Scotland Fans' 2014 6N of hell Post-mortem

First topic message reminder :

EDIT March 18th post-Scotland's capitulation to Wales

So, it's the end of the six nations. I have to say the intention of this early prediction thread was to calm all suppositions that Scotland might be anywhere near a threat this year. I have maintained that things look better with Cotter coming in (and hopefully not having to resort to 5th/6th choice wings, though that couldn't have been predicted).

Someone pointed out that in this last game if Wales had received the red card the scoreline would not have been the same in reverse. In fact I would be very worried that we still would have lost. To me it feels like it was an excuse to put the heads down/give Johnson the farewell he deserves.

Personally, I am lost for words. Not really sure where to go from here.

Anyone?

***

EDIT March 8th post-Scotland's capitulation to France.

Come hither one and all and we shall drink our sorrows away...

***
EDIT February 8th post-Scotland's capitulation to England & Ireland

I was right all along.

***

I got this in early because I did not want to see anybody from any nation suggest for any minute that Scotland has a chance of doing anything other than :

a) Cleaning their dirties in a smeg [White Wash]
b) Making lots of soup this winter [wooden spoon]
c) Scraping a win against Italy , in the dying seconds after a urine poor performance , which still might result in "b)" anyway.

No they did not beat Ireland.  
No they did not beat England.
No they did not beat France.  
No they did not beat Wales.  

They might *look* like they are going to win to any outsiders no privy to the Scotland set up, but I guarantee you no sensible Scottish fan will be expecting anything but a, b & c this season.

Why?

• We have an interim coach (for over a year!!!)who is more worried about what he says on camera than apparently coaching a sensible game plan
  
• Our breakdown is awful
  
• We have the psychological hardness of my nan - you don't know my nan but that's not good
  
• Our best players are either never played in position, not allowed to play in the XXIII at all, or are just awful at the moment. Not making the injury excuse because frankly it doesn't apply with exception of 2 key players that might be back in time. Happens in every squad
  
• etc, etc (feel free to add to this list)
  

So look, when we are compiling our 6N predictions this year, can we just for once all agree on something?

1. AN Other
2. AN Other
3. AN Other
4. AN Other
5. Maybe Scotland
6. Probably Scotland

Anyone mentions "dark horses" and "Scotland" in the same sentence without a negation clause in there somewhere (and you KNOW what I mean) I am getting our the knuckle dusters    

I'd love to go to that debate but it's a real trek from my office - pretty much next to the bypass!

yup FES, would take a whole 15 mins to get there in a taxi

My office is at the Meadows. More like 20 minutes.....

What time does it start?

18:30 till 20:00

Drinks reception afterwards (Thats Schitz going now there is bevvy)

funnyExiledScot wrote:My office is at the Meadows. More like 20 minutes.....

What time does it start?

A whole twenty minutes?!  :drawsinbreath&sucksairthruclenchedteeth: 'tis a looonnngggg way then

Go an make yersel heard, ye daft tw4t

Plus it is Sighthill - the closest thing we have to Glasgow.

You may get stabbed.

I would travel a long way to ask Captain Haddock WTF happened during his tenure.

Shame Rob Moffatt isn't there to ask him to elaborate on his theory of dropping players when they are in form...

We can mock Hadden all we want, but he did preside over our best ever 6N!

I feel for Haddock! He had such players as Andy Henderson. Dan Parks..................

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:My office is at the Meadows. More like 20 minutes.....

What time does it start?

A whole twenty minutes?!  :drawsinbreath&sucksairthruclenchedteeth: 'tis a looonnngggg way then

Go an make yersel heard, ye daft tw4t

Charming! You can take the boy out of Glasgow....

George Carlin wrote:I would travel a long way to ask Captain Haddock WTF happened during his tenure.

That's a good question, although I'm fairly confident he won't know the answer.

tigertattie wrote:I feel for Haddock!  He had such players as Andy Henderson. Dan Parks..................

Don't cut him too much slack. He could quite easily have developed the team set out below.

9. Cusiter
10. Paterson
11. Danielli
12. S Lamont
13. M Evans
14. T Evans
15. R Lamont

20.Blair 21.Ross 22.Southwell

funnyExiledScot wrote:

tigertattie wrote:I feel for Haddock!  He had such players as Andy Henderson. Dan Parks..................

Don't cut him too much slack. He could quite easily have developed the team set out below.

9. Cusiter
10. Paterson
11. Danielli
12. S Lamont
13. M Evans
14. T Evans
15. R Lamont

20.Blair 21.Ross 22.Southwell

Hmmm. I agree on Cusiter. But Danielli???? Slong at 12???? Squashed gobin at 13???? R Lamont, aye, but he was always injured!

Tiger - I'm merely suggesting that Haddock had more options than people suggest. Players like Parks, Morrison, Di Rollo, Henderson et al were not the only players available. He was pretty slow to pick De Luca (who, believe it or not, was a promising prospect back then), the Evans brothers and did not move CP back to 10. That we had zero creativity and didn't score tries under Frank Haddock was not entirely down to the cards he was dealt.

Think I may head down to this Sighthill place for 6:30pm if I can. Will report back if I survive.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

tigertattie wrote:I feel for Haddock!  He had such players as Andy Henderson. Dan Parks..................

Don't cut him too much slack. He could quite easily have developed the team set out below.

9. Cusiter
10. Paterson
11. Danielli
12. S Lamont
13. M Evans
14. T Evans
15. R Lamont

20.Blair 21.Ross 22.Southwell

Who are you really - Are u Scott Johnson   

Go on Risky. Enlighten us with your wisdom. Who should Frank Haddock have selected as his 1st XV during his tenure as a better alternative to Parks, Morrison etc.?

In Risky's defence FES, Rory Lamont was never out of the Hospital and Thom Evans was nearly killed.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:In Risky's defence FES, Rory Lamont was never out of the Hospital and Thom Evans was nearly killed.

We're talking about Frank Hadden's time as coach, not Andy Robinson.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, my post seems to have created some confusion, but I was merely pointing out that Frank Hadden did have options as head coach.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:In Risky's defence FES, Rory Lamont was never out of the Hospital and Thom Evans was nearly killed.

We're talking about Frank Hadden's time as coach, not Andy Robinson.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, my post seems to have created some confusion, but I was merely pointing out that Frank Hadden did have options as head coach.

I agree, but he had nothing like the calibre of player Johnson has had.

Why can't we just get a coach who picks the best players?

All Cotter has to do to improve our performance is pick specialists and pick the best guys.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26622460

Well Hogg given 3 week ban, I guess his remorse and good discipline record spared him a worse sentence.

Seeing his team get pummeled was quite enough punishment already.

I was close with my 4 week ban prediction. Given that most internationalists will be rested this weekend its really only a 2 week ban for Hogg.

Fair enough really! Silly boy!

Did anyone here go to the sru evening?

EWT Spoons wrote:Did anyone here go to the sru evening?

Yes, I did. Slightly missold I think.

Rankin started with a quick off the cuff summary of himself and his background. Rory Lamont then spoke for an hour, a full 60 minutes, about the failings of the new concussion protocol, and Frank Haddock finished with a 30 minute summary of his 4 year tenure as Scotland coach and what he tried to achieve.

The video footage didn't work by and large, and the PowerPoint kept having glitches. We started 20 minutes late because Haddock couldn't download his slides from his personal laptop.

As such, the Q and A session was less than 10 minutes, and the questions very poorly handled in my view. For example, one question was why certain schools don't do more to collaborate with other schools to encourage a wider league. Haddock responded "have you got 2 days?". No Frank, but we had 2 hours and some insight into the current issues facing Scottish rugby would have been nice. Another question related to coaching, and promoting coaching improvements in schools. For some reason Rory Lamont answered that: "I was raised south of the border so have no real insight into coaching qualifications at Scottish schools". Great.

Whilst it's great that the 3 speakers dedicated (hodge didn't turn up) the time for this, they didn't have to and as far as I know weren't paid to, it wasn't an open forum at all, and it certainly did not cover any of the real issues affecting Scottish rugby today. No discussion of 3rd pro team, Scott Johnson debacle, number of nsq players at Glasgow an Edinburgh, no stadium for Edinburgh, general lack of competitiveness of the pro sides or sru finances. Only passing mention of issue of getting pro sides and clubs better integrated and pro side squads being too large. Youth engagement was mentioned but Haddock doesn't think we can do much to increase numbers, but rather we should better harness those that do play. Rankin seemed to be saying something different, in that we can and should get non rugby areas better engaged, without really saying how.

All in all I thought it was poorly done. No discredit to Rory and Frank for giving their time, but I wanted an open discussion and debate on the mess we are in and how to fix it, and this was really a lecture.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:Did anyone here go to the sru evening?

Yes, I did. Slightly missold I think.

Rankin started with a quick off the cuff summary of himself and his background. Rory Lamont then spoke for an hour, a full 60 minutes, about the failings of the new concussion protocol, and Frank Haddock finished with a 30 minute summary of his 4 year tenure as Scotland coach and what he tried to achieve.

The video footage didn't work by and large, and the PowerPoint kept having glitches. We started 20 minutes late because Haddock couldn't download his slides from his personal laptop.

As such, the Q and A session was less than 10 minutes, and the questions very poorly handled in my view. For example, one question was why certain schools don't do more to collaborate with other schools to encourage a wider league. Haddock responded "have you got 2 days?". No Frank, but we had 2 hours and some insight into the current issues facing Scottish rugby would have been nice. Another question related to coaching, and promoting coaching improvements in schools. For some reason Rory Lamont answered that: "I was raised south of the border so have no real insight into coaching qualifications at Scottish schools". Great.

Whilst it's great that the 3 speakers dedicated (hodge didn't turn up) the time for this, they didn't have to and as far as I know weren't paid to, it wasn't an open forum at all, and it certainly did not cover any of the real issues affecting Scottish rugby today. No discussion of 3rd pro team, Scott Johnson debacle, number of nsq players at Glasgow an Edinburgh, no stadium for Edinburgh, general lack of competitiveness of the pro sides or sru finances. Only passing mention of issue of getting pro sides and clubs better integrated and pro side squads being too large. Youth engagement was mentioned but Haddock doesn't think we can do much to increase numbers, but rather we should better harness those that do play. Rankin seemed to be saying something different, in that we can and should get non rugby areas better engaged, without really saying how.

All in all I thought it was poorly done. No discredit to Rory and Frank for giving their time, but I wanted an open discussion and debate on the mess we are in and how to fix it, and this was really a lecture.

Very good summary, FES.   

Such a shame that it wasn't better structured. I guess that if speakers are turning up for free, then they get to talk about what they want to talk about.

I suspect that Hadden's Powerpoint slides about How To Score Tries Occasionally also jammed a few times in player sessions when he was head coach.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:Did anyone here go to the sru evening?

Yes, I did. Slightly missold I think.

Rankin started with a quick off the cuff summary of himself and his background. Rory Lamont then spoke for an hour, a full 60 minutes, about the failings of the new concussion protocol, and Frank Haddock finished with a 30 minute summary of his 4 year tenure as Scotland coach and what he tried to achieve.

The video footage didn't work by and large, and the PowerPoint kept having glitches. We started 20 minutes late because Haddock couldn't download his slides from his personal laptop.

As such, the Q and A session was less than 10 minutes, and the questions very poorly handled in my view. For example, one question was why certain schools don't do more to collaborate with other schools to encourage a wider league. Haddock responded "have you got 2 days?". No Frank, but we had 2 hours and some insight into the current issues facing Scottish rugby would have been nice. Another question related to coaching, and promoting coaching improvements in schools. For some reason Rory Lamont answered that: "I was raised south of the border so have no real insight into coaching qualifications at Scottish schools". Great.

Whilst it's great that the 3 speakers dedicated (hodge didn't turn up) the time for this, they didn't have to and as far as I know weren't paid to, it wasn't an open forum at all, and it certainly did not cover any of the real issues affecting Scottish rugby today. No discussion of 3rd pro team, Scott Johnson debacle, number of nsq players at Glasgow an Edinburgh, no stadium for Edinburgh, general lack of competitiveness of the pro sides or sru finances. Only passing mention of issue of getting pro sides and clubs better integrated and pro side squads being too large. Youth engagement was mentioned but Haddock doesn't think we can do much to increase numbers, but rather we should better harness those that do play. Rankin seemed to be saying something different, in that we can and should get non rugby areas better engaged, without really saying how.

All in all I thought it was poorly done. No discredit to Rory and Frank for giving their time, but I wanted an open discussion and debate on the mess we are in and how to fix it, and this was really a lecture.

Sh1te, I even feel slightly bad for having guilted you into going to the event - ah well, moving on...

V disappointing that they'd drop the ball at an event like this - you'd have thought this would be an ideal opportunity to get folks back on side with the SRU. Yet to blatantly ignore the major issues is pathetic and callow - no idea why I am surprised

What did strike me was that all three speakers were very genuine and honest men, each of whom care deeply about Scottish rugby. What also struck me, Rankin in particular, is that these guys do not have the skill sets to fix any of these problems.

I've been lucky enough in my career to meet some truly brilliant people, and my sense is that the administration of Scottish rugby is not failing down to lack of effort or dedication, but lack of talent.

Rory Lamont's presentation was deeply heartfelt and personal. He suffered 10 knock outs during his career and played on. He said that had he known the facts about concussion, he'd have retired in 2008. A very worthy subject, and just because the event was not what it was billed to be, and shambolic, I do not mean to do any discredit for Rory stepping out of his comfort zone to talk about what is essentially a medical topic.

But my overriding thought leaving the session was that had this been the RFU and Stuart Lancaster, the whole thing would have been slick. The technology would have worked and been infinitely more impressive, it would have run on time, the speakers would have been briefed on the format of the event, the timings and the likely questions. Everything about the SRU still feels amateur.

Haddock spent 30 minutes really trying to justify his regime and explain all the great things he introduced around player conditioning. He twice "humbly" mentioned that his record against England was played 4, won 2. It felt like we were there not to speak and be heard, but to listen and have history re-written.

My advice to the SRU would be not to run anything like that again. The intention as always was good, but the execution woeful. Napier tried to take the blame at the end for all the technical glitches, but it was as SRU event and ultimately their responsibility.

If my firm had held an event like that I'd be deeply embarrassed and would be sending apologies to all my clients the very next day.

Was it an SRU event though? I thought it was very much a Napier Uni event?

Perhaps that's my mistaken assumption. With Rankin spearheading it and Hadden speaking, I sort of assumed that the SRU would have some input.

If I'm wrong I'm happy to take away the credit for coming up with the idea in the first place. It's a good idea, which is why I went. At the end of the session you could see almost everyone in the audience had questions they wanted to ask and have answered.

Not a ringing endorsement of Napier in which case......

I can't imagine the SRU would have the chutzpah to actually face their fans after our 6N shambles.

If it was an SRU event they probably wouldn't have sent those speakers - I'm sure it was a Napier Uni event to show off their sports research facilities or something like that.

RDW_Scotland wrote:If it was an SRU event they probably wouldn't have sent those speakers - I'm sure it was a Napier Uni event to show off their sports research facilities or something like that.

which by FES's account are rubbish.

The technical glitches can only be put on Napier but the content of the evening was pure SRU.

It seems like Rankin is full of heart and effort but he doesnt have the leadership skills or talent to be the VP of the SRU.

And Hodge not even turning up   

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:If it was an SRU event they probably wouldn't have sent those speakers - I'm sure it was a Napier Uni event to show off their sports research facilities or something like that.

which by FES's account are rubbish.

 

I do feel for the Napier guys organsing it - I run events for the Institution of Civil Engineers and a couple of weeks ago we had the Chief Bridge Master of the Forth Road Bridge giving a talk on 50 Years of the Forth Bridge.  He gave me his USB with the presentation on it and I plugged it in to the computer at the venue and nothing happened - it wasn't recognising anyone's USBs..

Eventually had to use his own laptop, which didn't have a charger so we were hoping it wouldn't die before he finished!  

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:If it was an SRU event they probably wouldn't have sent those speakers - I'm sure it was a Napier Uni event to show off their sports research facilities or something like that.

which by FES's account are rubbish.

I saw two exercise bikes and a running machine.....

funnyExiledScot wrote:What did strike me was that all three speakers were very genuine and honest men, each of whom care deeply about Scottish rugby. What also struck me, Rankin in particular, is that these guys do not have the skill sets to fix any of these problems.

I've been lucky enough in my career to meet some truly brilliant people, and my sense is that the administration of Scottish rugby is not failing down to lack of effort or dedication, but lack of talent.

Rory Lamont's presentation was deeply heartfelt and personal. He suffered 10 knock outs during his career and played on. He said that had he known the facts about concussion, he'd have retired in 2008. A very worthy subject, and just because the event was not what it was billed to be, and shambolic, I do not mean to do any discredit for Rory stepping out of his comfort zone to talk about what is essentially a medical topic.

But my overriding thought leaving the session was that had this been the RFU and Stuart Lancaster, the whole thing would have been slick. The technology would have worked and been infinitely more impressive, it would have run on time, the speakers would have been briefed on the format of the event, the timings and the likely questions. Everything about the SRU still feels amateur.

Haddock spent 30 minutes really trying to justify his regime and explain all the great things he introduced around player conditioning. He twice "humbly" mentioned that his record against England was played 4, won 2. It felt like we were there not to speak and be heard, but to listen and have history re-written.

My advice to the SRU would be not to run anything like that again. The intention as always was good, but the execution woeful. Napier tried to take the blame at the end for all the technical glitches, but it was as SRU event and ultimately their responsibility.

If my firm had held an event like that I'd be deeply embarrassed and would be sending apologies to all my clients the very next day.

Shucks, why thank you

I was talking about Radge.....

funnyExiledScot wrote:I was talking about Radge.....

Is this a bit like when Smit came out with :

"My wife also thinks I'm the most handsome man in the world"

In response to PDV calling him the best hooker in the world.

Truth be told my wife probably doesn't even think that. I have a head shaped like a stuntman's knee.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I was talking about Radge.....

Is this a bit like when Smit came out with :

"My wife also thinks I'm the most handsome man in the world"

In response to PDV calling him the best hooker in the world.

Truth be told my wife probably doesn't even think that. I have a head shaped like a stuntman's knee.

Simile of the day, worthy of Raymond Chandler.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I was talking about Radge.....

Is this a bit like when Smit came out with :

"My wife also thinks I'm the most handsome man in the world"

In response to PDV calling him the best hooker in the world.

Truth be told my wife probably doesn't even think that. I have a head shaped like a stuntman's knee.

  

I bet scotland has the best looking fans   

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: Grim reading,



14 times Weir fell off a tackle. Utterly unacceptable.

I think some of those were attempting to chase down someone elses man and getting close. Its unfair when a attempt at a last ditch tackle counts as a miss. However he missed a few as well.

Worth remembering that these statistics can also be horribly misleading. Duncan Taylor's outstanding intervention on Rhys Priestland probably saved 7 points, and he absolutely hammered into him, but on certain metrics apparently that counted as a "missed tackle", purely because the tackle wasn't technically completed.

Still, Weir had a stinker of a 6 Nations in nearly all respects, and continued his rank form for Glasgow against the Scarlets. He's a young man who deserves, and will get, further opportunities. But he's had a pretty poor season so far, and needs to improve in all respects. Even his kicking game is suffering. I've lost count of the number of misjudged kicks going straight into touch this season, and that was supposed to be a real strength of his game. I suspect Jackson will soon be taking the jersey at Glasgow for the remainder of the season, and probably the jersey for the Scotland summer tour as well. It's hard to get excited about either of these players at the moment, and the Edinburgh 10 is NSQ. Not ideal.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Worth remembering that these statistics can also be horribly misleading. Duncan Taylor's outstanding intervention on Rhys Priestland probably saved 7 points, and he absolutely hammered into him, but on certain metrics apparently that counted as a "missed tackle", purely because the tackle wasn't technically completed.

Still, Weir had a stinker of a 6 Nations in nearly all respects, and continued his rank form for Glasgow against the Scarlets. He's a young man who deserves, and will get, further opportunities. But he's had a pretty poor season so far, and needs to improve in all respects. Even his kicking game is suffering. I've lost count of the number of misjudged kicks going straight into touch this season, and that was supposed to be a real strength of his game. I suspect Jackson will soon be taking the jersey at Glasgow for the remainder of the season, and probably the jersey for the Scotland summer tour as well. It's hard to get excited about either of these players at the moment, and the Edinburgh 10 is NSQ. Not ideal.

I feel Russell should get more game time before the end of the season, if Jackson is going then it makes sense to develop a player who could potentially be the first choice next season rather than one who is leaving.

That's a very fair call, and I think most Glasgow fans would be supportive of Russell getting some game time. It's a call for Toonie to make. Russell is inexperienced, and Glasgow are in a scrap to make the playoffs, but if he's showing up in training and knocking on the door, it would be difficult for Weir and Jackson to argue that their form is compelling.

From a Scotland perspective Russell playing 10 for Glasgow between now and the end of the season would frankly be ideal, and even half decent form could put him in contention for a spot on the summer tour. It's a good time to be an up and coming stand-off in Scottish rugby. The bar has never been lower.

From this morning's Hootsmon:

It’s time for Scottish rugby to get radical

by DAVID FERGUSON

RADICAL is a word that does not sit easily with a large proportion of Scots.

For some in our sheltered world it conjures pictures of political or religious extremists or perhaps evangelical preachers placing their hands on gullible Americans and ‘curing’ them of disability or terminal illness.

But it is a word now being tossed about frequently in Scottish rugby as Scotland’s rugby community, from SRU staff and volunteers to club administrators, coaches to teachers, study radical steps that could save our place in the Rugby World Cup and Six Nations and reverse the sport’s slide away from global relevance in the game.

I have never been one for hyperbole and shake my head at countless doomsday forecasts of the end for Scottish rugby, so we will make a clear distinction. Rugby will not die in Scotland. For nearly 150 years, it has been a sport held dear in small parts of the country – the Borders, population just over 110,000, private schools and their shallow hinterlands and vibrant pockets such as Cupar, Ellon, Glasgow’s west end etc – and one only has to look at the passions aroused by hand ba’ events to realise that this kind of sporting excitement was around even before clubs were officially formed.

It will remain, just as shinty has in the glens, but the crossroads Scotland has reached now, coming up for the 20th anniversary next year of the decision rugby took to become professional, is significant, one from which, in these times of sport being dictated by finance, the wrong turn could prove irrecoverable.

Over 500 different characters from different backgrounds – volunteers, paid officials, accountants, bankers, strategists, oilmen, millionaire entrepreneurs, rugby coaches, teachers, joiners, plumbers, doctors, farmers and many others – have spent many long hours at Murrayfield analysing the problems and striving to come up with solutions.

When Mark Dodson took over as SRU chief executive in 2011, he launched another exploration mission seeking the views of people across Scottish rugby. He came in as a passionate rugby man, but one from Manchester, whose knowledge of Scottish rugby stemmed largely from discussions with Sale owner Brian Kennedy when Dodson was involved with the club.

Over the past two years all of those views have been fed into the Murrayfield machine to produce another road map for the way ahead. The problem is, like others before him, he now wants to move on and make significant changes, but could be forgiven for thinking Scots are a nation of brickies for the speed with which walls are being put up around him.

Let me make it clear. I do not know whether Dodson is the best CEO we could have and whether he will make the crucial difference. I would feel more comfortable were one of the leading trio at Murrayfield – Dodson, chairman Sir Moir Lockhead and director of rugby Scott Johnson – Scottish, but we have had plenty of Scots who could not effect change so, for me, birthplace is not as relevant as the ability to make things happen.

After an exciting weekend finale to the club championship, where Ayr and Melrose contrived to deny Gala the title and the Greenyards club came from behind their local rivals to regain the crown, we now look ahead to RBS Scottish Cup semi-finals and then a finals day at Broadwood that, for all the moaning of the venue after Murrayfield was ruled out, could provide a wonderfully atmospheric showcase for Scottish rugby at a modern ground equipped to hold as many as 8,000 people.

The key in the coming months, however, is the link between this level and the professional and international tiers. We have said in these columns ever since the game turned pro in 1995 that Scottish rugby had to find a way to compete at the elite end while retaining strong links with the clubs that grew and developed the sport here.

Too many SRU leaders failed to recognise that, or how to achieve it, and that has been at the heart of the game’s struggle. It is where Ireland and Wales made it work, keeping links from bottom to top. As a result, though terrific work, mostly voluntary, has reignited progress in the club game it is not improving at the pace of the pro and international levels, and is more distant than ever.

So, the most talented teenage players face a major step-up moving from club to pro levels, and ultimately have to spend two years or so trying to leap the divide and become good enough to play pro rugby. For many that comes with the loss of regular Saturday games, so it is no surprise when some give up.

Those that come through, such as Ruaridh Jackson or Duncan Weir, are still learning the game at 23 or 24, props are still coming to terms with the physicality at the same ages, against far better developed opponents. So coaches like Alan Solomons at Edinburgh, brought in with a clear mandate to make the club competitive with Leinster, Munster, Saracens and Clermont Auvergne, looks elsewhere for a more fully-formed player, believing that they will help to bring through the young Scots.

That will only increase if a new bridge between youth and club rugby and the pro game is not built. That is the major challenge for 2014/15, and it rests with clubs. They resisted a plan to introduce a professional eight-team Premier club league this year, so it returns to the melting pot for more discussion and potentially a new blueprint for 2015/16.

Some of the loudest critics have also been among the most vocal in castigating the Scotland team and coaches for errors in the Six Nations. Yet the two are intrinsically linked. We cannot have a better, more skilled, more cultured Scotland team without a better, more skilled and more cultured top tier of club rugby.

A new working party has been formed of club people and union officials, with advice from players and coaches, to start again on a new plan. How many times have we heard this? How many times has it led to tinkering at the edges, the abandonment of seemingly radical ideas and a hotch-potch of a structure that appeases the most vehement critics and serves only to stick another roadblock in the development of Scottish rugby?

Melrose may not be popular with everyone, but that club along with Ayr have set the bar and managed to maintain progress. They are criticised by some because their income from a sevens tournament they created, gave to the world, and have worked tirelessly every year to maintain, despite a drop-off in sponsors, helps to pay players.

The profit is well short of the six figures it once was, and most goes into club overheads and rugby development work. But the reality is that if Scotland are to reverse the slide and begin to close the gap that was so crystal-clear in the recent Six Nations it requires a different, more competitive, financed pathway for rising talent.

There are more rugby players in Scotland now aged from six to 14 than ever, a fact in the SRU figures that I do trust as I see and hear about it at weekends. So the game is not on its deathbed. We could do with more rugby in state schools and would like to see independent schools coming together to create a regular season of competitive fixtures, at under-16 and under-18 national leagues, or even four district leagues, ideally with club youth sides. There is a growing will at many private schools, so kick off with them and ignore the others, with their players unable to play for Scotland at age-grade levels. Radical, but vital.

Alongside that, we must rebuild that connection to the club game by improving the top end. Perhaps the first-draft plans to create a new Premiership of eight clubs was flawed. A ten-team league might be more engaging. That will be at the heart of the new working party’s investigations over the coming months.

But the clock is ticking and clubs who stand opposed altogether to a new, professional Premiership must recognise that they are clipping the wings of the young talent in their town and their club, encouraging the pro teams to bring in better-developed foreigners and ultimately blocking the improvement of the Scotland team.

By sticking to a league structure that strives for equality across all levels, clubs are effectively marooning the club game. The pro teams will continue to pluck the best talent and try to develop them for the international side, but we have seen the results of that over the past decade – a Scotland team bottom of the Championship virtually every year had Italy not joined, which dropped out of the world’s top eight at the last World Cup and which has become a realistic target for Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Canada, USA and Japan.

The game has changed, senior numbers have shrunk, competition levels dropped, first and second XVs are not as strong and players are now developed more slowly in Scotland. In other countries, investment in academies, facilities and clubs – Welsh ‘amateur’ clubs receive in the region of £50,000 each annually from the WRU, English second-tier clubs that ours play in the British and Irish Cup over £300,000 – has quickened the pace of improvement.

The SRU have realised that rugby is now a money game and only those who have it can compete, which applies to clubs too. Under Dodson, the union are now seeking to invest a six-figure sum in the top Scottish clubs every year, with the agreement that they must commit to improving youth structures, facilities, players and coaches, and marketing of the game, and work with schools and lower-league clubs in their areas.

Many well-known clubs have attacked the plans. Some want the money shared down the leagues, aware of course that even teams at the bottom of the food chain, such as runaway East League 3 winners St Boswells, are using their income to persuade boys to choose them over top-flight clubs like Hawick.

Heriot’s favour a district model while others back the new eight or ten-team Premiership as a firmer stepping stone.

Scotland were poor in the recent Six Nations, but most of those players are the product of the Scottish system. Club officials, hard-working volunteers or not, cannot therefore escape blame for the state of the Scottish game. They have helped to shape its direction.

Now back at the crossroads, which way will Scottish rugby choose to go 20 years on from the game opening up – follow other nations or back away? Rocket scientists are not needed to turn around Scottish rugby. Sacking the current leaders will not do it either.

We all know what the problems are. What is required over the next 12 months is courage across Scottish rugby to tackle them, not tinker but really change. That should not be as difficult for a nation of proud fighters, inventors and pioneers as it has so far proved to be. Radical was once a word that made Scots’ eyes light up.

Two key issues highlighted:

1/ The need for semi-pro clubs (the 8 proposal was fine, 10 sounds too many to me - need to get past parochialism and fear that some clubs are just going to have to miss out)
2/ Combined U18 and schools competition

And 3: The clubs need to stop their petty arguing and infighting and bring about a change that will lift Scottish Rugby out of the dark ages!

The clubs seem to reject anything the SRU put forward.  What do they want to do about the whole situation?? There's too many big clubs putting their foot down to look after their own situations as opposed to helping the game prosper.

Some of the loudest critics have also been among the most vocal in castigating the Scotland team and coaches for errors in the Six Nations. Yet the two are intrinsically linked. We cannot have a better, more skilled, more cultured Scotland team without a better, more skilled and more cultured top tier of club rugby.

It's a good article, but he's missed an important point in the section quoted above. Yes, clearly the Scotland coaches can only select from the pool of players available, and much needs to be done to both expand the pool but also the quality of players within the pool, but the reason I critised Scott Johnson heavily throughout the 6 Nations was that he himself, personally, was utterly inept at extracting the best from the pool available.

It doesn't matter how rich and well supported a nation is, or how good the playing resources available, if you have an incompetent head coach you will do badly (e.g. Martin Johnson, Mark Lievremont, Saint-Andre, John Mitchell, P Divvy, Gareth Jenkins etc.). Conversely, if your nations rugby is in complete disarray, a competent head coach can paper over the cracks (e.g. Gatland, McGeechan, Telfer).

Ferguson should realise that the critics of Scott Johnson are not unrealistic. We do understand the structural problems with Scottish rugby, and lack of finance, the limited pool of players, the need to improve both youth engagement and providing better competitions for school kids to buy into, sorting the link between the clubs and the pro sides etc etc etc. But all of that to one side, if you have a clown in charge at the top, a man willing to humiliate the captain of the side whilst standing by the worst performers, a man unable to recognise the basic principle of playing people in their correct positions, a man unable to understand that no side can withstand constant chopping and changing whilst developing an understanding on the field, if you appoint and stand by a bloke like that, then we can have the best league structure in the world, more wealth than even the SNP can fictionalise and players more world class than the Irish, and you'll still underachieve.

funnyExiledScot wrote:more wealth than even the SNP can fictionalise.

   

Oh aye, amazing what you can achieve when you tax the hell out of an asset so that exploration becomes unprofitable

Not that you'll be comfortable hearing the facts