Scotland V England - The Calcutta Cup

First topic message reminder :





Past results

2010	13 March	England	15–15	Murrayfield	Edinburgh	63	39	15
2011	13 March	England	22–17	Twickenham	London	64	39	15
2012	4 February	England	6–13	Murrayfield	Edinburgh	65	39	15
2013	2 February	England	38–18	Twickenham	London	66	39	15
2014	8 February	England	0–20	Murrayfield	Edinburgh	67	39	15
2015	14 March	England	25–13	Twickenham	London	68	39	15
2016	6 February	England	9–15[2]	Murrayfield	Edinburgh	69	39	15
2017	11 March	England	61–21[3]	Twickenham	London	70	39	15
2018	24 February	Scotland	25–13[4]	Murrayfield	Edinburgh	70	40	15
2019	16 March	Scotland	38–38	Twickenham	London	70	40	16

Teams


TBC





Furbank; May, Joseph, Farrell, Daly; Ford, Heinz; M Vunipola, George, Sinckler, Kruis, Itoje, Ludlam, Underhill, Curry

Replacements: Dunn, Genge, Stuart, Launchbury, Lawes, Earl, Youngs, Devoto

Scotland should have kicked more. I know it sounds stupid but I was saying to some friends (and strangers who overheard in the pub) when Elliot Daly kicked out on the full that whatever Scotland do from the lineout on England's 22 they should kick it. At the front? Maul it, then put an up and under in landing 5m out and put some chasers behind the tryline waiting to pick up the scraps. Off the middle or back? Play flat and either grubber or chip it over and try to hack on in to the deaball zone and score.

In the end that's exactly how England scored. Grubber through and a try from the scrum.

Given Murrayfield's huge dead bal zone I don't know why Scotland don't try attacking kicks more often. This was the exact game for trying to force the back 3 in to mistakes from a kick. Scotland should have won and had momentum their own way when Heinz and Daly were forcing their kicks out on the full. Lack of leadership. I don't like having a full back as captain, too far away from the play to lead the side.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seems likely given 2 home games  and italy away. The weather has curtailed a chance for a bonus point tho.

Two very poor performances from England, dont think I would take anything for granted from here. Id fancy England to lose at least 1 of their last 3.

blindsided wrote:On the way back from murrayfield, I cannot overemphasise how horrific those conditions were. Just putrid.

Well done to England. 6-2 bench split paid off and overall you just deserved it.

I can't really take anything from that game from a Scotland point of view. Weather so awful that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticise the attack. Neither team passed out beyond 12 and just kicked the crap out of the ball! The Scottish lineout though...

Tend to agree with that, it was not a day for the backs, Jones and the wingers never got near the ball and why would they in those conditions.

Hard to blame Hogg for that horrible bouncing ball either, if England had done a few more kicks like that earlier on, we would have been in bigger trouble earlier. Got to credit Genge and the England pack for taking their chance when it eventually presented it self.

Scotland's 6N is going to be judged on our last three games, the Italy game may just be coming at the right time!

And that's up to you for predictions guns. Will help.push me back up the rankings anyway!

RDW wrote:

Idiot wrote: ti hought the way we played in the second half was excellent, given the conditions. To show what we did for the first 15 minutes to force errors and penalties was good. It was just that five minute period that England got into our 22 that we have to remedy

Wtf is Townsend on?

He's partly right but also sounds like he has a loser mentality if that's what he's told his players. They lacked initiative to win the game when England kept handing it to them on a plate.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And that's up to you  for predictions guns. Will help.push me back up the rankings anyway!

Not in it this year

It's all a bit catty.

king_carlos wrote:Genge's post match interview is fantastic. That's a man being dragged into 'media relations' training on Monday morning. He's a fantastic personality.

They can try but much like Marler and Cole I think he'll give whatever interview he wants. Marler and Cole had great fun with the media at the world cup. Genge just tells it exactly as he sees it, doesn't say negative things about his teammates or the coaches so no one minds. It's a breath of fresh air as opposed to the dull cut and paste interviews most players give.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Genge's post match interview is fantastic. That's a man being dragged into 'media relations' training on Monday morning. He's a fantastic personality.

They can try but much like Marler and Cole I think he'll give whatever interview he wants. Marler and Cole had great fun with the media at the world cup. Genge just tells it exactly as he sees it, doesn't say negative things about his teammates or the coaches so no one minds. It's a breath of fresh air as opposed to the dull cut and paste interviews most players give.

It was very noticeable how quickly Ben Youngs was wheeled out afterwards on a damage limitation exercise by the media controllers!

No 7&1/2 wrote:This match showing why the best team doesnt always win the 6ns and why bonus points isn't a way forward.

After today's games I think France are on for the slam but you never know.

I think one thing is very clear, the captain has to be a forward.

Only a back would continue to kick in those conditions, I bet had the captain been a forward they would had threated a soap bar wrapped in a towel treatment to the next player to kick.

Not sure that response relates to my point miaow.

TightHEAD wrote:I think one thing is very clear, the captain has to be a forward.

Agreed

Think ireland had a back as captain and Wales had a forwards so perhaps not the be all and end all.

Jesus wept. From an England perspective that was a horrible game to watch. Farrell and Ford are supposedly 2 of the best 10s on the World Stage, yet all their amazing rugby brains told them when we'd won some well-needed possession was to kick it away to the opposition who happily gave it back with interest, or to go for touch, usually on the full.

I have not played any rugby since 1989. Even I know that it would have been FAR better to keep it with the forwards, truck it up, recycle and over until a penalty or a mistake. At least that way we would keep possession most of the time, the forwards would relish it and we'd have been more likely to get some rewards.

I just don't understand Ford and Farrell's thinking. Are they stupid? "Plan A is not working. I know - we'll try Plan A. Again." Granted the weather was atrocious, but hey, it's all about making progress. Aside from the occasional maul and at the scrum, we really didn't do that much. Ireland will not be worried based on that performance. The likes of Dombrandt would have loved a game in those conditions. Perfect "head-down and charge" weather. We had the forwards - we just barely used them.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seems likely given 2 home games  and italy away. The weather has curtailed a chance for a bonus point tho.

Two very poor performances from England, dont think I would take anything for granted from here. Id fancy England to lose at least 1 of their last 3.

I don't think you can assume anything based on today's game.

France was a funny one. France were worthy winners but England did create enough chances, just had the cutting edge of a wet sponge when they got into the French 22 (barring May)

guestalt_physicality wrote:Scotland should have kicked more. I know it sounds stupid but I was saying to some friends (and strangers who overheard in the pub) when Elliot Daly kicked out on the full that whatever Scotland do from the lineout on England's 22 they should kick it. At the front? Maul it, then put an up and under in landing 5m out and put some chasers behind the tryline waiting to pick up the scraps. Off the middle or back? Play flat and either grubber or chip it over and try to hack on in to the deaball zone and score.

In the end that's exactly how England scored. Grubber through and a try from the scrum.

Given Murrayfield's huge dead bal zone I don't know why Scotland don't try attacking kicks more often. This was the exact game for trying to force the back 3 in to mistakes from a kick. Scotland should have won and had momentum their own way when Heinz and Daly were forcing their kicks out on the full. Lack of leadership. I don't like having a full back as captain, too far away from the play to lead the side.

Nope. Not this time. Had they scored a try early on in the 2nd half they could have done, but their forwards were 2nd best and on this day that mattered.

Mr Bounce wrote:Jesus wept. From an England perspective that was a horrible game to watch. Farrell and Ford are supposedly 2 of the best 10s on the World Stage, yet all their amazing rugby brains told them when we'd won some well-needed possession was to kick it away to the opposition who happily gave it back with interest, or to go for touch, usually on the full.

I have not played any rugby since 1989. Even I know that it would have been FAR better to keep it with the forwards, truck it up, recycle and over until a penalty or a mistake. At least that way we would keep possession most of the time, the forwards would relish it and we'd have been more likely to get some rewards.

I just don't understand Ford and Farrell's thinking. Are they stupid? "Plan A is not working. I know - we'll try Plan A. Again." Granted the weather was atrocious, but hey, it's all about making progress. Aside from the occasional maul and at the scrum, we really didn't do that much. Ireland will not be worried based on that performance. The likes of Dombrandt would have loved a game in those conditions. Perfect "head-down and charge" weather. We had the forwards - we just barely used them.

Yet all our best attacking positions came after kicks and forcing knock ins or other mistakes. The issue was not kicking, as that was the kind of weather where losing the ball in contact was too easy, the issue was kicking badly.

Kicking low grubbers behind the Scottish defence was fine - kicking high bombs at the mercy of the wind was foolish.

Nevertheless, England deserved the win comfortably.

Scotland's forwards were clearly second best in the first half. Yet it took 75 minutes for Bradbury, who was mainly missing on action, to get hooked off. Johnson is not the type of 12 you needed in those conditions. Starsky should have been on at half time along with Rambo. Also Weir would have suited a kicking game better than spawn of Gav. Although Scotland were second best in most departments Toonie could have made changes to at least alter the balance but he either didn't make the changes or did it too late. Never mind they tried their hardest against world cup finalists so what more could you ask for? Absolutely soul destoying mentality from Toonie I'm the post match
interview.

Duty281 wrote:Kicking low grubbers behind the Scottish defence was fine - kicking high bombs at the mercy of the wind was foolish.

Nevertheless, England deserved the win comfortably.

Think a draw would have been a fairer result to be honest, Scotland played most of the rugby for 60 minutes but kept messing up.

And thus an england win last week would have been a fairer result.

BigGee wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Genge's post match interview is fantastic. That's a man being dragged into 'media relations' training on Monday morning. He's a fantastic personality.

They can try but much like Marler and Cole I think he'll give whatever interview he wants. Marler and Cole had great fun with the media at the world cup. Genge just tells it exactly as he sees it, doesn't say negative things about his teammates or the coaches so no one minds. It's a breath of fresh air as opposed to the dull cut and paste interviews most players give.

It was very noticeable how quickly Ben Youngs was wheeled out afterwards on a damage limitation exercise by the media controllers!

Well Eddie did quickly wander over and interrupt the interview. Benny would be the safe option, he's always come across as a nice guy bit he isn't the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to interview banter. He'll stay on script.

I guess that Ellis won't be allowed a beer pre post game interview again.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And thus an england win last week would have been a fairer result.

Eh no, France slaughtered England in the first half to the point of no return. It was 24-0 up to 56 minutes.

lostinwales wrote:

guestalt_physicality wrote:Scotland should have kicked more. I know it sounds stupid but I was saying to some friends (and strangers who overheard in the pub) when Elliot Daly kicked out on the full that whatever Scotland do from the lineout on England's 22 they should kick it. At the front? Maul it, then put an up and under in landing 5m out and put some chasers behind the tryline waiting to pick up the scraps. Off the middle or back? Play flat and either grubber or chip it over and try to hack on in to the deaball zone and score.

In the end that's exactly how England scored. Grubber through and a try from the scrum.

Given Murrayfield's huge dead bal zone I don't know why Scotland don't try attacking kicks more often. This was the exact game for trying to force the back 3 in to mistakes from a kick. Scotland should have won and had momentum their own way when Heinz and Daly were forcing their kicks out on the full. Lack of leadership. I don't like having a full back as captain, too far away from the play to lead the side.

Nope. Not this time. Had they scored a try early on in the 2nd half they could have done, but their forwards were 2nd best and on this day that mattered.

I thought it was close enough up front apart from at the lineout that Scotland should have won the game. They had the home support and they had the momentum. Sinckler's rip on the floor could have turned the game. I think drawing too much from this as a rugby match is pointless given how the game was just a kickfest. Scotland should have won as they had momentum in the last quarter. They didn't take it, England did. It was probably a 50:50 game but Scotland repeatedly blew the chances handed to them and then overplayed around halfway when they should have kicked it until they were around the 22. I don't think they were second best at all. It was a close match.

Ah right you are guns. Just ignore he possession etc when it suits. May as well just stick to the points scored in these 2 examples then.

Jees alot of rewriting games here. England must have won again.

Conditions like that is never going to provide for a spectacle, you take the win, don’t take anything form the game itself and plan for the next match.

guestalt_physicality wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

guestalt_physicality wrote:Scotland should have kicked more. I know it sounds stupid but I was saying to some friends (and strangers who overheard in the pub) when Elliot Daly kicked out on the full that whatever Scotland do from the lineout on England's 22 they should kick it. At the front? Maul it, then put an up and under in landing 5m out and put some chasers behind the tryline waiting to pick up the scraps. Off the middle or back? Play flat and either grubber or chip it over and try to hack on in to the deaball zone and score.

In the end that's exactly how England scored. Grubber through and a try from the scrum.

Given Murrayfield's huge dead bal zone I don't know why Scotland don't try attacking kicks more often. This was the exact game for trying to force the back 3 in to mistakes from a kick. Scotland should have won and had momentum their own way when Heinz and Daly were forcing their kicks out on the full. Lack of leadership. I don't like having a full back as captain, too far away from the play to lead the side.

Nope. Not this time. Had they scored a try early on in the 2nd half they could have done, but their forwards were 2nd best and on this day that mattered.

I thought it was close enough up front apart from at the lineout that Scotland should have won the game. They had the home support and they had the momentum. Sinckler's rip on the floor could have turned the game. I think drawing too much from this as a rugby match is pointless given how the game was just a kickfest. Scotland should have won as they had momentum in the last quarter. They didn't take it, England did. It was probably a 50:50 game but Scotland repeatedly blew the chances handed to them and then overplayed around halfway when they should have kicked it until they were around the 22. I don't think they were second best at all. It was a close match.

Scotland 'had momentum' for the 3rd quarter. After that point they started kicking out on the full, losing the scrum horribly and continued their appalling performance in the lineout. They did look sort of dangerous at times through the whole match, in that their short carries did make distance and they didn't always cough up the ball. They also spent a lot of time attacking England without ever looking like scoring.

There are always some what ifs about a game like that. What if they had gone for goal rather than the corner with a couple of penalties early on? Maybe they get one (on a day where kicking was very hard). Had they got their noses in front it might have changed the game. They didn't.

Scotland had more ball because England kicked it to them all the time. I think we would all like to have seen England truck it up a bit first but the end result is that Scotland had more ball but did sod all with it. In that respect England managed the game better, did more with the ball when they had it. They had a bad run of kicks which everybody has rightly picked up on, but it was one area in an overall performance where they stayed ahead throughout.

It was such an awful day that any kind of fluky score could have been enough to win it. England had one concrete chance and took it. Scotland never got close.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah right you are guns. Just ignore he possession etc when it suits. May as well just stick to the points scored in these 2 examples then.

I think France and Scotland played most for the rugby in both games, after 56 minutes France didnt need to play anymore it was unlikely England would claw 24 points back.

In the game today Scotland pretty much played all the rugby for the first 60, fortunately for England they didnt convert any of their chances.

Im sure England will be much better at home but lets face it they were hopeless today and likewise v France.

Just to add

Scotland had 19 lineouts. They lost 8

England won 10 out of 12.

Scotland conceded 20 turnovers. England 7

lostinwales wrote:

guestalt_physicality wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

guestalt_physicality wrote:Scotland should have kicked more. I know it sounds stupid but I was saying to some friends (and strangers who overheard in the pub) when Elliot Daly kicked out on the full that whatever Scotland do from the lineout on England's 22 they should kick it. At the front? Maul it, then put an up and under in landing 5m out and put some chasers behind the tryline waiting to pick up the scraps. Off the middle or back? Play flat and either grubber or chip it over and try to hack on in to the deaball zone and score.

In the end that's exactly how England scored. Grubber through and a try from the scrum.

Given Murrayfield's huge dead bal zone I don't know why Scotland don't try attacking kicks more often. This was the exact game for trying to force the back 3 in to mistakes from a kick. Scotland should have won and had momentum their own way when Heinz and Daly were forcing their kicks out on the full. Lack of leadership. I don't like having a full back as captain, too far away from the play to lead the side.

Nope. Not this time. Had they scored a try early on in the 2nd half they could have done, but their forwards were 2nd best and on this day that mattered.

I thought it was close enough up front apart from at the lineout that Scotland should have won the game. They had the home support and they had the momentum. Sinckler's rip on the floor could have turned the game. I think drawing too much from this as a rugby match is pointless given how the game was just a kickfest. Scotland should have won as they had momentum in the last quarter. They didn't take it, England did. It was probably a 50:50 game but Scotland repeatedly blew the chances handed to them and then overplayed around halfway when they should have kicked it until they were around the 22. I don't think they were second best at all. It was a close match.

Scotland 'had momentum' for the 3rd quarter. After that point they started kicking out on the full, losing the scrum horribly and continued their appalling performance in the lineout. They did look sort of dangerous at times through the whole match, in that their short carries did make distance and they didn't always cough up the ball. They also spent a lot of time attacking England without ever looking like scoring.

There are always some what ifs about a game like that. What if they had gone for goal rather than the corner with a couple of penalties early on? Maybe they get one (on a day where kicking was very hard). Had they got their noses in front it might have changed the game. They didn't.

Scotland had more ball because England kicked it to them all the time. I think we would all like to have seen England truck it up a bit first but the end result is that Scotland had more ball but did sod all with it. In that respect England managed the game better, did more with the ball when they had it. They had a bad run of kicks which everybody has rightly picked up on, but it was one area in an overall performance where they stayed ahead throughout.

It was such an awful day that any kind of fluky score could have been enough to win it. England had one concrete chance and took it. Scotland never got close.

I still think Scotland should have won as they were the better team in the second half. It's really that simple. If it was reversed I would say the opposite.

New scrum half's needed

guestalt_physicality wrote:

I still think Scotland should have won as they were the better team in the second half. It's really that simple. If it was reversed I would say the opposite.

How exactly were they better? Don't equate time with the ball in your hands as somehow winning unless you turn it into points. Likewise having your opponents feck up and kick the ball out of play also does not equate to winning unless you turn it into points.

99% of games are played in different conditions, and Scotland might have been better in those. Today they weren't

I said better, that doesn't mean 'winning'. Emotions are running high, I understand. I won't push the point. Just how I saw the game as a neutral. Not a great game to watch in all honesty, evenly matched teams in poor conditions.

With the windy conditons i was very surprised how many times Farrell tried to kick at goal instead of going for the corner and driving maul.....then again with how many times the line out wen't astray i guess a shot at 3 points is better than no points at all.

guestalt_physicality wrote:I said better, that doesn't mean 'winning'. Emotions are running high, I understand. I won't push the point. Just how I saw the game as a neutral. Not a great game to watch in all honesty, evenly matched teams in poor conditions.

What utter nonsense, only one team looked like scoring today and they won, a 15 minute period of being better doesn't mean a lot over a 80 minute match.

guestalt_physicality wrote:I said better, that doesn't mean 'winning'. Emotions are running high, I understand. I won't push the point. Just how I saw the game as a neutral. Not a great game to watch in all honesty, evenly matched teams in poor conditions.

'Emotions running high' Right. You'll be telling me I am getting all hysterical next.

I would have thought after that bore of a game "emotions running high" was pretty much the last thing to occur. A truly poor game between 2 poor teams. It turned out that Genge managed to get over from 3 yards out when Scotland didn't manage that. Other than that there was nothing between the teams.


I don't think either team should take much from this game, other than they must do better,

Soul Requiem wrote:

guestalt_physicality wrote:I said better, that doesn't mean 'winning'. Emotions are running high, I understand. I won't push the point. Just how I saw the game as a neutral. Not a great game to watch in all honesty, evenly matched teams in poor conditions.

What utter nonsense, only one team looked like scoring today and they won, a 15 minute period of being better doesn't mean a lot over a 80 minute match.

Both teams scored

Can someone please twll me what the video refs are actually watching. Its becoming embarrassing!!!!

Hogg fecked up and it was a blatant England try. Yet not given.

Just backs up some crazy decisions in the world cup!! Needs to be sorted out...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Can someone please twll me what the video refs are actually watching. Its becoming embarrassing!!!!

Hogg fecked up and it was a blatant England try. Yet not given.

Just backs up some crazy decisions in the world cup!! Needs to be sorted out...

Grounded with his upper body, not sure when that became a thing but apparently it is.

Well I've just about dried out from the worst conditions I've ever witnessed at a rugby game - it was apocalyptic. In the 20 minutes walk into town after I was sodden through and had been blown to pieces - couldn't imagine trying to play rugby in that weather.

So take it for granted that I'm very much cognisant of the weather in my summary below.... but we were feckin awful.

Selection

Every weather outlet in the country knew from early in the week that a storm was going to hit hard. Certainly on Wednesday it was near certainly. EJ does the right thing and picks a meaty pack with another one ready to come off the bench. He tunes his tactics accordingly - they wanted to win at all costs and were happy to play very little rugby to achieve it.

Scotland meanwhile pick an athletic, lightweight centre combo, and a lightweight, athletic bench. WTF was Huw Jones going to achieve in that weather? We could have done with Gilchrist's extra grunt off the bench to solidify the scrums. Matt Scott's direct physical running to give us go forwards but instead had more lightweight, athletic options.

Toony got selection wrong IMO.

Lineout

A total shambles. We can't even blame the weather for this one as England's was near flawless. We lost 5 in the first half and probably a similar number in the 2nd. I'd go as far as saying it was the main contributing factor to is losing - think of the possession, territory and scoring opportunities that would have come if those 10 odd lineouts had been taken.

Danny Wilson's reign has been marked by an appalling lineout - he won't be missed.

No Finn Russell / lack of rugby brain

To explain my comment last night about Finn Russell making a difference...

From the last two games it's very clear that everything is now going through Hogg and the game plan changed to take pressure off Hastings. Yes Hastings had the odd good involvement but he's not running the game and we're not trusting him to take a leading role. Finn is a world class kicker from hand these days and would have hugely contributed to a much more varied kicking game and general attack.

It also showed we're lacking rugby brains and Hogg is very much guilty. We made some really poor decisions at times and lack the ability to change things on the pitch.

We need our talisman back - shame it looks like it won't be happening any time soon.


The breakdown

Came out second best again. We seen to not be committing enough numbers - there was one point Ali Price was on his own having to clear out Underhill! We used to be really good in this area so I don't know what's changed.

Ali Price

Poor performance - why did he stay on so long?

Magnus Bradbury

Completely ineffective when we needed him to be our physical beast.

Hogg's captaincy

Two high profile blunders now. I also can't see who else is providing any leadership to support him?

Soul Requiem wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Can someone please twll me what the video refs are actually watching. Its becoming embarrassing!!!!

Hogg fecked up and it was a blatant England try. Yet not given.

Just backs up some crazy decisions in the world cup!! Needs to be sorted out...

Grounded with his upper body, not sure when that became a thing but apparently it is.

really?

So they dont need to have any control?

What a load of tosh.

Control hasn't been a thing for years now hence all these tries scored when a hand scraped down the side of the ball, bizarre if you ask me.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Can someone please twll me what the video refs are actually watching. Its becoming embarrassing!!!!

Hogg fecked up and it was a blatant England try. Yet not given.

Just backs up some crazy decisions in the world cup!! Needs to be sorted out...

Grounded with his upper body, not sure when that became a thing but apparently it is.

really?

So they dont need to have any control?

What a load of tosh.

GF the laws say nothing about control. The ball can be grounded in goal by any part of the body or arm (not leg). The ball was on the ground and Hogg's body brushed it. The laws have been that was since before you were born.

Also note that because he was going g backwards there was no chance of a knock on. It is here that muppets on commentary talk about control when an player is trying to score. Again they are talking Love sacks as all that matters is that the player does not knock on.

Soul Requiem wrote:Control hasn't been a thing for years now hence all these tries scored when a hand scraped down the side of the ball, bizarre if you ask me.

Control has never been a thing, except in commentators heads and hence fans believing it is a thing.

I think my eyes might have bled a little during that game, but you have to say the conditions were pretty impossible.

I think England made some pretty poor decisions again though. It always looked like a one try game to me, yet in the first half Farrell took on two very difficult kicks into a gale, they should have gone to the corner. England continually put up hanging box kicks that were never going to make any ground. All this despite having the edge in physicality amongst the forwards.

In the second half, despite having seen how hard it was to exit and knowing how big the deadball areas were they kept going for the corners. The number of balls that went straight out was unforgivable. Why didn't they just boot it down the middle and chase? England could and should have camped themselves on the Scottish 22 for the majority of that second half.

I think with a bit of clearer thinking it could have been much more comfortable.

I would challenge any side in the world to impress in those conditions so forgive me if I completely dismiss the wum comments from the usual individuals.

Bar a 10min spell in the 2nd half, I thought we controlled things well and did what we needed to do in truly dire weather. Scotland never really looked like scoring and we missed a fair few chances at goal to make the final scoreline more reflective of this.

May had a good game again and Ford on the whole directed very well, although we struggled to get to grips with the wind behind us for too long in reality. Curry carried well in traffic but isn't really the answer at 8 (we all seem to know this).

Scotland just never really got into the game or when they did they looked a bit toothless. Tough conditions for them as they're not the biggest side, although I do think they look like a decent outfit despite the calls for Townsend's head.

I watched the Wales/Ireland game and they both look like they're going through transition... with neither looking that impressive tbh and you would expect us to beat both fairly comfortably at home.

I'd also add that the kicking didnt often cause the Scottish defenders problems. Practically speaking kicking the ball all the time was absolutely the right thing to do, but relying on the weather alone to cause the Scots to mess up the catch didn't work and they could have done with a lot more variety.