Scotland - where on earth are we?

First topic message reminder :

The big debate for the last 10 years for most Scottish fans have been around a young promising team growing into a good squad and whether we have reach or even turned a corner

Every year we have a stand out result, Ireland away, South Africa, Australia home and away, and unbeaten summer tour, winning the series in Argentina and we feel there is light at the end of the tunnel. We have players arriving who could be the one that makes us click (Visser, Hogg, Gray, Jackson, Weir, de Luca)

But with each step forward there is often a quick jig backwards (Tonga, 6 nations whitewash, Parks returns, inability to catch a ball), so where is Scotland really in the great scheme of things

Are we still looking at a false dawn or have we actually reached a corner (or at least see it in the distance).

What would be the criteria of meeting this criteria and what would allow you to enjoy watching Scotland without having a haggis running in circles in your stomach

And who in your mind is really the cure, and not part of the disease

Anyone who writes that young Harley has no physical impact clearly knows nothing about him.....or rugby in general for that matter.

What an article to read out to the boys just before the game though.

2 years ago there was a couple of points in it with a much better Irish team and a woeful Scottish one. Never going to get a better chance than this.

Scotland by 10.

I really think Scotland remain too fragile mentally to be confident they will win.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do wonder if he has watched Scotland play though.

Comments like this :

Rob Harley (second cap) has little physical impact,

Make me wonder.

Oh my god. Is that really what the article says?
That's hilarious.

Not necessarily TJ.

Imagine being a forward knowing that when you win ball it's going to go out to a bunch of numpties that will do sweet fa with it and all you'll be doing is chasing your own erchies for 80 minutes.

The forwards now know that if they get the ball to the backs, they'll do something with it meaning they're on the front foot.....a mental boost if ever there was one.

Behaviour breeds behaviour and with the young guys in the team full of confidence, that will rub off on everyone else.

They've scored 6 tries in two matches which will have a massive effect on confidence. But even more impressive is that they knew exactly what went wrong against England and instead of going further into their shells like the Scotland of old, they came out against Italy and fixed it. If the forwards front up like they did two weeks ago, Scotland will win.

I really hope you are right Tattie. I want to see more tho to be confident you are

RubyGuby wrote:Risky, without wanting to contradict myself I think your appraisal of Scotland v Italy is spot and and potentially there was a 21 point turnaround with the break away trys and the fluffed Italian try that looked a cert. However, I have seen the beginnings of a team here and I think they have more than enough for what in my opinion is an average Irish team. Unfortunately I see it as a mid-table battle for 3rd and 4th position

Thanks - I do not always want to be the voice of gloom

I really hope we perform and I would take mid table in a heart beat this year

where is it on the planet? - the cold bit, with ice for grass and fog for confusion.

Meanwhile, back at the game? Well, I heard someone above say that if Ireland are given 60 to 70% of the ball they'll stuff Scotland. Personally I think that if Ireland are havng 60 to 70% of the ball, the Scottish captain will get a phone call from them (far far away down beside their own tryline) asking him is he absolutely certain he doesn't want some possession himself.

Ireland in possession isn't all that potent a monster. Mostly it blows itelf out in 20 minutes or so, then starts predictably weaving to the left and to the right, sawing a furrow into the halfway line as it does so.

Give possession to them. They're mostly very polite anyway and kick it back soon enough.

Ruby is right, if a good International side can't have a really good crack at this Irish side (as presently set up by present coaching brains!) then it's not Ireland who should be shamed.

George Carlin wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do wonder if he has watched Scotland play though.

Comments like this :

Rob Harley (second cap) has little physical impact,

Make me wonder.

Oh my god. Is that really what the article says?
That's hilarious.

It is indeed what the article says. I think the journalist will get something of a fright when the Ginger tackle monster starts smashing the dodgey Heaslip in the contact area.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do wonder if he has watched Scotland play though.

Comments like this :

Rob Harley (second cap) has little physical impact,

Make me wonder.

Oh my god. Is that really what the article says?
That's hilarious.

It is indeed what the article says. I think the journalist will get something of a fright when the Ginger tackle monster starts smashing the dodgey Heaslip in the contact area.

Not only has he not watched Scotland play it looks like the guy has never watched any of the Irish regions play, either that or in his world Glasgow is not part of the pro12.

To be fair the Rob Harley comment expressly focuses on the breakdown and ball carrying. Whilst I don't think Harley is bad at the breakdown, I've always said his ball carrying needs work. It's one area where POM is much better than him.

I actually applaud Liam Toland. He's actually taken the time to properly analyse Scotland following the Italy game, and whilst I don't agree with all his conclusions (I think Matt Scott is better and more creative than he's allowing for), it's rare, certainly in Scottish rugby journalism, to find a journalist who has clearly watched the match he's commenting on at the same time as engaging brain.

Compare that article to anything written by Jeremy Guscott.

In fairness Toland is a rare breed in Irish sports journalism, i.e. he actually watches the games and takes his conclusions from that, rather than his own preconceptions. If you want to laugh, read anything be Conor George, George Hook or Gerry Thornley. Gas man, absolute gas...

They make Jiffy look sane, and Guscott verbose! If you ever want a view on Irish rugby from a sensible viewpoint, I'd recommend Whiff of Cordite's blog, which is probably the most sensible, or Harpin' on Rugby, which covers lots of different topics.

comparing him against Guscott isn't fair. However I do think we are better than he gives us credit for.

I agree, but he's writing a piece for an Irish paper seeking to point out that despite all the injury worries, Ireland still have the personnel to win this. His key message is "no excuses Kidney", which I tend to agree with. If Ireland lose, their injuries will not be the sole determinative factor.

Yes, he is overly harsh on Scotland, but some of his analysis of the Italy game is correct, they did cough up some chances. Some of that was down to our defence, but on other occassions, the Hogg try, it was a basic misjudgement.

I think there will be no more than 7 points between the sides. I just think Ireland will shade it.

If Scotland lose this...after seeing an England that pretty much put the boot into them almost walk through their 'resting' game against the Irish, then I'm afraid nope, it'll be Scotland who should feel the cold ice of criticism hitting the fan.

This Irish side, as presently constituted and presently coached ... a confused rag-tag fugitive fleet floating throu.................... oh that's me remembering me old Battlestar Galactica days...apologies. But this Ireland side, despite a game against Argentina and the first half against Wales, really is there for the taking if you have the wisdom of a reasonable gameplan behind you to do it.

This Irish side is at sea, if you can't take advantage of it now...............................

I agree,

I haven't seen Ireland look this fragile before.

SecretFly wrote:If Scotland lose this...after seeing an England that pretty much put the boot into them almost walk through their 'resting' game against the Irish, then I'm afraid nope, it'll be Scotland who should feel the cold ice of criticism hitting the fan.

Are you saying that England "walked through" the game against Ireland. I must have been watching a completely different match! It was pretty close and a hard fought win!

Then we were watching a different game. Ask us Irish what we saw...we know, we've been watching it for far too long. The English knew exactly what to do and how to play because they knew the irish side would never leave the script..the predictable script they've mostly played now for about three years on the trot.

If you saw something different, if you saw England trying very hard and puffing and panting due to the mental exertion of trying to contain an inventive and confident Ireland...yep, you did watch a different game.

It was a cruise for them..a good meaty battle, a good toughening up game in the physical stakes...but one they won on strategy and tactics even before they came from the tunnel.

Grow up. It was 3-6 at half time and 6-12 at fulltime.

Under no circumstances whatsoever can you say that England "walked" that game.

I realise you don't like Kidney, his tactics or the direction Ireland are going in, but that match was no walkover for England.

Ireland were predictable: tough in contact, good breakdown skills and strong set piece. England matched you in those areas, made less mistakes and took their chances with the boot.

England did not walk through that game. It was tough. If you want to see what "walking" through a game looks like, try watching them playing us at Twickenham. They barely broke stride.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Grow up. It was 3-6 at half time and 6-12 at fulltime.

Under no circumstances whatsoever can you say that England "walked" that game.

I realise you don't like Kidney, his tactics or the direction Ireland are going in, but that match was no walkover for England.

Ireland were predictable: tough in contact, good breakdown skills and strong set piece. England matched you in those areas, made less mistakes and took their chances with the boot.

England did not walk through that game. It was tough. If you want to see what "walking" through a game looks like, try watching them playing us at Twickenham. They barely broke stride.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Grow up. It was 3-6 at half time and 6-12 at fulltime.

Under no circumstances whatsoever can you say that England "walked" that game.

I realise you don't like Kidney, his tactics or the direction Ireland are going in, but that match was no walkover for England.

Ireland were predictable: tough in contact, good breakdown skills and strong set piece. England matched you in those areas, made less mistakes and took their chances with the boot.

England did not walk through that game. It was tough. If you want to see what "walking" through a game looks like, try watching them playing us at Twickenham. They barely broke stride.

I saw what I saw..you saw what you saw. We were looking at a very different game.

In my opinion .... They-walked-the-result...and had a nice physical game to boot which will hold them in good stead as they continue to perfect many ways to win a game clinically. I don't look at the front..I look at the detail underneath..and Lancaster had the game in the bag because he's a curious coach..he actually studies the opposition

In some ways I see what Secretfly is saying... even though Ireland were within a score for the whole match... they never looked like getting over the line and ENG looked quite comfortable out of posession given the unique conditions. But I don't think we should have discounted the conditions impact on the game... ENG used them to their advantage, IRE didn't and spent too long with the ball and in the wrong areas.

But to say that this weekends match vs. Ireland should be a win no less is a little harsh on Ireland. They still have match winners all over the park in Best, Ryan, O'Brien, Heaslip, O'Driscoll & Kearney.

Individually those players supercede our own in their respected positions.

I would be bitterly disappointed with a loss mind as I think we're good enough but just hope we take the game to them and not hang back waiting for them to do something ala England.
Guys like Hogg, Beattie etc are really putting their names up for Lions selection and these are the games which count... ones which require a step up in class.

SecretFly wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Grow up. It was 3-6 at half time and 6-12 at fulltime.

Under no circumstances whatsoever can you say that England "walked" that game.

I realise you don't like Kidney, his tactics or the direction Ireland are going in, but that match was no walkover for England.

Ireland were predictable: tough in contact, good breakdown skills and strong set piece. England matched you in those areas, made less mistakes and took their chances with the boot.

England did not walk through that game. It was tough. If you want to see what "walking" through a game looks like, try watching them playing us at Twickenham. They barely broke stride.

I saw what I saw..you saw what you saw. We were looking at a very different game.

In my opinion .... They-walked-the-result...and had a nice physical game to boot which will hold them in good stead as they continue to perfect many ways to win a game clinically. I don't look at the front..I look at the detail underneath..and Lancaster had the game in the bag because he's a curious coach..he actually studies the opposition

I couldn't agree more with Fly, England in reality won very easily. The scoreline flattered us and really Tuilagi should have scored and given England the scoreline to reflect their dominance. The reality of the game is that England didn't really have to work very hard for their victory. By that I mean we didn't challenge them, did not mix our play up, and caused them absolutely no difficulties in any aspect of the match bar the lineout and rolling maul. Of course these boards and the English press went into hyperbolic overdrive about the English performance, but what can we really say about it? They were disciplined, physical and didn't miss many tackles. Thats about it.

In the same way the Scottish victory over Italy totally flattered them. The Italians at times ripped the Scottish defence to shreds and but for two wayward passes that match could have been very different. From an Irish point of view from 9-13 the Scots are soft defensively and we can really exploit that. But that depends on how the packs match up. The Scots have a vastly better second row partnership (two Lions for me) and a much more balanced backrow. With Healy out more responsibility falls to Best at the breakdown and that is far from ideal to rely on a hooker to do that job. POM does not work hard enough and spends too much time standing amongst the backline. For all his defensive bravery SOB has been largely ineffective at the breakdown. Heaslip is no where near his best. Also if we kick as badly as we have in the first two matches the excellent counter attacking capabilities of the Scottish back three would make mince meat of us. Our kicking game has been poor, the chasing non existent. Sexton defended well against Wales but his kicking in the second half was atrocious. ROG was embarrassing against England. Gilroy is not ready for the international game. Kearney is playing poorly and if Hogg outplays him on Sunday as i Suspect he will he can forget any Australian jaunt this summer.

I predicted we would get two wins this tournament- against Scotland and Italy. Now I find it hard to see where our second win might come from. If Scotland play sensibly, exploit the defensive weakness of Gilroy and really contest the breakdown I fear we may be in for a bad afternoon.

Teams that "have the game in the bag" win by more than 6 points - trust me.

You can look at the front, underneath or inside out, the fact is that you've grown tired of Kidney's regime and now you're overreacting to a 6 point game by pretending that somehow Ireland were never in it.

The biggest factor for me was some stinking handling errors from your forwards. Mike McCarthy looked like an amateur out there. No side can win games if their key players, Heaslip, BOD, Kearney et al don't show up. It also didn't help to lose Sexton.

I do think Kidney is too conservative. When you compare Ireland to Leinster in terms of back play you can see a big difference in the quality of coaching and strategy. Still, Ireland are still a better outfit than Scotland on paper, notwithstanding the injuries. A win would be a big result for Scotland.

fa0019 wrote:In some ways I see what Secretfly is saying... even though Ireland were within a score for the whole match... they never looked like getting over the line and ENG looked quite comfortable out of posession given the unique conditions. But I don't think we should have discounted the conditions impact on the game... ENG used them to their advantage, IRE didn't and spent too long with the ball and in the wrong areas.

But to say that this weekends match vs. Ireland should be a win no less is a little harsh on Ireland. They still have match winners all over the park in Best, Ryan, O'Brien, Heaslip, O'Driscoll & Kearney.

Individually those players supercede our own in their respected positions.

I would be bitterly disappointed with a loss mind as I think we're good enough but just hope we take the game to them and not hang back waiting for them to do something ala England.
Guys like Hogg, Beattie etc are really putting their names up for Lions selection and these are the games which count... ones which require a step up in class.

I believe in the Irish players too fa0019. My comments weren't directed at the Irish players. They can hold their own with any players in Europe..any of them - English, Welsh, French, Scottish or Italian. But this team (structure and personas) is dying fast. Despite the protestations from players who are dragged into the media to speak, they have no confidence in this very physical defensive game they are being asked to play week in week out. I call it a SA game in design given to players who have in no way the bulked up presence to play it. it's tiring, it's exhausting, it doesn't motivate the speedier guys who act on quick thought and deed rather than muscle. The players and their coaches are falling away from each other and it DOES need a major shift and break for anything like the players' potential (their true potential) to be unearthed in an Internationl jersey.

I'm just saying they are quite obviously operating in a weakened condition (its there most weeks in black and white on tactics, on injuries sustained, on lack of confidence in even the most basic skills. It's there and Scotland can and should pick up on it and kill it.

Is that saying I would love Scotland to win so that Kidney would be gone? Not on your life. I want Ireland to do another surprise turnaround and run in a hatful of tries. I'm Irish, I support my own...but I'm all too alive to the real limitations and admit to them.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:If Scotland play sensibly, exploit the defensive weakness of Gilroy and really contest the breakdown I fear we may be in for a bad afternoon.

Have you seen Visser defend!? This could be a high scoring game. Two wingers with defensive positioning straight from the textbook of what not to do!

funnyExiledScot wrote:Teams that "have the game in the bag" win by more than 6 points - trust me.

You can look at the front, underneath or inside out, the fact is that you've grown tired of Kidney's regime and now you're overreacting to a 6 point game by pretending that somehow Ireland were never in it.

The biggest factor for me was some stinking handling errors from your forwards. Mike McCarthy looked like an amateur out there. No side can win games if their key players, Heaslip, BOD, Kearney et al don't show up. It also didn't help to lose Sexton.

I do think Kidney is too conservative. When you compare Ireland to Leinster in terms of back play you can see a big difference in the quality of coaching and strategy. Still, Ireland are still a better outfit than Scotland on paper, notwithstanding the injuries. A win would be a big result for Scotland.

We're just not going to be agreeing on that highlighted bit anytime soon, Exiled... but the rest of it, easy enough to agree with. Ireland with this caoch are miss, miss, miss, hit - the facts say it is so, not my emotion. Miss, miss, miss, hit. That is unsatisfactory and that doesn't get tolerated at club level and shouldn't be tolerated at international. Next year Kidnay and his coaches might very well run riot but on his current record he doesn't deserve the lifeline that would get him to next year. That's just practicalities of cause and effect....no emotion at all. He isn't working anymore

From an Irish point of view from 9-13 the Scots are soft defensively and we can really exploit that.

Really? Rhubarb made a couple of turnovers off Italians and laidlaw made a 10 tackles missing none despite being targeted. Both centres are powerful tacklers

If that is the Irish game plan it won't work

Looks like SJ can pin Mr Tolland's article up on the dressing room door and highlight it to Big Bad Bob Harley - jeez that is scary !

TJ wrote:

From an Irish point of view from 9-13 the Scots are soft defensively and we can really exploit that.

Really? Rhubarb made a couple of turnovers off Italians and laidlaw made a 10 tackles missing none despite being targeted. Both centres are powerful tacklers

If that is the Irish game plan it won't work

Wee bit strange to say Schlong Lamont is weak defensively too ? He is an awesome tackler and a bloody big unit for a back. Sometimes his defensive positioning is not good at 13 but he works very hard at it.

I hope that is the case Schiz, particularly his ball carrying. He needs to become more dynamic in that respect and really punch his weight. Johnnie Beattie is a good example to follow, a much better ball carrier than Harley but not actually any bigger. It's about dynamism and body angle. Harley runs like he waiting to accept the contact, Beattie runs like he knows he's going to bash through it.

Still, if Harley chops down POM and SOB effectively then he'll have done his job.

I had this discussion with Irish posters in the summer after they got cuffed by the All Blacks.

Kidney had nothing to do with the unfortunate injury to Sexton, Zebo and the fact that 2 Talismans (BOD & Heaslip) had stinkers.

Kidney has won you guys a GS and some fantastic games in the RWC and still you whinge!?

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:

TJ wrote:

From an Irish point of view from 9-13 the Scots are soft defensively and we can really exploit that.

Really? Rhubarb made a couple of turnovers off Italians and laidlaw made a 10 tackles missing none despite being targeted. Both centres are powerful tacklers

If that is the Irish game plan it won't work

Wee bit strange to say Schlong Lamont is weak defensively too ? He is an awesome tackler and a bloody big unit for a back. Sometimes his defensive positioning is not good at 13 but he works very hard at it.

Being defensively sound is about more than being able to tackle. You pointed it out yourself, Lamont pulls the whole backline out of position on occasion and if we are smart that can be exploited. But we need quick ball to do it and we need to do more than trundle n attack in straight lines of running. I fear from an Irish point of view that Harley is going to feel like its Christmas at the breakdown.

I can see the Irish issue with Kidney, but as always the focus of anger is too much on him and not enough on the players.

Heaslip has been so average this tournament, and yet you never hear calls for him to be dropped (maybe because he's captain). Kearney has barely been seen coming into the backline in an attacking sense. McCarthy is out of his league.

I do think the Irish fans could focus a little more on the underperforming players. Kidney is not responsible for the dreadful handling we've seen so far.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I had this discussion with Irish posters in the summer after they got cuffed by the All Blacks.

Kidney had nothing to do with the unfortunate injury to Sexton, Zebo and the fact that 2 Talismans (BOD & Heaslip) had stinkers.

Kidney has won you guys a GS and some fantastic games in the RWC and still you whinge!?

You were wrong then and continuing to peddle it now doesn't make it right either. Kidney won a Grand Slam in 2009. Maybe you didn't realise that it is now 2013 and we have gone consistently backwards year on year as our provincial teams continue to improve. You can't legislate for the mistakes players make in games, but coaches can do something about their tactics that continue to fail yet are stuck with, or not picking players in outstanding form.

Also BOD has a perfectly decent match last week.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I can see the Irish issue with Kidney, but as always the focus of anger is too much on him and not enough on the players.

Heaslip has been so average this tournament, and yet you never hear calls for him to be dropped (maybe because he's captain). Kearney has barely been seen coming into the backline in an attacking sense. McCarthy is out of his league.

I do think the Irish fans could focus a little more on the underperforming players. Kidney is not responsible for the dreadful handling we've seen so far.

Nonsense, look at an Irish thread and all this has been discussed at length! There has been plenty of criticism of the players, Heaslip in particular. Kidney gets most attention as many fans feel he is the root cause of our woes.

I've just seen my dream job: can I be the man in the Scotland changing room who reads Tolland's comments about Harley to him 30 seconds before kick-off. Believe me, it will kick-off after that.
Scotland to win by 15pts.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I can see the Irish issue with Kidney, but as always the focus of anger is too much on him and not enough on the players.

Heaslip has been so average this tournament, and yet you never hear calls for him to be dropped (maybe because he's captain). Kearney has barely been seen coming into the backline in an attacking sense. McCarthy is out of his league.

I do think the Irish fans could focus a little more on the underperforming players. Kidney is not responsible for the dreadful handling we've seen so far.

Hmmm...both Heaslip AND Kearney got a tongue lashing from me right after the English game.... it'll be there somewhere if you really want me to prove it

I think Ireland are now in the position Wales were before we played them; in essence they are short on confidence, rudderless and lacking a lot of belief. Wales dug in in the 2nd half but it was way too late. Ireland cannot afford to let Scotland get a head of steam as I belive the Emerald boys will start to become fragmented and ill disciplined which will play into the Scottish hands. It should be a fascianting battle and one that is surely not for the faint hearted.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I can see the Irish issue with Kidney, but as always the focus of anger is too much on him and not enough on the players.

Heaslip has been so average this tournament, and yet you never hear calls for him to be dropped (maybe because he's captain). Kearney has barely been seen coming into the backline in an attacking sense. McCarthy is out of his league.

I do think the Irish fans could focus a little more on the underperforming players. Kidney is not responsible for the dreadful handling we've seen so far.

Nonsense, look at an Irish thread and all this has been discussed at length! There has been plenty of criticism of the players, Heaslip in particular. Kidney gets most attention as many fans feel he is the root cause of our woes.

I'm only commenting on this thread. If I were to read all the Irish threads it would be my full time job....

TJ wrote:

From an Irish point of view from 9-13 the Scots are soft defensively and we can really exploit that.

Really? Rhubarb made a couple of turnovers off Italians and laidlaw made a 10 tackles missing none despite being targeted. Both centres are powerful tacklers

If that is the Irish game plan it won't work

Oh please let the Irish attack us at 9-13. Scott and Lamont are nothing if not solid defenders. As has been said, laidlaw and Jackson are not shy of putting the hits in also.

Combine that with Harley and Brown on the fringes, the Irish could get tackled into the ground.

Hopefully Kidney takes yer advise and tries it!

'tries it'? Yes please...many of them, please

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:

TJ wrote:

From an Irish point of view from 9-13 the Scots are soft defensively and we can really exploit that.

Really? Rhubarb made a couple of turnovers off Italians and laidlaw made a 10 tackles missing none despite being targeted. Both centres are powerful tacklers

If that is the Irish game plan it won't work

Wee bit strange to say Schlong Lamont is weak defensively too ? He is an awesome tackler and a bloody big unit for a back. Sometimes his defensive positioning is not good at 13 but he works very hard at it.

Being defensively sound is about more than being able to tackle. You pointed it out yourself, Lamont pulls the whole backline out of position on occasion and if we are smart that can be exploited. But we need quick ball to do it and we need to do more than trundle n attack in straight lines of running. I fear from an Irish point of view that Harley is going to feel like its Christmas at the breakdown.

Actually Schlong has all the attributes (big lad who use his strength well, superb tackler, speedy, experienced, awareness) as an outside centre and he has performed well there for Scotland, Glasgow and the Scarlets in the past. He doesn't often get caught out in midfield and his partnership with Scott who is also not a bad defensive unit is looking better and better. I only have a few doubts over Hogg and Visser however both are making great strides defensively and both made some decent hots last game.

When you compare the backs on a defensive basis

15 Hogg v Kearney
14 Maitland v Gilroy
11 Visser v Marshall

13 Lamont v O'Driscoll
12 Scott v Marshall

10 Jackson v Jackson
09 Laidlaw v Murray

Its pretty much even stevens on paper with both teams laying out an intent on offense rather than defence. I believe the 10/12 axis will be more vital to the overall result than the clash between Sean and Brian.

However I would love the Irish to think that our 9-10-12-13 axit is our weak link because it ain't

The Italians exploited it on several occasions and England made a mockery of your your midfield. It's not about being able to tackle. Any semblance of an off loading game and your defensive shape gets pulled to pieces. Lamont can tackle but he isn't a natural 13- he has limited spacial and positional awareness. If your defense is disciplined and up quickly then we will struggle. If you are passive as tends to be the case then we could make headway. However if we just line up our ball carriers to run at the 10-12 channel we are in trouble. The Scottish backrow will gobble us up and its curtains. Its what Wales did to us three times in row. Targeting 9-13 is more than just running at them.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:The Italians exploited it on several occasions and England made a mockery of your your midfield. It's not about being able to tackle. Any semblance of an off loading game and your defensive shape gets pulled to pieces. Lamont can tackle but he isn't a natural 13- he has limited spacial and positional awareness. If your defense is disciplined and up quickly then we will struggle. If you are passive as tends to be the case then we could make headway. However if we just line up our ball carriers to run at the 10-12 channel we are in trouble. The Scottish backrow will gobble us up and its curtains. Its what Wales did to us three times in row. Targeting 9-13 is more than just running at them.

Sorry England made a mockery of our midfield!..... What game were you watching?, it was the English pack that had the upper hand and nowhere else.

Lamont is very much a natural outside centre having played his school rugby at 13, and has played there well in quite a few decent games at club (for Scarlets and Glasgow) and international level. Utter rubbish to suggest he hasn't positional awareness as he has proved he has that at 13 quite a few times, his only "apparent" weakness is on occasions he doesnt look around and make the pass.

Just because he has spent his time as a wing for us doesnt mean he cannae perform well in midfield

I agree with H&H on this. We can cope with the direct and predictable. Where Italy caught us out was by changing the point of attack, and using the blindside effective (and also running at Tim Visser).

Where England got us was sheer speed of recycling, and once they got through, as pointed out by H&H, our scramble was a mess.

The reason we beat Italy with so little of the ball is that in the main they were slow to move the ball from the ruck, so even though they were able to build multiple phases, they were slow phases. Brown, Harley et al will have no problem with that.

Where Scotland come out in the plus column is counter attack and using turnover ball. Where previously we've hoofed the ball in those situations, now we look to get our back three in the game, and this is where we at least match Ireland. Any loose kicks or turnovers and Scotland have become a real threat, as both England and Italy found out.

I think this could be quite a high scoring affair.

FES

Don't agree with you entirely that we can cope with opponents being predictable but not when they are inventive. We have actually brought in Hogg, Scott, Jackson and Maitland in mind to actually be able to cope with a change to the gameplan.

England won the game with their forward play not their backs. Their pack generally and their front five specifically put us to the sword. England beat us by being predictable as they were confident from the off that they could recycle from ruck and their rolling maul forward with ease. Our midfield didnt have much choice but to defend most of the game.

Against England England bossed the breakdown thus got quick bvall and thus made forward progress. The reason England broke thru was this - nothing to do with weak defending in the backs, everything to do with with our forwards giving the English quick ball on a plate. ( plus a bit of the whole team standing off in defense

The difference agaisnt Italy was we slowe their ball and turned them over by contesting the breakdown and by aggressive defense - Ie putting right what was wrong the previous week

So, tonight Glasgow beat Ulster and the U 20s won by a point. I am taking this as an omen and now assume that the Scotland team are going to come out believing that the match is already won and implode, please prove me wrong boys!

My biggest issue with the England game was the terrible kicking when Scotland had possession. Despite being under pressure, Scotland booted the ball away too much, handing possession back to a very happy England. Scoreline could have been much bigger if it had not been for Kelly brown getting turnovers when England looked close to scoring.

Even against Italy there was a lot of kicking, luckily Laidlaw kicked very well and the tactics involved seemed more accurate. But against Ireland this weekend, there'll be more pressure at the breakdown, a quicker Irish defence. If Ireland can put pressure on Jackson and Laidlaw, both players will boot the ball sky high every time. In my view Scotland have to be as effective at the breakdown as they were vs Italy plus a bit more if they want a sweet kicking game from Laidlaw and Jackson.

Solid8 wrote:So, tonight Glasgow beat Ulster and the U 20s won by a point. I am taking this as an omen and now assume that the Scotland team are going to come out believing that the match is already won and implode, please prove me wrong boys!

All kinds of good things about the U20s result apparently - Robbie Fergusson looking like the real deal at centre, Ashe being a good ball player for a loose forward and Allen looking like a rifleman.

Add to this a piece in the Torygraph about Richie Gray's talks with Castres and it's looking like an interesting week for Scottish rugby.