Planet Rugby Forum

Lorthern Nights wrote:That backrow Horrible horrible horrible. That’s just swinson at 6

Interested to see how they go, hope they aren’t taking the yanks lightly.

Other interesting point is Hogg as Capitano With a Hastings in the team could be the start of the Good times being back...

This.

Old Zander looks like someone's patched a bit of facial hair on a baby in that pic.

That aside, some things to be excited about, as someone else posted 9-12 looks nice, back three will do some damage but the back row could be a worry.

I am perplexed about Swinson at 6, he's not international class in his actual position so can't see what advantage he gives- perhaps just a bit of grunt in an otherwise light back 3? Hamilton played well in the last Autumn series and I'll be interested to see how he gets on.

Front row looks nice and is a demonstration of our increasing strength in depth up there.

Should be enough firepower to beat the Eagles (especially with the subs) but will be a much sterner test than Canada.

On Toonie we trust!

I feel a whole lot of movement between 4/6, 7/8, 10/12, 14/15 (well 15 and 10-14)! If coach gets it right USA will be chasing shadows.

Just for shits and giggles, will call Barclay doesn’t get the captaincy back from Hogg.

I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

Well, that's me told then.

Doc Rob wrote:

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

Well, that's me told then.

Telt. FFS.

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

That weights can't be right for Watson and Barclay are they?

I thought they were low 90ish kgs as they arent that tall

Lorthern Nights wrote:

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

That weights can't be right for Watson and Barclay are they?

I thought they were low 90ish kgs as they arent that tall

Johnny Barclay is not short. He must be 6ft 2ish.

He and Hamilton are very similar height and weight.

Lorthern Nights wrote:

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

That weights can't be right for Watson and Barclay are they?

I thought they were low 90ish kgs as they arent that tall

According to Wiki Barclay is 6'3 and 102 kgs. Mish is 5'11 and 102 kgs and Hamilton is 6'3 and 104 Kgs.

Steamin Beamin wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

That weights can't be right for Watson and Barclay are they?

I thought they were low 90ish kgs as they arent that tall

According to Wiki Barclay is 6'3 and 102 kgs. Mish is 5'11 and 102 kgs and Hamilton is 6'3 and 104 Kgs.

wow, heavy guys for their height.

Doc Rob wrote:

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

Well, that's me told then.

Sorry - bit more abrupt than I intended it! I take your point and he has played a fair bit at 8 (and some at 6) over the years but I think as we see more of him we'll realise he's more of a flexible Barclay-type than anything else. Wouldn't say no to him at Glasgow but I don't think he would really solve the big ball carrier dilemma.

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

Well, that's me told then.

Sorry - bit more abrupt than I intended it! I take your point and he has played a fair bit at 8 (and some at 6) over the years but I think as we see more of him we'll realise he's more of a flexible Barclay-type than anything else. Wouldn't say no to him at Glasgow but I don't think he would really solve the big ball carrier dilemma.

I think due to the way the Aviva Prem is reffed the 7s tend to be more all rounders rather than out and out fetchers.

I don't think we can really rely on having the B. Vunipola (130 kg), Picamoles (116 kg), Vermeulen (120 kg) type big ball carrier that smashes defenders out of the way and get over the advantage line even on slow ball. Here are our options at 8 for that so far.

Denton (119 kg) (most fits this mould, his shortcomings are well chronicled but is the best pure ball carrier)
Bradbury (113 kg) (looks to have been told to alter his game to increase workrate, has altered his game from being a straight forward carrier to fit the gameplan)
M. Fagerson (98 kg) (only 19 so understandably not fully developed)
Ashe (105 kg) (permanently injured, more a mobile loose runner)

Let me know about the other options

Discounted Wilson (105 kg) because he's incapable of playing that game, works hard but too lightweight to be that kind of 8.

With the other options Denton aside you feel they'd have to sacrifice some mobility and bulk up to be that type of heavy duty runner. I feel that with Toonie's gameplan the carrying options just have to be equally shared amongst the pack. Our backrow options aren't really the size to consistently be that type of carrier and yes it's a bit simplistic to state that the player's weight is the big factor in letting them play that type of game but there's a definite correlation. Those type of 8s all lean towards being 120 kg or over.

Kieran Read for contrast is 111 kg. Superb at picking running angles and timing his run to explode onto the ball. The ABs split the carrying duties across the pack and I feel that unless Denton becomes a constant feature in the starting XV that's just the way Scotland will have to go. It's been the case so far and has been mostly successful.

Crosby’s is 6’5” and variously listed as 99, 104 and 108 kg in various places - I assume he’s been putting bulk on after entering full time pro ranks in the last year, but 9 kg is a fair amount! Could end up at 115 or so which could put him in the big ball carrier club as well.

Ritchie is 6’4” and 105kg, has the frame to add a bit more as well.

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:

topofthemoon wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:I am most puzzled by Hamilton at 7. Surely that isn’t his usual position? What we saw of him briefly in the AIs made me think we might have found the big ball carrier we need.

9 out of his 11 starts this season for Leicester were at 7. He's only listed at 104kg which is similar to Barclay and Watson - and that's despite Hamilton being taller.

Well, that's me told then.

Sorry - bit more abrupt than I intended it! I take your point and he has played a fair bit at 8 (and some at 6) over the years but I think as we see more of him we'll realise he's more of a flexible Barclay-type than anything else. Wouldn't say no to him at Glasgow but I don't think he would really solve the big ball carrier dilemma.

It’s OK - I was being self-deprecating!

I do know that the canon version is ‘telt’ but it was ‘told’ that I used to hear at home, unless my mum was being ironic!

Anyone heard the rumours re Price & Bradbury being moved east and west respectively? Also Hamilton joining Glasgow after tour?

Saw it on FB, but this place is the font of reliability!

Market Square Hero wrote:Anyone heard the rumours re Price & Bradbury being moved east and west respectively? Also Hamilton joining Glasgow after tour?

Saw it on FB, but this place is the font of reliability!

Theres a long standing rumour that one of the Glasgow 9s is coming eastwards. Not heard anything on Bradbury, would be a bit strange with Du Preez and Hardie having left at the end of the season. Imagine Hardie would be a more likely candidate for the Weegies, especially as he's still living in Edinburgh

toocoldhere wrote:

Market Square Hero wrote:Anyone heard the rumours re Price & Bradbury being moved east and west respectively? Also Hamilton joining Glasgow after tour?

Saw it on FB, but this place is the font of reliability!

Theres a long standing rumour that one of the Glasgow 9s is coming eastwards. Not heard anything on Bradbury, would be a bit strange with Du Preez and Hardie having left at the end of the season. Imagine Hardie would be a more likely candidate for the Weegies, especially as he's still living in Edinburgh

Has Hardie signed elsewhere? I know his contract was up but he was being treated at the spire and someone hinted at/started a rumour he might be staying in Scotland.

EDIT: Just read your post again, properly. Ignore me.

Match preview for USA v Scotland:

https://www.scottishrugbyblog.co.uk/201 ... h-preview/

Bonus stats:

Matt Fagerson is the youngest player ever to start at Number 8 for Scotland.

He's the first teenager to start in the Scottish pack since 1951.

He's the third teenager to play for Scotland in the Pro era after Stuart Hogg and Jonny Gray.

topofthemoon wrote:Match preview for USA v Scotland:

https://www.scottishrugbyblog.co.uk/201 ... h-preview/

Bonus stats:

Matt Fagerson is the youngest player ever to start at Number 8 for Scotland.

He's the first teenager to start in the Scottish pack since 1951.

He's the third teenager to play for Scotland in the Pro era after Stuart Hogg and Jonny Gray.

How do 2 and 3 stack up? JG only ever bench in teens?

Biffer29 wrote:Crosby’s is 6’5” and variously listed as 99, 104 and 108 kg in various places - I assume he’s been putting bulk on after entering full time pro ranks in the last year, but 9 kg is a fair amount! Could end up at 115 or so which could put him in the big ball carrier club as well.

Ritchie is 6’4” and 105kg, has the frame to add a bit more as well.

Crosbie was told to put on 6kg of muscle in a couple of months at the start of last year. Ally Millar was told to put on 10kg. Crosbie made his target, Miller did not.

I have no idea what he weighs now other than it is at least 6kgs more than it was at the beginning of the year.

frillage wrote:

topofthemoon wrote:Match preview for USA v Scotland:

https://www.scottishrugbyblog.co.uk/201 ... h-preview/

Bonus stats:

Matt Fagerson is the youngest player ever to start at Number 8 for Scotland.

He's the first teenager to start in the Scottish pack since 1951.

He's the third teenager to play for Scotland in the Pro era after Stuart Hogg and Jonny Gray.

How do 2 and 3 stack up? JG only ever bench in teens?

Yeah Jonny's first start (4th cap in all) was 2 months after his 20th birthday.

topofthemoon wrote:Match preview for USA v Scotland:

https://www.scottishrugbyblog.co.uk/201 ... h-preview/

Bonus stats:

Matt Fagerson is the youngest player ever to start at Number 8 for Scotland.

He's the first teenager to start in the Scottish pack since 1951.

He's the third teenager to play for Scotland in the Pro era after Stuart Hogg and Jonny Gray.

So JB is stealing your chat!

Crikey. Defeat to the USA is not on the bucket list. Townsend has another summer catastrophuck...Fagerson jnr was particularly poor and directly at fault for their killer score. He's too young ffs. Big gamble did not pay off. McGuigan also not so good. Horne jnr, Kinghorn and Turner again good mind. Hastings showed some good stuff generally too

dargotronV.1 wrote:Crikey. Defeat to the USA is not on the bucket list. Townsend has another summer catastrophuck...Fagerson jnr was particularly poor and directly at fault for their killer score. He's too young ffs. Big gamble did not pay off. McGuigan also not so good. Horne jnr, Kinghorn and Turner again good mind. Hastings showed some good stuff generally too

I liked Kinghorn.

dargotronV.1 wrote:Crikey. Defeat to the USA is not on the bucket list. Townsend has another summer catastrophuck...Fagerson jnr was particularly poor and directly at fault for their killer score. He's too young ffs. Big gamble did not pay off. McGuigan also not so good. Horne jnr, Kinghorn and Turner again good mind. Hastings showed some good stuff generally too

This giving everyone a game is f**king nonsense. We shouldn't be losing to the USA. Good for them but another summer fudge up by Townsend.

23 missed tackles is pathetic too.

dargotronV.1 wrote:Crikey. Defeat to the USA is not on the bucket list. Townsend has another summer catastrophuck...Fagerson jnr was particularly poor and directly at fault for their killer score. He's too young ffs. Big gamble did not pay off. McGuigan also not so good. Horne jnr, Kinghorn and Turner again good mind. Hastings showed some good stuff generally too

This truly is on Toony, major tactical fudge ups.

I think we all knew that Fagerson wasn’t ready for international Rugby, and thus it was shown.

The backrow looked unbalanced, and it was. And thus we ended up playing Swinson at 6 for 80 minutes and Brown at 7 because it was so poor.

They protected Hastings too much and moved him off first receiver too much, it stopped him getting in a groove and we lost the benefit that P Horne gives you with his smart lines at 12.

Centres were too lightweight for the US Centres.

Tactical kicking was often poor, and seriously could we not have stopped rushing up on AJ McGinty after the first time he made us looks stupid?

Dougie Fife should have been on much earlier, McGuigan was pish.

Recorded the game. Don’t think I’ll bother watching though.

Another embarrassing result, even with an inexperienced team in the heat.

Sometimes you have a bad feeling about a game - I have to admit I did about this one. I guess our second string clearly isn’t up to much. Nothing new there, though I was beginning to
hope we might be building some depth.

Doc Rob wrote:Recorded the game. Don’t think I’ll bother watching though.

Another embarrassing result, even with an inexperienced team in the heat.

Sometimes you have a bad feeling about a game - I have to admit I did about this one. I guess our second string clearly isn’t up to much. Nothing new there, though I was beginning to
hope we might be building some depth.

To be fair a few of those players wouldn’t make a second string side.

Also, we were on top for most of this game. The USA had a particularly bright period in the first half of the second half and scored 20 points. Our game management here was appalling.

Also thought we tried to force it too much when we got back in control and made too many silly errors.

zt1903 wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:Recorded the game. Don’t think I’ll bother watching though.

Another embarrassing result, even with an inexperienced team in the heat.

Sometimes you have a bad feeling about a game - I have to admit I did about this one. I guess our second string clearly isn’t up to much. Nothing new there, though I was beginning to
hope we might be building some depth.

To be fair a few of those players wouldn’t make a second string side.

Also, we were on top for most of this game. The USA had a particularly bright period in the first half of the second half and scored 20 points. Our game management here was appalling.

Also thought we tried to force it too much when we got back in control and made too many silly errors.

Every Scotland disaster arrives with an enormous missed tackle count. Every time we seem to have tightened up...

This is all on Townsend. Squad and team selection. Anyone faintly acquainted with rugby knew that the USA has a big physical side but he seemed to go all out to pick the smallest least physical side he could and then tried to bulk it up by putting one of his personal favourite over rated players out of position in the back row in Swinson.

The team last night would probably have beaten Canada last week and last weeks team would have won this game.

The significant personal problem with this is that the shadow of Cotter is always there and those of us who thought Townsend should have gone to France for three or four years and Cotter should have taken us through the World Cup will be given more confirmation of our opinion.

There's something mentally not right with this time. We play up to the good teams and down to the bad ones.

Also Zander Fagerson - he's not a good player is he? He can't scrum still, he's not great around the park. What does he do well?

I like haggis wrote:There's something mentally not right with this time. We play up to the good teams and down to the bad ones.

Also Zander Fagerson - he's not a good player is he? He can't scrum still, he's not great around the park. What does he do well?

He's good at flattering to deceive!

Too many Glasgow players taking their pish end of season form into the international window.

Rennie's got his work cut out this season.

I like haggis wrote:There's something mentally not right with this time. We play up to the good teams and down to the bad ones.

Also Zander Fagerson - he's not a good player is he? He can't scrum still, he's not great around the park. What does he do well?

He's good at starting fights in an empty room.

I'm one of those that thought Vern was let go far too early. Nothing has changed my mind on that.

Steamin Beamin wrote:

I like haggis wrote:There's something mentally not right with this time. We play up to the good teams and down to the bad ones.

Also Zander Fagerson - he's not a good player is he? He can't scrum still, he's not great around the park. What does he do well?

He's good at starting fights in an empty room.

I'm one of those that thought Vern was let go far too early. Nothing has changed my mind on that.

Indeed. The SRU were obviously worried about losing Townsend, but the lure of the Scotland job would have brought him back in a few years. Letting VC go was always a gamble.

Zander Fagerson is one of a number of players who was given way too much responsibility way too early. He’s only 22 still and if he weren’t Scottish would probably have had a few caps as a replacement at most. He was thrown in at the deep end due to our TH troubles and, to be fair, did pretty well at first. What he is doing now is the curse of so many other Scotland players, not delivering on their early promise.

Pros

Kinghorn is to the manor born, really excellent and looking like a first 15 starter.
Horne (jr) was very good. He brought the accurate and quick passing from the ruck as well as a glimpse of his excellent support play he has shown this season at Glasgow.
We had to score in the 82 minute and we did score in the 82 minute.
Bennett has looked really sharp the last two weeks when he came on, hopefully he’s going to be back to his old self this season.


Cons

Swinson. A waste of a position tonight, in an area where we have so many options.
Fagerson (jr). I have to admit I thought he was ready, it doesn’t seem so. He was not helped by being asked to play as a hard carrying bruiser of an 8 when he isn’t one.
Toonie. Poor tactical decisions as other have said. Whenever we played multiple phases we started to cut them open, but it seemed to me there was a concerted effort to break them down on first phase ball. Far too many forced passes leading to dropped balls when patience was all that was needed. The decision to move from a possession based game (first 40) to a tactical kicking game (first 20 of the second half) was disastrous.
We had to score a converted try in the 82 minute and we went into the corner. Fairly brainless. The gaps were there. Recycle and come back into the centre.
The centres. That must have been the smallest centre partnership we could have played. Together they probably weighed the same as the US hooker. Given the US size, an awful selection. The game plan was probably to tire the big men out. That’s fine, but you can’t then spend the second in an aerial ping pong battle allowing those big men to stand around at halfway doing nothing.

Doc Rob wrote:

Steamin Beamin wrote:

I like haggis wrote:There's something mentally not right with this time. We play up to the good teams and down to the bad ones.

Also Zander Fagerson - he's not a good player is he? He can't scrum still, he's not great around the park. What does he do well?

He's good at starting fights in an empty room.

I'm one of those that thought Vern was let go far too early. Nothing has changed my mind on that.

Indeed. The SRU were obviously worried about losing Townsend, but the lure of the Scotland job would have brought him back in a few years. Letting VC go was always a gamble.

Zander Fagerson is one of a number of players who was given way too much responsibility way too early. He’s only 22 still and if he weren’t Scottish would probably have had a few caps as a replacement at most. He was thrown in at the deep end due to our TH troubles and, to be fair, did pretty well at first. What he is doing now is the curse of so many other Scotland players, not delivering on their early promise.

He’s also getting the sum total of zero useful set piece coaching at Glasgow.

He was when MacFarland was there and didn't improve as a prop. But I agree Humphries is a problem.

Biffer29 wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:

Steamin Beamin wrote:

I like haggis wrote:There's something mentally not right with this time. We play up to the good teams and down to the bad ones.

Also Zander Fagerson - he's not a good player is he? He can't scrum still, he's not great around the park. What does he do well?

He's good at starting fights in an empty room.

I'm one of those that thought Vern was let go far too early. Nothing has changed my mind on that.

Indeed. The SRU were obviously worried about losing Townsend, but the lure of the Scotland job would have brought him back in a few years. Letting VC go was always a gamble.

Zander Fagerson is one of a number of players who was given way too much responsibility way too early. He’s only 22 still and if he weren’t Scottish would probably have had a few caps as a replacement at most. He was thrown in at the deep end due to our TH troubles and, to be fair, did pretty well at first. What he is doing now is the curse of so many other Scotland players, not delivering on their early promise.

He’s also getting the sum total of zero useful set piece coaching at Glasgow.

I think it’s perhaps a bit early to judge Zander. So much of being an effective scrummaging prop is in the teamwork of the front row, and indeed the entire tight 5. How often has Zander had the same partners beside him for scotland, consistently, across a few games? I’d love to know the stats (topofthemoon?), but he’s probably changed hooker and loosehead partner almost every game he’s played for scotland. The locks have also been an everchanging cast.

Let’s not forget he has had some exceptional games in the scrum for Glasgow, and some exceptional games in the loose too. He has the toolset in my opinion.