Scotland squad for SH tour

First topic message reminder :

Backs - Ansbro, Blair, Brown, Cusiter, De Luca, Evans,Grove, Hogg, Laidlaw, S Lamont, Scott, Visser and Weir.

Forwards - Barclay, Cross, Ford(c), Grant, Gray, Hall, Harley,Kellock, S Lawson, Murray, Rennie, Ryder, Strokosch, Vernon and Welsh

I think what separates good players from great players is the ability to play well with any players. Surely if de Luca was that good and the players around him that bad, surely he should be making them look pathetically bad!

It takes a lot to take responsibility for pushing the team forward. Stuart Hogg did it against Munster, nothing was really happening for Glasgow so he took the bull by the horns and scored a hat trick. All of our players have to find this small jump up in intensity.

Do you watch the All Blacks and think that their trys are massively complex? The tries aren't really. It usually involves straight running and a good off load into space because the player is looking for space and anticipating breaks and off load opportunities.

Its not that simple I know, but its a hell of a lot simpler than we make it out to be.

I'm not sure anyone is saying De Luca is a "great player" or "that good".

The point I'm making and clearly struggling to convey is that international rugby is about picking the best players and combinations available. You have to judge each player relative to the other available options. If you don't like a pick simply because a player isn't a "great player", then pipe down unless you can make a compelling case for an alternative (other than simply saying "anyone but").

It may well be that the right selection is to pick a truly awful player, if it just so happens that player is the best you have.

I agree with your later points though. In general Scotland backs need to play with more intensity but also less fear (a point Lancaster is trying to drum into the English back). Hogg thrived because he wasn't overcoached, and he just played his natural attacking game. There have been instances when that has lead to errors, but, the bad is far outweighed by the good. That message needs to go to all Scotland backs. Put 100% into everything and be prepared to take risks.

That's what makes the ABs such a force. When the spot an opportunity, they throw the kitchen sink into it, whether it be an unguarded ruck, or a half chance to counter attack. The way they exploit opportunities is what makes them an awesome force.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm not sure anyone is saying De Luca is a "great player" or "that good".

The point I'm making and clearly struggling to convey is that international rugby is about picking the best players and combinations available. You have to judge each player relative to the other available options. If you don't like a pick simply because a player isn't a "great player", then pipe down unless you can make a compelling case for an alternative (other than simply saying "anyone but").

It may well be that the right selection is to pick a truly awful player, if it just so happens that player is the best you have.

I agree with your later points though. In general Scotland backs need to play with more intensity but also less fear (a point Lancaster is trying to drum into the English back). Hogg thrived because he wasn't overcoached, and he just played his natural attacking game. There have been instances when that has lead to errors, but, the bad is far outweighed by the good. That message needs to go to all Scotland backs. Put 100% into everything and be prepared to take risks.

That's what makes the ABs such a force. When the spot an opportunity, they throw the kitchen sink into it, whether it be an unguarded ruck, or a half chance to counter attack. The way they exploit opportunities is what makes them an awesome force.

I agree that de Luca is our best option at the moment, I just think that too much has been made about the combination issue and I think its more of a mental issue with him and until he starts performing consistently for Scotland its hard to want him in the team.

I think the combination is beneficial, but by no means determinative.

We all rate Matt Scott, but frankly if he's good enough he'll be able to play with De Luca, Ansbro or Grove. They are all at a pretty similar level and with not dissimilar playing styles, and he'll have Blair and Laidlaw playing 9 and 10 I suspect in any event.

The player I have on real last chance saloon is Euan Murray. It would have been easier to put up with his "Sunday stance" had he been producing the goods when available, but at the current time he's a lucky lad to be going on that trip. Poor scrummaging and poor work rate, and every time I see him he seems to be grinning like an idiot. Getting penalised doesn't seem to bother him. If rugby really is that unimportant to him then he should pack it in. I want to see some fire and anger in him on this tour, and I want to see him technically destroying some opposition looseheads, just like he used to.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Cryptoyourisan wrote:

How many shots does de Luca need? Having the 'right' players around him is absolute nonsense seeing as the vast majority of the mistakes he makes are nothing to do with who is playing at 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15.

I would definitely have had Grove in front of de Luca during the Six Nations. Grove may not be the modern-day Philippe Sella, but it's not that easy to tell when he's been playing at Worcester. His spell at Edinburgh was hard to judge seeing as Rob Moffat's selection policy was based on a names-in-a-hat basis.

I see. So when we're judging Grove we ought to make allowances for the failings of the players around him at Worcester and previously Edinburgh, and yet when judging De Luca, we should ignore the players he has to play with and castigate him for not playing well in a team that has barely been able to string two passes together.

When Scotland openned up, as they did against France, De Luca looked good.

I suspect we're in agree to disagree territory here, I just think that we ought to judge all these guys on the same basis.

ASBO's point is a fair one, that he thinks Ansbro and Grove can better translate club form into the international arena. A fair opinion, and I'd be willing to see all combinations on this tour to make up my mind.

To be honest, my preference at 13 for Ansbro, Cairns (when fit again), Evans, Grove, Hogg (at 13, moving Brown to 15), Lamont (yes, I'd still have him in the team before de Luca), Rennie or even bringing Jim Renwick out of retirement isn't based on their those players' qualities; it's based on de Luca. I believe that there are some players who need to be cut loose having failed to prove themselves as international-quality, despite being given more than enough opportunities and after turning in numerous calamitous performances.

I doubt many other international teams would persevere with a player who is average at best and an advantage to the opposing team at worst. Matt Giteau and Rod Davies are actually excellent players and look what happened to them. I can't help but think that too many people are okaying de Luca's continued presence in the Scotland squad based on Edinburgh's outstanding Heineken Cup campaign...

Yes, I suspect it's true that people are basing their opinions on De Luca having watched his outstanding performances for Edinburgh this season.

You rate Sean Lamont, Max Evans, Bryan Rennie and Ben Cairns as better 13's than De Luca. Fine. It will come as no surprise that I completely disagree.

Have no idea what Matt Giteau has to do with any of this. He was dropped because Cooper and Barnes were playing better rugby than him at club level, and both deserved a chance to displace him, a chance they grabbed with both hands. He was dropped because there were better options. That's what happens in international rugby. Had there not been better options, he wouldn't have been dropped. It's pretty simple.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Yes, I suspect it's true that people are basing their opinions on De Luca having watched his outstanding performances for Edinburgh this season.

You rate Sean Lamont, Max Evans, Bryan Rennie and Ben Cairns as better 13's than De Luca. Fine. It will come as no surprise that I completely disagree.

Have no idea what Matt Giteau has to do with any of this. He was dropped because Cooper and Barnes were playing better rugby than him at club level, and both deserved a chance to displace him, a chance they grabbed with both hands. He was dropped because there were better options. That's what happens in international rugby. Had there not been better options, he wouldn't have been dropped. It's pretty simple.

I think Joe Ansbro needs a run in the team to see if he really is as good as we think he is. I'd like to see Hogg outside Matt Scott although it would make for a relatively lightweight centre partnership.

When we talk about bringing both pro teams' best attributes to the Scotland team, it all hinges on one thing. Graeme Morrison. The reason why Glasgow are so defensively strong is Graeme Morrison at 12 and the reason Scotland can't play flowing rugby like Edinburgh and have a very strong defence is him. So, as I'm not too clued up on Matt Scott's defence but, he'll need to especially tough in defence if he has Laidlaw inside him. International coaches aren't stupid they know our defensive weakness is there and will exploit it.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Have no idea what Matt Giteau has to do with any of this. He was dropped because Cooper and Barnes were playing better rugby than him at club level, and both deserved a chance to displace him, a chance they grabbed with both hands. He was dropped because there were better options. That's what happens in international rugby. Had there not been better options, he wouldn't have been dropped. It's pretty simple.

I would say that Giteau's involvement in humiliating losses to us at Murrayfield and to England and Samoa in Australia played as much of a part as any loss of form. It's not as if he was playing terribly. I don't see how you could claim that Barnes was playing better rugby than Giteau when he was dropped because the only game time Barnes got between him taking time off and the RWC was for Sydney University. The fact that Giteau, a world-class player who has won 90-odd caps and should have broken the ton, was not gradually phased out but completely dropped after being a key part of the team for the better part of the decade leads me to think it wasn't because Pat McCabe and Berrick Barnes - who didn't feature at all in the Tri Nations - were 'better options'.

So you think the Aussies just ditched him, without any regard as to who could replace him and do a better job? Seriously??

I'm all in favour of ditching dead wood, getting rid of players who have nothing more to offer the national team. I don't put De Luca anywhere near that category. Dougie Hall, Euan Murray and Graeme Morrison on the other hand.........

We're labouring the point here. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if for once in a million years we actually could discuss the positives of the alternatives, rather than just made silly statements like "I wish we could just fire De Luca into the sun".

Tell me what it is about Bryan Rennie you think makes him a better 13, and a better option at 13 for Scotland going forward.

funnyExiledScot wrote:So you think the Aussies just ditched him, without any regard as to who could replace him and do a better job? Seriously??

I'm all in favour of ditching dead wood, getting rid of players who have nothing more to offer the national team. I don't put De Luca anywhere near that category. Dougie Hall, Euan Murray and Graeme Morrison on the other hand.........

We're labouring the point here. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if for once in a million years we actually could discuss the positives of the alternatives, rather than just made silly statements like "I wish we could just fire De Luca into the sun".

Tell me what it is about Bryan Rennie you think makes him a better 13, and a better option at 13 for Scotland going forward.

More or less. Australia do have a good recent track record of moving players around their back-line. I can't think of many other teams that could play four stand offs in their back-line and make it work. Then again, Australia did have a pretty average RWC campaign. I know they finished third but they were hardly astounding against Italy, gave Ireland their first ever win in the Southern Hemisphere and were blown away by the All Blacks. Radike Samo
being capped as a winger hardly backs Robbie Deans's selection policy.

I don't see how you can't lump de Luca in with Hall, Morrison and Murray et al. He's been dross for Scotland time and time again. I don't think Edinburgh reaching a Heineken Cup semi-final is suddenly going to make him overcome 30 caps worth of sub-standard performances and become an international-quality player. You can only pick a player on club form so many times before realising that that player is not capable of transferring club form into international form. It's fairly common but for some reason de Luca seems to have carte blanche when it comes to the number of caps he's getting.

I wouldn't consider Rennie to be an option going forward but, then, I don't consider Andy Robinson to be a particularly forward-thinking coach. My point was that I am so convinced that de Luca will continue to be terrible for Scotland that I would play pretty much anyone at 13 before him. At least Rennie would have the advantage of a clean slate, although he'll be playing in the Championship next year so won't be getting capped.

Well anyway, the good thing about this debate is that we'll find out who is right and who is wrong in the summer, as I suspect we'll see NDL in action again, except this time with Laidlaw and Scott playing 10 and 12.

We'll see. I'll be the first to call for him to be axed if he doesn't perform, and Ansbro or Grove do a better job.

I was quite enjoying those e-handbags.

I think that most posters are divided about De Luca but I think it's fairly unarguable that if he cannot put in some solid performances this summer with most of the Edinburgh backline around him, then he should sling his hook in terms of international appearances.

With Cairns, Grove (whom I think is underrated based on this season's performances), Ansbro and Bennett all in the frame for the 13 shirt (Schlong and Max should stay on the wings in my opinion, neither has international quality defence as centre), this has to be his last chance saloon.

It's not enough any more to say that he could have been a great internationalist, he just needs a chance to master his squeaky-bum temperament. Matt LeTissier could have been a regular international footballer but....

It'll be interesting to see what happens next season at Edinburgh if Ben Cairns is fit. Obviously if De Luca is benched then the only string he has to his bow, his club form, goes out of the window.

That said, there are plenty on here who don't give much regard to club form, so perhaps once he stops playing regularly, his stock will rise (maybe as high as Mark Bennett's)

Bit off topic, but will be interesting what happens with the centers in Edinburgh next year - we've now got loads of them! Scott, De Luca, Cairns, Atiga, Tonks, Houston, King - I know you need a big squad but per game that is 2 centers starting, one on the bench and 4 doing nothing!

If only we had similar depth at prop and lock...

I hope Cairnsy comes back strong - I think he's a great player and unfairly (IMO) labelled as a weak defender by Robinson so was dumped from Scotland. Will be interesting to see what Bradely thinks of him though because he's never played for Bradely - he's been out that long!

I think Atiga was mainly signed to cover 15, as with CP and Thompson gone, it leaves Tom Brown a tad exposed. Similarly Tonks can play back three as well, so I guess we'll see him play some rugby on the wing with Penn when Visser and Jones are on international duty.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Matt Scott saw some rugby at 10, with Godman gone.

Prop isn't too bad now I guess. Cross and Nel cover tighthead, and Chunk and Yapp cover loosehead. Agree that there's nothing behind that, but having two players for each side, one pair not being involved in international duty, isn't bad cover.

Lock is still shaky though. The new lock doesn't much on paper, and Gilchrist is about to embark on his second season. Turnbull is average and Cox can't do it all on his own. Still think Glasgow should lend Nick Campbell to Edinburgh for a season.

Interestingly, I was giving the Edinburgh Twitter feed guy some banter over some PMs (it started off talking about something else) and I asked him if there were more signings to come, and he said there were! Will be interesting to see who and where. Not another center hopefully (unless it is Sonny Bill)

I'm not overly happy with our depth at prop - I wouldn't class Yapp as significantly better than Traynor TBH. He'll do a job but wouldn't want him playing in top level HK games. 2 top class tightheads is great though but behind that.....Lewis Niven??

Could do with a seasoned, grizzled squad player who could do a job at either side of the scrum.

As I said though - a bit off topic!

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think Atiga was mainly signed to cover 15, as with CP and Thompson gone, it leaves Tom Brown a tad exposed. Similarly Tonks can play back three as well, so I guess we'll see him play some rugby on the wing with Penn when Visser and Jones are on international duty.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Matt Scott saw some rugby at 10, with Godman gone.

Prop isn't too bad now I guess. Cross and Nel cover tighthead, and Chunk and Yapp cover loosehead.

Facepalm icon here. Not a single quality player in that position. Why can't they raid Newcastle for Shiells now?

And step awaaay from the Bennett, FES. If you don't, he might cry and refuse to do his homework.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Interestingly, I was giving the Edinburgh Twitter feed guy some banter over some PMs (it started off talking about something else) and I asked him if there were more signings to come, and he said there were! Will be interesting to see who and where. Not another center hopefully (unless it is Sonny Bill)

I'm not overly happy with our depth at prop - I wouldn't class Yapp as significantly better than Traynor TBH. He'll do a job but wouldn't want him playing in top level HK games. 2 top class tightheads is great though but behind that.....Lewis Niven??

Could do with a seasoned, grizzled squad player who could do a job at either side of the scrum.

As I said though - a bit off topic!

RDW was chatting to one of the Embra players last week and he reckons there's still 2 big signings to be made. TBH with a couple of exceptions all Bradley has done is sign squad players, and given the players leaving should still have some pennies in the piggy bank. Particularly given next year's increased Budget.

Why don't the Scottish pro clubs try to operate a system of 45 players per teams i.e 15 players playing internationally, 15 available all year round bar injuries and 15 young players who could grow into quality players?

Shiells plus a beefy lock and I'd be content.

I hate to say it but I'd be prepared to bet on Euan Murray rather than Shiells but it's a possibility, there's also George Earle who's reportedly coming.

With Nel and Cross I see no point in bringing in Murray personally. It's the other side of the scrum that most needs boosting. You're probably right though, it's the sort of things the SRU would do. Jobs for the boys.

With regard to the original topic, my main concern is something that has been bothering me for many years regarding our National team. And, that is the key issue of the missing member of the backroom staff.......
I read with interest recently the thoughts of Ronnie O'Sullivan following his latest success in the snooker world championship, where he acknowledged the contribution of his sports psychologist Dr Steve Peters, and the assistance gained in helping him focus and compete.
In our team we have the players, we have the fitness, line breaks, ability, etc all we need to win, apart from the winning. We desperately need to engage someone like Dr Peters, as it's definately a mental issue that prevents us from scoring with the massive amount of possession we gain, but in turn the continual amount of spurning of chances we do at crucial times. I'm convinced it's psychological.

Anglobraveheart wrote:With regard to the original topic, my main concern is something that has been bothering me for many years regarding our National team. And, that is the key issue of the missing member of the backroom staff.......
I read with interest recently the thoughts of Ronnie O'Sullivan following his latest success in the snooker world championship, where he acknowledged the contribution of his sports psychologist Dr Steve Peters, and the assistance gained in helping him focus and compete.
In our team we have the players, we have the fitness, line breaks, ability, etc all we need to win, apart from the winning. We desperately need to engage someone like Dr Peters, as it's definately a mental issue that prevents us from scoring with the massive amount of possession we gain, but in turn the continual amount of spurning of chances we do at crucial times. I'm convinced it's psychological.

Interestingly Anglo - I'm pretty sure that Scotland got rid of the squad psychologist just before the world cup.

I agree - Scotland are weak mentally and it is a big surprise if they don't have a sports psychologist.

Another example is the GB cycling team - Chris hoy gives a lot of praise to their psychologist

From the Herald - they got rid of Cox in 2011 and as far as I know haven't replaced him. They should:

Sunday 6 June 2010

Dr Richard Cox hopes to have Scotland mentally ready for next year’s World Cup
Alasdair Reid

They might say you can’t plough a field by turning it over in your mind, but Dr Richard Cox would probably argue that it’s not a bad start to the process.

Cox has long been one of the most eminent, albeit self-effacing, sports psychologists in Scotland and his skills could be critical to the national rugby team’s prospects of success as they set off on the long haul to next year’s World Cup in New Zealand.

The first step on that journey took place on Friday when Andy Robinson’s squad, and the 17-strong management team of which Cox is a member, set off on their two-Test tour to Argentina. His inclusion raised a few eyebrows when it was announced last month, but the truth of the matter is that Cox has been a central figure for the Scottish squad since last August, when he was invited to the national training camp in St Andrews.

It has not been stated explicitly, but in personnel terms the Argentina trip is pretty clearly a dry run for the support team Robinson is likely to want beside him when the World Cup gets under way in just over 15 months. There is, to be frank, no other real justification for such a top-heavy management contingent in South America – the group also includes a lawyer and a nutritionist – save that Robinson will want to know that 
everyone can work effectively together.

So what does Cox bring to the party? Well, there is the scientific detachment of one who analyses all sporting activities
as sets of behaviours, but he also offers the passion for rugby that has been a consistent theme of his 60-odd years. Besides which, he knows his way around Murrayfield already, having been part of the back-up team in 1995 and 1996, two seasons when the decline of previous years was reversed and Scotland ended successive Five Nations campaigns in Grand Slam battles against England.

As is usually the case in this business, regime change did for him back then, but he never lost his enthusiasm. “The fact I wasn’t involved for a while didn’t stop me coming here and paying my money instead of getting a freebie,” he smiled. “It wasn’t a frustrating experience, though. I’ve worked with five top football clubs down the years and I accepted with each that my time would come to an end, usually when the manager changed. I’ve always had plenty of work to do.”

Much of that work has been low-key, well below the radar: working for competitors who would no sooner own up to consulting a sports psychologist than they would provide vivid details of an embarrassing rash. Even as the discipline is becoming increasingly respectable, Cox abides by a rigorous professional code of never talking about clients unless they happen to talk about him first. In which context, it was only when Paul Lawrie did just that after winning his Open Champ-ionship title at Carnoustie in 1999 that he was really thrust into the public domain.

The sudden wave of attention that followed was unsettling for Cox – an ironic state of affairs for a man whose craft involves tutoring others to keep their cool in testing circumstances. A few years later he took early retirement from Edinburgh University – he stresses that he is a psychologist who works in sport, emphasising his belief in a solid grounding in the discipline – and took on a roving consultancy brief. His route back to Murrayfield was via secondment from the Scottish Institute of Sport, although his enthusiasm for rugby is such that an arrangement that ought to take up two days of his week typically swallows much more time.

“I’m here to do a job,” he said. “I’ll do it to the best of my abilities. That I only get paid for two days doesn’t matter.”

Cox’s enthusiasm for the role is not unconnected to his admiration for Robinson. Having worked closely with many frontline coaches down the years, he knows a good one when he sees one.

He said: “In Andy Robinson we have a world-class coach. I’ve worked with a lot of coaches and he is top notch. He has the ability to analyse any situation in rugby, to put detail on it, and to take the boys out there and create practice situations in which they actually test themselves.”

All very well, but mutual admiration in the backroom will count for nothing
if Cox’s skills cannot be made to bear fruit between the touchlines. His alchemy has limitations, however, and the suspicion remains then even the most psychologically sorted duffers are still duffers deep down, and apt to finish second to a side of highly-skilled basket cases. What Cox can do is try to ensure that Scotland’s players are not held back by what happens between their ears.

“Every day we’re learning more and more about how the brain works and what a wonderful computer it is,” he said. “The most recent developments are in that line, in what we call psychobiology. But it could be another 200 years before science finally defines what makes man tick.

“Among other things I talk to the squad as a whole. I’ve done workshops on thinking, and why people think in certain ways. We talk about task-
relevant thinking, which is simply about keeping your mind on the job.

“In rugby, you can be hit hard or struggling for air in the last 20 minutes, or both. It can be very hard to concentrate on the task, and you concentrate on yourself instead. What I do is try to develop players who can offset that. Once you raise their awareness of what will happen under normal circumstances you create an opportunity for them to interfere with that sequence of events.”

One of Cox’s favourite expressions is that the best combination for success in sport is to have fire in the belly and ice in the mind. From that, he talks about how too much ice can extinguish the fire, and how too much fire can melt the ice. Yet the sort of homespun aphorisms that weigh down the shelves in every bookshop’s self-help sections are far from his normal register, as is the sort of rampant self-promotion that is all too common at the more disreputable end of his trade.

“There are some good businessmen out there,” he said when the name of one of the more obvious snake-oil salesmen was mentioned. “There are a lot of people who specialise in 
motivation, which isn’t a difficult subject if you want to read up on it.”

Instead of telling his clients what wonderful people they are, Cox invites them to understand, by way of clear and cool-headed analysis, just what they have to do to give themselves the best chance of success. In rugby, that means breaking down activities into component parts and unloading the emotional baggage that can often interfere. From there, the real challenge is to make sure that the correct application of skills becomes habitual, so that everything works on the burning deck of an international pitch as well as it does in a training session. “Repetition,” says Cox, “is the mother of skill.”

All very practical, but Cox also believes in the existence of the Scottish inferiority
complex. “There is a history of that in Scottish sport,” he said ruefully. “We’re far more capable than we believe ourselves to be.” If the good doctor can do anything to cure that perennial ailment then his time will have been well spent.

Edinburgh signed a big Saffer 2nd row. Thread here:

https://www.606v2.com/t29526-edinburgh-sign-new-2nd-row-izak-van-der-westhuizen#1234691

I must say I'm not a massive proponent of sports psychologists.

I'm not saying a "winning mentality" does not exist, and that psychology in sport isn't extremely important, just that I'm extremely dubious as to the extent to which it can be "coached".

Some players have character and guts, and others don't. Some have sublime talents and the ability to see space and create opportunities in a way that no coach could impart, and yet those same players can fold like a cheap suit under pressure. To me that's just part of the human condition, and something that makes sport in general all the more fascinating.

Scotland had a great half back pairing in 1999. Gary Armstrong, a teak tough son of a gun who never in a million years would take anything other than a forward step, and Gregor Townsend, genius with ball in hand and able to spot a defensive lapse phases before it occured, and yet equally gifted with the ability to completely self-destruct on the pitch when a modicum of pressure was applied (and sometimes when no pressure was applied).

I don't believe 20 sports psychologists could have made Townsend play any differently, in the same way that I doubt a bad sports psychologist (or a good one) could have made Armstrong defeatist.

Then again, I'm fairly certain a shrink couldn't prevent me from being cynical....

FES - I was skeptical too but TBH I think that's as much due to our ignorance at what they actually do as opposed to anything!

I thought the same as you until I read Chris Hoy's book and the praise he gave for their sports psychologist. He definitely credits the psychologist with having a significant impact on the team.

RDW, you're right about the effect that a positive, 'professional' outlook has had on the British cycling team.

I've been watching them for quite a few years now (it's my second sport after rugger, and the only one I still compete in), and the difference is marked. Four years ago, the mindset that was obvious in interviews was "Well, it's nice to be in this competition, and if we train hard then we'll be in with a shot." - all well and good, and in keeping with our 'gentlemanly' way of doing things, but we're not going to win prizes for it.

Flash forward to the World Championships in Melbourne this year, and guys like Ed Clancy (who looks suspiciously like Rob Harley, by the way) are almost brazen with their confidence saying "It's really good to beat the Aussies on their home turf - if we train hard and perform to our potential, we'll win." You might call it arrogance, but it's far easier to deal with difficulties when you have that level of self-belief.

RDW_Scotland wrote:FES - I was skeptical too but TBH I think that's as much due to our ignorance at what they actually do as opposed to anything!

I thought the same as you until I read Chris Hoy's book and the praise he gave for their sports psychologist. He definitely credits the psychologist with having a significant impact on the team.

I'm absolutely sure that I have a great deal of ignorance here, and elite sporting individuals competing at the highest level, like Sir Chris Hoy, are I'm sure telling it as they see it.

The only niggle is whether he'd have achieved the same without the soothing words of a professional sporty shrink in his ear (and I'm sure they do more than that before anyone jumps in) before he got on his bike. Truth is we'll never know, but the very fact that he thinks it was a great help is at least evidence that it had some positive effect on him, whether in fact it made any difference to the result.

The mind is a powerful thing no doubt, and can convince people of things which are not in fact the case. A couple of cases in point on this thread in fact

IanBru wrote:You might call it arrogance, but it's far easier to deal with difficulties when you have that level of self-belief.

But isn't self-belief just that? SELF-belief?

It's fundamental to just about anything in life, but can it be taught?

I went to a motivational speaking day a couple of weeks ago. Rowan Shepherd's business ran it and his sister gave the talk with some swimmer who won some Commonwealth medals (forgotton his name already). I understood the message they were trying to convey, and we had a good few hours on the importance of a winning/postive mentality/outlook. All very interesting. Unfortunately being told that you should be positive and that it would help with life generally, and being shown how others have been positive, doesn't actually make you any more so.

Then again, I'm a pretty positive soul already. Matt Williams, Frank Hadden and Andy Robinson have all taught me to look on the bright side and be postive, regardless of what happens.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Lets try something different - if De Luca hadn't had the 2 yellow cards in the 6N would anyone be that bothered? I think he had an outstanding game against France and, lets be honest, the whole team was crap after that!

Yes I know everyone agrees that he is a good player and it is his stupid mistakes that people have issues with, but as far as I am concerned you can do something about stupid yellows (i.e. don't do stupid things) - it is a lot harder to make someone a better player!

Take his history of yellows away and De Luca is our first choice 13 IMO.

Slightly behind the curve on this one chaps, but I wanted to add my two pennies worth and say that I'm firmly with RDW etc on the De Luca issue.

He is the form 13 available to Scotland and he should be picked at 13 until that isnt the case. I would be inclined to have Ansbro on the bench covering centre / wing. Barcs can always cover 15




we've seen our 12/13 axis for this tour de

I think De Luca should be given a chance with his Edinburgh team mates, if he mucks up I think he should be placed at the bottom of the pecking order!

Sorry for not being around earlier to respond to FES, RDW, GC and IB. It's nice that you've taken the time to respond. Points raised are valid, and I too am of a 'cynical' mind in that sometimes we just neeed to get on with things. However I think the blight in our national team of being frugal with converting chances into tries by either making the wrong split second decisions or not accurately executing chances is down to self belief. for example, Rennie v England, De Luca v England (world cup), chunk v Ireland (towards the end of the first half in the 6N) OK, I think Ireland were allowed by the man in the middle to be blatantly off-side, but if we had been ruthless and efficient and mentally conditioned to be so, we would have scored before that action. Ford, choosing to kick for goal v Ireland when the ref had warned the Irish pack about collapsing. DOH!!! No, No No, wrong decision, because he (Ford) wasn't mentally conditioned and ruthlessly disciplined to really turn the screw. I could go on, but TBH it'll only make me despair (again!).
My whole point is, it's not about manning up or getting on with it, or lack of practice or combinations of players. It's gone on so long now that we (Scotland team) need help in this area to banish the mental demons. This may all sound dramatic, but, there's no other explanation. How else can we have 75% posession and territory in games and lose?
It's a mental block that we must break, and I don't think that the drip feed of emerging talent alone will break it, it needs someone from outside the fishbowl to look in and tweak the model so that it produces results. I don't want to see us completing 200 passes every game, if we drop the ball for the 20 passes we attempt in the opposition red zone. It must be a mental block. Sorry, rant over. Does anyone have a quick link to Andy Robinson to review this??

BTW, I don't side with the De Luca positives. His Scotland history IMO is awful. I was at Murrayfield for the italy WC warmup match, and his decision making and execution is pants, really pants. He's had plenty of opportunities and for me he just isn't an international player.
Ansbro is a winner, very hungry for the ball and to score and a grafter. He'd be my choice for 13, although I do think Max is a real talent. Ultimately i'd like to see Ansbro at 12, as he seems solid enough, elusive enough and quick enough to do the job. I appreciate he's not really played there, but i'd like to see it. I wouldn't have NDL in the squad, regardless of how well he's done for Edinburgh. My first choice centre pairing for the tour would be Scott and Ansbro.
Whilst Laidlaw is also very good at Edinburgh, and has been great attacking for Scotland, I don't think he's big enough. Weir is the best bet, he has the best range of all round skills and capabilities of any of the 10's we have and should be developed for RWC 2015.
We sorely missed Kelly Brown in the 6N, and I just hope he hasn't lost any form in his injury break. I would love to see either a Brown/Rennie/Beattie or Denton/Rennie/Beattie back row if all were fit and at their peak.
As for the front row, I think Welsh, Cross and Low are the pick of the props. There's too much doubt over Murray and chunk now, so they should be thanked genuinely for their efforts but be put out to grass.
Hogg, like Weir should also be nurtured, as he is a shining natural talent that we must preserve.

Anglobraveheart wrote:BTW, I don't side with the De Luca positives. His Scotland history IMO is awful. I was at Murrayfield for the italy WC warmup match, and his decision making and execution is pants, really pants. He's had plenty of opportunities and for me he just isn't an international player.

Hogg has put in more impressive performances at 13 this year than de Luca has... ever. However, most people rightly see Hogg as a fullback and so are overlooking the option of not taking de Luca on tour and playing Brown at fullback. I do expect de Luca to start at least two of the tests and that we will be precisely where we were when Robinson decided he didn't want Max in the centres any more, come the Autumn Internationals.

Here's hoping Bennett is the real deal and gets some game time at Clermont or Cairns overcomes injury and Robinson's selection policy. I'm not holding my breath for either.

on sports pshychologists - I am sure it would help Scotland

On NDL - haveing actually watched him play for Edinburgh i would take him on tour - but its his last chance

[quote="Cryptoyourisan"]

Anglobraveheart wrote:
Hogg has put in more impressive performances at 13 this year than de Luca has...ever

Absolute rubbish! I'm assuming you've not watched any Edinburgh games this year? Or if you have, have let your dislike of De Luca taint your opinion??

Also I've seen Hoggs games at 13 and he was significantly better at fullback.

[quote="RDW_Scotland"]

Cryptoyourisan wrote:

Anglobraveheart wrote:
Hogg has put in more impressive performances at 13 this year than de Luca has...ever

Absolute rubbish! I'm assuming you've not watched any Edinburgh games this year? Or if you have, have let your dislike of De Luca taint your opinion??

Also I've seen Hoggs games at 13 and he was significantly better at fullback.

+1

Some sensationalist claims flying around here. NDL has been Scotlands best performer at club level in the 13 jersey. It's not really a fact that can be argued with. He has tightened up his defence, plays good heads up rugby and creates space for his wingers to exploit.


As I said previously he has to have a chance to play for Scotland with some creative flair at 10 and 12. If he can't bring his club form to bare with Scott and Laidlaw inside him he should be dropped.

Hogg is far better at full back too IMO, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with his front foot defence at 13. Especialy against Fiji and Samoa.

[quote="RDW_Scotland"]

Cryptoyourisan wrote:

Anglobraveheart wrote:
Hogg has put in more impressive performances at 13 this year than de Luca has...ever

Absolute rubbish! I'm assuming you've not watched any Edinburgh games this year? Or if you have, have let your dislike of De Luca taint your opinion??

Also I've seen Hoggs games at 13 and he was significantly better at fullback.

Yes and yes.

There is no doubt that NDL, whatever we make think of his efforts at international level, has sparkled for Edinburgh this season. If you listen to Tim Visser, he’ll tell you that de Luca is responsible for much of his massive glut of tries. He defends well, breaks the line and puts others into space.

For some reason, he hasn’t replicated this at the international level. Whether that is because of the players around him, or the extra pressure, or the increase in the quality of the opposition, no one really knows. I would dearly love him for to play in as well in blue as he does in red and black. He deserves another (last!) chance to do this, surrounded by his Edinburgh team mates.

Hogg is a fullback. He has said so himself, and wants to stay there. His greatest asset is his pace and the way he picks and runs lines, both of which he can utilise best at 15, away from the midfield traffic. We have far more depth at 13 than we do at fullback, so let’s keep him in his best position and allow his potentially world class talent to develop.

I want to know what the Scottish supporters think of this.

During the Six Nations.

vs Wales.

Scotland ran 572 meters - wales 475
Completed passes for scotland 220 - wales 140
Scotland possession 60%
Territory 59%
25 clean breaks and defenders beaten vs wales 23
Offloads 19 vs 11.

I don't feel like going through all the stats, but the point I want to make is that virtually in every game Scotland had more possession, more territroy, ran more meters, had great offloads, clean breaks and defenders beaten.

The only shortcoming was that it happened between their goal paosts and the red zone of the opponent.

NOw I have seen andy Robinson being criticsed a lot over the period, saying he is too conservative and select too conservatively as well.

Yet if you go to every match there were but one or two reasons why scotland just lost their matches.

Look at the results.
Wales, yellow card after half time, the scores strecthed by virtue of two tries being scored by Wales, Scotland fights back and loses by those 2 scores whilst they had a yellow card against them.

England, you ran more than twice the meters, made 23 breaks vs one, yet lost by a charge down try.

France, similar to the England game, more meters, more territory, more possession.

I know this is slightly off topic, but having some youngsters in the squad who all showed their worth, the only thing I can see Scotland needs to do is work on their white line fever, that last offload, that last final decision and things don't need to change elsewhere much at all.

sorry for going off topic.

biltongbek wrote:I want to know what the Scottish supporters think of this.

During the Six Nations.

vs Wales.

Scotland ran 572 meters - wales 475
Completed passes for scotland 220 - wales 140
Scotland possession 60%
Territory 59%
25 clean breaks and defenders beaten vs wales 23
Offloads 19 vs 11.

I don't feel like going through all the stats, but the point I want to make is that virtually in every game Scotland had more possession, more territroy, ran more meters, had great offloads, clean breaks and defenders beaten.

The only shortcoming was that it happened between their goal paosts and the red zone of the opponent.

NOw I have seen andy Robinson being criticsed a lot over the period, saying he is too conservative and select too conservatively as well.

Yet if you go to every match there were but one or two reasons why scotland just lost their matches.

Look at the results.
Wales, yellow card after half time, the scores strecthed by virtue of two tries being scored by Wales, Scotland fights back and loses by those 2 scores whilst they had a yellow card against them.

England, you ran more than twice the meters, made 23 breaks vs one, yet lost by a charge down try.

France, similar to the England game, more meters, more territory, more possession.

I know this is slightly off topic, but having some youngsters in the squad who all showed their worth, the only thing I can see Scotland needs to do is work on their white line fever, that last offload, that last final decision and things don't need to change elsewhere much at all.

sorry for going off topic.

No problem, biltong, it’s a pretty pertinent issue.

Those stats show what we’ve all known for a while now. Scotland have a first rate pack that can win them ball, get them into good positions and recycle the ball effectively. What we don’t have, or haven’t had until now, as a half-back partnership and a midfield that knows what to do with the ball to efficiently turn that possession and pressure into tries. I think the young lads like Scott, Visser and Hogg will really hel us out in this respect.

biltongbek wrote:I want to know what the Scottish supporters think of this.

During the Six Nations.

vs Wales.

Scotland ran 572 meters - wales 475
Completed passes for scotland 220 - wales 140
Scotland possession 60%
Territory 59%
25 clean breaks and defenders beaten vs wales 23
Offloads 19 vs 11.

I don't feel like going through all the stats, but the point I want to make is that virtually in every game Scotland had more possession, more territroy, ran more meters, had great offloads, clean breaks and defenders beaten.

The only shortcoming was that it happened between their goal paosts and the red zone of the opponent.

NOw I have seen andy Robinson being criticsed a lot over the period, saying he is too conservative and select too conservatively as well.

Yet if you go to every match there were but one or two reasons why scotland just lost their matches.

Look at the results.
Wales, yellow card after half time, the scores strecthed by virtue of two tries being scored by Wales, Scotland fights back and loses by those 2 scores whilst they had a yellow card against them.

England, you ran more than twice the meters, made 23 breaks vs one, yet lost by a charge down try.

France, similar to the England game, more meters, more territory, more possession.

I know this is slightly off topic, but having some youngsters in the squad who all showed their worth, the only thing I can see Scotland needs to do is work on their white line fever, that last offload, that last final decision and things don't need to change elsewhere much at all.

sorry for going off topic.

Tis all v v true, biltong

Still got flashbacks to Rennie not converting that 2 on 1 against England , and Gray not having anyone near him when he rampaged up the pitch....

Great input Biltong, you are 100% correct in what you say.

Most of the Criticism thrown at AR stems from his inability to pick the best players.

Sure there are some personal calls out there between the Scottish supporters/armchair pundits but I can't think of anyone who thought playing Dan Parks in the opening match against England was a good idea. Couple that with the fact that AR continues to urinate in all of our ears and tries to persuade us that it's raining. Coming out with things like : "Dan (Parks) can play brilliant running rugby" is an example of how stupid he thinks we are.

Since AR took the helm at Scotland we have been subjected to numerous silly team selections. Barclay at no.8, Hines at 6, Dougie Hall anywhere near the squad, Al Kellock as Captain for the RWC, Mike Blair and Chris Cusiter as joint captains.... the list goes on.

Untill he can get the best 15 on the pitch all playing in their prefered positions he'll continue to take flak.

He has the bones of a good team in this tour. I hope he perseveres with key positions like 12/13 and the back 3 and gets a clear Idea of the shape of Scottish Rugby for next year.

I personally would have sacked him for the debacle last season but he appears to have listened and dropped some (if not all) of the deadwood for this summer tour.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Still got flashbacks to Rennie not converting that 2 on 1 against England , and Gray not having anyone near him when he rampaged up the pitch....

cool, emoticon RDW, where did you get that?

I have my sources....

this one specially for 21st Schiz :