Scotland will beat England

First topic message reminder :

After today they have a very good chance. Even the perfect Wilkinson had a nightmare day at the boot which was almost as horrific as when Bergamasco played 9.

Neither Arg or Scotland got within 15 points of Wales on the last encounters. Neither has a potent backline. Both are ranked below Wales. Their strengths are in the forward pack which is also one of Wales' strengths. Of course they(Wales) would walk the group and England should have walked that game yesterday but were too awful. Should still top the group though.

nottins_jones wrote:Of course they(Wales) would walk the group and England should have walked that game yesterday but were too awful. Should still top the group though.

This time next week Wales could well be out of the world cup (2 games in and going home) so I wouldn't talk about 'walking' any group, son.

Why can't I talk about walking that particular group? At least I can provide a fair and valid assessment with factual evidence to back up my claim instead of just disagreeing with someone.

Wales won't be losing next week when our backs are against the wall. You got a bit lippy before your loss at Cardiff so do yourself a favour by not making the same mistake again pal.

nottins_jones wrote:Wales won't be losing next week when our backs are against the wall.

Ah, ok. There's absolutely no precedent for Wales losing to a PI side when they need to win to qualify for the knockout stages.

Boy, there are some cocky fans on here following a defeat.

Yeah and it seems I'm wasting time with a cocky fan too who can only degenerate instead of contribute. Hence him avoiding my question. Oh well.

I'm not quite sure how stating that you beat two teams the last time you played them means you will beat them and walk the group if you were to play them in this years RWC ? Wales lost their last two games to England prior to beating them. I'm sure certain fans would call England fans arrogant/cocky if they said they would "walk" the next game between the sides if they said the same ? As we know from that game, previous results prove nothing, something some Welsh fans have told us countless times since that game.

If I was a Scottish supporter I'd me more worried about Argentina at the moment. If Scotland lose against them, they will be under so much pressure to get a result against England in the final game.

Thing with England is you can see where the improvement can come from. Most obviously goal kicking, second getting Youngs on from the start, third getting Ashton into the game, fourth get the front row playing within the laws as they did for 46 minutes of the game.
They can play that badly and still cause mid level sides (like Scotland) problems. Its pretty likely that Scotland will try and play England the same way Argentina did , try and stop them playing and releasing the back 3. Theres nothing to say they cant win, England have had trouble every time a team has looked to shut them down and stop them playing. But I dont see anything thats changed since the groups were first announced...England are the favourites despite having two sides capable of beating them in the group.
Good for Scotland that they got the bonus point today , they could be vital in qualifying. I suspect that shipping that many points may have been down to them targetting a more open attacking game than they are used to knowing how improtant the 4 tries could be in decideing final group positions.

I think the England game at the end is a tricky one to call really because much will hang on the situation in the group at that stage. If Scotland beat Argentina, then I think both England and Scotland will (rightly or wrongly) rotate a few players for the final game.

England (rightly) will feel that their squad has more depth, and accordingly can win that game and secure top spot regardless of who Scotland pick. Scotland on the other hand may (wrongly) feel that they can't go hammer and tong in three consecutive matches and come out on top, and may (also wrongly) feel that their best chance of making a semi-final is if we have a fully fit 1st XV for the QF.

If Argentina beat Scotland then the final game becomes much more interesting. It would make the final round a 3-way contest for qualification, and all three sides would need to pick their best. In many respects I think that would do the two sides coming out of it all some good, as it'll harden them going into the QFs, effectively facing an additional knock-out game.

England are now of course favourites for the group, and favourites to beat Scotland. But given how both England and Scotland played on Saturday, I don't think either side are counting any chickens. Personally I just want to beat Georgia, and take it from there.

nottin jones your arrogance is incredible. I thought Wales played well and deserved to beat South Africa but the reality is they lost by 1 point and are one loss away from being dumped out of the world cup. They wouldn't walk any group.

England know how to win ugly and close out games in world cups. Wales have not shown they can do this. Wales are a good side with a bright future but without that mental edge they will struggle to win the tight games. South Africa won despite being outplayed for most the game because they are a tough team to beat in world cups.


FES I definitely expect England to play their best against Scotland.

England still need to work out their best backrow combo as I think they struggled physically with the Argentinians.

Should Wilkinson still be the starting fly half?

Who do you start at hooker?

Should Stevens start? When him and Hartley came on you could see an immediate impact in the scrummaging department.

In my opinion Stevens is equally proficient at tight head or loose head. Not sure if he should be impact or not though.

I personally feel Youngs has been getting too much credit. Yes he made an impact when he came on but when he came on the English pack had already softened up the Argentinians and made the scrum halves job a lot easier.

The injection of pace was needed and was a game changer but why not do the same in each match? Would Youngs have been as effective at the beginning of the match?

I feel Wigglesworth's performance is underrated. I thought he played quite well actually. Made at least one awesome try saving tackle. He defended well,kicked well and was controlled in my opinion.

I thought Martin Johnson used the bench well.

The reality is England narrowly won a world cup match against tough opposition in their first game. If they win their remaining matches they top the pool. A win is a win - ugly or beautiful.

Results are the key to this game. Argentina got an all important bonus point in the England game. Scotland has to find a more convincing performance against Georgia and a bonus point for 4 tries would even up the points there. Then the Argentina game looms as a key game. It won´t just depend on the result but also if one team can deprive the other of all important bonus points.

But then again, if results don´t go Scotland´s way, it might bring about a do or die attitude against England that might prove beneficial. If they win, then it takes the bonus points out of it and if England don´t necessarily need to win to progress as top qualifier, then they might take a more long-term approach.

So for me, as the last game of this pool, the points situation might prove decisive. No doubt England will be playing to win all their matches but if Scotland can stay close to near the finish and England know what they have to score in order to progress, the hunger might be reserved for the knockout games. Unlikely but not completely improbable.

kiakahaaotearoa the hunger to destroy the opposition should always be there. This is a world cup. It will be England vs Scotland - any more incentive?

Also momentum is important winning all our games would be a huge boost.

The whole point is to make bonus points irrelevant to England.

If Argentina lose to Scotland they are out. Simple as that really.

beshocked.....

Wilko...Well he an Flood would always have roitated anyway. So Flood will get a chance to show if hes gotten over his own yips ...presumably in the Georgia game first. England are lucky with the way the fixtures are now, it gives them a chgance to reassess who their first choice should be over the course of 3 games.

Hooker...I think England need more mobility in the front 3. I was suprised to see Thommo over Hartley in the first place. Even more so if Lawes is banned. Again though theres a chance to rotate and assess over a few games.

Stevens same again really. He could well earn a start.

With Youngs I think England really miss a running threat from their halfbacks and inside center. A lot of their attacking game, and how they bought Ashton into play was based on Youngs and Flood running and playing a high tempo game. Now they dont have that Ashton is nowhere to be seen.
A big worry has to be the number of times the Argentinians walked therough the 10/12 channel. Tindall and Wilko between them had 5 missed tackles, yet that was the one place you expected them to be unbreachable in the backs. Maybe you could blame it Tindall being out of his usual psoition but hes suppossed to be the defensive guru.

England did get a win against a decent side but they ahve to improve significantly if they want to be in a position to lose to SA by just one point.

The Steve Borthwick positives to take from the performance is that they learnt from their sloppy early play and stopped conceeding penalties, and that stepping off the rucks didnt stop them winning the second half. They also have options to improve their attacking play, and a chance to experiement and find a plan B to stop Scotland and everyone else just using the same blueprint of contesting every ball and trying to stop Englands back 3 from getting into the game. Armitage still looks dangerous, Ashton isnt suddenly a bad winger because he isnt getting the ball, and Foden can hurt sides if he can fit his head between the gaps in broken play.

Well I´m not so sure. Imagine if Argentina get bonus point wins from their remaining matches. Unlikely, granted, but not impossible. Then it could go to a count back depending on other results.

But let´s take the scenario where England get a penalty with 10 minutes to go and they´re 3 points down. There´s sustained pressure and Scotland are about to break. Do England go for the 3 points and the draw knowing that they can progress through as top team in their pool knowing how many points they need to get? Or does the hunger to win kick in and they go for a try? Well call me crazy but I think they go for the penalty. And then with 10 mins to go it comes down to whoever scores points next. That is the scenario I´m talking about rather than England going in thinking it doesn´t matter who wins.

beshocked wrote:I personally feel Youngs has been getting too much credit. Yes he made an impact when he came on but when he came on the English pack had already softened up the Argentinians and made the scrum halves job a lot easier.

The injection of pace was needed and was a game changer but why not do the same in each match? Would Youngs have been as effective at the beginning of the match?

I feel Wigglesworth's performance is underrated. I thought he played quite well actually. Made at least one awesome try saving tackle. He defended well,kicked well and was controlled in my opinion.

Wigglesworth was undoubtedly excellent in defensive, and at one stage he made about three consecutive tackles preventing a near certain try. His pass, when he finally releases the ball, is excellent, and his kicking from hand is better than the other two options. However, he should still be dropped. England do not possess many attacking weapons, and when the game is being played slowly as it was on Saturday, they have virtually none. Youngs and his ability to increase the tempo of the match and break around the fringes is an absolutely vital cog in England's attack, and I'd comfortably sacrifice the solid and methodical Wigglesworth for a player who can ignite the backs and create front foot momentum almost single handedly. England need a risk taker at 9, a player who will ensure that the game is played at the tempo to suit England. Despite the sharp pass, Wigglesworth is a player who likes to ensure his side are nicely organised and fully ready for the ball. Sadly he also gives the opposition the same luxury, and against Argentina you are playing into their hands.

Peter seabiscuit wheeler now that we have beaten Argentina the pool looks favourable.

I blame the backrow the most for the stuttering English performance. They didn't give Wigglesworth and Wilkinson good ball to work with.

I didn't think they gave Wigglesworth sufficient protection and the amount of penalties given away by the pack in particular put us constantly under pressure.


FES my point is we could have lost without Wigglesworth's defensive heroics in the first half. To rely on the scrum half so heavily for attacking options is foolish in my opinion. What happens if Youngs is injured? None of the rest of the backline did anything of note. Wilkinson in particular had a very poor game.

I completely agree, Wilkinson offered little in attack, Tuilagi was well marshalled and Armitage looked like a specialist full back playing on the wing. I don't blame Wigglesworth entirely for England's inability to speed matters up, he played better than most of the other backs when you add his defensive work into the mix, but I do think that 9 is a key position for dictating the tempo of the game, and in that regard he failed (whether he was executing orders from above or not).

I would play Youngs and Flood together against Georgia, and have Simpson on the bench. I'd also use Haskell at 8. The message should be simple. England are fitter than their next two opponents, and quick ball and intensity of play should be the buzz words for training this week. That'll also give you some front foot ball, which will go a long way to stemming the penalty count. Mistakes will be made and I'm sure it'll look scrappy at times, England aren't the All Blacks, but it'll give the likes of Ashton and Foden some ball they can actually use. Wood should play at 7 as well. Drop Easter and move Haskell to 8.

Agree with the posters above who have pointed out that England should be much more worried about the Scotland game if the Scots manage to lose to Argentina beforehand.

Also agree that the Wiggler surprised me with his solid defence - I can't see Youngs having made those tackles.

Without a shred of WUM intended, it never ceases to amaze me that a nation renowned for its forward packs still does not currently know what its best loose forward combination is. Having good players is not enough at the top level - 6, 7 and 8 need to be specialists that understand their role and have experience in playing in those channels.

If England win this tournament, it seems that it may be despite their loosies, not because of them. And I say this as a big Croft fan.

Duty281 wrote:

rugbywhales wrote:After today they have a very good chance. Even the perfect Wilkinson had a nightmare day at the boot which was almost as horrific as when Bergamasco played 9.

I guess you missed Scotland's game today then. They conceded 20-odd points to ROMANIA! England will murder them just like SA will murder Wales tomorrow.

Errrrmmm...... I think that crystal ball needs a bit of spit and polish.

Hmmmm, that was a ropey old prediction.

Whichever side wins the Scotland v England game, I predict that the losing side will get a losing bonus point. I don't think there'll be much between the sides.