RugbyRebels

So positives

Chib looked very very good and looks like the 8 we have needed. Good aggression in the tackles
Cummings also looked good, could well go as the fifth lock
Skinner again looked good until injury
Reid and nel were also effective

Laidlaw only had a few glacial moments

Negatives
The team are trying to score without exposing their attack moves ahead of the World Cup
The amount of times backs caught the ball standing still was mental, wingers overrunning it also
We just look like we are struggling to cut through
Forwards and toony have no plan to deal with defenders not getting sucked in
Defence still looks like an offload is something never before seen in rugby.

We also need to remember France are as shite away from home as we are.

Had a good time at the game and after. Celebrated the win just like any fan would - in isolation it was a much needed win.

In the grand scheme of things, we were still crap. The team hasn't been transformed or improved upon from where it was a couple of years ago. The weak score in the first few minutes says it all. We edged past a good but not great team with home advantage. We look years off being ready for a RWC and still have a myriad of problems that top teams will exploit.

One of the telling moments for me was in the 41st minute, we were trailing by just 4 points with the ball in hand just outside out 22. Gordon Reid, imo an old fashioned prop took the decision to throw a panicky pass to a man who was clearly marked - despite having the ability to either run at his man (a back) or hit the gap giving him enough time for support to reach him. Never, ever in a million years is Gordon Reid's first instinctive reaction to throw a pass like that. It has been instructed. Which makes the problem quite apparent really. Toony & team have decided upon and given the players a game plan, a brand of rugby, a strategy and been told to follow it. When in reality the correct thing to do is look at what we have and build something based on that - what are their strengths and weaknesses, how can we make the most of them? The Reid incident just shows we don't have the players to do whatever it is Toony is trying to do. Yet we are not going back to basics. That is on the coaching team IMO.

Fair play to Harris - brilliant try from him, he picked a line at pace and power out of the blue instead of arsing around waiting for his turn like everyone else. Thought the back 5 of the pack were very good as well.

Thought Russell aimlessly and pointlessly kicked away ball again. One of his chip-throughs and another of his Cross field kicks had Gordon Reid on the end (he got to neither).


Like I said - I've enjoyed the win in isolation but a 3 point win over an "okay" team with home advantage has done nothing to address my concerns ahead of the RWC. We are in trouble IMO.

I'd also say Turner & Reid played themselves out of contention BTW. In Reid's case I don't think it's fair but he can't play this sort of rugby. Turner should just be allowed to continue developing his game at Glasgow. I prefer Stewart.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:I'd also say Turner & Reid played themselves out of contention BTW. In Reid's case I don't think it's fair but he can't play this sort of rugby. Turner should just be allowed to continue developing his game at Glasgow. I prefer Stewart.

Hopefully, Townsend and the coaching team will reflect on Reid’s pass and how their instructions are coming across. Sometimes it’s just not on. I still think Reid will go, though, as he appears the best in that position at holding scrums up when they are under pressure. Stewart played well when he came on.

Mikey Brown wrote:I read it was Horne who threw the intercept? Is he deserving of a spot? He just doesn’t seem to stop making these big blunders but Johnson is really the only other 12. Did Hutchinson get much of a chance?

Correct.

Think Reid overall helped his chances. Scrum was very decent against a team we have often struggled against.

Agree on Turner but not sure between him and Stewart. Stewart has had some shaky lineout times too and Turner is a potential game changer in a way Stewart hasn't quite shown yet. Tough call either way.

Cameo wrote:Think Reid overall helped his chances. Scrum was very decent against a team we have often struggled against.

Agree on Turner but not sure between him and Stewart. Stewart has had some shaky lineout times too and Turner is a potential game changer in a way Stewart hasn't quite shown yet. Tough call either way.

Turner commits as many brainfarts as he does good things. He needs to go back to his club and stamp out the errors and perform consistently. He isn't good enough.

We're shit in the lineout regardless of who is playing. Not going to hold that against Stewart.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

Cameo wrote:Think Reid overall helped his chances. Scrum was very decent against a team we have often struggled against.

Agree on Turner but not sure between him and Stewart. Stewart has had some shaky lineout times too and Turner is a potential game changer in a way Stewart hasn't quite shown yet. Tough call either way.

Turner commits as many brainfarts as he does good things. He needs to go back to his club and stamp out the errors and perform consistently. He isn't good enough.

We're shit in the lineout regardless of who is playing. Not going to hold that against Stewart.

Not really disagreeing (although I was referring to Glasgow lineout errors and they are normally okay). I just think we will end up with a slightly iffy third choice hooker so there is an argument for taking the one with a bit more experience who has also proven he can make an impact (between the mistakes). He also looks like a stronger scrummager but not sure on that.

Just for gits and shiggles (assuming fitness):
Prop - Nel, Dell, Berghan, Fagerson, Reid
Hooker - McInally, Brown, Turner (really not fussed if it is him or Stewart)
Lock - Gray, Gilchrist, Skinner, Cummings
Back Row - Watson, Wilson, Thomson, Ritchie, Fagerson

9 - Laidlaw, Price, Horne
10 - Russell, Hastings
Centres - Johnson, Taylor, Jones, Hutchinson
Back 3 - Hogg, Maitland, Seymour, Graham

Coaches favourite - Harris

No idea what type of form Bradbury is in. Pretty sure he will take Barclay but I haven't allowed for him.

Noticed all the pics of Laidlaw being emotional. Last time he plays at Murrayfield?

Big D wrote:Just for gits and shiggles (assuming fitness):
Prop - Nel, Dell, Berghan, Fagerson, Reid
Hooker - McInally, Brown, Turner (really not fussed if it is him or Stewart)
Lock - Gray, Gilchrist, Skinner, Cummings
Back Row - Watson, Wilson, Thomson, Ritchie, Fagerson

9 - Laidlaw, Price, Horne
10 - Russell, Hastings
Centres - Johnson, Taylor, Jones, Hutchinson
Back 3 - Hogg, Maitland, Seymour, Graham

Coaches favourite - Harris

No idea what type of form Bradbury is in. Pretty sure he will take Barclay but I haven't allowed for him.

Agree with all that apart from swap Barclay and Bradbury onto the back row and Kinghornhorn for Harris

Mikey Brown wrote:

Didn't watch the game, but were they (in the majority) useful tackles, useful carries, and useful ruck hits - or largely ineffective and just everywhere for the fun of it?

Haven't a clue. Only just found highlights of the game myself. You can't judge overall impact from stats alone but it's at the least a nod to his insane work-rate.

Highlights here if anyone else missed it too.

Nobody asked for this and you probably all saw the game anyway, but thoughts so far as Penaud goes in for his second;

Watson is good. Knocked that Lambey fella back with a good early carry and is always on the shoulder. Stopped a certain turnover with a good clearout.

Horne's intercept seems even worse with the context of the previous few phases. They are blitzing that channel, easily identifying our unconvincing dummy runners and we want to get outside their blitz but we need to draw those narrow defenders in first. I don't understand if we're even trying to address this or not because it's been an issue for a long time. You can't just decide you will only ever aim to beat the edge. but not offer anything except a static WP Nel to hold them in place.

Wilson's penalty for going off his feet when supporting Maitland down the left is exactly the kind of dumb penalty we need to avoid when we have momentum. We are endlessly giving away penalties like this and Wilson is particularly culpable. It felt a tad pedantic from Barnes as the only player Wilson was clearing out stepped away from the ruck entirely, but Wilson didn't need to do it. He went way past the ball.

Russell's drop of the high ball was poor, leading to a French counter attack against our typically scattered defence and a score for Penaud. There was an odd moment where he hinted to Harris for an inside line (the right option), Harris didn't take it, and then Russell appeared to just pop the ball into that space (where nobody was) anyway. Just didn't look to be on the same wavelength.

Laidlaw's passing is atrocious and these are the fucking highlights!

Watson does incredibly well to even hangf on to one of them in the build up to the Maitland try.

Kinghorn has 3 big positive involvements in the 3 touches I've seen.

The dream position for an attacking scrum, 10 metres out on the centre-right of the pitch. We crash it up with Horne (?) and the French do not contest the ruck. It somehow takes nearly 3 seconds to get the ball out. We've seemingly decided instead of attacking against 7 we want to attack against the full 15 instead. Is this a plan of some sort?

Skinner oot, Swinson “invited to train”.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... n/49484960

Gutted for him - he was nailed on in the squad for me.

Ah - just seen t’other thread. We need a thread tidy for the new season.

General Zod wrote:Skinner oot, Swinson “invited to train”.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... n/49484960

Gutted for him - he was nailed on in the squad for me.

Is this a f*cking joke?

The fans deserve an explanation for these constant R Gray snubs.

Found it.

https://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-unio ... raw/170723

The omissions make sense then but still not happy with Richie's decision. If you can't be arsed to play in the RWC for your country then when?

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Found it.

https://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-unio ... raw/170723

The omissions make sense then but still not happy with Richie's decision. If you can't be arsed to play in the RWC for your country then when?

Changes my opinion on the non selection. Any criticism of the coaches was wrong given this revelation.

The "can't be arsed" is nonsense. In his position with a new born and his 1st I can see exactly why he wouldn't want to be away from home now, And that is assuming (touch wood) everything has gone well with the wee ones arrival. It is not just the RWC, it is all the camps/team building/etc.

Big D wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Found it.

https://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-unio ... raw/170723

The omissions make sense then but still not happy with Richie's decision. If you can't be arsed to play in the RWC for your country then when?

Changes my opinion on the non selection. Any criticism of the coaches was wrong given this revelation.

The "can't be arsed" is nonsense. In his position with a new born and his 1st I can see exactly why he wouldn't want to be away from home now, And that is assuming (touch wood) everything has gone well with the wee ones arrival. It is not just the RWC, it is all the camps/team building/etc.

Yep. Just had a kid, struggled to get fully fit in the last few years and potentially doing a whole lot of travel to not even be first choice (or make the final squad) is a whole lot more understandable.