Really? I couldn’t disagree more, thought he was throwing ridiculous passes. Spent the 2nd half wishing Hastings was OK. His kicking is lovely though.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Smith got the FB gig vs SA for his defensive qualities, with BK becoming becoming the bench back along with Horne in a 6-2 split.Slick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 6:47 pmReally? I couldn’t disagree more, thought he was throwing ridiculous passes. Spent the 2nd half wishing Hastings was OK. His kicking is lovely though.
I said earlier in the game that we needed a bit of BK or Hoggy hitting the line, but thought Smith was really excellent tonight over the game.
Me neither, although I think BK will probably get itcharltom wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 7:06 pmIt wouldn't surprise me at all if Smith got the FB gig vs SA for his defensive qualities, with BK becoming becoming the bench back along with Horne in a 6-2 split.Slick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 6:47 pmReally? I couldn’t disagree more, thought he was throwing ridiculous passes. Spent the 2nd half wishing Hastings was OK. His kicking is lovely though.
I said earlier in the game that we needed a bit of BK or Hoggy hitting the line, but thought Smith was really excellent tonight over the game.
Yes, I'd still take Fagerson over Nel and Sebastian. It's not as if he gets carded every time he plays. His work in the loose, both in defence and attack, is superior to Nel and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting Sebastian starts against SA.
I have actually been surprised with Sebastian's performance in the scrum. I reckon he is a bit like Nel in being small and squat and can get underneath his opposite number and drive them up and out. He might not be as destructive a carrier or tackler than Fagerson but he is willing to do the dirty work as carrier into defences. He looks a good acquisition for Embra and will do a decent shift in a Scotland shirt.clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:17 pmYes, I'd still take Fagerson over Nel and Sebastian. It's not as if he gets carded every time he plays. His work in the loose, both in defence and attack, is superior to Nel and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting Sebastian starts against SA.
We will need our most dynamic forwards firing against the Saffer physicality and Zander is integral to keeping the tight five play fast and furious.
I read a really interesting article about him where he was basically saying he never really thought he was good enough and never really put in the effort until he heard Toony was asking about him. Reckons he has loads more improvement in himselfdpedin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:37 pmI have actually been surprised with Sebastian's performance in the scrum. I reckon he is a bit like Nel in being small and squat and can get underneath his opposite number and drive them up and out. He might not be as destructive a carrier or tackler than Fagerson but he is willing to do the dirty work as carrier into defences. He looks a good acquisition for Embra and will do a decent shift in a Scotland shirt.clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:17 pmYes, I'd still take Fagerson over Nel and Sebastian. It's not as if he gets carded every time he plays. His work in the loose, both in defence and attack, is superior to Nel and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting Sebastian starts against SA.
We will need our most dynamic forwards firing against the Saffer physicality and Zander is integral to keeping the tight five play fast and furious.
I thought we missed the carrying of Schoeman, Turner and Fagerson on Saturday.TheNatalShark wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:32 pm Absolutely don't like it, both how easy to get back in and the ban should have been longer, but Zander is acres beyond what Nel offers out of set piece these days. As much as it wasn't his fault, Nel getting that hammered on that hospital pass sums up a lot of what we miss in forwards when Fagerson or Schoeman don't play (not that I don't think Sutherland or Bhatti are bad deputies).
Interesting - he already looks fitter and a bit leaner just from being in the Scotland squad and doing the prep for RWC. Working alongside the likes of Nel will bring his scrummaging on no end. I suspect he is a real awkward bastard to scrum against as he will take his opposite number very low, a bit like Buckley does for Connacht. He will be useful against some of the taller props he will face.Slick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:49 pmI read a really interesting article about him where he was basically saying he never really thought he was good enough and never really put in the effort until he heard Toony was asking about him. Reckons he has loads more improvement in himselfdpedin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:37 pmI have actually been surprised with Sebastian's performance in the scrum. I reckon he is a bit like Nel in being small and squat and can get underneath his opposite number and drive them up and out. He might not be as destructive a carrier or tackler than Fagerson but he is willing to do the dirty work as carrier into defences. He looks a good acquisition for Embra and will do a decent shift in a Scotland shirt.clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:17 pm
Yes, I'd still take Fagerson over Nel and Sebastian. It's not as if he gets carded every time he plays. His work in the loose, both in defence and attack, is superior to Nel and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting Sebastian starts against SA.
We will need our most dynamic forwards firing against the Saffer physicality and Zander is integral to keeping the tight five play fast and furious.
Yeah, and he's got a good few years left in the tank I reckon.dpedin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:03 pmInteresting - he already looks fitter and a bit leaner just from being in the Scotland squad and doing the prep for RWC. Working alongside the likes of Nel will bring his scrummaging on no end. I suspect he is a real awkward bastard to scrum against as he will take his opposite number very low, a bit like Buckley does for Connacht. He will be useful against some of the taller props he will face.Slick wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:49 pmI read a really interesting article about him where he was basically saying he never really thought he was good enough and never really put in the effort until he heard Toony was asking about him. Reckons he has loads more improvement in himselfdpedin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:37 pm
I have actually been surprised with Sebastian's performance in the scrum. I reckon he is a bit like Nel in being small and squat and can get underneath his opposite number and drive them up and out. He might not be as destructive a carrier or tackler than Fagerson but he is willing to do the dirty work as carrier into defences. He looks a good acquisition for Embra and will do a decent shift in a Scotland shirt.
Yup, they were 40/45 for years - this time £90 for France and £100 for England
SRU knowing their one-eyed rugby-illiterate fanbase well, asking more for an England than France game.
Doing the draw so far in advance of a rwc is a nonsense but as nonsensical is suggesting seedings take into account commercial factors. That is pure conspiracy
You could be right, but Japan being seeded in Band 2 coming so close on the heels of WR initiaives to grow the game in that region (e.g., The Asia One Million initiative etc) was extremely convenient for WR.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:25 amDoing the draw so far in advance of a rwc is a nonsense but as nonsensical is suggesting seedings take into account commercial factors. That is pure conspiracy
I think the point on that is that the draw was scheduled for December 2020 and intended to be based on the seedings at December 2020. Despite Covid they opted to still do the draw in December 2020 (rather than posptpone for, say 6 months, and end up with the same timings as the draw for the 2019 RWC) but decided that 'in the interests of fairness' seedings should be based on the rankings at 1 January 2020 - which were effectively the rankings from immediately after the RWC final in 2019 - as not all teams had had a chance to play any Tests since the last RWC.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:25 amDoing the draw so far in advance of a rwc is a nonsense but as nonsensical is suggesting seedings take into account commercial factors. That is pure conspiracy
Right!? All of which just raises/raised the question of why Japan’s inclusion in Band 2 was guarded in this way. WR claims fairness (with no coherent explanations as to how or why bringing the seeding date forward rather than pushing it back was ‘fair’).topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 1:01 pmI think the point on that is that the draw was scheduled for December 2020 and intended to be based on the seedings at December 2020. Despite Covid they opted to still do the draw in December 2020 (rather than posptpone for, say 6 months, and end up with the same timings as the draw for the 2019 RWC) but decided that 'in the interests of fairness' seedings should be based on the rankings at 1 January 2020 - which were effectively the rankings from immediately after the RWC final in 2019 - as not all teams had had a chance to play any Tests since the last RWC.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:25 amDoing the draw so far in advance of a rwc is a nonsense but as nonsensical is suggesting seedings take into account commercial factors. That is pure conspiracy
The only seeded team that hadn't played any Tests since the 2019 World Cup? Japan. So the draw was fudged to protect 1 team's status as 2nd seeds who, when they have subsequently played Tests, have lost 6 full points from their World Rugby ranking and slumped to 14th in the world.
If the December 2020 rankings had been used the only differences to now would have been Ireland and England swapping places as 1st & 2nd seeds and Fiji & Australia swapping places as 2nd & 3rd seeds. So while it still wouldn't have been entirely reflective of the latest positions it would have been closer than what was used, which was based on the rankings 4 years ago.
Don't think South Africa played? Looks like Arg, Aus, NZ had a weird Tri series. Going to guess most tier 2 sides didn't play either - why leave them out?topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 1:01 pmI think the point on that is that the draw was scheduled for December 2020 and intended to be based on the seedings at December 2020. Despite Covid they opted to still do the draw in December 2020 (rather than posptpone for, say 6 months, and end up with the same timings as the draw for the 2019 RWC) but decided that 'in the interests of fairness' seedings should be based on the rankings at 1 January 2020 - which were effectively the rankings from immediately after the RWC final in 2019 - as not all teams had had a chance to play any Tests since the last RWC.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:25 amDoing the draw so far in advance of a rwc is a nonsense but as nonsensical is suggesting seedings take into account commercial factors. That is pure conspiracy
The only seeded team that hadn't played any Tests since the 2019 World Cup? Japan. So the draw was fudged to protect 1 team's status as 2nd seeds who, when they have subsequently played Tests, have lost 6 full points from their World Rugby ranking and slumped to 14th in the world.
If the December 2020 rankings had been used the only differences to now would have been Ireland and England swapping places as 1st & 2nd seeds and Fiji & Australia swapping places as 2nd & 3rd seeds. So while it still wouldn't have been entirely reflective of the latest positions it would have been closer than what was used, which was based on the rankings 4 years ago.
So it's fair Japan (and others e.g. SA and potentially tier2s) have a harder draw because they had the temerity not to play fixtures they didn't even have scheduled before a global pandemic hit and cancelled the ones they did?TheNatalShark wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:00 pm I'm also pretty sure that world rugby went through the effort of notifying that the 2020 results would be ignored just before the Autumn window, when Japan were conveniently not in the top 2 bands.
It seemed pretty blatant at the time, added in that straight after they came out saying "Oh shit this isn't practical at all, for future world cups we will draw a year before the world cup" - before they even drew for 2023!
Yeah, apologies SA didn't play the either in 2020, however that made no difference to which band they were in for seeding. In fact they were still ranked number 1 in the world at the time of the draw.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 3:01 pmDon't think South Africa played? Looks like Arg, Aus, NZ had a weird Tri series. Going to guess most tier 2 sides didn't play either - why leave them out?topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 1:01 pmI think the point on that is that the draw was scheduled for December 2020 and intended to be based on the seedings at December 2020. Despite Covid they opted to still do the draw in December 2020 (rather than posptpone for, say 6 months, and end up with the same timings as the draw for the 2019 RWC) but decided that 'in the interests of fairness' seedings should be based on the rankings at 1 January 2020 - which were effectively the rankings from immediately after the RWC final in 2019 - as not all teams had had a chance to play any Tests since the last RWC.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:25 am
Doing the draw so far in advance of a rwc is a nonsense but as nonsensical is suggesting seedings take into account commercial factors. That is pure conspiracy
The only seeded team that hadn't played any Tests since the 2019 World Cup? Japan. So the draw was fudged to protect 1 team's status as 2nd seeds who, when they have subsequently played Tests, have lost 6 full points from their World Rugby ranking and slumped to 14th in the world.
If the December 2020 rankings had been used the only differences to now would have been Ireland and England swapping places as 1st & 2nd seeds and Fiji & Australia swapping places as 2nd & 3rd seeds. So while it still wouldn't have been entirely reflective of the latest positions it would have been closer than what was used, which was based on the rankings 4 years ago.
Clearly, ignoring that year for rankings is the fairest way of dealing with a global pandemic.
If Scotland want to be ranked higher than Japan, how about beat them in the world cup?
Yes the timing of the draw is ridiculous, it should be when all the teams are known. But that's not the point, the point is WR didn't change the rules of the draw so Japan got a good seeding. It is obviously unfair to have a team penalised because a policy response to a global pandemic cancelled their fixtures and did not for other countries who had different policies.topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:55 pmYeah, apologies SA didn't play the either in 2020, however that made no difference to which band they were in for seeding. In fact they were still ranked number 1 in the world at the time of the draw.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 3:01 pmDon't think South Africa played? Looks like Arg, Aus, NZ had a weird Tri series. Going to guess most tier 2 sides didn't play either - why leave them out?topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 1:01 pm
I think the point on that is that the draw was scheduled for December 2020 and intended to be based on the seedings at December 2020. Despite Covid they opted to still do the draw in December 2020 (rather than posptpone for, say 6 months, and end up with the same timings as the draw for the 2019 RWC) but decided that 'in the interests of fairness' seedings should be based on the rankings at 1 January 2020 - which were effectively the rankings from immediately after the RWC final in 2019 - as not all teams had had a chance to play any Tests since the last RWC.
The only seeded team that hadn't played any Tests since the 2019 World Cup? Japan. So the draw was fudged to protect 1 team's status as 2nd seeds who, when they have subsequently played Tests, have lost 6 full points from their World Rugby ranking and slumped to 14th in the world.
If the December 2020 rankings had been used the only differences to now would have been Ireland and England swapping places as 1st & 2nd seeds and Fiji & Australia swapping places as 2nd & 3rd seeds. So while it still wouldn't have been entirely reflective of the latest positions it would have been closer than what was used, which was based on the rankings 4 years ago.
Clearly, ignoring that year for rankings is the fairest way of dealing with a global pandemic.
If Scotland want to be ranked higher than Japan, how about beat them in the world cup?
Only the 12 qualified sides would impact the seedings so Tier 1 + Japan and Fiji. No impact from any other Tier 2/3 sides playing or not playing.
At December the 2 seeded sides who had moved down a band or bands were Wales (from 1 to 3) having played a complete Six Nations and Autumn Nations Series and Japan (from 2 to 3) having not played a game.
After complaints about how early the draw was for the 2015 RWC (and the Aus, Eng, Wal pool of death it lead to) the draw for the 2019 tournament was moved back 6 months later to May 2017. So why was the draw for the 2023 World Cup not already set for at least the same (ie May 2021)?
They had 3 options. Stick with December 2020 rankings. Postpone (possibly to end up in line with 2019 draw timings?) Or go back to the rankings coming out of the 2019 RWC (with the additional weightings of RWC fixtures having maximum effect on seedings 4 years later).
When you've already had complaints that a draw 3 years prior is too early, brought this back to 2.5 years for the previous tournament, how does the best solution to everything that went on end up being extending it out to 4 years?
Not playing benefitted Japan, allowing them to hold on to their RWC-inflated points tally. As soon as they started playing again they dropped and have continued dropping.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:54 pmYes the timing of the draw is ridiculous, it should be when all the teams are known. But that's not the point, the point is WR didn't change the rules of the draw so Japan got a good seeding. It is obviously unfair to have a team penalised because a policy response to a global pandemic cancelled their fixtures and did not for other countries who had different policies.topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:55 pmYeah, apologies SA didn't play the either in 2020, however that made no difference to which band they were in for seeding. In fact they were still ranked number 1 in the world at the time of the draw.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 3:01 pm
Don't think South Africa played? Looks like Arg, Aus, NZ had a weird Tri series. Going to guess most tier 2 sides didn't play either - why leave them out?
Clearly, ignoring that year for rankings is the fairest way of dealing with a global pandemic.
If Scotland want to be ranked higher than Japan, how about beat them in the world cup?
Only the 12 qualified sides would impact the seedings so Tier 1 + Japan and Fiji. No impact from any other Tier 2/3 sides playing or not playing.
At December the 2 seeded sides who had moved down a band or bands were Wales (from 1 to 3) having played a complete Six Nations and Autumn Nations Series and Japan (from 2 to 3) having not played a game.
After complaints about how early the draw was for the 2015 RWC (and the Aus, Eng, Wal pool of death it lead to) the draw for the 2019 tournament was moved back 6 months later to May 2017. So why was the draw for the 2023 World Cup not already set for at least the same (ie May 2021)?
They had 3 options. Stick with December 2020 rankings. Postpone (possibly to end up in line with 2019 draw timings?) Or go back to the rankings coming out of the 2019 RWC (with the additional weightings of RWC fixtures having maximum effect on seedings 4 years later).
When you've already had complaints that a draw 3 years prior is too early, brought this back to 2.5 years for the previous tournament, how does the best solution to everything that went on end up being extending it out to 4 years?
Imagine it affecting Scotland negatively. We all remember the hurricane whatever it was hoopla pre Japan humping us and rightfully so. It is obviously unfair is a unique event results in you losing out. True for Scotland, true for Japan too.
They ranked the teams on the merit of their performance the last year of fixtures that all teams could fulfil due to cancellations stemming from a global pandemic - that's the fairest way even if it "benefited" (I'd say doesn't penalise tbh) Japan.topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 11:26 pmNot playing benefitted Japan, allowing them to hold on to their RWC-inflated points tally. As soon as they started playing again they dropped and have continued dropping.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:54 pmYes the timing of the draw is ridiculous, it should be when all the teams are known. But that's not the point, the point is WR didn't change the rules of the draw so Japan got a good seeding. It is obviously unfair to have a team penalised because a policy response to a global pandemic cancelled their fixtures and did not for other countries who had different policies.topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:55 pm
Yeah, apologies SA didn't play the either in 2020, however that made no difference to which band they were in for seeding. In fact they were still ranked number 1 in the world at the time of the draw.
Only the 12 qualified sides would impact the seedings so Tier 1 + Japan and Fiji. No impact from any other Tier 2/3 sides playing or not playing.
At December the 2 seeded sides who had moved down a band or bands were Wales (from 1 to 3) having played a complete Six Nations and Autumn Nations Series and Japan (from 2 to 3) having not played a game.
After complaints about how early the draw was for the 2015 RWC (and the Aus, Eng, Wal pool of death it lead to) the draw for the 2019 tournament was moved back 6 months later to May 2017. So why was the draw for the 2023 World Cup not already set for at least the same (ie May 2021)?
They had 3 options. Stick with December 2020 rankings. Postpone (possibly to end up in line with 2019 draw timings?) Or go back to the rankings coming out of the 2019 RWC (with the additional weightings of RWC fixtures having maximum effect on seedings 4 years later).
When you've already had complaints that a draw 3 years prior is too early, brought this back to 2.5 years for the previous tournament, how does the best solution to everything that went on end up being extending it out to 4 years?
Imagine it affecting Scotland negatively. We all remember the hurricane whatever it was hoopla pre Japan humping us and rightfully so. It is obviously unfair is a unique event results in you losing out. True for Scotland, true for Japan too.
Fairness could have been better served by delaying the draw. Of the 3 options available they chose the one that only served 'fairness' in respect of Japan. They also chose the option that buggered the draw to the worst possible extent - which was always a foreseeable risk given past experience of other RWC draws.
