Scotland World Cup look ahead and squad

funnyExiledScot wrote:Hogg would be a huge loss but so far Russell is just promise in a Scotland jersey, he's yet to really deliver for 80 minutes. If we had to start with Weir, Jackson or Tonks at 10 I don't think it would be a big step down. In time I do think Russell will be essential, but not yet.

If you list out a Scotland 1st XV the only player we can't replace without a huge drop off is Stuart Hogg.

1. Dickinson - Reid and Grant cover adequately
2. Ford - Brown would be just fine
3. Murray - Nel will soon take his place and Cross and Welsh are fine
4. J Gray - Gilchrist
5. R Gray - Gilchrist
6. Harley - Brown
7. Cowan - Watson or Barclay
8. Denton - Ashe and shortly Strauss
9. Laidlaw - H-C, Cusiter and Pyrgos
10. Russell - Weir, Jackson and Tonks
11. Seymour - Visser
12. Dunbar - Scott
13. Bennett - Scott would move to 12 and Dunbar to 13
14. Maitland - Visser would move to 11 with Seymour to 14
15. Hogg - Irreplaceable.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Fair points, but all three of those you mention will certainly make the squad unless injured.

Criticising them is only one side of the coin, there has to be someone better able to take their places.

George Carlin wrote:Apparently my law firm is the official law firm of the tournament but this has mysteriously produced precisely bugger all by way of tickets for people at the firm who actually care about rugby. I am still trying and if I get any, I will be over like a shot.

Presumably they will all be swallowed up by partners taking middle aged banker clients who will sit looking over their paunches, ligging Bolly and saying things like "I say, that ball's a funny shape, isn't it?"

George Carlin wrote:Apparently my law firm is the official law firm of the tournament but this has mysteriously produced precisely bugger all by way of tickets for people at the firm who actually care about rugby. I am still trying and if I get any, I will be over like a shot.

Presumably they will all be swallowed up by partners taking middle aged banker clients who will sit looking over their paunches, ligging Bolly and saying things like "I say, that ball's a funny shape, isn't it?"

Iain Morrison: To go - Johnson or sevens squad?
IAIN MORRISON

THE SRU board will decide the future of Scotland’s sevens squad at a meeting on Thursday. For financial reasons, Scotland are looking to get out of seven-a-side rugby (or go part-time) at exactly the time when the rest of the world is jumping on the wagon following Olympic status; even the ultimate Sevens sceptics Ireland are setting up a team.

The SRU is attempting to link the decision with the expected loss of the Glasgow leg of the HSBC Sevens series and you fancy that the SRU’s Australian director of rugby Scott Johnson has already made the call, having told the players to grab any other offers, despite knowing little enough of Scottish rugby’s history or even his own players.

Last season in Hong Kong the Australian was to present the jerseys to the sevens players before the tournament. After a less than rousing call to arms it slowly dawned on Johnson that he couldn’t present the jerseys because he didn’t know the players’ names. The team manager, somewhat sheepishly, stepped in. This is Scotland’s director of rugby.

Fast forward one year, we are in the middle of the second last tournament of the season and the players in Scotland’s sevens squad still don’t know whether they have a job next season. They only got an audience with the SRU executives after complaining to the SRU president. (Incidentally Hugh Blake still doesn’t know if he is playing for Glasgow or Edinburgh next season). The high-handed manner in which they treat their players suggests an arrogance at the heart of this Murrayfield regime.

Ignore for a moment all the history and heritage that comes with the abbreviated game in Scotland, invented by Melrose butcher Ned Haig in 1883, and instead ask why anyone would scrap the sevens squad when Scotland already struggles with just two full-time professional teams? With limited places elsewhere sevens serves as an additional pathway with numerous examples of Scottish players who have gone through the system and emerged all the better for the experience; Mark Bennett and Roddy Grant just two of the more obvious examples.

Not only that but the sevens squad is heavily subsidised by the nice people at World Rugby (formally the IRB). In an effort to encourage the growth of the game outside the European/Sanzar heartland, World Rugby picks up the tab for the travel and accommodation of every team. Scotland are not just in danger of getting rid of their “third pro-team” but they are in danger of giving up that World Rugby subsidy.

Ignore the history, the lack of opportunities for young Scottish players and that generous subsidy and concentrate instead on the performance. For years Scotland were useless, sevens was perhaps the most disappointing sport in last year’s Commonwealth Games. Not any longer. Under the auspices of new coach Calum MacRae the Scotland squad are vastly improved. Sitting in seventh place puts the Scots ahead of Argentina, Samoa, Wales and France and on course for their best ever finish. In what other sport can Scotland claim top-seven status?

If Scotland quits the sevens circuit the way back is a hard one. They will be playing qualification tournaments in every sink hole around the globe for years to come as Olympic status unearths rich seams of funding for their rivals. That alone should be a huge incentive to ride out this financial storm.

The sevens squad costs about £1 million per annum to run but it is difficult to see how when players are said to earn an average salary of approximately £25-30,000 p.a. (or £300-360,000 for a squad of 12 players), add three management and several thousands for training facilities and you still don’t get even halfway there.

If the SRU was watching the bawbees closely it could have signed one fewer South African/Fijian/New Zealander for the pro-teams. If Murrayfield was scrimping hard to save the sevens squad they would not have hired Nathan Hines last week. I bow to no one in my admiration of what the big lock achieved as a player but do Scotland really need a third forwards coach with Vern Cotter and Jonathan Humphreys already in place?

Then there is the director of rugby himself. Johnson is rumoured to be paid approximately £250,000 per year (which would equate to eight to ten players for the sevens squad). For that pretty penny he presided over the worst home performance that anyone can remember in the 2014 Calcutta Cup and was promoted to director of rugby, unchallenged, where he has repeatedly insisted that the job is not about him but solely about the betterment of Scottish rugby.

So here is the question the board must ponder on Thursday. Does anyone out there, with the possible exception of the man himself, honestly believe that Scottish rugby will be better served by retaining Johnson on his weighty pay packet rather than reallocating his remuneration towards maintaining a national sevens squad? Anyone?

Johnson has always insisted his overriding concern is the good of Scottish rugby and now the Australian has the ideal opportunity to prove it.

123456789 wrote:The Barclay meetings and article is clearly just paving the way for a return following a fall out. It's the natural progression.

cp10 wrote:Could SRU be playing politics? Now Scotland are performing and in the top 7 nations they'll be calling Word Rugby's bluff saying we'll pull out if you don't let us keep the Glasgow 7s. The organisers claiming it was a sell out won't do them any harm!

BigGee wrote:

cp10 wrote:Could SRU be playing politics? Now Scotland are performing and in the top 7 nations they'll be calling Word Rugby's bluff saying we'll pull out if you don't let us keep the Glasgow 7s. The organisers claiming it was a sell out won't do them any harm!

Dangerous game to play (bit like the SNP) and the SRU have not exactly shown themselves skilled in political games over the years!

RDW_Scotland wrote:Would the French public really be that interested in a 7s event anyway?

Majestic83 wrote:To be honest I think this is possibly more a case of Euan Murray has been told by Cotter he isn't going to make the world cup squad and Murray has decided to retire instead.

"At his best Euan was a world-class tight-head prop," said Scotland head coach Vern Cotter.

Majestic83 wrote:Agreed it is strange timing by Murray not to even fight for a spot in the team. However a lot of the decisions Murray has made through out his career have been more personal orientated instead of thinking about the team so it doesn't totally surprise me.
On current form I don't think he is a big loss to be honest.
Scotland will probably take 5 props to the world cup, maybe 6.
If it is 5 I think it will be Dickinson, Reid, Nel, Welsh & Cross.

RDW_Scotland wrote:With Census Johnson 'retired' the only real big scrummaging team we're going to face is SA in the group stages, and I'm still not convinced Cusak is anywhere near fitness yet.

Obviously he'd have a pre season but it would be a big risk taking him over an experienced player like Cross.

RDW_Scotland wrote:With Census Johnson 'retired' the only real big scrummaging team we're going to face is SA in the group stages, and I'm still not convinced Cusak is anywhere near fitness yet.

Obviously he'd have a pre season but it would be a big risk taking him over an experienced player like Cross.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Worth noting that Cusack has no interntional caps, and isn't even making the Glasgow squads just now (is he injured?) so I don't quite see how he's suddenly a much better options than Cross, appreciating that Cross' form has plummeted.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Worth noting that Cusack has no interntional caps, and isn't even making the Glasgow squads just now (is he injured?) so I don't quite see how he's suddenly a much better options than Cross, appreciating that Cross' form has plummeted.

I find myself in the odd position of asserting that a Glasgow player is actually better than his form would suggest.