Scottland / Springboks - after match discussion

So.

Scotland well outplayed and well beaten - but did not drop their heads. SA might have relaxed just a fraction at 28 pts up but clearly keeping the tryline uncrossed was important to them.

Why we lost:
the lost lineouts handed territory and momentum to SA
Inablity to defend mauls
SA scrapped for the ball on the floor better and with better understanding of the ref. too many turnovers
Again we see Scotland make handling errors in an effort to chase the game.
Too many injured backs

Positives?
Pack scrumaged well. Denton, Barclay, Beattie, Seymour and Weir all had good games. Taylor did a bit with the ball he got.  Heads did not go down

Roll on cotter arriving and some guys back from injury.

Will Weir start next week?

Too many handling errors especially when the ref calls advantage and theres men out wide . Think i counted at least 3 occasions when three occasions when the standoff dropped the ball when it was the perfect time to try something clever/audacious with a penalty coming. Its times like that when those tricky training ground moves come into play

Please tell me there were actually some positives from that game? From watching in Murrayfield I literally saw none.

Jackson was awful.

Thought the Scottish line out improved dramatically in the second half.

They retained possession much better in the second half, but lost patience on attack too often.

Where SA kept the ball close to the forwards Scotland went wide, and it cost them a good number of turnovers and mistakes.

I thought we played the conditions better than Scotland did, which surprised me.

Not sure whether they decided that Wales struggled with the confrontation against us so they decided to avoid it by going wide as often as possible, the problem with that is if you want to go wide you first have to gain enough momentum to have our backs going backward which didn't happen often.

Enjoyable game nonetheless. At least we got out of the blocks fast enough for me not to have nerves throughout the game.

Positives - Seymour did OK as did Weir when he came on.  Denton had a good game.  Scrum was OK and heads did not go down when we were behind

What was the reason for the pitch breaking up like that?

We have now twice played on really poor pitches.

Biltong - what annoyed me most is that SA really didn't have to do much to score points. You guys barely had to get out of 2nd gear.

You should read the cr@p people are saying on the facebook page. Someone's trying to claim there are "loads of positives to take from that game. There was structure and some real spirit there." Phftt. Were they watching a different game?!

Biultong - the space was there out wide but we couldn't get the ball there quickly enough and no one ran cutting against the grain to hold the drift. More that we couldn't execute the tactics rather than wrong tactics. You don't out wrestle the bocks. You have to outplay them we tried and failed

We have to take the lineout "improvement" in the 2nd half with a pinch of salt, some of these throws from Lawson weren't exactly straight, ref was being generous to the home side.

Biltong wrote:What was the reason for the pitch breaking up like that?

We have now twice played on really poor pitches.

there is a parasitic infestation in the pitch hast has wreaked the root system

RDW, I agree our scores came easy, but how do you defend against an intercept?

Willie's break from deep was a classical outside centre shooting up too fast and creating the gap on the inside for Willie to exploit.

The two maul tries were just very well executed, in fact the first maul try was the first time we used that move of throwing to the back and then peeling to the front.

VinceWLB wrote:We have to take the lineout "improvement" in the 2nd half with a pinch of salt, some of these throws from Lawson weren't exactly straight, ref was being generous to the home side.

He was consistent - some of SAs throws were not exactly straight either. We did sucessfully disrupt and win a couple of SA throws as well.

TJ wrote:Biultong - the space was there out wide but we couldn't get the ball there quickly enough and no one ran cutting against the grain to hold the drift.    More that we couldn't execute the tactics rather than wrong tactics.  You don't out wrestle the bocks.  You have to outplay them  we tried and failed

TJ the space wasn't out wide mate, the space was behind us. Thefact that we rush up, we use our inside backs to cover defend.

A well placed chip kick will work much better than slinging wide.

Biltong wrote:RDW, I agree our scores came easy, but how do you defend against an intercept?

Willie's break from deep was a classical outside centre shooting up too fast and creating the gap on the inside for Willie to exploit.

The two maul tries were just very well executed, in fact the first maul try was the first time we used that move of throwing to the back and then peeling to the front.

Shame the first one was definitely obstruction and the second one less obvious but could have been. Look at the first one - when the 3 peel off the side no scot is bound to them at all thus maul over - thus its truck and trailer as the ball is with the hindmost of the three. Missed by the ref. Unless its doesn't count as obstruction if there are no Scots to make the tackle? ;-) Well there was one I think

Biltong wrote:

TJ wrote:Biultong - the space was there out wide but we couldn't get the ball there quickly enough and no one ran cutting against the grain to hold the drift.    More that we couldn't execute the tactics rather than wrong tactics.  You don't out wrestle the bocks.  You have to outplay them  we tried and failed

TJ the space wasn't out wide mate, the space was behind us. Thefact that we rush up, we use our inside backs to cover defend.

A well placed chip kick will work much better than slinging wide.

did that a few times as well but there was space out wide. The interception we has space outside and on a later near interception as well. Several times its was on

TJ, if you look at the first maul try, the ball Carrier Alberts had the ball in possession, he was in front of Gurthro who drove him on. There was no obstruction there.

We lost the game in the first half and more precisely when we gave away those two tries back to back, Even up to that point despite being unable to catch a lineout we were only 7 points down.

Being 21 points down changes the mind set and we were chasing the game then, going for the risky pass or the not on chip through. Individually there were some not bad performances though, but collectively we were very poor.

You have to say as well South Africa were very good. They clearly are the second best side in the world just now, with serious ambitions about being the best!

Biltong wrote:TJ, if you look at the first maul try, the ball Carrier Alberts had the ball in possession, he was in front of Gurthro who drove him on. There was no obstruction there.

the front guy had the ball? That would not be obstruction but would be illegal anyway would it not? You are not allowed to bind onto and push a player before a tackle?

Biltong wrote:TJ, if you look at the first maul try, the ball Carrier Alberts had the ball in possession, he was in front of Gurthro who drove him on. There was no obstruction there.

I did not see anything wrong with either of the mauled tries. Scotland just defended the poorly.

Terrible all round performance, one of the worst I've seen from Scotland in the past decade. It's a miracle we didn't lose by double that margin. The Saffas had won at half time and took their foot off a bit.

Johnson has said that some players may have their last game this series, I prose they be Ford and Stroker - they're just too inconsistent. I also don't think Taylor is up to the job and Denton clearly doesn't have the bulk for no.8, he's a 6 if anything.

Only players who had any heart were Lamont (as usual) and Barclay.

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote:TJ, if you look at the first maul try, the ball Carrier Alberts had the ball in possession, he was in front of Gurthro who drove him on. There was no obstruction there.

the front guy had the ball?  That would not be obstruction but would be illegal anyway would it not?  You are not allowed to bind onto and push a player before a tackle?

you may push a ball carrier at any time. We have used the double drive for a long time. Watch closely when teams get the forward drives going, the dange with it is the "hammer" once the tackle is made has to "reload", in other words he must get on his feet to ensure a fair ruck contest, in this case it didn't make a difference as they were over the line.

Denton was the scots second best ball carrier after Lamont and made 10 tackles - a good game from him.

Weir is surly going to start next week. Rhubarb was his usual inconsistent self.

Ford neither hooked or threw well. I think he needs to go to France or England to rekindle his career.

Taylor looked OK for our 3rd(???) choice centre. We really missed Scott tho

Biltong wrote:What was the reason for the pitch breaking up like that?

We have now twice played on really poor pitches.

Bilt, they've had problems with worms and have been spraying garlic to try to solve the problem!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24836812

i wouldnt be quite as harsh - u were up against a massive, strong SA team currently in their ascendancy after a season of playing club and RC rugby together.

wales were unable to cross the gain line against these monsters, never mind look like scoring a try.

am glad england arent playing them this cycle

I didn't watch this game - I was just following the updates on the Beeb.

What people don't seem to understand is the distinction between recognizing that you have been outplayed by a better team and taking positives from your defeat. Scotland intended at the start of the match to be competitive against this South African team and as I understand it, they weren't in any meaningful respect, save for the scrum.

Now what are we supposed to do with that? 'Take the positives' that it wasn't 0-60? If you don't achieve what you set out to achieve at the start, then you cannot be pleased. If we took 70% of second half possession and didn't score with that, then we cannot be pleased. If we cannot execute basic attacking play without making simple mistakes, how can we be pleased with that?

It depends how low your expectations were to start with. Like some cre tin posted on the BBC live updates page (why the BBC sees fit to sanction adding inflammatory, partisan, bs on its own pages, I'll never understand), Scotland were bad but not worse than normal. If that's what you think, then sure, you can look for the positives.

Look at the last results between the teams:

15 June 2013 - South Africa 30 – 17  South Africa, South African Quadrangular tournament
17 November 2012 - Scotland 10 – 21  South Africa, 2012 Autumn International
20 November 2010 - Scotland 21 – 17  Scotland, 2010 Grand Slam Tour
15 November 2008 - Scotland 10 – 14  South Africa, 2008 Autumn International

You'd have to go back to 2007 to come up with a tonking as bad as this one.

So no, I don't think that we should look for any positives. We got nilled at home by a team that we intended to actively compete with. That's bad, however you might choose to gussy it up. The only good side is that SJ will be a step closer to knowing which players should have little or no part in the upcoming RWC campaign.

Biltong - flying wedge? http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?highlight=cavalry%20charge&law=10.4

TJ wrote:Denton was the scots second best ball carrier after Lamont and made 10 tackles - a good game from him.

Weir is surly going to start next week.  Rhubarb was his usual inconsistent self.

Ford neither hooked or threw well.  I think he needs to go to France or England to rekindle his career.

Taylor looked OK for our 3rd(???) choice centre.  We really missed Scott tho

How do you reckon he was our 2nd best carrier? He made 16 runs and amassed an atrocious 28 meters!!!! As I said, he's too lightweight for a no.8.

In 15 minutes Beattie made 17 meters from just 4 runs!

Griff wrote:

Biltong wrote:What was the reason for the pitch breaking up like that?

We have now twice played on really poor pitches.

Bilt, they've had problems with worms and have been spraying garlic to try to solve the problem!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24836812

I thought Garlic only works on Vampires  

madmaccas wrote:Terrible all round performance, one of the worst I've seen from Scotland in the past decade. It's a miracle we didn't lose by double that margin. The Saffas had won at half time and took their foot off a bit.

Johnson has said that some players may have their last game this series, I prose they be Ford and Stroker - they're just too inconsistent. I also don't think Taylor is up to the job and Denton clearly doesn't have the bulk for no.8, he's a 6 if anything.

Only players who had any heart were Lamont (as usual) and Barclay.

The fact that we did not fold is probably the one comfort we can take away from the match. I don't think the Boks relaxed to much, they had to put their bodies on the line for the bulk of the second half to stop us scoring.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that Ford now needs a little break from international duties. He may or may not come again, but needs to go away and have a long hard think about what he wants from the rest of his career. I would say a move away from Edinburgh and Scotland would do him the power of good, he has been in a nice cosy place for far to long now and it needs to end here.

It was Taylor's first start so I think he needs to be cut a little bit of slack. He is probably not our best IC but we do need some cover.

Jackson was not great and it is probably Weir's turn in the next game, maybe we will see Heathcote on the bench. Cusiter did seem to speed things up a bit when he came on as well.

You can't say Seymour did to much wrong this time and a couple of things very well. De Luca did not do anything terrible, but it is time we saw Bennett.

Brown will come back into the back row for the next game. I think we will see Beattie and Fusaro start and Denton on the bench this time.

This was far from the best side we could put out against the second best side in the world. We had hoped a few would rise to the occasion, but it was not really to be.

Springboks phenomenally good at contesting the breakdown. If you're going to try and batter them down with slow ball (as happened every time Scotland visited their 22) you'd better have your support players in clearing almost as soon as the ball carrier takes contact.

Scotland were playing at an intensity and with a level of physicality that South Africa never needed to get beyond third gear to defend.

George Carlin wrote:I didn't watch this game - I was just following the updates on the Beeb.

What people don't seem to understand is the distinction between recognizing that you have been outplayed by a better team and taking positives from your defeat. Scotland intended at the start of the match to be competitive against this South African team and as I understand it, they weren't in any meaningful respect, save for the scrum.

.........................................

So no, I don't think that we should look for any positives. We got nilled at home by a team that we intended to actively compete with. That's bad, however you might choose to gussy it up. The only good side is that SJ will be a step closer to knowing which players should have little or no part in the upcoming RWC campaign.

A little over harsh but I get your point. I would certainly not condone anyone saying it was a good or even adequate performance - its wasn't - we were gubbed and gubbed by 50 mins. However there are some decent things to be seen today. Not a lot but a few.

For me it was a clear cut obstruction on the 1st try, has Ross Ford raised his arms calling for obstruction instead of trying to tackle the player without the ball, ref may have blew his whistle, but i don't like this attitude from players.

madmaccas wrote:

TJ wrote:Denton was the scots second best ball carrier after Lamont and made 10 tackles - a good game from him.

Weir is surly going to start next week.  Rhubarb was his usual inconsistent self.

Ford neither hooked or threw well.  I think he needs to go to France or England to rekindle his career.

Taylor looked OK for our 3rd(???) choice centre.  We really missed Scott tho

How do you reckon he was our 2nd best carrier? He made 16 runs and amassed an atrocious 28 meters!!!! As I said, he's too lightweight for a no.8.

In 15 minutes Beattie made 17 meters from just 4 runs!

Lamont got the most yards with 52. Denton was next with 28 second most yards carried and he did some good work. Ten tackles none missed.

VinceWLB wrote:For me it was a clear cut obstruction on the 1st try, has Ross Ford raised his arms calling for obstruction instead of trying to tackle the player without the ball, ref may have blew his whistle, but i don't like this attitude from players.

vince, watch it again, Alberts has possession of the ball, he is in the front, no access was denied to anyone wanting to tackle him.

TJ wrote:

madmaccas wrote:

TJ wrote:Denton was the scots second best ball carrier after Lamont and made 10 tackles - a good game from him.

Weir is surly going to start next week.  Rhubarb was his usual inconsistent self.

Ford neither hooked or threw well.  I think he needs to go to France or England to rekindle his career.

Taylor looked OK for our 3rd(???) choice centre.  We really missed Scott tho

How do you reckon he was our 2nd best carrier? He made 16 runs and amassed an atrocious 28 meters!!!! As I said, he's too lightweight for a no.8.

In 15 minutes Beattie made 17 meters from just 4 runs!

Lamont got the most yards with 52.  Denton was next with 28  second most yards carried and he did some good work.  Ten tackles none missed.  

You miss my point. He had 16 runs and did nothing with them, he only managed a pathetic 1.75 meters per run - as opposed to Beattie who made 4.25 meters per run when he came on.

Utterly dreadful. Backline was a shambles, and since when has running sideways been a legitimate or effective tactic in rugby. Jackson was poor, but I disagree with those who believe Weir was good when he came on. He was also poor.

Really directionless performance.

madmaccas wrote:

TJ wrote:Denton was the scots second best ball carrier after Lamont and made 10 tackles - a good game from him.

Weir is surly going to start next week.  Rhubarb was his usual inconsistent self.

Ford neither hooked or threw well.  I think he needs to go to France or England to rekindle his career.

Taylor looked OK for our 3rd(???) choice centre.  We really missed Scott tho

How do you reckon he was our 2nd best carrier? He made 16 runs and amassed an atrocious 28 meters!!!! As I said, he's too lightweight for a no.8.

In 15 minutes Beattie made 17 meters from just 4 runs!

Denton is 6 foot 4 and weighs 18 stone, you can hardly call him lightweight. He is a big boy and has a dynamism about that we are not exactly overflowing with. Beattie came on at the end of the game when it was being chucked about, you cannot really compare the two. I would like to see the offloads to go with the runs, but that was never going to happen in todays conditions.

Beattie can be a good player, but we also know that he beams up from time to time. He has had plenty chances to make the shirt his own. I would start him next week though and lets see where he is at now.

BigGee wrote:

madmaccas wrote:

TJ wrote:Denton was the scots second best ball carrier after Lamont and made 10 tackles - a good game from him.

Weir is surly going to start next week.  Rhubarb was his usual inconsistent self.

Ford neither hooked or threw well.  I think he needs to go to France or England to rekindle his career.

Taylor looked OK for our 3rd(???) choice centre.  We really missed Scott tho

How do you reckon he was our 2nd best carrier? He made 16 runs and amassed an atrocious 28 meters!!!! As I said, he's too lightweight for a no.8.

In 15 minutes Beattie made 17 meters from just 4 runs!

Denton is 6 foot 4 and weighs 18 stone, you can hardly call him lightweight. He is a big boy and has a dynamism about that we are not exactly overflowing with. Beattie came on at the end of the game when it was being chucked about, you cannot really compare the two. I would like to see the offloads to go with the runs, but that was never going to happen in todays conditions.

Beattie can be a good player, but we also know that he beams up from time to time. He has had plenty chances to make the shirt his own. I would start him next week though and lets see where he is at now.

Don't get me wrong, I like Denton but one-on-one he doesn't make ground. No.8's are supposed to give you grunt and go forward, Denton doesn't do that, hence why I'd call him a blindside. Maitland, Strokosch, Lamont, de Luca and Seymour all made more ground per run and they were on from the start.

To be fair to Beattie he's had a terrible time with injury, when he's had a good run he's been our form no.8.

So as of next weekend (after the loss to Aus) I take it we will no longer be hearing of this apparent good record that Scotland have against the SH?

Maitland seems to be running generally sideways at the moment, he's not coming into the line at pace and trying to straighten it up. He's a safe player at 15 but the wing is a better place for him it would seem.
SJ said certain players were on or near their last chance, can't see Ford carrying on much longer now, he simply doesn't do what he is meant to do as hooker and doesn't look to have much passion about him anymore.

The frustrating thing about Ford is his play in the loose was generally very effective, he tackled well and didn't really get a chance to carry, however where he is lacking is the basic skills for his position, his inability to throw or hook cost us the chance to compete that game. England yesterday were the perfect example of the importance of a functioning lineout, with Hartley they were arguably the better team and had an a platform from which they could attack whereas with Youngs they were clearly second best.
It would be understandable that Ford's basic skills are lacking if he'd converted recently but he has not he had the skills at one point and he's lost them. Perhaps he feels he no longer needs to work on basics because he's an international hooker or perhaps lineout practice does not fit in with his hectic gym and protein intake schedule but whatever it is he needs to sort it out. Also his problems with hooking may stem from the fact that when he was taught to play hooker in the scrum hooking didn't come into it whereas for someone who grew up as a hooker like MacArhur it won't be as big a step because youth rugby starts with uncontested scrums and therefore hooking is necessary and scrum progress to having eight men and therefore it is at relatively high level that scrums become powerful enough not to need to hook even with the old laws. Having said that everyone knew these rules were coming in and Ford didn't go on tour in June and therefore could have spent all summer preparing for this season, it wouldn't have been difficult to find a group of young forwards who want to practice with a Scotland international.

More Stats. Weir K/P/R 3/9/7. 7 runs from 19 touches for 24 m. Only 3 kicks. I thought he did OK with his contribution and he must start next week Jackson K/P/R 7/16/2 with 7 tackles made none missed

On Ford - I believe the issue is more akin to the Yips that golfers have

The Ross Ford Question is the critical one for SJ and will be asked about a number of players - if you're the incumbent in your shirt, but what you produce on average is really not good enough for an experienced international, then you should not take up any more game time in a position where a currently perhaps less good player, but one with potential, could further develop.

That's what Johnson has promised. Will he act? He must be absolutely fuming after today's foul jamboree.

From my seat in the stands the malfunctioning lineout was a combination if ford's throwing but also other players messing up? I'm sure there was at least one lineout where the guy barely got off the floor

MacArthur deserves a start on form anyway. No brainer for next week in my opinion.

I'd start Weir as well, but let's no kid ourselves, he didn't make much impression coming on today, one decent hoof to the corner aside.

TJ wrote:Biltong - flying wedge?  http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?highlight=cavalry%20charge&law=10.4

Another player can bind onto one of their players, but I thought it was illegal for 2 players to bind onto him. Also I really thought the ball was with the man at the back.

I did wonder at the time.

Ok - so different folk see it differently. the only person who counts is the ref. I'd have liked to see him check it on replay tho. If the ball was at the front it isn't obstruction

It was me who brought up the resurgence of the flying wedge last week.

Thank you, thank you for the plaudits.