Scotland - still in decline

Having watched 4 games in this 6 Nations I am staggered by my countrymen and their opinion we have gone forward. This year I feel has been the worst set of performances I can ever remember the Scotland team playing

Yes we won 2 matches and scored a couple of tries. But I am afraid to say they were flukes. Yes I said it. Italy were all over us, and if not for complete break away, against the run of play tries, and their butchering easy chances, they would have and should have beaten us.

Ireland - well we all know we had no right to win that one. Not one line break! 27% possession, their kickers all over the place, more butchering easy 2 on ones and generally us looking as likely to score a try in 1,000 mins of play, yet a pinched result
I will take these wins and have a slight warm glow not picking up a wooden spoon - but that is it.

These fluky wins should have allowed us to shake the shackles off and give it a go. But each game we get worst - what is wrong in our teams heads, why are they afraid to go for it?

Last year, we had a dominate set of forwards, but could not use the backs. We competed the breakdown, got turnovers, looked dangerous but failed to finish off chances. This year. Nothing. Zero denada.

We keep talking about scoring tries - well last year we scored some tries in the first 2 games, then none after - see a pattern.

As a comparison, would like to show the main areas 2012 vs 2013

Scrum - About even as last year, won some, lost some, no real dominance - some good games
Breakdown - 2012 the winner - 2013 not even come to the party
Line out - 2012 - we were a menace last year but only one game this year been very strong
Turnovers 2012 - Rennie and Barclay managed loads last year - how we miss them
Line breaks 2012 - have any occurred this year? 2012 we made loads but failed to finish them off
Tries - 2013 - more tries, but hardly any of them constructed, all break aways or mistakes
Defence - 2012 - Our mi filed has been a revolving door for runners in 2013. Some good scramble defence, but anyone that says our defence has been good should look again
Tactics - 2012 - we had some in 2012 - more than just boot the ball away
Team selection - draw - both coaches playing players out of position - Brown and Lamot namely
Dangerous backs - draw - if we do not bother to keep the ball how are they dangerous - in potential maybe


I asked the question were Scotland was a few games ago, and the evidence seem clear - still going backwards at a rate of knots (compared to other teams) and unless we really sort out our tactics, I fear for our future

Yours

a very down Scotsman

We are so much better than last year and the year before it is not true!

We have got rid of Robinson and his useless selection and tactics, we have brought in young exciting backs and some new forwards.

If it hadn't been for useless Robinson then many of the new players would have had another half dozen caps and this would be settling down into a usefull team. If it had't been for the stupidity of the SRU Robinson would have gone a year ago and we would have a settled coaching setup.

Just remeber back to last yeas Calcutta cup match

Work in progress, improvements obvious, weaknesses to be worked on. on the up and up.

Compare this team - 2012 calcutta cup match
Rory Lamont
Lee Jones:
Nick De Luca:
Sean Lamont:
Max Evans:
Dan Parks:
Chris Cusiter:
Allan Jacobsen:
Ross Ford:
Euan Murray:
Richie Gray:
Jim Hamilton:.
Al Strokosch
Ross Rennie:
Dave Denton:
Andy Robinson: We played an England in disarray and with a new coach and scratch team - and were given a lesson. Heads went down. morale collapsed.

This year we have so much more to offer especially int eh backs - its a shame about the wasted year that represents Robinsons last year in charge.

hm I'd say wait and see.

I don't think many of our boys will be going on the lions tour, which will be good for us, although we're still shaking off these old demons, ie certain players who have overstayed their welcome/aren't actually that good. Kind of like England a year ago.

A change of tactics is needed, we do need to play more with ball in hand, I was surprised at the amount of ball kicked away at the half way line. We have a good opportunity to let loose against France, I hope the players realise this and just take it. THEN perhaps we'll start seeing a change in the way they play.

Additionally I think this loss was a good thing, they've got to realise that these tactics are wrong, and nothing punctuates that like a loss. It's fine to have less possession as long as you actually use the possession you have.

We have better backs than we've had in the last decade, and I think more potential. It's early days for a number of these players, but I think it's justified to feel more positive and in the last three 6 Nations tournaments.

I do agree with the gist though that whilst two wins (assuming we lose to France) is an advance on paper, we are yet to see any real or tangible improvement in the level of performance as a collective. Team selection has improved, and generally speaking the right individuals are in the team, and there have been some nice individual moments to enjoy, but the Matt Scott try against Italy apart, there have been very few "team moments", other than a stern defensive effort (in pacthes) both yesterday and against Ireland.

Would you like Johnson to stay guys? After Saturdays game I think Scotland have a similar problem as us with creativity. Maybe somebody at centre? Glasgow must have someone, they're flying at the moment. Is it Bennett? Weir may develop that in time?

sheephead wrote:Would you like Johnson to stay guys? After Saturdays game I think Scotland have a similar problem as us with creativity. Maybe somebody at centre? Glasgow must have someone, they're flying at the moment. Is it Bennett? Weir may develop that in time?

I'm not sure that's necessarily the problem, it's more confidence with the ball. We seem more keen to get rid of it than trying to score points. This is fine if our set piece is functioning and we're not giving away a penalty a minute. I think Scotland have a lack of flexibility. So I guess you could say they're not creative but I'd say its more to do with gameplan, they've got to play what's in front of them. We see glimpses of that but the players don't have the confidence to pull it off, it seems.

sheephead wrote:Would you like Johnson to stay guys? After Saturdays game I think Scotland have a similar problem as us with creativity. Maybe somebody at centre? Glasgow must have someone, they're flying at the moment. Is it Bennett? Weir may develop that in time?

To early to say. We are not blessed with choices, so I would be happy to give him another year. In that time there are a few things that I would need to see before I would like them to stay

Development - of young players and tactics - if it is not working - look to improve over time -
Form players - Yes, these should be brought in. Not whole sale, but certainly a plan to phase in players and drop players who are out of form - with the understanding they can fight to get back in
Positions - play the players in their position.
heads up rugby - have a structure that allows us to play to our strengths, but develops heads up rugby
Paths to success - have a path to success in the future - or at least a direction. Too often seem to be playing one game at a time and no thought to the future

Wins - Yes we want wins and expect them, but that should not be the first goal straight off. Time to develop the above and the wins will come. I would rather lose and have clear development than win flukes and know that we are in for a dark age again

I actually think in this 6 Nations the team selections have been pretty good by and large.

The tactics have been conservative certainly, and I think that's where my biggest issue with this coaching team would be. Too much kicking (or rather too many of the same types of kicks), and not enough trust given to the backs.

Apart from the first match, we've competed strongly in the other three matches, winning two of them. The frustration I have is that I think we can be better, and judging by the players after the Wales game, they know it as well. In a way that's encouraging.

In terms of SJ and Ryan - Ryan has stated that he wants out at the end of the 6 Nations, so we may have no choice there. I think the whole coaching panel should be reviewed thoroughly, so that the solution we put in place is the right team, rather than the right man. SJ strikes me as a decent enough bloke, and a good man under pressure. But I'm not convinced by the technical side of the forwards coaching in this tournament, and I think the tactics have erred too much on the side of caution. The SRU needs to conduct a thorough search of who is available, and make sure that we don't settle for second best. Were SJ to simply be parachuted into a long-term contract just because we won two matches and he's available, I wouldn't be satified that the correct approach had been followed.

First it has been good to see us win a couple of games by taking the limited chances that have come our way and some good defence. However apart from the Italy game which was quite open we just don't seem to get enough quality ball to give any platform for attacking rugby. In the last two matches most of the ball we have won from scrums and lineouts has been well into our own half. Therefore rather than make mistakes we have kicked. I can see the logic in that.
The lineout and scrum (penalties apart) have not been too bad for getting possesion but given field position the options are limited. In the rucks and mauls though, again apart from the Italy game, we appear to be getting totally outplayed. We get very few turnovers but seem to be turned over frequently. I won't claim to have any understanding of how these are refereed but it definitely seems that most of the other teams know how to play them better (our problem not the oppositions).

I can't see us improving much unless we can sort this out and start winning more quality ball from the rucks/mauls with the result that we get possession in better areas of the pitch which would hopefully allow the backs to get room to play in.

I definitely think that we are losing out by not having a top level Scottish referee. I would imagine other nations use their International referees to get some insight into how it all works and what the refs are looking for. A 'spy in the camp' would definitely resolve some issues.

I wonder what would happen if the coaches said one day..."tell you what, forget our tactics for the match, just play what's in front of you. Make your own decisions."

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:I definitely think that we are losing out by not having a top level Scottish referee. I would imagine other nations use their International referees to get some insight into how it all works and what the refs are looking for. A 'spy in the camp' would definitely resolve some issues.

I wonder what would happen if the coaches said one day..."tell you what, forget our tactics for the match, just play what the 606v2 posters say. Play the tactics they come up with, whatever"

Now that could be interesting

Riskysports wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:I definitely think that we are losing out by not having a top level Scottish referee. I would imagine other nations use their International referees to get some insight into how it all works and what the refs are looking for. A 'spy in the camp' would definitely resolve some issues.

I wonder what would happen if the coaches said one day..."tell you what, forget our tactics for the match, just play what the 606v2 posters say. Play the tactics they come up with, whatever"

Now that could be interesting

More likely extremely confusing!!

I still don't understand why so many Scottish posters on here hate andy Robinson so much. Yes, he did make a few selection blunders and yes he should not have asked parks back for the Calcutta cup match last year. But he is a big reason why Scotland are not knocking the ball on every second phase of play and have more confidence as a team. He scraped the dog turd from Scotland's boots.mthat crap had been lingering there for years, from all the awful coaches and lack of quality players throughout the noughties. He got Scotland into positions where they could score trys and win games, he tried several different game plans out and got the best out of lplayers who would never make it into other teams starting xv. Just saying, I think he deserves some credit for his efforts.

I am 50/50 on Scotland's current form. Risky I think you're perhaps a tad harsh. Yes there were a few jammy elements during the Italy game. But Scotland when they had possession and tried some running rugby looked very dangerous at times. Scott missed out on a hatrick, and creativity was good. Scotland still looked scrappy but that game was essentially won in the first half, something Scotland had not done for a long bloody time.

At the moment the balance is not right though. It came close to right vs Italy but Scotland need to compete better at the breakdown. Johnson needs to acknowledge that they can't commit so few numbers to the rucks against France this weekend. They also can't kick the ball away every time they get it. Johnson needs to be brave and say, "okay, we're going to try and be the aggressors and stamp our authority into the game." When France then try to do the same, then Scotland can go on the defensive and hopefully, thanks to Matt Taylor, we'll not leak try's like we have against France so many times in recent years.

Jiffy was dissing Scotland for kicking for touch when in possession and just inside Wales half last weekend. But it's a good idea actually. The line out is back to its former standard. With Kelock in its going to be even better for pinching ball this weekend, so I think that kicking for touch is a good tactic vs France.

But I think Scotland need to go for a run in their own half once or twice this weekend instead of kicking it away every time. It's good to mix it up a bit.

bsando wrote:I still don't understand why so many Scottish posters on here hate andy Robinson so much. Yes, he did make a few selection blunders and yes he should not have asked parks back for the Calcutta cup match last year. But he is a big reason why Scotland are not knocking the ball on every second phase of play and have more confidence as a team. He scraped the dog turd from Scotland's boots.mthat crap had been lingering there for years, from all the awful coaches and lack of quality players throughout the noughties. He got Scotland into positions where they could score trys and win games, he tried several different game plans out and got the best out of lplayers who would never make it into other teams starting xv. Just saying, I think he deserves some credit for his efforts.

Spot on........ people forget (or just haven't a clue what AR installed into Scottish Rugby from the time he was at Edinburgh right to the end, who do they think brought Denton, Hogg, Scott, Brown, Horne etc etc through the ranks (and who do they think selected them), our youth policy was a joke, our A team was a joke and yet he made a point of having input at the very grass roots of our game. This year has seen a marked downturn in our pack and set-piece, the youngsters now.

Amazing that one or two selection issues can be emphasised I mean AR brings in Jackson and he is criticised for bring a youngster in, so he selects Parks again when he has no real alternative and he gets slammed for that, and yet the bold moves to bring Scott in instead of Morrison, Hogg instead of Mossy Denton pulled into the backrow, away wins against SH opposition.

its the pack thats letting us down at the moment

bsando - hate is too harsh a word

fed up is more likely.

He had some fatal flaws which can not be ignored

Hi picked favorites over form - for years

He picked favorites out of position over form

He picked the wrong tactics for the limited players we had

He did not learn from his mistakes

he took as far as he could, which was a good journey and he certainly did a lot of good. But he, like Parks, had served their usefulness and were starting to drag us even deeper

So, not hate, just needed him to go

I still with Robinson longer than most, but towards the end he just wan't getting the team selections right. His last 6 Nations was a shambles, and I think ultimately the players lost faith in him and the relationship broke down. Whilst at times I've wanted to sack all the players, particularly after the Tonga debacle, ultimately the head coach has to take responsibility, and there were enough positive trends to suggest that Robinson was going to turn things around.

As you say, not all bad. Some cracking results, and at times he got our pack playing really well as a collective.

flyhalffactory wrote:

bsando wrote:I still don't understand why so many Scottish posters on here hate andy Robinson so much. Yes, he did make a few selection blunders and yes he should not have asked parks back for the Calcutta cup match last year. But he is a big reason why Scotland are not knocking the ball on every second phase of play and have more confidence as a team. He scraped the dog turd from Scotland's boots.mthat crap had been lingering there for years, from all the awful coaches and lack of quality players throughout the noughties. He got Scotland into positions where they could score trys and win games, he tried several different game plans out and got the best out of lplayers who would never make it into other teams starting xv. Just saying, I think he deserves some credit for his efforts.

Spot on........ people forget (or just haven't a clue what AR installed into Scottish Rugby from the time he was at Edinburgh right to the end, who do they think brought Denton, Hogg, Scott, Brown, Horne etc etc through the ranks (and who do they think selected them), our youth policy was a joke, our A team was a joke and yet he made a point of having input at the very grass roots of our game. This year has seen a marked downturn in our pack and set-piece, the youngsters now.

Amazing that one or two selection issues can be emphasised I mean AR brings in Jackson and he is criticised for bring a youngster in, so he selects Parks again when he has no real alternative and he gets slammed for that, and yet the bold moves to bring Scott in instead of Morrison, Hogg instead of Mossy Denton pulled into the backrow, away wins against SH opposition.

its the pack thats letting us down at the moment

Hold on - what he did at Edinburgh has no bearing of how he performed at Scotland. Which he has one of the worst records of any coach


And the red - wow -

he did NOT bring in anyone for Morrison until Morrison was injured - after years of poor performances

R brings in Jackson and he is criticised for bring a youngster in, so he selects Parks again when he has no real alternative and he gets slammed for that - that is plainly not true - he stayed with Parks for years and only put in anyone else on the odd game. He did not develop anyone, or give a chance until too late

Mossy retired

....and then went back to Parks at the start of last years 6 Nations when he wasn't even the form pick at 10 (Laidlaw was). Parks was terrible and had to retire in appauling circumstances, just to avoid being picked by Robinson out of form!

That's when I finally lost patience with Robinson. He cared a lot about Scottish rugby and worked his socks off. I respect him as a coach and I always liked his passion on the side lines. Many of our players are soft, and Robinson improved a large number of them. But by the end he simply had to go, and true to form, did so in an entirely honest, forthright and honourable way.

Yeah fair enough FES and Risky, hate was perhaps a strong word to use, but sometimes I feel he gets a lot of undue criticism on here. I'm not sure he really had favourites, i think he just wanted bigger players on the pitch. Hence his use of Southwell, Hines at 6, Morrison always at 12 punching holes. When Edinburgh began to play well he swapped to the expansive game, which was a good step I think. But ultimately, the players couldn't quite just crack it last year despite some very good play at times. He was by no means perfect, but very consistent, unlike hadden who just looked lost at the end.

Wanting to ensure his side didn't get "bullied" was the same issue he had with England.

I remember when England, via Andy Sheridan, destroyed the Australian front row and won the match comfortably. Andy Robinson said after that game that England had "crushed" Australia, or something similar. He had neglected the fact that despite that total forward dominance, the scoreline was actually pretty close. Earlier that season (or rather the summer before), Australia had beaten England by a far greater scoreline, albeit with less possession.

Robinson was a forwards man through and through. His fundamental belief was that forwards win games, and that backs are merely defenders to halt matters in preparation for the next scrum. A visionary Robinson was not. Would he be an excellent forwards coach. Clearly. He's just not a big thinker, or really head coach material.

I wish him the very best though at Bristol. His committment to Scottish rugby could not be faulted.

That's a pretty fair assessment FES. It would have been nice to have Robinson as the forwards coach, but obviously that was never going to happen.

I wouldn't say decline but progress is certainly baby steps only.

We're meant to have cracking backrow forwards to choose from but can't retain possession.

We have a youngster in Heathcote who plays week in week out in the AP at Bath yet he's not even in the squad. Surely we should be blooding him in at 12 or something, playing off a guy like Laidlaw or Weir. Jackson just isn't test material.

There is no point having a 3/4 line to brag about if we can't give them decent ball to finish.

Look at all the great 10s in recent years - Carter, Wilkinson, Townsend, Giteau, Lambie, Larkham, James ... all of them were blooded a little early, all of them at 12, 13 or 15 to give them match experience rather than throwing them in the deep end and then a season or two later they get the playmaker reins once they're up to speed. You can throw in O'Connor and Beale into that list too.

We always have a number of 9s available... lets play a proper one. Give the 10 responsibility to Laidlaw for now and start a centre combo of Heathcote and Ansbro.
Its about the greater good. The biggest problem we've had over the last 10 years is that we have never possessed a 10 who can run a game properly. Heathcote is the man... get him up to speed, 20 odd caps and then let him take over with a season before the RWC.

Robinsons brought a lot of good things to Scottish rugby particularly from a tactical and forwards perspective but he was a dreadful selector and ultimately I felt that being English was going to limit his ability to really coach and motivate a Scottish national side. I think he did very well and was clearly committed to the cause but I wouldn't be able to motivate England the way I could Scotland and I believe nationalism is an important part of being an international coach. What if Telfer coached England, he would be great for there forward tactics but when it came to motivating and inspiring it inevitably wouldn't be nearly the same as when he did it for Scotland.

I think Johnson has thrived in this situation because it suits his personality, he can deflect pressure, motivate players and create a more confident atmosphere but after this tournament I would want to know what his long term plan is and what his commitment to it is. Whoever is going to lead Scotland forward (and ideally they would be Scottish) then they need a clear, coherent and effective plan for bringing Scotland forward on the pitch and off it with a view to the next world cup given the disappointment of the last one. I definitely don't feel we are in decline and our expectations have to be fair. We have come some way in the past few years and with the current crop of players and the direction Glasgow are going I think the future can be bright with the right collective gameplan.

fa0019 wrote:I wouldn't say decline but progress is certainly baby steps only.

We're meant to have cracking backrow forwards to choose from but can't retain possession.

We have a youngster in Heathcote who plays week in week out in the AP at Bath yet he's not even in the squad. Surely we should be blooding him in at 12 or something, playing off a guy like Laidlaw or Weir. Jackson just isn't test material.

There is no point having a 3/4 line to brag about if we can't give them decent ball to finish.

Look at all the great 10s in recent years - Carter, Wilkinson, Townsend, Giteau, Lambie, Larkham, James ... all of them were blooded a little early, all of them at 12, 13 or 15 to give them match experience rather than throwing them in the deep end and then a season or two later they get the playmaker reins once they're up to speed. You can throw in O'Connor and Beale into that list too.

We always have a number of 9s available... lets play a proper one. Give the 10 responsibility to Laidlaw for now and start a centre combo of Heathcote and Ansbro.
Its about the greater good. The biggest problem we've had over the last 10 years is that we have never possessed a 10 who can run a game properly. Heathcote is the man... get him up to speed, 20 odd caps and then let him take over with a season before the RWC.

No no no no no.

Please! No more playing players out of position just to gain 'experience'. If they want experience, give them bloody experience in their normal position. Heathcote and Ansboro in the centres?

No thanks.

fa0019 wrote:We have a youngster in Heathcote who plays week in week out in the AP at Bath yet he's not even in the squad. Surely we should be blooding him in at 12 or something, playing off a guy like Laidlaw or Weir. Jackson just isn't test material.

There is no point having a 3/4 line to brag about if we can't give them decent ball to finish.

Look at all the great 10s in recent years - Carter, Wilkinson, Townsend, Giteau, Lambie, Larkham, James ... all of them were blooded a little early, all of them at 12, 13 or 15 to give them match experience rather than throwing them in the deep end and then a season or two later they get the playmaker reins once they're up to speed. You can throw in O'Connor and Beale into that list too.

We always have a number of 9s available... lets play a proper one. Give the 10 responsibility to Laidlaw for now and start a centre combo of Heathcote and Ansbro.
Its about the greater good. The biggest problem we've had over the last 10 years is that we have never possessed a 10 who can run a game properly. Heathcote is the man... get him up to speed, 20 odd caps and then let him take over with a season before the RWC.

Struggling to find anything I agree with here.

Heathcote at 12. Daft. Don't think he's ever played a club game in that position (a rather relevant contrast to the array of world class players you've cited above, who were used at 12 and 15 etc. at club level prior to being played there in internationals). Oh, and Townsend at 12 was a complete disaster and waste of time. He was always a 10, and nothing else.

Ansbro at 13. Difficult considering he's injured.

Laidlaw at 10. Hard to justify given his performances at 9 and 10 this season.

This is classic Scotland fan stuff. Heathcote strings together two good performances and now he "plays week in week out in the AP".

FES - Agree with your chat. AR did a lot of good in terms of forwards, he just wasn't suited to being head coach at international level.

FA0019 - I'm sorry but I disagree. You're advocaating playing a player at 12, 13 or 15 who doesn't play there for his club, so will have next to no understanding of that position. Also you want to play a "proper 9" but move our current experienced (non injured 9, who has done reasonably well this tournament) back to a position he was covering due to no real other options, in favour of.....? And also Ansrbo is injured, we all hope he will come back and be the player he was, but none the less he is injured, and is not able to be selected. We had enough players forced to play out of position in the past, how about we try playing players where they are getting gametime and see how that pans out for us.

I too find the suggestion of Heathcote and Ansbro in the centres a strange one. Heathcote is a young stand off who is starting to get more game time at Bath and making the position his own over Stephen Donald which is great and his time with Scotland will come but it will happen in the position he plays. We have 3 good 12 options in Scott, Horne and Dunbar. Also we need to forget Ansbro for the time being and wish him well for a future comeback. He has suffered a horror injury and has a long physical and mental recovery to go. He is a class player and I hope we see him back in a Scotland jersey again in the future.

Townsend as a disaster at centre??? Perhaps at the end of his career.... but thats not what I'm talking about.
He was blooded for a full 2 seasons at centre before he took the reins off Chalmers around 96.

10s can't go into running a game from club rugby... its too high a level and given nearly every 10 of note in the last 15 years has been blooded successfully in these positions then thats what we should do with Heathcote.

Is he the best centre, perhaps not but thats not the point. Its all about progress, look how Cipriani was treated. Thrown in at flyhalf on his own aged 20 and he struggled and was dropped... lost confidence, moved to AUS and now is on the waste heap of test rugby.

We never do this anymore and it hurts us int he long run.

We have tried 3 young 10s in the last few years, Jackson, Weir, Laidlaw etc and none of them have looked up to speed and all have struggled.

Look at the list again.

Wilkinson
Giteau
Carter
Larkham
James
Lambie
Townsend

All the best played a few years outside of fully running the side. We don't give our boys time to do so and we suffer because of it.

Its not about the best centre combination... I agree its not the best that we have.

But our game is poor because in essence we lack a playmaker who can take the game by the scruff of the neck. We haven't had one in a decade and our "thrown into the deep end policy continues to falter".. near everyone else has disposed of this strategy and we should too.

The 10 is the most important player on the field. BOD would have struggled had he played for us, he would probably have half the tries he scored and would have been far less prolific... but he was prolific because he had a decent and confident 10 in front of him for near 10 years in Humphery's, ROG and now Sexton.

fa0019 wrote:Its not about the best centre combination... I agree its not the best that we have.

But our game is poor because in essence we lack a playmaker who can take the game by the scruff of the neck. We haven't had one in a decade and our "thrown into the deep end policy continues to falter".. near everyone else has disposed of this strategy and we should too.

The 10 is the most important player on the field. BOD would have struggled had he played for us, he would probably have half the tries he scored and would have been far less prolific... but he was prolific because he had a decent and confident 10 in front of him for near 10 years in Humphery's, ROG and now Sexton.

When did ROG, Humphrey's or Sexton play 12 or 15 in order to be eased into international rugby. I don't remember.

Riskysports wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

bsando wrote:I still don't understand why so many Scottish posters on here hate andy Robinson so much. Yes, he did make a few selection blunders and yes he should not have asked parks back for the Calcutta cup match last year. But he is a big reason why Scotland are not knocking the ball on every second phase of play and have more confidence as a team. He scraped the dog turd from Scotland's boots.mthat crap had been lingering there for years, from all the awful coaches and lack of quality players throughout the noughties. He got Scotland into positions where they could score trys and win games, he tried several different game plans out and got the best out of lplayers who would never make it into other teams starting xv. Just saying, I think he deserves some credit for his efforts.

Spot on........ people forget (or just haven't a clue what AR installed into Scottish Rugby from the time he was at Edinburgh right to the end, who do they think brought Denton, Hogg, Scott, Brown, Horne etc etc through the ranks (and who do they think selected them), our youth policy was a joke, our A team was a joke and yet he made a point of having input at the very grass roots of our game. This year has seen a marked downturn in our pack and set-piece, the youngsters now.

Amazing that one or two selection issues can be emphasised I mean AR brings in Jackson and he is criticised for bring a youngster in, so he selects Parks again when he has no real alternative and he gets slammed for that, and yet the bold moves to bring Scott in instead of Morrison, Hogg instead of Mossy Denton pulled into the backrow, away wins against SH opposition.

its the pack thats letting us down at the moment

Hold on - what he did at Edinburgh has no bearing of how he performed at Scotland. Which he has one of the worst records of any coach


And the red - wow -

he did NOT bring in anyone for Morrison until Morrison was injured - after years of poor performances

R brings in Jackson and he is criticised for bring a youngster in, so he selects Parks again when he has no real alternative and he gets slammed for that - that is plainly not true - he stayed with Parks for years and only put in anyone else on the odd game. He did not develop anyone, or give a chance until too late

Mossy retired

Simply and utterly not true, ........ get your facts right before you add a riposte

1. His previous coaching roles especially when involved in Scottish Rugby has a bearing on his then appointment, he was instrumental in pulling the youth development program closer to national team, hence the Hoggs, Scotts, Hornes of this world wouldn't have had the opportunity if he hadnt stood his ground on more investment at grass roots

2. Morrison was injured for one game, and Scott was already in the squad before he was injured. Mossy was not retired before Hogg was called up into the training camp prior to selection

3. Tell me when he brought Parks back in who we had as an alternative then, Jackson had been tried and it wasnt good, Weir or Laidlaw weren't ready. I wouldn't have brought Parks back myself and it was a poor move byt I cannae see who we had for that game

3. AR one of the worse records..... grow up man if you are going to highlight in red then at least be sure you are spot on

Recent Coaches and their win%

Jim Telfer 1994–1999 - 40.0%
I McGeechan 2000–2003 - 42.0%
Matt Williams 2003–2005 - 18.0%
Frank Hadden 2005–2009 - 39.0%
A Robinson 2009 – 2012 - 42.9%
S Johnson 2013 - present - 40.0%

THATS AR HAVING THE BEST RECORD FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES

"Robinson was rubbish, Robinson was rubbish, Robinson was rubbish" Strewth say it often enough and it must be right

fa0019 wrote:Is he the best centre, perhaps not but thats not the point. Its all about progress, look how Cipriani was treated. Thrown in at flyhalf on his own aged 20 and he struggled and was dropped... lost confidence, moved to AUS and now is on the waste heap of test rugby.

Bad example. He actually made an incredibly assured debut at 10 for England when he broke through. McGeechan though used him at 15 for Wasps, and it was only after that experiment, being played out of position, that his England form fell.

funnyExiledScot

On his debut Cipriani had JW at 12.

Ireland is a different case. They have had a succession of 3 decent 10s... humphrey's, ROG and Sexton. They hadn't needed to blood them up as they were gradually brought in each time.
My example was saying that it kills our game saying that having world class players in our side outside of 10 are half as effective had they had a decent 10 to play off.

fa0019 wrote:Townsend as a disaster at centre??? Perhaps at the end of his career.... but thats not what I'm talking about.
He was blooded for a full 2 seasons at centre before he took the reins off Chalmers around 96.

Look at the list again.

Wilkinson
Giteau
Carter
Larkham
James
Lambie
Townsend

All the best played a few years outside of fully running the side. We don't give our boys time to do so and we suffer because of it.

Sorry to keep picking on your post, but I disagree with so much of it.

Townsend never once played well at 12 for Scotland. All his good rugby for Scotland came at 10. It was a selection error, and you certainly can't say he only became a decent 10 because he was played out of position in the early part of his international career. He never learned how to manage a rugby game in truth. His genius was that he was so erratic. It's often forgotten that the success in 1999 came purely down to the fact that Hodge got injured, and the silly experiement of using Townsend at centre was ended. He moved to 10 and was inspired. Townsend at 12 was always a mistake, at every stage in his career.

I look at your list once more. ALL those players to my knowledge played club rugby at 12 or 15 as well at the outset of their careers. They were not first picked at international level out of position. That is a fundmental difference. Clearly were Weir a wise old head at 10, and Heathcote playing good stuff at 12 then we'd be on the same page. But that isn't the case.

Townsend played 7 of his first 13 matches at centre... mainly off Chalmers and Hastings at outside centre. Remember his flip pass at the Parc de Princes?

I never said it was a rule they had to be at 12. I did say 12, 13 or 15.

fa0019 wrote:funnyExiledScot

On his debut Cipriani had JW at 12.

Ireland is a different case. They have had a succession of 3 decent 10s... humphrey's, ROG and Sexton. They hadn't needed to blood them up as they were gradually brought in each time.
My example was saying that it kills our game saying that having world class players in our side outside of 10 are half as effective had they had a decent 10 to play off.

So Cipriani started at 10 then, by your own admission!!

I agree, we need a decent 10. I think we're all agreed on that point. We need someone to learn how to play 10 to the best of their ability in the club game, and then play them at 10 for Scotland. If we had a world class 9 and 12 to school them through it then that would be wonderful, but we don't.

Your suggestion seems to be to pick a kid at 10 AND 12, with the guy at 12 never having played there before. Weir is a better 10 than Laidlaw, so I don't see how having Laidlaw at 10 helps matters. He's hardly an experienced 10.

One of the biggest crimes to Scottish rugby was Ian McGeechan "preparing" CP for international rugby at standoff by putting him at fullback (that was the original idea behind it, very much as you're thinking now). Sadly he was really good at 15, and never became as influential to Scotland as I believe he could have been had we simply let him play 15. Townsend's powers were waning, Hodge never had many powers, and Ross was solid and not spectacular. I HATE players out of position at Test match level. There has to be a very very good reason for it to happen.

There is an argument for being careful about how you introduce and establish a stand off in an international team but unless they have clear experience of other positions ie Farrell at centre then the reality is we need to show faith and give someone the time to establish themself there. A good summer tour with matches against local sides as well as national ones will give the opportunities for guys to get the game experience and confidence, look at our options and from there stick with the best option whether thats say weir or heathcote. I also see Laidlaw as being the incumbent 9 for a while given the competence of his goal kicking and the leadership he brings on the field but he will need to look to offer us a bit more in tempo and ambition.

fa0019 wrote:Townsend played 7 of his first 13 matches at centre... mainly off Chalmers and Hastings at outside centre. Remember his flip pass at the Parc de Princes?

I never said it was a rule they had to be at 12. I did say 12, 13 or 15.

Are you seriously arguing that Townsend was better in the centres, or wasn't a better 10 than Craig Chalmers?

Ok, you found a performance from Townsend in the centres that went well. Do I seriously need to counter that with the performances that Townsend played at 10 that were better??

He also, crucially, played some club rugby at centre first, did he not?

flyhalffactory wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

bsando wrote:I still don't understand why so many Scottish posters on here hate andy Robinson so much. Yes, he did make a few selection blunders and yes he should not have asked parks back for the Calcutta cup match last year. But he is a big reason why Scotland are not knocking the ball on every second phase of play and have more confidence as a team. He scraped the dog turd from Scotland's boots.mthat crap had been lingering there for years, from all the awful coaches and lack of quality players throughout the noughties. He got Scotland into positions where they could score trys and win games, he tried several different game plans out and got the best out of lplayers who would never make it into other teams starting xv. Just saying, I think he deserves some credit for his efforts.

Spot on........ people forget (or just haven't a clue what AR installed into Scottish Rugby from the time he was at Edinburgh right to the end, who do they think brought Denton, Hogg, Scott, Brown, Horne etc etc through the ranks (and who do they think selected them), our youth policy was a joke, our A team was a joke and yet he made a point of having input at the very grass roots of our game. This year has seen a marked downturn in our pack and set-piece, the youngsters now.

Amazing that one or two selection issues can be emphasised I mean AR brings in Jackson and he is criticised for bring a youngster in, so he selects Parks again when he has no real alternative and he gets slammed for that, and yet the bold moves to bring Scott in instead of Morrison, Hogg instead of Mossy Denton pulled into the backrow, away wins against SH opposition.

its the pack thats letting us down at the moment

Hold on - what he did at Edinburgh has no bearing of how he performed at Scotland. Which he has one of the worst records of any coach


And the red - wow -

he did NOT bring in anyone for Morrison until Morrison was injured - after years of poor performances

R brings in Jackson and he is criticised for bring a youngster in, so he selects Parks again when he has no real alternative and he gets slammed for that - that is plainly not true - he stayed with Parks for years and only put in anyone else on the odd game. He did not develop anyone, or give a chance until too late

Mossy retired

Simply and utterly not true, ........ get your facts right before you add a riposte

1. His previous coaching roles especially when involved in Scottish Rugby has a bearing on his then appointment, he was instrumental in pulling the youth development program closer to national team, hence the Hoggs, Scotts, Hornes of this world wouldn't have had the opportunity if he hadnt stood his ground on more investment at grass roots

2. Morrison was injured for one game, and Scott was already in the squad before he was injured. Mossy was not retired before Hogg was called up into the training camp prior to selection

3. Tell me when he brought Parks back in who we had as an alternative then, Jackson had been tried and it wasnt good, Weir or Laidlaw weren't ready. I wouldn't have brought Parks back myself and it was a poor move byt I cannae see who we had for that game

3. AR one of the worse records..... grow up man if you are going to highlight in red then at least be sure you are spot on

Recent Coaches and their win%

Jim Telfer 1994–1999 - 40.0%
I McGeechan 2000–2003 - 42.0%
Matt Williams 2003–2005 - 18.0%
Frank Hadden 2005–2009 - 39.0%
A Robinson 2009 – 2012 - 42.9%
S Johnson 2013 - present - 40.0%

THATS AR HAVING THE BEST RECORD FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES

"Robinson was rubbish, Robinson was rubbish, Robinson was rubbish" Strewth say it often enough and it must be right

Read my post please bebfore putting words into my moth. Never said he was rubbish, but he had done as much as he could and was time to mover on. He did some really good stuff, and certainly helped lay the platform, but he has lost his way and kept picking favourites without a plan for the future



Tell me when he brought Parks back in who we had as an alternative then, Jackson had been tried and it wasnt good, Weir or Laidlaw weren't ready. I wouldn't have brought Parks back myself and it was a poor move byt I cannae see who we had for that game

laidlaw came in and played a blinder - so was ready - tick to me

Have a look at the 6 nations record, world cup record and he was one of the worst. A few off season wins is not good enough - tick to me

Hogg was in the squad - but playing ??? No

Scott in the squad but playing??? No


he was a good administrator and did goie a path for young players to come through, but does that mean we keep him as head coach - silly suggestion

he was a good administrator and did goie a path for young players to come through, but does that mean we keep him as head coach - silly suggestion

I just have proved to you his record is the best for nearly two decades unlike your statement that "he has one of the worse records", under AR we beat SH teams in their own backyard, we had a decent pack and scrum and this year we have gone backwards...... now you change the goalpost by inferring that its all about 6Ns and WCs

AR has always been recognised as a good forwards coach, and he did well for us at Edinburgh......

Laidlaw had one blinder and that was that, if he had been such a trooper we wouldnt be discussing Jackson v Weir v Horne would we?.

He didn't always select who I wanted but I was pleased when he brought youth into the squad, and he selected Scott, Hogg, Laidlaw, Jones, Denton, etc etc

To be fair to Laidlaw, the reason we are not discussing him at 10 is because he's become our best 9.

He's still (sadly) the best 10 we have at Edinburgh, but I personally think we need him to pick his position, and given Richie Rees is leaving us, that'll be 9 from now on.

Andy Robinson's record is an odd one. Without doubt our best ever coach when it came to summer tours and AIs. Equally our worst when it came to the 6 Nations and World Cup.

I'd have him back at Edinburgh in a flash though. Since he left things have gone down hill rapidly, with two of the most incompetent coaches of all time taking charge.

Andy Robinson could well become the Craig Brown of rugby. Not particularly popular in charge, but his reputation increases with each and every failed act that follows (I certainly hope not!).

Fly half. Not sure uf u r wumming me

are asked.to be judged on his world cup. i am

a few good results in hurricans and blizzard are great bnot backed up

Real competition he failed. 6 nation white washes. not getting out a easy group. world ranking.position all time low.

The players u keep spouting only got to play after an injury to hiatus favourite. regardless of how form should have them in before.

Brought parks out of retirement to play. out.of retirement.!!!

I bet Morrison would be back in if.are was still around

Risky take it you are on an i phone on a train - or going over a waterfall in a barrel - anyway once I deciphered your post I agree with you completely. Add to that the way Robinson treated Al Kellock at RWC11 and Dunc Weir on the Aus/Fiji/Samoa tour and you have the complete set of idiocy from him (Robinson obviously). Don't get me started on Knock on Nick either !

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Risky take it you are on an i phone on a train - or going over a waterfall in a barrel - anyway once I deciphered your post I agree with you completely. Add to that the way Robinson treated Al Kellock at RWC11 and Dunc Weir on the Aus/Fiji/Samoa tour and you have the complete set of idiocy from him (Robinson obviously). Don't get me started on Knock on Nick either !

Ha Ha - excellent!

Theres nothing wrong with the way either of those two were treated. Kellock was dropped because he wasnt up to it. The only mistake was giving him the captaincy in the first place. He got the captaincy on the ability to talk a good game, but then halfway through the tournament he finally convinced us all that hes useless as a player. It wouldve been worse to keep playing him despite everyone knowing he was 3rd coice as a lock behind Hines and Gray.

And as for Weir on the summer tour? Robinson didnt owe him gametime. Laildaw was on form as a 10 during the tour and fit enough to play a full 80. The fiji game apart, it was a hard fought tour and Laidlaw was calling the shots, why take him off?

Thanks for that Mrs Robinson !

I thought I was mrs Robinson!

Robinson - cost us a year or more of development being so reluctant to pick the form youngsters. Last 6 nations - Weir had masterminded the demolition of the england saxons - a much better team on paper, laidlaw was in great form for edinburgh. He picks Parks. its at the point it was clear he had lost it - many of us knew it before this.

Judge me on results he said - a whitewash in the 6 nations, 12th in the world rankings and failure at the WC. We judged you on your results and found you wanting