Buildup: Scotland vs South Africa

First topic message reminder :

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

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

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!

Tom English's comments symptomatic of the problems Scottish sport has from journalist to coaches to parents to spectators.

Growing up the Kiwi's (or the Spanish in football) are encouraged to try things like off loads or letting forwards get involved in backline moves (or short smart passing re football). We get criticism when we try to play and revert to type back to type when something doesn't work by playing 'give it to the big kid to bosh' rugby (or hoof it up field re football).

During the Arg vs AB Rugby Championship match Justin Marshall applauded what the Argentineans were trying to do - they lost by a huge margin.

Biltong wrote:
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.

To be honest this is a crucial game for us and whilst Robinson can't select a team to save his life he is normally tactically astute and will most probably play a game plan which is most likely to win

Ford needs to be dropped. He needs to know he is not untouchable and he needs to rediscover his best form and his hunger for the game. I still think Rhubarb should be playing ahead of Laidlaw at the moment although laidlaw had a better game than he has for a while and I am a big laidlaw fanin general but hs has been woefully out of form.

why does Robinson pick not on form now but form 6 months ago?

IMO the defensive concerns seemed as much tactical as error caused. For starters, we were commiting a lot of guys to the rucks at times, leaving us a man down in the wide channels where we got exposed. Aggression at the breakdown was absolutely the right tactic yesterday, just a bit more nous at choosing when to commit and when to bolster the defensive line. If wed had that right, Savea's two tries and Cory Janes try wouldnt have panned out the way they did (they probably wouldve scored in a different way). Its a fine line between being too passive at the breakdown giving enough guys in the line, and being too aggresive and leaving yourselves exposed. With a new defensive coach, I cant say that im surprised it didnt work.

The other problem was the passiveness in the defensive line. If youre going to operate a drift defence, it has to be quicker out the blocks, and you cant stand off the attackers for so long. It put Lamont, Visser and Hogg under far too much pressure. NZ got far too much time on the ball because we allowed them it. What really surprised me was that De Luca was part of this passive defence. Hes normally the defensive leader in the centres and loves a good blitz to starve the wingers of the ball. Tactics? Certainly appeared so.

Either one of these issues can occur and not be too much of a problem, but with both at the same time, any team worth their salt was going to expose it.

Am I worried? Not really. As we know, its a new defensive coach, new system, it will take a couple of matches to get everyone on the right page. Look at the start of Glasgows season, poor defending all over the place, but once they got a couple of games under their belt, it started to click. I expect an improvement next week.

On a side note, Gilchrist and Seymour seemed to be sitting with the subs in that RBS pic of everyone in the stadium. Would suggest they were the reserves.

TJ wrote:

why does Robinson pick not on form now but form 6 months ago?

Because purely on current form would involve far too many debutants, and it wouldve been lambs to the slaughter. But more of a compromise couldve been reached.

Imperialbigdave wrote:

TJ wrote:

why does Robinson pick not on form now but form 6 months ago?

Because purely on current form would involve far too many debutants, and it wouldve been lambs to the slaughter. But more of a compromise couldve been reached.

Jackson whilst a player (probably) of less potential than laidlaw has been in the form of his life while laidlaw looks well out of sorts. Jackson should have played and laidlaw should be away to get his game together

cp10 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

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!

Tom English's comments symptomatic of the problems Scottish sport has from journalist to coaches to parents to spectators.

Growing up the Kiwi's (or the Spanish in football) are encouraged to try things like off loads or letting forwards get involved in backline moves (or short smart passing re football). We get criticism when we try to play and revert to type back to type when something doesn't work by playing 'give it to the big kid to bosh' rugby (or hoof it up field re football).

During the Arg vs AB Rugby Championship match Justin Marshall applauded what the Argentineans were trying to do - they lost by a huge margin.

CP10 and Radge - completely understand your points.

I think I should clarify what I meant which was that I completely understand English's disappointment over the fact that what we knew should have been a strength of our game based on recent performances (our defence) actually turned out to be an uncharacteristic disappointment.

I agree that for Scotland, there should be nothing but encouragement for our young backline. We scored 3 tries against the Blackness and against weaker teams (i.e. everyone else in the world game) we will score more.

I utterly hate the 'ye shall not' school of journalism and school of life generally. No reason to accept mediocrity in any aspect of sporting or culrutal life. You can change it yourself. One of the reasons I moved out here, actually...

I don't expect any changes other than those forced through injury, in which case Denton starts and Barclay benches and Murray comes onto the bench in place of Traynor. Don't forget this is Robbo we're talking about.

Team to play SA

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

9 Blair
10 Laidlaw
11 Visser
12 Scott
13 De Luca
14 SLamont
15 Hogg

16 Lawson
17 Chunk
18 Murray
19 Kellock
20 Barclay
21 Pyrgos
22 Jackson
23 Evans

Aye Scot Abroad

that is what will happen with BBE !

Would rather Lawson for Ford, Kellock for Hamilton, my mum for de Luca - she can tackle better than Ford too tbh - problem is she is England qualified too but I think would just get there on residency grounds !- Murray for Cross and Seymour for Schlong who looked out of sorts on Sunday - daft erse scrum cap probably did it,

1.Grant
2.Ford
3.Murray
4.Gray
5.Kellock
6.Brown
7.Strockosh
8.Denton
9.Blair
10.Laidlaw or Jackson
11.Visser
12.Scott
13.Dunbar
14.Seymour or S Lamont
15.Hogg

Right, everybody stop - what is this playing blindsides at openside nonsense?!?! It was forced on us on Sunday cos of the bench selection, but to start a match lop-sided like that? Come on tae grips!!

I don't see the need to play our, admittedly versatile, back row out of position. I'd prefer to see Barclay at 7 with Brown back at 6. Barclay's been getting better for Glasgow and the competition between him and Fusaro is healthy.

Would keep Ford in despite his gash throwing. Euan Murray should start. What sticks in my mind about Cross' performance isn't his try (well taken though it was) but his attempted tackle on Hore prior to his try. Would have him on the bench.

I don't think there's any need to change out De Luca. Dunbar wouldn't have made any difference. It would be good for Dunbar to get a run out though so would be tempted to put him on the bench. With a replacement centre on the bench we could then put Seymour on the wing instead of Lamont.

I wonder if Kellock would provide any sort of tonic to Ford's inability to throw? If so, get Al on instead of big Jim.

RDW or Biltong I'm nominating you to start a proper build up match thread.

bsando wrote:1.Grant
2.Ford
3.Murray
4.Gray
5.Kellock
6.Brown
7.Strockosh
8.Denton
9.Blair
10.Laidlaw or Jackson
11.Visser
12.Scott
13.Dunbar
14.Seymour or S Lamont
15.Hogg

Aye take that with Barclay for Stroker at 7 - and Stroker as an impact replacement. Unlikely BBE will drop Ford so we may as well get used to him playing and throwing with his eyes shut as per ....

Getting a bit sick of the criticism being hurled down on Ford.

Like I have already said, Ford only threw one line out squint, the rest were disrupted by 2 world class locks. Another line out throw was dropped by Hamilton.

He missed a couple of tackles, fair enough. He should have nailed Weepu, but being stepped by Dan Carter when he was playing some of the best rugby I have ever witnessed is nothing to be ashamed of.

He's the best we've got Schiz. Deal with it

Ford is also vice captain - no way he'll be dropped.

We need his bulk badly against a pack of Saffer monsters.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:RDW or Biltong I'm nominating you to start a proper build up match thread.

What's wrong with this one?

Biltong wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:RDW or Biltong I'm nominating you to start a proper build up match thread.

What's wrong with this one?

I dunno.... nothing I guess!

I will change the heading to make it more "right"

When are the lienups anounced???

I would expect South Africa's tomorrow.

I know Lambie will play at 10, Jean de Villiers is touted to be rested. Taute is said to be selected at 15 possibly and Juan de Jongh will be in the starting line up.

Our front row is likely to have a totally new look with Beast possibly replaced by either Gurthro Steenkamp or Heinke v d Merwe and Jannie had an ankle injury, so it isn't clear what his situation is yet

SA's situation is getting worse and worse, do the Scots fancy this one? Ive never seen an SA (or Aus) side look so beatable, even though Irelands record againat them in recent times are good and they were beat.

I can't decide if Scotland stand a chance or not, and need to put money somewhere!!!

Well consider the following.

If everyone was available. (Bolded the replacements)

1. Beast Mtwarira - Steenkamp, v d Merwe
2. Bismarck du Plessis - Adriaan STrauss
3. Jannie du Plessis - CJ v d Linde
4. Eben Etzebeth
5. Andries Bekker - Juandre Kruger
6. Schalk Burger - Frans Louw
7. Willem Alberts
8. Pierre SPies - Duane Vermeulen
9. Ruan Pienaar
10. Johan Goosen - Patrick Lambie
11. Bryan Habana- Francois Hougaard
12. Frans Steyn - Juan de Jongh
13. Jean de Villiers - Taute
14. JP Pietersen
15. Zane Kirchner

So you are looking at roughly ten selection changes. ALthough I will suggest that Strauss for Bismarck, Lambie for Goosen are not weakening the team. The real problem comes into the bench, as these guys in bold will usually be your impact players, now the bench isn't nearly as strong.

I think the injuries will really effect South Africa. Losing the Beast is bad enough but from my limited Knowlege of SA rugby I would have anticpated Burger, Spies and Brussow to be 1st choice back rowers and they are missing Habana.

South Africa played a very direct and physical game against Ireland and it served them well. Scotland seem to deal better with that sort of rugby, hence we don't ship many points to England, Italy or South Africa in terms of tries. However we struggle to contain the French, Welsh and NZ who play with a lot more guile and flair.

South Africa is a monstrous test and I take confidence from the fact when we last met we had a considerably poorer team and still won the match. Now we have a better team as evidenced in the Summer and Sunday and South Africa look a lot weaker than when we last met.

In short I think we can beat this South Africa side. However we will need to match them in intensity and in the contact area and cut out the defencive mistakes.

Someone mentioned the Apocalypse when strange things are happening, like Scotland scoring 3 tries against the All blacks etc etc etcs. Well here is another strange thing I'm about to wish for, I hope it's a dry and sunny day so we can attack South Africa the way we attacked NZ.


An optimistic prediction of Scotland by 7.

Ruggerradge, I think scotland's strength against SA has always been by playing negative rugby, if they decide to open the match up it will be to our advantage.

Sorry Rugger but I think my moneys on SA by 3-5. I hope I'm wrong in this one though and your right

Scotland do have a chance in this one. We should be better than against the allblacks and we have shown the potential to score now that has been lacking. We do need to improve or defence tho.

In recent games scotland have got parts of the game right and parts wrong. hopefully this time we get it all right and play to our potential and thus should be in with a shout.

Agree with Biltong - our wins against the big teams have come from up the jumper stuff and kicking penalties, not flowing running rugby!

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a positive outlook and back ourselves if it is on, but we shouldn't suddenly try and play 7s against them.

I think negative rugby thoough plays into the Bok's strengths and that pack could strangle us to death like you did to Ireland on Saturday.

I really hope we try to cut loose and throw the ball around a bit.

The perfect blend for Scotland would be Glasgow's steely defense and powerful forwards and Edinburgh's flair in attack. Blend the 2 best aspects of the pro teams and that's the way I would like to see Scotland play

Dry conditions and a more open game will suit us against Scotland.

If you look at the last match, it was cold and miserable, Scotland kicked 7 out of 7 kicks, SA only 4 out of 7, Scotland murdered the breakdown and slowed the ball down, although we managed to score one try, we couldn't get going.

We don't like Scottish conditions, we always struggle there, in contrast to our warmer climate and harder fields, the last decent perfromance we put in at Murrayfield was in 2004 where we managed to score 5 tries, ever since then it has been close matches in unfamiliar conditions.

This a new generation Scotland tho - a pack that can go toe to toe with anyone and fliers in the backs. ( assuming decent selection)

We need to get the platform first for sure and expand later but our strengths are in the mobility speed and fitness of the team thus we need to move SA around the park to utilise this - then as the boks tire let the fliers loose.

So its a fine balance but I want to see high tempo rugby but not harum scarum!

the spread bet wil be bok by 10 I guess - but it is no means outside Scotlands reach and its a win we really really need

Why does everyone think we tire. It is again one of those myths that has no substantial proof.

Tad unfair on Scotland BB.

If we played without care and attention sure we will get beat by many teams as in the past we didn't have the skills to match others.

However this new Scotland team Robinson is developing has potential in it, one to score tries again... (the very thought huh).

We haven't had a playmaker since Gregor Townsend... some 12 years so have been making do without one... which has caused a significant drop in our try rate... but Laidlaw looks promising so fingers crossed.

I don't think anyone in SA can say the current boks are playing attractive rugby though.... not given the first choice attacking move is still the "Garry Owen" under Meyer, as it was with PDV. But you don't hear many in SA complaining whilst their winning.... who cares what others think?

I wouldn't say this is a new generation, there are some players who are struggling in the pack, Cross is a pen machine at the scrum (rightly or wrongly)

I hope the Scots open up, with both backlines showing great promise but leaky leaky it'll be great as a neutral.

I don't think anyone gives Robinson enough credit for the SH results though, he makes subtle changes in style of play that seem to pay off every time.

On paper if Scotland keep it tight theyre outmuscled, if they open up theyre outplayed, I think their best bet is to keep it tighter spoil the breakdown with specialist back row and use Hoggs huge boot for position, never throw the ball around unless a scoring opportunity is on. Laidlaw will have to hit his shots at goal though!!!

RDW_Scotland wrote:Agree with Biltong - our wins against the big teams have come from up the jumper stuff and kicking penalties, not flowing running rugby!

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a positive outlook and back ourselves if it is on, but we shouldn't suddenly try and play 7s against them.

Look to the future guys! THE FUTURE!

We had to play up the jumper stuff in the past! Bare in mind we had Desperate Dan at 10 and either Lamont or Morrison at 12 with Danielli, Southwell and Walker in the back 3!

Do you really want to see Visser, Hogg and Maitland freezing their nuts off on the touchlines while our forwards try and batter the opposition into submission?

We now have the bones of a team that can play an attacking rugby and when we did attack NZ we looked dangerous. Look at the 6N stats! Scotland made the mostline breaks of any of the other teams. The only thing we lacked was finishers. Not any more.

THE FUTURE GUYS!

hmm, have to agree on the tire front with you BB.

The boks getting tired? Unlikely.

Most teams tire against the ABs because they spend 60mins of the match without the ball.

Whichever team dominates possession will be the most fresh come the final quarter of the match... and the boks dominate possession against most teams.

On the evidence of this season (in comparison to last), I'm afraid to say that I don't want to see any of Embra's attacking guile (lack of?) - the slick offloading game with go-forward from loose forwards is severely lacking

Biltong wrote:Why does everyone think we tire. It is again one of those myths that has no substantial proof.

the point is that if Scotland play a high tempo game and move it around the park a lot we can tire the boks out. Scotland are faster than many teams and if the boks are made to chase shadows all game they will get tired. Its about Scotland playing to their strengths which include mobility speed and fitnesss

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

THE FUTURE GUYS!

:applause:

Indeed. we have the speedy elusive backs - use them!

Scotland - mobile, speedy and quick??? Lets hope they think so, I'll enjoy the try fest then!!!

thebluesman - they are. anyone who watches these players week in and out knows that.

I have seen Gray catch an opposition winger having given him 3 yards start, I have seen Visser take 3 yards out of a international winger over 40 yards. etc etc

Visser certainly had the number of Jane for his try the other week.. at least I think it was Jane?

Had close 3-5 metres to make up on him but in the end ended up the same distance in front come the try line. The boy got some wheels... very impressed by him... I think he'd walk into most teams in the world at the moment... we're very lucky to have him. Could easily star for the Lions... I'd put him in over North easy.

But pace has very little to do with spreading the ball and tiring teams.. its more to do with distribution, forcing teams to make lots of tackles and all over the park.

Scotland - mobile, speedy and quick???

Visser, Hogg, Gray, Denton, Barclay, Laidlaw, Scott - mobile, speedy and quick.

I don't think that Laidlaw and Scott are speedy and quick in comparison to their international peers. They are both capable of doing other things right, but pace isn't a key attribute in either player imo

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:I don't think that Laidlaw and Scott are speedy and quick in comparison to their international peers. They are both capable of doing other things right, but pace isn't a key attribute in either player imo

True, but they are mobil, speedy and quick compared to their immediate predecessors - Parks and Morrison!

I'm not saying Gray isn't quick (not exactly a primary attribute for a lock) or that Visser isn't sharp, but in general the Scotland team isn't quick, Deluca is accident prone, Hogg agile and can accelerate but top speed needs work, Lamont...?

You can also be as quick as you like but it's not your feet that does the damage when spreading ball and trying to tire teams, also I think the days of tiring teams by going touchline to touchline are all but gone, too highly conditioned for that these days, it's more posession, the wrestle and tackles that tire teams.

FA

It was Jane, he went past at a rate of knots, but when you get caught out of position and miss tackles like he also did you have to work on other attributes. I'd say at present Norths defence keeps him a touch ahead of Visser.

Sensible

I'm speedy and quick compared to Parks, and I'm a lock!!!!

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote:Why does everyone think we tire. It is again one of those myths that has no substantial proof.

the point is that if Scotland play a high tempo game and move it around the park a lot we can tire the boks out. Scotland are faster than many teams and if the boks are made to chase shadows all game they will get tired. Its about Scotland playing to their strengths which include mobility speed and fitnesss

TJ, that has been the theory about the Boks for some time now. In the 10 test matches we have played ths year, we conceded 15 tries, only 3 of those tries were scored in the last quarter of the match, Australia did it twice and England did it once. Only once the win of 26-19 of the wallabes in Perth did the try make a difference to the result. The English try and the try Australia scored in SA, was both scored in the 80th minute with both games done and dustd already.

The all Blacks for their skill and fitness have not scored a try in the last quarter in either of ther matches.

So you fitness thing is wishfull thinking.

Biltong - my point is not that SA are unfit or less fit than Scotland but Scotland have the ability to move them around the park enough to tire them. although if the ABs can't do it then its a tall order. We did have the ABs looking tired towards the end - although scotland were as well.

Of course there is plan B

Don't feed Chunk before hand and send him out in the second half after telling him that the boks forwards have got pies hidden about their persons. They won't know whats hit them.