Scottish Rugby target GS & World Cup

First topic message reminder :

Read this on the bbc this morning...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18650528

So the general consensus amongst Scottish fans on 606v2 is we should not get too carried away about the clean sweep in the SH.. well I think we forgot to tell the SRU.

Although rather ambitious, I personally think they're good goals for Scotland. The squad Scotland are building up at the moment is one of the better Scottish sides in a long time. There is also a good emphasis on improving pro clubs and nurturing grass roots. Combine this with the plan to develop players abroad for Scotland, things are looking pretty positive at the moment.

Despite the target of a GS and World Cup they also want to increase the winning percentage in the 6 Nations from 25% to 40%. I'm sure this will please many anti AR fans as it may well spell his end if we get another wooden spoon or 5th place finish. However, i'm fairly confident we wont be getting either of those results next year. Anyone fancy a wager?

Beat the All Blacks (arghhhhhh wake up man) I dinnae say that..... did I

Seriously we have had many false dawns over the last few years. when you deservedly beat us at home last year, we as a nation were seriously depressed and angry and of course it got worse grrrrrrr

So whilst more confident after the summer series, we as a nation will be cautiously dour!! come the hour

No no no, you must play them as if you ar eplaying England, high intensity and uber physical up front from Gray and Rennie, then let Denton and Visser loose both awesome carriers!!

Our chances of beating NZ are slim, but the players will go into it believing they can do it, otherwise there is no point. Same with the 6 nations, every team goes into tournaments with the aim of winning, no matter how unlikely it may be. There will probably be other "minimum acceptable outcomes" or something, I don't think they're suggesting the coach will be sacked if we come second in 2013. For me I would be satisfied with 3rd in the next 6 nations, and I expect that will be similar for the SRU. But in sport you have to aim higher than your minimum target if you want to achieve anything at all.

As far as the New Zealand game is concerned, of course we will go in as massive underdogs, but I do think we have improved a lot since we last played them and will hopefully be able to keep the scoreline more respectable. Of the starting 15 who lost 49-3 two years ago, no more than 7 could still consider themselves first choice: Ford, probably Murray (although he will be playing championship rugby next season, and this year's game is on a Sunday), Gray, possibly Hamilton, Brown, possibly Blair (although playing proD2 next season) and possibly one of Lamont or Evans. The rest have all been replaced by more talented players (inc. Rennie and Laidlaw who were on the bench that day). Here's the squad from 2010:

15 Hugo Southwell
14 Rory Lamont
13 Max Evans
12 Graeme Morrison
11 Sean Lamont
10 Dan Parks
9 Mike Blair (c)
1 Allan Jacobsen
2 Ross Ford
3 Euan Murray
4 Jim Hamilton
5 Richie Gray
6 Kelly Brown
7 John Barclay
8 Richie Vernon

16 Scott Lawson
17 Alasdair Dickinson
18 Nathan Hines
19 Ross Rennie
20 Greig Laidlaw
21 Ruaridh Jackson
22 Nikki Walker

Actually the pack looks pretty strong, but let's just say the backline was not the most creative! Look how much more dangerous the current backline looks and we should be able to at least threaten New Zealand a bit even if we don't beat them. I'll be happy if we can keep within two scores, even that would be a big improvement on last time, but the players must believe they can win, and I will too on the day!

Can't believe that used to be our backline.

That was the game Laidlaw got his first cap!

It actually makes me cringe looking at that backline.

Absolute crock. No wonder we were getting hammered all the time!

Players that shouldn't be anywhere near the team and others out of position.

Comparing then to now:

15 Hugo Southwell Stuart Hogg
14 Rory Lamont Sean Lamont
13 Max Evans De Luca
12 Graeme Morrison Matt Scott
11 Sean Lamont MacVisser
10 Dan Parks Laidlaw
9 Mike Blair (c) Blair


Much better!

I was about to post something like "did the SRU's youth setup in the late 90's/early 2000's select purely on size?". Then I realised that both Lamonts, Southwell, Evans and Parks were all developed outside of Scotland. Which, if you think about it, kind of implies that Graeme Morrison was the best back our own youth setup managed to produce in the preceding ten years!

Pat_Mustard wrote:Which, if you think about it, kind of implies that Graeme Morrison was the best back our own youth setup managed to produce in the preceding ten years!

That is depressing.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Pat_Mustard wrote:Which, if you think about it, kind of implies that Graeme Morrison was the best back our own youth setup managed to produce in the preceding ten years!

That is depressing.

Which brings us back to John Beattie:

Elite sport is driven by its grass roots. To spell out that you have a target of winning a certain number of Grand Slams or winning a World Cup is mere fantasy. It's grand-standing.

Here's my simple target for Scottish rugby, and it would have a bigger impact on our future than any other: Get every school in Scotland to field rugby teams - backed by the private sector if need be - and get a league up and running.

Pat_Mustard wrote:I was about to post something like "did the SRU's youth setup in the late 90's/early 2000's select purely on size?". Then I realised that both Lamonts, Southwell, Evans and Parks were all developed outside of Scotland. Which, if you think about it, kind of implies that Graeme Morrison was the best back our own youth setup managed to produce in the preceding ten years!

Fast and pacy players did come through as well. James Craig, Rory Kerr, Turnbull (the winger not the lock), Chris Paterson.....we just either ignored them or stuck them out of position.

Under McGeechan, Williams and Hadden, Scotland became obsessed with physicality. We even stuck Roland Reid and James McLaren on the wings at one stage, just to be as big and slow as possible.

Forgot about Roland Reid

The last 10 years really has been a disaster for Scottish backs hasn't it?

Andy Henderson anyone?

I see your Henderson and raise you - Marcus Di Rollover?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Andy Henderson anyone?

An average centre, but remember he started for Scotland as a winger!! Awful!

The "uninspiring Scotland" backline of the past 10 years

9 - Andy Nichol (maybe a tad harsh)
10 - Parks
11 - Roland Reid
12 - Rob Dewey
13 - Marcus Di Rollo
14 - Andy Henderson (yes - he did play some games on the wing!)
15 - Southwell

9.Nicol 10.Parks 11.McLaren 12.Morrison 13.Di Rollo 14.Reid 15.Laney

....and most of those guys won a fair few caps as well.....shocking!

We had the same idea!

I'll give you Dewey ahead of Morrison, but surely my Laney trumps your Southwell!!

To be fair Jim McLaren did do a decent job for us, and he was mostly at 13!

OK, I'll give you Laney!

What's worrying about McLaren was that he was shunted from centre to wing to accommodate Di Rollo.

Those really were dark days!

Still can't get over the fact that Toulouse signed Di Rollo. Must have mixed his highlights tape up with someone else or something!

Quite a list here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scotland_national_rugby_union_players

Vaguely remember Jon Dunbar...

Ben Macdougall?? Ben Hinshelwood??

Christ.

Di Rollo, man he was a crap player. I almost vomited in my mouth a little when his name was mentioned.

Di Rollo had 21 scottish caps. Jeez they were dark days.

Di Rollo is a classic example of what I call ‘Interesting Name Expectation Psychosis’. Let me explain:

Rugby fans are attracted and excited by ‘exoticness’ or ‘difference’ from what we know. For the most part, this is to our credit; most other sports fans are threatened by difference, manifested in racist chanting, blind adherence to outdated rules and traditions, and the phrase “that’s just not cricket!”. By contrast, rugby supporters have the ability to admire the All Blacks (60-0 drubbings notwithstanding) and France in their pomp, not just because they’re good, but because they play in an exotic way. Put simply, the unusual excites us.

Unfortunately, our acceptance, our desire for the exotic can lead to INEP, a devastating condition whereby we assume that a player with an exotic name has flair, good handling, pace, and the ability to dance rhythmically. Marcus Di Rollo had none of these attributes, but gained 21 caps because we thought “He must be good, surely?” Other examples are Billy Twelvetrees, Ruaridh Jackson, Riki Flutey, Simon Danielli, Dan Lydiate, James Simpson-Daniel and Toby Faletau. People think they’re good, but they’re not.

What is more worrying is that a player with a dull name, Tom Brown for example, will suffer from the assumption that they play in a dull way, and they players surrounding them will get the plaudits for individual moments of class.

I’m just glad my middle name is ‘Bananahammock’

That certainly worked for Chainsaw Lainey IanBru!

IanBru wrote:Di Rollo is a classic example of what I call ‘Interesting Name Expectation Psychosis’. Let me explain:

Rugby fans are attracted and excited by ‘exoticness’ or ‘difference’ from what we know. For the most part, this is to our credit; most other sports fans are threatened by difference, manifested in racist chanting, blind adherence to outdated rules and traditions, and the phrase “that’s just not cricket!”. By contrast, rugby supporters have the ability to admire the All Blacks (60-0 drubbings notwithstanding) and France in their pomp, not just because they’re good, but because they play in an exotic way. Put simply, the unusual excites us.

Unfortunately, our acceptance, our desire for the exotic can lead to INEP, a devastating condition whereby we assume that a player with an exotic name has flair, good handling, pace, and the ability to dance rhythmically. Marcus Di Rollo had none of these attributes, but gained 21 caps because we thought “He must be good, surely?” Other examples are Billy Twelvetrees, Ruaridh Jackson, Riki Flutey, Simon Danielli, Dan Lydiate, James Simpson-Daniel and Toby Faletau. People think they’re good, but they’re not.

What is more worrying is that a player with a dull name, Tom Brown for example, will suffer from the assumption that they play in a dull way, and they players surrounding them will get the plaudits for individual moments of class.

I’m just glad my middle name is ‘Bananahammock’

While I agree with you to some respect, there are still good players with average enough names like Dan Carter and Conrad Smith. But then there are players who like you said have different kind of name i.e. SBW who have 'revolutionised the game' when in reality, he does slick offloads and makes no arm tackles which is not really revolutionising the game. None the less I am a big fan of SBW

Conrad? I don't remember too many Conrads at my school. If there were, I'm quietly confident they would've been bullied.

I always find it strange that John Smith is supposed to be the most common English name and I don't know a single one.

I thought Conrad was a name you would hear now and then, but then again maybe not. Arguably 'the beast' is only picked because of his name. But he has the odd good game.

By your logic, reckon if Graeme Morrison renamed himself "Optimus Prime" he'd get picked again then?

RDW_Scotland wrote:By your logic, reckon if Graeme Morrison renamed himself "Optimus Prime" he'd get picked again then?

Why not, but there are limitations to it like Conrad Smith and Richard Kahui, who is the better player but who has the more exotic name. But more importantly, who starts.

RDW_Scotland wrote:By your logic, reckon if Graeme Morrison renamed himself "Optimus Prime" he'd get picked again then?

Makes you wonder why Tobias Gerald Albert Lieven Flood hasnt been a more regular starter for England doesnt it

Jeezo - with ears like he's got and a name like that he must have been bullied at school! Unless he went to Eaton or something...

RDW_Scotland wrote:By your logic, reckon if Graeme Morrison renamed himself "Optimus Prime" he'd get picked again then?

He can call himself that all he wants, but "Bumblebee" would be a bit more appropriate.

Bumblebee is still pretty bad-ass, if not a bit of a crap name!

I feel an Autobots v Decepticons XV thread coming on!

I'll let you go for it - do you know 15 of them from each side??

First decepticon that springs to mind is Lee Byrnes dive at the end of the 2010 Wales Scotland match

Ooft - don't bring that up PSW, us Scotland fans have only just about recovered from that match!

Clearly, Mr Robinson has the best claim to be ‘Optimist Prime’…

‘Megatron’ has got to be Nigel Owens:

Leave it blue! DO AS I COMMAND!!!