Team for Scotland

[Digby]

I don't think we had an out and out problem with carriers on Sunday. We lost contact for a large part of the game, yet a fair amount of that was us going back in defence, and we did carry over the gainline and we did gain territory. Problems for me would be the our lineout, ball presentation having gone into contact, ruck clearout, and the slow speed at which we played the ball (much of that stemming from the ball presentation and ruck work, but perhaps also the shape we want to get into in attack and Youngs) and our discipline.

Of course having people who can carry 5m over the gainline would address much of that, it'd address much of anything, but nobody really has those sort of players, and certainly nobody has them and isn't picking them already. So the slightly better carriers we'd be possibly adding aren't going to shift our game much if we retain those other problems stated above.

Given that most forwards made less yards than carries, I think you could say we had an out and out problem with carrying....if they aren’t even getting through the tackle line, clearing becomes very difficult. Chicken meet egg. Addressing setting up said carriers to succeed might be the way forward?

We didn't carry for huge metres, but we did get over the gainline and we did have plenty of territory, yes if we'd simply carried another 200m say things might have improved again but I do wonder if other options available would have carried for much more. If we have got someone who's going to get us over the gainline and run an extra 80m I'm not going to say no, but I'd be starting with what happened, or didn't happen, when we got over the gainline and failed to do anything with that

[Digby]

I don't think we had an out and out problem with carriers on Sunday. We lost contact for a large part of the game, yet a fair amount of that was us going back in defence, and we did carry over the gainline and we did gain territory. Problems for me would be the our lineout, ball presentation having gone into contact, ruck clearout, and the slow speed at which we played the ball (much of that stemming from the ball presentation and ruck work, but perhaps also the shape we want to get into in attack and Youngs) and our discipline.

Of course having people who can carry 5m over the gainline would address much of that, it'd address much of anything, but nobody really has those sort of players, and certainly nobody has them and isn't picking them already. So the slightly better carriers we'd be possibly adding aren't going to shift our game much if we retain those other problems stated above.

So you mean picking a breakdown specialist instead of a 3rd lock might have been a good idea? I'll be damned.

Look, I'm a big fan of what Lawes brings to the team nowadays. But he is far from an international flanker.

Will Mako be fit? That'd take some of the carrying burden. An actual 8 would take more.

I wouldn't be averse to seeing Devoto at 12, even if it meant Farrell at 10. But considering the impact that will have on our already limited attack, all that'll happen is Devoto getting scapegoated for the shit show inside him and dropped promptly again.

I seriously wonder at how many of our problems could be resolved by just removing Farrell...

Lawes wasn't good, but he wasn't the only one. We were too nice, funny when we were told we'd be brutal, none of the tight five were what you'd want, Underhill wasn't wonderful on clearout and protection and then additional to that having a slow upright blindside didn't help.

[Banquo]

I don't think we had an out and out problem with carriers on Sunday. We lost contact for a large part of the game, yet a fair amount of that was us going back in defence, and we did carry over the gainline and we did gain territory. Problems for me would be the our lineout, ball presentation having gone into contact, ruck clearout, and the slow speed at which we played the ball (much of that stemming from the ball presentation and ruck work, but perhaps also the shape we want to get into in attack and Youngs) and our discipline.

Of course having people who can carry 5m over the gainline would address much of that, it'd address much of anything, but nobody really has those sort of players, and certainly nobody has them and isn't picking them already. So the slightly better carriers we'd be possibly adding aren't going to shift our game much if we retain those other problems stated above.

Given that most forwards made less yards than carries, I think you could say we had an out and out problem with carrying....if they aren’t even getting through the tackle line, clearing becomes very difficult. Chicken meet egg. Addressing setting up said carriers to succeed might be the way forward?

No idea if you saw the same stat or not in this headline but it’s not great.

Looked on ESPN- all forwards bar underhill and Kruis made less metres than carries.

[Banquo]

I don't think we had an out and out problem with carriers on Sunday. We lost contact for a large part of the game, yet a fair amount of that was us going back in defence, and we did carry over the gainline and we did gain territory. Problems for me would be the our lineout, ball presentation having gone into contact, ruck clearout, and the slow speed at which we played the ball (much of that stemming from the ball presentation and ruck work, but perhaps also the shape we want to get into in attack and Youngs) and our discipline.

Of course having people who can carry 5m over the gainline would address much of that, it'd address much of anything, but nobody really has those sort of players, and certainly nobody has them and isn't picking them already. So the slightly better carriers we'd be possibly adding aren't going to shift our game much if we retain those other problems stated above.

Given that most forwards made less yards than carries, I think you could say we had an out and out problem with carrying....if they aren’t even getting through the tackle line, clearing becomes very difficult. Chicken meet egg. Addressing setting up said carriers to succeed might be the way forward?

We didn't carry for huge metres, but we did get over the gainline and we did have plenty of territory, yes if we'd simply carried another 200m say things might have improved again but I do wonder if other options available would have carried for much more. If we have got someone who's going to get us over the gainline and run an extra 80m I'm not going to say no, but I'd be starting with what happened, or didn't happen, when we got over the gainline and failed to do anything with that

We carried a hell of a lot for zero metres or loss in many cases- has to be a big issue for speed of ball. You are right to say it isn’t just about the personnel though, hence my point about setting them up to succeed. We had almost identical stats v SA.
I get your other point about making some gains (I’d warrant a good chunk was Mays two tries)- but equally the failure to capitalise on other opportunities was a combination of slow ball (and getting knocked back at the tackle line can’t help, especially with a side so sloppy at the breakdown), poor decision making, and inability to make a second dent (through/carrying, or round).
So I do think we need to look seriously at carriers and carrying, AND clearing/breakdown, AND use of primary possession, AND many other things. Course, botched selection clouds the picture a lot.

[Digby]

Given that most forwards made less yards than carries, I think you could say we had an out and out problem with carrying....if they aren’t even getting through the tackle line, clearing becomes very difficult. Chicken meet egg. Addressing setting up said carriers to succeed might be the way forward?

We didn't carry for huge metres, but we did get over the gainline and we did have plenty of territory, yes if we'd simply carried another 200m say things might have improved again but I do wonder if other options available would have carried for much more. If we have got someone who's going to get us over the gainline and run an extra 80m I'm not going to say no, but I'd be starting with what happened, or didn't happen, when we got over the gainline and failed to do anything with that

We carried a hell of a lot for zero metres or loss in many cases- has to be a big issue for speed of ball. You are right to say it isn’t just about the personnel though, hence my point about setting them up to succeed. We had almost identical stats v SA.
I get your other point about making some gains (I’d warrant a good chunk was Mays two tries)- but equally the failure to capitalise on other opportunities was a combination of slow ball (and getting knocked back at the tackle line can’t help, especially with a side so sloppy at the breakdown), poor decision making, and inability to make a second dent (through/carrying, or round).
So I do think we need to look seriously at carriers and carrying, AND clearing/breakdown, AND use of primary possession, AND many other things. Course, botched selection clouds the picture a lot.

I'm more thinking of the plays that see us go over the gainline that I've picked up doing the minute by minute. Not actually reached May's tries yet. Also you don't always need the big carries you need the field position and we had that, we had lots of it

I'll note this however, if we're not carrying for big metres and we have at times gotten over the gainline that suggests we're not struggling to support carries that are difficult to support and more we just can't support

[Banquo]

We didn't carry for huge metres, but we did get over the gainline and we did have plenty of territory, yes if we'd simply carried another 200m say things might have improved again but I do wonder if other options available would have carried for much more. If we have got someone who's going to get us over the gainline and run an extra 80m I'm not going to say no, but I'd be starting with what happened, or didn't happen, when we got over the gainline and failed to do anything with that

We carried a hell of a lot for zero metres or loss in many cases- has to be a big issue for speed of ball. You are right to say it isn’t just about the personnel though, hence my point about setting them up to succeed. We had almost identical stats v SA.
I get your other point about making some gains (I’d warrant a good chunk was Mays two tries)- but equally the failure to capitalise on other opportunities was a combination of slow ball (and getting knocked back at the tackle line can’t help, especially with a side so sloppy at the breakdown), poor decision making, and inability to make a second dent (through/carrying, or round).
So I do think we need to look seriously at carriers and carrying, AND clearing/breakdown, AND use of primary possession, AND many other things. Course, botched selection clouds the picture a lot.

I'm more thinking of the plays that see us go over the gainline that I've picked up doing the minute by minute. Not actually reached May's tries yet. Also you don't always need the big carries you need the field position and we had that, we had lots of it

I'll note this however, if we're not carrying for big metres and we have at times gotten over the gainline that suggests we're not struggling to support carries that are difficult to support and more we just can't support

I get that we failed to convert territory, but it’s undeniable that we carried a lot to little avail. I’m also not looking for big carries, but lots of small successful ones spread out amongst the troops. I’d also note this is two games in a row where we’ve made precious few yards up front- which as we know leaves plenty of defenders unoccupied alongside all the other issues.

[Mellsblue]

Looks like Biggles will get a second chance:

[francoisfou]

[quote="Mellsblue"]Looks like Biggles will get a second chance:


Chocks away for the Jocks away. .... Taxi!

[Digby]

We carried a hell of a lot for zero metres or loss in many cases- has to be a big issue for speed of ball. You are right to say it isn’t just about the personnel though, hence my point about setting them up to succeed. We had almost identical stats v SA.
I get your other point about making some gains (I’d warrant a good chunk was Mays two tries)- but equally the failure to capitalise on other opportunities was a combination of slow ball (and getting knocked back at the tackle line can’t help, especially with a side so sloppy at the breakdown), poor decision making, and inability to make a second dent (through/carrying, or round).
So I do think we need to look seriously at carriers and carrying, AND clearing/breakdown, AND use of primary possession, AND many other things. Course, botched selection clouds the picture a lot.

I'm more thinking of the plays that see us go over the gainline that I've picked up doing the minute by minute. Not actually reached May's tries yet. Also you don't always need the big carries you need the field position and we had that, we had lots of it

I'll note this however, if we're not carrying for big metres and we have at times gotten over the gainline that suggests we're not struggling to support carries that are difficult to support and more we just can't support

I get that we failed to convert territory, but it’s undeniable that we carried a lot to little avail. I’m also not looking for big carries, but lots of small successful ones spread out amongst the troops. I’d also note this is two games in a row where we’ve made precious few yards up front- which as we know leaves plenty of defenders unoccupied alongside all the other issues.

I agree we failed to carry well enough, but if we're going to support this badly I'm not sure carrying a little bit better is going to help. We either need to carry far better, or address some of the support issues to address what has just gone. Both would be nice of course.

As I'm not sold Mako or Genge for Marler and a flanker for Lawes is going to hugely change our carrying I'd like them to focus first on the support play.

Might not be easy to judge how the next game goes when Scotland do not have a pack that reminds one of SA or France

[Banquo]

I'm more thinking of the plays that see us go over the gainline that I've picked up doing the minute by minute. Not actually reached May's tries yet. Also you don't always need the big carries you need the field position and we had that, we had lots of it

I'll note this however, if we're not carrying for big metres and we have at times gotten over the gainline that suggests we're not struggling to support carries that are difficult to support and more we just can't support

I get that we failed to convert territory, but it’s undeniable that we carried a lot to little avail. I’m also not looking for big carries, but lots of small successful ones spread out amongst the troops. I’d also note this is two games in a row where we’ve made precious few yards up front- which as we know leaves plenty of defenders unoccupied alongside all the other issues.

I agree we failed to carry well enough, but if we're going to support this badly I'm not sure carrying a little bit better is going to help. We either need to carry far better, or address some of the support issues to address what has just gone. Both would be nice of course.

As I'm not sold Mako or Genge for Marler and a flanker for Lawes is going to hugely change our carrying I'd like them to focus first on the support play.

Might not be easy to judge how the next game goes when Scotland do not have a pack that reminds one of SA or France

Yep, I was clear (sic) earlier that we need to sort a number of things out- you may be right it’s easier to sort out support, though there are a lot of technical and decision making problems to resolve; I’d also think we could work on better timing off the 9 for the carriers, and carrying one further out. Scotland will indeed pose different problems, even more competitive over the ball, but less likely to stop the carriers in their tracks.

[Digby]

I get that we failed to convert territory, but it’s undeniable that we carried a lot to little avail. I’m also not looking for big carries, but lots of small successful ones spread out amongst the troops. I’d also note this is two games in a row where we’ve made precious few yards up front- which as we know leaves plenty of defenders unoccupied alongside all the other issues.

I agree we failed to carry well enough, but if we're going to support this badly I'm not sure carrying a little bit better is going to help. We either need to carry far better, or address some of the support issues to address what has just gone. Both would be nice of course.

As I'm not sold Mako or Genge for Marler and a flanker for Lawes is going to hugely change our carrying I'd like them to focus first on the support play.

Might not be easy to judge how the next game goes when Scotland do not have a pack that reminds one of SA or France

Yep, I was clear (sic) earlier that we need to sort a number of things out- you may be right it’s easier to sort out support, though there are a lot of technical and decision making problems to resolve; I’d also think we could work on better timing off the 9 for the carriers, and carrying one further out. Scotland will indeed pose different problems, even more competitive over the ball, but less likely to stop the carriers in their tracks.

How often do we dominate possession and win? Against NZ and Australia I have in mind we didn't want the ball much, against SA and France we dominated the ball. Against Ireland in the WC warmup we might have dominated the ball, but we also had lots of carriers and Ireland sat back to wait and see what happens when big carriers are allowed to run up the middle unopposed

I'd be happy to see us carrying beyond just one out, but if we're sticking with just 1 out it's possible to do it much faster.

So between us we want better carriers, faster rucks, quicker and better decision making, and lower error rates (christ the handling errors against France hurt us). Which leads to the obvious, I think we'll kick a lot more, partly Eddie loves kicking (and annoyingly it works) also Watson is much better contesting than protecting ball.

[Banquo]

I agree we failed to carry well enough, but if we're going to support this badly I'm not sure carrying a little bit better is going to help. We either need to carry far better, or address some of the support issues to address what has just gone. Both would be nice of course.

As I'm not sold Mako or Genge for Marler and a flanker for Lawes is going to hugely change our carrying I'd like them to focus first on the support play.

Might not be easy to judge how the next game goes when Scotland do not have a pack that reminds one of SA or France

Yep, I was clear (sic) earlier that we need to sort a number of things out- you may be right it’s easier to sort out support, though there are a lot of technical and decision making problems to resolve; I’d also think we could work on better timing off the 9 for the carriers, and carrying one further out. Scotland will indeed pose different problems, even more competitive over the ball, but less likely to stop the carriers in their tracks.

How often do we dominate possession and win? Against NZ and Australia I have in mind we didn't want the ball much, against SA and France we dominated the ball. Against Ireland in the WC warmup we might have dominated the ball, but we also had lots of carriers and Ireland sat back to wait and see what happens when big carriers are allowed to run up the middle unopposed

I'd be happy to see us carrying beyond just one out, but if we're sticking with just 1 out it's possible to do it much faster.

So between us we want better carriers, faster rucks, quicker and better decision making, and lower error rates (christ the handling errors against France hurt us). Which leads to the obvious, I think we'll kick a lot more, partly Eddie loves kicking (and annoyingly it works) also Watson is much better contesting than protecting ball.

Watson is out

[Banquo]

I agree we failed to carry well enough, but if we're going to support this badly I'm not sure carrying a little bit better is going to help. We either need to carry far better, or address some of the support issues to address what has just gone. Both would be nice of course.

As I'm not sold Mako or Genge for Marler and a flanker for Lawes is going to hugely change our carrying I'd like them to focus first on the support play.

Might not be easy to judge how the next game goes when Scotland do not have a pack that reminds one of SA or France

Yep, I was clear (sic) earlier that we need to sort a number of things out- you may be right it’s easier to sort out support, though there are a lot of technical and decision making problems to resolve; I’d also think we could work on better timing off the 9 for the carriers, and carrying one further out. Scotland will indeed pose different problems, even more competitive over the ball, but less likely to stop the carriers in their tracks.

How often do we dominate possession and win? Against NZ and Australia I have in mind we didn't want the ball much, against SA and France we dominated the ball. Against Ireland in the WC warmup we might have dominated the ball, but we also had lots of carriers and Ireland sat back to wait and see what happens when big carriers are allowed to run up the middle unopposed

I'd be happy to see us carrying beyond just one out, but if we're sticking with just 1 out it's possible to do it much faster.

So between us we want better carriers, faster rucks, quicker and better decision making, and lower error rates (christ the handling errors against France hurt us). Which leads to the obvious, I think we'll kick a lot more, partly Eddie loves kicking (and annoyingly it works) also Watson is much better contesting than protecting ball.

I’d also say I was specific about better carrying rather than carriers (which would also be nice); what the carriers are doing, and how they do it, plus how we set them up all could do with improvement- always true, but especially when we haven’t got outstanding raw material to work with.

[jngf]

Q: Oh floorr ah Scodland when we’l wee see tha leek agin?

A: Next weekend ye Ken

[Oakboy]

I’d also say I was specific about better carrying rather than carriers (which would also be nice); what the carriers are doing, and how they do it, plus how we set them up all could do with improvement- always true, but especially when we haven’t got outstanding raw material to work with.

I know nobody on here wanted Lawes at 6 but has there been anything come out of the camp to make sense of it? I've seen comments like 'a bit more power at 6 with the other two moving across'. That seems feebly inadequate by design to my uneducated brain.

6. Lawes, 7. Underhill, 8. Curry is supposed to do what as a backrow unit apart from boost the lineout perhaps? We haven't got loads of 'outstanding raw material' but we have sufficient to construct a more effective unit, especially outside the squad. Even within the squad, any of Hill, Ludlum or Earl together with Curry and Underhill in their proper positions makes sense but those former three are not being lined up as alternative No 8s. From the press comments, it appears Jones will persist with Curry. Is it another stubborn effort along the lines of Daly at FB?

[jngf]

I’d also say I was specific about better carrying rather than carriers (which would also be nice); what the carriers are doing, and how they do it, plus how we set them up all could do with improvement- always true, but especially when we haven’t got outstanding raw material to work with.

I know nobody on here wanted Lawes at 6 but has there been anything come out of the camp to make sense of it? I've seen comments like 'a bit more power at 6 with the other two moving across'. That seems feebly inadequate by design to my uneducated brain.

6. Lawes, 7. Underhill, 8. Curry is supposed to do what as a backrow unit apart from boost the lineout perhaps? We haven't got loads of 'outstanding raw material' but we have sufficient to construct a more effective unit, especially outside the squad. Even within the squad, any of Hill, Ludlum or Earl together with Curry and Underhill in their proper positions makes sense but those former three are not being lined up as alternative No 8s. From the press comments, it appears Jones will persist with Curry. Is it another stubborn effort along the lines of Daly at FB?

Does anybody know if RFU Blazers have yet to take their collective heads out of the sand/away from the till receipt spreadsheet and cotton on that brand Eddy might not be so on point with some supporters? They always seem to be at least 6 months behind customer sentiment (look at all those pony red stripe England jerseys in days gone by).Will be interesting to see how RFU website spins upcoming match and whether Eddy will guest star in another jocular and jovial video clip explaining how rosy things are going in camp?

[twitchy]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... no-8-sale/

“I haven’t had any conversation with Eddie about Tom playing No 8 and he won’t play at No 8 for us,” Diamond said in an exclusive interview with RugbyPass.

“Tom has a very good skill-set but his best position is six or seven. But you have to remember I’m a mere minnow in the world of coaching. I have only seen this guy playing six or seven for the last three years!”

[twitchy]

Ewels dropped and launch back in.

[p/d]

Ewels dropped and launch back in.

Earl still in

[Digby]

I wouldn't have objected to giving Ewels a chance to go again, but based on performance it's not that harsh a call. And it is very stiff competition at lock

[francoisfou]

Eddie's let Ted Hill go too. Shame cos he deserves at least place on the bench.
So who's going to play 8? Surely not Curry again? Then again, I may put a tenner on him retaining his place!

[jngf]

Ewels dropped and launch back in.

Eddy mustn’t like jockstraps as headgear

[Mellsblue]

Eddie's let Ted Hill go too. Shame cos he deserves at least place on the bench.
So who's going to play 8? Surely not Curry again? Then again, I may put a tenner on him retaining his place!

Jones has already said Curry will stay at no8. I think he’s even gone as far as saying that’s his best position in the long term. Steve Diamond has stated his disagreement at the last bit.

[jngf]

It previously took England 12 years and 4 managers to regress from a side that could win a World Cup to a side failing to make a quarter final, Jones appears to be using space-time dilation to match that feat in the space of three test matches

[Gloskarlos]

I’m excited that Thorley has been retained