Scotland's 2018 Summer Tour: Darien Scheme 2.0

First topic message reminder :

Sunday 10th June 2018

Canada Vs Scotland

Sunday 17th June 2018

America Vs Scotland

Saturday 23rd June 2018

Argentina Vs Scotland



With an eye on the summer tour, whilst also keeping in mind the season isn't over for either of our pro teams - who would you "rest" for the summer tour and who would you bring along in their place?

I'd leave Russell, Price, WP Nel, Hogg, Dunbar, Barclay and Huw Jones purely because those guys have had extremely long seasons, are coming back from long term injuries and/or rarely (if ever) get a full pre-season with their clubs under their belts.

Dunbar is made of glass and could probably do with a summer of conditioning, same with WP Nel

Hogg, Jones and Russell have all had long seasons (lions tours/southern hemisphere seasons) and look a bit jaded.

Price is just off form and could do with some down time.

Barclay is getting on - would not like to injure our captain against America/Canada

With a world cup next year giving all of these guys a full pre-season could pay off in the long term.

Would also allow Townsend to have a closer look at Kinghorn, SHC/Horne (ideally take both and tell Fowles to f3ck off), Grigg, Chris Dean/Johnston/Bennett, Fagerson/Berghan/Mccalum, Bradbury.

Thoughts?

EWT Spoons wrote:Anyone planning on getting up/staying up/or have a favourable time difference, for the Canada game?

in my younger years I'd have been right up for it but these days, not so much!

Good old record on the sky box and I'll watch it when I wake up in the morning!

Much better from our 7s beating South Africa in our first game with a frantic last play try and great conversion - 14-12.

We dominated possession but I thought SA had done enough with 2 turnover tries. Some dodgy reffing of the breakdown but SA gave us another chance with a poor kick long and we managed to score!

We then follow up with a bad defeat to Canada.

I'm not convinced by our fitness - they were out on their feet only 2 games in and it was the same last weekend! I know it's a brutal game but other teams look much fitter.

Why is a Welshman reffing Arg vs Wales? He's giving Arg nothing!

Well I hope those staying up/getting up/ruining a wedding consummation have a game to watch worthy of the sacrifice! My prediction:

Canada will come out all guns blazing which, when combined with us being rusty and making lots of mistakes, will make it an uncomfortable 50 minutes or so. We'll then pull ahead for a comfortable if not overly convincing win 39-17!

Disappointed to see no random sleep deprived chat on here from 2am!

My partner has a 13 hour shift today, I think she'd have murdered me if I was up until 4!

Having watched it I'm glad I didn't stay up too. A pragmatic if underwhelming performance. Highlights for me were the forward play, we will seriously miss McFarland. A few nice touches from Lang too, would be keen to see more of him. Harris looked better, may be worth sticking with him to keep a range of options. Price was looking a bit sparkier when he came on compared to recent days, but Sam h-c also did well.

Carmichael was superb in his short debut, would like to see him against a better side to see what he can do. Hastings had an ok game, as did Jackson. I hope they have more to show this tour as neither really convinced me they were a backup FH even on front foot ball.

MOTM for me was Turner for the lineout work and his extra backrow work. Ritchie was solid and Bradbury had a good game. Denton looked decent enough.

I'd say the scoreline flattered us and we won against a poor Canada side who never really threatened our line, so for that reason I'd give a solid 6/10.

Work to do before the USA, I think a couple of players have earned starting spots, I'd put Hastings in at 10 with Lang outside him.

Also honourable mention for Murray mccallum who looked good and physical when he came on

Good first hit out with plenty positives to take, but lots of work ons too. I know you can only play what's in front of you but it's worth noting that Canada really weren't very good si let's see what happens in a tougher test.

As expected we utterly dominated up front and our scrum and rolling maul were superb. Turner and Ritchie were the pick of the forwards with Bradbury and Denton also doing well. What an impact Charmichael made!

The backs were less impressive but that wasn't helped by an already makeshift backline becoming even more so with Lang and jones going off early. Jackson did ok at 10 and Lang had some nice touches. Kinghorn looked dangerous and composed at 15, and his big boot is a real asset. I actually thought our best back was Bennett!

Negatives were restarts (again!) And our accuracy, particularly in the first half. We failed to score when they were down to 14 as well. I think we were too lateral at times from first phase too.

So a good first test and really promising performances from the newbies!

Any video links anyone?

Just watched it as well and the scoreline was much as predicted, pretty one sided game really, the score could have been a lot higher but for our errors and the fact that Canadian pride kept them at it for the whole 80.

Positives: Pretty much all the debutants did well and did not look out of place. Carmichael probably the pick of them, but Ritchie as a starter had a very decent game as well. This won't be their last caps. Hastings did enough to show that he is a better option going forward than Jacko and will surely get the start he deserves next weekend. I thought we played a lot more direct when he took over at 10, rather than just side to side as in the first half.

Always a bit hard to compare though, as it was likely a different game plan for the second half and the Canadians were clearly tiring as well.

Dissapointing for me was SHC, who just could not get the ball away quickly enough and is still to quick to go for the miracle chip over the top, which usually just means losing possession. Price noticeably upped the tempo when he came on and I don't think SHC did a lot to advance his case. Let GH start next weekend and see what he can do!

A mention to Harris and Lang as well. CH showed that he is an outstanding defender and better in attack than we had seen so far, he did enough to stay in the mix. Lang got injured unfortunately but showed a great bit of skill for the first try and was otherwise very solid. Hope he is fit and gets another crack next weekend.

Bad news on the injury front for Glasgow with Brown crocked again and DTH taking what looked like a bad one. We will have to see how those ones pan out.

TJ wrote:Any video links anyone?

I recorded it but I am sure it will be on the iplayer

Ta - of course it is. For some odd reason I thought it was on sky

warra numpty!

Biggee I know you're not SHC's biggest fan but I thought he played well. His passing was good and he showed real control and intelligence behind the pack, making a good decision and showing good hands for our first try. He worked the blindside well with Jackson too which could have led to another try.

It was also worth saying his miracle chips came during penalty advantage so it is harsh to criticise him for that.

This is a pointless summer tour for Scotland.

A year from the RWC and you play Canada, USA and Argentina on a summer tour. Only the last game is going to test the side.

As per last nights victory against Canada, what's it telling you.. nothing. Ok, a chance to blood some youngsters, but not really testing the team.

I know these tours are arranged ages in advance, but I would have hoped that with Scotland's improvement in last years AI and not too shabby 6 Nations, the SRU would have had a more challenging tour lined up. Lets face it, touring the Pacific Islands would have given a better challenge that Canada and USA.

No9 wrote:This is a pointless summer tour for Scotland.

A year from the RWC and you play Canada, USA and Argentina on a summer tour. Only the last game is going to test the side.

As per last nights victory against Canada, what's it telling you.. nothing. Ok, a chance to blood some youngsters, but not really testing the team.

I know these tours are arranged ages in advance, but I would have hoped that with Scotland's improvement in last years AI and not too shabby 6 Nations, the SRU would have had a more challenging tour lined up. Lets face it, touring the Pacific Islands would have given a better challenge that Canada and USA.

They are planned many years in advance! From memory we've got tests against top teams lined up for summer tours after the world cup - not 3 test series' though.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Biggee I know you're not SHC's biggest fan but I thought he played well. His passing was good and he showed real control and intelligence behind the pack, making a good decision and showing good hands for our first try. He worked the blindside well with Jackson too which could have led to another try.

It was also worth saying his miracle chips came during penalty advantage so it is harsh to criticise him for that.

Ok it was advantage, but that still does not excuse a poor kick. He became impatient and basically just gave the ball away, if you are going to kick in those situations, then everyone needs to be on the same wavelength and that call needs to come from him.

The tempo went up noticeably when Price came on. You could say that was a second half performance against a tiring side, but I think there is more to it than that.

I don't think SHC played badly, but neither do I think he put down a great marker either in a position where we have quite a few options. He may or may not get another chance on this tour.

No9 wrote:This is a pointless summer tour for Scotland.

A year from the RWC and you play Canada, USA and Argentina on a summer tour. Only the last game is going to test the side.

As per last nights victory against Canada, what's it telling you.. nothing. Ok, a chance to blood some youngsters, but not really testing the team.

I know these tours are arranged ages in advance, but I would have hoped that with Scotland's improvement in last years AI and not too shabby 6 Nations, the SRU would have had a more challenging tour lined up. Lets face it, touring the Pacific Islands would have given a better challenge that Canada and USA.

It is not a pointless tour at all.

It gives us the chance to try some new players and to rest some established ones, who will have a very long season next year. It is also good for Canada and world rugby in general if tier one nations do go and tour developing countries. This is not just a one way process.

USA next week, in hot and humid Houston will provide a sterner test and then you would expect a battle hardened Argentina to be a full blown test match, with them at full strength and us testing our depth to be a very different affair.

This is the right tour at the right time for us and we will probably be better for it come WC time.

I agree with Big G. We have what 11 games before the WC. No experimentation in the 6N so 6 games to blood young players and try out new combinations. Whats the point in playing NZ and getting stuffed?

Agree with the above sentiments, there's not much to gain from a summer tour where we have our first choice team battered for 3 weeks by a fresh SH side. This tour is appropriately challenging for Scotland without utterly destroying them and stays in the same time zone which makes a difference. It's a great opportunity to blood new players and get momentum to take into next season.

For USA I'd like a bit of rotation:
Bhatti
Turner (assuming McInally is still crocked)
Bergman (Mccallum if crocked)
Carmichael
Toolis (gilchrist if no mcinally)
Bradbury
Hamilton
Fagerson

Horne
Hastings

Kinghorn (I like having him and Hogg on the field as it gives us good options in attack and a nice rotation in defence)
Lang (Horne if HIA comes back positive)
Bennett
Jones (we really need another option... c'mon Darcy what's going on?!)
Hogg

By the sounds of things, rotation was always planned for the second game, which will be a harder test in any case. A few injuries today may have helped that process along. I think we will see something like this:

Bhatti
Turner (assuming McInally stilled crocked)
Fagerson Z
Swinson
Carmichael (he definitely deserves a start)
Hamilton
Bradbury
Fagerson M
Horne G
Hastings
Kinghorn (Jones injured)
Lang (deserves another chance)
Greig
McGuigan
Hoggy

McCallam (Dell looked hurt as well)
Stewart
Berghan
Gilchrist
Denton/Ritchie (can't decide)
Price
Horne P
Harris/Bennett

Fife called up to replace Lee Jones. Not sure what condition he'll be in as he's just been on a lads holiday!

RDW_Scotland wrote:Fife called up to replace Lee Jones. Not sure what condition he'll be in as he's just been on a lads holiday!

If Hoggy goes home after the US game and Kinghorn has to play FB, we will probably need him for the Argentina game. We only ever took two out and out wingers and I doubt we would want to play them with a centre on the wing.

That gives them 10 days or so to knock him into shape!

We'll probably see Harris on the wing - he was first capped there and was shifted there when jones went off. He has more experience as an international winger than centre!

I was at the game last night, you don't get many chances in these parts to see international rugby so there was no way I was going to pass the chance up even though I live a couple of hours away from Edmonton. No getting away from the fact that Canada were poor and it really wasn't a great advertisement for growing the fan base around here but here are a couple of observations from up in the stands-

It's easy to see why coaches like Harris, he literally sprints everywhere for the entire game. Defensive line, clearing out, getting up from a ruck you name it, from the first whistle until the last. But I'm not convinced he has the requisite skills ball in hand to be intentional class. Once Jones and Bennett are fully fit I can't see him starting many games unless he becomes more of an attacking threat.

Both Toolis and Gilchrist seemed to get through a hell of a lot of work. It was hot and muggy (27'c) especially in the first half but they both showed up well, covering a lot of ground and stopping the Canadians getting any momentum.

Even without the tries Turner looked class as soon as he came on. Canada weren't great defensively at line-out time but as long as his arrows are reasonable under proper pressure then I think Scotland now have a third international class 2.

Jackson surprised me, but not how you'd expect (to me anyway). Without ball in hand he seemed to read the game really really well, both when Scotland were attacking and also when they were defending. Wonder if that has come with him spending more time recently at 15? Either way a useful squad player to have.

First time I've really seen Kinghorn and he certainly looks a talent. Couple of occasions where he took the wrong option but that will come with a bit more experience. Scotland being greedy having both him and Hogg as 15 options!

On the other side of the coin it was pretty (depressingly) easy to see why Canada have dropped out of the world top 20.

Good local knowledge of the game B91212 - you should come here more often! Are you Canadian or an expat out of interest?

Interesting view of Harris - there's no doubting he's an international class defender but I'd agree he's going to have to be an attacking threat to make it in that Scotland team.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Good local knowledge of the game B91212 - you should come here more often! Are you Canadian or an expat out of interest?

Interesting view of Harris - there's no doubting he's an international class defender but I'd agree he's going to have to be an attacking threat to make it in that Scotland team.

Some kind of balance is needed really.

Our best two attacking centres are clearly Bennett and Jones, but neither are quite as good defensively.

The two that are the most defensively solid are Taylor and Dunbar but they are the two that seem to be injured the most as well. The two things may not be completely unconnected!

Who would be a selector (other than everyone on this forum!)

RDW_Scotland wrote:Good local knowledge of the game B91212 - you should come here more often! Are you Canadian or an expat out of interest?

Interesting view of Harris - there's no doubting he's an international class defender but I'd agree he's going to have to be an attacking threat to make it in that Scotland team.

Expat, been here for 10+ years. Norhampton Saints fan, although from further north in England. Usually post a little more in the club section.

Expected the crowd to be a bit bigger, Edmonton has a decent Scottish expat community. An earlier start than 7pm would have helped, easier for people traveling in from outside the city. Would have also enabled UK audiences the chance to watch the game at a reasonable time (3pm here is 10pm there). Had a couple of pints with some Scots before the game. Good company of course, even those who had started on the pop at 8am that morning! There was even a piper in the crowd, just a member of the public and he was wearing a proper kilt and a Canada shirt, which kind of summed up the feelings of many there I guess. In fairness he was pretty good, even the mrs said so and the sound of bagpipes usually goes through her.

NeilyBroon wrote:

I'd say the scoreline flattered us and we won against a poor Canada side who never really threatened our line, so for that reason I'd give a solid 6/10.

Not sure why you think the scoreline flattered us. Canada did nothing of note in the game, and Scotland were dominant for pretty much the whole 80 mins. We could have been further ahead were it not for a couple of mistakes (Jackson rolling the ball, Harris neck roll etc) resulting in disallowed tries. I'd say the scoreline was pretty reflective of the game, as you say yourself "Canada never really threatened our line". Wasn't pretty at times, but Scotland were by far the better team and the scoreline reflected that.

EWT Spoons wrote:

NeilyBroon wrote:

I'd say the scoreline flattered us and we won against a poor Canada side who never really threatened our line, so for that reason I'd give a solid 6/10.

Not sure why you think the scoreline flattered us.  Canada did nothing of note in the game, and Scotland were dominant for pretty much the whole 80 mins.  We could have been further ahead were it not for a couple of mistakes (Jackson rolling the ball, Harris neck roll etc) resulting in disallowed tries.  I'd say the scoreline was pretty reflective of the game, as you say yourself  "Canada never really threatened our line".  Wasn't pretty at times, but Scotland were by far the better team and the scoreline reflected that.

It's more the manner in which we won. Lots of lateral movement but not much go forward. Against any other team we wouldn't have scored nearly as many tries. Yes we were the better team but I'd like to think our standards are higher now, especially when Canada are 15 places behind us in the rankings. As I said Canada never really threatened our line, and with the amount of posession we enjoyed we should have absolutely pummeled them but missed a lot of opportunities. Look at USA, put 62 points on Russia, a team ranked ahead of Canada and just behind America.

NeilyBroon wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

NeilyBroon wrote:

I'd say the scoreline flattered us and we won against a poor Canada side who never really threatened our line, so for that reason I'd give a solid 6/10.

Not sure why you think the scoreline flattered us.  Canada did nothing of note in the game, and Scotland were dominant for pretty much the whole 80 mins.  We could have been further ahead were it not for a couple of mistakes (Jackson rolling the ball, Harris neck roll etc) resulting in disallowed tries.  I'd say the scoreline was pretty reflective of the game, as you say yourself  "Canada never really threatened our line".  Wasn't pretty at times, but Scotland were by far the better team and the scoreline reflected that.

It's more the manner in which we won. Lots of lateral movement but not much go forward. Against any other team we wouldn't have scored nearly as many tries. Yes we were the better team but I'd like to think our standards are higher now, especially when Canada are 15 places behind us in the rankings. As I said Canada never really threatened our line, and with the amount of posession we enjoyed we should have absolutely pummeled them but missed a lot of opportunities. Look at USA, put 62 points on Russia, a team ranked ahead of Canada and just behind America.

I’m still confused. Because the way that post reads, makes it seem we should have scored more, so again not flattering us, but more it should have been more comfortable?

Yes against a tougher team we wouldn’t have been able to get away with some of the stuff we did, but conversely against a tougher team we wouldn’t have been putting out the team we did.

Remembering we had;

Dell – Barely played since the lions tour due to injuries
Ritchie – Debut
Bradbury – 3 -4 caps
Carmichael coming on for debut
Hastings – coming on for debut
Jackson – Playing 10 (hasn’t played there all season)
Kinghorn – 3rd cap
Harris – 3rd cap, first 2 were terrible
Lang – Debut
McCallum – off the bench for his 2nd-3rd cap

8 of those players have fewer than 5 caps, some were played out of position (Jackson ended up at centre), so whist it wasn’t glorious free flowing rugby, it was effective and it was also played in fairly uncomfortable heat.

I get we should be holding ourselves to high standards, but this was a team of inexperienced players, making their first foray into International Rugby, it was a good learning experience for them and a few years ago, is likely a game we would have lost (almost did last time out)

Missed the game, saw the highlights. From the general chatter on the BBC and here; Carmichael, Bradbury, Turner and Harris all earned a start in the next game. Based on rewarding those performances:

Bhatti - Turner - Z Fagerson (Dell - Stewart - Berghan)
Carmichael - Gilchrist (Swinson)
M Fagerson - Bradbury - Hamilton (Ritchie)

G Horne - Hastings (Price)
P Horne - Bennett (Grigg)
McGuigan - Hogg - Kinghorn (Fife)

No point rushing Brown or McInally back for this. Argentina is more important. 3 debuts (Stewart, M Fagerson, G Horne). Stewart enforced so he gets to be surrounded by the better scrummaging pair. Back-row is light on experience so can see Denton coming in somewhere.

14 of the 23 are 25 and under. 9 would be under the age of 30 during the 2023 World Cup with 2 more having turned 30 in the month before. We have sent a baby side for this tour.

EWT Spoons wrote:

NeilyBroon wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

NeilyBroon wrote:

I'd say the scoreline flattered us and we won against a poor Canada side who never really threatened our line, so for that reason I'd give a solid 6/10.

Not sure why you think the scoreline flattered us.  Canada did nothing of note in the game, and Scotland were dominant for pretty much the whole 80 mins.  We could have been further ahead were it not for a couple of mistakes (Jackson rolling the ball, Harris neck roll etc) resulting in disallowed tries.  I'd say the scoreline was pretty reflective of the game, as you say yourself  "Canada never really threatened our line".  Wasn't pretty at times, but Scotland were by far the better team and the scoreline reflected that.

It's more the manner in which we won. Lots of lateral movement but not much go forward. Against any other team we wouldn't have scored nearly as many tries. Yes we were the better team but I'd like to think our standards are higher now, especially when Canada are 15 places behind us in the rankings. As I said Canada never really threatened our line, and with the amount of posession we enjoyed we should have absolutely pummeled them but missed a lot of opportunities. Look at USA, put 62 points on Russia, a team ranked ahead of Canada and just behind America.

I’m still confused.  Because the way that post reads, makes it seem we should have scored more, so again not flattering us, but more it should have been more comfortable?

Yes against a tougher team we wouldn’t have been able to get away with some of the stuff we did, but conversely against a tougher team we wouldn’t have been putting out the team we did.

Remembering we had;

Dell – Barely played since the lions tour due to injuries
Ritchie – Debut
Bradbury –  3 -4 caps
Carmichael coming on for debut
Hastings – coming on for debut
Jackson – Playing 10 (hasn’t played there all season)
Kinghorn – 3rd cap
Harris – 3rd cap, first 2 were terrible
Lang – Debut
McCallum – off the bench for his 2nd-3rd cap

8 of those players have fewer than 5 caps, some were played out of position  (Jackson ended up at centre), so whist it wasn’t glorious free flowing rugby, it was effective and it was also played in fairly uncomfortable heat.

I get we should be holding ourselves to high standards, but this was a team of inexperienced players, making their first foray into International Rugby, it was a good learning experience for them and a few years ago, is likely a game we would have lost (almost did last time out)

Yeah fair enough I guess it is harsh seeing as we did win well and you're right, a few years ago we would have lost that. Ideally I'd have liked to have seen more from the backs but you're right that we played the conditions to an extent.

I think we'll only get a true gauge of where this team is next week and against Argentina. This USA team worry me, they could be like Fiji was last year and I think they have a lot of good players. They will be right up for this.

Townsend has said he's going to pick mainly Glasgow players for this game so I reckon we'll see

1 Bhattie
2 Turner/McInally
3 Fagerson
4 Swinson
5 Gilchrist
6 Fagerson
7 Hamilton
8 Bradbury

9 Price
10 Hasting
11 Kinghorn
12 Horne
13 Grigg
14 Harris/Mcguigan
15 Hogg

RDW_Scotland wrote:Townsend has said he's going to pick mainly Glasgow players for this game so I reckon we'll see

1 Bhattie
2 Turner/McInally
3 Fagerson
4 Swinson
5 Gilchrist
6 Fagerson
7 Hamilton
8 Bradbury

9 Price
10 Hasting
11 Kinghorn
12 Horne
13 Grigg
14 Harris/Mcguigan
15 Hogg

Good team, would really like to see Bradbury get a run out from No 8. I'd prefer G Horne to start, Price to bench. But, with the above team in mind, bench could be Dell, Turner/McInally/Stewart, McCallum, Carmichael, Ritchie, G Horne, Lang, Harris.

If we want to be able to claim the right to be a top 6 rugby playing nation then we should be confident, even with a reduced squad, of beating USA by 20 points.

The Canada game was a bit underwhelming but this would be down to the inexperience of the backs and that fact that the boys haven't played a match for a month.

We won the game and won well in the end. Canada made us work but at no point did they look like troubling us. Our forwards bossed theirs for the whole game. It was a good game for Toonie to have a look at the youngsters and lets not forget that by now Toonie knows who is best players are and at this stage he's tinkering with things to see what youngsters can make the cut to go on the world cup tour to cover injuries.

prediction for the game against the US

USA 12 - Scotland 36

tigertattie wrote:If we want to be able to claim the right to be a top 6 rugby playing nation then we should be confident, even with a reduced squad, of beating USA by 20 points.

The Canada game was a bit underwhelming but this would be down to the inexperience of the backs and that fact that the boys haven't played a match for a month.

We won the game and won well in the end. Canada made us work but at no point did they look like troubling us. Our forwards bossed theirs for the whole game. It was a good game for Toonie to have a look at the youngsters and lets not forget that by now Toonie knows who is best players are and at this stage he's tinkering with things to see what youngsters can make the cut to go on the world cup tour to cover injuries.

prediction for the game against the US

USA 12 - Scotland 36

We were confident of getting past Italy with ease tbf - we nearly didn't!

I'd think it'll be more like a 10 point difference in Scotland's favour. A reasonably comfortable but not that comfortable win.

Italy are a top tier nation that are a bit poo but occasionally raise their game (and tend to target Scotland)

USA, while still improving, are not a top tier nation so the gap between them and Italy is still quiet big. Sure they are right beside each other in the rankings but Italy play against top 8 teams every year in the 6Ns. Even in the AIs or summer tours Italy pick up games against us, SA, IRE (even Japan are fairly decent these days). meanwhile USA are playing Canada, Trinidad and Tobago and The Cayman Islands!!!!

I will be extremely disappointed if we only beat the US by 10 points.

With the depth we have at lock, and that cockers has played him in the backrow, what does everyone reckon to Carmichael ultimately moving to no.8?

Now before I go on, I am not a fan of shunting players around just to fit them in the team, but at 6.5 he’s not massive in lock terms, Toolis & Gilco both 6.7, J.Gray 6.6 and R. Gray 6.9, whereas Swinson who we all largely agree isn’t big enough for international rugby is 6.5. He also has a turn of pace and seems comfortable with the ball in hand.

We have a number of locks either young enough to be part of the first team for a while yet (J.Gray (24), R.Gray (28), Gilco (27), Toolis (26)) and with others coming through in Cummings & Hunter- Hill, (assuming he gets some game time next season). Whereas at 8 we are slightly lighter and we could do with a big ball carrier in the backrow. Denton is beginning to show the form he had shown in the past, but he’s really the only option we have at 8, depending on how Fagerson gets on, and whether Bradbury is now seen as a 6 or if he moves back to 8.

Therefore having a big young lad who can carry the ball, and make yards could be invaluable at 8. For the record I’m not basing this solely on the Canada game, Carmichael has shown similar breaks etc with Edinburgh this season as well.

Glasgow fans may shoot me down here and say Fagerson is the man to take the no.8 shirt, I’ve not seen enough of him to comment on that, I’m just putting this out as a suggestion.

EWT Spoons wrote:With the depth we have at lock, and that cockers has played him in the backrow, what does everyone reckon to Carmichael ultimately moving to no.8?

Now before I go on, I am not a fan of shunting players around just to fit them in the team, but at 6.5 he’s not massive in lock terms, Toolis & Gilco both 6.7, J.Gray 6.6 and R. Gray 6.9, whereas Swinson who we all largely agree isn’t big enough for international rugby is 6.5.   He also has a turn of pace and seems comfortable with the ball in hand.  

We have a number of locks either young enough to be part of the first team for a while yet (J.Gray (24), R.Gray (28), Gilco (27), Toolis (26)) and with others coming through in Cummings & Hunter- Hill, (assuming he gets some game time next season).  Whereas at 8 we are slightly lighter and we  could do with a big ball carrier in the backrow.  Denton is beginning to show the form he had shown in the past, but he’s really the only option we have at 8, depending on how Fagerson gets on, and whether Bradbury is now seen as a 6 or if he moves back to 8.

Therefore having a big young lad who can carry the ball, and make yards could be invaluable at 8.  For the record I’m not basing this solely on the Canada game, Carmichael has shown similar breaks etc with Edinburgh this season as well.

Glasgow fans may shoot me down here and say Fagerson is the man to take the no.8 shirt, I’ve not seen enough of him to comment on that, I’m just putting this out as a suggestion.

If he doesn't play at lock, Carmichael is probably better suited to 6. He's played there for Edinburgh all ready. it all depends on the balance of the backrow overall.

That said, I'd like to see him continue is development at lock, it'd be great at have a Tadgh Beirne-style option there - athletic, mobile, all-court.

EWT Spoons wrote:With the depth we have at lock, and that cockers has played him in the backrow, what does everyone reckon to Carmichael ultimately moving to no.8?

Now before I go on, I am not a fan of shunting players around just to fit them in the team, but at 6.5 he’s not massive in lock terms, Toolis & Gilco both 6.7, J.Gray 6.6 and R. Gray 6.9, whereas Swinson who we all largely agree isn’t big enough for international rugby is 6.5.   He also has a turn of pace and seems comfortable with the ball in hand.  

We have a number of locks either young enough to be part of the first team for a while yet (J.Gray (24), R.Gray (28), Gilco (27), Toolis (26)) and with others coming through in Cummings & Hunter- Hill, (assuming he gets some game time next season).  Whereas at 8 we are slightly lighter and we  could do with a big ball carrier in the backrow.  Denton is beginning to show the form he had shown in the past, but he’s really the only option we have at 8, depending on how Fagerson gets on, and whether Bradbury is now seen as a 6 or if he moves back to 8.

Therefore having a big young lad who can carry the ball, and make yards could be invaluable at 8.  For the record I’m not basing this solely on the Canada game, Carmichael has shown similar breaks etc with Edinburgh this season as well.

Glasgow fans may shoot me down here and say Fagerson is the man to take the no.8 shirt, I’ve not seen enough of him to comment on that, I’m just putting this out as a suggestion.

Not a bad one, but ideally we want an 8 with footballing skills too, I don't know Carmichael well enough as a player to know if he has these. As Denton proves we need more than someone who can run into people well. As we know all of the top 5 sides have an influential 8 who is pretty much a certainty in that position and all of who are specialists.

With Bradbury, Fagerson, Denton, Wilson and Du Preez, I think we're fairly well set for 8s for the World Cup and beyond.

Carmichael's had a great season, and looks like a lock to me. It's weight rather than height that might be a problem. He might need to bulk up a bit to mix it with Test forwards in the tight. That'll come if it needs to, though.

Leander wrote:With Bradbury, Fagerson, Denton, Wilson and Du Preez, I think we're fairly well set for 8s for the World Cup and beyond.

Carmichael's had a great season, and looks like a lock to me. It's weight rather than height that might be a problem. He might need to bulk up a bit to mix it with Test forwards in the tight. That'll come if it needs to, though.

I think we can scratch DuPreez from that list, he has shown absolutely nothing that suggests he's up to the job.

I'm a big Wilson fan for his leadership and morale boosting capabilities, but going forward I think he should be considered at blindside rather than 8 as he doesn't have the ball-carrying that Bradbury and Denton do (and potentially Fagerson, yet to see at int. level). So that leaves us with 2/3 options for 8.

At lock we have Gray, Gray, Gilchrist, Toolis, Swinson, Carmichael, Cummings and potentially more next season. We already have at least 3 people per position for lock, whereas with 8 we're scraping the barrel a little, so I can see why they'd consider it.

Also let's not forget Blade Thomson could be a bolter next season.

I thought Blade Thomson is a blindside? I don't really know that much about him, tbh.

Leander wrote:With Bradbury, Fagerson, Denton, Wilson and Du Preez, I think we're fairly well set for 8s for the World Cup and beyond.

Carmichael's had a great season, and looks like a lock to me. It's weight rather than height that might be a problem. He might need to bulk up a bit to mix it with Test forwards in the tight. That'll come if it needs to, though.

See with the players you mention, Bradbury is playing pretty much just a 6 these days for club (would happily see him play 8 though), Wilson isn't really an 8, and is certainly not of sufficient quality for international rugby at 8. Du Preez, I think we may have seen the last of him at international level, unless he plays superbly for Worcester.

That leaves us with Fagerson (no idea if he'll be capable of stepping up) and Denton. I get both of them might be perfectly suitable and Bradbury shifting over when needed could be fine. It's just an option as Carmichael is in a fairly competitive position and has played in the backrow this season, and his extra bulk could really help our scrum.

NeilyBroon wrote:

Leander wrote:With Bradbury, Fagerson, Denton, Wilson and Du Preez, I think we're fairly well set for 8s for the World Cup and beyond.

Carmichael's had a great season, and looks like a lock to me. It's weight rather than height that might be a problem. He might need to bulk up a bit to mix it with Test forwards in the tight. That'll come if it needs to, though.

I think we can scratch DuPreez from that list, he has shown absolutely nothing that suggests he's up to the job.

I'm a big Wilson fan for his leadership and morale boosting capabilities, but going forward I think he should be considered at blindside rather than 8 as he doesn't have the ball-carrying that Bradbury and Denton do (and potentially Fagerson, yet to see at int. level). So that leaves us with 2/3 options for 8.

At lock we have Gray, Gray, Gilchrist, Toolis, Swinson, Carmichael, Cummings and potentially more next season. We already have at least 3 people per position for lock, whereas with 8 we're scraping the barrel a little, so I can see why they'd consider it.

Also let's not forget Blade Thomson could be a bolter next season.

This.

I mean I disagree slightly about Wilson as I just don't think he brings enough to the party, but other than that, pretty much agree

I wonder if we'll see Strauss again for Scotland? He solves a lot of the ball carrying problems, but he and Toonie have apparently had a tiff.

Leander wrote:I thought Blade Thomson is a blindside? I don't really know that much about him, tbh.

He's played quite a bit of rugby at 8 with the Hurricanes, unfortunately he's also been injured a lot of that time.

It makes you wonder about what could have been with Johnnie Beattie, fell from grace, came back into the set-up after great performances for Montpellier, then showed absolutely none of that form at international level. Shame considering how good he was when he first came on to the scene.

Because of the depth issues in the more obvious positions like fly-half the fact we've not had a decent 8 for a long time has gone under the radar a bit. If we can remedy that it would go a long way to this good team becoming a great team.

Just found this online, and this was a couple of months back. He's even doing toonie flicks - he'll be straight in the Autumn test squad no doubt
http://www.rugbydump.com/2018/03/6231/blade-thomson-sets-up-his-own-try-with-crazy-power-flick-offload