RugbyRebels

The full Tom English interview with Townsend. It's hard to see Russell every playing for us again while Townsend is in charge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51452035

Chunks Baws wrote:The full Tom English interview with Townsend. It's hard to see Russell every playing for us again while Townsend is in charge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51452035

again, Townsend has not closed the door. Russell has.
No coach will have him back except under the same terms Townsend is pointing out.

That’s a bit simplistic, no? Yes, Russell is effectively the one putting his international career on hiatus. But it’s clearly not so he can have 3 beers instead of 2.

You've got to be careful not the blur the lines here.

I don't support Gregor continuing as Scotland coach but it's unrelated to this. He's taken the right stance here.

The main thing I think missing from Finn's game is a bit more professionalism, taking all this shit a bit more seriously - so it's not the most surprising outcome in the world.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:You've got to be careful not the blur the lines here.

I don't support Gregor continuing as Scotland coach but it's unrelated to this. He's taken the right stance here.

The main thing I think missing from Finn's game is a bit more professionalism, taking all this shit a bit more seriously - so it's not the most surprising outcome in the world.

We’re possibly saying the same thing from different perspectives? Russell has to obey the rules just like everyone else. Maybe there’s some debate over why he crossed that line, but he did, and that’s why he was out of the squad. No problem with GT there.

I feel like people suggesting that’s why he hasn’t returned to the squad is where you’ve got two issues blurring together.

septic 9 wrote:

Chunks Baws wrote:The full Tom English interview with Townsend. It's hard to see Russell every playing for us again while Townsend is in charge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51452035

again, Townsend has not closed the door. Russell has.
No coach will have him back except under the same terms Townsend is pointing out.

I didn't say he had shut the door I was talking about how broken their relationship is. Russell clearly doesn't want to play for him again, which is a lot more obvious after reading that interview.

Mikey Brown wrote:That’s a bit simplistic, no? Yes, Russell is effectively the one putting his international career on hiatus. But it’s clearly not so he can have 3 beers instead of 2.

all that Townsend has asked of him is to agree to abide by the player driven conduct agreement. Russell made an issue over it, walked out. Does he have other issues - almost certainly, and almost certainly bigger ones. Which begs the question why he made such an issue over another beer.
He has now made it him or the coach, so it won't be him. A new coach, when we get one, will have a long hard think about bringing Russell back in, and when he gets to broach it the first question he will ask of Russell is will he agree to stick to that protocol; to do otherwise risks him losing the rest of the squad right from the off.

There are many top level coaches who would have taken a much harder line than Townsend - both on sticking to a gameplan and what has happened here.
I'm sure Russell would relish playing under a Cockerill or Gatland gameplan - both are rigid and do not encompass much playing off the cuff. Or a Gatland regime - one step away and your out, banished

If Finn can't make the decision not to have another beer in the teeth of a code of conduct and all the other players telling him not too then he's a fucking liability who shouldn't be anywhere near the squad. It actually makes sense of a lot of what has been wrong with Scotland. the maddening inconsistency and the inability to stick to a plan for a game. The attempts to go for miracle plays rather than press home an advantage. These all smack of a pivot playing for himself rather than the team.

Anyway I'm very surprised to see most of you wanting to see Toonie gone. He's obviously a good coach or he wouldn't have got where he did with Glasgow. It's probable he should have done a bit more learning before Scotland but I personally think you'd be better of sticking than twisting.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:If Finn can't make the decision not to have another beer in the teeth of a code of conduct and all the other players telling him not too then he's a fucking liability who shouldn't be anywhere near the squad. It actually makes sense of a lot of what has been wrong with Scotland. the maddening inconsistency and the inability to stick to a plan for a game. The attempts to go for miracle plays rather than press home an advantage. These all smack of a pivot playing for himself rather than the team.

Anyway I'm very surprised to see most of you wanting to see Toonie gone. He's obviously a good coach or he wouldn't have got where he did with Glasgow. It's probable he should have done a bit more learning before Scotland but I personally think you'd be better of sticking than twisting.

I am with you on the extra drink but not sure I buy the implications made from there. Russell's inconsistency is exaggerated I'd say and generally he is described as a positive person round the camp (until recently at least).

I am having my wobbles but think you might well be right on Townsend too. I just don't want to have to pick between him and Russell (though a new coach wouldn't instantly save that situation). I am think the issue for most is that we got a bit ahead of ourselves thinking we were on an upwards trajectory under Cotter and then early Townsend. That just makes the last year even more deflating. In a broader historical sense, our first two games this year have been relatively encouraging.

Personally, I get the feeling that Townsend started double guessing himself before the World Cup following a tough 6N (with injuries playing a big part). If he is going to be beaten up about it either way, we might as well actually try to play the quickest rugby in the world.

P.s. good to see you back on the Scottish board

If you're going to sack a coach because he second guesses and makes a mistake, you're going to run out of fucking coaches. It's like there's this belief that it's literally impossible for people to reflect on their mistakes, learn from what happened and improve.

And regardless of how good Russell is, and he is a good player, no one is bigger than the team, and if Townsend is sacked to appease Russell, then the team and those that are calling for Townsend's head for this, can enjoy what they've got coming to them.

cashead wrote:If you're going to sack a coach because he second guesses and makes a mistake, you're going to run out of fucking coaches. It's like there's this belief that it's literally impossible for people to reflect on their mistakes, learn from what happened and improve.

And regardless of how good Russell is, and he is a good player, no one is bigger than the team, and if Townsend is sacked to appease Russell, then the team and those that are calling for Townsend's head for this, can enjoy what they've got coming to them.

I get where you're coming from, but there are quite a few signs of us trying the same tactics over and over again with very little success outside of occasional 'giant-slayings'. I'm not sure 'second guessing' is anyone's issue here? I wouldn't have thought sticking to a game plan is either. It just feels like our tactics are easily undone when things don't go entirely our way. Or we come up against a team like SA where it looks like our players are fully expecting to get blasted off the park, and inevitably do. It's demoralising and the last signs of growth in that area were under Cotter.

I feel like Townsend's plan is actually pretty reliant on miracle plays. We repeatedly get ourselves in these incredibly risky situations, not just Russell, where the likely outcome may be 7 points for either side. We may be easing off on this judging on the first two games but it's a bit early to tell.

Of course Russell isn't bigger than the team, but I'd imagine he is involved in about 75% of the tries we score, yet feels Townsend is unable/unwilling to listen to his thoughts on how we could better shape our tactics/attack. You can view that as playing for himself I suppose, and he certainly needs reigning in at times, but I don't think you can expect to get the most out of a player (who happens to be our most skilful attacker) if you completely ignore their opinions on how to play the game.

I accept there's some hearsay among all that, and I've half-responded to Eugene here, but the idea either party is completely blameless doesn't seem right.

There are some promising signs in the 2 games so far, forwards being more direct, defence overall, but a lot of the same issues continuing too. I think we definitely have to see out the 6 nations before we can judge this rearranged coaching setup, but Townsend still looks a bit out of his depth to me. That's not the same as thinking there is actually a viable alternative ready to go.

Mikey Brown wrote: I get where you're coming from, but there are quite a few signs of us trying the same tactics over and over again with very little success outside of occasional 'giant-slayings'. I'm not sure 'second guessing' is anyone's issue here? I wouldn't have thought sticking to a game plan is either. It just feels like our tactics are easily undone when things don't go entirely our way. Or we come up against a team like SA where it looks like our players are fully expecting to get blasted off the park, and inevitably do. It's demoralising and the last signs of growth in that area were under Cotter.

I feel like Townsend's plan is actually pretty reliant on miracle plays. We repeatedly get ourselves in these incredibly risky situations, not just Russell, where the likely outcome may be 7 points for either side. We may be easing off on this judging on the first two games but it's a bit early to tell.

Of course Russell isn't bigger than the team, but I'd imagine he is involved in about 75% of the tries we score, yet feels Townsend is unable/unwilling to listen to his thoughts on how we could better shape our tactics/attack. You can view that as playing for himself I suppose, and he certainly needs reigning in at times, but I don't think you can expect to get the most out of a player (who happens to be our most skilful attacker) if you completely ignore their opinions on how to play the game.

I accept there's some hearsay among all that, and I've half-responded to Eugene here, but the idea either party is completely blameless doesn't seem right.

There are some promising signs in the 2 games so far, forwards being more direct, defence overall, but a lot of the same issues continuing too. I think we definitely have to see out the 6 nations before we can judge this rearranged coaching setup, but Townsend still looks a bit out of his depth to me. That's not the same as thinking there is actually a viable alternative ready to go.

you have a fertile imagination.
As in the assumption that Townsend doesn't listen or take on board what any player says. There is no evidence. Of course the coach listens bit at the end of the day its the coach's head on the block if the tactics/, gameplan and results go wrong. Not Russell's.
Then you admit Russell needs reigning in at times, and whinge that he has been reigned in.

What you are getting from Eugene and Casehead is a view from outside the Scottish agenda driven bubble. Listen to them, on this they are spot on.
And a wee bit less of the self delusional hype. We punch above our weight. Townsend's win record as a coach is still better than Cotter's and funnily enough better than Russell's as a player

septic 9 wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: I get where you're coming from, but there are quite a few signs of us trying the same tactics over and over again with very little success outside of occasional 'giant-slayings'. I'm not sure 'second guessing' is anyone's issue here? I wouldn't have thought sticking to a game plan is either. It just feels like our tactics are easily undone when things don't go entirely our way. Or we come up against a team like SA where it looks like our players are fully expecting to get blasted off the park, and inevitably do. It's demoralising and the last signs of growth in that area were under Cotter.

I feel like Townsend's plan is actually pretty reliant on miracle plays. We repeatedly get ourselves in these incredibly risky situations, not just Russell, where the likely outcome may be 7 points for either side. We may be easing off on this judging on the first two games but it's a bit early to tell.

Of course Russell isn't bigger than the team, but I'd imagine he is involved in about 75% of the tries we score, yet feels Townsend is unable/unwilling to listen to his thoughts on how we could better shape our tactics/attack. You can view that as playing for himself I suppose, and he certainly needs reigning in at times, but I don't think you can expect to get the most out of a player (who happens to be our most skilful attacker) if you completely ignore their opinions on how to play the game.

I accept there's some hearsay among all that, and I've half-responded to Eugene here, but the idea either party is completely blameless doesn't seem right.

There are some promising signs in the 2 games so far, forwards being more direct, defence overall, but a lot of the same issues continuing too. I think we definitely have to see out the 6 nations before we can judge this rearranged coaching setup, but Townsend still looks a bit out of his depth to me. That's not the same as thinking there is actually a viable alternative ready to go.

you have a fertile imagination.
As in the assumption that Townsend doesn't listen or take on board what any player says. There is no evidence. Of course the coach listens bit at the end of the day its the coach's head on the block if the tactics/, gameplan and results go wrong. Not Russell's.
Then you admit Russell needs reigning in at times, and whinge that he has been reigned in.

What you are getting from Eugene and Casehead is a view from outside the Scottish agenda driven bubble. Listen to them, on this they are spot on.
And a wee bit less of the self delusional hype. We punch above our weight. Townsend's win record as a coach is still better than Cotter's and funnily enough better than Russell's as a player

You posted something a while back about reading things properly to avoid looking dim. You misread/misunderstood on that occasion and seem to have done it again here.

As this bizarre condescension seems to be the only language you understand, do you want me to go through and highlight some of the important bits?

A wee piece on us doing the same shit over and over again:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-glar ... as-to-stop

And this one about Hastings is very interesting:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/analysis ... nn-russell

Mikey Brown wrote:

septic 9 wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: I get where you're coming from, but there are quite a few signs of us trying the same tactics over and over again with very little success outside of occasional 'giant-slayings'. I'm not sure 'second guessing' is anyone's issue here? I wouldn't have thought sticking to a game plan is either. It just feels like our tactics are easily undone when things don't go entirely our way. Or we come up against a team like SA where it looks like our players are fully expecting to get blasted off the park, and inevitably do. It's demoralising and the last signs of growth in that area were under Cotter.

I feel like Townsend's plan is actually pretty reliant on miracle plays. We repeatedly get ourselves in these incredibly risky situations, not just Russell, where the likely outcome may be 7 points for either side. We may be easing off on this judging on the first two games but it's a bit early to tell.

Of course Russell isn't bigger than the team, but I'd imagine he is involved in about 75% of the tries we score, yet feels Townsend is unable/unwilling to listen to his thoughts on how we could better shape our tactics/attack. You can view that as playing for himself I suppose, and he certainly needs reigning in at times, but I don't think you can expect to get the most out of a player (who happens to be our most skilful attacker) if you completely ignore their opinions on how to play the game.

I accept there's some hearsay among all that, and I've half-responded to Eugene here, but the idea either party is completely blameless doesn't seem right.

There are some promising signs in the 2 games so far, forwards being more direct, defence overall, but a lot of the same issues continuing too. I think we definitely have to see out the 6 nations before we can judge this rearranged coaching setup, but Townsend still looks a bit out of his depth to me. That's not the same as thinking there is actually a viable alternative ready to go.

you have a fertile imagination.
As in the assumption that Townsend doesn't listen or take on board what any player says. There is no evidence. Of course the coach listens bit at the end of the day its the coach's head on the block if the tactics/, gameplan and results go wrong. Not Russell's.
Then you admit Russell needs reigning in at times, and whinge that he has been reigned in.

What you are getting from Eugene and Casehead is a view from outside the Scottish agenda driven bubble. Listen to them, on this they are spot on.
And a wee bit less of the self delusional hype. We punch above our weight. Townsend's win record as a coach is still better than Cotter's and funnily enough better than Russell's as a player

You posted something a while back about reading things properly to avoid looking dim. You misread/misunderstood on that occasion and seem to have done it again here.

As this bizarre condescension seems to be the only language you understand, do you want me to go through and highlight some of the important bits?

I called out your unsubstantiated assumption. Probably too much for you to grasp. That's condescension, calling it out wasn't.

The rest a rant about stuff by various conspiracy theorists and agenda driven ignorance. Outside the Scottish bubble, Russell is seen as an idiot, folk are able to separate out what the coaching issues are, how limited our resources are, how we cannot afford a prima donna and the fact that a player having a tantrum has bugger all to do with anything except that player

You can't read. Understood.

Mikey Brown wrote:

cashead wrote:If you're going to sack a coach because he second guesses and makes a mistake, you're going to run out of fucking coaches. It's like there's this belief that it's literally impossible for people to reflect on their mistakes, learn from what happened and improve.

And regardless of how good Russell is, and he is a good player, no one is bigger than the team, and if Townsend is sacked to appease Russell, then the team and those that are calling for Townsend's head for this, can enjoy what they've got coming to them.

I get where you're coming from, but there are quite a few signs of us trying the same tactics over and over again with very little success outside of occasional 'giant-slayings'. I'm not sure 'second guessing' is anyone's issue here? I wouldn't have thought sticking to a game plan is either. It just feels like our tactics are easily undone when things don't go entirely our way. Or we come up against a team like SA where it looks like our players are fully expecting to get blasted off the park, and inevitably do. It's demoralising and the last signs of growth in that area were under Cotter.

I feel like Townsend's plan is actually pretty reliant on miracle plays. We repeatedly get ourselves in these incredibly risky situations, not just Russell, where the likely outcome may be 7 points for either side. We may be easing off on this judging on the first two games but it's a bit early to tell.

Of course Russell isn't bigger than the team, but I'd imagine he is involved in about 75% of the tries we score, yet feels Townsend is unable/unwilling to listen to his thoughts on how we could better shape our tactics/attack. You can view that as playing for himself I suppose, and he certainly needs reigning in at times, but I don't think you can expect to get the most out of a player (who happens to be our most skilful attacker) if you completely ignore their opinions on how to play the game.

I accept there's some hearsay among all that, and I've half-responded to Eugene here, but the idea either party is completely blameless doesn't seem right.

There are some promising signs in the 2 games so far, forwards being more direct, defence overall, but a lot of the same issues continuing too. I think we definitely have to see out the 6 nations before we can judge this rearranged coaching setup, but Townsend still looks a bit out of his depth to me. That's not the same as thinking there is actually a viable alternative ready to go.

I'm not sure we are doing the same thing again and again. I think we went right into our shell during the world cup. We've also started kicking (clearance wise - most of the chips out wide have gone) a lot more over the last year.

I also think there were pretty major signs of growth in Townsend's first year. In particular the Australia away game (and kind of at home - putting away 14 men has not been a strength) and the NZ and England games. We really did build.

And Septic, it's been good having a new voice on here but just because you disagree with them doesn't make them myopic, delusional or otherwise stupid and, even if they are, there's no need to point it out. Apart from anything else, when you say MB has no evidence, you are factually incorrect, he has first hand evidence from Russell and hearsay evidence via various other journalists who claim to have spoken to players.

Chunks Baws wrote:A wee piece on us doing the same shit over and over again:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-glar ... as-to-stop

And this one about Hastings is very interesting:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/analysis ... nn-russell

Thanks, those are both very interesting. The problem in the 22 seems to me to be us trying to be sensible and pragmatic but in a way that doesnt suit us

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:If Finn can't make the decision not to have another beer in the teeth of a code of conduct and all the other players telling him not too then he's a fucking liability who shouldn't be anywhere near the squad. It actually makes sense of a lot of what has been wrong with Scotland. the maddening inconsistency and the inability to stick to a plan for a game. The attempts to go for miracle plays rather than press home an advantage. These all smack of a pivot playing for himself rather than the team.

Anyway I'm very surprised to see most of you wanting to see Toonie gone. He's obviously a good coach or he wouldn't have got where he did with Glasgow. It's probable he should have done a bit more learning before Scotland but I personally think you'd be better of sticking than twisting.

He was promoted based on pro14 performance. But sometimes that only tells part of the story. Glasgows European performances were very average overall. No one would be expecting semis or finals but 1 QF and often not being close to qualifying is still pretty average. He built on a very good foundation provided by Lineen (IIRC they made the play offs and 2nd in a poor euro group under him that year) but looking back they should have done better in Europe in terms of getting put their group. Pro 12/14 form isn't enough to merit an international job IMO unless you are restricting the talent pool to you own country.

People have been wanting him gone since the WC, the Finn issue has divided opinion but they aren't wanting him gone because of Rusxit.

He has also polarised opinion because of the manner he became coach. Which isn't entirely down to him. The coaching staff at that time were beginning to gel with Gray and O'Halloran appearing to make a difference. Some look back through blue tinted glasses and see 5/10 in their (VC etc.) last 2 6N years and now see a one win 6N, a poor world cup in terms of performance and now we are 0/2. Yes we ran Ireland close but given it was their 1st hit out with a new coaching set up we can't be 100% that we improved or they were slow out the gates (I think it is a bit of both).

There aren't many signs he is learning on the job which is also a concern. Our attack has regressed, there is no plan B close to the opposition line, and the area we seem to have made a leap (small sample size) was an enforced change. He was forced to bring in a new defence coach. It is conjecture but it isn't a stretch to say Taylor would still be in post if he hadn't moved himself on.

I understand the viewpoint that he should be given more time, but I don't think it unreasonable for people to question whether he is the right person to take the team forward. Particularly if they do go 1/4 or 0/5 this 6N.

We are wanting dud Townsend sacked due to dire results, not any other reason.

I'm wondering though if it's likely GT will resign before he's pushed, is that likely or will we have to wait for the clowns at the SRU to act?

cashead wrote:And regardless of how good Russell is, and he is a good player, no one is bigger than the team, and if Townsend is sacked to appease Russell, then the team and those that are calling for Townsend's head for this, can enjoy what they've got coming to them.

Who called for Townsend's head for this?