RugbyRebels

I have to say, your backrow against Japan was the best balanced I'd seen from Scotland for a wee while. I'd build around them.

Hell, with McInally, JGray, and those 3, you've got the beginnings of a decent pack. Shame about the props. Skinner is very good and worth the slot alongside JGray for me, considering I just look at Toolis and Swinson and see club players at best.

Oh, and being shot of Laidlaw will improve you no end :p

We need a better Scotland for the 6N.

Stom wrote:I have to say, your backrow against Japan was the best balanced I'd seen from Scotland for a wee while. I'd build around them.

Hell, with McInally, JGray, and those 3, you've got the beginnings of a decent pack. Shame about the props. Skinner is very good and worth the slot alongside JGray for me, considering I just look at Toolis and Swinson and see club players at best.

Oh, and being shot of Laidlaw will improve you no end :p

We need a better Scotland for the 6N.

That’s about as generous an appraisal as I’d hope to hear from a neutral. Don’t think you’ll find many here disagreeing regarding the backrow and locks/Laidlaw.

Curious as you mention the backrow if you had any opinion on Thomson? We all had big hopes for him and are probably a bit underwhelmed but maybe he looked solid for a test rookie?

I don’t feel like we’re getting much out of him currently but there could be a number of reasons for that with injury, lack of gametime and a totally new set of systems to him.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:I have to say, your backrow against Japan was the best balanced I'd seen from Scotland for a wee while. I'd build around them.

Hell, with McInally, JGray, and those 3, you've got the beginnings of a decent pack. Shame about the props. Skinner is very good and worth the slot alongside JGray for me, considering I just look at Toolis and Swinson and see club players at best.

Oh, and being shot of Laidlaw will improve you no end :p

We need a better Scotland for the 6N.

That’s about as generous an appraisal as I’d hope to hear from a neutral. Don’t think you’ll find many here disagreeing regarding the backrow and locks/Laidlaw.

Curious as you mention the backrow if you had any opinion on Thomson? We all had big hopes for him and are probably a bit underwhelmed but maybe he looked solid for a test rookie?

I don’t feel like we’re getting much out of him currently but there could be a number of reasons for that with injury, lack of gametime and a totally new set of systems to him.

He looked decent enough to me. Certainly better than the dross you've been putting out in the backrow recently.

Was overshadowed by the Japanese unit, but that's a seriously good unit. Ritchie will takes the plaudits for his turnovers, but I thought he was well supported by the other two.

I could be wrong, though, my watching was interrupted.

I don't think you'll find many of us that disagree with that being the most balanced backrow we've had for a long time. Thomson came in for some stick, unfairly I reckon. He made a lot of meters v Japan and was flawless in the lineout. I think his defence was a bit iffy, but he's not alone there. With him and Fagerson we've got a couple of good No8's for the first time in years. Ritchie is our number one openside now IMO. No disrespect to Mish but Ritchie has stepped up twice now (6N and WC) when Mish has gone down injured and twice ended up as our player of the tournament. It's a lovely position to be in having those two as options at 7. The 6 shirt belongs to Bradbury now, hopefully Crosbie puts in a good challenge for it. I suppose Wilson is still in consideration too.

Thomson made a lot of metres in a long garbage time run.

Excuse me?

Big D wrote:Thomson made a lot of metres in a long garbage time run.

Would you like any dressing on your word salad?

Big D wrote:Thomson made a lot of metres in a long garbage time run.

He's an improvement on Wilson and we have young Fagerson knocking on the door. Things at 8 are a lot better than they were a year ago.

I feel like every time I think Thomson has made a good run (I think there was 1 big linebreak in fairness) it turns out to be Cummings. Perhaps now I'm dismissing his good bits.

He really is very good in the lineout though.

His name is Blade, surely he gets bonus points just for that.

I'm sure you've all been yearning for me to post another version of this. I think this is roughly the group I'd like to focus on for the next couple of years, with those in italics likely being phased out over that time.

Loose-head
Dell (27), Reid (32), Bhatti (26) ---> Kebble (27)

Big question mark over Bhatti and whether he can consistently bring that aggression and carrying game to the Edinburgh starting team let alone earn a Scotland place.

Hooker
McInally (29), Brown (30), Turner (27), Stewart (24)

As I've said I'll be amazed if Brown can last many years more but we're not at a point we can trust Turner/Stewart yet.

Tight-head
Nel (33), Fagerson (23), Berghan (29) ---> Nichol (23)

Lock
J Gray (25), Skinner (24), Cummings (22), Gilchrist (29), Carmichael (24)

Backrow
Bradbury (24), Ritchie (23), Watson (27), Fagerson (21), Thomson (28) ---> Crosbie (22)

Scrum-half
Horne (24), Price (26) ---> Shiel (21), Dobie (18)

Fly-half
Russell (27), Hastings (23)

Centre
Scott (29), Jones (25), Harris (28), Hutchinson (23), Bennett (26)---> McDowall (21)

I've been a Scott fan for a long time but I suppose relying on him staying fit and ditching Horne/Taylor/Dunbar might not be the wisest idea. I just don't think any of them are taking this team forwards, maybe hold on to Horne/Taylor for another year or two.

Real issue here is Harris has been brought in to shore up the 13 channel, but Jones/Hutchinson/Bennett are 3 of our most exciting attackers in that spot.

Back Three
Hogg (27), Maitland (31), Kinghorn (22), Graham (22) ---> VDM (24)

Maybe harsh on Seymour. I don't see space for both him and Maitland though.

Would be handy if a couple of guys like Ashe, SHC looked like they'd ever fulfil their early promise but that ship had probably sailed. SHC I think had/has a lot of talent but never seemed to put it all together.

I know all this comes a long way behind the makeup of the coaching team in terms of importance. I'm assuming/hoping we're getting a real shakeup there.

I'm out on Thompson. There was one point in the Japan match where he'd missed 4 of 9 tackles, which just isn't good enough. I don't think that he runs hard enough and have yet to see him win a turnover. MB is right that his meters made stat is missoeadimg due to one long, unchallenged run late in the game. I'm pessimistic about our backrow overall as I think it's a lot of military medium. We looked dangerous in attack at times against Japan but had far too little ball as our backrow couldn't slow them down or generate enough turnovers.

On the centres I think that there is talent there but all of the options have weaknesses. What drive me crazy was the lack of depth in our attack at times. Johnson, Harris and Taylor didn't get over the gain line because they weren't coming onto the ball enough. This changed when Horne was on the pitch, which is why I've been such an advocate.

switchskier wrote:I'm out on Thompson. There was one point in the Japan match where he'd missed 4 of 9 tackles, which just isn't good enough. I don't think that he runs hard enough and have yet to see him win a turnover. MB is right that his meters made stat is missoeadimg due to one long, unchallenged run late in the game. I'm pessimistic about our backrow overall as I think it's a lot of military medium. We looked dangerous in attack at times against Japan but had far too little ball as our backrow couldn't slow them down or generate enough turnovers.

On the centres I think that there is talent there but all of the options have weaknesses. What drive me crazy was the lack of depth in our attack at times. Johnson, Harris and Taylor didn't get over the gain line because they weren't coming onto the ball enough. This changed when Horne was on the pitch, which is why I've been such an advocate.

Had no idea he'd been that pish in defence.

Mikey Brown wrote:Excuse me?

sharvey44 wrote:

Big D wrote:Thomson made a lot of metres in a long garbage time run.

Would you like any dressing on your word salad?

The game was dead or at least any chance of getting what we wanted out of it.. The last 10-15 minutes was effectively garbage time in thatthe outcome of the game has already been decided (sorry for the NFL/NFL fantasy football wording). A long run down a wing to pad out his carrying stats is no use to us.

Chunks Baws wrote:

Big D wrote:Thomson made a lot of metres in a long garbage time run.

He's an improvement on Wilson and we have young Fagerson knocking on the door. Things at 8 are a lot better than they were a year ago.

I'm as big a Wilson hater as there is on here, but what has Thomson done to prove that?

Both are good in the line out, Wilson is, based on recent evidence better in defence.

That's not to write Thomson off after a handful of caps but he still has a lot to prove.

Looks Like Hunter-Hill has got himself a bit of time down south and filled out a bit...

https://scrummagazine.com/hunter-hill-j ... edinburgh/

Big D wrote:

Chunks Baws wrote:

Big D wrote:Thomson made a lot of metres in a long garbage time run.

He's an improvement on Wilson and we have young Fagerson knocking on the door. Things at 8 are a lot better than they were a year ago.

I'm as big a Wilson hater as there is on here, but what has Thomson done to prove that?

Both are good in the line out, Wilson is, based on recent evidence better in defence.

Not sure I think much of Wilson as a defender. He’s very busy in the lineout but I don’t think he’s actually particularly strong there. That’s the one area Thomson has quickly shown himself to be very strong.

Thomson has to show a lot more to keep his spot, but Wilson has had an awful lot of caps on the promise of offering some sort of consistency. I don’t think he can do it and he is seemingly held together with tape most of the time.

It’s hard to judge Thomson’s missed tackles as we seem to have a major problem with our big forwards missing straight up tackles. McInally, Bradbury, Wilson, Gilchrist, it’s hard to think of many except Jonny Gray that don’t regularly miss an important tackle that leads to a try.

Again, can we please just get a decent fucking defence coach. It surely can’t be the case that all our players are this inept?

MB- the big miss from your centres list is Johnson. I think we can do better than Harris too but he does look decent as wing cover.

I think Ritchie has to start every game but no way is he ahead of Watson. If Watson is fit, Ritchie plays six for me. With a decent 8 (and our second rows showing some dynamism), I think there is plenty of carrying there.

Cameo wrote:MB- the big miss from your centres list is Johnson.

Ah. Yes. That’s quite a big miss.

I’m a big fan of Johnson but it’s a shame we don’t seem to have used him particularly well.

@Mikey Brown, any idea when Scoeman, Kebble, Van der Merwe and Van der Walt become eligible, is it likely we will see them after the 6N so likely during the Summer or Autumn Internationals?

Scottish Caley Fan wrote:@Mikey Brown, any idea when Scoeman, Kebble, Van der Merwe and Van der Walt become eligible, is it likely we will see them after the 6N so likely during the Summer or Autumn Internationals?

Schoeman will be just before the next WC.

Other 3 qualify for next autumn but must be capped by end of thr year or need to wait a further 2 years.

Can we stop this playing 2 7s malarkey. It has worked for us once and failed lots. Let’s have a traditional back row of a big carrying 8, a tackling 6 and a fetcher still 7.

If we want Watson then Richie doesn’t play and vice versa.

Ritchie is still growing and isn't that much smaller than Bradbury and bigger than Fagerson.

There is no reason he can't play as a big tackling 6 who is effective at the breakdown. He has that frame already and at 6ft 4 and 17st and still growing (bulk) he wont be at 7 for too long IMO. So he may not play 6 now but I think 6 is his long term position.

I’d be very surprised if he’s that size, but I do agree if view him as equally good at 6 or 7. Recently we have needed a bit more heft at 6 than ideal for a player like him though.

Even if he is taller than Fagerson he doesn’t make the same physical dents going forwards but he is a very smart player.

I think Crosbie offers a similar thing, maybe with more of an abrasive edge. Who plays 6/7 when they play together for Edinburgh?