Maybe it's because there aren't exactly a lot of people around the world with Georgian blood, there are a lot more people around the world with Scottish ancestry, and even if they did have i don't think many would want to go and play/work in Georgia. The Georgian rugby union also have a good selection process but that is a major factor
Without question and I am certainly not challenging this at all.
The point I am trying to make is that it is very concerning when a Tier One rugby nation is not able to produce enough good players. There will always be elligible players from abroad but they should not be required, rather surplus who happen to be better than the best player in his position. This suggests that the foreigner is better than a great player. For instance Sivivatu better than Howlett rather than being picked because there is nobody national good enough.
Both yourself and Psychic Duck have said Scotland (and Samoa) are better than Italy at the moment. It could well be the case - and, crucially, Italy does not have a factory producing players just like Scotland doesn´t. However, consider that Scotland lost in Rome recently with Lamont and Evans as wingers. They are Scotland´ best 12-13 combo in my opinion but I am happy with Evans on the wing with Ansbro at 13. Tim Visser is certainly the best man for the 11 shirt with Evans thus being the 14. Aside from these players there is not a lot really. Nick da Luca and Lee Jones being the players. Hardly contenders for Lions places now are they.....
Psychic duck
Selecting foreigners is not over to me. But there is a point top make - just because everyone is doing it it doesn´t mean it is right. If Scotland want Tim Visser, JP Nel and others thats fine. Some people I have talked to, many infact, lose respect for teams doing this. It gives them an image that a team is not the real thing. Dusautoir is not from France but was raised there and that is where is learned rugby. Scotland did this with neither Visser nor Nel.
Of course, there is a lot of time to go before 2015 and saying Scotland are doomed is the worst case scenario. The problem is I am finding mroe reasons, not less to see it as a possibility. Sure, winning three from three is a massive thing but this was not a Samoan side at full strength nor were either or Fiji or Australia.
Sean Lamont as a centre is very good. As a winger he is passed it. You should know having seen this video before...
There are two reasons why Samoa should lose by 20.
1. Aside from todays match there have been 7 tests. Scotland winning 7 and 1 draw. Samoa was strongest in the 1990s. There was one draw between the sides with Scotland winning the two others matches by scores of 28-6 and 35-20. Then in 2000 Scotland won 31-8.. Next was 2004 with Scotland winning 38-3. the following year Scotland won 18-11. While more recently Scotland won 19-16 in Aberdeen two years ago. Samoa should have won in Aberdeen.
2. Scotland was close to full strenght, fielding European professionals. All are players from notable teams and they get plenty of game time. Samoa had three
amateurs starting, three others on the bench and a number of players who are not Samoa´ best and don´t get too much game time for their pro teams. Scotland should have won by a lot more against this Samoan side given the players that both teams fielded.
Throw in Mapusua, Tuilagi, Schwalger, Stowers, Fuimanolo-Sapolu, George Pisi, Tagicakibau, there and then, yes I would say its a different team altogether and would not say Samoa should be losing by 20. They all, incidently played vs Wales in the World Cup - all seven of them! To me, this just underlines the extent of the problems for Scotland.
15
Autagavai
14
Perez
13 Otto (Bristol - English second division)
12 Williams
11 Lemi
10 Pisi
9 FotualÃi
8 Thompson
7 Fa´asavalu
6 Masoe
5 Crichton
4
Lemalu
3 Johnson
2 Paulo
1 Taulafo
16 Avei
17 Mulipola
18 Tekori
19
Aioni
20 Sua
21
Anufe
22
Lui
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]