RugbyRebels

BlackCat1978 wrote:In Laidlaw's defence: Aaron Smith couldn't play the kind of rugby we are looking for behind that pack!

Yep. I've criticised Laidlaw as much as anyone, but nobody is performing well behind a pack who get hosed like that.

I would have tried a different approach and moved away froim Laildaw as a starter a couple of years back but oh well. GT's hand will be forced when Laidlaw/Barclay etc. retire but that doesn't help us much now. There are far too many leaks in this boat to fix all at once.

Can anyone summarise this? Am not a subscriber.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a7e0 ... efea5f5359#

Just seen the Supreme Court result. At least Scotland won something.

BlackCat1978 wrote:In Laidlaw's defence: Aaron Smith couldn't play the kind of rugby we are looking for behind that pack!

That may be true but he is part of the problem. The defence doesn't need to account for him as he can't snipe. Easy to line up the attacking forward or the 10 if all the 9 does is pass or kick.

The forwards are too big an issue to fix now. A 9 who can inject some pace in attack is available and can be used.

Big D wrote: A 9 who can inject some pace in attack is available and can be used.

It's a good job we've called up Pyrgos the Pedestrian...

sharvey44 wrote:

Big D wrote: A 9 who can inject some pace in attack is available and can be used.

It's a good job we've called up Pyrgos the Pedestrian...

What other realistic options are there though?

laribold wrote:

sharvey44 wrote:

Big D wrote: A 9 who can inject some pace in attack is available and can be used.

It's a good job we've called up Pyrgos the Pedestrian...

What other realistic options are there though?

There aren't really any other option. Hopefully doesn't hurt Edinburgh with the league starting this week. Groom and Shiel are plenty good enough.

You sensitive pricks. Box kick away, do that loop around thing, more power to you. If yer winning, yer winning. I'm sure some part of the neutral observer finds it satisfying. Somehow.

Why the mass-ive dip in form during the 6N? any chance of that happening again?

morepork wrote:You sensitive pricks. Box kick away, do that loop around thing, more power to you. If yer winning, yer winning. I'm sure some part of the neutral observer finds it satisfying. Somehow.

Why the mass-ive dip in form during the 6N? any chance of that happening again?

It's been classed as a masterstroke by the schmidt fanatics how or why I dont know......everyone else says scotland were gash

SA are limited outside of their power game (and kolbe) schmidt will have seen NZ take mapimpi to the cleaners and ireland will do the same in a QF i think if they are physically capable

We got away with forcing the SA rush defence to scramble against some impromyu 7's rugby, which fortunately resulted in tries. I could see Ireland making life miserable for Mo'unga, but am pretty sure Hansen would be anticipating such. You have to get past the QFs first but. As do we.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:
I'd take Ireland's brand of rugby in a heartbeat if it meant more consistent performances and therefore results.

Me too but is it going to he enough for ireland to carry them thru a 1/4 final v SA, a semi v Eng? and then a final v NZ? Cant see it myself.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

We've beaten all those teams in the recent past. It's obviously unlikely that we'll beat them all on the bounce because we'll pick up injuries and don't have that much depth (given the injuries we've already got).

I don't really get the anti-rugby tag. It was dead accurate when all we did was hoik the ball in the air off 9 about 5 years ago, but that's nowhere near a description of how we play now.

Anyway not really the point. That 3redkings analysis seems entirely plausible and if accurate shows really how much most of what we look at is pretty much a surface understanding. I'm surprised that your pack isn't up to that amount of running as I'd have expected them to be better equipped than most.

Yeah its the thought of doing it on the bounce where I think Schmit's tactics might come undone. We'll see, and best of luck to you.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

For what it's worth, whilst Laidlaw clearly isn't very quick I'm not sure he's the main problem. The quality of ball produced by the forwards is almost always scrappy making it difficult to fling out. Also, my impression is that you don't realign very quickly. I've certainly seen times when he's in place but the backs are still organising themselves. He doesn't seem to frustrate Clermont's running game.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:For what it's worth, whilst Laidlaw clearly isn't very quick I'm not sure he's the main problem. The quality of ball produced by the forwards is almost always scrappy making it difficult to fling out. Also, my impression is that you don't realign very quickly. I've certainly seen times when he's in place but the backs are still organising themselves. He doesn't seem to frustrate Clermont's running game.

I agree to an extent but arguably when the ball is a bit scrappy, you want a 9 with a bit of physicality or pace who can make it harder for defences just to fly up by offering a threat.

I think I'd be less worried about him if his pass was better but our big weakness (well one of them) is against rush defences. He eats into the time the backs have and makes it harder for forwards to come onto the ball on the game line. I also think his strengths (such as box kicking etc.) are overated - incidentally, his running and creativity used to be underated.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:For what it's worth, whilst Laidlaw clearly isn't very quick I'm not sure he's the main problem. The quality of ball produced by the forwards is almost always scrappy making it difficult to fling out. Also, my impression is that you don't realign very quickly. I've certainly seen times when he's in place but the backs are still organising themselves. He doesn't seem to frustrate Clermont's running game.

I agree with you on this, and I’m sure that I’ve commented before on the contrast between his Scotland games and Clermont games.

Cameo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:For what it's worth, whilst Laidlaw clearly isn't very quick I'm not sure he's the main problem. The quality of ball produced by the forwards is almost always scrappy making it difficult to fling out. Also, my impression is that you don't realign very quickly. I've certainly seen times when he's in place but the backs are still organising themselves. He doesn't seem to frustrate Clermont's running game.

I agree to an extent but arguably when the ball is a bit scrappy, you want a 9 with a bit of physicality or pace who can make it harder for defences just to fly up by offering a threat.

I think I'd be less worried about him if his pass was better but our big weakness (well one of them) is against rush defences. He eats into the time the backs have and makes it harder for forwards to come onto the ball on the game line. I also think his strengths (such as box kicking etc.) are overated - incidentally, his running and creativity used to be underated.

The bolded part is compounded because he offers no running threat so the defence doesn't need to account for him. The very rare break he makes can easily be covered because he isn't quick.

He isn't the biggest problem, but it is one that can be looked at improving now. The forwards are a different kettle of fish all together and need a longer term plan to improve.

Pretty much summed a lot of our issues

We don’t put enough bodies in the ruck, yes we could put one more in but the guys should be hitting the rucks hard enough to win it.

- my theory is mixed messages about getting back in the line ASAP which means guys are not committing to the hit.

Fix - hit harder

Laidlaw is slowing the ball down - fix too much power he is on charge and is willing to sacrifice slow ball now for potential fast ball later but due to mixed messages in forwards it never happens

Basically Scotland’s game plan falls apart because forwards don’t hit hard enough , look at the last 15 when we had Reid, Thompson and Cummings on we suddenly got a little cleaner quicker ball.

Look at sco v England second half when we started clearing.

Gray, Wilson and barclay all need to go and be replaced with Cummings Bradbury and Thompson.

Then the game plan needs to be to smash the fuck out of the ruck win the quick ball and let the backs work their magic.

Until we see a shift in the forwards from passive to aggressive GT plan can’t work.

whatisthejava wrote:Pretty much summed a lot of our issues

We don’t put enough bodies in the ruck, yes we could put one more in but the guys should be hitting the rucks hard enough to win it.

- my theory is mixed messages about getting back in the line ASAP which means guys are not committing to the hit.

Fix - hit harder

Laidlaw is slowing the ball down - fix too much power he is on charge and is willing to sacrifice slow ball now for potential fast ball later but due to mixed messages in forwards it never happens

Basically Scotland’s game plan falls apart because forwards don’t hit hard enough , look at the last 15 when we had Reid, Thompson and Cummings on we suddenly got a little cleaner quicker ball.

Look at sco v England second half when we started clearing.

Gray, Wilson and barclay all need to go and be replaced with Cummings Bradbury and Thompson.

Then the game plan needs to be to smash the fuck out of the ruck win the quick ball and let the backs work their magic.

Until we see a shift in the forwards from passive to aggressive GT plan can’t work.

I remember when I first got into rugby in the mid 2000s and you’d only see the occasional try from Scotland it seemed, or even a big victory like France/England 2006, the commentators would all hark back to the ‘glory days’ of Scottish rugby and it being all about quick rucking game.

We didn’t really have any backs capable of doing much with it when it happened but there was at least a clear goal. It’s not that we were particularly good at it but it feels like that plan dissipated at the same time as we actually developed some attacking talent in the backs.

For a long time I think Laidlaw’s stuttering, jilted style from 9 really summed up how we play and sucked all momentum/energy out of our attacks and forward carries. This makes rucking impossible and now it feels like we’ve almost given up on being aggressive in contact

I’m clearly just rambling now with no real purpose, but I suppose that’s fitting. Yes to Bradbury, Thompson and anyone else who is actually willing to try and hit the opposition. Matt Fagerson has really shown a bit of that recently and was clearly the form 8 going in.

The lack of aggression in our forwards really grips my shit.

That’s quite a turn of phrase. Should I be familiar with that one?

Hogg sits out training apparently......

https://www.theoffsideline.com/rwc2019- ... tt-taylor/

Taylor had been pretty outspoken after that loss in Nice, stating that the teams’ attitude and aggression levels had not been of the standard expected and require – inevitably, he was pressed at today’s press conference on how the same problems could have happened again.

“Not sure,” was his curt reply – prompting an obvious question about whether that means it could happen again.

“Well hopefully not – after that France game we had three wins on the bounce,” he reasoned. “But, yeah, it’s disappointing. We can’t put our finger on it. We’ve spoken about it. All we can do is move on and make sure the next game is right. Sometimes in big events teams don’t perform and unfortunately that’s the way it was.

Not a fucking clue.

Thats just woejus

If wilson and barclay are selected again don't even watch, wouldn't be fair to yerselves

Big D wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/rwc2019- ... tt-taylor/

Taylor had been pretty outspoken after that loss in Nice, stating that the teams’ attitude and aggression levels had not been of the standard expected and require – inevitably, he was pressed at today’s press conference on how the same problems could have happened again.

“Not sure,” was his curt reply – prompting an obvious question about whether that means it could happen again.

“Well hopefully not – after that France game we had three wins on the bounce,” he reasoned. “But, yeah, it’s disappointing. We can’t put our finger on it. We’ve spoken about it. All we can do is move on and make sure the next game is right. Sometimes in big events teams don’t perform and unfortunately that’s the way it was.

Not a fucking clue.

That is infuriating. What a clueless fud he is.

.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

Chunks Baws wrote:

Big D wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/rwc2019- ... tt-taylor/

Taylor had been pretty outspoken after that loss in Nice, stating that the teams’ attitude and aggression levels had not been of the standard expected and require – inevitably, he was pressed at today’s press conference on how the same problems could have happened again.

“Not sure,” was his curt reply – prompting an obvious question about whether that means it could happen again.

“Well hopefully not – after that France game we had three wins on the bounce,” he reasoned. “But, yeah, it’s disappointing. We can’t put our finger on it. We’ve spoken about it. All we can do is move on and make sure the next game is right. Sometimes in big events teams don’t perform and unfortunately that’s the way it was.

Not a fucking clue.

That is infuriating. What a clueless fud he is.

For some reason this comment of his (MT) has boiled my piss.

Matt Taylor has been involved with Scotland and Glasgow (until 2017?) since 2012. He has been through 2 full world cup cycles and should know many of these players very well. 

Since 2008, Gregor Townsend has been involved coaching Scotland A, Scotland, Glasgow and Scotland again. He has been involved in 2 world cups now as a coach. He has had times where he will have been involved with these players pretty much 5 days a week. They combined have at least 10.years knowledge of most of this player group.

Mike Blair will have had regular contact with the Glasgow boys for 4 years and Scotland boys for 3. 

"Not sure" just doesn't cut it anymore.