The Official Scottish Rugby Thread

[KingBlairhorn]

What is our supposed attack coach doing? It certainly isn't about attacking

Can’t say I agree with this. We should have scored 5 or 6 tries today and we’re millimetres from the line repeatedly. To get that close our attack must have been doing something right. They looked very dangerous and the attack looked very effective, apart from the finish.

The Hogg two on one where he didn’t pass, the Graham finish where his foot was in touch, the double roll from Richie an inch from the line etc. where is an attack coach supposed to be stopping those things?

[KingBlairhorn]

Our pick and go play on attacking positions is just embarrassing, totally ineffective.

I thought we played some of the most effective rugby for a couple of years for 50 minutes, but the lack of finishing is just pathetic and what the fuck is the point of having Tuipolotu outside Finn.

This i agree with though. Our pick and go play is not good enough or at least not at the level of the true heavyweights.

[I like neeps]

What is our supposed attack coach doing? It certainly isn't about attacking

Can’t say I agree with this. We should have scored 5 or 6 tries today and we’re millimetres from the line repeatedly. To get that close our attack must have been doing something right. They looked very dangerous and the attack looked very effective, apart from the finish.

The Hogg two on one where he didn’t pass, the Graham finish where his foot was in touch, the double roll from Richie an inch from the line etc. where is an attack coach supposed to be stopping those things?

I don't think the attack was actually very good, there was a few nice lines from Hogg, a good bit of determination from vdm and Graham and a few nice touches from Russell as expected. But what's Scotland's attacking gameplan? Where was the imagination? Where were the intricate strike plays expect the Brown to Graham balls up?

[Yr Alban]

I am in a pit of gloom right now, but I’m wondering if that was the worst possible outcome of this game. We lose narrowly, in an immensely painful manner, and with enough missed chances to guarantee that it will still sting years down the track. But because it was a narrow loss, Toony and the SRU will take it as a vindication of his selections and his methods, and even though we performed above expectations today, I remain firmly of the belief that he is holding this team back.

Somehow a 20 or 30 point drubbing would be easier to shrug off.

[Slick]

Just finished watching on catch up and I’m exhausted and the kids aren’t speaking to me.

What a difference a Fin makes. He was controlling absolutely everything and every player was looking for their cues from him, without doing anything flash I thought that was a masterclass from him today.

I really wish we would move it a bit wider when we are trying to bash away on the line, even if it’s just to another forward cutting a line, but even better to one of our back 3 ffs. We must have left 10+ tries on the line over the summer and autumn tests by bashing away and losing the ball/penalty.

Thought our front rows was excellent today and not sure why they took Zander off when he was still effective. Hogg was good going forward - he had absolutely to other choice in the Darcy one and did brilliantly to keep it alive - but his defence was really poor. I’d love Duham to just consider a pass every now and then but can hardly complain.

Ref was just bizzare. To both sides really. But the switch of momentum was around that really fucking weird knock on he called with Hogg.

Anyway, so much better but same old frailties when it came to the crunch

[Slick]

On another note, see how Beauden was taking the halftime tactics talk with the team and the man of the match guy went on in his interview about the team looking for him and trusting him on the pitch - that’s the kind of authority Toony needs to give Fin, pain in the arse or not

[vball]

I wonder if the players are given some training on post match interviews .... the NZ MoM used so many cliches he must have been. It looked like hardly any of the words were his own thoughts ...

[Blackmac]

Just finished watching on catch up and I’m exhausted and the kids aren’t speaking to me.

What a difference a Fin makes. He was controlling absolutely everything and every player was looking for their cues from him, without doing anything flash I thought that was a masterclass from him today.

I really wish we would move it a bit wider when we are trying to bash away on the line, even if it’s just to another forward cutting a line, but even better to one of our back 3 ffs. We must have left 10+ tries on the line over the summer and autumn tests by bashing away and losing the ball/penalty.

Thought our front rows was excellent today and not sure why they took Zander off when he was still effective. Hogg was good going forward - he had absolutely to other choice in the Darcy one and did brilliantly to keep it alive - but his defence was really poor. I’d love Duham to just consider a pass every now and then but can hardly complain.

Ref was just bizzare. To both sides really. But the switch of momentum was around that really fucking weird knock on he called with Hogg.

Anyway, so much better but same old frailties when it came to the crunch

I was equally annoyed at the boring in call against WP. It was just so wrong and so obviously wrong to any one with any knowledge of scrummaging. If refs have so little insight don't make crucial calls on a bloody hunch.

[Achahoish]

On another note, see how Beauden was taking the halftime tactics talk with the team and the man of the match guy went on in his interview about the team looking for him and trusting him on the pitch - that’s the kind of authority Toony needs to give Fin, pain in the arse or not

This

[Tichtheid]

Just finished watching on catch up and I’m exhausted and the kids aren’t speaking to me.

What a difference a Fin makes. He was controlling absolutely everything and every player was looking for their cues from him, without doing anything flash I thought that was a masterclass from him today.

I really wish we would move it a bit wider when we are trying to bash away on the line, even if it’s just to another forward cutting a line, but even better to one of our back 3 ffs. We must have left 10+ tries on the line over the summer and autumn tests by bashing away and losing the ball/penalty.

Thought our front rows was excellent today and not sure why they took Zander off when he was still effective. Hogg was good going forward - he had absolutely to other choice in the Darcy one and did brilliantly to keep it alive - but his defence was really poor. I’d love Duham to just consider a pass every now and then but can hardly complain.

Ref was just bizzare. To both sides really. But the switch of momentum was around that really fucking weird knock on he called with Hogg.

Anyway, so much better but same old frailties when it came to the crunch

I was equally annoyed at the boring in call against WP. It was just so wrong and so obviously wrong to any one with any knowledge of scrummaging. If refs have so little insight don't make crucial calls on a bloody hunch.

There was an academic paper published a few years ago that looked at the phenomenon of "Homer" or "Big Team"refereeing in all sports and rugby was one of them. They went through years and years worth of data.
The statistics overwhelmingly suggest what fans see all the time, that this is real, it's not just paranoia or sour grapes.

In rugby it's particularly bad, the games is often refereed subjectively, the referees, pundits and media all talk about "presenting a good picture" as opposed to actually keeping within the laws

[I like neeps]

Just finished watching on catch up and I’m exhausted and the kids aren’t speaking to me.

What a difference a Fin makes. He was controlling absolutely everything and every player was looking for their cues from him, without doing anything flash I thought that was a masterclass from him today.

I really wish we would move it a bit wider when we are trying to bash away on the line, even if it’s just to another forward cutting a line, but even better to one of our back 3 ffs. We must have left 10+ tries on the line over the summer and autumn tests by bashing away and losing the ball/penalty.

Thought our front rows was excellent today and not sure why they took Zander off when he was still effective. Hogg was good going forward - he had absolutely to other choice in the Darcy one and did brilliantly to keep it alive - but his defence was really poor. I’d love Duham to just consider a pass every now and then but can hardly complain.

Ref was just bizzare. To both sides really. But the switch of momentum was around that really fucking weird knock on he called with Hogg.

Anyway, so much better but same old frailties when it came to the crunch

I was equally annoyed at the boring in call against WP. It was just so wrong and so obviously wrong to any one with any knowledge of scrummaging. If refs have so little insight don't make crucial calls on a bloody hunch.

There was an academic paper published a few years ago that looked at the phenomenon of "Homer" or "Big Team"refereeing in all sports and rugby was one of them. They went through years and years worth of data.
The statistics overwhelmingly suggest what fans see all the time, that this is real, it's not just paranoia or sour grapes.

In rugby it's particularly bad, the games is often refereed subjectively, the referees, pundits and media all talk about "presenting a good picture" as opposed to actually keeping within the laws

Do you have a link to the paper?

How on earth is any referee with a human referee not being referred subjectively? Very interested in the methodology here.

[Tichtheid]

I was equally annoyed at the boring in call against WP. It was just so wrong and so obviously wrong to any one with any knowledge of scrummaging. If refs have so little insight don't make crucial calls on a bloody hunch.

There was an academic paper published a few years ago that looked at the phenomenon of "Homer" or "Big Team"refereeing in all sports and rugby was one of them. They went through years and years worth of data.
The statistics overwhelmingly suggest what fans see all the time, that this is real, it's not just paranoia or sour grapes.

In rugby it's particularly bad, the games is often refereed subjectively, the referees, pundits and media all talk about "presenting a good picture" as opposed to actually keeping within the laws

Do you have a link to the paper?

How on earth is any referee with a human referee not being referred subjectively? Very interested in the methodology here.

I don't, I read it a couple of years ago. Google might find it.

As far as I remember it looked at thousands of decisions made in sports games, but that's about all I remember apart from the very very brief summary I gave

I've just looked at the penalty that Savea won on his own line at the very end of the first half. Brown picks and goes, he is followed by Richie Gray and another Scotland player that I can't identify. Brown is tackled by a Kiwi and there is another defender involved. That's three of ours and two of theirs - the ruck is formed.
Savea comes in over the top and pilfers the ball whilst it is still in the ruck and he gets the penalty.

NZ were sealing off on many rucks but we got pinged for it as Hogg went for the line in the second half.
The scrum penalty against Nel was hilarious, or would have been in another circumstance.


edit, oh and just one more.

I can't remember if it was here on on the Weedgie board I read this but I agree, the "knock on" called against Hogg from a long clearing kick was the start of the momentum shift. There is no way that ball went forward, Murphy was miles away and called it wrong.

We should have buried the game by then, blah blah, yes, but these calls are real.

That's the last I'm going to say on the subject.

[I like neeps]

There was an academic paper published a few years ago that looked at the phenomenon of "Homer" or "Big Team"refereeing in all sports and rugby was one of them. They went through years and years worth of data.
The statistics overwhelmingly suggest what fans see all the time, that this is real, it's not just paranoia or sour grapes.

In rugby it's particularly bad, the games is often refereed subjectively, the referees, pundits and media all talk about "presenting a good picture" as opposed to actually keeping within the laws

Do you have a link to the paper?

How on earth is any referee with a human referee not being referred subjectively? Very interested in the methodology here.

I don't, I read it a couple of years ago. Google might find it.

As far as I remember it looked at thousands of decisions made in sports games, but that's about all I remember apart from the very very brief summary I gave

I've just looked at the penalty that Savea won on his own line at the very end of the first half. Brown picks and goes, he is followed by Richie Gray and another Scotland player that I can't identify. Brown is tackled by a Kiwi and there is another defender involved. That's three of ours and two of theirs - the ruck is formed.
Savea comes in over the top and pilfers the ball whilst it is still in the ruck and he gets the penalty.

NZ were sealing off on many rucks but we got pinged for it as Hogg went for the line in the second half.
The scrum penalty against Nel was hilarious, or would have been in another circumstance.

But how can you look at a decision in rugby and say - the referee made a subjective call and look at a decision in football and say that's an objective? It's just impossible to know what the referee was thinking when they make a decision. Maybe you can say NFL is objective because referees often have a huddle when making calls but idk seems very bizarre somehow deciding some calls are objective in some sports and subjective in others.

Murphy wasn't the reason we lost the game. Our poor attack when NZ were down to 14 was and within the red zone. I'm sure if you watch the game back looking for Scotland infringements you'll find them too. We just don't look for them.

[Tichtheid]

But how can you look at a decision in rugby and say - the referee made a subjective call and look at a decision in football and say that's an objective?

Football is a far far simpler game with far far fewer opportunities for interpretation.

[Ymx]

Listen to yourselves !

Be careful, you are heading down the echo chamber Irish thread route.

I’ll get my coat x

[Tichtheid]

Listen to yourselves !

Be careful, you are heading down the echo chamber Irish thread route.

I’ll get my coat x

I can understand when the fans of the beneficiaries want to dismiss the idea of big team refereeing.

I've seen Scotland get howler decisions in our favour against Italy and others.

We should have won anyway, but we didn't and that is on us. That is a different topic.

[I like neeps]

But how can you look at a decision in rugby and say - the referee made a subjective call and look at a decision in football and say that's an objective?

Football is a far far simpler game with far far fewer opportunities for interpretation.

It's simpler but there's a ridiculous amount of weekly debate about refereeing decisions because it's all subjective? It's frankly off-putting. I want to hear about tactics and players not Steven Thompson and Kris Boyd squinting at a terrible camera angle talking about the referee.

Watching American Football now and the refs here just guess too. I guess it's less subjective as the refs sometimes huddle.

[Yr Alban]

But how can you look at a decision in rugby and say - the referee made a subjective call and look at a decision in football and say that's an objective?

Football is a far far simpler game with far far fewer opportunities for interpretation.

Scottish football is an utter mess at the moment after the introduction of VAR. Multiple moments of controversy in every single game.

[Tichtheid]

But how can you look at a decision in rugby and say - the referee made a subjective call and look at a decision in football and say that's an objective?

Football is a far far simpler game with far far fewer opportunities for interpretation.

It's simpler but there's a ridiculous amount of weekly debate about refereeing decisions because it's all subjective? It's frankly off-putting. I want to hear about tactics and players not Steven Thompson and Kris Boyd squinting at a terrible camera angle talking about the referee.

Watching American Football now and the refs here just guess too. I guess it's less subjective as the refs sometimes huddle.

It's part of being a sports fan.

Personally I don't let it get to me for longer than immediately after or an hour or so after then game, but it is a real thing. We can choose to bury our heads in the sand about it, it won't make it go away.

I'm sure Cardiff fans had a completely different view of the their game against Edinburgh the other week than how I viewed it. We got a lot of decisions in our favour in that game.

I'm already over today, I'm not letting it upset me, but it is there.

To be honest when I review games in the cold light of the next day or two I usually see that the referees are usually either right or it's marginal, but the ones I've mentioned already are ones I've looked at several times this evening.

It's done and dusted, the important thing is that we win next week, that is really very important now.

[Tichtheid]

But how can you look at a decision in rugby and say - the referee made a subjective call and look at a decision in football and say that's an objective?

Football is a far far simpler game with far far fewer opportunities for interpretation.

Scottish football is an utter mess at the moment after the introduction of VAR. Multiple moments of controversy in every single game.

So I've heard, I haven't watched Scottish football for many years.

It's not a great watch

However the sport itself is generally played at pace and with few stoppages, or the free kicks are taken very quickly, that's only possible with a simple game

[mos_eisely_]

Was very tough seeing how much Doddie has physically declined, but very clear how much it meant to him to be at Murrayfield.

Him and the foundation (and Kev Subfield) have done so much for MND research, hopefully they find a cure for this horrific disease

[I like neeps]

Football is a far far simpler game with far far fewer opportunities for interpretation.

Scottish football is an utter mess at the moment after the introduction of VAR. Multiple moments of controversy in every single game.

So I've heard, I haven't watched Scottish football for many years.

It's not a great watch

However the sport itself is generally played at pace and with few stoppages, or the free kicks are taken very quickly, that's only possible with a simple game

I think a lot of the stoppages are the teams slowing it down deliberately. In football when it goes to VAR it takes about 5 minutes. I was watching my team Aberdeen Vs Hibs a few Friday nights ago and the two VAR decisions took 5 minutes. It was mental. And that's not unusual, although they've sped it up from drawing lines on MS Paint now.

In rugby a lot of the stoppages could be stopped if say a lineout wasn't completed in 30 seconds from the ball going out of play it's a penalty for time wasting. Same with scrums. It's not always because the rules are complex. Which they are, I'm not saying otherwise. But then the NFL spends 5 minutes guessing where or when someone's knee is down or what a catch actually is. It's all opinions, it's never objective - which is why I'd want to see the methodology as I'm genuinely interested.

[Jim Lahey]

Hard luck Jocks.

Tbf I gave you's absolutely zero hope at kick off, and obviously even less than that after 7mins, but that was a game that was there for the taking. Hopefully its the type of loss than galvanises the team.

Think the turning point was that knock on from Graham after Brown's pop back inside after the lineout.

To beat NZ you need to score tries. 3 pointers won't do it. I felt when the momentum was in your favour you's shouldve went to the corner and pushed for the try. I get that you's were inefficient from 5 yards out but still, you simply have to go for it against NZ. Another try and NZ have to start forcing things, and given how piss they were between 10-60mins, they may have fucked up again under pressure and you's couldve put them to bed.

On the plus side I thought your pack was excellent, as were the halfbacks and back 3. Just need to solve the 12 and 13 axis.

[clydecloggie]

When you get inches from the line 3-4 times and get pinged every single time, you're not beating NZ. You need to take almost all of your chances against them, and we didn't. So even though they were 9 points ahead after 58 minutes, they were never winning that game. I's funny how not-nervous I was at the time, because it was clear the missed chances would come back to haunt them. The Dempsey yellow that started the rot was a funny one - even though it was probably deliberate, it was still part of a genuine tackle attempt so the yellow was justified and harsh at the same time.

Scotland with Finn is on a different level to Scotland without Finn. Hope that's clear now.

[Blackmac]

When you get inches from the line 3-4 times and get pinged every single time, you're not beating NZ. You need to take almost all of your chances against them, and we didn't. So even though they were 9 points ahead after 58 minutes, they were never winning that game. I's funny how not-nervous I was at the time, because it was clear the missed chances would come back to haunt them. The Dempsey yellow that started the rot was a funny one - even though it was probably deliberate, it was still part of a genuine tackle attempt so the yellow was justified and harsh at the same time.

Scotland with Finn is on a different level to Scotland without Finn. Hope that's clear now.

I thought the Dempsey yellow was very harsh. I've looked at it again and his arms are in a clear tackle position and there is no deviation of his hand towards the ball at all, it is 100% ball to hand. People saying "he looked at the ball" are talking bollocks, of course he did, he is a professional player, of course he has the speed of mind and eye to see that the ball is being passed and watch it, but he certainly did nothing to intercept it.

[I like neeps]

When you get inches from the line 3-4 times and get pinged every single time, you're not beating NZ. You need to take almost all of your chances against them, and we didn't. So even though they were 9 points ahead after 58 minutes, they were never winning that game. I's funny how not-nervous I was at the time, because it was clear the missed chances would come back to haunt them. The Dempsey yellow that started the rot was a funny one - even though it was probably deliberate, it was still part of a genuine tackle attempt so the yellow was justified and harsh at the same time.

Scotland with Finn is on a different level to Scotland without Finn. Hope that's clear now.

I thought the Dempsey yellow was very harsh. I've looked at it again and his arms are in a clear tackle position and there is no deviation of his hand towards the ball at all, it is 100% ball to hand. People saying "he looked at the ball" are talking bollocks, of course he did, he is a professional player, of course he has the speed of mind and eye to see that the ball is being passed and watch it, but he certainly did nothing to intercept it.

The problem for Dempsey is that everytime there's a knock on in the tackle it's given as deliberate as players had been using a tackle attempt as cover for knock ons for a while. It's clearly a directive from above so it's at least consistent with how it's being called these days. And the yellow was because Scotland were under pressure more so than the offence and as NZ were making easy yards to that point and Scotland were on the five it's maybe fair enough to give the yellow if you're calling the knock on which to be fair to Murphy they always do these days.

[Blackmac]

When you get inches from the line 3-4 times and get pinged every single time, you're not beating NZ. You need to take almost all of your chances against them, and we didn't. So even though they were 9 points ahead after 58 minutes, they were never winning that game. I's funny how not-nervous I was at the time, because it was clear the missed chances would come back to haunt them. The Dempsey yellow that started the rot was a funny one - even though it was probably deliberate, it was still part of a genuine tackle attempt so the yellow was justified and harsh at the same time.

Scotland with Finn is on a different level to Scotland without Finn. Hope that's clear now.

I thought the Dempsey yellow was very harsh. I've looked at it again and his arms are in a clear tackle position and there is no deviation of his hand towards the ball at all, it is 100% ball to hand. People saying "he looked at the ball" are talking bollocks, of course he did, he is a professional player, of course he has the speed of mind and eye to see that the ball is being passed and watch it, but he certainly did nothing to intercept it.

The problem for Dempsey is that everytime there's a knock on in the tackle it's given as deliberate as players had been using a tackle attempt as cover for knock ons for a while. It's clearly a directive from above so it's at least consistent with how it's being called these days. And the yellow was because Scotland were under pressure more so than the offence and as NZ were making easy yards to that point and Scotland were on the five it's maybe fair enough to give the yellow if you're calling the knock on which to be fair to Murphy they always do these days.

Overall I didn't think Murphy had too bad a game. He allowed a free for all at the breakdown but after first appearing to favour NZ he gave us a good bit of leeway. There is no doubt that his two biggest errors were the Hogg knock on and the Nel penalty. Both blatantly wrong and both in pretty quick succession killed our momentum in attacking situations

[Slick]

Hard luck Jocks.

Tbf I gave you's absolutely zero hope at kick off, and obviously even less than that after 7mins, but that was a game that was there for the taking. Hopefully its the type of loss than galvanises the team.

Think the turning point was that knock on from Graham after Brown's pop back inside after the lineout.

To beat NZ you need to score tries. 3 pointers won't do it. I felt when the momentum was in your favour you's shouldve went to the corner and pushed for the try. I get that you's were inefficient from 5 yards out but still, you simply have to go for it against NZ. Another try and NZ have to start forcing things, and given how piss they were between 10-60mins, they may have fucked up again under pressure and you's couldve put them to bed.

On the plus side I thought your pack was excellent, as were the halfbacks and back 3. Just need to solve the 12 and 13 axis.

Hi Paddy,

I disagree actually. We scored 23 unanswered points and built a 2 score lead by taking the penalties. If one of the 4 goal line (theirs) penalties we conceded had resulted in a try that would have been 3 scores ahead with 20 minutes to go which I think even we would have held on to.

I actually thought the momentum shift was the awful call for Hoggs "knock on". I've seen quite a bit of criticism of the Brown crap pass to Darcy that led to the knock on but the fact that we went for a move didn't bother me, we have to keep playing in those situations and not go into ourselves. Seems a bit ridiculous to criticise that as being too adventurous and also criticise taking penalty points on offer.

[Big D]

Hard luck Jocks.

Tbf I gave you's absolutely zero hope at kick off, and obviously even less than that after 7mins, but that was a game that was there for the taking. Hopefully its the type of loss than galvanises the team.

Think the turning point was that knock on from Graham after Brown's pop back inside after the lineout.

To beat NZ you need to score tries. 3 pointers won't do it. I felt when the momentum was in your favour you's shouldve went to the corner and pushed for the try. I get that you's were inefficient from 5 yards out but still, you simply have to go for it against NZ. Another try and NZ have to start forcing things, and given how piss they were between 10-60mins, they may have fucked up again under pressure and you's couldve put them to bed.

On the plus side I thought your pack was excellent, as were the halfbacks and back 3. Just need to solve the 12 and 13 axis.

Hi Paddy,

I disagree actually. We scored 23 unanswered points and built a 2 score lead by taking the penalties. If one of the 4 goal line (theirs) penalties we conceded had resulted in a try that would have been 3 scores ahead with 20 minutes to go which I think even we would have held on to.

I actually thought the momentum shift was the awful call for Hoggs "knock on". I've seen quite a bit of criticism of the Brown crap pass to Darcy that led to the knock on but the fact that we went for a move didn't bother me, we have to keep playing in those situations and not go into ourselves. Seems a bit ridiculous to criticise that as being too adventurous and also criticise taking penalty points on offer.

The Brown thing is reading the game situation. At times when the opposition are building momentum it is important to try and take the sting out the game. We just don't do the small things, like understanding game flow well.

[Blackmac]

Hard luck Jocks.

Tbf I gave you's absolutely zero hope at kick off, and obviously even less than that after 7mins, but that was a game that was there for the taking. Hopefully its the type of loss than galvanises the team.

Think the turning point was that knock on from Graham after Brown's pop back inside after the lineout.

To beat NZ you need to score tries. 3 pointers won't do it. I felt when the momentum was in your favour you's shouldve went to the corner and pushed for the try. I get that you's were inefficient from 5 yards out but still, you simply have to go for it against NZ. Another try and NZ have to start forcing things, and given how piss they were between 10-60mins, they may have fucked up again under pressure and you's couldve put them to bed.

On the plus side I thought your pack was excellent, as were the halfbacks and back 3. Just need to solve the 12 and 13 axis.

Hi Paddy,

I disagree actually. We scored 23 unanswered points and built a 2 score lead by taking the penalties. If one of the 4 goal line (theirs) penalties we conceded had resulted in a try that would have been 3 scores ahead with 20 minutes to go which I think even we would have held on to.

I actually thought the momentum shift was the awful call for Hoggs "knock on". I've seen quite a bit of criticism of the Brown crap pass to Darcy that led to the knock on but the fact that we went for a move didn't bother me, we have to keep playing in those situations and not go into ourselves. Seems a bit ridiculous to criticise that as being too adventurous and also criticise taking penalty points on offer.

The Brown thing is reading the game situation. At times when the opposition are building momentum it is important to try and take the sting out the game. We just don't do the small things, like understanding game flow well.

I have to agree with this. No problem with the slick moves in the right situation, for example 5m line out, but we needed to build up and maintain some momentum and I don't think suck a move on the half way line would have ever resulted in a big enough benefit to justify the very obvious fact that we were more than likely to screw it up.

[Slick]

Hi Paddy,

I disagree actually. We scored 23 unanswered points and built a 2 score lead by taking the penalties. If one of the 4 goal line (theirs) penalties we conceded had resulted in a try that would have been 3 scores ahead with 20 minutes to go which I think even we would have held on to.

I actually thought the momentum shift was the awful call for Hoggs "knock on". I've seen quite a bit of criticism of the Brown crap pass to Darcy that led to the knock on but the fact that we went for a move didn't bother me, we have to keep playing in those situations and not go into ourselves. Seems a bit ridiculous to criticise that as being too adventurous and also criticise taking penalty points on offer.

The Brown thing is reading the game situation. At times when the opposition are building momentum it is important to try and take the sting out the game. We just don't do the small things, like understanding game flow well.

I have to agree with this. No problem with the slick moves in the right situation, for example 5m line out, but we needed to build up and maintain some momentum and I don't think suck a move on the half way line would have ever resulted in a big enough benefit to justify the very obvious fact that we were more than likely to screw it up.

Yup, fair points both, but I personally didn't have a problem with them trying that

[Tichtheid]

One of the legitimate complaints about the Oz game was our inability to get Duhan or Darcy on the ball. The pair of them were on fire yesterday, particularly Graham and it was more than worth the shot, imo.

Brown was very good yesterday btw.

[Slick]

One of the legitimate complaints about the Oz game was our inability to get Duhan or Darcy on the ball. The pair of them were on fire yesterday, particularly Graham and it was more than worth the shot, imo.

Brown was very good yesterday btw.

Yup, he more than justified his selection in the face of the criticism

[inactionman]

One of the legitimate complaints about the Oz game was our inability to get Duhan or Darcy on the ball. The pair of them were on fire yesterday, particularly Graham and it was more than worth the shot, imo.

Brown was very good yesterday btw.

Do Scotland run many moves with the wings crossing into midfield? I've not really seen them popping up that much, although I'm lucky to see more than 20 minutes of most matches on my phone.

Might not suit Graham in terms of crashball, but thought Duhan could do some real damage running inside lines off of 10 and centres - especially with a distributor like Russell at 12 (edit: 10 - not had my morning coffee yet, although Redpath at 12 has tidy hands and an eye for a pass).

(This is the old canard about 'wingers looking for work', but requires more than just the winger to make themselves busy)

[Slick]

One of the legitimate complaints about the Oz game was our inability to get Duhan or Darcy on the ball. The pair of them were on fire yesterday, particularly Graham and it was more than worth the shot, imo.

Brown was very good yesterday btw.

Do Scotland run many moves with the wings crossing into midfield? I've not really seen them popping up that much, although I'm lucky to see more than 20 minutes of most matches on my phone.

Might not suit Graham in terms of crashball, but thought Duhan could do some real damage running inside lines off of 10 and centres - especially with a distributor like Russell at 12.

(This is the old canard about 'wingers looking for work', but requires more than just the winger to make themselves busy)

They do try to get them both involved as much as possible, but it hasn't quite clicked the last few games.

IrnDu is usually coming into the centres, but Darcy tends to come in on an inside ball - usually cutting a line so sharp it could injure you from the stands.

It seems a little churlish after his performance yesterday, but Duhans lack of passing, or ever having any intention of passing, is beginning to grate a little. There is normally so much space outside him if he just looked up after breaking the first tackle.

[JM2K6]

What is our supposed attack coach doing? It certainly isn't about attacking

Can’t say I agree with this. We should have scored 5 or 6 tries today and we’re millimetres from the line repeatedly. To get that close our attack must have been doing something right. They looked very dangerous and the attack looked very effective, apart from the finish.

The Hogg two on one where he didn’t pass, the Graham finish where his foot was in touch, the double roll from Richie an inch from the line etc. where is an attack coach supposed to be stopping those things?

I don't think the attack was actually very good, there was a few nice lines from Hogg, a good bit of determination from vdm and Graham and a few nice touches from Russell as expected. But what's Scotland's attacking gameplan? Where was the imagination? Where were the intricate strike plays expect the Brown to Graham balls up?

As a "neutral" (I wanted Scotland to win after the opening 15 mins; outside of a Lions tour I don't think I've ever wanted any Scottish player to annihilate someone as much as when Hogg went in on Beauden Barrett after he collected a kick) I thought Scotland looked very dangerous with ball in hand and were putting the Kiwi defence on the back foot whenever Russell got a bit of quick ball to work with. It's not that he was producing magic all the time, it's just that he was playing flat to the line, his players were giving him good options, and everyone was executing their skills well and making good decisions. That's good attacking play. The fancy moves are good for set plays and, well, you scored a PT off one so that's a thumbs up; agree the counter attacking madskillz are more about individual talent and that's fine, but I was watching your attacking shape for 60 minutes with no small amount of admiration (and jealousy).



On the ref: Murphy's concept of what a ruck is or isn't was infuriating right from the start. Early on, Savea won a turnover after a ruck was formed, putting his hands on the floor, and a hint of a knock-on to boot. D'Arcy's intercept was a bit of instant justice as NZ won the ball with Papali'i stealing the ball without ever coming through the gate. Agree tha those yellow cards are given by default but it's aggravating as it looked the softest one of those I'd seen for a long time, and it looks like players now are being penalised for having an arm out for wrapping regardless. It didn't look to me like he'd deliberately played at the ball, so calling it a deliberate knock on requires a huge amount of guesswork IMO.

No, it wasn't all mistakes for NZ, and Scotland did work out what they could get away with. My view of how it went was coloured by the opening 20, where I thought NZ benefited hugely, and by the yellow card. Some of it was just shit that happens in every match now. The sealing off that occurs is at mad levels; I just don't understand how refs think this is a workable situation.

Even taking into account this is an "ordinary" NZ team*, that was a game Scotland absolutely bossed for large periods and should've won and can realistically only blame themselves at the end of the day thanks to some daft decision making on the tryline. It's a huge positive but I know beating them is all that matters. Hopefully the team will use that frustration in future, but there's something to be said for playing a side with the reputation of NZ and outclassing them for long periods, it does wonders for the belief in the squad.


*ordinary by their standards, but still full of excellent individual talent. Just not a team of World XV nominees any more, poorly coached, badly led, not particularly bright, and with a confused approach to the game. But even their worst players aren't in the bottom tier of NH internationals because they're all superb athletes at least.

[JM2K6]

One of the legitimate complaints about the Oz game was our inability to get Duhan or Darcy on the ball. The pair of them were on fire yesterday, particularly Graham and it was more than worth the shot, imo.

Brown was very good yesterday btw.

Do Scotland run many moves with the wings crossing into midfield? I've not really seen them popping up that much, although I'm lucky to see more than 20 minutes of most matches on my phone.

Might not suit Graham in terms of crashball, but thought Duhan could do some real damage running inside lines off of 10 and centres - especially with a distributor like Russell at 12.

(This is the old canard about 'wingers looking for work', but requires more than just the winger to make themselves busy)

They do try to get them both involved as much as possible, but it hasn't quite clicked the last few games.

IrnDu is usually coming into the centres, but Darcy tends to come in on an inside ball - usually cutting a line so sharp it could injure you from the stands.

It seems a little churlish after his performance yesterday, but Duhans lack of passing, or ever having any intention of passing, is beginning to grate a little. There is normally so much space outside him if he just looked up after breaking the first tackle.

Hopefully him stepping half the team only to run into Whitelock and get absolutely monstered might team him something?

[Tichtheid]

*ordinary by their standards, but still full of excellent individual talent. Just not a team of World XV nominees any more, poorly coached, badly led, not particularly bright, and with a confused approach to the game. But even their worst players aren't in the bottom tier of NH internationals because they're all superb athletes at least.

They've just won the Rugby Championship, eclipsing the World Champs, and battered Wales. They are no mugs.

They suffer by comparison to their recent past, and I think that is not taken into account enough. When you have a team over the years that is stuffed with some of the best talent to ever play the game, and in almost every position, it's almost understandable to take it for granted - Hayman, Thorn, Whitelock, Retallick, Collings, Read, Kaino, McCaw, Smith A, Carter, Evans (brilliant, overshadowed by the GOAT), Nonu, Smith C, SBW, peak Savea J, Smith B.

That list was just from a quick glance through the RWC squads from 2007 to 2015, there are are other legends from before that would probably make it into that team over their more modern counterparts, too - Olo Brown, Michael Jones and of course Jona are the ones that immediately come to mind, probably Fitz too

Some might question Brad Thorn, but I thought he was brilliant, a real presence who moved rucks.

The current NZ team are not a bad side, it's just that they are mortal.

[JM2K6]

To be fair - I think most international teams are fairly poor right now. Ireland and France the outstanding sides playing superb rugby. NZ way off their usual standard but still better than Oz. SA I'd actually say are the best of the rest purely based on the 'cattle' they have available & would back them to beat NZ most of the time on neutral ground, but they're not the sum of their parts. Prior to this weekend's performance I don't know if many Scots would've said this team was playing to its potential.

NZ are indeed mortal.

[Yr Alban]

To be fair - I think most international teams are fairly poor right now. Ireland and France the outstanding sides playing superb rugby. NZ way off their usual standard but still better than Oz. SA I'd actually say are the best of the rest purely based on the 'cattle' they have available & would back them to beat NZ most of the time on neutral ground, but they're not the sum of their parts. Prior to this weekend's performance I don't know if many Scots would've said this team was playing to its potential.

NZ are indeed mortal.

Your last comment is the source of our pain. The ‘never beaten NZ’ tag is a millstone around our neck just as it was around Ireland’s. This was an amazing chance to get rid of it, and due to the usual fine margins we couldn’t.

Could we organise an exhibition match in Chicago with no expectations whatsoever? It worked for the Irish…