Scotland's cupboard is bare

[TRF_Cymro]

Scottish rugby fans haven't had much to celebrate in recent years. In fact, since the 1999 Five Nations Championship-winning team they have had almost nothing to brag about except the odd victory over an ordinary England side (but not at Twickenham).

So the tartan hordes can be forgiven for wallowing in the team's recent success, walking around with a satisfied glow just like the kid in the Ready Brek advert, or anyone working in a nuclear plant. A team that has only rarely won more matches than they have lost has somehow triumphed in five of their last six outings. They have been beaten just once in their last seven Tests and they (briefly) climbed to sixth in the IRB world rankings table, an all time high. Hallelujah.

You would probably presume that those same Scottish fans are approaching the up-coming Six Nations rubbing their hands in anticipation, speculating on a cheeky Championship, especially given the fact that three of their five games are at Murrayfield this year. They would be well advised not to put the Champagne on ice just yet as 2011 promises to be a tester for the Scots.

Since Andy Robinson took over his team have made a virtue out of making the most of what scant resources they have. They have played somewhere close to their full potential in the last little while (New Zealand excepted) and have snuck games by a last gasp penalty (Ireland and Samoa) or by dogged defence (South Africa and Argentina) but no one claims that this squad of players is rewriting the text books on how to play the game and one wonders how long they can go on papering over the sort of holes that could house the ***anic.

http://www.espnscrum.com/scotland/rugby/story/132344.html​

 

[Teh Mite]

TBH Scotland have done well over the past year or so, but only a mug would pretend they've not been punching well above their weight for a while now.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Goes back to the regions producing the talent and whether two regions is enough for Scotland!

 

[Seaton]

I like this Ian Morrison's writing style
He hides the doom and gloom very well, good article

However, I am now distressed for the first time with regards to Graeme Morrison's injury

 

[Tom943]

The problem is that Dan Parks is to scarred to get tackled so he takes the ball deep and static.
This means that our dangerous runners outside him also get the ball static or at least not at a speed that may break tackles.
This leads to the team not making any ground so Parks kicks it away.
A different fly-half, Jackson for example would take the ball at more speed and therefore allow players outside him to build up speed before hitting the defence.
This may not mean Scotland start scoring 5 trys a game but surely it would create more try scoring opportunitys.

 

[LittleGuy]

Without Dan Parks Scotland would be in deep trouble and this decent run they have been on would have been nowhere near as lengthy. I agree he plays too deep and a different fly half might even give them an extra couple of tries over a couple of games but that won't make up for the points that will be missed by having a lower quality goal kicker not to mention the ability of Parks to hit drop goals from a fair distance. I think I actually mentioned that Ian Morrison tends to complain about Parks on a quarterly basis in a different thread LOL. I do like Jackson and he should get some more time in the years to come but I wouldn't throw him straight into the fire starting every game just yet. Scotland needs to find other platforms as well to create attacking oppourtunities, the set peices should be a focus especially the line out.

His game managment skills are unmatched by anyone else in the Scottish depth charts(I would go much further and say one of the best in the world) and Scotland are winning the exact way they should be by grinding out results(credit to LordHope's apt phrasing). There simply isn't the flair and creativity from the majority of players to match teams like France, Wales and what looks to be an invigorated England. Sometimes the defence crumbles as in the awful beating the AB's put on them in the Autumn tests, but results have generally been positive for Scotland for the last 10-12 months.

On an aside toward the depth issues has anyone heard anything lately about the possibilty of Visser acquiring residency to apply for a spot on the Scottish side, I had heard these rumours a while ago and he has never played a game for The Netherlands so he is still eligible to play for someone else, I think he would be a valuable asset going forward if he can be selected.

 

[Seaton]

I asked one of the other Scottish posters regarding Vissers elgibility

If I remember coorectly, he said he will only be available from June 2012 or so

Will have a look see

 

[TRF_Olyy]

From Wikipedia:

Visser is eligible to play for the Netherlands national rugby union team, but has opted not to do so in order to become eligible to play test rugby for one of the Home Nations. IRB eligibility rules state that a player may play for the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of the Union of the country in which he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing. In the past, Visser has expressed desire to play for England. In fact, on the same day he signed his contract with Edinburgh Rugby, he actually became eligible to play for England. However, because of his move to Scotland he no longer is. Visser has recently stated that he now wishes to play for Scotland when he becomes eligible in 2012.

 

[Daylightfire]

That just sums up how daft these laws are,,

I REALLY want to play for England,, Oh I can't now,, I REALLY REALLY want to play for Scotland.

What do the Scots fans make of someone that really wanted to play for England, and now plays for Scotland?

It's the same with some of the 'English' players too.

 

[Seaton]

Personally, I would rather have had him play for the Netherlands, even if he were Lomu Mark II, it would be better for him to play for his home country

The fact that he even considered playing for England irks me little in comparison to what was mentioned above

That said, I certainly wouldn't say no to his continued selection (if selected that is) if he plays his heart out and puts in the same amount of effort that others put in, he forgoe playing for his home country in order to play top level international rugby, whether that means he loves rugby more than his country, I can't tell

 

[Teh Mite]

Or, more likely, he'd command a bigger wages as a Scotland player then he would a Dutch player.

 

[minidod]

The problem is that Dan Parks is to scarred to get tackled so he takes the ball deep and static.

I may be new to this site but I have been saying the samething for over the last year, Dan Parks has no right to be picked for the Scotland First Team, and until they stop putting him on the pitch Scotland will never improve in either the 6 nations or the RWC.

You just have to look at the South Africa game the Scotland back line was flat and when Parks didn't kick the ball, (You would think it was a game of tennis) and remembered there was players outside him there was no ground gained because nobody was moving when the ball came to them. Parks came off the pitch and (if memory serves) Jackson came on and the whole game changed, the ball was put through hands and not into the air for the other team to collect and run back at us.

The other big thing that needs to change is scrum half picking the ball from rucks and running across the pitch, when I played the prefered route was towards the posts. all this achives is the opposition closing the gap on our runners and again we gain no ground.

The best thing the Scotland have is there forward pack is one of the best around at the moment. From watching Edinburgh and Glasgow both lineouts and scrums are top notch.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Agree with Minidod, Ruaridh Jackson needs more game time for Scotland - Was saying it during the AIs as well, but Scotland just like to stick with Parks

 

[hiz]

Minidod: "Dan Parks has no right to be picked for the Scotland First Team"

And who do you recommend that is going to do better? Ruaridh Jackson - he's not ready and not consistent enough yet, rushing him into pressure matches could do more harm than good for him and the team. Middle Blair - some way behind Jackson. Or promoting the emergency cover of Mossy or Southwell to the starting spot because their one match per season at FH gives them edge? Parks has had at least 4 MOTM awards since he came back into the squad and his kicking, tactical as well as goal, has been a key component in the best run of results the Scottish team has had in a decade plus. I've not always been his strongest advocate by any means and he's not the ideal flyhalf, but his game has come on massively in the last 18-months making him our best option by a mile (even when Godman is fit) and he has been delivering results. For that he deserves some credit, almost certainly the starting spot and perhaps even a little respect from Scottish supporters rather than nonsense statements like your's. As an Edinburgh fan, I'm seriously worried about the damage he could do today - even though his Cardiff form has not been that hot - but as a Scotland fan, I'm glad that any Scotland player can be considered such a threat.

And your memory doesn't serve - Jackson did not feature in the SA match. Parks, along with Barclay, was a stand out performer and his kicking, again both goal and tactical, was one of the key reasons why we won.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Tim Visser playing for Netherlands would be awesome but he would be the only one they need to stop to achieve a victory against the Low Lands... If Visser decides to represent Scotland, I will definitely be heading to Murrayfield several times next year...

 

[hiz]

Or, more likely, he'd command a bigger wages as a Scotland player then he would a Dutch player.

Rather too cynical. He's re-signed with Edinburgh rather than move elsewhere despite the money being considerably less than he could get in France, England or even the other Celtic nations. And if anything, not being attached to a test nation is beneficial contract and money wise as there is no issue of player release. The guy loves his rugby and wants to be able to test himself at the highest level - fair play to him. And if that means Scotland benefits - even better!

 

[hiz]

That just sums up how daft these laws are,,

I REALLY want to play for England,, Oh I can't now,, I REALLY REALLY want to play for Scotland.

What do the Scots fans make of someone that really wanted to play for England, and now plays for Scotland?

It's the same with some of the 'English' players too.

I'm not sure if Southwell, Evans, etc. would have moved north if they'd thought they could've got into the England side. And definitely not Hines or Parks from Australia.

We're in a very different situation from England. We're a wee country with fewer registered players than any other 6N or top 10 ranked team (less than 5% of the English number according to last IRB report). We can't afford to turn away talented players and as long as they're committed to the team, I don't see it as an issue. A successful side brings more people to the sport - spectating and playing - so the inclusion of someone as talented and exciting as Visser can only be good for Scottish rugby in the long run.

 

[LittleGuy]

I'm not sure if Southwell, Evans, etc. would have moved north if they'd thought they could've got into the England side. And definitely not Hines or Parks from Australia.

We're in a very different situation from England. We're a wee country with fewer registered players than any other 6N or top 10 ranked team (less than 5% of the English number according to last IRB report). We can't afford to turn away talented players and as long as they're committed to the team, I don't see it as an issue. A successful side brings more people to the sport - spectating and playing - so the inclusion of someone as talented and exciting as Visser can only be good for Scottish rugby in the long run.

I was surprised to see how few registered players there were in Scotland in that last report. Do you think there might be some under reporting of the numbers, I think Scotland wasn't that much (not in relative terms but absolute numbers) ahead of Canada, although from my own experience not everyone who plays in the local club around here is "registered" there are a lot of guys that come down for a game or two in the season and just give the club a couple of dollars but don't pay their full dues.

As a follower of a tier two country we have had our share of imports as well James Pritchard being the most visible example but a glance around most national squads shows at least a couple of players with ties to another country so it goes both ways.

 

[Seaton]

There could be an under-reporting of players, but in the end it wouldn't amnount to anything more than 2000 at most, as they would pretty much go to the clubs to take a tally, and I doubt there are many people who claim to play rugby without a team ( there are people like this)

 

[hiz]

I would agree with that plus if there is under-reporting then it's likely to be to a similar percentage level for all unions, at least all similar unions, so wouldn't really change the picture.

The main problem in Scotland is, and pretty much always has been, is the amount of rugby played in state schools. For too long there has been a preconception here that rugby is for public (private) schools not state schools. Certainly, there have always been some very good exceptions to that rule amongst state schools, and certain areas notably the Borders have faired better than others, but there is a shortage of youngsters coming to the sport through school despite the SRU's considerable efforts.

We had a couple of Scotland players come round every primary school in the town just before the summer break when I was in my final year at primary. When we moved to secondary after the holidays, the options for playing rugby were minimal. There was no rugby team for the junior school boys and although the girls managed to petition for a girls team to be set up, it was cancelled after a month or so because the numbers weren't high enough (hardly time to build interest). Within classes, it was 'taught' for 4/5 weeks per year (when not cancelled due to bad weather) and only to the boys. The situation at the same school is even worse now - my cousin is now 17, I took him and some of his friends to their first few Scotland matches just before he started his standard grades (studied for two years from 14-16). Enthused by their trips to Murrayfield, he and his friends asked the Head of PE if rugby would be included in the Standard Grade curriculum. Despite choosing PE as one of their standard grade subjects, meaning they'd be committing to around 6 hours PE per week (including the mandatory 2-3hrs), they were told that there would be no time for rugby - at all! And all after hours rugby teams have been scrapped. These were all members of the school's basketball team, so had at least good hands, and were all keen to get involved but went through their entire time at school without ever once being given the chance to try rugby. Funnily enough, I see the same Head of PE at Murrayfield, or on the train home, a couple of times every season - I'm often tempted to start a debate on rugby in schools on the train with some particularly drunk and rowdy forwards, then point him out!

It's just one school but as example it shows the issue. It must be very intimidating, and requires a big step up in interest levels, for a kid whose not got family or friends in a club to pitch up and join if they've had zero experience of playing the game and it certainly dissuaded my cousin and his friends from doing so (plus the town's club is just starting to recover from years of rather patchy existence). Not every kid goes to university either and if you've not got them participating by that time, the chance of getting them involved at all is minimal and the chance of them choosing, or having the option of, rugby as a profession is gone.

Around the time of the latest revamp in the SRU's regional development policy, I was working for a neighbouring local authority so got a couple of chances to chat to the guy responsible for this area - his enthusiasm and commitment are not to be doubted, and he has helped greatly with the town's club, but unless he and his colleagues across Scotland have the backing of schools and teachers, their impact will be severely limited.

The role of the Scottish broadcasters has to be considered also - their coverage outwith the AIs, RWC and 6N is abysmal. Magners League matches shown only on a Gaelic channel which is available only via satellite or online and which does not provide English alternative commentary, or cursory late night highlights with no summary, interviews, etc. Radio coverage is not much better - Radio Scotland only provide this when they feel like it and not if it'll mean Tammy McHalfcut fae Inverpubahunnermilesfaeglesga's views on that weekends Old Firm matches aren't heard. There was no live coverage, TV, radio or online, of either team's Heineken Cup matches this weekend and we'll be reliant on ITV national, with its understandably English bias, to show highlights on its most minor channel - we'll be lucky to get 2 minutes per game. Without regular, promoted and accessible coverage, which the SRU are prepared to pay for let alone give away, then getting people enthused, inspired and participating is an uphill struggle.