Scotland 6N lookahead

First topic message reminder :

 

Scotland 45 – Japan 10

Hardie, Bennett (2), Seymour, Russell

Scotland 39 – USA 16

Visser, Maitland, Nel, Scott, Weir

South Africa 34 – Scotland 16

Seymour

Samoa 33 – Scotland 36

Seymour, Hardie, Laidlaw

Australia 35 – Scotland 34

Horne, Seymour, Bennett


Tries this world cup:

Seymour – 4
Bennett – 3
Hardie – 2
Russell, Visser, Maitland, Nel, Scott, Weir, Laidlaw, Horne – 1


6 Nations fixtures:
Scotland V England
Wales V Scotland

Italy V Scotland

Scotland V France
Ireland V Scotland

As long as nobody suggests a swap deal with Andy Farrell.

I've copied this from Guscott's column on the BBC.....

Wallabies better than scoreline suggests
In the end, Australia beat Scotland by a point, secured through a penalty that never should have been.

But when the dust settles and you look at the stats, it is clear that the Wallabies were the dominant side in the match.

They scored five tries to three, had 55% of possession and 62% of territory. But rugby has a habit of throwing up matches where the scoreboard defies the flow of play. Scotland's three tries were all attributable to Australian errors.

Second row Rob Simmons lost concentration on the fringe of a ruck to allow Peter Horne to stroll over, then Bernard Foley's kick was charged down to set up Tommy Seymour's score before Mark Bennett snatched an interception for the third.

That combined with Foley's wayward first-half kicking kept Scotland in it.

Some sections of the Australian media have said the narrow win shows that they cannot win the World Cup without flanker David Pocock, who missed the weekend through injury.


He cannot accept that Scotland's scores were due to excellent pressure applied against the Aussies. No mention that we doubled their turnovers etc. etc.

Sigh.

Our new attack coach Jason O’Halloran is due to start work with Cotter soon, I wonder if Humphries will continue in his role or be replaced, I presume Taylor will stay as defence coach but does our terrible maul defence and restarts come under poor forwards or defence coaching, or both?

Now we're scoring an interception nearly every game, I think we should get some credit for that. It's no longer "luck" or a gift, but it's been worked towards.

Let's face it, you could call a try from a 3 man overlap a "gift" as the other team have gifted it by defending narrowly. Should the attacking team get credit for that by putting them under pressure around the ruck to draw men in? Of course.

Guscott is a lazy journalist. He won't have watched the game more than once and will be basing his review on what others have said, with a couple of lazy stats thrown in.

For example how does a 55% possession stat demonstrate that Australia were "dominant". Regardless of the stats, it is not uncommon at all to see a team with better stats and yet lose the game. You need to actually watch the game Jeremy, probably more than once, to offer any sort of meaningful professional insight.

If you sat Guscott down and asked him to name the Scotland 23 against Australia, I reckon he'd get stuck at 10 players.

He is a lazy journalist.

highland_scot wrote:Now we're scoring an interception nearly every game, I think we should get some credit for that. It's no longer "luck" or a gift, but it's been worked towards.

Let's face it, you could call a try from a 3 man overlap a "gift" as the other team have gifted it by defending narrowly. Should the attacking team get credit for that by putting them under pressure around the ruck to draw men in? Of course.

Tom English summarises this nicely using the Gary Player quote: the more I practice the luckier I get.

Scotland have been working extremely hard to put teams under pressure and test opposition skills. All these charge downs and interceptions are all part of that hard work. The ABs have been doing it for years. I've lost count of the number of "easy" points they've scored against teams, and the France QF on Saturday was no different. It isn't luck, and it shouldn't be solely attributed to opposition mistakes. You earn your luck in rugby.

To me Aus were clearly the better team - however Scotland put them under real pressure for the first time in the tournament and made them look a bit ordinary when they looked awesome against England and Wales.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Guscott is a lazy journalist. He won't have watched the game more than once and will be basing his review on what others have said, with a couple of lazy stats thrown in.

For example how does a 55% possession stat demonstrate that Australia were "dominant". Regardless of the stats, it is not uncommon at all to see a team with better stats and yet lose the game. You need to actually watch the game Jeremy, probably more than once, to offer any sort of meaningful professional insight.

If you sat Guscott down and asked him to name the Scotland 23 against Australia, I reckon he'd get stuck at 10 players.

He is a lazy journalist.

Perhaps the 55% possession stat plus the fact that 5 tries were scored against Scotland (it could easily have been 6 or 7) does suggest Australia were, in fact, the dominant side. Only very good teams can manage a win with both possession and territory significantly against them.

Also it's a bit unfair to call Guscott a lazy journalist and make the presumption that "He won't have watched the game more than once... "
You know this for 100% fact do you? You are certainly not a very gracious loser, fES.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Guscott is a lazy journalist. He won't have watched the game more than once and will be basing his review on what others have said, with a couple of lazy stats thrown in.

For example how does a 55% possession stat demonstrate that Australia were "dominant". Regardless of the stats, it is not uncommon at all to see a team with better stats and yet lose the game. You need to actually watch the game Jeremy, probably more than once, to offer any sort of meaningful professional insight.

If you sat Guscott down and asked him to name the Scotland 23 against Australia, I reckon he'd get stuck at 10 players.

He is a lazy journalist.

Perhaps the 55% possession stat plus the fact that 5 tries were scored against Scotland (it could easily have been 6 or 7) does suggest Australia were, in fact, the dominant side. Only very good teams can manage a win with both possession and territory significantly against them.

Also it's a bit unfair to call Guscott a lazy journalist and make the presumption that "He won't have watched the game more than once... "
You know this for 100% fact do you? You are certainly not a very gracious loser, fES.

Jeremy gusset is famous for saying Richie Gray is too slow for international rugby.

He had never seen him play, looked at his stats and made a wrong assumption.

FES' evaluation of The Gusset's rugby research is entirely accurate dog.

Yeah radge, but didn't that spur him on after that comment? So he actually did him a favour.
So he actually got it right then.... by coincidence.

Down dog you've had your bone

I did say before the Aus game I'd rather we went down fighting and lose 40-20 and tried to attack rather than try to defend and not risk anything losing 12 3. The boys did us proud in that regard. Restarts and maul defence was ruddy awful tho

Can't understand why restarts were still an issue, did Vern not watch my vine?

Ruby, don't get me wrong but I couldn't just sit back and read some of these comments without a reply.

I understand there is a lot of emotion among the Scotland fans but it seems that some posters; not all (TJ springs to mind) not only roasted Joubert (who, by the way, has often been the difference in a Wallaby loss... so it's not unique to any team) but also had a mild dig at some Australian players and aspects of our game on Sunday.

For the record, I do think our team took a step backwards against Scotland. It was quite frustrating to watch all the botched opportunities, dropped ball, 'frustrations' at the scrum, slow reaction to the loose ball. I want to put that all down to a bad day at the RWC.

Like NZs blistering demolition of France, I'm hoping that lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place! Of course I am worried about the Argentina match. Yet I still do have faith in the probability that the last match was more of an aberration than the beginning of the end for the Wallabies.

Scotland played very, very well though. Almost full marks from me - for what it's worth.  
At one time I did have a similar sick feeling in the guts like the Ireland group game in 2011. However this time more points were scored in a more open game. Scotland took good advantage of that situation and I do hope that they can rattle a few of the other home nations and France in the upcoming 6N.

I sincerely apologise if I have upset anyone or touched any raw nerves in my direct responses to some of the comments on this thread. For those who think... yeah right, an Aussie would be far worse than us if the boot were on the other foot - No, I'd just congratulate... then quietly fume away if I felt we had been hard done by from the ref. Anyway, that's just my current survival technique. Along with "It's only a game..."

Thing's won't change with that attitude though, will they?
Right... where did I leave that flag and marching footwear?

Tom English's piece for the BBC on Scotland is worth a read in full if anyone is interested: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/34574651

That is a good piece by Tom English

The Loaded Dog wrote:Ruby, don't get me wrong but I couldn't just sit back and read some of these comments without a reply.

I understand there is a lot of emotion among the Scotland fans but it seems that some posters; not all (TJ springs to mind) not only roasted Joubert (who, by the way, has often been the difference in a Wallaby loss... so it's not unique to any team) but also had a mild dig at some Australian players and aspects of our game on Sunday.

For the record, I do think our team took a step backwards against Scotland. It was quite frustrating to watch all the botched opportunities, dropped ball, 'frustrations' at the scrum, slow reaction to the loose ball. I want to put that all down to a bad day at the RWC.

Like NZs blistering demolition of France, I'm hoping that lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place! Of course I am worried about the Argentina match. Yet I still do have faith in the probability that the last match was more of an aberration than the beginning of the end for the Wallabies.

Scotland played very, very well though. Almost full marks from me - for what it's worth.  
At one time I did have a similar sick feeling in the guts like the Ireland group game in 2011. However this time more points were scored in a more open game. Scotland took good advantage of that situation and I do hope that they can rattle a few of the other home nations and France in the upcoming 6N.

I sincerely apologise if I have upset anyone or touched any raw nerves in my direct responses to some of the comments on this thread. For those who think... yeah right, an Aussie would be far worse than us if the boot were on the other foot - No, I'd just congratulate... then quietly fume away if I felt we had been hard done by from the ref. Anyway, that's just my current survival technique. Along with "It's only a game..."

Thing's won't change with that attitude though, will they?
Right... where did I leave that flag and marching footwear?

I think whilst most of us here were obviously devastated by a last minute loss, we'd generally put it down to Scotland's lack of composure more than anything. To win on 5 tries to 3 would be as much of a shocker, and arguably, Australia still deserved to win as they still had a lot of the control, Scotland were always chasing it.

The one thing that bothers me about Joubert is him running off at the end, not even shaking hands with the other officials, let alone the players.

Ultimately it comes down to our failures on restarts and decision making under intense pressure.

As said in Tom English's article, we have issues that need to be addressed, the whole Joubert thing will pass. I think next time Scotland meet Australia they will be a very different side. Hopefully for better.

Have Oz got summer tourists lined up? It would be nice if it was us!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Have Oz got summer tourists lined up? It would be nice if it was us!

Just checked. We seem to have Japan. Before this world cup I would have considered that a wasted tour. Now however I reckon that will be a stern series of tests.

Yes, those 3rd Tier tours are quite competitive I gather.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Yes, those 3rd Tier tours are quite competitive I gather.

Don't get me wrong. I would have rather toured one of the semi finalists but we are correctly or incorrectly viewed as not good enough to play one of those teams exclusively.

Scotland's overseas tours

2016 - New Zealand and Japan (2)
2017 - Australia (in country competition)
2018 - Argentina and North America (2)

Scotland schedule: Visiting Murrayfield for Autumn Tests

2016 - Australia, Argentina, Tier 2 Union
2017 - New Zealand, Australia, Tier 2 Option
2018 - South Africa, Argentina, Tier 2 Union

2 tests against Japan in the summer - they are going to be sensing blood!

1 game against New Zealand but will probably be a reserve team - they have 3 tests against Wales.

RDW_Scotland wrote:2 tests against Japan in the summer - they are going to be sensing blood!

1 game against New Zealand but will probably be a reserve team - they have 3 tests against Wales.

If it's the reserves I fancy us to get our first win against NZ.

But then pigs might also fly.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Yes, those 3rd Tier tours are quite competitive I gather.

Don't get me wrong. I would have rather toured one of the semi finalists but we are correctly or incorrectly viewed as not good enough to play one of those teams exclusively.

England are touring here next winter. I'm sure Scotland was here about 5 or 6 years ago in a one match tour?
Maybe one of you guys remembers when it was. 2009 I think it was....

The Loaded Dog wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Yes, those 3rd Tier tours are quite competitive I gather.

Don't get me wrong. I would have rather toured one of the semi finalists but we are correctly or incorrectly viewed as not good enough to play one of those teams exclusively.

England are touring here next winter. I'm sure Scotland was here about 5 or 6 years ago in a one match tour?
Maybe one of you guys remembers when it was. 2009 I think it was....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18324263

5th of June 2012 was our last match on Ozzie soil

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:Yes, those 3rd Tier tours are quite competitive I gather.

Don't get me wrong. I would have rather toured one of the semi finalists but we are correctly or incorrectly viewed as not good enough to play one of those teams exclusively.

England are touring here next winter. I'm sure Scotland was here about 5 or 6 years ago in a one match tour?
Maybe one of you guys remembers when it was. 2009 I think it was....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18324263

5th of June 2012 was our last match on Ozzie soil

Oh OK. Seems much longer ago than that.

Its great to see so many Scottish posters positively animated on here - It generates better discussion and dialogue altogether. We all love our rugby and suffer accordingly and believe me us welsh can get down more than post, its just nice to read the positivity on here and I'm sure life itself just becomes a little brighter when your team does well. As for Loaded Dog, I don't think you ever need to apologise mate, we all see things differently and my satire is lost on most on here so get back to chewing that bone.

RubyGuby wrote:Its great to see so many Scottish posters positively animated on here - It generates better discussion and dialogue altogether. We all love our rugby and suffer accordingly and believe me us welsh can get down more than post, its just nice to read the positivity on here and I'm sure life itself just becomes a little brighter when your team does well. As for Loaded Dog, I don't think you ever need to apologise mate, we all see things differently and my satire is lost on most on here so get back to chewing that bone.

You are so used to the vitriolic dick measuring that goes on between certain posters across the Severn Ruby

Scotland fans have been through the mill so often we either adopt delusional optimism or gallows humour.

For the first one there's a simple solution:

George Carlin wrote:Thank goodness. I've just had to open a window to let some of that Moral Righteousness out.

As for the second...
Well, let's not go there just yet shall we?

(Is it contagious... this gallows humour?)

The Loaded Dog wrote:For the first one there's a simple solution:

George Carlin wrote:Thank goodness. I've just had to open a window to let some of that Moral Righteousness out.

As for the second...
Well, let's not go there just yet shall we?

(Is it contagious... this gallows humour?)

Very contagious.

Thankfully border controls are so tight HMP Australia you shouldn't concern yourself

Who ordered the mini hurricane in the closing stages, by the way? Nice try.

It was beginning to lash down quite heavily if memory serves me correct.
I'm just so glad Cheika made Foley wear the extra large anti-slip studs. What a clever coach.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Guscott is a lazy journalist. He won't have watched the game more than once and will be basing his review on what others have said, with a couple of lazy stats thrown in.

For example how does a 55% possession stat demonstrate that Australia were "dominant". Regardless of the stats, it is not uncommon at all to see a team with better stats and yet lose the game. You need to actually watch the game Jeremy, probably more than once, to offer any sort of meaningful professional insight.

If you sat Guscott down and asked him to name the Scotland 23 against Australia, I reckon he'd get stuck at 10 players.

He is a lazy journalist.

Perhaps the 55% possession stat plus the fact that 5 tries were scored against Scotland (it could easily have been 6 or 7) does suggest Australia were, in fact, the dominant side. Only very good teams can manage a win with both possession and territory significantly against them.

Also it's a bit unfair to call Guscott a lazy journalist and make the presumption that "He won't have watched the game more than once... "
You know this for 100% fact do you? You are certainly not a very gracious loser, fES.

Is 55% vs 45% really a "significant difference"? You need to spend some time in Scotland. There are a bunch of loonies here who actually believe those two numbers to be very close indeed, in fact the more mathematically challenged see the 45% figure as higher.

Trust me, if you've read Guscott's emissions since he became a "journalist", you'd know exactly what I mean. He follows England and only England. He has no interest in other teams, and when asked to comment about them just regurgitates other people's views. You can tell he doesn't actually watch very much rugby, and his thoughts about Scotland, France, Wales et al were all formed in the 90s.

That's not to do him down as a player. He was one of the finest outside centres to play the game.

I should also add that I thought Australia were the better side. I think "dominant" is a bit of a stretch given the problems we caused your set piece and defence, and the pressure we put you under at times, but no question the skills in the Aussie backline are still a lot more polished than anything we have, even on a bad day.

To be fair, he does get a semi over Wales during the 6N too.

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Is 55% vs 45% really a "significant difference"? You need to spend some time in Scotland. There are a bunch of loonies here who actually believe those two numbers to be very close indeed, in fact the more mathematically challenged see the 45% figure as higher.

Yes, you're right fES. 45-55% means nothing these days. Some Kiwi teams (ITM Cup) win with a 35-65% disadvantage on both counts. You guessed it - plenty of 105m tries and whizbang backline movements - which even mesmorise the viewer.

Point taken on Guscott. I take your word for it.

As far as a player... would rather stick with Horan or Mortlock*.

*I played for the same club Lindfield** a while back. We were so proud of winning it 2 years running... only one close loss in all that time.

Fast forward exactly 10 years later - and Mortlock's team went undefeated for 5 years... and never lost a bloody game.
The story goes that even before he was old enough to play he used to bring on the sand for the kickers. They had a lot of trouble getting the kid off the field. One smug & barky looking father then commented: "That little pr!ck will one day play for Australia! Mark my bloody words!"

Makes you feel so, so small...

**Lindfield Rugby Union Club - same strip as Argentina. They are called the Funnel Webs. No bull!! They even have a special black logo now.

My response to Guscott

"Wow, how patronizing to Scotland?

Maybe mention 1 of the tries was when down to 14 men. How about the pressure Scotland put on to force those mistakes. How about DOUBLE the turnovers.

No, everything was Oz mistakes and gifts given to Scotland - Scotland scored a interception a game - it is a tactic

Give credit where credit is Due, Scotland played extremely well (as did Australia to win it)"

The Loaded Dog wrote:As far as a player... would rather stick with Horan or Mortlock*.

*I played for the same club Lindfield** a while back. We were so proud of winning it 2 years running... only one close loss in all that time.

Fast forward exactly 10 years later - and Mortlock's team went undefeated for 5 years... and never lost a bloody game.
The story goes that even before he was old enough to play he used to bring on the sand for the kickers. They had a lot of trouble getting the kid off the field. One smug & barky looking father then commented: "That little pr!ck will one day play for Australia! Mark my bloody words!"

Makes you feel so, so small...

**Lindfield Rugby Union Club - same strip as Argentina. They are called the Funnel Webs. No bull!! They even have a special black logo now.

Nice story about Mortlock.

Agreed on Horan, although his best position was at 12. Still the finest 12 of my lifetime. I get less excited about Mortlock - I'm not even sure I'd go for Mortlock ahead of Jason Little or AAC at 13. Of course Mortlock was a very fine player indeed, but I'd take Guscott at 13 ahead of him, particularly with Horan at 12.

Try tackling one of the 3 Ella brothers in the backline - head still spins and that was 37 years ago!!

I'm a bit late coming to this party, partly because I wanted to let the emotions settle and partly because not being retired is quite time consuming.

All 23 who were involved in the Wallabies match deserve the highest praise. Every one of them.

Positives

17 tries in 5 competitive matches. A mahoosive improvement.
Hardie, he is the real deal.
Front Five, were all excellent: take a well deserved bow Ross Ford. Jonny Gray was colossal.
Spirit: we're playing with belief and aggression.

Disappointments

Hoggba; didn't look 100% fit and never really lit up a game the way he can.
Dancer, did nothing wrong but looked exactly what he is; an exceptional precocious talent for whom this tournament was a couple of years too soon.
Matt Scott, the Monica Seles of Scottish rugby? His defensive display against the Samoans was so inept I thought he was concussed. Apparently he was physically fine: he just decided to go awol every time they ran up his channel. Considering how exceptionally good he was pre-injury that is heartbreaking.
Batman; not the player for Scotland he looks for Glasgow.
Visser; didn't actually disappoint because we knew he would be invisible in defence.

Oh, I hear you cry, what about Frodo!

Eddie Butler tells the story of being at the bar with three Welsh players when Rupert Moon was scrum half for them;

Player1: You know, Moonie doesn't have much of a pass on him.

Player2: Shocking it is. And he has absolutely no pace when he makes a break.

Player3: Slowest 9 I've ever seen. And he can't tackle to save his life.

There was a slight pause before..

Player1: Mind, he's a brilliant scrum half.

Players2&3; Oh yes outstanding, best we've had in years without a doubt.

If we judge Frodo the Milk Turner on the individual skills a 9 should possess he come third behind Samwise and Henners every time. However, rugby is more complex than that. I understand that the underlying principle behind Moneyball is that sometimes the inclusion of a less gifted player benefits the team more than that of a "star" player.

So Frodo at 9 improves the overall performance of the team even if Samwise and Henners are better players than him.

So we have a captain who is selected, mainly, for his inspirational qualities.

Well, it would be hypocritical for a Glasgow fan to argue against that logic.

So we have The New Kellock leading us now. As long as he leads the way he did against Oz that's fine by me. But it'd be nice if he got the ball out to Dancer a bit quicker mind.

Jesus I am getting fed up with all of the pre-match 'commentary' dismissing Australia's performace against Scotland as some sort of strange misalignment of the planets rather than Scotland having actually played well.

Amazing how you can construct your own narrative to explain away a result.

Stop reading it then George!

I wouldn't even know what you are talking about since I never listen to pre-match 'commentary'.

btw, did you like Simmons' intercept try? Nice steal. More silkier than Bennetts' of course.

Right - change of tack time. Let's look forward albeit hypothetically:-
having seen Duncan Weir's bizarre attempt at game management, will we rue letting Tommy/Thomaso Allan play for Italy? Allan didn't exactly set the heather (or spaghetti) on fire but I think he is a better 3rd choice stand-off. And I am putting Horne ahead of both.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Right - change of tack time. Let's look forward albeit hypothetically:-
having seen Duncan Weir's bizarre attempt at game management, will we rue letting Tommy/Thomaso Allan play for Italy? Allan didn't exactly set the heather (or spaghetti) on fire but I think he is a better 3rd choice stand-off. And I am putting Horne ahead of both.

I still think Jacko and Heathcote are likely to jump over Duncy before next years 6N. The positive of that being he may get more Pro 12 gametime to work on his game. Allan is not and never was likely to be the solution!

BigGee wrote:

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Right - change of tack time. Let's look forward albeit hypothetically:-
having seen Duncan Weir's bizarre attempt at game management, will we rue letting Tommy/Thomaso Allan play for Italy? Allan didn't exactly set the heather (or spaghetti) on fire but I think he is a better 3rd choice stand-off. And I am putting Horne ahead of both.

I still think Jacko and Heathcote are likely to jump over Duncy before next years 6N. The positive of that being he may get more Pro 12 gametime to work on his game. Allan is not and never was likely to be the solution!

Not too difficult if your subject is 4'10" like the Mighty Meatball.

George Carlin wrote:

BigGee wrote:

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Right - change of tack time. Let's look forward albeit hypothetically:-
having seen Duncan Weir's bizarre attempt at game management, will we rue letting Tommy/Thomaso Allan play for Italy? Allan didn't exactly set the heather (or spaghetti) on fire but I think he is a better 3rd choice stand-off. And I am putting Horne ahead of both.

I still think Jacko and Heathcote are likely to jump over Duncy before next years 6N. The positive of that being he may get more Pro 12 gametime to work on his game. Allan is not and never was likely to be the solution!

Not too difficult if your subject is 4'10" like the Mighty Meatball.

Any player who can step Willie Le Roux like Meatball is (to quote Blackadder) "alright by me and welcome to marry my sister any day." #MeatballForPM

Would I like to see Weir in Scotland shirt again?

To quote Blackadder again, "I'd rather french kiss a skunk".

Blackadder is awesome. There's a quote for everything.

1. Duncan Weir at 10

"Give the likes of [Duncan Weir] the [fly half jersey] and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for dinner..."

“Worst idea since someone said ‘yeah let’s take this suspiciously large wooden horse into Troy, statues are all the rage this season’.”

2. Lancaster's England

"There hasn't been a [rugby team] run this badly since Olaf the hairy, King of all the Vikings, ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside."

3. Watching Scotland or Edinburgh

"I think the phrase rhymes with Clucking Bell!"

4. Vern Cotter to Scott Johnson (all the Baldrick quotes work....)

"Am I jumping the gun, [Scott], or are the words 'I have a cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation?"

"Your brain would make a grain of sand look large and ungainly."

"[Scott], does it have to be this way? Our valued friendship ending with me cutting you up into strips and telling [Mark Dodson] that you walked over a very sharp cattle grid in an extremely heavy hat?"

5. Craig Joubert

"[Craig], believe me, eternity in the company of Beelzebub and all his hellish instruments of death will be a picnic compared to five minutes with me and this pencil if we can't [consult the TMO]."

"They do say, [Craig], that verbal insults hurt more than physical pain. They are, of course, wrong, as you will soon discover when I stick this toasting fork into your head."

6. Being a Scottish rugby fan

"The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the devil's own satanic herd".