Scotland vs France

[Donny osmond]

this is perhaps the most disappointing win I can remember seeing from Scotland. If i were French I'd be fuming at how my team have gift wrapped it for the opposition. From our point of view, as switch said earlier, this win is just going to paper over some pretty major cracks.

That being said, as far as post WC rebuilding goes, it's the sort of win that really matters, and fair play to the boys on their defensive effort. meh.

You need to pull your knickers out of your crack.

Fair enough, don't why I was so flat, just too old and tired I guess. Scotland are actually only a dropped try and a couple of kicks away from being in a grand slam position!!! That's more like it.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Mikey Brown]

Really pleased with how Sutherland and Fagerson have come on this championship.

Cummings hasn’t been quite as eye catching as for Glasgow but I think he has secured his place. Really not sure what’s going on with the lineout but it was good to see GG have a big game otherwise.

Haining doesn’t fully convince or just hasn’t got the engine for this level right now. At his age I’m not totally sure when he’s likely to develop it.

Really felt like we could have done with a Jason White style blindside when France we’re making massive gains round the fringes (god knows how they didn’t make more of that throughout the game) yet Ritchie was again very impressive.

I don’t know what the answer is. Bradbury is physical and a big lump but has neither the workrate/breakdown skills for 6 or the deftness/hands for 8 at the moment.

Hastings coming on well, does make some daft Russell-esque mistakes but I think that comes with the way he plays.

Harris solid at 13 but as others have said it feels like this is perhaps his top level. Until we consistently get our backs on the ball in any decent position it’s hard to judge wether we need to upgrade there.

Also we’re not really managing to get Kinghorn into the game often which is a shame as he’s a very exciting runner.

[wanderingjock]

Hes French, hes used to not winning grand slams

The banter’s been good until you threw in these unnecessary words. Hope you’re feeling happy with a well-earned win.

The Jocks winning has zero impact on my happiness other than Wales remain GS holders. I'm just enjoying winding Tigs up with his own arrogance

Except they've already lost that.. You do understand the difference between winning a grand slam and winning the 6 nations??

[wanderingjock]

Man, that Watson is a demon. Loves to play and knows exactly when to go full beserker. Just an 80 minute dog focused on chasing the fall around.

He is a good un

[wanderingjock]

As an aside to someone trying to wind tigs up, a win is a win and I was chuffed with that. Not the greatest or most comprehensive win. But howbeit done, we won, and that's a good thing.

[Ross. S]

The banter’s been good until you threw in these unnecessary words. Hope you’re feeling happy with a well-earned win.

The Jocks winning has zero impact on my happiness other than Wales remain GS holders. I'm just enjoying winding Tigs up with his own arrogance

Except they've already lost that.. You do understand the difference between winning a grand slam and winning the 6 nations??

The topper on the trophy remains the latest winner of a GS, No GS this year so the 3 feathers remain where they belong, Maybe you were not aware since Scotland has never put that thistle utop the trophy....

[Donny osmond]

Was thinking more about it last night. I've been quite critical of Ireland and Wales over the last few years for winning by playing boring 1 dimension rugby. Here we get a fantastic victory by mostly just kicking the ball away and living off french mistakes. It would be pretty hypocritical to celebrate it over much.

So, yeah I'm delighted with the win but.... I just wish it was a prettier style of win. Which is being very picky I know, if we get to be as good as Ireland or Wales by playing boring 1D rugby, I'll take it. It's just a shame GT started by playing all out attack and has regressed. He giveth and he taketh away.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Big D]

Was thinking more about it last night. I've been quite critical of Ireland and Wales over the last few years for winning by playing boring 1 dimension rugby. Here we get a fantastic victory by mostly just kicking the ball away and living off french mistakes. It would be pretty hypocritical to celebrate it over much.

So, yeah I'm delighted with the win but.... I just wish it was a prettier style of win. Which is being very picky I know, if we get to be as good as Ireland or Wales by playing boring 1D rugby, I'll take it. It's just a shame GT started by playing all out attack and has regressed. He giveth and he taketh away.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I think the coaches and players deserve a fair bit of credit for yesterday. But at home v 14 men for 45min we should be beating any 6N side. It doesn't mean yesterday wasn't a good result, but I think it is worth keeping that in mind.

There have been some very good bright spots. Our defence, quite why Townsend didn't bin Taylor sooner is still a mystery to me. Tandy will have tougher tasks ahead when teams can analyse our systems more but 49 points conceded after 4 matches is a big step change. Missed a number of tackles yesterday but the simpler system appears to be working.

Our props. Sutherland especially has been excellent. I suspect he has picked up a few tricks from De Villiers.

[Mikey Brown]

I don’t know if it’s just the hangover from Taylor but I’m still worried every time anyone makes a convincing run at our defence. It seems so absurdly passive, with quite a few tackles missed every game, but we’re not conceding the crucial linebreaks so I guess I’ll take it.

I would hope we can add a bit more pressure/aggression to our defence without losing the cohesion.

I don’t think playing 14 men is ever as simple as it’s made out to be. Immediately after the card France looked way more fired up than we did, to stop that momentum before they really got going turned the game entirely.

Have any of our opponents actually played well yet, or is some of that our good disrupting work? Hard to tell but I wouldn’t say we’ve really faced a cohesive attack yet.

As I said before not a great game/performance in general but in the context of what Scotland tend to do I am actually very pleased.

[Big D]

I don’t think playing 14 men is ever as simple as it’s made out to be. Immediately after the card France looked way more fired up than we did, to stop that momentum before they really got going turned the game entirely.

How many times have teams playing more than half a game with 14 beaten a team with 15 at the top level, say Heinekken Cup level or above? I can think of one in recent years. Munster v Glasgow and that was a very specific set of circumstances. More often than not by a good difference, 15 men will beat 14 in that situation.

They played well and coaching plans worked but they should win in that situation and now have twice.

[Mikey Brown]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have expected to win, just that the way the commentators were talking about it as if we could just sit back on our unassailable lead for 40 minutes seemed a bit naive. I hate the term "galvanising" but you often see teams react very differently to these situations and I can't say it would have shocked me if a fired up France had come back and beaten Scotland, having gone in to cruise control a bit.

We don't do 80 minute performances, and whilst not a great performance, we didn't freak out at any point as we often do.

Faint praise, I know.

Also looking at it again just now Willemse really was far more at fault for driving GG head-first into the ground. Paul Williams did not impress me remotely.

[Sandydragon]

A red card later in the game can potentially be covered. The closest effort I can think of when 14 players got close to 15 over a protracted period was Wales France in the 2011 RWC.

Covering a gap for such a long period is normally game over.

But, Scotland were already frustrating France. In fact, Scotland have been much improved this year so at home they were very capable of beating France and may well have done so against 15 men. I think it would naturally have been closer but to suggest Scotland only won because of the sending off is a bit harsh.

[Banquo]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have expected to win, just that the way the commentators were talking about it as if we could just sit back on our unassailable lead for 40 minutes seemed a bit naive. I hate the term "galvanising" but you often see teams react very differently to these situations and I can't say it would have shocked me if a fired up France had come back and beaten Scotland, having gone in to cruise control a bit.

We don't do 80 minute performances, and whilst not a great performance, we didn't freak out at any point as we often do.

Faint praise, I know.

Also looking at it again just now Willemse really was far more at fault for driving GG head-first into the ground. Paul Williams did not impress me remotely.

That's the opposite of the commentary I heard.

[laribold]

I don’t know if it’s just the hangover from Taylor but I’m still worried every time anyone makes a convincing run at our defence. It seems so absurdly passive, with quite a few tackles missed every game, but we’re not conceding the crucial linebreaks so I guess I’ll take it.

Our defensive system has been an interesting one from what I've seen to date. Yesterday, I thought we were very clearly targeting the ball (hence a couple of high tackle calls when it was slightly misjudged). I can't recall the other games to say if this was a specific tactic vs France or something we've been doing all 6N.

I've seen the argument made that our 'passive' defence is in part planned to try and draw the ball carrier away from support, letting our poachers (Watson, Ritchie, Brown) get a chance to snaffle the ball or draw the penalty. Can't find the stats right now, but I seem to recall us winning quite a number of turnovers and the stats appearing on screen to back that up.


I also slightly struggle with the dour response to a comprehensive defeat of a high-flying, grand-slam chasing, talented French team. If we'd played 'better' and 'more attacking' and lost the same criticisms that have (rightly) been leveled at the team and coach would have come out again.
Seemingly something of a 'no win' situation for them, except on the scoreboard obviously.

[switchskier]

Was thinking more about it last night. I've been quite critical of Ireland and Wales over the last few years for winning by playing boring 1 dimension rugby. Here we get a fantastic victory by mostly just kicking the ball away and living off french mistakes. It would be pretty hypocritical to celebrate it over much.

So, yeah I'm delighted with the win but.... I just wish it was a prettier style of win. Which is being very picky I know, if we get to be as good as Ireland or Wales by playing boring 1D rugby, I'll take it. It's just a shame GT started by playing all out attack and has regressed. He giveth and he taketh away.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I had a similar reaction but for a different reason. I don't think that we have the players to play that way successfully over the course of a season.

Wales under Garland built success on bring supremely fit and physical. Ireland were s little different in that they relied on a superb halfback pairing to ensure that they were rarely having to do anything other than go forward and hit. We don't have either.

What we have is:

- A collection of athletic rather than huge and nasty locks
- A backrow that is at its best when scrapping and soiling rather than dominating
- An assortment of scrumhalfs who like to snipe and support but aren't great box kickers
- Two tens who's first instinct is to take the ball to the line
- A wide range of stepping and running centres, none of whom have the sheer size and power of a Parked/Roberts/Henshaw/Aki
- A backthree who are much better with ball in hand than under the high ball.

So it's great that we won against France, though really we should do against most teams down a man for 45 minutes (7 points for every sin binning - shouldn't we have scored 32 points in that period?). And I welcome the dose of pragmatism and improved defence that we've seen. But this is still a more talented collection of Scottish players than we've seen for twenty years and a bit more ambition is needed for them to reach their potential.

[tigran]

Yeah, Les haggis wanted it more than les grenouilles yesterday, more aggression, an astute tacticall plan, added to the fact everything went wrong for France, but they deservedly won it. The red card is a bad taste, but deserved too..

I'm just disappointed Scotland didn't do better against England and Ireland, they could have...

[Mikey Brown]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have expected to win, just that the way the commentators were talking about it as if we could just sit back on our unassailable lead for 40 minutes seemed a bit naive. I hate the term "galvanising" but you often see teams react very differently to these situations and I can't say it would have shocked me if a fired up France had come back and beaten Scotland, having gone in to cruise control a bit.

We don't do 80 minute performances, and whilst not a great performance, we didn't freak out at any point as we often do.

Faint praise, I know.

Also looking at it again just now Willemse really was far more at fault for driving GG head-first into the ground. Paul Williams did not impress me remotely.

That's the opposite of the commentary I heard.

I'm largely thinking of Moore saying Scotland must now win when we were only 7 points up at half time, or that we can just keep kicking the ball dead and let France return it when there was still a good half hour left.

[Banquo]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have expected to win, just that the way the commentators were talking about it as if we could just sit back on our unassailable lead for 40 minutes seemed a bit naive. I hate the term "galvanising" but you often see teams react very differently to these situations and I can't say it would have shocked me if a fired up France had come back and beaten Scotland, having gone in to cruise control a bit.

We don't do 80 minute performances, and whilst not a great performance, we didn't freak out at any point as we often do.

Faint praise, I know.

Also looking at it again just now Willemse really was far more at fault for driving GG head-first into the ground. Paul Williams did not impress me remotely.

That's the opposite of the commentary I heard.

I'm largely thinking of Moore saying Scotland must now win when we were only 7 points up at half time, or that we can just keep kicking the ball dead and let France return it when there was still a good half hour left.

I thought he was saying should, rather than must. The other point was not far off being correct tbh.

[whatisthejava]

Targeting the ball has been a consistent strategy all 6N. Worked well against Ireland as it allows you to hang back and interrupt the ruckers.

[Cameo]

I don’t know if it’s just the hangover from Taylor but I’m still worried every time anyone makes a convincing run at our defence. It seems so absurdly passive, with quite a few tackles missed every game, but we’re not conceding the crucial linebreaks so I guess I’ll take it.

Our defensive system has been an interesting one from what I've seen to date. Yesterday, I thought we were very clearly targeting the ball (hence a couple of high tackle calls when it was slightly misjudged). I can't recall the other games to say if this was a specific tactic vs France or something we've been doing all 6N.

I've seen the argument made that our 'passive' defence is in part planned to try and draw the ball carrier away from support, letting our poachers (Watson, Ritchie, Brown) get a chance to snaffle the ball or draw the penalty. Can't find the stats right now, but I seem to recall us winning quite a number of turnovers and the stats appearing on screen to back that up.


I also slightly struggle with the dour response to a comprehensive defeat of a high-flying, grand-slam chasing, talented French team. If we'd played 'better' and 'more attacking' and lost the same criticisms that have (rightly) been leveled at the team and coach would have come out again.
Seemingly something of a 'no win' situation for them, except on the scoreboard obviously.

The reason for the four response is simply the red card. In effect that transformed the rest of the match into the equivalent of a victory against, say, Italy than a victory over a firing French team. Unless we really fire, people don't get too excited by those wins either.

The first 35 mins shouldn't be overlooked though. Our defence has been very good. We also had a few more ideas close to the line.

I'm afraid I'm one of those who values entertaining rugby (combined with decent defence). It's always impossibly to quantify but I'd say I'd take winning 5 6N games over a two year spell playing like madmen over winning 6 6N games over the same spell playing like Gatland's Wales.

More importantly, I think we need our attack firing to give us the best chance of winning so we aren't in a position where we need to make those choices.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Our kicking was really, really, really bad - Kinghorn, Hogg, Hasting, Maitland. All pants in that department. The only reason we were not punished was we played against 14 men. Too many balls dead, straight to their wingers, aimless up and unders and simple chip-throughs that they couldn't keep in play. It was poor.

As others have pointed out - it was a poor performance despite the win. Some clever pinpoint kicking would have moved the French all around the park and knackered them far earlier. I genuinely thought Weir should have been on with 20 mins to spare.

The french played with real ferocity though - they were intent on getting something out of that game after the RC. To have prevented that is still an achievement.

One thing that occurred to me during the game is how blessed we were to have some great combos in the last few years. Kinghorn and Hogg simply don't have a clue what the other is going to do. Maitland is sometimes on song with Hogg but not always which is understandable since he moved away.
I'd warrant a bet that some of our most devastating team attacks have come from Seymour/Hogg/Maitland/P Horne knowing exactly what the other was going to do before they did it and capitalising on that. Not sure what we can do about that given the movement of players but the amount of time Hogg and Kinghorn in particular have on the ball is reduced massively because of it.

[francoisfou]

I think you're being overly critical with your side's performance.
So France weren't at their best. Why not? Primarily because you harried and annoyed them as only a Scottish XV can.
Your front row put in a huge shift and with players like Gilchrist and particularly Watson (who was my man of the match by a country mile), you didn't allow the French many opportunities.
Then there was the red card which was inexcusable. Haouas should've been ashamed of himself - and doubly so as the punch didn't even floor Richie!
I've a suspicion that the French mindset was awry maybe thinking that the game was there for the taking.
Losing Ntamack so early was a blow as Jalibert doesn't have the same vision as Ntamack.
Also, Dupont had his most ineffectual match ever in blue and normally such a lot revolves around him.
It was a well-deserved win and you go on from there. It's unfortunate that Cardiff is your next game as it's never been a happy hunting ground for you.
Anyway, if you go onto the pitch with the same intent as yesterday, you'll do yourselves proud. It may not be enough to win the game but at least you're on the up.

[Still septic]

Our kicking was really, really, really bad - Kinghorn, Hogg, Hasting, Maitland. All pants in that department. The only reason we were not punished was we played against 14 men. Too many balls dead, straight to their wingers, aimless up and unders and simple chip-throughs that they couldn't keep in play. It was poor.

what did you think of wales under Gatland's game plan? It involved lots of kicking and not much of it to touch. Covering at the back is very good these days. We had a couple of up and unders that were not well executed, the rest was pretty much modern rugby

[Still septic]

Targeting the ball has been a consistent strategy all 6N. Worked well against Ireland as it allows you to hang back and interrupt the ruckers.

its not new though. Like all teams we try to slow the recycle. Attacking he ball and holding the player up is the best way to do that. I can even remember Toonie doing it as a player

The issue with our defence is its been worked out already, we cede easy yards at the side of the breakdown, but defend in more numbers wider, with Taylor we defended tight and narrow, so any error left us exposed wide. Now we are good wide but are easy to get over the gainline close in, which means we are retreating and quick ball easier. A few repeats and we are in our 22 before you know it.

Would have been much harder to subdue Vakatawa under Taylor but the weakness now there will be obvious, needs addressing

[Cameo]

Our kicking was really, really, really bad - Kinghorn, Hogg, Hasting, Maitland. All pants in that department. The only reason we were not punished was we played against 14 men. Too many balls dead, straight to their wingers, aimless up and unders and simple chip-throughs that they couldn't keep in play. It was poor.

what did you think of wales under Gatland's game plan? It involved lots of kicking and not much of it to touch. Covering at the back is very good these days. We had a couple of up and unders that were not well executed, the rest was pretty much modern rugby

Interesting. I find it frustrating when commentators comment after every kick - "misses touch" or "doesn't find touch" - as if that is always the aim. It does colour perception. On the other hand, you get praise for drilling it into touch seemingly regardless of how little ground you have gained in return for giving up the ball.

It depends who you are playing I think. For example, against England, I think I would normally (i.e. if the chase is set up okay) prefer to defend a counter attack from somewhere around theirnten metre line to defending a lineout somewhere near ours. Against Fiji it might be the opposite.