Where to from here?

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah I think I phrased that badly to be honest. I more meant that their physical statures and capacity to pull off particular skills aren’t that different, but the accuracy, aggression and consistency is on another level.

Overall you’d definitely class that as being less skilful and less athletic though.

[Cameo]

Yeah, I think consistency is underrated as a skill. I don't mean consistency game to game, I mean being reliably able to perform a skill. All tier one rugby players should be able to do a decent scrum half pass for example, but the better ones will be confident of getting it perfect more often.

That's before you add pressure and nerves, which just exacerbate the skill gaps there are.

[Cameo]

I've been thinking more about this (soon I will try and forget all about if and enjoy the rest of the World Cup). It kinda feels like we need a forwards coach with a focus on forwards attack.

It feels like our forwards are rubbish at creating or maintaining momentum. We have a good phase from a good move and then it is immediately on Finn to find another gap. Even when we are going well, it looks unsustainable as he needs to make good decisions and execute well phase after phase with good defenses looking to shut off the runners. As soon as a pass is slightly off, we go backwards or get slowball. With so many of our forward runners being off Russell it also means we start behind the gainline and opponents can fan out and leaving less.space for our backs.

We need to be able to get more go forward closer in. Part of that is a lack of big physical carriers (we have talked about the locks) but that is what we have and it's not like we have no carriers at all. We need to find someone who has good ideas in that area around how to get the best from what we have with moves off 9 and better interplay between the forwards (whether that is setting up the odd maul in open play, short passes, different lines or whatever).

[Big D]

Looking at pure stats they don't look too bad from a carrying POV (I'd like more from the flankers wider) as on paper from metres per carry GG carried similarly to Henderson and better than Bierne and Fagerson similar to Furlong. But the dynamism in the carry isn't as good and it is often one or two good quality carries and two or three poor ones. Which leads to poor ball presentation (an underrated skill these days) and makes the rucks more of a mess.

There is an element of only being able to piss with the cock we have. We will not win physical confrontations with Ireland but we should be able to work out a game plan to allow quick rucks and offloading to change the point of contact.

[Mikey Brown]

Looking at pure stats they don't look too bad from a carrying POV (I'd like more from the flankers wider) as on paper from metres per carry GG carried similarly to Henderson and better than Bierne and Fagerson similar to Furlong. But the dynamism in the carry isn't as good and it is often one or two good quality carries and two or three poor ones. Which leads to poor ball presentation (an underrated skill these days) and makes the rucks more of a mess.

There is an element of only being able to piss with the cock we have. We will not win physical confrontations with Ireland but we should be able to work out a game plan to allow quick rucks and offloading to change the point of contact.

Why though? They just go in to everything with more venom and more precision. Yes we've lumbered ourselves with two less dynamic locks to try and get the set piece under control, but we have players who can win collisions and simply don't use enough variation, deception or technique in our carrying game to consistently get them on the front foot.

It's either lob it to a static forward who will crash it up, or we give it to Russell and hurl it out to the wing. Every Ireland play, whether it's forwards or backs, there looks to be multiple options genuinely trying to attack a space in the defensive line. Or create one with some crafty blocking.

[Big D]

Looking at pure stats they don't look too bad from a carrying POV (I'd like more from the flankers wider) as on paper from metres per carry GG carried similarly to Henderson and better than Bierne and Fagerson similar to Furlong. But the dynamism in the carry isn't as good and it is often one or two good quality carries and two or three poor ones. Which leads to poor ball presentation (an underrated skill these days) and makes the rucks more of a mess.

There is an element of only being able to piss with the cock we have. We will not win physical confrontations with Ireland but we should be able to work out a game plan to allow quick rucks and offloading to change the point of contact.

Why though? They just go in to everything with more venom and more precision. Yes we've lumbered ourselves with two less dynamic locks to try and get the set piece under control, but we have players who can win collisions and simply don't use enough variation, deception or technique in our carrying game to consistently get them on the front foot.

It's either lob it to a static forward who will crash it up, or we give it to Russell and hurl it out to the wing. Every Ireland play, whether it's forwards or backs, there looks to be multiple options genuinely trying to attack a space in the defensive line. Or create one with some crafty blocking.

I'm not sure what you have said is any different really to what I said. We should be able to come up with a game plan change the point of contact from player A runs into player B or verybclose to them

[Mikey Brown]

Looking at pure stats they don't look too bad from a carrying POV (I'd like more from the flankers wider) as on paper from metres per carry GG carried similarly to Henderson and better than Bierne and Fagerson similar to Furlong. But the dynamism in the carry isn't as good and it is often one or two good quality carries and two or three poor ones. Which leads to poor ball presentation (an underrated skill these days) and makes the rucks more of a mess.

There is an element of only being able to piss with the cock we have. We will not win physical confrontations with Ireland but we should be able to work out a game plan to allow quick rucks and offloading to change the point of contact.

Why though? They just go in to everything with more venom and more precision. Yes we've lumbered ourselves with two less dynamic locks to try and get the set piece under control, but we have players who can win collisions and simply don't use enough variation, deception or technique in our carrying game to consistently get them on the front foot.

It's either lob it to a static forward who will crash it up, or we give it to Russell and hurl it out to the wing. Every Ireland play, whether it's forwards or backs, there looks to be multiple options genuinely trying to attack a space in the defensive line. Or create one with some crafty blocking.

I'm not sure what you have said is any different really to what I said. We should be able to come up with a game plan change the point of contact from player A runs into player B or verybclose to them

I guess I read it was “we can’t win the collisions but we can start offloading and attacking different areas”.

I’m saying it’s not that we can’t win collisions because our players are tiny and Ireland’s are huge. They’re just making considerably more of what size and pace they have. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to do a similar thing, but the focus and execution needs to be there.

The same thing about varying the general attack applies to getting carriers in dominant positions closer in to the ruck. We seem to have gone back to trying to bypass doing any heavy-lifting round the breakdown or through the middle and just going “well we’re Scotland so let’s whip it out wide after two average, plodding forward carries.”

[Spiffy]

Are Ireland’s players that superior athletically or skill-wise? They are just so insanely well drilled. How do we possibly achieve that? Every moment that a player is out of place they find a way to contribute and then make themselves an option again.

I think it is both. A lot of them are better athletes or more skilful, plus their mental composure is unbelievable.

Sorry to keep coming back to the locks, but neither Gilchrist or Gray are anywhere near Byrne, Henderson or Ryan physically. That should be where a lot of your physicality comes from.

Skillwise, our hands are generally good, but compare how many of them are jackaling threats to us. There's a big gap. I feel like a lot of our players have a standout quality but theirs are a lot more well rounded.

It's then whole tight 5 really. They just aren't as physical as the Irish.

Not so sure. Shooey and Fagerson are quite powerful props and the back row can be competitive. Overall, Scotland have some good (and a few great) players. I'd say their biggest problem is preparation and coaching. Quite often they look like a team of strangers with no cohesion/direction/organization/leadership. A top coach would make a big difference, even with the same squad of players. Frustrating for supporters that they can show flashes of brilliance but can't quite get the talent harnessed.

[Donny osmond]

I think it is both. A lot of them are better athletes or more skilful, plus their mental composure is unbelievable.

Sorry to keep coming back to the locks, but neither Gilchrist or Gray are anywhere near Byrne, Henderson or Ryan physically. That should be where a lot of your physicality comes from.

Skillwise, our hands are generally good, but compare how many of them are jackaling threats to us. There's a big gap. I feel like a lot of our players have a standout quality but theirs are a lot more well rounded.

It's then whole tight 5 really. They just aren't as physical as the Irish.

Not so sure. Shooey and Fagerson are quite powerful props and the back row can be competitive. Overall, Scotland have some good (and a few great) players. I'd say their biggest problem is preparation and coaching. Quite often they look like a team of strangers with no cohesion/direction/organization/leadership. A top coach would make a big difference, even with the same squad of players. Frustrating for supporters that they can show flashes of brilliance but can't quite get the talent harnessed.

While I'm not a huge fan, the difference Gatland has made to Wales is indicative of how much a good coach can bring out of their players. Wales were getting monstered in the forwards a year ago; a few months with Gats and they're a different team. Scotland's players aren't physically inferior, they just have inferior technique and decision making. That's top two inches stuff, like you say: coaching and preparation.

[Spiffy]

It's then whole tight 5 really. They just aren't as physical as the Irish.

Not so sure. Shooey and Fagerson are quite powerful props and the back row can be competitive. Overall, Scotland have some good (and a few great) players. I'd say their biggest problem is preparation and coaching. Quite often they look like a team of strangers with no cohesion/direction/organization/leadership. A top coach would make a big difference, even with the same squad of players. Frustrating for supporters that they can show flashes of brilliance but can't quite get the talent harnessed.

While I'm not a huge fan, the difference Gatland has made to Wales is indicative of how much a good coach can bring out of their players. Wales were getting monstered in the forwards a year ago; a few months with Gats and they're a different team. Scotland's players aren't physically inferior, they just have inferior technique and decision making. That's top two inches stuff, like you say: coaching and preparation.

Wales are doing well. But I'm not sure how much is down to Gatland and how much to their recent poor opposition. I don't rate him that highly as a coach. The last Lions tour in SA was there for the taking in a period when the Boks were not playing well. Gatland's poor squad/team selections and dull tactics threw the series away rather easily.

[Donny osmond]

Not so sure. Shooey and Fagerson are quite powerful props and the back row can be competitive. Overall, Scotland have some good (and a few great) players. I'd say their biggest problem is preparation and coaching. Quite often they look like a team of strangers with no cohesion/direction/organization/leadership. A top coach would make a big difference, even with the same squad of players. Frustrating for supporters that they can show flashes of brilliance but can't quite get the talent harnessed.

While I'm not a huge fan, the difference Gatland has made to Wales is indicative of how much a good coach can bring out of their players. Wales were getting monstered in the forwards a year ago; a few months with Gats and they're a different team. Scotland's players aren't physically inferior, they just have inferior technique and decision making. That's top two inches stuff, like you say: coaching and preparation.

Wales are doing well. But I'm not sure how much is down to Gatland and how much to their recent poor opposition. I don't rate him that highly as a coach. The last Lions tour in SA was there for the taking in a period when the Boks were not playing well. Gatland's poor squad/team selections and dull tactics threw the series away rather easily.

I agree to a point about mistakes in selection and tactics (hence why I say I'm not a fan), however I think his ability to man manage and get his team mentally prepared is phenomenal and is the relevant bit to this discussion.

[Big D]

I think it is both. A lot of them are better athletes or more skilful, plus their mental composure is unbelievable.

Sorry to keep coming back to the locks, but neither Gilchrist or Gray are anywhere near Byrne, Henderson or Ryan physically. That should be where a lot of your physicality comes from.

Skillwise, our hands are generally good, but compare how many of them are jackaling threats to us. There's a big gap. I feel like a lot of our players have a standout quality but theirs are a lot more well rounded.

It's then whole tight 5 really. They just aren't as physical as the Irish.

Not so sure. Shooey and Fagerson are quite powerful props and the back row can be competitive. Overall, Scotland have some good (and a few great) players. I'd say their biggest problem is preparation and coaching. Quite often they look like a team of strangers with no cohesion/direction/organization/leadership. A top coach would make a big difference, even with the same squad of players. Frustrating for supporters that they can show flashes of brilliance but can't quite get the talent harnessed.

They can be powerful props but their carrying into contact just isn't as dynamic as Ireland. It is no surprise the team we look poorest and unravel against is Ireland who mostly come through string systwms drilling the players year after year.

We look fine more often than not against the other sides but become completely unstuck against Ireland because they bully us up front. We are rarely completely dominated up front these days but Ireland regularly do it.

Happens at club level too.

[Big D]

While I'm not a huge fan, the difference Gatland has made to Wales is indicative of how much a good coach can bring out of their players. Wales were getting monstered in the forwards a year ago; a few months with Gats and they're a different team. Scotland's players aren't physically inferior, they just have inferior technique and decision making. That's top two inches stuff, like you say: coaching and preparation.

Wales are doing well. But I'm not sure how much is down to Gatland and how much to their recent poor opposition. I don't rate him that highly as a coach. The last Lions tour in SA was there for the taking in a period when the Boks were not playing well. Gatland's poor squad/team selections and dull tactics threw the series away rather easily.

I agree to a point about mistakes in selection and tactics (hence why I say I'm not a fan), however I think his ability to man manage and get his team mentally prepared is phenomenal and is the relevant bit to this discussion.

They should have lost to Fiji and beat a horrific Australia team. I'm confident swap us with any side in groups C and D would have seen us qualify.

When we are talking about playing Ireland it is a very high bar we are talking about meeting.

[stevedog1980]

Where to from here? Ireland decision making, as others have said is far superior, particularly when to assist in a tackle and when to jackal.

Main issues I have at the moment are pretty simple

1. It’s all about buying Finn an extra second to make the difference
2. Duhan doesn’t run straight often enough

With point 1, we have a number of forwards being used (and Tuipulotu) to run the Finn loop and buy and extra moment. Both SA and Ireland went straight through first receiver and blitzed on Finn instead, putting us right on the back foot. Too often the forwards are being used as link players to get Finn into the game instead of being used to gain their own metres. Schoe and ZF are both powerful carriers but they’re getting the ball way behind the gain line and often as a decoy. Get some dynamism in there, bang on the gain line and let them build some momentum.

Outside of them, Duhan seems determined to drift infield as much as possible. Kinghorn has been running the perpendicular line from FB but after he was injured you saw how devoid of runners who change the angle we were. Duhan comes off his wing more often than I originally gave him credit for but he rarely hits the ball at pace and straight at the line, lots of crabbing, probing and occasional incursion but I’d love to see him steam onto a short ball straight off 9 more often.

Essentially, we are a bit of a one trick pony at the moment and in danger of going back to relying on getting the ball in the hands of quality players and hoping something good happens.

I’m not sure we need to change anyone in the playing or coaching setup, just need them to widen their thinking

[Mikey Brown]

Where to from here? Ireland decision making, as others have said is far superior, particularly when to assist in a tackle and when to jackal.

Main issues I have at the moment are pretty simple

1. It’s all about buying Finn an extra second to make the difference
2. Duhan doesn’t run straight often enough

With point 1, we have a number of forwards being used (and Tuipulotu) to run the Finn loop and buy and extra moment. Both SA and Ireland went straight through first receiver and blitzed on Finn instead, putting us right on the back foot. Too often the forwards are being used as link players to get Finn into the game instead of being used to gain their own metres. Schoe and ZF are both powerful carriers but they’re getting the ball way behind the gain line and often as a decoy. Get some dynamism in there, bang on the gain line and let them build some momentum.

Outside of them, Duhan seems determined to drift infield as much as possible. Kinghorn has been running the perpendicular line from FB but after he was injured you saw how devoid of runners who change the angle we were. Duhan comes off his wing more often than I originally gave him credit for but he rarely hits the ball at pace and straight at the line, lots of crabbing, probing and occasional incursion but I’d love to see him steam onto a short ball straight off 9 more often.

Essentially, we are a bit of a one trick pony at the moment and in danger of going back to relying on getting the ball in the hands of quality players and hoping something good happens.

I’m not sure we need to change anyone in the playing or coaching setup, just need them to widen their thinking

I couldn’t agree with this more.

[Donny osmond]

Wales are doing well. But I'm not sure how much is down to Gatland and how much to their recent poor opposition. I don't rate him that highly as a coach. The last Lions tour in SA was there for the taking in a period when the Boks were not playing well. Gatland's poor squad/team selections and dull tactics threw the series away rather easily.

I agree to a point about mistakes in selection and tactics (hence why I say I'm not a fan), however I think his ability to man manage and get his team mentally prepared is phenomenal and is the relevant bit to this discussion.

They should have lost to Fiji and beat a horrific Australia team. I'm confident swap us with any side in groups C and D would have seen us qualify.

When we are talking about playing Ireland it is a very high bar we are talking about meeting.

100% agree but your missing my point. He took the same players that were an absolute shambles when they lost to Georgia and turned them into a team that is at least looking and playing like a proper rugby team. That can only have been done by working on their mental approach to training and playing.

The bar isn't so high against Ireland because they're suddenly genetically or physically superior, it's because they've changed their mental approach to training and playing so that they, as a team and individually make the right decisions at the right time. That's the change that Gats has made to Wales too.

Rugby games are won and lost in the top two inches, as Ireland, Wales and NZ are all currently proving.

[Mikey Brown]

I agree to a point about mistakes in selection and tactics (hence why I say I'm not a fan), however I think his ability to man manage and get his team mentally prepared is phenomenal and is the relevant bit to this discussion.

They should have lost to Fiji and beat a horrific Australia team. I'm confident swap us with any side in groups C and D would have seen us qualify.

When we are talking about playing Ireland it is a very high bar we are talking about meeting.

100% agree but your missing my point. He took the same players that were an absolute shambles when they lost to Georgia and turned them into a team that is at least looking and playing like a proper rugby team. That can only have been done by working on their mental approach to training and playing.

The bar isn't so high against Ireland because they're suddenly genetically or physically superior, it's because they've changed their mental approach to training and playing so that they, as a team and individually make the right decisions at the right time. That's the change that Gats has made to Wales too.

Rugby games are won and lost in the top two inches, as Ireland, Wales and NZ are all currently proving.

Whilst I agree with the thinking, we simply haven’t seen Wales have to execute that against a top opposition yet.

My hunch is you’re right and despite being a bit limited in adventure they will be fired up by the occasion and improve, rather than doing what we did and playing our game without really responding to what Ireland were actually doing.

[Donny osmond]

They should have lost to Fiji and beat a horrific Australia team. I'm confident swap us with any side in groups C and D would have seen us qualify.

When we are talking about playing Ireland it is a very high bar we are talking about meeting.

100% agree but your missing my point. He took the same players that were an absolute shambles when they lost to Georgia and turned them into a team that is at least looking and playing like a proper rugby team. That can only have been done by working on their mental approach to training and playing.

The bar isn't so high against Ireland because they're suddenly genetically or physically superior, it's because they've changed their mental approach to training and playing so that they, as a team and individually make the right decisions at the right time. That's the change that Gats has made to Wales too.

Rugby games are won and lost in the top two inches, as Ireland, Wales and NZ are all currently proving.

Whilst I agree with the thinking, we simply haven’t seen Wales have to execute that against a top opposition yet.

My hunch is you’re right and despite being a bit limited in adventure they will be fired up by the occasion and improve, rather than doing what we did and playing our game without really responding to what Ireland were actually doing.

That's fair, we haven't and it will take time for any coach to turn them from the Pivac mess back into a decent team again. But we have seen Garlands first term in charge of Wales, and we've seen the dive they took when he left, and we've seen the beginnings of a subsequent rise when he returned.

It's an unknowable, but I reckon a Garland coached team would physically dominate the same players coached by Pivac, not because they're bigger or stronger or more physical, but because they're better coached and make better decisions.

[Big D]

They should have lost to Fiji and beat a horrific Australia team. I'm confident swap us with any side in groups C and D would have seen us qualify.

When we are talking about playing Ireland it is a very high bar we are talking about meeting.

100% agree but your missing my point. He took the same players that were an absolute shambles when they lost to Georgia and turned them into a team that is at least looking and playing like a proper rugby team. That can only have been done by working on their mental approach to training and playing.

The bar isn't so high against Ireland because they're suddenly genetically or physically superior, it's because they've changed their mental approach to training and playing so that they, as a team and individually make the right decisions at the right time. That's the change that Gats has made to Wales too.

Rugby games are won and lost in the top two inches, as Ireland, Wales and NZ are all currently proving.

Whilst I agree with the thinking, we simply haven’t seen Wales have to execute that against a top opposition yet.

My hunch is you’re right and despite being a bit limited in adventure they will be fired up by the occasion and improve, rather than doing what we did and playing our game without really responding to what Ireland were actually doing.

They've been bang average in this game.

[Donny osmond]

100% agree but your missing my point. He took the same players that were an absolute shambles when they lost to Georgia and turned them into a team that is at least looking and playing like a proper rugby team. That can only have been done by working on their mental approach to training and playing.

The bar isn't so high against Ireland because they're suddenly genetically or physically superior, it's because they've changed their mental approach to training and playing so that they, as a team and individually make the right decisions at the right time. That's the change that Gats has made to Wales too.

Rugby games are won and lost in the top two inches, as Ireland, Wales and NZ are all currently proving.

Whilst I agree with the thinking, we simply haven’t seen Wales have to execute that against a top opposition yet.

My hunch is you’re right and despite being a bit limited in adventure they will be fired up by the occasion and improve, rather than doing what we did and playing our game without really responding to what Ireland were actually doing.

They've been bang average in this game.

yup as usual the universe has conspired against me. I feel like you knew that was going to happen.

[Big D]

Whilst I agree with the thinking, we simply haven’t seen Wales have to execute that against a top opposition yet.

My hunch is you’re right and despite being a bit limited in adventure they will be fired up by the occasion and improve, rather than doing what we did and playing our game without really responding to what Ireland were actually doing.

They've been bang average in this game.

yup as usual the universe has conspired against me. I feel like you knew that was going to happen.

Not at all honest. Just feel like Ireland make us look as bad as possible whereas Wales had a draw to make them look better than they are.

[Donny osmond]

Watching the quarters, and esp the big two games, I was reminded of the way Scotland played when GT first took over. I'm absolutely not claiming we were then as good as the top 4 teams are now, obvs, but GT did have us playing at a much higher intensity than we've shown lately.

Before our last pool match I'd been quietly hoping that the team had a surprise tactic in store and that that tactic was to reprise the speed of play we showed in GTs first year in charge. If the current group of intl players is to move forward, I reckon they could do worse than go back to those days.

[Cameo]

Watching the quarters, and esp the big two games, I was reminded of the way Scotland played when GT first took over. I'm absolutely not claiming we were then as good as the top 4 teams are now, obvs, but GT did have us playing at a much higher intensity than we've shown lately.

Before our last pool match I'd been quietly hoping that the team had a surprise tactic in store and that that tactic was to reprise the speed of play we showed in GTs first year in charge. If the current group of intl players is to move forward, I reckon they could do worse than go back to those days.

I'd like to see that too. Not sure it's a winning tactic against the top four though (unless you catch them not expecting it), and probably less consistent against the rest than what we have currently. If France have notable slumps from their intensity where silly mistakes creak in, I'm not sure we can expect to be more intense than anyone while keeping mistakes down.

I think it's worth it for entertainment value alone, and would take an extra loss every now and then if that was the payoff.

The one lesson from the quarter finals was that chips do work against the Irish and SA defences. I imagine we planned to use them more, against SA at least, but their linespeed meant plans went out the window. It feels like Tuipolotu hasn't put through a kick since that one vs England.

[Donny osmond]

Watching the quarters, and esp the big two games, I was reminded of the way Scotland played when GT first took over. I'm absolutely not claiming we were then as good as the top 4 teams are now, obvs, but GT did have us playing at a much higher intensity than we've shown lately.

Before our last pool match I'd been quietly hoping that the team had a surprise tactic in store and that that tactic was to reprise the speed of play we showed in GTs first year in charge. If the current group of intl players is to move forward, I reckon they could do worse than go back to those days.

I'd like to see that too. Not sure it's a winning tactic against the top four though (unless you catch them not expecting it), and probably less consistent against the rest than what we have currently. If France have notable slumps from their intensity where silly mistakes creak in, I'm not sure we can expect to be more intense than anyone while keeping mistakes down.

I think it's worth it for entertainment value alone, and would take an extra loss every now and then if that was the payoff.

The one lesson from the quarter finals was that chips do work against the Irish and SA defences. I imagine we planned to use them more, against SA at least, but their linespeed meant plans went out the window. It feels like Tuipolotu hasn't put through a kick since that one vs England.

I don't know if it's a winning tactic either but whatever we do, we need to up the intensity, and that would be one way of doing that. I'm just wondering how GT will evolve his game plan.

[Donny osmond]

I'd also be interested to hear from anyone who knows what pathways there are? It's **very** annoying hearing about the Irish production line, knowing full well that Edinburgh is chock full of rugby playing private schools and leading amateur clubs that could be feeding talent into the professional set up if the pathways were there (not to mention the rugby playing schools in the Borders...).

I know there's a 'futures XV' in the amateur leagues that regularly gets humped , which doesn't feel like a working pathway?