A place where escape goats go to play
https://notplanetrugby.com/
Me too. Didn't realise Mata was staying. Adds fuel to Bradbury leaving.
He's a good player, I think we've probably under-utilised him so far.
Kunavula last year in the death spiral of Edinburgh's season was just ridiculous. His game Vs one of the Welsh clubs away (Dragons?) was as good as you'll see from an 8. Muncaster needs minutes though.robmatic wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:32 pmHe's a good player, I think we've probably under-utilised him so far.
Interesting hint about Big Bill there. I know he's out for a while now, but I think over the course of last season's dreary performances we forgot how good he is.
I reckon Bradbury is away though.
I'm sure it gets said quite a bit about players leaving but it's good for Scotland for him to move on and bad for EdinburghI like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:40 pmKunavula last year in the death spiral of Edinburgh's season was just ridiculous. His game Vs one of the Welsh clubs away (Dragons?) was as good as you'll see from an 8. Muncaster needs minutes though.robmatic wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:32 pmHe's a good player, I think we've probably under-utilised him so far.
Interesting hint about Big Bill there. I know he's out for a while now, but I think over the course of last season's dreary performances we forgot how good he is.
I reckon Bradbury is away though.
It would be a shame after a few years of meh performances to lose Bradbury as he hits form. However, leaving the Edinburgh bubble could be very good for him. Would love to see what Exeter do with him for example.
I think it's not so bad for Edinburgh if they keep Mata who is better and have Kunavula who is very good and Muncaster who has looked very good also.Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:16 pmI'm sure it gets said quite a bit about players leaving but it's good for Scotland for him to move on and bad for EdinburghI like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:40 pmKunavula last year in the death spiral of Edinburgh's season was just ridiculous. His game Vs one of the Welsh clubs away (Dragons?) was as good as you'll see from an 8. Muncaster needs minutes though.robmatic wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:32 pm
He's a good player, I think we've probably under-utilised him so far.
Interesting hint about Big Bill there. I know he's out for a while now, but I think over the course of last season's dreary performances we forgot how good he is.
I reckon Bradbury is away though.
It would be a shame after a few years of meh performances to lose Bradbury as he hits form. However, leaving the Edinburgh bubble could be very good for him. Would love to see what Exeter do with him for example.
I get your point (although I'd say he's between your 2 metrics normally but with the form he's in just now we'll above Jones) but unless whoever comes in is better it's still a loss.I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:48 pmI think it's not so bad for Edinburgh if they keep Mata who is better and have Kunavula who is very good and Muncaster who has looked very good also.Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:16 pmI'm sure it gets said quite a bit about players leaving but it's good for Scotland for him to move on and bad for EdinburghI like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:40 pm
Kunavula last year in the death spiral of Edinburgh's season was just ridiculous. His game Vs one of the Welsh clubs away (Dragons?) was as good as you'll see from an 8. Muncaster needs minutes though.
It would be a shame after a few years of meh performances to lose Bradbury as he hits form. However, leaving the Edinburgh bubble could be very good for him. Would love to see what Exeter do with him for example.
It's not like Russell, Hogg, Gray leaving. It's more like Huw Jones leaving.
I was hoping there'd be more substance/planning than that. Sounds like a nothing article.Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:24 pm
It says Dodson wants a third pro team (Mallinder advocated it), it won't be looked at seriously as an option until sometime between 2025 and 2030.
The SRU want to focus on securing Edinburgh and Glasgow and building on where they are now, with particular mention of Scotstoun, though it doesn't mention specifics in that regard.
Seems like most of the actual content of the interview is also on The Offside Line:Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:33 pmI was hoping there'd be more substance/planning than that. Sounds like a nothing article.Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:24 pm
It says Dodson wants a third pro team (Mallinder advocated it), it won't be looked at seriously as an option until sometime between 2025 and 2030.
The SRU want to focus on securing Edinburgh and Glasgow and building on where they are now, with particular mention of Scotstoun, though it doesn't mention specifics in that regard.
It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?weegie01 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:00 am The biggest problem with Murrayfield is that it was built in the days when alcohol was not allowed, and catering / corporate entertaining was less important. It is in effect the last of its generation of stadia in use with the other stadia (bar Italy) having been rebuilt or replaced.
There is a lot that seems possible at Murrayfield. There is the space under the west, north and south stands that could be integrated into the stadium and used for facilities, bars etc. There has been talk of a hotel. The biggest issue seems to be the east stand which would need completely replaced to bring in line with the others and to exploit opportunities.
I think everyone agrees a third team is desirable. But Dodson is spot on that it cannot cannibalise the existing teams. They have to be much more self sustaining than they are now before it can be contemplated. And I am not sure how they achieve that in the size of stadium each has.
I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:27 amIt's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?weegie01 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:00 am The biggest problem with Murrayfield is that it was built in the days when alcohol was not allowed, and catering / corporate entertaining was less important. It is in effect the last of its generation of stadia in use with the other stadia (bar Italy) having been rebuilt or replaced.
There is a lot that seems possible at Murrayfield. There is the space under the west, north and south stands that could be integrated into the stadium and used for facilities, bars etc. There has been talk of a hotel. The biggest issue seems to be the east stand which would need completely replaced to bring in line with the others and to exploit opportunities.
I think everyone agrees a third team is desirable. But Dodson is spot on that it cannot cannibalise the existing teams. They have to be much more self sustaining than they are now before it can be contemplated. And I am not sure how they achieve that in the size of stadium each has.
I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.
That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:39 amI suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:27 amIt's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?weegie01 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:00 am The biggest problem with Murrayfield is that it was built in the days when alcohol was not allowed, and catering / corporate entertaining was less important. It is in effect the last of its generation of stadia in use with the other stadia (bar Italy) having been rebuilt or replaced.
There is a lot that seems possible at Murrayfield. There is the space under the west, north and south stands that could be integrated into the stadium and used for facilities, bars etc. There has been talk of a hotel. The biggest issue seems to be the east stand which would need completely replaced to bring in line with the others and to exploit opportunities.
I think everyone agrees a third team is desirable. But Dodson is spot on that it cannot cannibalise the existing teams. They have to be much more self sustaining than they are now before it can be contemplated. And I am not sure how they achieve that in the size of stadium each has.
I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.
For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.
If rugby has a low profile why would anyone book these guys? If they were booked do you really think they're entertaining or charismatic enough to encourage someone to check out rugby? Down the years I've ended up catching interviews with tennis players and cricketeers and it's never motivated me to pay more attention to those sports.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:05 amThat seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:39 amI suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:27 am
It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?
I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.
For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.
Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything
Part of the problem is that the Scottish media and the Scottish public are very focused on football, no matter what is happening or not happening in Scottish rugby. Also, there might be some world class Scottish players but the national team hasn't won anything in a generation so is hardly demanding broader attention. Scotland winning the 6 Nations would change that, I reckon, but you're still only talking about two month-long periods in the year when the team is getting media coverage.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:05 amThat seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:39 amI suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:27 am
It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?
I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.
For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.
Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything
I agree. Edinburgh is the rugby hub of Scotland. Private schools dominate obviously but Muir, Currie etc are really strong clubs. Their pro team attendance is tiny.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:05 amThat seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:39 amI suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:27 am
It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?
I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.
For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.
Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything
I think it’s quite a different situation in Scotland due to size. A Scot winning something on the international stage, in anything, will get at least some coverage, rugby just doesn’t seem able to sustain it.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:43 amIf rugby has a low profile why would anyone book these guys? If they were booked do you really think they're entertaining or charismatic enough to encourage someone to check out rugby? Down the years I've ended up catching interviews with tennis players and cricketeers and it's never motivated me to pay more attention to those sports.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:05 amThat seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:39 am
I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.
For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.
Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything
Yesterday I caught up with the Good, Bad and Rugby episode with Mark Evans and Brett Gosper (really interesting to hear from them if you can stomach Haskell's occasional nonsense interruptions that often get slapped down as the know nothing bollocks it is) and Alex Payne raised a point I've heard other journos make about using individuals to drive interest in the sport, but I think that's arse about face. You can be a name within the sport and still be a nobody outside of it. Stars and personalities tend to drive internal interest rather than external.
We beat England regularly. That used to be enough. We’ve changedI like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:40 pm We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.
You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.
More than good enough for me!Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:43 pmWe beat England regularly. That used to be enough. We’ve changedI like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:40 pm We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.
You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.
Maybe we're maturing as a nation. Probably not mind, more likely people just don't care. How much if an upsurge in tennis was there and has it been sustained? Scotland just doesn't really care about sport outside of football to much degree and even then its mostly old firm, Saints won 2 cups (only 4th team to do that) and still nobody in Perth cares*.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:43 pmWe beat England regularly. That used to be enough. We’ve changedI like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:40 pm We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.
You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.
I suppose its chicken and egg, but one certainly begets the other. I suppose my reference point is always Ireland as I think they are in most respects the nation most similar to us and their outcomes are so different. Of course the comparison is hugely complex as they are also in many respects quire different, but in my opinion the thing that really drove their success was successful pro teams. Every single year their teams were winning things, be in the league or in Europe. That created a high performance environment for players in which they expected to win in every game they played, but it also generated headlines and interest. At the end of the day, nothing brings in punters more than winning. That in turn led to international success and it has now become self-sustaining. That has to be our aim too - whether pro team investment or something else is that way to achieve that is almost impossible to say.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:05 amThat seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:39 amI suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:27 am
It's interesting to think is 3 mediocre to poor teams better than 2 mediocre to good teams?
I think I agree with Dodson, we need 3 pro teams but the third is basically impossible to start up. Investing in English clubs seems a total non starter as well unless LS can be prized from the RFU.
For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.
Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything
Thistle rugby guys gave that as the reasonS/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:42 pm
Bayliss not named, so assume he's recovering from his head knock, so may not be available for the Calcutta Cup.
Ireland had, well, the luck of the Irish. When the game went pro, the SRU were skint from rebuilding Murrayfield. Ireland had dragged their heels and were in a better position to fund the pro game. Also, rugby didn’t have to compete with any other professional sport in Ireland.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:46 pmI suppose its chicken and egg, but one certainly begets the other. I suppose my reference point is always Ireland as I think they are in most respects the nation most similar to us and their outcomes are so different. Of course the comparison is hugely complex as they are also in many respects quire different, but in my opinion the thing that really drove their success was successful pro teams. Every single year their teams were winning things, be in the league or in Europe. That created a high performance environment for players in which they expected to win in every game they played, but it also generated headlines and interest. At the end of the day, nothing brings in punters more than winning. That in turn led to international success and it has now become self-sustaining. That has to be our aim too - whether pro team investment or something else is that way to achieve that is almost impossible to say.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:05 amThat seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:39 am
I suppose it depends what you are trying to achieve. There aren't a lot of representative examples available to compare against. You could say that Wales' 4 mediocre (to poor) teams have been more successful for their national team than our 2 good (to mediocre, at times poor) teams. Equally, the SA Super Rugby franchises were latterly at least second best to New Zealand's, but still created a world cup winning squad. Similarly with Australia, and they are consistently a top 3-5 in the world team.
For me, I think having successful pro teams is paramount. We aren't like Wales or South Africa where rugby already dominates the public consciousness. If we genuinely want to build the game here, a big part of that will have to be through pro team success. Anything that impacts on that success or the ability to achieve it will need a lot of explanation before I can back it.
Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything
I know all that; they also have no professional sport with a successful (internationally) league and were going through the Celtic Tiger growth stage so were awash with people with loads of disposable income (and many other reasons).Yr Alban wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:35 pmIreland had, well, the luck of the Irish. When the game went pro, the SRU were skint from rebuilding Murrayfield. Ireland had dragged their heels and were in a better position to fund the pro game. Also, rugby didn’t have to compete with any other professional sport in Ireland.KingBlairhorn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:46 pmI suppose its chicken and egg, but one certainly begets the other. I suppose my reference point is always Ireland as I think they are in most respects the nation most similar to us and their outcomes are so different. Of course the comparison is hugely complex as they are also in many respects quire different, but in my opinion the thing that really drove their success was successful pro teams. Every single year their teams were winning things, be in the league or in Europe. That created a high performance environment for players in which they expected to win in every game they played, but it also generated headlines and interest. At the end of the day, nothing brings in punters more than winning. That in turn led to international success and it has now become self-sustaining. That has to be our aim too - whether pro team investment or something else is that way to achieve that is almost impossible to say.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:05 am
That seems wrong to me. To grow the game we need a consistently good national team, I don’t think the pro teams make a huge amount of difference.
Getting rugby into the public consciousness is something we seem really poor at. We have 2 world class players who both play a style of rugby that should appeal to everyone yet you never hear or see Hoggy or Finn anywhere except rugby circles. I don’t know enough about it to know how that changes but these are generational talents for Scottish sport but they are never on TV, radio, anything
Winning two trophies for St Johnstone is a terrific terrific achievement. However, both were in empty grounds, with all pubs totally empty, and no parade for civic pride. And now they're down the bottom again. Winning trophies is all the days before and after as a shared experience of anticipation and joy/disappointment and the memories that remain. It's never going to change At Johnstone into the beating heart of Perth for any longer than they sustain an unsustainable level.Jock42 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:18 pmMaybe we're maturing as a nation. Probably not mind, more likely people just don't care. How much if an upsurge in tennis was there and has it been sustained? Scotland just doesn't really care about sport outside of football to much degree and even then its mostly old firm, Saints won 2 cups (only 4th team to do that) and still nobody in Perth cares*.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:43 pmWe beat England regularly. That used to be enough. We’ve changedI like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:40 pm We haven't won anything though slick. An excellent six nations last year and we finished fourth... To a casual observer that's not all that impressive.
You need to be like Wales or Ireland who challenge most years/win once every few to sustain mass interest.
*I fall into that category of very casual supporter too so don't take this as me holding any moral high ground.
