Scotland: The Next Step

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

They're substantially worse than the other home nations. Yes they have a decent back three, but so do Ireland, England and Wales. In all other areas mentioned they're inferior. Duncan Weir over Sexton or Farrell? Come on. I'd have Biggar over him too. Laidlaw is a good player, but again this isn't an area of weakness for the sides around them. Murray and Care are just as good imo, while Philips can be very effective if he's got his head screwed on. I think their back row lags behind the others in Europe, the second rows are passable to good and their front row is still very poor.

This thread asks what the next step is for Scottish rugby, not to sugar coat all of Scotland's problems. They're a poor side. They need a far higher standard of player if they want to compete. Since 2010 Ireland, Wales, England and France have all won ***les. Scotland's best finish in that time frame is third in 2013, the only year they managed more than one win. Their under 20's have only won 4 Six nations games in the last 5 years. This isn't a management problem, this is a simple lack of players of a high enough standard.

What's the next step for Scottish rugby? Probably plundering the ITM and Currie Cup to try and find anyone with Scottish heritage that might help them cling on to some semblance of competitiveness while the SRU tries to save the game at underage level . And yes, I do see the irony of an Irish person saying this considering the IRFU's NIQ policy, but whereas a residency/heritage player is a nice bonus for us to have, they're going to be vital for the survival of the Scottish game.

Agree with this entirely.

next step for Scotland? Exploit the fact that many New Zealanders have Scottish Heritage. Seriously.

By the way has anyone worked out yet how Sean Lamont has managed to get 88 caps and counting?

 

[goodNumber10]

Agree with this entirely.

next step for Scotland? Exploit the fact that many New Zealanders have Scottish Heritage. Seriously.

Project players are not the way forward for Scottish rugby, it's bringing in players who don't fit the indigenous style of play. It's pointless, and what's the point in bringing in 2nd rate SH players to do the same job.

By the way has anyone worked out yet how Sean Lamont has managed to get 88 caps and counting?

yeah, never saw Sean Lamont as anything other than a stop gap - Rory was a better player imho.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

This from Rory Lamont's Wiki:

Rory is the younger brother of Sean Lamont. He is regarded by many as the brother of the greatest Scottish rugby union player in history. This has lead to him being described by Sean Lamont as "a poor mans Sean Lamont. Rory was unavailable for comment but is believed to be of the opinion that the comments are very disingenuous.

 

[goodNumber10]

lol! brilliant.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Project players are not the way forward for Scottish rugby, it's bringing in players who don't fit the indigenous style of play. It's pointless, and what's the point in bringing in 2nd rate SH players to do the same job.



yeah, never saw Sean Lamont as anything other than a stop gap - Rory was a better player imho.

I don't buy this at all. You don't have an indigenous style of play, you have a style of play that suits the players at your disposal. If you have a great 10 and a big pack you play territory and take your points. If you have great backs you spread the ball. It doesn't matter whether you're from South Africa, Australia, England or wherever, you play to your strengths.

What's New Zealand's style of play? Just be really good at every facet of the game by the looks of it. Every team should aspire to that.

Anyway, I see no point in Scotland trying to play an "indigenous Scottish style of play" if the players who'd suit that game plan aren't good enough to compete at international level.

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't buy this at all. You don't have an indigenous style of play,

of course you do.

****Edit: if indigenous bothers you swap it out for traditional.

you have a style of play that suits the players at your disposal.

I agree, but that will be defined by the phsycial attributes and the systems the players come through - thus defining your indigenous style of play.

If you have a great 10 and a big pack you play territory and take your points. If you have great backs you spread the ball. It doesn't matter whether you're from South Africa, Australia, England or wherever, you play to your strengths.

yes and those strengths will be defined by the players at your disposal, so bringing in project players from different systems etc... won't necessarily fit in with your other players.

What's New Zealand's style of play? Just be really good at every facet of the game by the looks of it. Every team should aspire to that.

Quick, ball in hand skill based rugby. The new zealand systems and peoples natural genetic make up defines their style of play, as does fiji, samoa, Tonga etc.... there may be small changes here and there and tweaking etc... but it essentially stays the same.

That's for the same reason why England and South Africa excel at a power based game.

Anyway, I see no point in Scotland trying to play an "indigenous Scottish style of play" if the players who'd suit that game plan aren't good enough to compete at international level.

The players are good enough fi they play to a game plan that suits them. Much like Ireland do.

 

[Peat]

How many Scottish players would make it into the Welsh, Irish, English or French sides? Looking at the side that faced us in the Six Nations I might take Hogg, Maitland (not with a fit and firing Tommy Bowe available though) and maybe Jim Hamilton. That's about it. I'd imagine Welsh and English posters would take similarly few players into their sides. Scotland are way behind all of the other traditional northern hemisphere sides in terms of the quality available to them , and you're codding yourself if you think otherwise.

I feel this is something of a red herring.

How many of England's 2012-3 team would you take? I feel the 2013 Lions squad kinda got it right really, you started selecting on raw talent and England only had a couple of players outside the front row. Yet back then we were putting in some very solid international performances in terms of results. The reason why is that England were able to weld a relatively average playing pool together far better than, say, Declan Kidney and his motley-collection of the worst coached HEC winners in history.

I don't feel it's wrong to suggest there's enough Scottish talent for them to perform better than they do. They've just been using Andy Robinson and Scott Johnson as their international coaches, is anyone surprised that they might not have got the best out of them?

Now, admittedly, this argument runs into problems when you consider the front row. It is, with 10, the one area where Scotland genuinely look short of talent that other nations' fans would accept in their team. It's very difficult to get a team to perform if they're missing a front row and a 10, although England's done quite well with the latter half of that, and Australia's managed to get around the former a few times. If Cotter can find the players to seal up those areas of concern, I feel quite a lot could be got out of Scotland, particularly if they can also locate two centres who'll tackle everything.

However, all of this said - Scotland's next step is to desperately and frantically resurrect the rugby culture of their country; they need more kids playing, they need more opportunities for them to learn the pro game, and they need more people spending money. Talking about the national team is like talking about selling nicotine patches to a smack addict.

 

[Big Ewis]

well yeah but watching Scotland these past 2 years, they always have a really nice backline, and back three specifically. You see them try out combinations and play running ball, but they just have issues finishing, which obviously is the most difficult. They've got plenty of youth and pace AND power btw with a couple of hulking wings when fully healthy in that backline, but yet have not been put in a system that allows them to strive. Surely with the right coach, they could be an attacking threat, they've had to rely on broken play counter-attacks to score tries these past two years, I haven't seen them score a team try in a while or only just the one maybe.

I know that compared to the rest of the home nations they lack a few big names, but it isn't by comparing pound for pound and individually that we'll get our answers as to a side's potential and what they could effectively accomplish as a group. England have almost always, and typically, had lesser players individually but as a contingent have played better than any team in Europe. It's only recently we're starting to pick English guys in elite fantasy XV's, before that I had my Lions XV with all Irish and Welsh basically, and individually I'll still pick mostly French over English, even nowadays, and yet France are a joking joke of jokeness while England are coming back home from a fairly satisfying tour of New Invincibleland.

Looking at what Scotland have on paper, regardless of who's around, they should be able to compete. They've got power, experience and fresh youth, tons of pace, a good enough halfback pair, and a bench that should do. At very least, they certainly could do better than what we've seen, and they've often come really close but only just close in recent memory: I'm thinking of that very good game against Aus last Nov., or that valiant effort in S.A. in 2013. And of course can you imagine they almost defeated the mighty French last 6N, if that isn't testimony to my point.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I feel this is something of a red herring.

How many of England's 2012-3 team would you take? I feel the 2013 Lions squad kinda got it right really, you started selecting on raw talent and England only had a couple of players outside the front row. Yet back then we were putting in some very solid international performances in terms of results. The reason why is that England were able to weld a relatively average playing pool together far better than, say, Declan Kidney and his motley-collection of the worst coached HEC winners in history.

I don't feel it's wrong to suggest there's enough Scottish talent for them to perform better than they do. They've just been using Andy Robinson and Scott Johnson as their international coaches, is anyone surprised that they might not have got the best out of them?

Now, admittedly, this argument runs into problems when you consider the front row. It is, with 10, the one area where Scotland genuinely look short of talent that other nations' fans would accept in their team. It's very difficult to get a team to perform if they're missing a front row and a 10, although England's done quite well with the latter half of that, and Australia's managed to get around the former a few times. If Cotter can find the players to seal up those areas of concern, I feel quite a lot could be got out of Scotland, particularly if they can also locate two centres who'll tackle everything.

However, all of this said - Scotland's next step is to desperately and frantically resurrect the rugby culture of their country; they need more kids playing, they need more opportunities for them to learn the pro game, and they need more people spending money. Talking about the national team is like talking about selling nicotine patches to a smack addict.

I'd probably have had more of that England team than the current Scottish one I'd say. A They were good to very good in most areas on the park, without having an real standout attributes. This Scotland team is poor to average in most departments.

I suppose a better way of putting is that I can't see Scotland winning a 6 nations championship within the next 10 years, regardless of coach. As you've said their next step should be to try and save the game at the grassroots.

That said, they might just get lucky and get a really good generation of players through all at once. It happened to us in the early 2000's and it's revolutionized the popularity of the game over here to the point where we're not likely to see the dramatic barren periods we had in the amateur era. (hopefully) But you can't plan for that.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

of course you do.

****Edit: if indigenous bothers you swap it out for traditional.



I agree, but that will be defined by the phsycial attributes and the systems the players come through - thus defining your indigenous style of play.



yes and those strengths will be defined by the players at your disposal, so bringing in project players from different systems etc... won't necessarily fit in with your other players.



Quick, ball in hand skill based rugby. The new zealand systems and peoples natural genetic make up defines their style of play, as does fiji, samoa, Tonga etc.... there may be small changes here and there and tweaking etc... but it essentially stays the same.

That's for the same reason why England and South Africa excel at a power based game.



The players are good enough fi they play to a game plan that suits them. Much like Ireland do.

The very idea of an idigenous style of play is itself a red herring imo.

You only develop a really strongly 'national style' which you base a game plan around if you have remarkable attributes which many of your players hold in common.
New Zealanders have a very high skill set especially with regard to handling and they therefore throw it around a lot
South Africans are very often terrifyingly huge and therefore will always play lots of phases straight through and around the ruck with their pack.

Not all teams are defined by a style, because they don't all have attributes held in common, and Scotland exemplify this:

They arn't particularly big on average and rarely have been
They arn't particularly skillfull.

They are as normal a bunch of players as you can find and therefore I struggle to see how you could come up with a game plan that doesn't suit them.
Like most teams, they're strategy should be targeted depending on the specific opposition.

 

[goodNumber10]

The very idea of an idigenous style of play is itself a red herring imo.

You only develop a really strongly 'national style' which you base a game plan around if you have remarkable attributes which many of your players hold in common.
New Zealanders have a very high skill set especially with regard to handling and they therefore throw it around a lot
South Africans are very often terrifyingly huge and therefore will always play lots of phases straight through and around the ruck with their pack.

You've kind of contradicted yourself there mate.

Not all teams are defined by a style, because they don't all have attributes held in common, and Scotland exemplify this:

I'm struggling to think of a team which isn't known for a particular brand of rugby.

They arn't particularly big on average and rarely have been
They arn't particularly skillfull.

They are as normal a bunch of players as you can find and therefore I struggle to see how you could come up with a game plan that doesn't suit them.
Like most teams, they're strategy should be targeted depending on the specific opposition.

No, they aren't, you're right.

But if you think back through the 70's, 80's and early to mid 90's that's the style of play they have always been a quick side, and played the game at a very fast tempo. A rucking game allied with a kicking game that was little more than bombs from the 10.

Backs wise they played flat and just got over the gainline, the ball seldom saw the back three who worked mainly as a seperate unit.

Think John Rutherford at 10 he did one of two things really - hoofed it high and made breaks on his own. Chalmers was the same and when you think about hastings and lineed neither were good passers and just trucked it yup looking for a quick recycle and then forward inter linking play off the 9 who was little more than a brilliant backrow player.

Now think of the players they have that fit that game plan and it's not so bad.

It's what they have always been successful with - in a lot of ways it was very similar to New Zealand but with out the wide backs.

 

[Feicarsinn]

What kind of rugby are we known for?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

You've kind of contradicted yourself there mate.


I'm struggling to think of a team which isn't known for a particular brand of rugby.


No, they aren't, you're right.

But if you think back through the 70's, 80's and early to mid 90's that's the style of play they have always been a quick side, and played the game at a very fast tempo. A rucking game allied with a kicking game that was little more than bombs from the 10.

Backs wise they played flat and just got over the gainline, the ball seldom saw the back three who worked mainly as a seperate unit.

Think John Rutherford at 10 he did one of two things really - hoofed it high and made breaks on his own. Chalmers was the same and when you think about hastings and lineed neither were good passers and just trucked it yup looking for a quick recycle and then forward inter linking play off the 9 who was little more than a brilliant backrow player.

Now think of the players they have that fit that game plan and it's not so bad.

It's what they have always been successful with - in a lot of ways it was very similar to New Zealand but with out the wide backs.

How did I contradict myself?


You're using how Scotland used to play back when they had some skillful players to suggest that they have a style of play they are naturally suited to, and which they should play now. In what way is this relevant to now?

Sides can have a set style only insofar as the players they have at their disposal lend themselves particularly well to that style. The moment that generation ends, a national style dies with it.

Surely you have noticed the difference between the Wales style of old and the Wales style of old?
It's because the players have changed. Any notion of how they used to play is just extra baggage to be disposed of.

What are Scotlands relevant 21st century characteristics?
In fact, which of the current six nations teams are genuinely playing a style they are historically associated with?

 

[Big Ewis]

I'm struggling to think of a team which isn't known for a particular brand of rugby.

pfff, you're so wrong there....France play the most amorphic style these days man, don't you EVER....EVER underestimate Saint-André's ability to play an unspecific brand of rugby, excuse me but, you fkng t*at. Don't you EVER.

 

[goodNumber10]

How did I contradict myself?

with this:

The very idea of an idigenous style of play is itself a red herring imo.

You only develop a really strongly 'national style' which you base a game plan around if you have remarkable attributes which many of your players hold in common.
New Zealanders have a very high skill set especially with regard to handling and they therefore throw it around a lot
South Africans are very often terrifyingly huge and therefore will always play lots of phases straight through and around the ruck with their pack.

You're saying there is no such thing as indigineous style then explaining why NZ and SA both have one.

You're using how Scotland used to play back when they had some skillful players to suggest that they have a style of play they are naturally suited to, and which they should play now. In what way is this relevant to now?

it's relevant now because i'm saying their current generation of players would be better suited to that simple fast game plan than the expansive punch and spread style they've beee trying to play for the last decade.

They never had an amazing skillful team, they had some quite limited players and didn't ask them to exceed their skillset but focus on what they are really good at, i think if scotland went back to that style fo game plan they'd have a lot more success than the total rugby they are aiming for now.

Sides can have a set style only insofar as the players they have at their disposal lend themselves particularly well to that style. The moment that generation ends, a national style dies with it.

Surely you have noticed the difference between the Wales style of old and the Wales style of old?
It's because the players have changed. Any notion of how they used to play is just extra baggage to be disposed of.

What are Scotlands relevant 21st century characteristics?
In fact, which of the current six nations teams are genuinely playing a style they are historically associated with?

England & Ireland both are.

And that is that the point. The teams that aren't are struggling - France, Italy and Scotland.

Wales have always been big physical boys in comparison.

pfff, you're so wrong there....France play the most amorphic style these days man, don't you EVER....EVER underestimate Saint-André's ability to play an unspecific brand of rugby, excuse me but, you fkng t*at. Don't you EVER.

yes, currently, but they are KNOWN for a style of play.

 

[Peat]

The idea that nations don't develop styles of play is ludicrous. If a certain way of playing is held up as the ideal and gold standard, it will then be taught across schools, it will be emulated by children, it will perpetuate - particularly when it is associated with genetic trends to athleticism.

Now, not every nation develops them, and they don't always stay the same, particularly with the onset of the professional game, but to say they don't exist... I mean, sorry, what?

Feic - I'm not saying they could win the 6N tomorrow or that they don't have deep seated issues that are turning into real issues for the national coach; the point was that I feel there's merit to the argument that they've been underperforming compared to where they could be and have not been best coached, and that concentrating the argument on the talent pool is erroneous when we've watched various other teams either out or under-perform what people reckon to be the natural level of the players involved.

p.s. Right now the Irish don't have any particular national style other than a tendency towards Garryowens and big wingers who are strong in the air; I suppose you could make something out of the trend of converting 8/6s to 7s and jinky centres too. The dissonance between how Munster traditionally like to play and Leinster traditionally like to play is very noted, although that's breaking down. However, the systematic appointment of NZ coaches across the top echelon of Irish rugby could be construed as the IRFU trying to impose a national style from the top down.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

peat when the hell did I say there's no such thing as a natural style? I'm saying the context here is misleading because not every team develops a particularly distinct one and therefore its confusing to talk about a team not playing to particular strengths when such strengths don't really exist any more or any less than any other rugby nation.


No, my point is that you are talking as if all teams must have a natural style which they will always go back to... I am saying that it depends entirely on the players available, and only a few teams on the planet have such dominant strengths in one aspect of the game that it can be characterised as an 'Indigenous or traditional' style. I'm not denying its existence, but I think it's a red herring because it makes like it seem like everyone has to possess one which is completely distinct to them.
teams may display certain traits more than others without it amounting to a natural style... Ireland play the loop backs move incessantly...but its not their style
The size of the Welsh guys is hardly the point - it's the fact that they used to throw the ball around and now now they don't. In fact Wales changed in record time between 2005 and 2010. They are unrecognizable.
In what world do England play do the same game they've always done?
I really don't follow the logic.


To my eyes your argument has taken a slight detour based on incidental... " the point" as you outline above, is that teams struggle if they don't stick to a style they are historically associated with?

 

[goodNumber10]

peat when the hell did I say there's no such thing as a natural style? I'm saying the context here is misleading because not every team develops a particularly distinct one and therefore its confusing to talk about a team not playing to particular strengths when such strengths don't really exist any more or any less than any other rugby nation.

but we're saying those strengths do exist, they just need to move their Game plan back towards them (or at least that's what i'm saying)

No, my point is that you are talking as if all teams must have a natural style which they will always go back to... I am saying that it depends entirely on the players available, and only a few teams on the planet have such dominant strengths in one aspect of the game that it can be characterised as an 'Indigenous or traditional' style. I'm not denying its existence, but I think it's a red herring because it makes like it seem like everyone has to possess one which is completely distinct to them.
teams may display certain traits more than others without it amounting to a natural style... Ireland play the loop backs move incessantly...but its not their style

A set backs move isn't a style it's a pattern of play. Ireland have always had a ferocious pack that mixed it up, strong set piece focus and a good passing game through their 10/12/13 - with a 10 that ran the show. They've always played the game with pace and their back 3 has normally been physical and solid rather than pacey.

If you go through pretty much every team in the top 20 you can define them with a style of play they are known as having.

The size of the Welsh guys is hardly the point - it's the fact that they used to throw the ball around and now now they don't. In fact Wales changed in record time between 2005 and 2010. They are unrecognizable.

they've always had big solid midfield that got over the gain line and fast back three that scored plenty of trys, because they had a couple of 10's that could do a jinking run doesn't mean they lobbed the ball from one side of the pitch to the other - the pattern of play may be different but the style of play is similar.

In what world do England play do the same game they've always done?
I really don't follow the logic.

Big physical pack, solid 10 with a great boot, snipey 9 that is the spark. excellent back three. You don't think there is any similarity to the best england teams over the last 50 years or so?

To my eyes your argument has taken a slight detour based on incidental... " the point" as you outline above, is that teams struggle if they don't stick to a style they are historically associated with?

I'm saying that a team that doesn't play to it's attributes struggles, those teams have abandoned a game plan based on their natural playing ability are struggling.

I'm not saying everyone should only ever play one game plan and never change it, but there are traditional strengths that they can build a modern game plan around.

 

[Peat]

Misread you then Henry.

I have to say I am dubious to the idea that Scotland have a strong natural style at the moment. The days of the quick-rucking border reivers seems to be over. That said, if I was picking a Scotland team, I'd definitely have one of Barclay or Rennie at 7 rather than Kelly Brown...

... but I feel big guys have been a relative strength of theirs recently. Guys like Jim Hamilton, Dave Denton, Al Kellock, Ross Ford... recent Scots packs have been pretty big. You don't ask Jim Hamilton to try and run people into the ground, right?

 

[Big Ewis]

yes, currently, but they are KNOWN for a style of play.

pfff, you're just biased coz I'm French. You're just trying to imprison France in a particular scheme when you know damn well we're Chaos itself, in fact if the very entity of Chaos saw France play, it would get a heart attack and implode into itself for all time. There are no limits to our immeasurable remoteness, and your attempts to hurt my feelings saying the contrary have no effect on me !