6N 2017: England vs Scotland

First topic message reminder :

     
ENGLAND v SCOTLAND
Saturday 10th March
16:00 GMT
Twickenham Stadium

Live on ITV, RTE, FR2, DMAX

Referee - Matthieu Raynal
AR1 - Romain Poite
AR2 - Marius Mitrea
TMO - Ben Skeen

A. Head to Head

134 Played 134
74 Won 42
18 Drawn 18
42 Lost 74
1,562 Points 1,141

B. Recent Form

6 February 2016
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
9 – 15 to England

14 March 2015
Twickenham, London
25 – 13 to England

8 February 2014
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
0 – 20 to England

2 February 2013
Twickenham, London
38 – 18 to England

4 February 2012
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
6 – 13 to England

C. Teams

ENGLAND


Starting XV:

15. Mike Brown (vice captain, Harlequins, 58 caps), 14. Jack Nowell  (Exeter Chiefs, 21 caps), 13. Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 31 caps), 12. Owen Farrell (vice captain, Saracens, 50 caps), 11. Elliot Daly (Wasps, 11 caps), 10. George Ford (Bath Rugby, 33 caps), 9. Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 68 caps), 1. Joe Marler (Harlequins, 49 caps), 2. Dylan Hartley (captain, Northampton Saints, 82 caps), 3. Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 72 caps), 4. Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 40 caps) , 5. Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 56 caps), 6. Maro Itoje (Saracens, 10 caps), 7. James Haskell (Wasps, 73 caps) , 8. Nathan Hughes (Wasps, 6 caps).

Finishers

16. Jamie George (Saracens, 15 caps), 17. Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 40 caps), 18. Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 6 caps), 19. Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 48 caps), 20. Billy Vunipola (vice captain, Saracens 32 caps), 21. Danny Care (Harlequins, 69 caps), 22. Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors, 6 caps), 23. Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 24 caps).

SCOTLAND


Starting XV

15. Stuart Hogg (Glasgow Warriors) – 51 caps; 16 tries, 3 pens, 89 points
14. Tommy Seymour (Glasgow Warriors) – 34 caps; 15 tries, 75 points
13. Huw Jones (Stormers) – 6 caps; 2 tries, 10 points
12. Alex Dunbar (Glasgow Warriors) – 22 caps; 6 tries, 30 points
11. Tim Visser (Harlequins) – 29 caps; 12 tries, 60 points
10. Finn Russell (Glasgow Warriors) – 25 caps; 2 tries, 5 cons, 8 pens, 44 points
9. Ali Price (Glasgow Warriors) – 3 caps

1. Gordon Reid (Glasgow Warriors) – 22 caps
2. Fraser Brown (Glasgow Warriors) – 23 caps
3. Zander Fagerson (Glasgow Warriors) – 7 caps
4. Richie Gray (Toulouse) – 63 caps; 3 tries, 15 points
5. Jonny Gray (Glasgow Warriors) – 31 caps; 2 tries, 10 points
6. John Barclay CAPTAIN (Scarlets) – 58 caps; 4 tries, 20 points
7. Hamish Watson (Edinburgh Rugby) – 8 caps; 1 try, 5 points
8. Ryan Wilson (Glasgow Warriors) – 25 caps

Substitutes:
16. Ross Ford (Edinburgh Rugby) – 105 caps; 2 tries, 10 points
17. Allan Dell (Edinburgh Rugby) – 6 caps
18. Simon Berghan (Edinburgh Rugby) – 1 cap
19. Tim Swinson (Glasgow Warriors) – 27 caps; 1 try, 5 points
20. Cornell Du Preez (Edinburgh Rugby) – uncapped
21. Henry Pyrgos (Glasgow Warriors) – 19 caps; 4 tries, 3 pens, 29 points
22. Duncan Weir (Edinburgh Rugby) – 25 caps; 2 tries, 7 cons, 10 pens, 1 drop, 57 points
23. Mark Bennett (Glasgow Warriors) – 19 caps; 6 tries, 30 points

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Best way to beat this England team is show them no respect.

I think that's what Australia tried.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Can't we tell the ref before the game that we're not going to contest the scrum and just dance about a metre away from Danny Care in the backline?

If Italy had a failing, it was not engaging at practically every ruck. You want to mix things up, forcing the attacking team to commit players to the ruck when it's not needed, but also disrupt any set-piece moves when no ruck is formed.

I'm genuinely curious whether Scotland try the same tactic at any point - but doing it consistently (despite being bloody entertaining!) is an absolute death sentence once an attacking team works it out - or rather once Haskell's mum comes on the pitch to explain it to him, the poor lamb.

I imagine we'll try it if England are clearing from within their 22 - the 10 metres lost if England truck it up won't have too much of an impact, and might just force a costly error, interception and a good giggle, plus a moan from Jones.

Competing at the breakdown is our strength.

Why would we not do that?

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Competing at the breakdown is our strength.

Why would we not do that?

Absolutely. I can't imagine Brown, Barclay and Watson being too happy at being told to leave the ball alone and go stand next to George Ford.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Competing at the breakdown is our strength.

Why would we not do that?

I agree, just because Italy made England look silly for 40 minutes isn't a good enough reason for us to tell our very breakdown orientated backrow to avoid creating rucks and playing to our strengths of forcing turnovers and slowing down attacking ball.

Doing it in a couple of weeks is a massive gamble just to wind up Eddie Jones.

If I was to do it I'd do it with Barclay and Watson waiting for a turn over ambush.

Have a player make a tackle, roll away and create a "tackle area" instead of a ruck, chuck the Grays over the non existent offside line.

England, having done their homework will hopefully try a pick and go, at which point, one of big tacklers makes a the tackle just beyond the gain line and Barclay and Watson quickly pounce to turn it over.

That could work, but to be honest I just hope our forwards just keep doing what they are doing because it's worked well so far.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Best way to beat this England team is show them no respect.

I think that's what Australia tried.

Our lack of respect is less respectful.....

George Carlin wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Well it looks like Hardie is the only casualty of the Wales game. It's a shame but the presence of Hamish Watson relieves that problem. However if he empties the tank at around the 50minute mark, who comes on? Denton? Harley? CDP? Swinson? Whoever it is we'll lose breakdown ability for sure.

Watson has a huge engine and also a week off, so I am hoping that he will last the full 80. 

Barclay and Watson are a perfect jackal team. Our line out is solid with the Gray Family and Barclay so we the priority for our bench loose forward is that they have to be a ball carrier. 

I cannot watch Denton in a Scotland shirt any more (I am just waiting for him to go into contact standing up and get turned over yet again) and so I would give CDP his chance and hope to hell that he doesn't phone in his performance as he's done for Edinburgh recently.

So much this. CDP might be out of form, but at least he can still off-load the ball, which is more than Denton.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Best way to beat this England team is show them no respect.

I think that's what Australia tried.

Australia rent very good especially in the forwards.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We have a strong squad with not much between starter players, the bench and even the wider squad. There are a few players clearly a bit better and a few a bit worse. There are no Andy goodes keeping out dan carters.

Andy Goode was one of English best ever out halves. Very under rated.

Im guessing he is the AP top points scorer of all time??

I think Charlie Hodgson has that honour.

Well Id say Food is up there.

Food? I hear Andy Goode was a big fan.

Goodes second, despite having spent time in France, South Africa and the second tier. And being fat. Him and Hodgson are way ahead of anyone else.

I think he was an under rated player. Mainly because he looked like he worked in a video shop rather than a professional rugby player. He actually have a good range of skill.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Best way to beat this England team is show them no respect.

I think that's what Australia tried.

Australia rent very good especially in the forwards.

So the best way to beat England is to show them no respect...and be better than them. Sounds like the first part is redundant.

beshocked wrote:

cascough wrote:

Come on beschocked, people have been over this with you. As robbo pointed out England have only been behind going into the last 20 mins 3 times (under jones) and never more than a score. From that point of view the opposition have struggled to match the 15 just as much as the 23.

Pretty sure robbo also said England have basically scored a lot more points than the opposition in the last 20. Well I know someone had.

Well we know in this year's 6 nations it's been the replacements that Wales,France and Italy have struggled most with.

I am talking about the 2017 6 nations, not last year.

England do score more points in the last 20, but I disagree with the comment in bold. It's not our replacements that they're struggling with so much as it's their replacements that are struggling.

Against France: George, Mullan, Haskell, Care and Te'o and Nowell came on for Hartley, Marler, Launchbury, Youngs, Ford and Joseph and England picked up

Against Wales: George, Mullan, Sinckler, Haskell, Care, Te'o and May came on for Hartley, Marler, Cole, Clifford, Youngs, Joseph and Nowell and England picked up. (Wood also came on for Hughes for 3 minutes)

Against Italy: George, Mako, Sinckler, Wood, Clifford, Youngs, Slade and Nowell came on for Hartley, Marler, Cole, Haskell, Hughes, Care, Te'o and May and England picked up.

3.5 of our starters who struggled so much against France and Wales were replaced for the Italy game by the finishers who had made such an impression. Yet the game followed the same pattern almost to the letter.

Conclusion: Players picked on the bench for England against countries with less depth than us benefit from playing against weaker opposition.

That's not to say that Mako and George wouldn't do better than Marler and Hartley if they started. You can accept the conclusion but still argue that. But I don't see how you fail to grasp that it isn't the strength of our finishers relative to our starters, but the strength of our finishers relative to other countries finishers that make the difference in the last 20.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So just to confirm beshocked you said with finishers starting we would be thrashing these teams . The main players you're talking of being george and Vunipola yes?

It has to be. George is the only player to come off the bench for England every 6 Nations game. He's the constant, it's him who single-handedly changes the last 20 minutes. Not the 8 substitutions the opposition make for significantly weaker players.

Scotsmen showing Englishmen no respect? 

I cannot believe it.

robbo277 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

cascough wrote:

Come on beschocked, people have been over this with you. As robbo pointed out England have only been behind going into the last 20 mins 3 times (under jones) and never more than a score. From that point of view the opposition have struggled to match the 15 just as much as the 23.

Pretty sure robbo also said England have basically scored a lot more points than the opposition in the last 20. Well I know someone had.

Well we know in this year's 6 nations it's been the replacements that Wales,France and Italy have struggled most with.

I am talking about the 2017 6 nations, not last year.

England do score more points in the last 20, but I disagree with the comment in bold. It's not our replacements that they're struggling with so much as it's their replacements that are struggling.

Against France: George, Mullan, Haskell, Care and Te'o and Nowell came on for Hartley, Marler, Launchbury, Youngs, Ford and Joseph and England picked up

Against Wales: George, Mullan, Sinckler, Haskell, Care, Te'o and May came on for Hartley, Marler, Cole, Clifford, Youngs, Joseph and Nowell and England picked up. (Wood also came on for Hughes for 3 minutes)

Against Italy: George, Mako, Sinckler, Wood, Clifford, Youngs, Slade and Nowell came on for Hartley, Marler, Cole, Haskell, Hughes, Care, Te'o and May and England picked up.

3.5 of our starters who struggled so much against France and Wales were replaced for the Italy game by the finishers who had made such an impression. Yet the game followed the same pattern almost to the letter.

Conclusion: Players picked on the bench for England against countries with less depth than us benefit from playing against weaker opposition.

That's not to say that Mako and George wouldn't do better than Marler and Hartley if they started. You can accept the conclusion but still argue that. But I don't see how you fail to grasp that it isn't the strength of our finishers relative to our starters, but the strength of our finishers relative to other countries finishers that make the difference in the last 20.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So just to confirm beshocked you said with finishers starting we would be thrashing these teams . The main players you're talking of being george and Vunipola yes?

It has to be. George is the only player to come off the bench for England every 6 Nations game. He's the constant, it's him who single-handedly changes the last 20 minutes. Not the 8 substitutions the opposition make for significantly weaker players.

To be fair to beshocked, in this instance I think he was talking about England being able to call on 23 players of equal ability (and other teams can't) rather than saying the bench holds better players than are in the starting 15.

I pointed out to him that perhaps teams struggle just as much with matching 15 players (given results) and he simply adjusted the sample size to prove his point. I don't think he is championing George on this thread. Give him time.

Its also worth pointing to Englands conditioning work that the made a big hooboo about. The general fitness levels of all players has apparently stepped up noticeably under Jones, with the specific intent of making them an 80 minute team who play at a higehr tempo than the opposition can sustain.
So again its not just that the replacements are making an impact, but also that the players who have stayed on for boths ides see a change in relative performance as the game progresses.

Echoing Robbo it doesnt mean that Mako and George shouldnt be considered as starters, just that England winning the last 20 isnt solely down to replacements being better than the starters.

And nor does renaming them "finishers" mean theyve ben specially selected as late impact players with the intent of only being fgood for 20 minutes.
Im sure England would love to start strongly every game too, as they did against Wales. It would just be nice if they could be strong for all 4 sets of 20 minutes. recent games its only been th last 20 when they have looked consistently dominant.

Gooseberry wrote:Its also worth pointing to Englands conditioning work that the made a big hooboo about. The general fitness levels of all players has apparently stepped up noticeably under Jones, with the specific intent of making them an 80 minute team who play at a higehr tempo than the opposition can sustain.
So again its not just that the replacements are making an impact, but also that the players who have stayed on for boths ides see a change in relative performance as the game progresses.

Echoing Robbo it doesnt mean that Mako and George shouldnt be considered as starters, just that England winning the last 20 isnt solely down to replacements being better than the starters.

And nor does renaming them "finishers" mean theyve ben specially selected as late impact players with the intent of only being fgood for 20 minutes.
Im sure England would love to start strongly every game too, as they did against Wales. It would just be nice if they could be strong for all 4 sets of 20 minutes. recent games its only been th last 20 when they have looked consistently dominant.

Some of them look quite over weight still. Joe Launchbury looks like he has a beer belly. Seems to be carrying the weight well though in fairness.

I think Haskell would be a better player if he wasnt as bulky as he currently is. Same with Hughes.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Competing at the breakdown is our strength.

Why would we not do that?

I agree, just because Italy made England look silly for 40 minutes isn't a good enough reason for us to tell our very breakdown orientated backrow to avoid creating rucks and playing to our strengths of forcing turnovers and slowing down attacking ball.

Doing it in a couple of weeks is a massive gamble just to wind up Eddie Jones.

If I was to do it I'd do it with Barclay and Watson waiting for a turn over ambush.

Have a player make a tackle, roll away and create a "tackle area" instead of a ruck, chuck the Grays over the non existent offside line.

England, having done their homework will hopefully try a pick and go, at which point, one of big tacklers makes a the tackle just beyond the gain line and Barclay and Watson quickly pounce to turn it over.

That could work, but to be honest I just hope our forwards just keep doing what they are doing because it's worked well so far.

A dangerous tactic now that one assumes England have worked out what to do. If say Launchbury goes and as he did against Italy in the second half just takes the tackle and creates a maul, Scotland would then be trying to defend a maul with their two big guys out of the game.

I suspect we will not see much of the tactic.

Exiledinborders wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Competing at the breakdown is our strength.

Why would we not do that?

I agree, just because Italy made England look silly for 40 minutes isn't a good enough reason for us to tell our very breakdown orientated backrow to avoid creating rucks and playing to our strengths of forcing turnovers and slowing down attacking ball.

Doing it in a couple of weeks is a massive gamble just to wind up Eddie Jones.

If I was to do it I'd do it with Barclay and Watson waiting for a turn over ambush.

Have a player make a tackle, roll away and create a "tackle area" instead of a ruck, chuck the Grays over the non existent offside line.

England, having done their homework will hopefully try a pick and go, at which point, one of big tacklers makes a the tackle just beyond the gain line and Barclay and Watson quickly pounce to turn it over.

That could work, but to be honest I just hope our forwards just keep doing what they are doing because it's worked well so far.

A dangerous tactic now that one assumes England have worked out what to do. If say Launchbury goes and as he did against Italy in the second half just takes the tackle and creates a maul, Scotland would then be trying to defend a maul with their two big guys out of the game.

I suspect we will not see much of the tactic.

I think going forward you won't see players deliberately not engaging in rucks to go beyond the tackle, but if a team notices they haven't set a ruck, they might creep round. Similar to Hughes in the Champions Cup.

I don't think Scotland will do it either but I'd love to see some mind games from VC throwing in a few hints that we might do it!

It wouldn't surprise me if England try it themselves early on.

George Carlin wrote:They are both the subject of considerable facial disadvantages and are starting to freak me out every time I come onto this page. 

I'd rather look at Eddie Jones' smug, slappable, goblin-like little countenance than look at that.

They will be replaced closer to teh date with something else - but for now are they better or worse than the real May & Sturgeon?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Some of them look quite over weight still. Joe Launchbury looks like he has a beer belly. Seems to be carrying the weight well though in fairness.

I think Haskell would be a better player if he wasnt as bulky as he currently is. Same with Hughes.

Launchbury has an odd physique in fairness and it belies the engine he possesses.

Haskell wouldn't be the same player were he not so bulky, his whole game is built around being more powerful than his opposite numbers.

Yep, Launchbury has always looked 'doughy'. He's probably got one of the best engines in the game. He does an incredible amount of work, he just doesn't look that athletic. He's also got one of those running faces (tongue out and grimacing) that reminds one of a chubby lad at sports day.

McCaw always looked a bit podgy to me. He did ok.

Thomas Waldrom was supposedly one of the fittest players in the premiership despite being a complete lard arse. He couldnt move very quickly but had a very high work rate.

Haskell doe sa lot of work for a big guy, and he is at leats lean muscle. Its kind of ironixc that when he first emerged he was held up as the model of what forwards were becoming in terms of monstorous mobile lumps of chisled beef...and now hes talked about like some kind of over weight diplodocus.

Considering England are only 18 months over Nick Easter I dont have any concerns about the mobility of their pack.

Until someone beats us (which of course they will) I can't say I have many concerns over England. I mean obviously it's good practice to keep striving for improvement, not rest on your laurels and be ahead of the curve in terms of potential problems. But that's Eddie Jones' job, not mine. I'm enjoying sitting back and watching us win.

Cyril wrote:Yep, Launchbury has always looked 'doughy'. He's probably got one of the best engines in the game. He does an incredible amount of work, he just doesn't look that athletic. He's also got one of those running faces (tongue out and grimacing) that reminds one of a chubby lad at sports day.

McCaw always looked a bit podgy to me. He did ok.

Thats fair enough I spose. Pierre Spies was ripped and was rubbish.

Gooseberry wrote:Thomas Waldrom was supposedly one of the fittest players in the premiership despite being a complete lard arse. He couldnt move very quickly but had a very high work rate.

Haskell doe sa lot of work for a big guy, and he is at leats lean muscle. Its kind of ironixc that when he first emerged he was held up as the model of what forwards were becoming in terms of monstorous mobile lumps of chisled beef...and now hes talked about like some kind of over weight diplodocus.

Considering England are only 18 months over Nick Easter I dont have any concerns about the mobility of their pack.

Bit harsh on Easter. He never looked that fit, but he was another one who got through a ton of work. Just not at any great speed.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Yep, Launchbury has always looked 'doughy'. He's probably got one of the best engines in the game. He does an incredible amount of work, he just doesn't look that athletic. He's also got one of those running faces (tongue out and grimacing) that reminds one of a chubby lad at sports day.

McCaw always looked a bit podgy to me. He did ok.

Thats fair enough I spose. Pierre Spies was ripped and was rubbish.

I think that's a little unfair on Pierre. Did he hit the heights of that he hit in super rugby... no. Was a good player? Well he got 50 caps for SA during a time when the SA backrow had world class players choc a bloc. He had a serious health condition which required temporary retirement and came back won a few SR titles and performed well in the Lions tour. He and Heaslip pretty much equalled each other out.

He is one of those guys that picked because everyone thought he had huge potential and he looked the part more than anything else however the performances never matched the hype.

A bit like Joe Hart in football. Probably the worst most error prone goal keeper in Europe but for some reason had a very good reputation until recently. Never understood why.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He is one of those guys that picked because everyone thought he had huge potential and he looked the part more than anything else however the performances never matched the hype.

50 times Pull the other one.

Same with Joe Hart. 68 caps for England and he is absolute rubbish. Some people live a charmed existence.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Same with Joe Hart. 68 caps for England and he is absolute rubbish. Some people live a charmed existence.

No. He was excellent for a long time. 44 goals conceded and 39 clean sheets in his 68 'absolute rubbish' appearances.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Same with Joe Hart. 68 caps for England and he is absolute rubbish. Some people live a charmed existence.

No. He was excellent for a long time.

He has always been very error prone. Very average at his peak.

He is only 29 (young for a keeper) and haemorrhaging goals in Torino.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Same with Joe Hart. 68 caps for England and he is absolute rubbish. Some people live a charmed existence.

No. He was excellent for a long time.

He has always been very error prone. Very average at his peak.

'Very error prone' 44 goals conceded and 39 clean sheets in 68 caps. You're talking nonsense.

Did I fall asleep on the bus and wake up in Wendyball land?

Sweet lord.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Same with Joe Hart. 68 caps for England and he is absolute rubbish. Some people live a charmed existence.

No. He was excellent for a long time.

He has always been very error prone. Very average at his peak.

'Very error prone' 44 goals conceded and 39 clean sheets in 68 caps. You're talking nonsense.

A lot of the goals he did concede were absolute howlers though.

The goal against Iceland aside do you have any examples?

Wendyball. The irony of that remark.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The goal against Iceland aside do you have any examples?

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/709565/Joe-Hart-Manchester-City-Torino-Serie-A-Premier-League-Pep-Guardiola-Claudio-Bravo-News

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/error-prone-and-technically-weak-how-joe-hart-grew-to-become-his-own-worst-enemy-a7205846.html

https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/england-fans-are-fuming-with-joe-hart-as-gareth-bale-gives-wales-ahead-67415

https://www.theguardian.com/football/gallery/2013/oct/02/joe-hart-recent-howlers-manchester-city

Its really not hard to find examples there are pages and pages written on Joe Hart errors over the years. One of the worst England keepers in memory.

That's not what I asked is it not that I particularly care either way.

A poor free kick vs Switzerland at home.
That Wales goal.
Iceland apparently (can't remember).

Not much else that I can think of.

What? I have given you lots of examples of Hart howlers.

The England v Wales game in Euro 2016 Hart let in an absolute howler. What more do you want?

More than that.

Anyway rugby.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

TJ wrote:I think Scotland will need to come out all guns blazing.  No settling into the game but attack from the off.  I think contestable kicks to the wings(which worked well against Wales) when we have to kick but otherwise move the ball around as much as possible.  Attack Ford as well and go for turnovers and counter attacks.

Scotland will create chances but making them count will be hard.  

England have to deprive Scotland of possession.  I fear for our scrum and lineouts will be a good battle.

The breakdown will be interesting.  Speed V Power.  Watson is by far the fastest of the lot but I've seen big guys throw him around like a ragdoll.  He has a point to prove in this match.

In the end I think the bench is what will do it for England.  I expect Scotland to be in touch at the hour but England to win it in the last 20.    I hope Scotland make sure England have to play well to win, but if England do play well they will win

Where've you seen that TJ?

Couple of club games - he was trying to run the ball in traffic and got pushed back badly a few times and coughed the ball up

Pierre Spies may have got 50 + caps but in South Africa he polarises opinions like few other players.

A lot of people wouldn't have had him anywhere near the Boks after his first few appearances; such was the disdain that Spies has gained, and kept, a nickname that most in these islands might associate with Al Kellock of blessed recent memory - The Ruck Inspector. Lazy, not keen to get his hands dirty, doesn't punch his weight, etc. etc. That's the South African view that I've heard a lot and there's no doubt that he has appeared a spectacular waste of talent at times.

Ruck Inspector, eh? That's a pretty nasty nickname. Never heard that applied to him before, but people have mentioned he always looks very clean.

Who is Joe Hart? That 10 year old who advertises Head & Shoulders?

Please, please can we not talk about him?

Back to Scotland realising that it's not worth their while turning up as Launchbury's beer belly, Haskell's guns and Itoje's ability to walk on water and cure the lame will squish us in 10 minutes.

doctor_grey wrote:Ruck Inspector, eh?  That's a pretty nasty nickname.  Never heard that applied to him before, but people have mentioned he always looks very clean.

That's been his nickname for his entire career Doc.

Just don't get Edinburgh fans started on him.

They find it very hard to accept that he captained his side to Pro12 victory whilst keeping his knees absolutely spotless and his mum happy that the weekly wash didn't ever threaten to break her machine.

Back on topic:
The morning before the corresponding fixture two years ago, I was fairly confident that Scotland could win. One of the main reasons being Alex Dunbar's outstanding form at 12.His injury in the last play of the last pre-match training session put paid to that. So, the question is, are Scotland any better than they were two years ago?
In almost every area of the pitch....YES.
The players who were good then: Gray jnr, Hogg, Seymour, Russell are better. The new faces: Jones, Watson, Fagerson all seem to have something special about them. They are all very much in their infancy as international players but all look very comfortable playing at this level.
So why do I feel slightly less confident than I did two years ago?

England are , simply, streets ahead of where they were then.
Have we made as much progress as they have? Not sure.

However, even as I type this it occurs to me that: Mark Bennett, Duncan Taylor, Matt Scott and Sean Maitland are all trying to get their heads round the harsh truth that at least three of that list will not make the 23 next week. We can't be too shabby when players like those can't force their way onto the bench.

jimbopip wrote:Back on topic:
The morning before the corresponding fixture two years ago, I was fairly confident that Scotland could win. One of the main reasons being Alex Dunbar's outstanding form at 12.His injury in the last play of the last pre-match training session put paid to that. So, the question is, are Scotland any better than they were two years ago?
In almost every area of the pitch....YES.
The players who were good then: Gray jnr, Hogg, Seymour, Russell are better. The new faces: Jones, Watson, Fagerson all seem to have something special about them. They are all very much in their infancy as international players but all look very comfortable playing at this level.
So why do I feel slightly less confident than I did two years ago?

England are , simply, streets ahead of where they were then.
Have we made as much progress as they have? Not sure.

However, even as I type this it occurs to me that: Mark Bennett, Duncan Taylor, Matt Scott and Sean Maitland are all trying to get their heads round the harsh truth that at least three of that list will not make the 23 next week. We can't be too shabby when players like those can't force their way onto the bench.

I'd really like to see Scott feature. I think, at the moment, he adds more from the bench than Bennett. Bennett does not need Edinburgh, Bennett needs a decent English or French club. He should be aiming to set the heather ablaze next season with Edinburgh so hopefully he'll get scouted for a far better team. Otherwise I can see him going into the 7s wilderness soon.