Scotland v Samoa, 10 October

First topic message reminder :

   
SCOTLAND V SAMOA
10 October 2015
KO: 14:30 BST
St. James' Park, Newcastle

Live on ITV

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Touch judges: JP Doyle (England) & Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Television match official: Ben Skeen (New Zealand)

A. Head to Head

9 Played 9
7 Won 1
1 Drawn 1
1 Lost 7
218 Points 122

B. Recent Form

8 June 2013
Mr Price Kings Park, Durban, South Africa
27 – 17 Samoa

23 June 2012
Apia Park, Apia
16 – 17 Scotland

27 November 2010
Pittodire, Aberdeen
19 – 16 Scotland

20 November 2005
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
18 – 11 Scotland

4 June 2004
Westpac Stadium, Wellington, New Zealand
3 – 38 Scotland

18 November 2000
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
31 – 8 Scotland

C. Teams

SCOTLAND

15 Stuart Hogg 14 Sean Maitland, 13 Mark Bennett, 12 Matt Scott, 11 Tommy Seymour, 10 Finn Russell, 9 Greig Laidlaw (capt); 1 Alasdair Dickinson, 2 Ross Ford, 3 Willem Nel, 4 Richie Gray, 5 Jonny Gray, 6 Ryan Wilson, 7 John Hardie, 8 David Denton.

Replacements: 16 Fraser Brown, 17 Gordon Reid, 18 Jon Welsh, 19 Tim Swinson, 20 Josh Strauss, 21 Henry Pyrgos, 22 Peter Horne, 23 Sean Lamont.

SAMOA

15 Tim Nanai-Williams, 14 Paul Perez, 13 George Pisi, 12 Rey Lee-Lo, 11 Fa'atoina Autagavaia, 10 Tusi Pisi, 9 Kahn Fotuali'i (c); 1 Sakaria Taulafo, 2 Ma'atulimanu Leiataua, 3 Census Johnston, 4 Teofilo Paulo, 5 Kane Thompson, 6 Maurie Faasavalu, 7 Jack Lam, 8 Alafoti Faosiliva.

Replacements: 16 Motu Matu'u, 17 Viliamu Afatia, 18 Anthony Perenise, 19 Faifili Levave, 20 Vavae Tuilagi, 21 Vavao Afemai, 22 Patrick Faapale, 23 Ken Pisi.

Can I just ask gents, the lineup for the must win v Samoa, does that kind of put Tim Vissers 'This is not a 2nd team' comments ahead of the SA game into perspetive?

And realistically, do you think you had a shot at turning them over with a few more key players on the park?

Fanster wrote:Can I just ask gents, the lineup for the must win v Samoa, does that kind of put Tim Vissers 'This is not a 2nd team' comments ahead of the SA game into perspetive?

And realistically, do you think you had a shot at turning them over with a few more key players on the park?

Dickinson, Ford and Bennett were the only players not selected that would normally have been – the other regular starters were injured. The first two were on the bench for SA, and Ford had just played 150 minutes of rugby in 5 days, and was looking at 6 days recovery before the Boks. Bennett had also played most of the first two games, as had Dickinson.

I still think it was not far off the strongest team we had available, and those 3 players wouldn’t have made enough of a difference to overturn a rampant South African team.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Fanster wrote:Can I just ask gents, the lineup for the must win v Samoa, does that kind of put Tim Vissers 'This is not a 2nd team' comments ahead of the SA game into perspetive?

And realistically, do you think you had a shot at turning them over with a few more key players on the park?

Dickinson, Ford and Bennett were the only players not selected that would normally have been – the other regular starters were injured. The first two were on the bench for SA, and Ford had just played 150 minutes of rugby in 5 days, and was looking at 6 days recovery before the Boks.  Bennett had also played most of the first two games, as had Dickinson.

I still think it was not far off the strongest team we had available, and those 3 players wouldn’t have made enough of a difference to overturn a rampant South African team.

I see that, but rampant is very much the wrong word, SA looked tired and unorganised, Scotland just looked like they didn't beleive a win was possible, Visser coming out 24 hours before KO to adress the media kind of highlighted the mindset in camp IMHO, and they were already beaten.

I still think Scotland missed a huge opportunity, Japan didn't do them any favours whatsoever, but SA aren't the powerhouse they were 2/3 years ago.

SA pretty much dominated every collision in attack and defence – I can’t say I overly agree with the ‘tired and disorganised’ comment. Maybe against Japan, but not the team that played us.

Also, what else was Visser going to say??

As I said – 3 players off the best available team (two on the bench), and given the fact that 2 out of those 3 had played a lot of rugby in a short space of time, to me there has been far too much made about this.

We were 2nd best across the park and were blown away physically.

Well you say it was 3 players, but it was 11 changes from the USA game, and Vernon, Visser, Weir, Reid, Brown, Strauss, and Cowan don't start do they?

You can't change 11 players and claim it's as strong as you can field, then make 7 more for a must win and still claim it's a strong team.

I get thats situational, but the big nations have seen it fit enough to play their very best against any team of any note, including SA v Scotland who went with the best they could.

With the knocks Scotland had they needed backing with as strong a team as they could field, instead there were 3/4 decisions to rest players and save them for Samoa, this mindset radiated through the team who didn't lay down but as you said lost most collisions and 50/50's because they knew it wasn't a must win, that comes from the top down.

Yes, 11 changes because before SA we had several injuries, the 3 I’ve already mentioned who were rotated, and most people would pick Strauss over Wilson so I don’t think that one overly counts either.

I’m not completely disagreeing with you – it would have been fantastic to put our strongest 23 out against SA, but the short turnaround for the first two games – made more difficult after our first half performance in the USA game which meant that certain players had to come on a lot earlier than planned – meant that we were always going to have some difficult decisions to make against SA.

This all comes down to the belief that if Dickinson, Ford and Bennett had started we would have beaten SA – I just think that is very wishful thinking and I don’t think the result would have been any different.

Once again I am making my annual pilgrimage (for the second time this year, eh!) to watch Mrs Cake sing. I will be in Morningside, so can someone recommend a decent pub to watch the rugby. My first thought is Canny Man, but that is based on quality of their Bloody Mary, not TV screen.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Yes,  11 changes because before SA we had several injuries, the 3 I’ve already mentioned who were rotated, and most people would pick Strauss over Wilson so I don’t think that one overly counts either.

I’m not completely disagreeing with you – it would have been fantastic to put our strongest 23 out against SA, but the short turnaround for the first two games – made more difficult after our first half performance in the USA game which meant that certain players had to come on a lot earlier than planned – meant that we were always going to have some difficult decisions to make against SA.

This all comes down to the belief that if Dickinson, Ford and Bennett had started we would have beaten SA – I just think that is very wishful thinking and I don’t think the result would have been any different.

Whereas I agree 3 players probably wouldn't have made a huge impact individually, never underestimate the confidence players get from their coach when selection matches ambition. Had those 3 players (and arguably 2/3 more) been selected the media wouldn't have gotten on the teams back, and Hogg, Laidlaw, and Visser wouldn't have spent their week defending a decision they clearly didnt beleive, they would have spent the week preparing to beat SA, and the rest of the squad wouldve been bouyed by the belief from the top.

I get all these decisions Cotter makes are situational, but I think he panicked v USA because of the Japan result, and included players not ultimately needed for his own security in the result earlier than necesary, then he bottled the SA lineup similarly to Englands v Aus and Wales, and conceded any momentum he may have had by putting SA out of the competition (You better beleive any top tier team with a shout at dumping a stronger team out of the comp reassesses, and throw the sink at them regardless of situation).

Cotters ambition has been highlighted as a quarter final, anything more is not truly expected by or of him now IMHO.

That's the great thing about hindsight - you can make bold claims about what would have happened without ever finding out if you are right or not!

This topic was debated to death at the time, so again all I'm going to say is that yes it would have been good to have put out the strongest team possible, I don't think we were really that far off putting out our strongest available team, and even if we had put out our best available team I still think we would have come up well short of that SA team.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Yes,  11 changes because before SA we had several injuries, the 3 I’ve already mentioned who were rotated, and most people would pick Strauss over Wilson so I don’t think that one overly counts either.

I’m not completely disagreeing with you – it would have been fantastic to put our strongest 23 out against SA, but the short turnaround for the first two games – made more difficult after our first half performance in the USA game which meant that certain players had to come on a lot earlier than planned – meant that we were always going to have some difficult decisions to make against SA.

This all comes down to the belief that if Dickinson, Ford and Bennett had started we would have beaten SA – I just think that is very wishful thinking and I don’t think the result would have been any different.

I still think Cotter got his planning completely wrong for the USA and South Africa games and using the short turnaround is just an excuse from the team. He knew long in advance the dates of all the games.
They obviously weren't targeting South Africa as a winnable game or else they wouldn't have started with Russell, Bennett, Hogg, one of grey or gilchrist.
The attitude of the players before, during and after the South Africa game was one that they weren't really that fussed what the score was against the boks and Cotter's interview after the game showed that.

That’s the other thing about hindsight – if we knew how much USA were going to fade in the 2nd half we probably didn’t need to put Dickinson and Nel on, Ford would have been subbed off earlier, and they probably would have started against SA!

RDW_Scotland wrote:That’s the other thing about hindsight – if we knew how much USA were going to fade in the 2nd half we probably didn’t need to put Dickinson and Nel on, Ford would have been subbed off earlier, and they probably would have started against SA!

Or planning better & not panicking!

RDW_Scotland wrote:That’s the other thing about hindsight – if we knew how much USA were going to fade in the 2nd half we probably didn’t need to put Dickinson and Nel on, Ford would have been subbed off earlier, and they probably would have started against SA!

Proper Preperation Prevents...

Blaming hindsight is lazy, USA played plenty of rugby pre tournament, and very much lacked an 80 performance to beat Samoa, Fiji etc... there was no reason to panic after a disjointed first half (how do you make 11 changes and not expect a difficult first 40, even against amateur teams).

At best Cotter is guilty of underpreparing and under confidence in his suad, at worst he's guilty of no confidence in his fringe players, panicking and lacking international experience to trust in what he beleives in.

RDW - do you expect a 1/4 final, do you expect a semi final or final from this Scottish team?

Do you honestly beleive you can win the RWC?

OR are you a bit more pragmatic and would be satisfied with a quarter final, and chalk it down to progression?

Fanster.

Scotland will face the team of the tournament thus far. Lets take a reality check here. The best they can do is concentrate on performance. A performance to build on, one to show they can compete with the best.
Its too much to expect from Scotland to beat Australia, a team I fancy to put Wales to the sword.

Its not that a QF is good enough its that world cups aren't necessarily won during the tournament but 2 years out... if you don't get top seeding your chances are small... hell Scotland got 3rd seeding so a QF is over achieving. Got to build on what you have.

I actually think if Scotland can put out their top 15 they have a very good team. But confidence is something that still lacks, not surprising given they've been the whipping boys of NH rugby for the last decade.

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:It may be that, ultimately, Stewie Hogg is the Cap'n !!!!!   It may cool his more excitable jets if you get my drift ?

I could never pick Didier Hoggba as captain. Especially after he earned the ire of Nigel Owens. That guy has a long memory.

Besides picking a full back as Captain IMO isn't a sound strategy. For a lot of the important refereeing areas of the game (Scrum and Breakdown) they are miles away and will have no chance to influence the ref.

Dunbar IMO would be a leading by example captain. The guy is pure steel. Solid in defence, powerful with the ball in hand and wins turnovers. His fitness needs to be 100% for him to displace Scott12 though and that ACL injury is horrible.

I like my captain to be in the forwards but there are no stand out candidates. Strauss is a leader but he is a mercenary as is Hardie & Nel. Johnny Gray is a little inexperienced and Richie I don't think is captain material. Dozer is too "thick" to be a captain and the Ref's can't understand Ross Ford, the captaincy didn't suit him first time around either. So that only leaves Ali Dickinson from the 1st choice pack. A player that as little as 2 years ago was deemed by myself included to not be good enough for international rugby.

The changes in the Scrum laws have turned him into one of our most important players and he is strides ahead of Grant in every facet of play. I'm not sure about Ali Dickinson as a captain though. I'd try it since he is now in his prime for a prop.

fa0019 wrote:Fanster.

Scotland will face the team of the tournament thus far. Lets take a reality check here. The best they can do is concentrate on performance. A performance to build on, one to show they can compete with the best.
Its too much to expect from Scotland to beat Australia, a team I fancy to put Wales to the sword.

Its not that a QF is good enough its that world cups aren't necessarily won during the tournament but 2 years out... if you don't get top seeding your chances are small... hell Scotland got 3rd seeding so a QF is over achieving. Got to build on what you have.

I actually think if Scotland can put out their top 15 they have a very good team. But confidence is something that still lacks, not surprising given they've been the whipping boys of NH rugby for the last decade.

I disagree 100%, and firmly beleive that any top tier side is in it to win it from their own POV, if not they might as well not bother turning up. I get where you're coming from though, and have a similar opinion to you with regards to their chances, however mindset in camp and in country has to be higher than ours. And thats the point I was trying to make, Scotland should be doing all they can to convince themselves and players that they are here to win it, Cotters actions against a SA team who if we're being honest based on RC and recent performances are there for the taking, highlight Scotlands true ambitions, qualification is good enough, and that translated to the players.

Who have Aus beat of any note to highlight theyre good enough to put Wales to the sword? Beat a poor SA team, Argentina with a few key lads missing, a 2nd string NZ, minnows and recently a very down trodden and dejected England. As impressive as those scallps are, and I beleive all 4 wins were scalps from Aus POV, they havn't been tested whatsoever.

Similarly to SA, played very poorly and look disjointed, not aiming to dump them out last week was a huge mistake, one no other top tier team wouldn't have relished!!

fa0019 wrote:Fanster.

Scotland will face the team of the tournament thus far. Lets take a reality check here. The best they can do is concentrate on performance. A performance to build on, one to show they can compete with the best.
Its too much to expect from Scotland to beat Australia, a team I fancy to put Wales to the sword.

Its not that a QF is good enough its that world cups aren't necessarily won during the tournament but 2 years out... if you don't get top seeding your chances are small... hell Scotland got 3rd seeding so a QF is over achieving. Got to build on what you have.

I actually think if Scotland can put out their top 15 they have a very good team. But confidence is something that still lacks, not surprising given they've been the whipping boys of NH rugby for the last decade.

BTW when you say team of the tournament thus far do you mean Australia specifically, or the winner of the match on Saturday?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:It may be that, ultimately, Stewie Hogg is the Cap'n !!!!!   It may cool his more excitable jets if you get my drift ?

I could never pick Didier Hoggba as captain. Especially after he earned the ire of Nigel Owens. That guy has a long memory.

Besides picking a full back as Captain IMO isn't a sound strategy. For a lot of the important refereeing areas of the game (Scrum and Breakdown) they are miles away and will have no chance to influence the ref.

Dunbar IMO would be a leading by example captain. The guy is pure steel. Solid in defence, powerful with the ball in hand and wins turnovers. His fitness needs to be 100% for him to displace Scott12 though and that ACL injury is horrible.

I like my captain to be in the forwards but there are no stand out candidates. Strauss is a leader but he is a mercenary as is Hardie & Nel. Johnny Gray is a little inexperienced and Richie I don't think is captain material. Dozer is too "thick" to be a captain and the Ref's can't understand Ross Ford, the captaincy didn't suit him first time around either. So that only leaves Ali Dickinson from the 1st choice pack. A player that as little as 2 years ago was deemed by myself included to not be good enough for international rugby.

The changes in the Scrum laws have turned him into one of our most important players and he is strides ahead of Grant in every facet of play. I'm not sure about Ali Dickinson as a captain though. I'd try it since he is now in his prime for a prop.

That would make him, or anyone else who carries a grudge, a sh!t ref in my book.

Interesting comments on who should be captain - especially where it should be a forward. The fact that no-one can categorically state one single player for the job just shows how we desperately need a tough, extrovert character in the pack.

Given that we had an interim head coach for 18 months (and one that was a complete buffoon), that Vern Cotter only started his job just before last year’s summer tour, that our chief play maker only made his professional rugby debut a year and a half ago, our first choice tighthead was capped in the world cup warm up games, the average age of our backline is under 25 (with 3 players 23 or under), the fact that we recently got the 6N wooden spoon, and the fact that – compared to all the other quarter finalists in the WC – we have significantly lower adult playing numbers and only 2 professional teams – I think a QF and decent performance would represent a successful world cup.

This isn’t trying to make excuses or be defeatist – this is just the reality of where we are as a rugby nation and how well we are doing just by being competitive at the top level.

The promising thing is though that most of the 23 for this game will still be playing next world cup and the likes of Jonny Gray, Russell, Bennett and Hogg will be in their primes at 26/27 years old and over 50 caps each. That is a good core to build the team around and really target the next world up.

So yes I would be ‘satisfied’ with a QF defeat – we didn’t even get a QF last time round!

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Fanster.

Scotland will face the team of the tournament thus far. Lets take a reality check here. The best they can do is concentrate on performance. A performance to build on, one to show they can compete with the best.
Its too much to expect from Scotland to beat Australia, a team I fancy to put Wales to the sword.

Its not that a QF is good enough its that world cups aren't necessarily won during the tournament but 2 years out... if you don't get top seeding your chances are small... hell Scotland got 3rd seeding so a QF is over achieving. Got to build on what you have.

I actually think if Scotland can put out their top 15 they have a very good team. But confidence is something that still lacks, not surprising given they've been the whipping boys of NH rugby for the last decade.

I disagree 100%, and firmly beleive that any top tier side is in it to win it from their own POV, if not they might as well not bother turning up. I get where you're coming from though, and have a similar opinion to you with regards to their chances, however mindset in camp and in country has to be higher than ours. And thats the point I was trying to make, Scotland should be doing all they can to convince themselves and players that they are here to win it, Cotters actions against a SA team who if we're being honest based on RC and recent performances are there for the taking, highlight Scotlands true ambitions, qualification is good enough, and that translated to the players.

Who have Aus beat of any note to highlight theyre good enough to put Wales to the sword? Beat a poor SA team, Argentina with a few key lads missing, a 2nd string NZ, minnows and recently a very down trodden and dejected England. As impressive as those scallps are, and I beleive all 4 wins were scalps from Aus POV, they havn't been tested whatsoever.

Similarly to SA, played very poorly and look disjointed, not aiming to dump them out last week was a huge mistake, one no other top tier team wouldn't have relished!!

Is that a wind up?

As a matter of interest Fanster, where are you from?

RDW_Scotland wrote:Given that we had an interim head coach for 18 months (and one that was a complete buffoon), that Vern Cotter only started his job just before last year’s summer tour, that our chief play maker only made his professional rugby debut a year and a half ago, our first choice tighthead was capped in the world cup warm up games, the average age of our backline is under 25 (with 3 players 23 or under), the fact that we recently got the 6N wooden spoon, and the fact that – compared to all the other quarter finalists in the WC – we have significantly lower adult playing numbers and only 2 professional teams – I think a QF and decent performance would represent a successful world cup.

This isn’t trying to make excuses or be defeatist – this is just the reality of where we are as a rugby nation and how well we are doing just by being competitive at the top level.

The promising thing is though that most of the 23 for this game will still be playing next world cup and the likes of Jonny Gray, Russell, Bennett and Hogg will be in their primes at 26/27 years old and over 50 caps each. That is a good core to build the team around and really target the next world up.

So yes I would be ‘satisfied’ with a QF defeat – we didn’t even get a QF last time round!

Not too disimilar with Wales in 2011 then, 4th 6N, key players just coming into the team (Falatau, Preistland, Davies, North, Cuthbert, new captain 23 yr old Warburton etc), except our coach had been in post 2 years, and we have more pro teams (although not as strong as Glasgow currently are).

I dislike the defeatist attitude of the Scots, your all so negative as a base, and you don't dare to dream enough, take a leaf from the deluded Welsh who expect RWC semi's and finals despite never actually beating SH teams at any level lol

My point is, although yourself and the public may be realistic, the players can't afford to be, the coaching team needs to reinforce ambitions with every action he makes, like Gatland has done in Wales. Selection v SA very much gave SA an out of being the big team knocked out early.

We're the opposite Fanster.....we have a better record against SH teams than 6N teams!

Perhaps we should join the RC!!

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Fanster.

Scotland will face the team of the tournament thus far. Lets take a reality check here. The best they can do is concentrate on performance. A performance to build on, one to show they can compete with the best.
Its too much to expect from Scotland to beat Australia, a team I fancy to put Wales to the sword.

Its not that a QF is good enough its that world cups aren't necessarily won during the tournament but 2 years out... if you don't get top seeding your chances are small... hell Scotland got 3rd seeding so a QF is over achieving. Got to build on what you have.

I actually think if Scotland can put out their top 15 they have a very good team. But confidence is something that still lacks, not surprising given they've been the whipping boys of NH rugby for the last decade.

BTW when you say team of the tournament thus far do you mean Australia specifically, or the winner of the match on Saturday?

AUS look like the top team in the tournament at the moment. All players fit, all on form. Forwards look strong, backs look deadly. Foley is doing ok with the boot. Ticking all boxes.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Fanster.

Scotland will face the team of the tournament thus far. Lets take a reality check here. The best they can do is concentrate on performance. A performance to build on, one to show they can compete with the best.
Its too much to expect from Scotland to beat Australia, a team I fancy to put Wales to the sword.

Its not that a QF is good enough its that world cups aren't necessarily won during the tournament but 2 years out... if you don't get top seeding your chances are small... hell Scotland got 3rd seeding so a QF is over achieving. Got to build on what you have.

I actually think if Scotland can put out their top 15 they have a very good team. But confidence is something that still lacks, not surprising given they've been the whipping boys of NH rugby for the last decade.

BTW when you say team of the tournament thus far do you mean Australia specifically, or the winner of the match on Saturday?

AUS look like the top team in the tournament at the moment. All players fit, all on form. Forwards look strong, backs look deadly. Foley is doing ok with the boot. Ticking all boxes.

Have to disagree with you there mate, aside from the England game the backline has only played v Fiji, and scored 1 outfield try, making very few breaks. Genia looks weak, Foley has been aided by another playmaker at 12, and Folau has been nowhere near his stupidly great standards. Kuridrani AAC and Tomane have all been average thus far.

Sio has been impressive, but the rest of the tight 5 are as they were, it's really been the return of Pocock as a catalyst of the great breakdown work.

And realistically your basing your opinion on the England game, because a totally different team played v Uraguay, and they faulted a TBP against Fiji, and were shockingly disjointed out wide at times.

No test thus far for Aus = nothing to brag about, media might have loved it, but until they do so v an actual contender i'll remain where I was pre tournament, improved on last year, but still with question marks over certain ssmall units.

Fanster wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Given that we had an interim head coach for 18 months (and one that was a complete buffoon), that Vern Cotter only started his job just before last year’s summer tour, that our chief play maker only made his professional rugby debut a year and a half ago, our first choice tighthead was capped in the world cup warm up games, the average age of our backline is under 25 (with 3 players 23 or under), the fact that we recently got the 6N wooden spoon, and the fact that – compared to all the other quarter finalists in the WC – we have significantly lower adult playing numbers and only 2 professional teams –

RDW_Scotland wrote: I think a QF and decent performance would represent a successful world cup.

This isn’t trying to make excuses or be defeatist – this is just the reality of where we are as a rugby nation and how well we are doing just by being competitive at the top level.

The promising thing is though that most of the 23 for this game will still be playing next world cup and the likes of Jonny Gray, Russell, Bennett and Hogg will be in their primes at 26/27 years old and over 50 caps each. That is a good core to build the team around and really target the next world up.

So yes I would be ‘satisfied’ with a QF defeat – we didn’t even get a QF last time round!

Not too disimilar with Wales in 2011 then, 4th 6N, key players just coming into the team (Falatau, Preistland, Davies, North, Cuthbert, new captain 23 yr old Warburton etc), except our coach had been in post 2 years, and we have more pro teams (although not as strong as Glasgow currently are).

I dislike the defeatist attitude of the Scots, your all so negative as a base, and you don't dare to dream enough, take a leaf from the deluded Welsh who expect RWC semi's and finals despite never actually beating SH teams at any level lol

My point is, although yourself and the public may be realistic, the players can't afford to be, the coaching team needs to reinforce ambitions with every action he makes, like Gatland has done in Wales. Selection v SA very much gave SA an out of being the big team knocked out early.

Since 2000 we have won 19 out of 80 6N games (a 23% winning ratio), collecting 4 wooden spoons along the way. We would have won many more if it wasn't for Italy. We have only ever won 3 games in a 6N tournament once – in 2006 – and have only won 2 games four times, but 3 of those were from 2001-2003. We have won the Calcutta cup 3 times – the last in 2008.  We have not beaten Wales since 2007 and France since 2006, and have only beaten Ireland 3 times in 6N matches.

Autumn Internationals and summer tours (essentially all friendlies) have been slightly more promising, but since 2000 we have only beaten South Africa once, Australia twice and have never beaten New Zealand.

Last world cup we didn’t even qualify for the QFs.

So generally speaking the life of  Scotland rugby fan is one of abject misery and disappointment.  We get flashes of hope that a new dawn has arrived, but it is then cruelly slapped down with instant failure following.

We finally have a good coach and a core of exciting – yet young – players and once again we can hope that a new dawn is coming, but we will of course be cautious and not invest too much emotional energy in believing we can achieve something special because whenever we do, we are brought cruelly back to earth with an earth shattering bump.

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Fanster.

Scotland will face the team of the tournament thus far. Lets take a reality check here. The best they can do is concentrate on performance. A performance to build on, one to show they can compete with the best.
Its too much to expect from Scotland to beat Australia, a team I fancy to put Wales to the sword.

Its not that a QF is good enough its that world cups aren't necessarily won during the tournament but 2 years out... if you don't get top seeding your chances are small... hell Scotland got 3rd seeding so a QF is over achieving. Got to build on what you have.

I actually think if Scotland can put out their top 15 they have a very good team. But confidence is something that still lacks, not surprising given they've been the whipping boys of NH rugby for the last decade.

I disagree 100%, and firmly beleive that any top tier side is in it to win it from their own POV, if not they might as well not bother turning up. I get where you're coming from though, and have a similar opinion to you with regards to their chances, however mindset in camp and in country has to be higher than ours. And thats the point I was trying to make, Scotland should be doing all they can to convince themselves and players that they are here to win it, Cotters actions against a SA team who if we're being honest based on RC and recent performances are there for the taking, highlight Scotlands true ambitions, qualification is good enough, and that translated to the players.

Who have Aus beat of any note to highlight theyre good enough to put Wales to the sword? Beat a poor SA team, Argentina with a few key lads missing, a 2nd string NZ, minnows and recently a very down trodden and dejected England. As impressive as those scallps are, and I beleive all 4 wins were scalps from Aus POV, they havn't been tested whatsoever.

Similarly to SA, played very poorly and look disjointed, not aiming to dump them out last week was a huge mistake, one no other top tier team wouldn't have relished!!

Yet coming from a bokke its not realistic say if you're Argentina or Italy or Scotland. Even Ireland who have never beaten NZ in their history or Wales who haven't beaten them in 62 years.

Whilst you can say... oh its a losing mentality but sometimes realism will help performance. Knowing your worth will help you to a better chance.

Take Scotland vs. SA for instance. Did they play the right strategy? I'd say no. They decided to try a one on one fight with the boks... it was simply naive. They could have kept the scoreboard closer and then you never know by playing a more limited game but to be honest without Russell it was more difficult.

Apologies - have been away. I appreciate that you are all waiting to hear my views on Cotter's team selection.

My verdict: Spot on, other than not picking Strauss. Ryan Wilson has something on Cotter and Johnson. It's the only reason I can come up with for his preferential treatment. He's been ineffective in each and every appearance in a Scotland jersey, and just doesn't cut it. Strauss is in a different league, and I can only imagine what Rob Harley must be thinking right now. In fact, I'd have rather had Cowan at 6.

Still, that XV is good enough to do a job tomorrow. I'll be cheering on Wales as well - I'd rather face an injury depleated Wales than a pumped up Australia!

Fanster wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Given that we had an interim head coach for 18 months (and one that was a complete buffoon), that Vern Cotter only started his job just before last year’s summer tour, that our chief play maker only made his professional rugby debut a year and a half ago, our first choice tighthead was capped in the world cup warm up games, the average age of our backline is under 25 (with 3 players 23 or under), the fact that we recently got the 6N wooden spoon, and the fact that – compared to all the other quarter finalists in the WC – we have significantly lower adult playing numbers and only 2 professional teams –

RDW_Scotland wrote: I think a QF and decent performance would represent a successful world cup.

This isn’t trying to make excuses or be defeatist – this is just the reality of where we are as a rugby nation and how well we are doing just by being competitive at the top level.

The promising thing is though that most of the 23 for this game will still be playing next world cup and the likes of Jonny Gray, Russell, Bennett and Hogg will be in their primes at 26/27 years old and over 50 caps each. That is a good core to build the team around and really target the next world up.

So yes I would be ‘satisfied’ with a QF defeat – we didn’t even get a QF last time round!

Not too disimilar with Wales in 2011 then, 4th 6N, key players just coming into the team (Falatau, Preistland, Davies, North, Cuthbert, new captain 23 yr old Warburton etc), except our coach had been in post 2 years, and we have more pro teams (although not as strong as Glasgow currently are).

I dislike the defeatist attitude of the Scots, your all so negative as a base, and you don't dare to dream enough, take a leaf from the deluded Welsh who expect RWC semi's and finals despite never actually beating SH teams at any level lol

My point is, although yourself and the public may be realistic, the players can't afford to be, the coaching team needs to reinforce ambitions with every action he makes, like Gatland has done in Wales. Selection v SA very much gave SA an out of being the big team knocked out early.

The moment Japan beat South Africa everything changed for the Boks.

With all due respect to Scotland, they were going to struggle to beat an angry mob of South Africans who were humiliated by Japan.

No matter who they selected.

SA looking far more composed from 1-15 and their timing and tempo is much better when they just play to their strengths. Interesting few weeks ahead.

Biltong wrote:

Fanster wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Given that we had an interim head coach for 18 months (and one that was a complete buffoon), that Vern Cotter only started his job just before last year’s summer tour, that our chief play maker only made his professional rugby debut a year and a half ago, our first choice tighthead was capped in the world cup warm up games, the average age of our backline is under 25 (with 3 players 23 or under), the fact that we recently got the 6N wooden spoon, and the fact that – compared to all the other quarter finalists in the WC – we have significantly lower adult playing numbers and only 2 professional teams –

RDW_Scotland wrote: I think a QF and decent performance would represent a successful world cup.

This isn’t trying to make excuses or be defeatist – this is just the reality of where we are as a rugby nation and how well we are doing just by being competitive at the top level.

The promising thing is though that most of the 23 for this game will still be playing next world cup and the likes of Jonny Gray, Russell, Bennett and Hogg will be in their primes at 26/27 years old and over 50 caps each. That is a good core to build the team around and really target the next world up.

So yes I would be ‘satisfied’ with a QF defeat – we didn’t even get a QF last time round!

Not too disimilar with Wales in 2011 then, 4th 6N, key players just coming into the team (Falatau, Preistland, Davies, North, Cuthbert, new captain 23 yr old Warburton etc), except our coach had been in post 2 years, and we have more pro teams (although not as strong as Glasgow currently are).

I dislike the defeatist attitude of the Scots, your all so negative as a base, and you don't dare to dream enough, take a leaf from the deluded Welsh who expect RWC semi's and finals despite never actually beating SH teams at any level lol

My point is, although yourself and the public may be realistic, the players can't afford to be, the coaching team needs to reinforce ambitions with every action he makes, like Gatland has done in Wales. Selection v SA very much gave SA an out of being the big team knocked out early.

The moment Japan beat South Africa everything changed for the Boks.

With all due respect to Scotland, they were going to struggle to beat an angry mob of South Africans who were humiliated by Japan.

No matter who they selected.

Exactly my point - 3 different players for Scotland wouldn't have made much difference IMO.

Biltong - I had the pleasure of meeting one of your countrymen in a pub in Farringdon on Wednesday night. I was watching the rugby whilst waiting for a mate, and got chatting to this bloke. Massive Lions fan who very much echoed your views on the current Bok team selections.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Fanster wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Given that we had an interim head coach for 18 months (and one that was a complete buffoon), that Vern Cotter only started his job just before last year’s summer tour, that our chief play maker only made his professional rugby debut a year and a half ago, our first choice tighthead was capped in the world cup warm up games, the average age of our backline is under 25 (with 3 players 23 or under), the fact that we recently got the 6N wooden spoon, and the fact that – compared to all the other quarter finalists in the WC – we have significantly lower adult playing numbers and only 2 professional teams –

RDW_Scotland wrote: I think a QF and decent performance would represent a successful world cup.

This isn’t trying to make excuses or be defeatist – this is just the reality of where we are as a rugby nation and how well we are doing just by being competitive at the top level.

The promising thing is though that most of the 23 for this game will still be playing next world cup and the likes of Jonny Gray, Russell, Bennett and Hogg will be in their primes at 26/27 years old and over 50 caps each. That is a good core to build the team around and really target the next world up.

So yes I would be ‘satisfied’ with a QF defeat – we didn’t even get a QF last time round!

Not too disimilar with Wales in 2011 then, 4th 6N, key players just coming into the team (Falatau, Preistland, Davies, North, Cuthbert, new captain 23 yr old Warburton etc), except our coach had been in post 2 years, and we have more pro teams (although not as strong as Glasgow currently are).

I dislike the defeatist attitude of the Scots, your all so negative as a base, and you don't dare to dream enough, take a leaf from the deluded Welsh who expect RWC semi's and finals despite never actually beating SH teams at any level lol

My point is, although yourself and the public may be realistic, the players can't afford to be, the coaching team needs to reinforce ambitions with every action he makes, like Gatland has done in Wales. Selection v SA very much gave SA an out of being the big team knocked out early.

The moment Japan beat South Africa everything changed for the Boks.

With all due respect to Scotland, they were going to struggle to beat an angry mob of South Africans who were humiliated by Japan.

No matter who they selected.

Exactly my point - 3 different players for Scotland wouldn't have made much difference IMO.

Except it wasn't 3 different players, it was 11 changes, and 7 or so firt teamers not in the team. Playing down knocks and bumps as 'well they couldn't get selected anyway' isn't good enough, they were 3 (i'd say 4/5) key players who lamented the Scottish mindset.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Biltong - I had the pleasure of meeting one of your countrymen in a pub in Farringdon on Wednesday night. I was watching the rugby whilst waiting for a mate, and got chatting to this bloke. Massive Lions fan who very much echoed your views on the current Bok team selections.

Cheers mate, sounds like an interesting conversation to have in a pub. Good to know there are a few saffers around that agree with me.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Apologies - have been away. I appreciate that you are all waiting to hear my views on Cotter's team selection.

My verdict: Spot on, other than not picking Strauss. Ryan Wilson has something on Cotter and Johnson. It's the only reason I can come up with for his preferential treatment. He's been ineffective in each and every appearance in a Scotland jersey, and just doesn't cut it. Strauss is in a different league, and I can only imagine what Rob Harley must be thinking right now. In fact, I'd have rather had Cowan at 6.

Still, that XV is good enough to do a job tomorrow. I'll be cheering on Wales as well - I'd rather face an injury depleated Wales than a pumped up Australia!

I'll be cheering on Wales in public but be cheering for Australia internally.

When Scotland play Wales it can produce some "tension" within the Radge household.

Fanster wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Fanster wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Given that we had an interim head coach for 18 months (and one that was a complete buffoon), that Vern Cotter only started his job just before last year’s summer tour, that our chief play maker only made his professional rugby debut a year and a half ago, our first choice tighthead was capped in the world cup warm up games, the average age of our backline is under 25 (with 3 players 23 or under), the fact that we recently got the 6N wooden spoon, and the fact that – compared to all the other quarter finalists in the WC – we have significantly lower adult playing numbers and only 2 professional teams –

RDW_Scotland wrote: I think a QF and decent performance would represent a successful world cup.

This isn’t trying to make excuses or be defeatist – this is just the reality of where we are as a rugby nation and how well we are doing just by being competitive at the top level.

The promising thing is though that most of the 23 for this game will still be playing next world cup and the likes of Jonny Gray, Russell, Bennett and Hogg will be in their primes at 26/27 years old and over 50 caps each. That is a good core to build the team around and really target the next world up.

So yes I would be ‘satisfied’ with a QF defeat – we didn’t even get a QF last time round!

Not too disimilar with Wales in 2011 then, 4th 6N, key players just coming into the team (Falatau, Preistland, Davies, North, Cuthbert, new captain 23 yr old Warburton etc), except our coach had been in post 2 years, and we have more pro teams (although not as strong as Glasgow currently are).

I dislike the defeatist attitude of the Scots, your all so negative as a base, and you don't dare to dream enough, take a leaf from the deluded Welsh who expect RWC semi's and finals despite never actually beating SH teams at any level lol

My point is, although yourself and the public may be realistic, the players can't afford to be, the coaching team needs to reinforce ambitions with every action he makes, like Gatland has done in Wales. Selection v SA very much gave SA an out of being the big team knocked out early.

The moment Japan beat South Africa everything changed for the Boks.

With all due respect to Scotland, they were going to struggle to beat an angry mob of South Africans who were humiliated by Japan.

No matter who they selected.

Exactly my point - 3 different players for Scotland wouldn't have made much difference IMO.

Except it wasn't 3 different players, it was 11 changes, and 7 or so firt teamers not in the team. Playing down knocks and bumps as 'well they couldn't get selected anyway' isn't good enough, they were 3 (i'd say 4/5) key players who lamented the Scottish mindset.

I didn't realise you were a medic in the Scotland team to be able to comment on the severity of their injuries!

It's nothing to do with the severity of the injuries, it's the mindset that compounded the the 2nd string mentality by non selection of 4/5 players on top of that.

Players focussing on convincing the media they are not a 2nd string team for the match aren't the best prepared to win the match, how could you disagree?

Well by going from 3 to 4/5 you’re implying that some players could have played despite being listed as injured.

I agree with Fanster here. The only way we'll beat a team like the Boks is to select our best players and go out full throttle. Even one change dilutes that message, and in my view if affects both teams.

We didn't play our strongest side against the Boks. That is just a fact. We can quibble over how many changes were "enforced" vs "tactical" vs "second picks", but the fact of the matter is that Cotter did not pick his best side.

You have to go back a long way to find the last time when Scotland picked its best team against one of the SH Big Three at a World Cup. 1999 vs South Africa I think. That's a long time not to at least try and compete with the best on the Big Stage.

We can mither over the reasons why, but it doesn't change the fact that Cotter has focused on this game at the expense of the Boks. Some will argue that the only goal is reaching the QF. I can understand that perspective. Big picture though is that Scotland now sees itself as very much a second tier rugby nation and I really don't think we can expect teams like SA and NZ to offer us 3 Test Summer Tours anymore if we continue to duck the big games in the World Cup. Why would they, when they can play the likes of Wales and Ireland who at the very least take themselves seriously.

Fanster wrote:It's nothing to do with the severity of the injuries, it's the mindset that compounded the the 2nd string mentality by non selection of 4/5 players on top of that.

Players focussing on convincing the media they are not a 2nd string team for the match aren't the best prepared to win the match, how could you disagree?

The same media that convinced the bulk of the population that England were a sure bet to reach the final?

One thing that this RWC has proven is that mainstream media had extremely poor and sloppy Rugby coverage.

Really? So Maitland, Bennet, Russell, Dickinson, Ford, Wilson, and Hardie were all injured? Because I know of 3 knocks for Hardie, MAitland and Russel, leaving 4 first team players not played.

The difference between going for the win, and highlighting your mindset as a nagative one is resting 1 key player, and with 3 players with knocks who werr not going to be risked resting 4 does what it says on the tin. No risks in trying to dump SA out, and focus key energies on Samoa and a succesfull campaign of reaching quarters.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's nothing to do with the severity of the injuries, it's the mindset that compounded the the 2nd string mentality by non selection of 4/5 players on top of that.

Players focussing on convincing the media they are not a 2nd string team for the match aren't the best prepared to win the match, how could you disagree?

The same media that convinced the bulk of the population that England were a sure bet to reach the final?

One thing that this RWC has proven is that mainstream media had extremely poor and sloppy Rugby coverage.

But the media reporting on what they think doesn't take energy away from the players, the players reacting to the media, and spending precious time replying to reports of 2nd string is very much taking energy away from match prep!

Fanster wrote:Really? So Maitland, Bennet, Russell, Dickinson, Ford, Wilson, and Hardie were all injured? Because I know of 3 knocks for Hardie, MAitland and Russel, leaving 4 first team players not played.

The difference between going for the win, and highlighting your mindset as a nagative one is resting 1 key player, and with 3 players with knocks who werr not going to be risked resting 4 does what it says on the tin. No risks in trying to dump SA out, and focus key energies on Samoa and a succesfull campaign of reaching quarters.                                                                                                      

Am I missing something? Are Scotland the only team to have rotated players in this tournament? It's inevitable that squad rotation would have to take place.

Maybe Russell was going to start vs SA, but his injury neccesitated in changing our running game to a "bosh" game because we had Weir at 10?

I'm speculating but I think this targeting of the Scotland squad by yourself and the media in the run up to this game has been unfair.

Fanster wrote:Really? So Maitland, Bennet, Russell, Dickinson, Ford, Wilson, and Hardie were all injured? Because I know of 3 knocks for Hardie, MAitland and Russel, leaving 4 first team players not played.

The difference between going for the win, and highlighting your mindset as a nagative one is resting 1 key player, and with 3 players with knocks who werr not going to be risked resting 4 does what it says on the tin. No risks in trying to dump SA out, and focus key energies on Samoa and a succesfull campaign of reaching quarters.                                                                                                      

Maitland - hand injury
Bennett - rotated
Russell - ankle injury
Dickinson - benched
Ford - benched
Wilson - Benched (but I doubt you'll find anyone on here he would have picked him over Strauss for SA)
Hardie - recovering from head knock

So unless you know more about Hardie and Maitland's injuries than anyone outside the Scotland camp, that makes 3.

This is become pretty tiresome and we're going round in circles, so I'm going to drop out of the debate.

There is a reason the most represented Scot in the B&I Lions is the doctor.

He is the best in the business.

If James Robson says someone is injured. He is injured.

End of discussion

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Really? So Maitland, Bennet, Russell, Dickinson, Ford, Wilson, and Hardie were all injured? Because I know of 3 knocks for Hardie, MAitland and Russel, leaving 4 first team players not played.

The difference between going for the win, and highlighting your mindset as a nagative one is resting 1 key player, and with 3 players with knocks who werr not going to be risked resting 4 does what it says on the tin. No risks in trying to dump SA out, and focus key energies on Samoa and a succesfull campaign of reaching quarters.                                                                                                      

Am I missing something? Are Scotland the only team to have rotated players in this tournament? It's inevitable that squad rotation would have to take place.

Maybe Russell was going to start vs SA, but his injury neccesitated in changing our running game to a "bosh" game because we had Weir at 10?

I'm speculating but I think this targeting of the Scotland squad by yourself and the media in the run up to this game has been unfair.

What targetting? I live in Scotland currently and love the Scots, am currently on a train down to London...

I am dissapointed by the negativity of the coaching set up, rotation has happened in every team, but some teams have done it well, Scotland have all but thrown an opportunity to dump a top side out of the competition. The bench was rushed against the USA, through sheer panic, and potentially inexperience, and the knocks have come from that. 4 first team players were then not risked to compound the 3 knocks, meaning half the Scotland first 15 were missing.

11 changes were made before that, so rotation was happening, and 7 more now. If players have played too much in 18 changes between 3 games then thats also a big mistake made.

I don't understand why Scotland are happy to qualify only, and part of me thinks Samoa might just ruin your RWC all together (Which btw would be a huge shame).

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:There is a reason the most represented Scot in the B&I Lions is the doctor.

He is the best in the business.

If James Robson says someone is injured. He is injured.

End of discussion

OK so we agree Robson is a good doctor, and 3 players were injured, who said otherwise, except for someone downplaying poor coach decision making, preperation and experience with an argument of 'because injury'.

I'm specifically talking resting 4 more players off the back of that and allowing SA an out, imagine how annoyed everyone would be if Australia rotated Pocock, Foley Folau and Moore because of rotation? They wouldn't because they smelled blood, Scotland could have done similar but decided the risk wasn't worth it.

Fanster wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Really? So Maitland, Bennet, Russell, Dickinson, Ford, Wilson, and Hardie were all injured? Because I know of 3 knocks for Hardie, MAitland and Russel, leaving 4 first team players not played.

The difference between going for the win, and highlighting your mindset as a nagative one is resting 1 key player, and with 3 players with knocks who werr not going to be risked resting 4 does what it says on the tin. No risks in trying to dump SA out, and focus key energies on Samoa and a succesfull campaign of reaching quarters.                                                                                                      

Am I missing something? Are Scotland the only team to have rotated players in this tournament? It's inevitable that squad rotation would have to take place.

Maybe Russell was going to start vs SA, but his injury neccesitated in changing our running game to a "bosh" game because we had Weir at 10?

I'm speculating but I think this targeting of the Scotland squad by yourself and the media in the run up to this game has been unfair.

What targetting? I live in Scotland currently and love the Scots, am currently on a train down to London...

I am dissapointed by the negativity of the coaching set up, rotation has happened in every team, but some teams have done it well, Scotland have all but thrown an opportunity to dump a top side out of the competition. The bench was rushed against the USA, through sheer panic, and potentially inexperience, and the knocks have come from that. 4 first team players were then not risked to compound the 3 knocks, meaning half the Scotland first 15 were missing.

11 changes were made before that, so rotation was happening, and 7 more now. If players have played too much in 18 changes between 3 games then thats also a big mistake made.

I don't understand why Scotland are happy to qualify only, and part of me thinks Samoa might just ruin your RWC all together (Which btw would be a huge shame).

Very unlikely I'd say. They were an undisciplined rabble against Japan and nothing has happened since then that makes me think they have turned a corner.

That Bok team were a very powerful and angry unit.

What would have happened if we played players like Ford / Russell et al who were perhaps a bit injured and very jaded from playing a lot of rugby already in this torunament and we lost key players? I don't think we had the ability to contain that Boks side at full strength anyway.

So why risk guys we know won't make a difference against an angry and wounded South Africa side who after their complacency against Japan went out to crush all who stood before them?

That match was a lost cause and Vern probably knew that. It's a canny move to keep your powder dry for the match that determines our fate rather than focus on "dumping out" South Africa as you put it.

Cotter's job is to get us through, not "dump out" the Boks and IMO he has done enough to ensure that is the case.

Meeting them in the knockout stages is a different kettle of fish. Circa England in 2007. Boks in their group hammered them. England very close to upsetting them in the final.

I would also point out, we had 3 games in 10 days - not one team would try and play the full team in every game with that schedule - and anyone who says their team would is deluded

We have the WORST scheduling of any team - and look at the up roar when Japan had one 4 day turn around -

We had that, then a 6 day one - not a peep

If we beat Samoa - we will be in the quarters - we will then go full team ahead against every team we get - looking to win

It would have been counter productive to try to use the same players (even the uninjured ones) for every game

Lets just get it out in the open - since we beat Japan - people dislike us :-)

Riskysports wrote:I would also point out, we had 3 games in 10 days - not one team would try and play the full team in every game with that schedule - and anyone who says their team would is deluded

We have the WORST scheduling of any team - and look at the up roar when Japan had one 4 day turn around -

We had that, then a 6 day one - not a peep

If we beat Samoa - we will be in the quarters - we will then go full team ahead against every team we get - looking to win

It would have been counter productive to try to use the same players (even the uninjured ones) for every game

Lets just get it out in the open - since we beat Japan - people dislike us :-)

Great post Risky

Fanster wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:There is a reason the most represented Scot in the B&I Lions is the doctor.

He is the best in the business.

If James Robson says someone is injured. He is injured.

End of discussion

OK so we agree Robson is a good doctor, and 3 players were injured, who said otherwise, except for someone downplaying poor coach decision making, preperation and experience with an argument of 'because injury'.

I'm specifically talking resting 4 more players off the back of that and allowing SA an out, imagine how annoyed everyone would be if Australia rotated Pocock, Foley Folau and Moore because of rotation? They wouldn't because they smelled blood, Scotland could have done similar but decided the risk wasn't worth it.

Maybe, just maybe they were not at 100% fitness after playing 2 games - and it was better to be safe on injuries than sorry

I think if we had a week between matches, it would have been a stronger team put out