The rugby

[AndyRM]

I can't think of a single time that a time replaced the entire pack.

The teams of the smaller nations generally aren't up to much

I watched the game. I didn't think Scotland were thrashed at all.
Up until 60 minutes it was heart in mouth stuff. Even then, 20 minutes in such a crazy game was more than long enough for a final twist.

Given a choice of which coach to be facing into a crunch World Cup game I'd rather be Townsend than Farrell.

There was a lot to learn on Sunday for Scotland, definite things to work on and improve. Much less for Ireland.
Thinking on the pitch for one. The disasterous lineout early on and the inability to capitalise on a flanker throwing the ball into the lineout are just two examples.

None of that means they were thrashed.

OK, to be clearer, bits of the pack. And backs.

We didn't score in the second half. That's a thrashing in my book.

Could be worse, could be England. A side with more professional players than any other country, yet are useless.

 

[Chap sur le velo]

Given a choice of which coach to be facing into a crunch World Cup game I'd rather be Townsend than Farrell.

?
I think the only senior team Ireland haven't comfortably beaten in the past 12 months are Argentina. Because they haven't played?


For the past 5 years people were saying Ireland needed Jonny Sexton to stay fit. But they've won big matches without him. Yes they are better with him, but then they are also better with e.g. Gibson-Park, Dorris, Henshaw, Beirne, a recognised hooker and yet they have shown that when they are not available they have the smarts to keep adjusting and succeeding. The squad are all saying how much fun Farrell has made it for them (after the fear years of Schmidt). Ireland have found many ways to mess up at each World Cup, but right now I can't see how the No 1 team in the world aren't the team you don't want to play in a knockout competition.

 

[AndyRM]

?
I think the only senior team Ireland haven't comfortably beaten in the past 12 months are Argentina. Because they haven't played?


For the past 5 years people were saying Ireland needed Jonny Sexton to stay fit. But they've won big matches without him. Yes they are better with him, but then they are also better with e.g. Gibson-Park, Dorris, Henshaw, Beirne, a recognised hooker and yet they have shown that when they are not available they have the smarts to keep adjusting and succeeding. The squad are all saying how much fun Farrell has made it for them (after the fear years of Schmidt). Ireland have found many ways to mess up at each World Cup, but right now I can't see how the No 1 team in the world aren't the team you don't want to play in a knockout competition.

They only beat Australia by 3 in November. Same with South Africa.

New Zealand cuffed them last July.

Ireland aren't all that, as I said up-thread.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

I think the only senior team Ireland haven't comfortably beaten in the past 12 months are Argentina. Because they haven't played?

Two Coaches facing one match.
Andy Farrell has just overseen a win that involved lots of adversity. Apart from teaching a vastly experienced Prop how to take a tap penalty there is little to work on.
Townsend has very definite things to work on.

Getting to the top has a far clearer roadmap to follow than trying to stay on top.
I hope that makes things a bit clearer.

And I don't think Scotland were "comfortably" beaten

 

[AndyRM]

Two Coaches facing one match.
Andy Farrell has just overseen a win that involved lots of adversity. Apart from teaching a vastly experienced Prop how to take a tap penalty there is little to work on.
Townsend has very definite things to work on.

Getting to the top has a far clearer roadmap to follow than trying to stay on top.
I hope that makes things a bit clearer.

And I don't think Scotland were "comfortably" beaten

7 - 8 in the first half.

Ended 7 -22.

That's a pretty comprehensive beating.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

7 - 8 in the first half.

Ended 7 -22.

That's a pretty comprehensive beating.

With supporters like this Scotland doesn't need any enemies

It's interesting that you focus on the second half. With the disallowed try and repeated on-the-line infringements I think Scotland were very lucky to finish the first half only one point down.
I think the second half was so bizarre that it's unfair to be too critical. The fact that Ireland powered through says little negative about Scotland other than a need to be more switched on on the pitch and perhaps for better communication from on high to the pitch. England lost a player early on to Ireland last year and the Irish struggled to make an advantage of it.

A smarter, more clued-in team would have capitalised far better on the Irish lineout issues in the second half.
That would have changed the momentum of the last twenty minutes, at least. Some smarter play and the result could have been different.

I don't think any team will look at Scotland as an easy game. Except maybe another Scottish team, it seems

 

[AndyRM]

With supporters like this Scotland doesn't need any enemies

It's interesting that you focus on the second half. With the disallowed try and repeated on-the-line infringements I think Scotland were very lucky to finish the first half only one point down.
I think the second half was so bizarre that it's unfair to be too critical. The fact that Ireland powered through says little negative about Scotland other than a need to be more switched on on the pitch and perhaps for better communication from on high to the pitch. England lost a player early on to Ireland last year and the Irish struggled to make an advantage of it.

A smarter, more clued-in team would have capitalised far better on the Irish lineout issues in the second half.
That would have changed the momentum of the last twenty minutes, at least. Some smarter play and the result could have been different.

I don't think any team will look at Scotland as an easy game. Except maybe another Scottish team, it seems

The second half is where the game was lost.

And as I said it didn't help that the ref was absolutely awful.

I feel that as a Scot I'm allowed to be critical of our teams performance. Should we have been better at managing the game? Sure, but when you've only got two pro-sides it's a challenge.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

I feel that as a Scot I'm allowed to be critical of our teams performance.

Apologies, I didn't mean to infer that you weren't.

 

[matticus]

7 - 8 in the first half.

Ended 7 -22.

That's a pretty comprehensive beating.

It's a game of two halves Brian.

[sorry, that's soccer - is it not the case in rugger?]

 

[AndyRM]

Apologies, I didn't mean to infer that you weren't.

I didn't take it as such, I phrased that poorly, so apologies come from my end too.

I suppose it's just frustrating when we beat England (again), hammer Wales, and push arguably the best NH team close, to see us not score a point in the second half? Maddening.

At least we look good for third, because I can't see England beating Ireland.

 

[Chap sur le velo]

Ireland aren't all that, as I said up-thread.

Everything I read, it seems like you are the one exception...


Scotland scored once in the (IIRC) 19th minute. i.e. 60 mins with nothing to show for it.
And if the ref had played Advantage for the wrong ball thrown in in the opening minutes, they wouldn't have got in the game at all.

I'm just going to unilaterally agree we differ on this.

 

[Chap sur le velo]

And as I said it didn't help that the ref was absolutely awful.

If he'd played advantage on that early line out and if he'd sent Hogg to the sin bin, would that have changed your opinion.

In Golf the saying is the harder I work the luckier I get. In Rugby it could be the more we dominate the more the opposition fans find fault with the refereeing. I truly believe that fans only see the bad refereeing decisions that go against their team.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Pedantic point. Ref couldn't play advantage after the quick throw (with the wrong ball) because there hadn't been any infringement. The lineout just hadn't been properly taken so it had to be re taken. A bit like a dead ball in cricket.

I do agree with your view that Scotland were comprehensively beaten though. Even if they did play some attractive, but non-scoring, rugby. No points for artistic merit.

 

[Alex321]

Pedantic point. Ref couldn't play advantage after the quick throw (with the wrong ball) because there hadn't been any infringement. The lineout just hadn't been properly taken so it had to be re taken. A bit like a dead ball in cricket.

I do agree with your view that Scotland were comprehensively beaten though. Even if they did play some attractive, but non-scoring, rugby. No points for artistic merit.

Sam thing in the Italy Wales game. Italy played some good rugby, looked the more attractive side, and came out on top of most of the statistics.

But you only get points for getting the ball down over the line, or getting it between the posts, and they failed at that, so were beaten fairly comprehensively.

 

[AndyRM]

Everything I read, it seems like you are the one exception...


Scotland scored once in the (IIRC) 19th minute. i.e. 60 mins with nothing to show for it.
And if the ref had played Advantage for the wrong ball thrown in in the opening minutes, they wouldn't have got in the game at all.

I'm just going to unilaterally agree we differ on this.

Yeah, that's fair, I don't mind going against the grain.

For all Ireland are marginally quicker than they used to be, I still see them as very cynical at the breakdown and slow the ball down as much as possible.

I don't believe in rankings - I have no idea why they're the number one side in the world. We have a comparable record against them - they've won 69, we've won 66, and we've drawn 5 times.