Scotland xv vs France

IanBru wrote:OH FFS! Would people stop carrying on about Matt Scott?

He can't play this year.
He says he doesn't want to play this year.
Robinson can't pick him this year.

I'm not sure it can be said any more simply. Scott has made it clear, repeatedly, that he has important law exams during the Six Nations, and he can't afford to disrupt his preparation.

We need to grasp the fact that, apart from shoving in De Luca, or plucking James King from obscurity, we have no other options than Morrison or Lamont at 12.

It sucks, but it's the truth.

Pat_Mustard wrote:At the next press conference someone needs to actually stand up and demand an explanation for the repeated mistakes in selection. The press are too easy on Robinson, no difficult questions asked.

Also someone needs to point out to him that successful teams don't base their whole game plan around stopping the opposition.

IanBru wrote:OH FFS! Would people stop carrying on about Matt Scott?

He can't play this year.
He says he doesn't want to play this year.
Robinson can't pick him this year.

I'm not sure it can be said any more simply. Scott has made it clear, repeatedly, that he has important law exams during the Six Nations, and he can't afford to disrupt his preparation.

We need to grasp the fact that, apart from shoving in De Luca, or plucking James King from obscurity, we have no other options than Morrison or Lamont at 12.

It sucks, but it's the truth.

nickj wrote:

IanBru wrote:OH FFS! Would people stop carrying on about Matt Scott?

He can't play this year.
He says he doesn't want to play this year.
Robinson can't pick him this year.

I'm not sure it can be said any more simply. Scott has made it clear, repeatedly, that he has important law exams during the Six Nations, and he can't afford to disrupt his preparation.

We need to grasp the fact that, apart from shoving in De Luca, or plucking James King from obscurity, we have no other options than Morrison or Lamont at 12.

It sucks, but it's the truth.

You have a point Bru.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Manky-Flanker wrote:Awesome looking French side, but worry not, Scotland have a 6 playing 8, a 7 playing 6, a 9 playing 10, a winger playing 13, a 13 sitting on the bench, and an on form 12 and 6 sitting at home.

What could go wrong?

Better to laugh this one off than spend this week and next week moping about it. I'm starting to develop a bit of Gallows Humour with this Scotland Team.

KickAndChase wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Manky-Flanker wrote:Awesome looking French side, but worry not, Scotland have a 6 playing 8, a 7 playing 6, a 9 playing 10, a winger playing 13, a 13 sitting on the bench, and an on form 12 and 6 sitting at home.

What could go wrong?

Better to laugh this one off than spend this week and next week moping about it. I'm starting to develop a bit of Gallows Humour with this Scotland Team.

YES! EXACTLY! This is what I do - laugh it off and approach the entire realm of Scottish rugby with amusement and sarcasm until we come good again ... which could be many , many years down the line. It's been 12 years already after all.

Someone said 3 passes to the back line ... unless that includes catching French kicks and distributing to one another I I think that's a bit optimistic. Robinson's probably instructed them to sit back and wait for kicks anyway given the 12-13 axis is there for defense only.

Why pick a lightweight backrow then a heavyweight centre pairing? Couldn't you do it the other way round and then have some attacking flair? Why bring in Blair inside Laidlaw to help him and then put Morrison outside him? Why play S Lamont at 13 when HE HAS NEVER PLAYED THERE IN HIS LIFE? Can someone find or quote a game S Lamont has played 13? Why bench De Luca if it's not for the ill discipline (seeing as R Lamont is still playing)?

We're toast. Where's that facepalm smiley.

bsando wrote:I think everyone keeps thinking of the players as individuals, or how they perform for their respective clubs. John Barclay is a big boy, I am sure he will cope at 6. TBH there is not that much difference between the two positions anyway!! Just because Laidlaw is at 9 and morrison at 12 does not mean they're conflicting game plans. As far as I see it, Laidlaw/blair will be providing quick ball to both Morrison and Lamont/denton/rennie looking to create lots of line breaks or take advantage of any gaps. Then if French defense is broken up a bit they have jones, r lamont and hogg as options. I am not expecting Welsh styled flowing backline, we are not capable of it. I'm sticking to my guns and saying that I fully expect this team to do well on sunday and that AR has made GOOD selections against a dangerous French side.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

KickAndChase wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Manky-Flanker wrote:Awesome looking French side, but worry not, Scotland have a 6 playing 8, a 7 playing 6, a 9 playing 10, a winger playing 13, a 13 sitting on the bench, and an on form 12 and 6 sitting at home.

What could go wrong?

Better to laugh this one off than spend this week and next week moping about it. I'm starting to develop a bit of Gallows Humour with this Scotland Team.

YES! EXACTLY! This is what I do - laugh it off and approach the entire realm of Scottish rugby with amusement and sarcasm until we come good again ... which could be many , many years down the line. It's been 12 years already after all.

Someone said 3 passes to the back line ... unless that includes catching French kicks and distributing to one another I I think that's a bit optimistic. Robinson's probably instructed them to sit back and wait for kicks anyway given the 12-13 axis is there for defense only.

Why pick a lightweight backrow then a heavyweight centre pairing? Couldn't you do it the other way round and then have some attacking flair? Why bring in Blair inside Laidlaw to help him and then put Morrison outside him? Why play S Lamont at 13 when HE HAS NEVER PLAYED THERE IN HIS LIFE? Can someone find or quote a game S Lamont has played 13? Why bench De Luca if it's not for the ill discipline (seeing as R Lamont is still playing)?

We're toast. Where's that facepalm smiley.

K&C, SLamont played at 13 for Scarlets a fair bit the season before last - may even have one cap there (Wales 2010?) But that's still no excuse ...

KickAndChase wrote:Just to balance that last post...

It could work.

bsando wrote:I think everyone keeps thinking of the players as individuals, or how they perform for their respective clubs. John Barclay is a big boy, I am sure he will cope at 6. TBH there is not that much difference between the two positions anyway!! Just because Laidlaw is at 9 and morrison at 12 does not mean they're conflicting game plans. As far as I see it, Laidlaw/blair will be providing quick ball to both Morrison and Lamont/denton/rennie looking to create lots of line breaks or take advantage of any gaps. Then if French defense is broken up a bit they have jones, r lamont and hogg as options. I am not expecting Welsh styled flowing backline, we are not capable of it. I'm sticking to my guns and saying that I fully expect this team to do well on sunday and that AR has made GOOD selections against a dangerous French side.

funnyExiledScot wrote:As a backline selection it's too awful to contemplate.

I can only assume that neither Robinson nor Townsend want the job anymore and this is a none too subtle way of getting fired.

We will not run through the French centres. As a tree cutter there are none better than Dusatoir, and Rougerie is just as physical (but much faster) than both our centres.

Robinson has picked a lightweight backrow, and a pair of quick tempo players at half back, but outside Laidlaw will be Morrison and the Lamont brothers, players with no accelaration to exploit any half gaps and no handling skills to capitalise.

WHERE IS THE FRICKING LOGIC IN THAT!!!???

Rob Harley may as well go into retirement until Robinson is sacked. No Glasgow fan could say with a straight face that John Barclay is the best blindside flanker available to Robinson. He isn't the best blindside flanker at Glasgow.

Wish I had stayed at lunch and got hooned. Will be in France skiing on Sunday. Was going to start the apres-ski early - might just go off piste never to be seen again, or maybe just pretend I'm French!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:FES is going to have a fit when he comes in from his Edinburgh al fresco lunch!

6 and 7 are totally differant positions. The number 6 is there to make crunching tackles on the blind side and the 7 is there to win turnover ball once the centres have ran into each other. If there was no difference between the 2 positions there would be no such thing as an openside or blindside flanker. Could you ever imagine McCaw and Kaino swapping positions for NZ?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Bonnaire or Dusautoir are not breakdown specialists by any means. They are tackling machines. As for Barclay and Rennie I am not disagreeing with you, they both suit playing 7 but even the two of them play a different type of game. That is my point, a 6 isn't simply a tackler while a 7 isn't simply a fetcher. Different teams employ different tactics.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Rory, i think that the majority of teams favour a backrow with a traditional chopper-fetcher-ball-carrier balance. France and Ireland are two that don't, but then neither country has a top calibre 'fetcher', but as you say they reshuffle tasks and make do just fine. In Scotland, we have other choppers after Brown and Stroks, and I would prefer to see us use them rather than Barclay

nickj wrote:Good article on SRB. At least it explains Robbo's thinking - http://www.scottishrugbyblog.co.uk/2012/02/what-was-said-at-the-team-announcement/

funnyExiledScot wrote: It actually sounds like that's his plan, and hope that the well rested super fit French players somehow wilt under the weight of our undynamic phase play

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I'm normally always optimistic about Scotland's chances. We have absolutely no chance of winning this game.

What Was Meant at the Team Announcement

22 Feb 2012
by Alan Dymock (with some help)

Once all and sundry had been handed a hymn sheet, stopped laughing and cajoled into sitting in a yogic flying position to talk about selections as a group – everyone agreeing that a sell-out was fantastic for Scotland and was looking forward to all those lovely picnics in the carpark – Andy Pandy sat and delivered a speech he and Luby-Lu had obviously been working on.

His reasoning devoid of lucidity and his line crooked, he explained why it was necessary to pick the lumbering, one-dimensional centres he picked, why Jackson would not be needed this time round and why he felt the French demanded something more…than a plain Scots pie from the Scots after the match.

“You see that I have made one sensible and a couple of utterly pointless changes.

“I’m absolutely delighted for Stuart Hogg. What you will see from him is from a step by step progression that was forced on me from the very first. Reluctantly I let him come into the squad for the St. Andrews camp and to my astonishment did really well. He played in the Saxons game and was exemplary in his performance. Then he came off the bench in Cardiff. What you saw from him was a really composed performance and in some respects he has that ability to handle the pressure of international rugby- which is great, so I couldn't think of any more reasons not to give him first start.

“We are disappointed with the injuries that we got, for Max [Evans] to pick up the injury that he got and for Al Strokosch. So I’ve looked at the team, to look at what would be best for making a mokery of the game against France. I’ve obviously made the change in the centre, bringing Graeme Morrison back in, moving Sean to 13. I have taken that bonkers Frenchman, Lievremont, as my inspiration for these selections. I may even grow a ridiculous moustache.

“I think that’s possibly the worst match-up with Fofana and Rougerie I could envisage, I really do. I think that’s going to be a phenomenal battle to escape Murrayfield before the 80 minutes is up. Graeme has done nothing to write home about since going back to Glasgow, captaining the side but also delivering averagely at best in his performances having been randomly on the bench for us in the first game of the Championship only because I couldn't thin of anyone else to name in the XXII.

“In the way we are trying to play the game it is important that we keep the ball for many phases before turning it over. If you look at the average that we have kept the ball in the air while playing keepy-uppy before the first two matches, the ball had been in the air for an average of forty minutes. What we believe is that if we feed the French deep-fried Mars Bar and play multi-phase on our gaming consoles before going out against France that we can test them and test their fitness.”

With this Robinson eluded to the referee not letting France slow the ball down, but he also justified the selection of John Barclay. He acknowledged the breaking-down power of Vernon, but with a need to keep the game going with phase after phase after phase of crashing it up the middle to no avail, not even making huge amounts of yards but wearying the French into stupified boredom, Barclay is more likely to ensure that the match ball remains in Scotland.

He also stated that Jackson had done appallingly, but if he was to pick Laidlaw his other 10 would have to be a tactical alternative to Laidlaw’s running. Weir offered more of a kicking change and Jackson would be allowed to play a few more games with Glasgow.

Blair was brought in, and with this call Robinson levelled with the press. He said, Cusiter “has not been at his best” and so was dropped for Blair, who had been industrious when brought on. He did, however, make it clear that he saw Cusiter as his first choice 9. (Is it just me or is this paragraph stupid enough to be left in on its own merits?!)

In his vain of buffoonery he also said that Matt Scott had done well in training but that he would remain behind players of lesser quality, progressing like others before him only in the event of injury, in order to hopefully get a first cap before he reaches 50.

He did not go any further with this, but you simply cannot understand Robinson’s stance here. Hogg has shown how special he is and can be brought in from full-back. He has time there. With Matt Scott, though, he would be flung into a game against an imposing French outfit - (no he wouldn't if he'd been played against England as we've been advocating all along!). Robinson will still be haunted by the Tait affair when he was England head coach (time for you to return there pls?). He will never be so bold again, one despairs.

In actual fact, this bizarre team selection is one that is set up to make France laugh hoping that when they fall over this will prevent them from cutting loose. Weir is the tactical back-up but Lamont is in his equally unfamiliar 13 and he and Morrison are possibly Scotland’s most one-dimensional pairing in midfield. Ansbro would certainly be overlooked if he was fit, but this is a solely defensive unit.

On Sunday expect a woeful, dreich defensive performance with the ball unlikely ever to reach the back three. Morrison, Ford and Barclay will wear pink underwear and Rennie and S. Lamont will be in sequins, looking for marshmallows or mushrooms. Abstract snippets betray as much.

Robinson said that Scotland were the Championship’s “Laughing stock,” but also said France would be beaten by a much better team than this, in due course.

Keepy-uppy against France? “We’ve been punished for the rubbish that I’ve selected. I see those as structural errors”. He wants a solid turd in the plan.

“The one area where you get severely tested is at the scrum and lineout… They destroyed us in the scrum last year.” He wants a collective effort. Tight shorts, vocal warm-ups, practical oragami, and smartly dressed young men.

That is how not to beat France.

donkeyprop wrote:I find this thread incredibly disheartening. The sheer negativity here from Scotland followers is astounding, there have even been comments about hoping the national team lose because some people don't like the selection.
Looking at it though, there only seems to be contention over a couple of positions.

The front 5 are our best available for a Sunday
Harley could have got the nod at 6, but a world class experienced back rower got picked instead. A judgement call by the selectors & fair enough.

The half backs picked played well against Wales and deserve to start.

Centre is the area that has caused most outrage. From the posts I'm surprised that Chunk is so pale skinned - with the sun apparently managing to shine from both Scott and DeLuca's arses at the same time I'd have thought even he would have picked up a bit of a tan. Clearly what we need to win games is to have five backs from the ninth best team in the Rabo rather than three - that really will make all the difference......
DeLuca has been deservedly dropped after another bout of game losing idiocy against Wales (although the Twitter abuse was out of order). Morrison & Lamont together in the centre is certainly a surprise, but given that France won their only game this year largely thanks to weak Italian defence in midfield it might not be a bad idea to have these two together. OK the wingers won't see many chances to run in tries, but they never did that with DeLuca in the centre anyway, even when Morrison was injured or dropped.
Back 3 - probably the best available.
FFS stop being so negative, this is the national team. If you can't support them, check your ancestry - you might find you have an English granny so go & give them the benefit of your "support".
C'mon Scotland

funnyExiledScot wrote:Donkeyprop - it should be pretty clear from both this thread and the posting history of the posters on here that we all care deeply about Scottish rugby, and all support Scotland to the hilt. That does NOT mean we cannot debate team selection and express dissatisfaction at yet another bizarre selection from Robinson.

The selection of Barclay at 6 is not fair enough. It is ridiculous. Calling him a backrower is as accurate as calling him a rugby player. He is both of those things. A blindside flanker he is not. Yes, of course he'll fill in ok and do a half decent job, I'm not going to pretend that a good openside (despite not being in great form) cannot "do a job" at 6, but not nearly as good a job as a proper blindside flanker. It's Robinson's decision, and one I disagree with strongly.

The centre combination completely negates the style of play that both Blair and Laidlaw adopt (or at least have been adopting at Edinburgh and in the last 20 against Wales once they were put together). If Robinson doesn't want Blair to play off the cuff and Laidlaw to play at pace, why pick them? If he wants to play numerous phases to test the French fitness, and try and eek out penalties, rather than go for fast ball and high risk rugby, pick the right players to implement that. This team selection is utterly muddled at best, and incompetent at worst.

I will be cheering on Scotland as I always do, and I'd love nothing more than Morrison to pile through the French defence, tackle his heart out and set-up Sean Lamont with an outstanding offload from which the French defence simply have to stand still and applaud. I do not wish Scotland badly at all. But this is a website where you can put forward opinions about rugby, and in my opinion the team selection is flawed and we will lose as a result of it.

KickAndChase wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Manky-Flanker wrote:Awesome looking French side, but worry not, Scotland have a 6 playing 8, a 7 playing 6, a 9 playing 10, a winger playing 13, a 13 sitting on the bench, and an on form 12 and 6 sitting at home.

What could go wrong?

Better to laugh this one off than spend this week and next week moping about it. I'm starting to develop a bit of Gallows Humour with this Scotland Team.

YES! EXACTLY! This is what I do - laugh it off and approach the entire realm of Scottish rugby with amusement and sarcasm until we come good again ... which could be many , many years down the line. It's been 12 years already after all.

Someone said 3 passes to the back line ... unless that includes catching French kicks and distributing to one another I I think that's a bit optimistic. Robinson's probably instructed them to sit back and wait for kicks anyway given the 12-13 axis is there for defense only.

Why pick a lightweight backrow then a heavyweight centre pairing? Couldn't you do it the other way round and then have some attacking flair? Why bring in Blair inside Laidlaw to help him and then put Morrison outside him? Why play S Lamont at 13 when HE HAS NEVER PLAYED THERE IN HIS LIFE? Can someone find or quote a game S Lamont has played 13? Why bench De Luca if it's not for the ill discipline (seeing as R Lamont is still playing)?

We're toast. Where's that facepalm smiley.

123456789 wrote:I don't understand this "we must play a free-flowing game" attitude, I'd be incredibly happy if next year we won each game 3-0. Obviously Matt Scott is the best inside-centre in the country currently however, the question Robinson has to answer is "is he the best inside-centre for this game" and he has decided no, the only way we will know for certain is how well we play on Sunday, I doubt it will work but I hope to be proven wrong.
Isn't hoping we lose a stupid attitude because I'd rather things clicked under Robinson than we lose every game. Anyway the last time they played together was 2010 and that worked well for 70 minutes.