The Official Scottish Rugby Thread

[clydecloggie]

Because we're less commercially valuable but a smack in the face for sure

I suppose I forgot about the Welsh TV money.

I'm a bit angry about it though

I also noticed this and to be honest the logic is ludicrous. First and foremost, if the shares owned in the company are the same then who gives a shit about what each does or doesn't bring in, the value of the sold share should be the same.

Secondly, best of luck to France and England if they want to play in a two team league every year, I'm sure it will have the same commercial value as the 6N. The whole point of a tournament is that the value is in having all the games and you cannot sustain the value without all the participants.

I'm honestly gobsmacked this has happened. Look around the world of sport and there are clear examples of a few teams valuing themselves more highly than the rest ruining competitions (Scottish football, Champions League etc.) whereas where revenues are pooled (english Premier League, US sports) the leagues remain more competitive. The RFU and France receiving more will damage the competitiveness of the sport, but the WRU and the IRFU receiving more will probably cause even greater problems.

Maybe something to do with the number of domestic pro teams? Can't really think of another reason why this would make any sense.

[I like neeps]

Because we're less commercially valuable but a smack in the face for sure

I suppose I forgot about the Welsh TV money.

I'm a bit angry about it though

I also noticed this and to be honest the logic is ludicrous. First and foremost, if the shares owned in the company are the same then who gives a shit about what each does or doesn't bring in, the value of the sold share should be the same.

Secondly, best of luck to France and England if they want to play in a two team league every year, I'm sure it will have the same commercial value as the 6N. The whole point of a tournament is that the value is in having all the games and you cannot sustain the value without all the participants.

I'm honestly gobsmacked this has happened. Look around the world of sport and there are clear examples of a few teams valuing themselves more highly than the rest ruining competitions (Scottish football, Champions League etc.) whereas where revenues are pooled (english Premier League, US sports) the leagues remain more competitive. The RFU and France receiving more will damage the competitiveness of the sport, but the WRU and the IRFU receiving more will probably cause even greater problems.

The logic is CVC are buying a percentage of future revenues. Because the FFR, RFU, WRU, IRFU have higher revenues than the SRU their future revenues are forecasted to be higher and therefore more valuable so more expensive now.

[KingBlairhorn]

I suppose I forgot about the Welsh TV money.

I'm a bit angry about it though

I also noticed this and to be honest the logic is ludicrous. First and foremost, if the shares owned in the company are the same then who gives a shit about what each does or doesn't bring in, the value of the sold share should be the same.

Secondly, best of luck to France and England if they want to play in a two team league every year, I'm sure it will have the same commercial value as the 6N. The whole point of a tournament is that the value is in having all the games and you cannot sustain the value without all the participants.

I'm honestly gobsmacked this has happened. Look around the world of sport and there are clear examples of a few teams valuing themselves more highly than the rest ruining competitions (Scottish football, Champions League etc.) whereas where revenues are pooled (english Premier League, US sports) the leagues remain more competitive. The RFU and France receiving more will damage the competitiveness of the sport, but the WRU and the IRFU receiving more will probably cause even greater problems.

The logic is CVC are buying a percentage of future revenues. Because the FFR, RFU, WRU, IRFU have higher revenues than the SRU their future revenues are forecasted to be higher and therefore more valuable so more expensive now.

Are the revenues from the tournament not pooled though? Perhaps they are also purchasing image right and advertising rights etc. which are uneven on top of the pooled TV revenues which are even?

[Slick]

I agree with KingB, it’s just another example of the selfishness and shortsightedness of rugby in general. Give a couple of teams nearly double the cash and you reduce competitiveness across the board and reduce the spectacle, or point.

They have the cheek to mention growing the game in the same breath as saying fixtures will be sold on pay to view channels.

They don’t give a fuck about rugby as a sport, just cash. Fuck the lot of them

[KingBlairhorn]

I agree with KingB, it’s just another example of the selfishness and shortsightedness of rugby in general. Give a couple of teams nearly double the cash and you reduce competitiveness across the board and reduce the spectacle, or point.

They have the cheek to mention growing the game in the same breath as saying fixtures will be sold on pay to view channels.

They don’t give a fuck about rugby as a sport, just cash. Fuck the lot of them

It's the critical thought process of the implications that seems to be beyond sports administrators. You can see the potential for the cash to entrench the existing divisions with France and England pulling away from Ireland and Wales, and Scotland and Italy being left behind at the bottom. So what happens next? Italy are so uncompetitive they are removed from the competition. Scotland go from one win a year to many years with no wins, perennially in the wooden spoon fight. Scotland's commercial revenues dive as fans aren't interested in watching a team lose every year and brands don't want to be associated with it. Eventually Scotland drops out. Now Wales or Ireland is the team that loses almost all their games, they don't have Italy and Scotland to win against every year so they start to hemorrhage fans and sponsors...and so the cycle continues.

A vibrant sport must have lots of competition and as many potential winners as possible, otherwise fans begin to question what the point is in investing considerable sums of money in watching it.

[robmatic]

I agree with KingB, it’s just another example of the selfishness and shortsightedness of rugby in general. Give a couple of teams nearly double the cash and you reduce competitiveness across the board and reduce the spectacle, or point.

They have the cheek to mention growing the game in the same breath as saying fixtures will be sold on pay to view channels.

They don’t give a fuck about rugby as a sport, just cash. Fuck the lot of them

It's the critical thought process of the implications that seems to be beyond sports administrators. You can see the potential for the cash to entrench the existing divisions with France and England pulling away from Ireland and Wales, and Scotland and Italy being left behind at the bottom. So what happens next? Italy are so uncompetitive they are removed from the competition. Scotland go from one win a year to many years with no wins, perennially in the wooden spoon fight. Scotland's commercial revenues dive as fans aren't interested in watching a team lose every year and brands don't want to be associated with it. Eventually Scotland drops out. Now Wales or Ireland is the team that loses almost all their games, they don't have Italy and Scotland to win against every year so they start to hemorrhage fans and sponsors...and so the cycle continues.

A vibrant sport must have lots of competition and as many potential winners as possible, otherwise fans begin to question what the point is in investing considerable sums of money in watching it.

There probably is an element of levelling up though. Yes, England are getting twice as much as Scotland, but the market is clearly more than twice the size - maybe ten times bigger.

[Slick]

I agree with KingB, it’s just another example of the selfishness and shortsightedness of rugby in general. Give a couple of teams nearly double the cash and you reduce competitiveness across the board and reduce the spectacle, or point.

They have the cheek to mention growing the game in the same breath as saying fixtures will be sold on pay to view channels.

They don’t give a fuck about rugby as a sport, just cash. Fuck the lot of them

It's the critical thought process of the implications that seems to be beyond sports administrators. You can see the potential for the cash to entrench the existing divisions with France and England pulling away from Ireland and Wales, and Scotland and Italy being left behind at the bottom. So what happens next? Italy are so uncompetitive they are removed from the competition. Scotland go from one win a year to many years with no wins, perennially in the wooden spoon fight. Scotland's commercial revenues dive as fans aren't interested in watching a team lose every year and brands don't want to be associated with it. Eventually Scotland drops out. Now Wales or Ireland is the team that loses almost all their games, they don't have Italy and Scotland to win against every year so they start to hemorrhage fans and sponsors...and so the cycle continues.

A vibrant sport must have lots of competition and as many potential winners as possible, otherwise fans begin to question what the point is in investing considerable sums of money in watching it.

There probably is an element of levelling up though. Yes, England are getting twice as much as Scotland, but the market is clearly more than twice the size - maybe ten times bigger.

There is zero market without the other 5

Playing Devils Advocate to an extent of course.

[Big D]

Why are we getting less? And less than the fucking IRFU!?

Because we're less commercially valuable but a smack in the face for sure

I suppose I forgot about the Welsh TV money.

I'm a bit angry about it though

I remember a time the SRU literally couldn't give BBC Scotland tour games as they didn't want them. Good times!

It is tough because the mens team is, we believe, important to the 6N. But it is also for the 20's and womans 6N. So there is some value to those sides too as well as the commercial side.

Looking at the figures I don't think the split is too bad. It would have been nice to get a nice even split but it seems to have been done in a sensible manor.

[Slick]

Because we're less commercially valuable but a smack in the face for sure

I suppose I forgot about the Welsh TV money.

I'm a bit angry about it though

I remember a time the SRU literally couldn't give BBC Scotland tour games as they didn't want them. Good times!

It is tough because the mens team is, we believe, important to the 6N. But it is also for the 20's and womans 6N. So there is some value to those sides too as well as the commercial side.

Looking at the figures I don't think the split is too bad. It would have been nice to get a nice even split but it seems to have been done in a sensible manor.

Fuck your calm and considered reply.

Where is Yr Alban, I need him on my side

[Big D]

I suppose I forgot about the Welsh TV money.

I'm a bit angry about it though

I remember a time the SRU literally couldn't give BBC Scotland tour games as they didn't want them. Good times!

It is tough because the mens team is, we believe, important to the 6N. But it is also for the 20's and womans 6N. So there is some value to those sides too as well as the commercial side.

Looking at the figures I don't think the split is too bad. It would have been nice to get a nice even split but it seems to have been done in a sensible manor.

Fuck your calm and considered reply.

Where is Yr Alban, I need him on my side

The positive is that it is 44m over a period of time that can be put to good use.

[Yr Alban]

I suppose I forgot about the Welsh TV money.

I'm a bit angry about it though

I remember a time the SRU literally couldn't give BBC Scotland tour games as they didn't want them. Good times!

It is tough because the mens team is, we believe, important to the 6N. But it is also for the 20's and womans 6N. So there is some value to those sides too as well as the commercial side.

Looking at the figures I don't think the split is too bad. It would have been nice to get a nice even split but it seems to have been done in a sensible manor.

Fuck your calm and considered reply.

Where is Yr Alban, I need him on my side

Er, thanks? I think? Do I have a reputation for being unreasonable?

I do agree with you in that there’s no tournament unless you have all the teams, and to give some unions more money than the others, just because they are larger and more powerful, just makes things more unbalanced and likely to lead to a less competitive competition. And it really burns me that we are getting less than the Welsh and the Irish. However, I’m a Hearts fan. I’m well used to two teams hoovering up all of the cash in the game and then moaning about the quality of the opposition. So I can’t get too wound up about this. You could look at it this way: the grassroots game in Scotland is a lot smaller, so the cash will go further. I really hope that the 3rd pro team is high on the list of how it will be spent though, as we are never going to be competitive in the long term with two.

I stay away from the political thread, because it’s pretty clear what the prevailing opinions on here are, and it’s not worth going there just now. But I do think that if Scotland had control of broadcasting, then we’d be in a much better position. BBC Scotland showing no interest in tour games doesn’t surprise me at all.

[Slick]

Er, thanks? I think? Do I have a reputation for being unreasonable?

Not at all!!

Passionate.

[dkm57]

BBC North Britain, shirley.

[Yr Alban]

Er, thanks? I think? Do I have a reputation for being unreasonable?

Not at all!!

Passionate.

Ah, it’s one of those Yes Minister irregular verbs, like ‘I am an independent thinker, you are an eccentric, he/she is round the twist.’ :D

[Yr Alban]

BBC North Britain, shirley.

Well, quite. Not that the broadcasters are always to blame - the dreadful underselling of Scottish football is entirely down to the rank incompetence of the football authorities.

[KingBlairhorn]

I remember a time the SRU literally couldn't give BBC Scotland tour games as they didn't want them. Good times!

It is tough because the mens team is, we believe, important to the 6N. But it is also for the 20's and womans 6N. So there is some value to those sides too as well as the commercial side.

Looking at the figures I don't think the split is too bad. It would have been nice to get a nice even split but it seems to have been done in a sensible manor.

Fuck your calm and considered reply.

Where is Yr Alban, I need him on my side

Er, thanks? I think? Do I have a reputation for being unreasonable?

I do agree with you in that there’s no tournament unless you have all the teams, and to give some unions more money than the others, just because they are larger and more powerful, just makes things more unbalanced and likely to lead to a less competitive competition. And it really burns me that we are getting less than the Welsh and the Irish. However, I’m a Hearts fan. I’m well used to two teams hoovering up all of the cash in the game and then moaning about the quality of the opposition. So I can’t get too wound up about this. You could look at it this way: the grassroots game in Scotland is a lot smaller, so the cash will go further. I really hope that the 3rd pro team is high on the list of how it will be spent though, as we are never going to be competitive in the long term with two.

I stay away from the political thread, because it’s pretty clear what the prevailing opinions on here are, and it’s not worth going there just now. But I do think that if Scotland had control of broadcasting, then we’d be in a much better position. BBC Scotland showing no interest in tour games doesn’t surprise me at all.

No chance unfortunately. £45m would optimistically pay for 5-7 years of a pro team with somewhat limited resources and then the money would be gone. The reality is we don't even have enough players to fill a 3rd pro team, certainly not a competitive one.

The £45m is not new money as such, it is an advance paydown of future revenues. If we do not spend that £45m on generating new revenue / increasing existing revenue we will have less than we started with. I expect to see plans to increase capacity and particularly corporate hospitality at Murrayfield, possible push forward the hotel plans for site that previously existed and other infrastructure upgrades like concession stands etc. I'd also be unsurprised to see money put into improved pre/post game facilities such as fan-zones so that more of our hard earned filthy lucre goes straight into SRU coffers and not the surrounding pubs.

[Slick]

I think Dodson has already said that a propostion will be going to update Murrayfield, as you say, and a proportion going to the community game, not the pro teams

[Jock42]

No chance unfortunately. £45m would optimistically pay for 5-7 years of a pro team with somewhat limited resources and then the money would be gone. The reality is we don't even have enough players to fill a 3rd pro team, certainly not a competitive one.

It doesn't have to go into funding it entirely though. How much do the 2 pro teams contribute to their own funding? Obviously it would initially be less, considerably so, but I'd rather go and see a development team get pumped than kid myself that it's just another year of building.

[Yr Alban]

No chance unfortunately. £45m would optimistically pay for 5-7 years of a pro team with somewhat limited resources and then the money would be gone. The reality is we don't even have enough players to fill a 3rd pro team, certainly not a competitive one.

It doesn't have to go into funding it entirely though. How much do the 2 pro teams contribute to their own funding? Obviously it would initially be less, considerably so, but I'd rather go and see a development team get pumped than kid myself that it's just another year of building.

I disagree entirely with not having enough players. The issue we face currently is that frequently 2 of our top 3 players in any one position are in direct competition with each other for a shirt at club level - and the junior player won’t necessarily get a start in international windows either, as both may make the squad.

If we want to improve, we need our next generation of players getting game time regularly at the highest level. Yes, even if they’re mostly getting beaten. It’s already been mentioned today that Glasgow’s acquisition of an Argentinian 10 raises the concern that Ross Thompson’s opportunities to get game time may be limited if he is behind the new guy and Weir.

If we have a third team, then signing a NSQ player doesn’t necessarily mean they are blocking the development of someone who is young and SQ. And if you’re playing in the Super 6, bringing over someone from SA or NZ doesn’t mean your chance of a Pro contract has gone.

Yes, there is a risk of spreading our good players too thinly across more teams. But TBH we’ve got a pro club logjam in some positions. The back row glut is being addressed at Embra, but does it really help us if three of the hookers in the current Scotland setup all play for one club?

[Jock42]

I agree we have enough players but not enough to have 3 competitive teams.

[Big D]

BBC North Britain, shirley.

Well, quite. Not that the broadcasters are always to blame - the dreadful underselling of Scottish football is entirely down to the rank incompetence of the football authorities.

That is abundantly clear. Not wanting to veer into football but the SPFL couldn't or wouldn't sell the rights to the SPFL in India. They were delighted that a football club were paying to take it off them. Said football club promptly found a byer no problem. The SPFL and SFA higher ups are bigger wage thief's than their SRU counterparts.

[Big D]

I stay away from the political thread, because it’s pretty clear what the prevailing opinions on here are, and it’s not worth going there just now. But I do think that if Scotland had control of broadcasting, then we’d be in a much better position. BBC Scotland showing no interest in tour games doesn’t surprise me at all.

I am not sure what that is based on though. Would a scots broadcasting company pay for it? They (BBC Scotland) have barely ever supported the SRU in getting rugby on the TV other than games the SRU either gave away (some AIs) or came as a package (the 6N). Over the past decade or so we have had games on the BBC, Sky Sports, Premier Sports, BT Sports (I think), ESPN, C4 (I think), the FIji tourist board etc.

[I like neeps]

I agree we have enough players but not enough to have 3 competitive teams.

Agree - just look at Glasgow and Edinburgh without their internationals and fringe internationals. Both far closer to the bottom than the top.

A third pro team would likely get horsed weekly and make Glasgow and Edinburgh weaker at the same time. But I'm convinced now we prpbably do need that. Cutting the borders was a huge strategic error. An interesting hypothetical is if Dodson and Johnson would have.

[Begbie]

Seeing rumours Hogg might be out

Sounds like they're giving him to the last minute to see if he's fit.

[Slick]

Seeing rumours Hogg might be out

Sounds like they're giving him to the last minute to see if he's fit.

I really hate rugby today

[fishfoodie]

I agree we have enough players but not enough to have 3 competitive teams.

Agree - just look at Glasgow and Edinburgh without their internationals and fringe internationals. Both far closer to the bottom than the top.

A third pro team would likely get horsed weekly and make Glasgow and Edinburgh weaker at the same time. But I'm convinced now we prpbably do need that. Cutting the borders was a huge strategic error. An interesting hypothetical is if Dodson and Johnson would have.

For reference; in 2003 the IRFU tried to close down Connacht. The team was averaging gates of ~600 for games, & running a 4 million deficit. They had no players in the International side; but have a look at some of the names, & some of these players went on to get caps, & if there wasn't a Connacht there; they'd have joined the line in one of the other Provinces; or might have disappeared off to England or France.

SENIORS:
Damien Browne, Fabian Boiroux, Tom Carter, Gavin Duffy, Eric Elwood, Jerry Flannery, Rowan Frost, Chris Keane , Ronan McCormack, Dan McFarland,
Mark McHugh, Martin McPhail, Shane Moore, Wayne Munn, Paul Neville, James Norton, Johnny O’Connor, Dermot O’Sullivan, Eoin Reddan,
Colm Rigney, Ted Robinson, Michael Swift, Marnus Uijs, Michael Walls, Warwick Waugh, Darren Yapp.

DEVELOPMENT PLAYERS: Henry Bourke (21) Irish Schools, Irish U-21s, Irish Students; Wesley Maxwell (19) Irish U-19s; Alan Maher (21) Irish Schools,
Irish U-19s, Irish U-21s; John Muldoon (20) Irish Youths, Irish U-21s; John O’Sullivan (22) Irish U-19, Irish Colleges, Irish U-21s.

CONNACHT COLTS: Oisin Grennan (21) Connacht Schools; Justin Meagher (22) Connacht U-21; Cathal Murphy (21) Irish Youths, Irish U-21;
Ed O’Donoghue (20) Australia U-19; Paddy O’Sullivan (20) Connacht U-21

A 3rd team is somewhere, where you can develop more players, & backroom staff; & also somewhere, where older players, can go to, & keep playing; while also freeing up a spot in the main two teams. If you're expecting it to make you money; you're probably going to be disappointed.

[Yr Alban]

I agree we have enough players but not enough to have 3 competitive teams.

Agree - just look at Glasgow and Edinburgh without their internationals and fringe internationals. Both far closer to the bottom than the top.

A third pro team would likely get horsed weekly and make Glasgow and Edinburgh weaker at the same time. But I'm convinced now we prpbably do need that. Cutting the borders was a huge strategic error. An interesting hypothetical is if Dodson and Johnson would have.

For reference; in 2003 the IRFU tried to close down Connacht. The team was averaging gates of ~600 for games, & running a 4 million deficit. They had no players in the International side; but have a look at some of the names, & some of these players went on to get caps, & if there wasn't a Connacht there; they'd have joined the line in one of the other Provinces; or might have disappeared off to England or France.

SENIORS:
Damien Browne, Fabian Boiroux, Tom Carter, Gavin Duffy, Eric Elwood, Jerry Flannery, Rowan Frost, Chris Keane , Ronan McCormack, Dan McFarland,
Mark McHugh, Martin McPhail, Shane Moore, Wayne Munn, Paul Neville, James Norton, Johnny O’Connor, Dermot O’Sullivan, Eoin Reddan,
Colm Rigney, Ted Robinson, Michael Swift, Marnus Uijs, Michael Walls, Warwick Waugh, Darren Yapp.

DEVELOPMENT PLAYERS: Henry Bourke (21) Irish Schools, Irish U-21s, Irish Students; Wesley Maxwell (19) Irish U-19s; Alan Maher (21) Irish Schools,
Irish U-19s, Irish U-21s; John Muldoon (20) Irish Youths, Irish U-21s; John O’Sullivan (22) Irish U-19, Irish Colleges, Irish U-21s.

CONNACHT COLTS: Oisin Grennan (21) Connacht Schools; Justin Meagher (22) Connacht U-21; Cathal Murphy (21) Irish Youths, Irish U-21;
Ed O’Donoghue (20) Australia U-19; Paddy O’Sullivan (20) Connacht U-21

A 3rd team is somewhere, where you can develop more players, & backroom staff; & also somewhere, where older players, can go to, & keep playing; while also freeing up a spot in the main two teams. If you're expecting it to make you money; you're probably going to be disappointed.

This is my point. It isn’t going to make money, though I think there might be an audience in North & Mids. And yes, it would be a development side as Connacht used to be. But getting another set of players exposed to pro rugby is priceless. Perhaps we don’t have enough home-grown players for three teams, but here’s the thing - we don’t necessarily have to. As I said before, if we have three teams rather than two, having some NSQ players to round out the teams actually becomes a better idea, because they are less likely to be blocking a SQ player’s route to game time. Mata has been a fantastic player for Embra, but the fact that he is clear first choice at No 8, and doesn’t participate in the 6N, means that no SQ No 8 is getting a lot of game time at one of our pro teams.

Concentrating our talent at two teams might be logical, but it isn’t delivering for us at the moment, and it’s resulting in a lot of young players being shunted to the back of the queue. How many starts has Chamberlain had this year? Surely it’s better to have these guys playing and learning, even if it’s in a slightly experimental team? And if Glasgow and Edinburgh are freed from having to incubate all of our talent, and sign a few more NSQ players, they might become more consistent as a result.

[Yr Alban]

Seeing rumours Hogg might be out

Sounds like they're giving him to the last minute to see if he's fit.

I really hate rugby today

I know what you mean, but Maitland is a really solid option at 15.

[Biffer]

Few new faces in the Edinburgh 23 for Connacht.

[Begbie]

Skinner, Craig, CdP and Taylor all named for their clubs tomorrow, so that counts them out for Sunday. Team announcement due soon, I think.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Skinner, Craig, CdP and Taylor all named for their clubs tomorrow, so that counts them out for Sunday. Team announcement due soon, I think.

Disappointed about Skinner. And I guess we'll get Lang & Harris in the midfield again.

[KingBlairhorn]

Skinner, Craig, CdP and Taylor all named for their clubs tomorrow, so that counts them out for Sunday. Team announcement due soon, I think.

Disappointed about Skinner. And I guess we'll get Lang & Harris in the midfield again.

I'd expect Johnson and Harris.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Skinner, Craig, CdP and Taylor all named for their clubs tomorrow, so that counts them out for Sunday. Team announcement due soon, I think.

Disappointed about Skinner. And I guess we'll get Lang & Harris in the midfield again.

I'd expect Johnson and Harris.

Is his form for Glasgow on the up? Genuine question. I'd definitely rather see him at 12 if so. Nothing particular against Lang, but an on-form Johnson is a better attacking prospect.

[Begbie]

15. Stuart Hogg CAPTAIN (Exeter Chiefs) – 82 caps


14. Sean Maitland (Saracens) – 51 caps
13. Chris Harris (Gloucester) – 25 caps
12. Sam Johnson (Glasgow Warriors) – 15 caps
11. Duhan van der Merwe (Edinburgh) – 7 caps

10. Finn Russell VICE CAPTAIN (Racing 92) – 53 caps
9. Ali Price (Glasgow Warriors) – 39 caps

1. Rory Sutherland (Edinburgh) – 13 caps
2. George Turner (Glasgow Warriors) – 14 caps
3. WP Nel (Edinburgh) – 42 caps
4. Scott Cummings (Glasgow Warriors) – 19 caps
5. Jonny Gray (Exeter Chiefs) – 63 caps
6. Jamie Ritchie VICE CAPTAIN (Edinburgh) – 24 caps
7. Hamish Watson (Edinburgh – 38 caps
8. Matt Fagerson (Glasgow Warriors) – 11 caps

Substitutes:
16. David Cherry (Edinburgh) – 2 caps
17. Jamie Bhatti (Bath Rugby) – 16 caps
18. Simon Berghan (Edinburgh) – 28 caps
19. Grant Gilchrist (Edinburgh) – 42 caps
20. Nick Haining (Edinburgh) – 5 caps
21. Scott Steele (Harlequins) – 2 caps
22. Huw Jones (Glasgow Warriors) – 28 caps
23. Darcy Graham (Edinburgh) – 16 caps

[Slick]

That feels a little underwhelming for some reason.

Would definitely have like Skinner on the bench

[KingBlairhorn]

Disappointed about Skinner. And I guess we'll get Lang & Harris in the midfield again.

I'd expect Johnson and Harris.

Is his form for Glasgow on the up? Genuine question. I'd definitely rather see him at 12 if so. Nothing particular against Lang, but an on-form Johnson is a better attacking prospect.

He's been okay. He played well against Leinster in particular, despite the yellow card (which I felt was a poor decision in any case).

[KingBlairhorn]

That feels a little underwhelming for some reason.

Would definitely have like Skinner on the bench

The front row is a big step down from our best across the 23. Otherwise, for me, the 15 looks very solid which is what you want against a relentless Irish side. The bench looks very weak. I wouldn't even have Gilchrist in my Edinburgh 23 right now, let alone benching for Scotland.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

I'd expect Johnson and Harris.

Is his form for Glasgow on the up? Genuine question. I'd definitely rather see him at 12 if so. Nothing particular against Lang, but an on-form Johnson is a better attacking prospect.

He's been okay. He played well against Leinster in particular, despite the yellow card (which I felt was a poor decision in any case).

Cheers

[Soapy]

That feels a little underwhelming for some reason.

Would definitely have like Skinner on the bench

The Challenge - Playing Ireland. Constantly beaten up up front by them. Need to be highly competitive at the breakdown, abrasive, confrontational and have a low penalty count.

The Solution - Bring on Grant Gilchrist after 55 mins ...

[Slick]

That feels a little underwhelming for some reason.

Would definitely have like Skinner on the bench

The front row is a big step down from our best across the 23. Otherwise, for me, the 15 looks very solid which is what you want against a relentless Irish side. The bench looks very weak. I wouldn't even have Gilchrist in my Edinburgh 23 right now, let alone benching for Scotland.

I guess just thinking what's missing. Redpath, Hastings, Skinner, Fagerson, even Taylor.