Scotland Team for Italy

First topic message reminder :

So who would you pick for Italy? Indeed who do you think AR will pick?

If it were my team I'd select:
Grant, Thomson, Murray, Hines, Kellock, Harley, Brown, Barclay, Cusiter, Laidlaw, Evans, De Luca, Cairns, Danielli, R.Lamont Subs: Ford, Low, Gray, Vernon, Blair, Parks, S.Lamont

Essentially I still see this as being a trial, if some of the players had put in compelling performances today then that would alter my thinking but few did.

The team I suspect AR will select is:
Jacobsen, Ford, Murray, Hines, Gray, Brown, Barclay, Beattie, Cusiter, Parks, S Lamont Morrison, De Luca, Danielli, R.Lamont Subs: Hall, Low, Kellock, Vernon Blair, Parks, Cuthbert

The style of the game will be rather different, Italy will be happy to keep things closer to the scrum than Ireland were and the onus will be on us to spread the ball more. Hence I'd take the plunge and let Laidlaw start. I'd also want to inject a bit of pace into the 3/4 line. If we are going to move the ball we need to select players who will look to move it.

I'm verging upon forgetting about Beattie, he still has not recaptured his form. Rennie and to a lesser extent Strokosch have made strong cases for b-r inclusion. Denton didn't really take his chance. Think all 4 second rows will travel as will today's front row. In the backs Lawson Jackson, S.Lamont, Ansbro and CP are sure to be picked, possibly Morrison too, but the rest of the positions I think are open.

George Carlin wrote:Which leaves a couple of questions:

1. What about Dan 'Revolving Door' Parks? How can you add him to the mix when it is clear that an offloading game is what Robinson wishes to play and which we appear fit enough, if not currently skillful enough, to carry out?

2. With that backline, will Jackson's kicking for goal lose games for us? And we're back to the age old problem of whether Lord Mossy is worth retaining with the devil of keeping out a strike runner like R. Lamont who is more likely to actually make line breaks.

Robert Browning was right:
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”

1. I suspect that a conservative Robbo will stick with Parks at least in the squad, altho it does seem that he is at least contemplating not having him in the XXII - 'twould be a bold move to not have him in the XXII and to rely on eiher Laidlaw or Mossy. I like our offloading game, but our handling needs to be sharp and we need to utterly master the breakdown (including getting the ref to penalise oppo infringements which are destroying the style of game we are trying to implement).
2. Jackson has supposedly been working on his kicking with Hodge, altho I'm not too worried about including Mossy at 15 given his displays at the end of the 6Ns when he seemed to be one of our few backs capable of linebreaks

I think in this warm-up game we can use it to test Jackson as a front line kicker to see how he gets on. Rory Lamont needs 80 minutes anyway, so we can kill two birds with one stone.

As for Parks, remember the Ireland game in the 6 Nations, or the Wales game the prior year. Against Ireland this year Jackson was starting to look lost and fell into the Godman trap of simply shifting the ball sideways in the hope that someone else would do something with it. When Parks came on he made a big difference in a positive and attacking way. His passing was both quicker and more incisive in direction. Against Wales the previous year he showed how his kicking game can be used to good effect in an attacking way as well. Remember the Max Evans try.

I think Parks provides a useful contrast to Jackson, and gives us an automatic plan B. He's also a better goal kicker, and in the horrible event of CP picking up an injury, I'd hate to be facing the last 20 minutes of a knockout game without a first class goal kicker, especially given our record of scoring tries.

The big question for me is how much time we give him against Italy, because I want Jackson to play as much as possible. He's still our plan A, and I thought he handled the last 10 minutes against Ireland on Saturday superbly well. It also begs the question, had we brought Parks on to close out that game, would we have scored that try? Who knows. My hope is that AR gives Jackson at least another 60 minutes against Italy, and that he gets to take all the kicks. I think we'll get some answers if that's the case. Parks can then come on and try to emulate the impact he had in the 6 Nations against Ireland, and ask different questions of the Italy defence.

I would want an incisive backline that would try to do more than remain content with constant 3 pointers.

If Cusiter is not fit enough to play Italy i do not see how Robbo could take him. In that case Laidlaw should start at 9 with blair on the bench. Lawson will be traveling to the world cup by default since Cusiter can't seem to stay fit for more than a season and Blair is a shadow of his former self. So lets see what Laidlaw can do with a start, have Blair on the bench if Cus is not fit.

Jackson out side laidlaw with NDL and Ansbro in the middle. I still see that combination as the most likely to trouble defences with more than just brute force. Maxi on one wing and Danielli on the other and Have Rory Lamont at full back and give him free reign to come into the line to make those incisive breaks. Likewise for Danielli too, get into the line and get hungry.

We also need to give Jackson the responsibility of finding his feet as our 1st choice kicker. Mostly because Parks and Mossy will have 1 more season in them, maybe 2 at the top flight, Jacko will have to cut his teeth at some point and if we don't let the guy take a shot in a world cup warm up.... when will we?

9. Laidlaw (Cusiter if fit)
10. Jackson
11. Danielli
12. NDL
13. Ansbro
14. Evans
15. R. Lamont

The forwards will more or less pick themselves especialy with AR already saying Hines, Barclay and Brown all starting. Don't be surprised to see that as the starting backrow.

"3. Why, oh why, do people continue to rate Danielli? I have watched Ulster all season and can only conclude that he has something of a consistent brainfart on international duty. I simply cannot countenance another home national persisting with a winger who never scores. How can it possibly be good enough? Let's stop aiming for mediocrity, shall we?"


His strike rate at club level is really quite good, in which case I can only assume you're talking about his strike rate at international level. I'm curious, is it any worse than the strike rates of Rory Lamont, Walker, Sean Lamont, Chris Paterson, Joe Ansbro and Max Evans?

Just looking at starts versus tries (from the SRU website):

Danielli - 22 starts and 6 tries. Ratio - 3.7
Max Evans 14 and 3. Ratio - 4.6
S Lamont 54 and 8. Ratio - 6.75
Walker 18 and 6. Ratio - 3
Rory Lamont 21 and 6. Ratio - 3.5
Joe Ansbro 7 and 1. Ratio - 7
Paterson 93 and 22. Ratio 4.2


So only Nikki Walker and Rory Lamont come in with a better ratio. I'd hardly say that scoring tries is Danielli's issue. His weakness for me is his handling, and his hard hands have let him down on occassion in the past. I still think he's our best winger at picking attacking lines, and he's a more balanced runner than both Walker and Sean Lamont. I rate him pretty highly and would give him a run against Italy and take him to the WC. I'd like to see him play in a back three with Max Evans and Rory Lamont against Italy. That's a good attacking unit and they all need a game.

By the way, I didn't use a calculator to work out Ansbro's ratio. I did that one all by myself

Radge - I'm just not a big fan of De Luca at 12, and I'd far rather see Morrison or Lamont there. I think teams would look at Jackson and De Luca playing together and put their big ball carriers through them. I know De Luca had a decent enough season there with Edinburgh, but all his best rugby has been at 13.

I'd play NDL at 13, shift Lamont to 12 (or play Morrison again) and have Danielli on the other wing. Put either Lamont (if he doesn't start) or Ansbro on the bench.

If Hines starts at 6 against Italy, I'm going on a looting rampage through Dulwich!

I just can't help feel that Morrison is 85% of the reason Scotland struggle to score tries. His distribution skills are about as good as the Royal mail when we have a dusting of snow.

He can't do much else other than run at his opposite number. His vision and handling skills IMO are not good enough for an inside centre. Frankly Lamont did as good a job in the 6N and even whilst in taht position Scored a very well taken try against France.

Furthermore Lamonts presence in the line against our other opponents in the 6N made us look a lot more dangerous.


I also feel I owe Walker an apology, he looked to be on fire before going off and I reckon the Irish backline would have really struggled to contain him had he stayed on the pitch.

Agreed - I don't think there's much to choose between Lamont and Morrison, and Lamont did us a service during the 6 Nations. Plus it perhaps enables us to get all our better players on the pitch at the same time if Lamont plays 12.

funnyExiledScot wrote:"3. Why, oh why, do people continue to rate Danielli? I have watched Ulster all season and can only conclude that he has something of a consistent brainfart on international duty. I simply cannot countenance another home national persisting with a winger who never scores. How can it possibly be good enough? Let's stop aiming for mediocrity, shall we?"


His strike rate at club level is really quite good, in which case I can only assume you're talking about his strike rate at international level. I'm curious, is it any worse than the strike rates of Rory Lamont, Walker, Sean Lamont, Chris Paterson, Joe Ansbro and Max Evans?

Just looking at starts versus tries (from the SRU website):

Danielli - 22 starts and 6 tries. Ratio - 3.7
Max Evans 14 and 3. Ratio - 4.6
S Lamont 54 and 8. Ratio - 6.75
Walker 18 and 6. Ratio - 3
Rory Lamont 21 and 6. Ratio - 3.5
Joe Ansbro 7 and 1. Ratio - 7
Paterson 93 and 22. Ratio 4.2


So only Nikki Walker and Rory Lamont come in with a better ratio. I'd hardly say that scoring tries is Danielli's issue. His weakness for me is his handling, and his hard hands have let him down on occassion in the past. I still think he's our best winger at picking attacking lines, and he's a more balanced runner than both Walker and Sean Lamont. I rate him pretty highly and would give him a run against Italy and take him to the WC. I'd like to see him play in a back three with Max Evans and Rory Lamont against Italy. That's a good attacking unit and they all need a game.

Props for the ratios FES. Gold star and a pair of trainers recently looted in South London.

I am not suggesting that Danielli isn't a very intelligent player - simply that he doesn't seem to be able to make much happen on his own - i.e. without team mates running lines that give him space which they do at Ulster. Frankly, he can vanish in a match, which I've seen him do many times and also has the tendency to scoot out of defensive lines, leaving holes.

Also, it doesn't tell the whole story to simply look at matches started and tries scored. R. Lamont spends most of the time smacking his head off the turf or opponents' knees when on the pitch and I would be surprised if he's played a full 80 for us in a year.

Lamont has played a lot of matches at centre which limits space to score and he has gained a lot of ground with the holes he has punched. The same line could be said to apply to Ansbro and Evans, neither of whom has consistently played the same role as Simone.

Wingers should be finishers, plain and simple. Thom Evans was, of course, one and Lee Jones looks like another. When Visser becomes eligible, I sincerely hope that I won't need to look at Danielli or Walker ever again.

You're absolutely right, there are certainly mitigating factors for the likes of Lamont and Ansbro, but I just wanted to prove that his strikerate is no worse, and indeed better, than many Scottish wingers during the same period.

Thom Evans, a great finisher, had one try in ten games (ratio of 10). The worst of all wingers during the same period. Worse than Simon Webster (ratio of 9.25 before you ask).

I think you're harsh on Danielli, I really do. He's a good attacking player. His weaknesses are his hands and his defence, although other than that rush to head where he left his position, I can't think of another such incident.

Visser I'd say is a cut above, but sadly we can't use him yet.

Agreed on Lee Jones, lots of potential there, and nice to see a player come through that isn't just another big bruiser.