6N Round 4: The Calcutta Cup clash

First topic message reminder :

    
ENGLAND v SCOTLAND  
Saturday 14 February 2015
KO 17:00 (GMT)
Twickers

Live on BBC1

Referee: Romain Poitey (FFR)
AR1: George Clancy (IRFU)  
AR2: Marius Mitrea (FIR)
TMO: Ben Skeen (NZR)

Teams:

ENGLAND

M Brown (Harlequins); A Watson (Bath), J Joseph (Bath), L Burrell (Northampton), J Nowell (Exeter); G Ford (Bath), B Youngs (Leicester); J Marler (Harlequins), D Hartley (Northampton), D Cole (Leicester), D Attwood (Bath), C Lawes (Northampton), J Haskell (Wasps), C Robshaw (Harlequins, capt), B Vunipola (Saracens).

Replacements: T Youngs (Leicester), M Vunipola (Saracens), K Brookes (Newcastle), G Parling (Leicester), T Wood (Northampton), R Wigglesworth (Saracens), D Cipriani (Sale), B Twelvetrees (Gloucester).

SCOTLAND

Stuart Hogg (Glasgow Warriors); Dougie Fife (Edinburgh), Mark Bennett (Glasgow Warriors), Matt Scott (Edinburgh), Tommy Seymour, Finn Russell (both Glasgow Warriors), Greig Laidlaw (captn) (Gloucester); Alasdair Dickinson (Edinburgh), Ross Ford (Edinburgh), Euan Murray (Glasgow Warriors), Jim Hamilton (Saracens), Jonny Gray (Glasgow Warriors), Robert Harley (Glasgow Warriors), Blair Cowan (London Irish) David Denton (Edinburgh).

Replacements: Fraser Brown, Ryan Grant (both Glasgow Warriors), Geoff Cross (London Irish), Tim Swinson (Glasgow Warriors), Johnnie Beattie (Montpellier), Adam Ashe (Glasgow Warriors), Sam Hidalgo-Clyne and Greig Tonks (both Edinburgh)


The result of the Ireland game beforehand could make things very interesting from an English perspective. Tournament could be blown wide open, & see England looking for a big score with an eye to next weekend & things coming down to points difference.

For us, there's nothing at stake bar pride & some melted Indian Rupees.

Twickenham was always going to be tough, but given how things have gone this tournament I'm absolutely dreading this match.
Our record down South is more embarrassing than Natalie Bennett on LBC! 32 long years since we last won at Twickenham and in the last half century we've managed just one other win in 1971. Stretch things back to the whole century and we can double our total with wins in 1926 & 1938!

Fear we'll see a similar game to England - Italy, valiant start by us & some swashbuckling stuff before ultimately being crushed in the final quarter. Although if we 'defend' the maul like we did against Italy the score will be worse.

On the bright side though, scoring any points would be an improvement on last years Calcutta Cup match...

Preconditions people? Am I being too gloomy?

Well if you ignore injuries TJ yes England aren't there. By the sounds of it you think the Scottish backs are up there though so I'll take your judgement with a pinch of salt.

Scotlands weaknesses are many - but its not the backs ball in hand. the main issues are a lack of toughness / hard edge in the forwards, unbalanced back row and Leadership - with leadership being the biggest issue. We simply do not have a captain and no obvious candidates bar Sir Kellybrows

reallybored wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

reallybored wrote:If we play with intensity and our pack can gain parity then I'm confident our back-line can out score them.

That's where your hopes fall down, right there.... although I do admire your optimism. Cotter has got Scotland playing some nice rugby now, but ironically, the only way I feel Scotland could win this match is if they revert back to type and drag England into an arm wrestle, and I'm sorry, they don't have the pack to do it.

Sorry champ, our best chance of winning this match is to revert back to type and play like traditional Scottish sides did; fast-paced, aggressive rucking and chaotically keeping the game moving.  Getting into an arm-wrestle is literally the worst thing we could do against a strong English pack.

15 - Brown vs. Hogg         ( adv Sco )
14 - Watson vs. Fife          ( adv Eng )
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     ( adv Sco )
12 - Burrell vs. Scott         ( adv Sco )
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    ( adv Sco )
10 - Ford vs. Russell          ( adv Sco )
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      ( adv Eng )

Not sure I can agree - I think we are playing the 'potential' card here a little

15 - Brown vs. Hogg        - Brown - Hogg good break runner, but a liability under the high ball
14 - Watson vs. Fife         - Watson - Fife too new to see how he will progress
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     (Joseph - been one of the players of the tournement for me
12 - Burrell vs. Scott        - Burrell - Scott coming back from injury - not set the heather alight in the 6nations so far - potential to be better
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    -Seymour - by a clear margin
10 - Ford vs. Russell          - Draw - both new - both quite exciiting - both make lots of mistakes
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      Youngs - by a country mile

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well if you ignore injuries TJ yes England aren't there. By the sounds of it you think the Scottish backs are up there though so I'll take your judgement with a pinch of salt.

No - I simply state the scots backs as a unit are much of a muchness with england ones - no advantage to either side

I was at Murrayfield for the Italy match and I was very surprised by how good the Scottish backs were.

Joseph is the one England back who looks really threatening. If he wasn't in the same position as the best scottish backs I'd have him like a shot. A great runner. Reminds me of Guscott in many ways - looks to be slow and easily tackled then wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee - he is in behind you and setting up a try.

I am trying to pretend Lamont has retired as well :-)

Think you must be on a bit of a wind up TJ like you were with Bath.

Just an opinion 7 1/2. Even you say you were surprised how good the scottish backs were. Many folk on here are looking back to previous years of poor scottish backs - this lot are much better than previous squads. Lamont would not have had a 90 cap career in any other squad but now he can't get into the side. thats a measure of the improvement

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was at Murrayfield for the Italy match and I was very surprised by how good the Scottish backs were.

They were impressive at times, but yet scored one intercept try. On the other hand, they coughed the ball up in possession ad nauseum. I've said it before and i'll say it again, Scotland do not have a finisher.

Seriously though should be a good game and a fair few tries scored. Both teams should be fired up but England will have too much across the park. Expect some rolling mauls and a few beauties from the English backs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seriously though should be a good game and a fair few tries scored. Both teams should be fired up but England will have too much across the park. Expect some rolling mauls and a few beauties from the English backs.

I think it will be a poor game. I think England will kick a lot and control territory and play for and get a lot of penalties. Scotland will attempt to run everything they can and will get pinned in their own half. I don't expect many tries at all apart from close quarter stuff from England. Lancaster is astute enough to know that he needs a controlled forward dominated game to win and that a win is what he needs.

We shall see but for me a good game needs to be close - and this will not be. Scotland will be dominated in the forwards

I think its a part of the England / Lancaster problems - they have to win every game or the press is on their back so they can never experiment / try stuff. Its all by the numbers and safety first

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:TJ  every single English back are better than their Scottish counterparts.

Hogg vs Brown is close though. Perhaps on current form I would have Hogg - he's the one Scotsman who might get in the England side.

We both played Italy at home - we scored 6 tries against them, you scored an intercept try.........

Nonsense - utter rubbish.  really - your credibility just went thataway

I wouldn't take any of the english backs.  Not one. ( well before we broke som of ours anyway.  I'd have a few of your forwards tho.

Do you really think Ford /' Farrell is better than Russell - really?  Any English centres better than Dunbar?

IMO there is much of a muchness about them.  Scots guys more exciting and mercurial but less solid defensivly across the whole lot.

Rugby isn't just about attacking.

I would say Russell is a better attacking 10 than Farrell but Farrell is bigger,stronger, better defender, more experienced, more assured, better goal and tactical kicker.

Farrell was 10 when England beat the ABs - it wasn't an one man show but he helped control matters. He hasn't lost an international head to head with Sexton - 3-0 to Farrell. Sexton can't bully a man the same size as him. Farrell has helped England win many matches.

As for Ford - Ford has less experience than Farrell but more than Russell, he has inspired England to victories over Wales and Australia - not bad for a youngster.

Being so called exciting doesn't matter when you've got no structure and make poor decisions.

Substance over style every day of the week.

It was, without Tuilagi you wouldn't have won that day.  Was a hell of a performance but he was the major factor.

Seriously, we respect your pack but your backs really aren't great shakes.

I think it's hilarious that you'd prefer Brown over Hogg (hardly surprising given the way England traditionally play).

Thing is the England backs could be really good but some intangible thing is missing. some very good players and no obvious weaknesses but somehow the whole is less than the sum of the parts.

TJ wrote:Thing is the England backs could be really good but some intangible thing is missing.  some very good players and no obvious weaknesses but somehow the whole is less than the sum of the parts.

Experience, familiarity of playing combinations, injury free.....

Not really intangible - but you're right, they could be really good. Perhaps they will be on Saturday...

As a Scotsman - I really do dispair sometimes that we fall into the age old trap over over egging our players - we take the p...s out of other nations but do it time and time again

Our backs are good - but not great (YET) - be great is not just runing running running - it is about the whole game - and that is what we are missing

We had enough chances to score a bucket load of tries in our first matches, but they were often butchered by our backs

Jimpy wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was at Murrayfield for the Italy match and I was very surprised by how good the Scottish backs were.

They were impressive at times, but yet scored one intercept try. On the other hand, they coughed the ball up in possession ad nauseum. I've said it before and i'll say it again, Scotland do not have a finisher.

The hope was that Tim Visser would fulfil this role of getting us over the try line rather than consistently falling short. Sadly the Solomons regime at Edinburgh has basically rendered the wingers meaningless, and for the most part the only job was to chase kicks. Visser's form has accordingly slumped. Still, he's one player who can create from nothing and go the length if needed. Just a shame he's not played well this season, plus the fact that his defence goes AWOL at times.

The other hopeful was Maitland, but sometimes it feels like he doesn't actually want to score tries, such are the lengths he goes to finding supporting players. He isn't selfish enough in my view, but he has the raw materials.

TJ wrote:Just an opinion 7 1/2.  Even you say you were surprised how good the scottish backs were.  Many folk on here are looking back to previous years of poor scottish backs - this lot are much better than previous squads.  Lamont would not have had a 90 cap career in any other squad but now he can't get into the side.  thats a measure of the improvement

Lamont cant get in because he is injured. He seems to have got in the squad the first few games.

Jimpy wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was at Murrayfield for the Italy match and I was very surprised by how good the Scottish backs were.

They were impressive at times, but yet scored one intercept try. On the other hand, they coughed the ball up in possession ad nauseum. I've said it before and i'll say it again, Scotland do not have a finisher.

This is what annoys me, sweeping statements about our backs based perceptions from the last decade of rugby rather than the current squad, our problem in the last 3 matches has been in the pack.

Brown ( 6 / 30 ) vs. Hogg ( 9 / 29 )
Watson ( 1 / 6 ) vs. Fife ( 1 / 1 )
Joseph ( 3 / 7 ) vs. Bennett ( 1 / 5 )
Burrell ( 3 / 9 ) vs. Scott ( 3 / 19 )
Nowell ( 1 / 6 ) vs. Seymour ( 6 / 15 )

England have 14 tries in 58 test starts ( 24 % )
Scotland 20 tries in 69 test starts ( 29 % )

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:Thing is the England backs could be really good but some intangible thing is missing.  some very good players and no obvious weaknesses but somehow the whole is less than the sum of the parts.

Experience, familiarity of playing combinations, injury free.....

Not really intangible - but you're right, they could be really good. Perhaps they will be on Saturday...

could you please ask them to wait another week?

Brown vs Hogg is a very interesting one. On the surface Hogg has got more going for him, but Brown made the difference so often last 6N in a way few players can. It is going to be an interesting match up on Saturday

lostinwales wrote:

TJ wrote:Just an opinion 7 1/2.  Even you say you were surprised how good the scottish backs were.  Many folk on here are looking back to previous years of poor scottish backs - this lot are much better than previous squads.  Lamont would not have had a 90 cap career in any other squad but now he can't get into the side.  thats a measure of the improvement

Lamont cant get in because he is injured. He seems to have got in the squad the first few games.

I think he has Photos of all the scotland management in bed with goats. Its the only reason I can think of

TJ wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

TJ wrote:Just an opinion 7 1/2.  Even you say you were surprised how good the scottish backs were.  Many folk on here are looking back to previous years of poor scottish backs - this lot are much better than previous squads.  Lamont would not have had a 90 cap career in any other squad but now he can't get into the side.  thats a measure of the improvement

Lamont cant get in because he is injured. He seems to have got in the squad the first few games.

I think he has Photos of all the scotland management in bed with goats.  Its the only reason I can think of

That's not a goat - it is SJ hair

reallybored wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was at Murrayfield for the Italy match and I was very surprised by how good the Scottish backs were.

They were impressive at times, but yet scored one intercept try. On the other hand, they coughed the ball up in possession ad nauseum. I've said it before and i'll say it again, Scotland do not have a finisher.

This is what annoys me, sweeping statements about our backs based perceptions from the last decade of rugby rather than the current squad, our problem in the last 3 matches has been in the pack.

Brown ( 6 / 30 ) vs. Hogg ( 9 / 29 )
Watson ( 1 / 6 ) vs. Fife ( 1 / 1 )
Joseph ( 3 / 7 ) vs. Bennett ( 1 / 5 )
Burrell ( 3 / 9 ) vs. Scott ( 3 / 19 )
Nowell ( 1 / 6 ) vs. Seymour ( 6 / 15 )

England have 14 tries in 58 test starts ( 24 % )
Scotland 20 tries in 69 test starts ( 29 % )

Lately, Scotland do not have a finisher.

reallybored wrote:

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:TJ  every single English back are better than their Scottish counterparts.

Hogg vs Brown is close though. Perhaps on current form I would have Hogg - he's the one Scotsman who might get in the England side.

We both played Italy at home - we scored 6 tries against them, you scored an intercept try.........

Nonsense - utter rubbish.  really - your credibility just went thataway

I wouldn't take any of the english backs.  Not one. ( well before we broke som of ours anyway.  I'd have a few of your forwards tho.

Do you really think Ford /' Farrell is better than Russell - really?  Any English centres better than Dunbar?

IMO there is much of a muchness about them.  Scots guys more exciting and mercurial but less solid defensivly across the whole lot.

Rugby isn't just about attacking.

I would say Russell is a better attacking 10 than Farrell but Farrell is bigger,stronger, better defender, more experienced, more assured, better goal and tactical kicker.

Farrell was 10 when England beat the ABs - it wasn't an one man show but he helped control matters. He hasn't lost an international head to head with Sexton - 3-0 to Farrell. Sexton can't bully a man the same size as him. Farrell has helped England win many matches.

As for Ford - Ford has less experience than Farrell but more than Russell, he has inspired England to victories over Wales and Australia - not bad for a youngster.

Being so called exciting doesn't matter when you've got no structure and make poor decisions.

Substance over style every day of the week.

It was, without Tuilagi you wouldn't have won that day.  Was a hell of a performance but he was the major factor.

Seriously, we respect your pack but your backs really aren't great shakes.

I think it's hilarious that you'd prefer Brown over Hogg (hardly surprising given the way England traditionally play).

Tuilagi played an important role sure but the forwards helped lay the platform, Farrell knocked over the penalties and a drop goal to keep up the pressure on NZ, remember Manu scored 1 of the 3 tries not all 3. Plus it wasn't his break or try that started the 3 try burst by England.

Manu got the plaudits and deservedly so - he was magnificent but he did have good support.

Of the 38 points - Manu got 5 though I guess you can say he played his part in all three tries.


If player X makes a break you want player Y to be there in support. So many times we see a line break but not a supporting player to exploit it.

Scotland in particular are guilty of this.

You need to read mate - I said on current form I might have Hogg over Brown.

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seriously though should be a good game and a fair few tries scored. Both teams should be fired up but England will have too much across the park. Expect some rolling mauls and a few beauties from the English backs.

I think it will be a poor game.  I think England will kick a lot and control territory and play for and get a lot of penalties.  Scotland will attempt to run everything they can and will get pinned in their own half.  I don't expect many tries at all apart from close quarter stuff from England.  Lancaster is astute enough to know that he needs a controlled forward dominated game to win and that a win is what he needs.

We shall see but for me a good game needs to be close - and this will not be.  Scotland will be dominated in the forwards

I think its a part of the England / Lancaster problems - they have to win every game or the press is on their back so they can never experiment / try stuff.  Its all by the numbers and safety first

Well not long to wait now to find out.

Jimpy wrote:

reallybored wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was at Murrayfield for the Italy match and I was very surprised by how good the Scottish backs were.

They were impressive at times, but yet scored one intercept try. On the other hand, they coughed the ball up in possession ad nauseum. I've said it before and i'll say it again, Scotland do not have a finisher.

This is what annoys me, sweeping statements about our backs based perceptions from the last decade of rugby rather than the current squad, our problem in the last 3 matches has been in the pack.

Brown ( 6 / 30 ) vs. Hogg ( 9 / 29 )
Watson ( 1 / 6 ) vs. Fife ( 1 / 1 )
Joseph ( 3 / 7 ) vs. Bennett ( 1 / 5 )
Burrell ( 3 / 9 ) vs. Scott ( 3 / 19 )
Nowell ( 1 / 6 ) vs. Seymour ( 6 / 15 )

England have 14 tries in 58 test starts ( 24 % )
Scotland 20 tries in 69 test starts ( 29 % )

Lately, Scotland do not have a finisher.

As in over the last couple of matches?  

Again I don't think it's the case, we had Visser playing and he's got 6 in 11 starts.  Our problem has been the pack's inability to create and sustain quick ball to attack with, we've been naive at the breakdown and as a result haven't been able to string together phases.

Anyone else surprised by those two try-scoring rates?

Haven't Scotland's tries in the last 18 months been scored against sides like Tonga, Argentina, Japan, Canada and USA? They don't tend get proper tours against the 'Big 3' and often play Tier 2 sides.

Nematode wrote:Anyone else [Scottish] not really feeling 'up' for this game? It's the first time in years that I've just not felt optimistic or really all that interested in the match.

It's probably down to the Italy loss and the lack of strength and depth on the bench, but I just see no way that Scotland can win. Our pack seems under-strength - we are getting bullied by oppositions, pinning us back in our own half - and our backs just aren't living up to their expectations - Fife scored the only real back-move try.

You are about a year later than I am on this feeling

https://www.606v2.com/t52474-the-scotland-i-give-up-thread

Come join the party - it is very therapeutic to vent

No 7&1/2 wrote:

reallybored wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:With all respect TJ if any team lost their 1st choice lock pairing then, their4th choice lock who was a Lion they'd start to struggle. Throw in your 1st choice 6 who was the 3rd jumper in the lineout. Your back up/1st choice props. Your first choice 8. Your 1st choice fly half, though Ford is doing fine he's very new to the scene. Forced changes in midfield due to 3 or 4 injuries and the loss of 1st choice and arguably 2nd choice full backs one of whom was player of the tournament last time it's an issue. Get those players back and things look very good.

England are suffering from injuries but then again, your player base is largest in the world so stop whining.

Looking at your injury list, imo there's only 4 that would walk back into your 1st XV, 4 that would be in your squad and 3 squad players.

Tuilagi
Farrell
Launchbury
Wood

Wilson
Parling
Morgan
Barritt

Slater
Foden
Eastmond

I was answering a question. Lose that many players from a team and it will be affected.

You can add Corbisiero, Croft, Webber and Thomas to the list, who would all be in the first two categories.

It's extremely difficult to see where Scotland can get the edge over this English team, even harder to see how they can go about getting a shock win.

Their only hope is England don't give them the respect they deserve and try to boost the points differential from the first whistle- getting loose and making lots of mistakes. Or one of their mistake ridden openings gifts Scotland an early lead and the visitors subsequently defend like absolute demons.

But if England turn up with the right tactics, focus and mentality... I just can't see them losing or coming close to losing whatsoever.

Cyril wrote:Haven't Scotland's tries in the last 18 months been scored against sides like Tonga, Argentina, Japan, Canada and USA? They don't tend get proper tours against the 'Big 3' and often play Tier 2 sides.

Hogg - Fra, Eng, Ita, Fra, USA, Arg, Arg, Ton, Wal
Fife - Fra
Bennett - Ita
Scott - Ita, SA, Ita
Seymour - Jap, Jap, Fra, Arg, NZ, Ton

Brown - Fra, Sco, Ita, Ita, NZ, Sam
Watson - Wal
Joseph - Wal, Ita, Ita
Burrell - Fra, Sco, Wal
Nowell - Ita

Opp	Eng	Sco
NZ	1	1
SA	0	1
Fra	2	4
Eng	-	1
Wal	3	1
Sco	2	-
Arg	0	3
Ita	5	4
Sam	1	0
Ton	0	2
USA	0	1
Jap	0	2

Anyone else find that slightly bizarre, neither team has an out-side back that's scored against Ireland.

Notch wrote:It's extremely difficult to see where Scotland can get the edge over this English team, even harder to see how they can go about getting a shock win.

Their only hope is England don't give them the respect they deserve and try to boost the points differential from the first whistle- getting loose and making lots of mistakes. Or one of their mistake ridden openings gifts Scotland an early lead and the visitors subsequently defend like absolute demons.

But if England turn up with the right tactics, focus and mentality... I just can't see them losing or coming close to losing whatsoever.

I would tend to agree. Our only advantage would be the unpredictability and speed of our backs - but Englands backs have been pretty solid defensivly. Lineout would be a place to target as well but Lawes coming back will strengthen the England lineout and we have lost big Ritchie. Ickle Jonny is no mean lineout operator. Scotlands scrum has been OK as well - but hardly a weapon against the English pack.

Scotland are going to have to be first to every breakdown and keep the ball moving at speed - but unfortunatly we have our own orc / sloth hybrid ( big Jim) to slow our game down

could you please select the orcs and the trundlemuppets so we have a chance? Please?

reallybored wrote:

Cyril wrote:Haven't Scotland's tries in the last 18 months been scored against sides like Tonga, Argentina, Japan, Canada and USA? They don't tend get proper tours against the 'Big 3' and often play Tier 2 sides.

Hogg - Fra, Eng, Ita, Fra, USA, Arg, Arg, Ton, Wal
Fife - Fra
Bennett - Ita
Scott - Ita, SA, Ita
Seymour - Jap, Jap, Fra, Arg, NZ, Ton

Brown - Fra, Sco, Ita, Ita, NZ, Sam
Watson - Wal
Joseph - Wal, Ita, Ita
Burrell - Fra, Sco, Wal
Nowell - Ita

Opp	Eng	Sco
NZ	1	1
SA	0	1
Fra	2	4
Eng	-	1
Wal	3	1
Sco	2	-
Arg	0	3
Ita	5	4
Sam	1	0
Ton	0	2
USA	0	1
Jap	0	2

Anyone else find that slightly bizarre, neither team has an out-side back that's scored against Ireland.

A quirk of a small enough sample size.

reallybored wrote:

Cyril wrote:Haven't Scotland's tries in the last 18 months been scored against sides like Tonga, Argentina, Japan, Canada and USA? They don't tend get proper tours against the 'Big 3' and often play Tier 2 sides.

Hogg - Fra, Eng, Ita, Fra, USA, Arg, Arg, Ton, Wal
Fife - Fra
Bennett - Ita
Scott - Ita, SA, Ita
Seymour - Jap, Jap, Fra, Arg, NZ, Ton

Brown - Fra, Sco, Ita, Ita, NZ, Sam
Watson - Wal
Joseph - Wal, Ita, Ita
Burrell - Fra, Sco, Wal
Nowell - Ita

Opp	Eng	Sco
NZ	1	1
SA	0	1
Fra	2	4
Eng	-	1
Wal	3	1
Sco	2	-
Arg	0	3
Ita	5	4
Sam	1	0
Ton	0	2
USA	0	1
Jap	0	2

Oh I do love it when someone does a Statzbuster on hearsay and innuendo

No 7&1/2 wrote:

A quirk of a small enough sample size.

It's Cyril who gave the conditions, 7 1/2.

Talking about his Ireland question fly.

Well that one..... well, let's just say I hope it's a 'quirk' that lasts until after teatime tomorrow at least

Ha. Can't wait, watching with the Irish father in law so I'm mock supporting Wales obviously hoping he doesn't have chance to give to much stick back...

Give him hell, 7 1/2. Make sure you keep telling him how good Gatland is at choosing the right players for the right game. That'll burn his jets!

He gave me hell last week. Any chance to put boot in and I'm there.

From the Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/six-nations-scots-favour-strength-against-england-1-3717290

“Beattie is a midfield replacement: emergency cover,” Cotter continued. “He knows he could be marking Billy Twelvetrees or Billy Vunipola.

“I know he’s got a good boot on him. We know he’s a very skilful player. The 6-2 on the bench, we want to have some physical density and some experience at the end of this match. So he and Adam Ashe, who has come back and has aggressive defence and is good on the ball, are there to put pressure on England.”



I think that's all I can take - you have a back rower/centre in Richie Vernon who has been playing very well, but you pick Beattie instead! I've had enough...

Nematode wrote:From the Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/six-nations-scots-favour-strength-against-england-1-3717290

“Beattie is a midfield replacement: emergency cover,” Cotter continued. “He knows he could be marking Billy Twelvetrees or Billy Vunipola.

“I know he’s got a good boot on him. We know he’s a very skilful player. The 6-2 on the bench, we want to have some physical density and some experience at the end of this match. So he and Adam Ashe, who has come back and has aggressive defence and is good on the ball, are there to put pressure on England.”

   

I think that's all I can take - you have a back rower/centre in Richie Vernon who has been playing very well, but you pick Beattie instead! I've had enough...

Surely it's worst case scenario rather than a tactical decision during the match?

That said, not adverse to seeing Beattie getting a short run at 12.  He doesn't seem to enjoy playing in the back-row, you can tell he'd have longed to be a back but due to his size was put in the pack.

Has Tonks ever played in the centre?

Sweet baby Jesus. Does the B in BVC stand for 'barmy'?

Nematode wrote:From the Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/six-nations-scots-favour-strength-against-england-1-3717290

“Beattie is a midfield replacement: emergency cover,” Cotter continued. “He knows he could be marking Billy Twelvetrees or Billy Vunipola.

“I know he’s got a good boot on him. We know he’s a very skilful player. The 6-2 on the bench, we want to have some physical density and some experience at the end of this match. So he and Adam Ashe, who has come back and has aggressive defence and is good on the ball, are there to put pressure on England.”

   

I think that's all I can take - you have a back rower/centre in Richie Vernon who has been playing very well, but you pick Beattie instead! I've had enough...

Utter madness. I don't think it's quite Nick Mallett/Mauro Bergamasco at 9 territory, but it's drifting that way...

I suppose at least he does say emergency cover, so definitely won't happen unless it absolutely has to. I guess it would have been a conventional 5:3 bench were it not for Dunbar's injury.

If he had picked Vernon and things panned out the right way you could end up wit 4 no.8's on the pitch. All you then need is a 2nd row or 2 who have played at 8 as well...

Had Cotter been drinking heavily before the press conference? I realise he said "emergency", but he should have clarified as presumably he meant if he had used all his subs except Beattie, and a centre were to get injured.

If Beattie ends up in the centres, it'll be a cricket score. I'm not talking about an English cricket score either, I mean a proper score like Bangladesh.

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

A quirk of a small enough sample size.

It's Cyril who gave the conditions, 7 1/2.

I think it proved my point though. Scotland have played a lot of Tier 2 sides and that's where a good number of the tries were scored.

Still, if some Scottish fans want to claim that they wouldn't choose a single English back over a Scottish one then that's up to them I guess.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Had Cotter been drinking heavily before the press conference? I realise he said "emergency", but he should have clarified as presumably he meant if he had used all his subs except Beattie, and a centre were to get injured.

If Beattie ends up in the centres, it'll be a cricket score. I'm not talking about an English cricket score either, I mean a proper score like Bangladesh.

Harsh, but funny

dummy_half wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Had Cotter been drinking heavily before the press conference? I realise he said "emergency", but he should have clarified as presumably he meant if he had used all his subs except Beattie, and a centre were to get injured.

If Beattie ends up in the centres, it'll be a cricket score. I'm not talking about an English cricket score either, I mean a proper score like Bangladesh.

Harsh, but funny

+1