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

reallybored wrote:

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?

If you want to know my thoughts, and why I commented, read my first post. The rest is just dealing with people trying to put words in my mouth.

Blood and Mud podcast summed up Brown perfectly the other week.

Sh*t to average.

reallybored wrote:

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.  

We've moved on from it's a "wind-up" to "mental" now. Stay classy.

And yes, I'd take Mike Brown over those guys for ENGLAND. I wouldn't however, take Mike Brown over Ben Smith, whose abilities and style of play I think would suit England very well. Now if you are asking me who I would pick for Scotland, the answer is Stuart Hogg, because Mike Brown wouldn't suit Scotland's style of play very much. I'm quite happy if you want to compare Brown and Hogg directly and say Hogg is better. But for me it's missing the point.

cascough wrote:

reallybored wrote:

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.  

We've moved on from it's a "wind-up" to "mental" now. Stay classy.

And yes, I'd take Mike Brown over those guys for ENGLAND. I wouldn't however, take Mike Brown over Ben Smith, whose abilities and style of play I think would suit England very well. Now if you are asking me who I would pick for Scotland, the answer is Stuart Hogg, because Mike Brown wouldn't suit Scotland's style of play very much. I'm quite happy if you want to compare Brown and Hogg directly and say Hogg is better. But for me it's missing the point.

And more importantly, he's bang average.

This seems a bit of a pointless discussion.

Lions was 6 months ago. At this point, who cares?

Brown is a decent enough player in his own right, Hogg is probably one of the only "World Class" players we have - amongst other very good players. It's irrelevant whether Hogg would be straight in an England squad, as Hogg doesn't play for England, just as its irrelevant whether Maro Itoje would be straight in a Scotland squad.

We're very quick to go doom and gloom but we're also very quick to get over excited. Hogg is an incredible player but there are other very good FBs out there who fit into their respective teams.

Watson is a class act really bored. Just saying the logic to say that hogg or williams would start at ull back under jones is flawed. See numerous discussions with beshocked regarding george who is a better player to most on the bench vs hartley.

NeilyBroon wrote:This seems a bit of a pointless discussion.

Lions was 6 months ago. At this point, who cares?

Brown is a decent enough player in his own right, Hogg is probably one of the only "World Class" players we have - amongst other very good players. It's irrelevant whether Hogg would be straight in an England squad, as Hogg doesn't play for England, just as its irrelevant whether Maro Itoje would be straight in a Scotland squad.

We're very quick to go doom and gloom but we're also very quick to get over excited. Hogg is an incredible player but there are other very good FBs out there who fit into their respective teams.

Agreed, it's pretty pointless. I was initially responding to someone saying" I think everyone would agree they'd take Hogg over Brown".

Can I just remind some here that not that long ago, some "of this parish" made the argument that Sean Lamont was a far better winger than Tim Visser precisely because he was boring, defensively secure, makes good decisions, has leadership skills etc etc...

For what it's worth I think there is truth that a player who isn't as "flashy" in some respects will work better in some systems, and some players look good in one team when they really don't in another. For example every Edinburgh player who's ever moved to Glasgow. Personal view is Hogg would excel in the England team. Brown is a similar option to Maitland for us - safe defensively, makes good decisions, good rugby brain but not quite as electric in attack. Though Maitland doesn't have the attitude of Brown or Hogg from years gone by.

It's like the question of whether Payne, Earls, Ringrose or Henshaw should be the natural successor to BOD for Ireland...


(Ringrose outside Henshaw imho)

I think we're forgetting that Parrisse would slot into any squad at any position.

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.

Possibly the most ridiculous statement ever made in the annals of rugby analysis.

Do you mean he can't bring an inability to pass and tantrums?

Better for the high ball. Defensively more sound.

I think Cascough was clear and correct in what he was saying. It's a team game and Brown  brings something to England. A few years ago he was the best FB in Europe. He isn't now, and he won't be around for many more years, but he's still a part of a very good team.

Anyway it is great to see Scotland having something to talk about. I'd be very wary of that annual tendency to talk yourselves up and up though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Better for the high ball. Defensively more sound.

poppycock. Not when he gives away a pen to lose the game against Wales at his home RWC

Well yes if you want to as your opinions on players for one thing. Bit of a silly Hong to do and one which would effect poorly on someone doing it. But if you want.

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Better for the high ball. Defensively more sound.

poppycock. Not when he gives away a pen to lose the game against Wales at his home RWC

Only game you've seen in the past 3 years? Figures.

I really don't think Brown is a better player than Hogg. Of course it is everyone's opinion but I'm struggling to think of an occasion where Brown would be a better choice than Hogg.

You could argue that Farrell is better suited to the England style of play than Beauden Barrett, but to say you'd take Farrell over Barrett I'd call that out as nonsense.

I think full back and hooker is the only real are of weakness for England, I think the rest of your team and those behind are absolutely superb players.

Hooker? Probably the best duo in world rugby. But this is a scotland thread so I'll let it be!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I really don't think Brown is a better player than Hogg. Of course it is everyone's opinion but I'm struggling to think of an occasion where Brown would be a better choice than Hogg.  

I don't think anyone is actually saying that are they? I'm certainly not. people are reading what they want to read.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
You could argue that Farrell is better suited to the England style of play than Beauden Barrett, but to say you'd take Farrell over Barrett I'd call that out as nonsense.

 

You could call it as nonsense if you like, but I would definitely have Farrell over Barrett. Simple reason, in a tight game, I don't back him to make the kicks he needs to. Farrell I have no qualms with this. The Lions tests were a perfect example of this.

Does that mean I think Farrell is better player than Barrett? Not really. Does that mean I'd rather have Farrell in my team? Yes it does.

Similarly, people loved to say how much better Dan Carter was than Wilkinson, but I'd have had Wilkinson everytime*. Again, simple reason, in a tight game, I'd back Wilko to step up and kick a drop goal over Carter. Does it mean I think Wilko was better than Carter? Not really. But It'd be Wilko I'd have in the team.

*The caveat here is, once Carter started kicking drop goals in the run up to the WC in 2011, I'd have had Carter, since at that point Carter had pretty much everything Wilko had, and more.

Farrell plays mostly at 12 so his comparison would more likely be SBW surely?

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I really don't think Brown is a better player than Hogg. Of course it is everyone's opinion but I'm struggling to think of an occasion where Brown would be a better choice than Hogg.  

I don't think anyone is actually saying that are they? I'm certainly not. people are reading what they want to read.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
You could argue that Farrell is better suited to the England style of play than Beauden Barrett, but to say you'd take Farrell over Barrett I'd call that out as nonsense.

 

You could call it as nonsense if you like, but I would definitely have Farrell over Barrett. Simple reason, in a tight game, I don't back him to make the kicks he needs to. Farrell I have no qualms with this. The Lions tests were a perfect example of this.

Does that mean I think Farrell is better player than Barrett? Not really. Does that mean I'd rather have Farrell in my team? Yes it does.

Similarly, people loved to say how much better Dan Carter was than Wilkinson, but I'd have had Wilkinson everytime*. Again, simple reason, in a tight game, I'd back Wilko to step up and kick a drop goal over Carter. Does it mean I think Wilko was better than Carter? Not really. But It'd be Wilko I'd have in the team.

*The caveat here is, once Carter started kicking drop goals in the run up to the WC in 2011, I'd have had Carter, since at that point Carter had pretty much everything Wilko had, and more.

What you appear to be saying is you would take an Englishman over at least 2 of the greatest players of all time, all because you yourself are from England

Only a wild guess...

Barrett is one of the greatest players of all time?

Scottrf wrote:Barrett is one of the greatest players of all time?

Sure, hes only the second player in history to win it 2 years in a row. The other was Richie McCaw. So hes right up there and still 26 !

Only 2 players have won it more than twice in whole career, Carter and McCaw.

I think when considering this you'd have to admit Wilkinson is also one of the best ever and Farrell is also right up there in the world today so not exactly 2 mediocre players.

Think for the current lot it will take.another couple of years for hem to be recognised for their talent. A few games against nz maybe.

alive555 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Barrett is one of the greatest players of all time?

Sure, hes only the second player in history to win it 2 years in a row. The other was Richie McCaw. So hes right up there and still 26 !

Only 2 players have won it more than twice in whole career, Carter and McCaw.

Most people would say it's because a certain teammate got injured.

He's not even been first choice in a World Cup yet. I'd calm down the praise.

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.

Like the series of top performances it took to be 5th in the world rankings, for example?

alive555 wrote:

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I really don't think Brown is a better player than Hogg. Of course it is everyone's opinion but I'm struggling to think of an occasion where Brown would be a better choice than Hogg.  

I don't think anyone is actually saying that are they? I'm certainly not. people are reading what they want to read.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
You could argue that Farrell is better suited to the England style of play than Beauden Barrett, but to say you'd take Farrell over Barrett I'd call that out as nonsense.

 

You could call it as nonsense if you like, but I would definitely have Farrell over Barrett. Simple reason, in a tight game, I don't back him to make the kicks he needs to. Farrell I have no qualms with this. The Lions tests were a perfect example of this.

Does that mean I think Farrell is better player than Barrett? Not really. Does that mean I'd rather have Farrell in my team? Yes it does.

Similarly, people loved to say how much better Dan Carter was than Wilkinson, but I'd have had Wilkinson everytime*. Again, simple reason, in a tight game, I'd back Wilko to step up and kick a drop goal over Carter. Does it mean I think Wilko was better than Carter? Not really. But It'd be Wilko I'd have in the team.

*The caveat here is, once Carter started kicking drop goals in the run up to the WC in 2011, I'd have had Carter, since at that point Carter had pretty much everything Wilko had, and more.

What you appear to be saying is you would take an Englishman over at least 2 of the greatest players of all time, all because you yourself are from England

Only a wild guess...

I mean, I explained exactly why I said what I said, but like I said earlier, people read what they want to read.

Apparently Nel is going to be out for up to 5 months and is set to miss the 6 nations according to Rob Robertson of the mail.

Seems strange considering he has a fairly simple sling and no cast etc. I'm no medical expert, but for 5 months I would have expected a lot more strapping/cast etc

If you want to see assess Scotland's potential in this six nations the fact that fans of the two time reigning champions are on here downplaying said potential says it all.

That said,the argument's regarding how players suit the team's individual style of play are fair. I think Townsend and Cotter have done an excellent job assessing Scotland's best players and developing a style to suit them. Eddie Jones has done the same with England, the difference is that if an England player gets injured in most positions Eddie Jones could call up two or three players of comparable quality. Outside of the centre it's hard to see positions that Scotland could do the same, if Russell gets injured we might as well all wait until 2019 (unless Duncan Weir becomes the player not even his Mother believed he could be), if Hogg gets injured we're losing probably a try a game (not an exaggeration, if someone can name the last time he played for Scotland without scoring or creating a try they're far more knowledgeable than I am).

That is why you can't compare Brown with Hogg I'm afraid. Hogg made three or four line breaks against the best team in the world, and more so than that if you watch how he interacts with the crowd and with the team when he is on the pitch he is not only one of the best players in world rugby he also raises other players around him. That is why I think Scotland have come on since the Twickenham debacle, without Hogg against Australia they still won comfortably, without him against England they capitulated. As a regular attendee at Harlequins games you simply cannot say the same about Brown. Take the London Irish game at the start of the season for example, Harlequins went back and forth laterally across the pitch. They desperately needed a spark or an injection of pace or a bit of flair to change the game, this was the first game of the season at Twickenham and Brown did not, and frankly could not, produce it. Hogg always produces in big games. Brown is a good player, probably a better defender than Hogg, but in Jones' masterplan he is a stop gap. Comparing Hogg to Brown on account of that last play against New Zealand is odd, using that argument you could say I would be a better option at full-back for England than Hogg would because quite simply, like Mike Brown, in the last minute of the game against the best team in the world I would not be clear one on one with Beauden Barrett for a chance to win the game.

123456789 wrote:
Comparing Hogg to Brown on account of that last play against New Zealand is odd, using that argument you could say I would be a better option at full-back for England than Hogg would because quite simply, like Mike Brown, in the last minute of the game against the best team in the world I would not be clear one on one with Beauden Barrett for a chance to win the game.

That's a phenomenal twist on what I said. Quite something.

The point was, if you insist on comparing the two like for like (which I've maintained is useless since they are playing in different teams, with different systems, under different coaches), then where Hogg gets white line fever (the words of a well respected Scotland fan, not mine), Brown does not. It's my personal opinion that Brown's decision making with ball in hand is both deliberate and crucial. Something that I feel England would miss if we were to have Hogg in the team instead. Although I'm happy to admit we would gain other things instead, job 1 for the England full back is to execute the England game plan. Given that Mike Brown is so good at doing job 1, I'll take that over a player I feel would do job 1 poorly but do job 2 a lot better. Also, I think Brown is far from a stop gap for Eddie.

Scottrf wrote:Barrett is one of the greatest players of all time?

yeah of course ask ebop

I seriously don't know how Mike Brown is still getting England caps. Nowell, May Watson and Daly. Any combination of that three is surely better than any combination that has Brown at 15?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I seriously don't know how Mike Brown is still getting England caps. Nowell, May Watson and Daly. Any combination of that three is surely better than any combination that has Brown at 15?

Comparisons with Hogg are ridiculous and lets face it one was a shoo in for the lions the other a petulant 1 trick pony.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I seriously don't know how Mike Brown is still getting England caps. Nowell, May Watson and Daly. Any combination of that three is surely better than any combination that has Brown at 15?

Now I can agree that Hogg is better than Brown, possibly much better, but I can't agree with the rest.

Many of us have been crying out for another Fb to be tried and we got this with Watson a few weeks back. What we did see was an impressive attacking threat but it also highlighted other things that we take for granted with Brown.

Firstly, he's fantastic under the high ball, not many better I'd say. Watson is very handy there but he missed a few and we struggled in this area. When required, Brown can carry and make yards when nothing is on. This is perhaps an undervalued attribute but he gets us out of a lot trouble at times and often back on the front foot. His defence is excellent and he has a fantastic boot.

Yes, he's not flashy and he's never going to blitz players on the outside like Hogg. But, he's a very good full back, a bit like Kearney in the regard he usually steps up his game for England.

I agree Hogg would improve us and he's a better player than Brown, but Brown is a solid International player in his own right.

There are also those players (and every team has them) who are much more valuable to that team than they would be to another because of the hard to define things like presence, leadership attitude etc.

The obvious example that we are always hearing about is a certain old Welsh 2nd row.

This is something that Brown provides and it seems to be something that Eddie values highly.

cascough wrote:

123456789 wrote:
Comparing Hogg to Brown on account of that last play against New Zealand is odd, using that argument you could say I would be a better option at full-back for England than Hogg would because quite simply, like Mike Brown, in the last minute of the game against the best team in the world I would not be clear one on one with Beauden Barrett for a chance to win the game.

That's a phenomenal twist on what I said. Quite something.

The point was, if you insist on comparing the two like for like (which I've maintained is useless since they are playing in different teams, with different systems, under different coaches), then where Hogg gets white line fever (the words of a well respected Scotland fan, not mine), Brown does not. It's my personal opinion that Brown's decision making with ball in hand is both deliberate and crucial. Something that I feel England would miss if we were to have Hogg in the team instead. Although I'm happy to admit we would gain other things instead, job 1 for the England full back is to execute the England game plan. Given that Mike Brown is so good at doing job 1, I'll take that over a player I feel would do job 1 poorly but do job 2 a lot better. Also, I think Brown is far from a stop gap for Eddie.

The thing is is Brown's decision making better than Hogg's? If you look at the last two seasons then you can see against France and Italy in 2016 he gave scoring passes when in promising positions to score himself, same against Wales last season. Is it not the case that Hogg's wider range of skills give him more difficult decisions to make? The New Zealand example for instance he chose to try to go on the outside, it did not pay off yet anyone who's seen him play for Glasgow could tell you that more often than not his attempts to go on the outside work. Brown simply does not get himself in position where that is a decision for him to make, in much the same way Hogg's deft grubber through for Seymour against New Zealand is a skill Brown simply does not have, especially when you consider that it is Hogg's threatening running ability that caused the New Zealand defence to be so static in that situation. If you consider the England's job to be solid then Brown is a good option and a good player, but is he more "solid" than Hogg? A solid full back can presumably take high balls, return kicks well and defend solidly, in past seasons I'd say of the former and the latter that Hogg had work to do but I can't think of a situation when Hogg lost a high ball in the Autumn, similarly his defence appeared to have improved dramatically. Brown's defense is better but Hogg's play with ball in hand and with the boot far surpasses Brown's ability to the extent there is literally no contest. I don't think it's fair to say that Hogg would do 'Job 1' poorly, perhaps you could feasibly put forward a potential argument that Brown could do 'Job 1' better but Hogg's 'Job 2' ability is worth at least a try a game on its own. Can you say the same of Brown's tremendous ability to execute Jones' game plan?

Brown is a plodder and the best England can do right now. Hogg is probably the best attacking 15 in NH if not world rugby.

Brown ain't a plodder. Lack of knowledge displayed there. You obviously respect him for his past achievements if not his current so get over it.

Who knew a thread could get derailed by arguing that Mike Brown is better than Hogg? When Daly and Watson are on the wings, Brown is the 3rd best full back in an England jersey. Did not even bother comparing how Russell is playing behind a weaker pack and playing as well as Ford who always has a solid platform and struggles when he doesn't.

Brown will never get plaudits for the way he plays because, frankly, he offers little to no attacking threat. Defensively solid but unspectacular. His boot is around average for a starting top tier nation FB. A good servant who you can rely on, but no one the opposition will game plan for or fear kicking to. Only the most one-eyed of fans can honestly say Brown is in the same quality company of a Folau, Hogg, L Williams (a player I deplore) or B Smith let alone McKenzie, Dagg or Halfpenny. Maybe Scott Spedding and late stage Rob Kearney is about the right level. Even then, both of them have better kicking as solid defenders.

As for Nel being out, it really puts Fagerson under pressure as well as Toonie to call up Welsh and actually play him. Really is worrying for the early games.

Hazel......I get what you're saying, but Halfpenny? What exactly does he offer in attack?

Not a great deal. Place kicking is good (used to be excellent but seen him miss more in recent times). At a push, I have him in the class above though McKenzie and Dagg are above in that list. If you took away the kicking tee I would drop him to the SS/RK/MB level (i.e. international average).

Agree...I'd have him a similar level to Mike Brown.

Folau, Hogg, L Williams and B Smith.....are arguably the best FB's about, Williams perhaps a little behind.

I've been watching rugby for 40 years and it makes my head explode that people honestly believe that Mike Brown is comparable to someone who has been back to back player of the 6 Nations and that the New Zealand Herald of all places acknowledge could become the finest backline player in the world. Each to their own but I cannot shake the idea that people are just WUMMing at this stage.

I'm not sure anyone has ever said Brown is as good as Hogg George, not that I've seen.

There's no wumming just several people not actually reading what others are writing.

Outside of the centre it's hard to see positions that Scotland could do the same, ( have decent replacements)

I disagree to some extent numbers. 9s we have plenty of good players , same with back rows. front row if all fit we have a decent second choice or even third. Even wingers we have a few. The 3 players that really are irreplaceable are Russell. Hogg and Ickle Jonny. Horne is a competent understudy for Russell - and he knows the plays and players and when playing 10 has been decent if not Russells class. Jackson again has been competent at Full back. 2nd row is the real weakness

Its once injuries strike we have real issues as we saw in the front row this AIs

TJ wrote:

Outside of the centre it's hard to see positions that Scotland could do the same, ( have decent replacements)

I disagree to some extent numbers.  9s we have plenty of good players , same with back rows.  front row if all fit we have a decent second choice or even third.  Even wingers we have a few.  The 3 players that really are irreplaceable are Russell. Hogg and Ickle Jonny.  Horne is a competent understudy for Russell - and he knows the plays and players and when playing 10 has been decent if not Russells class.  Jackson again has been competent at Full back.  2nd row is the real weakness

Its once injuries strike we have real issues as we saw in the front row this AIs

Not sure about that - the Gray brothers are top class, seasoned internationals, Toolis has looked every bit the part in Ritchie's absence and even Gilchrist is finally showing he is a good player at this level. Swinson isn't too bad for a 5th choice lock and with Cummings, Carmichael and CHH coming through the ranks the future looks promising.

IMO number 8 is one of our weakest positions - we've got a lot of decent players but none are really top international class!

George Carlin wrote:I've been watching rugby for 40 years and it makes my head explode that people honestly believe that Mike Brown is comparable to someone who has been back to back player of the 6 Nations and that the New Zealand Herald of all places acknowledge could become the finest backline player in the world. Each to their own but I cannot shake the idea that people are just WUMMing at this stage.

what does ebop think , he's the acknowledged expert on the NZ back line

No 7&1/2 wrote:Brown ain't a plodder. Lack of knowledge displayed there. You obviously respect him for his past achievements if not his current so get over it.

Clearly its you with something you need to get over Mrs Brown

Why?

Your clumsy non sequitur. Get a grammatical grip.