Game One - Scotland v South Africa

[Cameo]

The warmups are out the way. We have avoided injuries and shown some promise. Now for a massive first game.

I think most of the team (assuming Graham and Kinghorn are fit) is inked in, but a couple of key positions up for grabs. Here's my take:

1. Schoeman
2. Cherry - This is one of the contentious ones. I wouldn't be surprised if it is Turner, but they just might want to keep some power for the bench and Cherry is our most reliable thrower, which could be crucial.
3. Nel - Second contentious call. 9 matches out of 10 I would start Fagerson, but with SA's bomb squad approach it might pay to hold him back, and he hasnt played for a while. Our scrum has been very solid.
4. Gilchrist
5. Gray
6. Ritchie
7. Darge
8. Dempsey
9. White
10. Russell
11. DHVDM
12. Tuipolotu
13. Jones
14. Graham
15. Kinghorn

Bench - expecting 6-2
16. Bhatti (possibly ahead of Sutherland at the moment)
17. Turner
18. Fagerson
19. Skinner
20. Cummins (just hope they have the lineout sorted if it ends up with these two on)
21. Fagerson
22. Horne
23. Not quite sure - maybe Harris (indirectly covers everyone else via Jones moving to 15) though I think I would prefer Steyn.

[switchskier]

I've only seen extended highlights of yesterday's game but I thought that White struggled a bit. Hopefully just lack of game time and he's back to full sharpness for this one, but I would the upset with Price starting.

[BaldiePete]

Big gamble on the front row there. We tried something similar against Wales in Cardiff in 2022. Started with Schoeman/Macinally/Nel and brought on Sutherland/Turner/Fagerson. Didn’t work, we were absolute dogshit against a bloody awful Wales team who got their only win of the 6N. I just have this horrible feeling that if we try to be too clever it will rebound against us.

[Big D]

I think the 15 picks itself.

Schoeman, Fagerson, Turner, Gray, Graham and Kinghorn come in to the team that started yesterday.

[Cameo]

Definitely get your points on the front row. Tempted more by the Cherry/Turner switch up as:

a) Turner doesn't seem to have been on very top form.

b) Cherry is the best thrower which could be crucial against South Africa.

The Fagerson/Nel one has less possible upside (it would clearly be holding back the better player until later) but it depends a bit on how sharp they think Fagerson is.

[septic 9]

I think the 15 picks itself.

Schoeman, Fagerson, Turner, Gray, Graham and Kinghorn come in to the team that started yesterday.

think that's right. Its also what Townsend more or less said pre the Georgia game - strongest but managing some player's game time, plus a couple of niggling injuries rested.

Its not necessarily what I would pick, but Toonie will.

[Cameo]

I think the 15 picks itself.

Schoeman, Fagerson, Turner, Gray, Graham and Kinghorn come in to the team that started yesterday.

think that's right. Its also what Townsend more or less said pre the Georgia game - strongest but managing some player's game time, plus a couple of niggling injuries rested.

Its not necessarily what I would pick, but Toonie will.

What would you pick? Just curious

[septic 9]

I think the 15 picks itself.

Schoeman, Fagerson, Turner, Gray, Graham and Kinghorn come in to the team that started yesterday.

think that's right. Its also what Townsend more or less said pre the Georgia game - strongest but managing some player's game time, plus a couple of niggling injuries rested.

Its not necessarily what I would pick, but Toonie will.

What would you pick? Just curious

there are a couple of differences, one for sure the other maybe.
First I'd start Price and Horne to bench. White did not look sharp enough v Georgia. My personal opinion is that Price's lack of form last season was over-stated. He wasn't at his pre Lions or Lions best, then again neither was (as he admitted) was Russell, so many players aren't after Lions tours. He was still a good scrum half, and looked closer to his best this summer. I also think he and Russell are a special combination. So that's my definite. Horne still benches as he has nailed the impact sub down to a T.

The maybe one is Smith for Kinghorn. This is complicated.
I think Smith is better under the high ball. Kinghorn's restarts from half way or goal line are superb (altho I'd hope he doesn't have many!). Both are good runners in different ways, Kinghorn the edge, but Smith the better defender comfortably. Then there is bench split - is it 5/3 or 6/2? In either case is Kinghorn covering for Russell at 10? If its 6/2 is Kinghorn the best bench option? He dies not cover centre (I do not recall him ever playing there, even for a few mins (and I can see why). Smith has some exposure on the wing and some limited experience at 13.
If the bench is 5/3 its easy, Kinghorn either starts at 15 or benches, Smith misses out

[Cameo]

Interesting. Fair points but I think I'm not quite sold on either.

I'd be happy enough with Price but I think White will be better for the game. Price's dip has also lasted a lot longer than Russell's - we are now two years on from the Lions. Agree with Horne on the bench either way.

I'm a Smith fan but I think Kinghorn is comfortably ahead at the moment. I think he reads the game better, in particular when and how to insert himself in attack. Second playmaker is a bit of a stretch but he's closer to it than Smith.

Looking at South Africa, do we think there is any weakness in defence with Moody at 13? I appreciate he has played very well, but quite often teams find chinks in a midfield defence where there is a new(ish) partnership. Also, surely they won't go 7-1 on the bench against us? I kind of hope they do as it's a massive risk. One injury and someone is massively out of position.

[septic 9]

Interesting. Fair points but I think I'm not quite sold on either.

I'd be happy enough with Price but I think White will be better for the game. Price's dip has also lasted a lot longer than Russell's - we are now two years on from the Lions. Agree with Horne on the bench either way.

I'm a Smith fan but I think Kinghorn is comfortably ahead at the moment. I think he reads the game better, in particular when and how to insert himself in attack. Second playmaker is a bit of a stretch but he's closer to it than Smith.

Looking at South Africa, do we think there is any weakness in defence with Moody at 13? I appreciate he has played very well, but quite often teams find chinks in a midfield defence where there is a new(ish) partnership. Also, surely they won't go 7-1 on the bench against us? I kind of hope they do as it's a massive risk. One injury and someone is massively out of position.

yeah I won't be going apeshit of White starts, and Kinghorn I expect to start as well - as I said I'd pick pretty much the predictable team
I'm not sure the Boks will start Moodie at 13. Pretty sure that wasn't their 1st pick centres last week. Moody has IIRC played mainly wing and FB for Bulls so defending at 13 could be a challenge, but he is a serious talent, one to watch

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah I think we're pretty much all on the same page, oddly enough. There are good arguments for Cherry, Nel, a more dynamic second row, Price and Smith. I wouldn't be unhappy with any of those but wouldn't expect all of them at once.

Bhatti/Sutherland, Cummings/Skinner (if 5:3) and the 23 shirt are all genuine 50/50s I'd say.

It doesn't look like Sutherland is close to his 2020 form yet and we're likely to go 6:2 at least for SA. I'd really like to have one of the more mobile locks on the field from the start but the set piece has to take priority.

It was looking like Redpath was next in line to cover the centres, and I think fits in well playing a similar role to Tuipulotu, but looks like Harris might edge that one with his defensive security and (supposed) ability to play wing. It still hinges on what we want to do with Kinghorn though.

I still find it really strange that Matt Fagerson has lost his starting place, but Dempsey has been very good. I hope he can make the most of being an impact player off the bench.

[septic 9]

I'd really like to have one of the more mobile locks on the field from the start but the set piece has to take priority.

you raise an interesting point there. Our set piece isn't bad. Against most sides we can at least hold our own these days, credit to the scrum coach and players. The Boks may be the obvious exception where we could struggle. The way to offset that is to run them ragged, high ball in play time. We are very very fit. They can change their bomb squad, but they too can be run about a load.
However, much depends on the ref refs, how accurate we are etc - the more stoppages the better it suits them.
Specifically on the locks, Gray and Gilchrist are certain starters IMHO, neither the most mobile these days but both bring significant other attributes. But none of our 4 locks are natural tighthead locks. All pack down there but none started there and I think by preference are loose head side locks; ie "weaker" scrummagers. It is something that does concern me

[sharvey44]

Anyone heading down to Marseilles for the game?

[switchskier]

I'd really like to have one of the more mobile locks on the field from the start but the set piece has to take priority.

you raise an interesting point there. Our set piece isn't bad. Against most sides we can at least hold our own these days, credit to the scrum coach and players. The Boks may be the obvious exception where we could struggle. The way to offset that is to run them ragged, high ball in play time. We are very very fit. They can change their bomb squad, but they too can be run about a load.
However, much depends on the ref refs, how accurate we are etc - the more stoppages the better it suits them.
Specifically on the locks, Gray and Gilchrist are certain starters IMHO, neither the most mobile these days but both bring significant other attributes. But none of our 4 locks are natural tighthead locks. All pack down there but none started there and I think by preference are loose head side locks; ie "weaker" scrummagers. It is something that does concern me

It's Angus Gardner isn't it? My impression is that he tries to let the game flow, occasionally letting things go in the process. Which is a two sided coin as it occasionally allows teams to get away with a bit more at the breakdown.

[switchskier]

Anyone heading down to Marseilles for the game?

Had tickets but can't make it. My brothers are using them but accomodation is apparently a nightmare.

[Big D]

I'd really like to have one of the more mobile locks on the field from the start but the set piece has to take priority.

you raise an interesting point there. Our set piece isn't bad. Against most sides we can at least hold our own these days, credit to the scrum coach and players. The Boks may be the obvious exception where we could struggle. The way to offset that is to run them ragged, high ball in play time. We are very very fit. They can change their bomb squad, but they too can be run about a load.
However, much depends on the ref refs, how accurate we are etc - the more stoppages the better it suits them.
Specifically on the locks, Gray and Gilchrist are certain starters IMHO, neither the most mobile these days but both bring significant other attributes. But none of our 4 locks are natural tighthead locks. All pack down there but none started there and I think by preference are loose head side locks; ie "weaker" scrummagers. It is something that does concern me

It is certainly a position that we are going to see some flux in over the next two years or so. The auld lads are going well now but it surely can't last either through nature taking over or their own choosing.

It is a big season for the likes of Sykes and even Young to state a case to come into squads once they're gone. Henderson has a chance to hit the ground running domestically so will be interesting to see if he can force his way into 6N matchday squads.

[septic 9]

I'd really like to have one of the more mobile locks on the field from the start but the set piece has to take priority.

you raise an interesting point there. Our set piece isn't bad. Against most sides we can at least hold our own these days, credit to the scrum coach and players. The Boks may be the obvious exception where we could struggle. The way to offset that is to run them ragged, high ball in play time. We are very very fit. They can change their bomb squad, but they too can be run about a load.
However, much depends on the ref refs, how accurate we are etc - the more stoppages the better it suits them.
Specifically on the locks, Gray and Gilchrist are certain starters IMHO, neither the most mobile these days but both bring significant other attributes. But none of our 4 locks are natural tighthead locks. All pack down there but none started there and I think by preference are loose head side locks; ie "weaker" scrummagers. It is something that does concern me

It's Angus Gardner isn't it? My impression is that he tries to let the game flow, occasionally letting things go in the process. Which is a two sided coin as it occasionally allows teams to get away with a bit more at the breakdown.

I think he - Gardner is a problem. For us mainly.
The Boks-NZ game was barely finished before elements of the NZ media were bemoaning NH refs. For me, that oi because the ABs were actually getting reffed properly, as if McCaw's invisibility cloak left at home. For them, its because of exactly the same thing. SH refs let things go that they no way should. they are far too used to getting away with stuff, so used to it I'm not sure they even see it. Like high tackles sanctions as well.
Basically the SH media think NH refs ref very differently. So do I, and while both have their issues the NH refs are better, safer and nearer to the actual laws (which doesn't imply they are near them!)

A NH ref any day for me.

[sharvey44]

Anyone heading down to Marseilles for the game?

Had tickets but can't make it. My brothers are using them but accomodation is apparently a nightmare.

Yeah, with Eng/Arg the day before accomodation was extortionate so I'm flying in and out the same day.

[Big D]

you raise an interesting point there. Our set piece isn't bad. Against most sides we can at least hold our own these days, credit to the scrum coach and players. The Boks may be the obvious exception where we could struggle. The way to offset that is to run them ragged, high ball in play time. We are very very fit. They can change their bomb squad, but they too can be run about a load.
However, much depends on the ref refs, how accurate we are etc - the more stoppages the better it suits them.
Specifically on the locks, Gray and Gilchrist are certain starters IMHO, neither the most mobile these days but both bring significant other attributes. But none of our 4 locks are natural tighthead locks. All pack down there but none started there and I think by preference are loose head side locks; ie "weaker" scrummagers. It is something that does concern me

It's Angus Gardner isn't it? My impression is that he tries to let the game flow, occasionally letting things go in the process. Which is a two sided coin as it occasionally allows teams to get away with a bit more at the breakdown.

I think he - Gardner is a problem. For us mainly.
The Boks-NZ game was barely finished before elements of the NZ media were bemoaning NH refs. For me, that oi because the ABs were actually getting reffed properly, as if McCaw's invisibility cloak left at home. For them, its because of exactly the same thing. SH refs let things go that they no way should. they are far too used to getting away with stuff, so used to it I'm not sure they even see it. Like high tackles sanctions as well.
Basically the SH media think NH refs ref very differently. So do I, and while both have their issues the NH refs are better, safer and nearer to the actual laws (which doesn't imply they are near them!)

A NH ref any day for me.

I have said before, I think we have pulled the poorest refs in the competition for our big games:
SA - Gardner (Aus)
Romania - Barnes (Eng)
Tonga - Dickson (Eng)
Ireland - Berry (Aus)

The Aussie refs are poor. Of the SH refs I think O'Keefe is ok.

[Puja]

It's Angus Gardner isn't it? My impression is that he tries to let the game flow, occasionally letting things go in the process. Which is a two sided coin as it occasionally allows teams to get away with a bit more at the breakdown.

I think he - Gardner is a problem. For us mainly.
The Boks-NZ game was barely finished before elements of the NZ media were bemoaning NH refs. For me, that oi because the ABs were actually getting reffed properly, as if McCaw's invisibility cloak left at home. For them, its because of exactly the same thing. SH refs let things go that they no way should. they are far too used to getting away with stuff, so used to it I'm not sure they even see it. Like high tackles sanctions as well.
Basically the SH media think NH refs ref very differently. So do I, and while both have their issues the NH refs are better, safer and nearer to the actual laws (which doesn't imply they are near them!)

A NH ref any day for me.

I have said before, I think we have pulled the poorest refs in the competition for our big games:
SA - Gardner (Aus)
Romania - Barnes (Eng)
Tonga - Dickson (Eng)
Ireland - Berry (Aus)

The Aussie refs are poor. Of the SH refs I think O'Keefe is ok.

I'm startled that you've got Barnes on the poor refs list.

Puja

[Big D]

I think he - Gardner is a problem. For us mainly.
The Boks-NZ game was barely finished before elements of the NZ media were bemoaning NH refs. For me, that oi because the ABs were actually getting reffed properly, as if McCaw's invisibility cloak left at home. For them, its because of exactly the same thing. SH refs let things go that they no way should. they are far too used to getting away with stuff, so used to it I'm not sure they even see it. Like high tackles sanctions as well.
Basically the SH media think NH refs ref very differently. So do I, and while both have their issues the NH refs are better, safer and nearer to the actual laws (which doesn't imply they are near them!)

A NH ref any day for me.

I have said before, I think we have pulled the poorest refs in the competition for our big games:
SA - Gardner (Aus)
Romania - Barnes (Eng)
Tonga - Dickson (Eng)
Ireland - Berry (Aus)

The Aussie refs are poor. Of the SH refs I think O'Keefe is ok.

I'm startled that you've got Barnes on the poor refs list.

Puja

I don't. I don't see the Romania game as one of the big games. I just c+p the list of all our games.

The aussies and Dickson are terrible refs.

[Cameo]

I used to like Berry and Gardner, but they have been a bit strange in recent games that I've seen. O'Keefe is comfortably my favourite of the SH refs (and probably globally too as while I like Barnes' manner and approach, I actually disagree with quite a few of his decisions, I find myself agreeing with all his reasoning then confused as to how he has reached the decision he has).

Dickson I agree - not a fan.

Ultimately, though, not sure any of these particularly favour us or our opponents. Main thing in the SA game is a ref who wants to keep things moving and Gardner may provide that.

[Puja]

I have said before, I think we have pulled the poorest refs in the competition for our big games:
SA - Gardner (Aus)
Romania - Barnes (Eng)
Tonga - Dickson (Eng)
Ireland - Berry (Aus)

The Aussie refs are poor. Of the SH refs I think O'Keefe is ok.

I'm startled that you've got Barnes on the poor refs list.

Puja

I don't. I don't see the Romania game as one of the big games. I just c+p the list of all our games.

The aussies and Dickson are terrible refs.

Ah, that makes sense. Misread what you were saying. Agreed on the other three though - I had such high hopes for Dickson, but he's just poor at the top level.

Puja

[Cameo]

Anyone seen any updates on Kinghorn or Graham?

[Big D]

Anyone seen any updates on Kinghorn or Graham?

Graham is definitely back in training.