Buildup: Scotland vs South Africa

Based on Today.s performance who would you pick to play South Africa.
I'd go for:
15. Hogg
14. Evans
13. Dunbar
12. scott
11. Visser
10. Jackson
9. Blair
8. Denton
7. Rennie (Barclay if he's not fit)
6. Brown
5. Hamilton
4. Gray
3. Murray
2. Ford
1. Grant

Numbahs that team is ridiculous. Apart from the fact you've picked Hogg in 2 positions you've got Max on the wing. That's just stupid, runs dead ends and leads to turnovers and can't tackle.

Ah the second Hogg was meant to be Scott. I'll change that

My team would be:

15) Hogg
14) Lamont
13) Dunbar
12) Scott
11) Visser
10) Laidlaw
9) Blair

8) Denton
7) Barclay
6) Brown
5) Kellock
4) Gray
3) Murray
2) Lawson
1) Grant

16) Ford
17) Jacobsen
18) Cross
19) Hamilton
20) Strokosch
21) Jackson (Laidlaw moves to scrum-half if Blair is injured or subbed off. We can't start Jackson unless we have someone else on the pitch taking the kicks.)
22) Horne
23) Brown

I would assume Robinson will keep the team the same but move Brown to cover Rennie who looks to be crocked for the foreseeable future.

The Bok team I would like to see against Scotland.

1. Beast
2. Adriaan Strauss
3. Jannie du Plessis
4. Flip v d Merwe
5. eben Etzebeth
6. Frans Louw
7. Willem Alberts
8. Duane Vermeulen.
9. Ruan Pienaar
10. Patrick Lambie.
11. Raymond Rhule
12. Jean de Villiers ( he is the captain so no choice)
13. JP Pietersen
14. Juan de Jongh
15. Jaco Taute

Personally I'd like to see;

1 - Grant
2 - Ford
3 - Murray
4 - Gray
5 - Hamilton
6 - Strokosch
7 - Brown
8 - Denton

9 - Blair
10 - Laidaw
11 - Visser
12 - Scott
13 - De Luca
14 - Lamont
15 - Hogg

16 - Lawson
17 - Reid (Jacobson is past it)
18 - Cross
19 - Kellock
20 - Barlcay
21 - Pyrgos
22 - Jackson
23 - Dunbar

Grant-Ford-Murray
Gray-Hamilton
Brown(c)-Denton-Barclay
Blair-Jackson
Scott-Dunbar
Visser-Hogg-Maitland (realistically he won't get picked, so Seymour instead)

Ford needs to be dropped. He clearly is out of form and sorts and needs to rediscover his hunger and pride.

Id replace Lamont with either Seymour or Tom Brown who redeemed himself last week with an excellent performance against Ulster.

Dunbar or Horne for De Luca, but not Evans. No point having Visser in the team if his centre is just going to hog the ball and lose it in contact every time. Seriously over-rated.

If Horne plays 13, id consider starting Jackson. If Dunbar, stick with Laidlaw.

Barclay comes into 7, Brown moves to 6, Denton to 8, Stroks on the bench.

I need to watch todays match again and decide wether Hamilton should drop out. Part of me thinks though that Kellocks not physical enough to start against the Boks.

Murray to 3, though thats not to diss Dr Geoffs performance today.

Ford, I dont know what to say. Ive defended him for so long, but his throwing is going through one of those 6 month long bad patches again. I hate to say it, but Scott Lawson to start.

I would forgive ford if his play round the park was up to his best - but its miles away.

My two cents

1. Grant (One of the best performers today)
2. Lawson (Ross Ford was poor... Bench him and see how he reacts)
3. Cross (Doc probably did enough today to keep the spot ahead of Murray, especially if Beast is still out)
4. Gray
5. Kellock (Hamilton is turning into Hines, penalty liability. Lineout stabilised when Al came on too...)
6. Brown
7. Barclay (Rennie dislocated shoulder, 4 weeks out)
8. Denton

9. Laidlaw
10. Jackson (Rhubarb deserves his chance and Laidlaw will at leas provide quicker service!)
11. Visser
12. Scott
13. Dunbar (NDL... Need someone who can pass the ball)
14. Seymour (Lamont ineffectual today, Tommy is in good form and doesn't shirk his work!)
15. Hogg

I think we need to be sensible here - I'm sure we'd come up with teams we'd like to see play but there's no chance of it happening!

He's not gonna drop Ford - and anyway apart from his throwing he had a strong game today

He's not gonna drop De Luca in a game we need to target in place of Dunbar on his first cap

Ditto Lamont and Seymour/Brown

The only change he's gonna make IMO is who replaces Rennie. Denton has to start after his performace today, so does he move Brown to 7 or play Barclay? SA don't have a genuine openside so I think we could cope with Brown at 7. What I think he'll go with:

Grant
Ford
Murray
Gray
Hamilton
Stokosh
Brown
Denton
Blair
Laidlaw
Visser
Scott
De Luca
Lamont
Hogg

RDW_Scotland wrote:
SA don't have a genuine openside so I think we could cope with Brown at 7.

Thats not true, Francois Louw is a fetcher through and through. Completely changed the Bokjs breakdown play when he got introduced halfway through the Rugby Championship this year.

And even if he wasnt, thats exactly why we should have an openside. They didnt have one 2 years ago, and as a result Barclay made the breakdown his own private sex dungeon.

Trying to counter Alberts, Coetzee, and Vermeulen at their own game is just asking to be ground into the dirt.

Brown has to play IMO - the only decent candidate for captain. Did Ford really have a good game apart from the throwing? 4 runs for 4 m and 6 tackles with 3 missed from scrum.com stat? I only heard the game on the radio and he wasn't mentioned much

RDW_Scotland wrote:I think we need to be sensible here - I'm sure we'd come up with teams we'd like to see play but there's no chance of it happening!

He's not gonna drop Ford - and anyway apart from his throwing he had a strong game today

He's not gonna drop De Luca in a game we need to target in place of Dunbar on his first cap

Ditto Lamont and Seymour/Brown

The only change he's gonna make IMO is who replaces Rennie. Denton has to start after his performace today, so does he move Brown to 7 or play Barclay? SA don't have a genuine openside so I think we could cope with Brown at 7. What I think he'll go with:

Grant
Ford
Murray
Gray
Hamilton
Stokosh
Brown
Denton
Blair
Laidlaw
Visser
Scott
De Luca
Lamont
Hogg

....and also Hamilton - you are seriously having a bleeding laugh after that woeful display today

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:....and also Hamilton - you are seriously having a bleeding laugh after that woeful display today

Want to chill out a bit? two thread where you leap in and insult folk and its hardly a reasoned arguement you are making

Well, there's the team that I'd like to see and the team that Robinson will pick and the two are usually miles apart. The thing is, though, that this time Robinson's squad actually contains genuine alternatives to the current players and he must know that he has to use them.

Given what Scotland need, my preference is for

1. Grant (had a great game today)
2. Ford (absolutely his last chance, we need his bulk against the Boks)
3. Murray (sorry, but there's light years between him and Cross still)
4. Gray (looking more like his old self yesterday)
5. Hamilton (needs to absorb the first wave of battery before Kellock comes in)
6. Brown (back to his best position)
7. Barclay (he's playing well enough and OF COURSE we need an openside)
8. Denton (made some good carries, needs to take some hits before releasing Big Al)

9. Blair (can't drop him, he was our best back yesterday)
10. Laidlaw (did just enough to keep the shirt, but I'd be willing to give Jackson a full 40)
11. Visser ()
12. Scott (worth persisting with, let's see what he's got now the rust has fallen away)
13. Dunbar (should be a good combo)
14. Seymour (Schlong simply didn't do enough, sorry, and it's Tommy's time now)
15. Hogg (he can be thankful that Powder Puff Lamont continues to warm the treatment table)

16 - Lawson
17 - Reid
18 - Cross
19 - Kellock
20 - Strokosch
21 - Pyrgos
22 - Jackson
23 - Horne

We need to win this match. This is serious. We cannot have 50% of possession and remain so toothless in attack.

Pity Maitland took until now to get here.

Imperialbigdave wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:
SA don't have a genuine openside so I think we could cope with Brown at 7.

Thats not true, Francois Louw is a fetcher through and through. Completely changed the Bokjs breakdown play when he got introduced halfway through the Rugby Championship this year.

And even if he wasnt, thats exactly why we should have an openside. They didnt have one 2 years ago, and as a result Barclay made the breakdown his own private sex dungeon.

Trying to counter Alberts, Coetzee, and Vermeulen at their own game is just asking to be ground into the dirt.

Apologies - I was basing that on the commentary from the Ireland game when the said SA didn't have a natural 7.

And 31st - you can laugh all you want but the chances of him dropping Hamilton and de Luca are slim.

Biltong wrote:The Bok team I would like to see against Scotland.

1. Beast
2. Adriaan Strauss
3. Jannie du Plessis
4. Flip v d Merwe
5. eben Etzebeth
6. Frans Louw
7. Willem Alberts
8. Duane Vermeulen.
9. Ruan Pienaar
10. Patrick Lambie.
11. Raymond Rhule
12. Jean de Villiers ( he is the captain so no choice)
13. JP Pietersen
14. Juan de Jongh
15. Jaco Taute

Biltong:

1. Did you watch the All Blacks match? If so, what are your areas of concern for the Bokke (if any)?

2. Do you think that the Scotland forwards will match up? After all, it was your pack that finally nailed Ireland.

3. Can you attempt to predict a score for this?

4. JP at outside centre?

Hi George, I was very impressed by Scotland on sunday, let's face it, nobody expected them to stand up to New Zealand and for the first 15 minutes until the intercpet try it looked like it would only be a matter of time for the All Blacks to run away with it.

However that try ignited a belief in Scotland which made them play positive rugby.

To be honest with you I am more wary of a Scotland team trying to kill the ball, than trying to run it. For some reason we don't know how to handle them when they stifle play, but if they play positive rugby (which I beleive they will) then it will be a great game.

I have said before that I beleive Scotland is improving, they have been playing more running rugby than stifling rugby, and the tries will come, good thing for scotlad is the critics will now ave little negativity to comment on.

I believe it will be a close game, and I am not going to be confident enough to predict the outcome.

I don't think there is anything wrong with Scotlands forwards, they will match up pretty well in the scrums, we might have an edge at the line out, rucks, depends on who commits the numbers though.

JP Pietersen played extremely well in the 13 position for the sharks, I would love to see him there, he looks to distribute and his hard running line sand ability to hit the gap is needed.

I will be quite annoyed if Scotland don't play Kelly Brown in his usual position of 6.

I don't think Strokosch impressed. Flankers should not be missing tackles.

If Scotland can sort out their defence they'll be a real threat.

Tbh ive never been overly convinced strokosh's hard man reputation makes it onto the pitch - as you say he misses tackles and doesn't dominate in defence like he likes to talk about!

JP Pietersen

will he be laying? after his early shoulder charge will he be cited and banned? I think he should be.

This is going to sound harsh but I think you Scots have to stop patting yourselves on the back. You must have higher expectations.

Yes there are positives to take from the New Zealand game but you must look to do better. Conceding 50 points to the All Blacks is not good, even if you score 3 tries.

You have good players you should be looking to do better. For a neutral it was a good game to watch but Scotland should have stopped New Zealand more efficiently.

New Zealand are the best side in the world but I believe they are beatable.

I feel that Scotland unfortunately would have taken this result and I personally don't like the attitude. Scotland need to be hungrier and angrier at themselves in my opinion.

Not going to be popular and I understand that but I want to see Scotland improve all aspects. Scotland's attacking play looked to improve but their defense in comparison was poor.

TJ wrote:JP Pietersen

will he be laying? after his early shoulder charge will he be cited and banned? I think he should be.

Mate, if they ban him for that, then rugby has truly become a sissy sport.

Yeah? I don't know if it was worth more than the yellow but it was a nasty cynical deliberate hit and the sort of thing that injures players. IMO worse thn the boot to the head by Thompson as that has no force to it and peoiple are calling for a ban for that.

Just a discussion point.

beshocked wrote:This is going to sound harsh but I think you Scots have to stop patting yourselves on the back. You must have higher expectations.

Yes there are positives to take from the New Zealand game but you must look to do better. Conceding 50 points to the All Blacks is not good, even if you score 3 tries.

You have good players you should be looking to do better. For a neutral it was a good game to watch but Scotland should have stopped New Zealand more efficiently.

New Zealand are the best side in the world but I believe they are beatable.

I feel that Scotland unfortunately would have taken this result and I personally don't like the attitude. Scotland need to be hungrier and angrier at themselves in my opinion.

Not going to be popular and I understand that but I want to see Scotland improve all aspects. Scotland's attacking play looked to improve but their defense in comparison was poor.

scotland would not have taken that at all and wil lnot be happy. However its nice to be able to take some positives from a defeat for once.

True TJ you should take positives. It was a good game and Scotland did score 3 tries.

I have been critical of Visser but fair play - he scored 2 tries. His strike rate is good. The 2nd try was a run in but he was there.

As long as you build on the positives and try and sort of the negatives you'll improve.

Finding it really hard to justify dropping Cross for Murray. Sure Murray brings a lot more to the table in terms of Scrummaging ability but Cross scored a well taken front row forwards try, tackled his heart out and TBH couldn't drop him for Murray even if he is coming up against The Beast.

My XXIII :

1. Grant : Thought he was fantastic yesterday.

2. Ford : Played well IMO, the lost lineouts were to do with the classy opposition not Ford's errors. He showed up well in the loose and carried well too.

3. Cross : Can't drop him. He wasn't great in the scrum but he wasn't as bad as I thought he was going to be. Scored a great tighthead try too.

4. Gray : Brilliant yesterday.

5. Kellock : Played very well when he came on and the lineout tightened up a bit too.

6. Brown (C) : Played very well

7. Barclay : Pity about Rennie, good job we have a player as classy as Barclay to call upon.

8. Denton : Looked hungry and aggressive in the contact, my only question is why he hasn't been playing like that for Edinburgh?

9. Blair : An assured performance yesterday

10. Laidlaw, kicked pretty well and gets a big assist for Visser's 2nd try.

11. Visser : 4 tests and 6 tries? Over rated?

12. Scott : Great vision for Visser's interecept try and passed well & defended his channel all game.

13 NDL : Defended hic channel well and marshalled the Scottish blitz defence well.

14. Seymore/Dunbar : Didn't even know Lamont was playing time to blood one of the Youngsters. Seymore is the obvious choice since he is a Winger but Matt Scott got his 1st cap on the wing. Will AR do the same thing?

15. Hogg : Will have learned a thing or two about defencive positioning at test level, and despite being caught out he did himself no disservice.

16. Murray
17. Lawson
18. Chunk
19. Hamilton
20. Strokosch
21. Prygos
22. Jackson
23. S. Lamont.

That's who I'd pick anyway.

I'd be tempted to drop NDL altogether and play Dunbar at 13. NDL missed tackles, failed to put his outside men in space and our 'blitz' defence was actually nothing of the kind. Our defensive line shambled up in some sort of wobbly drift, allowing NZ plenty of time and space to run their patterns. As the senior player in the centres, NDL should have made sure that didn't happen. The case for his continued inclusion is getting thinner and thinner.

I have to disagree with comments made in a positive light about Ross Ford yesterday. To be stepped by Dan carter is one thing, to be done like a kipper by Weepu is another. For one of our senior players, I don't think he stood up. I also agree with Cpt Sensible above, out defensive line was very ropey - allowing NZ time and space to run at us. Saveas first try was a case in point. Taking this into account, here is my team (a million miles from what Robinson will probably pick)

1. Grant (played well)
2. Lawson (I really want Ford to live up to expectations, he just isn't)
3. Murray (In due to his superior scrummaging)
4. Gray (Played very well)
5. Hamilton (Just above Kellock on the basis of his superior bulk, although he will need to show his AP form)
6. Brown (Very good performance, and plays best at 6)
7. Barclay (Ready made replacement for Rennie)
8. Denton (I thought one of our best players, carried well)

9. Blair (Quick service and intelligent kicking)
10. Laidlaw (Needs to take control of the game more, has lost his way from last year - still ahead of Rhubarb)
11. Visser (No brain er, neds to work on his defence)
12. Scott (looked lost in defence, but showed nous for Visser's try)
13. Dunbar (De Luca didn't take charge and knocked on under no pressure. Dunbar and Scott can interchange to mix things up.)
14. Slamont (although he was fairly anonymous, he has the class, size and experience to make a difference)
15. Hogg (caught out of position, but is a good player with a big boot - hopefully he has learnt some quick lessons)

Imperialbigdave wrote: Barclay made the breakdown his own private sex dungeon.

There are some quotes you just know will live with you for a long long time.

Manky-Flanker wrote:

Imperialbigdave wrote: Barclay made the breakdown his own private sex dungeon.

There are some quotes you just know will live with you for a long long time.

Regardless of how hard you may try to forget them.

beshocked wrote:This is going to sound harsh but I think you Scots have to stop patting yourselves on the back. You must have higher expectations.

Yes there are positives to take from the New Zealand game but you must look to do better. Conceding 50 points to the All Blacks is not good, even if you score 3 tries.

You have good players you should be looking to do better. For a neutral it was a good game to watch but Scotland should have stopped New Zealand more efficiently.

New Zealand are the best side in the world but I believe they are beatable.

I feel that Scotland unfortunately would have taken this result and I personally don't like the attitude. Scotland need to be hungrier and angrier at themselves in my opinion.

Not going to be popular and I understand that but I want to see Scotland improve all aspects. Scotland's attacking play looked to improve but their defense in comparison was poor.

You are quite right, but just because the fans on here are praising the performance doesn't mean the players and coaches are. They are saying all the right things about how much they have to work on, so as long as they have that attitude, the rest of us can enjoy focusing on the positives.

Before the game I was hoping we'd score tries and stay within 20 points, the All Blacks are the only side I could be at all satisfied in defeat against. Obviously I'd have expected the players to be aiming for the win, and disappointed with the defeat but as a fan I can have more realistic expectations. What we saw yesterday was a big improvement since the 2010 game (3-49 defeat) with Scotland dominating posession and territory for long periods and really threatening to score. When you consider the level we've come from that's something to be pleased about in my opinion, maybe the higher ranked NH sides would be less pleased. The first time NZ have conceded three tries since August 2011. The first time Scotland have scored a try against NZ since 2005 and the first time we've scored 3 since 1996 (ten matches ago).

With the score at 22-37 in the second half I was hoping we'd be able to keep the pressure on and not concede any more, and maybe even close the gap further, but unfortunately little mistakes let them off and gave them a position to attack, and those are the things we need to work on for next week. From memory, kick offs not going ten. Players in front of the kicker. The stupid truck and trailer offence that gave away the scrum that led to Savea's second try. The missed tackles from Cross and Evans that directly led to Hore and Smith's tries. Much to work on for next week. Other teams won't exploit these mistakes as well as the All Blacks, but we still must cut them out. If we do then we're in with a real chance against SA.

I'm in two minds about whether to make changes in a few positions, the scrum was OK and Cross took his try well but missed more than one tackle I think. On balance he probably deserves to stay but I would be happy enough if Murray was selected. Ford's throwing was poor again but he got stuck in well in the loose I thought. But perhaps Lawson deserves a start to improve the lineout. I expect Barclay to start at 7 and I didn't think Strokosch did much wrong but wasn't quite as good as Brown and Denton so those two would start. Blair dispelled any worries about playing second division rugby. Scott and De Luca looked fairly average but it's difficult to look good against NZ; I'm not convinced by Dunbar at 13, I don't think he's been as good this season as he was last year playing at 12 so I'd probably give the incumbent pair another go. Lamont didn't get involved as much as I'd hoped and Evans, who I prefer on the wing to centre, looked lively but missed an important tackle so I'd go with Lamont again. Hogg had a few chances to run back kicks but didn't find any gaps to step through, but he's still a dangerous runner and I'd like to see him coming into the line more.

As for Visser, there's been a lot of debate on here about whether or not he is a top class winger. All I'll say is he is exactly what Scotland have been crying out for. For the last couple of years we've had no problem creating chances but struggled to finish them off. Visser's knack of being in the right place at the right time is uncanny, and once he's got the ball in space his speed is unbelievable for such a big man. His try scoring habit easily outweighs any defensive weaknesses.

So my team would be (I think)

Grant
Lawson
Cross
Gray
Hamilton
Brown
Barclay
Denton

Blair
Laidlaw
Visser
Scott
De Luca
Lamont
Hogg.

I'll probably change my mind a few times in the next few days though.

I know Ford isn't great just now with his throwing, but do we really want the significant loss in bulk if he was replaced by Lawson - who is one of the smallest hookers in world rugby??

Not against the biggest side in World Rugby you don't.

Agreed.

I just think we need to be more clever with our lineouts - go for consistent ahead of flashy.

Case in point that lineout in their 22 that went to Brown at the back but was messed up. We luckily got the lineout again but went for exactly the same call again and once again messed it up.

I know nothing about lineout play but surely if you know your hooker might struggle you go for the % ball - especially in a rare attack in their 22??

I'd much rather we had guaranteed ball at the front of the lineout in their 22 instead of a 50/50 at the back.

I'd like to apologise for doubting Visser too- he looked like the real deal against the ABs

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'd like to apologise for doubting Visser too- he looked like the real deal against the ABs

No need to apologise, but nice of you to do so!

Thank you. He is not the perfect player as his defence can be suspect but he is one heck of a scoring machine.

I see that the Beast is out of the tour - may be a less experienced Bokke front row than we thought. I would definitely add Murray at 3 now.

RDW_Scotland wrote:I know Ford isn't great just now with his throwing, but do we really want the significant loss in bulk if he was replaced by Lawson - who is one of the smallest hookers in world rugby??

I understand your point RDW, and I really want Ford to be on form - he is undoubtedly the best we have when he is; but he has been consistently poor for several weeks. Not only in his throwing, but I think in his overall play. He was beaten twice on the inside at the weekend, fair enough one was by Carter, but the other was by Weepu - both occasions resulted in a try. I think Scotland would gain more from Ford coming on at half time with a point to prove.

Heart palpitations from what they said at the Ireland game - hope the big man is OK.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'd like to apologise for doubting Visser too- he looked like the real deal against the ABs

No need to apologise! I think most Edinburgh and Pro12 fans know what Visser can do, now he can show his abilities on the test stage to those who haven't seen him play!

I think it would be unbeleiveably Harsh to drop Cross for Murray. Cross got a bout a bit in the loose, carrried well and may have missed a few tackles but he IMO played really well. I certainly couldn't justify dropping him.

Grant was superb though. One of the best performances by a loosehead for Scotland for some time.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'd like to apologise for doubting Visser too- he looked like the real deal against the ABs

I must tell you guys, this weekend was the first time I have ever seen Visser play.

He has a good turn of pace, big and tall, but he must work on his defence. Overall a good player for scotland.

And the obvious point is that Max Evans shouldn't even be on the bench.

Guaranteed turn over or knock on when he does one of these Blind Alley Brainfarts. Seymour will offer much more and I've rather have a versatile player like Lamont or Horne on the bench.

George Carlin wrote:And the obvious point is that Max Evans shouldn't even be on the bench.

Guaranteed turn over or knock on when he does one of these Blind Alley Brainfarts. Seymour will offer much more and I've rather have a versatile player like Lamont or Horne on the bench.

+1 Max Evans hasn't done much in a Scotland jersey for a few years now. Seymour would bring a lot more to the party I think.

Nice piece by Tom English in the Hootsmon which cannot really be argued with in any respect:

"Scotland v New Zealand: Effortless rout shows some things will not change

By TOM ENGLISH
Published on Monday 12 November 2012 09:57

SCOTLAND’S maddening propensity for taking one step forward and then promptly shooting themselves in the feet that took them there was revisited at Murrayfield, the memory of the hat-trick of summer victories hewn from a granite-like defence now an afterthought.


New Zealand, inspired by the near-effortless brilliance of Dan Carter, have never scored more points in Edinburgh and what was even more chilling was the feeling that they completed the rout while never really in top gear.

After Scotland’s brave resistance in Australia in June, this was an experience that has sent them spinning back to square one. It would be easy to focus on Carter and his wondrous creativity, not to mind his remarkable boot that launched successful conversions from all corners of the stadium, but the fact is that the creativity was helped by a Scottish defence that was a calamitous mess at the most critical times in the Test.

In the aftermath, Robinson spoke of “big holes” and “soft drifts”, mentioned that his players sat back and gave the Kiwis time and space and he was right. For all the fighting talk in the preamble, Scotland failed to bring with them one of the most basic requirements if you’re hoping to live with these All Blacks; bloody-mindedness from first minute to last.

They had it early on, no question. And in that regard it’s not the despondency that kills you, it’s the hope. Hope when New Zealand started sluggishly; losing a lineout, getting turned over at a ruck, missing a penalty, knocking-on carelessly. And that intercept? Hope again. There is no bad time to latch on to an intercept, but when Carter is the man you’re intercepting and a try is the end result, then that is manna from heaven, a gift from the Gods.

Hope? It blew in to Murrayfield after 13 minutes when Tim Visser scored and it blew right back out again in the minutes that followed, devastating minutes that brought one head-wrecking Scottish error after another, a mistake mountain that helped the Kiwis score four first-half tries including three in eight nightmarish and game-defining minutes, some of them masterfully put together, others presented on a plate by defensive lapses that would have Robinson and his management team hiding under their chairs in the coaches box.

Scotland were brighter and more clinical in attack than they have been for a long time. If you’re looking for optimism ahead of the Springboks next week, then there it is. The upside came in the shape of their three tries and the attacking nous of Visser and the certainty that South Africa, lacking the weaponry of the All Blacks, will be more route one rather than route one, two, three, four…

Visser is a sharp tool in attack. Defensively, he is a work in progress, but there is no doubting his predatory instincts and that is a major plus for Robinson. The team, finally, has found a finisher. Visser has played three Tests and has scored four tries. After barely a wet week in the team, he is already joint third highest try-scorer in the squad, only four tries behind Sean Lamont who has 65 more caps. There you go. Dine out on that crumb.

Robinson has summoned up the memory of November, 2010, when his team got eaten alive in week one by the All Blacks before gathering themselves in victory against the Springboks a week later. South Africa will bring a more basic gameplan to Murrayfield and will be beatable if Scottish heads are right. That’s a big “if”. No side can win matches against the world’s elite when defending as Scotland did. New Zealand don’t need a team to make things easy for them; they’re perfectly able to engineer tries on the back of their own genius, but if a sucker is determined to be suckered, then what are they going to do? They’re going to say thanks very much and pile up the points.

Four minutes after Visser’s first try put Scotland into the rarefied air of a lead against the All Blacks, they fell off the pace and fell out of the tackle, Carter making one break and then another, swatting Scottish jerseys along the way before Israel Dagg was put away in the corner. This is when the alarm bells started to ring, a cue for consolidation and concentration from Scotland, a period when they had to batten down the hatches against a New Zealand team that were beginning to throw some shapes in attack after a faltering beginning.

Scotland needed to get through this spell, but they couldn’t do it. They needed to get on the ball but they couldn’t find it, needed to get the Strokoschs and the Hamiltons and the Browns into the rucks and disrupt like hell, but they couldn’t do that either. In eight minutes, New Zealand scored three tries and for all the feelgood of the hosts scoring three tries against the greatest team in the world, the Test match was over by half-time. That’s the truth. It was done in those eight minutes at the end of the first half.

The galling thing is that it was avoidable. Or, at least, part of it was avoidable. Julian Savea’s first try was an example of the All Blacks at their best, a try that saw them work Scotland to a standstill before breaking away down the left wing where Visser was isolated and alone and helpless in the face of Savea and a supporting runner just in case Visser made his tackle, which he did not.

Now the blunders came in waves. Scotland got the restart all wrong and two minutes after Savea’s try there was one for his opposite wing, Cory Jane, created on the altar of quick ruck ball, fast hands and a precise finish from Jane. This is what New Zealand do to you. A game can become a rout in the blink of an eye. One minute you are level on the scoreboard and the next time you look you are 17 points down as Scotland were after the Jane score.

All week, Robinson and his team stressed the need to reduce their error count to half-nothing. Instead, it multiplied. When they needed to be tight and focused they were ruinously loose. Andrew Hore’s try typified it. The fact that Jane wriggled out of trouble on the right wing was bad enough, but the sight of Hore brushing off Geoff Cross and spinning over was a cringe-making moment. Carter’s conversion made it 34-10 to New Zealand.

What we’d heard from the home team was that this game was not going to be a repeat of the last time they faced New Zealand, that lessons had been learned from that wretched first half of 2010 when Scotland shipped 28 points. Now, there are new lessons to learn. Scotland conceded 34 points in the first 40 minutes yesterday and another 17 points in the second half, which could have been more had they needed them. For all Richie McCaw’s assertions that it was a tough game out there, the All Blacks had gears they never required to use on the day.

A repeat of two years ago, then. How Robinson will be praying that the similarities of the first game of that autumn series are repeated in the second, when South Africa return on Saturday."

George Carlin wrote:Nice piece by Tom English in the Hootsmon which cannot really be argued with in any respect:

"Scotland v New Zealand: Effortless rout shows some things will not change

By TOM ENGLISH
Published on Monday 12 November 2012 09:57

SCOTLAND’S maddening propensity for taking one step forward and then promptly shooting themselves in the feet that took them there was revisited at Murrayfield, the memory of the hat-trick of summer victories hewn from a granite-like defence now an afterthought.

First things first, In the summer, we were good enough to beat Australia. However we played to the conditions. Conditions that no doubt seriously blunted the Wallabies attacking capabilities. We also leaked tries against Samoa and Fiji. The All Blacks were sensational and Carter orchestrated a sublime performance that saw our defence shredded. They can do that to anyone. Don't beleive me? Go ask the guys across the Irish Sea how their summer tour to NZ went.

New Zealand, inspired by the near-effortless brilliance of Dan Carter, have never scored more points in Edinburgh and what was even more chilling was the feeling that they completed the rout while never really in top gear.

After Scotland’s brave resistance in Australia in June, this was an experience that has sent them spinning back to square one. It would be easy to focus on Carter and his wondrous creativity, not to mind his remarkable boot that launched successful conversions from all corners of the stadium, but the fact is that the creativity was helped by a Scottish defence that was a calamitous mess at the most critical times in the Test.

Our defence was calamitous because the All Blacks ran us ragged. Touchline to Touchline stuff that will almost certainly provide too much for most defences. Unfortunate for us that Carter decided he wanted to bring his magestic "A game" to Murrayfield.

In the aftermath, Robinson spoke of “big holes” and “soft drifts”, mentioned that his players sat back and gave the Kiwis time and space and he was right. For all the fighting talk in the preamble, Scotland failed to bring with them one of the most basic requirements if you’re hoping to live with these All Blacks; bloody-mindedness from first minute to last.

This part is true enough. The all Blacks are hard enough to beat without us gifting them 2 Scrums from restarts.

They had it early on, no question. And in that regard it’s not the despondency that kills you, it’s the hope. Hope when New Zealand started sluggishly; losing a lineout, getting turned over at a ruck, missing a penalty, knocking-on carelessly. And that intercept? Hope again. There is no bad time to latch on to an intercept, but when Carter is the man you’re intercepting and a try is the end result, then that is manna from heaven, a gift from the Gods.

Hope? It blew in to Murrayfield after 13 minutes when Tim Visser scored and it blew right back out again in the minutes that followed, devastating minutes that brought one head-wrecking Scottish error after another, a mistake mountain that helped the Kiwis score four first-half tries including three in eight nightmarish and game-defining minutes, some of them masterfully put together, others presented on a plate by defensive lapses that would have Robinson and his management team hiding under their chairs in the coaches box.

Yep, the All blacks ran riot in that 2nd quarter, some guys fell off tackles but it's hard to be negative when the All Blacks are playing such beautiful rugby. Not many teams in the world can front up to such varied and incisive attacking rugby. The loss of Rennie was key IMO, without a specialist fetcher we had noone really capable of slowing down the All Black ball and giving our defence a chance to catch it's breath. After Rennie retired Weepu & Carter had an armchair ride from their forwards and were supplied with quick, clean ball. If anything Robinson has to shoulder some blame by not having Barclay on the bench. It's no conicidence that losing our fetcher came at the start of that period of sustained NZ domminence.

Scotland were brighter and more clinical in attack than they have been for a long time. If you’re looking for optimism ahead of the Springboks next week, then there it is. The upside came in the shape of their three tries and the attacking nous of Visser and the certainty that South Africa, lacking the weaponry of the All Blacks, will be more route one rather than route one, two, three, four…

Visser is a sharp tool in attack. Defensively, he is a work in progress, but there is no doubting his predatory instincts and that is a major plus for Robinson. The team, finally, has found a finisher. Visser has played three Tests and has scored four tries. After barely a wet week in the team, he is already joint third highest try-scorer in the squad, only four tries behind Sean Lamont who has 65 more caps. There you go. Dine out on that crumb.

Have to agree that Visser for such a man mountain is something of a mouse when the opposition have the ball. However the guy was up against some crazy overlaps and did his best.

Robinson has summoned up the memory of November, 2010, when his team got eaten alive in week one by the All Blacks before gathering themselves in victory against the Springboks a week later. South Africa will bring a more basic gameplan to Murrayfield and will be beatable if Scottish heads are right. That’s a big “if”. No side can win matches against the world’s elite when defending as Scotland did. New Zealand don’t need a team to make things easy for them; they’re perfectly able to engineer tries on the back of their own genius, but if a sucker is determined to be suckered, then what are they going to do? They’re going to say thanks very much and pile up the points.

Four minutes after Visser’s first try put Scotland into the rarefied air of a lead against the All Blacks, they fell off the pace and fell out of the tackle, Carter making one break and then another, swatting Scottish jerseys along the way before Israel Dagg was put away in the corner. This is when the alarm bells started to ring, a cue for consolidation and concentration from Scotland, a period when they had to batten down the hatches against a New Zealand team that were beginning to throw some shapes in attack after a faltering beginning.

Scotland needed to get through this spell, but they couldn’t do it. They needed to get on the ball but they couldn’t find it, needed to get the Strokoschs and the Hamiltons and the Browns into the rucks and disrupt like hell, but they couldn’t do that either. In eight minutes, New Zealand scored three tries and for all the feelgood of the hosts scoring three tries against the greatest team in the world, the Test match was over by half-time. That’s the truth. It was done in those eight minutes at the end of the first half.

Turning over the All Blacks is hard enough when you have your specialist 7 on the pitch. Next to impossible when you don't. McCaw spearheaded the Brilliant work at the breakdown for NZ.

The galling thing is that it was avoidable. Or, at least, part of it was avoidable. Julian Savea’s first try was an example of the All Blacks at their best, a try that saw them work Scotland to a standstill before breaking away down the left wing where Visser was isolated and alone and helpless in the face of Savea and a supporting runner just in case Visser made his tackle, which he did not.

Ok, he didn't make the tackle, not that it mattered.... not sure what he has to gain by sticking the knife in like that. Visser may not be a mountain in defence at the moment but it is something I think he can and will work on. Like I said, English does seem to be a glass half empty kind of guy.

Now the blunders came in waves. Scotland got the restart all wrong and two minutes after Savea’s try there was one for his opposite wing, Cory Jane, created on the altar of quick ruck ball, fast hands and a precise finish from Jane. This is what New Zealand do to you. A game can become a rout in the blink of an eye. One minute you are level on the scoreboard and the next time you look you are 17 points down as Scotland were after the Jane score.

Sure we make mistakes, we're Scotland, we normally do make mistakes. However now we seem to be scoring tries. We haven't done much or that recently. We are also the 1st team in nearly 2 years to make the All Blacks stand under the posts facing a conversion 3 times in one game.

All week, Robinson and his team stressed the need to reduce their error count to half-nothing. Instead, it multiplied. When they needed to be tight and focused they were ruinously loose. Andrew Hore’s try typified it. The fact that Jane wriggled out of trouble on the right wing was bad enough, but the sight of Hore brushing off Geoff Cross and spinning over was a cringe-making moment. Carter’s conversion made it 34-10 to New Zealand.

I wonder if Cross try equally made the NZ journalists cringe. Being a former prop myseld Hore's try and Cross' try can be really hard to stop, low body positon catching the tacklers high and it's cringeworthy?

What we’d heard from the home team was that this game was not going to be a repeat of the last time they faced New Zealand, that lessons had been learned from that wretched first half of 2010 when Scotland shipped 28 points. Now, there are new lessons to learn. Scotland conceded 34 points in the first 40 minutes yesterday and another 17 points in the second half, which could have been more had they needed them. For all Richie McCaw’s assertions that it was a tough game out there, the All Blacks had gears they never required to use on the day.

A repeat of two years ago, then. How Robinson will be praying that the similarities of the first game of that autumn series are repeated in the second, when South Africa return on Saturday."

This final 2 paragraphs points out what an pessimistic dick Tom English is. Sure we shipped some points to the All Blacks, most teams do. But we also put 3 tries past them and 22 points is normally enough to win most test matches. The game was nothing like a repeat of 2 years ago. 2 Years ago we didn't even look like scoring a try, yesterday we got 3.

We gave away 2 converted tries from restart, 14 points. The resulting Scrums gave possesion back to NZ and the ran us ragged in the phases that followed. Two 7 point gifts to the best team in the world. Take those 14 points away by cutting out the errors and all of a sudden it doesn't look so bad.

I know that's not how it works though, I have played rugby long enough to chew over all the Ifs and buts under the sun. However these are mistakes I'm happy for Scotland to make. Why? Because we showed intent. The short kicks had a purpose, and Sean Lamont showed what purpose they were when he took the ball at pace and crashed into the All blacks defence only to be called back for the Scrum. We did something very un Scottish like at the weekend. We played rugby against a SH team, instead of feeding off the scraps from their table and kicking the leather off the ball.

I for one am much happier than Tom English!

I'm happy to argue with some of it!

See my comments in BLUE above.

This defenitly falls into a glass half empty article. What a miserable sod!