Moderator: OptimisticJock
"The Scotland team will be named by Head Coach Gregor Townsend this Thursday. "Mikey Brown wrote:Is there actually any expectation that the team is announced today? Since seeing that team sheet this morning I've been checking the SRU page pretty incessantly and just realised it might not even be out today.
I'm a lot less analytical when it comes to the rugby than I used to be but this seems correct. I've noted on here plenty of times - once our defensive line was broken, that was it. A try almost always followed as there was little to no second opportunity to tackle the line breaker. Even a half break with an offload - once it was breached, that was it.Chunks Baws wrote:That was a really good article. That was when I went from thinking that Taylor was a bit shit to thinking he was a completely useless fud. I think that was the article that highlighted we used no "sweeper". Other teams would have the scrum half sweep behind to cover the back pitch in case the first line was beaten, we didn't. It made us look like fucking amateurs.Mikey Brown wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51289567
Obviously any player will always try to put a positive spin on these things but he seems quite honest in this article and there are some promising bits. The defensive alignment thing is an interesting one. I remember him getting absolutely caned for (what seemed like) a bunch of defensive errors against Wales (I think) a couple of years back."Dave has pushed me to work on a lot of areas of my game," he says. "I've always been quite confident in myself and backed my ability but I've worked on areas that I probably haven't worked on before.
"One of the main things is my handling under pressure. Nowadays defences are putting a lot more pressure on with a lot more line speed so being able to get the ball in and out of your hands quickly under pressure, especially in the wide channels is important.
"On the defensive side, I think contrary to what many people believe I've always been a good defender. I get in good positions and the main issue I've had is tackle selection.
"I've maybe not stayed in the fight long enough or gone too high and I've been working on that. With [new Scotland defence coach] Steve Tandy coming in I really like his defensive system, I feel like it suits me."
That rugby nerd/blogger guy thedeadballarea did a really good piece following that on how his positioning was actually great but the defensive system had holes that Wales exploited. Truth is without watching most games a couple of times or simply following one player at a time it can be very hard to get an accurate picture of their contribution
To be fair, the article wasn't that black and white. It was saying that the traditional way is to have the scrum half sweeping but more and more teams now (including Scotland) don't. The theory is it should lead to less line breaks, although once the line is broken you are in more trouble. For Scotland, it just doesn't work as we haven't cut down on line breaks and aren't great scrambling.hugh_woatmeigh wrote:I'm a lot less analytical when it comes to the rugby than I used to be but this seems correct. I've noted on here plenty of times - once our defensive line was broken, that was it. A try almost always followed as there was little to no second opportunity to tackle the line breaker. Even a half break with an offload - once it was breached, that was it.Chunks Baws wrote:That was a really good article. That was when I went from thinking that Taylor was a bit shit to thinking he was a completely useless fud. I think that was the article that highlighted we used no "sweeper". Other teams would have the scrum half sweep behind to cover the back pitch in case the first line was beaten, we didn't. It made us look like fucking amateurs.Mikey Brown wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51289567
Obviously any player will always try to put a positive spin on these things but he seems quite honest in this article and there are some promising bits. The defensive alignment thing is an interesting one. I remember him getting absolutely caned for (what seemed like) a bunch of defensive errors against Wales (I think) a couple of years back.
That rugby nerd/blogger guy thedeadballarea did a really good piece following that on how his positioning was actually great but the defensive system had holes that Wales exploited. Truth is without watching most games a couple of times or simply following one player at a time it can be very hard to get an accurate picture of their contribution
The team with the most notoriously good organised defence have not used the 9 as a sweeper. He defends about 2 in from the breakdown looking for an interception. Wales.Cameo wrote:To be fair, the article wasn't that black and white. It was saying that the traditional way is to have the scrum half sweeping but more and more teams now (including Scotland) don't. The theory is it should lead to less line breaks, although once the line is broken you are in more trouble. For Scotland, it just doesn't work as we haven't cut down on line breaks and aren't great scrambling.hugh_woatmeigh wrote:I'm a lot less analytical when it comes to the rugby than I used to be but this seems correct. I've noted on here plenty of times - once our defensive line was broken, that was it. A try almost always followed as there was little to no second opportunity to tackle the line breaker. Even a half break with an offload - once it was breached, that was it.Chunks Baws wrote:
That was a really good article. That was when I went from thinking that Taylor was a bit shit to thinking he was a completely useless fud. I think that was the article that highlighted we used no "sweeper". Other teams would have the scrum half sweep behind to cover the back pitch in case the first line was beaten, we didn't. It made us look like fucking amateurs.
Horne might help with that.
Was Kinghorn worse than Maitland?whatisthejava wrote:So big questions for next week
Who gets swooped out.
Bradbury for Haining
Graham for kinghorn
Is prob my only two
It's a bit unnecessary tbh.
Big D wrote:Russell has apparently done an interview with Mark Palmer.
Can't imagine anything good will come from it.
There are never any winners in this type of situation. Only losers.hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Big D wrote:Russell has apparently done an interview with Mark Palmer.
Can't imagine anything good will come from it.
If it is indeed Toony v Finn then there's only one winner. Toony's position was untenable as soon as we were knocked out of the RWC anyway.
Well sure. Based on the limited info Finn stepped over the line but the fact remains - Toony is not very good at his job. Pulling a giant-killing win out of the bag every few games is not good enough.Big D wrote:There are never any winners in this type of situation. Only losers.hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Big D wrote:Russell has apparently done an interview with Mark Palmer.
Can't imagine anything good will come from it.
If it is indeed Toony v Finn then there's only one winner. Toony's position was untenable as soon as we were knocked out of the RWC anyway.
Pretty sulky stuffGeneral Zod wrote:Doesn’t sound like he’s coming back while Townsend continues to take us from strength to strength.
https://www.theoffsideline.com/finn-rus ... -walk-out/
I'm not sure it all is. Some of it is but some of it isn't. If he was sulky he wouldn't have spoken to the psychologist knowing there was no real reason to. Plus texting him to say he can go home? At least have the decency to call him, or do it face to face. That isn't to.say Russell is blameless, he clearly isn't*.Banquo wrote:Pretty sulky stuffGeneral Zod wrote:Doesn’t sound like he’s coming back while Townsend continues to take us from strength to strength.
https://www.theoffsideline.com/finn-rus ... -walk-out/
Would agree with youDonny osmond wrote:Without defending GT, who I think isn't right for the head job, I don't think that interview clears FR from anything at all, he just comes across as a petulant spoilt narcissist. Fuck them both.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
Some players are just difficult; you have to judge whether their presence ultimately helps or hinders. KP was sent away about a year before this was the case- but he is an utter knob. A lot of coaches are also shyte.Big D wrote:I'm not sure it all is. Some of it is but some of it isn't. If he was sulky he wouldn't have spoken to the psychologist knowing there was no real reason to. Plus texting him to say he can go home? At least have the decency to call him, or do it face to face. That isn't to.say Russell is blameless, he clearly isn't*.Banquo wrote:Pretty sulky stuffGeneral Zod wrote:Doesn’t sound like he’s coming back while Townsend continues to take us from strength to strength.
https://www.theoffsideline.com/finn-rus ... -walk-out/
Every man and his dog knows Townsends tactics have been shite for a while. God forbid the team key play maker and apparent member of the leadership team wants to raise legitimate concerns. A key part of man management is to make your team feel like you are listening even if you don't change the plan.
*No surprise I am not completely against Finn, I was partly on KPs side when the england cricket team were partly mismanaging him.
He got an 8 on a player rating I read yesterday, which was... odd.paddy no 11 wrote:Would agree with youDonny osmond wrote:Without defending GT, who I think isn't right for the head job, I don't think that interview clears FR from anything at all, he just comes across as a petulant spoilt narcissist. Fuck them both.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
Unfortunately the question finn asks about gameplan is what all ye supporters on here say after watching Scotland play "what is the gameplan"
Be dropping price too after yesterday didn't have the composure when it mattered
I agree up to a point, but the idea that FR can swan in and start drinking when he's been told the rules and his attitude is he doesn't have to listen to those rules kinda takes the onus off anyone else to listen to him.Big D wrote:I'm not sure it all is. Some of it is but some of it isn't. If he was sulky he wouldn't have spoken to the psychologist knowing there was no real reason to. Plus texting him to say he can go home? At least have the decency to call him, or do it face to face. That isn't to.say Russell is blameless, he clearly isn't*.Banquo wrote:Pretty sulky stuffGeneral Zod wrote:Doesn’t sound like he’s coming back while Townsend continues to take us from strength to strength.
https://www.theoffsideline.com/finn-rus ... -walk-out/
Every man and his dog knows Townsends tactics have been shite for a while. God forbid the team key play maker and apparent member of the leadership team wants to raise legitimate concerns. A key part of man management is to make your team feel like you are listening even if you don't change the plan.
*No surprise I am not completely against Finn, I was partly on KPs side when the england cricket team were partly mismanaging him.
Yup he does make some good points about the camp in general and the game plan in particular, I can understand his frustration but the answer to not being listened to isn't to, in turn, stop listening.paddy no 11 wrote:Would agree with youDonny osmond wrote:Without defending GT, who I think isn't right for the head job, I don't think that interview clears FR from anything at all, he just comes across as a petulant spoilt narcissist. Fuck them both.
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
Unfortunately the question finn asks about gameplan is what all ye supporters on here say after watching Scotland play "what is the gameplan"
Be dropping price too after yesterday didn't have the composure when it mattered
I pretty much agree. But from what has been said, Russell as a senior player and part of the leadership group isn't out of line for speaking up to GT so long as its repectfully done. We don't know whether that is the case or not yet.Banquo wrote:Some players are just difficult; you have to judge whether their presence ultimately helps or hinders. KP was sent away about a year before this was the case- but he is an utter knob. A lot of coaches are also shyte.Big D wrote:I'm not sure it all is. Some of it is but some of it isn't. If he was sulky he wouldn't have spoken to the psychologist knowing there was no real reason to. Plus texting him to say he can go home? At least have the decency to call him, or do it face to face. That isn't to.say Russell is blameless, he clearly isn't*.Banquo wrote: Pretty sulky stuff
Every man and his dog knows Townsends tactics have been shite for a while. God forbid the team key play maker and apparent member of the leadership team wants to raise legitimate concerns. A key part of man management is to make your team feel like you are listening even if you don't change the plan.
*No surprise I am not completely against Finn, I was partly on KPs side when the england cricket team were partly mismanaging him.
BTW, I should have said petty sulky stuff, reflecting both sides, as neither come out well.