Is there reason for Scottish optimism after week 1?

First topic message reminder :

The short answer is no

The longer answer is still no, but with reasons

While I have read quite a few comments and opinions on how we can take heart that we have better players, more dangerous attack runners or that we have some players who are playing very well – I think these are all papering over the cracks and in essence are almost irrelevant.
This weekends game was a MASSIVE step back for me. I think it is the worst performance I have seen from a Scottish side in 10 years. I have never seen us so poor, with so little ball, with no defence or attack plan and players not competing across the park.

You think I am harsh – well maybe, but answer me this. While in the last 6 nations we got the wooden spoon – BUT did we dominated possession and territory in most games, but could not convert. The answer is yes/

We had a structure to win and keep the ball, but were just lacking a cutting edge to exploit that.
Roll on one year and we hardly touched the ball. The score flattered us enormously, we got 2 break away tries against the entire run of play. England could have put 80 on us, with the amount of possession, missed tackles and line breaks they had.

Scotland did not compete at the break down, did not pressure the runners, did not tackle and looked headless in a scramble to save their blushes. These are all steps back imo. One would be understandable, but all 3 is indefensible.

Looking at the weekend matches I can only see a wooden spoon for us, as if we play like that again Italy will beat us by 20 points, Ireland and Wales by 30 points and even a mis-firing France will put 20 on us.

Week one and I am down. Week one and I am accepting. Week one and the realisation has been ful-filled
The last 10 years have not been a blip, wooden spoons have been deserved, sliding down the rankings are a true reflection and the world cup failure a normality to be accepted.

This will not be a popular opinion I know, but unless we change everything, I feel we are in for a horrible 6 nations again. This time there is no second chances, no the ref robbed u, no how unlucky we were, or no how we could of / should of won.

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Well if we can compete at the break down, select the best players in their position (no Brown at 7 or Lamont at 13) and if we can get the run of the green, we may beat Italy – but the rest – sorry not a hope in Rose street


PS I feel better for that vent :-)

beshocked wrote:Riskysports I am saying you shouldn't be so hard on the side for losing to England away from home.

I can understand anger for the lack of wins for Scotland but you need to look at it realistically.



Scotland have 3 home games and should be looking to win them all. That's a realistic target.

Lose to Italy at home and I can understand you would be very angry

the anger is because they did not play to their potential and let themselves get bullied off the ball. Why they did not compete at the breakdown I do not know but they didn't.

Not really.Scotland are like my Region,the Dragons.We huff and puff.We compete.We look good in patches but we usually fall short.Deeply frustrating for the fans!

Taffineastbourne wrote:Not really.Scotland are like my Region,the Dragons.We huff and puff.We compete.We look good in patches but we usually fall short.Deeply frustrating for the fans!

I disagree we have great players that can compete with the best unfortunately in a lot of positions, i.e prop or centre, we have no depth and after the first choice is injured and also the insistence of our coaches to play Jackson who claims to be a 10 but can't kick or control a game, Weir on the other hand can do both and can pass nearly as well.

When did weir last play a a whole game well? Early last year IIRC.
I don't know why he is so out of favour but he is

The knee injury set him back 6 weeks and with the Heineken intervening, there was never really a good time to get matches under his belt.

Which means he cannot be first choice for the national team now

123456789 wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Not really.Scotland are like my Region,the Dragons.We huff and puff.We compete.We look good in patches but we usually fall short.Deeply frustrating for the fans!

I disagree we have great players that can compete with the best unfortunately in a lot of positions, i.e prop or centre, we have no depth and after the first choice is injured and also the insistence of our coaches to play Jackson who claims to be a 10 but can't kick or control a game, Weir on the other hand can do both and can pass nearly as well.

Who are our "great" players?

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Riskysports I am saying you shouldn't be so hard on the side for losing to England away from home.

I can understand anger for the lack of wins for Scotland but you need to look at it realistically.



Scotland have 3 home games and should be looking to win them all. That's a realistic target.

Lose to Italy at home and I can understand you would be very angry

the anger is because they did not play to their potential and let themselves get bullied off the ball. Why they did not compete at the breakdown I do not know but they didn't.

Unfortunately I think a lot of Scottish fans think their players are better than they are. Consequently you have too high expectations.

Beshocked - that may be true, but I think what frustrates us is the lack of a good game plan and basis mistakes that any professional should not be making

Added to that players out of positions

Can anyone answer me why Brown is still at 7??????

Riskysports wrote:Beshocked - that may be true, but I think what frustrates us is the lack of a good game plan and basis mistakes that any professional should not be making

Added to that players out of positions

Can anyone answer me why Brown is still at 7??????

Can you tell me who else you'd play at 7, bearing in mind that none of our specialist opensides are fit or on form?

There's a view that can be taken about whether Harley could have managed 7 given his recent gametime there for Glasgow.

It's entirely a matter of opinion whether you give the job to the most versatile footballer (Brown) or the person who (on balance) is least likely to be effective at 6 (Harley).

Riskysports I can understand that. Scotland didn't seem to have much of a gameplan on saturday except heavily rely maitland and hogg to do something. To be fair to them they scored 2 tries but it's not enough.

A good coach gets the best out of his players. I think some of your pack don't do the hard graft which lets the whole team down.

Look at Wales with Howley compared to Gatland.

Understanding what the coach is trying to do with the team is important.

According to the Independent, Brown and Harley have licence to swap the 7 duties about between them. It may be that we are looking at a left and right situation here, rather than classic blind and openside flankers.

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Riskysports I am saying you shouldn't be so hard on the side for losing to England away from home.

I can understand anger for the lack of wins for Scotland but you need to look at it realistically.



Scotland have 3 home games and should be looking to win them all. That's a realistic target.

Lose to Italy at home and I can understand you would be very angry

the anger is because they did not play to their potential and let themselves get bullied off the ball. Why they did not compete at the breakdown I do not know but they didn't.

Unfortunately I think a lot of Scottish fans think their players are better than they are. Consequently you have too high expectations.

In this game they simply did not hit the rucks hard enough or in enough numbers to secure their own ball / disrupt England ball. I don't know why this happened but time and time again a forward would arrive at a ruck but not contest for the ball even when it was winnable. Gray got to a lot of rucks but did nothing, others never even made it there. Its not the players are poor - as individuals there are some good players. Its that they do not play as a team.

123456789 wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Not really.Scotland are like my Region,the Dragons.We huff and puff.We compete.We look good in patches but we usually fall short.Deeply frustrating for the fans!

I disagree we have great players that can compete with the best unfortunately in a lot of positions, i.e prop or centre, we have no depth and after the first choice is injured and also the insistence of our coaches to play Jackson who claims to be a 10 but can't kick or control a game, Weir on the other hand can do both and can pass nearly as well.

Numbahs, this is Radge! How can you say Weir can control a game? He hasn't done that since the Saxons last year! He has been 2nd best at Glasgow all year long.

Jackson had a reallty tough time against England, the last time England played like that they made Carter look like he can't control a game either.

Now I am in no way comparing Jackson to Carter, but at least give him a chance at home against a team the won't defend so ferociously!

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:Riskysports I am saying you shouldn't be so hard on the side for losing to England away from home.

I can understand anger for the lack of wins for Scotland but you need to look at it realistically.



Scotland have 3 home games and should be looking to win them all. That's a realistic target.

Lose to Italy at home and I can understand you would be very angry

the anger is because they did not play to their potential and let themselves get bullied off the ball. Why they did not compete at the breakdown I do not know but they didn't.

Unfortunately I think a lot of Scottish fans think their players are better than they are. Consequently you have too high expectations.

In this game they simply did not hit the rucks hard enough or in enough numbers to secure their own ball / disrupt England ball. I don't know why this happened but time and time again a forward would arrive at a ruck but not contest for the ball even when it was winnable. Gray got to a lot of rucks but did nothing, others never even made it there. Its not the players are poor - as individuals there are some good players. Its that they do not play as a team.

True. I remember for the first England try Farrell basically barging Gray out of the way in a ruck.

If they do not play as a team surely it's down to the coaches?

I certainly think previous and club coaches carry a lot of blame for this. I think its rather unfair to blame Johnson as he has so little time and in a many ways they did play with more heart and cohesion in this game than in some recent games. Unless of course it was Johnsons instructions not to commit too many men to rucks that caused this??????

I really don't think the issue was tactics on this occasion, or any pre-determined strategy regarding rucks. The issue was one of selection, and the imbalance in the pack.

Johnson could have told the players anything, fact is that England had control of the contact area and accordingly the game because the Scottish pack wasn't mobile enough and didn't contain enough contact area focused players.

Scotland's tighthead, hooker and lock enforcer were Murray, Hall and Hamilton respectively. Compare them to Cole, Youngs and Launchbury.

Scotland blindside was Denton, England's was Wood.

The difference in workrate and mobility in those comparisons is staggering. On a rainy day in boggy and wet conditions then Scotland may have had something, but on a dry, cold and fast pitch, there was no comparison to be made.

It was the team selection that was wrong. Scotland needed more mobility and workrate in that pack. MacArthur and Swinson should have started. We'd still have lost, but the contact area would have at least been a contest.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I really don't think the issue was tactics on this occasion, or any pre-determined strategy regarding rucks. The issue was one of selection, and the imbalance in the pack.

Johnson could have told the players anything, fact is that England had control of the contact area and accordingly the game because the Scottish pack wasn't mobile enough and didn't contain enough contact area focused players.

Scotland's tighthead, hooker and lock enforcer were Murray, Hall and Hamilton respectively. Compare them to Cole, Youngs and Launchbury.

Scotland blindside was Denton, England's was Wood.

The difference in workrate and mobility in those comparisons is staggering. On a rainy day in boggy and wet conditions then Scotland may have had something, but on a dry, cold and fast pitch, there was no comparison to be made.

It was the team selection that was wrong. Scotland needed more mobility and workrate in that pack. MacArthur and Swinson should have started. We'd still have lost, but the contact area would have at least been a contest.

I agree with FES on this one.

Our problem entirely lay with the pack. I cannot for the life of me understand how Hamilton keeps getting selected. In regards to Murray, definitely best of a bad bunch, but I feel like Cross contributes more in the loose and seems to have a better attitude. Hall, well I don't ever know what to make of him, he's OKAY but no worldbeater.

I hope that Harley will strengthen us at the breakdown this weekend, his selection has been a long time coming and he's good at doing the silent unseen work, like Brown.

It's a shame they're keeping Brown at 6 though, surely as Harley has played at 7 a lot of this season he should be starting there!

One thing I noticed against England was that our backs were getting involved with rucks more than our forwards. When your fly half has to be the one to create a turnover opportunity you know somethings wrong!