The Official Scottish Rugby Thread

[Jock42]

Kunavula has re-signed.

[Tichtheid]

Kunavula has re-signed.

I really rate him, I think he is terrific. I wonder if this has any impact or is influenced by Bradbury's situation. I read in the report on the Embra site that both Mesu and Big Bill have "committed their long term futures to the club".

[Jock42]

Kunavula has re-signed.

I really rate him, I think he is terrific. I wonder if this has any impact or is influenced by Bradbury's situation. I read in the report on the Embra site that both Mesu and Big Bill have "committed their long term futures to the club".

Me too. Didn't realise Mata was staying. Adds fuel to Bradbury leaving.

[robmatic]

Kunavula has re-signed.

I really rate him, I think he is terrific. I wonder if this has any impact or is influenced by Bradbury's situation. I read in the report on the Embra site that both Mesu and Big Bill have "committed their long term futures to the club".

He's a good player, I think we've probably under-utilised him so far.

Interesting hint about Big Bill there. I know he's out for a while now, but I think over the course of last season's dreary performances we forgot how good he is.

I reckon Bradbury is away though.

[I like neeps]

Kunavula has re-signed.

I really rate him, I think he is terrific. I wonder if this has any impact or is influenced by Bradbury's situation. I read in the report on the Embra site that both Mesu and Big Bill have "committed their long term futures to the club".

He's a good player, I think we've probably under-utilised him so far.

Interesting hint about Big Bill there. I know he's out for a while now, but I think over the course of last season's dreary performances we forgot how good he is.

I reckon Bradbury is away though.

Kunavula last year in the death spiral of Edinburgh's season was just ridiculous. His game Vs one of the Welsh clubs away (Dragons?) was as good as you'll see from an 8. Muncaster needs minutes though.

It would be a shame after a few years of meh performances to lose Bradbury as he hits form. However, leaving the Edinburgh bubble could be very good for him. Would love to see what Exeter do with him for example.

[Jock42]

I really rate him, I think he is terrific. I wonder if this has any impact or is influenced by Bradbury's situation. I read in the report on the Embra site that both Mesu and Big Bill have "committed their long term futures to the club".

He's a good player, I think we've probably under-utilised him so far.

Interesting hint about Big Bill there. I know he's out for a while now, but I think over the course of last season's dreary performances we forgot how good he is.

I reckon Bradbury is away though.

Kunavula last year in the death spiral of Edinburgh's season was just ridiculous. His game Vs one of the Welsh clubs away (Dragons?) was as good as you'll see from an 8. Muncaster needs minutes though.

It would be a shame after a few years of meh performances to lose Bradbury as he hits form. However, leaving the Edinburgh bubble could be very good for him. Would love to see what Exeter do with him for example.

I'm sure it gets said quite a bit about players leaving but it's good for Scotland for him to move on and bad for Edinburgh

[I like neeps]

He's a good player, I think we've probably under-utilised him so far.

Interesting hint about Big Bill there. I know he's out for a while now, but I think over the course of last season's dreary performances we forgot how good he is.

I reckon Bradbury is away though.

Kunavula last year in the death spiral of Edinburgh's season was just ridiculous. His game Vs one of the Welsh clubs away (Dragons?) was as good as you'll see from an 8. Muncaster needs minutes though.

It would be a shame after a few years of meh performances to lose Bradbury as he hits form. However, leaving the Edinburgh bubble could be very good for him. Would love to see what Exeter do with him for example.

I'm sure it gets said quite a bit about players leaving but it's good for Scotland for him to move on and bad for Edinburgh

I think it's not so bad for Edinburgh if they keep Mata who is better and have Kunavula who is very good and Muncaster who has looked very good also.

It's not like Russell, Hogg, Gray leaving. It's more like Huw Jones leaving.

[Jock42]

Kunavula last year in the death spiral of Edinburgh's season was just ridiculous. His game Vs one of the Welsh clubs away (Dragons?) was as good as you'll see from an 8. Muncaster needs minutes though.

It would be a shame after a few years of meh performances to lose Bradbury as he hits form. However, leaving the Edinburgh bubble could be very good for him. Would love to see what Exeter do with him for example.

I'm sure it gets said quite a bit about players leaving but it's good for Scotland for him to move on and bad for Edinburgh

I think it's not so bad for Edinburgh if they keep Mata who is better and have Kunavula who is very good and Muncaster who has looked very good also.

It's not like Russell, Hogg, Gray leaving. It's more like Huw Jones leaving.

I get your point (although I'd say he's between your 2 metrics normally but with the form he's in just now we'll above Jones) but unless whoever comes in is better it's still a loss.


Who pays for the Scotsman? I've used my free quota.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-un ... by-3545152

[Biffer]

No one’s gonna admit paying for the Scotsman.

[Tichtheid]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-un ... by-3545152

It says Dodson wants a third pro team (Mallinder advocated it), it won't be looked at seriously as an option until sometime between 2025 and 2030.
The SRU want to focus on securing Edinburgh and Glasgow and building on where they are now, with particular mention of Scotstoun, though it doesn't mention specifics in that regard.

[Tichtheid]

No one’s gonna admit paying for the Scotsman.

I had to dodge the ads to read the article, it's Wales Online-esque nowadays

[Jock42]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-un ... by-3545152

It says Dodson wants a third pro team (Mallinder advocated it), it won't be looked at seriously as an option until sometime between 2025 and 2030.
The SRU want to focus on securing Edinburgh and Glasgow and building on where they are now, with particular mention of Scotstoun, though it doesn't mention specifics in that regard.

I was hoping there'd be more substance/planning than that. Sounds like a nothing article.

[robmatic]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-un ... by-3545152

It says Dodson wants a third pro team (Mallinder advocated it), it won't be looked at seriously as an option until sometime between 2025 and 2030.
The SRU want to focus on securing Edinburgh and Glasgow and building on where they are now, with particular mention of Scotstoun, though it doesn't mention specifics in that regard.

I was hoping there'd be more substance/planning than that. Sounds like a nothing article.

Seems like most of the actual content of the interview is also on The Offside Line:

https://www.theoffsideline.com/the-worl ... rk-dodson/

Super 6 will be becoming Super 7.

Sounds like Dodson likes the option of buying a team down south as the third pro outfit after having previously looked at Worcester and Newcastle.

Murrayfield needing an upgrade is on the agenda, which is fair enough. It's definitely dated in comparison to a lot of football stadiums that I've been to.

[Slick]

Has Gordy Reid retiring been mentioned? Seems a good sort

Re Murrayfield, it could probably do with an upgrade but I reckon it’s got a good few more years left in it. I like the kind of traditional feel

[weegie01]

The biggest problem with Murrayfield is that it was built in the days when alcohol was not allowed, and catering / corporate entertaining was less important. It is in effect the last of its generation of stadia in use with the other stadia (bar Italy) having been rebuilt or replaced.

There is a lot that seems possible at Murrayfield. There is the space under the west, north and south stands that could be integrated into the stadium and used for facilities, bars etc. There has been talk of a hotel. The biggest issue seems to be the east stand which would need completely replaced to bring in line with the others and to exploit opportunities.

I think everyone agrees a third team is desirable. But Dodson is spot on that it cannot cannibalise the existing teams. They have to be much more self sustaining than they are now before it can be contemplated. And I am not sure how they achieve that in the size of stadium each has.

[I like neeps]

The biggest problem with Murrayfield is that it was built in the days when alcohol was not allowed, and catering / corporate entertaining was less important. It is in effect the last of its generation of stadia in use with the other stadia (bar Italy) having been rebuilt or replaced.

There is a lot that seems possible at Murrayfield. There is the space under the west, north and south stands that could be integrated into the stadium and used for facilities, bars etc. There has been talk of a hotel. The biggest issue seems to be the east stand which would need completely replaced to bring in line with the others and to exploit opportunities.

I think everyone agrees a third team is desirable. But Dodson is spot on that it cannot cannibalise the existing teams. They have to be much more self sustaining than they are now before it can be contemplated. And I am not sure how they achieve that in the size of stadium each has.

It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?

I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.

[KingBlairhorn]

The biggest problem with Murrayfield is that it was built in the days when alcohol was not allowed, and catering / corporate entertaining was less important. It is in effect the last of its generation of stadia in use with the other stadia (bar Italy) having been rebuilt or replaced.

There is a lot that seems possible at Murrayfield. There is the space under the west, north and south stands that could be integrated into the stadium and used for facilities, bars etc. There has been talk of a hotel. The biggest issue seems to be the east stand which would need completely replaced to bring in line with the others and to exploit opportunities.

I think everyone agrees a third team is desirable. But Dodson is spot on that it cannot cannibalise the existing teams. They have to be much more self sustaining than they are now before it can be contemplated. And I am not sure how they achieve that in the size of stadium each has.

It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?

I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.

I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.

For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.

[Slick]

The biggest problem with Murrayfield is that it was built in the days when alcohol was not allowed, and catering / corporate entertaining was less important. It is in effect the last of its generation of stadia in use with the other stadia (bar Italy) having been rebuilt or replaced.

There is a lot that seems possible at Murrayfield. There is the space under the west, north and south stands that could be integrated into the stadium and used for facilities, bars etc. There has been talk of a hotel. The biggest issue seems to be the east stand which would need completely replaced to bring in line with the others and to exploit opportunities.

I think everyone agrees a third team is desirable. But Dodson is spot on that it cannot cannibalise the existing teams. They have to be much more self sustaining than they are now before it can be contemplated. And I am not sure how they achieve that in the size of stadium each has.

It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?

I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.

I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.

For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.

That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.

Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything

[sockwithaticket]

It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?

I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.

I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.

For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.

That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.

Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything

If rugby has a low profile why would anyone book these guys? If they were booked do you really think they're entertaining or charismatic enough to encourage someone to check out rugby? Down the years I've ended up catching interviews with tennis players and cricketeers and it's never motivated me to pay more attention to those sports.

Yesterday I caught up with the Good, Bad and Rugby episode with Mark Evans and Brett Gosper (really interesting to hear from them if you can stomach Haskell's occasional nonsense interruptions that often get slapped down as the know nothing bollocks it is) and Alex Payne raised a point I've heard other journos make about using individuals to drive interest in the sport, but I think that's arse about face. You can be a name within the sport and still be a nobody outside of it. Stars and personalities tend to drive internal interest rather than external.

[robmatic]

It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?

I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.

I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.

For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.

That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.

Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything

Part of the problem is that the Scottish media and the Scottish public are very focused on football, no matter what is happening or not happening in Scottish rugby. Also, there might be some world class Scottish players but the national team hasn't won anything in a generation so is hardly demanding broader attention. Scotland winning the 6 Nations would change that, I reckon, but you're still only talking about two month-long periods in the year when the team is getting media coverage.

The pro teams are capable of getting bums on seats and column inches throughout the season and I would suggest are more accessible to a wider audience than the club game, which definitely has a social niche. As a comprehensively educated young man, I was able to start following Edinburgh and eventually get season tickets etc. without feeling out of place.

[weegie01]

As a comprehensively educated young man, I was able to start following Edinburgh and eventually get season tickets etc. without feeling out of place.

I was quite extensively educated as well, but I don't feel the need to tell folk.

[I like neeps]

It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?

I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.

I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.

For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.

That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.

Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything

I agree. Edinburgh is the rugby hub of Scotland. Private schools dominate obviously but Muir, Currie etc are really strong clubs. Their pro team attendance is tiny.

Glasgow I'd like to see the figures in people playing in Glasgow compared to average.

A strong national team gets rugby in the public consciousness as that does drive news stories. Who wants to associate with a loser. The Scottish national football team had this problem for a long time as well.

But what we need is more clubs like Ayr, Stirling, Boroughmuir, Currie. And to bring back the rivalries in the borders.

[Jock42]

As a comprehensively educated young man, I was able to start following Edinburgh and eventually get season tickets etc. without feeling out of place.

I was quite extensively educated as well, but I don't feel the need to tell folk.

Somebody needs to fill the globus void

[robmatic]

As a comprehensively educated young man, I was able to start following Edinburgh and eventually get season tickets etc. without feeling out of place.

I was quite extensively educated as well, but I don't feel the need to tell folk.

Fair play

[Biffer]

I saw some images in an SRU report a number of years ago where the East stand had been replaced, height raised to above the level of the other stands to accommodate additional corporate boxes etc, and the bank behind it removed for lower entry points and more facilities.

[Slick]

I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.

For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.

That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.

Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything

If rugby has a low profile why would anyone book these guys? If they were booked do you really think they're entertaining or charismatic enough to encourage someone to check out rugby? Down the years I've ended up catching interviews with tennis players and cricketeers and it's never motivated me to pay more attention to those sports.

Yesterday I caught up with the Good, Bad and Rugby episode with Mark Evans and Brett Gosper (really interesting to hear from them if you can stomach Haskell's occasional nonsense interruptions that often get slapped down as the know nothing bollocks it is) and Alex Payne raised a point I've heard other journos make about using individuals to drive interest in the sport, but I think that's arse about face. You can be a name within the sport and still be a nobody outside of it. Stars and personalities tend to drive internal interest rather than external.

I think it’s quite a different situation in Scotland due to size. A Scot winning something on the international stage, in anything, will get at least some coverage, rugby just doesn’t seem able to sustain it.

Obviously football is number 1 by a mile, but we have at the moment a pretty successful international rugby team, playing great rugby, and I just find it frustrating that it doesn’t seem to translate to air time. There must be a way of doing better

[I like neeps]

We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.

You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.

[Slick]

We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.

You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.

We beat England regularly. That used to be enough. We’ve changed

[I like neeps]

We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.

You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.

We beat England regularly. That used to be enough. We’ve changed

More than good enough for me!

But not sure if it attracts the wider interest.

[Jock42]

We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.

You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.

We beat England regularly. That used to be enough. We’ve changed

Maybe we're maturing as a nation. Probably not mind, more likely people just don't care. How much if an upsurge in tennis was there and has it been sustained? Scotland just doesn't really care about sport outside of football to much degree and even then its mostly old firm, Saints won 2 cups (only 4th team to do that) and still nobody in Perth cares*.


*I fall into that category of very casual supporter too so don't take this as me holding any moral high ground.

[KingBlairhorn]

It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?

I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.

I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.

For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.

That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.

Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything

I suppose its chicken and egg, but one certainly begets the other. I suppose my reference point is always Ireland as I think they are in most respects the nation most similar to us and their outcomes are so different. Of course the comparison is hugely complex as they are also in many respects quire different, but in my opinion the thing that really drove their success was successful pro teams. Every single year their teams were winning things, be in the league or in Europe. That created a high performance environment for players in which they expected to win in every game they played, but it also generated headlines and interest. At the end of the day, nothing brings in punters more than winning. That in turn led to international success and it has now become self-sustaining. That has to be our aim too - whether pro team investment or something else is that way to achieve that is almost impossible to say.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Redpath & Jones both named in starting 15s for Bath & Quins this evening. Hope Redpath goes well, wonder if he's up to speed enough to feature in the 6 nations. Hard to tell what form he's was in against Leinster last weekend given Bath were completely taken apart.

Bayliss not named, so assume he's recovering from his head knock, so may not be available for the Calcutta Cup.

[Jock42]

Bayliss not named, so assume he's recovering from his head knock, so may not be available for the Calcutta Cup.

Thistle rugby guys gave that as the reason

[Yr Alban]

I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.

For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.

That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.

Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything

I suppose its chicken and egg, but one certainly begets the other. I suppose my reference point is always Ireland as I think they are in most respects the nation most similar to us and their outcomes are so different. Of course the comparison is hugely complex as they are also in many respects quire different, but in my opinion the thing that really drove their success was successful pro teams. Every single year their teams were winning things, be in the league or in Europe. That created a high performance environment for players in which they expected to win in every game they played, but it also generated headlines and interest. At the end of the day, nothing brings in punters more than winning. That in turn led to international success and it has now become self-sustaining. That has to be our aim too - whether pro team investment or something else is that way to achieve that is almost impossible to say.

Ireland had, well, the luck of the Irish. When the game went pro, the SRU were skint from rebuilding Murrayfield. Ireland had dragged their heels and were in a better position to fund the pro game. Also, rugby didn’t have to compete with any other professional sport in Ireland.

[Jock42]

Nice break from Redpath there, making a good 39-40m but puts a little too much on the kick

[Begbie]

[KingBlairhorn]

That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.

Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything

I suppose its chicken and egg, but one certainly begets the other. I suppose my reference point is always Ireland as I think they are in most respects the nation most similar to us and their outcomes are so different. Of course the comparison is hugely complex as they are also in many respects quire different, but in my opinion the thing that really drove their success was successful pro teams. Every single year their teams were winning things, be in the league or in Europe. That created a high performance environment for players in which they expected to win in every game they played, but it also generated headlines and interest. At the end of the day, nothing brings in punters more than winning. That in turn led to international success and it has now become self-sustaining. That has to be our aim too - whether pro team investment or something else is that way to achieve that is almost impossible to say.

Ireland had, well, the luck of the Irish. When the game went pro, the SRU were skint from rebuilding Murrayfield. Ireland had dragged their heels and were in a better position to fund the pro game. Also, rugby didn’t have to compete with any other professional sport in Ireland.

I know all that; they also have no professional sport with a successful (internationally) league and were going through the Celtic Tiger growth stage so were awash with people with loads of disposable income (and many other reasons).

None of that is really anything but tangential to the point I am making though, which you have also made, which is that the Irish growth was led by and sustained by pro team success. The starting question was how do we grow the game here, is it by funding a small number of pro teams for success or a large number for a broad international team player base. I think it is the former, but there are also strong arguments as per Slick’s post for the latter.

[I like neeps]

We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.

You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.

We beat England regularly. That used to be enough. We’ve changed

Maybe we're maturing as a nation. Probably not mind, more likely people just don't care. How much if an upsurge in tennis was there and has it been sustained? Scotland just doesn't really care about sport outside of football to much degree and even then its mostly old firm, Saints won 2 cups (only 4th team to do that) and still nobody in Perth cares*.


*I fall into that category of very casual supporter too so don't take this as me holding any moral high ground.

Winning two trophies for St Johnstone is a terrific terrific achievement. However, both were in empty grounds, with all pubs totally empty, and no parade for civic pride. And now they're down the bottom again. Winning trophies is all the days before and after as a shared experience of anticipation and joy/disappointment and the memories that remain. It's never going to change At Johnstone into the beating heart of Perth for any longer than they sustain an unsustainable level.

People care about football in Scotland because it's communal. Your dad supports a club and watches games, he then takes you to a club and you play. You play with your friends and you can play anywhere you only need a ball. Then you play FIFA and you have the world's most successful sports league down the road.

Rugby here has none of that. Professional football in Scotland is a bit whatever. Attendances per capita are actually very good. But footballs popularity isn't driven by the pro game. It's driven because football is one of the few communities we still have. I think it's why clubs in the borders were so strong and clubs like Stirling still are for rugby. You play because your mates play and your dad was involved. Not because you want to be Stuart Hogg. If you read player interviews in any sport it's always "how did you get into rugby?" "My mates played/my dad took me to a club". It's never "really liked the pro game".

[KingBlairhorn]

They huffed and puffed at times, but in the end a good win for Glasgow at the sportsground. I thought Horne played the best he has in some time, and Ollie Smith was very good at 15. Other notable good performances from Steyn, Tuipolotu and McLean.

It wasn’t his worst game, but kiran McDonald just isn’t a great player. Glasgow really need better as a frontline player.

[KingBlairhorn]

Also, very good to hear strong words in captaincy from Brown. There was a head clash that caused Kebble to leave the field, possibly with concussion.

Despite the Connacht player hitting the contact area completely upright the ref saw nothing wrong. It was definitely completely accidental, but Brown said something along the lines “I don’t care if it was accidental, that’s not how the framework works”. He was absolutely right and the ref should know that. Accidental or not, it was a head on head clash with minimal mitigation. If you don’t want it to happen, tackle low. In previous years/games the Scottish player would meekly accept the decision and say nothing.