown wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:Scrumdown - irrespective of your in depth and scientifically sound argument about genetics, your post at best has absolutely nothing to do with a thread discussing who should be the next Scotland coach, and at worst is downright offensive to Scottish people and is posted with the sole intention of winding people up and ruining a good thread.

If you're here to try and wind the Scots up then best you stop now and leave the thread. If you would however like to discuss the next Scotland coach then feel free to contribute.

And before you level any accusions of bias against me as a Scottish Mod, this is the decision of the moderation team as a whole.

Scotland haven't produced a world class footballer or rugby player for at least 25 years. This is a fact. The inept performance of scotland at international level is not a coaching issue. It is a player talent issue. At a stretch you could argue that Hogg is a potential world xv player but one player in 25 years is simply not enough whoever the coach is.

I find it rather pitiful that scottish fans should be discussing a new coach believing that it will lead to an upturn in fortunes when it is clear to any outsider that this is a pipe dream.

For what its worth, wayne smith has some scottish ancestry so would be my choice.

your argument will have a lot more credibility if you justified your belief that a coach won't make a difference because Scotand only has 2 pro teams and they lack depth due to underfunding and the lack of development at grassroots level.

by flyhalffactory Fri 15 Mar 2013, 10:29 pm

Biltong wrote:
Scrumdown wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:Scrumdown - irrespective of your in depth and scientifically sound argument about genetics, your post at best has absolutely nothing to do with a thread discussing who should be the next Scotland coach, and at worst is downright offensive to Scottish people and is posted with the sole intention of winding people up and ruining a good thread.

If you're here to try and wind the Scots up then best you stop now and leave the thread. If you would however like to discuss the next Scotland coach then feel free to contribute.

And before you level any accusions of bias against me as a Scottish Mod, this is the decision of the moderation team as a whole.

Scotland haven't produced a world class footballer or rugby player for at least 25 years. This is a fact. The inept performance of scotland at international level is not a coaching issue. It is a player talent issue. At a stretch you could argue that Hogg is a potential world xv player but one player in 25 years is simply not enough whoever the coach is.

I find it rather pitiful that scottish fans should be discussing a new coach believing that it will lead to an upturn in fortunes when it is clear to any outsider that this is a pipe dream.

For what its worth, wayne smith has some scottish ancestry so would be my choice.

your argument will have a lot more credibility if you justified your belief that a coach won't make a difference because Scotand only has 2 pro teams and they lack depth due to underfunding and the lack of development at grassroots level.

Actually Billtong his argument lacks knowledge and is crass without any scientific basis whatsover. Its akin to a four year old trying to explain particle physics, this person has stated this ditty twice now on separate forums

The addage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" doesnt do him justice.

The best thing to do is ignore and block him

by **Biltong** Fri 15 Mar 2013, 10:33 pm

Flyhalf, everyone gets a piece of rope to hang themselves mate. Wink

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Fri 15 Mar 2013, 10:46 pm

Scrumdown wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:Scrumdown - irrespective of your in depth and scientifically sound argument about genetics, your post at best has absolutely nothing to do with a thread discussing who should be the next Scotland coach, and at worst is downright offensive to Scottish people and is posted with the sole intention of winding people up and ruining a good thread.

If you're here to try and wind the Scots up then best you stop now and leave the thread. If you would however like to discuss the next Scotland coach then feel free to contribute.

And before you level any accusions of bias against me as a Scottish Mod, this is the decision of the moderation team as a whole.

Scotland haven't produced a world class footballer or rugby player for at least 25 years. This is a fact. The inept performance of scotland at international level is not a coaching issue. It is a player talent issue. At a stretch you could argue that Hogg is a potential world xv player but one player in 25 years is simply not enough whoever the coach is.
I find it rather pitiful that scottish fans should be discussing a new coach believing that it will lead to an upturn in fortunes when it is clear to any outsider that this is a pipe dream.

For what its worth, wayne smith has some scottish ancestry so would be my choice.

Could not really give a FF if we never produced another wendyball player of any ability ever again - most of the dud teams here seem to be going out of business so feckin hurrah! You keep watching the wendies as I suspect you are one of the broken eyelash, roll about brigade.

We do however have a few good rugby players who need a good coach - i.e. not Robinson or Johnston it would seem. Someone not afraid to jettison garbage the likes of Max Evans, Jim Hamilton and Nicky Walker - those who have never, ever done it for Scotland.

by Scrumdown Fri 15 Mar 2013, 10:55 pm

[quote="alive555"]

Scrumdown wrote:It doesn't really matter who the coaches are. The fact of the matter is that Scotland as a population do not possess the genes required to produce first class sportsmen.

This is one of most dumb statements I have ever heard

It has got absolutely nothing to do with genes and everything to do with playing numbers

In fact if most of the other 6n teams had to discard 70 or 80 pc of their playing pool to match ours they too would be dross

More players = more better players.

That's why Jamaica never wins toboggan races.

I think for the numbers we have we actually push well above our weight

So scrum down on that plonker

But samoa has a population of of only 108,000. It is the genetic make up of its population, not numbers or investment, that is the reason that it produces outstanding rugby players, not just for samoa but for england and new zealand too.

Jamaica has a population of only 2.7m yet due to the genetic make up of its population produces outstanding sprinters. It has less to do with investment and numbers and more to do with genetics.

So you are wrong when you say that it is all about numbers but hopefully you now know better.

by **Biltong** Fri 15 Mar 2013, 11:07 pm

[quote="Scrumdown"]

alive555 wrote:
Scrumdown wrote:It doesn't really matter who the coaches are. The fact of the matter is that Scotland as a population do not possess the genes required to produce first class sportsmen.

This is one of most dumb statements I have ever heard

It has got absolutely nothing to do with genes and everything to do with playing numbers

In fact if most of the other 6n teams had to discard 70 or 80 pc of their playing pool to match ours they too would be dross

More players = more better players.

That's why Jamaica never wins toboggan races.

I think for the numbers we have we actually push well above our weight

So scrum down on that plonker

But samoa has a population of of only 108,000. It is the genetic make up of its population, not numbers or investment, that is the reason that it produces outstanding rugby players, not just for samoa but for england and new zealand too.

Jamaica has a population of only 2.7m yet due to the genetic make up of its population produces outstanding sprinters. It has less to do with investment and numbers and more to do with genetics.

So you are wrong when you say that it is all about numbers but hopefully you now know better.

if you believe it is only about genetics then it clearly shows how ignorant you are regarding the subject at hand.

I think that is enough now, you clearly have an issue with Scottish people and I am telling you in no uncertain terms that is enough.

Anymore out of you and action will be swift.

by Scrumdown Fri 15 Mar 2013, 11:27 pm

Biltong, I can assure you that I do not have a problem with the scots. I have scottish ancestry myself.

I do however have a problem with a moderator who seems to have forgotten that this is a rugby forum and that he is not presiding over a presidential debate in the the USA elections.

The points I have made are completely valid. Just google genetics in sport, and you will see. Or just remain ignorant.

by Taylorman Fri 15 Mar 2013, 11:31 pm

Not agreeing with the way the point has been made but Samoa in particular, and on a per capita basis, probably lead the bunch in terms of successful international players, many great AB's being of Samoan descent. And they do not have much of an amateur scene, let alone a professional one. But most have relied on the NZ structure, either having been born here, or moved here young. The Samoan team itself rely on the various professional leagues around the world to keep its side up with the best.

Agree theres something there in terms of natural talent. I grew up in South Auckland and found the average Samoan kid after about the age of 14 (where growth is typically rapid) had more natural ability than most Europeans of the same age. They are also not bound by rules and structure and some fall by the way because of that. Thats why the structure NZ provides helps here. They get the best of both worlds...natural ability and structure.

Can't agree with the Scottish comments. You could apply that comment to many countries without actually supporting it.

by **Biltong** Fri 15 Mar 2013, 11:40 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Biltong, I can assure you that I do not have a problem with the scots. I have scottish ancestry myself.

I do however have a problem with a moderator who seems to have forgotten that this is a rugby forum and that he is not presiding over a presidential debate in the the USA elections.

The points I have made are completely valid. Just google genetics in sport, and you will see. Or just remain ignorant.

you are being incessantly disrespectful to the Scots. How do you not realise that. I said it is enough, and I mean it. It is about much more than just genetics.

by flyhalffactory Fri 15 Mar 2013, 11:47 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Biltong, I can assure you that I do not have a problem with the scots. I have scottish ancestry myself.

I do however have a problem with a moderator who seems to have forgotten that this is a rugby forum and that he is not presiding over a presidential debate in the the USA elections.

The points I have made are completely valid. Just google genetics in sport, and you will see. Or just remain ignorant.

You really haven't an earthly clue about the process have you, you google a topic not taking into consideration of the movement of the continental belt and migration or the climatic issues that have radical affects on genetic progress....... which you cannae find just by googling willy nilly.

You have repeated yourself on two Scottish forum topics with the same reply, give it a rest you are utterly boring us all.

My 10yr old niece could make a better case than you could. Now why dont you keep to the topic at hand and not be so crass and transparent.

by Scrumdown Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:11 am

Flyhalffactory, may I suggest you make counter arguments to support your point of view rather than simply throwing your toys out of the pram whenever you find someone else's point of view disagreeable.

Maybe you could ask your 10 year old niece to help you.

by flyhalffactory Sat 16 Mar 2013, 1:16 am

I have just told you of the inadequacies of your contribution, if you had a modicum of intelligence you would have seen your "cut and paste" is over 18 yrs out of date and takes a miniscule view of genetic migration.

You Have been found out big time, and your transparent WUM is clear for all to observe

This is a forum on the Scottish Coach not a vehicle for your limited intellectual capacity

by Solid8 Sat 16 Mar 2013, 1:42 am

Scrumdown, you are confusing genetics with eugenics, the first is a scientific discipline that is well respected and the subject of many peer-review journals (for someone who is as hard of thinking as yourself this translates to proper science). Eugenics is a controversial subject that has widely been been discredited and has been used to justify some of the worst crimes ever committed by our species.

Genetics does not determine whether someone will be a good rugby player, there are many genetically inherited traits that can be passed from parents to their children (strength, hand eye coordination, susceptibility to injury etc.) that can help. However much more important than this is behavioural conditioning, that is how a child is brought up and how they develop. In one of your myopic, trolling statements you mentioned Samoa. Yes it is true that they punch above their weight in terms of good international players and you can argue that the stereotype of a Samoan means that they posses many traits that would enable them to become rugby players however (and its a big however) the vast majority of world class Samoan players moved to NZ or in the case of Tualagi England at a young age and developed their skillset there. Do you think that this is some kind of co-incidence? Or do you honestly believe that the scouting system is so good that ALL of the most promising players from this country are selected to go and play abroad as children?

As far as Scotland goes if you were to take a DNA sample of every rugby player of European descent and annonymise them even the most respected geneticists would not be able to tell you what country that a person plays for. This is different for mitochondrial DNA as that is only ever inherited from a person's mother however this does not have any bearing on which genetic traits a person exhibits. Basically there is no difference. Instead if you look at the financial situation of the SRU since the game turned pro you will see that for a long time they were almost broke and subsequently youth development stalled, they have slowly turned this situation around and now we are slowly getting better young players coming through. However this will take time.

If you want to learn about genetics, there are places called libraries, they keep books there, go and read these. You will find that for a book on science to be published the person who writes it generally has to have things called qualifications that are relevant to what they are writing about. This is not always the case with the "information" that you will find from a quick Google search as a lot of that is generally bullsh*t because anyone, even someone as woefully bigoted and slow as yourself, can publish what they want. If you must resort to getting information from the internet use peer-review journals (you will have to pay to access all but the precis).

kthnxbai

by flyhalffactory Sat 16 Mar 2013, 3:08 am

Solid8 wrote:Scrumdown, you are confusing genetics with eugenics, the first is a scientific discipline that is well respected and the subject of many peer-review journals (for someone who is as hard of thinking as yourself this translates to proper science). Eugenics is a controversial subject that has widely been been discredited and has been used to justify some of the worst crimes ever committed by our species.

Genetics does not determine whether someone will be a good rugby player, there are many genetically inherited traits that can be passed from parents to their children (strength, hand eye coordination, susceptibility to injury etc.) that can help. However much more important than this is behavioural conditioning, that is how a child is brought up and how they develop. In one of your myopic, trolling statements you mentioned Samoa. Yes it is true that they punch above their weight in terms of good international players and you can argue that the stereotype of a Samoan means that they posses many traits that would enable them to become rugby players however (and its a big however) the vast majority of world class Samoan players moved to NZ or in the case of Tualagi England at a young age and developed their skillset there. Do you think that this is some kind of co-incidence? Or do you honestly believe that the scouting system is so good that ALL of the most promising players from this country are selected to go and play abroad as children?

As far as Scotland goes if you were to take a DNA sample of every rugby player of European descent and annonymise them even the most respected geneticists would not be able to tell you what country that a person plays for. This is different for mitochondrial DNA as that is only ever inherited from a person's mother however this does not have any bearing on which genetic traits a person exhibits. Basically there is no difference. Instead if you look at the financial situation of the SRU since the game turned pro you will see that for a long time they were almost broke and subsequently youth development stalled, they have slowly turned this situation around and now we are slowly getting better young players coming through. However this will take time.

If you want to learn about genetics, there are places called libraries, they keep books there, go and read these. You will find that for a book on science to be published the person who writes it generally has to have things called qualifications that are relevant to what they are writing about. This is not always the case with the "information" that you will find from a quick Google search as a lot of that is generally bullsh*t because anyone, even someone as woefully bigoted and slow as yourself, can publish what they want. If you must resort to getting information from the internet use peer-review journals (you will have to pay to access all but the precis).

kthnxbai

Solid mate

I provided him with some solid clues where he was delinquent in his analysis, I wanted him to attempt a reply. However you have cleared it up for him now.

Lets hope the clown now migrates somewhere warm and sunny for good

by alive555 Sat 16 Mar 2013, 6:19 am

he should go and educate himself.

by **Biltong** Sat 16 Mar 2013, 8:00 am

Gents, your arguments against Scrumdown are all sounds, but then you discredit you posts by telling him off in a lersonal manner, that makes you as guilty as him for reponding in a manner not accpetable on the forum.

by beshocked Sat 16 Mar 2013, 8:00 am

TJ how am I trolling? Simply because I have a different opinion to you? Simply because I don't think Scott Johnson has done as good a job as he should?

The back row is one of the most important selection areas to get correct. I personally feel that quite a few of your problems stem from this. If you want to play the kind of gameplan which is based on strong defence, good kicking game you also need a strong back row ( something that is missing currently). Plus discipline is important - something that was also missing vs Wales

You were insinuating that it was the refs fault not not giving you a scrum penalty. I wanted Scotland to win - I just never personally felt like you threatened Wales enough.

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Sat 16 Mar 2013, 8:02 am

Scrumdown wrote:Biltong, I can assure you that I do not have a problem with the scots. I have scottish ancestry myself.

I do however have a problem with a moderator who seems to have forgotten that this is a rugby forum and that he is not presiding over a presidential debate in the the USA elections.

The points I have made are completely valid. Just google genetics in sport, and you will see. Or just remain ignorant.

What an ignorant, thick bell end - I still strongly suspect he/it is an illiterate representative of the English education system. Probably best to ignore him and let it skulk around other posts with its semi-racist bile. Why is he/it is not baiting/winding up on the Wales - England threads ?

by Scrumdown Sat 16 Mar 2013, 11:05 am

Solid8 wrote:Scrumdown, you are confusing genetics with eugenics, the first is a scientific discipline that is well respected and the subject of many peer-review journals (for someone who is as hard of thinking as yourself this translates to proper science). Eugenics is a controversial subject that has widely been been discredited and has been used to justify some of the worst crimes ever committed by our species.

Genetics does not determine whether someone will be a good rugby player, there are many genetically inherited traits that can be passed from parents to their children (strength, hand eye coordination, susceptibility to injury etc.) that can help. However much more important than this is behavioural conditioning, that is how a child is brought up and how they develop. In one of your myopic, trolling statements you mentioned Samoa. Yes it is true that they punch above their weight in terms of good international players and you can argue that the stereotype of a Samoan means that they posses many traits that would enable them to become rugby players however (and its a big however) the vast majority of world class Samoan players moved to NZ or in the case of Tualagi England at a young age and developed their skillset there. Do you think that this is some kind of co-incidence? Or do you honestly believe that the scouting system is so good that ALL of the most promising players from this country are selected to go and play abroad as children?

As far as Scotland goes if you were to take a DNA sample of every rugby player of European descent and annonymise them even the most respected geneticists would not be able to tell you what country that a person plays for. This is different for mitochondrial DNA as that is only ever inherited from a person's mother however this does not have any bearing on which genetic traits a person exhibits. Basically there is no difference. Instead if you look at the financial situation of the SRU since the game turned pro you will see that for a long time they were almost broke and subsequently youth development stalled, they have slowly turned this situation around and now we are slowly getting better young players coming through. However this will take time.

If you want to learn about genetics, there are places called libraries, they keep books there, go and read these. You will find that for a book on science to be published the person who writes it generally has to have things called qualifications that are relevant to what they are writing about. This is not always the case with the "information" that you will find from a quick Google search as a lot of that is generally bullsh*t because anyone, even someone as woefully bigoted and slow as yourself, can publish what they want. If you must resort to getting information from the internet use peer-review journals (you will have to pay to access all but the precis).

kthnxbai

If a samoan is given the structures to develop that are available in new zealand or england then the chances of him making it as a professional rugby player are much higher than it would be for an european given the same support and development structures. This is because samoans are typically tall and strong which are assets on a rugby field.

The Japanese, meanwhile are short and stocky which means that they are at a disadvantage in rugby due to the fact that height matters in the lineout, for example. Similarly, height is important in a game such as basketball.

Genetic differences do exist between populations and these genetic differences give some countries a competitive advantage in some sports. All athletes are not created equal.

P.S. Please refrain from making personal attacks in the future as it will not be tolerated by the moderators.

by IanBru Sat 16 Mar 2013, 11:13 am

Ok Scrumdown, perhaps you could explain what the myriad genetic differences are between Scotland and Wales?

If we're as deficient as you claim, I can only wonder how Liddell, Wells, Obree, Hoy, Clark and McRae actually managed to win anything,

by **RDW** Sat 16 Mar 2013, 11:21 am

I have to say I've always felt significantly genetically inferior to our Celtic and English brethren. In fact, it's a wonder us Scots even manage to get out of bed in the morning!

It's amazing how genetically different we are from them. picard

by Scrumdown Sat 16 Mar 2013, 11:33 am

RDW_Scotland wrote:I have to say I've always felt significantly genetically inferior to our Celtic and English brethren. In fact, it's a wonder us Scots even manage to get out of bed in the morning!

It's amazing how genetically different we are from them.

Wales greatest sportsmen are all the children of immigrants.

Colin Jackson, Ryan Giggs, Joe Calzaghe etc

Wales has benefited from the influx of migrants over the years which has strengthed its gene pool.

by DrTreasure Sat 16 Mar 2013, 11:35 am

During the night my wife gave birth to our first child. I looked down at my little girl and thanked my lucky stars that her mothers english genes could make up for the deficiencies of the Scottish genome that i had burdened her with. Imbecile.

by **RDW** Sat 16 Mar 2013, 11:47 am

One of the many, many ways you are discrediting yourself is that - if you are correct - you are suggesting the DNA of Scottish people has changed so much in the past 20 years that Scotland cannot produce top level sportsmen and women anymore. Indeed our DNA was good enough in 1999 to win the 5N but it has gone so downhill from then that - as you put it - it doesn't matter who our coach is because we are genetically inferior.

If you are trotting out top level sportsmen operating at the highest level then let me do ours:

Sir Chris Hoy
Andy Murray
Kathryn Granger
Michael Jamieson

Now the key thing with them is that they have Scottish DNA but spent most of their sporting life training and playing outwith the country - Hoy in Manchester at a top level sports center, Murray learnt his tennis in Spain, Michael Jamieson swims at a top level center in Bath.

And herein lies my final point - you're clearly confused at the difference between nature and nurture. The named sports people show that Scottish DNA can produce sportsmen at the highest level - but the key thing is that they have been able to train and nurture at the right place, and with the right people.

by **Biltong** Sat 16 Mar 2013, 11:57 am

After reading all this I thank my lucky stars I am not Scottish. Doh

by **RDW** Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:02 pm

Yeah Biltong - you've got enough to have to deal with being South African! Run

by **Biltong** Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:04 pm

touche

by aitchw Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:07 pm

Isn't there a fair bit of Scottish DNA in NZ?

by Scrumdown Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:One of the many, many ways you are discrediting yourself is that - if you are correct - you are suggesting the DNA of Scottish people has changed so much in the past 20 years that Scotland cannot produce top level sportsmen and women anymore. Indeed our DNA was good enough in 1999 to win the 5N but it has gone so downhill from then that - as you put it - it doesn't matter who our coach is because we are genetically inferior.

If you are trotting out top level sportsmen operating at the highest level then let me do ours:

Sir Chris Hoy
Andy Murray
Kathryn Granger
Michael Jamieson

Now the key thing with them is that they have Scottish DNA but spent most of their sporting life training and playing outwith the country - Hoy in Manchester at a top level sports center, Murray learnt his tennis in Spain, Michael Jamieson swims at a top level center in Bath.

And herein lies my final point - you're clearly confused at the difference between nature and nurture. The named sports people show that Scottish DNA can produce sportsmen at the highest level - but the key thing is that they have been able to train and nurture at the right place, and with the right people.

Cycling is an elitist sport where success has more to do with investment in the bike etc than talent.

Murray is a one off in a minority sport which is also elitist.

I also note that the scots you mention are all white and middle class. There is no diversity in the gene pool.

by **RDW** Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:14 pm

aitchw wrote:Isn't there a fair bit of Scottish DNA in NZ?

They must have taken all the good bits and left us with obesity and heart disease..

by **RDW** Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:26 pm

So wait, you're now saying that Scottish DNA can produce sportsmen but our DNA is not diverse enough? And you have used 3 people as proof that Wales sports people has diverse DNA?

And you have traced the DNA of all Scottish sports people to prove that none of them have immigrant DNA?

by Scrumdown Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:29 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:
aitchw wrote:Isn't there a fair bit of Scottish DNA in NZ?

They must have taken all the good bits and left us with obesity and heart disease..

You often find that those who choose to migrate to australia or new zealand do so because they enjoy the outdoors and have a propensity for sport so your statement is not as silly as you might want it to be.

by bsando Sat 16 Mar 2013, 12:33 pm

There are so many factors, but I think it is just the Scottish lifestyle to a certain extent. I've had a few of my mates visit from Australia and they always find the chip shops filthy and laugh at things like deep fried pizzas etc. The weather is pretty dire too and it doesn't help encourage people to exercise more. But I think British attitudes to sport and outdoor activity are changing. Also helps that less Brits are smoking too, they banned smoking in pubs, restaurants etc in Australia years and years ago. Recently there was a bit of shock here in the UK when they put anti smoking ad up with a bloke growing a tumour on his ciggie. When I was 9 years old in Australia, so 1997, TV ads had brains being cut open, clogged arteries squeezed, smokers lungs dissected. So the UK is seriously lagging behind countries like AUS, NZ and Canada on that front. Bit off topic I know, but it probably does impact on who becomes top athletes or who those that coulda, woulda shoulda. Especially in Scotland where the population is very small.

by Sponsored content