RugbyRebels

whatisthejava wrote:I think we need to use this AI to blood some players and increase our potential pool before we start focusing on the RWC squad

If you think we have a squad of 33 for the RWC we are looking at

Kebble, shoeman , Sutherland
Brown, Mcinally, Cherry, turner
Fagerson, berghan …
Gilchrist j Gray
S skinner , …
Richie, Bradbury,
Watson, crosbie, darge
Fagerson, Haining …
Price, dobbie, vellacott, horne
Russel, Thomson, hasting,
Graham, Rufus , stein, mquigan, dVDM
Lang, Redpath , Johnson , …
Jones, Harris, …
Hogg, kinghorn

Over the Autumn guys like shooeman, kebble, turner, cherry, crosbie, Stein , Rufus and Lang need more time so they can be part of the 33 without panicking about them

We aren't taking 4 9's anywhere.

I think we are at the stage where the games need to be about winning and trying to develop a winning mentality. It is easier to bring one or two into winning sides. Blooding a few guys and getting horses across the 3 games does nothing for anyone.

There are very few players who realistically need bled in. Darge might get a cap, the wingers will be fine and can get thrown in for any game at any time. Easy to forget that Duhan has a lot of learning to do and Darcy has less than 20 caps.

Turner and Cherry have a case for being the two best options available. Bar one terrible line out performance v Ireland they both did well in the 6N and at this stage Rambo and Brown are getting by on reputation. I say that as a big fan of Rambo but there isn't much between any of them anymore.

Lang has been bang average for Edinburgh, and is injured IIRC. Johnson, Scott and Redpath on his one cap have shown more at international level in the past and in Johnson and Scott's case their current form is miles ahead of Lang.

Schoeman will get game time as he's the 2nd best LHP but I have concerns over the attempt to make Kebble a THP, there will be rough games in the AIs for him for different reasons.

Thinking more about Kinghorn, while he does deserve some criticism I think a lot should be aimed at the coaches.

We are "Mossying" him because our grass roots system can't produce a 10 and one of our clubs is left with the likes of Jaco who is bang average for a pro.

Looking back through the 20s there's been; Thomson, Chamberlain (not Scottish system), Henderson (now in Hong Kong), Eastgate (not Scottish system), Hastings (not Scottish system), Hutchinson played 10 (not Scottish system), Chalmers (not sure where we went after Bordeaux), Tommy Allen (not Scottish system), Leonard (grew up down south), Russell who played 12 IIRC, then we are back to Duncam Weir.

So since Russell came through there is only Hastings and Thomson getting regular game time at 10 anywhere excluding Allen.

I get that standoff is a hard position to fill but across the 2 pro teams there are 2 10s that came through the Scottish system.

Townsend is 19 and who knows if he'll be good enough to but there has to be a better plan with him.

Hastings left they Scottish system at 16 or so but I think the point stands.

Just out of interest on the mossying thing - which camp were you in? I was always in the "get him back to ten, he's wasted at full back", but hard to know whether that was mainly because we had so few good ten options then. I know there were others who thought he was a natural 15 and not cut out for 10.

Cameo wrote:Just out of interest on the mossying thing - which camp were you in? I was always in the "get him back to ten, he's wasted at full back", but hard to know whether that was mainly because we had so few good ten options then. I know there were others who thought he was a natural 15 and not cut out for 10.

I was in the 10 camp, as we had a decent pack across a lot of that time and he would have had time to do more with the ball than other options. However, our backs were often inconsistent (oxymoron?), particularly if we had injuries, so could understand why the coaches would want him to go elsewhere when we had an ok option at fly half.

Cameo wrote:Just out of interest on the mossying thing - which camp were you in? I was always in the "get him back to ten, he's wasted at full back", but hard to know whether that was mainly because we had so few good ten options then. I know there were others who thought he was a natural 15 and not cut out for 10.

I think I was in the "just pick one position and stick to it" camp.

I remember Bruce aitchenson (happiness is egg shaped) said that mossy couldn’t give and take a ball without taking it into his chest , meaning he was too slow.
Sounded plausible

whatisthejava wrote:I remember Bruce aitchenson (happiness is egg shaped) said that mossy couldn’t give and take a ball without taking it into his chest , meaning he was too slow.
Sounded plausible

that was just re-hashing Hadden's opinion. Hadden gave a young recently turned pro Paterson a video full of clips showing why he would never be a stand off. That was one of his Hadden's proofs. another was that he was too frail in defence.

Hence Mossie was played on the wing because Hadden needed wingers - even then it was obvious he was a far better 15 than a wing. he got a few cameos for Scotland at 10, and was under huge pressure when it looked like we were going out of the RWC in the pool stages and he was thrust in at 10 against Fiji, replete with Caucaunibuca IIRC.
He didn't really get a chance to develop as a 10, until he moved to Gloucester. And there one fantastic run aside he was piss poor and scuttled home PDQ

The question for me isn't where I stand on Mossie's best position, or of it is its whether it was wing or full back. My question was always how the fuck did Frank Hadden ever become a professional rugby coach

Haha. Haven't thought about that guy in quite a while. Jesus.

I agree Paterson could have been much better playing consistently at either 10/15 than he was at wing, but I'm not sure how much there was to be salvaged elsewhere from that backline. Looking at his match list he did play at 15 pretty consistently right at the end and right at the beginning, no mean feat with the mighty Hugo Southwell around.

1 prop out, 3 props in?



Shame for Darge who sounds very promising. Sutherland's absence might really be felt. Let's hope someone has a couple of Daryl Marfo-esque performances in them.

septic 9 wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:I remember Bruce aitchenson (happiness is egg shaped) said that mossy couldn’t give and take a ball without taking it into his chest , meaning he was too slow.
Sounded plausible

that was just re-hashing Hadden's opinion. Hadden gave a young recently turned pro Paterson a video full of clips showing why he would never be a stand off. That was one of his Hadden's proofs. another was that he was too frail in defence.

Hence Mossie was played on the wing because Hadden needed wingers - even then it was obvious he was a far better 15 than a wing. he got a few cameos for Scotland at 10, and was under huge pressure when it looked like we were going out of the RWC in the pool stages and he was thrust in at 10 against Fiji, replete with Caucaunibuca IIRC.
He didn't really get a chance to develop as a 10, until he moved to Gloucester. And there one fantastic run aside he was piss poor and scuttled home PDQ

The question for me isn't where I stand on Mossie's best position, or of it is its whether it was wing or full back. My question was always how the fuck did Frank Hadden ever become a professional rugby coach

He should have been given time to grow at ten after that world cup. He stepped into impossibly difficult circumstances and did enough to get us the win against Fiji and put in a credible performance against a very good Australia. After that the outside backs didn't see any good attacking ball for roughly the next 15 years. Would have loved to see him given the chance to grow into the position with Edinburgh and then Scotland. By the time he went to Gloucester it was far too late.

Are Darge and Sutherland out for the lot? I’d like to have seen Darge get time with Hooper on the pitch. Shame for the lad.

I’m also keen Sutherland gets some rest if he’s carrying injuries. Don’t know how fit he was in South Africa.

General Zod wrote:Are Darge and Sutherland out for the lot? I’d like to have seen Darge get time with Hooper on the pitch. Shame for the lad.

I’m also keen Sutherland gets some rest if he’s carrying injuries. Don’t know how fit he was in South Africa.

Yes out of all 3. Sutherland has played for Worcester so I assume this is not a lingering issue from the spring/summer unless it has been reinjured.

No sign of a team yet?

Ashman, Bhatti, Kebble, Hodgson, Bayliss, Horne, Hodgson, Steyn.

Starting XV is pleasantly what most would have predicted.

The bench worries me a little. Ashman, Kebble as a TH, Hodgson and Bayliss are very green at international level.

Good team, young bench. Think you missed Hastings from the list above.

The Ozzie scrum munched the saffas one, clearly hoping that by the time kebble comes on that we don’t need to scrum

Rest is pretty good.

Good to see Stein and hodgeson rewarded and still a pretty good second row considering Gray and Cummings out

Interested so see what Baylis ashman can do

I think it’s going to be within a score

Good luck Scotland - go grab the Raeburn and take it home.
And best of luck to Bayliss - hope he gets a chance to show you all what he can do - in the backrow.

Big D wrote:Starting XV is pleasantly what most would have predicted.

The bench worries me a little. Ashman, Kebble as a TH, Hodgson and Bayliss are very green at international level.

players are always green at international level when first capped

With Hodgson don't think there were too many options fit and available. Bayliss looks a very good player even in a shit show of a Bath team. Ashman I have confidence in and with Brown injured and McInally playing like a drain, it was him or Cherry. Cherry unlucky but Ashman is the future (I hope!)

Kebble at TH is a concern. Townsend is messing about with this and thus Glasgow who do not need another TH right now. He is though a very big man.

The Aussie set piece clearly benefitting from PdP, but before he arrived TBH none of their props were up to much. My concern over the set scrum is what comes through from the second row. All 3 Aussie locks are very big lumps. For us, neither Gilchrist nor Skinner play TH lock, and Hodgson isn't the heaviest lock around

Which Tyler wrote:Good luck Scotland - go grab the Raeburn and take it home.
And best of luck to Bayliss - hope he gets a chance to show you all what he can do - in the backrow.

Did not know this was for the Raeburn.

Just been for an invigorating constitutional around the new town, cool (very cool) November air blowing in off the forth, sun shining brightly on old reekie - a great day for rugby, a great day to be alive. Bring it home, boys.

General Zod wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Good luck Scotland - go grab the Raeburn and take it home.
And best of luck to Bayliss - hope he gets a chance to show you all what he can do - in the backrow.

Did not know this was for the Raeburn.

Just been for an invigorating constitutional around the new town, cool (very cool) November air blowing in off the forth, sun shining brightly on old reekie - a great day for rugby, a great day to be alive. Bring it home, boys.

Much the same in Fife. Did think it felt like a braw rugby day.

Sloppy start.

Hogg needs to clear that.

Good start by Zander Fagerson. Scrum got a wee nudge there.

We need to calm the fuck down.