Scotland Autumn Test postmortem and 6N look ahead

First topic message reminder :

2017 Autumn Test Results

Scotland 44 - Samoa 38

Tries - Hogg, Jones, McInally (2), Dunbar, Horne

Scotland 17 - New Zealand 22

Tries - J Gray, Jones

Scotland 53 - Australia 24

McGuigan (2), Price, Maitland, J Gray, Jones, Barclay, McInally


6N fixtures

Wales V Scotland
Scotland V France

Scotland V England

Ireland V Scotland
Italy V Scotland

I'm amazed you wouldn't tj. You've always been spot on in rating our players such as vunipola etc in the past!

Hogg would walk in any team in the world for me.

I guess this is were national bias comes in...

Ford and Farrell are both better than Russell imo and have proved it over a number seasons. Our backline is:

9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. May/Nowell
12. Farrell
13. Joseph
14. Daly/Watson
15. Brown (Hogg)

Hogg is the only improvement there for me. Both our centers are better although I agree Farrell is helped by his goal kicking. We also have Te'o who'd I'd have over Taylor and Horne, Jones etc.  All 4 of our wingers are on a complete different level, neither of your options would get near an England squad in my brutal honest opinion.

Does EJ even know his best backs? Ford at 10 or Farrell? Both inferior to Russell who is also the better kicker

A better kicker?

Ford is quite possibly the best kicker from hand around currently, he's outstanding in this area, always has been. The only player I would compare him to is Carter, who I've not seen much of lately.

Farrell is less adapt at kicking form hand but surely you can't think Russell's goal kicking is better than Farrell's?

I know you've had a great AI but I think some of you are getting slightly carried away. I love watching Scotland but in the backs, you have one World class player.....Hogg. Russell is an outstanding FH but he's still not consistent enough to be rated at the top tier bracket imo. I think you're more than the sum of your parts at the minute. It'll take a big 6N for these guys to be really rated by people outside of Scotland.

Would I take many of the Scottish backs and put them in the England team to improve it - probably not, just Hogg as others say.

Would I take many England backs and put them into the Scottish team to improve it - probably more, but some contentious decisions.


Thing is the two teams play the game differently, and in some ways the players reflect the styles in which their side play.


PS Last time we had this discussion (and we were told Russell was way better than Ford} was the fortnight commencing 27th Feb 2017

LondonTiger wrote:Would I take many of the Scottish backs and put them in the England team to improve it - probably not, just Hogg as others say.

Would I take many England backs and put them into the Scottish team to improve it - probably more, but some contentious decisions.


Thing is the two teams play the game differently, and in some ways the players reflect the styles in which their side play.


PS Last time we had this discussion (and we were told Russell was way better than Ford} was the fortnight commencing 27th Feb 2017

The England game is so hard to call. The last time we played at Twickenham we got on the wrong result of some seriously bad injuries. Losing Hogg, then his replacement and then Seymour meant we had a scrum half on the wing and a tiny fly half at full back. Coupled with Jones amazing exploitation of our defensive system spelt disaster.

However full strength at Murrayfield, with a quite obvious different mentality I genuinely think Scotland will win. England will be favourites, but I see this as being as big a test for England as going to Dublin.

As for taking backs from each others teams it's a pointless debate, Scotland's style of play is so different would players like Farrell fit into it? I doubt it. Farrell and Ford are amazing players but bringing them into Scotland doesn't play to our system particularly well. Joseph could do very well but Huw Jones is for me one of the best 13s in the world right now. I think I'd take Ant Watson on the Wing and Possibly Johnny May on the other, but that's it. And it's not a slight on the English players, it's looking at your backline and figuring out who'd fit well into our systems.

Taking Farrell at 12 is a temptation, because he defends and marshals the defence very well. But despite chasing Shadows at Twickenham Alex Dunbar is a great defender and more importantly is terrific at making turnovers. Him Barclay and Watson are the reason we seem to get a lot of turnover tries because they are so bloody good at it.

Trying to be as objective as I can and taking off my blue tinted glasses, I think it really comes down to the kind of game you want to play - England's backs suit their style, our backs suit our style. If you ask what Scotland players would fit in with England's style then you could probably only say Hogg, because he's a devastating counter attacker. For Scotland's style some of the England players could fit in (such as Youngs, JJ, the wingers) but IMO they're only of equivalent quality of what we currently have.

Look at a player by player basis

Price v Youngs - Price has been scintillating since making his debut last autumn, and Young's is a seasoned top class international. You'd probably go for Youngs given his greater experience but I don't think we'll be worrying about Price's lack of experience in a year or two's time.

Russell V Ford - on his day Russell can be the most potent attacking 10 in the world (bar Barrett of course), but similarly he could put in a performance that leaves you tearing your hair out. Slowly but surely the gap between the two is narrowing, but he still leaves you frustrated. Hopefully his time in France will fix that. Ford is far more consistent, and offers excellent control, kicking from hand and attacking threat.  I think Russell's best is better than Ford's best, but as Ford is more consistent I'll call this a draw.

Dunbar V Farrell - Farrell is one of the best players in the world so wins this, however they are very different types of players. Unfortunately Dunbar is always going to be blighted by his performance against England this year, which is a shame as if you take that performance away he has been an outstanding international player for Scotland - our defencive general, gives great go forward with a decent turn of pace and is an outstanding turnover specialist. I don’t think Farrell fits in with Scotland’s style of play but as this is an individual assessment he wins it

Jones v JJ – another draw. Both superb attacking talents and strong in defence too. Jones has a pheonominal strike rate of 7 tries in his 11 tests, and it’s not as if these tries have come against diddies – since his debut last autumn he has scored against Australia (2 games), England and New Zealand plus a few others.  I think JJ is a fantastic player who was outstanding last season, but he had a fairly average Lions tour IMO. He tore Scotland to shreds last 6N so hopefully we’ve learned our lesson. Gatland said that Huw Jones was very close to Lions selection if he wasn’t injured and it isn’t outwith the realms of possibility that he might have travelled over JJ or Payne if he wasn’t injured.

Wings – I’m sorry sgt_pooley but your claim that England’s wingers being on a completely different level are complete nonsense. Seymour and Matiland are both Lions, and are established, successful international players. Seymour has 16 tries in 38 tests, which is a decent strike rate when you consider that for the first few years of his career he was playing in a poor Scotland team. On the England wingers, I rate Daley highly and he’d be a real asset for anyone’s team. May is on red hot form just now but let’s not forget that over his career he’s lacked consistency and has been in and out of the England team regularly. If he can carry on this form into the 6N then we can talk! I’m by no means saying Scotland’s top wingers are better than England’s but there is no way that you can reasonably claim that England’s are.

Hogg V Brown  – absolutely no competition. Hogg it is!


IMO the biggest difference between Scotland and England is the packs – I don’t think any of Scotland’s forwards would get in England’s 23 never mind starting pack. You could make a case for McInally/Brown and Watson as I don’t think England have as much top class depth at hooker and openside as they do elsewhere, but you could similarly make a case for them no to be included.  If the English pack can starve Scotland of possession then there’s not a lot our attacking backs can do about it!

So to conclude, my combined backline:

9 Youngs
10 Rusell/Ford (draw)
11 Daley
12 Farrell
13 Jones/JJ
14 Seymour
15 Hogg

So 3 England, 2 Scotland and 2 draws – I think that is probably fair.

I doubt you'd find too many england fans who would place Daly in our top 3 wingers to be honest. If it's a discussion on the 2 teams currently picked by the coaches fair enough but wider than that and an argument on styles you'd have to bring in the numerous players england could pick as well.

Anthony Watson and Hogg would be starters in the back 3

After that its up for debate

If we are rating players based on being Lions, then the combined wings should be Daly and Watson, with Nowell o the bench as they are the guys who featured in tests in NZ.

Seymour was in red hot form last year and would have been in my Lions team - until the tour started. Form now apparently a touch iffy?
Maitland - currently struggling to get in Sarries team.

If it was current form the discussion would be very different. I think we can only assume players are fit and on form as the basis of our discussion.

Maitland has been out injured for a long time - he only returned 3 weeks ago and one of those games he was with Scotland.

Watson and Nowell are great players, but again my point is that saying England's top wingers are a class above our top wingers isn't true!

Hmm, until Scotland shake off their perennial dark horse mantle and finish in the top 2 I’m not convinced. It’ll take a lot of top performances to wipe out the humiliation of 61-21 of only a few months ago I’m afraid.

And was tremendous against Australia. I was worried about Maitland for Hogg, but whilst he possessed nowhere near the attacking threat of Hogg, he was still very solid, showed he still has a bit of pace and got himself a try. Maitland is a classy player and probably the best all rounder Scotland have. He's great in defence, solid under the high ball, distributes well, he's intelligent and reads the game well. He is by no means a bad player and I'd wager he'll improve as he recovers match fitness.

As for Hogg, he's probably already close to one of the best players Scotland has ever produced.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Hmm, until Scotland shake off their perennial dark horse mantle and finish in the top 2 I’m not convinced. It’ll take a lot of top performances to wipe out the humiliation of 61-21 of only a few months ago I’m afraid.

That result has to be taken into context. Yes it was bad, however our backline was "makeshift" at best by the 38th minute. Also worth pointing out that the result was mostly due to whoever was the England attack analyst who saw our defencive pattern and exploited it 3 times in very quick succession.

England were tremendous on that day and I scarcely believe anyone could have contained them. However all was forgotten when toothless England couldn't unlock Ireland.

Murrayfield will be quite a different environment compared to Twickenham. It'll be far closer than the battering we received last year.

All was forgotten? Jeez.

No 7&1/2 wrote:All was forgotten? Jeez.

You disagree?

If England had played Ireland with the same intensity and accuracy against us, you would have won that game.

Had England made as many errors and were as flat and meek upfront against us as they did against Ireland, we probably would have beaten you.

The last 2 games of the 6N were jekyll and Hyde performances.

I still stand by that apart from Russell losing the plot a wee bit at Twickenham we didn't do too much wrong, we were just out thought by the England attacking coaches and our backline that was decimated with injuries couldn't adapt. The fact we scored 3 tries suggests our attack when we had possession was good.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I guess this is were national bias comes in...



Farrell is less adapt at kicking form hand but surely you can't think Russell's goal kicking is better than Farrell's?

I.

Yes = proven over the last couple of years. Russell went 19 kicks without missing one and last 6N and this year his % is higher IIRC.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:All was forgotten? Jeez.

You disagree?

If England had played Ireland with the same intensity and accuracy against us, you would have won that game.

Had England made as many errors and were as flat and meek upfront against us as they did against Ireland, we probably would have beaten you.

The last 2 games of the 6N were jekyll and Hyde performances.

I still stand by that apart from Russell losing the plot a wee bit at Twickenham we didn't do too much wrong, we were just out thought by the England attacking coaches and our backline that was decimated with injuries couldn't adapt. The fact we scored 3 tries suggests our attack when we had possession was good.

I'm really not sure a close loss away from home against a good Irish side wipes out such a demolition.

Scotland are still a case of flatter to deceive in the 6 Nations until you can prove otherwise.

Scottrf wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:All was forgotten? Jeez.

You disagree?

If England had played Ireland with the same intensity and accuracy against us, you would have won that game.

Had England made as many errors and were as flat and meek upfront against us as they did against Ireland, we probably would have beaten you.

The last 2 games of the 6N were jekyll and Hyde performances.

I still stand by that apart from Russell losing the plot a wee bit at Twickenham we didn't do too much wrong, we were just out thought by the England attacking coaches and our backline that was decimated with injuries couldn't adapt. The fact we scored 3 tries suggests our attack when we had possession was good.

I'm really not sure a close loss away from home against a good Irish side wipes out such a demolition.

Scotland are still a case of flatter to deceive in the 6 Nations until you can prove otherwise.

To be fair we beat Ireland, Wales and Italy last 6N- I don't think that can really be classed as flattering to deceive!

This year is going to be tough though as we play those teams away from home.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:If England had played Ireland with the same intensity and accuracy against us, you would have won that game.

Had England made as many errors and were as flat and meek upfront against us as they did against Ireland, we probably would have beaten you.

That works both ways though - if Ireland had played Scotland with the same determination and attitude they did against England, they would have won beaten Scotland.

RDW_Scotland wrote:To be fair we beat Ireland, Wales and Italy last 6N- I don't think that can really be classed as flattering to deceive!

This year is going to be tough though as we play those teams away from home.

I think it is. The result was finishing 4th. You won your home games, but so did the other teams in the main.

Nobody says 'I'm really optimistic about Scotland this year, I think we can finish 4th'. I think flatter to deceive is fair.

An away win vs Wales (or even Ireland) is the benchmark IMO.

If you were Ireland or England only winning 3 home games would be seen as a disappointment. Given that 2 years previously we had won the wooden spoon, I think 3 wins (especially given we hadn't beaten Wales in so long) was a remarkable achivement.

Personally I think the 'Scotland can win the 6N' hype is ridiculous, as it is such a brutal tournament that even with our significantly improved performances on the pitch there is still a good chance we'll only win 2 game. If we manage to win 3 games this year I think it will be a similarly remarkable result for Scottish rugby as it will either mean beating England or winning at the MS or Aviva, which would be a huge achivement. And that's taking at as granted that we'll beat France which is no sure thing!

However I think it is very discourteous to belittle Scotland's achievements this 6N given A) our 6N history being so rank awful and B) the number of professional players and resource available to us as a country compared to the big beasts in world rugby.

RDW_Scotland wrote:If you were Ireland or England only winning 3 home games would be seen as a disappointment. Given that 2 years previously we had won the wooden spoon, I think 3 wins (especially given we hadn't beaten Wales in so long) was a remarkable achivement.

Personally I think the 'Scotland can win the 6N' hype is ridiculous, as it is such a brutal tournament that even with our significantly improved performances on the pitch there is still a good chance we'll only win 2 game. If we manage to win 3 games this year I think it will be a similarly remarkable result for Scottish rugby as it will either mean beating England or winning at the MS or Aviva, which would be a huge achivement. And that's taking at as granted that we'll beat France which is no sure thing!

However I think it is very discourteous to belittle Scotland's achievements this 6N given A) our 6N history being so rank awful and B) the number of professional players and resource available to us as a country compared to the big beasts in world rugby.

No actually, I think it was a very good performance. I was just taking it in the context of the people who as you say are saying Scotland can win it.

Wings – I’m sorry sgt_pooley but your claim that England’s wingers being on a completely different level are complete nonsense. Seymour and Matiland are both Lions, and are established, successful international players. Seymour has 16 tries in 38 tests, which is a decent strike rate when you consider that for the first few years of his career he was playing in a poor Scotland team. On the England wingers, I rate Daley highly and he’d be a real asset for anyone’s team. May is on red hot form just now but let’s not forget that over his career he’s lacked consistency and has been in and out of the England team regularly. If he can carry on this form into the 6N then we can talk! I’m by no means saying Scotland’s top wingers are better than England’s but there is no way that you can reasonably claim that England’s are.

Hardly nonsense RDW, I think that's quite reasonable. I'm not saying they're miles ahead, just on another level in the same way Ioane has been on another level above the English options.

Maitland would get nowhere near an English squad, he's a pretty average winger in International terms. May has mixed a few outstanding games with a poor one for around 3 years now...he can reach levels Maitland and Seymour can only dream of. The only really he's not in that world class bracket is he can have a major off day.

I honestly think we have much more talent on the wing, not wanting to sound like an ass. May, Nowell, Roko, Watson all a level above. Daly (who I don't really like on the wing) is also a better than Maitland and Seymour.

I understand bias but....I'm not sure anyone outside of Scotland would suggest that your wings are as good as England's. Wing is probably our strongest area, along with lock.

Scottrf wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:If you were Ireland or England only winning 3 home games would be seen as a disappointment. Given that 2 years previously we had won the wooden spoon, I think 3 wins (especially given we hadn't beaten Wales in so long) was a remarkable achivement.

Personally I think the 'Scotland can win the 6N' hype is ridiculous, as it is such a brutal tournament that even with our significantly improved performances on the pitch there is still a good chance we'll only win 2 game. If we manage to win 3 games this year I think it will be a similarly remarkable result for Scottish rugby as it will either mean beating England or winning at the MS or Aviva, which would be a huge achivement. And that's taking at as granted that we'll beat France which is no sure thing!

However I think it is very discourteous to belittle Scotland's achievements this 6N given A) our 6N history being so rank awful and B) the number of professional players and resource available to us as a country compared to the big beasts in world rugby.

No actually, I think it was a very good performance. I was just taking it in the context of the people who as you say are saying Scotland can win it.

Ok fair enough - as I said I'm personally not one I'd hope the average Scot was a bit more grounded than those getting a bit carried away in the media.

I think we have the ability to put in a great performance and on our day could win any of the games this year, but I personally would be delighted with 3 wins. A lot of it comes down to injuries, especially in our front 5 as we're underpowered against the likes of England, France and Ireland at the best of times never mind with the injuries that we've had lately.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Wings – I’m sorry sgt_pooley but your claim that England’s wingers being on a completely different level are complete nonsense. Seymour and Matiland are both Lions, and are established, successful international players. Seymour has 16 tries in 38 tests, which is a decent strike rate when you consider that for the first few years of his career he was playing in a poor Scotland team. On the England wingers, I rate Daley highly and he’d be a real asset for anyone’s team. May is on red hot form just now but let’s not forget that over his career he’s lacked consistency and has been in and out of the England team regularly. If he can carry on this form into the 6N then we can talk! I’m by no means saying Scotland’s top wingers are better than England’s but there is no way that you can reasonably claim that England’s are.

Hardly nonsense RDW, I think that's quite reasonable. I'm not saying they're miles ahead, just on another level in the same way Ioane has been on another level above the English options.

Maitland would get nowhere near an English squad, he's a pretty average winger in International terms. May has mixed a few outstanding games with a poor one for around 3 years now...he can reach levels Maitland and Seymour can only dream of. The only really he's not in that world class bracket is he can have a major off day.

I honestly think we have much more talent on the wing, not wanting to sound like an ass. May, Nowell, Roko, Watson all a level above. Daly (who I don't really like on the wing) is also a better than Maitland and Seymour.

I understand bias but....I'm not sure anyone outside of Scotland would suggest that your wings are as good as England's. Wing is probably our strongest area, along with lock.

I would completely agree that you have much better depth - no doubting that.

I just genuinely don't believe that a fit and on form Seymour and Maitland are a step below the names you listed there. All class players but Seymour in particualry has put in some spectacular performances for Scotland and Glasgow over the last couple of seasons and fully deserved his Lions call up (just a shame he didn't fully take his opportunity, albeit I think Gatland had already decided he was never going to be a test wing).

So I think we're sort of on the same page, but ultimately it comes down to individual opinion and that's fair enough!

Scottrf wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:If you were Ireland or England only winning 3 home games would be seen as a disappointment. Given that 2 years previously we had won the wooden spoon, I think 3 wins (especially given we hadn't beaten Wales in so long) was a remarkable achivement.

Personally I think the 'Scotland can win the 6N' hype is ridiculous, as it is such a brutal tournament that even with our significantly improved performances on the pitch there is still a good chance we'll only win 2 game. If we manage to win 3 games this year I think it will be a similarly remarkable result for Scottish rugby as it will either mean beating England or winning at the MS or Aviva, which would be a huge achivement. And that's taking at as granted that we'll beat France which is no sure thing!

However I think it is very discourteous to belittle Scotland's achievements this 6N given A) our 6N history being so rank awful and B) the number of professional players and resource available to us as a country compared to the big beasts in world rugby.

No actually, I think it was a very good performance. I was just taking it in the context of the people who as you say are saying Scotland can win it.

Call it ridiculous or not, I think Scotland can win it. If we continue the form we showed against New Zealand or Australia and the evidence is compelling. It's all about playing with the same intensity and accuracy.

However the tournament is attritional, brutal and long. Momentum is everything. I genuinely think we are contenders for the title this year. However player depth does come into it and as a result I do think England will win the whole tournament outright, no grand slam though...

We can conceivably win both our home games, and two of our away games which suggests we will be in the mix.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:All was forgotten? Jeez.

You disagree?

If England had played Ireland with the same intensity and accuracy against us, you would have won that game.

It wasn't teeming with rain in Twickenham. And as others have pointed out, If Ireland and Wales were as intense against you as they were against us, you'd have lost 4 games.

But it was, they didn't, they didn't and you didn't. It just not that straightforward.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Wings – I’m sorry sgt_pooley but your claim that England’s wingers being on a completely different level are complete nonsense. Seymour and Matiland are both Lions, and are established, successful international players. Seymour has 16 tries in 38 tests, which is a decent strike rate when you consider that for the first few years of his career he was playing in a poor Scotland team. On the England wingers, I rate Daley highly and he’d be a real asset for anyone’s team. May is on red hot form just now but let’s not forget that over his career he’s lacked consistency and has been in and out of the England team regularly. If he can carry on this form into the 6N then we can talk! I’m by no means saying Scotland’s top wingers are better than England’s but there is no way that you can reasonably claim that England’s are.

Hardly nonsense RDW, I think that's quite reasonable. I'm not saying they're miles ahead, just on another level in the same way Ioane has been on another level above the English options.

Maitland would get nowhere near an English squad, he's a pretty average winger in International terms. May has mixed a few outstanding games with a poor one for around 3 years now...he can reach levels Maitland and Seymour can only dream of. The only really he's not in that world class bracket is he can have a major off day.

I honestly think we have much more talent on the wing, not wanting to sound like an ass. May, Nowell, Roko, Watson all a level above. Daly (who I don't really like on the wing) is also a better than Maitland and Seymour.

I understand bias but....I'm not sure anyone outside of Scotland would suggest that your wings are as good as England's. Wing is probably our strongest area, along with lock.

I would completely agree that you have much better depth - no doubting that.

I just genuinely don't believe that a fit and on form Seymour and Maitland are a step below the names you listed there. All class players but Seymour in particualry has put in some spectacular performances for Scotland and Glasgow over the last couple of seasons and fully deserved his Lions call up (just a shame he didn't fully take his opportunity, albeit I think Gatland had already decided he was never going to be a test wing).

So I think we're sort of on the same page, but ultimately it comes down to individual opinion and that's fair enough!

I also don't know how being the top try scorers isn't taking your opportunity, but fair enough...

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:All was forgotten? Jeez.

You disagree?

If England had played Ireland with the same intensity and accuracy against us, you would have won that game.

It wasn't teeming with rain in Twickenham. And as others have pointed out, If Ireland and Wales were as intense against you as they were against us, you'd have lost 4 games.

But it was, they didn't, they didn't and you didn't. It just not that straightforward.

The common denominator is home advantage. I'm sure it will be a factor this season and it will make Grand Slams that wee bit more special.

And as for Hogg, I wouldn't take him over Brown in England's team.

I am NOT suggesting Brown is a better player than Hogg, but I reject the notion that it's as simple as plugging in another player and that's that.

Brown is better for England for what we need. One of the reasons we are so clinical off such little ball is that we have sound decision makers in the team. Brown is an excellent example of a player that makes excellent yards, but crucially ensures we hold on to the ball. We'd lose that if we swapped him for Hogg IMO.

When Hogg broke the line against NZ, he tried to gas probably the quickest back (over 80 mins) in world rugby. As one scottish fan put it, "white line fever". As a result, he's forced to touch and has to throw a speculative pass inside to no-one and the game ends. If he took contact, given the fact NZ were backpedalling, it's likely Scotland recycle and trot in. I'm not swapping him for England because I think in that situation Brown does the right thing, recyles and the game is won.

At the end of the day these players have got to fit in to coaches plans/systems. So it's not as simple as we will take him because he's better than this player. You have to think, could he do what we need him to, better than the current guy.

If you're the coach and get to decide how they play, and you're picking a composite team from England and Scotland, well, that's different.

I wouldn't swap any England backs for Scotland backs as I don't believe any of them can do what England need them to better than the incumbent. Whether they are better players or not, is irrelevant. I imagine Scots might feel the same way. Fair enough.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Wings – I’m sorry sgt_pooley but your claim that England’s wingers being on a completely different level are complete nonsense. Seymour and Matiland are both Lions, and are established, successful international players. Seymour has 16 tries in 38 tests, which is a decent strike rate when you consider that for the first few years of his career he was playing in a poor Scotland team. On the England wingers, I rate Daley highly and he’d be a real asset for anyone’s team. May is on red hot form just now but let’s not forget that over his career he’s lacked consistency and has been in and out of the England team regularly. If he can carry on this form into the 6N then we can talk! I’m by no means saying Scotland’s top wingers are better than England’s but there is no way that you can reasonably claim that England’s are.

Hardly nonsense RDW, I think that's quite reasonable. I'm not saying they're miles ahead, just on another level in the same way Ioane has been on another level above the English options.

Maitland would get nowhere near an English squad, he's a pretty average winger in International terms. May has mixed a few outstanding games with a poor one for around 3 years now...he can reach levels Maitland and Seymour can only dream of. The only really he's not in that world class bracket is he can have a major off day.

I honestly think we have much more talent on the wing, not wanting to sound like an ass. May, Nowell, Roko, Watson all a level above. Daly (who I don't really like on the wing) is also a better than Maitland and Seymour.

I understand bias but....I'm not sure anyone outside of Scotland would suggest that your wings are as good as England's. Wing is probably our strongest area, along with lock.

I would completely agree that you have much better depth - no doubting that.

I just genuinely don't believe that a fit and on form Seymour and Maitland are a step below the names you listed there. All class players but Seymour in particualry has put in some spectacular performances for Scotland and Glasgow over the last couple of seasons and fully deserved his Lions call up (just a shame he didn't fully take his opportunity, albeit I think Gatland had already decided he was never going to be a test wing).

So I think we're sort of on the same page, but ultimately it comes down to individual opinion and that's fair enough!

I also don't know how being the top try scorers isn't taking your opportunity, but fair enough...

To be fair there weren’t many tries scored in the squad in general, but 3 tries in 4 games was certainly a good strike rate. Saying that 2 of those tries were scored between the first and second test in the final midweek game and by then that was too late, especially given the wingers did well in the first test. Leading up to the test selection he had scored 1 try in 3.

By not take his opportunity I mean that despite none of the wingers really standing out in the warmup games he wasn’t able to force himself into test selection. As I said I think Gatland had already decided who his wingers were going to be, and Seymour’s case certainly wasn’t helped by there being so many wingers in the squad so he basically had 2 full games to try and make a mark, but we certainly didn’t see the best of Tommy Seymour that tour and he needed to be at his best to persuade the coaches to pick him for the tests.

Yeah I disagree that all is forgotten based on 1 game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I disagree that all is forgotten based on 1 game.

I suppose in a similar way Scotland's progress and performances in the last year shouldn't be forgotten because of 1 game at Twickers!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I disagree that all is forgotten based on 1 game.

I suppose in a similar way Scotland's progress and performances in the last year shouldn't be forgotten because of 1 game at Twickers!

Well, the game at Stade de France seems to be forgotten.

What about it? We lost 6 by points away to France, a team we haven’t beaten in France since 1999 so there were hardly any surprises there. Further to that we lost our captain and scrum half on 25 minutes to be replaced by somone on his 2nd cap, our vice captain and back row on 35 minutes, his replacement Hardie on 41 minutes and ended up with a second row at number 8!

Yes rdw and if you've read my past comments on the match you'll see I agree scotland are better than that result. Keep everyone fit and you'll be top half of the table easily.

cascough wrote:And as for Hogg, I wouldn't take him over Brown in England's team.

I am NOT suggesting Brown is a better player than Hogg, but I reject the notion that it's as simple as plugging in another player and that's that.

Brown is better for England for what we need. One of the reasons we are so clinical off such little ball is that we have sound decision makers in the team. Brown is an excellent example of a player that makes excellent yards, but crucially ensures we hold on to the ball. We'd lose that if we swapped him for Hogg IMO.

When Hogg broke the line against NZ, he tried to gas probably the quickest back (over 80 mins) in world rugby. As one scottish fan put it, "white line fever". As a result, he's forced to touch and has to throw a speculative pass inside to no-one and the game ends. If he took contact, given the fact NZ were backpedalling, it's likely Scotland recycle and trot in. I'm not swapping him for England because I think in that situation Brown does the right thing, recyles and the game is won.

At the end of the day these players have got to fit in to coaches plans/systems. So it's not as simple as we will take him because he's better than this player. You have to think, could he do what we need him to, better than the current guy.

If you're the coach and get to decide how they play, and you're picking a composite team from England and Scotland, well, that's different.

I wouldn't swap any England backs for Scotland backs as I don't believe any of them can do what England need them to better than the incumbent. Whether they are better players or not, is irrelevant. I imagine Scots might feel the same way. Fair enough.

Surely this is a wind up ?

alive555 wrote:

cascough wrote:And as for Hogg, I wouldn't take him over Brown in England's team.

I am NOT suggesting Brown is a better player than Hogg, but I reject the notion that it's as simple as plugging in another player and that's that.

Brown is better for England for what we need. One of the reasons we are so clinical off such little ball is that we have sound decision makers in the team. Brown is an excellent example of a player that makes excellent yards, but crucially ensures we hold on to the ball. We'd lose that if we swapped him for Hogg IMO.

When Hogg broke the line against NZ, he tried to gas probably the quickest back (over 80 mins) in world rugby. As one scottish fan put it, "white line fever". As a result, he's forced to touch and has to throw a speculative pass inside to no-one and the game ends. If he took contact, given the fact NZ were backpedalling, it's likely Scotland recycle and trot in. I'm not swapping him for England because I think in that situation Brown does the right thing, recyles and the game is won.

At the end of the day these players have got to fit in to coaches plans/systems. So it's not as simple as we will take him because he's better than this player. You have to think, could he do what we need him to, better than the current guy.

If you're the coach and get to decide how they play, and you're picking a composite team from England and Scotland, well, that's different.

I wouldn't swap any England backs for Scotland backs as I don't believe any of them can do what England need them to better than the incumbent. Whether they are better players or not, is irrelevant. I imagine Scots might feel the same way. Fair enough.

Surely this is a wind up ?

How arrogant do you have to be to think someone is on the wind up just because they have a different point of view to your own? I've even explained why.

Answer me this, do you think Stuart Hogg could do what Mike Brown does, at least as well? Note, I'm not interested in whether you think he can do things Mike Brown can't, or whether you think he's a better player.

I don't think Hogg can bring what Mike Brown brings, I think he would bring something different entirely. Therefore, for England, in England's team, playing to the English coach's systems, I would keep Mike Brown.

cascough wrote:

alive555 wrote:

cascough wrote:And as for Hogg, I wouldn't take him over Brown in England's team.

I am NOT suggesting Brown is a better player than Hogg, but I reject the notion that it's as simple as plugging in another player and that's that.

Brown is better for England for what we need. One of the reasons we are so clinical off such little ball is that we have sound decision makers in the team. Brown is an excellent example of a player that makes excellent yards, but crucially ensures we hold on to the ball. We'd lose that if we swapped him for Hogg IMO.

When Hogg broke the line against NZ, he tried to gas probably the quickest back (over 80 mins) in world rugby. As one scottish fan put it, "white line fever". As a result, he's forced to touch and has to throw a speculative pass inside to no-one and the game ends. If he took contact, given the fact NZ were backpedalling, it's likely Scotland recycle and trot in. I'm not swapping him for England because I think in that situation Brown does the right thing, recyles and the game is won.

At the end of the day these players have got to fit in to coaches plans/systems. So it's not as simple as we will take him because he's better than this player. You have to think, could he do what we need him to, better than the current guy.

If you're the coach and get to decide how they play, and you're picking a composite team from England and Scotland, well, that's different.

I wouldn't swap any England backs for Scotland backs as I don't believe any of them can do what England need them to better than the incumbent. Whether they are better players or not, is irrelevant. I imagine Scots might feel the same way. Fair enough.

Surely this is a wind up ?

How arrogant do you have to be to think someone is on the wind up just because they have a different point of view to your own? I've even explained why.

Answer me this, do you think Stuart Hogg could do what Mike Brown does, at least as well? Note, I'm not interested in whether you think he can do things Mike Brown can't, or whether you think he's a better player.

I don't think Hogg can bring what Mike Brown brings, I think he would bring something different entirely. Therefore, for England, in England's team, playing to the English coach's systems, I would keep Mike Brown.

What does Mike Brown actually do that's so special?

The issue with Brown doing the right thing in the final minutes against NZ is that he's not in that position, he doesn't force Barrett to make that tackle. Plus I don't think he's skilful enough to set up the 2nd Scottish try.

Good receiver, always presents the ball, good tackler, and gets involved in the breakdown.

Scotland love flair players, and score a lot, but England probably have the best defence in rugby. I get what cascough is saying, it's not always about picking the 'best' players.

Scottrf wrote:Good receiver, always presents the ball, good tackler, and gets involved in the breakdown.

Scotland love flair players, and score a lot, but England probably have the best defence in rugby. I get what cascough is saying, it's not always about picking the 'best' players.

Play him at flanker then.

If Jones had the chance to have Hogg (or L Williams) at FB, he'd take it everyday of the week.

I really like hogg but if it comes down to what Jones wants he does rate brown hugely. He has he choice to play Watson there and doesn't.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really like hogg but if it comes down to what Jones wants he does rate brown hugely. He has he choice to play Watson there and doesn't.

But Watson isn't as good as either Hogg or Williams?

I appreciate what you're trying to say but I suggest you take the rose-tinted specs off, Stuart Hogg creates and scores more points than Mike Brown consistently, he's the best full-back in the NH (arguably the World).

Tickets purchased for the Wales game!!

Pleasing to know I'll be there to witness Scotland's first win on their way to an historic grand slam!!

reallybored wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really like hogg but if it comes down to what Jones wants he does rate brown hugely. He has he choice to play Watson there and doesn't.

But Watson isn't as good as either Hogg or Williams?

I appreciate what you're trying to say but I suggest you take the rose-tinted specs off, Stuart Hogg creates and scores more points than Mike Brown consistently, he's the best full-back in the NH (arguably the World).

But Mike Brown wins more international games. Wales, England and Ireland all choose full backs people consider boring. There's obviously a reason.

I'd take Hogg and Williams over Brown and suspect EJ would too. Brown plays as he's the best we have currently, same situation as Robshaw imo.

Scottrf wrote:

reallybored wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really like hogg but if it comes down to what Jones wants he does rate brown hugely. He has he choice to play Watson there and doesn't.

But Watson isn't as good as either Hogg or Williams?

I appreciate what you're trying to say but I suggest you take the rose-tinted specs off, Stuart Hogg creates and scores more points than Mike Brown consistently, he's the best full-back in the NH (arguably the World).

But Mike Brown wins more international games. Wales, England and Ireland all choose full backs people consider boring. There's obviously a reason.

That's some top reasoning chief.

Why do the All Blacks pick McKenzie or Australia pick Folau?

Would either of them be able to do what Brown does?

Because they have different gameplans to England...

Australia leak points and keep losing...

Scottrf wrote:Because they have different gameplans to England...

Australia leak points and keep losing...

So you'd take Brown ahead of

Hogg
Williams
McKenzie
Folau

because England's game-plan is so complicated and the demands on the full-back so great, that no other player could perform them.

That's just mental.

Didn't say any of that, but if that helps you understand it, cool.

Scottrf wrote:Didn't say any of that, but if that helps you understand it, cool.

Ok, so what's your point?

You wouldn't select Hogg ahead of Brown because he's not boring enough.

Who would you take ahead of Brown?