Why did Scotland lose at Murrayfield? Post mortem.

First topic message reminder :

I hate saying it but ... discuss. No WUMs please.

Scotland lost due to poor execution of skills (and decisionb making) when in possesion of the ball and on attack. This has nothing to do with selection as the problems with not scoring tries has been going on with different half backs, centres etc.

England won due to a fantastic discipline (one dumb penalty aside) and stout defence. They offered little in attack but did not need to. The set-piece held up much better than I expected, with the men in white seeming to hold an advantage at scrum time and in the main gaining parity at the line-out.

While not a great game, it was by no means the worst 6Ns match as some are claiming.

LondonTiger wrote:
England won due to a fantastic discipline (one dumb penalty aside) and stout defence. They offered little in attack but did not need to. The set-piece held up much better than I expected, with the men in white seeming to hold an advantage at scrum time and in the main gaining parity at the line-out.

While not a great game, it was by no means the worst 6Ns match as some are claiming.

I agree with you LT. Though I would be worried that England didn't really do anything, they struggled to win ball and when they had it they didn't create chances.

Flood will make a difference, so would Care. Farrell is not an international, neither is Croft, Dowson who could do nothing at the breakdown.

If England want to be a good team and do well, they have to do a lot more during the game.

Saying Farrell is not an international is a bit premature.
I thought he played pretty well. He seemed solid in defence and has a big kicking game. He also seems to have the temperament that the big game players have.

For his first ever international game, i thought Farrell did reasonably ok. No way should he be written off.

England didn't have to do a lot to win that game they just let Scotland lose it and shoot themselves in the foot so its hard to judge them by.

Their front row stood up very well which I thought they would anyway.

Botha seems a hand full in the loose.

Hardly heard Crofts name all game.

Centres still the problem for England but hopefully the current coaches will stick with them and not just cast them aside like they did with Tait.

I did to a certain degree try to defend Parks but he must now surely never put a Scotland shirt on again NEVER

Parks was very average, his kicking from hand was dire and his decision making was questionable.

Scotland were competent at set piece but no more and sluggish to the breakdown.

But the real crime for Scotland was lack of support for the ball carrier. Scotland made a vast number of line breaks and every single time support took an age to arrive and England turned over the ball.

That was a game that Scotland by rights should have won based on their second half performance, and they only have themselves to blame for losing. It's yet another "what if" for Scotland, AR must be beside himself with frustration.

On the positives for Scotland, it's now very easy to make a decision about your stand off and pivot given the other results in the weekend and you seem to have turned up a terrific number 8.

Now, I'm off to another thread to grumble about the pathetic display put on by the England side, who are more than lucky to have escaped with a victory.

And on another note, I'd just like to say thanks and acknowledge the wonderful hospitality of the Edinburgh people who despite our traditional national differences and current tension are always great hosts and put on a tremendous spectacle and are good value for a pint and an objective chat afterwards (even if the rugby can't quite live up to it). Cheers to them.

Scotland lost because they have no composure. Again and again they get themselves enough possession to win games but can't convert that into wins. That is down to the coaching.

Winning possession in the pack and then kicking it away at 10 is futile.

Selecting a guy at 12 who can't pass stops moves dead in their tracks.

Surely having a naturally instinctive player like Townsend as backs coach is folly when Scotland need a more structured approach?

If Robinson gets the team as uber wired as he is, is it any wonder they panic when they get a sniff of a chance?

I still love Dan Parks!

The reason they lost is that when they play England they play very negative style of rugby and like true gentlemen England do the same.

Until both sides attempt to play the game then this fixture will always be a dull game, all the English talk before the game of playing an open style of rugby was just a smoke screen, Lancaster knew what was going to happen as did Robinson hence the viewer was subjected to a poor spectacle.

On the plus side for Scotland I think they have a great prospect at No8 and Dan Parks has played his last game for Scotland baring injuries, and on the plus side for England was the discipline showed when there backs were against the wall.

Hopefully both side can move forward, although I feel Italy could in all honestly beat both of these sides in Rome, if they cut out the silly errors.

I'm not sure it's fair to blame the coaches TGA.

With the greatest respect, the Scottish backs are decent, but not world class. They lack genuine size, pace and guile. There's a tell tale lack of athletic physiques amongst the forwards to say the least. To really finish off chances at this level with the crop they have Scotland will need to be very precise and up the fitness.

It is pretty funny though HERSH, got to love forums

Sorry about that Kiwi

miteyironpaw wrote:I'm not sure it's fair to blame the coaches TGA.

With the greatest respect, the Scottish backs are decent, but not world class. They lack genuine size, pace and guile. There's a tell tale lack of athletic physiques amongst the forwards to say the least. To really finish off chances at this level with the crop they have Scotland will need to be very precise and up the fitness.

Repeatedly Scotland lose out in the "championship minutes", which I put down to poor coaching. For example at the end of the first half Scotland had engineered a D/G opportunity for Parks, only for some forwards to be unaware of the situation and block the chance. These are international players with far too much experience to be making schoolboy errors. There is a lack of awareness and direction running through their play that has to be the responsibility of the coaches.

Good running lines create chances and Scotland aren't making those runs. They often seem to have the wrong players in key positions at crucial times and that's symptomatic of muddled thinking on the training ground.

LondonTiger wrote:England won due to a fantastic discipline (one dumb penalty aside) and stout defence.

I disagree with this. England were fortunate that George Clancy was content to tell them to get their hands out of the rucks and allow them to take their time doing so. Net result: no penalties but slow ball for Scotland. Another referee might not have been so lenient.

I wouldn't say their defence was great either - Scotland made a fair few line breaks, and while it's not England's fault that Scotland didn't take their chances, it's not to their credit either.

I don't really have much to say about the game that hasn't been said already, but...

Everyone one is talking about how good the England discipline was, I agree that it was better than in the past. The biggest difference was the referee. England were flopping all over the ball like an Aberdonian over 10p he found in the street. They were never penalised.

My favourite quote from the ref when an English player was on the wrong side of the ruck, and I para-phrase "he is stuck there, he can't move". That may be true but he shouldn't have f***ing been there in the first place. I think we needed Pat MacArthur on the pitch to dispense a reminder at that point.

On a related note. I am impressed with what Stuart Lancaster is trying to do with the English team, it needed to be done after the shenanigans at the RWC and he seems to be the man to do it.

It looked to me like Scotland were sealing off a lot of the ball when they were in possession.

England played to the ref. When he told them to stop doing something they did, otherwise they did what they were allowed. How often have we discussed English teams (club and country) inability to adapt to the ref?

Scotland were just as guilty of lying all over the ball.

As to Croft's lack of a mention - it does not help when the commentators keep praising robshaw when it was the England 6 (ie Croft) doing something.

gmclachl wrote:I don't really have much to say about the game that hasn't been said already, but...

Everyone one is talking about how good the England discipline was, I agree that it was better than in the past. The biggest difference was the referee. England were flopping all over the ball like an Aberdonian over 10p he found in the street. They were never penalised.

My favourite quote from the ref when an English player was on the wrong side of the ruck, and I para-phrase "he is stuck there, he can't move". That may be true but he shouldn't have f***ing been there in the first place. I think we needed Pat MacArthur on the pitch to dispense a reminder at that point.

On a related note. I am impressed with what Stuart Lancaster is trying to do with the English team, it needed to be done after the shenanigans at the RWC and he seems to be the man to do it.

Neither team got enough players to the tackle area quickly enough, aggressively enough or with good enough technique regularly enough to provide enough front foot ball to do anything with. The referee was an irrelevance, other than letting a lot of poor technique go unpenalised. Thank goodness he did or the game would have been even worse. The players firstly are to blame though. It was a feckless display by both.

miteyironpaw wrote:

gmclachl wrote:I don't really have much to say about the game that hasn't been said already, but...

Everyone one is talking about how good the England discipline was, I agree that it was better than in the past. The biggest difference was the referee. England were flopping all over the ball like an Aberdonian over 10p he found in the street. They were never penalised.

My favourite quote from the ref when an English player was on the wrong side of the ruck, and I para-phrase "he is stuck there, he can't move". That may be true but he shouldn't have f***ing been there in the first place. I think we needed Pat MacArthur on the pitch to dispense a reminder at that point.

On a related note. I am impressed with what Stuart Lancaster is trying to do with the English team, it needed to be done after the shenanigans at the RWC and he seems to be the man to do it.

Neither team got enough players to the tackle area quickly enough, aggressively enough or with good enough technique regularly enough to provide enough front foot ball to do anything with. The referee was an irrelevance, other than letting a lot of poor technique go unpenalised. Thank goodness he did or the game would have been even worse. The players firstly are to blame though. It was a feckless display by both.

Notwithstanding all of the above...England were so close to running them ragged though, right?

Come 'ere I owe you a slap

Yes, I have to admit I was very disappointed.

A lot of folks here are praising England's defence and discipline. Frankly I don't. I feel that indiscipline has been a product of pressure on the England line; Scotland simply didn't create any. Before we could give away a penalty, Scotland knocked on, dropped the ball or kicked it away.

As for the defence? Well we missed something like 11 tackles in the first half alone. Against a side with any kind of strike runners or a team with prowess in the finishing department we would have been four or five tries down by the break.

Still for Scotland surely the worst thing is having engineered a winning game plan, and then just failing to execute. I'm not sure I'd be smug about a loss anyway, but to lose through ineptitude in basic skills like draw and pass, pass and catch or failing the ground the ball over the try line? That kind of thing stings.

HERSH wrote:I still love Dan Parks!

The reason they lost is that when they play England they play very negative style of rugby and like true gentlemen England do the same.

wonder how making over 140 plays, 200 passes and 450 meters ran is negative play?

LondonTiger wrote:England played to the ref. When he told them to stop doing something they did, otherwise they did what they were allowed. How often have we discussed English teams (club and country) inability to adapt to the ref?

Scotland were just as guilty of lying all over the ball.

As to Croft's lack of a mention - it does not help when the commentators keep praising robshaw when it was the England 6 (ie Croft) doing something.

Yeah, to be fair to the commentators they look similar from behind and Croft was actually playing more like a 7 and Robshaw more like a 6

"Who is "they"? It was an eff-up by an independent sports company and was nothing to do with the SRU."

The SRU would say that wouldn't they and you believe them that's the daft part.

I think England defence was poor and it is a condemnation of Scotland they did not have the handling skills or the support runs to expose this.

Wooden Spoon coming to a country near you - without improvement that is what Scotland will be getting

I agree with you Geoff. The defensive performance was not one to be proud of. Sometimes I wonder if these pundits bothered to watch the game at all.

englandglory4ever wrote:"Who is "they"? It was an eff-up by an independent sports company and was nothing to do with the SRU."

The SRU would say that wouldn't they and you believe them that's the daft part.

Co-incidentally, that's also what they would say if they, in fact, had nothing to do with it.

I hope you never get onto a jury, EnglandGlory.

The selection of Parks is the key thing. Not only is he a limited player but he is out of form.

Given Parks and the slow ball this means the attacking playe3rs end up trying to hard / trying to foirce the game - result is maistakes.

Parks mistakes cost teh game. he sovelled oon rubbish resulting int eh ruck close tot eh line then got chartged down gifting a try and also missed a penalty to touch. his kicking from hand was poor as well.

this ws a great chance to beat a poor English team ( and they were poor) but blown by conservative selection from robinson

"Co-incidentally, that's also what they would say if they, in fact, had nothing to do with it. "

The SRU are probably responsible particularly if they were going to market the items. You sound like one of those retailers that say to its customers "its not our fault it doesn't work its the manufacturers. You'll have to return it to them."

Andy Robinson is a double agent.

gnollbeast wrote:Andy Robinson is a double agent.

Must be working for Wales then after what he did to England

I don't know if this has been said already but Scotland's game plan was based on England's poor discipline and propensity to give a hatfull of stupid pens away. AR thought England would do this and they could win by having a reliable goal kicker in their side in Dan Parks. Trouble is SL saw this coming and made sure his team were miserly when it came to giving away kickable pens.

AR can be forgiven as this tactic may have worked but SL should be applauded for turning the discipline thing around for England. eg, (I can't remember a game in ages where the scrums stayed up so many times and no pen was given).

miteyironpaw wrote:I agree with you Geoff. The defensive performance was not one to be proud of. Sometimes I wonder if these pundits bothered to watch the game at all.

That's a load of rubbish. How many tries did England concede? Doesn't matter how many Scotland opportunities had. They didn't score a try with over 60% possession. Not sure how many times they were in the England 22 but surely they should have made more of it.

England closed down the space Scotland had to work with and it meant Scotland panicked with the try line begging. England allowed Scotland to make plenty of line breaks but if it doesn't result in tries it's irrelevant.With all their line breaks they should have scored but they didn't.

We'll see if the coming messiah,Laidlaw is any better.

Please beshocked, let's get some perspective.

We should not bury our heads in the sand by flattering ourselves with statistics. Yes Scotland scored no tries. But would Scotland have scored a try if we'd just left the field? Sometimes I doubt it. They failed to build pressure on us. For all their possession in our 22, it was poor handling, dire execution, plodding and predictable attack, slow and indecisive work behind the ruck, a poor set piece and a tendency to panic and kick the ball away that let us off the hook.

Did you watch the Ireland v Wales game? Did you see how ominous France looked in possession? The England v Scotland game by contrast looked like an age group curtain raiser for the tournament.

It's not like we held out those notoriously prolific try scorers Scotland. We held a team that can't buy a try out...and it's only by the virtue of our own pathetic efforts in assault that Scotland were made to look a competent attacking team.

Don't fool yourself!

Sorry BS if that had been Wales they wouldve scored at least 3 tries.
Scotland were able to find gaps even playing terribly. In defending as they did, and allowing Scotland to keep the ball, England stunted their own potential to attack. I know its all very Saracens but they might as well pick joe worsley on the wing over strettle if they dont even want the ball.

Any competant side wouldve beaten England. To even say they tackled well ignores that they missed as manhy as Ireland did...and Ireland are getting slaughtered for their defensive weakness.

They didnt give away penalties? 11. More than any other team did this weekend, despite facing the second weakest team in the tournament. 8 in the second half showed they got stretched as the game went on.

Scotlands attacks were broken up by their own incmpetance, not by anything special from England. They couldnt even get their back 3 organised half the time to cover the pitch properly.

beshocked wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:I agree with you Geoff. The defensive performance was not one to be proud of. Sometimes I wonder if these pundits bothered to watch the game at all.

That's a load of rubbish. How many tries did England concede? Doesn't matter how many Scotland opportunities had. They didn't score a try with over 60% possession. Not sure how many times they were in the England 22 but surely they should have made more of it.

England closed down the space Scotland had to work with and it meant Scotland panicked with the try line begging. England allowed Scotland to make plenty of line breaks but if it doesn't result in tries it's irrelevant.With all their line breaks they should have scored but they didn't.

We'll see if the coming messiah,Laidlaw is any better.

Sorry but if England play like that against a more clinical side then they will be in serious trouble. Clinical sides will score from the same opportunities that Scotland created...

I watched all the games miteyironpaw. I know that both Scotland and England need to raise their games.

Take each game as it comes. England were ponderous because they played 3 6.5s, 2 12s in the centres and had a woefully out of form no 9. Lancaster had to do this because of bans and injuries.

Hopefully for the Wales game the likes of Wood,Lawes,Flood and Tuilagi will be back.

It was a good defensive performance from an inexperienced England side. They'll only get better.

The Scottish team oozed experience but didn't make the most of it.

I personally think Scotland suffered because they underestimated the England pack and relied too much on Parks. Also the Scots could not retain their composure. You couldn't tell that Scotland was the more experienced side.

The fault lies with Andy Robinson.The confidence needs to be rebuilt. A try needs to be scored then Scotland can go from there.

Scotland need to play with ambition against Wales. Forget about winning. Just build confidence.

Both sides need to be patient - build the phases, make ground and the opportunities will come. Most importantly keep the ball in hand.

beshocked wrote:I

It was a good defensive performance from an inexperienced England side. They'll only get better.

That's exactly what I'm taking away from this game. Positive mental attitude