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

George Carlin wrote:I agree with Dame FESter of Stockbridge that Italy and France are the games that we should expect to take and I will also say now that we can beat England in the first match if we go in with confidence and with an 80% fit first choice squad.

I was actually snubbed on the New Year Honours list this year. Apparently you have to be a handsomely paid political strategist for the Tory party to be honoured these days, or a very handsomely paid former managing partner of a Magic Cirle law firm who once got a trainee to do a few hours of pro bono work on his behalf.

I have my fingers crossed for this year. I bought a Big Issue yesterday.

CraigS1874 wrote:I think England will win the 6 nations but the fact we play them in the first match gives us a big advantage as they will lack cohesion. I agree 2 wins happy, 1 win disappointment but not destraught.

The way I judge our team is if a lions team was picked right now how many players would be in contention to make the squad.

The bold ones are up there
1-dickinson
2ford
3. nel
4.gray
5.gray
6.strauss
7.hardie
8. Denton
9. Laidlaw
10. Russell
11. Visser
12 [Dunbar/Taylor/Scott
13. Bennett
14. seymour
15. Hogg

Relatively strong first team especially in the pack.  I just hope Russell/Hogg/Dunbar find form and find it quickly

It's going to be an interesting question come the New Zealand Lions Tour - how many Scots will be candidates for the tour?

I think your proposals for "were the squad being picked now" are broadly correct. Obviously Russell, Dunbar and Hogg will want to be in contention next year but I would agree that they are not candidates right now.

Du Preez qualifies in time for the Lions and that will be an interesting one. Faletau, Morgan, Vunipola, Hughes, Heaslip etc. will make the number 8 debate pretty interesting.

I also forgot Matt Scott - 12. He'll be captain.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

CraigS1874 wrote:I think England will win the 6 nations but the fact we play them in the first match gives us a big advantage as they will lack cohesion. I agree 2 wins happy, 1 win disappointment but not destraught.

The way I judge our team is if a lions team was picked right now how many players would be in contention to make the squad.

The bold ones are up there
1-dickinson
2ford
3. nel
4.gray
5.gray
6.strauss
7.hardie
8. Denton
9. Laidlaw
10. Russell
11. Visser
12 [Dunbar/Taylor/Scott
13. Bennett
14. seymour
15. Hogg

Relatively strong first team especially in the pack.  I just hope Russell/Hogg/Dunbar find form and find it quickly

It's going to be an interesting question come the New Zealand Lions Tour - how many Scots will be candidates for the tour?

I think your proposals for "were the squad being picked now" are broadly correct. Obviously Russell, Dunbar and Hogg will want to be in contention next year but I would agree that they are not candidates right now.

Du Preez qualifies in time for the Lions and that will be an interesting one. Faletau, Morgan, Vunipola, Hughes, Heaslip etc. will make the number 8 debate pretty interesting.

Given how much some players' form has changed over the space of a few months it is certainly impossible to predict who our star players will be in summer 2017!

I don't think we should fear the England team that Eddie Jones will put out, at least not this year. He'll only have a few weeks with the team and it seems like if you're

i) Young & EQ
ii) Have few or no caps for England
iii) Play for a half-decent Premiership team

... then you're automatically the next best thing since sliced bread. I saw the BT sport (Should be ET Sports for rugby...) pundits discussing their team and quite frankly I don't think Daly, Burrell, Goode, Ashton are any better than Bennett, Scott, Hogg (on form) or Seymour.

What worries me though is that our team can fluctuate drastically from nearly beating France, Australia, Wales... to struggling to cope with the USA & Tonga for half a match and just limping over the finishing line vs Samoa. On paper we have a side that can beat England, but as was said, it is like Tottenham: a few very decent players coming through but lacking consistent, winning performances against big teams.

I don't think it is pessimistic to only expect 1 win or think that 2 wins is a success, just realistic based on past performances. I do feel, however, that less than 2 wins would be a slightly hushed failure among the squad. They've been so near on too many occasions now that quite frankly, something might need to change to get them to that next level.

Interesting thoughts. I'm not expecting performances to be that different under Jones and I'd be disappointed to come away with nothing at Murrayfield, but I'm never that confident away. We did seem to cope better last year with the improved pitch.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting thoughts. I'm not expecting performances to be that different under Jones and I'd be disappointed to come away with nothing at Murrayfield, but I'm never that confident away. We did seem to cope better last year with the improved pitch.

The new pitch has been both a blessing and a curse. Whilst Scotland are trying to adopt a more multi-phase attacking gameplan it is clearly the right thing to do, however whilst we are behind several of our competitors in implementing that gameplan it has played into their hands to a degree.

The old Murrayfield quagmire, inspired by a few Nematodes and lashings of rain, certainly leveled the playing field back in the days where the modus operandi of the Scotland team was to do nothing other than spoil the contest and make things as miserable as possible for the visiting team. The 2000 Calcutta Cup was a textbook example of this. McGeechan put Jason White at openside flanker!

For the Scotland team to maximise its potential and develop a gameplan to suit the players it now has, we need to move away from that sort of game as the foundation for style of play. A proper pitch is a move in the right direction, even if it's helpful to the opposition.

RDW - I only expect a win or perhaps two - but I still would consider anything less than a 50% win to loss ratio a failure.

So 2 wins would be less of a failure than last year but it would still be a failure?

Nematode wrote:I don't think we should fear the England team that Eddie Jones will put out, at least not this year. He'll only have a few weeks with the team and it seems like if you're

i) Young & EQ
ii) Have few or no caps for England
iii) Play for a half-decent Premiership team

... then you're automatically the next best thing since sliced bread. I saw the BT sport (Should be ET Sports for rugby...) pundits discussing their team and quite frankly I don't think Daly, Burrell, Goode, Ashton are any better than Bennett, Scott, Hogg (on form) or Seymour.

What worries me though is that our team can fluctuate drastically from nearly beating France, Australia, Wales... to struggling to cope with the USA & Tonga for half a match and just limping over the finishing line vs Samoa. On paper we have a side that can beat England, but as was said, it is like Tottenham: a few very decent players coming through but lacking consistent, winning performances against big teams.

I don't think it is pessimistic to only expect 1 win or think that 2 wins is a success, just realistic based on past performances. I do feel, however, that less than 2 wins would be a slightly hushed failure among the squad. They've been so near on too many occasions now that quite frankly, something might need to change to get them to that next level.

If Goode and Ashton start most of us will be sobbing into our pints by halftime. Hogg and Seymour are far better players for my money, while Bennett is likely to be up against JJ which is a very interesting matchup. No idea who we're starting at 12, but I'd imagine its going to be Barritt

BamBam wrote:

Nematode wrote:I don't think we should fear the England team that Eddie Jones will put out, at least not this year. He'll only have a few weeks with the team and it seems like if you're

i) Young & EQ
ii) Have few or no caps for England
iii) Play for a half-decent Premiership team

... then you're automatically the next best thing since sliced bread. I saw the BT sport (Should be ET Sports for rugby...) pundits discussing their team and quite frankly I don't think Daly, Burrell, Goode, Ashton are any better than Bennett, Scott, Hogg (on form) or Seymour.

What worries me though is that our team can fluctuate drastically from nearly beating France, Australia, Wales... to struggling to cope with the USA & Tonga for half a match and just limping over the finishing line vs Samoa. On paper we have a side that can beat England, but as was said, it is like Tottenham: a few very decent players coming through but lacking consistent, winning performances against big teams.

I don't think it is pessimistic to only expect 1 win or think that 2 wins is a success, just realistic based on past performances. I do feel, however, that less than 2 wins would be a slightly hushed failure among the squad. They've been so near on too many occasions now that quite frankly, something might need to change to get them to that next level.

If Goode and Ashton start most of us will be sobbing into our pints by halftime. Hogg and Seymour are far better players for my money, while Bennett is likely to be up against JJ which is a very interesting matchup. No idea who we're starting at 12, but I'd imagine its going to be Barritt

You think Eddie Jones will go with a flair vacuum like Barritt? Interesting.

One aspect I see that gives rise to a wee bit hope is the upward curve in performances. 2 years ago we were outplayed in the 6N. Last year we were not and were in winning positions in 3 games but bottled it ( lack of experience?) WC warm ups and the WC itself we improved further and finally looked in the game against Aus to be playing to our potential.

This is why I say the excuses are over. Its not poor coaching ( 2014), its not lack of experience in the players and lack of time for the coach to get the team organised as he wants( 2015). Its time to put up or shut up - combine this with the rebuilding of many of the teams then lets stop cringing.

Its time to get the results. Scotland are in the best place they have been for a long time. No more excuses

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Nematode wrote:I don't think we should fear the England team that Eddie Jones will put out, at least not this year. He'll only have a few weeks with the team and it seems like if you're

i) Young & EQ
ii) Have few or no caps for England
iii) Play for a half-decent Premiership team

... then you're automatically the next best thing since sliced bread. I saw the BT sport (Should be ET Sports for rugby...) pundits discussing their team and quite frankly I don't think Daly, Burrell, Goode, Ashton are any better than Bennett, Scott, Hogg (on form) or Seymour.

What worries me though is that our team can fluctuate drastically from nearly beating France, Australia, Wales... to struggling to cope with the USA & Tonga for half a match and just limping over the finishing line vs Samoa. On paper we have a side that can beat England, but as was said, it is like Tottenham: a few very decent players coming through but lacking consistent, winning performances against big teams.

I don't think it is pessimistic to only expect 1 win or think that 2 wins is a success, just realistic based on past performances. I do feel, however, that less than 2 wins would be a slightly hushed failure among the squad. They've been so near on too many occasions now that quite frankly, something might need to change to get them to that next level.

If Goode and Ashton start most of us will be sobbing into our pints by halftime. Hogg and Seymour are far better players for my money, while Bennett is likely to be up against JJ which is a very interesting matchup. No idea who we're starting at 12, but I'd imagine its going to be Barritt

You think Eddie Jones will go with a flair vacuum like Barritt? Interesting.

I really hope not, but it seems most likely.

Slade was the front runner, and got injured, Burrell is not playing well at all. Sam Hill would be my personal choice, but he isn't the unquestioned starter for Exeter due to the amount of options they have

With Gustard's defence needing time to implement, it makes sense to go with players who know the system, and Farrell/Barritt are pretty key to it from my understanding

BamBam wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Nematode wrote:I don't think we should fear the England team that Eddie Jones will put out, at least not this year. He'll only have a few weeks with the team and it seems like if you're

i) Young & EQ
ii) Have few or no caps for England
iii) Play for a half-decent Premiership team

... then you're automatically the next best thing since sliced bread. I saw the BT sport (Should be ET Sports for rugby...) pundits discussing their team and quite frankly I don't think Daly, Burrell, Goode, Ashton are any better than Bennett, Scott, Hogg (on form) or Seymour.

What worries me though is that our team can fluctuate drastically from nearly beating France, Australia, Wales... to struggling to cope with the USA & Tonga for half a match and just limping over the finishing line vs Samoa. On paper we have a side that can beat England, but as was said, it is like Tottenham: a few very decent players coming through but lacking consistent, winning performances against big teams.

I don't think it is pessimistic to only expect 1 win or think that 2 wins is a success, just realistic based on past performances. I do feel, however, that less than 2 wins would be a slightly hushed failure among the squad. They've been so near on too many occasions now that quite frankly, something might need to change to get them to that next level.

If Goode and Ashton start most of us will be sobbing into our pints by halftime. Hogg and Seymour are far better players for my money, while Bennett is likely to be up against JJ which is a very interesting matchup. No idea who we're starting at 12, but I'd imagine its going to be Barritt

You think Eddie Jones will go with a flair vacuum like Barritt? Interesting.

I really hope not, but it seems most likely.

Slade was the front runner, and got injured, Burrell is not playing well at all. Sam Hill would be my personal choice, but he isn't the unquestioned starter for Exeter due to the amount of options they have

With Gustard's defence needing time to implement, it makes sense to go with players who know the system, and Farrell/Barritt are pretty key to it from my understanding

It can be easily argued that Barf are the best attacking team in the the Aviva, although perhaps not showing great form at the moment. You don't think the maverick in Jones would go for Ford at 10 bringing Brown, JJ and Watson into the line at any opportunity?

Barritt for me is just not a great attacking centre. He reminds me of Graeme Morrison formerly of Scotland. A big unit who is defensively solid but offers little else.

I agree Hill has been decent and tbh I though Burrell had a good game at the weekend against Exeter.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting thoughts. I'm not expecting performances to be that different under Jones and I'd be disappointed to come away with nothing at Murrayfield, but I'm never that confident away. We did seem to cope better last year with the improved pitch.

The new pitch has been both a blessing and a curse. Whilst Scotland are trying to adopt a more multi-phase attacking gameplan it is clearly the right thing to do, however whilst we are behind several of our competitors in implementing that gameplan it has played into their hands to a degree.

The old Murrayfield quagmire, inspired by a few Nematodes and lashings of rain, certainly leveled the playing field back in the days where the modus operandi of the Scotland team was to do nothing other than spoil the contest and make things as miserable as possible for the visiting team. The 2000 Calcutta Cup was a textbook example of this. McGeechan put Jason White at openside flanker!

For the Scotland team to maximise its potential and develop a gameplan to suit the players it now has, we need to move away from that sort of game as the foundation for style of play. A proper pitch is a move in the right direction, even if it's helpful to the opposition.

Definitely. I meant last time rather than year obviously as well. Both sides backs can play so I am hopeful that we bring some Saracens style domination into the forwards.

Nematode wrote:I don't think we should fear the England team that Eddie Jones will put out, at least not this year. He'll only have a few weeks with the team and it seems like if you're

i) Young & EQ
ii) Have few or no caps for England
iii) Play for a half-decent Premiership team

... then you're automatically the next best thing since sliced bread. I saw the BT sport (Should be ET Sports for rugby...) pundits discussing their team and quite frankly I don't think Daly, Burrell, Goode, Ashton are any better than Bennett, Scott, Hogg (on form) or Seymour.

What worries me though is that our team can fluctuate drastically from nearly beating France, Australia, Wales... to struggling to cope with the USA & Tonga for half a match and just limping over the finishing line vs Samoa. On paper we have a side that can beat England, but as was said, it is like Tottenham: a few very decent players coming through but lacking consistent, winning performances against big teams.

I don't think it is pessimistic to only expect 1 win or think that 2 wins is a success, just realistic based on past performances. I do feel, however, that less than 2 wins would be a slightly hushed failure among the squad. They've been so near on too many occasions now that quite frankly, something might need to change to get them to that next level.

There is a lot of what you have said that I have a lot of sympathy with. I'd have to say though that Daly is an exciting prospect who has been around the system for a couple of years (and did well scoring a couple of tries against a very good barbarians team a little while ago). Of the other 3 names I think if they were all to appear (or even some) then a lot of England fans on here will be more than a little upset

No 7&1/2 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting thoughts. I'm not expecting performances to be that different under Jones and I'd be disappointed to come away with nothing at Murrayfield, but I'm never that confident away. We did seem to cope better last year with the improved pitch.

The new pitch has been both a blessing and a curse. Whilst Scotland are trying to adopt a more multi-phase attacking gameplan it is clearly the right thing to do, however whilst we are behind several of our competitors in implementing that gameplan it has played into their hands to a degree.

The old Murrayfield quagmire, inspired by a few Nematodes and lashings of rain, certainly leveled the playing field back in the days where the modus operandi of the Scotland team was to do nothing other than spoil the contest and make things as miserable as possible for the visiting team. The 2000 Calcutta Cup was a textbook example of this. McGeechan put Jason White at openside flanker!

For the Scotland team to maximise its potential and develop a gameplan to suit the players it now has, we need to move away from that sort of game as the foundation for style of play. A proper pitch is a move in the right direction, even if it's helpful to the opposition.

Definitely. I meant last time rather than year obviously as well. Both sides backs can play so I am hopeful that we bring some Saracens style domination into the forwards.

The battle upfront will be an epic contest. The Scotland pack I would pick for this match would look like :

1. Dickinson
2. Ford
3. Nel
4. Gray
5. Gray
6. Cowan
7. Hardie
8. Denton

The English pack with Lawes and Launchberry, a returning Heartley, Robshaw in position at 6 (who was outstanding against Worcester on Sunday) with Morgan or Vunipola at 8 will also be very formidable.

I know it's going back to that old cliche of the forwards will win the game, I think it is in this case particularly true. If the Scotland backs get a lot of ball I think they will cause problems for the English defence. Same goes for the English backs especially if Jones decides to pick attacking players instead of just picking big lumps of meat like Barritt.

General thinking is that there won't be a place for Lawes. Probably Kruis or Kitchenerner partnering Launchbury. As ever keeping my fingers crossed as my best mate is Scottish and the amount of grief he gave me for that draw a few years back makes me never want to see a Scottish victory!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Nematode wrote:I don't think we should fear the England team that Eddie Jones will put out, at least not this year. He'll only have a few weeks with the team and it seems like if you're

i) Young & EQ
ii) Have few or no caps for England
iii) Play for a half-decent Premiership team

... then you're automatically the next best thing since sliced bread. I saw the BT sport (Should be ET Sports for rugby...) pundits discussing their team and quite frankly I don't think Daly, Burrell, Goode, Ashton are any better than Bennett, Scott, Hogg (on form) or Seymour.

What worries me though is that our team can fluctuate drastically from nearly beating France, Australia, Wales... to struggling to cope with the USA & Tonga for half a match and just limping over the finishing line vs Samoa. On paper we have a side that can beat England, but as was said, it is like Tottenham: a few very decent players coming through but lacking consistent, winning performances against big teams.

I don't think it is pessimistic to only expect 1 win or think that 2 wins is a success, just realistic based on past performances. I do feel, however, that less than 2 wins would be a slightly hushed failure among the squad. They've been so near on too many occasions now that quite frankly, something might need to change to get them to that next level.

If Goode and Ashton start most of us will be sobbing into our pints by halftime. Hogg and Seymour are far better players for my money, while Bennett is likely to be up against JJ which is a very interesting matchup. No idea who we're starting at 12, but I'd imagine its going to be Barritt

You think Eddie Jones will go with a flair vacuum like Barritt? Interesting.

I really hope not, but it seems most likely.

Slade was the front runner, and got injured, Burrell is not playing well at all. Sam Hill would be my personal choice, but he isn't the unquestioned starter for Exeter due to the amount of options they have

With Gustard's defence needing time to implement, it makes sense to go with players who know the system, and Farrell/Barritt are pretty key to it from my understanding

It can be easily argued that Barf are the best attacking team in the the Aviva, although perhaps not showing great form at the moment. You don't think the maverick in Jones would go for Ford at 10 bringing Brown, JJ and Watson into the line at any opportunity?

Barritt for me is just not a great attacking centre. He reminds me of Graeme Morrison formerly of Scotland. A big unit who is defensively solid but offers little else.

I agree Hill has been decent and tbh I though Burrell had a good game at the weekend against Exeter.

Agree that Bath aren't in great form at the moment, but still another month to go!

Farrell is definitely the on form fly half in England at the moment, my preference is Ford because of his creativity, but would have no quibble over Farrell getting the nod.

Haven't seen Burrell against Exeter, the scoreline and match reports put me off!

BamBam wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Nematode wrote:I don't think we should fear the England team that Eddie Jones will put out, at least not this year. He'll only have a few weeks with the team and it seems like if you're

i) Young & EQ
ii) Have few or no caps for England
iii) Play for a half-decent Premiership team

... then you're automatically the next best thing since sliced bread. I saw the BT sport (Should be ET Sports for rugby...) pundits discussing their team and quite frankly I don't think Daly, Burrell, Goode, Ashton are any better than Bennett, Scott, Hogg (on form) or Seymour.

What worries me though is that our team can fluctuate drastically from nearly beating France, Australia, Wales... to struggling to cope with the USA & Tonga for half a match and just limping over the finishing line vs Samoa. On paper we have a side that can beat England, but as was said, it is like Tottenham: a few very decent players coming through but lacking consistent, winning performances against big teams.

I don't think it is pessimistic to only expect 1 win or think that 2 wins is a success, just realistic based on past performances. I do feel, however, that less than 2 wins would be a slightly hushed failure among the squad. They've been so near on too many occasions now that quite frankly, something might need to change to get them to that next level.

If Goode and Ashton start most of us will be sobbing into our pints by halftime. Hogg and Seymour are far better players for my money, while Bennett is likely to be up against JJ which is a very interesting matchup. No idea who we're starting at 12, but I'd imagine its going to be Barritt

You think Eddie Jones will go with a flair vacuum like Barritt? Interesting.

I really hope not, but it seems most likely.

Slade was the front runner, and got injured, Burrell is not playing well at all. Sam Hill would be my personal choice, but he isn't the unquestioned starter for Exeter due to the amount of options they have

With Gustard's defence needing time to implement, it makes sense to go with players who know the system, and Farrell/Barritt are pretty key to it from my understanding

It can be easily argued that Barf are the best attacking team in the the Aviva, although perhaps not showing great form at the moment. You don't think the maverick in Jones would go for Ford at 10 bringing Brown, JJ and Watson into the line at any opportunity?

Barritt for me is just not a great attacking centre. He reminds me of Graeme Morrison formerly of Scotland. A big unit who is defensively solid but offers little else.

I agree Hill has been decent and tbh I though Burrell had a good game at the weekend against Exeter.

Agree that Bath aren't in great form at the moment, but still another month to go!

Farrell is definitely the on form fly half in England at the moment, my preference is Ford because of his creativity, but would have no quibble over Farrell getting the nod.

Haven't seen Burrell against Exeter, the scoreline and match reports put me off!

The match was absolute dirge. However Burrell looked threatening when he got his hands on the ball. Far from a masterclass but Barritt has never impressed me. Although whilst on the subject of Sarries it's been nice to see Duncan Taylor playing so well.

How do people rate Blair Cowan & his chances?

He was initially ignored for the RWC and Watson seems like a great prospect (I'd like to see Watson and Hardie combine like Hooper and Pocock, with Watson at 6 and Hardie at 7). Add in Josh Strauss and I think that could be a decent back row.

Blair Cowan is IMO just another decent back row - we have a few. I'd rather Hamish got a place - he really does bust a gut for the team - I rate him a lot

TJ wrote:Blair Cowan is IMO just another decent back row - we have a few.  I'd rather Hamish got a place - he really does bust a gut for the team - I rate him a lot

Watson is a fantastic player. However after Cowan's performances in the RWC, I cannot justify dropping him.

Hardie/Cowan/Denton was a very good backrow combination.

Nematode wrote:How do people rate Blair Cowan & his chances?

He was initially ignored for the RWC and Watson seems like a great prospect (I'd like to see Watson and Hardie combine like Hooper and Pocock, with Watson at 6 and Hardie at 7). Add in Josh Strauss and I think that could be a decent back row.

I'm not sure Watson is big enough for 6? I may be wrong but he looks fairly lightweight, great prospect though and looks faster than some of our recent backs (even Usain Lamont if that's possible).
Blake might be better suited than Watson as a possible 6. Mitch Eadie may be another possibility at 6 looking forward but obviously isn't going to get picked whilst playing in the Championship, I'd still like to see him make a training squad soon.

Watson has generally been excellent when he has played for Edinburgh, but he hasn’t had a good run of games this season both due to injury and Hardie arriving.

I also really rate him but I’m just not sure if he would be as effective at international level.  In both Ulster games this season he was turned over a few times because he went into contact too high – this would be ruthlessly exposed at international level and he’ll be targeted.

The only way to find out though is to play him – he’s the perfect player to play against Japan in the summer tour, but I’m not sure I’d want him playing in the 6N other than off the bench as an impact player.

I also really rate Cowan BTW.

p.s. Watson definintely isn't a 6, nor is Hardie IMO (although he is more of a 6 than Watson!)

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

TJ wrote:Blair Cowan is IMO just another decent back row - we have a few.  I'd rather Hamish got a place - he really does bust a gut for the team - I rate him a lot

Watson is a fantastic player. However after Cowan's performances in the RWC, I cannot justify dropping him.

Hardie/Cowan/Denton was a very good backrow combination.

Yes, Cowan's usual penalty count (i.e. too high) dropped notably when he had someone to help him with the fetching work and he is big enough and hungry enough to be a good match for the more defensive duties that being a blindside necessitates. I would be quite happy with the pair of them starting - there is something to that partnership that really works.

Watson is a wonderful talent but he will need to have his backrow colleagues chosen carefully as he is not the largest of men and will need support. He doesn't have Hardie's explosiveness and dynamism but then again, you wouldn't necessarily expect him to given their ages and backgrounds and Hardie is the first name on the teamsheet for me.

Number 8 is a bit of a problem as our usual suspects are either not getting much game time or are not necessarily in great form. I will need to see how Denton and Strauss are playing over the next month and I am not convinced that either of them has the shirt nailed on.

If I was Eddie Jones, now that Henry Slade is sadly broken I would just pick the Bath hinge and midfield. It's the pack that has been losing Bath matches recently, not the backs and Jones knows that the continuity that comes from picking established combos is very valuable.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

TJ wrote:Blair Cowan is IMO just another decent back row - we have a few.  I'd rather Hamish got a place - he really does bust a gut for the team - I rate him a lot

Watson is a fantastic player. However after Cowan's performances in the RWC, I cannot justify dropping him.

Hardie/Cowan/Denton was a very good backrow combination.

Its nice position to be in isn't it? - we could put out 3 complete back rows without any great drop in quality. I rate Watson for his speed and his strength. I think speed is so important in modern rugby. Many say he is too light - but he is the same size as Hooper, McCaw, Pocock is he not?

TJ wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

TJ wrote:Blair Cowan is IMO just another decent back row - we have a few.  I'd rather Hamish got a place - he really does bust a gut for the team - I rate him a lot

Watson is a fantastic player. However after Cowan's performances in the RWC, I cannot justify dropping him.

Hardie/Cowan/Denton was a very good backrow combination.

Its  nice position to be in isn't it? - we could put out 3 complete back rows without any great drop in quality.  I rate Watson for his speed and his strength.  I think speed is so important in modern rugby.  Many say he is too light - but he is the same size as Hooper, McCaw, Pocock is he not?

Hmm. Offy stats have him at a little over 15 stones which (having met him) seems about right.

Everyone bangs on about Matt Kvesic being too small and he's a stone heavier than Watson. The likes of McCaw and Pocock at about 17st is a good size for an openside. But as I have to remind Mrs GC repeatedly, size is absolutely not everything.

Thought I had better check
According to espn scrum stats ( not the most reliable)

Watson Height 6 ft 1 in Weight 216 lb (15 1/2 st approx)

Cowan Height 6 ft 2 in Weight 233 lb (16 1/2 stone)

Hardie Height 6 ft 0 in Weight 227 lb (16 1/4 stone)

McCaw Height 6 ft 2 in Weight 238 lb ( 17 stone)

Pocock Height 6 ft 2 in Weight 253 lb ( I am surprised at this weight!) ( 18 stone pie eater)

Hooper  6 ft 0 in Weight 222 lb (16 stone)

So he is the lightest of these guys but I bet also the fastest ( I wish we had 40m running time stats!) but he is not that much lighter and he is very strong in the upper body

There is no way Watson is 6ft 1 - I've stood next to him and he isn't taller than me, and I'm 6ft!

He's not lacking in strenght just in size - he's apparently one of the strongest in the Edinburgh squad, but because he is small he can be thrown about like a chew toy if he's an a situation where his strength doens't count for much.

RDW_Scotland wrote:There is no way Watson is 6ft 1 - I've stood next to him and he isn't taller than me, and I'm 6ft!

He's not lacking in strenght just in size - he's apparently one of the strongest in the Edinburgh squad, but because he is small he can be thrown about like a chew toy if he's an a situation where his strength doens't count for much.

Edinburgh site has him at 6'1" as well - and 98 kgs ( 15 1/2 stone)
I agree he doesn't look that big tho

Does the 11 lbs between him and Hardie really make that much difference?

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:There is no way Watson is 6ft 1 - I've stood next to him and he isn't taller than me, and I'm 6ft!

He's not lacking in strenght just in size - he's apparently one of the strongest in the Edinburgh squad, but because he is small he can be thrown about like a chew toy if he's an a situation where his strength doens't count for much.

Edinburgh site has him at 6'1" as well - and 98 kgs ( 15 1/2 stone)
I agree he doesn't look that big tho

Does the 11 lbs between him and Hardie really make that much difference?

Given the different style of plays they have, yes! Hardie is one tough son of a gun that puts in crunching hits and is very powerful. Watson is incredibly athletic and uses his explosive strength to great effect.

Height and weight aren't everything - these back rows you mention are the same size as most modern day centres but the difference in the two positions in terms of athleticism and physicality is noticeable.

I think if you merged Hugh Blake and Hamish Watson you'd come close to a Michael Hooper-esque type of player that I think we could really do with, someone who can link with the backs well (Also Justin Tipuric like).

Anyone been watching John Barclay recently? If Denton and Strauss aren't obvious choices, might Barclay be an option at 6/8? He is starting a lot of games and playing for the top team in the Pro 12.

Nematode wrote:I think if you merged Hugh Blake and Hamish Watson you'd come close to a Michael Hooper-esque type of player that I think we could really do with, someone who can link with the backs well (Also Justin Tipuric like).

Anyone been watching John Barclay recently? If Denton and Strauss aren't obvious choices, might Barclay be an option at 6/8? He is starting a lot of games and playing for the top team in the Pro 12.

Barclay has been injured for a wee while now and, although he does a decent enough job at 8 for Scarlets, that is fullfilling a specific role within their team and for their tactics and I don't think he's a realistic option for Scotland - especially if Denton and Strauss are fit.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Nematode wrote:I think if you merged Hugh Blake and Hamish Watson you'd come close to a Michael Hooper-esque type of player that I think we could really do with, someone who can link with the backs well (Also Justin Tipuric like).

Anyone been watching John Barclay recently? If Denton and Strauss aren't obvious choices, might Barclay be an option at 6/8? He is starting a lot of games and playing for the top team in the Pro 12.

Barclay has been injured for a wee while now and, although he does a decent enough job at 8 for Scarlets, that is fullfilling a specific role within their team and for their tactics and I don't think he's a realistic option for Scotland - especially if Denton and Strauss are fit.

I'd go with Ashe at 8 before Barclay. We don't have to play people out of position.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Nematode wrote:I think if you merged Hugh Blake and Hamish Watson you'd come close to a Michael Hooper-esque type of player that I think we could really do with, someone who can link with the backs well (Also Justin Tipuric like).

Anyone been watching John Barclay recently? If Denton and Strauss aren't obvious choices, might Barclay be an option at 6/8? He is starting a lot of games and playing for the top team in the Pro 12.

Barclay has been injured for a wee while now and, although he does a decent enough job at 8 for Scarlets, that is fullfilling a specific role within their team and for their tactics and I don't think he's a realistic option for Scotland - especially if Denton and Strauss are fit.

I'd go with Ashe at 8 before Barclay. We don't have to play people out of position.

Scott/Dunbar(if fit)/Taylor choice IMO will be giving Vern the toughest selection dilemma.

Am very worried that this tournament is going to be yet another busted flush for Alex Dunbar. He has the potential to be the best player for us in the 6 Nations but with niggling injuries and so little recent gametime, he almost certainly won't be.

There isn't even much of an argument that his continuity with Bennett gives him an advantage over Matt Scott or Duncan Taylor. Dunbar hasn't had enough recent game time to say that with a straight face. Real shame.

Agreed on Dunbar, and Matt Scott has been playing well recently. I'd rather he got his injury situation behind him and just focused on getting fit and finding form - Scott/Bennett can serve us well enough in the 6 Nations (with Taylor as back-up). We need to play the long game with Dunbar.

I don't have a clue about the medical stuff behind his injury, however, from a mental point of view, I think he could do with getting a few decent games under his belt with Glasgow before playing international rugby. Since we've got Taylor and Scott there's no point playing him.

*Not to mention the fact Glasgow could really do with him in the pro12 during the 6 Nations

I think Taylor is taylor-made (pun intended )for international rugby, very solid defensively, strong carrier and performs well in big games. I like Scott as a player but he is not the player he was when he first broke onto the scene.

Any news on how long horne is out for ?

CraigS1874 wrote:I think Taylor is taylor-made (pun intended )for international rugby, very solid defensively, strong carrier and performs well in big games. I like Scott as a player but he is not the player he was when he first broke onto the scene.

Any news on how long horne is out for ?

Until the 1872 games I would be in complete agreement, in fact he had a relatively poor World Cup, but against Glasgow I was pretty impressed with Scott. I like his partnership with Allan and am hopeful that Solomons gives it another outing on Friday.

I'm not sure but it looked pretty bad, just the same as the injury vs SA (ACL, out for 9 months).

Got to agree with FES - he's still not at his barnstorming best but he played very well over both 1872 legs. Gave us a lot of go forward and was solid in defence against a dangerous Glasgow trio.

He's got a big point to prove at Scotland level though if he is selected.

I though he was fairly decent at the RWC, making good runs and scoring a few tries.

Nematode wrote:I though he was fairly decent at the RWC, making good runs and scoring a few tries.

His best game was off the bench when he scored against USA (or was it Japan?) But he went AWOL in defence against SA and Samoa.

He wasn't the only one granted...

Terribly sad to see Horne injured but I have felt for a while that he is not the answer to Scotland's problems in midfield and if that means that Taylor slots into the substitutes bench (or even starts) then that works for me.

Surely Cotter needs to look to the future and not plonk Scotland's favourite syphillis-ridden old love monkey Sean Lamont on the bench again without thinking. He's got his 100 caps. Let's see what the youngfellers can do now.

George Carlin wrote:Terribly sad to see Horne injured but I have felt for a while that he is not the answer to Scotland's problems in midfield and if that means that Taylor slots into the substitutes bench (or even starts) then that works for me.

Surely Cotter needs to look to the future and not plonk Scotland's favourite syphillis-ridden old love monkey Sean Lamont on the bench again without thinking. He's got his 100 caps. Let's see what the youngfellers can do now.

You mean the fastest member of the Glasgow squad? Totally agree. Sean Lamont hasn't been an international standard player for a few years now. Big T and Seymour are Glasgow's first choice wingers anyway, and I don't see how a player deemed not good enough to start for his club can be deemed better than the likes of Visser, Maitland and Seymour, or even a form player like Brown. I'd even go with Hoyland ahead of Lamont, albeit that Hoyland probably isn't in the Edinburgh 1st XV either. At least he's quick and with his best years ahead of him.

I asked about how Maitland was playing on the LI forum and they rate him, saying he could be one of their star players if he remains fit. He can also own the 15 shirt.

I'd be tempted to give him a run at 15, if anything it will show Hogg that he can't get the jersey even when he isn't playing well. Having Hogg come off the bench could be the sort of impact player at 23 we could do with. The question is though, is an in form Tom Brown or Sean Lamont better on the wing than an out of form Hogg?

Horne is not an international centre for me - he just doesn't have the size (he's a 12, we need someone bigger to partner Bennett). I think he could be a quality fly half though if he got more starts there for Glasgow.

Is anyone expecting any new faces in the squad when Cotter eventually announces it?

MacKnocked-on wrote:Is anyone expecting any new faces in the squad when Cotter eventually announces it?

I think the squad will have a familiar look mostly. Some players coming in might be the likes of Sutherland, Low, Toolis, Kennedy, T. Brown

Nematode wrote:

MacKnocked-on wrote:Is anyone expecting any new faces in the squad when Cotter eventually announces it?

I think the squad will have a familiar look mostly. Some players coming in might be the likes of Sutherland, Low, Toolis, Kennedy, T. Brown

Assuming you mean Moray rather than Kieran that's a good shout. I've heard he's doing really well at Exeter. I've also heard that Jon Welsh has been useful at Newcastle, which surprised me.

I think Alex Toolis could get a call-up. In fact I think he's pushing Tim Swinson for that bench spot behind the Gray brothers. He's about twice the size of Tim Swinson, which helps.