Scottish Rugby target GS & World Cup

Read this on the bbc this morning...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18650528

So the general consensus amongst Scottish fans on 606v2 is we should not get too carried away about the clean sweep in the SH.. well I think we forgot to tell the SRU.

Although rather ambitious, I personally think they're good goals for Scotland. The squad Scotland are building up at the moment is one of the better Scottish sides in a long time. There is also a good emphasis on improving pro clubs and nurturing grass roots. Combine this with the plan to develop players abroad for Scotland, things are looking pretty positive at the moment.

Despite the target of a GS and World Cup they also want to increase the winning percentage in the 6 Nations from 25% to 40%. I'm sure this will please many anti AR fans as it may well spell his end if we get another wooden spoon or 5th place finish. However, i'm fairly confident we wont be getting either of those results next year. Anyone fancy a wager?

So that's means we are targetting 60pc losses ?

Doesn't sound too ambitious to me

Will he be held accountable if they fail to achieve these ambitions?

I notice he managed to get promoted after the last five year plan (far less ambitious) failed utterly to meet its objectives.

Good luck to him anyway, but can we please stop having digs at the Welsh for being delusional and the English for being arrogant after a couple of decent results. I think their claims to be capable of winning the next world cup are a mildly less embarresing.

Dont get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with wanting to win the world cup but lets not forget Rob Andrews "70%" win ratio, that started with 17% of the summer /autumn games.

The 2 game win target in th 6ns is a reasonable starting point. Its the year after his plans going to start looking silly.

Everyone targets a GS and WC. Scotland targetted this World Cup just passed and the 2012 Grand Slam, otherwise why participate in either tournament? Coming out and saying it whilst everyone else is more subtle won't necessarily change the success rate. The SRU are just stating the obvious.

Knowsit17 wrote:Everyone targets a GS and WC. Scotland targetted this World Cup just passed and the 2012 Grand Slam, otherwise why participate in either tournament? Coming out and saying it whilst everyone else is more subtle won't necessarily change the success rate. The SRU are just stating the obvious.

Theres a big difference between wishing you could and setting out a plan for your entire union that revolves around winning it.
One assumes he has a plan B for the finances if it doesnt come off, but the way its worded in this press release suggests otherwise.

Scotland have some quality players coming through and a big physical pack.

Whilst i think winning the WC is a huge task for any team...i dont see why they couldnt in theory win the GS. All the 6n teams are beatable on their day....

The only thing of concern is that whilst England, Wales and Ireland have played gruelling series v the SH big boys(that they will have learnt a huge amount off) ...Scotland have gained a false sence of security playing the SH minnows....

Is it April the 1st?

I read that piece - no harm in having targets, altho the 40% in 6Ns seems more realistic than either a GS or winning the RWC!

From today's Hootsmon, perhaps something more feet on the ground:

Allan Massie: Fierce competition among Scots provides good reason for optimism

By ALLAN MASSIE

WITH Wimbledon going strong and Andy Murray’s chance of reaching the final at least having perhaps been improved by Lukas Rosol’s extraordinary defeat of Rafa Nadal, it may seem perverse to be harking back to Scotland’s three victories in the southern hemisphere.

Yet, since I wrote before the tour that to win all three games would be a miracle, it seems right to dwell on the miracle and its implications.

In the Six Nations, Scotland lost all five matches, though three at least – those against England, Wales and France – might have been won, and two of them probably should have been. Now we have beaten Australia, Fiji and Samoa, and, while welcoming this achievement, one should admit that they were all close-run things, and that Samoa were every bit as unlucky to lose as we were in the Calcutta Cup.

That said, the fact that Scotland came from behind to dominate the last ten minutes of the match and that Mike Blair was able to create space to enable the excellent Rob Harley to score the winning try was very satisfying. It was nice to see us snatch victory from the jaws of defeat rather than the other way round. Still, Andy Robinson’s teams have met with success before – in Argentina and in autumn victories over Australia and South Africa – only to be unable to build on these successes. Will it be different this time?

The first thing to be said is that these wins have all been laudable team efforts.

We now have a good crop of players of genuine international stature. Nevertheless, we shouldn’t go overboard. Nobody in this Scotland squad will be an automatic selection for the Lions Test XV next summer. Richie Gray may be closest to being that, partly because the competition at lock is weaker than in most other positions. In general, over the years, whenever Scotland, Wales and Ireland have been strong, it has been because there have been three or four world-class players in their line-up.

There are, however, reasons for optimism. Competition for places in almost every position is fiercer than it has been for a long time. The four players from our Six Nations team who missed the tour – Lee Jones, Allan Jacobsen, Jim Hamilton and David Denton – may quite reasonably have mixed feelings: delight at the team’s success, disappointment at not having been able to share in it, and a touch of anxiety about regaining their place in the starting XV. One might suggest that Jones and Denton have least to worry about, even though both are faced with stiff competition: Jones because, with Tim Visser now qualified to play for Scotland, he is competing with Sean Lamont, Max Evans and perhaps Joe Ansbro for the number 14 jersey; Denton because we have as many really good back-row players as we had in the 1980s, with seven or eight candidates for three positions. Besides Denton himself and those on the tour, Kelly Brown will be playing again next season, though it may not be until the Six Nations that he is quite ready for international rugby.

Then there do seem to be more good young players coming through than for a long time. Matt Scott did enough to suggest that he has a firm hold of the number 12 jersey, but the way Alex Dunbar played for Glasgow in the last weeks of the season means that he is now a contender for either of the centre-threequarter positions. Yet Nick De Luca also played very well on tour.

The fly-half pecking order looks established for the time being: Greig Laidlaw, Duncan Weir, Ruaridh Jackson. Club form could unsettle that. At scrum-half there is no young player yet challenging Mike Blair, Chris Cusiter and Rory Lawson, but there is always the possibility of Laidlaw reverting to scrum-half. Even Stuart Hogg, who made such a splendid start in the Six Nations, has a challenger in Edinburgh’s Tom Brown.

All this is healthy. Nevertheless, while pressure on first-choice players is welcome, one should note that successful international teams are more often than not settled teams.

There are still weaknesses too, notably our inability to deal with restarts. How many points has this cost us in the last two or three years? It’s my impression that we have been incompetent in this respect, since we lost Scott Murray, Jason White and Simon Taylor, all of whom could usually be relied on to deal with the restart.

Finally, a word on the performance of the under-20 side in the Junior World Cup. They recovered well from a disastrous start against Australia – unfortunately the only one of their five matches to be televised. Narrow losses to France and Argentina were followed by convincing defeats of Italy and Samoa. So they finished in ninth place – the same as the senior team’s ranking after their tour. Remarkably, the young Scots scored more tries than any other team in the tournament, with Jamie Farndale running in six. Given Edinburgh’s try-scoring feats in the Heineken, dare we begin to hope that the days of the try famine are drawing to a close?

Yeah this will defiently happen, whos first up in the 6 nations for the Scots.

And the ridiculous over-hyping of Scotland's prospects in the 2013 Six Nations begins. I would rather see an article that says Scotland are targeting the 2027 World Cup by sorting out the complete mess that the game is in the country, fostering true domestic development and becoming a real force in international rugby. When I read this, it basically says to me 'We're not actually going to do anything to make us a better team but we are hopeful of winning something eventually'. I seem to remember a similar article being published in 2008 or so that said Scotland were targeting a Six Nations title before 2011...

I remember the hype before the 2008 6nations. They came out against France and were easily swept aside. Then they gladly lost to everyone in the group. The way some of their players talk you'd think they won a ton of 6nations titles.

drsambo1928 wrote:I remember the hype before the 2008 6nations. They came out against France and were easily swept aside. Then they gladly lost to everyone in the group. The way some of their players talk you'd think they won a ton of 6nations titles.

But that season wasn't considered a total write-off because we beat a urine-poor England team and won a game in Argentina, although we should have won both. I'm not sure why the season just gone by is different when we've not really beaten any good teams and have laboured past Romania, Georgia, Fiji and Samoa. I don't think it's particularly prudent to set any kind of expectations of this team until they start playing well and not just continuing the pattern of dross and the occasional mugging of a better team.

Cryptoyourisan wrote:

drsambo1928 wrote:I remember the hype before the 2008 6nations. They came out against France and were easily swept aside. Then they gladly lost to everyone in the group. The way some of their players talk you'd think they won a ton of 6nations titles.

But that season wasn't considered a total write-off because we beat a urine-poor England team and won a game in Argentina, although we should have won both. I'm not sure why the season just gone by is different when we've not really beaten any good teams and have laboured past Romania, Georgia, Fiji and Samoa. I don't think it's particularly prudent to set any kind of expectations of this team until they start playing well and not just continuing the pattern of dross and the occasional mugging of a better team.

Excuse me, I forgot their win against England. Still though alotta hype and little return.

To be ambitious is great but to be over ambitious could leave them feeling very disappointed if they fail to reach their goals. That is if their actually being serious about their goals, which i admit i don't think they are, so when it comes down to it maybe they aren't setting goals after all. so their targets are a little pointless.

Grand slam in 4 years - fair enough. Win the next world cup? Absolutely ridiculous and pointless IMO. Make the targets ambitious yes, but they've still got to be realistic. I'd say we have a 10% chance of winning a grand slam in 4 years - which is still a chance - but we have 0% chance of winning the world cup!

Incidentally, john beattie highlights that we've failed to deliver in every target set in the past few years - what's the point in having targets if no one takes the blame if we don't make them?

Setting targets like this only heaps an increased amount of pressure on the players and manager, I just don't see the point of blind optimisum.

Realistic? Probably not

but fair dinkum for having the balls to make both a target

Well done Scotland....it's better the shoot for the stars than aim for mediocrity

From John Beattie's blog:

Are Scotland smart to spell out grand ambitions?

I am going to give you my target for Scottish rugby at the end of this, and I want you to answer the question: what should a target for the game in your country be?

I got a press release through from the SRU. I read it at my desk. Colleagues gathered round. Am I wrong to have a slightly jaded feeling about a strategic plan which says that the chief executive Mark Dodson "will unveil ambitious targets of securing a Six Nations Grand Slam by 2016 and winning the World Cup"?

My guess is that the banks had rather silly economic outlook forecasts, all coming from impressively-suited and highly paid individuals, just before the financial crash too and I believe that forecasting anything in this world is a very dangerous business.

Surely forecasts have to be SMART? That means Simple, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound.

If I am honest I have a problem with the Attainable bit. And the Relevant bit.
Scotland finished bottom of the 2012 Six Nations table after five defeats

Scotland finished bottom of the 2012 Six Nations table after five defeats

It all got me scrabbling around. This isn't the first ever strategic plan. Oh no. The previous SRU strategic plan was written in 2007 for the period from then until now.

Among the targets were to: "Achieve a top eight world ranking by 2012". Did that happen? No, we slipped to 12th after this year's Six Nations and currently sit ninth after three wins on tour.

I acknowledge that given 2012 hasn't finished this one might happen.

Then there was a target to: "as a minimum reach the quarter-finals of the 2007 and 2011 World Cups." Er, no, we didn't make the last eight in New Zealand. That one was definitely wrong.

Or what about, from the same SRU strategic plan for 2007 to 2012 to: "improve the win rate in the Six Nations from 25% to 40%". No again, in fact, under Andy Robinson the win rate is actually 13% at two wins from 15 games, so instead of doubling it we've halved it. That one was way out.

And one of the other targets was "win the Six Nations at least once by 2012." Nope again.

And it was all topped by the hope that Scotland would "become one of the top rugby nations in the world".

It's not just a Scottish disease this.

The Irish, in their 2008 strategic plan, had as a target "to reach the 2011 World Cup semi-finals". They lost to Wales in the quarter-finals.

The English rugby strategic plan 2008 to 2015 has as one of its targets "to win the World Cup in 2011 and 2015, and to win the Six Nations four times including two Grand Slams".

I put it to you, m'Lud, that they have already failed to make their rather ambitious targets. England were beaten by France in the quarter-final in 2011, and to think, they were supposed to win that tournament. Maybe nobody had told the opposition!

The problem is that as you sit in your room and write down your sporting targets and try to imagine your route to world domination, every other country in the world is trying to get better as well.

You cannot predict how your crop of top players will perform in the future, nor the ability of that particular crop of players, and if you don't believe me put yourselves in the place of the All Blacks who messed up spectacularly in every World Cup between 1987 and 2011.

What do I think? Well, I don't think you can write down targets for elite rugby. Generally the bigger countries with the bigger systems behind them will be more successful than the smaller ones.

Elite sport is driven by its grass roots. To spell out that you have a target of winning a certain number of Grand Slams or winning a World Cup is mere fantasy. It's grand-standing.

Here's my simple target for Scottish rugby, and it would have a bigger impact on our future than any other: Get every school in Scotland to field rugby teams - backed by the private sector if need be - and get a league up and running.

There, that's mine, nothing about Grand Slams or World Cups, instead grow the grass roots and make it competitive.

Yours? Or have I got this all wrong?

Really like his target

What's the SMART theory on targets? Something like:

Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timely. To be fair to the SRU they've got the SMRT bit, just not the attainability.

Obviously everyone wants to win the World Cup, but you need to set an Attainable minimum acceptable target. Say quarter-finals. Then quarter-finals is seen as okay, bonuses can be issued for surpassing targets and talks can be had if minimum targets aren't reached.

Scotland might have a 3-year plan to win the World Cup, and good luck to them. But I can't see them doing it.

So have they already printed the GS and RWC t-shirts? Might have to buy a warehouse for the long-term storage of all these t-shirts.

Posted a rather lengthy post in the other thread, about Scotland being the best NH team. Would be good to get the thoughts of some Scottish fans on the points I raised?

I'll take a look....

Why couldn't they say instead win all six nations home matches first.

Because that is always a given, no matter your ability to pull that off. You have to set the bar a little higher. Wales set out to win in Australia. Ok so they didn't quite manage it but they were right to state that as their goal. Achieving easy targets like losing within 15 isn't going to do you any favours. You have to show the players that these are the expectations for the team and if you don't meet them, then you are not where you should be at.

Now targeting a GS and a World Cup of course seems beyond Scotland at the moment. But it is really no different to Easter a while back saying England were shooting for the number one ranking.

Oh well, good luck Scotland, and why not ? After all I am targeting the next big euro millions, the 150 million one, then after I have had my fill of the good life I am looking for a country to conquer, it as always been my ambition to be a bond villian, well that and eat the biggest stake I can find in one sitting.

Setting the bar to win all home six nations matches is setting the bar higher. I actually cant remember but when was the last time they did that.

Well true. But I can't remember the last time Wales beat Australia. That's not to say it's not attainable.

But did Wales harp on about how they were going to beat Australia.

That's a little bit different, though. Very reasonable goal, Wales beating Australia at least once. Let's not get into how they could and should have, but it's not really the same to compare 'winning a game against a fairly evenly matched team' and 'win a world cup in four years from the basis of a team that fails to win regularly'. WUM.

I think you're all forgetting about Scotland's secret weapon McVisser. Anything's possible.

I've always felt that giving a lash is a better way of upsetting odds. I remember Moray Low in Rugby world saying how he firmly believes that Scotland were going to beat the All Blacks. They got trounced. Stating over ambitious goals motivates the better team to put the lesser team in its place.

If I was setting the targets I'd target a world cup by 2027 and base all other targets around achieving it.
My first target would be setting up a schools league and aim to get 90%+ of Schools involve with a pyramid structure so that the clubs at the bottom play regionally giving local rivalries a chance to be fought on the rugby pitch. The top team goes into a wider league which takes in from a wider group this continues until you go national. I'd also give clubs feeder schools which they form links with therefore they will maximize their uptake. These clubs would also have district leagues. Their top players would go into a district competition which would then feed into a regional team (of which there'd be four) which would become an "academy" when they reached 16. Hopefully these regional teams could compete in an age group Celtic cup or a British cup. These regions would feed into the Scottish teams; this would mean that there would be a pyramid structure that meant that there is always a higher level to aim for until you reach the top. It would also hopefully increase the player base and you'd get less thrashings which put young players off and nearly all would be playing at their own level.
This gives a pyramid of Schools-Club-District-Region-Scotland
My second target would be to sell out Murrayfield for all tier 1 games and to spread the game by taking tier two games around the country. I would aim to regularly sell out the pro-team stadiums and to achieve an average of 6000 by 2015 and 8000 by 2020.
My third target would be to have four pro-teams by 2020 and three by 2018 which should be feasible with the regional academies, these teams would represent the club teams in their area and each player would be assigned a club with whom he'd train once a week and play for should his team not be playing or if he isn't needed for the match. As far as possible this team should be the team that the player player played for as he grew up, in the case of signings from other clubs the pro-team would sign a player and then clubs from the area could bid to sign him. The player would have to play at least five times a year for his club. This would also mean that there was a wider playing base. This would see a club in Aberdeen as well as one in the Borders (they could build a new 20,000 seater stadium which could double up as the Scotland sevens stadium) these teams would be partially owned by private investors perhaps 70% as well as 10% by the clubs in the area and 20% by the SRU; if it was feasible to have a two-tiered celtic league competition I would base a fifth side in another city with a decent population, this side would be unique as players from the academies who weren't deemed good enough would play for them thus less players would slip through the net.

My fourth aim would be to for a Scottish team to win the Heineken cup five times by 2025, and at least won team to reach the quarters 90% years so that our top players are playing at the highest level more often to achieve this I'd sign more top quality foreigners to Glasgow and Edinburgh whilst retaining a Scottish core i.e Rennie, Laidlaw, Scott, Brown, De Luca etc. as well as Talei at Edinburgh meaning more Scots stay in the country. As well as a seven Rabodirect league wins by the same year.
I'd also aim for a Six nations win every four/five years and top three finishes most years. This would mean that by 2027 hopefully we'd be in a position to challenge for the world cup as well as retaining an infrastructure that would mean that we'd be able to compete regularly. Another thing I'd implement is taking our age grade teams on three test tours of the tri-nations team's age grade side therefore initially they'd be thrashed but hopefully eventually the players would get used to the standard and start to compete it would also remove the players from the comfort zone of their own country which at age grade they would find relatively easy.
Whilst these aims may be difficult to implement and financially ambitious it would meant that are players are challenged younger and also it would increase the interest in the game. Also with the four individual academies rivalries and competition will increase between the sides and areas would end up with different playing styles like Leinster and Munster. I think our aims should start with developing the game internally then work from there.

miaow wrote:That's a little bit different, though. Very reasonable goal, Wales beating Australia at least once. Let's not get into how they could and should have, but it's not really the same to compare 'winning a game against a fairly evenly matched team' and 'win a world cup in four years from the basis of a team that fails to win regularly'. WUM.

I'm not winding anyone up. Like I said, Wales´ goal was more than attainable but didn't happen. My point was is that any different from setting a goal that seems beyond a team and not achieving it? NZ hadn't won a World Cup for 24 years but always backed themselves to do it. Scotland's ambition to win one seems a stretch of reality but maybe they make a quarter final or a semi instead.

Scotland is by no means the only team to aim higher than what they can realistically achieve? 123etc makes a lot of sensible suggestions for realisitc goals but even they seem very challenging. Pushing back the deadline to 2030 or beyond is an easy answer but it encourages short term mediocrity because your end goal is too ambitious.

Of course the unions need to establish some goals. But sometimes I think we overcomplicate things. Does a team really perform better because they have a long term goal. I think winning the next game is the biggest priority whilst having a long term view of the game for selections. How many teams have achieved these lofty or realistic goals?

Do you actually think that, prior to the three games being played, Wales' goal 'seemed beyond them'? I'd say it was highly reasonable, and that they've failed is both shocking and, really, unacceptable, when perhaps all three tests could and should have been won. So it seems a little different.

Frankly, Beattie's blog and goal is correct: get attainable, fixed things in place, like a structure that sees kids playing one another in schools. That's easily attainable, the only problem being money/finding a way of getting kids to buy into it once it's offered to them.

I agree with everything else you say.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

miaow wrote:That's a little bit different, though. Very reasonable goal, Wales beating Australia at least once. Let's not get into how they could and should have, but it's not really the same to compare 'winning a game against a fairly evenly matched team' and 'win a world cup in four years from the basis of a team that fails to win regularly'. WUM.

I'm not winding anyone up. Like I said, Wales´ goal was more than attainable but didn't happen. My point was is that any different from setting a goal that seems beyond a team and not achieving it? NZ hadn't won a World Cup for 24 years but always backed themselves to do it. Scotland's ambition to win one seems a stretch of reality but maybe they make a quarter final or a semi instead.

Scotland is by no means the only team to aim higher than what they can realistically achieve? 123etc makes a lot of sensible suggestions for realisitc goals but even they seem very challenging. Pushing back the deadline to 2030 or beyond is an easy answer but it encourages short term mediocrity because your end goal is too ambitious.

Of course the unions need to establish some goals. But sometimes I think we overcomplicate things. Does a team really perform better because they have a long term goal. I think winning the next game is the biggest priority whilst having a long term view of the game for selections. How many teams have achieved these lofty or realistic goals?

The theory of my idea was that of you start from the bottom and work up from there one step at a time setting deadlines for each then you'll find your end plan gets more achievable as for long term goals in 1998 the England management and team set the target of the 2003 world cup in that time they developed a squad that changed very little but were very effective in what they did and worked more often than not like a machine however this began to work against them after the world cup and the year that followed with many players getting long term injuries or retiring the players who came in were in their mid-twenties but had no international experience this policy and its aftermath effectively crippled and haunted England players who weren't of the same standard but had to bear the pressure and expectations of their predecessors whilst being called the new Martin Johnson or playing 10 knowing that they were just holding the shirt until Jonny came back. So yes long term goals can work but only if you've set up a plan for after you've achieved those goals, many of England's players have spoken of a hollow feeling after winning because they'd achieved the thing that they'd been aiming at for so long whether winning the world cup was worth the years of mediocrity that followed you'll have to ask English fans.

Scotland always have a plan after ballsing up another World Cup.

If you're world cup goes badly the surely you would attempt to improve for the next one?

omg-lol.. this is classic.

they play somoa and figi because they didnt have ideas above they station-they knew there level and didnt wanna get battered. They could have played NZ and got hammered 3 nil and where would they be- no better but just lost 3 games and it would be all doom and gloom..lol.

Its all about small steps-There couldnt have been lower and they pick lower quality opposition for obvious reasons - but now are targetting the world cup- omg..

Scotlands target has to be to get out of the bottom 2 in the 6 nations- they have proved to be competitive v the island teams- now the next level is to be competitive in the 6 nations and win a game or two.. thren they can move on to the next goal

drsambo1928 wrote:Setting the bar to win all home six nations matches is setting the bar higher. I actually cant remember but when was the last time they did that.

2006 actually? France and England, also winning away to Italy that year. But then they lost to Ireland and Wales and finished 3rd. Strange year - the final table I believe was:

1. France
2. Ireland
3. Scotland
4. England
5. Wales
6. Italy

Anyway, this target, whilst it is always good to be ambitious, is pretty ludicrous.

How about a 50% win ratio across all tests against top 12 opposition, with at least 4th place in the 6N next year? That's improvement, and not necessarily a cert.

Dear oh dear, you would think they would have learned from Wales not to big themselves up. Its like stating the completely bloody obvious anyway.....everyone competing is targeting 6 Nations wins and RWC glory, saying it when you have just beaten Samoa, Fiji and Aus is unguarded and foolish. why not just bask in the glory of 3/3, now everyone will forget that and just take the Mcpiss

Its crazy talk mowgi

England have been at it too, winning 2011 and 2015 RWC and also Slams x 4 between 2008 and 2015.

Not sure what the Welsh strategic plan is! They have to be on target with 6 Nations performances - 2 slams in the last 4 years and 3 in the last 7.....the next step is SH wins.

I posted elsewhere about how this bigging up creates unnecessary pressure and makes teams hostage to their fortunes. You don't hear SH sides talk like this they just get on and do it.

ermmm - whatever england say at least there is an element of truth behind it- the problem with this scottish talk is that they openely admited there were going for an easier set of fixtures because they had accepted the level there were at!! they win em and they think being world beaters in 3 years time is an honest target!! - its crazy

Mystir
And In fairness though, thats better than some other unions we wont mention that were all cocker hoop about how they were going to go down to the Southern hemisphere, overturn history, and ended up not only being sent home with their tails between their legs, but also lost any progress they might have been making.

sorry if your talking about england then thats rubbish- martin johnson is a winner with obviously very high aspirations, it didnt pay off- but coming of a final performnace in 2007 and a win in 2003 what the heck do you expect!!!

I'm sure he is referring to Wales...or maybe Ireland, possibly England.

England didn't say much about SA which of course allowed them to claim they have made progress. That is arguable though i think they have not failed in SA, the point is they did not set themselves up for a fall and credibility counts;

Wales, probably as a result of press expectations tbh, got on the bandwagon. However there was a reasonable expectation across the board that they woudl win at least 1 test. We all know how that worked out. Wales just took a huge kick in the leeks.

Scotland's aspirations are over and above what any student of the game would believe they can achieve. I think this is a gaffe but you have to admire them a little bit for putting themselves in the mix and making a statement and I have been really impressed with how they have brought on a core group of 6/7 really quality players one of which is a nailed on Lion; these things take time and Wales got a spoon in 2003 and are now the best side in Europe based on 6 Nations performance.

Perhaps the Scots mean they will win in 2019!

Hasnt the SRU statement been mis quoted. ?

where does it say that the target is to win the world cup in the next four years ? can someone post the quote or a link - i think its miss reported

winning the gs is a possibility - the wc no chance; then again you could say that about all the nh teams !

why do yolu think its been misqouted?

the bbc are a pretty decent media source pal, something you can normally trust


"Scottish Rugby has outlined a four-year strategic plan, which includes
securing a Six Nations Grand Slam and winning the World Cup.



"The goals we've set reflect our ambition for the game in Scotland," said chief executive Mark Dodson.



"With unity, and support from the whole nation, there is no reason we can't achieve those goals.""




anyway check this link out it is more proof



http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18660275

from the Sru website

Addressing his first AGM (Saturday 30 June) as Chief Executive, Mark Dodson will unveil ambitious targets of securing a 6 Nations Grand Slam by 2016 and winning the Rugby World Cup.



NOT the same as

of securing a 6 Nations Grand Slam and winning the Rugby World Cup by 2016.

so you telling me its not a 4 year plan?

everyone else is saying it is, why are they lieing and why havent the SRU corrected them