Scotland v Australia, 23 November

TJ wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

TJ wrote:Laidlaw - why has he started running a bit sideways before he passes every time?  Another player trying too hard?

He's started studying Owen Farrell's 'technique'.

Do we have a "saucer of cream" smilie?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I still think Jackson had a poor game, and from memory (not going into as much analysis as TJ) I don't remember Weir being up to much either. Clearly my memory isn't what it used to be.

That list of things Weir has done doesn't help us on Saturday. We miss Scott badly.

Why hasn't Grove been given the call?

TJ wrote:I agree with your asessment of Fords play in these games - better than many here seem to think.  I just feel he is playing thru issues rather than getting the issues sorted.  altho he is clerly better than he was a while back  I think he needs a change and that he needs to be told that he had a few months to getback to his best mentally.  " go back to your club and remember how it is to be the best and remember what its like to enjoy playing"  I think a break from internationals and a move would do him good.  Its just an opinion.  I want him at his best for the 6N and the WC.  I don't want him dropped permanently just given time to recover what appears to me to be mental / confidence issues.

George Carlin wrote:Ross William Ford is a large warm jobby.
 
Discuss.

Scottish Rugby team tw@tter feed wrote:Scotland Rugby Team ✔ @Scotlandteam
Tommy Seymour is fit to take his place in the Scotland team for Saturday's match against Australia.

SRU Website wrote:The Scotland team and substitutes for Saturday’s viagogo Autumn Test against Australia have now been finalised.

Tommy Seymour (pictured below), the 25-year-old Glasgow Warriors winger, who marked his Murrayfield international debut with a brace of tries against Japan, has recovered from a leg injury sustained last weekend and will start in the No 14 shirt.

The only change to the back division that started against South Africa sees Duncan Weir preferred to his Warriors team-mate Ruaridh Jackson at stand-off. Weir will be winning his eighth cap.

Injuries

On the bench Max Evans’ experience and ability to cover both centre and wing have won him the outside back berth although Glasgow Warriors’ Mark Bennett, the uncapped centre who played for Scotland under-20 in the IRB Junior World Championship during the summer, remains with the squad at this juncture.

Scotland head coach Scott Johnson said: “The injuries we’ve experienced with four of our frontline backs sidelined during this series – Stuart Hogg, Tim Visser, Alex Dunbar and Matt Scott – have meant that we’ve had to think long and hard about combinations and our bench this weekend.”

Riskysports wrote:I may be one of the ones that people refer to when they say we are being a bit over critical on Ford

While I respect your opinion, I will have to strongly disagree

2 of the key jobs of a hooker is to Hook and throw a line out - if this fails then it puts the whole team on the back foot - as we saw in the SA match - any chance of getting back in the game failed every time we lost our own ball

That is why I am calling him to be dropped - the whole Scottish momentum stalls repeatable through his current inability to do the basics. Unfortunately that position is a key one for that reason - and his head is not right when it comes to line outs

Picking him now means the Ozzies will happily kick to touch everywhere, knowing that if they steal one then the likelyhood is they will get free reign in the line out

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

They will know that if he can not hook, they just need to stand their ground (not even need to push forward) in scrums and their hooking hooker has a great chance of stealing the ball

Our set pieces are now totally compromised and will be considered a weapon by the opposition -which loses us momentum and gives them a confidence boost


I really think he needs a sport physiologist to help him, as he is too frail when it comes to pressure

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: 

Riskysports wrote:I may be one of the ones that people refer to when they say we are being a bit over critical on Ford

While I respect your opinion, I will have to strongly disagree

2 of the key jobs of a hooker is to Hook and throw a line out - if this fails then it puts the whole team on the back foot - as we saw in the SA match - any chance of getting back in the game failed every time we lost our own ball

That is why I am calling him to be dropped - the whole Scottish momentum stalls repeatable through his current inability to do the basics. Unfortunately that position is a key one for that reason - and his head is not right when it comes to line outs

Picking him now means the Ozzies will happily kick to touch everywhere, knowing that if they steal one then the likelyhood is they will get free reign in the line out

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

They will know that if he can not hook, they just need to stand their ground (not even need to push forward) in scrums and their hooking hooker has a great chance of stealing the ball

Our set pieces are now totally compromised and will be considered a weapon by the opposition -which loses us momentum and gives them a confidence boost


I really think he needs a sport physiologist to help him, as he is too frail when it comes to pressure

I agree with everything you have said. Only 2 lineouts I can think he messed up. One an overthrow the other went squint. The rest Bakkies disrupted or the jumpers dropped.

As for not hooking, must be a coaching thing. I can't think why he wouldn't hook on purpose. So again give him a break.

Pity Bennet not involved, but where would you put him?

At 13 outside the VERY green Duncan Taylor who looked at best extremely shakey on Sunday?

Move NDL to 12 to give Bennet the 13 Slot? NDL was tried and failed at 12.

Play Lamont at 12?

It is a shame for Bennett and had Scott been fit I reckon he would have started this game or Sundays.

Not seeing Lamont at 12 or 13 is an enormous relief, but he is a lucky guy to be in there. Everyone who is criticisng Ford is ignoring the fact that Lamont butchered our best try scoring chance on Sunday.

Could Bennett have played on the wing?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: 

Riskysports wrote:I may be one of the ones that people refer to when they say we are being a bit over critical on Ford

While I respect your opinion, I will have to strongly disagree

2 of the key jobs of a hooker is to Hook and throw a line out - if this fails then it puts the whole team on the back foot - as we saw in the SA match - any chance of getting back in the game failed every time we lost our own ball

That is why I am calling him to be dropped - the whole Scottish momentum stalls repeatable through his current inability to do the basics. Unfortunately that position is a key one for that reason - and his head is not right when it comes to line outs

Picking him now means the Ozzies will happily kick to touch everywhere, knowing that if they steal one then the likelyhood is they will get free reign in the line out

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

They will know that if he can not hook, they just need to stand their ground (not even need to push forward) in scrums and their hooking hooker has a great chance of stealing the ball

Our set pieces are now totally compromised and will be considered a weapon by the opposition -which loses us momentum and gives them a confidence boost


I really think he needs a sport physiologist to help him, as he is too frail when it comes to pressure

I agree with everything you have said. Only 2 lineouts I can think he messed up. One an overthrow the other went squint. The rest Bakkies disrupted or the jumpers dropped.

As for not hooking, must be a coaching thing. I can't think why he wouldn't hook on purpose. So again give him a break.

Pity Bennet not involved, but where would you put him?

At 13 outside the VERY green Duncan Taylor who looked at best extremely shakey on Sunday?

Move NDL to 12 to give Bennet the 13 Slot? NDL was tried and failed at 12.

Play Lamont at 12?

It is a shame for Bennett and had Scott been fit I reckon he would have started this game or Sundays.

Not seeing Lamont at 12 or 13 is an enormous relief, but he is a lucky guy to be in there. Everyone who is criticisng Ford is ignoring the fact that Lamont butchered our best try scoring chance on Sunday.

Could Bennett have played on the wing?

Riskysports wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: 

Riskysports wrote:I may be one of the ones that people refer to when they say we are being a bit over critical on Ford

While I respect your opinion, I will have to strongly disagree

2 of the key jobs of a hooker is to Hook and throw a line out - if this fails then it puts the whole team on the back foot - as we saw in the SA match - any chance of getting back in the game failed every time we lost our own ball

That is why I am calling him to be dropped - the whole Scottish momentum stalls repeatable through his current inability to do the basics. Unfortunately that position is a key one for that reason - and his head is not right when it comes to line outs

Picking him now means the Ozzies will happily kick to touch everywhere, knowing that if they steal one then the likelyhood is they will get free reign in the line out

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

They will know that if he can not hook, they just need to stand their ground (not even need to push forward) in scrums and their hooking hooker has a great chance of stealing the ball

Our set pieces are now totally compromised and will be considered a weapon by the opposition -which loses us momentum and gives them a confidence boost


I really think he needs a sport physiologist to help him, as he is too frail when it comes to pressure

I agree with everything you have said. Only 2 lineouts I can think he messed up. One an overthrow the other went squint. The rest Bakkies disrupted or the jumpers dropped.

As for not hooking, must be a coaching thing. I can't think why he wouldn't hook on purpose. So again give him a break.

Pity Bennet not involved, but where would you put him?

At 13 outside the VERY green Duncan Taylor who looked at best extremely shakey on Sunday?

Move NDL to 12 to give Bennet the 13 Slot? NDL was tried and failed at 12.

Play Lamont at 12?

It is a shame for Bennett and had Scott been fit I reckon he would have started this game or Sundays.

Not seeing Lamont at 12 or 13 is an enormous relief, but he is a lucky guy to be in there. Everyone who is criticisng Ford is ignoring the fact that Lamont butchered our best try scoring chance on Sunday.

Could Bennett have played on the wing?

I will repeat this question...

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: 

Riskysports wrote:I may be one of the ones that people refer to when they say we are being a bit over critical on Ford

While I respect your opinion, I will have to strongly disagree

2 of the key jobs of a hooker is to Hook and throw a line out - if this fails then it puts the whole team on the back foot - as we saw in the SA match - any chance of getting back in the game failed every time we lost our own ball

That is why I am calling him to be dropped - the whole Scottish momentum stalls repeatable through his current inability to do the basics. Unfortunately that position is a key one for that reason - and his head is not right when it comes to line outs

Picking him now means the Ozzies will happily kick to touch everywhere, knowing that if they steal one then the likelyhood is they will get free reign in the line out

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

They will know that if he can not hook, they just need to stand their ground (not even need to push forward) in scrums and their hooking hooker has a great chance of stealing the ball

Our set pieces are now totally compromised and will be considered a weapon by the opposition -which loses us momentum and gives them a confidence boost


I really think he needs a sport physiologist to help him, as he is too frail when it comes to pressure

I agree with everything you have said. Only 2 lineouts I can think he messed up. One an overthrow the other went squint. The rest Bakkies disrupted or the jumpers dropped.

As for not hooking, must be a coaching thing. I can't think why he wouldn't hook on purpose. So again give him a break.

Pity Bennet not involved, but where would you put him?

At 13 outside the VERY green Duncan Taylor who looked at best extremely shakey on Sunday?

Move NDL to 12 to give Bennet the 13 Slot? NDL was tried and failed at 12.

Play Lamont at 12?

It is a shame for Bennett and had Scott been fit I reckon he would have started this game or Sundays.

Not seeing Lamont at 12 or 13 is an enormous relief, but he is a lucky guy to be in there. Everyone who is criticisng Ford is ignoring the fact that Lamont butchered our best try scoring chance on Sunday.

Could Bennett have played on the wing?

I will repeat this question...

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

Come on Risky, You know the game. Do you really think that Ford is responsible for his jumpers screwing up their timing or dropping the ball?

He isn't blameless but he isn't solely responsible.

BigGee wrote:I am curious about Gilchrist form as well. I have not seen nearly enough of Edinburgh this year to have any feel for how he is playing, but they have started to grind out some results recently, something they have not been famed for so I guess he must have been a part of that.

Given that we are pretty blessed in the second row you do think that they must be seeing something in him, so let him have his chance in the big game where there will be no where to hide. We will know a lot more by Saturday evening.

I guess it is just a whole lot easier to blood someone in an experienced pack than it is in a very green backline which would explain why he plays and Bennett does not, for now!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Risky, you're absolutely right, and it does make relieving pressure incredibly difficult when you know that kicking to touch is likely to hand the ball straight back to the oppo with a decent attacking position and you're back defending in your own 22 again.  I also think wee Greig is a lucky lad to retain his shirt - I hope that he's been told in no uncertain terms to hurry up his service this weekend

BigGee wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Risky, you're absolutely right, and it does make relieving pressure incredibly difficult when you know that kicking to touch is likely to hand the ball straight back to the oppo with a decent attacking position and you're back defending in your own 22 again.  I also think wee Greig is a lucky lad to retain his shirt - I hope that he's been told in no uncertain terms to hurry up his service this weekend

Actually looking forward to seeing S H-C starting for Edinburgh on Friday night and on TV as well. Playing behind what looks like a half decent pack as well. Now he is someone who has a quick pass!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

BigGee wrote:I am curious about Gilchrist form as well. I have not seen nearly enough of Edinburgh this year to have any feel for how he is playing, but they have started to grind out some results recently, something they have not been famed for so I guess he must have been a part of that.

Given that we are pretty blessed in the second row you do think that they must be seeing something in him, so let him have his chance in the big game where there will be no where to hide. We will know a lot more by Saturday evening.

I guess it is just a whole lot easier to blood someone in an experienced pack than it is in a very green backline which would explain why he plays and Bennett does not, for now!

Very possibly BigGee, which is why in all honesty the Japan game was the one in which to blood the Messiah - missed opportunity

Riskysports wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: 

Riskysports wrote:I may be one of the ones that people refer to when they say we are being a bit over critical on Ford

While I respect your opinion, I will have to strongly disagree

2 of the key jobs of a hooker is to Hook and throw a line out - if this fails then it puts the whole team on the back foot - as we saw in the SA match - any chance of getting back in the game failed every time we lost our own ball

That is why I am calling him to be dropped - the whole Scottish momentum stalls repeatable through his current inability to do the basics. Unfortunately that position is a key one for that reason - and his head is not right when it comes to line outs

Picking him now means the Ozzies will happily kick to touch everywhere, knowing that if they steal one then the likelyhood is they will get free reign in the line out

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

They will know that if he can not hook, they just need to stand their ground (not even need to push forward) in scrums and their hooking hooker has a great chance of stealing the ball

Our set pieces are now totally compromised and will be considered a weapon by the opposition -which loses us momentum and gives them a confidence boost


I really think he needs a sport physiologist to help him, as he is too frail when it comes to pressure

I agree with everything you have said. Only 2 lineouts I can think he messed up. One an overthrow the other went squint. The rest Bakkies disrupted or the jumpers dropped.

As for not hooking, must be a coaching thing. I can't think why he wouldn't hook on purpose. So again give him a break.

Pity Bennet not involved, but where would you put him?

At 13 outside the VERY green Duncan Taylor who looked at best extremely shakey on Sunday?

Move NDL to 12 to give Bennet the 13 Slot? NDL was tried and failed at 12.

Play Lamont at 12?

It is a shame for Bennett and had Scott been fit I reckon he would have started this game or Sundays.

Not seeing Lamont at 12 or 13 is an enormous relief, but he is a lucky guy to be in there. Everyone who is criticisng Ford is ignoring the fact that Lamont butchered our best try scoring chance on Sunday.

Could Bennett have played on the wing?

I will repeat this question...

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

Come on Risky, You know the game. Do you really think that Ford is responsible for his jumpers screwing up their timing or dropping the ball?

He isn't blameless but he isn't solely responsible.

For 3 years he has been the common denominator..

I think it almost comes to a point that he and the whole set of forwards have no faith in the ball coming in right

Mike Blair wrote:The problem with Scotland was the timing of their poor line-outs, with the vast majority of losses taking place in the first 20 minutes - when you're trying to get a foothold in the game and trying to take the momentum out of the constant waves of South African power.

And the reason for those first five or so going pear-shaped were varied; a steal with the first, a lack of concentration from Alasdair Strokosch at the second, a crooked throw from Ross Ford to follow. It was tough to watch

Solid8 wrote:Weir starts no further changes.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: 

Riskysports wrote:I may be one of the ones that people refer to when they say we are being a bit over critical on Ford

While I respect your opinion, I will have to strongly disagree

2 of the key jobs of a hooker is to Hook and throw a line out - if this fails then it puts the whole team on the back foot - as we saw in the SA match - any chance of getting back in the game failed every time we lost our own ball

That is why I am calling him to be dropped - the whole Scottish momentum stalls repeatable through his current inability to do the basics. Unfortunately that position is a key one for that reason - and his head is not right when it comes to line outs

Picking him now means the Ozzies will happily kick to touch everywhere, knowing that if they steal one then the likelyhood is they will get free reign in the line out

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

They will know that if he can not hook, they just need to stand their ground (not even need to push forward) in scrums and their hooking hooker has a great chance of stealing the ball

Our set pieces are now totally compromised and will be considered a weapon by the opposition -which loses us momentum and gives them a confidence boost


I really think he needs a sport physiologist to help him, as he is too frail when it comes to pressure

I agree with everything you have said. Only 2 lineouts I can think he messed up. One an overthrow the other went squint. The rest Bakkies disrupted or the jumpers dropped.

As for not hooking, must be a coaching thing. I can't think why he wouldn't hook on purpose. So again give him a break.

Pity Bennet not involved, but where would you put him?

At 13 outside the VERY green Duncan Taylor who looked at best extremely shakey on Sunday?

Move NDL to 12 to give Bennet the 13 Slot? NDL was tried and failed at 12.

Play Lamont at 12?

It is a shame for Bennett and had Scott been fit I reckon he would have started this game or Sundays.

Not seeing Lamont at 12 or 13 is an enormous relief, but he is a lucky guy to be in there. Everyone who is criticisng Ford is ignoring the fact that Lamont butchered our best try scoring chance on Sunday.

Could Bennett have played on the wing?

I will repeat this question...

How many years is it now that we get to the opposition 5 m line and we all know in our hearts that the line out is likley to go wrong - this is not a new thing

Come on Risky, You know the game. Do you really think that Ford is responsible for his jumpers screwing up their timing or dropping the ball?

He isn't blameless but he isn't solely responsible.

For 3 years he has been the common denominator..

I think it almost comes to a point that he and the whole set of forwards have no faith in the ball coming in right

How many times do I have to say this?

I wanted MacArthur to start!

However the criticism of Ford is getting beyond a joke. Ford has played well for the most part in the last 2 weeks. The lineout functioned well against Japan, and Bakkies Botha (one of the best lineout operators in the world) did a sterling job of making our lineout collapse.

I'm willing to bet my mortgage IRB Player of the year nominee Mike Blair knows a lot more about rugby than anyone on here and even he knows Ford wasn't 100% responsible :

Mike Blair wrote:The problem with Scotland was the timing of their poor line-outs, with the vast majority of losses taking place in the first 20 minutes - when you're trying to get a foothold in the game and trying to take the momentum out of the constant waves of South African power.

And the reason for those first five or so going pear-shaped were varied; a steal with the first, a lack of concentration from Alasdair Strokosch at the second, a crooked throw from Ross Ford to follow. It was tough to watch

MacArthur should have started to give us an idea of what he could bring to the table as an alternative. Ford does seem to be a really easy scape goat. A bit like NDL. It seems fasionable to criticize him despite the mountain of work he got through.

He only played 60 minutes and was the 2nd top Scottish tackler. We don't have the player pool to put guys like Ford out of consideration.

As for DeLuca himself, he is a bit of muppet, but it's hard to argue that in the absence of Scott, NDL and Seymore have been our best backs. Ran hard, passed well, made no mistakes and kept his brain farts in check.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:MacArthur should have started to give us an idea of what he could bring to the table as an alternative. Ford does seem to be a really easy scape goat. A bit like NDL. It seems fasionable to criticize him despite the mountain of work he got through.

He only played 60 minutes and was the 2nd top Scottish tackler. We don't have the player pool to put guys like Ford out of consideration.

As for DeLuca himself, he is a bit of muppet, but it's hard to argue that in the absence of Scott, NDL and Seymore have been our best backs. Ran hard, passed well, made no mistakes and kept his brain farts in check.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:MacArthur should have started to give us an idea of what he could bring to the table as an alternative. Ford does seem to be a really easy scape goat. A bit like NDL. It seems fasionable to criticize him despite the mountain of work he got through.

He only played 60 minutes and was the 2nd top Scottish tackler. We don't have the player pool to put guys like Ford out of consideration.

As for DeLuca himself, he is a bit of muppet, but it's hard to argue that in the absence of Scott, NDL and Seymore have been our best backs. Ran hard, passed well, made no mistakes and kept his brain farts in check.

Radge, I know you're always keen to defend the lad, but he missed 3 straight up tackles alone against Japan according to espn (I counted 5!).

tigertattie wrote:For years I've been saying that Scott was the answer at 12

For 12 months I've been saying Swinson needed a Scotland call up

However, going on TJ's analysis, maybe I'm wrong on this occasion about wee Dunky. I thought he was dire on Sunday but Maybe it was just anger that I was viewing the game by at that point!

5 Players Who Should Have Been Given A Chance

“As I said during the tour we need and want to expand our playing pool and within that we have to be clear on which of our long-experienced players will make the journey to the World Cup. We have to make sure, too, that our young players, who have the ability to play international footy, get the mileage on the clock ahead of the World Cup.”

That is what Scott Johnson said when the Scotland squad was announced for the Autumn Tests. It is a quote lifted from the article on the SRU website announcing the 41 man squad at the end of October. As a result we ran a series of articles looking at which players might be drinking in the last chance saloon.

Johnson’s rhetoric seemed to promise so much. A chance, finally, for the likes of Fusaro and MacArthur to put pressure on incumbents. A chance to see if young bucks like Johnny Gray and Mark Bennett had the potential to step up. A final chance for Nick De Luca to transfer his club form onto the international stage.

But it turns out Johnson and his coaching staff had pre-picked the majority of their starting line ups for every game (barring injuries). Form was an irrelevance. What does this say to those picked? Put in a mediocre performance and you’ll do? What does it say to those who’ve not even been picked?

It smacks of poor management. It nullifies the threat Johnson gave to incumbent members of the squad and beats down the aspirations of youngsters pushing for a place. No one, it seems, is drinking in the last chance saloon. That rather defeats the purpose of the articles we’ve been running and there was risk this writer might snap and just write Ross Ford’s name in all five slots.

We are where we are. So let’s turn this on its head and look at five players who should have been given a chance.

1. Geoff Cross

Geoff Cross played 8 minutes of international rugby this Autumn. It’s hard to know what Scott Johnson learned about Girth in those 8 minutes. Perhaps Girth has nothing to prove. Perhaps Johnson knows what Girth can do. But the same could be said about Moray Low. Low is hardly a new addition to the Scotland team having amassed 22 caps to date, most of them as a substitute. Low put in a good shift in the scrum against South Africa but it was hard to see what contribution he made elsewhere. He made seven tackles in the whole match. Girth regularly hits double figures. But then arguably we don’t know how Girth might cope with the new scrum engagement laws at international level. We know Girth loves a scrum though and thrives on demolishing the opposition. The look of childish delight on his face after demolishing the Irish scrum in the Six Nations will live long in the memory.

Scotland are very short on options at tighthead. I am not suggesting that Girth is the answer in the absence of Euan Murray but Low is not the answer either and selecting him for a second game in a row tells us nothing we don’t already know.

2. Jon Welsh

Welsh made his Scotland debut against Italy at loosehead as a very very last minute replacement for Chunk. Scotland lost that game but Welsh gave Castrogiovanni a torrid time in the scrum. Welsh has since shifted to tighthead and despite being called into the Scotland squad during the summer and the squad for the Autumn Tests has yet to add to his tally of one cap. As with Girth I am not suggesting that Welsh is the future for Scotland but there’s no way of knowing unless he gets some game time.

3. Grant Shiells

Newcastle Falcon’s loosehead Shiells didn’t make the Autumn Test squad however he was called up last autumn due to injuries. Shiells has turned out for Scotland ‘A’ and is a regular fixture in a Newcastle team grinding out difficult wins in the Premiership. Dickinson has shown he is capable of filling in for Ryan Grant without setting the world on fire but a run of injuries could find Scotland without a specialist loosehead. This, Johnson said, was an opportunity to get young players some mileage on the clock ahead of the World Cup. The omission of Shiells feels like another in a long line of missed opportunities.

4. Chris Fusaro

Johnson has been quoted in the press as saying Fusaro has more to do before getting his opportunity. According to Johnson, Fusaro is not winning 50-50 competitions against “the big boys” and has to be “far better than anyone else” before being selected. Here he is shrugging off a tackle from Mike Ross and smashing past Rob Kearney to dot down for Glasgow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGT9IGYuh5U. He also once had a crack at Scott MacLeod but sadly the video is no longer available.

It’s a rather baffling assessment of a player yet to play top-level international rugby. Players raise their game at international level and what’s to say Fusaro won’t? Johnson’s assessment may be right but surely an appearance off the bench would have given Fusaro an opportunity to show what he can do as well as putting some of that “mileage” on the clock. Johnson accepts Scotland lack depth at openside but omitting a player of Fusaro’s potential is hardly going to rectify that.

But look down the squad list for the match against Australia and Fusaro’s omission becomes clear. Kieran Lowe. A versatile player for sure but he only adds depth in areas where Scotland are hardly lacking in options. Lowe will come off the bench and be tied to Scotland forevermore but at a cost to the team as a whole for that game.

5. Pat MacArthur aka the Scottish Rugby Blog’s weekly Ross Ford Rant™

I suggested on Twitter that Ford was starting because Johnson reads this blog and just wanted to annoy me given I’ve had Ford in the last chance saloon for two weeks on the trot. I asked if anyone could offer a more plausible explanation. The only plausible (repeatable) suggestion was that Ford looks good on the posters.

Pat MacArthur should be starting against Australia, not warming the bench. Johnson says Ford only made one error at the line out (a squint throw) and did a lot of good work in the loose. Some commenters on here and elsewhere have backed this saying some of the blame for failed line outs shout lie with Hamilton and the jumpers and that Ford tackles and carries well. There is some truth in that, but a hooker has two main jobs no-one else does. Throw ins at line-outs and hooking. Some blame for line out failure may lie with Hamilton and the jumpers but is that a trust issue? Ford has been misfiring for a number of years. Some have suggested that Ford has been instructed not to hook and Scotland are relying on being able to drive over the ball. But when the ball is sitting dormant in the channel and the shove isn’t working you’d think he might at least give it a go. If Ford is still in the last chance saloon he’s long since passed out in the toilets covered in his own vomit.

In his brief time in a Scotland shirt MacArthur has shown he has the ability to compete at this level even demonstrating an openside’s scavenging instinct in the ruck. If Johnson is trying to test the strength and depth of his squad Ford’s continued selection makes no sense. Scott Lawson showed he might still have something to contribute from the bench but MacArthur has the potential and ability to become first choice and make a real difference in games. His selection on the bench is baffling.

And finally…

An honourable mention must also go to Tom Heathcote and Greig Tonks. Heathcote must be ruing his decision to stay in England rather than making the move north but in terms of getting mileage you would have thought Johnson might have given him a run at some point even if it was from the bench. Tonks is also unfortunate not to get a run out while Maitland. We know what Maitland can do and he does it effectively, although once Hogg returns he’ll probably be posted back to the wing. It seems a shame then not to give Tonks a run to get mileage on the clock and chance to add more competition in the back three.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Can't disagree with much of that Blog Asbo, do we think we needed an extra match? Or a more strict rotation policy?

As I said I still think the criticism being arrayed against Ford is harsh. Especially when Wingers like Lamont escape criticim for punting the ball out on the full with a 3 man overlap.

If we had another match we would have had to use a domestic based Side like Wales will next week due to IRB international window bye laws.

A great chance to blood Bennett and give the likes of Welsh, MacArthur, Gray Jr, Tonks and others meaninful international test time?

Analysis: Where did it all go wrong?

As many anticipated, Sunday’s 28-0 humbling at the hands of the Springboks was a real tough day at the office for Scotland. There were precious few aspects of play that could be termed a “success”, precious few highlights from a Scottish perspective, and precious few players who earned pass marks.

Coach Scott Johnson said in the build-up to this clash that “everyone wants to go to heaven, but no-one is prepared to die.” Well, in their second November Test, Scotland were well and truly slaughtered – and they played a leading role in their own demise.

South Africa are a brilliant side, and a very clinical one, but as Johnson alluded to post-match; “there was a lot of ‘us’ in there too”. A heavy price was paid for a plethora of simple mistakes.

Here, I take a look at several of the areas that caused Scotland problems on Sunday, and must be rectified ahead of this weekend’s clash with Australia:

Set-piece platform:

Scotland’s inability to generate clean, first-phase ball was a real issue against the Boks. The lineout malfunctioned terribly in the opening exchanges thanks to a combination of poor throwing, poor timing and probably poor communication between the men up front.

South Africa, martialled by Flip van der Merwe, did a great job of spoiling the hosts’ possession, but even against such high-calibre opposition, losing five from your first six lineouts is entirely unacceptable. Though it was shored up as the match wore on, every successful take was greeted by a cheer of sarcasm from the home crowd.

There is certainly big pressure on Ross Ford to sort out his wayward throwing – a problem that seems to have blighted his game for quite some time. The competition for places is now such that he is no longer without significant challenge for the number two jersey.

If things go as pear-shaped against the Wallabies as they did the Springboks, we can expect a similar outcome. James Horwill will have done his homework.

The scrum was messy, partly due to the havoc wreaked on the Murrayfield pitch by a bout of parasitic worms. Scotland infringed only once on their own ball, winning four from five of their scrummages, but the possession was often low-quality and scrappy for Greig Laidlaw. Ford’s non-striking seems more tactical than through lack of ability, but it can certainly lead to some sticky situations.

The much-maligned Wallaby pack was dominant over their highly-rated Irish counterparts last week, and Moray Low in particular will need to be on-guard at tighthead.

The lack of a solid platform really stifled Scotland on Sunday – good first-phase possession is very important for attacking rugby, and without it, they seriously struggled to gain a foothold in the game.

Errors and execution:

“Error-strewn” was the term I used in the headline of my match report. That was probably too kind. The stats showed that of the 26 times Scotland lost possession, just over a quarter were due to handling mistakes.

It was incredibly frustrating to watch the home side cough up ball and opportunities so readily to such a quality team, and the errors often came when a pass going to hand or a more intelligent line being run could have resulted in a break.

Several players vented their frustration at the lack of quality execution, and the absence of such basic rugby technique stunted Scotland time after time – despite enjoying two-thirds of the second-half possession and territory.

Decision-making:

In his post-match press conference, Boks coach Heyneke Meyer credited his charges for taking the right options at the right times.

The ruthlessness with which they struck to build an insurmountable lead shone in stark contrast to the Scots’ own stuttering attack.

Here is one of the more worrying stats from Sunday: Scotland made zero clean breaks, despite the aforementioned possession figure.

Here’s another: of the ten visits Scotland made to the South African 22, seven ended in error and two in infringement. And of course, where the most important stat of all was concerned – nil points were scored.

Seldom did the Springboks look troubled, and seldom did the Scots look capable of breaching their try-line. Though they did, at times, identify the visitors’ tendency to rush up in defence on the outside, and shut down space, Johnson’s men were rarely able to exploit it.

When opportunities to catch the likes of Jean de Villiers or JP Pietersen high and narrow arose, Scotland struggled to get the ball to the right areas of the pitch. When they managed to get the ball there, usually via a cross-kick, they often lacked the personnel to keep it, with the Boks scrambling well and piling numbers into the breakdown.

I’ve highlighted an example of this “wrong option” rugby below. We have Sean Lamont running what, initially, is a nice arcing line across the defensive line. There are gaps to be exploited there, with Pietersen in that advanced, narrow position mentioned above.

Encouragingly, Scotland have three runners all coming from depth to support the winger. However, only Duncan Taylor gives Lamont a real option on the inside line. The other two players lack conviction with their supporting runs, and Lamont goes himself.

He ends up attempting a kick through off the outside of his right boot. It’s awkward, it’s forced and it’s the wrong option. Giving a pass, taking contact, or backing himself to make ground and keep the ball would all have been better decisions. The miscued kick ends up going out on the full and gives away possession (ironically, Scotland managed to pinch the subsequent lineout!)

The Breakdown:

The difference between the speed, efficiency and effectiveness of the respective Scottish and South African breakdown efforts was marked, to say the least. Ironically, it is a Scot – Richie Gray (no, a different Richie Gray) – who is credited with the improvements the Boks have made in that department.

That was yet another factor in slowing the Scottish play down – the quality of the contest offered by the likes of Francois Louw and Duane Vermeulen was awesome. John Barclay played well, and put in a tremendous shift trying to tame those breakdown behemoths, but he was always likely to be fighting a losing battle.

Those were four of the key areas, to my mind, in which Scotland struggled, or came off a poor second-best to the Springboks. The good news is that, by and large, those issues are fixable. They are the same issues Johnson has been talking about and focusing on for much of his tenure.

South Africa didn’t need any help from the home side’s errors and imprecision, but they got it in spades. They didn’t need any help from Scotland’s quick-fire brace of slip-ups to bag two tries and extend their lead to 21 points before half-time. And they certainly didn’t need any help in defence, but one-dimensional rugby and poor decision-making made for easy white-shirted targets.

“The mantra doesn’t change,” said Johnson this week. The mantra doesn’t, but Scotland certainly have to.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Anyone fancy making a XV of fit and available players who have not played at all in the AIs?

Might give us an indication of who he has overlooked...

RDW_Scotland wrote:Anyone fancy making a XV of fit and available players who have not played at all in the AIs?

Might give us an indication of who he has overlooked...