Scotland 6N lookahead

by **RDW** Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:28 am

First topic message reminder :

Scotland 45 – Japan 10

Hardie, Bennett (2), Seymour, Russell

Scotland 39 – USA 16

Visser, Maitland, Nel, Scott, Weir

South Africa 34 – Scotland 16

Seymour

Samoa 33 – Scotland 36

Seymour, Hardie, Laidlaw

Australia 35 – Scotland 34 Scotland 6N lookahead - Page 9 Bangin11

Horne, Seymour, Bennett

Tries this world cup:

Seymour – 4
Bennett – 3
Hardie – 2
Russell, Visser, Maitland, Nel, Scott, Weir, Laidlaw, Horne – 1

6 Nations fixtures:
Scotland V England Scotland 6N lookahead - Page 9 2gwb9210

Wales V Scotland

Italy V Scotland

Scotland V France
Ireland V Scotland

by **NeilyBroon** Mon 04 Jan 2016, 2:42 pm

Riskysports wrote:Back to topic

I really am worried about this 6 nations and see us fighting out with Italy again - I think the Ozzies game was the one chance we had of actually getting above the rest and without that I think we will find it tough again to beat any of the other 6 natios teams

I know I am a optimist :-) but apart from a couple of decent halfs, we really did not play that well in the World cup, and scraped out out group by our finger tips

I have not seen anything to raise my level of expectations from wooden spoon to even dark horses

This is possibly the most realistic outlook, albeit the most depressing.

I'm reserving judgement, we have a new backs coach on board which I'm hoping will galvanise a lot of the under performers... basically our whole backline with the exception of angel

I say 4th this year. Although if we get pasted by England on the first weekend which I actually see as a possibility given the current form of the prem teams, I'm sorry to say for the rest of the tournament we are Donald Ducked.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jan 2016, 2:49 pm

I agree with you Risky. Mrs fES bought me the official World Cup 2015 review DVD over Christmas and I watched it last night. As with all these things you can't just look at Scotland and our perceived progress in isolation. Important points to note:

- we made a very average Samoa team look very good indeed;
- we were never close to troubling South Africa;
- we were wading through treacle for large parts of the USA game;
- we were beaten by Italy at the last 6 Nations and currently hold the Wooden Spoon;
- Glasgow are rank awful at the moment; and
- Ireland and Wales also made the QF and put in performances during the WC to rival anything Scotland produced (see Wales vs England/South Africa and Ireland vs France/Italy).

I also think we're kidding ourselves if we think that France and England will fall at Murrayfield based on World Cup performances (not that we would have necessarily fared better than France against Ireland or the ABs, and they comfortably beat Italy (who beat us in the 6 Nations)). England will certainly come back strong, and I can't see Eddie Jones having anything short of a positive impact on the England backline. Their pace of play will increase, no question, and we can expect them to be a far smarter team in attack (not that they didn't beat us last year).

On the positive side, we were better in the World Cup than in the 6 Nations, and we have certainly figured out some important combinations (Nel/Ford/Dickinson in the front row, Grays in the 2nd row, Cowan and Hardie on the flanks and Scott/Bennett in the centres (who are both playing very well at the moment)). We have also got some impact to come from the bench in the shape of Reid, Brown, Strauss and Hidalgo-Clyne which has been missing in recent seasons. In fact the arrivals of Nel, Hardie and Strauss alone should make us a better team this year.

Cotter will also have no trouble motivating the players off the back of the World Cup (and the Wooden Spoon last year), and they should feel that there is unfinished business on the park until they've beaten a team of note.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 04 Jan 2016, 2:53 pm

I'm not entirely sure I agree.

I agree that behind the 1st XV or even the 1st XXIII we are in a spot of bother.

However I don't think we are as bad as you guys are making out. Secondly our 6N rivals weren't exactly scintillating in the RWC. In fact in most facets I would say Scotland performed better. Especially up front.

The 6N is a tough tournament though. The opening England game is vital. England with a new coaching team will be in a state of flux. They will be vulnerable as a result however a lot of key players for them will be playing like men possesed to prove a point. Could go either way. Ultimately we will have a very settled squad and game plan however our players may be too knackered to execute it properly.

The opening match is Key. Win against England by any means and the tournament will have opened up and we'll travel to Cardiff with quiet confidence. Go down again at home to the men in white and we could very well collect the wooden spoon.

I do think the Scottish exiles will hugely improve upon the dirge the 1872 cup legs coughed up.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jan 2016, 3:30 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I'm not entirely sure I agree.

I agree that behind the 1st XV or even the 1st XXIII we are in a spot of bother.

However I don't think we are as bad as you guys are making out. Secondly our 6N rivals weren't exactly scintillating in the RWC. In fact in most facets I would say Scotland performed better. Especially up front.

This is where I would exercise caution. Yes, we had a better World Cup than England and Italy, but not Ireland, Wales and France. France were completely stuffed by the ABs (not sure how much better we would have fared), but they did defeat Italy (who beat Scotland that same year in the 6 Nations). Ireland beat both France and Italy. Wales beat England and Fiji (a better side than Samoa), and ran a South Africa team mighty close (the same side that beat us comfortably).

We can point to performance all we like, but we didn't actually beat anyone better than Samoa or Japan, whereas Ireland, Wales and France all had better wins (plus, without wanting to state the obvious, beat us in the 6 Nations).

As I noted above, we can be positive about some new arrivals to the team and the combinations we landed on, but even managing two wins in this 6 Nations would be a decent step forward.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 04 Jan 2016, 3:44 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I'm not entirely sure I agree.

I agree that behind the 1st XV or even the 1st XXIII we are in a spot of bother.

However I don't think we are as bad as you guys are making out. Secondly our 6N rivals weren't exactly scintillating in the RWC. In fact in most facets I would say Scotland performed better. Especially up front.

This is where I would exercise caution. Yes, we had a better World Cup than England and Italy, but not Ireland, Wales and France. France were completely stuffed by the ABs (not sure how much better we would have fared), but they did defeat Italy (who beat Scotland that same year in the 6 Nations). Ireland beat both France and Italy. Wales beat England and Fiji (a better side than Samoa), and ran a South Africa team mighty close (the same side that beat us comfortably).

We can point to performance all we like, but we didn't actually beat anyone better than Samoa or Japan, whereas Ireland, Wales and France all had better wins (plus, without wanting to state the obvious, beat us in the 6 Nations).

As I noted above, we can be positive about some new arrivals to the team and the combinations we landed on, but even managing two wins in this 6 Nations would be a decent step forward.

I agree with all of this.

Where I disagree is how incredibly shaky England, Ireland and France all looked in the tournament.

France against NZ were a disgrace, England were pummeled upfront by an Ozzie pack we arguably got the better of, and Ireland were flattered by a woeful France and showed nothing against Italy before being massacred by almost an identical Argentinian team we put over 40 points on last year.

We aren't the finished article yet however based on World Cup performances, we certainly shouldn't be fearing any matches save for Wales in Cardiff.

I think we are in a much better position than any other 6N team with the exception of Wales.

I know as well as anyone however this will not necessarily be reflected in results come February.

by Nematode Mon 04 Jan 2016, 3:44 pm

Under VC, has the team ever won after playing a good, full 80 minutes? Aside from the Italy game at Murrayfield, I can't think of one (maybe the summer tour game vs Argentina but I can't recall much of that game)?

When you think about it:

Australia - 2 intercepts + Horne try bit lucky?
SA - outplayed
Samoa - lucky to get win, bad d
USA - 40 mins good
Japan - 40 mins good
Italy H - Good
Italy A - Poor
France A - Lost it
Ireland A - Lost it

6 NATIONS - Wooden spoon

Tonga - good 40
Argentina - conceded late tries
NZ - lost, but decent enough

Summer Tour
- Cananda (Harsh high tackle lost it for Canada - should have been clear), USA (too close), Argentina (?), SA (...sigh)

This 6 Nations will certainly not be the be all and end all for VC, however, with GT in the pipeline I expect Mark Dodson will want to see more than just good performances. Some wins are essential I think.

by Imperialbigdave Mon 04 Jan 2016, 4:13 pm

Adam Hastings starting at fly half for Bath A against saracens tonight.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jan 2016, 4:17 pm

Imperialbigdave wrote:Adam Hastings starting at fly half for Bath A against saracens tonight.

Do we know any anoraks going to watch this one who can file a report??

by R!skysports Mon 04 Jan 2016, 4:24 pm

If you look at the teams individually, it makes a stark reading

England - a failure of massive proportions in their own world cup in terms of getting out the group, BUT - they had Wales beat (except a brain fart) - and were beaten but Australia - overall performance was not nearly as bad as the press made out, and the crazy Burgess experiment is gone - they WILL be strong

Wales - played well with 400 players injured and will have a settled side - - they WILL be strong

Ireland - Had the heart ripped out of them, but have strength in depth - will they replace like for like, no - but they have a strong team ethic - - they WILL be strong

France - Mad as a badgers arse - and will lose to the rest (bar Italy), but our game style does not seem to suite them - - they WILL be strong v(against us)

Italy - they will be rubbish - but will drag us into a game we do not like and will be a tough nut - - they WILL be average - like us

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Jan 2016, 4:32 pm

If I had to predict two games for Scotland to win it would be France (home) and Italy (away). I think those present our best opportunities. We have better players than Italy and we will be better organised against France (plus have home advantage). We should have defeated France last time they came to Murrayfield, but for Duncan Weir throwing the ball to Huget and ignoring a huge overlap in a 14 point reversal.

We only need to look at our past performances away in Cardiff and Dublin to know that we'll be playing two better teams on their own patch. England will be fast out of the block. I'm expecting a backlash to come from them, and Jones will sort out any issues with their backs.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 04 Jan 2016, 5:56 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Imperialbigdave wrote:Adam Hastings starting at fly half for Bath A against saracens tonight.

Do we know any anoraks going to watch this one who can file a report??

My uncle. He coaches at barf. I'll chib him for some info tomorrow.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 11:30 am

Any report from Uncle Radge on young Hastings?

If he didn't trip up in the tunnel and bang his face on the floor then there's an opening at Glasgow for him.....

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 05 Jan 2016, 11:35 am

I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 05 Jan 2016, 11:37 am

http://www.bathrugby.com/news/courageous-bath-united-unable-to-weather-saracens-storm/

I have found this. I will chib for information him later though.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 11:49 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

The bridge is fixed. I thought you'd all have January off......

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 11:51 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:http://www.bathrugby.com/news/courageous-bath-united-unable-to-weather-saracens-storm/

I have found this. I will chib for information him later though.

Not sure what "chib" means, but nevertheless I read the article. Hastings is only mentioned once, albeit in a positive context for kicking a penalty.

Given the Scotland fly half situation I say no news is good news....

by **RDW** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 12:01 pm

Urban dictionary wrote:"I'm pure gonnae chib ye in the puss, ya bam. 'Mon well." - "I say fellow, the time has come for me to stab you in the facial region, you person for whom I don't care. En garde."

by Nematode Tue 05 Jan 2016, 12:02 pm

I'm a bit worried about fly half after watching Weir's performance against Edinburgh. He missed a sure try in the 80th minute(s) by taking contact instead of passing and his kicking wasn't great either. I don't think he's any better than Heathcote, who has been mucked around by the SRU.

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 05 Jan 2016, 12:05 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

The bridge is fixed. I thought you'd all have January off......

Bridge? What exactly would I have to do with a bridge? Especially one that breaks.

https://www.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx

I work with these guys ^ specifically with the Royal Navy.

Please do not confuse the "bash stuff with a hammer" approach that RDW and his "engineers" employ with the precise and scientific nature of the work I do.

by **RDW** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 12:30 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

The bridge is fixed. I thought you'd all have January off......

Bridge? What exactly would I have to do with a bridge? Especially one that breaks.

https://www.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx

I work with these guys ^ specifically with the Royal Navy.

Please do not confuse the "bash stuff with a hammer" approach that RDW and his "engineers" employ with the precise and scientific nature of the work I do.

Eh, I think you'll find I design buildings to withstand earthquakes, explosions and things crashing into them - none of this "bash stuff with a hammer" malarkey!

That was when I spent time on site building the new bridge! Very Happy

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 1:59 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

The bridge is fixed. I thought you'd all have January off......

Bridge? What exactly would I have to do with a bridge? Especially one that breaks.

https://www.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx

I work with these guys ^ specifically with the Royal Navy.

Please do not confuse the "bash stuff with a hammer" approach that RDW and his "engineers" employ with the precise and scientific nature of the work I do.

Eh, I think you'll find I design buildings to withstand earthquakes, explosions and things crashing into them - none of this "bash stuff with a hammer" malarkey!

That was when I spent time on site building the new bridge!

I presume the lack of earthquake destruction in Scotland over the years is simply down to excellent engineering??

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 2:02 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

The bridge is fixed. I thought you'd all have January off......

Bridge? What exactly would I have to do with a bridge? Especially one that breaks.

https://www.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx

I work with these guys ^ specifically with the Royal Navy.

Please do not confuse the "bash stuff with a hammer" approach that RDW and his "engineers" employ with the precise and scientific nature of the work I do.

I like the recruitment tagline "People Who Know How To Inspire A Generation".

It reminds me of the strapline for the lacklustre candidate for School President in Napoleon Dynamite, Pedro: "Vote for me, and all your wildest dreams will come true".

by **RDW** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 2:10 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

The bridge is fixed. I thought you'd all have January off......

Bridge? What exactly would I have to do with a bridge? Especially one that breaks.

https://www.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx

I work with these guys ^ specifically with the Royal Navy.

Please do not confuse the "bash stuff with a hammer" approach that RDW and his "engineers" employ with the precise and scientific nature of the work I do.

Eh, I think you'll find I design buildings to withstand earthquakes, explosions and things crashing into them - none of this "bash stuff with a hammer" malarkey!

That was when I spent time on site building the new bridge!

I presume the lack of earthquake destruction in Scotland over the years is simply down to excellent engineering??

Ha - it's not about how likely an earthquake is, it is how important the building is should an earthquake happen! I don't do much work in Scotland itself.

North-west Scotland is actually quite seismically active relatively speaking, along with south Wales. A big earthquake could happen when you consider the earthquake probabilities that these buildings are designed for (1 in 10,000 years usually).

See - you've learnt something new today! thumbsup

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 05 Jan 2016, 2:15 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

The bridge is fixed. I thought you'd all have January off......

Bridge? What exactly would I have to do with a bridge? Especially one that breaks.

https://www.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx

I work with these guys ^ specifically with the Royal Navy.

Please do not confuse the "bash stuff with a hammer" approach that RDW and his "engineers" employ with the precise and scientific nature of the work I do.

I like the recruitment tagline "People Who Know How To Inspire A Generation".

It reminds me of the strapline for the lacklustre candidate for School President in Napoleon Dynamite, Pedro: "Vote for me, and all your wildest dreams will come true".

Hmmm a Rangers fan, a Loyalist, a lawyer.... the dots are starting to match up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Findlay

Scotland 6N lookahead - Page 9 Article-0-01B8B4BD000004B0-438_634x351

Scotland 6N lookahead - Page 9 Article-0-01B8B4BD000004B0-438_634x351

Disclaimer - Had I not met you in person this post would have more gravitas.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 2:19 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I do have a real job to do you know.... I'll email him at lunch.

The bridge is fixed. I thought you'd all have January off......

Bridge? What exactly would I have to do with a bridge? Especially one that breaks.

https://www.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx

I work with these guys ^ specifically with the Royal Navy.

Please do not confuse the "bash stuff with a hammer" approach that RDW and his "engineers" employ with the precise and scientific nature of the work I do.

Eh, I think you'll find I design buildings to withstand earthquakes, explosions and things crashing into them - none of this "bash stuff with a hammer" malarkey!

That was when I spent time on site building the new bridge!

I presume the lack of earthquake destruction in Scotland over the years is simply down to excellent engineering??

Ha - it's not about how likely an earthquake is, it is how important the building is should an earthquake happen! I don't do much work in Scotland itself.

North-west Scotland is actually quite seismically active relatively speaking, along with south Wales. A big earthquake could happen when you consider the earthquake probabilities that these buildings are designed for (1 in 10,000 years usually).

See - you've learnt something new today!

I'll need to ask Jimbo as to what happened last time....

As for North-West Scotland, I'm sure glad we have proper engineers like yourself to ensure all those ~~bothies~~ urban sprawls can cope with the seismic activity.

by TJ Tue 05 Jan 2016, 2:41 pm

2 wins would be failure. 3 is the minimum for success. No doubt this is the best group of players in comparison to the rest of the six nations for a generation. they now have a bit of experience, we have a settled coaching team, last year we came close but fell short in 3 6N games.

Its time to deliver.

by **RDW** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 2:46 pm

TJ wrote:2 wins would be failure. 3 is the minimum for success. No doubt this is the best group of players in comparison to the rest of the six nations for a generation. they now have a bit of experience, we have a settled coaching team, last year we came close but fell short in 3 6N games.

Its time to deliver.

Given that we've won the wooden spoon 3 out of the last 4 years would 2 wins really be a failure? I'm not being deliberately negative, just realistic.

1 is the absolute bare minimum, but 2 would represent a good tournament relatively speaking IMO.

The last time we had 3 wins in a 6N was 2006!

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 2:50 pm

3 wins would be a very good tournament indeed. I think 2 is a realistic target - Italy and France.

We're kidding ourselves if we think that not beating Wales/Ireland away from home or England at Murrayfield constitutes some kind of failure for this team.

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 05 Jan 2016, 2:57 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:
TJ wrote:2 wins would be failure. 3 is the minimum for success. No doubt this is the best group of players in comparison to the rest of the six nations for a generation. they now have a bit of experience, we have a settled coaching team, last year we came close but fell short in 3 6N games.

Its time to deliver.

Given that we've won the wooden spoon 3 out of the last 4 years would 2 wins really be a failure? I'm not being deliberately negative, just realistic.

1 is the absolutely bare minimum, but 2 would represent a good tournament relatively speaking IMO.

The last time we had 3 wins in a 6N was 2006!

My counter, we are a completely different team from 4 years ago.

The Squad of 2011, the ones in bold when compared to their present day peers should illustrate the difference.

Head Coach : Andy Robinson Stern Vern

Ross Ford

Dougie Hall Fraz Brown

Scott Lawson

Geoff Cross

Allan Jacobsen Dickinson

Moray Low WP Nel

Euan Murray

Jon Welsh

Richie Gray

Nathan Hines

Alastair Kellock(c) J Gray

Scott MacLeod

John Barclay

Kelly Brown

Rob Harley

Ross Rennie Hardie

Alasdair Strokosch Cowan

Johnnie Beattie Dozer / Bluto

Richie Vernon Watson

Mike Blair

Rory Lawson SHC/Pyrgos

Greig Laidlaw

Ruaridh Jackson

Dan Parks Finn Russell

Joe Ansbro Sad

Scott

Nick De Luca Bennett

Alex Grove Dunbar

Sean Lamont Taylor

Simon Danielli Seymore

Max Evans Visser (although might be a late arrival)

Rory Lamont Brown

Nikki Walker Maitland

Jack Cuthbert New Jack Cuthbert

Chris Paterson

Hugo Southwell Hogg

It's only when you disect our old squads you realize how desperately dross our team was.

We are in a strong position whilst every other nation with the exception of Wales were rattled in the RWC. IMO we have never been in stronger position than we are right now for the last 15 years.

by Nematode Tue 05 Jan 2016, 3:09 pm

I think this crop of players really needs to kick on and get some good victories. When you compare this:

Scotland 6N lookahead - Page 9 Scotland-v-Australia---Mu-001

Scotland 6N lookahead - Page 9 Scotland-v-Australia---Mu-001

(vs Aus 2009)

to this...

Scotland 6N lookahead - Page 9 Duncan-weir-of-scotland-celebrates-after-scoring-the-winning-drop-picture-id474181143

(vs Italy 2014)

... you could say that standards have fallen.

The fact that the teams with the likes of Danielli, NdL and Godman got more significant W's is a little concerning.

by **RDW** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 3:14 pm

Radge - To counter your counter, yes we may be a different team but we’ve been here before with Scotland many times. And I also think we look back on players quite harshly while also elevating our current players on a high pedestal.

I’m sure in 2011 we looked back at 2007 and laughed at some of the players we had playing for us.

We’ve also been here before in terms of getting excited by certain players – the killer Bs, Richie Gray coming through, Sean Lamont in his prime.

Saying all that, I’d agree that we do on paper have a better team than we did in 2011 and 2007 but we have struggled so much in this competition it is by no means guaranteed that that will translate to wins.

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 05 Jan 2016, 3:24 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:Radge - To counter your counter, yes we may be a different team but we’ve been here before with Scotland many times. And I also think we look back on players quite harshly while also elevating our current players on a high pedestal.

I’m sure in 2011 we looked back at 2007 and laughed at some of the players we had playing for us.

We’ve also been here before in terms of getting excited by certain players – the killer Bs, Richie Gray coming through, Sean Lamont in his prime.

Saying all that, I’d agree that we do on paper have a better team than we did in 2011 and 2007 but we have struggled so much in this competition it is by no means guaranteed that that will translate to wins.

I'm not saying it will. However if we can't be positive now, when can we ever be positive about the game in Scotland?

by **RDW** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 3:27 pm

You are of course right, but for as long as I can remember I have gone into the 6N with a sense of optimism that has then been well and truly destroyed over the following months in a brutal fashion. The number of times I have left Murrayfield in a bad mood having spent £50 watching Scotland lose has taught me to not get my hopes up any more!

by **NeilyBroon** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 3:35 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:Radge - To counter your counter, yes we may be a different team but we’ve been here before with Scotland many times. And I also think we look back on players quite harshly while also elevating our current players on a high pedestal.

I’m sure in 2011 we looked back at 2007 and laughed at some of the players we had playing for us.

We’ve also been here before in terms of getting excited by certain players – the killer Bs, Richie Gray coming through, Sean Lamont in his prime.

Saying all that, I’d agree that we do on paper have a better team than we did in 2011 and 2007 but we have struggled so much in this competition it is by no means guaranteed that that will translate to wins.

I'm not saying it will. However if we can't be positive now, when can we ever be positive about the game in Scotland?

Every year, until the opening weekend of the tournament Doh

by TJ Tue 05 Jan 2016, 4:49 pm

For me its not about hope and disappointment - its time to deliver. Loosing more than you win can never be seen as a success. I get the point about rose tinted glasses but this really is the best squad we've had since 1990. Last 6N the lack of experience showed - this year its no excuse. Previous 6N the lack of decent players showed - no longer so - no more excuses. Its time to start winning against teams ranked higher than us - and all 6N teams are vulnerable now. This is not the england of 2003 nor the Ireland of a few years ago - both are much weaker. France and Italy are in turmoil and Wales are aging and one dimensional. all are beatable

there are no more excuses. 3 wins is the minimum acceptable

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 4:49 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:You are of course right, but for as long as I can remember I have gone into the 6N with a sense of optimism that has then been well and truly destroyed over the following months in a brutal fashion. The number of times I have left Murrayfield in a bad mood having spent £50 watching Scotland lose has taught me to not get my hopes up any more!

I just knew you'd sit in the cheap seats......

My take on this is that we're a better side now than at any point since 1999. We are a more complete team. Yes, Hadden and Robinson had their moments but those teams were built to simply negate the opposition and chip away with 3 pointers. The boots of Dan Parks and Chris Paterson were our only weapons. Our pack and defence was sturdy and due to the limited game plan our error count was low, but we were not building a side to compete with the top teams, merely to negate them. If you watch that Australian win again it is plain they we relied heavily on Australia missing basic kicks at goal. Awesome spirit, strong pack and wonderful defence, so let's not take away the credit to the players on the day, but that gameplan was the same game plan that saw us perform so poorly in the World Cup (not making the QF). We didn't know what to do with the ball, so kicking it away was the only method of attack until the opposition coughed up three points.

That is not the case now with this team. We have players now who relish the open space and look to attack. We can actually hurt teams with ball in hand and the set piece (or at least the scrum) is in good shape. Yes, other teams have developed as well, particularly Wales and Ireland (teams we could reliably beat in the 1990s). It's against that back-drop that I think a dose of realism is required. Scotland have improved and are a good side, but relative to Ireland and Wales (both of whom we play away this year) we are still behind. That leaves England at Murrayfield, with a new head coach (of a very high calibre) and an enormous point to prove after a dismal World Cup. I just don't think we'll win that contest, despite the improvements.

Hope that doesn't come across as negative or pessimistic. I look forward to watching Scotland far more now than at any point since 1999. We can compete, and what's more I don't have to look away when we have the ball.

by TJ Tue 05 Jan 2016, 5:03 pm

AS FES says - look at the number of tries we score now compared to the number we used to. I am not that hopeful we will get the 3 wins but that surely is the minimum to be considered a success

by **RDW** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 5:11 pm

I just can't understand any reality where 2 wins in this 6N is deemed a failure.

by Nematode Tue 05 Jan 2016, 5:29 pm

Until we have a 3rd pro team or enough decent players playing overseas I can't see us getting more than two wins in a 6 Nations. We just don't have the resources to develop enough quality depth and choices.

Take Ireland. They have Sexton, Madigan, Jackson, Keatley all as pretty decent options at 10. For Wales, Biggar, Priestland, Hook, Patchell... We have Russell & Jackson, then there is a drop off in players getting consistent game time at a decent club.

It's the same story at centre too. We have some excellent centres, Scott, Bennett, Taylor, Dunbar but not quite enough.

We have enough players to have a very decent XV if they are all fit, but not enough to have a quality squad of 30 which is needed for a 6 Nations and not so much in an autumn international.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 05 Jan 2016, 5:39 pm

I don't see things as bleakly as that Tode, I just think that the current team has a bit more to do in terms of development before we can honestly say that we "expect" to beat teams like England, Wales and Ireland.

by TJ Tue 05 Jan 2016, 8:09 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:I just can't understand any reality where 2 wins in this 6N is deemed a failure.

Because it means 3 losses therefore losing more than you win - this is not a success.

by **RDW** Tue 05 Jan 2016, 8:13 pm

TJ wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:I just can't understand any reality where 2 wins in this 6N is deemed a failure.

Because it means 3 losses therefore losing more than you win - this is not a success.

I just can't fathom this attitude at all - we've got to be optimistic yeah but also realistic.

For Ireland, Wales, England or France it wouldn't be a success, but I repeat- 3 wooden Spoons in the last 4 years. 2 wins would definitely be a success.

by CraigS1874 Tue 05 Jan 2016, 9:30 pm

I think England will win the 6 nations but the fact we play them in the first match gives us a big advantage as they will lack cohesion. I agree 2 wins happy, 1 win disappointment but not destraught.

The way I judge our team is if a lions team was picked right now how many players would be in contention to make the squad.

The bold ones are up there
1-dickinson
2ford
3. nel
4.gray
5.gray
6.strauss
7.hardie
8. Denton
9. Laidlaw
10. Russell
11. Visser
12 [Dunbar/Taylor/Scott
13. Bennett
14. seymour
15. Hogg

Relatively strong first team especially in the pack. I just hope Russell/Hogg/Dunbar find form and find it quickly

by GLove39 Wed 06 Jan 2016, 1:28 am

Well first things first, winning a sodding game would be nice. Ideally one I'm at if that's possible! Going to the home ones as per and if my mates passport arrives in time, might book a cheeky trip to Rome. Scotland have won every away game we've been at, so great potential omen there...

by TJ Wed 06 Jan 2016, 2:14 am

RDW_Scotland wrote:
TJ wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:I just can't understand any reality where 2 wins in this 6N is deemed a failure.

Because it means 3 losses therefore losing more than you win - this is not a success.

I just can't fathom this attitude at all - we've got to be optimistic yeah but also realistic.

For Ireland, Wales, England or France it wouldn't be a success, but I repeat- 3 wooden Spoons in the last 4 years. 2 wins would definitely be a success.

It can never be a success to lose more than you win and to be in the bottom half - is this the scottish cringe in action? I cannot fathom your attitude that losing but not as badly as before being a success Hug

by Gwlad Wed 06 Jan 2016, 2:48 am

The success Scotland need is to build on BEATING Aus by hammering England in their first outing at home.

After that anything is truly possible after that and i would expect you to come to Cardiff and compete the following week.

I think Scotland's world cup was actually the most successful relatively of all the home nations in terms of progress and that after another spoon last year.

Keep up the momentum from RWC and anything is possible but that first win is crucial

by **George Carlin** Wed 06 Jan 2016, 7:22 am

Agreed Gwlad and many thanks.

I also agree with TJ. I think that overreaching is good. How exactly are we to win games if we do not enter them with the expectation that we can and will win? Besides, why break the habit of a lifetime and enter the Six Nations believing that nothing is possible. Stockholm Syndrome. Bygones. Cough.

I hope that what the World Cup did was introduce a young squad to the fuzzy end of the lollipop in terms of how squeaky tight the big games are and to show them, crucially, that you can write your own script and need not sit dormant in whatever box the press or pundits have conveniently placed you into.

At no point in that tournament, apart from perhaps the Australia match, did we put together a full 80 minute performance and yet we still came through to the quarters. Regardless of what might have been if we'd had a referee with a pair of testicles and a measure of calm, this is to be celebrated. What is also positive is that we are fitter than we have ever been and are a genuine 'second half side'. If we are in contention with 25 to go, then I am more optimistic than I have ever been that we can get a win.

I agree with Dame FESter of Stockbridge that Italy and France are the games that we should expect to take and I will also say now that we can beat England in the first match if we go in with confidence and with an 80% fit first choice squad.

by **RDW** Wed 06 Jan 2016, 7:36 am

I just think there is a difference between pessimism and realism, and it is far too simplistic to suggest that if you lose more games than you win then the tournament is a failure. That requires every team to have exactly the same success criteria, which is just wrong IMO.

That's like saying Sunderland should be disappointed if they don't win the Champions League this year!

Scotland are the Tottenham of the rugby world - there or there abouts at the top table, able to beat any team on their day, but inconsistent and lacking the real depth of quality to make it to the top.

We have no right to expect 3 wins or more - we haven't earned that luxury yet due to a history of rank awfulness in this tournament.

Of course I'm not saying Cotter should sit the guys down when they meet up and say 'right lads, two wins will be great so let's just aim the that', but as supporters we have to set realistic targets or else we'll be bloody miserable (or even more so) the entire time!

I'll expect to see TJ et al sobbing into their pints if we only win 2 games, but 2 wins is a significant increase from 0 so I will certainly be content with that.

by **NeilyBroon** Wed 06 Jan 2016, 7:58 am

100% win rate 2016 anyone? ;-)

by funnyExiledScot Wed 06 Jan 2016, 9:05 am

NeilyBroon wrote:100% win rate 2016 anyone? ;-)

If you count moral victories, yes.

by Sponsored content