RWC Review: No. 10 Scotland

[M Two One]

The 2011 Rugby World Cup has ended and unfortunately for the rugby faithful, this means that we'll have to wait four years once again, but don't be disappointed, this was a special tournament. New Zealand hosted this time around, and with that, we realize that we may not see the rugby mad country host again for a very long time.

We hope that you all savored every moment and every match, no matter what the outcomes were, the disappointments or heartache. What impressed us the most is how well second tier nations developed over the past four years, which is great news for the sport on a worldwide scale.

Development is the key to this game, as any, and this world cup has opened the door to a large number of new fans.

As we take a look back, Shaggy, psychic duck and M Two One review the twenty participants from worst to first over the next week. The rankings were put together through several opinions based on performances.

Feel free to debate and discuss. The 2011 Rugby World Cup may have ended, but rugby lives on 24/7.

The Scots put themselves in a position to beat both Argentina and England and top the group, but the same old problem destroyed their chances of qualification. That problem was again tries, or lack of them. Although Scotland now and again can pull off a win with just penalties—those wins are just a now and again occurrence—any tier 1 nation is guaranteed to beat them with just a try or two since the Scots are not going to run away with matches just scoring penalties.

Throughout the tournament Scotland scored just four tries, all of which in their first match against Romania. The following matches against Georgia, Argentina and England were a struggle, although all were admittedly tight matches, but even lowly Russia scored double the amount of tries Scotland managed to put on the board. Scotland actually has decent wingers, but it's in the midfield where they struggle to find the right players.

Fly half Dan Parks can only really play for a kicking game plan and struggles to bring the wingers into play. This frustrates many Scottish fans, although to be fair to him he does offer a decent tactical boot. Their other fly half Ruaridh Jackson meanwhile, although better at using the backs outside him, doesn't have Parks' game control in tight matches.

Andy Robinson has a reputation for being a good coach, but a poor selector of centres (before the Argentina match he lived up to his rep). The centre partnership of Sean Lamont and Joe Ansbro had been one of the most improved aspects of Scotland throughout 2011, but for some bizarre reason Robinson decided to revert back to the plodding 2010 partnership of Graeme Morrison and Nick de Luca (who also messed up a rare opportunity for a try after coming on at half time in the England match) for the crucial Argentina match.

Robinson also persevered with his policy of switching captains every match; official captain Al Kellock wasn't even required on the bench in the match against Argentina. To be fair, one correct selection decision Robinson made was to pit his strongest scrummagers against Georgia. Had Dickinson and Cross played, I believe the Scots would have lost that match. Euan Murray's scrummaging was also an important part of setting up the platform to beat England, which the backs ultimately failed to capitalize on.

There is no need for Scotland to panic and change everything all at once despite missing out on the quarters. The Scots have fewer players than all of the other tier 1 nations, yet have proven on certain days they can beat all bar New Zealand. Perhaps they should look at their position in perspective. - p.d.