Well done Scottish Lions

Putting this on a separate thread as the main thread is all about togetherness

After the years of being in the wilderness and being mocked as not being good enough to tour, or play, it is great to see how well our boys are doing

Even this tour we were told 1 or 2 would be deserved, maybe 3 or 4 to up the quota  

We always knew a lot of our players were as good as the other nations, but it is really great to see them show the world and really silence the critics.

They are not too small
They are not too defensive
They are not too flaky
They are not poor at defence


With the lions tests around the corner, almost all our players are putting their hand up to start in the tests

Price - by far the best scrum half on tour
Harris - Really solid in defence, the best link man and much better in attack than anyone thought
Sutherland - really great performances - and in with a real shout of starting, in a very competitive position
Watson - unbelievable performances, time and time again. Curry has been great too, but has also had quiet / poor halves. Both up there as the best around
WDM - Poor defence - not shown that so far. Such a dangerous strike runner, making space for others, and almost always breaking the first tackle. Might not start, but more due to balance than ability
Faegason - The weakest Scot, but has grown into the games. Won't start or bench, but will do a good job if called on
Hogg - Still dangerous and still strong in defence.  One players other teams don't want to face.
Russel - Showed why he is there before got injured. Overly criticised for same mistakes other make (imagine if he had played like Farrel in the last game :-0), but shrugs it off. Would be on bench if not injured

Well done to you all - you make us proud and it is great to be able to discuss how good they all are - with people who have now seen they play - they are a match for anyone :-)

Note - This is not to mock other players (who we all agree have been playing blinders) but a celebration of ours

Indeed - and with a coach who knows the players a decent chance of getting selected for the tests. This for me was the final chance for the lions. without scots representation this time then it would be the english welsh and Irish lions. NO longer the B&I lions

Price and Hogg should be starting and Harris, Sutherland and Watson have a good chance of doing so DVM its about what Gatland wants - but he does like abig winger but I think he may miss out

You do realise you are going to get pelters for this

Eeeeerrrmmmmm........ OK

I am very happy for you as well, and I am glad that you are happy.

Peace and Love and all that.....

But to be honest, the only Scottish player that has surprised me is Harris. The rest are doing what I thought they would.

I would only have at most 3 or 4 Scottish players in the starting 15 though, but if it came down 50/50 calls, where as I would go with the Scottish players, in reality, I do not think Gatland and his team would.

Oh sorry, Price has surprised me as well, he was rubbish in the 6N, but he is doing well on this tour, fair play to him.

Dont read Matt Dawsons predicted team then....no Hogg, no Price etc etc

But then he even has Sam SImmonds at 8...

Agree with the OP, it's been refreshing to see them all give a really good account of themselves. They were selected on merit and have proven Gatland to the correct in his selections. Sutherland and Watson have both been terrific in the forwards, and in the backs Price, Harris and Duhan have all put hands firmly in the air for test selection.

Such is the competitive nature of the squad, it's entirely possible that all Scots will miss out, but equally possible that we'll get 2 or 3 starters.

Some really tough calls to make!

Yes good on them.
I would definitely have Price & VDM starting on their tour performances.

Yes, it's been much easier a Scotland fans to get behind the Lions this time. The only players who seems unlikely to be in proper consideration for the tests seem to be Fagerson and Russell. Fagerson on account of Sinkler and Furlong's form, Russell on account of injury. Sutherland, Watson, Price (surprisingly), Harris, Van Der Merwe and Hogg probably harbour legitimate hopes of being in the test squad.

Equally, there are other players in the squad who aren't Scottish who have also played very well. Feasibly we could see a team with no Scots in the starting XV and have few complaints. Fact is, in 2017 and 2013 we could complain that we'd have players overlooked or unfairly dismissed from consideration. This year eight Scottish players have toured and for the most part have played well. I'll be getting behind the team regardless. Unless they lose. Which would be because not enough Scottish coaches or players were involved.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dont read Matt Dawsons predicted team then....no Hogg, no Price etc etc

But then he even has Sam SImmonds at 8...

I saw his selections and they gave me a bit of a chuckle.

All I wanted was for our guys to get a fair chance and they have this time

Price must start he has been so much better than the others. all the others its in the balance but we have Townsend who knows them to push the case

TJ wrote:All I wanted was for our guys to get a fair chance and they have this time

Price must start he has been so much better than the others.  all the others its in the balance but we have Townsend who knows them to push the case

Is Townsend's job to advocate for Scottish players or is it to be the attack coach?

lostinwales wrote:

TJ wrote:All I wanted was for our guys to get a fair chance and they have this time

Price must start he has been so much better than the others.  all the others its in the balance but we have Townsend who knows them to push the case

Is Townsend's job to advocate for Scottish players or is it to be the attack coach?

I think all the coaches know full well priority numbers 1-10 is to get a series win. Their professional reputations and future employment opportunities revolve about putting out the team with the best chance to win. And then getting the damn win.

Agree Townshend knows his players better and knows what they can do: More info and perspective in the decision making. For me I can't see a lineup without at least Hogg, Price, and Watson (whether as a starter or the ultimate replacement from hell who would torment the Boks like an angry oversized pinball on attack and bashing the breakdown on defense.

I still see the back three as Hogg with Liam Williams and Josh Adams, with VDM and the other Watson very close on their tails.

So many other positions have such razor thin margins between the players, it will be hard to disagree too vigorously with selection (excepting Farrell). I think the Lions are better in general with players from all nations involved. So on merit, we got this.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dont read Matt Dawsons predicted team then....no Hogg, no Price etc etc

But then he even has Sam SImmonds at 8...

If Simmonds is selected at 8 there are a few people on this site who should be eating humble pie - 'he isn't good enough for England', 'is a less good version of Ben Earl', etc, etc.  I appreciate that this is a discussion forum and everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I do wonder what some people have to do to get a little bit of respect or acknowledgment.  He has made it onto the Lions tour ahead of the other England 8 options, is the Gallagher Player of the Season, is a former European Player of the Season, yet some people just want to rubbish him.  Ho hum as Mark Twain said, never argue with an idiot they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

lostinwales wrote:

TJ wrote:All I wanted was for our guys to get a fair chance and they have this time

Price must start he has been so much better than the others.  all the others its in the balance but we have Townsend who knows them to push the case

Is Townsend's job to advocate for Scottish players or is it to be the attack coach?

Well Gatland has a history of the former (but not Scottish players) on previous tours!

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

TJ wrote:All I wanted was for our guys to get a fair chance and they have this time

Price must start he has been so much better than the others.  all the others its in the balance but we have Townsend who knows them to push the case

Is Townsend's job to advocate for Scottish players or is it to be the attack coach?

Well Gatland has a history of the former (but not Scottish players) on previous tours!

Its not impossible that a coach will want to work with a different player precisely because he knows the one he works with all the time all too well.

There might even be a few South Africans behind the Lions this time

nlpnlp wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dont read Matt Dawsons predicted team then....no Hogg, no Price etc etc

But then he even has Sam SImmonds at 8...

If Simmonds is selected at 8 there are a few people on this site who should be eating humble pie - 'he isn't good enough for England', 'is a less good version of Ben Earl', etc, etc.  I appreciate that this is a discussion forum and everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I do wonder what some people have to do to get a little bit of respect or acknowledgment.  He has made it onto the Lions tour ahead of the other England 8 options, is the Gallagher Player of the Season, is a former European Player of the Season, yet some people just want to rubbish him.  Ho hum as Mark Twain said, never argue with an idiot they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Those opinions are backed up by the fact that Sam Simmonds isn't selected for England, taking him on a Lions tour doesn't actually mean they're wrong.

Not sure where to post this but Stuart Hogg on the BBC rugby podcast this week, comes across great. Very good interview.

Australia seem to manage OK with a back row player who might be a better fit in the centers

Soul Requiem wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dont read Matt Dawsons predicted team then....no Hogg, no Price etc etc

But then he even has Sam SImmonds at 8...

If Simmonds is selected at 8 there are a few people on this site who should be eating humble pie - 'he isn't good enough for England', 'is a less good version of Ben Earl', etc, etc.  I appreciate that this is a discussion forum and everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I do wonder what some people have to do to get a little bit of respect or acknowledgment.  He has made it onto the Lions tour ahead of the other England 8 options, is the Gallagher Player of the Season, is a former European Player of the Season, yet some people just want to rubbish him.  Ho hum as Mark Twain said, never argue with an idiot they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Those opinions are backed up by the fact that Sam Simmonds isn't selected for England, taking him on a Lions tour doesn't actually mean they're wrong.

nipnip wrote:If Simmonds is selected at 8 there are a few people on this site who should be eating humble pie - 'he isn't good enough for England', 'is a less good version of Ben Earl', etc, etc.

It's not so much He's not good enough, he was European Player Of The Year, it's because he doesn't fit Eddies narrative, "defence, defence, strangle the life out of the opponents, dominant tackles, kick, kick, defence, defence and rest"

You can see how he's ignored Smith, Daly and Simmonds at the same time how he's evolved Farrell, Curry and the like, once they hit the England scene, he loves to major on players having "the edge mindset" he cannae do that with Sam because he just ain't big enough to have his version of "edge"

Its clear with Daly and Simmonds just how good they are in their right positions or playing to their strengths. Daly particularly "in my opinion" was England best option 13 for the last decade but Eddie rather play Farrell and Tuilagi in the centre.

With Eddie it's all about substance over style, dominance over creativity, defence over attack

Hence the Smith's Daly's Cip's Simmonds of English rugby will generally be ignored

Eddie ignored Daly?! Someone should let 7.5 know

lol. You're getting a sense I don't want him in either the Lions or England then Bam?

Yeah, Daly has been shoehorned into the side for a fair old while despite there being other more obvious options at both wing and full back. You never know it may come good one day.

Hindsight as ever is wonderful, but Smith did not appear on day 1 ready formed to dominate international rugby. He's probably benefitted from a couple of years of premiership rugby and is in a much better place to become an international now than he was then.

Except for short term fill ins (Wood and Curry) England have generally run monsters at 8 for a very long time, and Billy used to be a very special player, so a rethink is necessary if we want to go with Simmonds.

Simmonds is very good in defense. Makes a lot of tackles although I don't know how much of a jackler he is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:lol. You're getting a sense I don't want him in either the Lions or England then Bam?

Yeah, Daly has been shoehorned into the side for a fair old while despite there being other more obvious options at both wing and full back. You never know it may come good one day.

Haha, just a bit!

I've always liked him, think his skill set is very Australian in the way he can pretty much do anything when he's got ball in hand. If he can do what JJ used to do defensively by showing the outside and relying on his pace to get them around the legs he could end up being a 13 for us after all.

Simmonds is very quick for a back row but his all round game would require a rethink on the flanks if you're selecting him at 8. There's also the big question around how effective he'd be against international defences where he's not going to be afforded the space he is for Exeter. He makes his tackles that's for sure but he doesn't dominate in the way Jones demands of his back row, he's not much of a breakdown threat either which if you're picking a traditional openside will put too much pressure on Curry. It's all about balance and Simmonds unfortunately unbalances a back row to an unacceptable level.

I don't think you can get away with a Curry, Underhill and Simmonds back row against many teams, you're lacking the blunt instrument you need against international defences. You then select say Lawes who has improved over the ball in recent years but I can't see him being good enough in that respect against the pacier back rows of Wales, Scotland, Australia or New Zealand. You'd actually blunt Curry in that regard too as he'll be the one providing the line speed and as good as he is he can't do both.

I thought they all acquitted themselves well over the weekend, some more than others! If it interests you, I've written a quick article on my blog about the Scottish Lions - https://thefinalthistle.wordpress.com/2021/07/25/lions-first-test-scottish-ratings/

Any feedback welcome!

I suppose we should be careful what we wish for.

I really hope this shocking tour has not dented their confidence - so negative tactics was never going to suit our style of play

R!skysports wrote:I suppose we should be careful what we wish for.

I really hope this shocking tour has not dented their confidence - so negative tactics was never going to suit our style of play

A lot of that I suspect will depend on how well this weekend goes. A bad tour is always more palatable if you come back winning!

It's been a mixed bag for the Scottish players:

Hoggy will be disappointed but can't really complain about being dropped.

Ali Price has probably come of age and clearly should have started all three tests.

Watson has done very little wrong and is very unlucky not to have featured more.

Fagerson, as so many before him on these truncated tours, did not really grab his first opportunity and was always playing catch up afterwards. He will be better for the experience and will hopefully get another shot.

Finn, injury has deprived him his main opportunity, you do feel he would have been likely to have been involved in the earlier tests, probably from the bench. We may still see some magic yet.

Harris has been quietly impressive and is the unlucky one to miss out from last week. You feel he won't have any regrets.

Sutherland has not showed his best form, maybe missed to much rugby in the run up with his injury. Hopefully will also get another shot.

VDM, turns out to be the one to start all three tests. Played well in the first and then was exposed and got no ball in the second. Could still win the series for the Lions if he gets any ball!

I agree, hogg had a poor game. But he is never the best under a high ball. he is there for his running

I just wish Gatland tried to play any rugby

Been a shockingly bad test series

Think Watson, Fagerson and harris should feel a little bit peeved

As you say, Sutherland did not have the best tour

VDM should feel the luckiess lol

What about Gregor ‘the Teflon Don’ Townsend? Or is it all Gatland’s fault? If the backs go well this weekend I expect Gregor will get the plaudits?

R!skysports wrote:I suppose we should be careful what we wish for.

I really hope this shocking tour has not dented their confidence - so negative tactics was never going to suit our style of play

Alternatively you could look upon it that the play has been built round teams that have won Grand Slams and reached the latter stages of World Cups…

For me our players have largely been a letdown on this tour. You can argue all you like that players are being asked to play in a way that doesn't suit them, but prior to this the argument from Scottish fans has been that Scottish players weren't getting picked and given a chance to show what they can do so we can't have it both ways.

Players like Hogg have been asked to go out there and do a job and haven't done it, so he can have no qualms whatsoever about being dropped. If it was the other way around and Williams had played how Hogg has done in the first 2 tests there would be bloody murder being cried about Hogg needing to be selected for the third test, so it is only right that a player as good as Williams is under the high ball is given his chance.

VDM can count himself extremely lucky to still be in the side this weekend.

Sutherland - given chances, has performed poorly. Watson - limited chances but the first thing he does when he gets on the pitch is make a very visible and potentially extremely costly mistake. With the caliber of back row competition he's up against that was very disappointing. Personally I think Curry is lucky to have kept his place, but it's hardly an outrage and things could have looked different had Hamish kept his discipline when given a go. Fagerson for me is nowhere near a test place, he's barely shown up.

Price and Harris have both played well and enhanced their reputations. Finn hasn't had the chance to through injury but could change that this weekend.

Overall it's been a disappointing showing from our boys

Worth saying that I don't think many players have enhanced their reputations at all over the series, and in that respect Harris and Price have both done very well.

I agree

I think they have not shown their best of their opportunity which is a little disappointing

Would have loved to have a more open game plan to show their worth on other things than high balls, but sadly not to be

R!skysports wrote:I agree

I think they have not shown their best of their opportunity which is a little disappointing

Would have loved to have a more open game plan to show their worth on other things than high balls, but sadly not to be

I hear a lot about this ‘open game plan’ that every Lions team over the last 3 tours should have been playing, as though there is no risk associated with it.

Look upon it another way, do you want to play the world champions with a compromised and weaker defence?

chris_501 wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I agree

I think they have not shown their best of their opportunity which is a little disappointing

Would have loved to have a more open game plan to show their worth on other things than high balls, but sadly not to be

I hear a lot about this ‘open game plan’ that every Lions team over the last 3 tours should have been playing, as though there is no risk associated with it.

Look upon it another way, do you want to play the world champions with a compromised and weaker defence?

It’s just the usual suspects looking for something about Gatland so they can complain. They won’t criticise their own amateur coach though. Double standards much.

mikey_dragon wrote:

chris_501 wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I agree

I think they have not shown their best of their opportunity which is a little disappointing

Would have loved to have a more open game plan to show their worth on other things than high balls, but sadly not to be

I hear a lot about this ‘open game plan’ that every Lions team over the last 3 tours should have been playing, as though there is no risk associated with it.

Look upon it another way, do you want to play the world champions with a compromised and weaker defence?

It’s just the usual suspects looking for something about Gatland so they can complain. They won’t criticise their own amateur coach though. Double standards much.  

Lol - we (and I) have criticised Townsend until the cows come home. Still think he should not be Scotland Coach (or should have let him develop for a few more years and continue to stay with Vern)

There is no way Townsend had much to say in that Game plan, as it is something that he has never done before. Does that make him a weak coach, not listened to...maybe

I have been consistent that I do not, and never will like the style of play that Gatland plays. Call me a rugby purist, or a fool, but I like to play more that big lumps running into each other.

We can have a strong defence AND play with more than one tactic going forward....they don't preclude each other

chris_501 wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I agree

I think they have not shown their best of their opportunity which is a little disappointing

Would have loved to have a more open game plan to show their worth on other things than high balls, but sadly not to be

I hear a lot about this ‘open game plan’ that every Lions team over the last 3 tours should have been playing, as though there is no risk associated with it.

Look upon it another way, do you want to play the world champions with a compromised and weaker defence?

Of course there are risks, but if we look at the previous tours

We were playing one of the weakest Australia sides that had been spanked by most at that time (even we had beaten them away in 2012 and we were terrible), yet we scraped a victory playing (IMO) the wrong style of game. 3-0 should have been the lowest bar we expected

I think if we had been a bit more adventurist we could have won that convincingly.

I also think the class a Wales players you had at the time (I so wish we had that bunch of players), should have done even better with someone who use more tactics....but again my opinion

I can't believe some are still moaning over 2013... We won, quite convincingly actually. It's history. Gatland knows what he's doing so don't worry too much over it.

mikey_dragon wrote:I can't believe some are still moaning over 2013... We won, quite convincingly actually. It's history. Gatland knows what he's doing so don't worry too much over it.

Not moaning about 2013 - it was mentioned above the last 3 tours and wanted to say my opinion on style and that is

2 - 1 and 21 - 23 with a missed kick to win it in the first test....convincing???

Anyway, lets hope we play a good game this weekend and Gatland proves me wrong :-)

Australia beat Scotland, Wales and Ireland in Autumn 2013. Not sure they were as poor as everyone thinks they were.

MichaelT wrote:Australia beat Scotland, Wales and Ireland in Autumn 2013. Not sure they were as poor as everyone thinks they were.

England beat them. Just saying....

R!skysports wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I can't believe some are still moaning over 2013... We won, quite convincingly actually. It's history. Gatland knows what he's doing so don't worry too much over it.

Not moaning about 2013 - it was mentioned above the last 3 tours and wanted to say my opinion on style and that is

2 - 1 and 21 - 23 with a missed kick to win it in the first test....convincing???

Anyway, lets hope we play a good game this weekend and Gatland proves me wrong :-)

You are though. We all see a lot of whinging about it back in 2013 too. I'm not sure how people are still on repeat.

It was convincing. Yes the first two tests were close. We also missed a kick to win the second test, but you're not mentioning this because it doesn't fit your bitter agenda.

I'm not sure if anyone has to prove you wrong mind, especially one of the most successful coaches in the world. But yes I hope so too, it sure doesn't look easy out there against SA. They just don't concede many tries, that's the way it is.

lostinwales wrote:

MichaelT wrote:Australia beat Scotland, Wales and Ireland in Autumn 2013. Not sure they were as poor as everyone thinks they were.

England beat them. Just saying....

I think Aus are always good, but they do seem to lack consistency post 2004. They look the type of team who can put 50 on you one week, but lose the following week.

England have had their number for a while. Aus have the personnel to play a tighter game and match you physically, but appear to arrogant to move away from their running rugby.

lostinwales wrote:

MichaelT wrote:Australia beat Scotland, Wales and Ireland in Autumn 2013. Not sure they were as poor as everyone thinks they were.

England beat them. Just saying....

True, but don't think England fans really complain about 2013 Lions as much as the others do. To me the general attitudes about that tour seems to be

Scottish - we should have had more players involved and they should have won easier
Irish - disgraceful bias selection. Gatland hates us!
English - wish Corbisiero had stayed fit, he was great

mikey_dragon wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I can't believe some are still moaning over 2013... We won, quite convincingly actually. It's history. Gatland knows what he's doing so don't worry too much over it.

Not moaning about 2013 - it was mentioned above the last 3 tours and wanted to say my opinion on style and that is

2 - 1 and 21 - 23 with a missed kick to win it in the first test....convincing???

Anyway, lets hope we play a good game this weekend and Gatland proves me wrong :-)

You are though. We all see a lot of whinging about it back in 2013 too. I'm not sure how people are still on repeat.

It was convincing. Yes the first two tests were close. We also missed a kick to win the second test, but you're not mentioning this because it doesn't fit your bitter agenda.

I'm not sure if anyone has to prove you wrong mind, especially one of the most successful coaches in the world. But yes I hope so too, it sure doesn't look easy out there against SA. They just don't concede many tries, that's the way it is.

Really..........???????

I don't like a style of play, that the last 3 lions tour has taken....bitter???????????

I think we should just agree to disagree.

I don't like the style Gatland plays and think that he could have done better with the players he had if he had some more expansive style in his armoury - I also admit he has been very successful

You like his style and think he has done the best with the players he has and you think he has been very successful

I don't think our players suit his style of play and I think some of them have also underperformed this tour

happy  

and I am sure we can both agree that the first 2 tests have been turgid and terrible rugby matches??

Yes bitter, mostly over selection. Rather than blame specific players you seem to be shifting the blame everywhere else. We had the same complaints in 2013 from the same people - these are just my observations.

It might not be easy on the eye but the game plan works. You don't have to like it. I didn't enjoy the 2nd test at all but that one was an anomaly; we rarely see a test match go on for that long. I don't always agree with Gatland, even when he was our head coach for 12 years, but he was definitely one of the best coaches we've ever had. I haven't lost all faith just yet. Happy to agree to disagree on this though.

mikey_dragon wrote:Yes bitter, mostly over selection. Rather than blame specific players you seem to be shifting the blame everywhere else. We had the same complaints in 2013 from the same people - these are just my observations.

It might not be easy on the eye but the game plan works. You don't have to like it. I didn't enjoy the 2nd test at all but that one was an anomaly; we rarely see a test match go on for that long. I don't always agree with Gatland, even when he was our head coach for 12 years, but he was definitely one of the best coaches we've ever had. I haven't lost all faith just yet. Happy to agree to disagree on this though.

The game plan was a disaster. The Lions kicked away everything, and Biggar passed a grand total of 3 times the whole game.

alive555 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Yes bitter, mostly over selection. Rather than blame specific players you seem to be shifting the blame everywhere else. We had the same complaints in 2013 from the same people - these are just my observations.

It might not be easy on the eye but the game plan works. You don't have to like it. I didn't enjoy the 2nd test at all but that one was an anomaly; we rarely see a test match go on for that long. I don't always agree with Gatland, even when he was our head coach for 12 years, but he was definitely one of the best coaches we've ever had. I haven't lost all faith just yet. Happy to agree to disagree on this though.

The game plan was a disaster. The Lions kicked away everything, and Biggar passed a grand total of 3 times the whole game.

What's the game plan? Because unless you've spoken to Gatland / Toonie I doubt you know. It wasn't pretty that's for sure. Biggar failed to control the game well or create anything, and is probably lucky to keep his place. If the next game is tight I doubt we'll see Finn come on, unless Biggar gets injured. Either way I hope Finn is involved somehow as it's well deserved recognition.

mikey_dragon wrote:

alive555 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Yes bitter, mostly over selection. Rather than blame specific players you seem to be shifting the blame everywhere else. We had the same complaints in 2013 from the same people - these are just my observations.

It might not be easy on the eye but the game plan works. You don't have to like it. I didn't enjoy the 2nd test at all but that one was an anomaly; we rarely see a test match go on for that long. I don't always agree with Gatland, even when he was our head coach for 12 years, but he was definitely one of the best coaches we've ever had. I haven't lost all faith just yet. Happy to agree to disagree on this though.

The game plan was a disaster. The Lions kicked away everything, and Biggar passed a grand total of 3 times the whole game.

What's the game plan? Because unless you've spoken to Gatland / Toonie I doubt you know. It wasn't pretty that's for sure. Biggar failed to control the game well or create anything, and is probably lucky to keep his place. If the next game is tight I doubt we'll see Finn come on, unless Biggar gets injured. Either way I hope Finn is involved somehow as it's well deserved recognition.

It seems fairly certain the game plan was extremely similar to the one which failed England in the 6 nations?