The Official Scottish Rugby Thread

[westport]

This always comes back to only having 2 pro teams, these young guys need game time. I do think Super6 will help when it gets going, but nothing like 3rd pro team.

I know this may be controversial, but hearing Dodson talk about the possibility of a pro women’s team made me wonder if that’s really where our limited resources should be going

If they do get a pro women's team going it will cost peanuts, relatively. Actually I think the SRU putting a bit more focus on the women's game makes a lot of sense for them as an organisation. Realistically there's probably an upper bound on how many boys and men they will be able to get playing the game but you can theoretically double that with the women's game, so there's a lot of scope for the SRU to increase participation numbers and get more folk involved in clubs etc which is a big part of what they should be about and probably what they need to do long-term to remain relevant.

Undoubtedly they should be promoting women’s rugby and helping clubs to get teams going. But spending money on a pro team makes no sense to me at this stage

A lot of clubs are, even in these strange times, managing to bring in young girls/women to play the game. Like yourself I would prefer any monies that are given out went to these clubs, and also to encourage other clubs to bring in young/girls/women, instead of a pro team.

[robmatic]

This always comes back to only having 2 pro teams, these young guys need game time. I do think Super6 will help when it gets going, but nothing like 3rd pro team.

I know this may be controversial, but hearing Dodson talk about the possibility of a pro women’s team made me wonder if that’s really where our limited resources should be going

If they do get a pro women's team going it will cost peanuts, relatively. Actually I think the SRU putting a bit more focus on the women's game makes a lot of sense for them as an organisation. Realistically there's probably an upper bound on how many boys and men they will be able to get playing the game but you can theoretically double that with the women's game, so there's a lot of scope for the SRU to increase participation numbers and get more folk involved in clubs etc which is a big part of what they should be about and probably what they need to do long-term to remain relevant.

Undoubtedly they should be promoting women’s rugby and helping clubs to get teams going. But spending money on a pro team makes no sense to me at this stage

There isn't even any suggestion that they will be spending any money on a pro team 'at this stage', Dodson is only talking about it as a long term goal. I don't think it sends a great message to either young girls who are keen on the sport or to sponsors that you don't envisage Scottish rugby being able to get in a position to be competitive in the women's game. The women's teams down south have been receiving £80k per year funding from the RFU, so that's the ballpark figure that we are saying the SRU is too broke to afford.

[KingBlairhorn]

Good half for our Lions. Price controlled well, Harris was excellent (who knew he had a delicate kicking game?), Watson has been strong in attack and defence and Russell was Russell.

[Slick]

Good half for our Lions. Price controlled well, Harris was excellent (who knew he had a delicate kicking game?), Watson has been strong in attack and defence and Russell was Russell.

You forgot skips who was all round excellent

[Slick]

If they do get a pro women's team going it will cost peanuts, relatively. Actually I think the SRU putting a bit more focus on the women's game makes a lot of sense for them as an organisation. Realistically there's probably an upper bound on how many boys and men they will be able to get playing the game but you can theoretically double that with the women's game, so there's a lot of scope for the SRU to increase participation numbers and get more folk involved in clubs etc which is a big part of what they should be about and probably what they need to do long-term to remain relevant.

Undoubtedly they should be promoting women’s rugby and helping clubs to get teams going. But spending money on a pro team makes no sense to me at this stage

There isn't even any suggestion that they will be spending any money on a pro team 'at this stage', Dodson is only talking about it as a long term goal. I don't think it sends a great message to either young girls who are keen on the sport or to sponsors that you don't envisage Scottish rugby being able to get in a position to be competitive in the women's game. The women's teams down south have been receiving £80k per year funding from the RFU, so that's the ballpark figure that we are saying the SRU is too broke to afford.

Must say I had no idea we were talking about 80k, that’s fuck all

[Big D]

Good half for our Lions. Price controlled well, Harris was excellent (who knew he had a delicate kicking game?), Watson has been strong in attack and defence and Russell was Russell.

All can be happy with their days work. Finn was a little up and down but others helped their case for a test spot. Finn's chances enhanced by how bad Farrell was.

[KingBlairhorn]

Good half for our Lions. Price controlled well, Harris was excellent (who knew he had a delicate kicking game?), Watson has been strong in attack and defence and Russell was Russell.

You forgot skips who was all round excellent

Yes, was also excellent.

[Yr Alban]

Good half for our Lions. Price controlled well, Harris was excellent (who knew he had a delicate kicking game?), Watson has been strong in attack and defence and Russell was Russell.

You forgot skips who was all round excellent

Yes, was also excellent.

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

[Yr Alban]

Just read Stephen Ferris is the latest “expert” calling Duhan’s defence into question, it really does seem to annoy certain people in the rugby world when we unearth a gem of a player

Apparently he won’t be able to deal with Kolbe, like there is anyone out there who is able to

Hey, Somerset - have you made it up here yet?

[SaintK]

You forgot skips who was all round excellent

Yes, was also excellent.

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

[dpedin]

Yes, was also excellent.

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Don't think he was - it was just a good break from the flanker but Hogg covered well. I thought Hogg was excellent and noticed him up as supporting runner with almost every try that Adams scored. He revelled in the captain role and looked threatening all game. Price was very good, Russell as others say was typical Russell but directed the attack all game and made space for others, Watson superb despite being too small, Harris looked made for the 13 spot and defensively was rock solid.

I thought a few players played themselves out of a Test spot. Hill was his usual brainless self, George looked unfit and the front row as a unit didn't do much in the scrum, Falatau was cumbersome at best, Farrell was useless and I can't see a spot for him in the team and Rees Zammit was pretty quiet and ineffective.

It will be interesting to see the next selection as you might expect to see different combinations emerge.

[Yr Alban]

Yes, was also excellent.

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Someone was bound to say it! I’ve only seen the clip so I can’t comment. However, despite being miles away, he lines up his man, runs him down, makes a perfect tackle and stops him dead. Which isn’t what Hogg is best known for, to be fair.

[Slick]

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Someone was bound to say it! I’ve only seen the clip so I can’t comment. However, despite being miles away, he lines up his man, runs him down, makes a perfect tackle and stops him dead. Which isn’t what Hogg is best known for, to be fair.

Then gets straight to his feet and dives into an oncoming boot to win the ball. It was an excellent bit of defence

[Big D]

That sort of tackle has never been the issue with Hogg. He has occasionally fallen off or missed completely a tackle when the player is through one on one with him.

Doesn't detract from the excellent work yesterday.

[Big D]

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Don't think he was - it was just a good break from the flanker but Hogg covered well. I thought Hogg was excellent and noticed him up as supporting runner with almost every try that Adams scored. He revelled in the captain role and looked threatening all game. Price was very good, Russell as others say was typical Russell but directed the attack all game and made space for others, Watson superb despite being too small, Harris looked made for the 13 spot and defensively was rock solid.

I thought a few players played themselves out of a Test spot. Hill was his usual brainless self, George looked unfit and the front row as a unit didn't do much in the scrum, Falatau was cumbersome at best, Farrell was useless and I can't see a spot for him in the team and Rees Zammit was pretty quiet and ineffective.

It will be interesting to see the next selection as you might expect to see different combinations emerge.

Wednesday will be all the guys yet to start. So mako, lcd, zander, beard, Curry, simmonds and Navidi plus a lock who played last week.

Davis and Daly will get a start too.

[Big D]

Yes, was also excellent.

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Was it not off a turnover?

[KingBlairhorn]

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Was it not off a turnover?

It was. George played a lineout over the top to a centre 3 or 4 times very effectively (for instance to Farrell for Price’s try). On this occasion the flanker read it and took the ball ahead of Farrell. Adams didn’t manage to attempt a tackle (poor defence?) and he was off. Hogg was on the other wing and covered diagonally across the field to make the tackle.

All the chat with Duhan’s game and it’s interesting to see the difference in rhetoric with Adams. He scored 4 tries, but didn’t come off his wing much and had awful positioning for their second try where he didn’t get near. He also didn’t cover back in the aforementioned Hogg incident despite being less than a metre away when the intercept was made. I think he should be a test wing, but surely the critique of his game should be the same as with Duhan.

[Yr Alban]

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Was it not off a turnover?

It was. George played a lineout over the top to a centre 3 or 4 times very effectively (for instance to Farrell for Price’s try). On this occasion the flanker read it and took the ball ahead of Farrell. Adams didn’t manage to attempt a tackle (poor defence?) and he was off. Hogg was on the other wing and covered diagonally across the field to make the tackle.

All the chat with Duhan’s game and it’s interesting to see the difference in rhetoric with Adams. He scored 4 tries, but didn’t come off his wing much and had awful positioning for their second try where he didn’t get near. He also didn’t cover back in the aforementioned Hogg incident despite being less than a metre away when the intercept was made. I think he should be a test wing, but surely the critique of his game should be the same as with Duhan.

Yeah, you’d think.

Scoring four tries is quite the achievement, and if he plays in the Tests then fair enough, but if the tries were laid on a plate for you…

[JM2K6]

Just seen Hogg’s try-saving tackle. Doubt anyone will be questioning his defence.

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Don't think he was - it was just a good break from the flanker but Hogg covered well. I thought Hogg was excellent and noticed him up as supporting runner with almost every try that Adams scored. He revelled in the captain role and looked threatening all game. Price was very good, Russell as others say was typical Russell but directed the attack all game and made space for others, Watson superb despite being too small, Harris looked made for the 13 spot and defensively was rock solid.

I thought a few players played themselves out of a Test spot. Hill was his usual brainless self, George looked unfit and the front row as a unit didn't do much in the scrum, Falatau was cumbersome at best, Farrell was useless and I can't see a spot for him in the team and Rees Zammit was pretty quiet and ineffective.

It will be interesting to see the next selection as you might expect to see different combinations emerge.

I fear you are going to be bitterly disappointed if you think anyone played themselves out of a Test spot. Farrell and Faletau were poor but Gatland loves them, and you're over-egging the rest (particularly with LRZ given he scored a lovely try, and Sinckler given how heavily involved he was around the park - loads of metres, lots of passing and offloading, and excellent defence). Hill's discipline was awful again but Gatland seemed to like what he saw.

[Big D]

Miles out of position to start with?
Good move by Gatland to give him the armband for this match though, certainly helped with his confidence.

Don't think he was - it was just a good break from the flanker but Hogg covered well. I thought Hogg was excellent and noticed him up as supporting runner with almost every try that Adams scored. He revelled in the captain role and looked threatening all game. Price was very good, Russell as others say was typical Russell but directed the attack all game and made space for others, Watson superb despite being too small, Harris looked made for the 13 spot and defensively was rock solid.

I thought a few players played themselves out of a Test spot. Hill was his usual brainless self, George looked unfit and the front row as a unit didn't do much in the scrum, Falatau was cumbersome at best, Farrell was useless and I can't see a spot for him in the team and Rees Zammit was pretty quiet and ineffective.

It will be interesting to see the next selection as you might expect to see different combinations emerge.

I fear you are going to be bitterly disappointed if you think anyone played themselves out of a Test spot. Farrell and Faletau were poor but Gatland loves them, and you're over-egging the rest (particularly with LRZ given he scored a lovely try, and Sinckler given how heavily involved he was around the park - loads of metres, lots of passing and offloading, and excellent defence). Hill's discipline was awful again but Gatland seemed to like what he saw.

I like Sinckler and I do think he'll take the Test bench spot but you are over selling 4 passes, an offload and 13m from 6 carries. All the front row had 3 or 4 passes.

[JM2K6]

Don't think he was - it was just a good break from the flanker but Hogg covered well. I thought Hogg was excellent and noticed him up as supporting runner with almost every try that Adams scored. He revelled in the captain role and looked threatening all game. Price was very good, Russell as others say was typical Russell but directed the attack all game and made space for others, Watson superb despite being too small, Harris looked made for the 13 spot and defensively was rock solid.

I thought a few players played themselves out of a Test spot. Hill was his usual brainless self, George looked unfit and the front row as a unit didn't do much in the scrum, Falatau was cumbersome at best, Farrell was useless and I can't see a spot for him in the team and Rees Zammit was pretty quiet and ineffective.

It will be interesting to see the next selection as you might expect to see different combinations emerge.

I fear you are going to be bitterly disappointed if you think anyone played themselves out of a Test spot. Farrell and Faletau were poor but Gatland loves them, and you're over-egging the rest (particularly with LRZ given he scored a lovely try, and Sinckler given how heavily involved he was around the park - loads of metres, lots of passing and offloading, and excellent defence). Hill's discipline was awful again but Gatland seemed to like what he saw.

I like Sinckler and I do think he'll take the Test bench spot but you are over selling 4 passes, an offload and 13m from 6 carries. All the front row had 3 or 4 passes.

Well, going by the official stats, it's 5 passes, 2 offloads, 23 metres from 6 carries, 12 tackes with none missed.

Wyn Jones: 3 passes. 5m from 2 carries, 9/1
George: 4m from 3, 4 passes, 13/1.

Big difference, sorry.

[Big D]

I fear you are going to be bitterly disappointed if you think anyone played themselves out of a Test spot. Farrell and Faletau were poor but Gatland loves them, and you're over-egging the rest (particularly with LRZ given he scored a lovely try, and Sinckler given how heavily involved he was around the park - loads of metres, lots of passing and offloading, and excellent defence). Hill's discipline was awful again but Gatland seemed to like what he saw.

I like Sinckler and I do think he'll take the Test bench spot but you are over selling 4 passes, an offload and 13m from 6 carries. All the front row had 3 or 4 passes.

Well, going by the official stats, it's 5 passes, 2 offloads, 23 metres from 6 carries, 12 tackes with none missed.

Wyn Jones: 3 passes. 5m from 2 carries, 9/1
George: 4m from 3, 4 passes, 13/1.

Big difference, sorry.

Hadn't seen the official stats. Big difference in metres made but the rest are broadly in line. On a separate note I thought Jones was pretty poor on Saturday in general. They barely made a dent on the SA Lions scrum and their scrum isn't that strong.

Sincklers skills and impact off the bench will probably see him on the Test bench but across the whole team the thoughts on the performance needs to be tempered as it was against the worst SA side. That includes those of us inking Watson and Hogg into the test team. Some players took a step forward but each game left on tour will be a far greater test than the one on Saturday.

[dpedin]

I like Sinckler and I do think he'll take the Test bench spot but you are over selling 4 passes, an offload and 13m from 6 carries. All the front row had 3 or 4 passes.

Well, going by the official stats, it's 5 passes, 2 offloads, 23 metres from 6 carries, 12 tackes with none missed.

Wyn Jones: 3 passes. 5m from 2 carries, 9/1
George: 4m from 3, 4 passes, 13/1.

Big difference, sorry.

Hadn't seen the official stats. Big difference in metres made but the rest are broadly in line. On a separate note I thought Jones was pretty poor on Saturday in general. They barely made a dent on the SA Lions scrum and their scrum isn't that strong.

Sincklers skills and impact off the bench will probably see him on the Test bench but across the whole team the thoughts on the performance needs to be tempered as it was against the worst SA side. That includes those of us inking Watson and Hogg into the test team. Some players took a step forward but each game left on tour will be a far greater test than the one on Saturday.

I don't disagree about Sinkler in the loose but my previous comment was the front row didn't do much against a weak opposition front row. I think Sinkler is the weakest scrummager of the 3 THs on Tour and was the reason why he wasn't selected in the first place. The SA test front row, and their bench, will be a very strong scrummaging unit and Gatland will not want to be conceding too many scrum penalties in the tests which is why I think he will be looking to Furlong and then Fagerson to lock out the TH position as a priority in the tests - anything they do in the loose beyond their core tasks ie lifting, clearing out, etc will be a bonus.

[JM2K6]

Sinckler isn't 2019 Dan Cole, though. He's a good scrummager and a very powerful bloke. I'm not going to argue about Fagerson and I can see why Furlong starting gives you largely the best of both worlds, but my concerns about the Lions scrum at the weekend were largely on the loosehead, and even so they just locked the scrum out in general and didn't go backwards.

Sinckler has his foibles and weaknesses (I pray to fucking god we've seen the last of the early engages which have plagued his career) but we're not talking Mako vs Marler here. If you start from the point of "I don't think he's very good in the scrum" then the weekend's match won't have overturned that, but if it's just a starting point of a blank slate for all the tightheads for the tour then Sinckler did fine and didn't display any scrummaging issues to worry about.

[Slick]

This isn't a comment about who should or shouldn't be playing 7 in the tests, but getting so sick of every journalist still questioning Mish' size. Owen Slot at it again this morning saying we can't make judgements until he comes up against bigger teams etc. FFS, the guy has been doing it for a few years now and has played everyone and never looked out of place. Not to mention he has just won player of the 6N and mOm in the first tour game. Just piss off.

[JM2K6]

What did Slot say? I don't have a Times sub and the paraphrase from google makes it look like he's just praising Watson.

[dpedin]

Sinckler isn't 2019 Dan Cole, though. He's a good scrummager and a very powerful bloke. I'm not going to argue about Fagerson and I can see why Furlong starting gives you largely the best of both worlds, but my concerns about the Lions scrum at the weekend were largely on the loosehead, and even so they just locked the scrum out in general and didn't go backwards.

Sinckler has his foibles and weaknesses (I pray to fucking god we've seen the last of the early engages which have plagued his career) but we're not talking Mako vs Marler here. If you start from the point of "I don't think he's very good in the scrum" then the weekend's match won't have overturned that, but if it's just a starting point of a blank slate for all the tightheads for the tour then Sinckler did fine and didn't display any scrummaging issues to worry about.

I don't disagree about the LH either - Wyn Jones didn't look particularly good in the scrum either. Not sure a Sinkler - Jones prop combination will be able to lock out the scrum in the Tests though. What's your thoughts on why Sinkler wasn't initially selected for the Tour?

[Big D]

Given 6 of our health boards are in the top 10 of covid hotspots I wonder if that'll translate into delaying the grass root game returning?

[Slick]

What did Slot say? I don't have a Times sub and the paraphrase from google makes it look like he's just praising Watson.

He was very complimentary about his performance in that game, Walrus apart, who couldn't be. But like almost all these articles there were the digs about him not being able to do it against other opposition:

The question for Gatland is how closely this display of intensity and physicality will translate into the international arena. Is Watson really likely to be able to leave such a powerful imprint on the Test series?

Watson will not be flattening Springboks en route to the tryline as he did here

Of course the Springboks are going to be better, but he has proven time and time again he can do it at the highest level, why still question it.

[dpedin]

What did Slot say? I don't have a Times sub and the paraphrase from google makes it look like he's just praising Watson.

He was very complimentary about his performance in that game, Walrus apart, who couldn't be. But like almost all these articles there were the digs about him not being able to do it against other opposition:

The question for Gatland is how closely this display of intensity and physicality will translate into the international arena. Is Watson really likely to be able to leave such a powerful imprint on the Test series?

Watson will not be flattening Springboks en route to the tryline as he did here

Of course the Springboks are going to be better, but he has proven time and time again he can do it at the highest level, why still question it.

Cant remember Neil Back being criticised for being too small when playing for Engerrrrrland?

[dpedin]

Given 6 of our health boards are in the top 10 of covid hotspots I wonder if that'll translate into delaying the grass root game returning?

Depends if the vaccination roll out continues at speed? Problem has been getting sufficient supplies of Pfizer/Moderna to meet demand for younger guys but if both teams are full vaccinated then they might decide to go ahead?

[Biffer]

Sinckler isn't 2019 Dan Cole, though. He's a good scrummager and a very powerful bloke. I'm not going to argue about Fagerson and I can see why Furlong starting gives you largely the best of both worlds, but my concerns about the Lions scrum at the weekend were largely on the loosehead, and even so they just locked the scrum out in general and didn't go backwards.

Sinckler has his foibles and weaknesses (I pray to fucking god we've seen the last of the early engages which have plagued his career) but we're not talking Mako vs Marler here. If you start from the point of "I don't think he's very good in the scrum" then the weekend's match won't have overturned that, but if it's just a starting point of a blank slate for all the tightheads for the tour then Sinckler did fine and didn't display any scrummaging issues to worry about.

I'd look at Sutherland and Furlong as props, with either Owens or George at hooker, which is nip and tuck imo. Subs for both props is a close call.

[JM2K6]

Cheers Slick. Seems a bit of a dumb thing to write.

I don't disagree about the LH either - Wyn Jones didn't look particularly good in the scrum either. Not sure a Sinkler - Jones prop combination will be able to lock out the scrum in the Tests though. What's your thoughts on why Sinkler wasn't initially selected for the Tour?

Because he wanted Porter's flexibility, and Sinckler has had patchy fitness this season. Add that to England's overall woes, and, well...

Cant remember Neil Back being criticised for being too small when playing for Engerrrrrland?

He was, actually, quite a lot. Famously he missed out on quite a bit of an England career because the selectors thought he was too small.

Different times, obviously, when players were smaller in general.

[Slick]

Cheers Slick. Seems a bit of a dumb thing to write.

I don't disagree about the LH either - Wyn Jones didn't look particularly good in the scrum either. Not sure a Sinkler - Jones prop combination will be able to lock out the scrum in the Tests though. What's your thoughts on why Sinkler wasn't initially selected for the Tour?

Because he wanted Porter's flexibility, and Sinckler has had patchy fitness this season. Add that to England's overall woes, and, well...

Cant remember Neil Back being criticised for being too small when playing for Engerrrrrland?

He was, actually, quite a lot. Famously he missed out on quite a bit of an England career because the selectors thought he was too small.

Different times, obviously, when players were smaller in general.

Sinkler also had a pretty stinking start to the season, but come Lions selection time he should have been in from the beginning. I don't know enough about the front row to make any really informed comment, but I wouldn't be overly worried if he started, although at this stage I don't think he will.

Re Back, agree he battled for years to get into the team against some very similar and unfair critisism, but once he was there I don't remember any constant sniping.

[JM2K6]

Cheers Slick. Seems a bit of a dumb thing to write.

I don't disagree about the LH either - Wyn Jones didn't look particularly good in the scrum either. Not sure a Sinkler - Jones prop combination will be able to lock out the scrum in the Tests though. What's your thoughts on why Sinkler wasn't initially selected for the Tour?

Because he wanted Porter's flexibility, and Sinckler has had patchy fitness this season. Add that to England's overall woes, and, well...

Cant remember Neil Back being criticised for being too small when playing for Engerrrrrland?

He was, actually, quite a lot. Famously he missed out on quite a bit of an England career because the selectors thought he was too small.

Different times, obviously, when players were smaller in general.

Sinkler also had a pretty stinking start to the season, but come Lions selection time he should have been in from the beginning. I don't know enough about the front row to make any really informed comment, but I wouldn't be overly worried if he started, although at this stage I don't think he will.

Re Back, agree he battled for years to get into the team against some very similar and unfair critisism, but once he was there I don't remember any constant sniping.

Think Back still got some flak in the early days of his international career, but largely he was seen as the "new breed" after the Rowell era of three giant backrowers so was cut some slack. Plus England were pretty dominant - he won like 80% of his England games - and Leicester were hugely successful as well, so he was never going to cop too much. I reckon Woodward scared the press a bit too, don't recall much in the way of criticism of individual players rather than the team in general or the coach.

It's strange though, Martyn Williams definitely (and with some justification) was viewed as a bit too small, and there's no end of smaller English 7s who never had an international career because of it. But you only have to watch Watson play for a bit to realise it's a pointless observation. He lacks height, which is not the same thing as being small on a rugby field. The guy's a tank.

[Big D]

Given 6 of our health boards are in the top 10 of covid hotspots I wonder if that'll translate into delaying the grass root game returning?

Depends if the vaccination roll out continues at speed? Problem has been getting sufficient supplies of Pfizer/Moderna to meet demand for younger guys but if both teams are full vaccinated then they might decide to go ahead?

It's the knock on effect though isn't it. How many players in how many squads can be vaccinated in time?

Sticking to the "normal"league structure is great but there could be a lot of issues. Caley 1 sides could be 3 hours into their journey and if be called off due to teams having a late call that players need to isolate. Easy to say that will just be hard luck but in those leagues guys sacrifice shifts and all sorts to play on a Saturday.

Tough thing to manage I guess.

[Yr Alban]

Cheers Slick. Seems a bit of a dumb thing to write.

I don't disagree about the LH either - Wyn Jones didn't look particularly good in the scrum either. Not sure a Sinkler - Jones prop combination will be able to lock out the scrum in the Tests though. What's your thoughts on why Sinkler wasn't initially selected for the Tour?

Because he wanted Porter's flexibility, and Sinckler has had patchy fitness this season. Add that to England's overall woes, and, well...

Cant remember Neil Back being criticised for being too small when playing for Engerrrrrland?

He was, actually, quite a lot. Famously he missed out on quite a bit of an England career because the selectors thought he was too small.

Different times, obviously, when players were smaller in general.

I remember this, TBH. Back was capped years later than he should have been, and it was pretty much all due to his size.

The difference between Back and Watson, of course, is that in Back’s case, the criticism stopped once he started playing Tests. Watson has played against every Tier 1 team in the world and won 6N POTY, and it’s still happening.

[dpedin]

Cheers Slick. Seems a bit of a dumb thing to write.

I don't disagree about the LH either - Wyn Jones didn't look particularly good in the scrum either. Not sure a Sinkler - Jones prop combination will be able to lock out the scrum in the Tests though. What's your thoughts on why Sinkler wasn't initially selected for the Tour?

Because he wanted Porter's flexibility, and Sinckler has had patchy fitness this season. Add that to England's overall woes, and, well...

Cant remember Neil Back being criticised for being too small when playing for Engerrrrrland?

He was, actually, quite a lot. Famously he missed out on quite a bit of an England career because the selectors thought he was too small.

Different times, obviously, when players were smaller in general.

I remember this, TBH. Back was capped years later than he should have been, and it was pretty much all due to his size.

The difference between Back and Watson, of course, is that in Back’s case, the criticism stopped once he started playing Tests. Watson has played against every Tier 1 team in the world and won 6N POTY, and it’s still happening.

Thats' my point! I'm not sure what else Watson needs to do to prove he is big enough to be a top class Test 7?

[charltom]

All this really does is show how many rugby journalists don't commonly watch any rugby beyond the team they support.

It's so embarrassingly obvious that some of them are coming at him from almost no prior knowledge.

[Slick]

All this really does is show how many rugby journalists don't commonly watch any rugby beyond the team they support.

It's so embarrassingly obvious that some of them are coming at him from almost no prior knowledge.

You see it at every 6N from the TV pundits and journalists