Scotland vs All Blacks @ 2.30pm Sunday 11 Nov Murrayfield

Scotland were very much against New Zealand when We tried last time at the IRB to prosecute the remit on behalf of the Pacific Island nations, Remember they dont have audience at the main table of the IRB, and therefore can put forward a motion.

Interesting just heard the half hour interview on radio sport with John Beatty, he also got offended when he saw the article, yet did nt appear to have read any further than the oppening sentence.

Surely Scotland weren't the only nation?

And surely out of all the NH teams Scotland should have some credit on this issue since they actually toured Fiji and Samoa?

True Scotland werent on their own, and it was the combined celtic nations vote being Scotland, wales and Ireland that sunk it on the first reading.

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with touring the Pacific Islands.

I do disagree with Rattue when he says that playing Scotland is a waste of time, I think there will be 67,000 reasons at Murrayfield next monday morning to confirm that.

Why would the Celtic nations vote against it? Do they not want Pacific teams to get stronger?

I see there's been a lot of comments in the NZ press about the lack of interest in the game. As you said it is going to be a 67000 sellout!

TJ wrote:

What are everyone else's thoughts on how Scotland should be aiming to play this weekend?

To me a typical crap Robinson selection. Laidlaw is completely out of sorts, Lamont is not the best winger we have. wrong back row. Its a conservative team to try not to get stuffed. Its a negative selection

He should be playing Scotlands best team of in form players.

I would rather scotland attacked and were beaten 50:14 than defended and got beat 30 nil.

Can we please get rid of Robinson. He is ruining the best generation of Scotland players I have seen in decades. [/quote]

TJ, don't get your point. Which non injured in form players have been excluded, please explain.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
So we can look forward to Scotland supporting New Zealand at the next IRB meeting when, New Zealand runs the remit again seeking that players , who have played for a tier one nations are allowed to return and play for their Pacific Islands of heritage or for any tier 2 nation?

What gets me is that countries in the Northern hemisphere are so good at telling the Pacific Island nations what is best for them, and ignoring what the Pacific Island nations are seeking.

Hopefully Scotland review their stance.

laurie, I can't think of any other sport where you get to be capped for two teams - if a PI player makes his choice to play for one of the SH giants, then he should stick with that - if he wants to represent his country of 'heritage', then turn down the NZ/Aus cap in the first instance. There's many ways to help out the PI - touring there for instance. Has NZ been there in recent times?

justified sinner wrote:

TJ wrote:

What are everyone else's thoughts on how Scotland should be aiming to play this weekend?

To me a typical crap Robinson selection. Laidlaw is completely out of sorts, Lamont is not the best winger we have. wrong back row. Its a conservative team to try not to get stuffed. Its a negative selection

He should be playing Scotlands best team of in form players.

I would rather scotland attacked and were beaten 50:14 than defended and got beat 30 nil.

Can we please get rid of Robinson. He is ruining the best generation of Scotland players I have seen in decades.

TJ, don't get your point. Which non injured in form players have been excluded, please explain.[/quote]sinner, I suspect that TJ would rather have seen Tommy Seymour get a reward for some tremendous recent form, and similarly would have had a flakey Rhubarb over totally-out-of-sorts wee Greig

It also seems quite hypocritical from NZ - 'we're gonna steal a lot of your players from a young age but we'll give them back to you when they're old and past their best'!

RDW_Scotland wrote:It also seems quite hypocritical from NZ - 'we're gonna steal a lot of your players from a young age but we'll give them back to you when they're old and past their best'!

Woah there, RDW, these players are dual qualified and have every right to choose - but they should choose one and stick to it, it's not difficult

RDW, there is huge interest in the game, by chance I have had the last couple of days off work and this morning have had both morning Television and radio on, and preparations for the game have been covered from many angles.

I as a New Zealander take it as a compliment that the Scottish supporters have sold out Murrayfield to see our team, especially when we as Aucklanders couldnt sell out Eden Park for a Bledisloe Cup match.

justified sinner wrote:

TJ wrote:

What are everyone else's thoughts on how Scotland should be aiming to play this weekend?

To me a typical crap Robinson selection. Laidlaw is completely out of sorts, Lamont is not the best winger we have. wrong back row. Its a conservative team to try not to get stuffed. Its a negative selection

He should be playing Scotlands best team of in form players.

I would rather scotland attacked and were beaten 50:14 than defended and got beat 30 nil.

Can we please get rid of Robinson. He is ruining the best generation of Scotland players I have seen in decades.

TJ, don't get your point. Which non injured in form players have been excluded, please explain.

In this case Jackson instead of laidlaw. Jackson is playing as well as I have seen him and laidlaw is completely out of form. kellock hould be in the second row - all blacks is not the game to return from injury for. Ford needs to be droipped - I don't care who his replacement is he needs to be told he is not untouchable. Robinson already ruined Weirs confidence hopefully not for ever with the way he treated him last year, Others are more marginal calls perhaps but I don't think Blair, lamont, strocks should be in the team.

Hhe is a dreadful selector, he makes conservative negative selections. He is the worst coach I have ever seen for Scotland. he is singlehandedly ruining a generation of players.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
So we can look forward to Scotland supporting New Zealand at the next IRB meeting when, New Zealand runs the remit again seeking that players , who have played for a tier one nations are allowed to return and play for their Pacific Islands of heritage or for any tier 2 nation?

What gets me is that countries in the Northern hemisphere are so good at telling the Pacific Island nations what is best for them, and ignoring what the Pacific Island nations are seeking.

Hopefully Scotland review their stance.

laurie, I can't think of any other sport where you get to be capped for two teams - if a PI player makes his choice to play for one of the SH giants, then he should stick with that - if he wants to represent his country of 'heritage', then turn down the NZ cap in the first instance.

It's possible in international cricket, netball, athletics, softball, ...

And pre professionalism used to happening rugby - Jamie Salman, Frank Bunce, the Bachops, Tuigamala.


(granted Bunce should never have played for Samoa, NZ born of Nuiean ancestry)

Really, Pete, in cricket and athletics? You sure?

I dont think any teams should be getting special treatment. Either everyone gets to chop and change their representative choices or no one does.

Dont get me wrong, the PI's are brilliant for world rugby, and a joy to watch, host and tour, but they dont have much more potential. The population, finance and professional structures just arent there, and arent going to suddenly spring out of the ground.

Teams with potential are ones like the US (the grass roots is absolutely booming there, keep an eye on them seriously improving in 10 years time), Russia (recently set up a pro league, made the RWC for the first time), and Japan (if they can man up their players).

OK Jackson can't kick and Wight is actually playing better as an attacking 10 just now, no experienceso not a pick. Al can't scrum and can't ruck so no issues with Gray and Hamilton ahead of him, and you'll drop Ford for anyone? Bit harsh imho, he's a distance ahead of any other Hooker we have, only weakness his throw ins.

the two teams on is easy to do. If you qualify for a tier one and a tier two team you can play for the tier two after your tier one career is over but you cannot go the otehr way.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Really, Pete, in cricket and athletics? You sure?

Yes - loads of examples - one african runner is on their third country

TJ wrote: Robinson already ruined Weirs confidence hopefully not for ever with the way he treated him last year

What!?!?

I know Robinsons not very popular on here, but you cant just make stuff up without backing it up

TJ wrote:the two teams on is easy to do. If you qualify for a tier one and a tier two team you can play for the tier two after your tier one career is over but you cannot go the otehr way.

how do we define the tiers then?

Imperialbigdave wrote:

TJ wrote: Robinson already ruined Weirs confidence hopefully not for ever with the way he treated him last year

What!?!?

I know Robinsons not very popular on here, but you cant just make stuff up without backing it up

+1IBD. Think we need C21 for a balanced view on Robinson.

Imperialbigdave wrote:

TJ wrote: Robinson already ruined Weirs confidence hopefully not for ever with the way he treated him last year

What!?!?

I know Robinsons not very popular on here, but you cant just make stuff up without backing it up

Not making stuff up.

He selected him, dropped him without giving him a game, selected him again for the tour and again gave him no game time.

Weir looked totally deflated and out of confidence afterwards and played very poorly for Glasgow

Imperialbigdave wrote:

TJ wrote:the two teams on is easy to do. If you qualify for a tier one and a tier two team you can play for the tier two after your tier one career is over but you cannot go the otehr way.

how do we define the tiers then?

Already defined by the irb are they not?

justified sinner wrote:OK Jackson can't kick and Wight is actually playing better as an attacking 10 just now, no experienceso not a pick. Al can't scrum and can't ruck so no issues with Gray and Hamilton ahead of him, and you'll drop Ford for anyone? Bit harsh imho, he's a distance ahead of any other Hooker we have, only weakness his throw ins.

Kellock is playing well for glasgow - as good as I have seen him play. Jackson is the form scots 10 ( apart from maybe wight)

Yes I would drop ford - and from the edinburgh squad as well. He has lost all his drive and hunger. Looks completely disinterested. He is not the player of 18 months ago

RDW_Scotland wrote:It also seems quite hypocritical from NZ - 'we're gonna steal a lot of your players from a young age but we'll give them back to you when they're old and past their best'!

RDW, Dont be in such a hurry to abuse us, look at the situation in its entirety first.

Quite a complex 2 way discussion we've got going on here!

Asbo - that was naughty of me, but you get the jist of my comment!

Aucklandlaurie - this is obviously a subject you feel passionate about. As has been said though, surely tier 1 teams touring the pacific islands (scotland the only one in recent times) is a lot more helpful that some old international going back to play for them?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Really, Pete, in cricket and athletics? You sure?

cricket:
Ed Joyce - Ireland then England then Ireland
Eoin Morgan - Ireland then England
Dirk Nannes - holland then Australia
Anderson Cummings - west indies and Canada

Athletics
Merlene Ottey - Jamaica and Slovenia, and there's plenty of others

Aaron Cook is considering switching nations in Taekwando after controversially missing team GB selection.

TJ wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Really, Pete, in cricket and athletics? You sure?

Yes - loads of examples - one african runner is on their third country

That's a shambles then - no desire whatsoever to see that in rugby thanks

ASBO
A good example is Rugby League, because that also has strong involvement with the Pacific Islands.

I was gonna ask about Wight. haven't seen much of him but seems pretty talented. Possible cap for 6 Nations?

I think you're right about Jackson TJ, but as much as I like Kellock he is nothing compared to Gray and Hamilton in the scrum. I think I prefer Kellock in loose play over Hamilton at the moment but since the Scotland scrum can often be obliterated i think thats more important really.

Ford has had a few bad games lately but he is definitely our best option at 2 IMO

RDW_Scotland wrote:Quite a complex 2 way discussion we've got going on here!

Asbo - that was naughty of me, but you get the jist of my comment!

Aucklandlaurie - this is obviously a subject you feel passionate about. As has been said though, surely tier 1 teams touring the pacific islands (scotland the only one in recent times) is a lot more helpful that some old international going back to play for them?

Should we make it a 3 way?

Asbo
We used to have it in Rugby Union, Great players like Michael Jones. Inga Tuigamala and frank Bunce were also All Blacks and played for Samoa as well.

These guys made huge contributions to rugby union, and were insrumental in keeping the Pacific Islanders in rugby union or they would mostly all have gone to the NFL by now.

bsando wrote:

I think you're right about Jackson TJ, but as much as I like Kellock he is nothing compared to Gray and Hamilton in the scrum. I think I prefer Kellock in loose play over Hamilton at the moment but since the Scotland scrum can often be obliterated i think thats more important really.

Gray is coming back from injury. if both Kellock and Gray are at their best then Gray no doubt - but kellock in the form of his life V Gray first game back from injury? I'd have Kellock

Ford has had a few bad games lately but he is definitely our best option at 2 IMO

He needs to be dropped and told to regain his hunger. He has been awful for Edinburgh. disinterested and not looking like he is caring a jot. Burnt out is my guess. He needs to recover his joy and hunger for the game. Looks totally complacent. Needs the kick up the arse.

RDW
See what you are saying is that you know best what is best for the Pacific Islanders...I dont think Samoa was ever part of the British Empire.

aucklandlaurie wrote: BSANDO
See what you are saying is that you know best what is best for the Pacific Islanders...I dont think Samoa was ever part of the British Empire.

I wonder if it counts as "invaded by Britain" in that book when NZ invaded in 1914 to kick the Germans out?

Hm ignoring the 2 way discussion. I've already made my points on Ford and Kellock. I honestly don't think Rhubarb is near international class. Third choice at Glasgow IMO with Weir out Wight has stepped up and looked good, but needs gametime.

At Edinburgh Bradley's kick chase gameplan is ruining Leonard and Hunter. Bradley must go. Sorry OT.

Or Montgomery taking all the credit after the South Africans and the ANZACS chased Rommel all over the desert.

Ford needs fire in his belly again - he has lost it. We need him at his best adn he looks miles away from it - hence drop him now to get back into form for the 6N. He needs to have the desire to play rekindled.

aucklandlaurie wrote: RDW
See what you are saying is that you know best what is best for the Pacific Islanders...I dont think Samoa was ever part of the British Empire.

I'm not saying I know what's best for them, I'm saying that it is my opinion that tier 1 teams regularly touring the pacific islands would have a far greater affect than old internationalists going back for play to them.

I take it you disagree with that?

The thing is thats its not important what I think, but rather what the effected Pacific Island nations think, they appear to have a different opinion to you.

Is it because you hail from the United Kingdom that you opinion carries more weight than people of the Pacific?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
You guys may not believe me, but on New Zealand television this morning Scotland has been described by Ian Foster as the only Northern hemisphere team to have an unbeaten tour of the Southern Hemisphere for years.

On the Rattue subject, sometimes it pays to look for another message in his articles..

I've re-read the piece and agree that there do seem to be a couple of hidden messages:

1. CR is a crapulent little amoeba, to say nothing of his risible writing (in)ability, 2. CR knows little if anything about NR rugby, 3. CR's political correctness about the PIs is about 6 months too late for the popular press newscycle (that happened in the summer when the Scots tour was announced).

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Is it because you hail from the United Kingdom that you opinion carries more weight than people of the Pacific?

Oh come on Laurie - no need for that. That's a completely unsubstantiated, made up statement.

It's my opinion, and that's it. Are people not allowed to have opinions on matters not from their country? Does having an opinion on these matters automatically mean that you think you know best? Of course I have no idea what the islanders want - but that's what discussions like these are for!

To be honest this topic is fairly far down my list in terms of rugby issues just now - being from the other side of the world it has very little effect on the game I know and love. It is however and interesting topic and I thought we were having an interesting discussion on it - apparently not!

Why've you got such a grudge against us Scots? As has been pointed out, we're not the only nation to have vetoed it, and have actually toured the PIs. Surely there should be some credit there?

And anyway you're getting all high and mighty about us Scots - how do you know that's what they want? How does the NZ rugby union know what they want?

I think that was q very unfair comment and totally unjustified.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Or Montgomery taking all the credit after the South Africans and the ANZACS chased Rommel all over the desert.

Laurie, be careful where you tread - my dad buried his brother/my uncle in north Africa in that campaign

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Really, Pete, in cricket and athletics? You sure?

cricket:
Ed Joyce - Ireland then England then Ireland
Eoin Morgan - Ireland then England
Dirk Nannes - holland then Australia
Anderson Cummings - west indies and Canada

Athletics
Merlene Ottey - Jamaica and Slovenia, and there's plenty of others

Aaron Cook is considering switching nations in Taekwando after controversially missing team GB selection.

Happened in football too, Dominic Matteo played for England in the late 90s early 00s in a couple games but because they weren't in a
tournament or qualifying for a tournament then turned out for Scotland.
Happens in lots of sports all the time, squash, badminton it happens a lot.

I agree that a rule could be brought in that if someone plays for a tier one country and say maybe has won less that 25 caps or something like that could then go on to play for a lower tier nation if they haven't played for the tier one for say 3 years. I am Scottish but could also play for Poland so something like that would be a big boost for the smaller playing nations.

I read Chris Rattue's article and yes I was offended, without any understanding of the plight of rugby in this country he raked and dismissed us, no respect for this weekends hosts then. Yes this weekends match is about money, like it or not both unions need it. Yes we are a" football leaning country with bad winter weather" but it's worse than that our kids are meant to watch football not participate, week after week rugby fixtures are cancelled because the pitches are waterlogged or frozen or both, and our summers arent much better.(Ma'afu went home after the worst winter weather he had ever endured- Glasgow in August).
Our local primary school in the "affluent" West End of Glasgow has no gym and only a small tarmac yard(As kids in Glasgow schools are not allowed out when it rains or if it has rained I guess play space isn't considered v.important). Last year with support from our local rugby club(they let us use the training pitch etc.) we got coaching from the SRU for the 7-11 year olds. this has developed into an after school club for all the local primary schools and some of the kids are joining the club.
We are going to the match on Sunday. I think our kids deserve to see the world champions and it's not a crime to make money out of these fixtures.

caz wrote:I read Chris Rattue's article and yes I was offended, without any understanding of the plight of rugby in this country he raked and dismissed us, no respect for this weekends hosts then.

Is there a link to this fabled article?

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10845100

Link to article-Enjoy

cheers caz ..... I think

what an absolute dick.

Lovely comment by Alasdair Reid about Rattue's piece of vitriolic poop:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/rugby/all-blacks-only-fear-is-not-doing-themselves-justice.19353643

"Scotland suffered an All Blacks backlash when they hosted the New Zealanders at Murrayfield in 2010. Shortly before that game, New Zealand had won 15 matches on the bounce, but their streak ended when they lost narrowly to Australia in Hong Kong. They toiled to an unconvincing win against England in their next match, but they unleashed themselves in Edinburgh, winning by a record 49-3 margin.

In fairness, the Scots were abject that day, and [All Blacks assistant coach Ian] Foster is not drawing any conclusions from the rout. Nor would he rise to the bait when told that Chris Rattue, a New Zealand columnist whose tendency towards piety does nothing to disguise his fundamental lack of talent, had dismissed Scotland as a joke team who "play a turgid, ineffective game that belongs in a cave."

(Reports suggest Rattue may be an expert in cave-dwelling, for it is said he never ventures outside his office to examine sport at close quarters.)"

So to summaries, aucklandlaurie has tried to justify that article by saying it is really a dig at the nations that vetoed this deal to get PI players who have gone to another country back to the PIs at the end of their career.

He then has a go at us for giving our opinions on the matter saying we know nothing about the plight of the PIs and are being arrogant Brits.

Ignoring the fact that Rattue's article is highly ignorant of Scottish rugby, giving comments based on no facts whatsoever.

Interesting.

Not nice is it?