Ireland [1] vs Scotland [7] Pool A, Match 6, RWC 2019

First topic message reminder :

Ireland vs Scotland

Pool A, Match 6
Sunday, September 22
Kick Off 08:45 BST
International Stadium Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture, Yokohama City

Teams


Ireland


1.Healy, 2.Best (C), 3.Furlong
4.Henderson, 5.James Ryan
6.O'Mahony, 7.Van der Flier
8.Stander

9.Murray, 10.Sexton
12.Aki, 13.Ringrose
11.Stockdale, 15.Lamour, 14.Conway

Replacements: Scannell, Kilcoyne, Porter, Beirne, Conan, McGrath, Carty, Farrell

Scotland


1.Dell, 2.McInally (C), 3.Nel
4.Gilchrist, 5.Gray
6.Barclay (VC), 7.Watson, 8.Wilson

9.Laidlaw (VC), 10.Russell
12.Johnson, 13.Taylor
11.Maitland, 15.Hogg, 14.Seymour

Bench: Brown, Reid, Berghan, Cummings, Thomson, Price, Harris, Graham

RDW wrote:
There's a lot of anger in Scottish rugby fans and former players on social media, and rightly so.

The most obvious problem is the fact there's basically no excuse. First game, all the prep will have been for it. No disruptions, no major injuries, no fatigue or anything like that. The preparation was clearly wrong - mentally, tactically, fitness wise. Completely. Were this the last group game you could forgive it a touch more. But not first game.

Tom English raised a similar point in his BBC article - Saturday marked 100 days since our world cup pre-season started. What have we been doing in all that time??

Honestly, Townsend reminds me of Brendan Rogers in his early days. All a bit wedded to this foreign idea of expansive play without really having a comprehensive understanding of how to fit it in to a British system, and a bit in denial about its failings. I imagine there have been lots of little handling drills, and open play stuff. I was listening to a podcast, can't remember which, where they said Scotland's training this summer has been Townsend 'literally throwing the ball in the air and telling them to play'. You can't win games with 40% of a gameplan. The backs stuff is great. Someone in the post match asked about the 'right to go wide' and Townsend sort of looked at him with disdain - "the right? well, if you go wide and it works, I suppose you've earnt it" sort of response. So that's what I think they've been doing. 15 a side 7s.

You should offer him your services as a consultant Miaow to educate him how to "fit it into a British system"

That's simple. He doesn't even have to pay me. Just demote himself to backs coach, hire a proper Head Coach who allows the forwards coach to do a proper job, and you'll see immediate improvements. You can't expect British teams to outpass and outrun SH sides if it isn't in your DNA, which it isn't in Scotland. Brendan Rogers found that out in Europe with both Liverpool and Celtic, albeit both teams were very nternational.

I didnt realise passing was linked to DNA, thats news to me. Scotland are great at passing. Their forwards were a fair bit off the mark though and they didnt get their tactics right. Big deal though, they will learn and move on.

15 a side 7s.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

That's it in a nutshell really.

I think Townsend is a good coach, I just think he hasn't been able to implement his Glasgow style with Scotland.

There is no need for Scotland to panic, they can still qualify comfortably and then go into a QF, likely against the ABs with no pressure.

England made the final in 2007 after being completely trounced by the Springboks.

Scotland have always struggled up front. It's not really a surprise that Scotland were bullied up front. If Scotland did the right to go wide stuff would they not do worse and be back to not scoring like the bad days.

Scotland play to their strengths but just don't have the grunt up front to stop the physical teams.

rodders wrote:I think Townsend is a good coach, I just think he hasn't been able to implement his Glasgow style with Scotland.

There is no need for Scotland to panic, they can still qualify comfortably and then go into a QF, likely against the ABs with no pressure.

England made the final in 2007 after being completely trounced by the Springboks.

All true. Next week, the Scottish fans could be back singing the praises of the fastest rugby on the planet.

But I guess first truth Joe Schmidt made himself face when becoming an International coach was that Leinster wouldn't win a WC. I think Townsend is more stubborn, and keeps suggesting through actions and indirect words, that Glasgow could. Townsend might prove right but the betting shops won't be agreeing with him anytime soon.

EWT Spoons wrote:I've not read this thread since the game, as it would likely just depress me having to relive it, but just wanted to say well done Ireland, only one team in it from the moment you got the first try and no complaints on the result.  I mean loads of complaints about how we played, but no argument about who deserved to win.

Scotland are close to being competitive as a team, and Schmidt has never appeared as nervous before a game as he was on Sunday. However as the game unfolded the Ireland tactics were clear and more importantly working. Scotland needed a leader on the pitch who could see what was happening and adjust accordingly.

Schmidt was nervous because he didn't know whether his game plan would work and whether he had misjudged Townsend. The expected Caledonian bombardment of the Irish back three started early and they all knocked on, but crucially the strength of the Ireland defence and the scrum meant no significant advantage resulted for Scotland. The Scots expected to put pressure on the Irish lineout, but unlike Nigel Owens in the England game, Wayne Barnes insisted on a gap between the lines. The variety of calls and timing that were deployed by Ireland were never really tested despite losing key exponent O'Mahoney early (although that did affect their chance of disrupting the Scottish lineout).
The key tactical call was to shut down Russell and Hogg every time they got a sniff of the ball. Schmidt knew Townsend thought Scotland had a stronger running game and they would try to get the ball wide at the earliest opportunity. Joe countered this by getting players up in the faces of the wide men anytime Finn or Stuart had the ball. Both Russell and Hogg were looking to pass rather than break confirming Joe's suspicions. It was only in the second half (when this no doubt had been pointed out at the interval) that Hogg in particular started to run more and to good effect, but by that time the heavens had opened and playing at speed was risking turnover.

I don't think Townsend is a bad coach, but he thinks too much like the mercurial player he was and probably chides himself for that. Scotland has a rich history of sprinting and it is where the Sevens game started, so Gregor may be right to make Scottish rugby a fast brand. However could part of his problem be that he is not totally convinced of his stated strategy, so he doesn't start Darcy and Price, play Kinghorne or select Grigg and he has ended up falling between two stools?

Schmidt on the other hand doesn't believe in tall poppies, preferring the consistent over the exceptional. It may be annoying to watch for the neutral, but he really has no other choice. He needs to know that he can interchange exceptional players with those less talented and still get a TEAM performance that doesn't drop off O'Sullivan's cliff. For example Sexton and Murray are exceptional players, but often seem to be playing within themselves to the point where it seems engineered. Could this be so that if either are missing, understudies can maintain that normal standard and the team still functions? This may not be good enough to win the Cup but may make qualification for the quarter final more probable, and even make reaching a later stage possible.

Collapse2005 wrote:I didnt realise passing was linked to DNA, thats news to me. Scotland are great at passing. Their forwards were a fair bit off the mark though and they didnt get their tactics right. Big deal though, they will learn and move on.

I meant DNA in a non literal sense. If you're looking for a 'fight', I really cba, but if not, the general point is we don't have the instincts to play sport in the way they do down south. There are all sorts of reasons for that, hence using the colloquial 'DNA' to mean cultural, systemic/educational, professional attitudes to sport and rugby. Passing also isn't just passing - take Russell out and I don't think Scotland look particularly impressive in the handling stakes. The two elements of attaching rugby all NH lag behind even the tier 2 nations like Samoa and Fiji are composure when making a line break, and support lines - how to manipulate space behind the defensive line instead of just sticking your head down, basically. Scotland still have the NH 'DNA' in too many of their players for this style to work if they repeatedly abandon the more brutish and fundamental parts of the sport, which has been the case for the last 4 years. England's Twickenham meltdown - based on hubris from the home side - has skewed perspectives for Scotland, the team and some fans. I love watching them play, but it's so obvious what they need to fix to be more competitive, and yet it doesn't happen. DNA - Schmidt knew what to do with the Irish DNA, and Gatland saw a fundamental weakness in the Welsh DNA. It's important not to pretend you're NZ/Barcelona in the case of Brendan. That's why I think it's a good analogy. You can't live with your head in the sand, and everything I see suggests the metrics Townsend uses to judge success ignores some fundamental parts of the game.

Can you summarise the main points of that response please?

Brendan wrote:Scotland have always struggled up front.  It's not really a surprise that Scotland were bullied up front. If Scotland did the right to go wide stuff would they not do worse and be back to not scoring like the bad days.

Scotland play to their strengths but just don't have the grunt up front to stop the physical teams.

Have they though? They had some genuinely world class forwards 10-15 years ago. Jason White was fantastic. Nathan Hines was arguably world class as well. The back rowers they had in the mid-00s were up there with anyone in B&I for a while - Hogg, Simon Taylor, several more I'm sure I'm forgetting. They were just plagued with an amateur set up across the board, and poor coaches. The only obvious change to that has been Glasgow, and latter Edinburgh, finding success, and Cotter making a difference at test level. But 10 years ago they had a pack that went toe to toe and even beat SA and OZ in the late 00s, even when they had a backline of Dan Parks/another shyeight 10 and a couple of plodders outside them. Thing is, though, even now, they have good playing personnel - but they don't perform at test level. Wales' forwards, back row aside, don't look massively better than Scotland's, if at all. There's not really an excuse for that. You could make the Scottish forwards perform significantly better if you wanted to.

To make things worse, one of the few loose forwards I've seen show the necessary power to make a difference to their power game - Magnus Bradbury - wasn't even selected initially. There seems a lack of identifying what matters, who to select etc., and that startsfrom the top.

Collapse2005 wrote:Can you summarise the main points of that response please?

You misunderstood DNA.

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Can you summarise the main points of that response please?

You misunderstood DNA.

Ha, fair enough. My take on it is you can set your stall out however you want there is no specific NH vs SH way of playing that teams don't have the ability to execute. However, if you neglect the foundations of the game such as strong abrasive pack winning the set piece, breakdown and collisions it doesnt matter how well you pass.

miaow wrote:

Brendan wrote:Scotland have always struggled up front.  It's not really a surprise that Scotland were bullied up front. If Scotland did the right to go wide stuff would they not do worse and be back to not scoring like the bad days.

Scotland play to their strengths but just don't have the grunt up front to stop the physical teams.

Have they though? They had some genuinely world class forwards 10-15 years ago. Jason White was fantastic. Nathan Hines was arguably world class as well. The back rowers they had in the mid-00s were up there with anyone in B&I for a while - Hogg, Simon Taylor, several more I'm sure I'm forgetting. They were just plagued with an amateur set up across the board, and poor coaches. The only obvious change to that has been Glasgow, and latter Edinburgh, finding success, and Cotter making a difference at test level. But 10 years ago they had a pack that went toe to toe and even beat SA and OZ in the late 00s, even when they had a backline of Dan Parks/another shyeight 10 and a couple of plodders outside them. Thing is, though, even now, they have good playing personnel - but they don't perform at test level. Wales' forwards, back row aside, don't look massively better than Scotland's, if at all. There's not really an excuse for that. You could make the Scottish forwards perform significantly better if you wanted to.

To make things worse, one of the few loose forwards I've seen show the necessary power to make a difference to their power game - Magnus Bradbury - wasn't even selected initially. There seems a lack of identifying what matters, who to select etc., and that startsfrom the top.

Fair point.  I should of said the last 10 years.  Edinburgh have really shown up these last two seasons to be as good as anyone up front.  Their problem I suppose is they have focused on the pack to much and forgot about the backs.

Is Russell part of the problem with the pack.  No one knows what he will do and passes can be 50:50 so the forwards maybe find it hard to know where to be so are always on the back foot.  Add in the frustration of doing all the hard work only to lose the ball and be marched back 50m from a kick.

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Can you summarise the main points of that response please?

You misunderstood DNA.

Ha, fair enough. My take on it is you can set your stall out however you want there is no specific NH vs SH way of playing that teams don't have the ability to execute. However, if you neglect the foundations of the game such as strong abrasive pack winning the set piece, breakdown and collisions it doesnt matter how well you pass.

Yes, agreed. The other point I made was there's more to just passing, like knowing what to do when you break the line, how to read and execute effective supporting runners etc. and is why there's still a glass ceiling on the 7s stuff Scotland try to play.

Brendan wrote:Fair point.  I should of said the last 10 years.  Edinburgh have really shown up these last two seasons to be as good as anyone up front.  Their problem I suppose is they have focused on the pack to much and forgot about the backs.

Is Russell part of the problem with the pack.  No one knows what he will do and passes can be 50:50 so the forwards maybe find it hard to know where to be so are always on the back foot.  Add in the frustration of doing all the hard work only to lose the ball and be marched back 50m from a kick.

Russell would be fine is there was an equally adept 'steady Eddie' (not Jones) #10 to come on as and when things start falling apart. For years, there was Duncan and Ruaridh (sp?) Jackson, who never really cut it. If Scotland had a Biggar or Farrell type player, even if not quite as good, it would help massively. But as they're basically 'stuck' with Russell - outside 2 completely opposite yet flawed #9s - I think you're right. There is a lack of knowing what's going on, when, why etc. Don't think that's all Russell's fault, as Scotland went side to side with basically no enthusiasm against Ireland and a lot of that stemmed from Laidlaw. But it's a good point.

It also feels like Townsend 'sees' himself in Russell. There's almost a dedication to not waste his talent. Which is admirable. But there's probably too much pressure on him to produce. Other selections like Sam Johnson seemed naive as well, as if Ireland wouldn't just rush and smash when slow ball went wide all day long.

Honestly, I'm annoyed for Scotland really. To go down that meekly in the first game - after everything that's gone before - suggests prep problems.